Mitt Romney for President--Part something

You ignored Gringo's point and redefined "Bush Loyalist" to mean Joe Normal.

 

Most of the time the shoe really fits.

 

It's been very interesting reading the right-wing bloggers over at NRO's The Corner over the past couple of months and watching them warm up to Romney as Fred never caught fire and McCain has surged. The Republican establishment has taken to Mitt in the same way that the Democratic establishment took to Kerry in '04: don't love him, not even sure they'll like him, but given the other options he'll do for now.

 

And I certainly remember being lectured here in '04 by more than a few GOPers how the GOP would only ever nominate a candidate who checked ALL the boxes. Unlike the Democrats who would take the least worst candidate.

 

Well of course. When you're up against it in the way that the GOP is this cycle, you become amazingly malleable and pragmatic.

Romney's not inherently evil like Rudy, and he is my second-favorite GOP candidate behind McCain (who's got issues but would do by far the least damage to US foreign policy among the Republicans). A Romney Presidency would be focused on very small goals and not change much. That's why the GOP establishment have decided they now like him -- current state treats them pretty well, so why risk change?

 

These.

It was a GOP security thing back then.

 

I'm curious why you think this. I'm afraid McCain would bet the farm on Iraq and it would be terribly hard to challenge him politically. Romney would be inclined to do what's convenient, which very possibly would mean ending the war (more or less) by the end of his first term.

 

Oh it's alright, I'm sure we will be greeted as liberators.

 

None of the GOP candidates would pull all troops out of Iraq because permanent bases in Iraq was one of the original invasion's tacit goals, especially since the Saudi bases are in jeopardy if the House of Saud falls. McCain is at least willing to admit that. And if our presence means we have Korea-type bases where there's an uneasy truce, and not all-out civil war, maybe that's not the worst thing in the world. I was against the war at the start and still think it was a terrible idea and execution, but we're there now and we have to deal with the reality we created.

Also, I think what's been lost the most in the current state of the Iraq war is the cost which is being borne by a very select group of families who have loved ones who volunteered to serve, and whose commitment was renegotiated mid-stream by the Administration. (Yes all of the mandatory call-backs are technically in the military contracts they signed, but mandatory multiple tours of duty for most of these people is still unprecedented and it still sucks.) My best guess is that McCain would be at the Dems' level when it comes to future long-term commitments of those troops, meaning he'll do whatever it takes to minimize that burden.

All of the others often seem positively gleeful when they talk about expanding war opportunities. Which kinda figures, since none of them actually served in the military.

 

[Homer Simpson]Mmmm, scrapply goodness[/Homer Simpson]...

 

4% in Romney barely ahead. McCain was ahead earlier.

I think this is a big deal. Winner takes all.

 

First Florida results being posted by Shep at Fox News... just initial results...
Show Romney ahead, followed by McCain and Giuliani... (4% in)

Romney: 33%
McCain: 31%
Giuliani: 17%

CLOSE RACE~

 

McPlain's up now.

 

12% in

McCain - 34% - 142k
Mitty - 31 - 129k
9/11 - 18 - 74K

 

Looks like McCain's going to win.

 

It's early, and close, but I think McCain will be stronger in the panhandle so I think he will win.