I am struck by the defeatism that seems rampant in this post. First it assumes a loss in this election when the polls are showing things as close as even. Bad idea.
Second, it all but assumes we 'would likely lose' against an incumbent Obama in 2012...I really don't get that at all. If the blinders don't fall off for people before the election, I think it likely people will have a true collective awakening shortly after (a conceivable) Obama's agenda gets unfurled in truth. Carter part 2 seems likely to me. Indeed, in many ways, the comparisons between this election and 76 are numerous. The unknown candidate of "hope" being shown against a Republican candidate who was being taken to task by the electorate for things that really weren't his doing. A recipe for a mandate it is not.
Third, there is the candidate proposed. I cannot fathom the love affair of some with Romney. I've made my view on him clear. He's a hopeless, spineless panderer. Nothing shows the weakness of his resolve and inability to reflect a true conservative agenda than his protectionist song and dance in the Michigan Primary. Everything about the man was based on his ability to conceal his "moderate"/Pragmatist record as Gov. of Mass. and say he had "evolved" as a candidate past his pro-choice, milktoast on gay marriage days.
But when push came to shove, he ran right back to the leftist trough. He ate of the same old slop that he served as Governor to pander to voters no matter the cost to him later on.
Let's be perfectly clear on this...if Romney was what the conservative movement OR the Republican Party had wanted or needed, he would have won. No one wanted McCain in the Primary. He was the candidate that was left because everyone else was a failure. Great, Romney has big doners from the Republican Establishment.
Guess what? Those are the very people who should NOT be left in control of the party any longer. Those are the very people who have refused to take the lessons of our past wins to heart and insisted on shackling McCain and make him run Bush 92 all over again. Because it worked oh-so-well the first time! They are pragmatic panderers with no agenda who are not willing to make sharp contrasts between our ideology and that of the left, because the media has told them we don't make our case well. Really? I seem to recall winning on that case under Gingrich. And winning big.
So please, don't hand us a lapdog of the Establishment and tell us he can give us a meaningful vision of the Republican future. He's already painted us a career picture of what he does. It wasn't what we wanted. If we want a Republican Gov. to lead the party, I can name two. Both are currently serving. Hopefully one will be serving in a higher office in January. The other was considered for the same and has effectively served two terms as the most conservative Gov of Minnesota since the 20s.
So let's step away from the tired East Coast Establishment and their pragmatist selections. Contrary to the assertion of some, we don't win when pragmatists run, because pragmatists don't give us a vision to run on. And Romney didn't have one either, which was why he gave us a different Romney every state. If we want to actually change the party...which regardless of the outcome on the 4th, we need to do...we need to bring in someone who will actually change things. Not someone who talks about being different and then does the same old same old when the chips are down. Put the stake through Romney. If we wanted him, we would've taken him this time.