NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Mitt Romney is running for president on two main resume points:

1. He spent most of his career in a significant private sector management job.

2. He never worked in Washington, DC or otherwise for the Federal government.

Romney's argument is that these two ingredients are the optimal onesfor the presidency. The mirror image of this ideal profile is ofcourse Barack Obama, who was a U.S. Senator and never had any significantfor-profit management experience.

Now consider Romney's -- frankly, embarrassing -- dilemma: Themost-talked-about vice presidential candidates don't pass Romney's ownresume test! All of the VP candidates have either 1) no significant private sector CEO experience, or 2) they have had a significant job in WashingtonDC or working for the Federal government.

Let's name names, shall we? Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, ScottWalker, Rob Portman, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and MitchDaniels are considered the most likely Romney VP choices. Allof these people fail the two-prong "Romney test" as outlined above.Ouch.

Yes, I know, there are a couple of situations that start to approach aslight gray-zone area: Chris Christie worked for a couple of lawfirms many years ago. Bobby Jindal held a consulting position withMcKinsey out of college. Certainly beats Obama's experience! Butthey hardly pass a serious "Romney argument test."

In order to show how any of these people as VP would undercut Romney'selectoral appeal, consider this fictitious press conference dialogue,that could take place as early as a month from now:

Romney: "It's no wonder Obama has been an abysmal failure. Hehas been a lifetime de-facto politician, serving as an insulated U.S.Senator, and he has never even managed a corner store or a lemonadestand."

Reporter: "But Mr. Romney, your own Vice Presidential pick, Mr.X, also has no meaningful private sector management background,and/or he also worked for the Federal government recently."

Romney: "Well, uh, but this is about the vice president, not thepresident. As president, I have the right experience!"

Reporter: "Isn't the whole point about the VP, that he shouldbe able to step into the presidency with the best qualifications?"

Romney: "Well, uh, compared to Joe Biden, who has been a Senatorsince 1973..., uh, well..."

You see where this is going. Nowhere positive for Romney, that's forsure. Romney has an excellent argument that his significant privatesector management experience, in combination with his lack ofWashington, DC insider past, is what the country needs. Given justthat, why let the vice presidential pick chainsaw this key argumentall the way down by his ankles?

Heck, even

Sarah Palin

fit the bill better than any of the top eight or socandidates with the best VP odds right now! Small businesswoman,governor, never set foot in Washington DC...

This headline is

not

what Romney needs: "Romney's 'safe' VP pick has less private-sector experience than Sarah Palin, and is a relativeWashington, DC insider."

Now that's some motivation for the electorate to achieve change inWashington, DC. Not!

Romney's goal in his VP pick must be twofold:

1. Accentuate his own background as CEO, private-sector leadership,and lack of Washington DC insider history. This shines the light onObama's embarrassingly weak resume.

2. Make the argument to be 100% about the economy. Turnaroundskills, management expertise, doing more with less: Fire thebureaucrats, eliminate their budgets, and focus the government on avery few things that it must do well. All other issues should bethrown aside.

Enter Tim Cook

In

a previous column

, I gave FedEx founder and CEO Fred Smith as an excellent example of someone who would fit this bill extremely well.

But ... there is a potentially even better alternative that may achieveRomney's goal even more effectively. FedEx is a great case of aterrific company, but while we are going down the route of focusing oncorporate excellence and turnaround skills, Romney might just as wellgo for the ultimate jugular: Apple CEO Tim Cook.

Apple CEO Tim Cook

If Romney picked Tim Cook as his VP running mate, everyone in Americawould know with absolute certainty that Romney's sole priority, andsuperior capability, would be to turn around the economy. As SteveJobs' right-hand man for many years, Cook was at the epicenter of whatmay be the greatest corporate turnaround in all of history. The finalproduct is now almost the perfect textbook definition of economicexcellence.

Tim Cook joined Apple in 1998, and in a few short years he worked withSteve Jobs to chuck unprofitable product lines, and innovate in otherareas ranging from the stores, to the hardware to the easy-to-usesoftware. The corporate bureaucracy was axed in favor of the leanestpossible management structure.

Imagine the prospect of a Romney-Cook ticket applying their corporateturnaround expertise to the Federal government: Two millionpaper-pusher bureaucrats would be canned immediately, taxes would bedramatically lowered and the code simplified like an iconic Appleindustrial design, burdensome red tape would be abolished, and thiswould set the pace for the U.S. to outgrow China.

Tim Cook could step up to the podium and say: "Our government is acase study in dysfunctionality. We have a Department of Agriculturethat produces no agriculture, a Department of Education that educatesnobody, a Department of Commerce that engages in no commerce, aDepartment of Energy that produces no energy and a Department of Laborthat produces no labor.

"Just like Apple in 1998, the patient is onthe operating table, the heart barely beating, but nobody is doinganything except feeding the patient some potato chips. I will firethe bureaucrats, eliminate their budgets and make the experience ofliving in the United States into the best customer experience in allof world history."

... And with that speech, Tim Cook's appeal at the ballot box would beat least 90%, blemished only by a few government bureaucrats whoreally don't like the prospect of having to do something useful, suchas going to work in the private sector, for a change.

If Romney picked Tim Cook as his VP, Obama and his hapless Joe Bidenwould immediately be put on the defense. What would they say? Anyclaim that they would be better at whipping the U.S. economy intoshape would be laughable on its face. Two Washington, DC-centricpoliticians with zero meaningful private sector experience, againsttwo CEOs squarely focused on a gigantic turnaround: Folks, this oneisn't remotely close.

Some will make the following arguments against Romney picking TimCook as VP:

1. It's unrealistic. Nothing like this has ever happened before.OK, all sorts of things have never happened before. Before 1776,there was no U.S. of America at all. So unprecedented things happenall the time, whether big or small. Remember what a longshot RonaldReagan was, for well over a decade, before he finally succeeded on thethird attempt?

2. Romney can win anyway. True, he might. Or he might not. Most ofhis other top VP choices are certainly not bad, and some are outrightgood compared to many VP picks made by predecessors in recent decades.

3. Cook would never take the job. As with any significantbusinessman/CEO, switching into the VP role would mean a pay cut thatcould be as large as 99%. However, I think that is in itself anirrelevant concern for a few reasons:

(a) Cook knows that given what he has accomplished already, almost nomatter what career path he chooses at this point, he will be amultibillionaire 10 or 15 years down the road.

(b) Serving as VP and perhaps later as president would surely createthe most attractive resume the human race has seen in decades, if notin centuries. Super-successful CEO of the world's larget market-capcompany, Apple, and VP, potentially president, of the U.S.? Movieshave been made about lesser subjects.

(c) Cook has been at Apple for 14 years now. As exciting as that maybe -- and almost every other person in society would sacrificemultiple limbs to be CEO of Apple -- for one person in the world --Tim Cook! -- it may be getting a shade old in the tooth. The one andonly job in the world that would raise his adrenaline from thisalready-elevated level would be the ultimate political challenge.

Certainly a call for civic duty is also what inspired other peoplewith different careers -- Ronald Reagan left a lucrative GeneralElectric spokesperson career, Dwight Eisenhower left his belovedmilitary leadership situation, and so forth.

A Successful Romney Campaign

Sadly, however, all of the current VP candidates would significantlydetract from Romney's appeal as a big-time businessman. And this isthe main thing that sets Romney apart from Obama and Biden! In a yearwhen people are extremely dissatisfied with the economy, where peopleare acutely angry about government waste and abuse, why would you wantto dull your differences against a highly Washington, DC-centricbureaucratic incumbent president?

Romney may sneak by and win anyway, butif that happens it will be significantly as a result of luck -- and by"luck" I mean a continued economic collapse, probably no more than a 50-50 proposition. Why would Romney want to leave his prospects in November in the hands of Greek elections and the European Central Bank?

Better yet for Romney to take matters into his own hands, and ensurehimself a victory regardless of U.S. GDP growth in the coming fourmonths. The only way to do this is to shine a relentless spotlightonto a total focus on an economic turnaround. And the ideal VP withwhom he would convey this message, is Apple's CEO, Tim Cook.

Romney's odds on InTrade now are 43.2%. That's up from his recent39%, but still not a great number. Many things outside his controlcould keep him below the required 50% between now and Nov. 6:

1. The U.S. economy doesn't collapse.

2. Obama has another "Bin Laden moment."

3. Obama picks Hillary Clinton as VP.

4. Europe plugs the Euro-collapse hole -- at least for six months.

... Or, Romney can change the odds himself, selecting the man who wouldbring instant 100% business focus and credibility to the ticket. IfRomney goes with the current top-eight most-talked-about candidates, hewill make a misguided decision of "playing it safe" with just anotherpartisan hack, while simultaneously deflating his own private sectorCEO appeal.

This must not happen. Of all outstanding alternatives in the privatesector, Apple CEO Tim Cook would be "the ultimate" antidote to theweakness Romney would otherwise bestow upon himself with anold-fashioned "politician" VP pick.

A Romney-Cook ticket would makethe Nixon 1972 and Reagan 1984 landslides look timid in comparison.

This article is commentary by an independent contributor, separate from TheStreet's regular news coverage.

At the time of submitting this article, the author was long AAPL.

This contributor reads:

RealClearPolitics

Drudge Report

Rush Limbaugh

Engadget

The Verge

On Twitter, this contributor follows:

David Limbaugh

Joshua Trevino

Tyler Durden

Jonah Goldberg

Michelle Malkin