So many candidates end up doing the opposite of what they promise while campaigning (Wilson “kept us out of war”; FDR was going to balance the budget in 1932 and keep us neutral in 1940; Nixon was a conservative who ended up ending the gold standard, imposing price controls, and enacting the EPA). It seems it might be better to look at part achievements and political, and personal character. The Presidency is unlikely to be remembered for what the campaigns emphasized.

On that score, Romney may be faithful to his wife and nice to his children, but politically he’s as round-heeled as they come. McCain seems to have the courage of his convictions, even if they’re often wrong. Fill in the rest: Giuliani _________; Huckabee: _________. Hillary: __________; Obama: ___________.

As I said in another combox, Jonathan Swift was wise to prefer horses. Now if only a stallion could live to 35 and wield a veto pen.

My anti-Romney critiques are probably not the best I could manage, but I’m not sure how I could improve them. I grant that it has become almost reflexive and instinctive at this point, so it is probably not as interesting to read as it might be. I understand the pragmatic case for supporting Romney (he will stop Giuliani, etc.), and I have recently heard some interesting arguments that he is such an opportunist that he will never be taken over by ideological passions and fantasies, which could be to the benefit of all of us. Still, someone who seems to have no enduring principles bothers me. On paper and on the surface, Romney says many of the right things…at the moment. Even so, his foreign policy strikes me as deeply misguided, so I don’t see how I could support him even if I believed him on his many other changes of heart. His foreign policy advisors are not notoriously awful, but that doesn’t necessarily prove anything. In 2000, Bush’s advisors sounded reasonably sane and that didn’t last long.

… Romney is an opportunistic fraud.

If the ideological purity of Ron Paul is the standard by which candidates are measured, then what you say is true. Otherwise, your words conflate opportunism with opportunity; and, as far as fraudulence is concerned, I cannot change your mind, but the charge is simply unfactual and untrue by any measure I would regard as remotely balanced or fair.

I am a Romney supporter (more precisely, I a Duncan Hunter supporter who realizes that Mr. Hunter will lose, and who will vote Romney if and when Mr. Hunter retires from the race; but Mr. Hunter is beside the present point). I think that you should be a Romney supporter, too. Fat chance, you say? Fair enough, but, Daniel, your anti-Romney game is little higher than Charles Mitchell’s anti-Huckabee game in my view. You can do better.

Regarding Charles Mitchell, the website he writes for used to be pretty good until David French donned his reservist’s uniform and decamped for Iraq. Nancy French, left in charge, seems to demand obesiance from her blogger’s court there—which is her perogative, but my perogative is just to ignore her. I have no clearer an idea of how many Romney supporters concur with my view regarding that website than you have—I would imagine that many at least would concur—but that really is irrelevant. If the Frenches like to support Mr. Romney, great. If Mrs. French holds court there, whatever. I would not take her website too seriously if I were you; it has a nice photo of Mr. Romney but doesn’t really reflect on anything meaningful.

If you aren’t a fan of democracy (and I’m definitely not)….

I regret that I agree with you on this point.

I’’m holding off commenting more about the speech for a while….

Wise. Let the man speak first, then criticize. The MSM would be wise to emulate your behavior in this.

You are correct that the specific criticism of Mr. Huckabee you cite merits little respect.

Of course there’s no legal religious test, nor should there be, but if the majority is down on certain forms of heterodoxy, or down on divorce, as it was way back when, who is to gainsay them? I don’t see why it’s any worse for Huckabee to play to the evangelical churches than it is for Democrats to campaign in black churches and “donate” to their ministers, or for Bill Clinton to build solidarity with certain types by joking about his astroturf truck bed and why he put it in.

As it happens, this voter has no more difficulty voting for a practicing Mormon than for a lapsed or “cafeteria” Catholic. The Mormons I know tend to be solid citizens and their religion seems not to affect their politics either consistently or negatively. The Udalls, Harry Reid, Ezra Taft Benson, Orrin Hatch and the tergiversating Mitt are (or were) all Mormons. Frankly, “social gospel” Protestants like Hillary worry me as much as most on that list.

Others may not feel the same way. That’s what makes democracy–and horse races. On the whole, like Jonathan Swift, I prefer horses.