I think it was gonna be Romney all along - and I'll totally agree that he is the establishment candidate. "Radical" and "moderate" may indeed be relative, but Romney is going to pull in the most money, that's already a given. The fact that he's not radical, not encouraging any drastic actions, and willing to play ball to get things moving makes him good for business, and good for drawing in those on the fence who are frankly turned off by the Tea Party, and don't belong to the neo-conservative target demographic.
So, the establishment is backing a professional politician who's willing to bend and twist to the demands of the situation rather than stick to a hard-set agenda, and who's able to get both party ranks and money behind him. What else is new?
The fact is, too, that come election time, you can only beat a flexible, establishment-backed politician with another flexible, establishment-backed politician. IMO if the GOP chose one of the more radical candidates, they'd pay for it in the end. Their backers and elder statesmen have been and are gonna be doing their best to prevent that from happening.
Contrary to how both sides' speaking tubes paint the picture, neither party is driven by a radical agenda in any substantial way. There are too many people in each of those parties with too much to lose to do that.
|
