Before that, wanta know what my problem isn't with Mitt Romney?
What the Washington Post's resident twit, Kathleen Parker, says it is:
Michael Medved, trying to figure out why Republicans don’t love Romney, pointed to his lack of anger. These are angry times and people want their leader to be ticked off, surmised Medved. He may be right, both in theory and in his conclusion: This passion for anger is not good for the country.Romney's a nice guy. He therefore deserves our consideration.
Others insist that Romney can’t earn people’s confidence because he’s too squeaky clean. Few can identify with a man who never touches coffee or alcohol, whose hair is as precise as the crease in his pants. Or, put another way, the figures in his business ledgers?
He seems preternaturally unflappable, which to some is too robotic, not-quite-human. We like some fallibility in our leaders and flaws in our protagonists. Perhaps Romney would benefit from a slight imperfection or some other handicap over which he has struggled.
Or might kindness and humility be handicaps in a mean, self-infatuated world?
Which tells me that maybe we're being too harsh with that assistant football coach at Penn State who was raping little boys in the locker room. He was always so pleasant afterwards.
Earth to Kathleen Parker: You missed the point (intentionally?). Mitt Romney - whether it be on the gun control issue or the climate issue or the abortion issue or the health care issue - can't be trusted. He has positioned himself - conveniently - cynically - on both sides of each. If you're concerned about issues, how do you support a guy who promotes none? Or who promotes all sides of every issue, depending on the time of day and the circumstance?
You want a nice guy? Support Obama.
Oh. Wait. She did.