You'll find fascinating debates at right-wing blogs debating that very question. Should we swallow our souls and support Mittens, or follow our hearts?

My answer is the most unsatisfying one: It depends in context because no presidential election is alike. Would Bill Clinton 1992 have won in 1960 or Reagan 1980 in 1940? No. But to craft a unify hypothesis, I suppose you have to look at it like commercially marketing a product to the masses, where timing and giving people what they need (or think they need). But at the least, you have to be credible. If people think your product sucks, they won't buy it.

(I told you that answer wasn't satisfying.)

McCain, for a time at least, had public credibility as a "maverick" in trying to achieve bi-partisan legislative remedies for controversial issues like global warming, illegal immigration, and campaign financing. He disowned all that to win the '08 nomination, but I degress. If he had "run" as a conservative moderate (and more importantly had won primary votes without betraying that basic narrative), the Democrats in '08 painting him as Dubya 2.0 or agreeing with him 90% of the time would've had a much tougher assignment.

Romney...doesn't have that. He was a moderate conservative that's now hiding in the closet while publicly a reincarnation of Reagan. With about as much current success as Lance Bass, Liberace, Clay Aiken and Ricky Martin all had in convincing America that they weren't gay.



I find disconnect in the Romney campaign. They've tried to skate through the primaries without being forced to publicly accepting primary friendly/general election toxic positions, win by default because of party establishment support and shitload of money raised. He's for it because he hasn't said he isn't. (Notice how his foreign policy, aside from some hot air at the debates, practically mirrors the current President.)

Not that I blame him, it's a sound strategy that I guess is working. But then Perry has his immigration "gaffe" (translation: sane pragmatic solution to a real problem) and Romney with a boner the size of Texas, cheerfully destroyed Perry on it and took credit for securing the party's ideological purity. Because surely a guy from Cape Cod has the knowledgeble authority to lecture a state government how to integrate a massive illegal (and poor) immigration population into the local economy.

Then Ohio with the failed anti-union ballot initiative. He (rightly) initially tried to avoid that loser, but pussied out when Fox News forced him to endorse it. Then because he took no clear public position on the current anti-IVF meme with the Pro-Lifers, he's having to nationally back away from that shit like the plague after Mississippi voted it down while telling that base he is still Pro-Life. if saner But the Democrats will still gladly hang that albatross around his neck, and not much he can do about it without some good tap dancing.

Now with Newt's own supposed immigration "gaffe" and the Romney people are publicly rubbing their hands in glee about how they know how to torpedo their latest threat. But Mitt, buddy, aren't you doing the exact opposite of what want to do? Yes you might defeat Newt, hell you probably will. (Well goddamit you should, it's Newt!) But that camera drama of Newt making a risky gamble by going to your left and making you come off as an insensitive dick on that issue? You don't think the White House didn't watch that exchange and got a giant shiney bright lightbulb over their heads?

I believe George Will nailed Romney correctly: A too reactive of a candidate.