Perhaps you need to include in your political analysis some of your theological perspective., i.e, total depravity.
People are by nature self centered, selfish, envious, wrathful, jealous and in open rebellion to God.
So people will vote their self interest unless they have a good theological reason not to do so.
So no matter who we put up as a candidate, if they are not at least somewhat "populist" they are not going to garner enough votes to win dog catcher, must less the presidency of the United States.
Romney is the worst of all possible candidates in that he not only has no political foundation, he represents all that is wrong with Capitalism and nothing that is right with it. He represents the culture of greed and corruption that most people see as a problem whether it is real or imagined.
No candidate is going to win without stoking the fire of the populists in the electorate. I want a candidate who has a solid conservative base and record who can communicate a conservative message to a selfish, envious, wrathful, jealous electorate and convince them that what he is proposing by way of his platform and ideas is in their best interests.
WM, in regard to the Capitalism criticism, one can criticize certain legal methodologies for amassing riches without being an "Anti-Capitalist". There are "moral" Capitalists and there are "a-moral" Capitalists. IMHO Romney would be numbered among the "A-Moral Capitalists".
By pointing that out, does that mean I oppose Capitalism? Or does that mean I oppose the methodology of Romney's and Bain's Capitalistic a-moral model?
Cannot one support Capitalism in principle and argue that some people have utilized it improperly and for improper motives? Or is any attack on any "Capitalist" somehow an attack on all?
What was the last criticism of Romney. It wasn't how Bain made money, but that because he had done well he has 20 million a year come in on his investments without "sweating" for it. So we've seen the evolution of this high minded populist condemnation of "vulture capitalists" to condemning anyone with investment income. A lot of us saw this coming with the first attacks. It's surprising to me that some of my FRiends have fallen into this.
So no matter who we put up as a candidate, if they are not at least somewhat "populist" they are not going to garner enough votes to win dog catcher, must less the presidency of the United States.
This line of thinking will defeat Gingrich in the general election. He doesn't have clean hands. He traded influence for millions when he lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. BTW, he didn't sweat when he did this.
Fighting for freedom will win elections, not attacks on those that take risks and create economic activity.
Thank you both for sharing your insights, dear brothers in Christ!