In terms of the election, how do I define "leadership," why do I think Romney doesn't have it?

What I mean by a leader crosses professional lines.

Corporate leaders who don't inspire, who don't innovate, who don't show a basic understanding, awareness and ability to manipulate their markets aren't called "leaders," they're called "unemployed."

Military leaders who do not inspire, who do not breed confidence through their competence, vision and ability to communicate and take advantage of a rapidly changing tactical environment are called "relieved of their command."

Dictators who do not retain the support of their people at some point, are typically called "dead."

To me, a leader is competent. A leader inspires. A leader motivates. A leader provides you with the ability and desire to do more then you believed yourself capable of doing.

A leader understands. A leader is never indecisive. A leader makes you, personally, feel you have value.

A leader does not use "dear in the headlights" as a leadership philosophy.

Our current president does none of those things... shows none of those tenets unless he's trying to buy you off.

And Romney seems to be the same, additionally saddled with a situational ethics that runs neck and neck with Gingrich's every day and twice on Sunday.

We were asked generically on a Facebook page why those of us on the right may be opposed to Romney. Here was part of my reply:

1. He’s like Reagan Dunn.

2. He’s a political chameleon

3. Because when he had a chance to govern, it was more like Gregoire then Reagan

4. He’s politically inept and laughingly indecisive. Not even *I* could have screwed up South Carolina as much as he did.

5. Because Obama will cave his ass in, in the debates.

6. Romneycare.

7. Assault weapons ban at the state level, and a 400% increase in license costs to even own a handgun.

8. Pro-abortion until he needed to get the GOP presidential nomination. Election year conversions, like Dunn, sicken me.

9. The only reason this guy is even competitive is because he’s bought his political presence.

10. Because he’s a manager, and not a leader. And that’s what we’ve got now.

There are other reasons, but these will do for now.

But as I said: we've been told us that he WILL be the nominee and we need to get used to it. And I have never been one to subscribe to that “when rape is inevitable” crap.

Any leader in America must always lead legally and Constitutionally. Our current president views that document as a series of suggestions he can pretty much ignore whenever he seems to feel like it.

Within that framework, the question is this: in South Carolina, who led? Who inspired? Who saw the strategic terrain for what it was? Who took advantage of the changing situation the fastest, with the most competence?

Who failed to see it coming, failed to change rapidly enough, failed to use their MASSIVE advantages in money and organization?

This SHOULD have been a slam dunk for Romney. The cause for that failure can begin and end with ever shrinking concentric circles that stop in the middle of Romney's chest.
 
So, for those fronting for Romney, my question in return is this:
 
If he couldn't squash Gingrich like a bug with every strategic and logistical advantage he had... to include the South Carolina governor working for him...
 
... what makes anyone think he can take out Obama?