PB, you're assuming Mittens is Barry 2.0 based on past political history. I mean with that logic, why wasn't Obama as liberal as he was as State Senator and U.S. Senator? For better or worse, Obama sold himself as the liberal alternative to Dubya America.

He got HCR (warts and all) passed, he repealed the idiotic DADT, and came close to making immigration reform with DREAM before it died. (Bill lacked fences apparently.) Not to mention fulfilling plans that Dubya had set in motion, of getting the fuck out of two Middle-Eastern countries that are draining us with little investment in return. Or for that matter, the great (if underreported) bill he signed that gave the FDA real teeth to enforce some health standards. Or for that matter, in foreign policy doing what Dubya tried and failed to do for years: get both Russia and China onboard for Iran sanctions.

Mittens isn't Clinton, who visibly sold himself in '92 as a "New" Democrat, who was pro-choice and pro-HCR and all that, but also was for fiscal responsibility. With swagger, charisma, and the fact his party was tired of losing nationally...he prevailed.

Now imagine if Clinton had that Arkansas record for fiscal moderate conservatism, but on the national stage sold it down the river as being a major mistake of his after the base went insane and said outright this was an unacceptable mistake.

Mittens is now selling himself as a Reagan conservative, totally disowning his one term as a moderate GOP Governor in a very blue as hell state. His most remarkable achievement in that administration, one which in saner times would've been a great national campaign selling point...it's his greatest political achievement as an executive, and he treats it an albatross, or the local leper.

I don't perceive the guy as someone who can mold, shape the party to whatever directions he aspires to. If people think Obama is weak-kneed (which at times, I think they might be accurate), Mittens suffers from the same ailment. Dreaming him as the sane warden of an insane asylum is quite optimistic, to say the least. He'll be as effective as the warden of Arkham Asylum, if he even tries. And I really doubt it.

Quite frankly, what has Mittens offered in current campaign in his America that's uniquely his in proposal? The only one I heard was his idea to tie the Federal wage into the CPI, which is an interesting, compelling idea. (Or has he disowned that too during the primaries and I missed it?) Otherwise he's selling himself as the American CEO who can get jobs back, unemployment down, and kill that evil Obamacare that's a bastard grandchild of his.

But that last line, that's the party speaking. A party that really invests public debate time and money in fighting the great evils of evolution and gay people, the latter trying to get equal civil rights being the greatest threat in America today. A party that doesn't want just war with Iran, they want Iraq 2.0, unilateral invasion and occupation. Because we have another trillion dollars and thousands of good folks left to spare. Remember Mittens mentioning two magic words at a debate: "regime change!"

Once upon a time, Romney championed a rather conservative approach to national HCR, which inspired Obamacare. It's not great, it's got flaws, but it's a start. The first foot in the door, which I hope is further reformed and expanded in the future to make it better. He could've sold himself as an Eisenhower Republican: Big government isn't evil and bad in general or principle, just only the big obtruse, unefficient, money-sucking agents of our government.

No he's a Reagan Republican, selling the 1980s for 2011. He's Reagan without the charm, grace, or inspiration. Or cool compelling new proposals.

(Plus he's an asshole. I don't hate him because he's an asshole, I don't like him because he's an asshole. Clinton was an asshole, but do people immediately think that? Of course not. Big difference.)