re: #334 moderatelyradicalliberal

Yeah, only worse. Kerry flip-flopped on one issue, and issue that most Americans eventually flip-flopped on as well. We weren’t always a country that had a majority against the Iraq War. Romney on the other hand hasn’t been able to hold a position on an major issue over the last decade that he hasn’t flipped on. The man has no core beliefs on principles to speak of.

There’s another way to look at it. What he believes in is turning around bad situations. The Olympics, MA, and a number of companies.

You can’t do a turnaround if you don’t hold office.

Wikipedia has a fair minded bio of Romney. His campaign style is dishonest. His conduct in office is a far cry from, oh, say, Cain’s.

Look at it this way. Should Mitt step aside and watch Perry get the nomination? Or, oh, maybe Gingrich? Ron Paul? Somebody will win the Republican nomination, and it is not excluded that the state of the economy, or some external shock, will destroy Obama’s already unsure chances of winning in 2012.

There is a real chance the Republican nominee will become president. So Romney arguably has an obligation to try to win the nomination. Even if that means some trimming sails to get RW primary votes.

And while we’re at it, independents could vote in R. primaries. They could vote for Huntsman. He’s far and away the best in the race, and it wouldn’t hurt if he got some support. Those votes would serve to dilute the RW candidates’ numbers, and would thus make Romney more likely to be the eventual nominee, quite without doing anything so nakedly strategic as voting for Romney.