That seems to be a question troubling Republican party leaders who look back with some dismay to the long, long process that took place in 2012 as the party struggled to choose a nominee to run for the presidency. The very public biffing and bashing between Republican 'wannabe' candidates over several months certainly gave the appearance of a 'blue-on-blue' fire-fight which left the eventual winner looking like 'walking wounded'!
According to Quinn Quiller at The National Review, the GOP leadership - yeeeeees, quite! - has decided that in 2016 the entire process will be shortened to avoid the very public infliction of collateral damage. Of course, that means, in effect, voters will only be able to decide on the basis of image between different candidates because there will be insufficient time to study them - and test them! - in depth. The Republican nomination process in 2012 certainly tested the candidates, most of them to destruction which, in my view, was excellent. From a lack-lustre crew the eventual winner was merely the least worst. However, that is nearly always going to be the case because the vast majority of politicians are second-raters at best! Only very occasionally does the system throw up a genuine statesman - and frequently we never recognise them as such until after the event!
I have severe doubts concerning the GOP leadership and thus any idea emanating from them I treat with double caution - particularly if Karl Rove has his fingers in the pie!
Comments