I was a bit surprised to learn over the weekend that the Republican Party has named Salt Lake City as a finalist to host the 2012 Republican National Convention. (Read about it here.)

The city certainly is large enough, and it proved during the 2002 Olympics it can host big events successfully. But it has a certain, well, image. It's an image I'm comfortable with, by the way, which is why I've lived here now for more than 20 years and don't intend to leave. It's an image that is positive in many different ways, but perhaps not from a national political perspective.

As Mitt Romney's contentious battle for the nomination in 2008 showed, it's an image with which many in the GOP seem uncomfortable.

Political conventions aren't what they used to be. By the time they roll around, the party already has chosen its candidate. The convention has become a giant coronation ceremony and a long infomercial for the party and its platform. This is why television networks have cut back on their coverage. Conventions are all about image; substance takes second place.

Maybe Mitt Romney will be the nominee in 2012. If so, does he want to deliver an acceptance speech in a venue that would draw more attention to his Mormon faith than his leadership abilities? The Salt Lake area is gorgeous and has much to offer, but it offers absolutely nothing politically for the GOP, which already owns this state.

My guess is that Phoenix or Tampa, the other two finalists, have the inside edge. They are more politically diverse, and Tampa is in an important swing state. But Salt Lake's selection in the final three means I may be wrong. What do you think?