I worked for a company where Bill Walsh was on the Board of Directors.  As a result, I got to meet him on several occasions.  I love to talk about sports, but I was always more than a little intimidated talking about football with Bill Walsh.  I figured the only possible outcome was for me to say something incredibly stupid.  But in 2000 I was talking with Mr. Walsh just before the 2000 draft.  I am a fan of The University of Michigan, so I asked him what he thought of Tom Brady.  I had been very impressed by Tom Brady’s performance in the 1999 Citrus Bowl.  Walsh told me that he thought Brady had potential, but he was really excited about Giovanni Carmazzi.  Bill Walsh was one of the smartest football coaches in history, but he was wrong about Tom Brady.  Remember Giovanni Carmazzi?  Exactly!

During the 2000 draft every NFL teams passed on the chance to get Tom Brady.  He was finally chosen by the New England Patriots as the 199^th pick in the sixth round.  Chad Pennington, Giovanni Carmazzi, Chris Redman, Tee Martin, Marc Bulger, and Spergon Wynn were all chosen before Brady.  The Patriots weren’t exactly thrilled even then.  They had a hard time choosing between Tom Brady and Tim Rattay.  Brady started his NFL career as the 4^th string quarterback.  The Patriots weren’t the only ones to underestimate Brady.  When he enrolled at Michigan he was seventh on the depth chart.  He was so discouraged he hired a sports psychologist to help him cope and even considered transferring to Cal.

Brady eventually got to play when Drew Bledsoe was hurt.  The rest is history.  Tom Brady led the New England Patriots to four Super Bowls and won three of them.  Most people would rank him as one of the best Quarterbacks in the history of the NFL.

The point is that sometimes experts make huge mistakes in trying to predict winners.  In the case of Tom Brady the experts were obviously wrong.  But they should have known better.  Brady didn’t necessarily have the strongest arm or the fastest feet, but he was a winning quarterback for a big time football program.  Performance on the job should always be a major factor in choosing future winners.  I suspect Tim Tebow is going to be another important reminder of this principle.

We need to avoid making the same mistake in choosing the Republican nominee for President.  The dumbest possible way to judge a candidate for President is by his or her performance in those silly “Presidential” debates.  They only measure the ability of a candidate to shine in a bizarre, irrelevant beauty contest.  What relevance does that have to being President of the United States?  When is the last time a President of the United States had to participant in this type of debate?  We should not confuse reality TV with reality.

Republicans seem to fear a brilliant Obama dominating during a Presidential debate.  That is utter nonsense.  First, Obama is not brilliant.  If there was any evidence of brilliance we would have all his college transcripts.  Second, he is not a great debater.  He barely beat John McCain, who was pathetic.  Third, Presidential debates don’t really matter.  They are high theater, but that is all.  Obama didn’t beat McCain because of the debates; he won because of the financial meltdown.  Prior to collapse of the financial markets McCain was leading in the polls and may have won.

I greatly fear that we are overlooking our potential Super Stars while salivating over the next Giovanni Carmazzi or Tee Martin.  What should matter is performance in a position that demonstrates executive ability.  There is a reason why so many former Governors have become President.  Proven success as Governor is the best training ground for a President of the United States.  Knowledge of foreign affairs or economic policy doesn’t matter if you don’t know how to govern.

When choosing a winner it is also a good idea to start with people who have actually won.  Mitt Romney already tried to win the nomination and lost to “John McCain.”  Ouch!  Newt Gingrich has been running for President, and losing, since the mid 90s.  Rick Santorum lost his bid for re-election to the Senate by 18 points.  Michelle Bachmann won two elections for one congressional district.  Ron Paul has been running for President, and coming up short, since 1988. 

We should also consider which candidate has a consistent record of actually governing as a conservative.   The best measure of how someone will govern as President is how they performed as Governor.

Only two remaining candidates actually have a history of winning elections; Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry.  Only two candidates have been re-elected Governor by large margins.  Only two candidates have actually governed as a conservative.  Yet they currently rank at the bottom of the public opinion polls.

Are we really this stupid?  Mitt Romney might win if he gets the nomination, but Newt Gingrich is capable of going down in flames.  He has self-destructed at every prior opportunity.  He has never won a national or statewide election.  Neither Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum have the experience or the track record to suggest they can win a Presidential campaign.  Ron Paul will continue to play the role of Harold Stassen:  “always running, never winning.” 

Obama can be defeated.  Obama will be defeated.  His only chance at re-election is if the Republicans play a prevent defense and make an incredibly stupid choice for their nominee.  Sadly a lot of experts are trying to convince us to bet everything on the next Chris Redman or Spergon Wynn.  If we take their advice, we are likely to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

 TDM