We definitely agree on that point, dear brother in Christ!
On the other hand, your basic presupposition seems to be that Romney would have been a "bad executive" — which is something his professional biography would tend to refute. Plus no POTUS can "rule alone"; e.g., by executive orders. A power-hungry narcissist like Obama might not agree with that statement; but Romney is neither power hungry nor narcissist. Plus I strongly doubt he would have taken a wrecking ball to the Constitution....
Actually, it was not my basic presupposition that Romney would have been a bad executive. My basic presupposition is that a legislative race should be treated differently in terms of strategy than an executive race.
A legislature is already a mix, so one hopes to affect the mixology with one’s vote.
An executive is an independent, decision making individual who makes up an entire branch of government, and with our government split into parties, the decisions of an executive are not easily reversed. 2/3rds of both houses of Congress to override a veto is, except in rare instances, insurmountable barrier.
Evil or perversion or abomination found in one’s candidate must make one reject that candidate or such a candidate will be repeatedly presented.
That was the problem with Romney. There was abomination in his positions.