I agree, business acumen has jack squat to do with running a responsive government of any size, let alone the world's largest. But I get tired of hearing about Romney's awesomeness at capitalism without any evidence beyond his personal fortune. Capitalism at its best enriches more then just the proprietors and management, by making products or providing services that are cheaper, better, completely new and original or any combination. Staples was the first of the big three office supply chains but in looking over the history at Wiki, Romney isn't even mentioned.
So his contributions were probably limited to financing and a seat on the board, as his own bio mentions. He lists a lot of other businesses to which he contributed expertise but I don't see anything that looks imaginative or visionary. He didn't start a car company to reinvent Detroit, for example, as a hat tip to his father's legacy.
And there's the LBO angle, that old notion from the 80s:
_ Romney soon switched Bain Capital's focus from startups to the relatively new business of leveraged buyouts: buying existing firms with money mostly borrowed against their assets, partnering with existing management to apply the "Bain way" to their operations (rather than the hostile takeovers practiced in other leverage buyout scenarios), and selling them off in a few years._
So he's not really a capitalist/entrepreneur but a consultant/financier. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't fit the narrative he wants us to buy, of the shrewd businessman. He's not a team member so much as team owner who hasn't faced the risks that true capitalists face on a regular basis.
So I'm not buying the idea of the resolute capitalist so much as an opportunist with a bankroll. I'm sure he's plenty smart (hey, he went to Harvard, just like our President and many others besides). But is the right guy for the job?