Reading that, what would you think it meant?...knowing that people didn't like Dewey...er, ah...people weren't fond of Dewey?
No I thought that George Will meant that the people did not like Dewey in the sense that they would not vote for him and that is why he lost the 1948 election.
I don't know whether you actually read the article or not but George Will goes on to observe:
Tom Dewey. Confident that Truman was unelectable, Republicans nominated New York’s chilly governor, whose virtues of experience and steadiness were vitiated by one fact: Voters disliked him. Before settling for Romney, conservatives should reconsider two candidates who stumbled early on.
The author then goes on to suggest that perhaps we should support Jon Huntsman.
Jon Huntsman has a likability problem as well hence he cannot be elected either.
The whole discussion and the whole point made by George Will as well as myself is that likability translates into electability, or the reverse. My subsequent reference to polls subsequent replies indicate that both Gingrich and Romney have electability.
My entire original reply reads as follows:
Huntsman has a Dewey problem-people just don't like him.
The choice is between Gingrich and Romney and George Wills' frustration does not change that reality one millimeter. By focusing his solution on a fringe candidate, George Will squandered whatever opportunity he sought in this column to influence conservatives' choice.
I did not assert that people "like" Gingrich or Romney in the sense that they have affection for them but that they are prepared to vote for them to the exclusion of other candidates. And the polls bear that out.
Maybe you don't "like" these two individuals but the world evidently is prepared to vote for them over the other Republican candidates and over Obama; perhaps you might consider that solipsism is the opposite of humility and that what strikes your fancy is not important to the rest of the world.
If you have a point to make, go ahead and make it but do it decently.
