Bizzy - I think that Mitt says plenty of garbage but I don't think you can really dismantle his character because he's rich. If he'd some real skeletons in his closet everyone would be all over them but the reality is he's probably the cleanest republican candidate in a long time, no affairs, law abiding, devout, financially astute etc. The real issue for most people, if I'm reading the posts right, is deep down a dislike of Mormonism. I get that, it's human nature but it's going to have an impact on this election and cloud peoples judgement and potentially elect the wrong person for the current job.
Grown ups really shouldn't be worried about too much make up, someone's religious underwear, how they once transported their dog on a family holiday, out of context sound bites, how blind trusts invest money for candidates, who mows their lawn, how their secretary filled in a tax return etc. these things are fluff and insignificant when weighed against what is at stake. When someone presents themselves to the public they try to meet their needs ( when you stood up to do speaking assignments in the KH you will have dressed according to the group standards, spoken using group language, adopted group mentalities even if you internally disagreed or wanted to be somewhere else .) Mitt isn't a good public relations person, while he's a good public speaker he isn't great and his campaign have definitely made some poor choices.
Mitt's party however, is in a bind, it put forward ultra religious right wing candidates as the response to a financial crisis, in effect they are trying to make this election about anti-gay , anti-abortion social issues and only have one unifying 'financial' policy ( get rid of Obama's medical program) which deep down is simply another social policy to many republicans. In short they are fighting the wrong issue , they are mentally standing on a social platform not a financial one while deep down they know, everyone knows, that the financial problems far exceed tinkering with social laws so they grudgingly nominated one of the two candidates with the relevant skillset ( Huntsmen didn't even get a look in as he was simply unwilling to pander .) They've ended up with the right candidate because even extremists can be pragmatic but many secretly detest him because they know he's a moderate so is unlikely to push a far right religious agenda.
Mitt is now in a horrendous position. The job he's applied for , 'country in crisis - finances broken - harsh , painful choices needed - economist required' , fits his CV perfectly. It should be a shoe in ( Obama isn't a financial genius or a ruthless businessman). The problem is that suddenly the job 'interview' has ceased to be about the real issues but has meandered into trivial and lurid questions about Mormonism ( which skillset wise seems, after Judaism, to be spot on, hard work, self sufficiency and pragmatic action), farcical discussions about tax returns, comparing apples and oranges ( how dare he lay people off as a businessman!) , utterly made up character smears ( his blind trust invested in what!, his lawn company hired illegals-my gosh move to impeach) and endless nit picking. This isn't a case of Nero fiddling, this is a mass public orchestra and everyone's tuning up.
Can the publically likeable, social reformer and great public speaker, Obama, turn his skills to an economy in crisis ( and will the Republican house simply obstruct him anyway) or can the publically crass, moderate with meh speaking skills but undoubted financial genius focus on the economy and make the hard choices to speed a recovery?
Of course for most people its more fun to speculate about underwear, fiddles to the ready.
Paul Ryan likened a mechanism to control health care spending to "death panels," during a town hall at the University of Central Florida in Orlando on Saturday.