Replies

I would not be totally opposed to Romney's selection, though he really hurt himself -- and his personal legacy -- with those idiotic moves aimed at derailing Trump's campaign. He may have a political agenda but he's not a political figure at heart. His resume as a business leader is far more impressive than his limited political career (one term as governor of MA and two failed presidential bids).

Putting him in charge of the U.S. State Department will work in two ways: (1) his leadership and organizational skills will be valuable at a time when the department needs a housecleaning from top to bottom; and (2) it will send a strong message around the world that business relationships are more important to the U.S. than the stupid heavy-handed militarism we've seen for the last 25 years.

“those idiotic moves aimed at derailing Trump’s campaign”

*************

I respectfully disagree with that characterization. Those moves were intentional and calculated, and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that they were also diabolical. I don’t say that lightly. This election was for all the marbles and Mitt took the other side of the trade, as they say in his investment world. In so doing he deliberately undermined the party’s nominee to advance his own agenda.

He knew that his support was critically needed but chose to do things that benefited Hillary, who would have continued Obama’s destructive path. This was an election we could not afford to lose, and Mitt didn’t join the battle. Trump simply cannot reward that kind of disloyalty.

I agree with your view. Everyone seems to have the mistaken view that the problems in D.C. are political/policy - just kill off this program, change the goals of that program and we can save gazillions - maybe kill off an agency or two.

That isn't it. The problem is that the gross incompetence and cronyism at every level. D.C. manages everything at $.001 level but manages nothing at all to ensure that the taxpayers get value for what is spent. Termites have eaten at the foundations of everything and there is no solid wood anywhere. DoD dispairs of the DoD acquisition process, but no one can do anything about it. The F-35 is DoD's own poster child of a process gone amok. DHS makes every other agency look good. And so it goes.

ACA, aside, most of what the government does are legitimate missions and programs that have long been argued out. The problem is operational. We don't need policy wonks, left wing or right wing, liberal or conservative running things. We need competent management for a change empowered to reorganize the agencies and hold people accountable to getting done the vital work for the public.

So from that perspective, Romney is likely to be as good as we can do. After all, restructuring bankrupt organizations is what he used to do.