Here’s the analysis of our friendly political scientist Dr. Pitney, which seems to me to have a pronounced pro-McCain bias. It’s true that John offers singular strengths on national security (pro-surge but borderline anti-Bush) and neutralizes the corruption issue that’s always brought against the party in power. But having, in effect, no domestic agenda and being unable to excite or even gain the full trust of the socially conservative base are not small weaknesses.
I have to add that the comments about Huck are unreasonably negative. It’s true that his strength wouldn’t be national security, but it’s not that clear to me that the Republicans will enjoy a national security advantage with the November electorate. It’s also not clear how much the election will turn on national security. Huck can’t really be confused with Faubus, and any attempt to do would backfire. And he is certainly strong where McCain is weak--on economic anxiety, social conservatism etc. I still don’t think he could actually win, of course.
Romney has some advantages on the issues, but the character and lovability concerns are real.
I’m not at all sure we have a solution to the electability problem at this point.
"[B]ut the character and lovability concerns are real."
ya' think?
Peter's making an audition to be forever known as THE master of understatement.
Just 4 years ago our party collectively went to town on the line "I actually voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." Our entire party ripped apart the Democrat ticket for being shameless flip-floppers. Recall Cheney's speech at the convention, where he could hardly deliver it without laughing out loud at the prospect of Edwards and Kerry in The White House.
Now but 4 years later, we're considering extending the nomination to a man from the same state as Kerry, who has a record of flipping perhaps superior to that of Kerry, which was considerable.
The ONLY way we could even consider such a thing, is to hold a view of the American electorate that is scathing and scandalous. Does our party think the American voter is an idiot? Does our party think the American voter forgot the campaign of 2004?
If we care about our reputation with the American voter, we had better pick a SERIOUS candidate with a commanding resume. And that's NOT Romney.
There is no solution to the electability problem at this time. A difficult Republican primary process has a fair chance of revealing who the strongest, or more likely, the least-weak, candidate is. It may well be McCain. Several more primaries will give us a better idea. Any idea, however, that we can win on national security alone is probably wrong.
We are on the path to a brokered convention, and an electoral sweep that will put the Democrats in power in Washington for probably thirty years. Since Huckabee has been foolishly destroyed, there might not be any answer, McCain and Giuliani have a chance at the White House, but our best case scenario is a lonely victory. Congress is setting up for democratic majorities of the type enjoyed from 1932-1992, and for a long time.
As for that email about Romney's activity and his strength on issues...can we just realize that he has only succeeded in cakewalk situations and even then he compromises his way to success? Take for instance his "success and activity in business." Any dunce can make money when he has money. He was born rich, he ran a venture capital company that never produced anything; it just had control of other people's capital. The old saying is that after the first million, the second's easy, and for Romney this is doubly true. His biggest accomplishment is that he didn't flounder his daddy's wealth...hip, hip, hooray.