Barnes, representing the right, said he feels Romney is as energizing as a cold fish. He and others worry about the candidate's ability to connect with voters generally, and some questioned his commitment to any policy stance.

On the other hand, Kondracke, representing the left for this session, said the liberal establishment feels Obama has not stepped out in front of the issues and has not effectively led the charge for change as they had hoped.

As these pundits see it, voters are being asked to choose from two flawed candidates at a time when the nation continues to suffer through a dire economic crisis rooted in decades of poor decisions and misdirected policies.

Several weeks later, the American Association of Managing General Agents held its annual meeting, with an opening session featuring Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant and former advisor in the Clinton White House, and Tucker Carlson, a correspondent and conservative commentator.

Begala said what will matter most is the direction the economy is going and how satisfied people are with it. He says if survey satisfaction numbers are at 40 or above, the president will be re-elected. But, if the numbers are below 40, than he won't be re-elected.

Carlson, on the other hand, said this should be an easy election for Romney, but it is not turning out that way. While the election should turn solely on the question of Obama's incumbency, there are several factors at play.

For one, Romney can't run against Obama on healthcare reform, primarily the individual mandate, because there are only two people that have signed legislation that created that mandate, and Romney is one of them.

Carlson also notes that the Republican Party, known for discipline and punctuality, is a party in chaos as conservatives and moderates battle for control.

His assessment was that if the commentary is focused on Obama within three weeks before the election, the president will lose. On the other hand, if the focus is on Romney, then the challenger will not be elected president.

The choice of speakers during the conferences presented balance that seems typically lacking in the general discourse. As Begala said, it will take a lot for all of us to break through the negative advertising and understand the real differences in the choices to be made.

While the choices may not be clear for the non-partisan at this point, the consequences for the insurance industry could not be starker, which would serve to underscore this year's speaker selections.

Continuation of the current politics of brinksmanship on Capitol Hill is just plain foolish. The nation can't cut its way to prosperity. On the other hand, stabilization of the deficit cannot be achieved through the taxation of the country's highest earners alone.

Like it or not, we all need to share the burden of cutting the deficit and that will mean some form of revenue increase. It is a burden that needs to be shared equally. Reforms are needed to entitlement programs, but it should be done in a way to minimize the impact on the neediest. At the same time, a general increase in tax revenue among all of us to support the mechanism of government is unavoidable, but it should not be so onerous that it endangers the fabric of economic activity.

Simply put, if we don't get away from this polarization of political practice, we can't work toward the common goal of finding viable solutions to benefit our future.

Insurers should be very concerned. Without a secure economic future for everyone, one of the first expenses individuals and businesses will look to cut further is their insurance purchases. And we know how well that has worked for the industry.

And let's face it, a cut here and a cut there, with no strategy for growth helps no one.