If you're a Republican, as flavors of the month go, either way I suspect it will leave yet another bad taste in your mouth.
I don't see Newt winning the race because... well, to understate the problem, he doesn't exude charisma and he has a long history of taking stances that probably won't help him in an election - no matter how vigorously he objects that it's unfair to accurately quote his past statements. As flawed candidates go, he's much more of a danger to the party than Romney.
Do they have a candidate who isn't a danger to the party?
ReplyDeleteCWD
By what measure?
ReplyDeleteElectability?
GW got elected twice, made countless disastrous decisions, and still the party is taken seriously, so perhaps even Newt isn't that much of a "danger to the party" in a big picture sense. (But I'm pretty confident he would lose in a landslide.)
In the sense that their presence at the top of the ticket (and worse yet, if they actually win an election) makes it more likely that every other candidate in the history of the party will lose rather than win . . .
ReplyDeleteCWD
Right. If GW didn't ruin things for the party, it's difficult to imagine that Romney would take down the party.
ReplyDeleteNewt, maybe, but we would never find out - I don't give him a snowball's chance of winning (and neither does he, if that's reasonably inferred from the fact that he's still running what appears to be a vanity campaign without adequate campaign staff or support to run a serious national campaign).
GW would be a good example of someone who made it harder for anyone associated with "his" party to be elected.
ReplyDeleteCWD
Yes, right, I got that. But as I said, people from his party are still taken seriously and are still getting elected. If GW didn't ruin things for the party, it's difficult to imagine that Romney would take down the party.
ReplyDelete