OK, Mr. Eugenidies--your posting stands on its own in solidarity with your militant atheist brethren--even as you don't wish to bring people to that conclusion.  OK.  You are entitled to stand where you wish even if it is militant but then again, not really.  I think I've got it but pardon me if I don't, exactly.  I understand your need for imprecision.

 It is fine to oppose Mitt Romney for President but plainly ridiculous to call him a "moron" with such raw contempt.  The fact that you make the accusation and document it with nothing except some story about a dog in a car is classic of the Left--make the accusation and then runaway.  As for the much mentioned offense that Romney did not include every American in his appeal to national unity--leaving out the atheists--this is not at all true since (if you read the speech) he mentioned the atheists first.  By contrast, the Left has contempt for the majority and leaves us out of the equation all the time--appealling only to the class of people they are favoring at that particular moment. 

Britain gave us Locke, Smith and a whole host of theologians that shaped American law and society--only to abandon them in the 19th C--precisely when British power and influence evaporated around the globe.  To the chagrin of many Europeans--who have abandoned their Churches--America still has something very much at stake in our fidelity to the Bible and no coincidence, America has raced to the top of the heap.

But I wish to challenge your headline since everything Romney has touched has turned out well.  He is so successful, so articulate and so attractive that the most repeated objection to his candidacy is that he is "too perfect."  This is hardly fair but it squares poorly with the "moron" accusation.  He made a lot of money honestly, he ran a great campaign as a Republican in a stridently blue state and won with both respect and admiration, he saved the Winter Olympics after Sept. 11 pulled all the air out of them, he has run an effective campaign for President and is still on target to win the nomination.  On what basis is he a moron?  Please.

By contrast, the "smartest woman in America"--Hillary--did absolutely nothing to distinguish herself as a lawyer, she fell into scandal early and often in her husband's administration, tried to take over the health care system and was forced to fold the initiative after screwing up the concept royally, she has a way of putting her foot in her mouth and has a horrible time taking any coherent stand on just about any issue for more than a couple of moments, she took sure victory against a single opponent with no experience except that he managed to beat Alan Keyes (no resident of Illinois!!) for an open Senate seat and has managed to make him look like a real contender--and yet no one might call her a "moron."  Why not?--she has never made an honest buck in her life.

If Mitt Romney makes the secularist radicals in Europe squirm--that is a true vote of confidence for the man.  He took pains to describe American exceptionalism--we are different, he said it, Americans agree and it is no problem if "progressive Europe" does not like it.  BTW, I have nothing against Europe--I am hoping that Europe can regain some strength and I applaud the improvements of Sarkozy and Merkel.  Perhaps it can be argued that Romney is closer to Sarkozy than any other American politician.