« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Nominee

He Beat the Base. Now Will the Base be With Him?

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  March 21st, 2012 at 04:46 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Nominee

It is a mathematical improbability that Rick Santorum will get to the magic number of 1,144 — the number of delegates needed to be the Republican Presidential nominee. It is a political improbability that Rick Santorum will stop Mitt Romney from getting to 1,144.

Last night in Illinois, Mitt Romney won his first victory without caveats.

Even in Florida, a big win, there were plenty — counties that saw increased turnout rejected him. The northern part of the state rejected him. It required an amalgamation of voters not quite typical of the base to get Romney the nod in Florida.

In Illinois, Romney won. Period. The Santorum campaign stumbled badly in Puerto Rico, gave up a lead in Illinois, and the candidate proved horribly undisciplined. Like Dug the dog in Up getting distracted by every random squirrel, Rick Santorum loses all ability to focus when social issues come up. His lack of discipline and message focus steering those issues to families as he did so beautifully in the Mesa, AZ debate has hindered him and solidified a media narrative that he is more concerned with those issues than jobs and the economy. It is not fair. It is not even accurate. But fairness and accuracy are rare commodities in American retail politics and Rick Santorum has not leveraged his strengths well.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney’s win in Illinois still highlights his struggles. Blue collar voters are not fond of him. Staunchly conservative voters are not either. Evangelical voters also are not fond of him. The voters do not feel quite comfortable with their pick. But though evangelicals and social conservatives are the base of the base of the Republican Party, they are not enough to stop Mitt Romney and a spending advantage some have estimated topped 20 to 1 against Santorum in Illinois.

This is not to say the race is over. Far from it. Rick Santorum will probably win Louisiana. Conservatives will rally to Santorum and continue protesting Romney as the nominee. But it will not be enough. Romney will do well in New England and the remaining mid-Atlantic states. He will do well out west, winning California.

He will be the nominee.

Theoretically, Rick Santorum could keep Romney from getting to 1,144. But as Romney piles up more and more wins and neither the Gingrich nor Paul campaigns remain factors, let alone have pulses, the inevitable will set in. Conservatives may not really like Mitt Romney, but they do not want a fractured party too divided to beat Barack Obama. There will be no white knight, no dark horse, and no brokered convention. We have our nominee.

If, come November, Mitt Romney wins, he will owe it to a lot of Republicans who put their reputation on the line and it will be payback time. If Mitt Romney loses, party leaders will undoubtedly try to blame conservatives as they always do, but it will be really hard to cast blame when Romney’s supporters have billed him as Mr. Electable since shortly after they they billed Harriet Miers as a genius conservative pick for the Supreme Court.

Either way, conservatives have and no doubt will continue to make it very clear that Mitt Romney may be the standard bearer of the Republican Party, but he most definitely is not the standard bearer of the conservative movement. The disentangling of the movement from the party will continue. So too will our shared effort to oust Barack Obama from the White House.

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • momac

    I think Perry’s record was custom made for this cycle. Alas… But Santorum had the benefit of staying below the radar, then a Mark Levin endorsement, then Rush’s implied endorsement. The guy is awful, in my opinion.

    He appears angry, he’s preoccupied with people’s private lives, he’s everything that people fear about the Republican Party. He’s openly hostile to libertarians, to TEA Party folks, and to liberty in general. I think his survival this late in the game will go a long way toward our defeat, people I talk to can’t believe we’ve got people voting for him.

    Then there’s his economic illiteracy and ridiculous tax plan. Everyone else subsidize ‘manufacturing’, which I’m sure he’ll define.

    It makes it very hard to argue against lefty moralizing and authoritarian moves when we allow a guy like Santorum to bloviate this many months down the road. Santorum would never be caught dead saying he “is trying to make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your life as I can.? And that’s the impulse we need in order to get a truly overwhelming majority going.

    I think Rick Santorum’s success will cost us and will take time to recover from. Nobody is looking for a new government dad.

  • davesinsanantonio

    get to work supporting him and working on the down-ballot races.

    I was as anti-Mitt as anyone, but it is time to put that aside for the good of the country. We seriously cannot afford another four years of the man who wants to destroy America in the White House. Nor can we afford any more of the jerk who wants to help him do it running the Senate.

    So, put your wounded pride behind you and get behind Mitt and let’s save this country from those who hate it.

    If you still hate Mitt, just shut up about it, because saving the country is more important right now than anything else, including your ego! I can subordinate my ego to the survival of America. Can you? We need you to help us. Please, don’t do anything that will give Obummer four more years to finish his goal of collapsing our economy and fomenting class, ethnic, and gender wars among us, rescinding our freedoms, and selling our military down the river to defeat. Obummer wants to give our sovereignty to the UN. We simply cannot afford to give him one more term.

  • lakeshore

    Thanks Erick, nicely written. I think most of us here always wanted a much more Conservative nominee. Perry had his chance. I’m still not sure if Romney’s money scared off others from running–or maybe they knew Perry would be too and assumed that he might get it instead. What will be interesting to watch is who Romney picks as his running mate. They have to know he needs help shoring up the base. So, should he go for a Catholic like Rubio or McDonnell, or an Evangelical like Thune? I also think Mitt can morph better in a general election than either Rick S. or Newt ever could. He is just more flexible, more personable, and can shift the attention to economic issues better than they could. Let’s hope so at least.

  • lakeshore

    If he chooses well, and happens to lose, at least we’ll have a better standard bearer for 2016. Unlike the last VP pick.

  • momac

    not just for the other races, which are indeed critical, but to keep pressure on romney himself. the guy has to know that yes we’ll support him in a head-to-head against the worst president of many of our lifetimes, but that he’s going to have to be real careful if he wants ongoing support.

    in any case, we have to win the presidency first. maybe we can get people energized with a decent vp pick. we shall see. i’m still reeling at how people that voted for biden called palin stupid. such a malleable reality.

  • greenpoint

    Again Romney LOST the overwhelming majority of Illinois counties but won by doing better in the cities and larger counties. Mitt won Chicago. Is there one person on this planet who thinks Romney will win Chicago against Obama. It’s the same way he won Ohio – by getting a big vote out of Lake county which is basically Cleveland. How will Cleveland vote in November? Yeah, I thought so.

  • willik

    The MSM has convinced the voters once again to select mere Democrat cannon fodder to run against Obama.

    Not that I think ANY of the candidates can live up to Conservative principles, Romney is surely the worst pick of the litter.

    Regardless the pundits’ (Dick Morris, Charles Krauthammer, etc.) declarations, the very pundits that have thrown their wieght behind Romney, a brokered convention may NOT be such a bad thing.

    Maybe we’ll finally get our heads out of the sand and buck the back eastie powers and find at least a Reagan LIKE appointee. Not much chance of that as the MSM and pundits have once again selected another amiable LOSER!!!

    Dang shame!

  • Filibuster Keaton

    Are we at least allowed to worry about everybody down ballot Mitt will cause to lose?

  • davedix

    >>> when Romney?s supporters have billed him as Mr. Electable since shortly after they they billed Harriet Miers as a genius conservative pick for the Supreme Court.

    Name one. You can’t! The only idiots who thought Harriet Miers was the answer were fools who supported Perry, Gingrich . . . or even worse, Gingrich in the midst of last holiday season!

    Don’t misrepresent the truth. Or, more simply: Don’t lie. It lessens your already-sinking credibility.

  • mikelindell2

    Who would have thought some wanna-be conservative who loses by historic landslides could knock off Romney’s money? Newt was obviously the only hope to do that and voters blew it. You see what happens when Newt doesn’t campaign or compete in a state? Huge blowout loss for Santorum.
    Anyone else hear Santorum’s speech tonight plagiarizing things that Newt has been saying for months? He said “this is the most important election since 1860.” Hmmm, that sounds familiar. He said Romney is just a good “manager.” That sounds familiar as well. He calls himself the true conservative even though he has a weaker ACU rating than Gingrich. He calls Newt “Congresman Gingrich” even though Newt has accomplished more and served at higher levels than Rick could dream of.
    So conservatism goes from big spending under W to moderate malaise under McCain to lifetime liberal Mitt. To his credit though, Mitt gave a decent speech tonight. It will still be painful to have to watch him in a general walk back all of the conservative things he’s pretended to believe in the last 4 years.
    Does anyone else think it’s a good idea to try to nominate Kucinich or another far-lefty to Americans Elect ticket to erode some votes from O?

  • devonshire

    Most folks believe it is Mitt Romney who can beat Obama. He didn’t go to far right which means he can pick up Independents and disenfranchised Democrats. If Santorum were the nominee he would only appeal to very conservative evangelical voters. Very conservative evangelical voters do not represent the cross section of America. I fully believed Gingrich would make a come back because he has big ideas and was focused on the economic woes facing our country. Mitt is also focused on the economy. It is my guess that as long as gas prices remain high through the summer, we will be looking at a President Romney. I would take a President Romney over Obama
    any day of the week. It is time to get behind Mitt Romney or suffer the consequences of 4 more years of Obama.

  • sowa1

    of you that don’t like Mitt, get over it. He will make a great president. People that complain probably voted for Obama. How did that turn out for all of us? The Senate is supposed to advise and consent. Keep the President in line. Too many executive orders, now he has taken control of all oil, gas, and even our water. We have fought for years to keep peoples hands off the Great Lakes water and will continue to do so. Obama, keep your hands off our water.

  • sowa1

    time to get serious and do all to do all it takes to replace Obama.

  • artaustria

    Time to get behind our nominee and focus on the big prize in November. Sure, some bitterness will remain, but even that will go away. Just give the people some time. And the Veep pick will be very crucial, of course. I’d go with Rubio. Or Ryan.

    Anyway, Romney will have to continue to reach out to all those who still aren’t convinced. And if he wins, he will owe them big time.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …as to whether The Newt can rise again?

    If the narrative can be concluded to be that Santorum lost on a one-on-one competition…and he will lose most everything through PA on 4/24…then he can be supplanted in time for The Newt to build momentum through mid-June.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    checkmate

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    His campaign is now in negative financial territory. He has only won two states. There are now no states on the map in which Gingrich is polling first or in a stable position in second. He has to win five states to even have a nomination considered at the convention. That will not happen.

  • Wubbies World

    This has epitomized Mitt Romney’s electoral efforts this primary season. This man does nothing but turn off the base. The only hope he has of winning the general is people’s fear of how disastrous Obama is to our nation.

    How pathetic is a nominee where he has to rely on how bad the incumbent is?

    Were doomed……

  • APA Guy

    I have posted my criticism of Mitt Romney on a regular basis, but the future of the country is at stake. Our economy is drifting back toward oblivion…aided greatly by skyrocketing gas prices and a president who doesn’t know good business from the hole in his arse.

    We have all had our say…it’s ENOUGH. It’s time to start directing our attacks toward the true enemy of conservatism: Barack Hussein Obama.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    and can’t he become the last anti-Romney?

  • APA Guy

    Standing on principle is one thing. Telling the rest of the country their business about THEIR principles is quite another. Santorum swings that self-righteous stick a little too wildly. I firmly believe he would have gotten plastered in November.

    I still think Newt could have taken out Obama, but Romney has the ability to do the same if he stays on message i.e. THE ECONOMY AND GAS PRICES.

  • APA Guy

    I like Newt, but he just isn’t gaining any traction. Romney is the candidate…and really, I’m glad we’ll at least have someone who is pro-business and has the ability to raise large sums of money to go 12 rounds with Obama.

    Plus, Obama is so aloof at his handling of rising gas prices, the country may want him out even before we reach November :)

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Loren Heal

    I see you’ve never met Rick, nor seen him in person. He’s exactly none of the things you mention.

    Media 1, Reality 0.

  • APA Guy

    Romney or Obama…pick one…and if you say neither, I’ll assume that means Obama. It’s time to drop the sanctimonious “I want my candidate and I’ll take my ball and go home if I don’t get him” act and do what is best for the country.

    We will still hold Romney’s feet to the fire, but trying to damage him or pining for another candidate at this point only helps Obama win another term…and that we can’t afford.

  • pieter

    How is it that everyone declares the primary over due the influence of IL?

    The state that gave us Obama will determine the republican nominee? Wow, that speaks volumes.

    Last I checked, republicans won’t even win this state in the general.

    Keep going, Newt.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …particularly within the $2.50 gasoline issue.

    Witness today’s upcoming announcement of construction of the southern half of the Keystone Pipeline.

  • paco12348

    I have to agree, Romney will be the nominee. He’s a good man and will do a good job but he won’t shake things up and our government sorely needs to be shaken down to the roots.
    IF, Romney does not win against Obama, the GOP Leadership have only themselves to blame because they did select, push and anoint Romney before the debates even began. Rove is still playing “The Architect”. He lies and denies but he was pushing the word, inevitable, for Romney very early in the game. I no longer admire Rove.
    Republican voters have educated themselves into the ways the gov. works, the Constitution, and other aspects of government. We also see through the way Rove and others manipulate the people. We could always see it with the Democrats but now the Republicans have become so blatant even a non political animal can see it. I resent it. Romney should win on his own. This way it will be with outspending and being anointed by the GOP Leadership. Voter turnout may be low because people feel they have had no choice and have been dissed by their Leaders. We are not too ignorant to select the right person. McCain was selected for us and look how that turned out.

  • boonerdan

    So “Mr. Inevitable” won another primary in a state Obama will win easily? Here’s a prediction: McCain v2.0 will also win California. Care to wager how that state will go in November?

    Turnout is low because Romney is a BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERAL, nothing more. He is Obama-lite.

    Good luck with that. Looks like I will be doing the “write-in” thing for the first time in a Presidential race.

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Loren Heal

    You want to use my name? Use your own.

    If you want to heal the party and work toward unity, then do so.

    Attacking me, and claiming falsely that I will “take my ball and go home” is dishonest and wrong.

    So put up or shut up. You can start by apologizing.

  • 1stRichard

    This is where it can get tricky and Obama is reelected, the two sides must work together but not the same effort. The two thirds that did not want Romney will likely attack Obama and his base, but must be given a clear path to do so. In this Romney will need to stay away from the cross fire and stay behind the line. If the Romney camp strays in to no mans land or fires a shot in the wrong direction, Obama wins and given the past performance of the Romney camp this is a good probability.

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Loren Heal

    Well played, Neil.

  • Wubbies World

    Will Conservatives in Congress at least be smart enough to not allow our illustrious spineless squish of a Speaker to suck them in to the ‘moderate to just get along’ legislation proposals that he has a propensity to offer for votes?

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …such as this from FreedomWorks…and the reaction to the reaction [@ the end of page 2].

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/20/romney-gets-tepid-tea-party-support/

    Remember, the growing support for Mitt is based upon the libertarian-revulsion to Santorum’s Social Policy Advocacy.

  • naraht

    Romney has won states that Obama won in 2008 and states that are in the top 8 by LDS percentage, and that’s it.

  • hisgirlfriday

    in 2004.

    62 percent of Illinois voters voted Obama in 2008.

    Yet somehow Illinois voters gets to crown the nominee to take on Obama in 2012?

  • renl57

    Santorum didn’t need to be baited by the liberal media into talking about irrelevant social issues (and yes, pornography is irrelevant to this campaign).

    He likes to talk about that stuff, he wants to talk about that stuff.

    Less than 2 weeks ago, the Santorum campaign put out a statement pledging that as President, Santorum would ban adult (not child) porn on cable TV and the Internet. (Good luck with that.)

    Rick, give it a rest already.

    Anybody who can afford to pay for premium adult channels on cable TV or satellite TV likely have jobs with good pay. They’re not the struggling or unemployed blue collar workers you keep alluding to.

  • hisgirlfriday

    No poll ever showed Santorum ahead in Illinois. Ever.

    Now Santorum was really stupid in how he managed things post-Dixie by going to Louisiana election night rather than holding a speech in Illinois if he actually intended to compete in this state.

    He was stupid in going to Puerto Rico at all when Romney had the governor’s backing already sewn up and it was winner-take-all. Even if he just wanted to have some fun in the sun in warm weather, well he could have gotten that and then some in Illinois over the past week.

    Santorum was stupid in stepping all over his message of embracing the Reagan rebel spirit of ’76 with his powerful speech in Dixon by doing a billion interviews, most of which were focused on his recent off-the-cuff porn comments.

    That said… despite Romney outspending him 7-1 downstate and robocalling 3 and 4 times a day to pressure folks to vote Romney, he still won every county bordering the Mississippi River (Illinois is the first state that borders the Mississippi River that he has lost) and was very close in the Central Illinois counties that he lost. The Central Illinois counties he lost were close. The only real blowout happened where Santorum got destroyed by 21-1 in ads. The margin of victory that Romney had was from Chicago and Chicago suburbs. And there are not a lot of states that have places like Chicago and the Chicago suburbs.

    Illinois is the only state in the country preventing concealed carry.

    The Illinois suburbs are the most pro-choice voters in the country.

    And that’s the electorate that gets to pronounce the GOP nominee? This electorate that even after Blagojevich chose to elect Blago’s lt. governor as governor in the 2010 wave GOP year?

    If people are just sick of the primary now and have finally reached the acceptance stage of grief when it comes to Romney… that’s fine… but don’t pretend like Romney somehow finally wooed conservatives over just based on how Illinois went down.

  • obamney2000

    A vote is a vote.

    It doesn’t matter if Obama beats Romney in the cities, what matters is the total statewide vote.

    If Obama beats Romney in a big city, Romney’s votes in that city still have an impact on the statewide totals, which is what matters.

  • APA Guy

    How exactly should I address you? That isn’t really a justifable complaint, but feel free to run with it if you so choose.

    As far as an apology, don’t hold your breath. You came on this thread whining about Santorum hatred…as though we need to know Rick Santorum personally to hold him to task for the things he says or the positions he holds. Do I need to know him personally to critique him?

    I see no need to sugar-coat words at this point since any delusions for a Santorum candidacy now take place at the expense of our nominee, Mitt Romney, taking back the White House. The United States is in a state of emergency and feelings are the furthest thing from what is most important at this point and time. We need this clown out of the White House NOW, not in 5 years.

  • celador2

    I see two goals for conservatives ahead. One is to help elect a Republican president in November ; and whomever has an R by his name at this point will be a vast improvement over Obama.

    The next goal is to continue to build a conservative base on all levels of government from local to national. We have some practice now since 2010 when conservatives through a visible tea party challenged established GOP leaders and replaced some of them like Sen Bennett. New Governors and state legislatures swept out Democrats similar to 1994. That conservative trend should continue even if Romney becomes president.

    Romney will become head of the party, appoint chair RNC and have much to say on legislation and all that. HIs nominees to judiciary will make it all worhwhile, however. Here we can make a rapid spitball difference. No to Harriet Miers. Embrace Judge Alito and others like him! (Bush did at least too things right–Roberts and Alito.)

    Conservatives are such a large force that this movement must not fold and go away. A Romney nomination means he will have won it because conservatives were divided but not insignificant.

    Meantime the primary is not over and all voters still have had no say.

  • syd

    “Record low turn out” is incorrect. If you check the numbers, you’ll see the Republican turnout this year was actually slightly greater (over 900,000) than 2008′s (under 900,000). But the “record low turnout” meme is still being echoed everywhere. It’s false.

    The low turnout was actually for Democrats, not Republicans

  • jeffbwillis

    Ditto! Marco Rubio is the only thing that will save Romney from defeat! The former Massachusetts Governor simply has too many issues. They start with his inability to connect with “blue collar” Democrats. Republicans can win these voters with the right nominee. But Romney is “Fortune 500 Mitt,” the king of downsizing and outsourcing. Romney likewise doesn’t resonate with young(under 35) voters. He exemplifies the Republican tradition of being the party of “old white men.” Rubio, in Sean Hannity’s words, is like a “rock star.” He would be invaluable with these voters. Evangelicals don’t trust Romney. The GOP needs them to turnout. They typically only send 30 percent to the polls. 40% would equate to a win for Republicans. Rubio would help some, but Romney is the worst possible choice to appeal to these voters. Romney is only polling at 14% with Hispanics. This is a guaranteed ticket to a loss! Rubio might not do as well as some think with Latino voters. He is Cuban and Mexican voters hold the key in critical Southwest states. But he would ice Florida and likely Nevada for Romney. The big question is, “would Rubio do one for the team?” Romney obviously would prefer Bob McDonald or another “like minded soul.” But he’s not stupid! He knows that he must find ways to bring conservatives to the table. Rubio is his best chance. But will Rubio see it that way? Personally, I would be more comfortable with Marco on the top of the ticket and Mitt as V.P.

  • http://UnitedConservativesofVirginia Cargosquid

    THAT’s a nice way to put it. (snark)

    Hahahaha.

    Couldn’t resist. ;)

  • Viet71

    I don’t particularly like Romney. But I surely want him in the WH come next January 21. That’s a realistic wish.

    Hand wringing over other candidates at this point is only cathartic.

  • celador2

    This feeling on electibiltly may be counterintuitive but I do not see Romney as most Electable. Rick Santorum spoke well last night and from the heart of experience. Were he better organized he might have done better with delegates.

  • AceInTX

    By appealing to blue states winning in areas dominated by Democrat Machines whom he will NOT win in November. He will have won getting cross over Democrat votes who will NOT vote fir him in November. He will have won because of a primary schedule and delegate process that favors picking the most liberal candidate in the race. He will have won because of power political games in VA. He will have won by scraping together Delegates in US Territories the Party has awarded allowing NON citizens who don’t pay Taxes to the US Government and who don’t abide by the laws we all live under select our nominee for POTUS.

    The Money lined up behind him early as did to supposedly non existent establishment including the Bushes, the Roves and the consulting class and now we have a nominee who is uninspiring to the people he needs to get elected who is unimaginative, unprincipled, unimpressive who gives away the number one argument against Obama as the author of Obamneycare the day he gives his acceptance speech.

    If you enjoyed the train wreck that was the McCain Campaign…get ready for the time of your life, Romney will make McLame look competent in comparison!

    Yeah team!

  • salemst

    Erick, I see you’ve finally come around. I applaud your realism/pragamatism understanding you wanted to nomine the most conservative candidate, rather than the most conservative electable candidate–as William F Buckley would say.

    I’m an across the board staunch conservative–as conservative as anyone out there. I live in Massachusetts. Many have and are underestimating Mitt Romney indicting him cause of Romneycare and coming from Massachusetts.

    You all have to realize we’re “The Peoples’ Republic” of Massachusetts. Decades of hard core liberalism means when you try to put down conservative roots you hit solid granite. A conservative in Massachusetts is relegated ot fighting/slowing down/stopping liberalism. Mitt Romney fought hard against liberalism. Many can’t see it cause liberalism is so ingrained here it’s tought to overpower it.

    Final thought. Mitt Romney will defeat Obama. He’s a Paul Ryan budget/Tea Partyer without being a member of the Tea Party. He’s a traditional Judeo-Christian values proponent without being Evangelical. He’s an economic private sector jobs creator and not a Wall Street puppet. He’s the toughest candidate on illegals/amnesty. He’s the only candidate advocating for a powerful military increasing spending on it. I don’t understand why so many don’t see what’s obvious. Mitt Romney says what he’s going to do, then does it. Different times require different approaches. This is not 1994. Forget what he said 18 years ago. Different issues and different times requiring different solutions.

    Romney will go down as one of the top 3-4 presidents in US history. Ronald Reagan II–but a far better government cost cutter. You heard it here first.

  • jeffbwillis

    Mitt Romney is winning in places where the Republicans have little chance in November. Many of these voters broke for Barack Obama in ’08. The question becomes “are most of Romney’s delegates coming from states the Republicans are certain to lose in November?” We know that Romney’s core support comes from Fortune 500 companies, Wall Street and the big banks. Almost all are contributing to both his campaign and Obama’s, in effect hedging their bets. I smell 2008 and 1996! Republicans blue bloods obviously never learned their lesson. Maybe it’s because they win either way!

  • ltcoldon

    I gress we just have to accept that the same people who gave us Dole and McCain have now given us Romney like it or not time to move on.The RNC can now stop calling me for money Romney has plenty of his own.

  • freedom555

    ….as a perfectly benign Game Show Host.

    He’ll manage to read the words written for him—–which none of us will believe he believes.

    He’ll come out with some spontaneous head-turners—–to keep all of our comedians fully employed.

    He’ll make sure that all the Democrats have jobs, in office—-in 2016.

    Other than ‘looking the part’, Romney has no business running for President.

    Santorum may well be a ‘disaster’ in the sense that he’d be rejected by the general election voters of 2012 but at least we’d have a sense of who the man is. That’s important to accepting someone as a leader.

    Romney is unknowable.

  • AceInTX

    my bet is, he won’t…he’ll try to run a “Respectful” Campaign and will flame out like his daddy McCain did in 2008!

    THIS SUCKS!!!

  • celador2

    Just because the man is the probable nominee is no reason to jump on his bandwagon. To do so would give the impression conservatives don’t care. My state votes April 3 and its close between Romney and Santorum.

    Support for November after the nomination is another thing Unity is essential.

  • Viet71

    Romney will need the Republican base, just as JFK needed Texas in 1960.

    The base should use its bargaining power, not let it go to waste.

    Not a new idea, but pretty clear to me.

  • Patriot’s Tool Box

    Thank you for your service to our nation. I currently have a daughter in the USAF and a son in his second hitch with the Navy.

    We have some dead-serious issues just ahead as a nation and this guy if you can get him out of the mirror does not have enough usable brain power to do half the multitasking that will be required. I will be biting the inside of my mouth as I did with that last candidate that was put up but I will be there on election day.

    Odd no one has looked at his numerous judicial appointments as governor before following the media’s lead to support him…..

  • jeffbwillis

    A livelong, Broward Country, Florida Democrat made an interesting observation. He said that Mitt Romney was a “carbon copy” of former Massachusetts Governor, William Weld. Weld is classified as a Republican. But he’s really more akin to a fiscally conservative Democrat. He then shocked me in stating that Romney was actually “closer to Bill Clinton” ideologically that was Barack Obama. My friend admitted to have voted for Obama in ’08. He added that “if Romney is the nominee, I will vote Repubican!” Calling himself a “Bill Clinton Democrat, he drew the distinction. “Barack Obama is somewhere between George McGovern and Mikhail Gorbachev. The “real Mitt Romney” is Bill Clinton, without the Arkansas drawl.”

  • sigmasix

    I don?t like Mitt Romney. In fact, I am having trouble figuring out why I should vote for this guy instead of (gasp) Johnson!

    Having said that, I have to concede that this race is over. O.K., Romney will be hammered in Louisiana and Texas, but with big expensive states like New York and California coming up, and states where the Democrats are going to win like New Jersey and Wisconsin (Romney always wins states the GOP will lose in November), Romney can?t lose (no matter how awful he is).

    There will be no brokered convention. Santorum hasn?t the money or appeal to win enough delegates to stop Romney. Gingrich has shown he can only win in the Deep South (although he?s going to lose to Santorum in Louisiana). If anyone is looking to Ron Paul to rack up enough delegates to make a difference I suggest you change your medication.

    Mitt?s going to lose to Obama. How can a guy who is so despised by his own party expect to win over independents and waffling Democrats?

    It?s a pity, but when Romney and his millions win the nomination, he is going to learn what it?s like to be outspent by your opponent. Obama is going to have a billion dollars. Mitt?s DOA.

    I guess we?ll have to wait until 2016.

    On a side note! I still believe that Mitt should have run an affirmative campaign ? outlining why we should vote FOR him (vis-a-vis Obama) ? rather than a sleazy, non-stop, sh*t-slinging campaign against his fellow Republicans.

    But that?s all sewage under the bridge, now.

    The question is, after winning the primary, down and dirty, will Romney now go after Obama for the menace that he is, or will be go McCain on us and revert to Marquis of Queensbury pillow-fighting rules once his conservative rivals have been spent into oblivion?

  • bk

    You know the Obama campaign will be 100% negative – it’s not like he’s got a record worth touting. Romney should have plenty of dough to sling his own mud. If he goes after Obama twice as hard as he did his GOP opponents, maybe he’ll win some friends among the base.

  • jeffbwillis

    Insiders are betting that Marco will say “no” to Romney. But Romney needs Rubio. Desperately! The former Massachusetts Governor has major issues with key Republican constitutuencies. Namely Evangelicals, “blue collar’ Democrats, younger(under 35) voters and Hispanics. It appears that the Eastern Establishment has focused solely on those “mushy Republicans leaning Independent” residing in states that the party will lose irregardless of the nominee! We know that many, if not most of Romney’s backers are contributing to both his campaign and Obamas, effectively “hedging their bets.” This promotes distrust and could lead to a late August revolt in Tampa. Rubio could save the game. But will he? Without question, he will be pressured to accept the nod. But is it fair for “bluebloods” who blew the ’96 and ’08 elections to once again choose “their” nominee? A “shadow convention” could be on the horizon. It would likely be better to draft someone not in the race than to allow Romney to be the nominee. There are even Southern Evangelicals who are now talking about either staying home, voting for Obama or voting for Gary Johnson. The “Ivy League crowd” better wake up to reality!

  • trickamsterdam

    Actually Mike it was the failure of Newt voters to vote strategically in MI and OH who sealed the fate of their own candidate.

    Simply too dumb to understand that if anyone beat Romney in OH and MI it would destroy his “electability” myth (which is exactly what it is a myth) and render him literally a fringe candidate on the level of a Paul…without his electability myth Romney’s nothing.

    And w/ the fact that Newt supporters around here are always pushing polls that show half of Newt’s supporters go to Romney who on Earth cares what you think anyway? Stopping Romney was not your issue.

    However electing Newt was and your child-like understanding of strategy doomed him as well.

    Had Newt supporters helped defeat Romney in OH and MI they would have quickly seen that Newt had a (much) better chance in a two man race w/Santo than he did in a three man race w/ Romney and Santo or a two man race w/ Newt and Romney (when Romney could have crushed Newt w/ his money again).

    But being small-minded small thinkers w/ a poor understanding of strategy you Newt supporters could never dream of anything but being the “anti Romney”. You’re small-time people most of you.

    And most of you are utterly unworthy of the candidate you supported (Newt) who never thought small in his life.

  • Wubbies World

    … if you want to aggregate the states Romney lost, you can make the argument it wasn’t a ‘record’ low. In every state Romney has won, the turn out was terrible.

    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/voter-turnout-extremely-low-for-illinois-primary/

    Even in Florida where Romney won, he has to drive up voter turn out in liberal districts. He lost in the conservative districts. The rich white vote turns out to vote for him and the blue collar and evangelical is totally uninspired. The campaign staff is dismissive and arrogant towards those voters as well.

    Romney is a dullard and about as inspiring as a stale cookie. The only thing he has going for him is that Obama scares people and he has a lot of money. That is it.

    His stock campaign speech is “I am a patriotic American and I promise not to screw up worse.” I am just waiting for him to recycle McCain’s campaign position of not wanting to offend the minorities by actually talking badly about Obama.

    Sadly, I will be voting for him but I will be drinking heavily right before I do.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Now we can start working on state and local races. There are three really important ones in Colorado. Two (CO-03 & CO-06) are potential losses, and one (CO-02) is a potential pickup.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    And Santorum won here. Unfortunately, no delegates are bound, so they can go to the State Convention and choose whoever they want. There’s really no point for the average GOP voter to go to the caucus here because you can’t be assured your vote even matters. This system really needs to be changed.

  • katem

    Barring some unexpected development that causes Romney to fall short of 1,144 delegates and pushes the convention to a second ballot, Romney will be the nominee. That’s not solely because of the GOP “establishment” pushing Romney’s candidacy.

    It’s also the result of conservatives failing to identify and support the electable conservatives early in the race in order to stop Romney, who was being pitched as “inevitable” a year ago. Instead, conservatives flirted with one improbable (and, in some cases, unprepared and/or underqualified) candidate after another. We should have lined up behind one of our two electable conservatives — Huntsman and Pawlenty — early. Either of them could have defeated Romney if they had better polling and fundraising support from conservatives. Any reasonable person could have seen last summer that Santorum, Cain, Bachmann, etc. would not be viable in a general election. Santorum is simply the last man standing against Romney.

    Now we’re stuck with Romney the technocrat whose lack of vision and core political principles reduces him to singing patriotic songs on the campaign trail. I’m reminded of what Bush 41 said to Dukakis, another Massachusetts technocrat (who actually did have a very liberal vision but downplayed it and tried to run on competence), during the 1988 election — competence makes the trains run on time but doesn’t tell them what direction to go.

    This was avoidable, but too many people didn’t take the long view and instead sought ideological purity during the debates and the primaries.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Santorum at the top of the ticket.

    For a conservative candidate it’s a whole lot easier and more credible to say I support Romney but I’m going to Washington to make sure he really does walk the walk… And get conservatives to turn out and appeal to Indies, than with Santorum at the top railing about how he’s going make the internet and my local Circle K porn free zones.

    Also, thank God we don’t have to listed to any more of his old-Washington economic plans or his I’ve-been-a-Senator-forever tax crap.

  • Wubbies World

    This article is not a ‘meme’ as Romney people claim.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics_topics/2012/Feb/02/voter_turnout_numbers_point_to_gop_enthusiasm_gap.html

    “In the four states to vote so far in the GOP nominating race, turnout has been strongest where people were energized to vote for somebody else.”

    This article is not a meme either: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/14/romney-very-conservative-voters-might-not-be-with-me-now-but-they-will-be-in-november/

    The arrogance to ‘assume’ people will vote for him is why people dislike him so much!

  • northeastred

    I’m hoping Rick Santorum, or some other conservative comes along and runs as a third party candidate, because I could imagine the vote splitting between Romney and Obama! Let’s face it, if Romney is the nominee, he’s going to start moving toward his true self–the center, where he’s indistinguishable from the president.

    To be honest, I’d rather see Obama than Romney. I hate to admit it, but I don’t buy into the whole right wing “Obama’s a socialist” nonsense anyway. He’s more effective on defense than Bush was, and let’s be honest–Mitt’s doesn’t have any ideas for the economy, other than ways to personally profit. By the time November rolls around, Americans may be worried about gas prices, but the economy has been recovering steadily, and many people will trust Obama more than some Wall Street Hedge Fund guy who wants more power.

    A true conservative third party candidate would not necessarily be the disaster we usually think. Romney is the disaster. He’s the 2012 version of Bob Dole running against a popular president. And his great experience is at getting rich and losing elections.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    None, zip, nada. It’s a wet dream and Santorum would probably take your internet service away for dreaming it.

    The actual evidence is more like Newt voters would have split on the order of 50/50 and Romney would still have won.

    There’s a huge group of Newt supporters who find Santorum an absolute anathema and a walking disaster.

    Need to blame somebody, blame your candidate. He stayed alive out of Iowa only because he bought Pantaloons to the tune of a million ill-spent dollars and then that got him an equally ill-conceived endorsement by the fools who huddled in Texas. The fact is, he was in Iowa for two years and connected with nobody and it took a million bucks into the pockets of a self-serving creep with buses to deliver the caucus votes. He’s a really lousy candidate, just ask the voters in Pennsylvania.

    And, I was a Perry supporter, he was and is the best guy for the job, but he was a mediocre candidate, got in at the wrong time and really had a lousy organization that served him poorly and he didn’t react to that and replace them. He was a lousy candidate too, just for different reasons.

  • trickamsterdam

    I think it’ll be the only time I ever hear it since he’s not even going to be elected let alone get into Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln/Adams territory.

    Also another reason I suspect this is the only time I’ll ever hear it is most people even if they believed it would not say it because they’d know they’d never be taken seriously by anyone ever again. Fortunately for you you clearly don’t value being taken seriously.

    “I?m an across the board staunch conservative?as conservative as anyone out there. I live in Massachusetts. Many have and are underestimating Mitt Romney indicting him cause of Romneycare and coming from Massachusetts.” – Salemst

    Just like w/ people who brag about being war heroes or ladies’ men never are the ones who brag about being “staunch conservatives” never are.

    Mitt Romney was a failed one term governor whose approval rating collapsed more than 30 points while in office and who finished w/ an approval rating of 33%. And it wasn’t because he was an R. The two previous governors were Rs as I’m, sure you know.

    Since he still defends RomneyCare to this day and genuinely doesn’t seem to know why a mandate is anti market and anti freedom you can’t blame RomneyCare on the Democrats. He still likes it. So do his supporters (e.g. Coulter).

    And so must you like it “staunch conservative”. Which of course means you’re not.

    PS – In a poll released yesterday Obama is beating Romney by eight in VA and beating him w/ Indpendents and has reached the 50% mark against him. Santorum is losing by nine but Santorum isn’t selling electability. If a R candidate has a path to victory w/out VA please show it to me. Now I’m waiting to hear that polls don’t matter…this is from the campaign based entirely on “electability” and polls. LOL.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    is Newt. For all the reasons you’ve noted Dr.

  • rwp4liberty

    …because the base never showed up. This was one of the lowest voter turnouts in Illinois history. Romney doing well in this state is as expected as Obama doing well, but in a head to head, Obama will win in this state and in the general if Romney is our nominee. Eric is right on the math, Santorum has virtually no chance of reaching half the delegates, but as long as he and Gingrich stay in the race, niether will Romney. Here’s to hoping for a brokered convention…

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    of voters show up, and their presence was paid for.

  • lesstressrx

    You are right, Obama is the enemy and we must never loose sight of that. Maybe Romney will choose a V P that will excite the base as Palin did for McCain. 4 more years of Obama and our country is gone. We must always keep that in focus. We must unite.
    I was a Perry supporter but when he “chose” to leave, I lost my excitement for a candidate. Now I will redirect my excitement and energy in getting rid of Obama.
    My biggest surprise has been the people that have been screaming conservatism for the last 2 years have been voting for Santorum who is the furthest thing from a conservative as you can get. Not a bit better than Romney. The conservatives abandoned Newt, that is a head scratcher. We are fighting for our financial life in this country and people are more interested in Newt?s personal life then in his ability to fix our problems. Go figure…

  • rwp4liberty

    …he just won’t admit it. He has been excoriating Santorum and Gingrich from the start but typically gives Romney a pass.

  • Wubbies World

    …. I really hate that the establishment people who colluded with the Democrats to put us in this disaster of a situation have rammed their guy down our throats. This is what I am most angry about.

    Now I need to fight for down ballot state candidates who will actually fight Romney, Boehner and McConnell when they try to dodge the conservative things they said they would do during the election and go back to being spineless moderate squishes after the election.

    Need I point out the 1 Billion in promised cuts that turned into 100 million in cuts but I won’t go on. It only makes me madder.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    but it really is important that he replace the the worst President we’ve ever had.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Thanks for reminding us.

    Oh, and so is Neil, who will probably come along any moment and stick his blam stick down your throat because not only is he a closet Romneyite, he has StupidPhobia and refuses to hang out with really stupid people.

  • rwp4liberty

    If Romney hasn’t convinced people to vote for him after 5 years of campaigning, he never will. That is why the GOP establishment, MSM, and even some “conservatives” like Erick Erickson are trying to coronate Romney as the nominee, just as they did in 2008 with McCain. The MSM is smart enough to know that if liberal Romney faces liberal Obama, Obama will win just as he did when faced with liberal McCain.

  • wbuoni

    I’ve been a registered Republican my whole life, and have voted that way. However the nomination of a liberal like Romney has my wondering why. I know many will argue that beating Obama is all that matters, but Romney has a record that upon examination is simply too liberal for my vote. I can’t pull the lever for a pandering fraud with no core values, a man willing to say or do anything to win. Sorry but no way I support this man. I’ll write in Mickey Mouse first.

  • Wubbies World

    Romney ?routed Santorum among Illinois voters with at least a four-year college degree by 52 percent to 31 percent? crushed Santorum among voters in Illinois earning at least $100,000 annually, running up a 55 percent to 29 percent advantage? and outpolled Santorum among Illinois voters who described themselves as moderate or liberal by 47 percent to 27 percent.?

    http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/il?hpt=hp_pc1

    This is classic Romney: Moderates and liberals. Wealthy with college degrees. Outside of that, he looses.

  • Ender

    People keep making that nonsensical point, and you nailed it.

  • circlegranch

    that are not being widely reported simply because of the cheerleading for Romney’s ‘decisive’ win. When he lost Mississippi and Alabama, he didn’t make a public statement and the byline was that it was actually expected that he’d not do well. When Mitt wins a state, they start dropping the balloons and streamers from the ceiling and the brass bands play. When he loses, he quietly moves to the next contest and pundits admit after the fact that he really couldn’t have won there anyway, so no big deal.The media is as fine-tuned to prop him up either way as they are w/ his ultimate rival in November. It’s been remarkable to observe. Add in the carpet bomb attacks from his PAC’s and its no wonder his opponents are seething (as are alot of voters who are sick of his bullying tactics).

    All bets were on IL, and IL delivered, thanks largely to Chicago area Republicans earning more than $100k. Now he’s the front runner again, can’t be overcome, and we’re headed into the general. Indeed, but in fairness to the also-ran’s, and in spite of those that despise hearing anything that remotely resembles doubt or concern over Mitt’s certain path to victory over Obama, here’s a few fun facts to ponder:

    According to both Fox News Chicago and the Chicago Sun-Times, primary turnout was at all time low’s. Sometimes IL weather keeps voters at home in March, but this year, voters only needed to brave the 85 degree temps in their slog to the polling place. GOP turnout was less than 25% of registered voters; good news, though, Demcrat turnout was even less for what that’s worth. Still, Mitt needs to figure out how to energize his party if he’s to be the leader of it here pretty soon. 25% voter turnout will not defeat BHO.

    The State Journal Register in Springfield, the state’s oldest newspaper, lamented that primary turnout continues to be low simply because by virtue of voting in either the GOP or Dem primary, you are then officially assigned to that party. There is no middle ground as an Independent, or something. Especially in the downstate regions, apathy for voting is problematic for the GOP perennially. In 2010, if only 1% more Republicans in downstate counties had voted, they could have negated the force of Cook County Democrats and not reelected Democrat Gov. Pat Quinn (and saved fellow taxpayers a boatload in increased state taxes).

    Also of note, 7.3 million new voter registrations were processed in IL just days and weeks ahead of the primary which contrasts interestingly with historical lows in turnout. Somebody or some group put out one heck of a GOTV effort, yet apparently most of those new registrants didn’t exercise their new right. Are they new Dem voters, waiting for the general? Time will tell.

    Beyond Romney’s usual scorched earth win at all costs tactics (he outspent Santorum 21:1 in Chicago-Cook County) and at least 6:1 in other regions, another stunning race was the defeat of Manuzullo, with freshman U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger taking the prize. Manuzullo, supported and endorsed by the likes of Eric Cantor, could not hold on to his 10 year reign.

    Jesse Jackson, Jr., prevailed in his primary challenge in spite of an ongoing House Ethics investigation involving him and the Blago deal. Chicago area voters were typically forgiving of any possible wrongdoing there. The scapegoat-found-guilty is safely tucked away in a suburban Denver prison andlikely can’t impact November–for any candidate.

    The oft-blunt speaking Joe Walsh will face off against Iraq war vet, Tammy Duckworth, who has been a darling of the IL tea party movement. Another interesting race to watch come November. Thanks to redistricting, IL loses a House seat to start with, and with upsets yesterday, Illinois Republicans have much work to do.

    And so it goes in the Land of Lincoln. Mitt won but by historically low numbers; somehow that’s a rallying cry. His staff in Wisconsin is hard at work to bring home another “W” for him. Newt softened his tone on Romney last night during his interview with Hannity and overall, seemed a bit deflated. How will that translate in Texas? Gov. Perry has been working hard to gather votes for Newt; what happens now with those Texas delegates if the Newt is plotting a Plan B? Will Gov. Perry also soften toward Romney, or ramp up to defend and help Santorum? Either way, the Lone Star state will not be denied their voice.

    Exit polling in IL showed a clear 40+% not satisfied with the candidate they voted for, so the drumbeat to shut up and support Romney should be toned down, thank you. We still are in the midst of a Constitutionally protected process here. No one is ‘out of bounds’ or ‘being stupid’ or ‘unpatriotic’ simply because the lockstep isn’t universal yet. Not everyone has checked their values and opinions at the door yet. Stop yelling and start listening. It’s Romney that needs to sell himself to us. Voters are pulling the lever for him because they feel stuck with him. They’ve come half way. He needs to get busy and earn that vote and support. He needs to go to work on that now and then once his inevitability really is inevitable, his sure path to defeating Obama is an electrifying Palin-type VP choice. Just like his predecessor, he needs a big time star to instantly elevate himself. He can be the warm up act for the real draw and vote-getter. It all hinges on that. Unlike GW Bush, when he ran for re-election, our candidate in November must select a VP from which we can build a majority of control for not just the next 8 years, but the next 16. Marco Rubio tops the list.

    To Sen. Rubio, you need to do your patriotic duty and stop saying you’re satisfied with being a FL senator. When the call comes, say yes. You are the key to winning in November.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    notext.

  • circlegranch

    and please read my recently posted comments about other interesting facts about the IL primary, but you’re correct. He draws the same voters as Obama. Where’s the contrast? There is none.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    [I don't see it happening.]

    Newt has to keep articulating his message and reformulating accordingly.

  • okpensfan

    Not sure how anyone can expect him to win when he can’t attract independents. They are the ones most likely to stay home.

    Who cares if he gets higher than usual vote totals in blue states? He’ll still lose them. This is a recipe for losing all the swing states. I don’t see Romney with a chance to win Ohio, Virginia, PA in the general. The base doesn’t like him enough to show up.

  • redstateneck

    Unfortunately for your position MOST republicans have overwhelmingly disagreed with you. If you were a TRUE republican you would support who the most republicans have voted for. Voting for Mickey Mouse proves you do not understand two party politics. And, by-the-way, Romeny’s record is more conservative that any of the other candidates running in the Republican Primary.

  • edintexas

    Anyone, from any party, or for any candidate, who tells voters to shut up and support his preference – well, we know what those people are (and they are _not_ Conservatives).

  • rwp4liberty

    Those who voted for Romney yesterday will stil vote for Obama in November. This is operation chaos in reverse, democrats are voting for Romney to ensure an Obama victory in the general. They claim Romney’s electable because it serves their purpose. Why do you think after 5 ytears of campaigning conservative still don’t like him? Obama will crush Romney if he’s our nominee…the template is already out there.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g

  • edintexas

    NT

  • http://michigantaxes.com/wordpress/ Jason Gillman

    on this issue in a long while.

    I am willing to wait till the last state.

    Frankly, though there is back and forth, I WANT them to one-up each other on constitutional conservatism. Much better to talk about the merits of that, than let Obama narrative run the media.

    The primary process is a good one.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    How much gold have you invested in? Just curious.

  • http://michigantaxes.com/wordpress/ Jason Gillman

    The narrative is consistent from those who have no confidence in the ideas of conservatism.

    Don’t trust that the message can be delivered properly, because they don’t get it themselves.

    Too bad.

  • trickamsterdam

    I think he will (assuming he gets the nomination which I still don’t accept). Romney is so loathsome he’d become a birther if he thought it could secure him the win.

    The thing is Romney’s negativism has only worked because he’s out-spent his opponents many times over and has had 75% of the conservative media on his pocket “like so many nickels and dimes”.

    In the General Election this will be precisely reversed w/ Obama having those advantages w/ money and media…and probably by a greater percentage than Romney had over his opponents in the Primary.

    Further there will be an effective third party candidate in the form of Gary Johnson. I’m not advocating that here (as per the rules) I’m saying that objectively in my opinion it’s going to happen.

    As texastaxpayer pointed out Johnson will be promoted by the MSM because they know he will siphon votes from the R nominee so Johnson won’t hurt for publicity.

    This will be much more effective against Romney than Santo or anyone else though because Romney is so despised by the Base and centrists don’t do protest votes (except maybe the Perot voters).

    People should note that Nader only got 2.75% of the vote in 2000 but still sealed Gore’s doom. So when people say “95% of the Base will get on board w/ Romney” they’re probably right.

    What they don’t understand (and personally I don’t care that they don’t understand because I don’t care what happens to Romney) is that if Romney only gets 95% of the Base he’ll probably lose to Obama by double-digits.

    Santo would bring the Base out (even if he ended up losing) which would help w/down-ticket races. Romney will fail at this too and the House will be decimated. Gaining the Senate will be a real question because of Romney’s negative coat tails.

    People don’t like Santo’s social stuff on this libertarian leaning-site but people here don’t seem to understand that there’s very little reason for a lower middle class white to vote R except for social issues like guns, God, abortion. They don’t care about the death tax…why would they?

    Those are also “swing voters” and they’re the kind that Romney will fail utterly with while getting the “swing voters” that every Republican pines over in the Blue States (upscale, college educated).

    Unfortunately (well I’m not going to pretend that I care whether Romney wins or loses…but unfortunately for people who do) he’s not going to get nearly enough of them to win the Blue States from Obama and will in fact be crushed…just crushed slightly less than Santo.

    But losing the “guns and God” swing voters will cost him any chance at OH and PA. And Santo has a real chance in those States. He might even be a favorite of Obama in PA.

    Other than all that Romney’s a terrific candidate and I’m really excited about him.

    Bottom Line: If Romney is the nominee (which I still don’t accept) he won’t be within the margin of error of Obama in any poll from early October on. He’s as unelectable a piece of trash as this or any other Party has ever run or will ever run.

    PS – Here’s a tweet from David Axelrod mocking Romney for continuing to pile on Santorum w/ negative ads even after the polls had closed in Illinois. He seems oblivious that he’s going to need these voters to beat Obama in November. Which is precisely why he’s not going to get them or beat Obama:

    “Mitt’s SuperPac enjoys pounding Santo so much they just ran a negative ad on CBS in Chicago-more than 3 hours after the polls closed!” – tweet by David Axelrod (who knows Romney’s a fool and is salivating at how easy this is going to be)

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Resistant to Base!

  • http://michigantaxes.com/wordpress/ Jason Gillman

    There is as much disagreement as before.

    Try again after the next round of states goes one way or the other.

  • Common_Cents

    That is the only real solution.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    “It’s a great invention… but who would ever want to use one (while they blow up)” regarding the next government funded chevy hybrid/electric/alt fuel vehicle.

  • http://michigantaxes.com/wordpress/ Jason Gillman

    Falling in line?

    Giving up free will?

    Abandoning principle?

    Let me be clear, if Romney is the guy I am voting for him. But those statements .. suck.

  • gabs

    The Democrats do not want Romney to win, they want Santorum because they don’t have to beat him, he’s already lost if it’s him v. Obama. There is no way at all for Santorum to broaden his appeal and become any kind of threat to Obama.

  • eddiethegeek

    Romney engenders even less enthusiasm than McCain did, as hard as that is to write and believe. So I don’t expect he’ll beat Obama. He doesn’t appear to have a vision for America other than “I want to be President.” I’ll vote for him, with my nose held tightly between my forefinger and thumb, but I simply can’t get excited about his candidacy and I don’t think he can win without a fired-up base.

    So we’ll have four more years of Obama, another FIVE TRILLION in debt, and our nation will be irreparably harmed. The United States is a tower burning, and its collapse is coming.

    Trust in God rather than in princes.

  • edintexas

    Anti-gun, pro-abortion, big government, big spender. However, It appears that Willard knows enough to keep it in his pants.

  • edintexas

    If you think that Erick has been in Willard’s corner, you simply haven’t been paying attention at all.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    you’re clearly anti-capitalist… claiming conservatives should go third party… to avoid “disaster”

    how do I know?

    well you said ‘Mitt?s doesn?t have any ideas for the economy, other than ways to personally profit.’

    When Mitt is making profits, the economy *is* getting better… go take your class warfare elsewhere.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    ?is who is the ?standard bearer of the conservative movement.?? More appropriately- who is worthy? It frankly appears almost no living person is. But hopefully that is now a question for another day.

    In this race, many folks have tried to convince us all along the ?standard bearer? is ?anybody but Romney?. Now, it might just be me, but that doesn?t define the qualities of a ?standard bearer?. It simply promotes an emotional appeal which is not appropriately in context or principally grounded. Frankly, I believe the very fractious Conservative movement has a significant amount of soul-searching to do.

    I don?t mind a competitive, evaluative primary. In fact I believe it is very healthy. But I also truly believe the way some candidates and conservative denizens have stooped to populist rhetoric and sonorous, yet ill-advised positions as a means to support their candidacy or candidate, is extraordinarily problematic- and unprincipled. It is also symptomatic of larger, fractious issues within the movement that have cast an ill light upon it with groups such as Independents. It also ultimately creates a perplexing quandary for the nominee regarding loyalties. I think we can at least partially agree that is not an envious position to be in during what is probably the most important, consequential election of our lifetime.

    I understand that some of Romney?s past actions provoke questions about policies he would pursue as President. But I also have read his existing policy proposals and believe he has learned from past mistakes. Romney is also adept enough to embrace the importance of the task ahead and latch onto sound policy proposals such as Paul Ryan?s budget. I also know he is a very capable individual who will be able to, most importantly, perform much better on behalf of our nation than the current disastrous President. Imagine a competent, proven economic literate with the skills to grow jobs and promote American values living in the White House. If you don?t believe that appeals to my neighbors, irrespective of party or faction, who are out of work, have lost their homes, lost their retirement fund, lost their health insurance or can?t afford to send their children to college- you would be incredibly misguided.

    So yes, I agree it?s time to look ahead. A ticket with Romney and Rubio or Rand Paul armed with the Ryan budget and Mr. Romney?s policy proposals present a very strong coalition against this failed President. It is not hard to contrast the misery of our last four years and this President?s ineptness against sound economic, growth oriented proposals which the Republican Party traditionally represents. But it would be foolish to believe the landmines which still litter the nomination road and scarred the nominee have not diminished the potential influence of the ?bomb makers?. Nor does it make them any less culpable for the caravan limping into the final stretch. But I believe time heals almost all wounds. And now is the time to rest up, gain strength and work together towards the final objective- winning in November.

  • edintexas

    Will be needed after the vote.

  • Common_Cents

    Will romney go after obama directly or will he rely on surrogates? If I hear Romney start calling people “My friends..” and not tear into Obama I’ll be real worried.

    Romney needs to pursue Gingrich as VP at this point. Gingrich is getting in Obama’s head already w/ gas prices. Gingrich has proven he’ll go right after Obama/Biden which what the base wants. Romney needs a strong fighter as VP to offset his stiff boring style. Gingrich should bring tremendous support in southern states that Romney did not have, plus national support through campaigning and providing clear choices for voters going after obama/biden. But after all the negative carpet bombing by Romney, it’d be a tough sell to get Gingrich aboard, however.

    If Romney takes on a Pawlenty or any other milquetoast mccain type, we are truly doomed. I’ll move to Chileeeeeeeeee.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Romney was never my first choice, but I’d take him over Santorum. And yeah, I meet the above criteria except moderate or liberal I consider myself in the middle of the conservative category.

  • rbancroft

    Wanted to unplug last night so I grabbed Ronald Reagan The Notes from the bookcase. For those who haven’t read it, I would like to share the first one with you.

    “The Pres. has ltd. power. He may err without causing great mischief to the state. Cong. may decide amiss without destroying the union because the people may retract their decision by changing the members. But if the Sup. Ct. is ever compounded of imprudent men the Union may be plunged into anarchy or civil war.”
    - John Stuart Mill & Daniel Webster

    Of the great many reasons I fear another Obama term, additional SCOTUS nominations is definitely near the top of the list. And while the Senate appears to be retrievable, I’m just not sure “advise and consent” really means anything to the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, especially if re-elected. That being said, if Romney is the nominee, so be it. He wasn’t my first, second or third choice, but come November he will be my final choice.

  • gabs

    Because independents and waffling Democrats don’t really care if he’s despised by his own party, and furthermore he’s not despised enough to be where Newt and Santorum are right now as far as delegates.

  • lynnotting

    but Fox news as well. Fox news has been campaigning for Romney since he was anointed Mr. Electable and Savior of the Conservative Movement….what a joke. They never defended Newt when Romney and his barrage of Congressmen, that I once admired, discredited his achievements. Of course, that should have come as no surprise because they are the establishment. It should come as no surprise when Obama is president again. I will vote for Romney..but when I think of how difficult it will be for me to get my parents to vote for Romney, I can only imagine, how much more difficult it would be to get a neighbor to do so.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Because somebody either typed this for you – because anybody who come up with that screed isn’t smart enough to know how to use a keyboard – or your mom is looking for her laptop.

    Don’t forget to zip up.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Would Santorum make Goldwater look like a winner? Absolutely.

  • lineholder

    a cause to rally around to keep voters engaged in this election. Shining city on the hill. Protecting and preserving the Constitution. Safeguarding freedom and liberty for the next generations. Economic stabilization. We need something solid to focus on. Something of more substance than just ABO sentiment. Something that might resonate with voters in the months ahead.

    (sigh) Romney doesn’t actually stand for much of anything. He’s a moderate with a weak platform at best and the least inspiring candidate of the bunch. The MSM is going to have a field day with the class warfare schitck.

    If Romney is going to have any chance to pull in a win, it will be because Conservatives find something they can rally behind that allows them to overcome their general dislike and distrust of the man and to proactively campaign for (name cause here) as a means of gaining a vote for a Republican candidate rather than the Democrat candidate.

  • Juggernaut

    the not-Romney crowd as the polls suggest and the Ron Paul followers are on video saying they will not vote for Romney. We lost 2008 with people sitting on the sidelines. So expect more of it as Obama has a mildly improving economy and his competition has been labeled everything from moderate to sellout to squish.

    Even worse the deficit will grow unless we control the house and senate and we have congressmen who don’t fear the media fallout and can honestly say no to new spending even though most were part of the problem that gave Obama a win in 2008.

    Ignorant voters elected Obama and its true of Romney if he is the nominee. Ridiculous!!!

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    They’re dropping the “Jesus is Satan’s brother” meme and blaming you for stuff now.

    Maybe they’ll find an old (you haven’t been around long enough to qualify for “ancient”) manuscript “The Elders of Salt Lake City” featuring the original theme of drowning “Christian babies” while baptizing that eventually morphed into baptism for the dead.

    Stupidity seems to have no bounds.

  • OCBill

    Romney is effectively anti-10th Amendment having said he’s in favor of using the federal purse to coerce the states to pass legislation, specifically mandates to purchase health insurance. He’s quoted saying this from a 2008 Republican debate.

    The judges he appointed in Massachusetts were overwhelmingly liberal.

    He voted for Paul Tsongas who favored a $2/gallon federal gas tax, and one of Romney’s key economic advisers still favors the same thing.

    He thinks the 1% should pay more taxes and is in favor of limiting their deductions for charitable contributions.

    He was for compelling Catholic hospitals to provide contracecption and morning-after abortion pills. Probably still is. Just depends on which way the wind is blowing.

    He thinks ObamaCare is just fine overall and that we should keep the good parts. He encouraged Obama to include mandates in ObamaCare while ObamaCare was still being formed in the smellier parts of Congress. He says he’s for repeal now, though, and of course we should believe him.

    He donated to Planned Parenthood. He told the national leaders of NARAL that they needed someone like him in the White House to hlep moderate the Republican position against abortion. Of course, now we’re supposed to believe that he’s completely changed his mind. Again. Again.

    I think Romney would have a mariginally better foreign policy than Obama. Of course, that would depend on what happened after he “consulted his attorneys” to see what he should do. “Timid”, I think was the word Gingrich used. Ron Paul just laughed.

    Yeah, sign me up. Oops, don’t bother. I live in California and will be free to vote my conscience.

  • goodgovernance

    Seriously, it is this kind of delusional talk about Romney, the kind of stuff where I can tell you’ve got paper-mache models of Romney’s face on Mount Rushmore lying around, that makes me wish for the SMOD.

    None of the presidents on Rushmore got there by lacking principles and conviction. None of those iconic visages are of milquetoasts who didn’t possess a core. While I’ll dutifully support Romney as the nominee (if he becomes the nominee) please don’t insult me by telling me he is something I know he is not.

  • tnguy

    ….as Romney’s running mate. I’d rather he ran in 2016 (whether Romney wins or not), if he’s the man I believe him to be.

    People can spin this “we need to save the country!!!!” stuff all they wish, but the fact is, Romney winning in November probably guarantees we won’t have a conservative president for at least another 8 years. We need people willing to make the kind of changes Paul Ryan outlined yesterday, and then take it further. Romney doesn’t represent that at all. Neither did Santorum, for that matter.

    I’m thinking more long-term than just today. Is Romney as bad as Obama? No, clearly he is not. While I believe Obama is outright evil and hell-bent on the destruction of our way of life, Romney is one of those who continuously offers gov’t solutions for our problems (see most of the Republican congressional leadership). We’d only be marginally better off with Romney winning in the short-term, and long-term, it might be detrimental to us for him to win.

    So anyone who wants to pump the “we must unite” sunshine, don’t bother where I’m concerned. And I would imagine a great many other posters here feel the same way. We’ll unite behind a conservative candidate if and when the rest of the republican party actually wakes up and acknowledges our peril.

  • acat

    What kind of “tea” do you mean here?

    Duckworth’s the one Rahm Emanuel hand-picked to run for Henry Hyde’s old seat when he stepped down .. any tea partiers backing someone with that kind of insider connections is clearly not aware of the history, and deserves a firm whack upside the head….

    Mew

  • edintexas

    It depends on how many “seats” in History Departments across the nation he funds. He probably has enough money to put him into the “Top 40″. :bigsmyl2:

  • acat

    The disentangling of the [Conservative] movement from the [Republican] party will continue.

    This is a very, very necessary step.

    Mew

  • RichmondG30

    I’ve never met Obama or seen him in person, but I find him to be an arrogant, know-nothing, Amerca-hating, anti-business statist bully. This opinion was formed purely from watching him on TV.

    The vast majority of the American people will never meet a Presidential candidate, much less the President.

    Because we have never met them, does that disqualify us from participating in a political discussion? That seems weird.

    Having watched Rick Santorum on TV (but not in person), I have observed some of the same characteristics. In my opinion, he sometimes comes across as holier-than-thou and that may be a turn-off to some independent voters.

  • goodgovernance

    My ranked order of preference for the nominee used to be 1)Gingrich 2) Santorum 3) Romney. But after watching the way Santorum has campaigned this past month, I’ve come to realize Santorum amazingly has even less of what it takes to be president than Romney.

    You can’t scowl your way to the presidency. And if you can’t figure out how to stay on message, the liberals are just going to devour you in the general campaign, anyway.

    So Romney’s moved up to the #2 spot for me. Still hope he doesn’t get the nomination, but if he does I can make my peace with it.

  • Joshua Persons

    I think circlegranch meant that Walsh is a darling of the tea party. Which is basically true.

  • http://thethinkingvoter.blogspot.com abierubin

    Romney won one of the strongest liberal bastion of the country – Chicago. Why is that a sign for us conservatives to unite under Romney?

    Erickson has been saying from the start of this primary that there’s no-way no-how that Santorum even got a chance in the race, let alone be the nominee.

    NBC’s revised delegate count yesterday showed that Romney will need to win 60% of the remaining delegates and he’s thus not guaranteed to be the nominee. The media/Romney team attempting to convince conservatives to give up the fight in order for him to win the nomination. We must not give in.

  • dpmaine

    100% correct, thanks for posting this.

    Gov. Romney winning delegates where he has is what is so upsetting about the process. Gov. Romney winning in Illinois is handy for him, but it should be a so what.

    When Gov. Romney clinches the nomination he’ll have close to 50% of his delegates from places that the GOP IS NEVER GOING TO WIN. New York, Massachusetts, California and Illinois.

    Those are safe democratic electoral votes. The GOP candidate is being chosen by States that simply aren’t going to go our way.

    The worst part is that sometime around October, or September maybe a few polls will come out that show Gov. Romney in “striking distance” of Pres. Obama in New York or California, and the possibility of a “blowout” will be dangled in front of our candidates eyes. And he’ll respond with spending money on a lost cause, and the final counts in those states will be within a point or two of what they always are.

    I’ll never understand why for purposes of selecting our candidate, a vote by a Californian has as much weight or more than a vote from a Floridian, an Ohioan, or an Arizonian. It just doesn’t make sense.

  • acat

    (original)

    Daily Caller map shows Romney doing well in both Chicago (where he won?t do well in November, of course) and also in the collar counties and other larger populated areas.

    Compare this to the 2010 Senate race and you can see exactly what parts of Illinois the GOP delegate will automatically lose in November.

    Santorum?s winning the corn fields, and not much else.

    Mew

    p.s. Interesting to note that Perry has received almost 4,000 votes?
    [ed: Perry reached 5,503]

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    any Republican candidate not named Ron Paul. We didn’t lose any of them, because we never had them. Not in 2008, not in 2012, and not in any future election.

  • http://bobnew.com robertnew

    Romney will be the nominee, and like my vote for McCain, I’ll hold my nose and pull the lever like I did with Dole, McCain, & Bush.

    But what the cheerleaders are missing is what Jeff pointed out, Romney is getting a lot of votes in areas he won’t win in November and I suspect a low turnout because of a less than enthused base. One of the comments above talked about a large number of new voter registrations but didn’t see that in the turnout numbers. Could it be those new voters did turn out and it was a larger number of the base that stayed home than we think?

    Most of my money and work now are going to local, state, and congressional races. Somewhere I feel I can actually make a difference and be heard. To have a candidate who the leaders of the party push on us with the mantra that come November we will vote for whoever is against Obama is a failed game plan. It didn’t work in 2008, it didn’t work in ’96 or ’92. At some pont and time we need a reboot of the party.

    Rubio is smart to say he wants to represent Florida in the Senate for a while longer. Why would he want to tie himself to a candidate who polarizes the base of the party, who is a poor campaigner, and who has less than 50-50 chance to win in November? He can stay in the Senate, we have a better chance of a majority there than we do a victory in the White House, so he maybe can get a leadership role. Plus set himself up better for 2016.

  • Stricia

    The sky is falling! I might not get my exact way! Whaaaaaa!
    Call the whambulance.

  • acat

    I don’t think Romney’s the best guy we could run against Obama .. but he’s not the worst. (that would be Ron Paul)

    Mew

  • lynnotting

    While this article was meant to inspire unity of this party, it doesn’t appear possible with Romney.

  • dpmaine

    I spent about 4 hours yesterday and a few more last week digging into Gov. Romney’s fundraising numbers, and Pres. Obama’s.

    Pres. Obama’s numbers, to me, show that his fundraising operation is either (a) really sucking wind or (b) working on building a larger network of donors to repeatedly tap down the line.

    At first, I was convinced it was (a) – they are burning a lot of cash. A Presidential re-election operation tends to burn more cash than a challenger because the fixed costs of having a huge staff and the job or coordinating campaign events and security is non-trivial. It looked to me at first like it was diminishing returns – spend, spend, spend and receive a diminishing return on that spending.

    However, looking at it more – I see Pres. Obama adding thousands of new donors to his rolls, all at very low dollar amounts. It looks like in the last reporting quarter he added over 100,000 donors at $50 or less. (Lots at $5, oddly). I am almost convinced that it’s option (b) – Pres. Obama is using funds allocated to the primary election to build the biggest donor base in the history of Presidential politics – bigger than Pres. GW Bush and bigger than his 2008 donor base.

    When I compare this to Gov. Romney’s numbers, I see a different picture. What I see from Gov. Romney’s picture is a large number of maxed out donors – single donation of $2,500. Gov. Romney will be able to collect up to another $2,500 from them when he has the nomination in Tampa. That flood of cash will come almost automatically, I would imagine.

    The problem is that to go dollar for dollar with Pres. Obama in direct spending he has to have one single $2500 donor for every 50 $50 donors. The acquisition cost of getting a $2500 donor versus a $50 donor is another big question. Can Gov. Romney acquire donors to max out as inexpensively as Pres. Obama can acquire 50 donors to give $50?

    As the race drags on, Pres. Obama can repeatedly and inexpensively hit his donors for $25 or $50. By getting a steady but small stream of donations, it’s possible he could end up ‘upgrading’ his $50 donors to $250 or $500 donors without them really knowing. I would suspect those donors will never really think of themselves as fairly serious donors, but by election day, some may have even reached the $2500 level mark.

    All things considered, as far as hard money goes, I can’t see how Pres. Obama will be matched by any GOP candidate unless something fundamental happens. Gov. Romney will have to be attracting new donors from Tampa until the election. This effort will be highly news cycle dependent. If at any point in the cycle Gov Romney is down by more than a few points, Gov. Romney could see a complete nosedive in his new donor program.

    All speculation, and all of it is ignoring the elephant in the room – Super PACs.

  • Stricia

    What is the first step of disentangling? What does this all really mean?

  • dpmaine

    You have a good point about turnout.

    Any clues why it’s so low? It seems like all GOP voters are watching the contest, but across the board, turnout is WAY down from 2008.

  • acat

    for the general election.

    The ones who aren’t baked, mostly.

    Mew

  • goodgovernance

    Huntsman or Pawlenty would have had a much better chance than Romney in the general campaign, and had a stronger level of support from the base.

    Being passionate for the cause is a good thing. But there is such a thing as being passionate to the point of reckless. I worry that in recent times, the conservative movement has been behaving as recklessly as the Left. And that’s a real problem, because at least one of the two sides needs to be a rational actor.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    will vote for Romney. The rest probably would have been too stoned to show up to vote for Paul in the general.

  • artaustria

    … but I’m not sure that the comparision to ’96 and ’08 is right. Romney, although 10+ years older than the incumbent, comes around much younger than he actually is. Definitiely younger than McCain and Dole. Just listen to his speech last night.

    ’08 was all about a desperate situation in the financial markets and the economy. McCain had no record, not even any credible rhetoric with that. Romney – at least in that perspective – is credible as a successful businessman. People now want someone who can help them save their job or find/provide a new one. I’m pretty damn sure Romney can do THAT job better than Obama, even if the latter got the best teleprompter in the world. The Obama “magic” doesn’t work that good anymore.

    ’08 was a “democratic year”, ’12 should be a “republican”… There are more reasons, but I’ll stop here…

    And concerning the shadow convention… Please, let’s not go into that. It’s not very realistic at this point, and the turmoil would further hurt the cause for November. BTW, I agree with Dick Morris that two months is barely enough to make up a winning campaign aganst an incumbent president.

  • Juggernaut

    popular votes. The electoral votes lined up against us. This time could be wider if more stay out. Its true the RP supporters are die hard fans. If losing kills the moderate fools chance of begging for another moderate then we have a chance in future elections. Considering how dumb voters are I doubt they will stop bending towards the squishes.

  • lynnotting

    that the standard bearer of the Republican Party in no way resembles the values of the Conservative Party..(His record does not reflect social or fiscal conservative values.)

    that while stating the very problem within this party, the next sentence is: So too will our shared effort to oust Barack Obama from the White House.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Gallup asked the question. And the answer?

    The reconfigured preferences [with Gingrich out] show Romney getting 40% of the vote and Santorum getting 33%. That seven-percentage-point Romney lead is essentially the same as the six-point (34% to 28%) Romney lead in March 8-15 interviewing with Gingrich support included.

  • chadd65203

    You suggest we shouldn’t bother supporting Romney if he’s the nominee, even though Obama “is outright evil and hell-bent on the destruction of our way of life.” Isn’t anything better than that? Long term is one thing, but your own comments point to imminent danger, in which case a logical person would set the foreshadowing aside and go with Romney. If an accident victim comes into the emergency room hemorrhaging blood, would you stop the bleeding or send him off to get his yearly physical?

    My suggestion is that you not get so blinded by stuff that may or may not happen in four years and remember what we’re dealing with right now. Obama is a nightmare and four more years of his degenerate, socialist progressive administration might very well bleed this patient to death. Am I thrilled with Romney? Hell no. But I’m not going to risk it all just because he’s not everything I dreamed of.

  • http://bobnew.com robertnew

    Except that Clinton is a master campaigner and very personable, Romney can’t campaign and has a zero rating in likeability.

  • Juggernaut

    The whigs failed as a party and people walked away. Too many have signaled the end of the gop if they don’t get their act together.
    AmericansElect.com is going nowhere with Buddy Rohmer and Ron Paul at the top of the never gonna win list.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I’d always thought conservatives didn’t play class warfare games.

  • Juggernaut

    because he has one time too many signalled his disgust with Romney and the others. Done so online and on CNN tv. Time will tell but its not over yet. As candidates drop out the mood shall shift but like with 2008 there will be a quiet period just like the McCain seeing the others drop out. Several months of near silence.

  • acat

    The term “Republican In Name Only” only has a meaning if, in the mind of the person speaking, there’s a false conflation of the GOP and Conservatism.

    The GOP is not inherently conservative, it’s a political party with the intent of winning offices. Many of its’ members are conservatives, of one stripe or another, but .. to say the GOP is conservative is foolish on its’ face… not to mention provably false. (is Lisa Murkowski a noted fiscal hawk? Was Arlen Specter notably in favor of enforcing the border? Does Carly Fiorina speak out against the global warming lie?)

    The point is, at least to this cat, pretty clear – conservatism is an intellectually rigorous ideology, and yet many of the voters who self-identify “conservative” are unfamiliar with the immense intellectual underpinnings. To them, it’s a sub-brand of the GOP, just as Chevy is a sub-brand of GM.

    We, the conservative activists, need to change this if for no other reason than to ensure that, in 2014 and 2016, GOP candidates don’t view conservatives as a captive voting bloc.

    Mew

  • unclefred

    There is a huge amount of small and middle money Republican donors sitting on the sidelines waiting for a nominee. I am a perfect example. As someone else said recently, my checks are made out except for the “pay to” line. The day that is decided my checks are in the mail.

  • olsmithie

    in the midst of all this debate. There was never any question that the priority was to retire Komrade O,
    Plan B was to hobble him by taking back the Senate. (Scary)

    If Romney goes on to take the Whitehouse, we may also need control of the Senate to hold his feet to the fire concerning conservative promises he has made in his recent conservative epiphany.

    Regards

  • wbuoni

    Ok. If you say so. RomneyCare? Gun control? Abortion rights? Liberal judges? Support for welfare state? Are these now classified as Conservative positions.

    I do in fact understand the two party system. I also understand that Romney is not aliked Conservative. I actually could care less if you think I am Republican. I vote Conservative candidates not for liberals who pander fir votes.

  • http://bobnew.com robertnew

    You are absolutely correct and a lot of those $25 and $50 donors can be become automatic deducted monthly donations. But when it comes November all those people who donated a couple hundred can be urged to go vote so their hard earned money wasn’t wasted.

    This isn’t rocket science, but it is science that seems to elude the GOP.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I misplaced my Who is EE/RedState for this week? calendar.

  • lineholder

    By no stretch of the imagination could Mitt Romney be considered a standard bearer for the Conservative movement. Can any of us name exactly what the man stands FOR? Yet at the same time, Conservatives will have to become more organized and find a way to articulate Conservative values to our fellow citizens, much more so than we have succeeded in doing so far, I think.

    Anyway, I think I’m going to leave the “entangling” part of it to those who have a greater understanding of politics than I possess. My talents lie more in other areas. LOL, believe it or not, I made an item for a family member, just a creative expression of “celebrating America” that could be hung on a wall in their home. A few other people saw it, remarked at how difficult it is to find such items these days…long story made short, I have orders coming in to make more of these. They’re just touches of the things about this country of ours to be thankful and grateful for more than anything else, but if it serves as a source of inspiration, for others as well as for myself, even in a small way, then I’m going to follow through with it.

  • APA Guy

    Rick Santorum comes off almost like a preacher from the pulpit on social issues…which, in spite of what Rush and Levin say, are NOT are central matter at hand during THIS election. This election will be about gas prices, jobs, and debt (in that order).

    Santorum has an abysmal record on economic matters…and his holier-than-thou approach rubs many people the wrong way. Believe me, I live in a conservative part of a conservative state (IN). When people HERE have had enough of his talk about values, he needs to find a different approach and/or talk about what voters care most about.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Yes…however…

    The 3 most prominent Mormons in American Politics today are:
    Harry Reid, Glenn Beck, and Mitt Romney…

    So… I’m not *that* certain we’re moving up… possibly it’s been a lateral step out of *that* zone of criticism…

    But the ‘naysayers’ are *still* pointing to our most obscure features of prominence that generates immediate revulsion to the effect that tin foil hat wearers that write books will never run out of business.

    You might say they’re envious of all of our obscurity and peculiarity… but let’s not open that can of worms.

  • acat

    Hey, you’re now a manufacturer! (grin)

    Seriously, you’ve hit the key – the party is separate from the ideology, and it’s up to us to .. if I may borrow the term .. “evangelize” the ideology.

    Mew

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    That’s anectodal I realize, but I will not be surprised to see them vote for Obama or stay home this cycle. At least one of them is quite influential in Colorado, so I expect him to take quite a few with him again.

  • Common_Cents

    but I don’t see the DC establishment going down that path unfortunately.

  • txchick57

    Not a chance. May need 3 drinks first, but will vote for Obama in protest.

  • unclefred

    This can not be a “hold your nose and vote” election. We will need everyone on the right from RINO to conservative to work as hard as possible to oust Obama. So if you have money that you would contribute to elect a different nominee, you’d be well advised to consider supporting whomever is selected, even Romney.

  • http://thethinkingvoter.blogspot.com abierubin

    - a state which elected conservatives like Rubio and Rick Scott – than he won in Chicago/Illinois – a liberal bastion – over Santorum.

    Romney entered race as party favorite and likely nominee but that doesn’t necessarily mean he will be the nominee. I still remember Philip Klein’s article that Romney might win all 50 states. Just as Hillary – the guaranteed next president – hadn’t won her party’s nomination so too it’s no news that the party favors Romney yet that doesn’t lock him into the nomination.

  • APA Guy

    Yes, he is inexperienced, but he is principled. I think I might be tempted to take that over an “established” VP who has no core this time around.

  • unclefred

    nt

  • celador2

    When I compared the two speeches one by Romney and the other by Santorum, I was mesmerised by Rick Santorum’s warm speech in Gettysburg. Romney is always too slick for me but I agreed with pundits he did sound authentic as if he meant what he said.

    Rick is solid has lived a life where money matters, People work because they need the money. His speech that referenced Pres Reagan touched me.

    And Rick Santorum does not use or need a teleprompter.

    There is no need to belittle and demean Rick Santorum just because Romney is ahead and is the probable winner. Rick has come so far that voters are just getting to know him. Not everyone has voted and can not be expected to jump on a Romney bandwagon now in middle of the primaries..

    I see developing among Romney backers a Sore Winner complex,

  • apachecav

    We have lost the Republic, we are done, Romney will lose the general, even if he wins he is a Mercantilist, the ballot box has failed us, our next fight for freedom will be the cartridge box,, We have done it to ourselves, we have murdered 55 million children in this country, it is time for our punishment…The country that I fought so hard to defend is now not worth defending. I am grieved as I watch it in its death throes. I wonder what dictator shall arise from its ashes as I now seek to prepare my family for survival in the coming gulag?.

  • acat

    suppressed turnout reduces a whole Obama vote to half of one…

    Mew

  • acat

    (no text)

  • celador2

    Duckworth is not the darling of tea party or anyone but the DNC-Daley machine. She runs for that seat often and may win the sympathy vote.

    Oh, yes, the new lines have made it more difficult for dynamic, loud, sincere Joe Walsh. But with an opponent like Duckworth anything is possible.

  • gekster

    As for me, as long as I have breath in me, I will have hope,
    and I will fight for my country.
    Conservatives don’t give up that easily, as least not this one.

  • APA Guy

    nt

  • artaustria

    For the democratic base, he can’t be portrayed the devil as easily as most of the remaining field (take Santorum, take Gingrich).

    And he DOES attract moderates and independents. Why – in the name of hell – is (almost) nobody in here giving him credit for that?

    Let’s be clear: This is not about some academic “Let’s find out who’s the most conservative in our little nice microcosmos”. This is about an acutal election of the actually most powerful single person in the world today. We have to make concessions – even Reagan had to. This is the real world. Either it is one way or the other.

    And right now, Republicans are in the minority. More people see themselves as Democrats. And even more see themselves as independents. That may be a pity, but that’s the way it is.

    So why not have a nominee who can reach out to others? Who – by being presidential as anyone can be, see last night’s speech – brings people from the other sides to think about what advantages they have with a clearly much more conservative president than they have now?

    And why this concern that Romney doesn’t resonate well in Oklahoma, Alabama and Kansas? These states will vote republican if you present Popeye the sailor as the republican nominee.

    It’s about Virginia. It’s about North Carolina. Ohio. Florida. And yes, with a nominee Mitt Romney it’s also about Massachusetts. Why the hell not? And that’s why Democrats fear Romney.

    One last thing: The MSM wants Romney, that’s for sure, to go up against Obama. But only because they consider it a much more interesting match than O-Sant or O-Newt. A match worth a lot of good and interesting stories.

    Of course, they will favour Obama again. But the impact in ’12 will be weaker than in ’08, for numerous reasons. And the DNC knows that as well…

  • Stricia

    If I read that correctly — you are one stubborn chick.

  • truthfirst

    Serves them right, they should’ve NOT chickened out of the debates, then more Americans that start to follow politics late would have had a chance to like a candidate. Mitt-Nit and Vesty are going to kill this election in November because they decided to be a selfish pair of @sses.

  • funwithknives

    {first, let me say that Mitt was not even my 15th choice}

    If you consider what we all are calling discourse in this primary cycle a training ground, then what is yet to come is not pre-ordained, nor written.{Mitt’s learning curve certainly has it’s dips}
    But what we have, is the reality we got. For what ever reasons, the players we expected all took a pass and That is our reality. Barring a draft movement {please!} This is The Battle we fight, with the leader apparent.
    Is he perfect? Not even close.
    Is winning possible? How badly do we as a country want it? And you………..can you assist despite your misgivings?
    We all know if Barry gets another win , all we have is the potential Senate wins to backstop 4 more hellacious years of mediocrity. Can our economy take 4 more years of being locked-up?
    Hard to be happy in this mess, but sometimes a little rain must fall…..

  • jrterrier5

    The problem is you cannot believe everything you read, even if both Fox and the Chicago Sun Times Report it. The turnout in the 2012 Rep primary was greater than in 2008.

    2008, total turnout for IL Rep Primary: 899,422
    http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?
    year=2008&fips=17&f=0&off=0&elect=2

    2012, total turnout for IL Rep Primary: 912,600
    http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/il

    As far as Sen Rubio, he seems to be a pretty terrific choice. But someone better start vetting him and testing him in a national forum. Because that will happen if he is nominated. Also, don’t expect that he’ll get the Latino vote just because he is Latino. He will definitely pick up some Latinos, but there is a world of difference between Cuban Americans from FL (who are mostly REPs)and Mexican Americans from CA and the Southwest (who are mostly DEMs).

  • lineholder

    And there’s plenty of ways in which the ideology can be expressed. Some of them so simple that we don’t see them right in front of us, as I’m learning from my experiences right now.

    Many thanks for the well wishes, acat. I’m looking forward to it. I honestly had not considered how little access there is in the market to pro-American items that simply express the good things about our country. What’s impressed me the most so far is how receptive people are to a Conservative ideology when it is presented in positive terms.

    Maybe there’s hope for us yet, eh? It doesn’t have to be about focusing on defeating socialism ALL the time.

  • littlehouse18

    It seems the ability to respectfully disagree with a candidate is lost, although momac’s misleading post is actually better in that regard than many. Shallowness rules. And for many, if they disagree with a candidate or identify mistakes he’s made, they also have to hate him and use bitter, sometimes vile language as they totally mischaracterize. The liberal culture has rubbed off even on conservatives.

  • explodinghead

    I think many Romney supporters here are missing the point, that Romney has basically stuck his finger in the eye of the base and he hopes that somehow they will magically turn out to support him in November. The base could be the tipping point to get the ordinary guy ,who is their friend or neighbor to vote.For the ordinary guy who does not live and breathe politics like y’all, Romney does not inspire them and they need a real reason to go vote on a cold November day and Obama may not be enough of a reason for “Joe average”. The base could encourage their neighbors to go vote for Romney, but Romney has decided he has the Beltway and so he doesn’t need poor fly-over country schmoes that are the Conservative base. It may be too late to mend fences, if he even gives a darn, which right now it doesn’t look like he does. Romney thinls he can win without the base, good luck with that. All those North-Easterners and Californians are going to vote Obama in November. The pseudo-Romney vote will go home to Obama.

  • drothgery

    New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming, Ohio, Virginia, Idaho, and Alaska, that is ….

  • littletboca

    Just a repeat of 2008 and nothing much here to give us real hope of “taking our Country back.”

  • lesstressrx

    You are most likely right about Paul voters, but these people stand for Freedom, Economic Liberty & Individual Liberty. Doesn?t make sense that they would want to see Obama in the White House 4 more years. Just doesn’t calculate.

  • funwithknives

    doing here?? Who’s got some X-tra strength Raid?

    Speaking of “not having any ideas”, incredibly you spew that Barry is stronger than GWB on Defense?

    Or that “Obama’s not a Socialist anyway…”

    “…the economy is improving steadily…?”

    If cluelessness is a disease, what is the cure , for the likes of you…?
    Answers: There isn’t one, and who cares?

  • jrterrier5

    Sen Santorum may be “conservative” on some social issues such as abortion, but some of his other social positions seem to require a lot of fed govt intrusion into the personal lives of citizens which does not seem very conservative to me. It also isn’t very consistent with the US Constitution, which sets up the fed govt with limited powers.

    As far as fiscal conservatism, he may say what he wants on the trail, but as a Senator, he sure did not vote as a fiscal conservative.

    Romney on the other hand is a lot more fiscally conservative. He balanced the budget in MA, at the Olympics, and at his businesses.
    While he raised fees in MA, he did not raise taxes. And raising fees to have those who use services pay for them seems utterly conservative to me. Even Romneycare, which was modeled after the conservative alternative pressed on by the Heritage Foundation was based on the notion that those who could afford insurance should pay for it rather than have MA taxpayers pick up their tabs. Note that Romneycare does not ration care, does not direct to insurance company what benefits to provide, and does not cede to a govt bureaucracy such as HHS the power to dictate.

  • funwithknives

    N/T

  • littlehouse18

    We know who Obama is by all the havoc he’s wreaked on America, and the cumulative body of his actions leaves no alternate explanation other than that of intentional harm.

    I have no problem with the criticism you just made of Santorum. It does not seem malicious, even though I disagree with your conclusion, It may be that sometimes Rick does not project his true self as well as he could.

  • goodgovernance

    That all sounds well and good, acat. And maybe 2014 can be a good year for conservatives, the way 2010 was. But the same perennial arguments that keep us in line for Romney in 2012 will still be in force in 2016.

    2016 will no doubt be a perilous time where we face the threat of a liberal Democrat presidential nominee who would take this country on a road to ruin. Then there will be the Supreme Court to think about, as always. Faced with short term losses, the base always goes along with the rest of the party, because what the base hates even more than not getting their way is the idea of Democrats winning.

    What I take hope from is that the establishment will not allow a Romney-type figure to run again, after seeing how close to the edge of disaster he has taken this entire nominating process. The establishment will not want to risk anything like a brokered or contested convention ever again. And we’ll have much stronger conservative candidates like Rubio in 2016.

  • Stricia

    St. John’s Wart works great for depression.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    “Were he better organized he might have done better with delegates.”

    That’s your answer…

    He wasn’t, hasn’t been, and at this point has a near impossible tide to push back…

    in terms of “electability”… Romney did the following:
    1. He outspent his opponents by raising money.
    2. He had a well planned strategy of delegate math.
    3. He has stayed on message as boring and infuriating as that is
    4. He avoided the most pitfalls through the debates, in spite of his record.

    Either Romney is a polished politician, or the anti-Romney crowd either over-estimated the ease of his glass jaw, or under-estimated his ability to dance around his opponents…

    There should be no doubt that Rick Santorum is a good man, a champion of social conservatism, and a man that believes he’s the best candidate for these times, and he is capable of speaking from the heart in ways that others can not, or won’t.

    Whatever the outcome, I respect Rick Santorum a lot more than I did before Iowa. I believe he has a bright future in politics even if he doesn’t deny Romney the nomination.

  • cbartlett

    along with GOP establishment. Don’t really know why we ever thought the people could actually have a say in this nomination. Sigh. This election has been BOUGHT – no matter which side wins in November. I was completely disgusted last night when I heard how many millions Romney spent in Illinois – a state that he has no chance of taking against Obama. People from other countries must be laughing at us. We whine about the huge debt this country is amassing and spend billions on these out-of-hand campaigns. What would happen if the huge amounts being spent for more than a year on both sides of this political circus were applied to our non-existent deficit budget? No way our founding fathers could have seen this coming – they must be rolling over in their graves.

  • mikeymike143

    He said ”evangelicals and social conservatives are the base of the Republican Party”.

    i agree and that is why santorum can still win.this race is not over by a long shot.

    SANTORUM in 2012!!!!

  • funwithknives

    not to promote blind idolitry, but to get fence sitters up and off it.

    SCOTUS nominees?
    Stagnation in the Economy (using KISS principles}

    the mind reels…..

  • littlehouse18

    h/t Hotair linking ThinkProgress linking CNN:

    HOST: Is there a concern that Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election.

    FEHRNSTROM: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It?s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all of over again.

    So there you go: Romney takes us for granted, pats us on the head as he lies to us, and has no intention of fulfilling promises to conservatives. They even admit it publically!

    This is why he cannot be trusted and why we continue to oppose him. We may very well need to disentangle ourselves from the party which despises us. I can’t believe I’m thinking this now. In 2012 we are up against it, time is short, and I feel we have to support the Republican. But things are becoming very clear. 2016 primary or new party!

  • APA Guy

    Because appealing to Indies and Blue Dog Dems usually = moving to the left…and Mitt Romney isn’t exactly entrenched in the conservative wing of political ideology.

    I agree that his crossover appeal will help him. This isn’t 1996 or even 2008. The country is more moderate socially than it has ever been…something that irks me personally, but is reality nevertheless.

    What is important is that Romney runs conservative ECONOMICALLY. I want to hear pro-business, low-tax, low-regulation ideas coming from his mouth. No more of this “preserve” programs crap…not with $16 trillion in national debt and $5/gallon gas looming ahead.

  • acat

    You’re right – Once the candidate is chosen, we’re stuck.

    The key in that sentence is “Once the candidate is chosen”.

    What would have happened if, instead of having conservatives of all stripes standing inside a dozen different tents pissing out, we had gotten together behind a single candidate *before* Iowa?

    That’s the point I think Erick is driving at here – the GOP choose their candidate about .. now. … but there’s no reason Conservatives have to wait that long. If conservatives came into the primary, unified (or nearly so) behind a single candidate, that candidate would, today, be the nominee.

    Think about it.

    Mew

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    Are you really advocating armed insurrection because of Mitt Romney? If so, please call the suicide prevention hotline at 1-800-273-8255 because I think you may be on the verge of a serious psychotic event and need someone to talk you off the ledge.

  • jrterrier5

    According to RealClear politics, Romney has 560 delegates as of today. So he needs an additional 584 delegates to get to the magic 1144. There are 1273 delegates left to be awarded (2286 total – 1013 awarded to date). So, 584 of 1273 = 46% not the 60% NBC states.

    To date, Romney has won about 55% of the delegates awarded. So getting 46% of the remaining delegates seems doable, particularly given the demographics of the remaining states.

    More importantly, if NBC is correct and Romney needs to win 60% of the remaining delegates, Santorum’s percentage must be in the neighborhood of 80% or higher, no? Using the same Realclear politics stats, it appears that Santorum has won 24% of the delegates awarded to date (246 of 1013). I don’t see how he gets to the magic number.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html

  • clowngirl

    It doesn’t make sense for the blue states to have such influence in picking our nominee. It’s not just that they have an equal number of votes (not sure whether I agree with that or not) but that so many of them vote EARLY.

    Romney has also gotten lucky in that most of the heavily Mormon states have already voted.

    still – why are we treating a win in Obama’s home state as if it’s decisive for Romney? Illinois is a blue state — I don’t know why Santorum was ever leading there anyway.

    None of what has transpired over the course of the primary has altered my impression that Romney will certainly lose to Obama.

    I don’t see “uniting” behind Romney as remotely likely to change that.

    And I don’t really understand why Romney winning Illinois would drastically change the dynamics of the race. Yes, he gained some delegates, yes – perhaps Santorum squandered an opportunity but Romney’s still quite a ways from winning enough delegates to claim the nomination and there are still more than half of the states to go.

    I follow the logic of momentum and it being difficult to keep donors and supporters on board when you can’t show a clear path to victory — but it does come down to the individual choices of those donors and supporters.

    Romney has no control over whether Joe Conservative sends another $50 to Gingrich or Santorum . He can’t simply order Newt and Rick to get out of the race and let’s not forget:

    Romney still needs to win a majority of the remaining delegates when there are plenty of states that don’t favor him: Lousiana, Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kentucky, Texas,

    Pennsylvania has a ton of delegates and it will presumably go to Santorum.

    I don’t know about New Mexico or South Dakota — but would presume they are in play. Same with Wisconsin. Montana?

    Those states have a total of 692 delegates (according to Real Clear Politics)

    I presume Maryland, DC, New York Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, Oregon, California, New Jersey and Utah might favor Romney ( Though if Newt were to surge again I think he could put a few of them in play)

    Those states have only 505 delegates combined.

    Unless conservatives give up on stopping Romney — there’s no reason to assume he’ll win.

    If Romney won’t debate anymore Newt should invite Senator Santorum to a series of Lincoln/Douglas style debates and continue debating without him.. This race isn’t over and it shouldn’t be treated as though it is.

  • artaustria

    Yes, Mr. APA Guy, that’s the key. At least.

  • hobarticus

    I found a study, and it seems the correct answer is that 38% of Paul supporters voted McCain in 2008. Given how things have gone the last 4 years, I expect Romney could improve on that quite a bit.

    “In the 2008?2009 ANES Panel data, we find that Paul supporters were by no means loyal Republicans in the general election that fall. According to ANES, of those respondents who voted for Paul in the Republican primary, only 38 percent voted for John McCain in November, with 24 percent supporting Obama, and 33 percent ?other.? In other words, Republicans lost almost two thirds of the people who voted for Paul in the GOP primaries.”

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa658.pdf

  • goodgovernance

    2016 will be a much better year for conservatives in the primary season, I’m sure. There’ll be a smorgasbord of good candidates then compared to this year, and I would think we’d be able to rally around one of them rather quickly.

  • cbartlett

    I don’t think Gingrich or Romney either one would consider that partnership – too much water under the bridge. And for the same reasons Newt doesn’t seem to be getting traction now, would be the same reasons he couldn’t excite the base as VP any more than Romney does – i.e. no help for the ticket.

    However – West has a lot to offer to the ticket. Rubio would also be good but we really, really don’t need to lose him in the Senate right now. We are going to need every conservative we can scrape up there to hold Mitt’s feet to the fire. West would balance out many of Romney’s negatives – might get him some votes much like Palin did for McCain. But Romney sure better step up his game against Obama better than McCain did or he’ll end up with the same fate, no matter how good or exciting the VP nominee is.

  • kaheo

    Because
    1. Latinos will view him being chosen as straight up pandering.
    2. He holds Mitt’s current views on Immigration but supports Wet feet, dry feet policy for Cubans. Double standard?
    3. He undercuts the attack that Obama wasn’t experienced enough to be President. Rubio will have less experience than Obama as a US Senator.
    4. He will most likely ensure Romney wins Florida, a good thing, but won’t help Romney win IA, OH, VA, NC. Ohio is a must win and he must win the blue collars for this purpose.
    5. He was baptized as Mormon as a baby (NO fault of his, he was a kid) and he is now a staunch Catholic – but this will enhance the conversation about the weirdness of Mormonism which Romney is trying to avoid. Folks will question why his family abandoned the Mormon faith and whether he still holds some Mormon beliefs. Unfair, yes, but it will be brought up.

    A better choice could be Gov of SC, DeMint, or someone like Boehner, Paul Ryan. Rubio is too much of a gamble though I’m not completely denying he might not work (he’s definitely 10 times worth the gamble than Sarah Palin though).

  • dpmaine

    Very true. The primary fight has damaged the ability to solidify the fundraising of small GOP donors which is a concern.

    Ideally, though, if our candidate had closed the race up back in February, he’d be 2 months into collecting primary season donations, that are automatically rolled into the general election fund after the nomination is handed down.

    If assuming today is day #1 of the end of the primary – which has yet to be confirmed – but Gov Romney starts banking donations now it’s unclear what type of funds he’ll have banked by the convention.

    Initially I was thinking Pres. Obama was in real trouble moneywise, but now, it looks like that’s not the case.

  • jrterrier5

    Funny, how people react differently to candidates, that’s for sure. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But my reaction to Sen Santorum is different from yours. Just one small example — his (and others’) attempt to claim the mantle of Reagan turns me off. I wonder what Reagan would have thought about each of these men. I don’t remember Reagan getting showing anger or irritation very often; something that Santorum often shows.

    In any event, Santorum doesn’t touch me. On the other hand, Romney inspires me. From everything I’ve seen and read about him, he is a man who has worked hard to get where he is and is very accomplished. His family life is admirable and I love the way he and his wife interact.

    Don’t know what you mean by “Rick is solid hs lived life where money matters.”

  • littlehouse18

    The cities are concentrations of liberals and leftists, and they seek to impose their will on the rest of us. It is easier in the cities to push socialism/communism and to control the populace, and the left has said they want to get more and more poeple into cities under the guise of environmentalism, energy, and so forth.

    These divisions are getting starker and starker.

  • acat

    We can’t wait until 2014.

    We must start December 1 2012.

    Anything else dooms us to another Ford/Dole/McCain/Romney.

    Mew

  • dpmaine

    Yup – this is a very popular fundraising theme – donations are investments, and the payday is voting.

    This is the nitty gritty grassroots organizing that a great campaign machine has to do to compete and win.

    What’s most disheartening about the 2012 primary is that it’s a complete air ware. In 2008 when it was Sen. Obama vs. Sen Clinton, the two campaigns mobilized massive operations to compete organically (and via mass media) for the nomination.

    It was an enthusiasm building event. Even though Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama fought very hard against each other, it was still a net positive because it really built out the party throughout the nomination process. That infrastructure was critical in locking in the network of donors and activists that allowed Sen. Obama to appear to steamroll Sen. McCain (even though it was quite a bit closer than some Democrats predicted early on).

    One of the nasty side effects of Citizens United, in my view, has been that Super PACs – Gov. Romney’s for example – can simply bombard the airwaves and mailboxes of primary voters with so much noise that the more healthy, long-term positive party building suffers.

    I would love to find a data source that tracks party identification mapped against time, and see if there is any correlation between Super PAC negative spending and party membership/identification. My gut tells me that running thousands of negative ads a month cannot be good for the GOP brand as a whole.

  • littlehouse18

    but I bet that will change once the Romney Machine rolls in with its millions. It seems that in early polling of states, Santorum is ahead. Early polling reflects more of the folks who follow issues closely. But as it gets closer to the primary, they change toward Romney due to his ad blitzes, and the addition of people who don’t pay attention until the last minute and use the easiest source of information available, the ad buys.

  • winning2012

    Supposedly, the reason Romney was unacceptable to Conservatives was RomneyCare. But please explain to me the rallying around Newt, who actually praised both RomneyCare and ObamaCare, and has been a proponent of Federal mandates for decades? To say nothing that his personal life would make him a unacceptable to about 90% of women and he’s clearly bipolar, we would suffer a 10 point landslide all to just see Newt get red in the face at a debate.

    Santorum really was every ridiculous caricature the Left has thrown at us, a true Theocrat. This idiot wanted to make birth control among married Protestants a campaign issue. he called “mainline” Protestants non-Christians. The Obama campaign was licking their lips with the idiot Right going right along with him.

    I didn’t want Romney, I wanted Pawlenty, Daniels, Christie, McDonnell, and the list goes on. But what I wanted most was a candidate that could actually win, and Romney was the only electable candidate that stepped up to the plate.

    To all those who think Romney will of course lose, what in the H#ll are you basing this on? The polls I see all have Romney either winning or within the margin of error, and that’s in the middle of a nasty Primary.

  • lineholder

    and not necessarily in a positive way either, is it?

    You have it correct…to get fencesitters off the fence. That’s where it will make a difference (along with encouraging other Conservatives who might be tempted to sit this one out to stay in the fight).

    But here’s where I see the positives…we need something to rally behind, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be the same thing for all people. It could be energy for some, economics for others, social issues for others…just each one of us taking what we have learned and applying it in a way that convinces our fellow Americans that voting Republican is the best choice.

    If we succeed in that much, we will have accomplished a great deal without totally comprising the things we believe in.

  • funwithknives

    1) you don’t get to $2.50 Gas by mouthing platitudes or ignoring/bypassing world demand. All those impatient Indians and rural Chinese wanna drive too.

    2) the south leg of Keystone is the Uncontroversial Half and relieves the supply problems from the Cutler Ok,terminal to The Gulf. It was always a go and this is Barry looking for some Savior/Bi-Partisan exposure. {remember Deb Stabenow and the ObamaCare/form 1099 pullback?}

    Really like your posts, BTW.

  • trickamsterdam

    It’s not for you to understand. What you need to do is LISTEN.

    For months many of us have said we won’t support Romney under any circumstances.

    We have suggested every compromise under the Sun from brokered conventions to late-entry candidates.

    These suggestions were never taken seriously by Romney people or by people who claim they’re not Romney people who but who actually are (e.g. NIghtTwister).

    They have literally mocked us on television (I’m talking about Romney and his people now) by saying things like “what are they going to do, vote for Obama?”.

    No fools we’re just not going to vote for Romney.

    There is still time to stop this man and avert what’s going to happen if you would only LISTEN instead of trying to understand and realize he can’t win w/ 95-98% of the Base (and I don’t know if he even gets that much).

    Nader only got 2.75% and took down Gore. Romney is in a (much) weaker position than Gore and is in a position to lose a higher percentage than that to a third party candidate or to people staying home (exact same effect except at least if people are voting for Johnson they will go physically into the voting both and will probably vote down ticket for Republicans).

    But many will just stay home not vote for Johnson so turn-out will be horrendous and the House will be decimated and the Senate will not be taken (since Romney will lose the Dems will still have the Biden vote).

    Romney needs to be stopped in Wisconsin. I would suggest Newt, Paul, and anyone who just wants to win in November to consider supporting Santorum….he may not even be the nominee but he could keep Romney from being the nominee.

    Romney’s a liar. I am not. I’m telling you I’m not supporting him in November and if I’m not I have no idea why I woudn’t believe tnguy or anyone else who says they won’t support him eitther.

    Otherwise try to win this election without us. The people who arrognatly think they can will get what I assure them they deserve (a humiliating and I suspect historic Goldwater level defeat).

    That’s the only “history” this “most electable” candidate is going to provide to you.

  • rsgp

    I don’t mean who are generally given that label, I mean what defines “the base” of a party (either party, generically)?

    Is it the segment of voters that consistently makes up the bulk of the party’s primary voters? If so, can it be said that a party has repeatedly nominated candidates who “beat the base”, unless it can be argued (validly) that the base was clearly fragmented among other candidates such that one of them would have won the nomination in a one-on-one fight with the candidate who “beat the base”?

    Is it the segment of voters who are most reliable in general elections? If so, can it be said that there is legitimate concern that there will be poor turnout of “the base” in the general election?

    These are not rhetorical questions. I’m really asking, because when I hear terms like “the establishment” — or even more notably, “establishment voters” — and “the base” I stop and question what these terms really mean, and if they are being appropriately used per some sensible meaning or if they are instead used as spin to favor one segment over another.

    So again, what, generically, defines “the base” of a political party?

  • Change Jar Conservative

    I think that either Ryan or Rubio or Rand could help Romney win it — all for different reasons.

    Ryan is a stud and will help make sure that this is about finances.

    Rubio will help pick up latinos vote, but that is not why I want him. His CPAC speech this year was THE best defense of conservatism since Reagan.

    Rand would POSSIBLY pull in some of the “Paul or Obama” people that I know. It would certainly keep Ron Paul in the party for the election.

  • funwithknives

    Think it’s bad now?
    View it another way: This IS as Good As it Will Get….

    “Get on board little children, Get on board little children, there’s room for many a more….”
    Are you the problem, or the solution….?

  • northeastred

    You can’t have it both ways, Justin. If you want to look at Romney’s tax returns and conclude that his growing wealth is evidence the economy “is” getting better, but then blather on about Obama, and class warfare, have at it. It’s a great junior college exercise, but it’s going to be a losing one come fall.

    Republicans are going to despise Romney more and more once Santorum falls away, and he doesn’t have to cater to the “loony” far right anymore. He knows we’ll all support him over Obama. Romney represents a return to the center. And you can believe he gives us the best chance of beating Obama, but he’s doomed to Bob Dole-land and it won’t be pretty.

    A strong third party conservative would split the Obama/Romney vote!

  • clintonformccain

    NT

  • lineholder

    split the Obama/Romney vote? All I can see that it would succeed in doing is to ensure that Obama gets a second term by pulling votes away from the Republican candidate.

  • northeastred

    John McCain, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty…any of them would have been better than GWB on defense. Those were years Republicans should want to forget as quickly as possible. The Bush/Cheney administration blew it from top to bottom, and they are the very reason Obama is president today. Let’s stop the cheerleading and acknowledge where we’re at now, and where we were four years ago. Calling Obama a socialist, or weak on defense…that just makes us look silly.

  • cbartlett

    nt

  • acat

    the “Ron Paul or nobody” crowd .. and will also stick a knife in Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee… the L’s are depending on at least some Paulistines for leg-work.

    That said, there’s some – myself included – who are quite opposed to Ron Paul and who question whether Rand has fallen far enough from the tree. Rand will need to walk a narrow line, and for a job that’s accurately described as a pitcher full of warm spit…

    Mew

  • gekster

    …

  • clintonformccain

    For whatever reason, the social conservative and tea party wings have failed to translate their passion into viable candidates, instead hitching their wagons to candidates like Buchanan, Huckabee, and now Santorum — candidates the any impartial observer would say were simply not credible national candidates. Rather than blame Romney, or McCain, or Bush, the effort really ought to go into figuring out how to cultivate and attract conservative candidates who can appeal to a broader base. I’m no expert, but I believe part of the problem is the conundrum of needing to focus on red-meat hot-button issues to fire up the conservative base (immigration, English, contraception, apocolyptical rheteoric), while that is the very stuff that reduces broadbased appeal.

  • 10ab

    But it is not just the media blitz keeping him down it is his own mouth.
    Seriously a MAJORITY elects a president…Mr Santorum has continued to pander to a segment of rightwing extemists instead of focusing on issues that the MAJORITY want answers and solutions to! Like it or not, Gov Romney does not scare the pants off the Independents and women voters and we need them to win.

  • lineholder

    Hope you and yours are doing well.

    Yes, I’m not sure what northeastred is trying accomplish, but so far this poster on a fast track to break quite a few RS rules.

  • acat

    Bethlem Royal Hospital to watch the mentally ill…

    (origin of the term “bedlam”, which certainly describes some diaries around here…)

    Mew

  • Stricia

    Jeb Bush has endorsed Mitt Romney.

  • goodgovernance

    that we think ahead now for who we want to run in 2014 and 2016, then I’m still with you. A “draft Rubio” movement (just as an example) in December would work fine by me. Granted, until Rubio (or whoever the ideal candidate is) actually announces their run I think there’ll be limits to what can be done. But starting to build consensus for a candidate is a good idea, and would even help with the establishment.

  • gekster
  • northeastred

    The ones he’ll state to win the Republican nomination, or the ones he’ll state for the general election? If you followed his campaign, you can see he’s spoken his mind and answered questions from his heart, only to have his campaign remind him that those positions are untenable in the Republican party, and he has to go back and feign that he misunderstood the question. Like the Blunt amendment. Or abortion. Or health care mandates.

    We may be getting exactly what we deserve as a party…which is another four years of Obama. Are we supposed to be happy about that with our John Kerry in mom jeans candidate?

  • clintonformccain

    This would be perfect for Newt. He could get himself on TV every day taking a big bite out of Barry’s butt, while allowing the nominee to travel a little higher road. It’s the perfect scenario.

    Let Newt be Newt: designated flame-thrower. What a fantastic cable news show surrogate he would be.

  • gekster

    It makes me think I’m sane. ;)

  • cbartlett

    The best we can hope for is a House & Senate that will keep him in line. No matter how much he still supports his precious Romneycare and no matter how much he says parts of Obamacare are good and it just needs “tweaking”, I feel sure that he wouldn’t have the guts to veto a repeal if it manages to make it through the arduous process in both the House & Senate. And we have to hope that Republican Congressmen & Senators will have some say in SC appointments.

    Gingrich (or Perry!) would have been the only ones that would actually make any substantial change in the direction of this country. The best we can hope for now is that Romney will slow the train down so that Obama doesn’t run us completely ovet the cliff.

  • acat

    FIFY

    The reason we have these candidates is the conservative wing stood around in a dozen different tents, instead of joining behind one candidate early.

    As I predicted, the moderate/establishment wing consolidated early, and simply encouraged the conservatives to drive one another out, leaving their candidate the winner by default.

    The only time we’ve changed this paradigm was in 1980 .. and Reagan did that by “uniting the clans” starting on Dec. 1, 1976.

    Mew

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    but let me tell you why it’s a dangerous thing for the GOP and people like you to continue to take voters like me in Alabama for granted.

    First, we may not have the big bucks, but we donate to our candidates. Good luck getting us to do that with a candidate who so very clearly has sent the message he doesn’t need us.

    Second, we’re the ones who get out and work for our candidates. We put out the yard signs. We knock on doors. We talk to our friends, neighbors and co-workers, Do you think the candidate convinces the fence sitters to vote for him all by himself? The media sure isn’t going to help him. Independents and moderates can’t make their mind up as it is. You think they’re going to work for a candidate? Again, good luck if you think you don’t need us to do that.

    Third, a person will only take so much before enough is enough. Many of us are close to our breaking point, and I suspect if Obama weren’t the POTUS, you’d see a lot of protest votes or folks staying home. As it is, fear of another four years of Obama will push us to the polls, but that’s a horrible way to try and win an election.

    Finally, we need not just to win, but to win big in order to push conservative policies and keep the people on our side. If Romney can’t motivate the base to do this, do you really think independents and moderates are going to take up that banner? That’s a rhetorical question. You don’t have to answer.

  • myoda176

    I completed my protest vote by voting Perry yesterday in Illinois. I got a few strange looks from people when I told them, but I said the Primary doesnt’ matter to me right now due to the unlikability of anyone left in the race but I’ll vote in November for whoever the nominee is. Interesting that Perry isn’t running right now and still got that many votes. I wish he would have stayed in.

  • trickamsterdam

    I love how you Romney people seem to think since we’re all members of the American Right we’re all samurai like The 47 Ronin duty-bound to support our lord and master no matter what the cost!

    LOL.

    We’re free Americans. It’s not like we’re members of a sports team quitting on the coach and demanding a trade. I don’t remember ever swearing my fealty to Mitt Romney or the R Party for that matter.

    Are they paying me? Or is it precisely the opposite and they’re asking for my money and my vote?

    But it shows the (mind-blowingly foolish) sense of entitlement of Romney and his people. You really think we have to accept a result if we don’t like the result? This isn’t the Military. It’s politics.

    As for the “whambulance” I can’t wait to hear the whining from Romney people when it becomes obvious the Base wasn’t bluffing and aren’t going to vote for this thing on the stage at the convention. That’s if he’s the nominee which I still don’t accept is inevitable.

    No doubt we’ll hear it’s because he’s a Mormon. Or that he’s just too perfect for this World and we’re all jealous.

    Stricia go ride the “whambulance” w/ Romney in November. It’s gonna be a lonely ride…kinda sad…kinda empty…it won’t be pretty!

  • civil truth

    Regarding Mitt as nominee, you can bake it in a fancy pastry shell and put loads of whipped cream on top and wax rapturously on how wonderful it will taste, but the filling is still moose turd.

    Let’s not pretend otherwise.

    The MSM and liberal elite view of the Republican Party

    We aren’t dead yet, but I only pray we aren’t about to supply them with the club.

  • funwithknives

    and surely do not think of GWB as any kind of second coming. But to say that Barry is ‘better’ on defense and then provide zero a/b comparisons shows the weakness of your discussion points. He got OBL and used Bush’s eventual plans for withdrawal in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both of those cases, he disregarded his military advisors on execution of same.
    Did he get rid of Gitmo? Nope.
    Did he give away the Farm to Russia on Missile Defence? AbSoLuteLy So.
    What is the plan for Chinese Hacking? Zilch, other than blather.

    Since you ‘are not of the opinion ‘, that Barry’s not a Socialist go get yoursel fsome and You Tell all of us what he is, politically.
    {This should be very revealing…}

    Who is This Us you speak of, Kemosabe?

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Most Ron Paul supporters are racist, antisemitic, conspiracy theorists. I can tell by your comment that you’re one of them. Romney is not Obama. If anything, he might be like Clinton was his last 6 years. That is, if we can get someone like Newt in charge of the House to force him there.

    apologies to Bill S

  • lineholder

    with socialism, northeastred? I do not. Oh, he isn’t a self-avowed socialist like others may be (Sanders come to mind), but he definitely does prefer socialism to the republican form of government that our nation has long stood for.

    When Obama spoke of “fundamentally transforming America”, he made reference to his desire to see this nation move in the direction of becoming a socialistic society. And practically everything he has done in the past three years has been with this goal in mind. He’s not spoken openly about it to the American people, with the simple reason being that if he did so, they would reject it and him. So he’s hidden behind gimmicks instead…energy policy, health care policy…you name it, the evidence is there to be seen for those who have eyes to see.

    And during the next few months when he makes his plea to the American people for more time, it will be with the intention in mind of completing the transformation process.

    I don’t think it is silly to be aware of these facts that pertain to President Obama’s goals at all. I think it is as honest as it gets.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    You’ll proceed to the others in due time.

  • Ventura Capitalist

    Santorum in the White House would be like W on steroids.
    But then Gingrich in the White House would be like Carrot Top on LSD.

  • honoraryintern

    The guy that was pummeled by McCain, duplicates the weight at the bottom ticket? Same result, o’ and the SCUMedia isolate conservatives from Romney as November approaches. Some hope of winning if the economy stays tanked.

    Romney will owe Ron for the delegates that put him over the top. Ronmey-Paul more likely, but same problem. 60% of repubs are against the top of either ticket.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    Hope that hiatus was all you wanted/needed and more. In that regard, you might find this exchange amusing.

    here

  • Ventura Capitalist

    Show?s over. Get off the stage. Your 15 minutes are up.

  • unclefred

    If you average recent party identification polls Republicans and Democrats each get between 31% – 32% a virtual tie. The Democrats have lost numbers since 2008. The Republicans are well ahead of their 2008 numbers, but have lost a bit from where they were in 2010.

    A significant part of the voters who moved away from the Democrats now consider themselves independents. In other words they are disaffected Democrats who have left the party. As opposed to blue dog Democrats, who are unhappy but still in the party.

    Winning the presidency requires a heavy base turn out, and winning a majority of independents in the swing states.

    Whether we like it or not, to win the presidency the nominee MUST win the middle. Fortunately for our side, the middle is pretty unhappy with Obama these days, and his base is at least somewhat dispirited. He can be beaten, but only if we all unite and work.

  • trickamsterdam

    No they’re not.

    Most racists (meaning professional KKK variety) anti-semites and conspiracy theorists are Ron Paul supporters. But that’s not the same thing as most Ron Paul supporters being those things.

    It’s similar to the way the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim but the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists.

    As to your point about his voters I would say in a normal year most of his more intelligent supporters (e.g. the Reason Magazine guys, Judge Napolitano) would go to Romney but w/ Gary Johnson being out there this is not a normal year.

    I do not know what his dumber supporters will do (e.g. the racists, the conspiracy people) but I suspect they will not vote.

  • garfieldjl

    McCain would be the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh compared to Romney.

    McCain actually has some ethics.

    Not sure about the Rubio/Palin comparison, don’t know enough about Rubio to decide whether or not it’s insulting Palin.

  • gekster

    a tip for you.
    When you do a smily face, put a couple of spaces away from the last period or such.
    not this.:), but like this, :)
    I think it just has to stand alone kinda.
    And I am more than happy with the warm reception I have gotten. :)

  • garfieldjl

    Seriously, is there anyone good running as a 3rd party, cause if Obamney is the nominee, I’m seriously considering voting 3rd party.

    There is very little difference between him and Obama.

  • garfieldjl

    Seriously, his campaign has been declared dead so many times only to come back, I’d say Newt’s campaign isn’t dead until Newt says it is dead.

  • northeastred

    I don’t expect you to apply much critical thinking to foreign policy matters. Aside from getting OBL, which is mostly due to good fortune, rather than policy, Obama has at least had the right, consistent strategy toward Pakistan. He doesn’t trust them, which is a step in the right direction.

    You can even look at some of the foreign policy conflicts where the US was able to reach desirable outcomes through back channels, diplomacy, and without threats and posturing. Not escalating every foreign crisis is a plus in my book. Let’s just agree that he continued Bush policy in all the right places, and avoided all the mistakes. At least Romney, to his credit, seems to understand this.

    And the reason Obama’s not a socialist is because every socialist feels completely abandoned by Obama. If you look closely at the health care plan, there’s no socialism there. The insurance companies (trust me on this) are not fighting to overturn Obamacare the way Republican politicians are, because they understand this. There’s real money to be made out there and they know it.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    Like this? :)

    If it doesn’t work now, sooner or later, I’ll get the hang of it. I finally got to the point I can manage enough HTML to crank out a diary now and then, and I can post vids, pictures and hyperlink a source. LOL.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    Like this? :)

    If it doesn’t work now, sooner or later, I’ll get the hang of it. I finally got to the point I can manage enough HTML to crank out a diary now and then, and I can post vids, pictures and hyperlink a source. LOL.

  • garfieldjl

    There is a lot of anger and distrust concerning Romney that McCain didn’t generate in 2008.

    Like it or not people just didn’t like McCain because he thought he was a RINO.

    A lot of people don’t like Romney because they think he’s a total slimeball whom has routinely spit in their faces and is also a RINO.

    So, I would say McCain would have a better chance of beating Obama than Romney.

  • acat

    Some of this must be done by the candidate, Reagan’s op-ed columns for instance…but the bulk of the work is on us, ensuring that conservatives of all stripes are, more or less, all on the same page… and that we’ve got that page marked well before Iowa.

    Every time we wait for the GOP process to start, we lose.

    Mew

  • Finrod

    .

  • gekster

    Republican in the general.

    If you can’t live with that, then go post at the HuffPo.
    They would love you.

    And tell me when a third party has won.

  • goodgovernance

    we’re agreed. A lot of what happened this cycle could have been avoided if conservatives had had a game plan worked out in advance.

    I’m just saying that one of the benefits to having “selected” our preferred nominee early is that the establishment might go along with that choice as the path of least resistance. Rank and file Republicans might go along as well, as they might see the conservative pick as “the next in line.”

    But all this involves some heretofore unseen discipline on the part of conservatives. Flirtations with Bachmann, Trump, and Cain only hurt conservatives in the end.

  • gekster

    The only problem I have is with pictures, but I’ll figure it out someday.

  • lineholder

    In 2008, what Obama was referencing in his comments about “fundamentally transforming America” was so vague and ambiguous that very few American citizens even remotely comprehended the fact that his idea of “fundamental transformation” involved moving this nation in the direction of becoming a more socialistic society.

    The left misjudged the situation a bit…they believed our society would welcome the transition. That hasn’t happened. Americans in general are still every bit as much fundamentally opposed to socialistic ideals as we were three years ago. The left hasn’t made much headway on that matter.

    But the public is more on its guard now than it was in 2008…more consciously aware of the direction things are going in. I think simply on the basis of rejecting the socialistic potential and the hope of altering direction, Romney has a greater advantage in winning against Obama that McCain had.

    Romney does NOT inspire people on any level, which could very well turn out to be a huge obstacle in keeping people engaged between now and November.

  • civil truth

    and I heard him tell it several times in live concerts.

    I didn’t know Dr. Demento had played a recording of it on his show.

  • mikelindell2

    I’m unworthy of my candidate and I’m a small-time, dumb person Very interesting. It seems you are the perfect Santorum supporter-angry, childish,petulant, factually incorrect. For such a big-thinking, big-time person of such great stature, you sure do spend a lot of time replying to my comments. It would appear that you are a very angry person, someone who life has really beaten down to the point that you feel you have no choice but to spend your days venting your anger in the comments section on RedState. I just wish that us Newt supporters were as sharp as the home-school educated, condom hating supporters of the distinguished Mr. Santorum. We owe a lot to Mr. Santorum. He moved the conversation of this race from silly things like the economy and debt to important things like condoms, making porn illegal, hatred for college, apathy toward the unemployment rate, loathing toward the separation of church and state, and deciding which branches of Christianity have been corrupted by Satan. I’m sorry you couldn’t figure out the right candidate to pick. You saw the guy in the sweater vest and thought, “this guy looks like a misguided, judgmental, ignorant, unaccomplished joke like me!! Santorum 2012!” I’m sure Santorum’s gimmicky, anti-conservative tax plan appealed to you when you heard about it in between discussion of why burkas might be good for women to wear and why it’s been so long since the last inquisition. As a small-minded Newt supporter, I only came to my decision after analyzing who was the most conservative, accomplished, articulate and experienced person who was offering the best proposals. Next time I’ll know better!

  • acat

    I look forward to working together, either holding Romney’s feet to the fire or in starting the selection process for 2016, on Dec. 1 2012.

    Mew

  • buster93

    Southern, likeable, Energy experience and International experience. Grew up in Paint Creek Texas. JOB CREATER yes 36,000 more jobs wentto Austin recently from Apple. Tea Party Favorite and yes
    Evangelical and blue collar Democrats would like him too.
    I really think they would be a good match. 2 job creators for America couldn’t get better.
    I know as my Texas Governor he will provide the woman’s services that the US Government took funding from Planned Parenthood.
    He just will!!!
    The debates between Biden and Perry will be awesome and I know Rick will be ready!!
    It is time for a balanced ticket Romney/Perry !!!!

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Otherwise, they wouldn’t associate themselves with him.

  • pikzehn

    I voted yesterday for Perry in Illinois. I could not vote for Romney or Santorum.

    Unfortunately for Romney, I will not vote for him in November either. I will not vote for a candidate for president because he has a good VP. I am done voting for candidates with whom I disagree on more issues than not. I am done voting for the lesser of two evils.

    I will vote 3rd party if the candidate agrees with me on a majority of issues. Otherwise, I will vote the rest of my ballot and leave the spot for president blank.

  • garfieldjl

    Perry wouldn’t want to be on the same ticket with Dishonest Mitt.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    .
    .

  • trickamsterdam

    True but I’m also not sure why we needed this Diary right now unless he views it as an actual “diary” for getting things off his chest and not for giving advice or moving public opinion.

    Romney can still stopped if he loses Wisconsin.

    Now at this point do I actually think Romney will be stopped? No.

    But there is a mathematical chance and not an absurd one (as EE admitted). Probably about 5%.

    Sounds small but that’s one in 20. If I told you there was a one in 20 chance you were going to be hit by lightning tonight you be nervous if I gave you the same odds that you would hit the lottery tonight you’d be excited.

    So we’re not talking about requiring miracles here we’re just talking about being a very, very heavy underdog.

    So I don’t understand why EE would write this and maybe lower turnout for Santo or whoever in Wisconsin and other places. It just adds to Romney’s aura of inevitability and he’s not inevitable…he’s just a very heavy favorite.

  • lineholder

    I wish to goodness we could find a better way of tapping into it…

    There is evidence to prove (via polls and the like) that if it comes down to a choice between staying with the form of government on which our country was established OR choosing to go the way of the left and being transformed in the more socialistic society they desire, a greater number of Americans would choose the first of those two options.

    In so many ways, that is exactly what this election comes down to. It just isn’t being articulated very well on our side at the present. I’m not sure why this is true, but it is. We keep getting sucked down “rabbit holes” that are set in front of us, distracted, off-message, etc.

  • garfieldjl

    John McCain was a moderate, you can argue where he came down on the issues.

    Mitt Romney is a liberal, though he waffles all over the place his position could change every 5 minutes.

    In 2008, I saw the options as:

    A man I don’t always agree with but I can respect him for his integrity and the fact he loves this country.

    vs.

    A typical Chicago Politician that I don’t agree with on anything.

    I had no problem with voting for McCain.

    Unlike McCain, I wouldn’t trust Romney to give me the time of day.

    Romney’s record indicates he’s a liberal.

    So I’d be choosing between a “Massachusetts moderate” and a “Left wing Chicago Politician,” based on how we’ve seen Romney use standard Saul Alinski tactics, I really don’t see much difference between Obamney and Obama.

  • gekster

    I’ll check it out.
    Thanks.

  • garfieldjl

    A Massachusetts liberal would be considered nuts just about everywhere else in this country.

    Romney is the one candidate that can’t give a stark contrast between themselves and Obama.

  • northeastred

    You know, I thought it was pretty witty that one of Santorum’s advisors accused Romney of being an Etch a Sketch candidate, who can reset his positions for the general election. Then I watched the comment and realized it was Romney’s own advisor who made that statement. Remarkable. Bodes well for the fall. I’m sure he’ll have time to reexamine some of his positions very soon, and the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-stimulus Romney isn’t far from view.

  • trickamsterdam

    I didn’t read your comment (because you don’t use paragraphs and I can imagine the gist) but I apologize (no sarcasm).

    I don’t think you understand very much but you picked a good candidate and supported him loyally. You aren’t really the problem.. Romney is the problem.

    You did start it by blaming Santorum supporters however. Nevertheless I think we are all frustrated today. Take it easy.

  • lineholder

    I don’t like Romney personally. The fact that the man goes where the political winds blow him as much as he does drive me nuts. His policy positions on issues such as healthcare are problematic at best. He’s a “player” if there ever was one, and a rather ruthless one at that (which could be seen as an advantage or disadvantage depending on a person’s viewpoint) In short, I don’t particularly trust him either.

    But if someone asked me whether or not I believed that Romney would proactively and deliberately pursue seeking totally alter the very context of our society for the purpose of accomplishing and achieving goals pertaining to pure socialism, and use his power in government to succeed in this….my answer would be “no”. I have little doubt that Obama would and could, because of his actions during the past three years. But as of this point, I have no reason to believe that Romney is driven by that same set of goals.

  • garfieldjl

    First, I believe Romney would continue Obama’s destructive policies.

    Second I believe that Romney would not attempt to halt more destructive policies being put in place.

    Furthermore, we’re currently heading for fiscal collapse.

    If we get Obama again it will probably be in 2 years tops.

    If we get Romney it will likely be 2.5 to 3 years.

    The end result is the same, I want someone to be elected that will change course so we don’t end up in a fiscal collapse, not someone that will merely delay it for 6 months.

  • trickamsterdam

    Didn’t read the post because I can imagine the gist. I don’t have evidence that Romney’s aura of “electability” would have been shattered if he’d lost OH and MI I’m going to assume you mean?

    It’s called an opinion.

    But if you go back and look (use google) people like Peter King and Chris Christie and quite a few others were saying that if he lost in MI another candidate would likely have entered the Race. This was apparently the talk behind the scenes.

    And then losing in OH would confirmed the earlier result. It doesn’t really matter now. I mostly was pointing that out to mikelindell2 because he was blaming Santorum supporters which is entirely ridiculous.

    But Newt supporters aren’t the problem Romney supporters are.

    So I apologized to him….even though I’m sure I’m right about what would have happened had Romney lost OH and MI it’s pointless to beat somebody up over it now.

  • lineholder

    I’m on that side of the spectrum as well, garfield.

    But we are now into that range where our options are becoming extremely limited. The door of opportunity to have it be an election between someone other Romney and Obama is closing.

    Whether we happen to like that reality or not may not alter the reality.

    What we can do, and where we will have an advantage if Romney wins the election, is by backing him up with as many Conservatives as we can get elected into Congress. Romney does indeed have a greater respect for due process than Obama has displayed so far.

    If Obama wins that second term, then it won’t matter who will be in power in Congress. He will continue to find ways to utilize the powers of the Executive branch as a mechanism of following through with this “transformation process”.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    no text.

  • littlehouse18

    ..

  • streiff

    by the time Michigan rolled around it was too late to get on the ballot anywhere without a write in effort and there is no one out there who could raise the money and put the organization together to do that.

  • pikzehn

    Germany, for example, has a 5 party system, that, from what I understand, works very well for them.

    I think it would be interesting if a constitutional party rose up this or next election cycle. We could have Dems on the left, Reps in the middle, and Constitutionalists (or whatever they would be called) on the right.

    Romney could collect votes from disenfranchised Democrats, moderate Republicans, and a bunch of independents. True conservatives could start their party and none of the parties would get a majority of the vote.

    Of course, I don’t foresee this really happening successfully. Though I do think having 4 substantial parties would help our political system greatly.

  • lineholder

    The left misjudged the situation from the get-go. They honestly believed that our society was to the point that we would embrace this type of transformation. We didn’t. In fact, in 2010, we spoke up very soundly against it. That slowed down the transformation process somewhat. The left needs more time. During the first term, Obama has responded with the thought that the need for more time does indeed exist. During a second time, those constraints won’t exist. They’ll “shoot the works”, garfield. They’ve been planning for this for over half a century, and they won’t back down now.

    Our greatest hope lies in (1) getting a R as President and (2) backing up whoever that person might be with Conservatives in Congress as a means of attempting to influence public policy decisions.

    We have to speak up again in 2012, every bit as strongly if not more so than we did in 2010. Even if we don’t personally like the person at the top of the ticket.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    You really have no clue how the process works do you?

  • SoFiMil

    Possible game-changer. Puts a brokered convention back on the table.

  • garfieldjl

    Romney is a liberal, he will push for liberal policies. It stands to reason that he will undercut Republicans in congress.

    We can lose the Presidential Election, if we manage to win both houses of congress.

    The Obamacare Repeal can be pushed through in that advent, and Obama could end up being impeached if more stuff like Fast & Furious comes out.

    That said, I think Romney would actually manage to get us to lose the House in 2012, because he plays right into the class warfare campaign strategy that Obama has.

  • lineholder

    But from what I can tell, you still aren’t addressing a key point in all of this…we’re now to the point where our options have been winnowed away. The likelihood of someone else’s other than Romney winning the nomination is very slim.. It isn’t completely non-existent, but it is growing slimmer with each day that goes by.

    Yes, Romney may attempt to push progressive policy decisions. I don’t disagree with you on that.

    I’d like to believe that we could depend on Congress to stand up for our Constitution first and foremost, in the event that President Obama does win a second term and we see even more excesses of Executive power, but I think it depends on who is in leadership positions in Congress. If the leadership positions stay the same as they are now…then it’s questionable, garfield. I’d love to say otherwise, but I’m being a realist on that point.

    As to the House and Senatorial elections, and combating against the campaign message that comes out of the MSM and the left…this is where Conservatives will have to decide as individuals whether they can find something to rally behind that keeps in the fight, particularly in the down-ticket races, in spite of anything that the MSM might do or say.

  • Bob_Frazier

    “He appears angry, he?s preoccupied with people?s private lives, he?s everything that people fear about the Republican Party. He?s openly hostile to libertarians, to TEA Party folks, and to liberty in general.”

    This is a blatant lie. With republicans like you, the democrats just need to sit back and wait.

  • acat

    When running for Hyde’s old seat, Duckworth held a political event at the Marianjoy not-for-profit physical rehabilitation center… sending the facility administrators into a tizzy because it threatens their not-for-profit status.

    That’s a pretty callous level of disregard for a candidate who has greatly benefited from such facilities, eh?

    Mew

  • joeydavis

    Illinois is not a typical midwestern state. It is the home of Chicago, which makes itvery east coast liberal establishment. It is the homestate of President Obama. It will be 65-35 Dem in the fall.

    A big win here for Romney was to be expected.Anyone that expected anything else was simply insane. For the press to sell this as a decisive win in the midwest is patently wrong.

    If he manages to pull off a simliar win in Wisconsin, then yeah we will have to grant him some consideration.

    What I saw last night was another big win for Romney in an uncompetitive BLUE state where he dominated in the BLUEST part of the BLUE state.

    Show me Romney success in a RED state or even a RED part in a marginally BLUE state and I’ll…. well you find it first

  • ariyosef

    It seems you betray your own slogan, Erick.

    With all due respect, to however much is true, I will Stand on the bridge beside, the likes of Rick Perry, Newt, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and many others, but Never ROMNEY and questionably Sanatorium, although his Social Issues Stands are inspiring.

    The Creator gives us the leaders we deserve.
    History has given many infamous leaders: Neville Chamberlins, Carters, and worse.
    Antiochus Epiphanies, Stalin, Hiler, Mao and now ?.
    BHO is ?only beginning? to walk in their shoes.

    Apachecav is right?
    IF Romney is nominee, America we have lived in, ceases breath.
    Conservatives especially, and Republicans in general, will NOT vote for Romney.

    Perhaps, Erick, you are trying to slap us to sobriety, or perhaps you are brainwashed, more than you know, by the many liberals in your increasing circle of new pundit peers?
    Or perhaps you are hedging your reputation on ?being statistically correct??rather than
    Rallying true patriots of PRINCIPLE to a righteous cause. Several times in this Primary process, you have shown wavering or multiple colors, seeming to lack determined focus on principle in favor of popular opinion. Shame!

    Texas will not back Romney. 53% of Romney?s ?own? Republicans voted AGAINST him in Illinois. Other state?s were much worse. His negative ads outspent all combined opponents by over 10:1 and he still lost all but an average of about 35% of gross vote, most of which were liberal Republicans or ?… and lost the respect of many voters of all colors. His millions will not defeat BHO’s “Billion.” Karma, if not divine retribution, will defeat Romney in the General Election, as he has harmed good opponents in primary.

    IF Romney fails to garner first ballot majority at Convention, ANYONE ELSE with even moderate conservative credentials, WILL be nominated.

    I do not advocate quitting principle, nor falling on our swords, nor do I need the Suicide Hotline. Yet, I will not fail to speak true to Principle. What else will even delay our demise, much less save our country, from the steep decline already underway in morals, freedom, economy and world respect. Our very Constitution is in grievous peril. Soon, perhaps, our very lives. I believe this is the “cartridge” reference made by Apachecav… may simply phrase an expression that self-defense may soon become a new “American Way” of even personal survival.

    That is not an “Offensive” intent by any means. It is valid concern.

    Erick and all, Straighten up your spine, Stand tall, if you wish to carry the flag of a true conservative or patriot and expect any to stand with you on the bridge of truth.

    I respectfully suggest you return to your true center and GUT UP!
    Then begin to Rally troops to Truth and Principles of our Founding Documents.

    This battle is too critical, with too little time left, to keep espousing defeat.
    Rally troops for a ?Charge!? It is so unseemly to prematurely retreat!

  • garfieldjl

    If the Republicans do not have support from a Republican President, the odds of us getting things done is lower than if we have a Republican Congress in both houses and Obama gets 4 more years.

    The President is a leadership role, so nominating Romney is nominating a leader that would actively work against Conservatism.

    The leadership role in Government for Republicans goes to Boehner if Romney doesn’t beat Obama, and as much as people complain about Boehner, he’s way more conservative than Romney.

  • lineholder

    expressed in the comments by apachecav that Erick (amongst others) responded to isn’t in the least bit helpful in this situation. The potential is greater by far that it will do more harm than good. The last thing any of us can afford to do at this point is to give way to a self-fulfilling prophecy position that “its all over…goodbye America…”. In that context, Erick was totally in the right by calling this out.

    Just curious, though…you could actually stand by Ron Paul before Romney? That reveals quite a bit, you know.

  • aesthete

    I think the very ideology (individualist, pro-family, subsidiarity-favoring) tends towards not one, but infinitely many leaders — conservatism is in effect about removing government from places where the individual and the family should hold sway.

    Not having a Napoleon or Wellington also makes it much more difficult for Alinskyite tactics to work.

  • pdxnancy

    I was originally a Perry supporter, sigh, but never, in my wildest imagination did I ever think that Santorum would be a factor, and certainly not to still be in the race.

    I saw his anger issues early in the debates, his somewhat churlishness showed in his facial expressions; he is angry. Then there was his constant whining about other candidates getting more time, more questions, more press, etc. To me he seems immature and that he could have a tantrum and storm out of a situation if something didn’t go his way. We don’t need that in a President, we definitely need an adult, with emotions in check.

    I have been dead set against Romney from the get go, for several reasons, and as a Christian, not the least of which is his being a Morman.

    However, as the Primarys are going, it does seem more and more likely that he may be our candidate. As Rush said, ‘maybe the Conservative alternative to Romney… is Romney.’ If that turns out to be…I will support Romney completely, because our one and only objective in this 2012 election is removing Obama from office.

  • aesthete

    All of them save one voted for McCain — and the one is kicking himself over not having voted for him.

    Of course, the ones I know lean more towards “right-libertarian survivalist types who have Constitutions in the pickup next to their Bibles”, rather than the, erm, “baked college kid” demographic.

    Personally, I think 2008 was the important election. Damage is already done for this one and Mittens ain’t gonna do anything to fix it.

  • aesthete

    should be on a Romney ticket. The VP does nothing, and would only provide a false patina of conservatism to a candidate who is, at best, moderate.

  • redstateneck

    Romney is showing he knows how to win the primaries without sacrificing the general. He’s showed reasonable discipline and patiently executed a plan. No other candidate has put as much time and effort into the campaign. The party pragmatists want to win. The fringe ideologues don’t care if we win. They’d rather continue to whine rather than win. Let’s win!

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    or that he didn’t win by being extremely negative. That he is not attempting use money to get elected. Romney is better than Obama, but that doesn’t change who he is. How do we defend him against the attacks we know are true.

    Hey, yes Romney is a typical politician, but he is at least our politician. This will be fun. Obama is the enemy, but Romney is Still Romney.

  • circlegranch

    My comment about Duckworth was taken from a highly reputable Chicago news source about 2 am. After researching a number of sources and subsequent note-taking in prep to gather info for my comment here, I went back and double checked it, agreeing with all of you that her support from the tea party was certainly suspicious, but all bets seem off this go-around. Knowing good editors such as yourself would correct/amend as necessary, it was included.

    After several attempts and as many hours trying to find the link to post here so’s to smooth ruffled fur, it appears surgically excised or at least scrubbed up a bit. Perhaps the writer was up too late deliberating over the important races in the state as was I, someone other cat made aware them aware of the error and it was fixed. Stuff happens.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    Which is the whole reason they wanted him in the first place. They knew he would lie to conservatives to win. Obama will unite the party, but Romney will not.

  • BigRedConservative

    We need a charismatic leader, a Reagan amongst us, to rise up, take on the D.C. leadership, and win.

    We need a GOP which shares only the name with the GOP of today, a GOP rededicated to the original tenets of liberty and limited government.

    We need a re-energizing of the party voter base to include Hispanics, Asian-Americans and more women.

    We need a foreign policy stratagem fundamentally different to our current one, a doctrine based on cultivating friends and smashing our enemies, not the sort of retreating cowardice shown by Newt and Mitt and Luap Nor (admittedly not Santorum, although that’s a whole different kettle of fish).

    We need to commence a hearts-and-mind program stretching from Maine to New Mexico in which we teach people about the party, rather than passively keeping our metaphorical mouths open until voters fly in. And not just at election year, 24/7 education.

    We need this now.

    We aren’t just in it to win this election, we’re in it to change America for the better. Let’s begin by getting our nominee right; let’s end by putting America on a course for greatness and power.

  • SoFiMil

    abcnews.com, msnbc.com, cnn.com, and cbsnews.com all prominently feature a store of the truth spoken this morning by a Romney official, and use the word “etch-a-sketch” in the headline.

    FoxNews.com has no mention of it whatsoever.

    Drudge has it in regular-type print, tucked away in the corner where I almost missed it, under the oblique lead: “Limbaugh: ‘Maybe the conservative alternative to Romney is Romney.’” No mention or picture of that classic kid’s toy.

  • danno86

    INSANE!

  • morrigan

    I don’t quite “get” Rubio, or to be precise I don’t get the high opinion which so many people have of hm. He’s better than a Specter or a Jeffords, but not as good as a DeMint or a Coburn. He’s not a terrific public speaker, nor has he written any books or papers successfully articulating conservative positions.

    He’s not bad, mind you. His being VP would not count as a negative in my mind. But it would not count as a big positive either.

    “Rubio” is a cool name though.

  • ariyosef

    I am Challenging the “Give it up” to Romney, fatalism, in Erick’s tone.
    As one interpretation of Ericks evaluation seemed to suggest.
    Perhaps I misread Erick.
    That was my take on Erick and the Hyperbolic response I believe Apachecav was making… and extreme “Don’t quit!!!!”

    My personal, current, and last resort, is to push foward with God-given truth, reason, faith and prayer— all requiring effort on our part.
    I am NOT bowing to “forgone ‘wisdom’ of pundit fatalism”.
    That’s what quitters do.

    Quitting, simply means we LOOSE our country to a Billion dollar trump of Romney’s only Primary Muscle: Millions in attack ads to ruin his out spent opponents. Does anyone think we can outspend BHO?

    No.

    There must be a TRUE voice of a TRUE CONSERVATIVE who is more CREATIVE, ARTICULATE, and more PROVEN in Record and Social Morality in the POLITICAL as well as presonal arena.

    My fatalism, if any, is simply a belief that this year ONLY, is our chance, to reverse directions to save our country, should the Creator be so merciful to allow it. Wake up, 2016 will be too late.
    …andYes, it will likely take a miracle this year.
    But quitters seldom experience miracles.
    Settling with Romney is a bad bet.

  • ken58

    But this is one conservative who absolutelyl will not vote for him. Romney has poisoned the well with his scorched earth campaign. Does he really think after trashing far better candidates that himself in lying commercials that we’ll just roll over, send him money, and support him in November? No, I’m finished with the GOP. They can take their left of center nominee and shove it.

  • colonelflagg

    I’ll be voting third party and liking it. My party will have officially left me and it can go the way of the Whigs for all I care.

    Actually, the last Republican candidate I could vote for with any degree of confidence was the first one I voted for — Ronald Reagan.

  • morrigan

    >”On the other hand, Mitt Romney?s win in Illinois still highlights his struggles. Blue collar voters are not fond of him. Staunchly conservative voters are not either. Evangelical voters also are not fond of him.”

    That’s painting with a pretty broad brush. No candidate has been winning a majority (50%+) of the votes of evangelicals or of staunch conservatives.

    Looking at the Illinois exit polls, Santorum won 46% of white evangelicals. Romney won 39%. Yes, 39 is less than 46, but this strikes me as very narrow difference on which to hang the claim that “evangelical voters are not fond of Romney”. They are slightly less fond of him than they are of Santoum.

    Among Protestants who attend services at least once a week, Santorum edged out Romney 42% to 39%.

    It is claimed that Romney only succeeds among the rich, those making over $100,000 per year, but in Illinois he defeated Santorum among the 30-50k and 50-100k income brackets. Santorum beat Romney only in the 0-30k income bracket.

    I’ve looked at the exit polls from other states as well, and the claim that the conservative base detests Romney can’t stand up to scrutiny.

  • acat

    See my tip above, that string should give ya a nice starting point.

    Mew

  • lineholder

    but apachecav’s comments definitely were. That wasn’t hyperbole…that’s despair, ariyosef. Go back and look at it again…especially the part about the dictator and preparing for the coming gulag.

    That’s what Erick was calling out, and rightfully so.

    I may be wrong about this, but I don’t think Erick is trying to tell people to just give up and settle for Romney. That’s just doesn’t sound like something who voted for Perry in their own state primary (long after Perry had withdrawn from the race) would be inclined to do.

    Do I think he’s considering the probability that Romney could very well end up being the nominee and giving Conservatives a “head’s up” that this likelihood if pretty close to being a done deal? Oh, yeah, I do believe he would do that.

  • tnguy

    I try not to hate anyone. I don’t hate Obama.

    Some of Romney’s more tepid supporters admit he will soil the republican brand name. Eric says that “The disentangling of the movement from the party will continu,.”with Romney’s nomination. He’s exactly right.

    My hope is that disentangling would not take place. That the conservative voice would become the dominant one in the republican party. I do not advocate a 3rd party, but that’s exactly where we’re headed if the conservative majority does not come together, and stop men like McConnell and Boehner and Romney.

    That can’t happen if we all keep holding our noses every 4 years and vote for a McCain/Dole/Bush/Romney. That just reinforces to McConnell and Boehner types that they can get away with their statism. There are more conservatives than any other group within the party, yet we keep running pathetic primaries where conservatives cannot agree on a candidate (like the last two), or fall for a man who pretended to be a conservative (GWB).

    At some point, we have to draw a line in the sand. There won’t ever be a time when a democrat isn’t opposing us on the ticket. We have to start sometime.

  • ariyosef

    Thank be to God!

    While I am concerned with late Convention date…

    It is WAY premature to declare Romney the Nominee.

    More Republicans are voting against Romney than for him.

    Many of his votes are likely Dems who want a defeatable candidate.

    Pray for a miracle!

  • rwcbarry

    and I will not vote for him in the primary of Wisconsin, or the general. I will vote for Obummer if it comes down to Romney vs. Obummer.

    I will also be campaigning for Obummer if Romney is the guy.

    Screw all of you people that support Romney. He is an a**hole to the highest degree. At least Obummer will extend unemployment benefits until an actual outrage in the populous results in an overthrow of our destroyed country.

    We are so screwed, and it is because of you and your liberal friends. This is for real people!

    I will continue to prepare for the totalitarianism that you all subscribe to. Just don’t come near me or my family, and you’ll be able to continue your pursuit of futility.

    Signing off for the last time – Barry

    P.S. – Eat me.

  • acat

    Take your ball, and go home.

    Mew

  • morrigan

    >”The insurance companies (trust me on this) are not fighting to overturn Obamacare the way Republican politicians are, because they understand this. There?s real money to be made out there and they know it..”

    That is socialism in the real world. So called “private companies” which are in bed with the government get to fleece consumers – this is what socialism looks like in practice.

  • trickamsterdam

    (this is basically a reply to the whole exchange between you two not an individual post)

    How are conservatives going to work out a game plan years in advance when even when (metaphorical) death is staring them in the face they can’t agree?

    If you’re the sort of person who thinks Newt is going to get stronger from Romney winning in OH and MI because you’re more scared of Santorum (I’m not talking about the quality of Santorum as a candidate now I’m talking purely strategically w/ people honestly believing he was more of a threat to Newt) how can you be reasoned with?

    It was clearly ridiculous and we are on a Diary that pretty much makes that clear…basic strategy says you always take out the strongest opponent first…clearly that was Romney but they chose to be more scared of Santo.

    I’m not saying this to bag on Newt people. I’m saying when it’s staring you right in the face and you can’t see it you’re not going to be able to plan years off.

    We just have to hope we get lucky and someone like Rubio or Ryan who may be the best politician and candidate also has the most advantages. They (and others) are popular w/ the Establishment and that’s what we really need.

    Not an attempt to force our will on the Establishment (which is just as powerful as the conservative and libertarian movements) but to try to find a bridge like a Rubio or a Ryan who can appeal to both.

    This would have been the genius of a brokered convention where there might have been a chance for deal-making like that…and there’s still a small chance it could happen. Perhaps five percent. “Five percent”. About the same percentage of the Base that any other R candidate would get that Romney won’t (IMO).

    PS – @goodgovernance: Can’t remember what thread it was on and I was too busy to even read let alone write…but you were right about McCain. Forget about whether people like him or not he ran a brilliant campaign from the primaries to the general…underfunded he cut Romney to pieces.

    The convention was brilliant…Bush on the big screen TV (a sitting President!) selecting Palin to provide energy and exploit Hilary anger..Rudy and Libereman…he was very tough on Obama comparing him to Paris Hilton etc. The fact that he had a lead and it was solidifying when Wall St crashed is amazing.

    But once it crashed and they pinned it on the Rs no R was winning. Did you know that29% of people that went to the polls in 2008 still thought the Rs controlled Congress? That’s how well the MSM pinned the crash on us.

    The one thing I may disagree on is Rev Wright…after the crash if I’m McCain I take every dollar I have left in my war chest and run negative ad after negative ad tying Obama to Wright…which would have been entirely fair considering Obama called him his mentor took his book title from a Wright speech etc. But McCain was probably scared he would lose anyway and be known as a race baiter on top of it…for a guy w/ that much courage he always does the safe thing in the end.

    A strange cat (not you acat, McCain). ;)

  • lineholder

    Government intervention via socialistic policy implementation superimposes state managed capitalism over free-market principles. Once it gets to a certain point…well, no, the private sector companies aren’t going to challenge it any more. Why would they? Every time they open their mouths to protest, the government just smacks them with a few more regs. Supply-side economics gets thrown out the window because government’s got it’s sticky fingers into everything. Any private sector business owner with a lick of sense is going to figure out a way to use it to make more profit. For all intents and purposes, they become dependent on government for their survival just like individuals do.

    That is what socialism looks like. That is how it operates. It may be a softer form of socialism that most of us think of, but it is socialism all the same.

  • acat

    Not sure where he got it from, maybe he and littlehouse18 shop the same stores…

    To your early point, though … when did the conservatives get into the race this time?

    2011? In 2010, we all expected Palin to jump back in, right?

    What if, back in 2009, Tim Pawlenty had started writing a monthly column, published in a major paper (and on Facebook), calling out a specific Obama failing? In short, doing what Palin did, only doing it from a more secure (several terms in a blue state) footing?

    What if, back in 2009, Mike Pence had done a weekly radio broadcast (and podcast) on what he saw going on in Congress that week, and how to change it?

    What if, back in 2009, Mitch Daniels started doing a webcast, talking with various pundits including Captain Ed of Hot Air and our own E.E. – sort of a reverse-interview – just discussing the state of the country.

    Wouldn’t the person who did that have been primed and ready by 2011?

    How hard is it to plan ahead, people?

    Mew

  • lineholder

    Boehner, McConnell and Romney…you could stand each of them up in front of mirrors that display a person’s strength of character, and all you’d see for each one is vague shadows (at best). They’re three peas in the same proverbial pod.

    I know you want to present arguments about why we should not consider backing Romney up, but….

  • civil truth

    McCain wasn’t taking any lessons from me, for sure. :-(

  • garfieldjl

    The fact we can’t trust Romney to stand for conservative values.

    I would slightly disagree with you on Boehner because the tea party members that got into Congress respect him. I don’t think McConnell is respected by those same Tea Party members, which leads me to believe that we should give Speaker Boehner the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

    Anyways, my point is that we’re going to see more left wing agenda pushed through it wouldn’t matter if Obamney wins or Obama.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Apparently, like granite. Or maybe diamond.

  • lineholder

    There is a difference. The three men I mentioned above may be squishes who are so enamored with the idea of being in a position of power in government that they couldn’t do what is right (based on principle rather than political expediency) if their lives depended on it.

    But would either of the three abdicate all responsibility to the Constitution of the US?

    You know what, we’re to the point where this conversation is becoming circular, garfield. It’s accomplishing nothing.

  • timkellogg

    People who claim to understand how politicians and governmental intrusion are the problem, not the solution, still seem far too willing, far too often, to make idols of politicians, when it is madness to make idols of ANY man, even if he is not a member of that loathsome class of people.

    The idea that we can’t comment about Santorum’s blatant, obvious, vile hatred for LIBERTY and those who advocate for it is not weird, it’s just desperate. Making Santorum the definition of “conservative” is making guys like me want to stop using the term in a positive way (I am really a classical liberal, anyway) and making folks think that we Republicans, conservative or otherwise, agree with the leftist media’s definition of “conservative” as a moralizing crusader on a power-trip. I don’t care if your morals are of the biblical or green-movement variety, I want government to stop trying to dictate to my conscience, now and for ever more. Santorum is only “conservative” in the social sense, not in the constitutional or limited-government sense. None of the remaining choices are much good, but Santorum should have rightfully quit long before Herman did and Newt is making a huge joke of himself and making me regret ever even calling him smart, even though I always qualified that with something like “misguided” or “prone to invent elaborate government solutions rather than propose actual conservative solutions e.g.: getting government out of the the way of what government has too-long been hindering”. I have been arguing against Romney since before I had any idea who else would be running, but he looks and sounds positively dreamy next to Santorum, once I knew anything at all about him, and Gingrich, more and more, as he, like Santorum, acts every bit as arrogant as Obama.

    Over and over, I’m surprised at how willing people who supposedly get it that politicians and governmental business as usual are what we need to rein-in can get into the mode of being cheerleaders and personal defenders of the personal character, blah-blah-blah, of ANY past, present or future politician. The best of them do a great deal of wrong, and if Republicans can’t get over the irrational belief that a POLITICIAN can or should be a wonderful person when the best we could hope for would be a heartless mercenary being paid enough to do what Republicans almost NEVER do: really fight to turn the tide and make government STOP growing and START shrinking (because none of your idolized politicians have yet ever done that or even seriously attempted it), then Republicans will continue to abandon all their best hopes at the slightest hint of some personal scandal that has jack-squat to do with performing a job as a POLITICIAN and they will deserve to remain the party of perpetually snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    As for daring to say something about Santorum’s personality without having met him? I know plenty enough about his personality from what he says and does in public and on the record to know I would not WANT to meet him.

  • timkellogg

    They appear to be on fire. Calling someone a liar for pointing out readily-available, well-known, well-documented, in-Santorum’s-own-words-FACTS makes you what you accuse another of being…

  • jc230

    He’s socially conservative, with the exception of rallying votes, leading the charge, on No Child “Left” Behind, and his legislative record demonstrates a fiscal moderate to liberal. Psssst, their isn’t a pure conservative in the GOP slate of candidates.

  • timkellogg

    You defend him by saying, yes, he sucks and blows, but it would take an ARMY of him to suck and blow as much as Obama. It’s that simple, and it’s that important, and a lot more people than a lot of folks on here realize or admit really would take a ham sandwich over what we have now, which is WHY so many of us thought we’re missing an opportunity by not even trying to put the real thing up against him. He is SO beatable, we really should have taken the chance to elect a real conservative so that, when the media tells everybody how “extreme right-wing” he is, they won’t be saying it about yet ANOTHER liberal Republican, but, it is stupid to sit around whining about what didn’t happen and counter-productive to stay home or even talk about staying home because Obama makes HILLARY look like a reasonable person, for crying out loud!

  • Filibuster Keaton

    I’ve been explaining this four or five years, but I’ll try one or two more times, then give up. I followed Romney closely as governor. I wanted him to do well; he didn’t. I don’t believe he’s any more honest than Obama, and he additionally handed Obama “health care” on a silver platter. I was fine with Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Pawlenty, Perry, Roemer, and Santorum, but I said I couldn’t defend Romney and was told over and over I have to because the alternative is Obama so eat it.

    I’ve never voted against any Republican primary winner for major office, and I was fine with Bob Dole, Judy Baar Topinka, John McCain, and Mark Kirk as soon as they won their primaries. But I’ve yet to hear any attempt to defend Mitt Romney, just why his opponents allegedly are unelectable and therefore ought to be destroyed. When Mitt Romney is still calling after the polls close to tell me Rick Santorum is too Liberal, how am I supposed to take anything he says seriously?

    I’ll vote for any Republican nominee except Mitt Romney. Anyone else, even Gumby. That’s all I ask. But don’t act surprised if you run Mitt Romney and I’m really, really not bluffing.

  • timkellogg

    So bad, in fact, reading that McCain has ethics and is so much better, when the backstabbing SOB has basically done nothing but oppose us right up until he wanted to be president, that I’m not even going to try to argue with you on it, just note that I’m choking and snorting over that ridiculous assertion…

  • jc230

    It can be a lot worse, imagine four more years of Obama. If Romney depresses you, a wildly successful businessman and public leader who has far superior background for POTUS than Obama. Just think of one of the least experienced person to take the WH in decades, have at it for four more years!

  • jc230

    Like your clarity.

  • windwaker24

    It felt soooo good, too! And like a “good” Cook Co. resident, I strong-armed someone else who was about to vote for Romney into voting for Perry. :)

    I even enjoyed the robocalls and the various campaign calls. It felt so good to give them a piece of my mind. I’d been holding it in ever since Jan. 4th.

  • acat

    instead of rocks for ribs.

    Mew

  • honoraryintern

    As an AF brat there aren’t many pilots who had the chance to attend more than one flight review on the loss of a multi-million dollar jet, much less five.

    I would say privilege is the watchword of his military career. He stretched it out to politics and walloped o’light in 2008.

    Mitt-more liberal, more dependable. John-less liberal, less dependable. It turns out to be a wash but John lost as will Mitt because they both segregate themselves from conservatives.

  • trickamsterdam

    Romney could never be that much of an original thinker in a million trillion centuries.

    He’s a jealous control freak (remember how he fired the debate coach just because the guy got some credit for the successful FL debates by Romney?) who will nominate some semi-anonymous SoCon Southerner.

    It will not be a major name (obviously I’m not psychic I’m predicting). The person will be blander than Romney. I know right? If you get that bland you’re basically talking about an oil painting.

    Well if he were to nominate West I’d not only vote for him I’d donate to him and talk him up.

    There’s a few others too…DeMint Rand Paul…real change agents. Ryan or Rubio and I’d vote for him but not donate…not because I don’t think they’re excellent but they’re too Establishment in the context of a Romney candidacy…to paraphrase Jabba the Hutt…”Romney is not my kind of scum”.

    So it would take something special…see it’s not that the VP has any power but it would show me Romney is thinking. For a guy w/ that kind of IQ he never thinks.

  • buster93

    Maybe he might wait till 2016. We can’t afford 4 more years of Obama. Charles Krahammer says it will be Rubio. New Senator in Florida thats Cuban and young. Or Rick Perry also a Tea party darling with so much experience . Who knows the Etch a sketch comment today might become a Moderate Romney for sure.

  • Lynn Otting

    took the socially conservative view and voted for the candidate which best represented them, rather than the candidate who could best represent them and win. It seems rather obvious, albeit not to them, that a social and fiscal conservative could have done both and won.

  • greyeagle

    He is only running to pull votes from Newt. When Newt bows out, expect Santorum to bow out and endorse Romney. I would say that Romney and Santorum have been coordinating campaigns for some time.

  • greyeagle

    You are incorrect about Rubio’s experience. True he is not a Federal speaker, but he was in the House in Florida for several years and was the youngest ever Speaker of the House. He has far more experience than Obama ever had.

  • greyeagle

    I think Ron Paul has made a deal for Rand, his son to be Romney’s VP. Ron Paul has essentially backed off with attacks everywhere, and has never even run an ad against Romney. So Rand may be the VP choice. My choice would be Col. Allen West of Florida. A stanch conservative, military experience, extremely capable, and backed by the tea Party. Plus he would be Obama’s worst nightmare.

  • Lynn Otting

    on guard that it caused Republicans to get out and vote in primaries. So, why do you think the general election will be different? Republicans should be out in record number choosing a candidate, but they are not.

  • greyeagle

    Conservatives allowed the so called conservative media dictate who the candidates would be and ran off the rest by giving bad press. Governor Rick Perry would have been by far the best choice, because of his record. Conservatives did not support him and the Evangelicals are not any better. So Conservatives are to blame (I agree with you) for part of this mess, but I am also angry at the GOP establishment at pushing Romney. If he wins, we will be sorry. He will move hard left and we will not be much better off unless there are a lot of Conservatives in Congress to rein him in.

  • civil truth

    .

  • Lynn Otting

    How do you actively campaign for someone you distrust and stands for nothing that you believe?

  • mswalnut

    Both have declined to participate in an Oregon debate.

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/03/gop-debate-oregon-canceled-/1

  • trickamsterdam

    (I paraphrased your words)

    In a sense it seems like for example P. Ryan is sort of doing what you’re talking about. And they are clearly setting Rubio up. Daniels giving the response to the State of the Union too etc.

    It just seemed like the schedule was screwed up…that’s why thinking out of the box was needed (IMO).

    But people are odd. There are several people on this site who have admitted they don’t think any of these four can win who also were against a brokered convention. That literally makes no sense.

    All I know is I simply can’t vote for Romney. Let me try to stop comparing him to Caligula for once and explain…he’s just a liar and I just can’t. It’s like time is a dimension just like the three dimensions…

    What I mean by that is maybe if I were younger yeah…but I’m old enough to know if we hold our nose again (I hate that phrase btw but like Scope’s joke about getting so drunk before you vote for Romney all you can physically do is put on the a gasmask and pull the lever) it’ll just encourage this behavior by the Establishment forever.

    If you never say no then in the end you’ve never said no.

    It’s not that I’m better or morally superior or purer than the majority of the people on this site. It’s not that I’m the better conservative or libertarian.

    Quite the opposite actually…it’s precisely because I’m so ruthless and un-pure that I’ll never support Romney. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. The purer you are the harder it is to make that decision.

    I should admit that I think he’s a goner even if he had full Base support though so that makes my decision easier. If the protest vote goes into full effect he loses by ten instead of five (IMO).

    So you make your point w/out really losing anything. And I’ll vote down-ticket for the Rs elsewhere so I’m not responsible for anything that happens to anyone but Romney.

    Now if he loses by one percent and Obama goes crazy in his second term…it’s possible some people here and elsewhere could have some issues w/ me lol.

    But I should say even though I feel in my gut Romney will be the nominee now there is a very real possibility he could still lose. It’s probably 5-10% and that is not nothing.

    I’d take those odds on many a certain bet.

  • mswalnut

    .

  • Lynn Otting

    with that….I don’t think Romney has conservative DNA

  • demsaresatanic

    is a real disappointment. If Rick had a little more guts he would accept the debate and dare Romney to stay out, Rick needs debates almost as much as Newt.

  • rwp4liberty

    and Gingrich, who both have faults, but have more credibility when it comes to conservative principles

  • acat

    It’s in paragraphs, so I’m convinced you haven’t been drinking, but .. you’re a little all over the place.

    The comparison to Palin was deliberate as she was the other kind of all over the place – couldn’t surf a right-wing blogosphere site without seeing her latest facebook takedown of Obama….

    What I want, assuming you’re right and Romney tanks, is a conservative potential candidate who does both the Palin-on-Facebook thing and who the media *can’t* ignore… Perry’s a good one for this, he’s fine in interviews, does great in speeches, and I’m sure he can dig up a ghost writer. Pence could do equally well.

    As for Romney, I’ve said before that I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee. I know it may be futile but .. I also voted for Alan Keyes. I’ve got this thing about voting against Obama …

    Mew

  • trickamsterdam

    Ok then Peter King and Chris Christie are idiots. I’m not providing a link. It was common knowledge and well-publicized that they and others talked about it. Actually I will:

    https://www.google.com/webhp?rlz=1C1DXCS_enUS421US422&sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=sea&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1DXCS_enUS421US422&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Peter%20king%20saying%20if%20romney%20loses%20michigan%20another%20candidate%20might%20enter&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=adcb350d65902750&ix=sea&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1024&bih=707

    Good grief that link is nearly as fat as King! Well I checked it and it works. Are Peter King and all the many other politicians and pundits who said this would happen idiots? Probably. But not about this.

    Here’s what I know: If Romney had lost OH and MI he’d either be out of the Race of in the teens in polling right now.

    Since no one thinks Santo can win (I think he’s slightly more electable than Romney because he’s immune to class warfare attacks and has a real chance in OH and PA) they would have put another candidate in the race.

    Who that would have been and what would have happened I don’t know.

    But Romney would have become a fringe candidate on the level of Paul (I’m serious). Yeah it can never be proven now…but no one seems to feel a bother saying Romney is the most electable or Santorum is unelectable.

    Strategic voting was needed in OH and MI. Period.

  • trickamsterdam

    Now and neither does a sitting congressman or many, many others. Only you do:

    https://www.google.com/webhp?rlz=1C1DXCS_enUS421US422&sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=sea&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1DXCS_enUS421US422&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Peter%20king%20saying%20if%20romney%20loses%20michigan%20another%20candidate%20might%20enter&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=1&ix=sea&ion=1&biw=1024&bih=707&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&cad=b

    I know the link’s fat Becker but I’m not a computer guy. Why don’t you clean it for me?

    Goodnight and good luck.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Hint. They wouldn’t. And Rep King makes no mention about how “they” were planning on inserting another candidate. We can only guess and I don’t do mental masturbation.

    This is nothing more than a discussion of jackassery. The only reason Santorum got any life in this race was by buying the Iowa caucus outcome for a million dollars.

    And, to embed a link, the HTML code is: (a href=”LINK ADDRESS HERE”)LINK NAME(/a)
    Substitute “<" for "(" and "?" for ")"

  • trickamsterdam

    Well if you’re using paragraphs it could mean you’re thinking slower lol.

    I guess it was a bit all over the place except in the sense that I have a feeling w/ regular posters people kind of know where they stand…I pound Romney so badly I kinda wanted to explain why a bit…maybe it did seem incoherent I guess…that would be the fault of my writing not my thoughts.

    I think Ryan and Rubio are two who the media can’t ignore…they’re sort of like Pence (boring to the point where even his coloring is artic) and Daniels (who I think is charismatic and I guess you do also but many don’t) combined w/ Palin.

    Perry is interesting. Clearly I’m no expert on the guy whatsoever. I probably know less about him than most of the people here (although of the Rs I did like his politics best along w/ G. Johnson when he was still an R).

    But I kinda have the feeling he was humiliated by what happened. Maybe the back surgery and just having a day job of running a State that’s the size of a medium-sized (not small) country took a toll.

    But remember in R politics the second guy often is the “next one in line”. Now that technically would be Santorum but I don’t think it will be.

    Perry might run again and it will be a question of honor and this time he’ll have had years to prepare and no day job. It’s going to be a good field in 2016.

    As to what you’re talking about w/ the podcasts…I know about Reagan’s addresses from a book (which was excellent) called “Reagan’s War”. The thing is Reagan had an instinct for that…like Obama…or Newt.

    I really think Paul Ryan is the closest equivalent although I guess some and maybe you find him boring? Maybe Rubio is then? Or maybe it is Perry.

    Maybe this is kinda all over the place too…but aside from a 5-10% chance that Romney may be stopped aren’t we kinda picking up the pieces in a way? So things are gonna be all over the place in a sense.

    We’re sorta wrapping this thing up.

  • Finrod

    There?s a huge group of Newt supporters who find Santorum an absolute anathema and a walking disaster.

    Here!

  • trickamsterdam

    You know what’s bizarre man? And I can’t understand why it would work but maybe it did?

    Maybe you’re right and they were (because it was liberal Rs like King and Christie) trying to threaten people like…if you vote for Santorum you may end up w/ someone entering the Race that you don’t even know! And it wasn’t even possible or at least realistic.

    Because it’s curious that it was people like King and Christie saying that stuff and “unnamed sources”. To me it made Romney seem weaker but maybe their polling told them it made him seem stronger…to get moderates and liberals to commit to him?

    How could a late-entry work?

    Remember the winner take all states are at the end though and in my scenario Romney has been neutralized and we both know Santorum sucks.

    That’s another thing you didn’t get…let’s assume no one else enters and Romney has been de-fanged…you don’t think Newt had a better chance against Santo alone than against Romney and Santo together?

    Any way it doesn’t matter now…but I know there’s a way for candidates to enter late. I remember reading there were some provisions for that. And you just take it to the convention…but someone has momentum.

    And without Romney’s “electablity” myth and support from the Establishment he’s nothing. I know that too.

    And in fact I’m convinced that the reason that candidates like Daniels and Ryan didn’t enter (or part of the reason) is that they knew they’d get the Newt treatment from Romney.

    I think I basically think that Santorum has about the same chance of getting elected as you think Romney does and we both think the candidate we don’t like will drag the Rs down as far as the rest of the ticket.

    OK. You’re probably gonna get you’re wish. We’ll see if you’re right.

    I still prefer a brokered convention w/ a Ryan/Rubio ticket. But I’m sure Romney/anonymous hick will work just as well.

    PS – Thanks for the code but w/out “print preview” I doubt I’ll ever have the guts to use it.

  • jamesm

    in California up until 12 days ago, The strategy of a late entrant is get some momentum and deny any candidate from acheiving 1144 on the first ballot. If Romney gets 1144 he is the nominee, if not he will most likely not be the nominee, There will be challenges to Florida and Arizona in regards to winner take all. These will be successful according to many people who have looked at the issue.

  • Ann2012

    The one way I believe that Romney can unify the party and create the enthusiasm that he sorely lacks is to announce who will be in his cabinet if he is elected president. To my knowledge that hasn?t been done before. Generally you get cabinet positions announced after the start of the administration and generally they are people you never heard about or care about.

    When people run for office, Newt, the two Ricks, Cain etc. the public gets to know them and there is an emotional connection that is formed. So use that connection and emotion to put all of them in a Romney administration (assuming of course that they agree with their role).

    A few possible suggestions:

    Newt ? VP or any other position he wants.

    Rick Santorum ? Attorney General or Secretary of Defense

    Rick Perry ?Secretary of Commerce

    Herman Cain ? Secretary of the Treasury

    Sarah Palin ? Secretary of Energy

    Donald Trump ? Ambassador to China (just kidding) but then again?maybe it?s not such a bad idea

    All the people who were enthusiastic about those various candidates and had some emotional investment in them would find the reason and motivation to work for the Romney ticket in November. Without the energized conservative grassroots volunteerism to offset the grassroots of the left (especially in light of the union anger over what?s happening in Wisconsin and Ohio) Romney is going to lose in November and with that loss so goes the Supreme Court.

    The presidency is really much bigger than one person and it needs to be viewed as a team effort. And they should campaign as a team talking about what their plans would be in each of the departments listed above. If you can?t get excited about one individual such as Romney perhaps the team as a whole will bring the enthusiasm to what would otherwise be a boring campaign destine for a Dole or McCain outcome.

    p.s. I know and understand why everyone wants Rubio to be the VP choice. But I?ve heard something to the effect that he was critical of the Republicans for their strong stance on illegal immigration. So if he were in a position of power in the administration why would we think that he would agree with or promote those types of policies that would finally end the illegal immigration problem.

  • artaustria

    It IS unfair to take the votes from your stat and others for granted. Every election can be lost, and every election has to be won. The point is, to win for the conervative/republican cause in Alabama has still a far, far better chance than to do so in in Florida or Ohio. With a nominee Mitt Romney, there is a better chance of winning both than with any other of those available at this point.

    But again, you’re right, and as I’ve said before: If Romeny wins in November, it will be because of people like you, working hard in the field and motivate people to throw Obama out of office – by voting republican. Romney will owe the base big time.

    At least, that’s what I’ m hoping for…

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    and I think you are letting your desires cloud your political judgement. Santorum is absolutely toxic to both independents and many Republicans who are more libertarian oriented. Any ticket with him on the ballot is a loser. Gingrich is widely seen as a person with dubious personal integrity and as a bit of a flake, or perhaps a policy nerd.

    There is a reason those guys together cannot match Romney’s delegate count. They are not of a caliber to be a Presidential candidate in the general election and would both lose by a big margin.

  • Ann2012

    When you alienate the social conservatives, thinking that you win the Independents, you only set yourself up for another loss as in Dole, McCain.

    Whether the country is so against Obama that a moderate like Romney can win, I don?t know. But if the economy continues to improve and gas prices decrease towards November, I don?t think that Romney with all his money and negative ads that helped him in the primary will be able to offset the same tactics used by the Obama team.

    Democrats tend to be better strategic thinkers in my opinion compared to Republicans, and political acumen is all about strategy, so maybe the Republicans deserve to lose.

  • honoraryintern

    ‘Turnout seems likely to be among the lowest in decades ? perhaps the lowest, period. The record low in state records dating back to 1960 is 23 percent, which happened two years ago. Officials in several election districts said Tuesday’s turnout was hovering around 20 percent’

  • Ann2012

    …when he said that Rick Perry would be a part of his administration working on something near and dear to Perry, a 10th amendment project.

    And again Newt implied that Sarah Palin would be an excellent Energy Secretary and if my recollection is correct, soon after Todd Palin endorsed Newt and started working in his campaign.

    And as one more example, Newt said before even asking him that he would appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State.

    Newt may be the smartest and most strategic thinker in the party, but he?s in a party who?s members do not fully appreciate that quality. As evidenced by their 70+ year win/loss rate.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …and Toomey running for Veep could win PA.

  • Filibuster Keaton

    I hope you won’t hold it against your local candidates down ballot. I’m with you on Romney, though.

  • acat

    There was never a way Santorum could win in IL, NY, or CA. He got elected in PA on two things – pro-union and pro-life. The former played well in industry-heavy suburbs, the latter played well in rural areas, and PA had both at one time…

    The kind of hard-hat* pro-America union voter that Santorum appeals to, the “Reagan Democrat”, has gotten a bit harder to find. IIRC, there are more skirt* union voters than hard-hat voters these days, and the skirt unions aren’t pro-America by default…

    While Romney likely won’t win CA, NY, or IL in November, he will (or did) pick up a boatload of delegates there… and Santorum has no counter. Texas is close, but .. there’s only one of it.

    The only alternative was for people to realize Santorum’s weakness and recognize Gingrich as an acceptable alternative, so when that didn’t happen… game over.

    That in mind, I still say this election is Obama’s to lose, and I think he’ll have trouble. Ace of Spades has a theory that Romney could give Obama much more trouble than we think..

    I’ll admit, I’m skeptical, and I’m not about to become a Romney supporter, but .. what if he is playing that deep a game?

    Mew

    * if you prefer, take this as “labor union” and “office drone union”, “UAW” vs. “SEIU”.

  • clowngirl

    For Romney it makes a certain amount of sense to stop debating because he’s portraying the contest as essentially over.

    Having no debates loudly reinforces the idea that Romney is inevitable, the remaining contests can’t make a difference, and we should just settle already.

    For Santorum to get on board with that is nuts. Unless he’s pretty sure he can’t help himself and Newt would gain on or surpass him.

    Given his performance in the one debate when he was under scrutiny, I can understand his lack of confidence.

  • kaheo

    But on the National level, State speakership experience won’t move the numbers especially when you consider when he’ll have 2 months to sell that to the Nation with the other 4 factors I mentioned in play.

    6. If I was Rubio, I’d be reluctant to take up the VP of one of the most unpopular presidential candidates of our time. There’s a higher chance for him to lose than gain!

  • cheetah2

    Perry is the best man “for such a time as this” but voters were too shortsighted to see it or maybe God stopped him as a judgement on the wickedness of our country. Gingrich was the second best choice but ditto for him. I am glad we are at least escaping from having the unelectable (in my opinion) Santorum for our candidate. I am praying we can all rally around Romney now because he is our last best hope of at least slowing down our slide into the abyss until we have another shot at someone better.

  • cheetah2

    thanks for that.

  • n2sooners

    There is absolutely nothing fiscally conservative about Romneycare.

  • cheetah2

    To me that would be ideal. If he doesn’t keep his promises, get rid of him. Yet I have read that primarying an incumbent president always has failed in the past while often having the effect of weakening the incumbent thereby facilitating his defeat by the other party. Do you think it can be different this time? That would be something worth working for.

  • acat

    if he loses, how do we avoid the path that led us to a moderate candidate?

    Mew

  • Rudy

    He is not Catholic.

    Just thought I would clear that up.

    :)

    .

    .

    .
    .

  • pikzehn

    If I voted for Obama, that would be a vote for Obama.

    Not voting does not mean that Obama gets another vote. That’s not how voting works. My abstention doesn’t add one to Obama nor does it subtract one from Romney.

    If the Republican party wants me to vote for its candidate, then it needs to put forth a conservative candidate.

  • trad

    I was surprised to learn I am not part of the base, since I have been voting since 1968 and never supported a Democrat.

    However, I have been an ardent supporter of Mitt Romney since 2007. For those of you who have forgotten, he ran as the conservative alternative to John McCain, blessed by no less than Rush Limbaugh

    However, the sanctimonious Mike Huckabee and the lazy Fred Thompson came in as fly-by-night- latecomers, won support from bigoted evangelicals who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a Mormon and ? lo and behold! ? split the conservative vote and … well, the rest is history.

    In 1960, which I realize most of you don’t remember, Barry Goldwater told the conservatives of his day, who were unhappy with Nixon-Lodge, to quit whining, get off their butts, and go out and work and take over the party.

    They did! And that’s just what we Romneyites did in 2008! We determined that no Huckabee or Thompson was going to mess us up again And we came up with a strategy than didn’t rely on the bigots. Some of us think Romney’s religion is a lot better than Obama’s.

    Oh, and unlike sore losers Gingrich and Santorum, we didn’t whine about our status.

    That’s my advice to today’s so-called conservatives (I thought I was one). If you’re not happy, get off your butts and do something about it. But you better start now so you can come up with somebody more solid than Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum. A weak field indeed ? except for Romney.

    Trad

  • garfieldjl

    Thankfully, Rush realized he’d been duped and isn’t supporting Mr. “Etch-a-sketch” now.

    Romney is not a Reagan Conservative, he never has been.

    The man is to the left of Ted Kennedy.

  • texastaxpayer

    What a joke. Romney a Reagan conservative… You have lost it..

  • nepanyrush

    Yes, that is right. You said if Romney were the GOP nominee, you would flip a coin whether to vote for Obama or Romney.

    Hard to take you seriously.

    Rush will support Romney and said very nice things about him in the last week. Ann Coulter did a rousing defense of him, comparing his leadership in Massachussets, with a legislature of only 29 Republicans out of 200 members, to Reagan as governor of CA and spin or not, she raised a lot of favorable points for Romney. In fact, she made him see quite conservative.

    At any rate, i will trust her a lot more than someone who is probably going to vote for Obama, since Romney is obviously going to be the nominee. With NY, CA, CT, NJ yet to cast ballots, it is clear that Romney will get the GOP nod. And then you can go ahead and flip your coin and vote for Obama..

  • garfieldjl

    I’m not going to sacrifice my personal integrity by lieing to prop up Romney or any other candidate.

    He’s a liberal, though you can argue he is a moderate-liberal fact remains he’s a liberal, that’s the truth. To say Romney is a conservative would be the same as lieing.

    Romneycare is very much like Obamacare that is a fact, they both have an individual mandate, to claim that they are radically different would be lieing.

    As far as I’m concerned Romney is just like Obama, because of that he couldn’t pay me to put up a single sign for him. I value my integrity more than a quick buck.

    If Romney wants to prove he isn’t a liberal, then he needs to do so with actions, not words.

    I am not a mindless drone that will support someone simply because they have an R next to their name on the ballot box.

    Since in my view Romney is just like Obama, I would vote third party over that choice (who knows this may be the year a third party can actually win).

    I think Ron Paul’s foreign policy is insane, but I would support him over Gov. “Etch-a-sketch” in a heartbeat.

    If I can’t be truthful in my support of a political candidate, I’m not going to support them.

    I had no problem with McCain even when I didn’t agree with him, cause the man actually had integrity. I was happy he chose a conservative as a VP, but unlike other conservatives I could support McCain even though I usually didn’t agree with McCain. The same doesn’t hold true with Romney.

    I came into this election cycle thinking we were going to clobber Obama, if Romney is the nominee I’m actually going to be rather apathetic and in all honesty I’m not sure who I’m going to vote for if he is the nominee.

    The GOP establishment just had to choose someone just like Obama and ram him down our throats.

  • jamesm

    Romeyites attempt to stand on one leg of conservatism. Lame

  • tnguy

    You obviously do not understand what conservative means.

    And Rush endorsed Romney in 2008 only after McCain’s nomination was nearly secure. Rush could not stand McCain and would’ve endorsed almost anyone in opposition to him.

    As for your bigot comments, I frankly don’t understand why the site admins allow such comments to stand. Not voting for someone because you do not approve of their religion is not bigotry. I, for one, will not vote for a satanist. Nor a muslim. Would you? Or are you bigoted as well?

    The overwhelming majority of conservative opposition to Romney is based on his opposition to conservative principles for most of his life, and has little or nothing to do with his faith.

  • http://www.thestandardcandle.com Justin Spagnolo

    yes… because the “not Romney” has done so well in the primary to deny the centrist candidate, that this JUST MIGHT be the year a 3rd party can win.

  • garfieldjl

    Since Romney and Obama are so similar as are their supporters (quite frankly I’m sick of being called an anti-mormon bigot just as much as I’m fed up with being called a racist), and I refuse not to vote (so I have a legit reason to complain since I actually exercise my right to vote) it would come down to a coin toss if they were the only two on the ballot.

    Hopefully I will have the option to vote third party on the ballot in November because while I don’t like Gary Johnson for instance, I don’t think he would follow in Obama’s footsteps and I actually know where he stands on issues because he’s been honest with us.

    Hell I would vote for Ron Paul over Obama or Obamney.

    If Ann Coulter is so obsessed with beating Obama that she is willing to sacrifice her integrity to do it and/or deny reality of how much Romney is just like Obama, that’s her business.

    I on the other hand value my integrity too much. People trust me because I value my integrity more than money. I honestly believe based on the information I’ve read through that Romney is just like Obama, based on that information they are equally bad.

  • texastaxpayer

    Talk about shake up the establishment. 2010 obviously had zero effect on the GOP as evidenced by Romney. Perhaps its time for a more potent message.

  • civil truth

    You’re just spitting into the ocean otherwise.

  • gekster

    It seams like you are trying to convince yourself more than anyone else.
    You keep harping on it. Did you just learn that word in school?
    You’re sounding more and more like a moby the more you post.
    Like I said, take your ball and go home, sit this one out, because the cards say Romney will be the nominee.
    And I will take a liberal Republican over a liberal Democrat anyday.

  • garfieldjl

    How exactly can you blame McCain when his aircraft gets struck a missile from a friendly aircraft, while both of the aircraft were on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier.

    McCain is extremely unlikely when he’s flying aircraft, but the fact he could have gone home from that incident because he did get injured, and chose to stay and keep serving in the military says something about the man’s charecter.

    Did you know after the Vietnamese released him, he was told he would never be able to fly again, he went through grueling physical therapy just so he could return to active flight status.

    You’re telling me he lived a privledged life?!?! The fact his father and grandfather were both 4 star admirals, I’d say the opposite, it must have been hell, because everyone was always expecting him to be just like his father and grandfather.

    You may not like the political decisions McCain has made, fine, I can respect that. What I don’t respect is attacking the man’s character. He put his life on the line for this country, he deserves some respect for that at the very least!

  • garfieldjl

    I’m not going to bother. I quite frankly don’t care what you think of me.

    Fact of the matter is I vote based on who someone is and what they stand for, not because they simply have an R or a D by their name.

    I don’t like where Obama is taking this country, I believe he is a left-wing radical.

    Problem is, that Romney is also a left winger, probably about as radical, and is likely to take the country in the same direction Obama is.

    So why should I support Romney? I don’t have a blind allegience to the Republican party, the Democrat Party, or any other party.

    Since I honestly object to where Obama is taking this country and I think Romney will take us to the exact same place, why should I support Romney?

    Seriously, why should I support someone whom I believe will do the exact same things that Obama is doing when I’m scared to death of what Obama is doing to this country?

    That’s why I cannot in good conscious support Romney.

    It is also why I want someone other than Romney to be the nominee.

    Cause I know Newt would change course, I know Santorum and Paul will fight to change the course even though they aren’t as likely to succeed at it as Newt is.

    I know Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, and Tim Pawlenty would also have fought to change the course. I could have supported any of them if they became the nominee.

    Romney is the one candidate whom is more apt to follow in Obama’s footsteps than to change course.

    I’m only voicing what a lot of people think of Romney.

  • trickamsterdam

    I have no idea why people think this. On RCP he’s leading Romney in seven out of eight polls and Santo in eight out of eight.

    In swing states it’s worse. For example in a poll released yesterday he’s trailing in VA to Obama by eight points (Santo was trailing by nine) and Obama was beating him w/Independents and had reached a majority (51%).

    All these four will be underdogs ranging from virtually no chance (Newt, Paul) to heavy underdog (Romney) to significant underdog (Santo).

    That’s why we should continue to fight for a brokered convention to put together a stronger ticket for this very important election.

    “[It is] counter-productive to stay home or even talk about staying home…” -timkellogg

    The problem is Romney supporters have been saying all along that the Base will show up in November because they have no choice. If we do we would be the boy who cried wolf and would never be taken remotely serious by the moderate R Establishment ever again.

    So there is a reason not to support him that I think is valid. I’ll admit it’s also personal w/ me as it is w/ many w/ Paul or the way many would not have felt comfortable supporting Cain after the allegations.

    My problems w/Obama are largely political but Romney I genuinely despise.

  • texastaxpayer

    Show kicks off this fall people are going to be looking for alternatives.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    “Problem is, that Romney is also a left winger, probably about as radical, and is likely to take the country in the same direction Obama is.”

    That just makes you sound foolish, there is a world of difference between a moderate Republican and a follower of Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright.

    And If you cannot see that, then your judgement is suspect.

  • texastaxpayer

    I ask this question alot and have yet to get an answer that isn’t manufactured or distorted.

    Please provide evidence in Romney’s record that demonstrates he will fundementally take the country in a different direction than Obama has. Include relevent links to credible sources to support any claims you may wish to make.

    I think on closer inspection you will find that sans rhetoric Obama and Romney are remarkably similar in the governing choices.

    Since you brought up Saul Alinsky which of the republican primary contestents is most closely following the Alinsky Smear and Lie playbook?

  • garfieldjl

    Romney’s ties to Saul Alinsky via his father.
    http://joemiller.us/2012/01/romneys-connection-to-saul-alinsky/

    Add that to Romneycare, the stuff he did in Massachusetts

    [quote]Let?s be clear what happened here. The Democrat controlled Massachusetts House and Senate passed the law with the intent of leaving previous conscience exemptions in place. Based on legislative analysis, the state Department of Public Health declared that to be their interpretation also. The abortion industry and the Boston Globe whined. Mitt Romney, personally, overrode the conscience provision because ?[i]n my personal view, it?s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.?[/quote]
    http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2012/02/24/mitt-romney-tells-the-big-lie-on-honoring-religious-conscience/

    Then there is gun control, and I’m not even trying to dig up stuff.

    Fact of the matter is Obama is very much like Gov. “Etch-a-sketch” and to me that is scary.

    Romney isn’t a conservative, he isn’t really a moderate either, he’s a liberal just like Obama.

  • cheetah2

    I’m not thinking that way. I can’t even imagine our country surviving 4 more years of Obama.

  • cheetah2

    The president is going to be either the the Democrat or the Republican candidate. We all know that is true so why pretend otherwise? That is what you are doing if you vote third party- pretending that reality does not exist. Conservatives that vote third party are depriving the Republican candidate of a vote. That will help Obama win.
    I can’t afford 4 more years of Obama, so I must deal with the reality of the situation and vote for Romney.
    I hate it too. I was for Perry and I am so sad I never got to vote for him.

  • jacobite

    for the proposition that morality is irrelevant to the success of the republic? The idea that a bunch of Libertarians, acting like 2-year-olds, are gonna revive the original America is idiotic. BTW, Ron Paul is a nut, and so are his minions — they remind me of nobody more than ’60s Birchers — disconnected from reality. The Founders were moral, religious, tough-minded, upright men. Romney will not allow O’bwana-care to be repealed, no matter how many Congressmen and Senators the GOP wins in ’12. So a Rightist’s choice in the next election will be between George III and Benedict Arnold.

  • pikzehn

    But I am not only depriving Romney of a vote, I’m depriving Obama of a vote as well. I am not a Republican. I will not support or vote for a candidate just because I dislike the other one more. It’s the party’s own fault that they lost my vote.

    If Republicans continue the way they are, they will become irrelevant and a new party will rise up, similar to what happened in the 1850s with the collapse of the Whigs. We might always have a two-party system, but it doesn’t always have to be the Dems and the Reps.

  • pieter

    I’m glad this moniker came out in March when the balance of the primaries was still in play to influence the convention.

    The RNC Establishment is force feeding us a terrible nominee…who really wants the unrepentant godfather of obamacare?

    Hopefully Santorum finishes his melt down to soon to make the alternative choice clear…the guy who challenged a sitting republican president over taxes.

  • rednation

    He has not won it yet, and mat be kept from 1144 and that means he has to win on 1st ballot or on 2nd where delegate rules soften.

    This idea that one must coalesce “now for the good of the party” is nonsense. Reagan fought to the end against Ford, so can Rick.

    If Romney loses, it will not be because of Rick and our fighting, it will be because we dumb enough to choose a loser like Mitt and worse, when it still was not totally impossible, we encouraged a bandwagon to develop even before it happened by natural causes, so somehow save a few weeks here and there of not yet being able rally around a nominee.

    Let the process play out, your going on TV and here saying prematurely that Mitt IS the nominee and others “need to be realistic” as you are probably implying, is not helpful to the process and it encourages the Establishment wing of Rove to do this in the future to argue we need to have coronation of their pick when said guy has only HALF the totals needed for nomination.

    It emboldens them to shove Romney’s down our throats…

  • rednation

    They will blame so-cons and the primary fight if Romney loses, even if we end it now and abandon Santorum. They would if it ended weeks ago.

    They ALWAYS DO.

    They will try to force another David Souter on us, making Miers look plausible, with Mitt’s team of Sununu doing the choosing if he barely beats Obama.

    They never think the Landons, Willkies, Deweys, Fords, Doles, McCains are ever the reason they lose GE’s to the Dems.

    NEVER.

    It’s always the bases fault. Never theirs for wanting moderates instead of going with a conservative and reaching out later.

    They never learn, and never will.

  • streiff

    He supported IRA terrorists until 9/11 made it unpopular.

    The fact is that ballots were closed virtually everywhere by the time MI rolled around. It is a fact, look it up. Or you an not look it up and continue the self beclowning.

  • Scope

    which is Fox, I heard the EE post, repeated over and over, saying that even the conservative website RS, headed by EE, is saying that Romney is the nominee. If I’m not mistaken they were quick to also repeat EE’s call for Rick Perry to get out of the race. Fox is over the top today telling everyone that Romney is the nominee, just get over it, and get in line. Not like they weren’t doing that way back in the race, even before the first vote was cast.

  • rightland1111

    people better pay attention to Paul. He has nothing to lose now and his supporters are die hards. Like Sarah says…we better pay attention to Paul and get some of his ideas in our planks. I believe his domestic ideas concerning our financial future make sense. If not…those Paulbots…WILL NOT VOTE and we are stuck with Obama left unfettered for the next four years and we will all be going to HECK…CAN’T use the other word.

  • rightland1111

    These two men are as opposite as they come. Myself…I was for Perry all the way. In fact…when you look at the mess we are in…wasn’t Perry right…about just about everything. Yep…that’s what all Americans want … the Federal Government in every facet of their lives. Everything from what they can eat, what they can plant and now..what they are required to buy. Freedom…under Obama is great…isn’t it. But…it started way before Obama. Bush with his combining of departments grew the government to where it eats it own….oh well, wishful thinking…thought of our Prez. Look at the 20th Century…look at who we have had as presidents.

    We need limited government, rights returned to the states and FREEDOM. What happened to the TPM? Now Jeb Bush says it should be Romney…don’t forget …he’s Daddy Bush’s son…and we all know how Daddy Bush felt about ‘GLOBAL GOVERNMENT”!!!

    Nope, Perry is for America. The rest of these guys are for global governance…and we are the victims. Doubt me…look at the reigning members of the Tri-laterial Commission these days.

  • acat

    null

  • greyeagle

    If Santorum was out, then conservatives would likely go to Newt. He has the best ideas and programs. Santorum simply does not have the experience and Romney is a terribly weak candidate. If Newt can hold on until the TX primary, I think he will have an opportunity there.

  • greyeagle

    I personally think Col. West would be an excellent choice. He would rip Biden a new one. I think it would be funny to watch. He could do the same to Obama and not use a teleprompter.

  • greyeagle

    You failed to mention Governor Perry. He was the best qualified of any of the candidates to run the country. He was trashed constantly by media, supporters of Ron Paul, Bachmann, Palin, and Romney along with FOX News. The voters believed this junk. I knew different. Now we are stuck with 3 unsuitable candidates.

  • acat

    And if it’s true then .. wouldn’t we be better off putting the old girl down and starting to rebuild sooner instead of later?

    Mew

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Once again, you’re clueless.

    The Ohio primary was held on 3/6. The following states have primary access dates after 3/6, listed with the number of days between 3/6 and the filing date, You’ll find the source here,,,,

    NJ – 27; 50 delegates
    SD – 21; 28 delegates
    CA – 17; 172 delegates
    NM – 10; 23 delegates
    UT – 9; 40 delegates
    MT – 6; 26 delegates
    NE – 1; 35 delegates

    TOTAL: 374 delegates

    Since CA counts for over half the delegates on this list, let’s see what the filing requirements are, per the Secretary of State:

    1. Any candidate not selected by the Secretary of State desiring to be placed on the Presidential Primary Election ballot shall have nomination papers circulated in his or her behalf. ? 6343

    2. To qualify for placement on the Presidential Primary Election ballot, the nomination papers of the candidate must be signed by voters who have selected a preference with the Republican Party equal in number to not less than one percent of the number of persons who have selected a preference with the Republican Party in the Report of Registration issued by the Secretary of State on January 22, 2012* (E-135). ?? 6343, 6362

    So, the candidate would need to be “selected” by the CA SoS, and the initial cutoff for that was 2/26. I suppose there is some possibility that the CA SoS would do the Republicans a big favor and acquiesce to placing a new name on the ballow, but I think that’s stretching it. Otherwise, come up with petitions representing 1% of registered Republicans and you’ve got 17 days and zero organization to do it.

    I didn’t bother with the rest. Again, thanks for making the point that you’re clueless.

  • jamesm

    First the import of my post was it is too late to enter. (knowing there was no other candidate with an organization. This was looked at when there was speculation regarding Sarah Palin.) Second I was talking about California only. Third I knew the date had passed for the presidential primary (repub) Fourth this was in response to Trickamsterdam and was regarding some repubs mouthing off about a late entrant. None of my post was directed to anything else. Your conclusion does seem to be misplaced.

  • jamesm

    was directed to anything else should read: Nothing in my post was directed at any other states.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    was I, and the trick, and you have your heads where the sun doesn’t shine. You lend support to the idea that a challenge can be mounted, with an unsourced rant about winner take all states being challenged, and your comments about California, where you live, are patently wrong.

    Like I’ve noted before, you can’t figure out how to get in out of the rain.

  • jamesm

    No one said steiff was incorrect. A challenge could have been mounted weeks ago…not now. Twisting won’t work for you. I have no intention of sourcing for you. Public knowledge. Deliberately dense eh?

  • rightland1111

    however…Paulbots scare the heck out of me…because THEY will stay home. Romney with his myriad of stances has given so much ammunition to Obama that the sheeples will listen to Obama. Look at his recent remark concerning the pipeline. He is going to fast track it! Talk about a bridge to nowhere…it (the southern half) doesn’t connect to the fuel). I’m not getting off topic…I am saying that with the sheeples and the Paulbots (who will hold a grudge) we will be left with Obama…UNFETTERED.

    Paul’s ideas (some of them) are good. Getting back to the Constitution, the Federal Reserve (God is that a mess), the Bill of Rights…look at what is happening now with the First Amendment…not to mention that Holder has come out strongly today against the Second. So…I do want those rights upheld and I don’t see Romney saying ANYTHING at all about any of this. Santorum,…instead of seizing the moment is still stuck in social issues and the press has BLACKED out Gingrich…who does have some solutions.

    I know that many of these Paulbots are nut jobs…but..you have to give me this…they are committed and that is more than I can say for the current crop of Conservatives…who will not weigh in on important decisions being made in the WH…namely…NOW…Martial Law by Executive Order.

  • uh1pilot86

    But what do you expect form a 30 something wet behind the ears kid? Let me ?splain what apachecav was getting at. 1st Romney cannot win? period. Cry all you want you Romney bots but the truth is he is too unpalatable to the base of the party. 1st as a moderate; that is lefty to the rest of us. You can call a dog a Cow all you want, that don?t mean it will give milk. So the conservatives won?t vote for him, next he is a Mormon, a cult member plan and simple. Again all you sniveling Romney supports, go suck an egg, this is reality speaking not a pipe dream, evangelicals WILL NOT vote for a Mormon. He lost right there. Don?t believe it? Look at the record setting LOW voter turnout in EVERY state. 60 to 70% that do vote , vote NOT Romney. So Obama gets in. Obama accelerates this rocket sled to hell we are currently on and by year 2 we are done with elections that matter. Fast forward another 3 to 4 years and the economic turmoil we face will cause a mad max like existence for the country, we are Greece, Spain and Italy on steroids, and it can happen in a flash . Try reading Any Rand?s Atlas Shrugged, except for the anti-religious part you could call her a profit-es. Remember Adolf Hitler was elected by Austria with 98% of the vote. In 2 days the Nazi flag was flying over every government building in the country. When that happens the only way to get your freedom back is to fight for it.
    Now let?s look at the possibility of miracles upon miracles and Mittens wins. Again you cannot expect milk form this dog, actually it is much worse, Mittens is a modern day mercantilist.(we call them crony capitalists today.) Since you appear so limited in your historical depth of knowledge, let me fill you in some things, we fought for independence from England against basically two issues, one surrounding good governance or rather the lack thereof ( sorry my libertarian friends but our founders actually wanted governance as they understood it to be the nullifying agent against man?s innate evilness.) And against Mercantilist who used the British government for economic gain, crafting laws that benefited them and damaging colonial business.
    Our founding fathers did not argue with the British to win that freedom, they shot them?

    God forbid should we ever come to this, but like a slow train wreck in the happening we can see it coming. How to prepare for the brutish immediate future? Well , let everyman decide what they need to do, but as for me give me liberty or give me death!

  • uh1pilot86

    Wildly successful? Gawd the Kool-Aid drinkers are out. This mythos needs to end, he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, nothing against that but he didn?t ?build from the ground up? anything.. His success is vaporware. Now NAME me ONE thing he has ever done conservatively? He gave Mass Obama light, fell lock step in with the loony lefts perversion of marriage, and didn?t fight for anything conservative ever.

  • uh1pilot86

    so just how long do YOU think we can mock God and get away with it?

    Ben Franklin:
    ?The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid??

  • uh1pilot86

    Boy are you Naive….

  • acat

    Or are you just here to be a jerk?

    Mew

  • acat

    and let it answer for itself.

    Mew

  • Finrod

    ..

  • jamesm

    refers to a late entrants campaign.

  • uh1pilot86

    Oh come now you know there is a God, your are just upset that it isn’t you…

  • uh1pilot86

    you must have been fun in grade school……

  • acat

    Keep on removin’ all doubt.

    Mew

  • acat

    Why are you wasting time here instead of making millions in Vegas?

    Mew

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

    t

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    a peculiarly unique empty tomb is the key …

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    nt

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Sorry to have seen it now.

    No sympathy from me for the Sturmunddrangers who have sprouted like mushrooms in recent days, but … please* not THAT way?

    *for your own well-being, that is.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    I hesitated to respond because the exchange between you and uh1pilot almost seemed personal as if there was some previous bad blood. However, I have to admit I was disappointed to see your comment. Just seemed disrespectful in a way that I haven’t seen from you before.

  • filobeddoe

    This whole notion that Romney “will owe us” I find silly. Please stop trying to sell us hot soup. Romney could give a fig about conservatives now. But, wait, once elected and sitting comfortably in the White House he will suddenly feel beholden to conservatives.

  • filobeddoe

    I really dont care per se about the party. I care about conservatism. If the Republican Party doesnt want us anymore, we should leave the party. Let Jennifer Rubin worry about wooing us next time.

    Rubin, Charen, Coulter…why am I starting to think this is a “salt and pepper” hair thing rather than a rational choice in a nominee..

  • Scope

    Cat is an atheist. Go back to his exchanges with Kipling over the past few years.

    So let’s just ask that Cat come forward and ask, Cat are you an atheist? If you are an atheist, you would ask that someone prove that God exists.

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

    Very luthercalvinistic

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    to be … lawyers! If your detail-intensive legal mind needs a busman’s holiday, check out this side-by-side comparison of the 3 founding documents of the Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists. Fascinating to see the massive commonality and the few adjustments–especially from a political point of view with their divergence over time on the role of the Magistrate.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Ah, retreads.

  • acat

    Just let uh1pilot86, who was a retread by the way (see here) ruffle my fur more than I should have.

    I apologize, I meant no disrespect to you, or your faiths.

    Mew

  • acat

    in our culture, in our fellow citizens, in our traditions, in our country and ourselves.

    One man cannot unmake all that we are, whether he’s Obama or Romney.

    What concerns me is for someone with military training (apache, cavalry, references to a u.s. army helicopter unit?) being that despondent .. that’s a dangerous person in an unsafe frame of mind. Erick’s call to seek help was accurate.

    Mew

  • acat
  • trickamsterdam

    [Redacted].

  • trickamsterdam

    That was at that [redacted] “Strieff” (or however he spells his name).

  • trickamsterdam

    Enjoy Romney [anti-gay slur redacted by NS].

  • trickamsterdam

    Or should I say enjoy Obama you [anti-gay slur redacted].

  • trickamsterdam

    Since of course Obama is what you’re going to end up w/ you obnoxious [redacted] [redacted]?

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Idiot.

  • trickamsterdam

    …Right?

    Dog-torturer supporters?

  • Stricia

    Don’t I get a earful of your filthy bile?!

  • trickamsterdam

    Apparently not and neither has the scotch.

    [Yet another homoerotic post of his I had to cleanup - NS]

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Nice argument.

    And, don’t worry about us talking about you when you’re gone. You never added anything worth talking about.

    Let me be the first to say, G’bye.

  • trickamsterdam

    @mikelinell2: “Getting a Friend, or at Least a Dog, Might Help Your Anger”
    trickamsterdam Saturday, March 24th at 12:27AM EDT (link)
    Apparently not and neither has the scotch.

    [More of this guy's obvious sexual confusion I had to clean up - NS]

  • Stricia

    –

  • rogershru2

    You realize you could just quit voluntarily and avoid the juvenile obscenities.

  • trickamsterdam

    I already told you the [redacted] is unelectable.

    This is my going away party and you’re not invited.

  • Stricia

    Once upon a time …Gak!

  • trickamsterdam

    my middle name is patrick and the nearest named street was amsterdam ave.

    [More of the libtard's sodomy-oriented ranting redacted - NS]

    PS – I’m a libertarian more than a 10th amendment conservative.

    lol

  • trickamsterdam

    I just hope you’re actually a woman.

    [And the libtard continues to post his queer fantasies - NS]

  • Stricia

    N/T

  • garfieldjl

    1. Smear Newt in Iowa
    2. Attempt to smear Newt in South Carolina
    3. Smear Newt in Florida launching the most dishonest campaign in Republican Primary history with a 65 to 1 advertising advantage.
    4. Smear Santorum repeatedly.

    etc.

    This race would also have been over a long time ago.

    When Romney loses a state he still outspends his opponents by at least double if not triple.

    For people to claim Romney is the most electable candidate is laughable putting it mildly. He’s only doing well cause he’s spending so much money to smear all fellow Republicans (angering the supporters of said candidates).

    He isn’t going to have the money advantage in the fall folks, and that is apparently the only way he can win anything, so in all honesty if Romney wins the nomination it’s highly likely he’s going to lose the General, and quite frankly it saddens me that people bought into the electability garbage.

    If Romney was so electable he wouldn’t have been outspending McCain in the primaries like he was, and come to think of it, Romney still lost to McCain. McCain can at least argue he was outspent by Obama in a big way, Romney can’t even argue that.

    Fact is if Newt had those 16 billionaires and the establishment getting behind him, this primary would already be over and Newt would have walked away with it. The reason is quite simple, Newt (and Santorum for that matter) actually have things they are standing for, solutions they are presenting to us, Romney has got squat.

    So for people to say that Romney is electable is laughable. He’s not electable, he’s just tearing everyone else down so he’s the only candidate on the field.

  • trickamsterdam

    No but I will bring Romney down.

    Me and others.

    Bet on it.

    Eh…from time ot time I’ll be on Reason.org if anyone wants to check…oh you w/ the small [Oh look, the libtard posted yet another homosexual fantasy of his, so I had to clean up after him yet again - NS].

  • gekster

    Idiot run amuck.

  • lineholder

    You know better than that. If you can’t keep a grip, back away from the keyboard.

  • garfieldjl

    If Romney is the nominee, Obamacare is already off the table, along with a lot of other things Obama has done.

    Obama is already hitting Romney over the head on Romneycare and how similar it is to Obamacare, he’s also using Romney’s own words to smack Romney around.

    Obama wants to run against Romney, he’s wanted to run against Romney from the beginning because he’s the easiest one to beat. He is the perfect target for Obama’s class warfare rhetoric.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    You make an unsourced blanket announcement that a new candidate could rescue us from Romney if only he’d not done so well in Ohio.

    streiff calls you on it, specifically noting that there wasn’t time to get on the ballot.

    You rant about Christie and King.

    I produce a source chart showing that given the time between Ohio and the filing dates for remaining primaries it’s basically impossible to meet the ballot entrance requirements in the various states.

    You – and your buddy jamesm – had two options. Point out some way the ballot requirements could have been met, and an argument can be made for the CA ballot if either of you were willing to do just a little research, and I didn’t check the other states, so you could have likeldy made some argument for them as well.

    But no, jamesm just continues to act stupidly and you run totally off the rails. Looks like you not only swiped your mom’s laptop, you grabbed her vodka too.

    Pathetic. Just pathetic.

  • gekster

    And if they talk like thar on that website, only the small narrow minded will visit that site.

    Gosh what a marooon.

  • garfieldjl

    Where is a moderator or admin when we need them?

  • lineholder

    and I’m guessing it was Neil, thank you!

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    He was already banned before you commented, and I had a lot to clean up. :)

    Thank mbecker for alerting me while the guy was still commenting.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You should seek counseling go work through your obvious sexual identity crisis going on.

  • quill67

    n/t

  • rogershru2

    …..

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    probably more to your comment than met the eye. Just seemed out of character for you, and I’m glad to know I was right.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Must be drunk.

  • rogershru2

    Nt…

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    a movie and miss all the action.

    I think Neil’s met his quota for a while. Hope he gets the rest of the night off.

  • http://www.thestandardcandle.com Justin Spagnolo

    you didn’t miss any action at all. {Hunger Gamres?}

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I still have Tech at Night to put out. :)

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    The Thing. Which wasn’t nearly as good without Kurt Russell. Being the only female in the house, I rarely get to see a chick movie. I’m even hooked on The Walking Dead series. My friends can’t believe I’m a zombie fan (although I do have to hide my eyes occasionally when it gets really gory.

    We’ve gotten way too comfy watching movies, ballgames, etc. at home these days. Just curl up with the hubby, the big screen, some sweet tea and my furry throw. Way more comfortable and lots cheaper to boot.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    no text

  • civil truth

    …that the discussion level was rapidly deteriorating and that they needed to keep an eye out. I just had a nagging feeling something was about to blow up.

    But instead I had supper and took a break, and I see that my intuition was unfortunately correct. It’s just as well I missed this historic explosion, full psychotic break, from all the “redacted” comments Neil had to work on.

    A most unsettling few days since the Tuesday primaries.

  • jamesm

    idiot. Dont lump me into any argument fool.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    At least from my seat I give little heed to the issues of disrespect; as you well know I continually–including moments before I wrote you, in fact–take potshots at several prevalent systems of thought, materialism and semi-Pelagianism in particular, so I tend not to take return fire too personally.

    Although I’m confident you know, for those who may not–as perhaps Scope above–my concern was not your having raised the typical challenge, but the straw man introduced by the altered pronoun.

    My closing, though, was and remains personally directed, under the certainty that you will at least intellectually appreciate that some of us are motivated by considerations larger than site rules or standards of public discourse!

    Thanks for taking the time to reconnect. And in other news, it certainly appears that some of the stormy weather is being blown out to sea.

  • BuckeyeTexan

    If and when he becomes the nominee, you might have a point. Until then, many of us will fight on. We have a primary process for a reason. Giving up on that process five months before the Republican National Convention makes no sense. The fat lady hasn’t even left home much less sung at the convention.

  • jamesm

    dense. You keep trying to twist your nonsense, Dude you are sick

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    ,.,

  • aesthete

    but I saw the first comment that started going down this route, and it didn’t look like it was going anywhere good.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    The trick makes unsubstantiated claims and you’re the one who bounced in with commentary about California having time available after Ohio in what any reasonable person – which you aren’t – would see as support for his non-argument against streiff.

    Get over it. You don’t know your back end from a hole in the ground and you’ve proved it over and over in the last week or so and you did it again here.

  • acat

    It won’t necessarily go to Neil but it will keep the lights on…

    Just a thought.

    Mew

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    I thought Neil wrapped things up quite nicely. LOL.

  • jamesm

    idiot. Get your facts straight. Read the post again really slow. Your comprehension and twisting is absurd.Where did I reply to streiff? Huh? You proved that you are willing to attempt to twist the facts. Garbage ]. You were arguing against a strawman of your own creation. That bull does not work. Your posts are always attempting to create crap with other posters. Go see a psych

  • civil truth

    The only thing remaining is invective and ill feelings. Time to pull the plug on this patient.

  • gekster

    I read the posts, You jumped in with your reply to trickamsterdunce.

    Hit control/f, type in your username, and keep hitting next.

    When you replied to trickamsterdunce, you inserted yourself.

    Again, not taking sides, just an observation.

  • gekster

    :(

  • jamesm

    and said what? Did I reply to streiff or Mbecker with that post? No!

    Here it is again

    “They could have gotten on the ballot in California up until 12 days ago, The strategy of a late entrant is get some momentum and deny any candidate from acheiving 1144 on the first ballot. If Romney gets 1144 he is the nominee, if not he will most likely not be the nominee, There will be challenges to Florida and Arizona in regards to winner take all. These will be successful according to many people who have looked at the issue.”

    The implications were that the argument that someone could get on the ballot in California was not a good argument at this point. That has turned into a non issue. It is too late. For Mbecker to twist this he needs to see a psych. I haven’t read all the posts and some have been redacted but it seems like Mbecker was involved somehow. Guess trickamsterdam went nuclear

  • rightland1111

    Well, there is was…a conference call by Jenny Beth Martin. Of course it was for money…and they were going to demonstrate before the Supreme Court against Obamacare. So, as I remember it and please forgive the spelling errors because this browser does not have spell check….Congressman King, Congresswoman Bachmann, Attorney General Cuccinelli (sp), Jenny Beth, and another Congressman were all commenting.

    While this is in reply to greyeagle, who I wholeheartedly agree with concerning Perry (anti-establishment and the solution)…I listened to these supposed learned people. They were going to repeal Obamacare…or sign a waiver. That sounds good…and they were hitting people up for the money…but never they think to mention how important it was to have a SUPER MAJORITY in both Houses of Congress should the SCOTUS fail to invalidate this stupid law. That and that alone is the ONLY WAY THIS THING GOES AWAY. It has to be voted out and then either replaced or we go back to the SOStuff.

    It appears that the FL case is being heard because it has the best chance of having it overturned. It is the “mandate” argument.

    Were you all aware of the fact that this is going to be argued concerning the Wicker Case? You know…the wheat…commerce deal. The government plans to base this on Wicker…or the precedent on this. Because Wicker only sold his wheat for his own use…the FDR justices found that by withholding his supply from the market, Wicker affected the price. The same argument will be for Obamacare. If we all don’t participate…the cost will be higher and thus affect the price throughout the states. i.e. the Commerce Clause. This is why the Congress is so important because they can overturn the Supremes. We have to elect a super majority.

    No matter what…I will vote for Romney…but this business of electing a moderate…if that is what you call Romney is STUPID.

  • gekster

    I’m outa this thread.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You socialist Obama lover.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    He’s not allowed to campaign back!

    Unfair! Do overs!

  • Scope

    lean left, and there are many more social conservatives than libertarians. If the libertarians had the numbers, there would be at least a handfull that were elected to public office. The ideology is still widely rejected by a large majority of voters.

  • honoraryintern

    Newt, In Florida, threw a temper-tantrum. It’s not fair!!!

    Rick, in Illinois, with the same spending levels against said, He would work on to the nomination.

    No whiners allowed. Presidential timber. Hard to find.

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

    lawyers…but we do have about 300% too many.

    more later re “the Magistrate”.

    ..and btw ‘del_Bronx, I’m a much weaker commenter than of years ago, but also much wiser! yes, more later…smile

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

    acat, are you behaving? smile

  • Tbone

    Just sayin’.

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

    teeeee

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    You’ve left me completely in the dark, Mike. If offense was taken, none was intended–did you think I intended those terms ironically? They were not–the entire exchange had us on the same side in my mind.

    Help me out here.

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

    Of my peeps … Fellow members of the bar! Smile

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Lots of feathers have been flying here lately–and I wanted to make sure you weren’t telling me I’d stepped in something on the way in! My description of your skills–and ML’s and JC’s–was spoken with admiration.

    If you had time for the Civil Magistrate chapters in those confessions I linked (mine’s the Savoy in the middle, btw–I’m actually Congregationalist [sorry about that little dustup with Roger, trusting he's over it by now!]) it’s like seeing a timeline of the development of the realization, among the magisterial non-continental branches of the Reformation, that the time was now ripe not only for the return to the apostolic gospel (championed by ML/JC) but also an attempt to dismantle the too-close commingling of kingdoms inherited from 1,300 years of Constantinian influence. Waiting for your thoughts.

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

    early this week

  • northeastred

    We might as well blame George W. Bush for being a socialist because insurance companies have never been in bed with government more (Medicare) than they have been at the beginning of the new century. Why weren’t we complaining about socialism then? Our message has always been, “leave health care alone!”

    Am I a socialist? LOL. : ) I work in health insurance and we lobbied hard and did well in the end. Consumers will be just as happy with their level of care in two years as they were 8 years ago. Insurers don’t mind pre-existing conditions. Consumers pay for that anyway. But it’s not socialism.