Newsweek Cover: "Mitt The Wimp"

[cleduc]

91. My posted/buried comment under the article:

The troubling thing about Romney's many, many flip-flops is that it makes you wonder about his ability to think things through. Sure, there's some pandering involved. And I'm not suggesting he's stupid - he isn't. But when I read Audacity of Hope, it seemed to be written by a man who had deeply thought about the issues and we had his vision clearly articulated with an audit trail based upon facts, logic and reason on how he arrived at his positions on the issues. And since that writing, he's largely stuck to those thoughts or you can see how he evolved on those issues as he went along.

With Romney, he strikes me as having a swashbuckling management style. There is no deep under current of a long term vision. Yes, he'll use some visionary terms in his speeches but there's no substantive trail of how he got there and nor a trustworthy conviction on where he's going.

There are safe guards in the structure of the US government (congress and the judicial branch for example) to help minimize errors made by the executive branch. But the "most powerful man on earth" is described that way for a number of reasons. As we all know, the president faces critical moments during their term in office. I'm much less concerned with the wimp factor than I am the swashbuckling factor because once some of these critical decisions get made, flip-flopping isn't on the menu of what they can practically do next. The ability to think things through has to be an essential requirement for the job. Of the two candidates, only one of them has a decent track record demonstrating he has that ability.