There's a book review in this week's The New Yorker (March 19th issue), pages 72 through 77, that is well worth your reading.
It's about a biography of Mitt Romney: Helman, Scott, and Michael Kranish, The Real Romney; HarperCollins, 2012.
It isn't merely a book review. It's also a valuable synopsis of the contents of the book itself, and therefore a self-contained profile of the "leading" Republican candidate for the Presidency.
After reading it, I find myself converting from being dismissive of Mitt as a stumbling lightweight, to almost a fan! Certainly, I am now willing to vote for him.
As described by Helman and Kanish, Romney comes across as a worthy equivalent of Herman Cain: That is, a businessman who knows that government is a form of business, and that businesses must keep growing in product to remain alive.
Romney has the strike against him that he is a politician, not a statesman. But he has been a wildly successful businessman, a reviver of dying businesses, for his entire working life, and I believe that only a businessman can get us out of the economic fix in which we now find ourselves. We can find and elect a statesman later, once the country is economically healthy again.
But why would The New Yorker, a notoriously Liberal/Progressive magazine, publish a favorable review of a biography favorable to a Republican contender for the Presidency?
It's because the Liberal/Progressive left sees Romney as an old-style, consensus-building politician of a kind that hasn't occupied the Oval Office since well before Richard Nixon.
Well, I, too, believe that such a President would be good for the country. After reading this review, now not needing to actually read the book itself, I've decided that Romney gets my vote.
(This thread will also be published on the other forums to which I belong.)