One of the things I find myself consistently surprised at is how poorly presidential candidates do as presenting themselves and strong presidential timber. They seem to try to be what the wonks say America wants instead of being themselves and relying on what had brought them to the short list of people considered for the office of the presidency. Instead of radiating the self esteem that what got them to this point must clearly be the qualities and characteristics and policies that will take them the rest of the way, candidates act like our teenage selves, to timid to say I am me. They give into the teen equivalent of peer pressure, wanting to be what the crowd expects of the popular kids and constrained in their actions by why the pretty girl or boy of their dreams will think if they actually follow the beat of their own drummer.
The result is a sad thing to watch. The bright lights of a national campaign and the pressures of party policies and need for massive financial support create a climate in which candidates whither under the bright lights of national attention. Instead of rising to the moment and using the bigger stage to dazzle, they tend to look blinded and unprepared. The lights reveal warts instead of making candidates shine. They end up being managed by consultants instead of showing their true selves.
I think maybe only John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could shine in this way. Everybody else has been a disappointing mystery to me.
Gore in 2000 ran a campaign that tried to avoid the successes of the Clinton administration. What else should he have run on? Bob Dole in 1996 seemed like the angriest grandpa in America, but the night after the election he has one of the funniest and charming guests I had ever seen on a talk show. John McCain had carved a niche for himself as a bipartisan Congressman who could reach across the aisle to solve America's problems, and them he seemed to contradict everything America knew about him as the maverick-y politician who could pick Sarah Palin as his running mate. Obama in 2012 has not been able to run on what he is for very well and make a case about the merits of his first term. Only Bill Clinton has seemed to do that effectively for him.
I just read an article that helps me understand Romney the person and how he has been very successful. The article basically pines for the campaign that Romney didn't run, based on his personal successes.
Mitt Romney's Missed OpportunitiesQUOTE
Romney’s candidacy would look much different today had he made this story its centerpiece. He could explain the benefit to the U.S. economy, and a shelf-full of scholarship would back him up. He could say that the last time the country was mired in recession, he’d seen what most others could not—and point to his career and fortune as proof.
He’d still be attacked for the jobs lost when factories shut down. But voters are more willing to show forbearance and grasp difficult truths than politicians give them credit for. Just look at Romney’s current campaign. Despite his best efforts to blame the recession on Obama, polls show that voters still apportion much of the blame to George W. Bush, as they should. Had Romney been forthright about how his skills could apply to the presidency, he might have convinced more people that he’d make a better president than the current one.
QUOTE
The great mystery about Romney is how such a talented executive could run such a listless campaign when so many things—from the weak economy to his own biography—favor him. People who knew Romney at Bain aren't nearly as surprised. Asked why he thought Romney had buried his greatest strength, one colleague who’s known and admired Romney for decades didn't hesitate: Having achieved extraordinary success by approaching the world through a set of precise, data-driven concepts, Romney had made the mistake of approaching politics the same way—maximizing data and minimizing risk.
This article tells of a person that I could see being a successful American president, yet his campaign seems to be a reprisal of the 1920s republican political platform. The stereotypes hurt Romney, yet he has not countered them effectively. He is the son of a millionaire who used his advantages in life to make many more millions. He used venture capitalism to make a fortune.
Yet this biography is a story of a wealthy person who despite his advantages was driven enough to become valedictorian at BYU. It is a story of a person who could have found comfortable seats in corporate executive suites, but had more of a vision of how to reshape American business. It is a story of how unlike Gordon Gecko, he was more of a Buffet value investor with a business model that bet on companies that had value but could be recast and made more profitable.
It is the story of a hard working anlayst who crunched numbers and numbers and analyzed them looking for efficiency. It is a story of a politician who was able to use that anlaytical experience of the medical industry and see into the future of American healthcare and set a model for healthcare reform. It is in short the story of a person who can see future trends and help move institutions to successfully adapt to them.
I didn't see that campain from Romney.
My questions for debate are:
Would or could Mitt Romney make a good president?
Based on his personal experience, why would he be a good president?
Sponsored Links
Nov 4 2012, 01:31 PM
at Ann Romney as he said, "I love it when you speak French..."
, but I'm just not seeing the connection between successful businessman and good presidential material. What I am seeing is a lot of silver spoon types. Nothing like starting out with a few of Daddy's millions to set a kid on the path to more millions, and eventually a spot in Republican politics. 
