If Mitt Romney Is So ‘Electable,’ Then Why Didn’t Republicans Nominate Him in 2008?

Tuesday, January 17, 2012
By Paul Martin

by Mark R. Crovelli
LewRockwell.com

Republicans sure have short memories. It was just four years ago that they went to the polls in the primaries and elected the most “moderate” and “electable” candidate they could find in the hope that they had a man who was palatable to the general population. Their reward for their unprincipled pragmatism was an ass-kicking in the general election that few Americans will ever forget. John McCain and Sarah Palin certainly won’t forget it.

Four years later, having learned absolutely nothing from the election of 2008, Republican voters are once again lining up behind the most moderate and supposedly “electable” candidate that they can find in the pragmatic hope that they can beat Obama in the general election. They have become so unprincipled and pragmatic, in fact, that they are lining up behind the very man who brought European-style socialized medicine to our fair shores, simply because they have been told that he is more “electable” than anyone else in the field. How they can expect an outcome that’s better than four years ago is difficult to fathom, unless they think that their new moderate’s plastic hair can compensate for his obvious blandness.

In one respect, moreover, the selection of this particular “moderate” is even more ridiculous than the selection of the kooky moderate four years ago. This guy came in second place in the primaries to the “moderate” who got his ass handed to him in the general election. Think about that for a minute. This guy was moderate enough to come in second in the primaries two years ago, when the Republicans first decided to eschew principle and select a moderate, and yet he was deemed less “electable” than the guy who lost so badly.

In other words, if the more “electable” moderate got his ass kicked four years ago, how badly is the second-place moderate going to do this time around?

The Rest…HERE

Leave a Reply