Mitt Romney is paying millions, even tens of millions, for each point he gains in the polls. What if Romney didn’t have money, or had the same amount as Rick Santorum? Does anyone think he would still be the “inevitable” candidate or the “most electable?”
Santorum leads in national polls for the nomination and does better in a head-to-head with Obama than Romney. Why is the conventional wisdom that Romney is most electable? Romney is very good at reciting facts, lists, slogans, and taking politically expedient positions. However, it seems to me he lacks conviction, a passionate belief in something and a message to go with it that resonates with voters.
In the general election Romney will not have the financial advantage he has now. In fact, Obama will have the advantage. So, since Romney doesn’t have a message that can neutralize the overwhelming onslaught that will come, the race will boil down to who has more money. Since Obama will have more, he will win.
Therefore, I submit that Romney is not the most electable candidate. Santorum is. Look at the poll numbers. Stop making excuses for Romney. With his war chest he should have locked up the nomination early on. He hasn’t because he lacks a principled message, not a calculated message but one he would stand by no matter what. Santorum is bursting with conviction and that’s why he’s leading. A passionate message is even more powerful than negative ads. Romney is trying to buy the nomination. He is the Goliath. My money is on David.
Stephen C. Gibbons
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
