As  I was saying, even though the campaigning has been going on, and on, and on, since February, it is now less than a year til the general election and only one month til the Iowa caucuses.  Therefore I am ready to endorse and my choice is Mitt Romney.

We haven't seen this good of combination of style and substance since Ronald Reagan, but this time it is even better.  Romney is the yan to Reagan's yin who suffered the perception of being all, or more, style than substance.  While Romney has no shortage of charisma his success in the real world, a.k.a. the private sector, gives him the edge on substance. With his command of the facts listening to him is like listening to an audio encyclopedia, and while that delivery may not be as polished and professional as Reagan's it is related with both empathy and authority.  That's a tough trick because too much of the former makes you look like a panderer and too much of the latter makes you look condescending, like that other Bostonian, John Kerry, and his annoying know-it-all tone. That Romney can legitimately speak from successful experience in both the private and public sectors gives him an authenticity no other candidate, from either side, can claim.  Heartlanders appreciate the difference between ideas and a track record.    

Weaknesses? Sure, there is no perfect candidate, but of all the those running I see Romney's  as less debilitating than any of the others. There are only 2 biggies form what I can tell, and both are surmountable.

1) Flip floppery.  This narrative seems to have taken root and will persist.  We can thank the effectiveness of the famous John Kerry wind surfing video for making this accusation the bread and butter of negative campaigning.  Think about it though, if the worst thing you can say about a candidate is that he said what he had to say to get votes you will have indicted every politician to who ever ran.  It's like accusing the Pope of being religious!  It is part and parcel of the process and no serious thinker gives these charges credence. Show me a candidate who didn't do this and I'll show you a candidate who lost. I have listened to Romney's explanations behind specific position shifts and they seem credible enough, but then I'm not dumb enough to either hold out for the perfect candidate or believe such a thing exists.

2) Mormonism.  Don't know much about that religion and don't really care.  I'm not voting for a preacher in chief and so long as he keeps it to himself I couldn't give a wit.  I've seen or read nothing that shows he wears his religion on his shirtsleeve, a welcome departure from the current occupant in the Oval Office.  That he can lead on family values by example instead of rhetoric only helps.  By any reasonable reading, the constitution is religion neutral.  It prohibits the establishment of a state religion and guarantees the right to freely practice the faith of your choice, privately.  Romney offers a unique secenario where both the radical right and radical left form an unlikely alliance to keep him from imposing that religion on us.     

An added bonus is that, if successful, the fundamentalist right-wing Christians will be marginalized, and, ideally, balanced, or replaced if they resort to their infantile tendency of keeping their votes and staying home, by the more libertarian, fiscally oriented wing.  I am banking on the hope that all fundamentalists lost by Romney's Mormonism will be offset by his wider appeal to us religious neutrals.  My guess is that this is exactly why the Democrats fear him most. 

This is not to diminish the religious rights historic contribution or ignore that they have been key to certain victories.  It is only to finally address the idea that religious zealotry in politics repels more than it attracts and in the larger scheme of things has been a detriment to the conservative movement as a whole.  Fundamentalists cannot be its voice and face if conservatism is to grow. You've heard my reference to the brilliant William Safire quote before but it is more appropriate now than ever; "conservatives should welcome the religious right on the bus, but not behind the wheel", or something like that.

Besides, those who want to, and are hellbent on, replacing the constitution with the new testament are not true patriots - - and belong under the bus.
 

Even though we may be as politically polarized as ever, general elections are still won or lost in the middle.  Period. I think the Democrats have alienated enough moderates over the past few years that the time is more ripe than ever, especially after 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush, for someone more focused on cooperative pragmatism than divisive politics to emerge, win, and lead.  Romney is uniquely qualified, religion and all, to seize this opportunity.  He's got the intellect, private and public sector credentials, and a demeanor that exudes competence, confidence, and collegiality.  We have not seen a candidate of this magnitude in my lifetime, which started during the Eisenhower term. 

I only hope that as America gets to know Romney these things become as apparent to them as they are to me.

One last thing, with his Michigan upbringing, he is the closest thing to a Heartlander the Republicans have to offer.  As such he may also offer the best hope of breaking the you-have-to-be-southern-to-win trend we've been in since the early 90's.  If the Romney campaign is as sharp as their candidate they will appeal to Iowa voters regional loyalties to thwart the Hucksterbee from Hope.