Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?

[retromike22]

I'm getting tired of hearing Romney talk about how he is best qualified to be President because he's not a career politician and has extensive work in the private sector. I have three problems with this.

1. I cannot think of any other profession where a limited amount of experience is seen an advantage. Romney's message is basically this: "I am best qualified to be President, because I have a limited amount of experience in government."

It's like a game of mad libs: "I am best qualified to be (occupation), because I have a limited amount of experience in (position's field)."

I can't imagine this working: "I am best qualified to be a surgeon, because I have a limited amount of experience in physiology."

2. Romney believes that the main problem confronting the U.S. is the bad economy, and he is best qualified to fix the economy because he has worked as a businessman. But a businessman is an expert on business. If we needed an expert on the economy to be the President, shouldn't we be looking for.... an economist?

3. If I was a conservative, and I wanted someone who would enact conservative change, I would want someone who had the experience and history of enacting conservative change. I think when rating a politician's (and not an average person's) conservatism or liberalism, we should focus on what they did when they were in public office, and not how they lived their  personal lives.

For instance, say someone is a limited government conservative who has spent their career in public office. Some may say that he is not a conservative person because he is using the govt and not the private sector to enact change. But if the change he is making is conservative, then he is a conservative.