« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

GOP Should Rally Around One Candidate Now

By: Nikitas3 (Diary)  |  May 18th, 2011 at 06:16 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Republican party needs to take back the White House in 2012. The situation is dire. The nation cannot take another four years of Obama. The GOP should proceed like this:

 

The major presidential contenders and other party leaders should get together to decide on a candidate this coming August. Yes, August 2011. And allow all state party figures to get involved as well and vote in a special internet election.

 

Let’s say that the choice is Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is the leading contender now. He looks like he will be the nominee anyway.

 

So these people all agree to support Romney in a show of unity and, in exchange, Romney promises to get tough on all the big issues – repealing ObamaCare, the debt, illegal immigration, energy etc.  Romney has written a very Reagan-sounding book, and so that is a good start.

 

Romney picks a vice-presidential candidate, a defense secretary candidate, a CIA candidate and a treasury secretary candidate. Remember, this is all done in August 2011, just a few months away. Then GOP primaries or caucuses in 2011 or 2012 are canceled or, if they are required by law, everyone else essentially drops out and Republicans across the nation are urged to put their differences aside and support Romney for the sake of unity. And if some Republicans are disgruntled, so be it. Some people are going to be upset no matter who the candidate is.

 

Romney and his team then start campaigning against Obama starting in September 2011, a full 14 months before the 2012 election. They start giving speeches across the country outlining the reforms that they will make because major changes are needed. Romney makes the big conceptual speeches and also includes specific details about reviving the economy, restoring order on the border etc. Treasury secretary candidate Fred Smith, the founder of FedEx, explains how we should cut the budget and suggests tax rates for optimum growth. CIA candidate Giuliani says he will crack down on radical Islam and demands that the Justice Department call off the Obama dogs on our intel agents who used waterboarding.

 

This will start to energize opposition to Obama because people will see a clear alternative and specific people attached to it. Right now all they see is a bunch of Republicans hesitating about whether they even are going to run, or dropping out. This is very damaging and makes Obama seem stronger than he is. There is no cohesive image of the Republican party even though conservatism has all the answers.

 

And since Americans are very upset about the direction of the nation, they will listen attentively and the Republicans will get a good hearing for their rational ideas.

 

Romney & Co. could respond to every news story and economic statistic. They could appear on cable programs and give interviews in every venue possible on the internet, radio, newspapers, blogs etc. And crucially, they would not need to waste endless days and weeks campaigning in small primary states like New Hampshire but can instead focus on visiting important electoral swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado and others.

 

We cannot afford to sit through these deadening debates including people like Ron Paul who is far too old to even be running and is an embarrassment as a candidate. Or a New Mexico governor whom nobody has heard of. Gingrich is toast after his comments about Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform. We need to get a viable candidate out there ASAP.

 

Romney then needs to be instructed on how to get tough and drop the politically-correct, Mr. Nice Guy Republican persona that is afraid of Obama because he is (half) black. Romney needs to fearlessly punch Obama between the eyes in every single speech. His vice presidential choice – say, Rick Santorum – then could do the same. Ditto all the other Republicans, in a show of unity.

 

All Romney team members would be given strict orders that they never, ever are allowed to utter words like “the economy seems to be improving” or that “Obama did a good job killing bin Laden”. They would be instructed to speak very clearly by saying that “the economic recovery is coming because of confidence at the election of almost 700 Republicans across the nation in the 2010 election” or that “killing bin Laden was the final outcome of the tough Bush policy”. Every single word must be hardball opposition to Obama to counter Obama’s relentlessly negative attacks on Republicans and conservatives, backed up by his media friends.

 

This approach would eliminate all these boring primaries and debates. We would not have to listen to endless speculation about “will he or won’t he run”. No candidate has to organize an exploratory committee or waste vast amounts of time and money running around to rubber-chicken dinners in Iowa and New Hampshire.

 

In fact, this approach may be evolving naturally. Romney seems increasingly to be “the guy” and the party may naturally be coalescing around him. The sooner the better. And note to Romney: Put your tie back on. Your canned tie-less look is worse than the tie.

 

This is the best way to unseat Obama. This allows the Republicans to get into election season a year early. Because Obama is campaigning every day, and the GOP needs to do so too. It needs to have a clear, consistent message in opposition to Obama that is repeated over and over.

 

Because Obama can be easily beaten by a well-organized campaign. Obama is all smoke and mirrors and Democrats know he is weak. And since Obama is raising a lot of cash for 2012, the GOP needs to counter with a long-term strategy to beat him using all forms of free media and public appearances over an extended period.

 

America cannot afford to wait for the Republican convention in August 2012 to finish and then for the nominee to campaign for just two months between Labor Day and election day 2012. That is not enough to guarantee a victory. We need a concerted, focused strategy starting now, that builds and builds, slowly but surely.

 

This is no time to be thinking the old-fashioned way. This is a critical time in our nation’s history and the Republicans have exhibited amazing abilities to throw elections away with pure stupidity. Just say “John McCain” or “Bob Dole” and you understand it all.

 

It is time to try a different strategy this time out. The nation cannot afford otherwise.

 

Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can read excerpts from my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • jlsankot

    like a good strategy to me. You’re right in that 2 months isn’t long enough to get out the Conservative word.

    But why stick to the Old-Fashioned Romney? Anyone who has been politically correct for as long as he has isn’t going to change rapidly and will easily fall back when confronted. And is he really a Conservative?

    If we’re going to try for something new, let’s get a new guy like Allen West. He would shoot straight from the hip and select a strong cabinet. (Excuse the violent rhetoric)

    • djvu

      If Romney is the ‘establishment’s’ choice – aka RomneyCare – the undersigned who is a life long Republican (90 years this October) I will vote for Obama. At the least I know where that communist is leading us.
      Robert Palmer Smith

      • jlsankot

        vote for Obama. Knowing where he is taking us doesn’t make me support him at all.

        I hear people say, “Anybody would be better than Obama”. I don’t agree—we need to find the right Conservative and get behind them 100% after letting them know what we expect from them during the campaign.

  • nickel

    I live in a democratic Republic and I don’t really think the people need to be more disenfranchised. Rubbish.

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

    I have argued that the crop of GOP-POTUS candidates is [mostly] superb; I have also asserted that it would be “fun” for a model-cabinet to be assembled therefrom, with Toomey [not Santorum, the wrong PA-Senator] anointed as potential-Veep and others dubbed for positions that would best illustrate what the Republican Team would offer as an alternative to all-things-Obama [both domestically and within the context of foreign policy]. Can you imagine the effect on the D’s, imaging how to get to 273 without PA? [John Bolton would be Secretary of State, Sarah Palin would be Secretary of Energy, Rudolph Giuliani would be AG, and other fantasy-positions would be rather easily conjured.]

    But the people must be encouraged to provide their input. For example, as much as I like Mitt [for reasons aforementioned, please read from the hyperlink that starts @ 4;01 p.m., yesterday], a free-for-all is healthy. http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/05/16/natural-constituiences/#comment-110129. This is both philosophically desirable [representative democracy, etc.] but operationally healthy [for, this time, "Rush/Hannity/Beck/et. al will ensure that our nominee isn't chosen by the MSM].

    I will draw upon recent evidence of quality-conduct from 2010 to illustrate why. In Bucks County [NE of Philly] Mike Fitzpatrick faced four primary opponents for PA-8; he won handily [defeating, in particular, a lady named Gloria Carlineo who had been particularly vicious and had been supported by some elements of the loco-regional Tea Party Movement]. But Mike ensured there would not be a Party-Endorsement, assiduously seeking an open primary, and this enabled him to unite all but the most egocentric intransigents for the real anti-Murphy fall-campaign.

    Mike would painstakingly explain to his admitted-acolytes [such as yours-truly] that this was the wisest course for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which was to disabuse some long-term critics that he was merely a party-animal. And, wouldn’t you know it, he reveled in the educational process [both in the primary and in the general]. Similarly, Mitt is a quality campaigner; I listened to his 12:20 p.m. opener on Monday [from Vegas], and he appeared gleeful when whipping-up the troops.

    So, it is wise to draw a key-message from this essay, and that is the reminder of Reagan’s 11th Commandment. It is why the Newt [predictably] self-destructed only a few days following ego-launch. One can anticipate a quality discussion of issues/alternatives among astute leaders, often agreeing to disagree with implementation-ideas while regularly concurring with how fundamental GOP principles may be invoked. There will be ample time for some to be nudged to follow the Newt to the sidelines [as they are left in the dust due to gaffs and/or failure to deliver a forceful message], leaving others for the electorate to grow to understand…and to seek as a reliable leader.

  • obxster

    It seems we are letting the media pick our candidate for us again by them proclaiming Romney is the front runner and is raising tons of cash and he is the only one who can beat Obama. I’ve bought that line before but no more. We need someone who is strong minded, who can think inside and outside the box. Who is definitely a constitutionalists and a hard core conservative. Someone who is articulate and not afraid to attack Obama and there are only 3 candidates who I see meeting my requirements. Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, or Sarah Palin. Of the three I prefer Herman Cain. Do we really want another politician in the white house?

    • caliray

      Why in the world would the Republicans want to ensure losing the presidential election by nominating Romney.

      Must conservatives always be the ones to compromise and go with Romney the RINO when there are candidates available who can take on Obama in any debate and clean his clock?

      The President is supposed to be the man with vision and ability to choose top advisors. Who fits this description with a proven record more than Herman Cain?

  • gpclaw

    I don’t need the party insiders telling me which candidate they have decided to bless me with. Remember, these are career politicians we’re talking about. Regardless of whether they have a D or an R by their name, once you hand them that type of power, your never going to get it back.

    Their is no hurry to get a nominee. In fact, determining the nominee later, rather than sooner could be an advantage. Obama has nothing to run on, which means his only option will be to try to tear down his opponent. The more time Obama, and the MSM, have to focus on the GOP nominee, the better their chances of success.

  • sandbun

    then being told “Shut up! Your opinion isn’t needed and doesn’t matter! Vote for who we tell you to vote for!”

    What exactly prevents a candidate from doing exactly what you suggest while also running in a primary? Maybe there are a few fewer choices for some of the posts since maybe you wanted someone who is running for VP or something, but that’s about it.

  • izoneguy

    Wanting money.

    I will give money to the candidate that shares my viewpoints.

    So far the GOP field is lacking in that regard.

    Giving money to the GOP at this point is like sending in more
    tax dollars for the politicians to spend it on what THEY want to
    spend it on.

    I am all for a “push out Obama” fund. But we need the right person to back.

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

    @ obster: Cain won’t explain [even when reading an elaboration from his website from a supporter] why he opposes a Fed-audit; this is a disqualifier.

    @ caliray: Mitt isn’t a RINO and could easily/adroitly dismember BHO in a debate forum;; he’s been prepping for this opportunity for [at least] a half-decade.

    @gpclaw: I believe I captured your sentiments; the campaign process is itself healthy and has the capacity to build consensus.

    @ sandbun: I concur that, as illustrated by the ongoing vitality of the TPM, the GOP’s focus must constantly be trained on grass-roots.

    @ izoneguy: If you await the arrival of “Godot,” you will remain in the sand forever [ref: Samuel Beckett].

    • gpclaw

      I make no distinction between the candidates who represent the Republican party, and those who lead the party. First and foremost, I remind myself that no matter who likable, or how much I may agree with them, they are still politicians.

      I feel this quote from Barry Goldwater best sums up my take on the situation:

      government can, instead of extending freedom, restrict freedom. And note, secondly, that the “can” quickly becomes “will” the moment the holders of government power are left to their own devices. This is because of the corrupting influence of power, the natural tendency of men who possess some power to take unto themselves more power. The tendency leads eventually to the acquisition of all power–whether in the hands of one or many makes little difference to the freedom of those left on the outside.

    • http://VocalMinority.typepad.com EricTheRedVM

      … why he doesn’t agree with auditing the FED.

      http://citizens4cain.com/site/blog/2011/01/12/anti-fed-reserve-groups-got-it-wrong-on-herman-cain/

      You many not agree with his answer, but he’s not attempting to hide anything.
      And even if his explanation is unacceptable to you, what other “stain” does he have on his record? None. He’s the consummate patriot, entrepreneur, and intellect.

      As far as I’m concerned, Herman Cain is the only one who can beat Barack Obama in 2012. That’s just based on the content of his character. The fact that he’s black (because I believe it *will* take a lot of votes away from Obama) is the icing on the cake.

      http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
      The Jewish Republican’s Web Sanctuary

  • Bill S

    The primary system exists for a reason.

    But of course I’m wasting my keystrokes commenting to you, since you have never seen fit to do anything except cross-post your diaries.

  • chbroussard

    Been there. Done that (i.e., Dole, McCain). Part of the reason the Tea Party came into being is because we were sick and tired of being told by our so-called leaders (and the media) who our candidates would be. We are already seeing potential candidates drop out on their own. Let’s let the process run its course. What if we all get behind Romney immediately and then in the next couple of weeks he puts his foot in his mouth like Newt did. So what happens then? Every other potential candidate has been kicked to the curb and we’re stuck with someone that the majority of Republicans are PO’d at? Respectfully, don’t think this is a good way to beat Obama. Let’s give the cream a fighting chance to rise to the top.

    • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

      You’re exaclty right. Insiders can’t and shouldn’t be trusted with this.

  • cordpt

    An invention of the progressive movements during the 20th century. There’s too much democracy in the current system. and the results haven’t been good. However, I dislike even more the idea of an abrupt ad-hoc change to the system and especially the solution you propose.

    The path you suggest is the one that pretty much every other western democracy follows – there’s an opposition leader who’s simultaneously the challenger to the prime-minister or presidential position. Nonetheless, I don’t think this gives the opposition much of an advantage if any at all. People just don’t care enough, their attention span for politics is relatively reduced and it works both ways: Democrats could start attacking our man much earlier.

    Republicans need to keep firing at Obama during the upcoming months and they’d be wise to avoid a primary that goes beyond Super Tuesday and is too bloody. We can’t afford a weakened presidential candidate and I hope everyone running has this in mind.

    I also think your selection method is ridiculously weak. You still need some sort of competition. I also believe Romney wouldn’t be the strongest republican candidate – not even close to it. And I strongly suspect he would have done much worse than McCain ins 2008.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    We’re still months away from the first selection of candidates. We need to test the candidate against the rigors of running for office, hostile press, and skill in dealing with the issues of the day.

    But most of all, we have no way of knowing today what will be the defining issues of the 2012 election. As that becomes clearer, we will have a better understanding of the qualities and strengths we will need in our nominee.

    I am confident that the party will pull together to support our nominee if the members of our part have ownership in the decision process.

    Whereas your advice precisely takes away that ownership. That is a recipe for disaster and a violation of the whole forces behind the Tea Party and other political insurgent movements that seek to take back party control from an out-of-touch elite leadership.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    You can’t just say “hey, let’s all rally around THIS candidate.” Because too many people think YOUR candidate sucks. So why not THEIR candidate? Well, because THEY (the people who don’t like your candidate) also think OTHER candidates suck. So who gets to pick who we rally ’round?

    The primary process.

    Sorry, but this is as pie-in-the-sky as it is pointless.

  • brookhaven

    Romney will certainly follow the old maxum: run to the right to get the GOP nomination, then run to the center for the general election.

    Your idea also has one fatal flaw: it assumes that electing a Republican (any Republican) is better than having Obama. I’m of the opinion that it’s better to have the Devil out-front-and-center, for everyone to see leading you, than to have the Devil in sheeps clothing leading you.

    A Romney adminstration would certainly lead us to the same destination as an Obama adminstration. We might get there a little slower, and we might take a different path, but eventually at the end of the journey we’ll end up at the same place.

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

    Herman Cain is the man.
    Herman Cain is the answer.

    “So these people all agree to support Herman Cain in a show of unity and, in exchange, Herman Cain promises to be WHO HE ALREADY IS on all the big issues ? repealing ObamaCare, the debt, illegal immigration, energy etc.
    Cain is conservative like Reagan. Cain communicates like Reagan. Cain delegates and leads like Reagan. Cain is the next Reagan.

  • Finrod

    Let the process work. A 14-month campaign would just be insane; a whole lot of independents don’t even pay any attention to presidential politics until the September or October before the election, so the preceding 12 months would be a waste.

    This time four years ago everyone thought the presidential election would be between Hillary and Rudy; no one had heard of Obama and McCain’s campaign was cratering.