I think he has too many negatives, and you’re right that the grass eaters won’t see his moderation as a virtue, or the lack of moderation of his opponents as a vice, to channel Barry Goldwater, one of the grassier of the grass eaters. As far as Adam Smith’s invisible hand, I suspect it is as illusory as the Easter Bunny; Smith is not exactly in good odor these days among most economists, given that his theories don’t seem to work in the real world.

As for #1, my question to you, Caleb is this: Is it always a strike against someone that they were born into a wealthy family? Can’t a person of means be just as good as one who was born into poverty or the middle class? As for your assertion about how he made his fortune, would you care to elaborate or are you just putting out broad accusations that no one can really prove? Being born rich does not give you the ability to run successful companies (like Bain) or operations (like the Olympics). Being rich does not give you the drive and brains to graduate summa cum laude and valedictorian of your college class. Being rich certainly helps one pay for Harvard, but it doesn’t make one earn a joint JD/MBA degree from Harvard Law and Harvard Business School, once again at the top of each class, both law and business.

And a startling difference between Romney and those you named, Caleb. I’m pretty darn sure none of them lived in a basement apartment, at $75/month, while in school.

Yes, he was born rich, but he’s more than “made his own way.” And as for making a fortune “investing other people’s money,” that is a skill, my friend, that doesn’t simply come to you because you were born rich. It takes brains to invest money and then turn a profit.

It’s been plain from other posts that you have some inherent intolerance for those of means. However, prejudice of that sort is no better than the prejudices of any other. It is wrong to place a man or woman into a generalization of your making simply because you don’t care for the group to which he/she belongs.

As to the questions, I only disagree with David’s answer to the first one. Mitt Romney is the son of George Romney, former governor of Michigan and head of American motors. He grew up rich, attended a yah yah private prep school in Michigan (though no one called him out on referring to it as a “high school,” the way they did when John Lindsay referred to St. Paul’s as a “high school”), and made a fortune investing other people’s money, often in ventures that those same conservative voters might find a bit uncouth. How is this an appealing background, other than for its similarities to those of John McCain, George W. Bush, and George H.W. Bush, none of whom were world beaters?

I know there’s the whole thing about the Olympics, but I suspect that if Romney’s role in that fiasco was properly examined, it wouldn’t be as spectacular as he advertises. Plus, his record in Massachusetts wasn’t all that conservative, and in order to appeal to the true believing grass eaters, you’ve got to be seen as more conservative than everyone else, something he definitely can’t do. Some of his programs in Mass actually helped working class people, and the national Republican party sure can’t stand that.

(No Caleb, I’m not “whining” about Mormon persecution. I’m simply stating the facts.)

Let’s be honest. Unless something major changes in the heads of the Christian right, Romney won’t be nominated because of the religious prejudices of that group, who control the nominating process in most states.

With the economy the way it was and still it, you would think that the GOP would have had the brains to nominate and the nation elect someone who actually understands the economics of this country. No way to prove it, but I would be that Romney would have come a lot closer to winning than McCain did. Perhaps the citizens of this nation will show more wisdom in the next election….but I doubt it.