“Mr. Romney loathes pushing out people with whom he works closely and will do just about anything to avoid it — an approach that has inspired deep loyalty to him even as it has raised questions about his ability to make tough personnel calls, as presidents inevitably must.”
This write-up “humanizes” Romney in making him less “robotic” but I guess I’m not altogether convinced it’s a complimentary portrait, as the above quote signals: is he up to being tough enough to be president?
A related concern I had was remembering Jimmy Carter, whose obsessive attention to detail led him to put himself in charge of scheduling the WH tennis courts. A good executive knows how to delegate and AVOID getting too much in the weeds (Reagan being a classic illustration). Some might read the NYT piece to imply that Romney is closer to Carter than Reagan in terms of the big picture/vision vs. details aspect of running the country.
In short, some undecideds might read this piece and conclude Romney is less fit to be president than they might have presumed. Don’t know whether that was the reporters’ intent.
Agree totally - was typing my earlier comment and got called away - glad I went back and read yours.
The NYT has taken doublespeak to an art form. Discerning readers get it...optimists beware;)
Their current cartoonish characterization of Romney refers to software programming in his head that sometimes malfunctions. A robot who loves to fire people...then send their jobs to China and load his offshore accounts with stolen pension money. He's a hater and a racist.
And they read the NYTimes...and think Krugman is an economic genius. This kind of article dispirits them. (Base suppression.) They're not happy unless everyone hates who they hate.
As far as Carter, he didn't have the kind of wildly successful corporate career Mitt has...nor did Carter understand basic economics. I'm not a Romney cheerleader, but just exterminating the current infestation of vermin will go a long way in reversing our current backsliding.