The New York Times has a story about Clint Eastwood's debate with a chair.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
For all the internal finger-pointing about Clint Eastwood’s rambling conversation with an empty chair on Thursday night, the most bizarre, head-scratching 12 minutes in recent political convention history was set in motion by Mitt Romney himself and made possible by his aides, who had shrouded the actor’s appearance in secrecy.
I think this story, and a few others, speak volumes about how Willard Mitt Romney sees himself.
Romney extendied this invitation to Eastwood, with no apparent limitations on what Eastwood would say, no vetting of his comments, no requirement that his comments be written out, or any actual knowledge of what he would actually say for a programmed five minute slot. That suggest that Mittens thinks he "knows" stuff about people "just because." I wasn't aware that Mittens had any training in "reading" people, but I could be wrong.
Mittens also had a hand in deciding what music Rafalca, Marie Antoinette Romney's horse, would dance to at the Olympics. I am not aware that Mittens had any musical training, so again, I could be wrong.
What I am starting to see really scares me. Mittens appears to be willing to trust his instinct when it comes to some deciding what to do and how to conduct some activities that would appear to be "important" (or at least very public) in some sense.
Mittens seems to think that he is so superior that he knows better than all of the "experts" that he hires to ostensibly be responsible for the conduct of these "important" activities. However, it would appear that the outcomes can range form "not so hot" to "disastrous," based on the conduct selected by Mitt R-MONEY.
There may be more such examples that I am not presently aware of. Putting Seamus the dog on top of the wagon for a ride to Canada might also fit the pattern of "Mitt who knows better that the experts," at least in the eyes of Mittens.
I see this as a very dangerous pattern for a guy who wants to be in the most powerful job in the world, and who, if successful in the quest, would have his finger on "the button," as well as on lots of other military toys, and in command of hundreds of thousands of professional military personnel.
What if "Mitt who knows better that the experts" were to decide that he understands the strategy and tactics needed to convince the Russians, the Chinese, or the Iranians that they should do something "Mitt's way" instead of some other way. What does this kind of personality, who is apparently willing to place some $10,000 bets based on his gut or his personal sense that he "knows," do when the pressure is on, and he has what seems to be one big chance to "make something happen?"
I personally have very serious doubts about letting such a person handle such enormous power, based on his demonstrable willingness to do things based on no apparent expertise at all. I really think this guy could be dangerous under such circumstances. I would welcome your thoughts on this matter, especially if you are trained in assess behavior.