Considering Mitt Romney for President...

Let's start with Dennis Prager who says that it's values that matter, not theology:

[T]he theological beliefs of a public figure should matter only when one is choosing a theological leader, never a political leader - unless those beliefs form the basis of social and moral values that one abhors. It is very important to know the theological beliefs of one's clergyman or the head of one's seminary, but as far as the head of one's country is concerned, only his moral and social values matter. I would much sooner vote for an agnostic whose values I shared than for a believing Christian or Jew whose values I did not share.

I couldn't agree more with that. Spot on.

Now, if you didn't watch/listen to it last week, please take 20 minutes to listen to Romney's "Religion in America" speech:


I was thoroughly impressed with that speech. Awesome. It has me giving Mitt a second look and I'm liking what I'm seeing/hearing. Is he too polished... too slick of a politician? I thought so, but I'm becoming a Mitt fan. I just wish Thompson would make a move!

Finally, click the magazine cover in the top right of the post (or here) for National Review's endorsement. This critique of Huck's foreign policy acumen from yesterday is also worth reading... clearly a primer for the Romney endorsement as Huck and Mitt are the two getting most of the attention at the moment.

I'll add more to this post later. In the mean time, consider Mitt Romney for President.

Update: More commentaty from RedState.com :

... The most important thing for me, however, is that wherever the candidates stand from issue to issue, I believe that Mitt Romney will make the best President of the group. I believe that he will be the best person at managing the monster that is the federal bureaucracy, shrinking its size, and advancing conservative causes wherever there is opportunity.

This country and this Party need Mitt Romney.

Peggy Noonan has some thoughts on the speech too that are worth checking out.