I really try to be a fair man, but I can’t find anything significantly positive about Mitt Romney’s work as governor. Maybe it’s true that his voters are focused on electability, because there is simply no evidence that Mitt believes in any of the three conservative pillars: fiscal, social, and strong national defense. So even if we win with this guy, we lose.
Frankly, I despise the electability argument. First, no one can predict the future, so within reason, no one really knows who is or isn’t electable. Sure, there are extremes there, but pretty much any of the front runners is electable.
Second, if you vote for someone who is at cross purposes to your goals simply because they are electable, you still lose even when they’re elected. For example, if you want government reform but elect someone who is only willing to manage the decline (Romney comes to mind), then what have you gained? Not much.
Third, the electability argument is used to cut off debate over the issues that really matter. People can’t justify Romney based on his performance as governor, so they say he’s most electable. Why? Because they don’t really want to discuss his record. If his record was really worthwhile, they wouldn’t need to use the electability argument, would they? In other words, the electability argument is really nothing more than a lame excuse to shut off debate about a candidate’s real record.
So very true.
A real-life example of this would be Arnold Schwarzenegger. The electorate passed on Tom McClintock (true conservative - now congressman) to elect a highly recognizable candidate who did absolutely nothing for the state of California.