Friday, October 28, 2011

Weak field argument isn't about the field collectively

Over at Commentary/Contentions Peter Wehner makes the point that it is the nominee not the field that matters in regard to current discussions over a weak Republican field.   Wehner is being far too literal here.  The weak field complaint isn’t anything like a collective score measurement or even an average. 

Earlier in the day on the same site an upcoming column by George Will was brought out.  In it Will says of Romney:

“Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable, he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate: Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming. Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from “data” … Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for THIS?”

That neatly sums up Romney, but when you a look for an alternative to him among the other candidates you come up empty.  If there were a viable alternative Romney would be getting blown out, instead he looks inevitable. That’s what’s driving the weak field meme, not whatever it is that Wehner is addressing.

No comments:

Post a Comment