Mitt does have a chance. In the past year the two top contenders for the Republican nomination have self-destructed.

That's a pretty rare thing, since you can usually predict the Republican nominee two to three years out very reliably (every time since 1968, the leader two and a half years out has won the R nomination without ever facing a change in momentum).

This past year Frist, the heir apparent, has made a mess of the Senate and George Felix Macaca Allen, the next choice, has embarassed himself too much.

That leaves the Reps looking at Hutchison (from Arkansas, the cradle of presidents?) and Romney as their frontrunners. The situation is fluid now but contenders who never would have had a chance before now can compete on the R side.

I just hope we'll be as open on the D side.

McCain is hated by the R base voters, so he wouldn't normally have a chance but with early primaries in NV, UT, NM, and AZ he may pull far enough ahead to survive Super Tuesday and pull out a surprise. Don't count on it.

If you want Mitt to become President, you might find some comfort at www.evangelicalsformitt.com. Also, you should feel grateful that this Boston Globe generated brouhaha that the LDS Church and BYU will support Romney's presidential run is raging now and not during the summer of 2008.

Well, I suppose it's the "popular" thing to dismiss Mitt - but I think that the very things you pointed out will actually help him.

It's hard to paint him as a "hard core" conservative when he's coming from Kennedy-Kerry land. He can point out his accomplishments as govenor. Also, he's starting to make the rounds speaking - and has been getting a lot of favorable press.

On top of that - even though he's living in New England, he's not your typical East Coast squishy Republican, a la Olympia Snowe, Licoln Chafee, etc.

And Brian makes excellent points about others running - a bunch of Senators, who never do well (yet them seem to run in droves every 4 years), including McCain who has alienated too much of the Republican base to get very far. Also, the whole mess with campaign finance can be laid at his feet (nice job getting the "money out of politics" there McCain) - plus, he's too cozy with the liberal press.

Allen has shot himself in the foot too many times to be considered a serious contender now. Everybody thinks Frist is incompetent - Harry Reid gets more media than Frist does - and Harry's the minority leader.

While I think Newt would be interesting - because he is definitely an idea person - I think he has too much baggage to be a legitamit contender - might be a good vp pick though.

What we need to look at are GOP govenors - because that's where the majority of presidents come from. The only serious name I've heard is Mike Huckabee. And I don't even know if he's considering running.

Rudy Guliani is too "moderate" (much more so that Mitt), as is Pataki.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

I think Mitt's chances are looking pretty good. I think we'll see a lot of stuff start happening in January '07.

It's interesting how the far right and far left are so concerned about running a moderate through their primary gauntlet. The moderate likely has the highest chance of winning against the apposing party in the general election. Rep. Matheson might well be a good example of this. He must pull some votes from moderate Republicans and the independents to keep winning in this state. Mitt would be a good candidate in a general election because he is more of a moderate and may pull the independents and some Democrats. McCain might be the same way. However, Mitt is more moderate than most Republicans will like in the White House. (I'm a moderate, and I'd vote for him over a party leftist like Hillary Clinton in a general election... if he weren't a Mormon (just joking)).

Well, a friend of mine received a letter to a non existing man yesterday. It was from the Mitt Romney Massachusets PAC, for Iowa and Michigan, asking for you to fill out a survey on several subjects, including Jihadist and immigration, to name a few, but then the letter also request you to contribute money. I found it very odd since the address on the envelope was from Boston, no post mark or indecia or zip to indicate where it actually came from.

The letter was to be sent back an address in DC. What is odder, is that say if you wrote to an elected member of congress in another state you would more than likely get a letter back that they could not help you as they do not represent you. That seems fair to me. So, why would the Mitt PAC ask a Utahn for money? This despite the fact that the LDS church claims it is not trying to help Mitt Romney for a presidential election.

Mitt doesn't have a chance to be elected President and it has everything to do with the literalist Christian (a much more accurate term than Evangelical) base.

If that base is still the ruling base of the Republican party, bigotry will keep them from electing Mitt. 38% of Americans won't elect a Mormon, certainly that number is higher amongst literalist Christians. I was a Mormon missionary a few years ago and I distinctly remember how we were received by a diverse population in California. Far and away black Baptists were the most friendly and Christ like. Catholics were also very friendly and respectful. The most bigoted people I have ever encountered in my life are literalist white Christians. Most live in fear of anyone different than they (gays, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, atheists, liberals, etc). That fear prevents them from seeing people for who they are- even if common values are shared. Mitt could be the best possible candidate and President AND share all of their values, but it won't matter because this is a group of people motivated by and whom view the world through fear and hate.

It's clear to me that Mitt is attempting to duplicate Bush's 2000 and 2004 strategy of using existing religious organizations to mobilize a base for election day. I think that there is a distinct possibility that literalist Christians will become disinterested in politics beginning in 2006 due to inaction against those things that literalist Christians fear (Muslims, gays, illegal immigrants, activist liberal judges). IF that happens, the GOP returns to it's libertarian/economic philosphical base and religion will thankfully be spared any more harm by the literalist political Christians.

I think Mitt has a chance even if he loses much of the evangelical base. I am a moderate republican, who votes democratic when faced with an evangelical republican conservative candidate. I think lots of moderate republican or conservative dems might share my middle road view. Mitt, while conservative on his expressed views on moral issues and defense issues, may be viewed as an acceptable candidate by moderate voters of either party because of his record and his inclusive style.

I don't know anything about Mitt Romney except that he pledged alligience to the Mormon Church.
What exactly is he doing now? Is he unemployed??