They interviewed one candidate who looked promising. Although he had little prior experience, he said he understood their situation, and convinced them that he was capable of solving the problems, putting the company back on track, and painted a vision of their restored success. He was hired.
After a year and a half, the company was still struggling, with the outcome in doubt. When the CEO gave his appraisal of the progress made so far, he was not shy to point out what a mess he had inherited, and that the present mess hadn't been made in a day, and it wouldn't be fixed in a day either.
No! He said no such thing. No CEO worth his millions would complain about how bad things were when he was hired, call his problems "inherited" and blame the former CEO. Those were facts that were clearly understood when he "took office" and solicited for the position, and were willingly accepted. The promise he made was to own the problems and FIX them, not keep blaming his failure on his predecessor.
At least, that's how it would work in the REAL WORLD of commerce. Apparently things work a bit differently in the private sector of Politics. In Politics, if you succeed in your turnaround, you can take the credit. If you fail, well, look at this mess you inherited -- who could possibly be expected to fix it?
Am I being unfair here? Have I taken liberties, or constructed an inaccurate analogy? My purpose is not to say that progress has not been made (although what progress has been made is up for discussion) but rather that even now, the administration is still to this very day over 18 months later still blaming the current situation on the past administration. It's far past time to keep blaming things on the last guys, and in any event no problem was "inherited"' when you run for office you accept it as it is, with all the benefits and problems. They are your problems on day 1, and it is your responsibility to solve them, not complain about them.
