Forgive me for not understanding. So you can't be a Bush loyalist unless you have a certain degree of power is what you are saying? And if that is the case what does that have to do with me having a rough choice between Romney and Obama?
No it doesnt. Its a weak cliche. For most, wanting a broken system to be addressed and fixed is totally unrelated to race.
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.
Because Romney is trying to appeal to the same base that got president Bush elected. That is part of his strategy and it's working.
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?
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.
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.
We may or may not agree with his position, but I believe that McCain will do what he deems to be best for America and for Iraq, not for Halliburton and the oil companies. I also think he is the most likely candidate to heed the advice of the captains on the field, rather than succumb to polls, lobbies and political pressure to either end the effort prematurely or keep fighting longer than we should.
Hey, some people like scrapple and don't mind who's making the scrapple as long as it's got that scrapply goodness.
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~