Wow, the world is truly upside down.  I've been a political junkie most of my life and as such, to keep an open mind, I check in on various liberal pundits regularly.  Among the most shrill and insufferable of them all is Newsweek's Eleanor Clift, you know, the harpie on McLaughlin who can't seem to help interrupting her fellow commentators and filibustering when called on.  Nails on a chalkboard come to mind.

Well anyway you know the world is upside down when her and I agree on something - - she liked the Romney speech! It's almost enough to make me reconsider.  She wrote ...

If Romney gets the nomination, this is the moment that lifted him above the others and made him a plausible and pluralistic leader.

It is also noteworthy because it may well be the first time she has ever said anything flattering about a Republican.  If want to read the whole thing google it yourself, she's still not worth the effort of a few extra keystrokes.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, former Presidential speechwriter Peggy Noonan weighs in and is heartily impressed as well.   Saying, among other things...

Very, very well. He made himself some history. The words he said will likely have a real and positive impact on his fortunes. The speech's main and immediate achievement is that foes of his faith will now have to defend their thinking, in public. But what can they say to counter his high-minded arguments? "Mormons have cooties"?

This complaint, keep in mind, is from the speechwriter who coined the "thousand points of light"?  Interesting.  Personally, I find the symphony metaphor at least as inspired. 

But right about here we part company...
There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family.

Ms Noonan is not the only pundit to point our this alleged flaw. I just can't see the sense of including those who have made it clear they don't want to be included.  A sop to the atheists would have made the speech more of an obvious appeal to the general population when the topic at hand was specifically for the faith based, an overwhelming majority anyway.  Obviously Romney determined the negative consequence of including them would diminish he positive impact. He was right, and Noonan seems to get this as she goes on to explain...

We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.

My feeling is we've bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else.

MY guess: the chances of a staunch non-believer voting for Romeny is as likely as a snowball's chance in Alabama on the 4th of July, or me voting for Hillary. 

She's dead on about the idiots though.  We shouldn't forget to count the blessing that many of them are too stupid to vote, and fear that many of them do. 

All in all the speech will go down as one of the high points of this election regardless of the outcome.