How do you solve a problem like Mitt Romney

-he'll act like the head of the national Republican party.

It's not clear that such is true, in part because it's not clear that Romney's Republican Party is the same as, for example, Huckabee's Republican Party. For example, it seems straightforwardly true that GHWB was, in many ways, closer to Clinton on policy than his to his son.

I guess I should have made it explicit that I believe that the GOP has undergone a fundamental change in the last 15 (and more importantly six) years. But that as far as, say, taxes and war go, we're not going to see--for a very long time at least--a Republican candidate who hasn't called for tax cuts and war win his parties nomination, and that every Repbulican who gets elected will be basically forced to cut taxes and gin up wars.

Brian,

With respect, I disagree. If you really wanted to know what President Romney will be like as a leader, probably the best example is that of when he led the Olympics rescue. Read "Turnaround" if you want a candid, unvarnished look under the hood at his leadership style.

But probably more important is what he plans and promises. GMR is a master strategist whose reputation is one of solid execution against a plan. Basically, whatever GMR plans or promises, he delivers. Without exception that is absolutely true. It was always true in his business world, his church leadership, his leadership of the Olympics rescue, and his leadership as governor. Clearly, his campaign leadership is amazing.

So the bigger question is this: "Do I like what Gov. Romney promises me? Do I like what Gov. Romney tells us his plans are and how he will execute those plans?" If I don't like what he is saying, GMR is not my candidate; not at all. Because his reputation is such that he will deliver what he promises. Sure he will be hampered by idiot liberals, but he has the reputation of executing to his plans under every imaginable obstacle. Just look at the first year of his taking over the Olympics; they could easily have failed in many ways that first year.

I guess I should have made it explicit that I believe that the GOP has undergone a fundamental change in the last 15 (and more importantly six) years.

Mmm. I think I disagree pretty strongly. The party looks like it's in serious flux. I think the last six years have been the apex of a long running change in the party, and the funding end of the party hates the result. I don't know what they do next, but I don't think it's shocking that the two front runners are possible Northeastern social moderates. And I don't see Romney ginning up another war, though he'll be happy to fuck with the policy on the one we've got.

If by "fundamental change" you mean "descent into chaos", then I agree.

Vic - the ability to (successsfully) deliver what one promises is inversely proportional to the size of the system one is working within. Some of those "idiot liberals" as you call them, are as determined as GMR, smarter, and not joined at the hip to a (some would say strange) religious doctrine.