Let me preface by saying that some people support Mitt Romney because they would rather him be President than any other candidate.  I disagree with those people, but at least they are supporting the guy that they want to win.  I can’t fault them for that.

This diary is about those who actually want a more reliable and conservative candidate but who are supporting Romney because he is “more electable.”

Right now, we have 10% unemployment with no indication that things are going to get better.

Right now, we have all of the energy that in 2008 worked for Obama being wasted occupying Wall St.

Right now, we have record low “wrong track” numbers on the state of the country.

Right now, we have a ton of people who can say that they are worse off now than they were four years ago.

Right now, Obama seems poised to run on the idea of a “jobs” bill that won’t get passed.

Right now, Obamacare polls poorly.

Basically, short of scandal, it is hard to picture a sitting president is a worse position for re-election.

So, with the White House THIS ripe for the taking, this is the year to nominate a candidate based on his/her positions and conservative bona fides.   I cannot think of a situation less suited to holding one’s nose and choosing electability over substance.

If, at the end of the day, Romney is the nominee based on his “electability,” then there is simply no chance for a true conservative to win the nomination in the foreseeable future.

You may consider that a good thing or a bad thing, but we have to all acknowledge that it is a true thing.

This chart has been floating around liberal sites, ostensibly, I suppose, to make the point that the deficit is President Bush’s fault and has nothing to do with Obama:

Sigh.

I want to use it to make another point. While I appreciate all of the political ground we have gained over the last few months by focusing public attention on the deficit, I would not want us to go so far as to start to believe our own rhetoric that deficit reduction (or even spending reduction) should be a primary concern.

When Vice President Cheney said that “Deficits don’t matter,” he was not wrong. He was, perhaps, a bit incomplete. The real point is that “Deficits might matter a little bit, but they don’t matter as much as a lot of other things.”

Look at that chart again. Look at what makes up the lion’s share of that deficit–tax cuts and the wars. What of that would you eliminate? Would you have told the 9/11 victims that we didn’t have the money to go to war to prevent another tragedy like that? Do you want to give your tax cut back to the treasury? I doubt it.

The deficit has been GREAT for us, don’t get me wrong. It, alone, should allow the GOP to win 3 or 4 election cycles in a row. So, of course, we need to keep talking about “the problem of the deficit.” But, let’s remember that, when the rubber meets the road, how much money we spend barely matters. What does matter is what we spend the money on.

The end game here is the de facto elimination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Welfare State. But it is also tax cuts and the strongest military in the world. I would not want to lose those last two at the false altar of “deficit reduction.”