« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Fear of Republican Cannibalism

By: anacreon (Diary)  |  November 18th, 2011 at 06:40 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Something has been eating at me recently so much that I started to it get off my chest on Twitter the other night and that hopefully I’ll finish here – Republicans and conservatives destroying our candidates while completely ignoring Mitt Romney.  I also felt compelled to words from the justinhart front page selection where he wrote:

  • Romney has held consistent conservative values for years now.  I would hope we welcome solid converts to the movement, right?
  • Romney was endorsed by numerous editors here at RedState in 2008, and hasn’t taken a vote since then…what has changed since that time?
  • Romney has a laudable and robust conservative fiscal plan and has promised to repeal Obamacare.  Is that insufficient for you?
  • He’s articulate, holds his own in debates and has the ability to win over moderates and even liberals who are disillusioned with Obama.  That’s a good thing right?

Ahh but the past is prologue.  Romney’s list of policy stance flip-flops are well documented and will not be revisited here other than to point you in the direction of this blog post which lays out a very nice portrait of Mitt Romney’s past.

We have two people to fight against this election cycle in my opinion – President Obama and Mitt Romney.

Once again it’s primary season and we have splintered off into our separate corners to battle each other’s preferred candidate.  However, the divisiveness between people and even my friends is wearing on me.  Early on, I saw support then derision of Michele Bachmann as she quickly rose and fell in the polls.  Rick Perry was next as he rose and fell in the polls following the pattern of praise/scorn.  Then it was Herman Cain’s turn for support then attacks from Republicans and conservatives as he rose and fell in the polls.  Now, we are seeing Newt rise in the polls and praise is already starting to turn to attacks on his past. Who will be next?  Who remains?

Mitt Romney.

I’m getting real tired of watching all of us trash one another’s preferred candidates – which is fine in itself – but we fail to highlight how our preferred candidate is better than Mitt Romney and ultimately, better than Barack Obama.

Romney is a candidate that cannot and will not energize the base of the Republican party.  “Not Obama” will not be enough to get Romney elected as President.  Romney is the bland, safe, “establishment” candidate who makes the squishy Beltway types and Blue State Republicans (I’m thinking Chicago Republican types like here in my home state) comfortable enough to say they are Republican at their liberal friends’ parties.  We need the candidate with whom the liberals are most uncomfortable.  We must have someone that can stand up on stage and deliver conservative principles and call out Obama for the last 3 years of absolute failure instead of worrying about the other side asking which vintage of Romney we are getting – 1994, 2002, 2008 or 2011.  Romney is not and should not be our candidate.

Personally, I don’t care who endorsed who in 2008.  I don’t even care about who is most popular in whatever state.  Give me the person that will destroy Obama in a debate and annihilate Obama at the ballot box.

We say “anyone but Romney” but yet our failure to go after him with the same veracity we do about the other candidates in the field has left Romney still at the top or near the top in polls.

Don’t get me wrong.  Promote your preferred candidate but remember to go after the guy we want our candidate to beat FIRST before he/she gets a chance at defeating President Obama!  I just hope we haven’t done so much damage ripping on the other candidates that Romney squeaks by and seals the nomination.

Thanks for sticking around for my rant.  I feel better now all that’s off my chest.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • iidvbii

    I completely agree with you that first Romney isn’t a conservative and second is the least likely to beat Obama. Ol switch hit Mitt has had easy skating in the primaries. He gets prime debate stage real estate, a lions share of the questions, questions tailored to his strengths and the most face time. The media both left and right have chosen switch hit and boy does it show. Consider the urban legends we are being spoon fed he’s conservative, a successful governor though my favorite is that “he can debate”. That last one really makes me laugh. In all the debates save one none of the candidates dared offend Mitt. Presumably so they could get the pawlenty “I’ll pay of your debt if you endorse me deal” or in Cain’s case the VP nod. But think back to that one debate were the Rick’s (Perry and santorum) took it to him finally on his hypocrisy? He fell apart, demanded the moderator step in and stuttered and stumbled around like a wine-o. This is the guy whom they claim is “our only hope” in a debate with Obama? Please…. It irritates me to no end that everyone else in this country seems to receive and consume weekly stupid pills….. Did I just get left off the list?

  • conservativeparrothead

    One of the key issues with these debates, they shouldnt be debates, there should be two parts IMO.

    Forum – general questions that they all have a chance to answer, the reality is that many of these debates are made for 15-second soundbites, and the questions are often tee’d up for someone to knock it down the fairway, the person who gets that opportunity, will often end up winning the night. I watched several of the early debates that Romney supposedly “won” and I just didnt see it, I saw a guy as you said with the majority of the questions.

    I think Mitt has a real problem, I think we can pretty much agree on two things despite who we favor as the nominee:

    1. Jobs will be a major issue of the campaign

    2. The upper midwest manufacturing states: Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana and Minnesota will be crucial to winning the White House for the Republican nominee.

    I think Romney has a major credibility and trust issue when it comes to jobs in this region of the country that is not being discussed. Bain Capital, bought companies and made them more profitable, usually by reducing manufacturing costs or outsourcing, which cost this region of the country countless jobs. Was it his fault? Of course not, we all understand that Unions and Regulations have created a manufacturing sector that couldnt be competitive in the global economy, but when you were the one leading it, I think it will be tough for him in these areas once details of his dealings are made known in the general election campaign.

  • iidvbii

    It doesn’t take much imagination to predict the attack lines, tv ads and general narrative that will be played with repetition to these crucial voters. As Ohio demonstrated in the last election, the unions are very organized, determined and effective. The last thing we need is to run a certified one percenter, wall street insider with a history of profiting from shipping quality American jobs to China. Could Obama ask for a better scenario? Romney can’t attack him on healthcare, cap and trade, TARP or the stimulus as he his firmly on the record in Obama’s corner in each of these issues. Obama will be able to effectively wrap himself in the guise of “high defender of the American working middle class”. Game over, four more years for Mr. O a lifetime of socialist nirvana for us.

  • Common_Cents

    There are a few toxic people on RS going out of their way being totally disrespectful in bashing potential candidates and their supporters.

    RS moderators can help the alleviate cannibalism by enforcing this rule of Be Respectful, or be banned. It’s tough enough facing obama and the lame stream media machine, let alone circular firing squads creating unnecessary burdens.

    Nothing wrong w/ discussions on policy differences and viability of a candidate but it should be done respectfully.

    Frankly, a few toxic people are a huge turnoff for many. RS should want to moderate this for the benefit of conservatism against our real enemy, and also, its good for business.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    t

  • Bill S

    Frankly, I’m not terribly concerned about someone being respectful to a candidate. I reco’d this diary because it was well written and made a decent case. But – as I’ve stated repeatedly, I don’t have an issue with us beating on candidates. That is what primaries are about – vetting the candidates. Part of that process is pointing out their shortcomings so all are aware. Unfortunately, in 2008 we were the only ones doing it for Obama, but we did plenty of it for the others. Problem is, it’s been four years and few of us remember the thrashing that the various candidates (McCain and RuPaul, in particular) took in the primaries.

  • paladin1

    piece that exposes a deficiency I think all conservatives are falling prey to. It is not that we forget to attack Romney; it is that we have roundly rejected him, no matter which candidate we have chosen to support, and therefore do not waste our time in challenging the rejected. This gives the illusion of Romney getting a pass when in effect, we all are seeking the best candidate to defeat both him and Obama. In this context, it is a wake-up to us not to forget the “other enemy” on the field.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Agreed that he has trust issues. But once we choose a nominee, I think Mitt will energize Republicans and conservatives with his rhetoric that is quite sharp against Obama. I just want to nominate a reliable conservative with policies strong enough to reverse America’s slide. Romney is not that.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    are so well know to primary voters that it would be an inefficient use of time just now to attack Romney. Why? Because of the obvious low ceiling that Mitt has that has endured for 5 years. How much lower need he go, as his best ever ceiling is a mere 30% and he is now in the 20%s.

    I got my B.A. at Wofford College. My hometown pastor in Spartanburg got his B.A. at Furman.

  • http://www.downstateiladvocate.com anacreon

    Talking with GOPers and Tea Partiers in my neck of the woods, I find the same “meh” factor when it comes to Mitt that I heard from people going into Nov. 2008. The people I talk with want a clear separation between candidates/ideology and Obama/ideology.

    I believe that this time around, the GOP has to put up someone that forces voters to choose which side they fall on ideologically. Either we go the route of conservatism and smaller government/less spending/lower taxes or we go the route of big government/more spending/more taxes. I’m just not convinced at this point that Mitt is that person to offer that hard choice.

    Either way, Iowa and New Hampshire are closer than we realize and I would hope that we coalesce around the guy/gal that will get the job done in Nov. 2012.

  • http://www.downstateiladvocate.com anacreon

    but I don’t think the voter does know Romney’s past. It’s been brought up briefly at one debate and that’s about it.

    With Perry, he’s a sitting governor whose record is still in the public’s eye. Bachmann people know from winning Iowa and is known as a conservative, but she has failed to establish herself past her initial historic win. Cain is the outsider, but has proven his “not ready for prime time” status over the past few weeks. Paul is pretty well known, but when you are on the ballot nearly every Presidential election year… Santorum is relatively liked but is lost in the noise of the front runners and seems to want to talk social conservatism in a fiscal conservatism election year. Huntsman was a Governor but spent time out of the public eye in China whereas other candidates have been on the ground campaigning for years.

    Newt and Romney both have something in common though, but different at the same time. Both have been out of elected office for a time now which time allows us to forget. However, Newt still registers with voters from his time as Speaker and the Contract with America and had a national stage for years.. Romney, though, was a Governor of a small Northeastern state and therefore his record is not of national fame other than what other candidates or media has brought up as an almost afterthought.

    I think that if the candidates on stage actually went after Romney on his record that his numbers would suffer more than they have from the “anyone but Mitt” factor. But at the same time, they have to get their punches in at Obama’s record as well to avoid looking like they are gang piling Romney. Tough to do in 30 second answers. I also think if the candidates did go after Romney and highlight his record it would just take one televised debate to do the damage to Romney which could lead to the other candidates getting more air time and/or to put separation/gain ground on the front runner while knocking Romney down a few poll numbers.

    Maybe I’m just over thinking it but anyway, that’s my opinion of it.

  • paladin1

    You lost me with this: “I got my B.A. at Wofford College. My hometown pastor in Spartanburg got his B.A. at Furman.”

    Either I am dense or not reading carefully enough since I don’t see the relevance to this diary or thread….help?

    By the way, I think you and I are saying the same thing; the majority of conservatives are too busy with the internecine battle for the top conservative to battle Romney. He is too well-known to garner much more that the 20-30% he already has.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    50%+ of the remaining 78%..

  • paladin1

    who make up a large percentage of the Republican primary voters are very familiar with Romney and his record. You are right though, that the voters in the general election are not particularly familiar with his record and it is our job as conservatives to select the best candidate of the conservative selection to take out Romney for the nomination first and then challenge and eject Obama. I have noted that there has been considerable criticism and backlash on any candidate who was perceived as attacking another ( Governor Perry’s debate attacks on Romney had mixed results; Bachmann was harangued by viewers for her Garasil attacks on Perry). The attack strategy does not seem to play well with the primary voters whom the candidates have to deal with now; that block of voters is more interested in what the candidates plan to do about issues and problems facing the nation. Since Romney has not moved up and has held steady, the need to go after him now, before the so-called anti-Romney is selected, seems unnecessary. Once that person rises to the top (Perry!) then he must direct his energy to exposing Romney as an O-lite in order to take the nomination and prep for the main event with the general election.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    will be thought of in a different light as compared to Hoover/Carter II, ie Obama.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    yes, we agree re the internecine battle.

  • paladin1

    I re-read the diary and all the comments after to see what I had missed with the Furman thing!