I don't even see a possibility where a principled candidate could succeed in a Presidential election. The problem, again, is democracy.
In order to secure a plurality the goal is not to attract more supporters, but to drive away fewer voters than do your competitors. Romney seems to get this while the non-Romneys remain proudly and cluelessly principled. When that doesn't work for them they resort to negative campaigning against the squish. But guess what? He squishes out of the criticisms.
Romney's life experience is free-market based and includes a lot of turnarounds, both in the private and public sectors. He's a facilitator and not a firebrand. I still think this fits well with the presidency. Congress can legislate and he can approve or deny. I like that scenario far better than a petulant President Gingrich who throws a fit when Congress doesn't do what he wants, or does it the "wrong way."
I still want Ron Paul's ideas to figure prominently but I'm willing to line up behind the frontrunner, even though he's also backed by the forces of status quo.
In the long, dark days of supporting an unsupportable candidate that lay ahead (diagram that!) we will tackle culpability for our predicament.
Brother br made an awesome comment that is slipping off the page. He contradicted an article I posted as a comment to an update to a post or something. He claimed that "The GOP does not manufacture candidates; individuals must step up and choose to run. The shame of this election is that we have so much talent that has chosen to sit out the game. Moreover, the Tea Party is not an entity that can 'do something.' It's a movement based on certain ideas."
I think candidates are not running because of campaign finance rules -- having to raise $100,000,000 in $2300 chunks takes a year of an important person's time. But, also, the demeaning nature of the debate process is not going to excite a lot of people -- well, not the right people.
Is "democracy" to blame, jg? To some extent, but if we had a Gov. Christie or a Gov. Daniels -- both of whom have flaws -- I would be on a different planet, emotionally. When capitalism was attacked in the name of Bain, Governor Romney did not defend it, Larry Kudlow and James Pethokoukis and Rush Limbaugh did.
It's exactly like Senator McCain but he had honorable military service.
Well, perhaps not just like McCain. He has said he will criticize Obama's record.
But you're right - I searched YouTube for "romney defends liberty" and the best I found was Romney Defends Small Government. It's a famous clip, where a woman in a townhall meeting repeatedly interrupts him. But he did come close when he said he "likes being able to fire people." That's subtley different from liking to fire people, by the way. I was happy to see this controversy flare up, for it could lead to a public discourse over actual issues, instead of photographs with money falling out of clothing.
The Refugee will join his blog brothers and sisters in lamenting this election's crop of candidates. Nevertheless, he is growing weary of the pundits and others whining about a situation over which they have no control and there is no remedy. It's a bit like complaining about the weather - grab an umbrella and deal with it.
As George Bernard Shaw said "He who is sick of pundits is sick of life!" I think that was Shaw...
Does the Refugee disagree that a change in campaign finance laws and nomination process would help future Christies and Danielses as they ponder the race?
He will agree that the current campaign finance laws are an abomination. Whether or not they are inhibitors to mm. Christie and Daniels is speculation above his pay grade.
The Refugee has nothing against pundits. Being a real-life computer storage pundit, he is sensitive to punditry that pontificates about problems for which there is no solution without offering a work-around. He thinks this veers into the cardinal sin of punditry, "didactic bullshit."
We really do need a "like" button on comments...