I think Buchanan exposed the fact that Bush was weak, thus re-enforcing the notion that Bush was very, very beatable...sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But back to the main point. I think this article has some merit.
Clearly, Romney has no principles.
Therefore, it is just as wrong to say that he is a liberal as to say that he is a conservative.
He just wants to be President, and he will do whatever it takes to do that. He’ll do anything and say anything.
Ergo, it is likely that he will govern center-right (IF he wins...as of today, pretty clear that it is mathematically impossible....but that is only as of TODAY) to avoid the primary challenge. GWB certainly learned that from his dad.
(All that said, we are really speculatin’ here...cause I think it is at best a coin toss as to whether Romney can defeat obama...but I sure hope he can).
Romney certainly has no principles, but he does have a track record. His prior history has always been socialist. His lineage is extremely liberal. His father bowed to Alinsky. He cites his mother as the reason was pro-abortion. His accomplishments as governor have been socialist all the way. In fact, no one else running, republican or democrat, has his record of liberal accomplishments. When asked, Romney is unable to come up with anything he’s done, other than marry and raise a family, to further the conservative cause. Obama married and raised a family does that make him a conservative? I don’t think so.
The only difference between him and other libs is that he has an (r) next to his name. The only thing he has done since he began his run for the presidency is to have tricked a lot of conservatives into believing he is one.
So I would have to disagree with you about it being equally wrong to say he’s a flaming liberal.
very true. keen insight.