The case for, and against, Mitt Romney; tough talk on Iran from the GOP presidential candidates; assessing the war in Afghanistan

Now, as Doyle McManus confirms, what matters most is perceived future support from other voters. Nearly as important is that the candidate's campaign have abundant funds. Add telegenic "presidential" looks and the candidate's nomination is clinched.

Why not simply outsource voters' scrutiny of candidates to pollsters, billionaire bankers and Hollywood casting agents?

Small wonder our political processes have become the laughingstock of the world. American exceptionalism indeed!

Edward Alston

Santa Maria

McManus oddly predicts that Mitt Romney, who cannot get a majority of votes, will be the Republican nominee for president.

But if the anti-Romney vote persists, no candidate will win on the first or second ballots at the Republican convention this summer. That means a dark-horse candidate (Jeb Bush?) might be selected.

Michael Haas

Los Angeles

Re "Not in the mood for Mitt," Opinion, Jan. 10

There's not one word in Jonah Goldberg's column on whether Romney could help move the country in the right direction. The entire piece is about the GOP's ability to win.

That's what politics has become in this country, a game in which the needs of voters figure little into choosing the candidate who runs.

I can't wait for the day when pundits actually discuss what really matters: the 100% of Americans who are trying to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Is that too much to ask?

Douglas Hall

Los Angeles

Goldberg just can't stop bad-mouthing Romney. Now he says that Romney's authentic inauthenticity (huh?) is sapping the enthusiasm from the rank and file, accusing him of causing a "disastrously low" turnout of voters in Iowa even though he won.

Then he ends by suggesting the possibility of a brokered convention — a bit premature, to say the least. But given the cast of non-electable nominees, I would have to agree.

Allow me to suggest a solution: Concede the election to President Obama by default.

Bob Murtha

Santa Maria

Taking on Iran

Re "Talking tough on Iran," Opinion, Jan. 10

Micah Zenko and Emma Welch did an excellent job of getting right to the point, quoting each Republican candidate on how he would work to deny Iran nuclear weapons.

True, military action against Iran would be "enormously significant — and potentially disastrous." But Zenko and Welch left out how disastrous it could be if Iran is not prevented, one way or another, from developing nuclear weapons.

The Iranian nuclear threat would be daily — from a regime that has called for the eradication of Israel; from an unstable regime run by unelected religious fanatics.

The authors' suggestion that each Republican candidate delineate precisely how he would undertake the task of defanging Iran was silly. Why would a would-be president give the bad guys the step-by-step blueprint?

Mike McLane

Dana Point

Ugly truths of Afghanistan

Re "Intelligence study glum on Afghan war," Jan. 12

The Pentagon disagrees with a multi-agency report on the progress of the war in Afghanistan — really? That's like asking Philip Morris executives to voluntarily cut down on tobacco sales.

When will we come to our senses?

Ted Einstein

Venice

I cannot believe the Obama administration would try to paint a picture of a war going very well when an independent group (as well as common sense) says it is not.

What's next? Trying to convince us the economy is improving?

Matthew Duggan

Long Beach

Re "Video adds to strains in Afghanistan," Jan. 13

How disgusting can you get? These Marines, whom a video shows urinating on the corpses of Afghans, are supposed to conduct themselves in an honorable manner while representing the United States. For them to show this level of disrespect is beyond unbelievable.

And what is worse is how many pundits on the right are defending their actions.

What happened to Americans being the good guys? Is this how we "win the hearts and minds" in the countries we are allegedly helping to establish freedom and democracy?

Scott W. Hughes

Simi Valley

Unfit to judge?

Re "Murder conviction is tossed," Jan. 11

I find it shocking that Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in the Supreme Court's decision to reverse New Orleans resident Juan Smith's murder conviction.

All of the other justices, including its conservative members, voted to reverse the conviction based on the fact that evidence was withheld from the defense by the prosecutors, including the revelation that the sole witness said he couldn't identify the shooter. There was apparently no other evidence tying Smith to the crime.

Thomas' dissent in this case raises questions about his fitness to be on the court.

Alan L. Freedman

Santa Monica

It's the economy

Re "The election foretold," Opinion, Jan. 11