By now, I suspect so many on the right are sickened by the flat-out partisanship of the drive-by media that they have had it up to here with the latest attempts to pronounce the campaign all but over -- and, as always due to some freshly uttered words of the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney. First he committed the gaffe of telling the Brits that they hadn't done everything he knew they could to prepare for the Olympics in London. (He spoke, of course, from his own experience in organizing a highly successful Olympics in Salt Lake City.)
Next, he spoke out to criticize the Cairo embassy's appeasement towards Muslim radicals just before the attack in Libya, and for the drive-bys, that was both too soon, and unstatesmanlike as well (never point out our weaknesses in public, if you are a
Then, in quick succession, he was caught on a videotape (tracked down by Jimmy Carter's grandson) acknowledging that the 47% of Americans who pay no income tax would probably not be voting for him, and that the Palestinians just are not interested in a two-state solution in which they would co-exist with Israel.
My, oh my -- and these are the words that the media believes make Romney unelectable?
What have we come to, when it comes to the point where such utter nonsense could be put forth as political "wisdom"? Have we all lost our collective common sense?
There is only one viable candidate in this year's election, and his name is Mitt Romney. I do not like that fact, because there are many things about Mitt Romney of which I frankly disapprove. But that realization cannot blind me to this simple truth:
The President of the United States is an executive position -- one of the biggest and most important (if not the biggest and most important) in the world.
Mitt Romney is an executive, with considerable experience as a CEO.
Barack Hussein Obama is not.
Yes, it really is that simple.
We already have had three and a half years of Barack Obama as chief executive, and what have we seen? He is like nothing so much as the boss's son, who grew up partying and playing golf, and then was foisted on the business by his doting father (who then died immediately afterwards).
He has no clue of what it takes to run a business (remember "you didn't build that," anyone?) -- let alone run an entire country. He spends so much time on the golf course or at basketball, and appearing on TV shows and now at continuous fundraisers, that he cannot be bothered to attend intelligence briefings, or to make time to meet with Israel's prime minister on the eve of an impending nuclear war in the Middle East.
And so, given the clear choice between the two candidates, we are now to write off Romney because of some words which he said? Words which were largely close to the objective truth on the ground?
Please. Spare me the inanity.
Good CEOs are known for their efficiency, not for their popularity, or for their media skills. Indeed, most of them try to avoid the media.
Here is the Harvard Business Review magazine's January 2010 list of the 100 greatest CEOs in the world. (The underlying article is here.) As you go through the names (apart from Steve Jobs or Bill Gates), see how many you can even recognize, let alone could have named if told their company.
There is a good reason CEOs are not popular with the public, or the press. They are too busy getting things done to waste time in kowtowing to demands for publicity. They frequently do not do the "popular" thing -- they do instead what is in the long-term best interest of their company.
A politician like Obama may be able to run his campaign, and even may run a good campaign. But that does not make him a CEO, and I shall tell you why.
A political campaign is not a "business." Yes, they both exist to sell a product, but there the similarities end. A political campaign is interested in advancing only one point of view -- the candidate's -- and only for a limited time, in the run-up to the election. It cannot afford to be objective, or to take a longer-term view of matters; let alone concede the validity of points made by an opponent. (Can you see Mr. Obama saying this? "Well, yes, Governor Romney does have a point there; I'll admit that.")
A business is in business to deal with everything that comes its way, and is in it for the long haul. A CEO who was capable of seeing only one point of view, or who was focused too much on the shorter term and incapable of adapting on the spot to changed circumstances, would soon lead his company into disaster.
In fact, that is why I would say that Obama is leading America into disaster -- because he cannot see any other point of view but his own, which is bent on the short-term goal of winning re-election, and he cannot adapt to changing circumstances on the ground. (Such as is happening under his nose with the "Arab Spring," for instance, and with the signs and portents of war.)
And for his part, Governor Romney may well be running an inept campaign, precisely for the opposite reasons. He is incapable of seeing just one point of view -- he constantly puts himself in other people's shoes, and acts accordingly (just compare his track record of charitable giving with that of President Obama). He cannot stop taking the longer term into account, which is why he does not weigh the cost of speaking the truth (as he did about the Egyptian embassy's foolhardy apology, or about the Palestinians' intransigence on Israel) against what he could gain in the short term by remaining silent.
So for this curmudgeon, at any rate, the choice is clear. And it rarely has been clearer. When is the last time America ever had a true executive as its president? A case could perhaps be made for Dwight D. Eisenhower, but before him, who? George Washington?
America has never before been so big and so unmanageable, and so enmeshed in a complex world. Indeed, even a good CEO like Mitt Romney may not, in the end, be up to the difficult task of putting the country back right.
But I'm willing to give him the chance. To go for the alternative would be to deny the reality of the stark choice that faces us.