I'm not there yet, but James Poulos makes the case:
... finally, I think Romney would make a much better President than candidate. When he runs -- and when he's run -- in the mode he was in tonight, he does great. When he runs as he did during the late Iowa-early NH phase, he's a magnet for calumny, mockery, and contempt. Such a wild swing is rather alarming to see in a candidate, but let's not forget this is a heavily contested and very confused primary campaign for the nomination of a party whose President seriously damaged its brand, tradition, trust, and track record. Romney's great advantage from the beginning was as a sober, alert, sharp fellow capable of turning around a party that had lost its way. When trying to run for the base that still loves Bush just cuz, he's a disaster, ineffective and unconvincing. But how could he avoid posturing in that way given the early dynamics of the primary season? Let's all hope those days are over: neither Romney nor his party has any use for the contorted Mitt, and Republicans all have something to appreciate in what seems so obviously to be the Real Romney.
In other news, Poulos, fabled scourge of Gersonism, actually liked a Michael Gerson column. Apparently, shared Hillary-loathing can bring the whole world together. (Or at least that's what Mitt Romney will be hoping in about eight months from now ...)
It is strange to me that Romney is still seen as viable while Huckabee is dead in the water. Didn't Huckabee double Romney in South Carolina? Romney can say he wasn't a natural fit for South Carolina but states like South Carolina represent the GOP base.
People say that Romney is viable because he is spending his own money in the race. Doesn't that show how weak he has? He isn't relying on donations from a wide swath of people; he is relying on himself and a few rich friends of his.
How does any of this make him a strong candidate in November?
Posted by Thomas | January 25, 2008 11:02 AM