Yes, Mitt Romney is finally the pretty-sure, just-about, inevitable nominee. You can tell because he and the President are now criticizing each other by name. Sigh. It's going to be a long seven months.
And he wouldn't be a terrible president. I'd hope for something along the lines of a H.W. Bush. (Heaven forbid the W without the H!). We know what we have with President Obama. About half of us think he's just fine or even good. About a quarter of us absolutely detest him for reasons I'm still trying to understand. The remaining quarter aren't much in favor of him either, but without all the birtherism or other suspicions that he is somehow just "not one of us."
It seems to me that the principal characterizations of each, used both in positive and negative ways depending on which side you find yourself, do tend to draw a clear distinction about what we want for the future of the country - and what it is our country is about. Do we want to strive to be an organized community? or a profitable company?
The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution gives us a purpose that We the People are trying to form a more perfect Union which tends toward the need for an organized community. But to pay for the common defense and provide for the general welfare all take money and it would be helpful if we were a profitable company. And we've got to do it all somehow in a way that still establishes justice, ensures domestic tranquility, and secures the blessings of liberty. Fortunately, we have the rest of the Constitution that gives us a lot of process to work those things out.
We need a little of both. If only there was a way to get the Community Organizer and the Profitable Company man to work together with their respective talents to accomplish good for us all. We have to choose one or the other, but that doesn't mean we can't take good from each and find the common ground. After all, it is we the people, not one person, who is ultimately in charge of our more perfect Union.