We’ve been hearing lately about Newt’s criticisms of Reagan and tendency to have too many ideas. We’ve been hearing lately about Mitt’s rapacious activities at Bain Capital and his accounts in the Caymans. We’ve been hearing this from Mitt and Newt respectively.
I’ll start with sentiments I generally agree with as stated by The POH Diaries:
Here’s the bottom line. I have no dog in this fight. My candidates either didn’t run or imploded on impact. I’m not comfortable with Romney’s apparent weaknesses, and despite his ability to articulate conservatism my gut tells me that a Gingrich nomination and subsequent Presidency would end in heartache as well. But the main point is this, neither one of these men, whether they’re really conservative or not, whether they’re a rino, liberal, progressive, or just opportunistic, is Barack Hussein Obama. And that’s enough for me. Certainly it would have been nice to have a strong, conservative candidate with populist appeal to take the fight to Obama. But who the challenger in this race ends up being may mean less than perhaps it ever has in history for the simple reason that the incumbent will be Barack Obama. That one fact in itself may be our biggest asset.
Now, two comments about the revisionist history being peddled about Newt and Reagan and one on ideas. I find the “romantic belief” attractive, especially when mostly privately funded.
One. Two. And one.
It will help keep our heads clear to consider that GOP on GOP attacks shouldn’t sour us on evicting the most corrupt and least competent President we’ve ever seen. “[W]ho the challenger in this race ends up being” matters less than it has in any election you’ve ever voted in.