This might not be the most welcoming endorsement for Mitt Romney as he enters final countdown, eager to break to 305 support bloc, but a point said is a point made, and especially when it comes from a guy that has already abandoned the Obama sinking ship.
Here is what David Brooks, New York Times columnist writes on Tuesday:
Over the past several months, Mitt Romney has been an excellent presidential candidate. He has performed superbly in the debates. He has outorganized his rivals. He has relentlessly stayed on his core theme of putting Americans back to work. He has taken Rick Perry apart with a cold ruthlessness that is a wonder to behold.
The central problem is that Mitt Romney doesn't fit the mold of what many Republicans want in a presidential candidate. They don't want a technocratic manager. They want a bold, blunt radical outsider who will take on the establishment, speak truth to power and offend the liberal news media.
They don't want Organization Man. They want Braveheart.
The question is: Are they right to want this? Well, if they want an in-your-face media campaign that will produce delicious thrills for the true believers, they are absolutely right. But if they actually want to elect an effective executive who is right for this moment, they are probably not right.
Whoever wins the nomination will be leading a party with a cohesive ideology and a common set of priorities: reform taxes, replace Obamacare, cut spending and reform entitlements.
The challenges ahead are technically difficult...These are complicated issues that require a sophisticated inside game -- navigating through the special interests, building complex coalitions. They are issues that require executive expertise.
Romney's skills are not to be underestimated. Romney does not take excessive risks. He doesn't make decisions without advance preparation.
Romney may be able to guard against ideological overreach. Each successive recent administration has overread its election mandate. Romney may be inauthentic, but he is rarely overzealous.
Finally, Romney can be dull. Political activists like exciting candidates. But most people, who have lower expectations from politics and politicians, just want them to provide basic order. They want government to be orderly so they can be daring in other spheres of their lives. Romney is the most predictable of the candidates and would make for the most soporific of presidents.
It's exciting to have charismatic leaders. But often the best leaders in business, in government and in life are not glittering saviors. They are professionals you hire to get a job done...The strongest case for Romney is that he's nobody's idea of a savior..."
This brings me back to a phrase floating in my mind since i have been active in political campaigns, for the candidates to stress to voters - "when the mics are turned off, when the camera's are shut off, and the door is closed, I'll will sit in that room fighting for you, and working on your behalf"...
This is what i believe candidate Romney can assure all of us, yes his rallies might not draw such crowds as Obama and Palin in 2008 (depends who the VP pick is - a Herman Cain VP slot or Marco Rubio cud exit the base like crazy), he's not so slicky and so blunt as Christie, but here is the thing : when this campaign is over - Mitt Romney is trusted by most Americans as to be the man that can actually get the Job done and use the Oval office as an executive war room, not just as a campaign office, checking out Twitter updates on the secured Blackberry..