If you look at the checklist for what the qualifications are for the position of The Chief Executive Officer Of The United States, you might not be surprised that they are the same as for any CEO.   (See that piece and see the rating of Romney Compared To The Other Candidates and also Experience, Side By Side:  Romney And Obama.)

We need to use common sense here and not buy into, without thinking, the rhetoric of politics.  We need to not be fooled by tricks. 

This is what experience provides, that truly, truly matters:

__ Ability to govern effectively, to be a CEO of the largest entity in the world.

__ Experience acting in the best interest of all stakeholders (which is now, of course, all US citizens)

__ Proven ability and experience running organizations.

__ Knowledge of how business and economics works

__ Ability to make decisions, effectively and systematically.

__ Ability to pick the experts needed and then have sufficient knowledge to understand what they say!

__ The ability to make decisions quickly, not avoid them, and then to implement (see how Obama does )

__ Relevant training in the field

__ Ability to plan, budget, work with others effectively

__ Ability to work with the other party (a record showing that)

All of these are part of the experience of running an organization, especially where you are responsible for actual results.  Romney has experience with a large number of companies, taking companies in trouble and saving a great number of them - with an outstanding, honored record to prove it.  He saved the Olympics.  He saved Massachusetts from great $1 billion deficits and problems, leaving with a rainy day fund of $2 billion.

He's actually done what is necessary and not just been a politician/legislator!



The ultimate assumption that the electorate will remain ignorant and buy into soundbites is also, I think, the ultimate insult to the American people - or at least an affront, as misleading people and not informing them is incredibly, to put it mildly, disrespectful - and harmful.


Is Mitt Romney's business experience really a plus?

Once a person gets past the "other great fraud" where politicians and unknowledgeable journalists misrepresent Romney's record as his being a vulture and heartless, we can begin to look at the substance behind why business and management experience (including the Olympics turnaround and the accomplishments as Governor) is very relevant to the skills needed to be a President (aka CEO, Chief Executive Officer Of The United States Of America).   Obama is perpetuating "mistruths", to put it kindly, that might be effective but are unethical (though some people might answer "well the other guy does it..."). 

See the Dishonest Ads, and note that they aren't just twists but they are outright falsehoods, some as overt as accusing Romney of actions years after he had left the company plus leaving out lots of facts.  Totally unethical and dishonest at a super-high degree.


Consider this case:  A private equity guy comes into an industry that is about to go bankrupt.  He takes it through bankruptcy, forcing union concessions, taking away pension benefits from white collar workers, canceling the bondholders worth and forcing the stockholders to lose.  In the process, he cuts 14,000 jobs and kills numerous distributors that the company just can't afford to carry. 

Who would be such an evil person?  

His initials are B.O., and this is the GM bankruptcy that saved the company.  (Note that Romney would have taken a similar but slightly better route through bankruptcy that would have saved the auto industry at a higher level, as was clearly laid out in the apparently "non-read" op-ed that he wrote:  The Actual Facts Of What Romney Said About Saving Detroit.) 


Although he has had to make some tough economic decisions in order to save companies (which would, as a byproduct, save jobs), Romney is clearly a super altruistic, giving guy, as per quotes from the book The Real Romney, written by two fellows on the left.  

Eliminating the factor of "meanness" from the realm of possibilities, we can just look at what his experience can give to us.  (Don't be "fooled" by those who are trying to mislead you to believe Romney is otherwise.)


He was hired by investors (pension funds, foundations, individuals, companies, countries) to make profits.

And he benefited those who hired him (without doing anything unethical). 

It is preposterous then to buy into the idea that "therefore he won't work for the American people." 

What boulderdash and misleading gall to believe that people would be bereft of logic and reasoning.

He will benefit the people who hire him:  the American people.  And there is no hidden agenda of benefiting the rich, as he has stated he will have the rich get less of a benefit than the middle class or the poor, if any. 

That is who he is.  A man of high integrity, not one who promises lots and delivers little. 


Of course, being President is different in certain respects.  Your stakeholders are different and your "board of directors" (the congress) is different.  But the skills of a CEO are the skills of a CEO, no matter where and to what they are applied. 

Those skills are decision-making skills, which also requires knowledge of the basic factors involved in the decision. 

In this case, a CEO is excellent at gathering information and then making decisions with excellent reasoning.  Yes, his training in decisionmaking and in running organizations is a big plus, but the biggest plus is always out there in the real world decision-making, where the skills get honed to a fine edge, one of sharp excellence.
There is no training like the training of actually being out there in the field and experiencing the consequences of one's decisions. 

And look at the consequences of the decisions that Romney has made.  It is quantifiable that Romney produced an 88% or more return for his investors, in a field where the standard is as high as 25%.  No one questions his being one of the best ever. 

And isn't results what were looking for?  And isn't the ability to gather and understand information and then to make excellent decisions one of the things you want your President to do for you? 

How much honing of skills of management would being a community organizer, teacher of law, and state senator (he was only active as a US senator for about a year) provide?   How much would someone with no real training in running an organization really have to contribute? 


One of the key things that caused the Obama Whitehouse to be so "dysfunctional" (as pointed out repeatedly in the 700 interview Confidence Men history of Obama - see summary ) is that roles were so ill-defined and authority so unclear.  Those around Obama had to manage around him as it was so fruitless to expect him to lead and/or make decisions.  He could make "professorial" type decisions and from some consensus of opinions and from some deeply held beliefs, but he was at a standstill in certain areas. 

And over and over there was a failure of followthru - with the corresponding lack of results.  Pelosi and Reid rescued him at times, as did Larry Summers and Tim Geithner (who were pretty skilled). 


Romney is a problem solver, a man who is adept at making tough decisions and then confronting what it takes to solve the problems and assure that the job gets done. 

This was proven over and over in business, but the outstanding turnaround that he did with the Olympics to overcome the high distrust after all the bribery and scandals and to save it from extinction is a super-testament to his ability to solve problems.  He had to make the decision to make things squeaky clean, in order to reestablish trust, which meant he had to ask people to leave who he would have liked to work with but which would have provided a basis to question the integrity of the organization (although they were actually good people - the belief or possible appearance had to rule). 

Going straight from business to managing something that he had no experience in at all is the ultimate test of those abilities.  And he succeeded, with many of the people in the know crediting him with producing a miracle - but he did it with just sound management, integrity, and willingness to confront what was needed, based on ability and not just politics and rhetoric.  The results of his work were clearly measurable, although he could have failed and people would have understood.  But failure, for him, was not an option, so he pulled it out of the fire and then made it a huge success in entertainment, plus an extra $100 million left over for the US Olympic organization. 

Now that is what we need in a CEO!   No excuses, no blame, no putting off the decisions, no lack of follow through - just results, no matter what!


Governing is much less measurable than something that has a bottomline financial number.  So it is much more subject to "coloring", so to speak.  If you took what he actually did and measured the actual results of what he could directly influence, he had an outstanding record - in the face of the possibility of getting nothing done because of the 85% Democratic legislature.  Yet he handled a major dysfunction in healthcare effectively and successfully, with approval from conservatives, democrats, tax payer groups, businesses, etc., with only 2 dissenting votes out of 400 (yes, people "put it down" because of Obama copying parts of it, though Obama added so many more things), no new taxes or costs to business (though the Democrats added on a small fee).  In a very high cost state that was not a right to work state, where living costs were high as well as business costs, he managed to pull of some gains, going from 12 prospective companies to 288, capturing a couple of companies with incentives, with the unemployment dropping from 5.6% to 4.7%, close to the national rate but with all those obstacles that could have created it going badly, from 50th in the nation in trending employment up to a tie for 12th in the year he left.  Yes, he even did a great job there, no matter how they skew the statistics.  Scan


While we're at it, I think it is not reasonable to believe that just some interested citizen can be qualified to be an effective President - that somehow the people can be hired to run everything where he can just make policy decisions on things that you agree with (and that is why you elected him).  Believing that is not knowledgeable at the least - and it is up to you not to let that lack of knowledge be what allows you to be fooled by misleading ads and rhetoric. 

Yes, you can vote for whomever you want, but your vote should be based on full and accurate information and not deception. 

People can't just jump into any old job and be expert at it.  Check out your own experience.  Even with me, after a big education in business and economics, I found that I knew only a fraction of what was needed to be really good at the reality (instead of just the theory or academics of it).  Being effective actually takes experience, honed knowledge, and great critical thinking skills. 

Obama is good in some things, but is not even remotely qualified to be a CEO of the United States of America.  This could do great harm to America if its citizens don't think things out more and come to a sound basis, based on reasoning, for whom they will vote.   (See Making An Intelligent Decision and, of course, The Qualifications For The Job Of Being President..)

Obama: The Emperor Has No Clothes - The Great Coverup - What is actually happening when a President has to be cloaked to cover him up?  VITAL READING. 

Obama: Good Guy, Wrong Job?
If there were a board interviewing Obama, what would they and he say?