Romney

[il Padrino Ute]

Yeah, I guess that's what I meant by "he sucks". You've only expanded that to define what "sucks" means, without providing any reasoning. Your inclusion of an "anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot" certainly didn't help your cause.

I can provide my reasoning with a few simple sentences: Obamacare is a colossal burden that is destroying this country's economy. TARP was a massive failure that increased unemployment and his jobs bill is nothing more than a smaller version of TARP.

I'd rather just point out the obvious and say that Obama's policies are destroying this country.

[myboynoah]

Hitchens spends some of his last minutes on earth talking about Romney's Mormonism.

What I wrote when I posted this article to my FB account:

"I'm posting this with some sadness because I admire the mind of Christopher Hitchens and he is dying, and this kind of bush league bigotry should be so far beneath him. One night about four years ago at Politics & Prose bookstore in NW DC he and I exchanged words on this very topic and at the end of the evening I told him he needs to get a new research assistant. He was spectacularly wrong - factually and ethically - in his comments then and he's evidently taken no trouble to correct them since. The man has either absorbed or invented some outright lies about Mormon practice and belief. And Slate - my favorite online publication - is just as culpable for allowing this slander to go into print. Sorry you're going out like this Hitch. Really am."

A response in a fashion.

What it means to be Mormon

[RobinFinderson]

Mormonism's magical weirdness is no worse than that of the Christianity that rejects Mormonism from its fold.

The legitimate political religious question for Mitt is this: The Mormon church claims that it is led by a prophet who has sole claim to speak on God's behalf for all of the people on earth. It also teaches that its members have a religious duty to 'follow the prophet.' Mr. Romney, if you were to win the presidency, what would 'follow the prophet' mean to you as you fulfilled the duties of your office?

[pellegrino]

A response in a fashion.

What it means to be Mormon

that's it? that's all we got?

[myboynoah]

that's it? that's all we got?

A sincere expression of faith and how one's beliefs work in one's life while acknowledging legitimate issues of concern and fantastic claims can be effective.

[myboynoah]

Mitt Romney reaches out to voters but often lacks the common touch

Ever since he stepped onto the national stage, Romney has been criticized as being unable to connect with voters — partly because of past positions out of step with many in his party and partly because of what some say is a wooden, detached personality. Although he has sharpened his campaign operation and mostly aced a series of debates this year, Romney’s trip to Iowa on Thursday and recent swings through New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida reveal a candidate still struggling to make that connection.

When voters exposed themselves emotionally, Romney offered little empathy. When they sought his support for their causes, Romney didn’t show them that he cared. Romney was scripted when he could have been spontaneous. He was boardroom cool when he could have been living room warm.

I think a candidate either has "the common touch" or he/she doesn't. I don't think this bodes well for Mitt.

I think Bush Father was our last President that was "common touch" challenged, which is really odd because if you meet him in person, he comes across as really grounded. Before Bush Father, it was Nixon.

Mitt's best chance is that people's economic anxieties are so pronounced that they want a technocrat problem-solver more than a leader who can empathize with them.

[RobinFinderson]

Douthat has some smart things to say about the inevitability of a Romney nomination:

t is a rather extraordinary turn of events. But when you have eliminated the impossible, as Sherlock Holmes told Watson, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. This rule holds for presidential contests as well as for whodunits: Romney is improbable, but his rivals are impossible, and so he will be the nominee.

What’s more, Republicans have only themselves to blame for his inevitability. Romney owes his current position to two failures: the Bush era’s serial disasters, which left the Republican establishment without a strong bench of viable national politicians, and the Tea Party’s mix of zeal and naïveté, which has elevated cranks and frauds and future television personalities to the party’s presidential stage.

To date, neither the establishment nor the populists have come to terms with the failures of the last age of Republican dominance. And despite occasional flashes of creativity, neither has groped its way to a credible vision of what the next conservative era should look like.

What they have to offer instead is a largely opportunistic critique of a flailing liberal president. So it’s fitting that America’s most opportunistic politician is destined to be the standard-bearer for their cause.

[jay santos]

Mitt's best chance is that people's economic anxieties are so pronounced that they want a technocrat problem-solver more than a leader who can empathize with them.

Very insightful. Mitt's stiff, not very charismatic, not super likable. If he can convince everyone he's a business wiz, and if we keep getting bad economic news, he's got a chance. Things couldn't be stacking up better for him.

[TripletDaddy]

Very insightful. Mitt's stiff, not very charismatic, not super likable. If he can convince everyone he's a business wiz, and if we keep getting bad economic news, he's got a chance. Things couldn't be stacking up better for him.

Mitt has no answer on issues such as national security.

Obama now says, "I killed Osama bin Laden and I took the troops out of Iraq in Dec 2011."

Kind of hard to top that one.

I agree that the economy is Mitts only real chance. He isn't going to win on charisma.

[LA Ute]

that's it? that's all we got?

Well "we" is simply one English professor in Boise giving an entirely personal view. I don't think it should be read very broadly at all. It's a nice expression, whatever else might be said about it, IMO.

[il Padrino Ute]

Mitt has no answer on issues such as national security.

Obama now says, "I killed Osama bin Laden and I took the troops out of Iraq in Dec 2011."

Kind of hard to top that one.

I agree that the economy is Mitts only real chance. He isn't going to win on charisma.

I give Obama all the credit in the world for the killing of Bin Laden and Al-Awlaki. He made the correct decision for them to be taken out. But those things pale in comparison to the complete incompetence he has shown in everything else, especially the economy. People won't care that two terrorists are dead when they step into the voting booth.

[Uncle Ted]

Mitt has no answer on issues such as national security.

Obama now says, "I killed Osama bin Laden and I took the troops out of Iraq in Dec 2011."

Kind of hard to top that one.

I agree that the economy is Mitts only real chance. He isn't going to win on charisma.

Cool. Obama is finally getting around to doing the "first thing" he promised to do as president...

[YOUTUBE]zn134-KLL7Y[/YOUTUBE]

Can I "take it to the bank" or will it bounce?

[pellegrino]

A sincere expression of faith and how one's beliefs work in one's life while acknowledging legitimate issues of concern and fantastic claims can be effective.

Well "we" is simply one English professor in Boise giving an entirely personal view. I don't think it should be read very broadly at all. It's a nice expression, whatever else might be said about it, IMO.

Lest you think my response cold, I appreciated the English Professor in Boise's personal view, as it is similar to my own. However, if it indeed is a response to Hitchens then it comes away as . . . well, lacking. True, sincere expressions of faith can go a long way, but don't and perhaps can't really address the misrepresentations of Mormonism in Hitchens' article. I don't know what can without coming off as a complete apologist or over sensitive, but juxtaposing the two, Dr. Naylor seemed to come up short.

[oxcoug]

Mitt has no answer on issues such as national security.

Obama now says, "I killed Osama bin Laden and I took the troops out of Iraq in Dec 2011."

Kind of hard to top that one.

I agree that the economy is Mitts only real chance. He isn't going to win on charisma.

It's been clear for a long time that if Romney wins it will be by being the grownup on the economy and bringing his problem-solving HBS/Staples cred to the nation's economic battle.

But I disagree that Obama isn't vulnerable on foreign policy.

Taking the troops out of Iraq isn't necessarily going to be a win for Obama - in fact if Iraq's situation deteriorates in major ways as a result of the troop withdrawal it cld easily bite him.

His foreign policy in the Middle East is full of holes. The outspoken support of a revolutionary movement in Egypt helped collapse a regime that (even if ruthless and authoritarian) had at least contributed to stable relations with Israel - and that would be fine, if the White House hadn't taken months to speak out in support of what was arguably a more defensible movement in Syria (which was being far more brutally suppressed). And if they'd had any idea what was going to replace it - Egypt is getting uglier and could be an Islamist mess by the time the general election is under way.

Many of the same criticisms apply on Libya. Hooray, Gaddafi is dead - but to be replaced by what? There's already word that Libya 2.0 is going in for a bit Sharia law. Months after we had started supporting the bid for regime change in Libya there were still a lack of clarity about who the rebels were and why they deserved our support.

Anyway - I think there are plenty of areas where Romney will be able to challenge Obama on foreign policy and that there's some open space for him to draw up a competing foreign policy vision.

All that said - he'll win on the economy if he wins.

[myboynoah]

Lest you think my response cold, I appreciated the English Professor in Boise's personal view, as it is similar to my own. However, if it indeed is a response to Hitchens then it comes away as . . . well, lacking. True, sincere expressions of faith can go a long way, but don't and perhaps can't really address the misrepresentations of Mormonism in Hitchens' article. I don't know what can without coming off as a complete apologist or over sensitive, but juxtaposing the two, Dr. Naylor seemed to come up short.

To be fair, she wasn't responding specifically to Hitchens, but to this article run by Slate in 2006. The timing of her response suggested she might have been responding to Hitchens "in a fashion." I guess rather than coming off as a complete apologist or overly sensitive, she's choosing to simply state what her Mormonism means to her and her life. For me personally it would be much for satsifying if someone pointed out Hitchens' is misrepresentions, but that would probably be seen as splitting hairs or a matter of interpretation. The fantastic, unverifiable claims and odd practices remain.