It's no secret that the NYT's Charles M Blow doesn't like Romney. Me either, but why do so many say stuff like:
I have no personal gripe with Romney. I don’t believe him to be an evil man. Quite the opposite: he appears to be a loving husband and father.
In my opinion, even pretty evil people are not utterly without redeeming qualities. But the fact Hitler loved his dogs and was considerate of his secretaries doesn't exactly save his character.
We have evidence that Romney was a bully and a punk as a teenager and as a young adult, a fairly nasty piece of work as a private equity operator in his thirties, and an unprincipled politician ever since. Behaving well toward his immediate family is not enough. Blow has rethought his analysis:
One doesn’t have to operate with great malice to do great harm. The absence of empathy and understanding are sufficient. In fact, a man convinced of his virtue even in the midst of his vice is the worst kind of man.
Or among the most dangerous, at any rate.