So we are supposed to believe that Romney, a man who achieved such success in business, went out and hired a team of idiots to win?
Either Romney’s financial and business success was a total accident or he tanked himself. No other explanation is logical. Next issue is while so many cling to “Oh he would have been better than Obama!”
Really? Is this article supposed to be some kind of proof of that? Hiring incompetent idiots that destroy a campaign would not instill confidence in any thinking person that the same wouldn’t have happened in his cabinet. Or other policy advisers.
But excuses will continue I’m sure.
Didn’t his son already say that his father didn’t really want to win? Makes more sense now by hiring a consultant team that didn’t know what it was doing.
FTL!
The core problem with Romney (and RINOs in general) is this his (their) world view is wrong. They constantly misread the electorate, the political environment, and the correct tactics to win. They think acting like a Democrat will take votes away from the real Democrat. They think people like Reagan or Gingrich push voters away but they are able to win on ideas.
This campaign had no big ideas. It was ‘that guy didn’t perform, I can perform better’. It was a failed strategy. If not for the first debate, we all would have thought it was a losing effort from June forward. They were silent all summer, the convention was dull and create defensively to ‘prove’ Romney’s a nice guy, and the month of September was void of any clear strategy. I could rattle off 3-5 specific things I was hoping to see at points in the campaign that would have been effective. Other than the 1st debate, there was no sign of a message to beat Obama’s predicable campaign tactics.
Why is that so hard to believe? Romney is a brilliant businessman by all accounts, but he only had one bright moment in his whole campaign and his advisers shut him down after that. It is hard to coherently argue against facts. The facts say that Romney is a brilliant businessman and a dunce candidate for president.
Brilliant people do stupid stuff all the time, especially when they get outside of what they do best.
Was Romney the wrong candidate? Absolutely -- that is part of the reason why he hired the idiots. If you aren't going to campaign on your ideals your victory is hollow anyway. If you don't have any ideals it is all about you anyway and no one needs that.
Yep...and keep in mind that these very same incompetents would have been populating key positions within a Romney Administration.
Someone can be great in one field and lousy in another. It happens all the time in politics and life in general.
Read Zombies “The Secret Life of Willard Mitty” for a good take on the Mitt Mind. I think Steve Sailor has the best summation for the failure that was the Romney 10 year Campaign!
Romney could do fine when focused on making money with his largely Mormon friends, and with the Mormons behind him to boost his efforts and public profile and coming from a family of wealth, power, and celebrity, but he is terrible when trying to operate in the world of regular Americans, and in elective politics.
I call it Madonna smarts, Madonna has made three times Romney’s money, not because she is broadly, widely, brilliant like a Reagan, but because she is bright, and is single mindedly focused on making money, kind of the way a cat can appear smart because his focus is so narrow and concentrated.
I do.
A lot of CEO's delegate. I see it with candidates quite often too. They like to meet people and focus on what they can control. Admin is someone else's job. Their manager sees this slick new program that sounds great. ORCA. Perfect. It evens the score from the dems. Right? If it works....
Consultants from DC are in a bubble and use that to try and affect campaign message. Doesn't work either.
Sure. Business isn't politics. There are people -- especially in the WASP community who have a good head for business but are lost when it comes to things like politics.
Either Romney’s financial and business success was a total accident or he tanked himself. No other explanation is logical. Next issue is while so many cling to “Oh he would have been better than Obama!”
I'm not sure what you mean by "tanked," but the general feeling was that almost any Republican would be better than Obama. Romney was always a throw of the dice. I knew from the beginning that he didn't appear to have good political skills. Last year's field of candidates was an especially weak one, though. It's hard to say that there was anybody running who could have done better.
Probably after the Powers That Be had their customary "talk" with Romney he decided it wasn't worth it. The last man of honor to hold the office was very nearly the victim of early term limits.