????無(wú)可置疑，米特?羅姆尼是私募行業(yè)的老江湖。如果想找人運(yùn)行私募基金，他肯定是最佳人選之一。但這種評(píng)價(jià)無(wú)法讓人們了解他是否具有在政界取得成功的能力。

????羅姆尼宣稱，由于目前的經(jīng)濟(jì)形勢(shì)，他的商業(yè)經(jīng)歷在此次選舉中意義重大。你不這樣認(rèn)為嗎？

????There's no question that Mitt Romney is filtered as a private equity executive. If you wanted to hire someone to run a private equity fund, Mitt Romney's got to be on the really, really short list of people you would pick. But that sort of evaluation doesn't tell you a whole lot about his ability to succeed in politics.

????Romney argues that because of the economic fix we're in, his business experience is uniquely relevant in this election. You don't buy that?

????我不這樣認(rèn)為。我相信他的商業(yè)經(jīng)歷可以告訴人們很多事情。私募基金經(jīng)理人的工作就是為投資者獲取最大的資本回報(bào)。他在這方面無(wú)可挑剔。但總統(tǒng)的工作不是獲取最大回報(bào)。美國(guó)總統(tǒng)要考慮3億人的福祉，而這3億人有很多不同的個(gè)人利益。他能否團(tuán)結(jié)那些無(wú)需與他合作的人？他能否鼓動(dòng)大眾的支持？談判時(shí)，他是否記得他是在為全國(guó)的選民服務(wù)？

????那你的意思是羅姆尼的商業(yè)經(jīng)歷是他的缺點(diǎn)，而非優(yōu)勢(shì)？

????可以說(shuō)既是優(yōu)勢(shì)，也是劣勢(shì)。他的商業(yè)經(jīng)歷告訴我們，他聰明絕頂，勤勞肯干，善于分析。他能夠運(yùn)用智慧，創(chuàng)造性地解決問題。對(duì)總統(tǒng)來(lái)說(shuō)，這些都是很好的特質(zhì)。這些經(jīng)歷讓我們對(duì)他擔(dān)任總統(tǒng)有點(diǎn)信心，我們不是在隨機(jī)地挑選一無(wú)是處的路人甲。但與此同時(shí)，這和總統(tǒng)工作所要求的技能也大相徑庭。

????就像任何初出茅廬的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人一樣，羅姆尼會(huì)是一個(gè)變數(shù)很大的選擇。他可能會(huì)做很多他人所不愿意做的事。這是好事還是壞事？我敢說(shuō)，他會(huì)犯一些別人不會(huì)犯的錯(cuò)誤。在競(jìng)選活動(dòng)中我們已經(jīng)看到這樣的例子了。他會(huì)犯一些莫名其妙的錯(cuò)誤，比如，他說(shuō)‘我有些朋友是納斯卡（NASCAR, 僅在美國(guó)流行的賽車——譯注）車隊(duì)的老板’。聽起來(lái)多膚淺。確實(shí)也很膚淺。以政治為生的人多半不會(huì)說(shuō)這種話。這么容易的錯(cuò)都會(huì)犯，接下來(lái)其它錯(cuò)誤也不會(huì)少。

????奧巴馬總統(tǒng)：他是老江湖還是初出茅廬？

????和羅姆尼相比，他在競(jìng)選總統(tǒng)前在政界呆的時(shí)間更長(zhǎng)。但很明顯，他當(dāng)選時(shí)基本上也只是初出茅廬。回想起來(lái)，當(dāng)初選他也是需要很大勇氣的，因?yàn)槲覀儾⒉恢浪麜?huì)把我們引向何方。

????11月（大選）你投誰(shuí)的票？

????奧巴馬。

????這個(gè)選擇是通過研究做出的決定嗎？

????研究當(dāng)然有一些幫助，可以說(shuō)奧巴馬依然具有高影響力的潛力，而我們也已經(jīng)在過去四年目睹了他的表現(xiàn)。他有些決策我也不贊成。但我相信，在那些初出茅廬的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人最容易犯錯(cuò)的領(lǐng)域，比如外交政策，他已經(jīng)成功地證明了自己。他并不是不勝任，他也沒有頭腦發(fā)熱，他也已經(jīng)熟悉了這份工作的方方面面。而羅姆尼，我得說(shuō)，作為一個(gè)初出茅廬的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人，他在帶來(lái)上升潛力的同時(shí)，也有很大的失敗風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，而我們并不知道硬幣最終會(huì)停在哪一面。

????I don't. I think his business experience would tell you lots of things. The job of someone in a private equity fund is to maximize return on investors' capital. He's incredibly good at that. But the job of president is not to maximize return on investors' capital. The president of the United States has 300 million people he has to benefit, and they have lots of different interests. Can he form coalitions with people who have no reason to work with him? Can he rally the public? Can he negotiate keeping in mind that he serves many, many different constituencies?

????Are you saying that Romney's business experience would be a handicap, not an advantage?

????It's both. The business experience tells us he's incredibly smart, he's hardworking, he's analytical. He's able to solve problems creatively and intelligently. These are all good things in a president. They should give us some confidence that we're not picking someone at random who has never done anything that would make you feel they're capable of being president. But at the same time it's a profoundly different set of skills.

????As with any other unfiltered leader, Romney would be an extraordinarily high-variance choice. He is likely to do many things that no one else would do. Will that be better or worse? I will say with some confidence that he will make mistakes that no one else would make. We've already seen this in the campaign. He's made mistakes that are almost inexplicable, like saying 'A bunch of my friends own NASCAR teams.' That seems superficial. And it is. Except that most people who spent their careers in politics would never say something like that. When you make mistakes that easy, you're going to make other mistakes.

????President Obama: Filtered or unfiltered?

????Compared to Romney, he'd spent more time in politics prior to running for president. But when he was elected he was clearly massively unfiltered. This was a leap into the unknown.

????Who will you vote for in November?

????I'm gong to be voting for Obama.

????Is that a choice informed by your research?

????It's partly informed by the research, in the sense that Obama is a potentially high-impact leader whom we've seen for the last four years. There are things he's done that I disagree with. But I believe the areas in which unfiltered leaders are most likely to fail—foreign policy, for example—he's proven he's not going to fail. He's not completely incompetent, he's not crazy, he's able to do the blocking and tackling of the job. With Romney I say we have the potential upside of the unfiltered leader but we also have the potential downside, and we don't know what's going to happen.