Ultimately the election will largely be a referendum on Obama and the economy. The desire to order off-menu will abate over time. And Republicans will surely stomach the nominee, if for no other reason than they're ravenous to make Obama a one-termer. And, as the Irish say, hunger is the best sauce.I hope Goldberg's wrong, but I have to admit, Steve Kornacki over at Salon has an article largely arguing the same thing, giving the nomination to Romney.
Meanwhile, Romney, for all his flaws, starts with a significant base of support -- or at least potential support. The elites still see him as an acceptable, maybe even preferable, option for the nomination and plenty of Republican voters are still open to supporting him. If you assume that Huckabee and Palin won't run (or that Palin, if she does, will be marginalized), then Romney still begins this campaign as the closest thing there is to a default choice for Republicans.I don't want to see Romney as the candidate for a number of reasons. He's patently phoney, he changes his opinions with the political winds, and he's Mormon (which I am as well).
I think though, a lot can happen between now and then. The base may or may not be as hungry as they should be to settle for a Romney (as exemplified by the comments to Goldberg's column).
I will NOT vote for Romney or Huckabee. Romney is deeply flawed and I don't even consider him to be a republican.In fairness there are plenty of posts that assert they will vote for whoever runs against Obama.
If any of the old RINO "retreads" run, THEY WILL LOSE. Yes, this includes, romney, huckabee, gingrich and any of the "old guard".
I will not vote for Romney whom I consider to be a closet socialist . . .
I certainly don't want Romney, whoever he is THIS week.