I'm not doing this to needle you--honestly I'm not. Romney's not my choice, but we here at Ricochet have a big tent--well, a big-ish tent, anyway--and the supporters of the former governor of Massachusetts are not only welcome but among our shrewdest contributors. Yesterday, though, Jonathan Last put up a post about Mitt Romney that's biting and funny and that strikes me as pretty largely true.
How would you rebut it?
It’s funny that Romney’s line of attack on Perry seems to be that Perry is a “career politician” because he’s been in elective office since 1984. Well, Mitt Romney would have been a career politician too, if only voters would have let him. He’s been running since 1994. His real gripe about Perry is actually, “Hey, that guy wins all the time! No fair!”...
[Ross] Douthat says [in a recent column in the New York Times] that “The greatest danger to Romney’s candidacy — the thing that could destroy him long before the voting even started — has always been that a more appealing establishment candidate would enter the race.” But that’s not right at all. The greatest danger to Romney’s candidacy is that he has no constituency because he’s not very good at campaigning and, as the electoral results of the last 17 years have shown, voters don’t like him very much. The danger to the Romney candidacy is the candidate.