I don't know very much about Mitt Romney. I've never met him and, after his speech on Thursday I've decided I don't want to meet him. He claimed that "in the interests of America" he would suspend his campaign for nomination of the Republican Party candidate for the US presidency.
A magnanimous gesture, one would assume, but it will do no harm in the long term for Romney either.
So far there is the saving he will make; much of it on his own pocket as he has personally funded TV advertisements and paid campaign staff. This has worked out to a spend of nearly $2 million per delegate.
A not inconsiderable sum which, if he was to continue on the same spend rate, would mean him spending well over $1.3 billion to win the nomination. More than five times the combined wealth of his wife and himself. He says he doesn't like to lose - referring to the suspension of his campaign - but then surely he would not like to lose all his savings and become bankrupt.
Not withdrawing
But all may not be lost. After all, he wasn't withdrawing from the campaign, he was suspending it - a subtle difference. By withdrawing, it would mean that he is gone, finished, kaput: Farewell Mitt, see you in another four years.
But in suspending his campaign, he is giving notice to anyone who will listen (and he hopes it is John McCain) that he might change his mind nearer nomination day and take up the gauntlet again.
Or, if not, he could at least be expected to be offered the vice-presidency to McCain's presidency, especially as he has all those nice Southern delegates in his pocket.
The Republicans are desperately looking for another Ronald Reagan, the conservative's conservative. Someone who can sell policy, not only to both sides of the house but particularly on television to the general public. Someone who is big on tax relief, corporate - particularly corporate - and individual, but not on welfare.
Romney, to most Republicans, seemed the man of the moment, although there was, and still is, scepticism over his "flip-flops" on policy issues over the years. And of course, the - whisper it - Mormon thing, anathema to the Christian Bible belt.
It was during his "suspension" speech that I realised exactly what sort of president America would be getting, if he was to be successful. And I feared for America. For it would not be a Reaganite "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall" type, but a George W. Bush "Let's bomb the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan" person. Worse, it was very apparent that he was reading from the same hymn sheet as Bush and Cheney.
His references to American troops as "the best and bravest in the world" may be music to the domestic listening public (and judging by the applause the comment got, it is) but it does rather put into the shade all the other 42 nations (combined) that are fighting alongside the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What with the recent slurs by Robert Gates, US Defence Secretary, and some former US generals about the competency of the allies, I am surprised the US has any friends left.
Losing their appetite
But look for a moment at some other comments Romney made during his "I'll be seeing ya" speech. He first stated that the US was at war. Maybe so, maybe not. They are chosen wars, not battles on their homeland, as the politicians so cozily refer to their country.
Which is probably why the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality of most Americans is gradually losing their appetite for the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere as the whim may take them.
Then there is Romney's frequent references to "jihadists" - delivered in a pejorative manner indicating that he had no idea who a "jihadist" is, what they stand for, or how they become one.
It is such ignorance that reminds me of when Bush invited Muslims to the White House, after invading Iraq, and " discovered" there were two principle sects, Sunni and Shiites, in Islam. If only US politicians took time to learn better what and who they are dealing with, then it is likely there will be greater understanding between East and West.
I'm not saying McCain is the best candidate, or even that Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, who are still theoretically in the running, would be better. Nor that, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have shown appalling ignorance of events in the Middle East. It does not bode well for the future of this region.
