John Dean: "Romney would be active/negative president like Bush II.."

[noel711]

Excellent article:
Predicting Presidential Performance: Why Mitt Romney Would Be an Active/Negative President Like Bush II, Nixon, LBJ, Hoover, and Wilson

"The late political scientist James David Barber in his seminal work The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance In The White House. With the 2012 election looming, it is time to do so again.

It’s clear to me, if not to most everyone, that the Republicans are going to nominate former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as their 2012 standard-bearer. Neither Newt Gingrich, nor Ron Paul, nor Rick Santorum can win the GOP nomination. And if by some miracle, one of them did, he could never defeat Obama.

Biographer R. B. Scott, who has known and followed Romney for over twelve years, also reveals Romney’s active/negative approach to politics, which parallels his “straight-ahead approach to life.” Scott notes of Romney, that: “1) he is a problem solver who rarely takes ‘no’ for an answer; 2) he acts pragmatically and preemptively; 3) he likes to be in control and can be very controlling; 4) he doesn’t read people well—in fact, he expects people … to say exactly what they mean and mean exactly what they say, and he expects people to listen that way, too; 5) he doesn’t anticipate blindside attacks and therefore is ill- prepared to deal with them; and 6) if he has ever made a mistake, he would rather keep it to himself, always quite sure that whatever it was, in most cases it was probably the result of a misunderstanding, someone not listening carefully or lacking the sense God gave a goose.”

Unlike, say, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama, who each connect easily with people and enjoy the push and pull of politics, we are all watching Romney suffer the agony of the political process simply because enduring that process is necessary to reach his ambition."

Predicting Presidential Performance: Why Mitt Romney Would Be an Active/Negative President Like Bush II, Nixon, LBJ, Hoover, and Wilson
http://verdict.justia.com/

[JDPriestly]

1. These traits suggest no ability to handle foreign policy.

4) he doesn’t read people well—in fact, he expects people … to say exactly what they mean and mean exactly what they say, and he expects people to listen that way, too; 5) he doesn’t anticipate blindside attacks and therefore is ill- prepared to deal with them; and 6) if he has ever made a mistake, he would rather keep it to himself, always quite sure that whatever it was, in most cases it was probably the result of a misunderstanding, someone not listening carefully or lacking the sense God gave a goose.”

Reading people well, understanding the hidden thoughts in subtle language, anticipating the unexpected, admitting one's mistakes -- those are the personality traits that make for a successful diplomat.

Benjamin Franklin was the ideal diplomat. He had a great sense of humor and was an astute observer of human nature. He recognized a lie and knew how to use it to his advantage. He was always ready for adversity and did not expect others to be honest or loyal with him. Above all, Franklin was humble about his own mistakes.

John Adams to the contrary . . . . Very honest person, but not a great diplomat. It was Franklin who secured French financial support for our Revolution (if I remember correctly).

Obama is a great diplomat. Considering that managing foreign affairs is such an important part of the president's job, why would anyone vote for Romney when they can vote for Obama? No one is perfect but I want a president with a knack for foreign affairs.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

2. Bu$h on steroids!

[Jefferson23]

3. Let's just make sure we don't find out. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

4. Putin and ju hintao

would eat this asshole for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.