In response to:

Mitt-Stake

RG_in_CA Wrote: Apr 28, 2012 1:14 PM
... continued 2) With point 1 in mind, the President’s job is technically that of an executive, in other words carrying out the functions of government. Although successful presidents must be good leaders, and they have tremendous latitude to set policy, it is not necessary for them to lead public opinion as much as to be sensitive to it and gain consensus for it. It is our job as citizens to elect people who will see the job as a mandate to enact a popular agenda, not their own. I think Mr. Romney would be far superior in this respect than 4 more years of Mr. Obama’s personal agenda. I recognize that this is not a perfect solution, but sometimes perfection is the enemy of good enough! Best regards, Rick G., California

There is raging debate within American Christendom about what to do with Mitt Romney. Three schools of thought have emerged.

The first group is trying to put lipstick on a pig by pretending that Romney didn’t deliver the kill-shot to marriage in Massachusetts, didn’t beat Obama to the punch with government-mandated healthcare that included taxpayer-funded child killing, hasn’t at some point taken a liberal position on every issue, isn’t a self-proclaimed champion of gay rights, and hasn’t been caught lying and flip-flopping more times than you can say John Kerry. These are the Republican-firsters. They have no king but the chairman...