I don’t condone this post, but I do believe it…
Mitt Romney is electable because of how he looks and how he sounds. For the average American, style always trumps substance. And, after several years of a vague notion that George W. Bush is an embarrasment (I speak, of course, of the average voter; I would be happy to provide a dissertation on why GWB is a travesty, and I’ve been ready with that proclamation since 2000), the average voter will jump at a photogenic guy who can string together complete sentences.
So, is Romney electable? Yep.
Do I want him to win? Nope.
Will he win? Hope not.
You think Romney is photogenic? I would say that Obama, Edwards and Fred Thompson have him beaten by leagues while Hillary and Giuliani have him beaten by a couple lengths.
I don’t see the GOP staying home. We just don’t do that, let alone in the Christian south.
His mormonism isn’t an issue. He’s not the only Mormon out there, and he’s already slightly distanced himself from the church, saying things like “Some people look at what some Mormons do and think that the church believes that’s ok. It doesn’t.”
I believe his issues are heartfelt. As governor, he was personally pro-life, but used his authority in a pro-choice manner. That was part of his campaign promise. Then he delved into stem cell research, and changed his mind. Now he thinks pro-life shoudl be part of the law. To me, he’s not a flip-flopper (bad thing), he’s just a flipper (ok thing).
Romney’s my #1 candidate this cycle. I’m particularly attracted to his mad skillage at running businesses, and, lord knows, Washington could use a good businessman.
Then how do you explain these conservative losses in the last 60 years:
In each of these elections, if they didn’t stay home, they must have voted for liberals. I find that less likely (Jimmy Carter notwithstanding) than conservatives just not voting.
I guess the believers would say the 2000 contested election was because both George & Al were too common to follow Bill, so they both were losers.
Now we have a bunch of uncommon names vying for the sport. Only Mike Bloomberg doesn’t have a chance.
Well, it also it knocks out Edwards, Richardson, McCain and Thompson (both Thompsons, as a matter of fact), plus a whole host of small fry.
I agree with the Kerry comparisons.
I think the fact that he ran to the center to get elected in Massachusetts, and is now running hard right in the national campaign will paint him as a flip-flopper. Too many changes in ideology in his short political career dooms him more than his Mormonism.
Don’t forget about how he smells, too! 
For the most part, he won on the basis of being a proven efficient administrator, as shown in his business career and with the Salt Lake Olympics. He made a big show out of his ability to use his corporate contacts to bring new jobs into the state. We were looking for someone to run the place. Even so, he just barely beat out an old-style insider.
But he only did it sporadically. Like so many other pols who first win at that level, he started imagining himself in the Oval Office. He paid little attention to actually doing the job he was hired to do, that of running the state government, but spent most of his time in the South campaigning, and badmouthing the MA liberals who’d kept him from accomplishing a conservative agenda. He did use those corporate contacts he boasted of, but to get campaign donations, not jobs. He spend much of his time on personal vendettas, and on finding ways to spite the gays who wanted to marry. By the time he’d announced he wasn’t going to run for re-election, there was no chance he’d have won anyway.
Ideology had nothing to do with it. He bullshitted about that during his governor’s race the same way he’s bullshitting now - and we knew it, we’re used to that here.
Oh, you can be sure, if the votes are counted honestly, the Democrats will hold onto the House in 2008.
If.
Why? Business != government. The applicable skill set is totally different.
I disagree entirely. The executive branch is a bureacracy like any other big company. Many of the skills are the same.
It’s an entirely different bureaucracy. Since when is a CEO subject to two other co-equal branches?
It is a bureaucracy with entirely different purposes, which do not include making a profit.