is that still a legitimate conversation...or a really ignorant question?

"Altruistic Executive"...isn't that an oxymoron? There's an Oedipal aspect to this that's been missed. Romney's dad was prexy of a failing auto company. His dad breathed some life into it, but essentially gave it the strategy that would kill it...making poorly engineered, not very profitable small cars. Romney Sr also flamed out as a presidential candidate. He was too liberal and too uncharismatic for where the GOP was going. Mitt will do anything to avoid that. Sound familiar...yeah, another Bush. This one knows how to run a business, but his core is just as shallow and flawed in many of the same ways.

You have five sons and you haven’t been able to convince even one of them to join the military and “Fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here”. So why should my sons, or anyone’s sons for that matter, join the military and be on the front lines of this war? If you can’t convince your own kids to do it why should anyone else sacrifice their lives for this war?

It seems to me you support this war right up to the point where it might actually affect your family and then it seems the rules change.

Well, come on Mitt, you have FIVE sons. I want to see at least one of them in Iraq before I can believe anything you say.

Let’s see some “Real Patriotism” from your family!

Hey! This "corporate branding" thing is a cinch! How about this one: "Mitt Romney for President. Nobody can outsource THIS outsourcer!"

This is just off the top of my head, so it may need a little tweaking, but here goes: "Why NOT Mitt Romney? You trusted the drunkard son of a failed President twice, but you don't trust Mitt because he's a Mormon? Aw, come on, now! That's not fair!"

Okay, one more for the road: "You want Big Love? Vote Mitt Romney for President!"

Note to Romney campaign: Yes, I'm available.

P.S. I charge by the word.

Competition is the way that American busines used to work. Now, the principle is:

1) Using every economic advantage, drive your competitors out of business or merge with them on terms favorable to you.

2) Eliminate every alternative to the use of your product so that you become a necessity.

3) Once the nation requires your product and can't get alternatives, raise the price and lower the quality.

Like most business philosophy, it's a religion - specifically a pagan faith - not a way of accomplishing something. And it's not much more sophisticated than the philosophy of The Underpants Gnomes:

1) Get underpants.

2) ??????

3) PROFIT!

Isn't this the same thing as the Bush philosophy?

His gaffe on Iraq: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3112

Maybe that will, ultimately, make him the most beatable Republican candidate. That's why I like him so much.

Firstly, full disclosure: I'm an Australian Mormon left-winger.

That might be confusing for anyone who tried to figure out if I'm part of Romney's natural constituency. So, the answer is (1) No, because I'm an Australian and don't get to vote in US elections [and that's more than just a glib point - political divides are very different from one country to another], and (2) no, because if (1) were not the case, I'd still vote for a Democrat. Would I vote for Romney then just because he's a Mormon? Nope, not a chance. But neither am I particularly scared by him.

As an insider-and-outsider, my take on Romney is that, shockingly, he and his family are the genuine article. In Scherer's portrait (quite a fair one, actually), he pondered whether the aw-shucks way Romney and his sons communicated was how they really interacted. For my money, I would say it probably is. I don't know the Romneys at all - but I've met many Mormon families who really are like that (not mine, by the way, but then I didn't grow up Mormon). From knowing other LDS families who are amazingly non-dysfunctional in the way the Romneys seem to be, I find it quite easy to believe that what you see is what you get.

And that, really, is Romney's problem. Most people don't come from that kind of family, and they do find it hard to relate when they see the picture-perfect family at work and play. And so they call them plastic, fakes, cyborgs, or all the other terms that reject the idea that they could be real.

I like Romney. I think he's the real deal. I might even have voted for the old Romney (which I think is a much truer representation what he truly feels), the one who stood up and said he'd fight for gay rights, staunchly supported a woman's right to choose on abortion, and at least made a real effort on universal health insurance in his State. He's still there, in the man who recently responded to a question from a lesbian mother with courtesy and warmth, even while unable to agree on the question of marriage.

I think it's terribly sad that he's had to mask his natural sympathetic qualities for the purposes of running a conservative campaign. I strongly dislike his words on Iraq and Guantanamo, even though I like the guy and think he would be far less the captive of the conservative right as President than the incumbent. I think he'd run a tight ship, and I think he'd be the kind of President everyone now says Reagan was (but really wasn't at the time).

So, I'm not the least bit scared of the idea of President Romney. But I still wouldn't vote for him, even if I could.

Is he Jim Anderson, or Ward Cleaver? Or the guy on the wedding cake jumped down and became a governor.

The armpit-sniffing Chris Matthews, who has been musing of late over how guys might smell, ("I'll bet he smells like Aqua Velva") thinks Romney "looks like a president, doesn't he?"

Well, hell's bells. If he looks like a president, and smells like a president, then who cares what goes on in his head. Let's elect him right away. He looks so damned good. Line up and get a wiff of Mitt.

He rhymes with ...