Leo Marks tried to warn you about Mitt Romney

[Magox]

Well, John McCain sure knew:

 

 

 

 

Did you even read this stuff before you posted it you twit?

 

 

 

Ya, Romney sure did this saving of the Olympics through his own rugged individualist determination to save the day!

 

 

Funny, he cried all the way home over bailing out our manufacturing sector in Detriot, but no amount was too big to drag out to Utah.

Listen you little sniveling snotnose, I know you have a hard time between distinguishing opinion and fact, so to be better assist you with your deficiencies, what John McCain provided is what we call a political opinion, what the GAO provided was information based on facts.

 

comprende?

 

However, since you hate facts, which FACT CHECK just provided, I wouldn't expect you to agree.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Magox

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Listen you little sniveling snotnose, I know you have a hard time between distinguishing opinion and fact, so to be better assist you with your deficiencies, what John McCain provided is what we call a political opinion, what the GAO provided was information based on facts.

 

comprende?

 

However, since you hate facts, which FACT CHECK just provided, I wouldn't expect you to agree.

Omg, you can't be this stupid Mr. Objective. I suppose Romney's quote was political as well??

 

Or the fact that he set up many lobbying committees to suck money out of the federal treasury for this, his landmark achievement, is all non-relevant? Is the lobbying a fact?

 

And you do realize--well this is Romney we are talking about, so you will be blinded by your partisan love of him--that the so-called "accelerated funding" is simply political cover for the fact it was all pork spending. Why else the five lobbying committees?

 

 

You are a total idiot

[Magox]

Omg, you can't be this stupid Mr. Objective. I suppose Romney's quote was political as well??

 

Or the fact that he set up many lobbying committees to suck money out of the federal treasury for this, his landmark achievement, is all non-relevant? Is the lobbying a fact?

 

And you do realize--well this is Romney we are talking about, so you will be blinded by your partisan love of him--that the so-called "accelerated funding" is simply political cover for the fact it was all pork spending. Why else the five lobbying committees?

 

 

You are a total idiot

You're a fact hating dipshit. Plain and simple.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

You're a fact hating dipshit. Plain and simple.

Rotflmao!!!!

 

 

You surrender monkey!

 

 

Were the lobbying group Williard created facts or fiction???

[Magox]

Rotflmao!!!!

 

 

You surrender monkey!

 

 

Were the lobbying group Williard created facts or fiction???

The only constant here is that people on this message board from every spectrum of the political aisle, whether it be from the right, the left and the middle all believe that you are a fact hating blithering idiot.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Magox

[jjamie12]

Like suddenly having the OIG audit all Federal dollars flowing in there, and thereby holding up the entire process, and getting those who want go gain favor to pin it all on the Rep.?

 

Right. That *totally* sounds just as easy as saying: "Mr. VP, we're moving in a different direction and I don't think you can take us there. Pack your things, we're getting rid of you."

 

you are fooling yourselves if you believe CEOs firing their upper managers is any easier than firing Congress.

 

If you think that's true, then you and I will just have to agree to disagree. You think it's just as hard for CEO's to fire their upper managers as it is for the President to 'fire' Congress. I disagree. I think it's pretty darn easy for the CEO to get rid of people when he wants to, and I think it's much more difficult for the President to get rid of people in Congress. Agree to disagree?

 

Hope you had fun last night -- It was a pretty lame Saturday for me in CT. At least I got to watch a really bad SNL, though -- so I've got that going for me. You go to Allentown? I sincerely apologize about keeping you from booze, though -- there is no way that this conversation is worth that!

 

[Edited for re-thinking the personal nature of the post.]

Edited February 27, 2012 by jjamie12

[Buftex]

Listen you little sniveling snotnose, I know you have a hard time between distinguishing opinion and fact, so to be better assist you with your deficiencies, what John McCain provided is what we call a political opinion, what the GAO provided was information based on facts.

 

comprende?

 

However, since you hate facts, which FACT CHECK just provided, I wouldn't expect you to agree.

 

 

No offense, Magox, but Fact Checks credibility has been called into question by prominent people on both the left and the right...so using Fact Check, despite its' clever name, as the final voice in an argument doesn't really mean much.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Buftex

[Magox]

No offense, Magox, but Fact Checks credibility has been called into question by prominent people on both the left and the right...so using Fact Check, despite its' clever name, as the final voice in an argument doesn't really mean much.

No offense taken, Fact Check got their information from GAO , that's about as credible as you are gonna get. So who do you believe, now be honest here, do you believe the DNC or GAO?

[RkFast]

 

Were the lobbying group Williard created facts or fiction???

 

 

Funny, when people called Obama by his real name, HUSSEIN, you and yours went batschit.

 

I !@#$ing hate you people. Your intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy know no bounds. You have the integrity of a two dollar whore.

[Buftex]

Funny, when people called Obama by his real name, HUSSEIN, you and yours went batschit.

 

I !@#$ing hate you people. Your intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy know no bounds. You have the integrity of a two dollar whore.

 

Some may be intellectually dishonest (how hypocritcal is that?), while others are just ignorant.

 

You should run for office.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Buftex

[Juror#8]

I thought he governed just fine.

 

You and many others.

 

Of course he did. He was the governor of Massachusetts. The people of Mass. are left of the average American. You have to work within the framework you're presented to do the best job you can.

 

So, if your politics are are in opposition to those whom you deisre to represent, you adjust your platform in that direction in order to secure the job and then later claim that that representation wasn't an honest reflection of your political leanings?

 

How about just lose on the merits and retain a sense of ideological dignity.

 

Ok.

 

You aren't as smart as you think you are.

 

Look how tough my internet muscles are!!! Very tactful.

 

No one mentioned anything about being smart, blah, blah, blah. This is not about me and you. It's about a position. It's a bout a thesis: Business persons haven't traditionally made good presidents. Care to refute it on the merits?

 

The only thing that you've done is *questionably* attack the methodology that allowed me to arrive at the claim. Apparently, you don't like the conclusion. But you haven't responded with a substantive point in opposition. You're instead debating around the periphery against technicalities.

 

So how about this - sanz support, 86 quotes: Business person's haven't traditionally made good presidents. Maybe it's something in their personality makeup or just something in the water.

 

Go.

 

 

You haven't provided any criticisms that relate to the point that you are supposedly making. Pointing out that a few 'businessmen' were bad Presidents is not a 'criticism'. Likewise, your complete lack of understanding of the Iacoca quote has completely derailed this thread. The reason for the derailment is that you seem to be taking the quote literally, which is just completely wrong-headed -- when you base your argument substantially in part on a complete lack of knowledge of 'something' this is what you get.

 

1. Yes I interpreted the Iacocca quote very literally. I still do...or did. I read his book this weekend: "Where have all the leaders gone?" Iacocca never made that statement. Tip O'Neil did as an advisor to Iacocca's presidential exploratory process.

 

Do I still think that a decision today can affect profit and loss on that day? Yes. Am I business man? No. Does my belief that decisions don't exist in a vaccuum - but rather on a continuum, and therefore the decision-making can have a fairly immediate impact - originate from my lack of operational business experience? Maybe.

 

But to say that that belief encapsulates the greater discussion, or that I'm not interested in a debate because I made claims that you don't agree with, is disingenuous, and suggests that you never were interested in contributing to any semblance of debate at the outset. It suggests that you were just looking for a straight-forward agreement or disagreement on the superficial statement itself.

 

Ok.

 

So what's with Tom telling me that I have little to no understanding of government when I spend 10 hours a day dealing with legislative politics (rhetorical - don't answer).

 

It's demonstrative of the Chef Jim approach (hereinafter "CJ proposition")to this whole mess here. Really? Whether you simply don't agree with me on business or someone is out-and-out wrong, you long-arm that **** as a wholesale criticism?

 

To Tom: Stay in your lane. Critique me on business. Fine. But there is no one on this site (that I've communicated with) who approaches my experience level with respect to the mechanics of government (especially as it concerns legislative politics). There is no one on this site who spends time on the Hill. There is no one on this site who spends hours a day reading constituent letters, finalizing bill briefings, and pro-conning legislative proposals for an individual who relies on that to represent a growing mid-western constituency.

 

I'll leave it at that.

 

Back to Jamie...

 

2. Pointing out that no business-man president was also a good president is a valid criticism. I mentioned that maybe there is a personality trait endemic to successful business-men which makes it difficult for them to also be effective politicians. Maybe it's for the same reason that NBA stars, on average, don't make great team executives. Who knows? But there is a quantifiable, metric driven claim there that begs to be explored further. This is so whether you and the peanut gallery like it or not.

 

Your "criticisms" would be more meaningful if this wasn't such a monolithic place. Unfortunately, it is. So if you think the appeal to force is changing minds, it may be time for agonizing reappraisal of the whole scene. The CJ proposition put it best - this is your community so be on the bandwagon or get out. The proposition notwithstanding, I'll be here attacking paradigms and ruffling your tail feathers.

 

Attack the methodology to avoid the substance. Attack the methodology to alienate. Attack the methodology as a way to insult.

 

Have fun with that.

 

Oh, well let me guess..."there is no substance; I'm 'trying' to be smart; it's wrong-headed....blah, blah, blah..."

 

Ok.

 

 

You want to talk about how 'business' skills translate to governing skills, apparently. In doing this, your points of discussion are a misinterpreted Iacoca quote, along with the observation that a few Presidents who were 'businessmen' were bad Presidents. This last sentence again just points to your apparent lack of understanding of what you're talking about -- as if a Peanut Farmer should be considered a 'businessman' the EXACT same as a venture capitalist (MR) or a guy who is a 'businessman' in the sense that "Hey, your dad has political influence, why don't you join our investing group!" (GWB).

 

Jimmy Carter was a business man. He ran his family peanut farm and became very wealthy as a result. I believe that Carter's father was also a very wealthy man due to his operations as a peanut farmer. Carter had employees, overhead, equipment, expenses, etc.

 

He was a business man who ran a successful and very profitable business operation.

 

Carter was also a very bad president.

 

Don't let the force of the peanut gallery convince you to speak wrongly. You are a community creator, but try as you may, there still remain apriori things that this group-think community can't corrupt.

 

 

As if that isn't enough to not believe you're actually interested in a real discussion of whether business executive experience translates to governing effectively -- the entire first post of this thread is focused on Mitt Romney, who actually has governing experience that would seem (to me, at least) be pretty relevant in a discussion about how Mitt Romney's business career will help or hinder his ability to govern! Your sole focus is on Romney's private sector experience 15-30 years ago when there is far more relevant information to look at that you, unbelievably, don't find important enough to mention. It's ridiculous and it's silly. Again, we get it. You don't like Mitt Romney, you think he'll lose (Remember the "Mitt Romney is a political quack and a peon" thread that you started?). Fine. It's a defensible position to have. Stop boring us with your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and your fake-ass "I just want to have a debate about business experience translating into governing" -- If you actually wanted that debate, you'd get it. You would do this by starting a thread with the first post going something like this:

 

"I've been thinking about the differences between what a CEO does versus what a President does. In some ways, it's very similar -- You listen to your best advisers, set the agenda, and allow everyone around you to do what they're best at, while you're giving them every opportunity to do their best work. In one very, very important way, though it's completely different -- When you're the CEO you basically get what you want. Yes, there is a lot of internal politics involved in getting people to put in their best effort and getting them to buy into what you're trying to accomplish -- fortunately you have the ability to fire people! It's not really like that with the President -- the President can't fire Congress, you've got to convince them that going along with you will be better than going against you. It's a very different type of leadership. What are your thoughts?"

 

It appears you aren't interested in other people's thoughts, though -- just your own. Good luck with that.

 

Yea, so my responses to Taro and Magox (who also responded oppositionally to my points) don't demonstrate an interest in other people's thoughts? Think again.

 

Just like the Jimmy Carter thing...you're just making unsubstantiated "red-meat" points that run contrary to facts but are consistent with your thesis.

 

I just attribute that to the CJ proposition.

 

And if you you would have looked at my post in anything other than a superficial way, you'd notice that I mentioned politics "on a national level." Many of the ****ty presidents were successful state-wide. But being successful nationally is a different animal. So why would I look at at a variable that other ****ty presidents shared to distinguish him from those other ****ty presidents?

 

He governed competently in Mass. Disco. W was a competent Texas governor.

 

But thanks for mentioning how my topic could have been presented in a way that's acceptable to you. It's under advisement.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

So if you're not a "business man" may I ask what your profession is? I'm rolling the dice on "professional student".

 

Professional student.

[DC Tom]

So what's with Tom telling me that I have little to no understanding of government when I spend 10 hours a day dealing with legislative politics (rhetorical - don't answer).

 

Then you're just bullshitting us.

 

Or you really do have no idea how it works, which, if you are in legislative politics, is downright !@#$ing scary.

[Juror#8]

Funny. I went back and read your original post. Considering that you started by suggesting that we should somehow judge a person's qualifications by how their individual talents translate to "the big leagues" (my metaphor, not yours), and that business and government are fundamentally different because of "transparency", and Romney is a businessman, and that businessmen historically make bad political leaders...

 

How in the hell is that NOT your thesis?

 

Again, that's NOT my thesis. But to understand why will require you to loosen up and discontinue your efforts to box me into an intellectual corner. You're not JJamie. That doesn't seem to be your game. Maybe I splashed water on you when I was driving down Connecticut Ave or something and this is your way to express your discontent.

 

I'd rather just pay for the dry cleaning and call it square.

 

I NEVER said that business men make bad political leaders. So I'm not sure WHAT you read? I said that business persons have sucked at being PRESIDENT. And my first point was about [Romney's] interest in leading the country.

 

You people are reading my post superficially and then diving in on bastardized points.

 

Business persons have made wonderful political leaders. Business men have made ****ty presidents. As I asked JJamie, can you refute that on the merits? One doesn't necessarily portend the other. But 200 years of trend can't be trivialized as inconsequential. Can it?

 

The point about government and business and transparency hold true. In business, a CEO is traditionally responsible for making da-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, operational decisions. There is some carte blanche when making that decision, that day and having it implemented. Of course there is accountability to share-holders, consultation with advisers, and fiduciary duty to acknowledge, but the impact of those checks is sometimes retrospective.

 

In government, NOTHING happens without prospective checks. Simple legistlation can't move without a host of administrative burdens and protocol. There is no carte blanche. There is no discretion. There is no deference to position.

 

And state-wide politics doesn't begin to smell the political posturing and gridlock of politics on a national level.

 

That may not be the reason why business persons have historically been bad presidents, but it may have an impact. I was just soliciting thoughts.

 

Then came the CJ proposition. Obfuscation.

 

Then you're just bullshitting us.

 

Or you really do have no idea how it works, which, if you are in legislative politics, is downright !@#$ing scary.

 

Nah, you're just being polemic. At this point, you're probably beyond salvaging.

[DC Tom]

Again, that's NOT my thesis. But to understand why will require you to loosen up and discontinue your efforts to box me into an intellectual corner. You're not JJamie. That doesn't seem to be your game. Maybe I splashed water on you when I was driving down Connecticut Ave or something and this is your way to express your discontent.

 

I'd rather just pay for the dry cleaning and call it square.

 

I NEVER said that business men make bad political leaders. So I'm not sure WHAT you read? I said that business persons have sucked at being PRESIDENT. And my first point was about [Romney's] interest in leading the country.

 

You people are reading my post superficially and then diving in on bastardized points.

 

Business persons have made wonderful political leaders. Business men have made ****ty presidents. As I asked JJamie, can you refute that on the merits? One doesn't necessarily portend the other. But 200 years of trend can't be trivialized as inconsequential. Can it?

 

The point about government and business and transparency hold true. In business, a CEO is traditionally responsible for making da-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, operational decisions. There is some carte blanche when making that decision, that day and having it implemented. Of course there is accountability to share-holders, consultation with advisers, and fiduciary duty to acknowledge, but the impact of those checks is sometimes retrospective.

 

In government, NOTHING happens without prospective checks. Simple legistlation can't move without a host of administrative burdens and protocol. There is no carte blanche. There is no discretion. There is no deference to position.

 

And state-wide politics doesn't begin to smell the political posturing and gridlock of politics on a national level.

 

That may not be the reason why business persons have historically been bad presidents, but it may have an impact. I was just soliciting thoughts.

 

Then came the CJ proposition. Obfuscation.

 

 

 

Nah, you're just being polemic. At this point, you're probably beyond salvaging.

 

 

And actually, I said you had no understanding of business. Which, given your stated work, is completely unsurprising.

 

And you didn't say "businessmen make bad leaders", you said "business folks just don't seem to show well as President." And that's because...

 

In government, NOTHING happens without prospective checks. Simple legistlation can't move without a host of administrative burdens and protocol. There is no carte blanche. There is no discretion. There is no deference to position.

 

Which shows again how little you know about business.

 

And then you followed it up with

 

That may not be the reason why business persons have historically been bad presidents

 

But you never said that.

 

 

Clearly, with tangled double-talk like that, you work in legislative politics. Did you have to post your ridiculous post before you knew what was in it?

[jjamie12]

In good faith, I'll try again. From your first post:

Concern# 1 - There is something that is not being discussed about Romney and his interest in leading this country. He is a business man. Was he a successfull businessman? Yes! But just like sports and athletics requires a discussion of an individual's skill and how well they translate to different levels, me thinks politics can benefit from a similar discussion.

 

Ok so in business, you make a decision at 9 am, and by close of business you've either turned a profit or you haven't. Government doesn't operate that transparently. Will that corporate characteristic, if true, be an impediment to Romney's and by extension, the country's, success? Lee Iaccoa thought so.

 

So concern #1 is that A) a CEO makes decisions in the morning that transparently and directly lead to either a profit or loss in the next day, week, or year. B)Gov't doesn't work that way. Therefore: C)Is this difference an impediment to Romney's success?

 

Concern #2 - business folks just don't seem to show well as President. Harding, Carter, Hoover, and W were pathetically bad presidents. H.W. wasn't "bad" but he wasn't memorable either - he was a one and done; this even though he had a successful war and a crumbling Berlin Wall on his side.

 

And Concern #2 is that Business folks don't show well as President.

 

I wonder if concerns #1 and #2 are related.

 

Since I believe your concern #1 to be completely inaccurate: No. They're not related. That's what people keep trying to tell you. Concern #1 does not reflect reality. Business is not nearly as transparent as you're attempting to make it. In my opinion.

[Juror#8]

And actually, I said you had no understanding of business. Which, given your stated work, is completely unsurprising.

 

Actually, in post #62 you said that my "understanding of business AND government" was at "a very basic level."

 

You've already shown yourself to be politically unsophisticated. You're only making a bigger ass of yourself with mis-directed comments about my knowledge of government.

 

 

 

 

And you didn't say "businessmen make bad leaders", you said "business folks just don't seem to show well as President."

 

Thank you. At least you cleared up one of your mistakes.

 

 

Which shows again how little you know about business.

 

Nothing that you quoted in your last post evidences any shred of a lack of business knowledge. My buddy is CEO of a boutique IT staffing firm in Herndon. I don't know much about business from an operational perspective but I know that his spot rises or falls by his decisions and his decisions alone. I also did some corporate structuring back in the day (setting up S-Corps, and making sure the corporate veil remained in tact). I know that those gentleman made operational decisions without much in the way of interference.

 

I know that government doesn't operate that way. And that, kind sir, is a fundamental difference.

 

Care to disagree on the merits without the simple declaratives?

 

Probably not huh?

 

Ok, moving on...

 

 

But you never said that.

 

Your context in which you mentioned this was actually entirely without a substantive point. Maybe you thought if you constructed it that way there would be a presumed point. AKA...the CJ proposition conveying benefit of the doubt eh?

 

You're silly boo.

 

Clearly, with tangled double-talk like that, you work in legislative politics. Did you have to post your ridiculous post before you knew what was in it?

 

The only one equivocating is you. I have been very clear in my points. You've tried to obfuscate because you've lost all control of your points of criticism.

 

That's unfortunate. But it speaks to your lack of sophistication in debate and to your Napoleonic narcissism...as I imagine it would take that level of insecurity to continue responding on a topic that you add such little value to.

 

To be fair though...you one-up me on matters of business. I'm in no way denying that. My beef with you is on matters of political mechanics and just plain civility. We've always been cordial, even in disagreement. Not sure why that had to change.

 

Righty right.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Juror#8

[OCinBuffalo]

And actually, I said you had no understanding of business. Which, given your stated work, is completely unsurprising.

 

And you didn't say "businessmen make bad leaders", you said "business folks just don't seem to show well as President." And that's because...

 

 

 

Which shows again how little you know about business.

 

And then you followed it up with

 

 

 

But you never said that.

 

 

Clearly, with tangled double-talk like that, you work in legislative politics. Did you have to post your ridiculous post before you knew what was in it?

You can't possibly "know business" if you start out by defining "business experience", and business people, homogeneously.

 

The point that is lost on Juror#8 most egregiously? Mitt Romney is a real consultant. Not some turd who has added the word "consultant" to the end of his/her non-consulting job = sales consultant, hair consultant.

 

Unlike most politicians, consultants aren't merely lawyers, so they don't have a little room where they force the people they disagree with to go, and B word to guy whose only job is to listen to them, make a fair decision, and whose decision will be absolutely enforced going forward, or the threat of that. They don't have a set of rules that everybody has to follow or they risk losing money, going to jail, etc. No. Consultants have no such luxuries, and the good ones would never consider availing themselves of them if they did. They must "work through other people" none of whom work for them, and most of whom they start out with having a 2 strikes against relationship through no fault of their own.

 

Ultimately a consultant has to be an elite convincer, not merely a coercer who can threaten people with their little room and their rules, and that's a much harder job. Anybody can say "I'll go tell the teacher". It's the kid who doesn't even recognize or present that as an option that has the superior skills, especially political.

 

So, the notion that a trained and obviously successful management consultant's experience...is somehow a liability, in of all things....politics? When that's job #1 in management consulting?

 

Yeah, that's highly absurd.

[DC Tom]

Actually, in post #62 you said that my "understanding of business AND government" was at "a very basic level."

 

You've already shown yourself to be politically unsophisticated. You're only making a bigger ass of yourself with mis-directed comments about my knowledge of government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you. At least you cleared up one of your mistakes.

 

 

 

 

Nothing that you quoted evidences a shred of a lack of business knowledge. My buddy is CEO of a boutique IT staffing firm in Herndon. I don;t know much about business from an operational perspective but I know that his spot rises by his decisions and his decisions alone. I also did some corporate structuring back in the day (setting up S-Corps, and making sure the corporate veil remained in tact). I know that those gentleman made the decisions without much in the way of interference.

 

I know that government doesn't operate that way. And that, kind sir, is a fundamental difference.

 

 

 

 

Your context in which you mentioned this was actually entirely without a substantive point. Maybe you thought if you constructed it that way there would be a presumed point. The CJ proposition conveying benefit of the doubt eh?

 

You're silly boo.

 

 

 

The only one equivocating is you. I have been very clear in my points. You've tried to obfuscate because you've lost all control of your points of criticism.

 

That's unfortunate. But it speaks to your lack of sophistication in debate and to your Napoleonic narcissism...as I imagine it would take that level of insecurity to continue responding on a topic that add such little value to.

 

To be fair though...you one-up me on matters of business. I'm in no way denying that. My beef with you is on matters of political mechanics and just plain civility. We've always been cordial, even in disagreement. Not sure why that had to change.

 

Righty right.

 

I haven't lost any control of any points of criticism. You don't know anything about running a business. No matter how much you pretend. I guarantee, your friends' business fortunes don't rise and fall daily on their early morning decisions, I guarantee there's constraints on their decisions (far more than you think), and I guarantee that people make decisions in government all the time (maybe not in "legislative politics") with little interference. I know, I have them inflicted on me daily.

 

I'm sure you ridiculous criticism of that will be something along the lines of "the decisions you're talking about aren't at the same scale." Yeah, and you're comparing Lee Iacocca and Mitt Romney to sole proprieters of private S-corps.

 

And I take back my earlier retraction: you don't know how government works. Maybe you know how "legislative politics" works. But that strikes me as akin to saying you know how to run a restaurant because you once made sausage.

[Juror#8]

You can't possibly "know business" if you start out by defining "business experience", and business people, homogeneously.

 

The point that is lost on Juror#8 most egregiously? Mitt Romney is a real consultant. Not some turd who has added the word "consultant" to the end of his/her non-consulting job = sales consultant, hair consultant.

 

Unlike most politicians, consultants aren't merely lawyers, so they don't have a little room where they force the people they disagree with to go, and B word to guy whose only job is to listen to them, make a fair decision, and whose decision will be absolutely enforced going forward, or the threat of that. They don't have a set of rules that everybody has to follow or they risk losing money, going to jail, etc. No. Consultants have no such luxuries, and the good ones would never consider availing themselves of them if they did. They must "work through other people" none of whom work for them, and most of whom they start out with having a 2 strikes against relationship through no fault of their own.

 

Ultimately a consultant has to be an elite convincer, not merely a coercer who can threaten people with their little room and their rules, and that's a much harder job. Anybody can say "I'll go tell the teacher". It's the kid who doesn't even recognize or present that as an option that has the superior skills, especially political.

 

So, the notion that a trained and obviously successful management consultant's experience...is somehow a liability, in of all things....politics? When that's job #1 in management consulting?

 

Yeah, that's highly absurd.

 

Awesome post and good points. I think you, like Magox and Taro, highlighted some traits that a dedicated business professional would have which translates well to the presidency.

 

In your case, you mention "convincing."

 

I think that you're right generically. I'm just not sure that Mitt has that skill himself. He worked with a democratic house to effectuate some change. But it could be said that he accomplished that somewhat subversively and without the benefit of any side knowing where he truly stood.

 

It's only recently that we're learning his "true" leanings. The base in national politics holds you to account more definitively than in state politics. I'm not sure that he can be as nebulous to solidify alliances. He is gonna be on record and he can't change his mind for political advantage.

 

Will that affect his ability to "convince" when Tony Perkins is perched on his shoulder preaching certitude?

 

But good point nonetheless.