I was unclear. I am saying that since it is not the job of a president to micromanage, it is legitimate to criticise him for fuckups he was not directly involved with.
If his job were micromanaging, then "Hey, he wasn't in the room" would excuse him of responsibility, but that is not the case. Since his job would be pretty much the greatest opposite of micromanaging I can conceive of, there can be no excuse. The failure of his campaign is his failure.
That still seems a bit unclear to me actually. Not sure how to effectively reword this.
The United States has the following federal executive departments:
* Agriculture
* Commerce
* Defense
* Education
* Energy
* Health and Human Services
* Homeland Security
* Housing and Urban Development
* Interior
* Justice
* Labor
* State Transportation
* Treasury
* Veterans Affairs
Now there is literally no way you can micromanage you way through this. Nobody, and I mean nobody can possibly single handedly do it.
However, you can delegate. Part of that is to choose honest brokers and managers who know their area well enough to ensure that their departments work well.
In this situation it is your job to delegate to the right people. If you are the President of the United States of America and you aren't able to do this with your own campaign to get elected, you must take responsibilty for your failure and accept a great deal of responsibilty for the fact you did not get elected to high office.
Harsh, but being the POTA is not a job everyone can do. I know I couldn't.
But he wasn't president. Romney was managing a campaign. And a function critical to his campaign - you gonna tell me he wasn't involved? Or at least briefed?
