Even as a Republican, I wonder if he is just really a good politican, doing whatever he thinks the people want, as opposed to doing whatever the big corporations want. I liked clinton, though I disagreed with a lot of politics, because in the end he just took the middle road and tried to keep every one happy. Example... Said he wanted gays in the military, then took the dont tell approach. Kept the liberals at bay, without really changing anything.
In the end, I am more worried about having a mormon in office. If I am wrong about this, please tell me where, but this is my understanding of Mormonism. While most mormons I know are really nice people, you can't ignore the fact that they believe in direct revealation of God, trumping any and all other written or traditional beliefs. What this means, is that if you are a true believer, You believe that the head prophet is God's direct spokesperson. Take in to account that they feel this direct revealation can change any written belief, then you have the potential of a presidentail candidate that may believe that he must do what ever the Prophet says, and that could actually be anything. It is different than almost any mainstream religion, in that muslims and christians generally look to the written word to check on the oral word. In other words, while interpetation may change the way the religion is used, generally if the bible contradicts the a religious leader, people can choose and are actually told to ignore the leader. While there are still extremists, this is not the norm. In Mormonism, the norm (requirement) is to follow the word of the prophet without any restrictions. If he contradicts the bible, this is cause the bible is wrong, or God has changed the application. If the book of Mormon is contradicted, then God has changed his mind about how he wants to do something, or some other excuse is used.

Any time there is no absolute, the potential for abuse is present. In Mormonism the only absolute would be the word of the Prophet. It is just as scary as a Devout Muslim who believes that his leader is the only person who can interpet the Koran and therefore believes what ever he says. For that matter anyone of any religion that does not have the ability to draw his or her conclusions from an absolute scares me. You might not like christians or moslems, but at least the absolute from which they should be drawing there conclusions is open for you to look at. Then it is up to you to decide if you like how that person is interpeting those absolutes. In other words, we are electing the person who will be deciding how he believes, not a person who is supposed to let another person decide how he believes.

I know this is a lengthy and not well written post, but hopefully someone can understand what my concern is.