Good thing for Romney that he never served in the military, lest the Democrats use that against him.

The "story" of Romney is that of the silver spoon. Nobody believes that he can actually achieve something since he hasn't to this point in his life. He has existed in a segment of society specifically created to ensure that wealthy people have wealthy children, who have wealthy and unchallenging lives.

John Kerry and his wife's privalage rolled into one.

I will acknowledge my bias, but isn't Mitt Romney the embodiment of everything they accused Kerry of being in 2004? Kerry's flip-flops were of the "I voted for it before I voted against it" variety, and the opposition exploited the average voter's ignorance of the process to make it sound absurd. Romney has literally completely changed his position on major issues according to the political winds. Kerry was accused of being an out-of-touch rich guy because he used phrases like "would that it were," but Romney talks about his wife's multiple Cadillacs and how he enjoys firing people.

Everyone said Kerry was such an awful candidate, but it always felt like that impression was unfairly created by the right. But with Romney, he actually is that guy! I've tried to step outside my bias and try to find a fair comparison, but i can't do it. Am i just that biased?

@3: One can be biased, and objectively correct at the same time.

@1 So in the 2004 election, which non-veteran's supporters used the military against the veteran candidate? I forget..."Swift Boat" something something...

The Romney camp has been invoking the "Obama v Hillary" analogy to describe the race for the GOP nomination for months now.

How can on earth can they still not understand that in that scenario, Romney is Clinton -- the well-healed, presumptive nominee defeated over the long haul -- and not now, or ever, will he be the next Barack!

Romney as a candidate is even worse than Kerry. Kerry at least had a bio as somebody who (in his younger days at least) stood up for what he believed in even if it proved harmful to him or his political career.

Case in point -- the Vietnam War.

Kerry volunteered for service in Vietnam even though he didn't have to (as a member of the Naval Reserve his first duty was on a ship in the Tonkin Gulf; after several months he volunteered for duty on a swift boat, a much more dangerous assignment).

After seeing first hand what a disaster the war was, Kerry and the other officers reported that the "free-fire zone" policy was alienating the Vietnamese and that the Swift boats' actions were not accomplishing their ostensible goal of interdicting Viet Cong supply lines.

After the war, instead of keeping his mouth shut, he helped create Vietnam Veterans Against the War and protested the conduct of the war. Partially because of this he lost his first political campaign.

Romney has no such bio. His whole life has been about making as much money as possible. During the Vietnam War he counter protested anti war protesters. He himself didn't serve in Vietnam though, since he got a deferment to go be a Mormon missionary in France instead. While in France he lived in a castle.

It's actually much more trickier than the 2008 Democrat race.

It's pretty clear that a Romney is the only one of the four who can remotely challenge Obama in the general election.

However, intra-party he cannot command a majority. At the same time, the other three are contending for the majority -- in aggregate -- of votes. They are essentially acting as political "wingmen" to draw off the paleo-conservatives so that Romney can win among the more mainstream moderate voters.

@7, and that's exactly why Romney is a viable candidate: he has no bio that rightwingers object to. Republicans don't think devoting your life to making money is objectionable. Bush won partly because the Dems didn't realize that Americans thought Kerry--who had served in the war but came back and protested it--was a traitor, and Bush--who read magazines in Texas during the war--was not.

@9, other than belonging to a "cult", you may be right.

The audacity of meh.

I wonder if people just dismiss the Mormonness of Romney. It's pretty hard to imagine him in magic underwear. It's hard to imagine him in ANY underwear. Romney voters don't want to imagine that and he doesn't force them to.

Very interesting post and associated comments.

Of course, another little-discussed reason for Bush defeating Kerry in 2004 has to do with rigging the vote in Ohio.

Republicans (and many others) believe that running a government is just like running a large business. You have expenses that are less than your gross profit and you make investments to grow the business and maintain your margin of profit. Of course a government is not a business, but that's what they think. So presenting yourself as a business leader, like Dubya and Romney and Ross Perot did (remember his charts and how I'mpressed people were?), is a positive for a lot of people. Given a choice between a corporate suite and a community organizer, many will opt for the more "serious" candidate with the hard nose for the bottom line.

@8: This is a little off topic, but you have no bleeding idea what a wingman is.

@5

Not that I'm a fan of the man, but actually, GW Bush is a veteran. He served with the 147th Reconnaissance Wing of the Texas Air National Guard and also with the 187th Fighter Wing of the Alabama Air National Guard (at least that's his story).

What burned my a*s the most about that "Kerry's service wasn't real military service," bulls**t from the 2004 campaign were the band-aids with purple hearts printed on them that the party faithful proudly wore at the GOP convention. Classy...

@8, @15

Sorry to pile on, but @8 pretty much describes in his post the exact opposite of a wingman.

A commentary from the US Air Force as to what makes a wingman:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID…

Full disclosure: I had to look it up myself.