Romney (aka, the father of universal healthcare in the U.S.) is not gaining support.
Let me stress the most positive thing about the newest foxnews poll.
Mitt Romney is not gaining support.
The numbers have Romney with 23% (up from 22%); Perry with 19% (down from 29%); and Herman Cain with 17% support (up from . . . 6%?). It is no secret that I think a Romney will result in one of two scenarios.
1) The economy picks up a little bit, and with no grassroots support — working the polls, knocking on doors and bringing home the election for Romney, he loses the race by losing to a reinvigorated Obama and democrat base, by losing in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
2) The second scenario is that Romney wins, then turns his back on conservatives once in office and the right wing media carries the water for him as they did for much of Bush’s term. He grants a one-term waiver to the states on Obamacare rather than repealing it, he appoints moderate-slightly-right-of-center pro-choicers to the Supreme Court, as he is pro-choice himself, he helps the economy a bit, but shortly realizes that the international economy is worst than he thought and has no other conservative accomplishments to fall back on. Let us not forget that he was never a great bastion of job creation as governor of Mass. Republicans are swept out of office in 2014, due to a lack of truly conservative leadership. Once again, the brand is re-tarnished, and the grassroots has to go back to work to fix what he did. Republicans are left feeling like we did between 2006 and 2008, wondering why we hit the pavement, gave our money and spent our time working for a guy that wasn’t really one of us, tarnished our brand and left us with little conservative achievements to show for it.
As I see it, either way is a loss.
Also, to humor Romneyites, I should put forth a third scenario, where Romney, after governing as a liberal, changing his position on almost every issue and presenting himself as an ultra-centrist in the general, beats Obama without huge grassroots support! He governs as a right-wing conservative putting our justices on the bench, working hard to repeal Obamacare as his first act in Congress, builds a wall, reforms medicare, etc, reforms Dodd-Frank. He becomes someone of principle that fights hard for conservativism even when it becomes unpopular. This third scenario is based off of two huge assumptions, (1) Romney converts to conservatism after winning the election and (2) Romney grows a pair and stands up for something right for a change.
As I said, Romney is going to be a loser for us whether elected or unelected.
So, back to my original point, most republicans know this to be the case with Romney. His candidacy would be John McCain/Bob Dole 2.0 when we can least afford it.
So, I say that this is great news that although people are losing faith in Perry, they are not gaining it in Romney. His support still only represents 1/5 of the base holding strong for him, and he isn’t gaining traction with the grassroots.
We still need someone that will stand up, debate well, and be someone we can coalesce around as the “anti-Romney,” or more accurately, the “pro-conservatism” candidate. Whether it is Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry or maybe even Herman Cain (although I would like to see him to take a stronger stance on the life issue), whoever is benefiting from the conservative support, it does not matter, what matters is that the candidate is not Romney. We need someone who is one of us. Romney is not one of us. He would be a fish out of water on Redstate or at a tea party meeting in my hometown.
The fact that republicans are not flooding towards him when he seems so capable is telling. I for one am still hoping for a Bachmann resurgence or a Perry come-back in the debate. Every person on this site should continue to do the great work that you all do in vetting candidates and leading in your hometowns on these issues. If we work hard enough, we might end up with a win in November 2012 and a conservative in the White House.
If you ask me, that is something worth fighting for.