Michael — While it was great seeing you at the blackjack tables, I’m afraid I have to disagree with some of your analysis here. You write:
Meanwhile, Say-Anything Mitt has no home port and is unlikely find one beyond the generic anti-Obama vote. Which, alas, will not be big enough or motivated enough to evict Cap’n Barry from the White House bridge as he madly steers the ship of state into the iceberg. Indeed, the campaign will begin and end with this photograph.
Sorry, but that’s the truth. Say what you will about Sarah Palin, but she would have brought a super-energized base of productive taxpaying citizens with her that might have competed favorably with the Obamabots. But she broke their hearts — and damaged herself — by teasing and then not running, leaving the GOP bereft of a candidate who could match BHO II’s charisma.
Color me skeptical. It seems to me the “generic anti-Obama vote” describes roughly 44 to 51 percent of the electorate. Romney has many faults, on that we agree. But he would do, in my opinion, a much better job winning over moderates, independents, and other undecided types, than Palin would. Barry Goldwater had a “super-energized base of productive taxpaying citizens” and he lost in a landslide. I think Palin would do better than AUH2O, but I very much doubt that she would do better than Romney in the general election.