“Who would Republicans turn to if not Romney or Santorum? Think of two popular governors, Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Chris Christie of New Jersey, or former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, or even U.S. congressman Paul Ryan, author of a budget plan popular with Republicans (snip*) “
That should finally drive a stake through the heart of the party once and for all. Idiots.
Does this mean that Sarah Palin or Herman Cain still have a shot?
The party Establishment has found itself tangled in its own contradictory views of which would be the best way to go - seek to hold the House and take the Senate, or abandon the House and concentrate on the Senate, both instances of which they surrender pre-emptively any serious bid for the White House.
Or a contrarian view, just let the reins of government revert fully to the Democrats in both houses of Congress, and let the White House go by default, in the hopes that the voters will be so fed up with the Democrats that there would be a shot in 2016.
This worked so well in 1936.
Perhaps they throw all their combined resources into a Romney bid for the White House, only to discover they are leading a parade that has suddenly dwindled down to a very distinct minority. Or they could try to nourish and open the field a little, calling on the few remaining candidates in the race to lay off the circular firing squad, which serves nobody, and concentrate all their fire right now at the incumbent. Ask the RIGHT questions, concerning the probability of EVER curing the spending problem, of reengaging industry to grow and develop, develop a REAL energy policy (beginning with dismantlement of the Department of Energy), get around to defining what our immigration policy shall be, including the clarification of what is the purposfully obscure definition of what is “legal” and “illegal”.
On a further note, make even findings of the Supreme Court subject to legislative, executive, and electoral review, with referendum questioning of unpopular decisions, requiring the justices make their reasoning clear and unambiguous. There ought be a “check and balance” on the judiciary, just as there is of the legislative and executive branches.