« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Romney Over Newt

What I am about to say will probably not be very popular around here, and may end up costing me several good friends, at least on a temporary basis. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to say it anyway: when it is my turn to pull the lever on Super Tuesday, I’ll vote for Mitt Romney. And it won’t even be an especially difficult choice.

I have said all along that as a Super Tuesday voter, I fully expected my choices to come down to Romney or one other option. I have thus been able to lay back in the weeds to see if a candidate who is preferrable to Romney would survive the early primaries. Now that it is apparent that the only serious alternative to Romney will be Newt, I can confidently say that the answer to that question is “no.” Let me explain how I reached this answer so easily.

First, I begin with a strong presumption (which I have explained at greater length here) that governors in general make better Presidential candidates, and better Presidents. Nothing that has happened during the course of this campaign season has convinced me that Newt in particular is exempt from the problems that plague legislator candidates; and in fact, quite a lot has reinforced that belief (most notably his haphazard campaign organization which failed to even get him on the ballot in Virginia or Missouri). In addition, Newt’s temperament and poor attention to detail, supposedly improved and mellowed with age, have recently again reared their heads as liabilities for Gingrich, when he was forced to shamefacedly admit that the angry denunciation of John King was premised upon an absolute fabrication.

In addition to the problems presented by Newt’s lack of experience, he faces huge electability problems. He consistently gets slaughtered by Obama in head-to-head matchups worse than any of the other candidates, usually including Rick Santorum. For many candidates, you could write off this sort of early result as being the product of low name recognition; however, in Newt’s case, the problem is that he is well-known and yet disliked. A non-incumbent nominee with “very unfavorable” numbers north of 30 before the general election even begins faces a very steep uphill climb. Some folks insist, based on no evidence whatsoever, that Gingrich and Romney have equal chances of beating Obama. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about everything, but the actual evidence thus far suggests that Gingrich’s march to the White House is longer and covers much rockier terrain.

Finally, on the merits, I have a hard time believing that Newt is substantially better than Romney from an ideological perspective. As Ben covered earlier today, Newt has been loudly and publicly in favor of individual mandates for the better part of two decades. His election-year conversion to principled crusader against individual mandates is every bit as transparent and cynical as any of Mitt Romney’s changes of position. Ditto his flips on global warming, etc. So far as I can tell, the chief difference between the two is that Gingrich will give you an “aw, shucks” smile and admit that he has flip flopped on this issue or that, whereas Romney and his many annoying defenders will try to tell you that he’s never flip-flopped on anything other than abortion. After all, who are you going to believe, them or your lying eyes? While I’m grated by this as much as anyone, it’s not really a convincing reason to vote for one candidate over the other.

I get not really being enthusiastic about Romney being the Last Man Standing. Certainly on a personal level he rubs me the wrong way a lot of the time – his emotions don’t seem authentic or natural, and from an ideological standpoint he’s less than ideal (at least as far as I can tell, which is not very far). The question, “What sort of judges should I appoint?” is probably not even interesting to Mitt Romney, whereas it’s probably my most important question. But I figure, nominating a liberal justice has never helped a Republican win independents, but it has helped them lose Republicans, and Romney is smart enough to figure that out.

And I will say, contrary to a large number of emotionally worked up people, that I will enthusiastically and without reservation be able to support him over Barack Obama. Even if he is as much of a blank-slate technocrat as the most recalcitrant of us fear, he will still be a huge upgrade over the current resident of the White House. At the very least, he has a proven record of fixing problems in an executive setting, and a pretty good understanding of how wealth is created, so he is light years ahead of the current resident of the White House. And if you’re seriously unable to see that, then I’m glad you’re one of the people whose life hasn’t gotten significantly worse over the last three years, but please leave the rest of us out of your pointless revenge fantasy.

Mitt Romney wasn’t my first choice when this election cycle began, but in my mind he is clearly better than both Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama, and so on Super Tuesday, he’ll get my vote.

 

COMMENTS

  • bzip

    It sucks, all the candidates suck. The only god candidate, the only candidate that stood firm for small gov’t, reformer and massive experience was thrown under the bus.

    I will vote Rick Perry even if I have to write his name in the ballot. I will not sell out my principles in the primary.

    Though I have to agree with Leon in general and his points – it just plain sucks.

    If you folks really want a conservative like Perry – then fight for it and that includes Erick!

    We need Perry back in the race and now

    • WA_Cowboy

      my state’s Caucus is in march. I’m debating whether to even participate (although probably will for down-ticket elections). If it’s down to Romney at that time, I’ll have to think about writing in Rick Perry also

      • levinsaidso

        I’m sick and tired of the GOP and their bullcrap. I will not vote for Romney if you paid me to. If it comes down to Romney and Obama, I stay home and if Romney pisses me off enough I’ll vote for his opponent.

        I’m tired of RINOs, I’m tired of wimps, I’m sick of the lack of leadership. I’m tired of that scumbag Romney and his liberal, pompous ass.

        The only way the Establishment will get the message is if they have a humiliating defeat.

        If Newt doesn’t get the nomination, the base will truly be splintered. At the end of the day, Romney will lose to Obama and I’ll have no party of it “for the GOP effort”.

        It is clearly time for a 3rd party.

        • acat

          Go ahead, take your ball, go home.

          Mew

          • snowshooze

            Is that one of the Grandkids?? Cute.

          • acat

            being cute doesn’t violate kitten labor laws.

            Mew

          • buddyp

            … to gratuitously post a couple of cute kitten videos. I don’t know if that’s frowned upon here.

          • General_Confusion

            I think there can be NO doubt that Cute Kitten would crush Obama!

          • acat

            Inquiring cats wait with baited breath.

            (for which I do apologize – salmon for dinner)

            Mew

          • General_Confusion

            Kitten 2012, healing the divide in the party and the nation!

          • lizzie

            would sweep 49 states (I still think Obama will win Vermont) :)

            The cute kitten idea reminds me of a Jon Stewart bit when Iraq was close to civil war, and the idea was to drop a cute kitten by mini-parachute into the arms of every Iraqi.

            sorry – I just had free HBO for four days, and finally saw “marmaduke” the insecure Great Dane, and “tales of Desperaux”, the little mouse who was a true gentleman, and hero.

            no kittens.

            ended the free HBO with Russell Crowe (close friend in real life of Rick Perry) as “Robin Hood”. Definitely an inspiration for what happens when a clueless king taxes the people to near rebellion…

          • aesthete

            Mama Cat/Kitten is much better from the point of view of experience, and obviously Kitten’s isolationist foreign policy and softness on illegal immigration needs to be balanced with that of a hardliner like Mama Cat.

          • acat

            Although Romney/Kitten could also work.

            (the Secret Service will prevent any pet carriers being used on Air Force One)

            Mew

          • buddyp

            Not sure which is more disturbing: the way Mitt treats his dogs or the way Newt treats his wives.

          • acat

            The dog didn’t know what he was getting himself into.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            Look at those little guys. LOOK AT THEM. They are adorable.

          • rwcbarry

            Put yourself down, and save the furniture.

          • acat

            Just sayin’

            Mew

          • jakeofalltrades

            lol

          • buddyp

            The question is: Do kittens beat politics.

            Apparently kittens can break out on a politics blog, so…

            Can politics break out on a kittens blog?

            If not, kittens win.

          • General_Confusion

            They are a universal good, politics, not so much so.

        • romeg

          Very helpful.

          So you plan to cast half a vote for the Commie-in-Chief.

          Thanks a pant load

        • Leon H. Wolf

          Well, have fun with that on some other website.

          • SteveM

            I don’t agree with all of your points about Mitt Romney, but set that aside.

            The pertinent question to ask in any election cycle for any level of office is the following: Who among the candidates is the most prepared and best qualified for the job?

            We’re not having an ideological beauty pageant here. Purity isn’t on the ballot. Running the country is.

            Romney says he’s going to issue an exec order exempting all Americans from Obamacare. He says he’s going to work to repeal the thing. That’s good enough for me. What else is he going to say at this point? For those who want to hold up Newt, bear in mind that as late as 2009 he was in favor of a form of a mandate. Everybody screws up on issues from time to time. If we threw away folks based on ideological impurity of 1-2 issues, sooner or later the party will consist of 10 guys.

            I’m fine with Romney. I’m fine with Newt. But Romney’s experience in the private sector and the fact that he was once a governor is experience that none of the others left in the field can match.

          • snowshooze

            And the business expirence… I wouldn’t want to write my Mom about those..
            The entire establishment and the Media hate Newts’ guts.
            I can’t think of a better recomendation.

          • SteveM

            He’s not going to force Mass’ system down everyone’s throats. What he’s said over and over is that he wants to turn Medicaid into a block grant program and let the states decide.

          • snowshooze

            That is the only avenue of defense that he has.
            — There is no other for him —
            And I believe he is not telling the truth. I don’t think he cares a bit about Obamacare.

          • SteveM

            You’re saying he’s going to campaign on its repeal, then turn around and do nothing about it?

            For what possible reason?

            I really would like an answer, just to see your thought process. What exactly does Mitt gain by letting Obamacare stand?

          • snowshooze

            So I cannot tell how half the States could take part without affecting the rest of the States.
            With Romneycare sucking funding out of the rest of the States to cover the Medicaid shortage to the tune of a Billion a year, estimated..
            If half the States are in the game… it turns into a moot point. To stay outside of it only leaves you at a cash disadvantage.
            Half the States would be picking up a great percentage of the tab for the rest.
            What does he gain?
            — The Presidency –
            Position, power, influence.
            I don’t think he really cares a drop about any health insurance mandate. When you have that kind of power anyway… who cares.
            Catch a cold… buy a Hospital.
            No, I am not griping about his money. He just lives in a different universe.

          • SteveM

            …you think Mass is going to be a net cash drain on everybody else? You realize that’s easily fixalbe when it comes time to draft the legislation, right?

          • snowshooze

            Easily fixable?
            Sure… put everyone on the system.
            Then tax them.

          • snowshooze

            The States would have to be completey released from participation.
            That means… no Medicaid contributions to the federal system whatever. Money never leaves the State. No block grant at all.
            No, that is too much to hope for. Every penny the Federal Government gets it mitts on, cost you a quarter.

          • SteveM

            …This Congress is going to be able to end Medicaid?

          • snowshooze

            So independant State participation in Obamacare, or Romneycare is impossible.
            And this makes it real easy for Romney.
            ” The States Decided “

          • SteveM

            I think you need to take a step back and ask yourself what you think even Reagan could accomplish in this environment. You think there’s a democrat over there willing to deal? On anything?

            Absolutely not. *They* think that *we’re* the evil jerks blocking O’s agenda. Bottom line: Unless you can magically conjure up 64 Senators (because McCain, Brown and the Maine twins will vote with the dems on some stuff), you’re getting the William F. Buckley platform through Congress any time soon.

          • snowshooze

            But I can’t tell.
            Anyhow, an Opt out provision creating two messes that are inextricable.. you can stay in and receive benefits, or you can opt out.. but you still have to pay…
            What a choice.
            Newt had it right. Kill Obamacare the same way it was made.
            Sheer power. Reconciliation.
            Of coarse, the bribery fees will be quite high.. still… a deal.

        • znjs

          For starters we can change which states go first in the nomination process. Preferably a rotational system.

          Next we can find a way to handle similar candidates splitting the vote and causing candidates who are the least popular being able to take advantage of that and winning.

          • WA_Cowboy

            Iowa and NH should not always decide the race.

            What would this race be like if the Ricks had swapped places in Iowa? (I say this as a Perry guy…) but Iowa decided that Rick Santorum was relevant.

            Your second point is more difficult. It will involve some major ego-checking so I doubt it will ever happen. perhaps if there was some kind of a “top-3″ vote (in other words, instead of voting for one, you pick you top three) which was designed to winnow the field before the primaries and caucuses even began. The top-3 vote could be done nationally and would allow the rest of the country to have a say in winnowing the field moreso than Iowa and NH.

            won’t ever happen, but would be nice.

          • downstateray

            Democrats and Republicans agree on one thing always — elections can be bought.

            But raising the money means nothing, if you are always up against 5 or 6 others. So the Democrats and Republicans have conspired in the state houses to make all kinds of barriers to getting on the ballot.

            End the party primary election system. Start a unified/nonpartisan one. All candidates go into a open primary. Then the top 2 vote getters go on to the general election.

            The number of signatures on the nominating petition should be 0.5% of the population in the district for office sought. State rep = population in state district. Fed rep = population in fed district. US Senate and Statewide office = state population

          • acat

            And they’re even easier to fix than the current system.

            I’ll pass.

            Mew

        • mikelindell2

          He won’t do anything necessary to fix the country, and he is essentially a liberal. As George Soros said, there’s “very little difference” between Mitt and Obama. Leon Wolf loses all credibility when he says that Newt lacks experience. Thank you for aiding the destruction of the country by supporting someone who will lose, or someone that will govern so similarly to Obama.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            For your well-reasoned and rational argument which was adequately supported by the necessary facts. You have changed my mind and I’ll repent on the front page shortly.

          • mikelindell2

            Facts obviously do no matter to you. Facts like Romney raising taxes on guns by 400% in MA, his pro-choice advocacy for decades, obviously there is Romneycare, there’s the fact that he raised taxes on businesses by 700 million in MA, he opposed Reagan, opposed the Contract with America, praised Geithner, last year he said he’d only repeal “parts’” of Obamacare, he has not proposed any real tax reform package. Someone who is so politiclly calculating will never make the tough decisions that are so imperative to the country’s survival. First Mccain, now Romney…Yea Conservatism!! We don’t want Newt, the only guy alive who has accomplished huge conservative things when given a leadership opportunity in Washington

          • mikelindell2

            Oh, and Romney has repeatedly floated the idea of instituting a VAT in America. I’m sorry to have had to do this to you, Leon.

          • Bill S

            He’ll be gobsmacked.

          • mikelindell2

            I hope he hasn’t. If he has and doesn’t care, I’d have to question why he’s writing on RedState.

          • greyeagle

            The Romney campaign also said Obamacare would NOT be repealed. I want it gone. He said in the debates he would, but campaign said no. Why would I believe Romney about anything.

          • falconrap

            Actions speak louder than words. Newt has a proven track record of conservatism. He may not always go that route, but mostly he does. Romney’s record is liberal to moderate, at best. Anyone who votes based on political back and forth, and not the actual actions of candidates when put in positions to lead, should really step back and think about what they are doing. Newt successfully pushed the Contract with America through the congress. That is no small feat. Getting Clinton to agree to Welfare reform was a monumental act of leadership in government reform. What has Romney actually done to convince you he’ll govern toward a smaller Fed?

            And don’t ask me to post the facts. The links are all over this site and others. You can just look up the congressional records and Mitts executive record in MA. Pretty much speaks for itself.

          • bluerose75

            Whenever someone in here says that they will not vote for Mitt, he wimpy cry baby supporters tell you to go home or such….well guess what millions will and you will be the ones sitting in your bowl of spilled milk come the Weds after November election. LOL!!

            These morons think there little group of moderate supporters will get Mitt elected because conservatives cannot stand Obama. They are so wrong….the conservatives are madder at the GOP…sorry Obama will easily win against the tin suit.

            Romney is a joke…he has not one single conservative value or principle. He was a “BORN AGAIN CONSERVATIVE!” Amen praise the Lord!!…LOL!!

            If he and Reagan were poles Reagan would be the South and Romney the North. There is absolutely no one thing in this tin suit’s governance that is conservative. Leon tries to belittle people who summarize their utter contempt for a phony like Mitt by saying where are you facts. I say grow up Leon!!

            There are so many items in Romneys’ governance that were liberal you would need a library to catalog them. And it has been stated several times by so many here in Redstate. So I am sorry the conservatives know what a fraud Romney is!!

            He is a big government, I was for this then, I am for this now…I feel for then…but I feel for you now….I can actually stand with a straight face and defend Socialism like Romneycare then denouce Obamacare!! It is so laughable!!

            If Leon is so willing to pull the lever for Romney get off your high horse and let Romney run on HIS RECORD AS GOVERNOR!! Lets see his ads telling all us GOP conservatives what he accomplished as Governor in Mass that is conservative?? Come on Leon…show us those ads from Mitt that says “LOOK AT WHAT I DID AS GOVERNOR” a rock hard conservative foundation!!

            He cannot do it! He has to run this BS campaign that distorts Newt’s record when Newt can actually show conservative accomplishments and he can show NOT ONE!!

            This mental midget would appoint left wing judges I have no doubt…Oh thats right he says he will appoint judges that will stick to the Constitution and not make laws from the bench…Funny while as Governor he did nothing but appoint left wing judges!!

            Sorry Leon your argument holds no water and once Newt heads into states like Texas, Tenn, NC, Georgia, Missouri, Miss and others he will not have northeast liberal transplants like in Florida to help him!!

            Go Newt….hang in there…you will be moving into states that will not support the liberal RINO…After Florida, if he wins he will have like 65-70 delegates!! LOL!!! Not even close to winning!! Newt take him on and keep the process going…Mitt needs to be exposed more and more for the fraud he is!

          • macphisto96

            Really? With the DNC going hard after Romney before things are settled and George Soros now doing it, have you ever stopped to think that maybe its because they’re scared of losing to the guy?

            I don’t see why Soros says that during the nominating process unless he’s trying to convince some conservatives to bail and validate this fantasy that Romney is a liberal. Romney is clearly more conservative and more competent than the sitting President. Soros is just trying to undermine him to prevent him from becoming the nominee, just as the DNC is.

            Look at the Gallup polls of registered (not likely) voters in swing states. Romney does well against Obama and beats him in most of those states before the GOP has consolidated behind him.

            Why does the opposition attack Romney now? Because they know they stand the strongest chance of losing to him.

            Trust me, Obama would love to run against Gingrich. Gingrich would help him to a second term like none of the other GOP candidates can. If Santorum had a realistic shot then there’s an argument against Romney in the primaries, but I just don’t see a path to victory for Santorum.

            Between Romney and Newt it is a no-brainer to me. Gingrich is a liability, not an asset.

            And there’s also the possibility that the Obamacare argument may be void come the fall. If the Supreme Court tosses the mandate then the discussion is over for everyone on the Federal level. It then becomes a discussion about what to do instead – and Romney’s experience at Bain helping control costs and improve care at over 100 hospitals as a consultant will be helpful to him. He’s got some strong ideas outside of the MassCare mandate and he surrounds himself with smart people who can lead and get things done.

          • mikelindell2

            He said it in Europe. It’s not like he was going on Meet the Press to make this declaration.

          • macphisto96

            Any comments someone prominent like him makes will make the rounds nowadays quickly.

            I got a phone call down here in Florida from Newt playing this bit. I’m sure Soros was smiling, probably hoping that Gingrich would use it to undermine Romney so the candidate least likely to win in November could win down here.

            That argument would be valid decades ago, but not now. In an age where things go viral and partisan people seek audio on both sides of the aisle, it’s naive to think a smart guy like Soros wouldn’t realize that saying something like this would think it wouldn’t get picked up by conservatives in the US that follow him closely.

          • mikelindell2

            so true. Romney’s been liberal his entire career, and his current proposals show no signs of him changing.

          • astrofan

            Media polls show that Romney would beat Obama. How many people truly believe that? The media skews the polls to create an illusion that people will vote for Romney… and it is working! Why aren’t the Republican candidates talking about Obama’s mistakes and faults instead of setting up a circular firing squad?

            Obama will feast on Romney in the debates. RomneyCare has Gold, Silver, Bronze, and student tiers of coverage. ObamaCare has Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze, and student tiers.

            How can Romney honestly say he will repeal ObamaCare? He has bragged that RomneyCare is the best option for Massachusetts!

            As John Huntsman said, “We’re screwed!”

          • texasref

            Leon’s wrong. Let him be wrong all the way to Obama’s re-election, at which point I hope he lets us say “told you so.”

          • krish

            II am sure you changed your position just like Romney!
            After his personal attacks on Newt in Florida – heard in Rush show (?) that Romney advisor said that their goal was to destroy Newt not just win Florida! I hope Repulicans have a fractured convention.
            Just because Romney has a R after him, I am not going to vote for him – I do not care about others in the forum who will vote again & again for moderates & expect change in Washington – just look at the recent debt limit sham that Republicans pulled on all of us. Just like other addictions, country has to hit rock bottom with Obama, so that people will start electing conservatives in elections. A liberal republican will only set us back!

        • courdeleon02

          To those who say they will never support Romney.I say I will never support Newt. Newt makes me sick to my stomach. So lets just decide that we will not support either one of our candidates and let Obama win the election. As far as I am concerned our chances now are pretty remote since we have just killed off our two leading candidates. Looks like 4 more years of marxism and socialism. Nice going you radical rightists. It always has to be your way. Bunch of spoiled brats all of you.

          • bluerose75

            That is right the conservatives that have ALWAYS been conservative should feel so bad because you call them RADICALS!!..LOL!! Has to be our way…get off planet stupid! People like you that support liberals and moderates ALWAYS lose. History proves it every time. Romney is no conservative and no conservative that has been one all their lives would ever support a RINO that had a recent conversion to being a conservative. Of course, conveniently before a Presidential run. Why is that?

            Liberals who state their true colors never win! Mitt would have helped his cause if he would have said Romneycare was wrong…he does not….he would have helped his cause if he could show any conservative governance…he cannot….he blantantly criticized Reagan in the 80s and 90s and now claims Reagan’s lineage. That is outrageous!!

            That is why conservatives do not trust him, do not like him and will not vote for him in numbers.

            He has a massive credibility problem and it will haunt him until he loses in Nov if he is the candidate. No conservatives will go out with the fire in the belly for this tin suit.

            If you lookl at 2004, it was the conservatives in all those small towns and cities that delivered it for George W. Bush. Even when most national polls had Kerry up!! In fact, most respected pollsters picked Kerry! However, those grassroot conservatives that you mock were the ones the gave Bush over million vote cushion!

            In 2008, McCain had no such help because he was never liked by conservatives because of his record. Despite his claims to be conservative. It does not work. You cannot spend the majority of your life mocking conservative, supporting liberal policies, governing from the left then all a sudden say Conservatives I am one of you…support me!! that is Mitt!

          • downstateray

            The term ‘conservative’ is not well defined and it is capable of identifying any number of people. Believe it or not there are liberals who are actually strong fiscal conservatives.

            In these times of economic turmoil, maybe that is where we need to rally. Let’s stick to jobs, housing, and debt reduction. Let’s appeal to the widest base possible.

            And I think you underestimate Romney’s conservative leanings. You wont find any flip flopping on his morals in his personal life. Maybe we can persuade him to flop our way politically in exchange for our votes.

            I grow tired of southerners bashing northeasterners and vice versa. This is much of what the current ‘upset’ and ‘distrust’ is about. Get over it or get with Obama for another 4 years.

          • downstateray

            The term ‘conservative’ is not well defined and it is capable of identifying any number of people. Believe it or not there are liberals who are actually strong fiscal conservatives.

            In these times of economic turmoil, maybe that is where we need to rally. Let’s stick to jobs, housing, and debt reduction. Let’s appeal to the widest base possible.

            And I think you underestimate Romney’s conservative leanings. You wont find any flip flopping on his morals in his personal life. Maybe we can persuade him to flop our way politically in exchange for our votes.

            I grow tired of southerners bashing northeasterners and vice versa. This is much of what the current ‘upset’ and ‘distrust’ is about. Get over it or get with Obama for another 4 years.

      • david1313

        be the first Republican to lose the south in years. I will not vote for him, along with most of my buddies. In Texas Mr. Romney is radioactive. You will see. He is the not electable. Really. Don’t believe me, wait until super tuesday.

        • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

          versus the rest of the field.

          Texas may well vote for Dewhurst, a guy who is less conservative than Romney, over the real deal conservative Ted Cruz, for Senate.

          • bluerose75

            I do not think that would last long. In the GOP primary I do not think Romney would hold water. Perry has endorsed Newt and I think depending on the ground game and grassroots Newt could knock out Romney in Texas.

    • conservative_dan

      Romney is not even CLOSE to being a conservative. Only Newt is the most consevative candidate with a chance now, and I’m not real happy about that either. But after all conservatives and the Tea Party has accomplished, we’re now left with Mitt Romney?? What the hell happened here. Just to show Mitt in his element … http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/mitt-romney-ted-kennedy-health-care-reform

      • dukeroyal

        I will not vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances. He is simply Barack Obama with an (R) behind his name. Romney is setting up to be a Mondale like defeat for Republicans but the establishment see it as a win-win scenario for them. If Romney wins he will not make them make any tough choices. If he loses they will say “We can’t do anything because we aren’t in control.” My Chihuahua, Pancho, knows more about Conservatism than Mitt Romney.

        • Leon H. Wolf

          how many of the people who have repeated this exact line:

          “He is simply Barack Obama with an (R) behind his name.”

          are dumb enough to actually believe it, and how many are using it to rhetorical effect.

          Ah well, one way or another I won’t have to read it for much longer.

          • bluerose75

            He is Mitt Romney and should have a D after his name!! More people should be dumb like you and bury their head in the sand and shoot darts to find what position your tin suit will have to take next!! I mean he has not core!!…LOL!…And you are right one way or another Mitt will either lose the primary or the general and you will not have to read about the tin suit much longer…LOL!

          • snowshooze

            Well… actually, the ONLY selling point he has.
            And the greatest thing he has done his whole life..
            Is not gettin born..Barak Obama.
            Golly.

    • downstateray

      Perry showed me every thing I needed to know about him when he opened his mouth. He did not prepare for his debates and he stepped in it. His 20% flat tax would crush the hourly wage earner. While he claimed to be the great job creator, he put forward no specifics on a plan to repeat the feat at the federal level. He has no business experience. He is a career politician. He did not seem to understand the enormity of the debt, and had no specific plan to reduce the debt. His remarks about vulture capitalism were particularly offensive, especially when he knew he was dropping out.

      • acat

        Unfortunately, instead of commenting intelligently, you’ve chosen to take cheap (and inaccurate) shots at a candidate no longer in the race.

        Mew

      • mbrat42

        Perry’s 20% tax rate would not have crushed an hourly wage earner. You still would have had all the worthwhile deductions. You would have seen little difference in what you paid.

        • downstateray

          A flat tax with deductions? ROFLMAO. Either you are mistaken or Perry is a complete phony holding up that index card.

          • acat

            Show your work.

            Mew

          • downstateray

            Look at this.

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/20/irs-data-show-most-millionaires-pay-taxes-at-higher-rate-than-middle-class/

            Stealth plans like Perrys actually raise middle class tax burderns. Dont buy the headline. Look at the math. That is why Perrys plan had to include an option to continue paying tax under the current system, so you could opt out of his plan to avoid paying the higher tax.

            Perry?s plan would eliminate the child care tax credit and the earned income tax credit, which enables low-to-moderate income tax filers to receive tax refunds. If you are a single mom with kids, your taxes are going up. If you are married with kids, your taxes are going up.

            Dont be fooled. Washington politicians will continue to scam we the people. They only put out plans that increase the money paid to the federal government.

            Somebody better start putting restrictions on what is done with that extra money .. like paying off treasury bonds held by foreigners. I dont hear much talk of that.

          • acat

            That is, you can get more money back than was withheld from payroll if you make little enough. Lots of folks in prison qualify for EITC on top of their prison earnings.

            Mew

          • downstateray

            My point was that Perrys flat tax plan would crush the hourly wage earner. And now you concede the point. Bless your heart.

            I cannot account for IRS incompetence paying jailbirds, (you would think that a simple scan of a database of those incarcerated would be in place) and I see little relevance to this discussion.

          • acat

            It’s not a conservative idea.
            It’s not even a good fiscal idea.

            Perry’s plan would have fixed it.

            Further, you have yet to provide anything other than pulled-from-your-(*) data to defend your false assertion.

            I ran the numbers when Perry announced his plan – the ones it hurts most are the new-empty-nesters. It actually helps anyone with 2+ kids! (and the provision for staying under the old rate allows the new-empty-nesters to reach retirement safely)

            In short, you’re bashing on a guy who’s out of the race, for no apparent reason, and doing so with lies.

            Go peddle your bull on Daily Kos, you’d be a hero over there.

            Mew

          • mbrat42

            Perry’s tax plan does have deductions, You said Perry’s plan would have crushed hourly wage earners, and you are wrong. Most hourly wage earners have limited deductions and his plan would have allowed deductions for dependents (12,500 for each), mortgage interest, charitable contributions, state and local taxes, capital gains and dividends. I doubt, as an hourly earner, you currently deduct any more than this. You would have noticed very little if any difference in your tax bill. And, by the way, he said this over and over again. Apparently you weren’t paying much attention.

            This is a link to a PDF sample IRS form for Rick Perry’s tax plan.
            http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf

        • downstateray

          A flat tax with deductions? ROFLMAO. Either you are mistaken or Perry is a complete phony holding up that index card.

    • score333

      It was hard enough to get Populist to support George Senior now it could be impossible.
      I don’t think anyone has any idea how angry people really are.
      The only way to save the economy is get the Banks out of the Futures Market.
      You guys need to worry about the people who read your Blogs and buy your books not the Establishment.

  • WA_Cowboy

    My only solace in this election season is that even the worst GOP candidate will be better than Obama.

    But I think it says a lot for the sad state of our nation and really the GOP that the “best” candidate that we can run against BO is one whose signature accomplishment as governor is equivalent to the one thing a majority of American’s want repealed. Instead of being able to trounce him on the issue of Obamacare, he’ll have nothing to say.

    Here’s what sums what I think of the 2012 presidential elections:

    • hobiecat

      You made me spit coffee on the screen! That’s the damn truth!

      • texastaxpayer

        Romney is the epitome of everything wrong with the contemporary GOP. Just consider the underlying premise of your post “Romney or one other option”. What gave Romney this privileged position of the presumptive nominee? You mentioned he was a governor, yes he was and I prefer governors too. However not failures. Romney ranked 47th in growth during an economic boom. He raised taxes and fees supposedly to balance the budget then blew a hole billions deep with a new entitlement. At the end of his single term he had a dismal 34% approval rating. His numbers so low he couldn’t credibly run for reelection. Romney and his predatory business practices open a whole new line of attack for democrats as well. His time with Damon make him look like a crook who bilked tax payers out of tens of millions. His time with GCI make him look like a ruthless heartless bastard who throws working men and women under the bus routinely for profit and again the tax payers where left on the hook this time for 44 million to bail out the under funded pension fund while bain made millions. Do I real need to continue here? Romney shares healthcare, cap and trade, green subsidy and a laundry list and a half of other positions with Obama. He will not easily contrast himself in the general plus his background is ideal for the messaging Obama is already using against the scourge of the evil rich republicans. Romney is not even the best among bad choices.

        WAKE UP WILLARD IS OBAMA’S BEST SHOT AT REELECTION.

        • Leon H. Wolf

          He got that position because he had the most people in the initial go around who wanted to vote for him and donate money to him.

          • texastaxpayer

            After Six years, tens of millions spent and most favored candidate treatment from the media what has Romney accomplished?
            Lost Iowa twice with fewer 2012 votes then 2008
            Lost South Carolina twice with his major competitor receiving 40% of the vote in a four way field.
            Lost his 20 + point lead in a week and a half in Florida causing him to resort to patently false advertising.

            I would suggest that he started with the “front runner” designation because he is the media and establishment favorite. It was neither earned nor deserved. His poll numbers today are almost identical to 2007 where he wasn’t the “prohibitive favorite” what’s changed? WHO SUPPORTS HIM THAT’S WHAT.

            It is very sad that so many are so easily led by the media narratives surrounding our worst candidate.

      • WA_Cowboy

        nt

        • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

          .

          • acat

            And tips should be directed here.

            Mew

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            They can prefer what they want, but a person of the female gender who serves my table will always be a waitress to me. Call me old-fashioned: I have the wrinkles and scars to prove it.

  • Ganelon

    I agree completely.

    I have no problem voting for Romney.

    • trickamsterdam

      who then says “I have no problem voting for Romney”. Even the Diarist didn’t go that far. He just said he thought he was a better choice than Newt, and it wasn’t that close.

      This Front Page writer happens to be my favorite or second favorite here, but his logic is flawed in this case.

      Total disclosure before I begin: I have grown to intensely dislike Romney during this FL campaign. It is due to what the diarist called “Romney and his annoying supporters”. I agree w/ S. Palin that they have completely re-written both Newt’s and Romney’s records, and that it’s not an exaggeration to call it “Stalin-esque”(her phrase)…and it’s hard to reFudiate her reasoning on this.

      I give a pretty detailed list of things Romney + his holy harem of followers have lied about, and also why Romney’s not very electable, and a Brokered Convention is preferred here:

      http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2012/01/26/a-bad-night-for-newt-gingrich/#comment-14809

      What’s wrong w/ this particular Diary though, is the Diarist totally fails to take into account that Romney’s polls are better against Pres Obama because no one’s pounded him w/ negative ads (Newt has been pounded by both Paul and Romney).

      Also roughly 75% of the conservative press seems to be on Romney’s side, and fanatically so…many of people who are OK w/ Newt (e.g., Rush, M. Levin) are sort of neutral, whereas the Romney people play the game as if Newt’s the Devil…many of them are the ones threatening to stay home if Newt is the nominee, not the Newt people (though some on this thread have, obviously).

      So I’d say to the Diarist that as soon as he becomes the nominee, Axelrod and the President will go to work w/ their billion dollars and the 75% of the press that’s going to be openly rooting for him and cut Romney to pieces almost instantly. It won’t even take very long. Maybe only a month and they’ll have completely changed his image from what it is now.

      He’ll be defined as a Wall St parasite, and a whispering campaign will be started about his religion. Especially its past (though recent past) history of racism will be highlighted. This attack will be blamed on Christian Conservatives, BTW…the MSM will say “we have to cover it because Christian Conservatives have questions about Mormons”.

      Obama/Axelrod will also say Romney is under the control of the “Tea Party radicals”.

      This allegation will be very lulzy to those of us on this site who hate the very sight of Romney’s android-like form, but they will make it stick easily. Here’s how: Obama says RomneyCare is the same as ObamaCare (never mind that there are major differences). Romney says it isn’t because of the 10th amendment and no one will know what on Earth he’s talking about. Obama says: “See, it’s the same plan but he won’t admit it. That’s because he’s trying to appease the Tea Party radicals…etc”. It will work, so you get the worst of both worlds…a liberal Republican who’s perceived as a radical.

      I think you also over estimate Romney’s presidential temperament. Whenever he’s been pushed he’s displayed Newt-like anger or pouting. Remember the interview w/ the dude on FoxNews (drawing a blank on the name) when he kept complaining or the lack of grace in his SC concession speech? He’s also whined about have to “defend capitalism from fellow Republicans”. It’s like give me a break, loser…you were the one who told Newt to stop complaining about negative ads because it would be nothing “compared to Obama’s Hell’s Kitchen”.

      The same applies to “King of Bain”. Only more so. Much, much more so.

      Don’t agree w/ you on governors being better either. Don’t feel like looking it up, but weren’t LBJ and J. Carter both governors? Pres Bush 43 wasn’t good enough either. On the other had, people like Truman and JFK have done a nice job…some would also say Nixon (I don’t).

      I continue to say a Brokered Convention will produce a more electable and conservative candidate than either Romney or Newt.

      But the main point is Romney is not electable (barring some national or international disaster which can be traced back to Pres Obama…BTW, w/ the way things are going in the Middle East, such a disaster may, unfortunately, happen).

      But Romney is not electable w/out something like that. You know how once you find out in the “Sixth Sense” that Bruce Willis is dead, you realize it was obvious all along?

      When Romney loses on Election Night it’s going to be obvious he was not electable all along.

      BROKERED. CONVENTION. NOW. OR. OBAMA. AGAIN. SOON.

      • stumpy

        You hit the nail on the head. Newt’s chances aren’t great, but almost everything has already been thrown at Newt. No one has scratched the surface on Mitt. Newt’s warts are mostly liberal ideas he has supported. Romney’s issues will be worse in the general, not better. Romney is ripe for attack from the right and left. This is because he is a moderate and has held most political positions on most issues.

        Mitt has to outspend Newt several orders of magnitude to run even. If the money is even, Newt wins. Obama will outspend Mitt.

        Tell me one conservative thing Mitt did in office. Newt has a record of leading conservative causes, gaining the House, reforming welfare, balanced budgets. Newt has driven off the tracks some, but Mitt has never been there. I don’t care what they say. They will all lie to win. I care what they have done. Newt wins and it isn’t even close.

        I don’t see how any true conservative can argue that Mitt is more conservative than Newt. It is intellectually dishonest. I see how you. can make the electability arguement for Mitt. I believe it is wrong and deeply flawed, but I can see how Leon gets there. At least Leon didn’t claim Mitt is our knight on a white horse like Coulter and her ilk

        • jack0001

          but when I review both Newt’s and Mitt’s positions there is not much difference.
          the biggest difference to me is that Mitt wants E-verify so that illegal aliens can be identify when applying for jobs, and Newt wants a anmesty plan for guest workers.
          As far as past history goes, they both are weak on the environment when you consider that Newt has been for Cap and Trade and sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi for the benefit of Al Gore.
          Romney implemented Romneycare by near unamious support of the MA legislature while Newt has been for mandates on heath care for those making over $65K.
          the idea that Newt is some kind of steller conservative is a myth, but I will be voting for Mitt or Newt to get obama out.
          All this talk about not voting republican by conservatives is political suicide.
          The damage done by obama if he is elected again will take generations to undo.
          Not voting republican because our candidate is not pure is EXACTLY what obama wants you to do so that he can get elected again.

          • stumpy

            whoever that might be. Newt was my third or fourth choice in a weak field, but he has a record of conservative actions, not just talk. He has plenty if liberal things too, but with Mitt there are no conservative actions, only talk. The talk has only recently been there.

            All the moderate losers in the party support Romney; McCain, Dole, H.W. Bush, etc. The conservatives are neutral or behind Newt (a few for Santorum). I don’t care about endorsements to fom my opinion, but they are informative.

          • scottishjew

            Mitt Platitudes voted for Romneycare because of near unanimous support. There’s this thing called principles. If Romney didnt support it, he should have vetoed, override be damned. But Mitt embraced Romneycare and still goes around bragging about it. Romney is not even a Republican. He ran as a Republican because he could not elbow into the long Democratic line to become their candidate.

            Newt has acknowledged his mistake. Romney tries to finesse us with federalism arguments.

        • trickamsterdam

          Since she’s blowing up her own career and credibility, for Romney, in her jihad against Newt…

          I wonder if she’ll get 72 virgins in “Mitt Heaven”?

          Or will it be since she’s such a great “Christian Conservative” (judging Newt as she does for his marriages), and she’s the conservative “virgin queen”, she meets 72 versions of herself?

          That could make an interesting video.

          Note: Joke could have been a lot funnier, but this site is PG – 13 (or is it PG?).

  • rams40

    Typically when a conservative defends Romney it makes me far less inclined to support him. I can buy your reluctant support of Romney for logical reasons.

    It is highly irritating to hear conservatives try to defend Romney as a great conservative. I will also vote for Romney vs. Obama, but I won’t be kidding myself or anyone else about what a poor choice we all have.

    Thanks for the honesty.

    • maybenexttime

      I understand the concept of voting for Romney as a last resort. Obviously, staying home on election day or voting third party helps Obama. There’s no sense in throwing a tantrum because your ideal GOP candidate didn’t get the nomination.

      That said, I have to laugh at anyone who can suddenly square the circle and decide that a vote for Romney is a vote for conservatism. With everything that has been revealed about Mitt’s body of work as an executive, it requires some creativity to suddenly categorize him as a conservative.

      Romney is the guy the party machinery has foist upon this season. Just like McCain in 2008, many faithful GOP voters have legitimate reservations about this candidate. Rightfully so. But, the party machinery knows we’ll do our duty and pull the lever for him in November.

      They knew that would be the case all along.

  • snowshooze

    I mean, sure, classically, a Governor is the absolute best proving ground as one must deal with all the facets of running a State, piles of conflicting interests, ofter at odds with the Federal Government…
    So what if this Govrnor did a less than lousy job?
    So what if this Governor pushed a sizable portion of his Citizens onto Medicaid to become the collective burden to every other State in the Union to the tune of over a Billion dollars annually?
    So if the gut is a complete Opportunist and has time and again profited well by playing every angle available to take care of himself, always at the expense of others?
    All or none of those things may be completely true, but why would you cast ballot for anyone you did not prefer in the Primary?
    I decided a while back that I would vote with my heart in the Primary, and suck it up in the General.
    I imagine a debate between Romney and Obama to be largely a big back slapping session, what would they be at odds on?
    Obama obviously has more Presidential expirence at this point.
    Neither have outstanding positive achievements….
    Plus Obama would likely go into some other shooting confrontation just before election season, nobody want’s to change horses when the bullets are flying.
    No, it doesn’t upset me Leon… I just fail to see any reason at this point to limit the remnants of the field. I’d take Santorum over Romney, he has at least as good a chance against Obama, and Newt would do better than either.
    But if you are actually pro-Romney, by all means… vote your heart. I’d never put you down for staying true to your ideals.

    • flyovermark

      …he can’t run on his record in office…

  • arizonajohnson

    Excellent reasoning. Excellent conclusion.

    I’ve been waiting my whole life for a true businessman to enter the White House and not a career politician. Romney is far from perfect. A candidate never is. I feel confident Romney will succeed on fiscal issues. May we hold his feet to the fire on social issues.

    • levinsaidso

      He won’t succeed, because he’ll lose in the general.

      • maybenexttime

        Obama has been crafting his re-election campaign around the issue of raising taxes on the wealthy. He has triangulated this position from various opinion polls which show public support:

        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110458-503544.html

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/149567/americans-favor-jobs-plan-proposals-including-taxing-rich.aspx

        Romney fits perfectly into Axelrod’s plan. Whether Americans will buy it is another story, but the polls aren’t giving me much hope in this instance. At least with Gingrich or Santorum, you’d have a candidate who doesn’t epitomize the villain Obama so desperately seeks to create.

        All I can say is get ready to hear, “Corporations are people, my friends!” on an endless loop this fall. That will be the centerpiece of the Obama campaign now that Romney has effectively won the nomination.

    • miconservative

      Like passing Romneycare with its mandate and subsidies. If only we could get somebody like that in the White House….oh wait….we already have that guy in the White House.

  • miconservative

    I cannot vote for the person who drew up the blue prints for Obamacare. I can’t vote for someone who promised to not change any of the most pro-abortion laws in the nation. I cannot vote for someone who has done nothing to prove fidelity to the second amendment. I cannot vote for the man who set up the first carbon limitation system in America and is proud of it. I cannot vote for a guy who will allow the democrats to successfully play the class warfare campaign. I simply cannot vote for Mitt Romney.

    • macphisto96

      But Governors don’t operate in a vacuum and Romney was most focused on doing his job, not playing obstructionist to make a point.

      How could he have changed the abortion laws when 85% of the legislature was Democratic. Please, tell me.

      Romneycare was not drawn up by Romney. It was The Heritage Foundation that built the framework. Obamacare was designed by The Heritage Foundation. They’ve run away from it, but they proudly stood beside Romney as he signed it.

      Gun laws, carbon laws, etc are not written by the Governor. You know, sometimes you have to sign laws and make deals to not make them as bad as they could be. Of course, the conservative base will lampoon you for even daring to say you were pragmatic.

      How many people could have done better in Massachusetts?

      • SteveM

        Being a conservative Republican is a hell of a lot easier in Texas. Or Utah.

        • texastaxpayer

          Rick Perry was the first republican Lt. Governor in Texas history. He inherited a divided government from W. With democrats in charge of the senate and huge numbers in the house. Rick Perry didn’t cave, he fought and through success grew conservative majorities in both houses.
          I know its convenient to blame demographics and geography for Romney’s many failures. But Texas is a great demonstration of how a blue state turns bright red with the right leadership. Romney just doesn’t have the skills.

          • macphisto96

            Please, one house was controlled by the Democrats.

            85% of both houses were controlled by Democrats in Massachusetts. And, NEWS FLASH, Massachusetts Democrats are not at all like southern Democrats.

            How is the Texas situation even analogous? Different type of Democrat and much smaller percentage of them. Romney faced a VETO PROOF majority in the legislature.

            And you think that’s somehow the same? Democrats had a reason to deal in Texas. Not so in Mass. They could bypass the Governor entirely if they wanted.

          • SteveM

            Do large numbers of Texans identify themselves with their government, or as individuals? Or, let’s put this another way: Do Texans want their government telling them what to do, or would they rather decide themselves?

            Is the 2nd Amendment popular in Texas, or is it something that no one gives a crap about?

            Now flip those questions around and ask them about Massachusetts. Do any cultural differences stick out? If those two areas aren’t enough, then ask the abortion question.

            Sorry, pal, but my statement stands: It’s nothing to be a conservative Republican in Texas. It’s like being another hockey player in Canada. Versus Romney being a hockey goalie in Ecuador. The two situations really aren’t comparable.

          • snowshooze

            So, when everyone is Massachusetts… what then?

      • maybenexttime

        It sounds like Romney surrendered in Massachusetts and gave the Liberals what they wanted…for the most part. Is that what we should expect from a Romney presidency? Based on his record as governor, I’m guessing that’s what we’ll get.

        Better than Obama? Sure. Not by much…and that is the part which worries me.

        • macphisto96

          When the Democrats control over 2/3 of the legislative vote and can pass bills into law without the Governor, you can’t really fight.

          It’d be one thing if the Mass legislature had a different composition. It didn’t.

          And why did Romney run? Because Massachusetts was in bad financial shape. Job number 1 for him was fixing the budget deficit.

          As a businessman myself, I understand having to pick fights you can win. Your whole drive is for accomplishing something, not for dying a martyr’s death and losing a fight that was already lost before you began it.

          Romney is not an ideologue. He actually wants to get things done. So he will make bargains and in Massachusetts he did proceed with bills that he felt would have been much worse.

          The truth is with MassCare it was either that or Massachusetts basically taking over all healthcare in the state directly through a single payer system. There were many in the state pushing for that.

          And let’s not revise history. Let’s remember that Newt Gingrich felt MassCare was an accomplishment. The Heritage Foundation helped craft it. At the time it felt like a Republican pulling the wool over Kennedy’s eyes. Many on both sides lauded it.

          So if many prominent conservative Republicans thought it was a good idea back in the early to mid 2000s, why is Romney a liberal now?

          • stumpy

            Mitt is an independent progressive conservative. He said so himself.
            His hypocrisy gets me more than anything. At least the others have admitted being wrong. Mitt stands by Romneycare, then has such a low opinion of the common people that he lies about it being almost identical to Obamacare. Most conservatives aren’t buying his 10th amendment ploy, so you know the uninformed and squishies won’t. They won’t even know what the 10th amendment is.

          • macphisto96

            Seeing as Romney has NEVER advocated a national mandate.

            We’ve got Newt on record as recently as 2009 advocating for a Federal mandate – a “must carry” mandate for health insurance unless you can post a $150,000 bond.

            Did you get that? Not even a small fine, but a $150,000 bond.

            Romney did something for Massachusetts because he had to govern his state. Just like Rick Santorum voted against Right-to-Work to favor his own state, despite personally being for it.

            Newt can’t even offer a reason why he’s changed his position outside of “Ugh, I needed to if I have a chance of winning in primary season”.

            At least Mitt can make a federalism argument. What argument can the “conservative” Newt make?

            Romney never advocated for a $150,000 bond to get out of a mandate. Newt did. Newt advocates a lot of big government programs. He championed Medicare Part D, especially after drug companies filled his think tank’s pockets.

            Every single one of the GOP candidates has flaws and none of them are perfect conservatives. But Romney comes from the bluest state in the nation, so he has a better excuse than a guy from Georgia or one from Pennsylvania. Santorum voted for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and against national Right to Work. He says he was wrong, but has he said WHY he was wrong? Politically expedient to be wrong?

          • stumpy

            Whether they are federal or state, they ate wrong. I will not defend Newt’s support of mandates; it is inexcusible. That said, Newt is still standing with it while championing that he’ll rid us of Obamacare.

            Mitt did advocate for a national mandate, before he removed it from his book. He didn’t advocate a federal government one, but he supported speading the Massachusetts disaster to the whole nation.

            Newt has warts as big as Mitt, but he also has a track record of conservative actions. Mitt has no history of conservative actions. You can’t argue that his experience as governor qualifies him for the Presidency, then claim that he wasn’t in office long enough to do good work. So his experience is either worthless or a failure, whichever you choose.

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

            on multiple levels, particularly in-response to prior postings

      • trickamsterdam

        Instead of say NH, where it has a vacation home, and it could have governed as a real conservative? Or Utah? Or even Michigan, where it had roots?

        I am not going to look into its background, because after FL, I know longer care what it says about itself…it’s a venal liar.

        But I am curious if those that defend it have an answer…why did it run in MA when it could have just as easily run in NH? Especially when it had national ambitions?

        I think the only logical answer is: it really is a liberal and thought the national party was heading that way too. It can go hump itself.

    • quill67

      Let me explain why:

      Romney proposes half-measures. I am not sure they will rescue this economy. If not, Republicans will get blamed and Romney claiming to be a conservative will damage public’s view.

      Romney will betray us. Just that simple. It is hard enough to fight liberals in other party–much harder in our party.

      Romney will support state sponsored RomneyCares controlled by Washington. I do not see this as an improvement.

      Romney will nominate mushy judges who will uphold the welfare state and expand authority of government to act without congressional authority.

      Romney is cold. He will not be popular.

      • snowshooze

        nt

      • maybenexttime

        I think Romney will end up doing more harm to the conservative movement than anything else. I don’t see Tea Party folks getting behind him, and straining that coalition could splinter the Republican party for years to come. The establishment keeps thinking Tea Party voters have nowhere to go. Yeah, sure. That’s why Ron Paul does better against Obama than Gingrich or Santorum.

        The GOP will pay a hefty price for electing a timid politician as their standard bearer. However, instead of the damage coming from the Left, it most likely will come from within the party itself.

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

          …if TPM-activists become sufficiently dismayed.

  • aj_0000

    Period. In the primary, that is. I leave it to individual conservatives to decide whether they consider Romney different enough from Obama to consider voting for him in that potential matchup in November.

    But if you vote for Romney over Gingrich (or Santorum) in the Republican primary, you are not a conservative, and you’re not fooling anybody if you claim you are. This has all been hashed over many times, but the bottom line is that Newt Gingrich has 90% ACU lifetime voting record over 20 years in Congress, and led one of the biggest electoral victories for conservatives and Republicans in American history. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is an extremely rich guy who ran as a liberal against Ted Kennedy and lost, then governed as a liberal for one term in MA before bowing out because he could not be re-elected.

    The gulf between them is so massive that you have to be a fool or liar to claim there is not a clear choice for conservatives in favor of Gingrich.

    Looking at their records, and looking at who has endorsed them, it’s blatantly obvious to everyone what the divide is. Romney’s coronation is clearly primarily about the Republican Party establishment crushing the Tea Party movement and re-taking control. That is what really matters about this race to conservatives. It has forced all of the frauds in the Republican Party who have masqueraded as conservatives to expose themselves.

    You cannot support someone with Mitt Romney’s record to be the nominee and claim to be a conservative. Period.

    • miconservative

      I vote on Feb 28 in Romney’s alleged homestate and I will be voting for somoene else. Wanted to vote for Perry and I still might. Going to see if Newt or Santorum wins my vote between now and then, but I can assure you I will not vote for Romney.

      • Whacker77

        No one should feel embarrassed to vote for Romney, or Newt, or Santorum. These are the only choices we have so we must, reluctantly, choose one. Forced to decide between these three twits, I would probably hold my nose and vote for WIllard.

        We shouldn’t be in the position, yet again, to hold our noses though. This field was, is, and will remain a travesty to the process. I’ve written since last June the field was a joke and was even ridiculed by some. Now, everyone agrees this field is better suited to a bad dream, not a proud national party.

        Without a doubt, the process is broken. When good candidates like Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, and Chris Christie feel it’s not worth their time to go through the meat grinder, something’s wrong. It’s embarrassing we had to duke it out over Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, and the other clowns who ran.

        When all we have is three bad choices, we have no choice at all. Romney is our John Kerry. Yuck!

    • lalupa

      Frauds are being exposed. I actually think this whole process has been very good for the conservative movement. Going forward it is good to know who are friends and who are the enemies.

      • SteveM

        Support Romney and you’re some kind of “enemy”? How’s that work?

        A thought for you to ponder: If you remove everyone from the “conservative movement” who doesn’t fit the bill 100%, then you’ll reduce it down to a baker’s dozen actual people.

        That’s called letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Food for thought.

    • Leon H. Wolf

      That’s clearly the tactic you’re employing here, but regardless of its efficacy as a polemic device, it’s not going to be good for your long-term survival on this site. Just a heads-up.

      • Bill S

        You used too many words longer than three letters.

    • http://lukos.com Ed54

      You’re Not a Conservative either.

      And by the way,saying “Period” doesn’t make a weak argument any stronger.

    • tyman

      would have run the kind of dirty campaign that Romney has.

      It’s the type of campaign that someone who is power hungry would run.

      If someone can enlighten me on a true conservative who has run a dirty campaign like Romney, I’d like to hear who has.

      • snowshooze

        Understood.

    • RedRedhead

      Yet I claim to be a conservative. What do you propose I call myself then?

    • stumpy

      There is one other option: being an idiot.

  • lalupa

    this urge to defeat Obama and replace him with the same thing except for the party label. Oh well…

    I think the first priority is to defeat the GOP establishment. They are the ones who are standing in the way of conservatives. Not the Democrats. What exactly have Boehner, McConnell delivered for conservative? Oh wait … I know… they embraced the language of the Left that reductions in the growth of government are “cuts”./sarc

    • RichmondG30

      Question: Where were all the conservative candidates when this primary process started?

      Answer: NOT running for President.

      We conservatives spent too much time basking in the glow of the 2010 elections, and did not manage to get one of our own into the race. Or we did (perhaps Perry) and he didn’t have the support to win.

      Regardless, I am hoping that most of those at Redstate throwing tantrums right now over Romney will come to their senses before November.

      Obama is a walking disaster of a failed President. I just hope the GOP base is not complicit in returning him to the Oval Office to “finish the job” (God forbid).

  • acat

    if one of these bozos is our nominee, there’s something seriously wrong with the electorate.

    My concerns with Romney are two.

    He’s not a straight-up fighter. This may work to his advantage *as president*, although there’s little sign it helped him in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. This may also work to his advantage in facing off against the Obama machine – Team Romney will be watching for sneaky tricks because it’s what they’d do …

    He’s not an inspiring leader. Sure, he’s a good dad, good husband, good citizen .. he’s not an eagle scout, but he plays the part pretty well. So what? I’m looking for someone who can lead a hungry squad of marines into a Hooters … with minimal civilian losses … but Romney comes off as someone who’d rather talk to them about investment or life insurance choices first …

    Maybe it’s just me, but .. I want someone who gives the indication that he knows how to fight, he’s he’s ready for the rumble, and he can get people to follow him. Romney fails all three.

    Illinois is going to be relatively late, so .. Willard may sew it up before I get to vote. If not, I do not plan to vote for him in the primary as I do not believe he’s the best candidate.

    Mew

    • SteveM

      It doesn’t take much in the way of leadership skillz to get some hungry Marines to go to a Hooters ;) . All you need is somebody to say, “It’s over there”, then get out of the way.

      • acat

        Instead of “It’s over there”, it’d be “That place has these menu options, I like the cheeseburger but they tell me the barbecue beef is also good, and the waitress Myra is kind of cute but I’m married …..”

        Mew

  • miconservative

    this race must continue. Romney has done nothing to earn the loyalty and support from conservatives. Perhaps neither has anyone else, but the race must continue. There is absolutely no reason to end this thing now. The idea that the candidates going hard core after each other will hurt us in November is a bunch of BS. Look at the Dems 4 years ago. That race went until June and ours ended in Feb. McCain did nothing in the mean time to build up a campaign to take out the eventual nominee. I like the idea of a brokered convention where we can pick someone beside the candidates out there right now. Give the Dems no time to prepare a campaign against our nominee while at the same time building momentum for the new guy, hopefully someone conservatives can embrace.

  • romeg

    Than Mitt regarding his support of mandates.

    But at least he SAYS he had seen the error of his ways.

    Mitt appears ready to defend it to the death.

    Rick Santorum is right. Mitt will cede this issue to Obama.

    I’ll certainly vote for the nominee, regardless of who that may ultimately be and then work like hell to hold his feet to the fire on repeal of Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes/Oxley and a range of other exquisitely BAD legislation passed in the last 20 years or so.

  • missourirancher

    You are selling out and you are not Conservatives, Sorry. I will not vote for Obama because he’s a Liberal. Nor will I ever in no uncertain terms vote for Romney because he’s a North Eastern Moderate. To a Southerner that means he’s a Liberal also.
    I think Conservatives are up Sh–t Creek with-out a Paddle.
    From a Conservative Missourian

    • Leon H. Wolf

      That someone from Missouri is lecturing me on what Southerners believe.

      I will agree that I am not Conservatives.

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        **no-text**

    • http://lukos.com Ed54

      to vote for someone solely based on where they are from … you’re pretty stupid.

  • tnguy

    …how anyone can support voting for a man who is advocating policy that will hasten the destruction of our way of life. Yet that’s exactly what many are doing.

  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    I feel your pain. I have lost more than few internet friends for virtually stating the exact same position as yours.

    I really don’t know what choice we have. It is pathetic we don’t have better choices, but the other guys who could have made better candidates didn’t run…end of story.

    So we are stuck with the guys that are left. Romney is not a real conservative…but saying Newt is is stretching the truth too. Santorum is a conservative, but simply has not excited anyone. Paul is…Paul.

    So I agree with you, and like you, it doesn’t exactly warm my heart to say it.

    • aj_0000
      You have to be completely ignorant of Newt Gingrich’s record to claim that he’s not a conservative. It is true that in his post-speaker years, he’s drifted a little, been co-opted a little in his quest to remain relevant. But he’s been a standard-bearer of teh conservative movement his whole career. Romney, on the other hand, who had been a liberal his entire life until he decided to run for president in 2008, is a transparent phony.

      Said it before, and I will say it again. If you support Romney over Gingrich (or Santprum), you are not a conservative. You have a right to not be a conservative, that’s your business. But try to claim you are one.

    • http://lukos.com Ed54

      based on disagreement over politics was never really a friend worth having.

  • General_Confusion

    Romney is not, will never be, and wants nothing to do with conservatives. To him conservative are nothing more than ?useful idiots?.

    As soon as he locks up the nomination he will return to his real roots and run to left. Try not to act surprised. Oh and Obamacare, hope you like it.

    Worst still is we will have the perfect storm of capitation and treachery as Romney, Boehner and McConnell team up with the Democrats to stuff any conservative still in the congress in the corner.

    But hey sailing off the economic cliff at 55 mph is much better the going off it a 85 with Obama.

    For moderates Newt is too great of a risk, he might apply the brakes!

    Romney, Boehner and McConnell, your go along get along team on 2012.

    • General_Confusion

      Romney is not, will never be, and wants nothing to do with conservatives. To him conservatives are nothing more than ?useful idiots?.

      As soon as he locks up the nomination he will return to his real roots and run to the left. Try not to act surprised. Oh and Obamacare, hope you like it.

      Worst still we will have the perfect storm of capitation and treachery as Romney, Boehner and McConnell team up with the Democrats to stuff any conservatives still in the congress in the corner.

      But hey sailing off the economic cliff at 55 mph is much better than going off it at 85 with Obama.

      For moderates Newt is too great of a risk, he might apply the brakes!

      Romney, Boehner and McConnell, your go along, get along team in 2012.

    • RedRedhead

      He was elected as a moderate-conservative technocrat in Massachusetts, and then he did a hard right.

      • General_Confusion

        Tax hikes
        Romneycare
        Same Sex marriage
        Pro abortion (as in gave money to pro abort groups)

        And just recently
        Romney?s people already walking back Obamacare repeal
        Support for a VAT tax

        ?let me know when to stop.

        The man has NOT one conservative bone in his body.

        • snowshooze

          But can ANYONE find anything great about Romney?
          Still nothing ???
          There HAS to be something really good about this guy…
          Beats me.

          • stumpy

            job with the Olympics. I wish he would have retired then.

          • snowshooze

            Great manager of other peoples money.

  • deVere

    That would certainly be the case if Romney goes there with a majority fo the delegates. It’s not likely that Newt will do so, so you are without thought or discussion precluding a better choice than either of them,, which would be the best chance for Republican victory in 2012.

    I certainly hope that the convention deadlocks to begin with, because that is the best hope for Republican victory in November.

    • aj_0000

      If Romney goes there with the majority of delegates, he will be the nominee. If he does not have a majority, there will be second and third ballots until the nominee is chosen. At that point, Gingrich will be in the position to win if he can convince Santorum and Paul’s delegates to vote for him.

      The idea of some other candidate who no one has ever voted for being anointed is a repudiation of democracy. That person would have no legitimacy, and they would also face the same problem that faced Rick Perry — getting into a race at the last minute unprepared. Many voters in the general election would not vote for that kind of nominee solely because of how they were selected.

      • deVere

        The Democrats say that the election of George W Bush in 2000 with fewer popular votes was a shameful repudiation of Democracy. Perhaps you agree with them.?

        The current style of primary election “democracy” seems to measure who can spend the most on TV ads assassinating their opponent’s character. Somehow I am missing it’s nobility. Probably it’s a flaw in my character.

        After the first ballot, the delegates to the convention get to choose the nominee. Those are the rules.

        So perhaps it’s time for a smoke-free “smoke-filled-room”, filled with our party’s wisest heads, to pick our best candidate for the fall. I think there are excellent candidates available without the baggage of Mitt and Newt. They were just too sane to participate in this current crazy process.

        • http://lukos.com Ed54

          bonus points for the first person to name the source of that line.

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

            http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/mphg.htm

            “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”

          • http://lukos.com Ed54

            But extra credit for effort … have a donut on me.

  • aj_0000

    I want to put this in clear terms. The Republican Party establishment has declared war on the Tea Party. They despise the new members of Congress, and they refuse to lose their power to more like them.

    The fix has been in for Romney from the beginning. The rank and file membership of the Republican Party is predominantly conservative. At the start of the season, we had a field that reflected that composition: 2 liberals (Romney and Huntsman), 1 libertarian (Paul), 1 moderate/conservative (Pawlenty) and 5 conservatives (Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Santorum and Gingrich).

    Every single one of Romney’s opponents has been systematically destroyed by a combination of Romney’s money carpet-bombing them with negative ads, relentless dismantling by the media (including Fox News) and assaults from the Republican establishment in Washington.

    As soon as a candidate was perceived to be a threat, the elite coordination listed above swooped in and annihilated them. Gingrich has proven to be the strongest candidate, because he’s weathered the storm. Santorum was never taken seriously, and escaped the gaze of the machine, which is why he’s still in there.

    I will put this bluntly: Mitt Romney is a far greater threat to conservative values than Barack Obama is. Obama is doing a fine job of discrediting the left in the eyes of the public. He is an abject failure, and everyone knows it. Romney is the hatchet man for the Republican elite, bent on regaining the control and prestige they lost when the Tea Party id what they could not. The elites destroyed the Republican Party, the Tea Party resurrected it. And their reward for doing so? The GOP elites have declared war on conservatives.

    The surest way to lose a war is to not realize that someone has declared war on you. The Republican Party establishment has declared war on conservatives. They are the enemy. Obama is his own worst enemy. Two years of complete Democrat control did more for conservatism than 6 years of Republican control under Bush. That’s a fact, and we all know it.

    Newt is not a perfect candidate, but he is the only option. I’ve been saying that for a while, but Sarah Palin said the same thing the other night. If you are a conservative, and/or a Tea Party supporter, donate money, and volunteer to help his campaign if you can. I will be donating tonight.

    • Leon H. Wolf

      The “elites” and “establishment” didn’t destroy anyone. The candidates who failed did so because they could not convince Republican primary voters to vote for them. Unless you think Mitch McConnell has a mind control ray in the basement of the Senate offices which controls thousands of people in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, your wide-eyed conspiracy theory ranting is completely nonsensical. The one and only thing that matters in an election is: can you convince people to go to the polls and vote for you. The people who win can, the people who lose can’t. Neither the Freemasons nor the Illuminati nor the Establishment have anything to do with it.

      • aj_0000

        Outspending Newt 5 to 1 in FL has nothing to do with Romney’s bounce. And the fall of other candidates has nothing to do with the media dismantling every aspect of their history while leaving Romney alone. The big dump of anti-Newt spew from Dole, et al. before Thursday’s debate was entirely coincidental.

        You’re right. The voters love Mitt!!!

        • Leon H. Wolf

          Hey, ever wonder WHY it is that Mitt Romney can outspend Newt Gingrich 5 to 1 in Florida?

          You’re right, it’s probably the mind ray. It also creates money.

          I’m going to observe George Bernard Shaw’s rule about wrestling with pigs now.

          • texastaxpayer

            Or are you suggesting the candidate that 70% of the base has rejected for 6 years is collecting his money $25.00 at a time? Really get a grip Romney and wall street are buying this thing.

          • trickamsterdam

            And makes him look like a one-armed monkey trying to peel a banana.

      • aj_0000

        Newt going from a double digit lead in Iowa to fourth (fifth?) place had NOTHING to do with Romney’s money and ads. Nothing at all.

        The only element of truth in what you say is that to some extent, people do deserve what they get, if they allow their decision to be influenced by the media rather than making an informed choice. But people are busy, and they don’t always have time to dig deeper. My opinion is that people who are uninformed and swayed by the media should do the honorable thing and not vote. But as Obama proved in ’08, those people are a profound majority,

    • WillWong

      Well put my friend!

    • RedRedhead

      with all of this gnashing of teach over the prospect that we may need to cooperate with fellow Republicans who are less conservative then we are.

      I’ve seen lots of posts from people saying that they cannot vote for Romney, even if he were the Republican Nominee. Their cries are all the same, that their principles would not allow themselves to vote for him.

  • kipling

    Leon, your whole argument is based on the assumption that Romney was a successful governor. Is that true? How do you define successful? An ability to get things done is not a plus if the things that are done eventually hurt the country. Doing something just for the sake of doing something is a progressive impulse. Action for the sake of action is a tenet of nihilism.

    Incompetence we can survive. Liberalism we can not.

    • RedRedhead

      What kind of political measure are you using? They are both clearly conservatives. Each of which may be more moderate in some issues, but really?

      Would you only be happy with a nominee that’s further to the right than 80% of the country, and thus can’t get elected?

      • General_Confusion

        Newt has a mixed record, so Moderate fits.

        Romney?s record is solidly liberal without deviation, so Liberal fits.

      • kipling

        Romney and Gingrich are hardly bastions of conservatism.

        Romneycare = Liberal Pro-Abortion Romney = Liberal

        Gingrich on Global Warming = Liberal Gingrich on Individual Mandate = Liberal

        Better than Obama, yes. Conservative champions, hardly.

  • SteveM

    1. Which candidate were all the supposed “Real conservatives” supposed to vote for this time?

    and

    2. Which liberal policy is Romney going to implement (or maintain) and why?

    • maybenexttime

      Question #1 is too facetious to answer. However, on Question #2 we already have been told that Romney will not repeal ObamaCare.

      Even Erick has stated such a move would cause the Republican party serious damage:

      http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/25/romney-advisor-no-obamacare-repeal/

      • SteveM

        Many here are the ones proclaiming themselves “Real conservatives”. Therefore, there must be somebody who “Real Conservatives” should be supporting. Who is it?

        Was it Perry? I liked Perry. But he evidently thought he could waltz into the race unprepared. He didn’t show up at the debates ready to go, and he didn’t get anywhere.

        Was in Huntsman? The guy who decided to hide his conservative bona fides by scolding everybody?

        Who?

        If you want the ideal conservative to be President, then you have to identify this person and convince them to run.

        On #2, Erick hates Romney. That’s fine; it’s his right. I don’t particularly care why and it makes me discount what he say about the man. But you need to look at reality. Unless we have 60+ Senators, NO Republican can straight up repeal Obamacare. Not all at once, anyway. It has to be done in pieces.

        What, you think Reid is going to roll over and let that happen? Just because? Think again. He’ll shut down the entire Senate via some parliamentary trick and he’ll be cheered for it.

    • stumpy

      #1. There were no great choices. I believe Perry was the best, but his pitiful performances and attacks from most of the candidates and the media did him in.

      #2. Obamacare, because he doesn’t have the Passion and stones to put up the fight that is needed to get there. Budgeting – He will trim the edges and make great stands, threaten to shut the government down, then cave and get nothing just like McConnell and Boehner. Judges – he will not take the heat to get the best judges. Better than Obama, definitely, but we are more likely to get a Souter or Kennedy than a Scalia or Thomas.

      • SteveM

        I had high hope for Perry. But the reality was this: he wasn’t prepared to run and it showed in the debates.

        For #2, you’re blaming the entire team. If Boehner and McConnell are going to cave, then there’s not much any President can do.

        I think you’re prejudging on justices. People like to point out he nominated liberal judges in Mass, but the obvious rebuttal is this: What other kind of judges are there in Massachusetts?

        • stumpy

          could support the strong conservative Senators and Congressmen and sway Boehner and McConnell to hold firm. There is also an outside possibility that they could be replaced with a more conservative leadership. Mitt will get along with them. Newt will challenge them from the right. They are not beyond hope, they just need some extra muscle on the right.

          My view of judges stems more from what I have seen previously with moderate Republican presidents than what Romney did in Massechusetts. I recognize the difficulty in dealing with a liberal state. However, I don’t see where Romney risked any political capital to make better judicial choices. This will be required in order to get good ones. The Demos will fight hard against any strict constitutionalist.

          Eisenhower made some of the worst Supreme Court judicial choices possible. He was worse than many Democrats on his choices. H.W. Bush had bad choices. W. Bush tried to with Harriet Myers until the right stopped him. It is hard for even conservatives to get good justices. Even Reagan nominated the moderate O’Conner. After Myers, Bush seemed to do a good job with Alito and Roberts. I see Mitt fitting the H.W. Bush role with similar choices.

  • jack0001

    I am reading all the comments about not voting for Romney if he is nominee and it makes not sense. I too, was one that said I would not compromise my conservative principles and vote for McCain, but when he picked Gov. Palin, I did.
    I also told my most consevative friends that i would not vote for Romney, but after looking at their current positions on their websites and there is not a bit of difference between the two. On the most important issue “obamacare” both Newt and Mitt have been for mandates.
    This idea of not voting for Romney if he is the nominee is suicide.
    If Obama is elected:
    - he will continue to spend at enormous rates unless the republcians stop him which i have no confidence in.
    -if the SCOTUS does not repeal obamacare – he will not sign bill to repeal it
    -he will pick at least two more SCOTUS judges like kagan and sotomayor
    -he will continue to empower unions
    -he will continue to play golf
    -he will continue fund abortions in the USA and Mexico
    -he will not secure the border
    -he will govern by executive orders
    -he will do everthing he can to grant anmesty to illegal aliens
    -he will not give the go ahead for the Keystone Pipeline.
    The list will go on and on if he is elected again.
    we had better hang together as republicans and conservatives and defeat obama or we will most assuredly hang seperately.

    • SteveM

      High five.

    • scottishjew

      There is a very good chance that Romney will do the same thing. He did enact Romneycare JUST five years ago with Kennedy.

      I suspect the Romney campaign is around here. I see a lot of “Oh, Im a strong conservative but I will have to vote for Romney”. Yeah. Okay.

      • Ender

        that there is a difference between governing MA and the whole country? Or let’s pretend there is no difference so you can keep going on with your simplistic narrative.

        • scottishjew

          Yes, so the whole country is larger than MA. Does that mean Romney is going to suddenly turn conservative.

          I watched Mitt Platitudes answer the question to what he has done to advance the conservative cause. Having a family was his answer. Obama has done the same thing for the conservative cause I guess.

          • Ender

            that the whole country is a lot more conservative than MA whose 85% Dem legislature never allowed Romney to do anything conservative, then there is no point in discussing this further.

          • scottishjew

            What will Romney do if he has a democratic congress, cave in? These are campaign excuses you are giving, not substantive arguments. New Jersey is very liberal. Chris Christie (also a moderate) managed to get some conservative things done.

            Here’s Romney thanking Kennedy for his help on drafting Romneycare. He hardly seemed forced into anything.

            This is the guy you want to be president.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4iTtNGjFY4

      • SteveM

        So is Mitt’s inauguration going to go like this: After he puts his hand on the Bible and accepts The Oath Of Office, is he going to solemnly address the crowd with:

        “Fooled you!”

        …and then invite Dingy Harry and Pelosi on stage to outline his liberal agenda?

      • jack0001

        since Newt himself has been for mandates, in between sitting on the couch with nancy and advocating tax and cap, i see no difference between Newt and Romney.
        i will vote for either one against obama.

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

    …and see where it leads.

    It was suggested elsewhere that I may harbor a writing style that conveys [falsely] an inability to waffle, let alone change; therefore, to max-out on the ability to accommodate alternate input [because we all know I like Perry...and, by extension, the guy Perry endorsed], all arguments previously used to support The Newt will be deferred.

    Your claims are related to gubernatorial experience, perceived electability, and the issues.

    *

    Obviously, The Newt can’t alter his pedigree, except to the degree to which he had “executive” experience as Speaker. Although I was not plugged-in to his negatives @ the time, I have two lasting perspectives that are of-interest, both of which I’ve raised previously on RS.

    –First, I thought impeachment was indicated. I had a son [born in 1990] to whom to explain these events, and the role-model concern was huge; remembering that count-#2 [of 3] was not brought to the Senate [the one which focused on perjury during the FIRST depo, the one in B&W], I feel he could have been convicted, had anyone been paying attention to the details of his having lied.

    –Second, former-Congressman Jon David Fox told me [again, this past Saturday @ lunch] that The Newt demonstrated an uncanny ability to distill complex issues. He could integrate the content with the politics better than anyone else in the GOP-caucus. I feel this unprovoked testimonial carries huge significance.

    THEREFORE, I do not automatically view a former-governor as having the gravitas [automatically], particularly because [unlike BHO], The Newt has had plenty of opportunities to function as an executive decision-maker.

    *

    The electability-criterion has been extensively debated @ RS [and elsewhere], but the gravamen here is that The Newt could predictably implode. Here is the problem with that theory, invoking the Moon-Colony event, for which he has been roundly ridiculed.

    JFK said we’d get to the moon by the end of the 1960′s, and we did…and he was lauded. The difference, here, therefore, may be based on the bias drawn into the discourse by the individuals involved, often based upon prior perceptions. Yet, proposing a public/private partnership would be c/w concepts previously discussed in this regard; anyone recall how the benefits of the PERFECTLY-SPHERICAL ball-bearing are noted in industry…and how the optimal method of construction thereof is accomplished in an weightless environment?

    Thus, particularly noting the spectre of Red-China [also noted by The Newt] deciding not to honor DMZ-treaties, one could envision the need to maintain the military capability to relate to moon exploration. Add enhancement of the American Spirit [and development of Tang], and you get a cogent support for this proposal.

    By extension, other ideas of The Newt could be rationalized [although I still don't like subpoena-ing judges to appear before legislative bodies to explain their votes...although deleting lifetime appointments--as Perry would want--would probably prompt these judges to WANT to discuss their rationales without appearing "activist"].

    *

    The third criterion provides the Achilles’ Heel of this essay. Many of us spent this-afternoon debating the Individual Mandate issue [hyperlinked supra], but no one can truly claim that Mitt’s intransigence can match The Newt’s [forced?] conversion into a limited-government posture. Whereas the latter carries secondary-gain promise, the former portends no capacity to convey the feeling that he “gets it.”

    Mitt would provide a 50-state waiver, The Newt would repeal. After considered pondering, which is preferable? Which reflects the mood of the GOP-base? Which is more c/w the Constitution?

    Rather than recounting the other issues, suffice to say that the adherence to TPM-attitudes [reflected in the slew of endorsements [largely unreported, naturally] reinforces the view [pushed by Rush] that only The Newt [and NOT Mitt] is a “conservative.”

    *

    Is not the goal of RS to promote the more conservative candidate of the two? [Santorum is tangential, as discussed elsewhere...prominently by Guzzardi @ The Liberty Blog.]

    I rest my case.

    • lapert

      Your writing style is only the start of your issues. Seriously, referring to him as ‘The Newt’ does him no favors and probably a few disfavors. Do you want to make him into a caricature of the megalomaniac so many assume him to be, because that is what you are doing. The only person in the world who could take someone who refers to themself that way seriously is The Donald, and since he is not to be taken seriously where does that leave you?

      Of course, anyone that thinks there was any chance given the facts at the time that the Senate would impeach Clinton instead of it being the worst political move of his generation has no business putting themselves forward as offering meaningful opinions on politics.

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

        …the only substantive concern is the political calculus regarding the impeachment action.

        First, a definitional clarification is needed. It is written “…anyone that thinks there was any chance given the facts at the time that the Senate would impeach Clinton…” whereas, actually, he had already BEEN impeached; the key-issue was whether he would be convicted.

        Second, I explained that the effort was indicated and, thus, no one was shown to be above the law. And, BTW, it wasn’t such a bad political move, inasmuch as the POTUS-position flipped to the GOP immediately thereafter.

        Thus, I will persist in proffering ideas [with documentation] which should rise/fall on their merits, thank you!

        • lapert

          There is plenty more wrong with your substance, but it is hard getting past The Bob’s use of The Newt.

          In any case, the impeachment process killed the GOP in the ’98 midterms and was enough ammunition to cost Gingrich his speakership. That his first and only executive experience was so bad for his party that he was pushed off the side in four years doesn’t bode well for the party with him at the top of a national ticket.

          But the so called establishment is well aware of this, and that is why they reached the same conclusion as Leon (as has the GOP electorate apparently making this all moot). It is more than just the thought of allowing Obama off the hook by turning the election from a debate on him to a debate between his Secretary of State’s husband and the GOP candidate over who own the legacy of the 90′s – it is the recognition that the down ticket impact from Gingrich’s leadership at the top could easily match and surpass the disappointment of ’98.

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

            …on his contract…and the ability to work with D’s.

          • lapert

            Most of the contract with america never made it out of the Senate, some did, some was vetoed and eventually passed in much different form. What he most delivered on was squandering the momentum of the ’94 election, allowing Clinton to outmaneuver him and turn around his presidency and alienating the party he was supposed to be leading because he took them over a cliff.

    • hobiecat

      n/t

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

        Brief survey of the other comments on this page does not contravene any of the above-points.

        This validates, therefore, concern that this essay ignores fundamentals; as a nidus for accommodating/rationalizing, it’s pass-able but, as a rallying-cry, it’s quite weak.

    • The_Rebel

      but I would think that if there was a “goal”, it would be to promote the most conservative electable candidate.

  • Samsara

    Romney is buying the primary one state at a time. He has outspent Gingrich in Florida 3 to 1. He will not be able to do that in the general election.

    • maybenexttime

      In the general election, you focus your resources only on battleground states. Romney can match Obama dollar-for-dollar in the spending department.

      Advertising will only get you so far, however. If the candidate doesn’t have a committed ground game, you can easily lose a state like Ohio. FWIW, I think that state will yet again decide the outcome. Obama had a very formidable ground game there in 2008. The networks projected that state immediately after polls closed unlike 2004.

      If Romney can’t get committed troops to pound the pavement in Ohio, this will be a tough election for him to win. Take a look at the 2004 electoral map…because it’s going to be much like that again in 2012. The key states are OH, CO, NM, NV, and IA. Whoever wins three of those five will probably have the presidency.

  • neiman1

    We always marvel when a Conservative is elected and then abandons his principles once he is in Washington. Hanging out with the ‘in’ crowd somehow makes the ‘reasonable’ and they compromise.

    Now we now the same happens when they go to work with the mainstream media. A champion hung out with the CNN crowd until he became ‘reasonable’. This is very sad.

    • acat

      And unless I’m greatly mistaken, Leon has not been on CNN.

      Jump in any time, Leon. Or Erick.

      Mew

  • kipling

    As long as conservatives pledge to blindly support the Republican nominee no matter what, the Republican Establishment will continue to shove moderates and liberals down our throats.

    Conservatives should only support Romney if he names a conservative slate of candidates for his cabinet. We cannot allow ourselves to be bought off by a VP slot which is basically meaningless unless Romney expires. I want to know who he will name to head HHS and the EPA. Give me some conservatives and I will line up behind the nominee.

    • maybenexttime

      That is the establishment’s plan. They push a certain candidate and count on GOP voters to “come home” every election year. It has worked for them in the past, and it looks like they’ll probably succeed this year as well.

      The problem is the internal fractures which have developed in recent years. The so-called Religious Right used to be a formidable sect in the GOP. Their power has diminished in recent elections while the Tea Party has increased their clout.

      It’s only a matter of time before all these different factions get fed up with the establishment. If Romney wins the nomination, but loses the election, I predict we’ll see further splintering and perhaps the formation of a third party.

      • kipling

        It will not be the fact that he sucks as a candidate or that there is little difference between Romneycare and Obamacare.

        The establishment will blame the conservatives and use it as an excuse to run another moderate in 2016 – just like they used McCain’s failure in 2012 to push Romney.

  • scottishjew

    Other than being a governor, I didnt see one reason TO vote for WIllard Romney. Or Mitt Platitudes as I call him now.

    But what about the fact that Mitt was a bad governor. That he enacted Romneycare? That he did so working with Kennedy? Like Dole, Romney buffalo’d everyone out of the race a year ago so he would be your last choice. Dont reward that behavior. I will NEVER vote for Romney. I will write in the Republcian candidate I want. Is that wasting my vote? I voted for Bush once. What a waste that was.

  • neukm

    .

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    This primary has come down to the Conservative Entertainment Establishment vs. GOP Establishment. Neither side has moral authority and We The People lose in the end. We need to put the hype, profiteering, CEOs selling books, and ego maniacs aside and look at the primary the way an NFL coach looks at his team: you go with the guy who can win the game regardless of your personal feelings.

    It’s a purely pragmatic choice for me:
    Romney has a 50% shot of beating One-bama mainly because he has the money and the organization to take on One-bama’s billion dollar machine.

    Santorum has about 30% chance of beating One-bama because he has no money or machine.

    Gingrich has about 20% chance of beating One-bama because he’s not a conservative and he’ll never smuggle all his baggage past the MSM.

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

      …for he switches your definitions of “conservatism.”

      Have you read, also, of the lack of economic/governmental conservatism within Santorum’s record?

      [see The liberty blog, c/o Guzzardi]

      Thus, your opinion [and the dependence on an "electability" argument, debunked elsewhere] is suspect.

      • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

        …but just for the record:

        USA Today/Gallup

        Obama 48, Romney 48 TIE
        Obama 53, Gingrich 41 Obama +12
        Obama 51, Santorum 43 Obama +8

        Rasmussen Reports

        Obama 47, Romney 41 Obama +6
        Obama 52, Gingrich 35 Obama +17

        BTW: Newt is on track to get destroyed on Saturday in Nevada. We may never know if Newt is electable. How can he beat One-bama if he can’t even beat Romney?

        • texastaxpayer

          When Obama is leading Romney in these same polls will you then be brow beating us with the numbers demanding we support him?? Would seem hypocritical not to don’t ya think???

          Sense your the wizard of polls and all, who leads the GOP nationally? Notice you didn’t post those numbers? Don’t they support your desired narrative?

          • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

            The only debating Newt will be doing in October is with the sales lady at Tiffany’s.

            Hold on to your dreams and keep reaching for the stars….

          • texastaxpayer

            Liberty and freedom for my children makes up the stars I reach for. I find you and your goading responses repugnant. I could at least respect you following this moderate because you agreed with his record or you admitted to not being a conservative and therefore enamored with a moderate progressive. But quoting only those polls from a unscrupulous media that supports a “I am right because people agree” argument is pathetic. It saddens me greatly to be considered your ally.

          • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

            You suffer from the “the polls don’t say what I want them to say therefore they are repugnant” syndrome. You will be getting the cure tomorrow night when Newt is crushed. You will get another does of medicine on Saturday when Newt gets crushed in Nevada. I find your lack of facts laughable.

          • texastaxpayer

            Someone who supports our platform?
            Nope Romney has been against:
            Life, advocated for pro choice groups. Donated to planned parenthood and even carved put special goodies for them in his healthcare law.
            Gun Rights, Romney has supported so called “assault” rifle bans and hand gun restrictions. While governor he personal limited access and raised fees some 400% on gun owners.
            Gay Rights, Romney ran as an advocate the homosexuality agenda and used a court ruling as an excuse to implement gay marriage.
            Small Government, Romney created a brand new entitlements as governor including Romneycare. He bragged about being the first to cap carbon emissions and passed a host of Obama style regulations costing the state tens of thousands of jobs.
            Reduced Spending, Romneycare alone created billions in deficits and cost thousands of jobs.
            Reduced Taxes, Romney as governor raised taxes and fees by nearly a billion dollars annually on Massachusetts residents.
            Supreme Court Justices, Romney as governor appointed nearly three times as many democratic and independents judges as conservatives.

            Romney is not a conservative. I find you repugnant because you know what I say is true and yet you advocate for him anyway. You use these “polls” because its the only thing you can argue, pathetic. You don’t even have the decency to include all the data, just that that will help you, again pathetic.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            There would be no difference between how Romney would govern and how a term limited Obama would govern, then there is no point in even attempting to answer your question. Might as well try to explain it to my deceased turtle.

          • texastaxpayer

            But if you would like to have that conversation by all means dig your turtle up, set him/her by the monitor and let’s do it.

            What is the fundamental difference you see between Romney and Obama?

          • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

            People need to do their homework. They need to check into Frank Marshal Davis One-bama’s mentors for starters. The guy was a Communist radical.

            As a resident of MA I can cite a long list of Romney sins. But even on his worst day Romney would be a major step toward stopping the “managed decline” of the US.

          • Common_Cents

            I don’t trust the guy, but will vote for him over obama.

          • neum432

            it would be better for Obama to win and further the destruction of the nation and then hope the conservative movement can coalesce around a true conservative in 2016. OR……….

            …..vote for Mitt and fight him like hell on the issues in question(something we did not do when it came to GWB).

            I can not stomach the idea that people would consider staying home and thus allowing Obama to get another term. We should not forget about all the democratic congresscritters that Obama dragged across the finish line in 2008…like Al Franken. If for no other reason, vote for the guy with an R after his name just to push as many conseratives into the congress as possible.

          • texastaxpayer

            I am sugesting we work to defeat Romney in the primary because I feel he is cut from the same progressive cloth as Obama.
            If he is the nominee we have to support him but we must fight to curbe his liberal tendancies from a more conservative house and senate.
            If Obama wins all maybe lost forever cousins and that can’t be allowed.

          • sulmak

            But there are key differences

            1.Obama is proven to be not just liberal, but incredibly corrupt.
            – It is unknown whether or not Romney is corrupt.

            2. I have serious questions as to whether Obama is loyal to this country.
            – I have no reason to question Romney’s loyalty.

            3. Romney is stronger on national defense

            4. Obama has openly suggested lowering the checks and balances of our government.
            – Unknown what Romney’s real position on this is, but he would be too timid to suggest it anyway.

            5. Romney doesn’t want to raise taxes, at least not on the surface.

            6. Obama wouldn’t seriously move to the center, ever.
            - Romney is political tofu, he takes on ideology of whatever is around him.

            For reference, my preferences as of august were,
            Cain, Perry, Newt, Huntsman

            Romney is/was at the bottom of my list.

  • David123

    He’s a solid, consistent conservative.
    Opposed to Obamacare and the individual mandate
    No baggage, good family values, sincerely pro-life
    Can win Great Lakes States like Pennsylvania
    Helped pass welfare reform and the Bush tax cuts

    Regarding your point on governors – this made more sense when Perry was still in the race. Mitt has not had a very distinguished career as governor, and had he run for re-election he would have probably been defeated. Jimmy Carter was a governor before he became president. Abraham Lincoln was never a governor.

    • Ender

      only talks a good game, while he was a regular big government conservative while in the Senate, what makes you think that Santorum can win Pennsylvania?

      • David123

        and won Pennsylvania congressional races in districts that did not favor Republicans before that. He has RESULTS that prove he can win in Democratic-leaning territory.

        When Santorum lost in 2006, he lost to an opponent, Casey, who at least claimed to be pro-life, which siphoned away some of Santorum’s pro-life support. Rick Santorum has NEVER lost an election to a pro-abortion opponent, and Obama is extremely pro-abortion.

        Santorum will turn this election into a referendum on Obamacare, which should result in him carrying Pennsylvania as well as all the states Bush 43 carried, and maybe some others as well.

        Obamacare is largely off the table if Romney is the nominee. Also, if either Romney or Gingrich is the nominee, Democrats have plenty to attack them with, just quoting other Republicans.

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

          …for why he lost every county [67] in 2006 when compared with 2000.

  • rwcbarry

    I think that we need to give up, and let socialism win. What the heck? It can’t get any worse. Germany and others have proved this. Let’s give up. I want the government, and these pundits to tell me and my family and friends where to go, and when to go.

    Let’s give up. Settle for the “most electable”. Let’s give up.

    I am truly convinced that we are screwed. Let’s give up.

    You are right. Reagan was an a**. Let’s give up.

    I’m not voting any more because it doesn’t matter. Let’s give up.

    You guys pi** me off.

    • rwcbarry

      Let us all give up!

      • RedRedhead

        What alternatives do we have then voting for the Republican nominee? Voting for a 3rd party would only help Obama even more. Armed rebellion? What do you want?

        • rwcbarry

          as much as they tear us apart. Armed rebellion comes later when our liberty is gone, and are children are against us.

  • snowshooze

    With that…I still cling to my last shread of hope. Not that I actually bank hard on polls and realize they will change all the way down the line.

    • The_Rebel

      if it’s even worth anything today.

    • avagreen

      http://www.therightscoop.com/florida-polls-show-romney-lead-shrinking/
      Florida Polls show Romney lead shrinking?
      Posted by The Right Scoop The Right Scoop on January 30th, 2012 in Politics | 68 Comments

      There were several polls that came out yesterday that look really bad for Newt, showing him behind a double digit lead by Romney. But then 2 more polls (PPP & Insider Advantage) came out showing that lead only in single digits:

      I?m not sure if the lead is actually shrinking or if some of these polls just aren?t accurate, but if the trend is toward shrinking, it could mean that tomorrow may be very interesting. Either way, Newt is in 2nd place right now and that doesn?t win anything in Florida.

      Can he turn it around today and tomorrow?

      I haven’t been posting anywhere as I’ve been busy chasing down the facts on someone hijacking my Disqus account, and somehow ran across this.

      Someone may have already posted this.??

      ?

  • aesthete

    I don’t agree, but it’s a well-argued piece. You’ll still get “Romney lover” or “moderate” hurled at you, but not by me.

    I don’t think it can be stated enough that, whoever we work to put in office in 2012, that person will be our enemy and we should dedicate time and resources into fighting this President’s deviations from conservatism, rather than defending them uncritically.

  • OCBill

    I’m glad Romney doesn’t pander. And I’m pretty sure statehood for Puerto Rico has been a Republican priority. Yeah, that should work. Well, it should work if we need another true blue state forever.

    http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/01/30/mitt-romney-will-puerto-rican-vote-give-him-florida/

    Excerpt:
    At the end of a long weekend of campaigning in South Florida, where the Cuban American vote has been largely emphasized, Mitt Romneys? strong embrace of Puerto Rican statehood and an endorsement from Governor Luis Fortu?o [emph. added], may signal a shift of momentum in favor of Romney among Latino Republicans in the Sunshine state.

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

      …which reflected pandering in Iowa [compared with Perry].

  • OCBill

    I’m glad Romney doesn’t pander. And I’m pretty sure statehood for Puerto Rico has been a Republican priority. Yeah, that should work. Well, it should work if we need another true blue state forever.

    http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/01/30/mitt-romney-will-puerto-rican-vote-give-him-florida/

    Excerpt:
    At the end of a long weekend of campaigning in South Florida, where the Cuban American vote has been largely emphasized, Mitt Romneys? strong embrace of Puerto Rican statehood and an endorsement from Governor Luis Fortu?o [emph. added], may signal a shift of momentum in favor of Romney among Latino Republicans in the Sunshine state.

  • christopher770

    Prior to Mitt Romney?s run for Gov. of Mass., he polled the Mass., people to determine their overall stance on Abortion. Finding out the state was a pro-choice state, he told his church that he was going to run on a pro-choice platform. The only thing one can conclude from this is that Romney will say or do anything to Win. Now that he has been the Gov.., he now wants the Presidency. And now he is saying that he had a change of faith based on DNA evidence. BS! So he was Pro-Life, then Pro-Choice to win Mass and now he wants to be Pro-Life again to win the White House. My concern is not about the issue of abortion. That is a fight for another day. My issue is this: How can he or anyone defend running on this opportunistic platform. How can he win against Obama on this. Only to be followed up by the fact that RomneyCare was IN FACT a blueprint for Obama Care. Romney Care obliterates the GOP mandate argument against Obamacare in Primary. How?.How can the GOP get past these two issues. THEY CANNOT!!! There is absolutely NO WAY for ROMNEY to win against Obama

    • Leon H. Wolf

      When you put it that way it is MUCH MORE convincing than the ACTUAL POLLS which show that Romney has a MUCH BETTER CHANCE of beating Obama than NEWT DOES!! Thank you for showing me the ERROR of my ways!!

      • texastaxpayer

        Or do you just honestly believe Romney is the guy we have all been waiting for?

        • Leon H. Wolf

          I never said Romney was the one we’ve all been waiting for. I do think he’s substantially better than anyone else on that list. And, for that matter, GWB, who campaigned on promises to a) pass amnesty, b) pass the largest expansion to an entitlement program in two generations (Medicare Part D) and c) not have a litmus test for judges. The handwringing has just gotten old for me.

          I wanted Perry, too. He lost. We’ll try again in 2016.

          • Scope

            If I am not mistaken, your name was not on the list of those front pagers that endorsed him. Aren’t you the one that interviewed Huntsman, and was very impressed with what he had to say? Don’t remember you ever coming out for Perry, but I may have missed that.

          • The_Rebel

            When you say we’ll try again in 2016, it sounds like either Obama wins in 2012, or you will primary the Republican President in 2016. :)

          • acat

            would be a very good idea!

            Mew

          • The_Rebel

            for the Republicans.

          • acat

            A *primary* challenge.

            Moron.

            Mew

          • The_Rebel

            as you can see if you had read my post just below. Try practicing what you preach. Idiot. My comment about the one-term presidency is what will likely result from your great idea to primary a sitting Republican. With Republicans like you, the Dems can’t lose.

          • acat

            You really think that a primary from the right, which would have the effect of forcing Romney to move to the right prior to his re-election run against Random Democrat would cause him to lose?

            For reference, during the 2004 primary, there were several challengers to George W. Bush. None were particularly major, most were single-issue or regional candidates, but.. the point is, they challenged Bush to move to the right.

            During the 1992 primary, Buchanan pushed George H. W. Bush quite hard. This didn’t cost Bush the race, what cost him was his inability to run to the right of Ross Perot on fiscal issues.

            Heck, even during 1984, the great Ronald Reagan faced primary challengers.

            I don’t see the problem of demanding that Romney remember who brung him to the dance.

            Mew

          • The_Rebel

            n/t

          • acat

            so has decided to go pout in the corner.

            Yeah. I’ll just be adding you to the “ignore” file.

            Mew

          • The_Rebel

            He has yet to serve and to govern the country. You have yet to see what his policies and priorities will be. But you have made the assumption that he couldn’t possibly govern the country in a conservative way, so we might as well primary him.

            Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

            nnneeeeiiiiggghhhhhhhhhh

          • acat

            but I’m betting a Romney presidency will look a lot like George H. W. Bush or Richard Nixon – because Romney is a northeastern squish, and his record in Massachusetts confirms it.

            Got anything to refute this, now’s the time.

            Mew

        • hobiecat

          The Romney people don’t like to bring up the fact that the RNC formula of nominating moderates loses elections. But WTH. Go figure.

        • Scope

          Romney isn’t the guy we have all been waiting for, he is the “inevitable.” Did you miss the message? Shame on you for thinking we all wouldn’t just march over to get in line, as all the little people are supposed to do. You will miss your serving of cake if you don’t pay attention, ya hear? No. Snark. Tag. Needed.

      • bluerose75

        You know Leon you think you would learn by now how not to walk into a setup. But ignorants like you are why history repeats itself. It is laughable for people like you to quote polls now that show Romney has best chance to beat Obama! I mean come on…lets see your posts from 2008 about McCain. These same polls told us the Maverick, the independent, the moderate McCain was the best remedy to beat Obama. In fact, a few national polls had McCain up over Obama. Really now!!

        Here we are and Leon, the trap faller, is doing the same old thing. Look everybody all the polls show Mitt can beat Obama…Look! Look!

        Yeah right! Obama and his team will salivate over the opportunity!! With Mitt so many issues become non-players for Obama which means he can unleash that billion dollars in about 15 battleground states, in fact, I think more, because more states in the South will be open an Obama win with Mitt on the ticket. Mitt will lose the South. But with that money focused on Mitt’s pathetic record and flip-flopping…if and when the date appears Romney will win the nomination the gloves will be off….and Romney is toast!! The Obama machine will go to work and Mitt supporters have no idea who he really is and Obama will make sure millions and millions do! It will not be pretty.

        Mitt vs 1 billion dollars, vs the MSM, with a subdued conservative base and more states to battleground to hold. This will be 55-45 Obama if Mitt is remotely lucky!

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

          .

          • Common_Cents

            Because of the financial turmoil. But it wasn’t his turn.

            Now, I don’t think he does represent the best chance to beat obama. He doesnt have the right style this time around.

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

            But I actually agree that, apart from the market crash, Romney was better suited to the 2008 environment.

  • deVere

    Apart from Romneycare, the inspiration for Obamacare, Romney was the governor who implemented gay marriage by executive order. Yes there was a court decision, but no court order was directed to the Governor asking him to do anything. To this date there is no gay marriage statute in Massachusetts, just a court decision, and an executive edict from Governor Romney. He could have taken many different courses of action, but that’s what he actually did. Romney is either in favor of gay marriage (which he strongly denies), or he is an absolute judicial supremacist, who thinks that any court decision is absolutely binding on the executive and legistature, even when the law clearly says the opposite. Either way, I’d rather not have him become the Republican Presidential nominee.

    We know that Governor Mike Huckabee made some terrible mistakes pardoning killers, but he insists that implementing gay marriage like Mitt Romney did is a mistake he never would have made:

    http://mydd.com/users/chino-blanco/posts/huckabee-romney-responsible-for-implementing-gay-marriage-in-massachusetts

  • izoneguy

    Then please find the podcast…..

    Most of the stuff Romney is saying about Newt and his
    relationship to Reagan is bullcrap.

    • tyman

      Romney saying stuff like this makes me think he’s trying to get Newt to hurry up and get out before something comes up to turn the tide.

      In other words, Romney’s desperate not to lose again…I guess he sees this as his last chance.

      • tyman

        If I’d heard this, I forgot it. Bob Dole was the guy that convinced Ronaldus Magnus to go along with the $1 of tax hikes for every $3 in spending cuts.

        He said that until his dad died in ’04 that he was waiting for those cuts.

        If you could have Mount Rushmore in Bizarroworld, I’d say it would be Nixon, Dole, Ford and HW Bush. If it weren’t for those Bozos, Carter, Clinton and Obama probably would have never happened.

        Ain’t history great? People keep reliving it!

  • dajeeps

    I don’t agree, but then it’s not my vote. Everyone has to do what they think is best for the country. I think we need an energetic conservative agenda like Newt’s rather than Romney’s rather nebulous one – they sort of remind of the differences between Nixon and Reagan, in a way. But if it works out for him, Romney may be full of surprises. I’m not really holding my breath, but every cloud has a silver lining – somewhere.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I’d completely agree with you if I thought Mitt would put up even a little fight. I just don’t think he has it in him.

  • http://www.ufcle.com/willis/willis.htm Steven Willis

    FWIW, my vote tomorrow in the Florida primary will be for Newt. I expect Romney to win, but it will not be with my vote.

    The race has become ugly, but, from my perspective, it is far worse on Romney’s side. I never recall Newt being anti-Reagan, I recall Dole and Simpson not supporting Newt on the government shut-down, essentially leaving him out to dry on his own. I don’t recall Newt doing anything particularly wrong or unethical (and if I’ve an expert on anything, tax exempt organizations is it and I recall the facts from the time and they were grossly trumped up against Newt . . . and shame on Romney for quoting distorting NBC footage on that). I recall Newt being mostly responsible for taking back the House for the first time in my life; I recall others deserting him and being responsible for losing it. I recall Romney supporting a Mandate and many other things I do not support. While I recall Newt speculating about such things, I recall him walking the conservative walk when it mattered (though he may have talked a bit different at times).

    I do not trust Romney. I’ll probably hold my nose in the general election and vote for him. But, it will take a great deal of explaining from him before I ever trust him. I believe a great many conservatives agree with me on this. Newt is not perfect . . . I know that. Newt probably would not win against Obama . . . I know that, too. But I do not trust Romney to do what he says today (as opposed to last year) and I do not know what he’ll stand for in the future.

    I’ve read the Diary and all the comments. Someone please give me a good set of reasons to support Romney, even grudgingly – other than he is not Obama. If that is all you have, it is not enough.

  • The_Rebel

    would be the one to publicly support Romney, it would have been you. And I agree with you. Your reasoning is sound and only those who insist on keeping their heads in the sand could assail it.

    If this diary does cost you any friends, keep in mind that a true friend won’t ask you to compromise your principles in the name of your friendship or anything else.

  • kipling

    I thought he was the king-maker who would ensure a conservative non-Romney would be the nominee.

    I thought he was to be a hero who selfless sacrifice would save the day.

    Now, he probably just sacrificed his integrity for a Newt victory in South Carolina.

  • whitfox3

    I can understand Romney over Gingrich. Gingrich’s negatives probably make him the only serious candidate that Romney can beat in a one-on-one matchup.

    But why ignore Santorum?

    Granted, he does not have the leadership credentials of Romney. But how effective was he really, when it comes to providing conservative governance or conservative leadership? Not buying that this is a positive credential, overall.

    Granted, he is not as fiscally conservative as Perry, nor as willing to tell the Republican establishment to take a hike. But unless you’re a Paul fan, you’re not going to find better. Clear social conservative. Perhaps not a small-government guy, but a government-solvency guy. I’m willing to tolerate that huge improvement, thanks. Seems to hold the conservative position of being more isolationist than Bush, without going to the Paul extreme.

    Granted his campaign is poorly funded, but no amount of money can make people vote for someone they fundamentally don’t trust. I can see Santorum beating both Romney and Gingrich in the trust category.

    If Gingrinch proves himself the conservative alternative to Romney in Florida, so be it. I don’t trust Romney or Paul enough for them to be options for me. But if not, darned if I can see why Santorum shouldn’t be the obvious choice to continue the battle.

  • meghan

    Pam Bondi, talking to Greta Van Susteren the other day, said that when Romney was president that she will be his committee head implement RomneyCare state by state as she claims it is working in MA.

    Should Romney be the candidate,this will go viral.

    http://www.mittsbloodmoney.com/

  • Scope

    Shall we say, after all the machinations, the excuses, the supposed indicision, and the sweat and tears to come to a decision, well, it’s Mitt. Woe is me, I really didn’t want to do this, but, well, it really has to be Mitt. Geez, this is a really hard decision, but he has the hair, the teeth, the perfectly pressed shirts, and he’s svelte. Don’t forget he can flip to the positions I want in less than a day, if you just ask him nice, or not. Mitt’s my guy, God you have to love him, he is just so amenable on any given day, what’s not to like. My guy Mitt. I bet he can be more accomodating than Barack, and don’t forget, he can have real marble columns for his inauguration, not those cheap yucky styrofoam ones that that creep Barack had. Soros said that it didn’t matter to him if Obama or Romney were the next president, it must just be that pesky initial after his name, or not. Don’t know how you can be more assured than that. My man Mitt. I’m so excited I just may throw up for the occasion. Ain’t this wonderful? My man Mitt.

    • Scope

      That’s what it says at the top of the page. I thought for a minute that I was on the wrong site there for a minute, silly me.

      • Leon H. Wolf

        -nt

    • aesthete

      Seriously, I am as big a Mitt hater as they come, but the “Leon is a ROMNEY LOVER” people need to get a grip.

      • Leon H. Wolf

        It’s a lost cause, though. It’s a rare person who can hold on to their sanity through a primary season.

        One way or another it will likely be over soon enough.

        • JSobieski

          You guys are just talking code of establishment crushing of the tea party… admit it!

          • Leon H. Wolf

            I mean, if being a lawyer from Nashville does not just scream establishment, I don’t know what does.

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

            He’s an elitist, yes. But if hardcore pro-lifers are establishment now, then bring on the establishment.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            If so, then yes. I am an elitist.

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

            ,

  • johnconradarens

    The only way I’ll EVER vote for for the Human Tornado “Willard” Romney (especially after his scorched earth campaign that will destroy and behead conservatives, but won’t touch Obama in the same disgusting, personal way), is when, and if, he’s the GOP nominee. Then, of course, there is no choice. But, right now, there IS a choice.

    As the cowardly Lion used to say, “Not no way, not no how”.

    Romney’s campaign has been the worst thing that’s happened to the GOP since Nixon. And I’m not kidding. He’s a foul, disgusting White Rock Girl narcissist. Sorry.

  • usedtobelib

    Given Newt’s verbosity from here to kingdom come, his ability to be on all sides of an issue, including the individual mandate, I can only guess that conservatives who prefer Newt do so because they have watched his appearances on Fox, a network that draws many conservative viewers, and Newt is nothing if not mindful of his audience: he talks conservative on Fox, modulates his views on ABC, goes liberal on NBC…he’s played this game all his life.

    • adumas

      You have hit the nail on the head, my friend. Newt is not a valid choice, by any means.. But, then again, I cannot bring myself to support Big Money Mitt. Perhaps a write-in for a Ron Paul/Ted Nugent ticket?

  • brand

    Thanks to the RNC Machine here in VA, I wasn’t given a choice on who to vote for. The Romneybots can hold their disdain for Newt’s failings in that regard. Obviously, when your campaign manager here is the LT. Gov of the state, you MIGHT just have an edge on learning what it takes to get on the ballot.

    Having said that, I find fault with the OPs assumptions that knowing about business suddenly qualifies you for knowing how to manage government. Because it doesn’t. I work in the federal government and people who don’t have no idea how impossible it is to get ANYTHING done. Remember the whole shovel ready jobs fiasco? Does anyone honestly think that someone who governed at the state level can compare to knowing what it takes to get something done at the federal level?

    In a word, no. If for no other reason, that’s why Newt is leaps and bounds ahead of Romney. Romney’s “Technocrat” experience will avail him naught. Reagan didn’t run a fortune 500 company, yet he knew enough economics to get the country turned around.

    Also, it’s not about a revenge fantasy. The problem with “I’ll vote Republican come hell or high water” means that there’s nothing to be lost by the nasty campaigners who pull out all the guns on our own party members (ANTI-Reagan) and then, will more than likely be milquetoast against Obama.

    If you take the threat of staying home out of your playbook, you only have one play left – take whatever it is that the “party leaders” want to dish out.

    I’d rather not.

  • hobiecat

    Just maybe the RNC will anoint Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2016. He was moderate, rich, stacked his cabinate with liberal hacks and governed with a Democrat controled legislature. Arnold, in two terms, set back the Republican Party 20 years.
    The Washington elites woul love him.

  • adumas

    What you had to say was not very popular, especially with me. You want to hear something even more unpopular? If Romney is foisted upon us, I just may choose to vote for Obama.

    If Romney is elected, things will continue to worsen as if Obama was still there. Romney’s “private sector experience” of dicing up struggling companies and selling the pieces for profit may go over big on Wall Street, but how on earth can that help the situation we now find ourselves in: a corrupt and out-of control central government.

    Once elected, you won’t be able to tell any difference between this New England RINO and Obama. Washington will continue it’s unprecedented growth, our debt will continue to skyrocket, and our taxes will continue to rise (forget any promises to the contrary).

    And after Mittens gets to the end of his one and only term, the chance for future Republican support will be practically non-existent. I strongly feel putting Wall Street Romney in the White House will once again ensure Democratic control for years to come.

    • deVere

      That’s really a rather strong argument. What happens in the next 4 years is likely to be dreadful, and with unified Republican control of the government the GOP will be blamed by the public at large. Like Blanche Dubois, the voters want magic, not realism. A split government between Obama and the Republican Congress will at least dilute the blame for these painful events.

      On the other hand, after 4 more years of Obama in the White House the country, not to say the world, may be in complete ruins.

      “When you’ve got to choose. Every way you look at this you lose.”
      Paul Simon “Mrs. Robinson”

      • downstateray

        We need to build our base before we can dictate the presidential candidate. We barely have been at this 3 years. We had unbelievable success in the 2010 elections. We need to continue in 2012 by adding more conservatives to the state houses and congress. The next logical step is to take over leadership positions in the congress. We need to look hard at the wannabes claiming to be true conservatives. Most barely can mouth the words, and are clueless when asked for specific proposals.

        End the bombthrowing and start promoting our agenda.

        We need to focus our attention to four issues :
        1) jobs
        2) clearing the housing mess
        3) energy security
        4) debt reduction

        Jobs and housing work together. Until we clear the inventory of underwater homes and foreclosures, home prices are unlikely to stabilize enough to start a new round of homebuilding that in turn leads to lots of new construction jobs.

        Let’s pull together a 50 year energy security plan and put it on the table. Boone Pickens has a plan. It can be improved.

        Read and think about Bowles/simpson and the Ryan plan. Then we can discuss how to improve them .

        • deVere

          Still another Don Rickles impersonator who somehow thinks he’s being persuasive. I can’t remember throwing any bombs up until now, so I’m tossing this one back at you. Catch!

  • bornagainrealist

    These guys may be dems, but they are the best in accuracy. They had SC 40-26. It came in 40-28.

    PPP’s tracking of the Florida Republican primary wraps up with Mitt Romney at 39%, Newt Gingrich at 31%, Rick Santorum at 15%, and Ron Paul at 11%. Our three days of tracking found very little movement in the race: Romney was at 39-40% every day, Gingrich was at 31-32% every day, Santorum was at 14-15% every day, and Paul was at 9-11% every day.

    • Ender

      and Romney has been above 40% in most other recent polls, and he is winning the early voters with something like 49% to 27%, I think Romney should be at 43-44% to Newt’s 27-28%.

  • runner12

    opinion, all of the remaining candidates have serious flaws and have held or do hold anti-Conservative positions. But all of them are light years better than Obama.

    My hope is for a brokered convention, even though it is a very remote possibility. If Newt can stay in long enough for us to have a brokered convention, he will have done this country a great service.

  • 1stRichard

    Establish Republicans come election time circle the wagons but forget which way to shoot and then conservatives must pick from the remaining carnage. Instead of learning from past mistakes, Establish Republicans simply bring more ammo to the circular firing squad and end up wondering why they lost.

  • Xasteius

    he has manipulated, schemed, and otherwise done everything to ensure he’s in the office. Soros is right: there is no difference between Romney and Obama, excepting the fact that Romney has some shred of intelligence. I would rather vote for Santorum (gag) than a power-hungry maniac (Newt is power-hungry, but unstable, and the establishment fears him)

    Question, Leon: what makes you think that Romney will be as ruthless on Obama as he was on Newt?

    • Remington_Steele

      Even Paul would gladly accept the power of the Presidency. Romney is going to go ballistic on Newt and then let up and play footsie with Obama? What are you smoking?

      • In The Hook

        And try to run the race as “Obama is in over his head, we need to replace him.” It’s not just because Obama’s personal favorables are net positive, I think it’s what Romney really feels. He has no personal animosity towards the president, he just thinks he would do a much better job and therefore should be slotted into the Oval Office.

        When Obama unleashes a tidal wave of negative ads, and he will, I guarantee you that Romney’s campaign is going to go crazy. They did on Gingrich and I think they won’t pull punches against Obama. His squad is far, far more obsessed with the presidency than McCain’s. They won’t be afraid to step up to the plate and go for the win. And that’s a good thing for us.

        This fall is going to be ugly, very… VERY ugly. On all sides.

      • Xasteius

        no text

  • traversecityconservative

    Romney has absolutely no redeeming qualities and goes on national TV not afraid to lie straight-out. Newt has baggage and isn’t much better – but he’s better than Romney. That said, they both suck. When the primaries come around to Michigan, I’ll be voting Santorum. Of course, the GOP will only give the anti-candidate only 1/2 the delegates. That was set up way early. The corrupt establishment folks play their game quite well.

  • giatny

    It’s quite unsettling to see Geo Soros’ remarks given credence by the right and to read comments by those willing to see Obama get reelected rather
    than vote for Romney. I don’t get it. Even if the
    worst were true about Romney (which I don’t buy
    into), he is the only barrier to the completion of
    Obama’s Putinesque dominion. Newt is just not
    liked by the general public and grows less appealing every time he opens his mouth. Nothing will be left of the Constitution or freedom unless Obama is dethroned now.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    “And if you?re seriously unable to see that, then I?m glad you?re one of the people whose life hasn?t gotten significantly worse over the last three years, but please leave the rest of us out of your pointless revenge fantasy.”

    It’s quite good, and quite true.

    • Remington_Steele

      Thanks Leon for the post.

  • jack0001

    because you dont like the conservative purity of Romney/Newt then you must be ok with the following because this is what will happen.
    -obama will continue to rule by executive orders
    -obama will continue to pay for abortions with federal $ in USA and Mexico
    -obama will continue to empower unions
    -obama will continue to pick liberal SCOTUS like kagan and sotomayor
    -obama will continue to kill offshore drilling and the keystone pipeline
    -obama will continue to spend trillions despite republican congress
    -obama will continue to fund so called green energy inititives that fail
    -obama will continue to grovel to the environmentials
    -obama will continue to play golf
    -obama will continue to fund public sector unions at taxpayers expense
    and dont give me this nonsense that Romney is as liberal as obama. it is not even close.

    • tnguy

      The only reason the Bolshevik ever got in office was because people like us have repeatedly compromised by voting for people like Romney. You can’t vote for him then look someone in the eyes 2 years from now and explain to them why you should vote for limited government conservatives. People will never know the difference if we repeatedly put people in office who blur the differences between us and the left.

      Yet that’s exactly what Romney will do. And exactly what conservatives who vote for him are doing. I’ve held my nose for the last time.

      Romney is left on a # of issues, like gov’t health care and global warming. Don’t act like conservatives are splitting hairs because he isn’t a pure conservative. He’s left, and that’ll hardly be reigned by conferencing with Boehner and McConnell…..it’ll only get worse.

    • oldphart

      Patrick Henry said “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience.”

      Look at Mitt’s record: He’s done everything Obama has except on a smaller scale – after all, he only had Massachusetts to work with instead of the whole country. Anyone who would honestly compare Mitt with Obama has to come to the same conclusion George Soros did. While I’m no great fan of Soros I realize that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

      No, the only difference a Romney presidency will bring is even more golf time for Obama!

  • Adjoran

    and not qualified either by experience or temperament for the office.

    Conservatives were trying to boot him from the Speaker’s chair after his very first two-year term, and succeeded after the second. It was for good reasons – he was more interested in seeing his name in the paper or on TV than in our agenda, and he continually embarrassed us with his antics, costing support and achievement.

    If he was so great as Speaker, why haven’t more of the over 300 Republicans who served with him come out to endorse him?

    It takes more suspension of disbelief than a sci-fi movie requires to overlook Newt’s abysmal record of self-promotion and arrogant betrayals and consider it “conservative” or “effective.”

    • bluerose75

      What conservatives support Romney…I mean those not part of the GOP Establishment? Where are they? Who are they? Where are the ones not afraid of the GOP Leadership of being cut off if they do not fall into line?

      It makes me laugh JC Watts supports Newt, Dan Burton, Bill McCollum all of which were with Newt in Congress. Who Adjoran supports Romney that is a free wheeling conservative? He is detested by more and more conservatives every day. His millions and millions of negative ads over 5 to 1 Newt and he can still not close the deal. Outside of Florida which is really not a good indicator because of the Demographics. Once in the more conservative states Mitt will have big problems!

      Dole, McCain and Ford long line of Romney like candidates that fail!

      Self promotion? My god all this tin suit has done over the last months is spend MILLIONS to tell how conservative he is when he is a total liberal with a total liberal record!! Talk about self-delusion and phony!! Look at your own candidate Adjoran!!

      • SteveM

        http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-01-25.html

  • annas

    I will enthusiastically support Romney. He was not my first choice, but he is my choice now. He is stable, organized, has a decent family, knows business, and the polls look good for him–not just with Republicans. Newt is already showing his angry streak–and before you say he was attacked–remember he did a lot of the attacking as well. If you can’t take the attack now how can you take it later when it really gets hot? I will support Romney.

  • katem

    The choices of Romney and Gingrich are bad and worse, respectively. In a year in which the incumbent president should be very vulnerable, the GOP is putting forward two weak frontrunners.

    If only there were a way to get Jon Huntsman back into this race. He is a far more reliable conservative than Romney and Gingrich. And he would be a far more daunting challenge for Obama than either of them will be. What a mistake it was for conservatives to write off so quickly the most electable conservative.

    • circlegranch

      too. It’s the media elite and then the lap dogs in Congress that cater to them to gain their favor.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        And we end up like a dog chasing it’s own tail.

        How about this, everyone who is conservative has their own views and their own level of conservatism. We have to stop wagging our finger at anyone who might be an ally.

        • In The Hook

          There’s no room for that kind of talk during silly season. I’m taking solace in the fact that we’ll all be lined up come late summer and early fall because we’re not the nutroots and we want Obama gone.

    • elayman

      Hutsman hasn’t actually burned any of the bridges he built with the Obama team, and his current attitude that So I’m thinking this: if indeed Hillary retires following this term, appoint Huntsman as Secretary of State for administra?tion #2. Certainly his entire current campaign has been focussed on his willingnes?s to work with others both nationally and internationally so it would be a perfect position from which to reintroduce himself to the country and hopefully beyond to 2016.

  • elayman

    As long as those conditions are met and the economy is improving, an inauthentic, aristocratic, out-of-touch millionaire who is more interested in turning profits for corporate America than creating jobs for everyday people with a health plan identical to the president is like Republicans attempting to tell a really bad joke and doing it badly.

  • formotioncreative

    it’s the giant elephant. Only the left will bring it up and THEY WILL. From mocking via comedians who can get away with it, which will make Palin’s treatment look mild, to digging up the roots of the elephant and its freaky beginning. This primary process is supposed to put the candidates through every test to prepare them for the general, but certain subjects aren’t tolerated in the primary so you bet we will have an October surprise if it’s Romney, but it will be the thing that everyone knew about but wouldn’t talk about. Just saying you all better think this through really well. And if you think it’s no big deal, then you need to do some research on your own. I had to figure out what the heck Liberation Theology was, but there are few who actually do their homework.
    You think they’re having a lot of fun now with Gingrich talking about a space colony on the moon, and that’s Republicans doing it, but this elephant of Romney’s is out of bounds. I believe if you could be a fly on the wall of the Obama campaign, they’re having a party with this one. What will Romney’s people say then? That’s not fair? You’re breaking the rules?

    • driveinkid

      I hope religion does come up. Obama’s people can talk about Mormonism (Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is one) and we can talk about Rev. Wright and Black Liberation Theology. Bring, It. On.

      • formotioncreative

        It was just posted after I wrote this. My daughter and I talked about it today and we’ll go for Ron Paul before Romney. My educated guess is that a lot of evangelicals will do the same if it comes to that.

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

      What do you think it would be?
      Attacking Iran?

      • formotioncreative

        sorry if that’s what you thought. I was Perry then Gingrich. But that’s not the main point. It’s what the unintended consequences are with a Romney nomination. We’ll get Obama. That’s the bottom line.

      • formotioncreative

        maybe you’re talking about what current administration will do.

  • lizzie

    I shall vote down ticket only.

    I am not looking for purity, but leadership. Obama failed every measure, so I voted for McCain in 2008, because I knew he would die for America.

    I wanted to vote FOR Perry, but will vote for Gingrich, and would have voted for Bachmann, and still considering protest voting Santorum, not that he is likely.

    Divided government often works better – and Obama can not get ANYONE confirmed whose last name is not Petraeus, so I will vote my conscience.

    No leadership? No vote.

    I know how the parties analyze these kind of votes, especially if down-ticket is split.

    I was taught it is a privilege to vote, so this is my solution to the complete absurdity that Romney can buy the GOP nomination.

    Besides, I have been ignoring Obama for three+ years. But, Romney is so tense, and the attack-Mitt is scary.

    RedStaters should realize that half the nominal democrats no longer have a party – the liberals are less than 20%. and they destroyed themselves.

  • driveinkid

    The party has moved to the right. I think that is a great thing. The candidates have moved with us, that is also a good thing. When Mitt enacted RomneyCare it was considered a fairly conservative solution. As others have mentioned there were plenty of Conservatives who supported it along with the Heritage Foundation which is pretty much the leading Conservative think tank. Newt would be in that bunch too.

    Most of the people that are claiming Romney is just like Obama have lost their equilibrium. Mitt on his worst day is NOTHING like Obama. Mitt does not believe in the government declaring war on the private sector and running every aspect of our lives. That difference alone will make him a far better president. Mitt would have never enacted a trillion dollar stimulus plan or nominated Kagan and Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Hell, McCain wouldn’t have done any of that either.

    If we can forgive each other for supporting people Like Bush 41, Bush 43, Nixon, Ford, and yes even Reagan who raised taxes, gave amnesty to illegals and signed several budgets with big spending increases in them, we should be able to put the nonsense aside and support whoever wins the primary. ANY of our candidates are going to be better than Obama, and in calmer moments we all know that. Whatever Republican makes it to the oval is going to be getting constant goading from the base to govern as a Conservative. All of these guys know what time it is. In that regard, I think Mitt is a better panderer than Newt so I will go with him. I don’t care if HE believes in what he is doing, as long as he does what WE WANT.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Very well said.

    A good number of thinking people are coming to the same conclusion based on similar reasoning.

    The entire fallacious notion that conservatives won’t vote for Romney or are en masse desperately seeking some alternative is defied by facts on the ground. I have family members and friends in Florida who could be categorized as “Bible thumping”, gun-toting, well educated, politically active conservatives. They will be pulling the lever for Mitt based on many of the same reasons.

    Frankly, I am ready for the fight which pits Mr. Obama’s amateurish, dismal, economy wrecking, culture destroying, America hating agenda against the success story, business acumen and state governor experience of Mr. Romney. No matter what his flaws may be, they pale in comparison to the actual record of Mr. Obama.

  • Juggernaut

    because the base will not turn out for a milque toast moderate, most of the other issues about Newt are the same old tired lines which don’t address his strengths and record of success in office.

    Remember the near 4 months of silence after McCain saw his challenger drop out? It was McCain vs Ron Paul and the conservative media spent more time discussing Obama than McCain because people were upset with his win. Lost enthusiasm!!! And it will happen again, look at all the people already saying they will not vote for Romney. Not a wise idea but the idea of caving in for a fake republican who has many things in common with dems isn’t inspiring. He’s left of McCain and lacking in what is needed to beat Obama. Even if Romney had come from a middle class family he still would lack conservative credentials needed to inspire the base.

    People aren’t vetting Romney let alone are they reviewing his failures as sound reason to be respected as a winner.

  • TexasTami

    …if Romney is the nominee, are just plain stupid. What do your “principles” say about Obama staying our president? You’re voting FOR OBAMA if you stay home. If you stay home, then ObamaCare has NO CHANCE of ever disappearing from our lives. If you stay home, then Obama will weaken us more as a nation on every front. Don’t you understand that? We HAVE TO STOP Obama, and if Romney can do that, then vote for him! We’ve had lousy candidates before, but I’ll pull the lever for Romney because ANY CANDIDATE IS BETTER THAN OBAMA. Principles and sticking to them play a part in choosing a nominee, but once we have that person in place, then vote for anyone other than Obama. And if you don’t vote? Then you’re voting for Obama. Don’t you get that?

    Newt should get out of the race and give Santorum a nod. Gov. Perry made the right move, to stop splitting the conservative vote. Since Newt is clearly not electable with his unfavorable rating, then he should get out and give Santorum a chance to defeat Romney.

    Oh, Gov. Perry, where are you when we need you?

  • Juggernaut

    as for those who stay home, nothing anyone can do about them since they left the site.

    This article defines why Romney shall lose

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/30/romney-explains-why-he-cant-be/print

  • jaykali

    I dont think I’ve articulated it very well but I have basically come to the exact same conclusion. I feel like in this zero sum world we live in where 1 candidate has to be the establishment RINO and the other has to be the Tea Party anti-establishment and there are NO shades of gray that Newt kinda sorta fits the anti-establishment conservative if you squint real hard and just kinda jam that square peg into a round hole.

    Personally I think the pro-Newts are there more bc they are anti-Romneys than bc of Newt’s strengths. His strength has been in the debates but he hasnt ben believed this whole time but he has been having good debates for months. The truth is he was the last man standing on the so-called ‘conservative’ wing. If he was so great why was he 3rd or so behind Cain and Perry until they dropped out/imploded? If he was our 3rd choice for the ‘conservative’ vote doesn’t that tell you something?

    I think the Romney hate has gone too far bc conservatives are still made about McCain and 2008. Conservatives are also mad about a decade or longer of big spending ways and aren’t convinced even a republican president alone can turn the tide.

    I am slightly more optimistic bc in 2006/08 Republicans were killed and in 10 a combination of new blood + R’s mending their ways I think has led us to a better caucus. I think the house will continue to be a strong voice when it comes to policy. Since ’10 they have had to deal with a democratic senate and president that you have to drag kicking and screaming to come to the table on things like spending cuts. It has not surprised me ONE BIT that they have not had much in the way of gains. It’s been all talk and conservatives have said its bc Republicans wouldnt shut down the govt or wouldnt stop the debt from increasing. I think those steps would have caused more harm than good. I think with a republican president you could actually have cooperation to get real things done. I am willing to give even a moderate-type a chance if I think they can win bc I think even the most LIBERAL RINO type republican on his worst day is better than a so-called BLUE DOG conservative democrat on his best days. That is bc at the end of the day for better or worse, politicians will fall in line on big issues when their vote is needed. One need look no further than Obamacare to see this in action. Every Republican voted against it, every democrat that HAD to vote for it for it to pas did.

    And so as cynical as I am in general I am relatively certain that a republican president + house and maybe even senate is much better than the status quo even if you think that republican is so-called ‘obama lite’ which I think is a completely stupid label bc no republican would have the agenda this president has. None.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    From the About page:

    At RedState, we are conservatives in primaries and Republican in general elections and we aim to win.

    From the Posting Rules at the Help page:

    The purpose of RedState.com is:

    to promote conservative ideals within the vehicle of the Republican Party,
    to clean house in the Republican party,
    to help elect conservative Republicans,
    and to encourage and educate conservative Republican activists committed to the above.

    Some, like Fred Thompson and Rick Perry, apparently have come to a conclusion different than yours: “Finally, on the merits, I have a hard time believing that Newt is substantially better than Romney from an ideological perspective.” I believe Newt is the most conservative candidate remaining in the field and, despite the negatives you pointed out, has the best chance of defeating Obama in the general.

    Let us hope enough conservatives pitch in and help get out the vote for Newt in Florida and the other contests leading up to Super Tuesday so that Newt will be the clear front-runner by that time. Anyone interested in helping, even if it involves just a few GOTV phone calls or small monetary donations, can go here to sign up to get involved:

    www.newtsnetwork.com

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

    • Common_Cents

      Erick/RS endorsed new conservatives early in Rubio’s and Haley’s etc….

      Now its about commenting on the “horserace” as more of an impartial observer. Now, Erick is more of a media figure/political commentator. Wonderful for the great success! However, now becoming more at odds with the RS grass roots conservative mission.

      • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

        Well worth a read.

        Is Mitt Romney Actually Electable?

        Thank you.

        ColdWarrior

        • Common_Cents

          there would have been plenty of october bombshells against Romney had he not been challenged in the primary. He is a tougher candidate now but he is not going to do well. I’ll pull the lever for him but he isn’t inspiring to anyone.

          Romney’s best chance was last time during the financial crisis. But it wasn’t his time.

          ColdWarrior, have you contacted the Gingrich campaign about the Precinct Project? I think it’d be a perfect strategy for him to promote this and give it public awareness. People want to do something and make a difference but the DC establishment doesn’t want them involved.

          • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

            coldwarrior1978 at gmail dot com and I can fill you in a bit on your question re the Gingrich campaign and the Precinct Project.

            Thank you.

            ColdWarrior

  • oldphart

    My first presidential election was in 1952. I honestly do not remember my reasons for voting for Ike, only that I did. Since then though, I have had to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the two evils presented in every election (even Reagan had some nasty baggage.) This may be my last election and I will not – I WILL NOT do it again! This time I will vote for the person I feel is best qualified to lead this country.

    Notice I didn’t say the best CANDIDATE. The person I feel is best probably will not be on the ballot so I will have to write in the name. I may be naive but I have been given to understand that elections are supposed to run that way rather than the “horseraces” we presently engage in. The rest of you can concern yourselves with which candidate will or won’t do this or that. I will vote my conscience.

    There’s a cartoon making the rounds. It shows a giant hawk swooping down on a tiny mouse. In one last act of defiance, the mouse turns and flips the hawk off. I may be a mouse and I may be doomed but I’ll be damned if I go quietly.

  • jakeofalltrades

    And I think the country will too.

  • RichmondG30

    I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    As much as I would like to vote for Newt as a finger-in-the-eye to all the talking heads on Fox News, he’s a loose cannon and if nominated, would almost certainly find a way to implode at the most inopportune time during the general campaign.

    I am going to spend the next few months trying to get myself fired up to go out and work for Mitt. (It won’t be easy.)

  • The Pennsylvania Republican

    I will continue to hide in the weeds and watch developments.

    I want to like Newt – I really do. If only he had stuck to the conservative playbook months ago. I know in my heart that the establishment is manipulating me into a Romney candidacy. Yet, I fear that it will have to be him by default.

    I think we can blame Boehner and Mcconnell and their puppeteers for this – all the deals cut and rollover in the face of the left last year scared off true conservative s from throwing their fates on the good graces of the dealmaker establishment.

  • lalupa

    as Bloomberg was.

    I do agree that governors make better presidents. Still I would not have voted for Dukasis. I look at Romney’s record in MA and that is not something I would wish on my country as a patriot. As a Republican, our party cannot afford another failed turn at the wheel.

  • Blue_State_Refugee

    …For Virginia conservatives, a vote for the only other candidate, Ron Paul, would send a huge message to the establishment.

  • http://www.baseballcrank.com Dan McLaughlin

    That said, if Romney is able to win a general election, it would certainly suggest that being a Senator was a bigger problem for McCain and Dole (Kerry too) than being a moderate.

  • lawson

    Its your vote, you can do what you want.
    But it is the wrong choice.
    Any one issue aside, Newt had been a fighter and contributor to conservatism for decades, Romney hasnt risked anything for conservatism in his entire life.

  • aj_0000

    He instituted every left wing policy he could think of, and still got thrown out because nobody can stand the guy. Newt Gingrich just engineered the first nationwide Republican majority in the House in 40 years. I know, an insignificant feat compared to the massive achievements of one-term Mitt. Like Romneycare.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    It’s obvious that Newt’s fallen for the core reason of the electability issue, which transcends the fact that Newt would have a more energetically conservative approach to governing than Romney.

    Since ‘viable alternative’ view wrt Newt is questionable, only Santorum is left standing as a ‘not-Romney’ who makes a plausible candidate.

    Is being a Senator good enough? Ask JFK, Obama, heck Truman, Dan Quayle, Bush, Biden and LBJ made it to VP on just that credential. And Hillary, Biden, Baker, Kerry, Dole, McCain, thought it was enough.

    I do NOT agree that being a senator is a weakness as a President – it’s a weakness, potentially, as a CANDIDATE because such candidates often never had tough elections. Neither Dole, Kerry nor McCain ever had a tough race for decades prior to running for President.

    Santorum OTOH clearly has had tough races. JHe’s won multiple races in Democrat districts. Obama had amazing luck.

    Why is Santorum the strategic vote for conservatives at this point? The message is we want a more conservative candidate than Romney. Either Santorum or brokered convention or extended campaign works.

    Of course if you prefer Newt and are comfortable with him as nominee, vote Newt. But electability (and some other flaws) is an issue for me and others.

  • aj_0000

    Since there is apparently no way to write in Newt, I will also be voting for Paul and encouraging everyone I know to do the same. If we make it to the convention, I have no doubt that Paul’s delegates will eventually go to Newt,

  • snowshooze

    We know Johnson is running Libertarian, someone will pick up Independent, and then the completely nutso tickets…
    Plus, those reports WANT you to support Romney, the preferred competition and easiest to whip.
    When Romney is forced off script he goes into complete meltdown… I think if it happens, it will be embarrasing.
    My Liberal friends are already laughing their guts out.

  • Ender

    that I am not sure there are many Romney supporters out there who do not admit to his ridiculous amount of flip flopping :) You gotta be blind not to see it. I agree with many of your points, especially on judges. It makes no sense for Romney, if he wants to survive and be reelected to go left on judges.

    On the one side I like technocrats and pragmatists, while on the other I do like futurists and idealists. I think it depends on which side I woke up on. Nevertheless I am going with a reasonable and rational man who can fix things.

    I will enthusiastically support him as an incredible improvement over the incompetent leftist we currently have.

  • languedoctor

    When it looked like that was Newt, they did a 180 in record time and turned their sights on him.. Don’t read too much into it.

    Leon’s numbers don’t lie. Newt is the best get-out-the-vote strategy that democrats and left-leaning independents have. Not only does Newt have a problem building a winning coalition, he also has the problem of motivating his opposing coalition.

    I like Newt. He’s fun to have around. He was one of the more important legislators of the past 20 years. But he’s not going to be president.

  • tyman

    That line just makes me worse than sick.

    When did Willard wake up and decide to be a Republican? Well, if George HW Bush’s term ended in ’92 and Willard ran for Senate in ’94, I guess that’s the window. How old would that have made him?

    It cannot be said often enough that Willard would not be an outsider if he had been able to get elected.

    Until he wins an election, he can still make that claim.

    With Romney’s positions, record, etc., Obama is going to cut him up like a Ginsu commercial.

    If Romney is the nominee, our work will really be cut out for us.

  • hobiecat

    But will it work?

  • tyman

    I can’t remember who said this, but I think a candidate’s delegates are only bound to the first vote. After that, they can vote for whomever.

    Am I remembering that right?

    I know it’s not an ideal situation, but I’m past ideal situations.

    I guess we’ll never know about Romney or Paul’s signatures having any irregularities.

  • stumpy

    Everyone not backing Romney needs to vote Paul in VA. I would if I lives there. At least Mitt won’t get the delegates.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    It’s beyond wishful thinking that Paul’s votes will go to the conservatives that he has attacked.

    Paul’s vote will go to Paul/Nutburger before they go to Newt.

  • Kyle-MI

    Bloomberg has never promised what Romney has. Sure, that is very thin gruel, but it is better than nothing. And we will have one of the most conservative congresses with GOP majorities to help keep him in line. The GOP can afford another failed turn at the wheel. Our country cannot afford an abysmally certain failure in Obama. For me, country trumps party.

  • SteveM

    I get the “flip flopping” thing. But we should be careful to not lump in Mitt with that idiot John “I actually voted FOR the $87 billion before I voted against it” Kerry. People can change and morph their beliefs over time.

    But with respect to Romney, ask yourself this:

    1. Is he going to appoint insanely underqualified people like Elena Kagan, or partisan hacks who are the most overturned judges on the bench (like Sotomayor) to the USSC?

    2. Is he going to drop his promise to kill Obamacare? (Bear in mind that due to the practicalities of it all, we’re not going to get a clean repeal. Reid’s fillibuster will see to that).

    3. Is he going to suddenly embrace unions and issue a series of union-friendly items, like Card-check and the other back door crap Obama’s put out there?

    4. Is he going to sic the EPA on the energy industry, asking them to go above and beyond reasonable levels of protection, so as to stack the deck in favor of his buddies?

    You get the idea.

  • Ender

    It makes no sense for him to go that route. People who say that Romney will be no different from Obama cannot be taken seriously. They are just parroting nonsense.

  • stumpy

    the nominee, but I will vote against Obama. I won’t be happy, but I’ll do it just like I did for McCain.

    The Republicans shouldn’t allow Reid to filibuster. They rammed it through under cloture(?), so it should be able to be repealed in the same manner.

    I am confident that Mitt will not do anything more than a token gesture to try and get a full repeal.

  • deVere

    nt

  • lalupa

    I do not. Romney=Obama in my book. I look at the record. And Romney’s record is about as abysmal as Obama’s.

  • Kyle-MI

    Romney is not Obama. Stop drinking the kool-aide. Stop reading the anti-Romneybot garbage on this site. And stop spreading the garbage.

    It is simple logic. We absolutely know what Obama stands for and what he will do. We have a change with Romney no matter what the anti-Romney crazies tell you. (And they are only telling you it because it is the only way Gingrich can win, only by completely destroying the party.) We have no chance with Obama.

    Even if you believe it is only a sliver of hope, you take the hope.

    Go ahead and vote your conscience in the primary, but be prepared to vote for the GOP candidate in the general even if it is Romney. Or just be honest about it and campaign openly for Obama because that is what you will get if you go down this road.

  • Ender

    instead of being brainless parrots of the Left.

  • lalupa

    Let’s not forget who started the negative attacks. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney in Iowa. Both are not Republicans. Do not give a rip what they pretend to be or if I get kicked out of this site.

    How many more years are we going to support candidates like Romney and then complain that government got bigger? That we are further in debt? At some point the line needs to be drawn.

  • maybenexttime

    His decision not to run for re-election as Mass governor is a bad sign. I think Romney failed in politics because he is not likeable on a personal level. He tries to be too many things to so many people. Most voters (be they Dems or Republicans) don’t view such panderers in a favorable light. I’m sure Obama will not hesitate to point out the flip-flops as an indication Romney has no core values.

    If Romney wins, I predict he’ll have an incredibly difficult time getting support from Tea Party Republicans. Of course, the Dems won’t help him out either, so Romney will spend much of his time battling a Congress that doesn’t respect him for one reason or another. That could have devastating consequences on Romney’s ability to implement his agenda…whatever that may be.

  • krish

    All those in favor of Romney should check what happened to MA healthcare costs (forget all the other things he did to destroy Republicans in the state). I wish more people from MA could give their comments on this forum on how the costs went up for ordinary people – here we are trying to kill Obamacare but electing a guy who inspired the whole thing!

    The people who support Romney do not have to face what people in MA are going through (lived there & still have conservative/republican friends) —Romenycare – worst public policy in the recent times – enacted by a Republican (can you believe that!) & now the same guy wants to be the President!

  • Kyle-MI

    Forgive me if I don’t follow your crazy.

  • RichmondG30

    Say it ain’t so!

    While you are at it, can you please name one (just one) presidential election since the 1796 contest between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that did not prominently feature negative attacks?

    Hang on while I cue the Jeopardy music…

  • lalupa

    … believing that Romney in the White House will reduce the size and scope of governmnet. Look at his record in MA… that is all you need to know.

    Crazy is looking at polls 9 months out before Axelrod kicks his campaing in full gear and thinking that they show who will be the best candidate against Obama.

    Romney will lose in the general.. Not only that. But he has the potential of destroying the party down ballot. Once Romney gets behind in the polls, lots of people will stay home. Newt might not be able to win. But he energizes the base and that will help the GOP do well in Congress.

  • acat

    ‘s an actual question, I know Romney’s lost far more than he’s won, and I believe the same is true of Lincoln*, but I don’t know who has the worse record at this point.

    Mew

    * despite living in the “Land of Lincoln”, I’m not terribly impressed with the guy.

  • gracie

    After the first ballot if there is no majority they can vote for whomever, including people who have not been in the race!

    And yes again, we will never know if Mickey Mouse is on thousands of their ballots. I doubt it re Paul but Romney will lie about anything.

    WHY do this now Leon? Even if you don’t think Newt has some conservatism in his little finger he does stir up folks and the base will come out to vote down ballot. Romney makes me want to shot myself before voting the thought of him is so depressing. Seriously the Tea Partiers I know plus frundamenalist relatives in several states in the South are NOT voting for Romney!! The later WILL stay home! There goes your down ballot!

    Again a vote for Romney gives up on this whole process; a vote for Newt could extend it. A brokered convention is better than giving up and accepting a two-faced egotistical priviledged liar who will even stoop to using his wife’s illnesses to win sympathy votes. If he cared about her he would not drag her around like this!

  • aesthete

    Harding ran on a post-WWI “peace dividend” platform, attacked Wilson on civil liberties and implicitly attacked him with his “Return to Normalcy” campaign, but on the whole it was a clean campaign — even more so in Coolidge’s re-election campaign. The “Era of Good Sentiments” was another time that comes to mind where sentiment during the Presidential elections was less crazy. FDR’s re-election campaigns were relatively muted, though certainly not positive. I’m sure I’m missing some others, but yes, on the whole, you’re correct.

  • stumpy

    Newt won one of the largest Republican victories in ’94, then implemented conservative ideas like balanced budgets, welfare reform, etc.

    What has Mitt won? One election as governor of a liberal state. He didn’t run for reelection because he would get beat. And that is after governing as a quasi-liberal.

    There is no evidence that Romney can build a winning colalition. Newt has done it.

  • Kyle-MI

    Whether you like it or not and whether I like it or not, Romney could very well be the nominee. It is your choice who to vote for and advocate for in the primary.

    I am saying it is completely and utterly insane to say that you would vote for Obama over Romney. It is utterly disingenuous to say that Romney is exactly the same as Obama.

    What you advocate makes me think you are either a Moby or just plain nuts.

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

    …which is compounded by Romney’s having eschewed the TEA Party Movement…to date!

  • mbrat42

    I cannot vote for Romney in the primaries. I haven’t felt right about him since the beginning. He’s just seemed sleezy and like a guy that will tell you whatever you want to hear. It really annoyed me when Newt was trying to run a positive campaign in Iowa, only to have Romney go so negative. But, since Florida, I can’t stand Romney. I have trouble even listening to him, I want to turn him off the same way I want to turn off Obama. Both he and Obama are condescending butts. His deal of trying to make Newt out to be some sort of senile person is infuriating. There is absolutely no reason to personally destroy another human being. He is doing the same thing to Newt as was done to Sarah Palin and Rick Perry. If he were telling the truth about Newt I might not be so repulsed, but when Kirsten Powers even defends Newt against Romney, something really stinks. His referring to Newt as “sad” makes me what to slap his face. He’s acting like a bully. Obama lost all my respect the day of the first big Tea Party protest when he mocked them, (“they’re out there waving their little tea bags around”). Romney is doing the same thing to Newt and his supporters with his actions. IF I vote for him in the general, it won’t be with my nose plugged, it will be with a barf bag in my hand.

    In addition, I believe Romney is just as “unelectable” as Newt if not more so. His accounts in Cayman Islands etc.,his leveraged buy-outs, and his Damon Clinical Labs issue, all play right into the hands of Obama who will do to him exactly what he is doing to Newt in Florida. I could be wrong, but if I were to call it right now, I’d say in an Obama vs Romney race, Obama wins.

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

    …it is mandatory that thinking-people NOT “hide in the weeds.”

    The Newt has, if anything, espoused views that are increasingly conservative, each day the campaign evolves.

    He merits support, particularly from those who like Perry [note the use of the present-tense rather than the past-tense].

    Reading the scattered comments thus far, it doesn’t appear that anyone has countered my refutation [supra] of the theme of this posting.

  • lizzie

    two natives say 1) never noticed Romney was governor, and 2) Romney (hissing) did nothing.

    had a contractor who gets health insurance from his employer complaining about how his share of premiums goes up every year and his deductible is now $1,000, so he was NOT getting an MRI for a damaged knee.

    I am still recovering from the extreme trauma of waiting three months to see an adrenal specialist who used the cowardly bully trick – telling me every previous test was falsified and, refusing to do even one blood test (my symptoms are deteriorating since April, 2011 and the previous tests are from 2009-2010, from New York!) to make it clear he did not want me as a patient.

    I consider Massachusetts a death sentence.
    and will sell this escape cottage at any price once winter is over.

    I do like the electronic records here, but no more new doctors – bad enough to have to wait so long for specialists, and then be treated like a leper. I think I would be treated much better if I were a leper – easier to treat :)