The more I read about Mitt Romney, the less likely I am to vote for him. The latest piece is a profile of Dan Senor, his foreign-policy guru, who is another neocon in the mold of Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and the other neocons who orchestrated the Iraq invasion. Under Senor's influence, Romney is starting to channel Dick Cheney, appearing to favor pushing Israel and Iran to the point where war is the only option left. Doesn't he know that this country is tired of wars fought, not to defend our shores, but to flex our power?
Some candidates win because their opponents are weak. In 2008, Obama won because the Republicans chose a weak candidate, John McCain, who then doubled down by choosing a totally unqualified running mate. George H.W. Bush won because his opponent (Michael Dukakis) was weak. Mitt Romney won the governorship of Massachusetts, not because he was a born politician, but because his opponent was Shannon O'Brien. (Who?)
Romney could still save his candidacy by throwing a Hail Mary in his choice of running mate, but at this point his chances look bleak. Who would have been better? Not Gingrich or Trump, certainly. But Pawlenty or Daniels would have had broad appeal. (My top choice, for the past several elections, was Colin Powell, but his time has passed, alas.)
I still count myself in the 8 or 9 percent of voters who are undecided. Romney and his circle are too hawkish. Obama is too sympathetic to statist rather than free-market solutions. I did not vote for president in 2008, and I may wind up passing this time, too. (I will vote in the other races, though.)
The two-party system, which has served us well for so long, is starting to look very tired.
