View Single Post
      09-10-2012, 08:52 PM   #26

Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer View Post
If you're saying that being a good president (or CEO for that matter) means you must be a bad father I simply don't agree.
Holding any high-level position of extreme responsibility is very demanding and time consuming (not a Mon-Fri, 9-5 job). I'm not saying being a good leader guarantees bad father, but I am saying that being a good leader makes it VERY VERY hard to be the same kind of involved dad as someone who has no such responsibilities. Simple logistics. There are only 24hrs in a day, and if a CEO of (ABC company or USA) is travelling around the world, and working 100+ hrs a week, there are simply less hours to be there, unless you want your kids up at 11:30pm every night to see you at the end of the day. It's not a subjective thing, it's basic math. Only so many hours to go around.

Alternatively, you can spend less than 100+ hours, spend more time with your kids, but you'd have to be extremely gifted to achieve in 80 hrs what your predecessors took 100 hours to do. If you are not so gifted, and your performance suffers, your stockholders might notice, and try and replace you.

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer View Post
It's an understatement to say he has a little trouble connecting with people. This is a man who had to rely on his VP pick to make himself legit to his own party. Doesn't speak well of his prospects for getting much done in Washington does it?
Romney does not appear to be Mr Charisma, I'll grant you that. Personality wise, in terms of playing to the cult of celebrity, Obama wins there, no doubt. Whether or not Romney would struggle as much as Obama has to get the 2 halves of congress co-operating in actual practice, that remains unknown.

Obama was presented as the great communicator, who could leverage his engaging personality to get the Hatfields and McCoys to sit down and have dinner together, and that has certainly not turned out to be the case at all. Going in, we had no other large organzation to gather data from, he ran nothing of that size or political complexity before, so voters had to take him at his word, and make judgements based on his public speaking, which he is very good at.

In contrast, in Romney's case, he did take the olympics that were spiralling out of control, and wring a good final result out of it. Anyone who has dealt in any capacity with the International Olympic Committee knows that is all positively saturated with politics and conflicting personal agendas, and he (or his designates) were obviously able to deftly navigate that minefield and produce a great end result.

Judging a book by it's cover may be a fools errand after all.