« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Reconciled to Romney 3.0

Unless he manages to implode in the next 9 months I’ve reconciled myself to both a Mitt Romney candidacy and presidency. He’s acting like he really really wants the job. If he gets the nod in the GOP primary I think he’ll defeat Obama. So I’m willing to settle for a social conservative who is a fiscal squish.

Based on the behavior we saw during the 2008 primary, though, we’ll probably end up being the only site to endorse a candidacy while banning his supporters.

COMMENTS

  • Bill S

    GOP in the general.

    This will be interesting.

    • acat

      I voted McCain, and Bush (twice) and Dole and ..Bush again etc. etc. .. even though I thought there were better choices in the primary every time…

      As you say, Bill – it’ll be interesting to watch. Fortunately, I just bought a fresh bag of popcorn. (no, not microwave, stovetop – 2 tbsp oil, 1/3 cup kernels, and don’t walk away…)

      Mew

  • steve010

    1) he can beat Barry
    2) he is a grown up
    3) he puts MA and MI in play
    4) if he chooses Pawlenty for VP, he puts MN in play
    5) he’ll easily win NH
    6) independents are either ambivalent or like him better than Barry
    7) he can win the red states without too much opposition from the Tparty
    8) he is attractive to the white male displaced vote

    I know the majority of folks here have to hold their nose and vote, but just think about the alternative of 4 more years of Barry.

    • silentcal2012

      I certainly think he puts NH and MI in play and he well suited for Nevada and Colorado, but Massachusetts is a non-starter. He may put Maine in play too.

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

      On what do you base that statement? He didn’t even bother trying to get re-elected.

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)
  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    He is a man of the moment. Willing to be whatever gets him elected.
    He was pro-abortion when running for Gov.
    and of course Romneycare confirms your thought on the fiscal side.
    He is no conservative of any flavor.
    He is another McCain without the military service. His only reliable service has been himself.

    If he gets the nod what will he sell?
    “I am like Obama but not quite as bad.”?
    “Almost as good as McCain.”?

    Why are we already trying to sell ourselves on another loser? Another presumptive?

    • JadedByPolitics

      because its easier then you know, actually fighting. pathetic, Romney, Mr. Romneycare, Mr. I am pro-life NOW if you want me to be, is that what you all want? it is? it isn’t? I cannot decide. Mr no principles. I will do whatever I can to make sure he doesn’t win the primary in my State.

      • ZootSuit

        I’m agreeing with JadedByPolitics!

        In fact, I agree with (at least the implication made by) RoguePolitics: John McCain was better and is more conservative than Mitt Romney.

        Wow! Just, WOW!!!

        • concap

          McCain is a Bush.

          A social con hiding behind the fiscal flag.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    The odd thing is…

    Most of the ‘conservative opposition’ to Romney in 2008 was that he’s a flip flopper on Social issues, but a strong fiscal candidate known for “turnaround”.

    Your comment about a social conservative and a fiscal squish seems counter intuitive to most Romney narratives…

    Either way… as Bill S said… “Conservative in the primary, Republican in the general”…

    I for one am holding out for what comes out of the horserace… in general I believe we’ve got a lot of great candidates… but unfortunately the narrative from the media is going to predictably be about electability… and that may prevent us from getting the right person for the job.

    • acat

      If Conservatives were to come together under the banner of one candidate early, before Iowa, that would give even a low-visibility “non-electable” candidate the kind of momentum needed to make it through the early open primaries where “operation chaos” tactics are very likely…

      Unfortunately, we’ll probably just go ahead and split into small groups (Fred! and Palinistas and Barbourists etc.) each backing a different “pure” candidate as we did in 2008 (and 2000 and 1996 etc. etc….

      So, yeah, I see where streiff is coming from.

      Mew

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        I always love your pragmatic analysis.

        I can’t remember where I read it… but some horserace political blog at some MSM site predicted that the split among conservatives will most likely assist Romney in getting the nomination.

        I sometimes wonder if some candidates don’t put their name in the hat only to assist someone else to split factions of bloc voters from would-be potential contenders…

        In a primary, all you need is the plurality of local voters… most states are Winner-Take All… and Romney is a VERY organized and calculated as a candidate… (which is where he makes his biggest messaging mistakes) additionally he will only spend time and effort in areas where he’s most viable…

        Get ready to hear the Romney Campaign invoke the name of Reagan, and attempt a “positive” campaign… and a “come together and solve our very real problems, and let the adults in the room get to work…”

        I don’t think Romney is ‘conservative’ enough for my tastes… but I’m sympathetic to him due to my support for him in 2008… He’s not the worst candidate for conservatives… he’s certainly not “fringe”… and because of that… we will likely end up with a very split primary… which will likely benefit him…

        • Diogenes314

          This was actually (among other things) the subject of My first diary here. I said over two years ago what we need is proportional representation and instant runoffs. If we would have had proportional representation there is no way McClown could have used The Huckster to triangulate his way into the nomination. And if we had had instant runoffs for candidates polling below 15% for example, Fred might have stayed in the race longer and The Huckster would be a historical irrelevancy.

          And if we had this in the General Election the words Senator and Franken would never be used in the same sentance.

    • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

      Hey Justin, my perception is that Latter Day Saints don’t back Romney all that fervently. That’s not to say that Mormon Republicans wouldn’t back him, but that they don’t seem to more than they back other candidates.

      What is your experience with other members of your congregation, stake, etc? (I’m assuming that you’re an active member of the CofJCofLDS, since you describe yourself as a Mormon.) Am I totally off-base? Just curious about the strength of LDS passion for Romney.

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        Obviously I don’t speak for the church or its membership, but I can speak from my observations…

        To break it down…

        14Million world wide membership… about 5-6Million in the U.S. (considering the church was organized in the U.S. we consider this as a success of our values preached by our missionary force)…

        Any given year we have ~55,000 full-time missionaries… they’re assigned all over the world, and originate from all over the world… but a majority of them come from “strong LDS communities” like UT, parts of AZ, CA, ID, CO…. If you talk to just about any of these young, and impressive representatives about politics… they’ll likely try to pull you into a larger picture discussion of the “Plan of Salvation” and how all things fit in a timeline from the beginning of man down to our current dispensation of time on earth.

        To understand the religion portion of a Romney persona it should be understood… that Romney is considered a member in good standing… in my view this is a good thing, because I know he lives by the same values, and commandments that I espouse concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ… presuming that he truly is “honest”.

        So for that reason alone… most Mormons would be supportive in the same way Catholics were generally supportive of John F. Kennedy.

        But to address “Mormons seem conservative”… for the most part we are… its inherent in much of our teachings…

        Mormon doctrine is based on the gospel of Jesus Christ..
        Mormon culture is based upon living the gospel of Jesus Christ in an ever more corrupted world… so for the most part members are going to be more “conservative” in any community they live in even if they’re not living in the U.S. However, there’s sort of a sliding scale there… depending on what country you live in.

        Now there are prominent LDS folks that are Democrats… such as Harry Reid… where the average “conservative” Mormon in the U.S. may wonder… HOW DOES THAT GUY SAY YES, when answering “Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man”…a requirement of self-recommendation to attend our Holy Temples for personal worship… but I suppose the same could be said of any public figure… there’s always more to every perspective/perception… and frankly speaking… most would assume that Harry Reid will make an account for himself, and our role is not to “Condemn”… but obviously matters of salvation are much better left to the individual and the Lord.

        Cooler heads prevail in our religion… We often hear calls of civility from our leadership… but the leadership never truly espouses any specific degree of political thinking… They will howerver, and have been speaking out for a very long time on social issues based on doctrines… I refer you to “The Family: A proclamation to the World”

        Like religious conviction, political conviction is really a personal journey…

        From my personal experience…
        From age 18-21 I was apolitical… and considered myself a “non-of-the-above”
        On 9/11 I became a G.W. Bush supporter because I felt his response to 9/11 was absolutely appropriate, although at around this time I determined that I would spend more time studying politics in general to understand where and how I could contribute most to freedom.
        In 2003(age 23) I had a good Catholic friend hand me 4 books and asked that I give him the “Mormon perspective” They were:
        Slouching Towards Gomorrah – Bork
        The Tempting of America – Bork
        Godless – Coulter
        Slander – Coulter

        Bork made me want to become a lawyer, and become supreme court justice… Coulter made me angry with the well sourced debunking of lies being told about people with traditional values…

        I became a Fox News junkie… and by 2004, I was getting as many friends as I could from my age group to vote for G.W.

        From there… I read more conservative culture books, I was also studying in school, and as a conservative found myself arguing with professors and shutting them down…

        I ended up dropping out of my college courses to take up full time work… I got married in 2006 by 2007 I was selling my first condo, and buying another house right as the bubble was about to burst… I was angry at the way the market fluctuated… and that got me back into becoming educated on issues of economy… 2008 primary was just getting started… and of course… I was most interested in Romney’s candidacy… but more interested in seeing someone break into the mainstream from my religion… primarily so that I wouldn’t get so many comments about “polygamy” and “funny underwear” that I always get when speaking to the common smart-ass in America…

        Early on in the 2008 Primary… my political addiction led me to Redstate…

        I got roasted in the comments when I first joined… I stayed to learn so much more… I love this community… and I have thick skin… but a willingness to learn… and even be persuaded when the logic fits… and thus that should help you see things through my lens.

        • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

          I’ve wondered how Mormons view Harry Reid. In particular, the church’s opposition to a member paying for abortion seems interesting, given his support (as I understand it) of federal funding of abortion.

          At any rate, your exposition makes a lot of sense. I also appreciate the biographical details. My path to conservatism has had a few more twists and turns, since I was an antipartisan libertarian for many, many years (I’m five or six years older than you and started Republican, went independent liberal for a while, then conservative Republican, gradually became libertarian, now common-sense conservative Republican). But that’s another story for another day.

          Anyway, I appreciate your thick skin. I gave you a pretty hard time a couple of months ago and am glad that there are (as far as I can tell) no hard feelings.

          • victrola

            I don’t think every Mormon will necessarily give to Mitt Romney or support him, but I had a good friend who was a top consultant for Romney’s 2008 campaign, and there was absolutely a HUGE amount of resources and manpower that came from people with an LDS background that would not have otherwise been there had Mitt been a Methodist.

            If Romney does get the nomination, I think Democrats will try to make LDS money an issue because I expect a HUGE amount will come in from Mormons. I could see hundreds of millions of additional dollars and more volunteers than they know what to do with coming from that community alone, which is a big plus in my book.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            And it is my personal belief that Conservatives… especially folks in the South would do well to team up with this very deep and very committed bloc of Americans… Their support is not necessarily cemented to other Mormons in politics… Generally they’re the kind of people that like to get active in their community, and are stalwart when it comes to traditional family values and in defending marriage and in speaking out against abortion.

            As for Democrats making an issue of LDS money… I would suggest “we’ll see”… should Romney get the nod, there will be a HUGE shuffle in MSM talking points, and Tea Party this n’ that, and such… LDS money narrative will pale in comparison to Union money and other voting blocs that support Obama. In addition VP picks can sometimes change the narrative as it did for McCain… for about 3 weeks before the financial crisis hit.

          • victrola

            If groups as large as Evangelicals had the political activism and dedication of Mormons, elections would be a mere formality. I really don’t see Romney’s Mormonism being a problem in the general (but possibly in the primary) for Southern evangelicals. There’s also “militant secularists” that hate all organized religion, especially Mormons, but I my guess is they wouldn’t be pulling the lever for the GOP under any circumstances anyway. If Obama and the Dem/MSM gets too obsessed with Romney’s religion, he could always bring up Obama and his questionable religious history (whether it’s Rev. Wright or ….)

            I think Romney would be a special situation in that he would probably be to Mormons what JFK was to Catholics. They would be especially keen on him winning.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            which is why Romney will likely get the nomination…

            The nomination has always had more to do with being “front runner” come super tuesday.

            Romney’s biggest hurdles are Iowa, South Carolina and Florida… presuming there aren’t changes in the scheduling of primaries since 2008.

            I think if Huckabee and Palin both throw their hats in, its going to be disastrous for the “anti-Romney” crowd… they’ll split the support and Romney will win the pluralities, and ergo the most delegates.

          • LibertarianHawk

            If Romney couldn’t overcome John McCain in 2008 *without* the albatross of healthcare around his neck, I can’t see why he’d be able to overcome a better slate of candidates with it next year.

            I don’t know who is and isn’t running. But, using the list of people who might run, I’m guessing that our nominee will end up being one of Pawlenty, Daniels, or Huntsman. Romney may have a chance, but I’d say his chances are slighter than they were in ’08.

            And, if memory serves, he finished third — not second — in delegates that year.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            it’s not about the albatross…

            it’s about splitting the vote…

            in 2008 Romney lost South Carolina and Florida because Huckabee split the “anti-McCain” vote with Romney… As for albatrosses, McCain had McAmnesty at the time… which only solidifies my point…

            the “anti-INSERT CANDIDATE NAME” vote can be split between hairline differences between two appealing alternate candidates… Romney does have the ground game to come up with 25% wins… in a crowd of 6 candidates…but maybe not 34% in a crowd of 3…

            that’s the point I’m making… too many “we’re not Romney” style campaigns will likely give Romney the advantage…

            I wish that conservatives could really rally behind just 1 or 2 candidates besides Romney… but I don’t see it happening…

          • chihank

            Pundits like talk about how Huck and Palin may split the SoCon vote. However, then there is a decent chance that either only one of them may run. Heck, there is a fair chance that both Palin and Huck will sit out the primaries. What pundits don’t talk about is that Mitch Daniels and T-Paw could split the moderate vote with Mittens.

            I could live with T-Paw and My Man Mitch, Although Mitch has made statements that I disagree with, I consider Mithc to be more honest than Mittens.

            Perhaps we could have a Mitch Daniels/Huckabee or T-Paw/Huck ticket.

          • LibertarianHawk

            …I suspect that if either Daniels or Pawlenty get the nomination, they’ll have to choose a “foreign policy” veep. Both of them would be seen (rightly so) as primarily geared towards fiscal policy.

            I think one thing strongly in T-Paw’s favor, IMO, is that he comes from Minnesota. I think Indiana will be going Republican next round no matter what happens. Minnesota is genuinely up for grabs.

            The Republicans would be smart to think this way in choosing both a nominee and a runningmate.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)
        • Remington_Steele

          I’ve lurked in the shadows of RS for years much like Raven and others that are window dwellers. I was an early ’08 supporter of Romney and had my own Rombot button to wear with pride, but I learned to temper that and enjoy the give and take of debate with thick skin intact.

          You did a nice job with the Mormon summation and my take is similar, we’re a pretty big conservative group of pragmatics and usually able to roll with the punches. I’m interested to see what Huntsman brings to the dance, but as with all imperfect people, time will tell.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Huntsman isn’t a conservative. He did many things in Utah that increased the state budget. Including giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens or “the children of illegal aliens, who are also illegal”. There was a great deal of education enthusiast pressure on him to help these “good kids” get a college degree… it was a faulty notion to assume they were keeping these “good kids” from joining gangs…to inflate the ego of “compassionate” politicians. 2006-2007 was a disaster for him.

          • Remington_Steele
    • Bill S
    • BA Cyclone

      I am a social AND fiscal conservative, but I caucused for Romney in 2008 because I saw the fiscal storm coming. At that point, in that field he was the strongest pro-business fiscal conservative available IMO.

      Now 3 years removed from that process, my fear with Romney is that he’s a squish on all fronts. He seems purebred politician. What will he sell out “conservative pinciple X’ for on the political expediency chopping block?

      We need to push HARD for people who have the political stones to FIGHT against the momentum of liberal, statist programs that promise the world and deliver nothing…but then we CAN’T possibly live without them!

      Someone needs to be able to stand up and say we will have energy (probably more) even if the Dept. of Energy is cut in half. We will have food (probably even more) even if the Dept of Ag is cut in half. We will educate children (probably much better) if the Dept. of Education is cut in half. Can Romney do any of that?

      We need someone who can stand up and say the government does not entitle you to get something your neighbor earns, you are empowered to earn it yourself and keep it…and give it away as you choose. Will Romney do that, in practice, in Washington?

      Given the broader field, I sure hope we can settle on someone beside Romney because I don’t think he fits the bill above.

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)
  • Finrod

    Romney is not ahead of many people on my list– Huckabee and Luap Nor, pretty much. As far as I’m concerned he’s tied with completely unqualified candidates like Donald Trump and behind marginal candidates like Newt Gingrich.

    Why? RomneyCare is a large chunk of it; how are we ever going to get any traction running against ObamaCare when the top of our ticket promoted those same broken ideas and still stands behind them? Plus I don’t see Romney as someone that speaks out strongly for conservatism like Cain or Palin or Bachmann or (occasionally) Gingrich. We have so many strong voices, why nominate a weak voice?

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      I can tell you that in terms of the “RomneyCare”

      It appears that the Romney Campaigning groups are feeling that out still…

      But my observational opinion is that Romney can’t “distance” himself from RomneyCare without being called an opportunist… and getting painted as the “Mitt Flop”.

      So instead… he’s decided to take the road that is so lofty that its going to be hard to explain it without a planned speech like his “Faith in America” speech, and a MSM willing to go along with the narrative to cement it…

      He claims he’s proud of RomneyCare accomplishments… I suppose there are some things that “by the numbers” one could be proud… but people aren’t interested in the numbers…

      IF Romney is the nominee, healthcare won’t be part of the debate so much as the Economy as a whole… and Romeny will go all technocrat on people and prevent voter turnout to oust Obama… we can only hope that the troops are not completely demoralized by a Romney nomination… and maybe that’s the central point of Streiff’s diary.

    • aesthete

      Minus the Palin and Bachmann parts to an extent (though I’d vote for either over Romney).

  • wrxsti

    http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/02/22/mitt-romney-vs-health-care-why-romneycare-makes-mitt-the-best-nominee-to-face-obama/

    In that link I suggest a blatant contrast that Mitt could Draw about leadership in a general election debate against Obama.

    When we reformed Health Care in Massachusetts we spent two years working toward a consensus. We had overwhelming public opinion support, input from the entire political spectrum (From The Heritage Foundation to Ted Kennedy), and finally passed a 72 page bill with a vote of 198-2 in the state legislature . . . getting whopping majorities from Republican, Democratic, and Independent lawmakers.

    Contrast that to the bill you rammed through Congress in a matter of a few weeks and foisted upon the American people . . . a 2,700 page monstrosity that we were told would have to be passed before we could know what?s in it. A bill that squeaked through Congress by the slimmest of margins (219-212; meaning that it would have failed if only four Representatives had voted differently) only after well-documented strong-arming and promised political favors . . . all this with not a single Republican voting in favor of it and 34 members of your own party voting against it. A bill that is a ugly stain on the fabric of our nation both for the ends that it aims to achieve AND the means by which it became law.

    Mr President, based on the current unpopularity of your bill, and, in light of the 2010 repudiation of your party at the ballot box, I think it?s clear which type of leadership the American people prefer. Leadership that is deliberate and wise, that is not in a rush to score a political victory no matter the cost, that respects their voices and works for THEIR best interests. Wouldn?t you agree Mr President?

    No other candidate could draw such a stark contrast.

    • acat

      Since you seem to be one of his supporters, I’ll take your reply seriously.

      In Illinois, a guy named Bob Kjellander was Romney’s campaign manager.

      Kjellander is also one of the more corrupt politicians outside Chicago – he’s part of the “Combine”, a bipartisan group of corrupt politicians.

      During Romney’s 2008 run, when Mitt was asked if Patrick Fitzgerald, a particuarly effective anti-corrpution U.S. attorney, would be reappointed, Mitt – being generous – waffled. Keep in mind, at the time, Fitzgerald was investigating the Combine.

      A simple Google search for news stories about Kjellander would have found Tribune columnist John Kass’ articles about the Combine.. and far enough in advance of the election that Mitt could have made some changes.

      Long story short, either Mitt made a bad personnel call and didn’t realize it in time, which goes to competence, or Mitt has no problem lying down with dogs, which goes to his ethics.

      Would you care to elaborate, wrxsti?

      Mew

      • wrxsti

        But it’s the one getting the most air time right now.

        As for this Kjellander guy . . . never heard of him. But are you really trying to cast serious aspersions on Romney due to his interactions with a “corrupt Chicago Politician”? Even people with great judgement end up working with people who turn out to be bad apples. A presidential campaign is “fast and furious” but I’m not losing any sleep over associations with a bad apple from Chicago. Conversely, I would actually be shocked if he found someone who wasn’t corrupt in Chicago. Even the “good guys” play hard ball politics there.

        • acat

          And I will go on doing so until I’m either satisfied by his explanation, or until the primary is over. If Romney wins, I will vote for him in the general election.

          Since you’re apparently not from Illinois, most of the state – geographically speaking – is pretty conservative. Lots of small towns and farms. We’re outnumbered, though, by the population of Cook County and, specifically, Chicago.

          Kjellander was not just some campaign slob who screwed up. He was the state chairman of the Romney campaign, as in the guy Mitt trusted to hire the in-state resources to get out the vote, hand out literature, do mailers, recruit the boots on the ground, etc. etc. While you may not have heard of the guy, the upper levels of Romney’s campaign knew who he was, or should have.

          This goes to Mitt’s ability to judge character, to police his own team. That’s something an executive has to know how to do, and is part of why we want a former governor like Mitt, instead of a former legislator for President, right?

          So, why should I not care that, for state campaign chair, Romney picked a crook, and worse, a crook who would have been discovered through a simple use of google?

          Mew

          • AceInTX

            I am asking questions about Romney’s executive ability And I will go on doing so until I?m either satisfied by his explanation, or until the primary is over. If Romney wins, I will vote for him in the general election.

          • acat

            But unless the Dems run Zombie Reagan I could stomach voting for Romney.

            Besides, I can’t stay home – I have to try to get rid of Dick “the Turban” Durbin…

            Mew

          • AceInTX
          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            however… Romney’s footprint in Illinois was over and done with by Feb 6th…by June 7th (primary date) its a moot point who is running the ground game there… especially considering he shut the campaign down on Feb. 7th…

            Your point to “bad executive judgment” is misleading since he was spending more time focusing on Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida…

            Also… Romney was quick to throw Larry Craig under the bus before “all the facts” were out… I remember folks in Idaho being upset with his “disgusting” remark about Sen. Craig.

            I know you live in Illinois and its important to you that politicians come out clean when dealing with others there… but I think this line of questioning is really not a good criticism of Romney…

          • acat

            was the state campaign chair selected?

            My problem with Romney isn’t just that he picked a crooked pol to run his Illinois campaign – it’s that Romney consistently jumps the wrong way. It’s a little like watching someone play frogger with the intent to kill the frog…

            There’s the Larry Craig issue (which even Malkin seems to have dropped)…
            There’s the Kjellander (Illinois) issue.
            There’s several more that others have brought up.
            There’s Romneycare.

            I do not see a pattern of excellence here…

            Mew

          • aesthete

            Both hilarious and true. Romney seems like a nice guy, but he’s almost a Bizarro version of Clinton in that while both waffle, Romney’s merits (organization and fundraising) are mitigated by his consistent flips the wrong way. Clinton, OTOH, didn’t have an amazing ability to fundraise until after he was President, but boy could the guy flip a flop with finesse.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)
  • wrxsti

    Finrod’s comment above http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/03/08/reconciled-to-romney-30/#comment-7289

  • AceInTX

    Just like that?

    Let’s just shrug our shoulders…start right now with…”at least he’s not Obama” and crown him right now!

    Romney becomes the Nominee…Obamacare becomes set in stone…The Dems are practically giddy at the idea of wrapping Romneycare around his neck and hanging him with it..

    Can anyone tell me what Mitt stands for? is there any issue he hasn’t been on both sides of?

    Name just one major issue where Mitt hasn’t taken one position and at some point ended up taking exactly the opposite side of later!! I dare you.

    He said just last week Romney Care was a great thing and if he had a chance…he’d do it again…

    And I say this as someone who started out 2008 thinking he’d likely be the nominee…I ended up backing a different horse in the end as I watched Windsock Romney twist from one side of an issue to the other…on issue after issue…

    And if I have one more jerk tell me I don’t like him because he’s …gasp…a Mormon I’m going to explode…that was so over done last time that it turned me off Romney…PERMANENTLY…

    There is only on circumstance that would make me ever vote for the man in the Primary…and that would be to stop McCain from doing it again…and even then I’d have to think about it.

    Romney isn’t a leader…he’s a barometer…GOD PLEASE help us!

    • AceInTX

      But I’ve watched him flop around from one issue to another and not stick by any though, principle or ideology…and I’m thinking…Ried would roll this guy worse than he does McConnell on a constant and continuous basis!

      • Remington_Steele

        cause I was here with ya back then, and what you said earlier isn’t how I remembered it :P

  • RebelRoss0587

    ?The Obama Misery Index and the Rise of Obamavilles? is the best blog post I?ve read in a long time. This is why President Obama will be a one-term president! http://t.co/hhFr73z

    I can?t recommend this piece highly enough. This will be all the ammo we?ll need when talking to other voters during the 2012 general election.

    I read on another site a comment on how many surrogates for President Obama are praising Mitt for Romneycare in order to hurt him with his base. Mitt finally defended himself on Saturday when he said: “You may have noticed that the President and his people spend more time talking about me and Massachusetts healthcare than Entertainment Tonight spends talking about Charlie Sheen.”.

    • AceInTX

      Give me a break

      Obama will eat Romney and spit out his worthless bones in two seconds flat….such is they way any time a true believer like Obama comes up against someone like Romney who first has to stop and think about what he should think in any given situation based on what will give him the best political advantage…

      And even then no matter what Mitt said on any subject…he’d be hit the next day with all the times he’d said the exact opposite months or even days before

      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

        At least Mitt’s better than the socially and fiscally liberal bald, old, maverick the GOP ran last time.

  • kowalski

    I’d just like a lot more assurance from him that he means what he says.

    Because when he says it, it resonates. He has an ability to connect with a lot of people, but the question is whether he really means it.

    I think before Conservatives throw their support behind Romney they need to have real close-quarters communication with the Romney campaign team and actual face time with the man himself that assures them, so they can assure us, that he’s not just playing politics with his words. Absent that he’s going to be hounded forever by the Weekly Standard article on Abortion and hundreds of other things he’s said and then reversed himself on.

    It’s not that those impressions cannot be corrected; it’s not that he can’t reassure people. The question is whether he’s really willing to do so and have people fight for him with a clear conscience – but not at arm’s length: I’m talking real eye-to-eye contact here where he gets rid of the political consultants and sits around the table with people who would rather not be fooled.

    I’m waiting. I no longer trust him, he has to earn it back. There’s a lot of potential there, but if he wants to turn that into something meaningful he has to start right now by separating the “Act of Mitt Romney” from the “Reality of Mitt Romney.”

    • kowalski

      We need to think carefully about Romney because – if you put into a lockbox all the things you can’t stand about him and lock them up and place them inside a concrete vessel down deep where it will never bother you again, if you do that – Mitt Romney is a very strong candidate. Independents still like him. Businesspeople like him. He’s not a slob in front of the camera and he actually does know how to run a government — and a business — decently. He’s got a lot of very strong points. There is some real “there” there.

      It would be a real shame to see all of that “there” get preemptively thrown away. In a way, Romney has the ability to elevate the rest of the Republican field. Think about that for a few minutes.

      • AceInTX

        and remind you every time he changes positions to fit the latest poll…or campaign venue

        • kowalski

          Where I stand on Romney right now is that he has Many Rivers to Cross. But I also think it’s foolish to dismiss him out of hand. Remember that Michael Bloomberg is still sitting on his fence waiting to decide whether to throw his hat into this thing we call the 2012 Presidential Election. It’s a strong possibility that he will do so, despite what Bloomberg has said through official channels. Bloomberg will do it if he thinks he has a good reason to spend the money. That’s a fact.

          Given the choice between Bloomberg and Romney, I would rather have Romney. It might come down to that. If it does come down to that I know that in a year and a half I’ll be looking back on this post with a big smile on my face. :) And if it doesn’t come down to that I’d still rather have Romney in the Republican Party than Bloomberg.

          Fortunately there’s a lot of time and all of this is just really, really early armchair quarterbacking.

          In the meantime, listen to Jimmy Cliff:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkMzuXlKQv8

          • AceInTX

            it’s his turn

            He’ll have the press touting his inevitability, he’s got the establishment behind him….he’s got the RNC setting up the primaries to favor him….

            That doesn’t change what he is…and what he is is an unprincipled opportunist who will do anything he can to be President because Daddy would have wanted him to. He has no core…he has no principles. He’ll say anything to anyone to get their vote and in the end…he’ll leave them in the dust if it benefits him to do so.

            I don’t know about Bloomburg or what he’ll do…though I suspect he’ll go third party if he does anything…and if it came down to a choice between him or Romney…I can’t say for certain what I’d do…I’d vote for Romney over McCain….and I’d vote for him over Obama…but that’s about it for me

          • David123

            who would draw more people?

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)
          • David123

            who would draw more people?

      • aesthete

        Methinks that the big problem is that things are going to come out of that lockbox more than we’d like: remember having to carry water for the Bush administration? IMO, Romney would be that, but on every issue (social and defense included). It’s possible that he’d be a good administrator in addition to that, but what we need is less an administrator than someone who has in deed reduced the size and scope of government in a very real way, not someone who can only be bothered to pay lip service to the idea when it might benefit him politically.

    • AceInTX

      The man Makes Al Gore look entertaining by comparison….except Gore is a policy wonk who believes what he’s saying…Romney is a man playing a policy wonk who has no idea how to play the part

      • belcatar

        I think Mitt Romney would say anything if he thought it would get him elected. I really hope he isn’t the nominee. Just once (I was 8 when Reagan was elected) I’d like a candidate I could wholeheartedly support.

        However, I don’t think Al Gore believes what he’s saying. He admitted to supporting ethanol production to get the support of the farmers. Al Gore’s own lifestyle speaks volumes about how Anthropogenic Global Climage Change really affects choices in his personal policy.

        As far as Romney is concerned, I think he’s an empty suit.

  • AceInTX

    someone who we can praise to our less active neighbors and not have to convince ourselves in the back of our minds that we really believe all the good things we’re saying about them

    Why is it that we always have to start with…”at least he’s better than “Pick your Dem”

    Can we please just this once throw out the Republican tendency to pick the next in line…and run someone we can all be proud of?

    Please?!!!

    • lineholder

      We need someone that we can believe in this time, not the lesser of two evils.

    • Darin_H

      I turned 18 in 1991, been holding my nose ever since.

    • chbroussard

      But I fear until we change the face of the Republican Party overall, we are doomed to keep repeating this over and over. Presidential elections are not the only ones that we have to keep holding our noses for. We keep reelecting the same old Representatives and Senators (i.e, McCain, McConnell) too. We made some inroads in 2010, but still have a long way to go. Elections are not an entitlement program, and until we change that, we are doomed to having a clothespin on our noses.

  • seeker

    My problem with Mitt Romney is that he flipped his position on abortion. The issue of abortion is such a gigantic gut moral issue that to be for it and then not is imediately suspect. How can anyone, more to the point a Morman, be in favor of such a thing? To change ones position on this is, if it is sincere, would invole a very large mea culpa and an explanation of how one could have been so wrong. To me, this one issue is the sine qua non of a man’s moral stature and I could never bring myself to trust a man who would do a casual flip-flop on this issue. I says too much about a man’s ethics.

    • Remington_Steele

      Here is Romney’s take on why he definitely flipped from Pro-Choice during1994 through 2005 when he switched. In 2005 he wrote an Op-Ed piece in the Boston Globe about his switch due to his experience with the stem-cell debate.

      Romney definitely flipped his position, but at least it was a flip to the right. You can skip to 1:40 on the video for the story on why he flipped. It wasn’t casual, and some will just roll their eyes, but here it is in his own words.

      • Remington_Steele

        as embedding isn’t as easy as it once was:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_iWZJ1qk4k

        PS, anyone care to share how to embed youtube vids in comments? I just tried the embedded link in the above post and it filtered it out.

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

          is you’ve got to put a check mark in the “use old embed code” box. Then if you copy and paste the code that displays it should work here in the comments at Redstate. Let’s see if it works:

          Hope that helps.

          ColdWarrior

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          Deselect everything else. It works for me.

          • Remington_Steele
  • runner12

    him over Obama. But I will have to hold my nose to do it.

    I am a devoted So-Con, but given our current fiscal crisis, don’t we need someone who is committed to reducing the debt? I am sorry, but any candidate on the GOP side will need the energy of the Tea Party and I do not see any of them throwing their support behind Mitt in the primaries.

    Added to the problem of Mitt’s lack of FiCon street cred, you have RomneyCare. As short as 4 months ago, the Dems were defeated in record numbers largely driven by the discontent with ObamaCare. Make no mistake, this will be our greatest weapon against Obama in 2012. But we will not be able to use it if Romney is the nominee.

    To those who think Romney can beat Obama, I think that you may be overly optimistic. This is not 2008. People want someone who can help reduce spending and bring some sort of fiscal sanity to this country. Sorry, Romney just isn’t the guy who can do this. He is just another old elite GOP retread.

    • Remington_Steele

      optimistic that Romney can beat Obama, but as of today I refer to that totally useless 2012 barometer: a Rasmussen Poll done last month:

      Romney [vs. Obama] is nominally up two points, 44% to 42%, while Huckabee is tied with the president at 43% apiece.

      Three other well-known potential candidates, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul trail the president. Palin is down by 11 points, 49% to 38%, Gingrich by eight, 47% to 39%, and Paul by nine, 44% to 35%.

      All hope is not lost, and I take a more positive spin than some that it’s a lost cause if jobs recover some by 2012. Face it, jobs will recover, but not in the numbers needed to fix Obama’s problem, his policies don’t create the enviornment for a recovery of that magnatude. Any GOP candidate will pin the speed of recovery on that donkey.

      • runner12

        but I place little value in polls. The reality is that we will need Independent votes to swing towards us, not to mention someone who can unite the party.

        Again, Romney just isn’t the guy who can do this. He would be red meat to the Obama campaign. They would destroy him over Romneycare and it would not be that hard to do so.

        I keep hoping for an unknown to crop up and be a better candidate for us in 2012.

  • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH

    the GOP Presidential Primary because many have abandoned Obama and the Democrats. Romney seems more acceptable to them than a Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee. That explains some of Romney’s high numbers here in NH. His numbers will drop as the campaign heats up and Romneycare becomes a bigger drag on his campaign. There is also the 50000 MA residents who are currently being fined by the state for not having health insurance. Who knows how many of them will drive on up here and join Romney’s opponents on the campaign trail.

    All in all I do agree with this diary that he could be our nominee and our next President. I would suggest reading his book No Apology. It is not the Mitt Manifesto but more of printing of his thinking on many issues. Of course one would ask why a guy who is known for flip flopping write a book? Well I don’t know but his book is nice to have around when he tries to give some cR

    • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH

      I meant to say have the book around when he tries to give some creative answers to debate questions.

    • kowalski

      Here’s the news for people right now, as I see things:

      Barack Obama is going to win a second term in 2012. The reason is that even a slight rebound in the economy and a drop in the unemployment rate is going to be interpreted by people who have lived for more than 3 years with nothing but bad news — as a positive sign.

      It’s going to be a signal to them that his policies have “eventually started to work” and that is going to carry him to victory. They’re going to look back at 3 years of suckage and see a little light at the end of the tunnel and they’ll pull the lever for him again.

      I really believe that’s going to happen. I think we can count on an Obama Presidency until at least 2016.

      In this country, what happened four years ago has as little relevance to people as what they ate for breakfast yesterday. A tiny bit of improvement in the economic circumstance of this country will be interpreted and ballyhooed by the media as an enormous improvement, and it will be magnified by 1000%.

      Obama is going to be President again in 2012. The turn around is going to happen this year and it will be modest but it will be enough to carry him back to victory. It’s as simple as that.

      • kowalski

        The fact is that we’re really looking at 4 more years of Obama, with very little improvement. 1% to 1.5% in the unemployment rate between now and election day will mean that Obama Wins. He will glide right back into office on Hope. He’s got the best media campaign in the world – run by all of his people – and believe me once we get a tiny bit of good news in the economy he will capitalize on it completely. He’s going to look at people in a year and say:

        “See, I was right. All you all were just negative players.”

        And that’s going to go over big, and that’s going to be the end of that.

        • kowalski

          Because he knows he’s going to pick up all the benefit from the rebounding economy in another year and be swept back into office regardless of what he does.

          In fact, the less he does, the better. He doesn’t make the economy work, anyway: the energy companies do, the Arabs do, and the whims of mother nature do. He doesn’t need to work on it, he just has to wait around.

          • runner12

            The “numbers guys” may be quoting stats saying the economy is improving, but it is not translating to any real recovery on the ground for the voters. This is usually how things go in economic cycles. It could be years before people begin to see any turn around in the economy. It certainly will not happen before 2012.

            Also, given that the President has not interest in boosting the economy, it is unlikely that will change. Added to a poor economy, we have sky-rocketing gas prices, which does not exactly help you win elections.The recent roadblocks to ObamaCare have hurt him as well. Not to mention his recent foreign policy debacles.

            Obama is very vulnerable in 2012. He is not our problem. Our problem is finding a quality candidate. Having a poor candidate in 2012 is the only way we lose.

      • David123

        Michelle Bachman made some pretty hard-hitting comments on Barrack Obama’s level of patriotism. But people should listen to some of the sermons where Barrack Obama went to church for 20 years and make up their own minds about his level of patriotism. When you’ve got Reverend Wright sermons available, the political ads practically write themselves.

        I think we can nominate a stronger candidate than Mitt Romney, but at least Mitt Romney didn’t spend 20 years in a church where they curse America.

  • Mark Malcolm

    and still isn’t for the same reasons plus one. Now, it appears the MSM is already anointing him their choice for the Republican nomination. If for no other reason than that alone I chose not to support him because look how well that turned out for the Republicans in ’08.

    Nope, I will not hold my nose and vote a lesser person because some wizard of smart (I love that moniker) says I should if I want to win.

    To quote/paraphrase the president I served under, ‘Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent. Not at this juncture.’

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

    emerges. Huck and Romney are my least favorites, but they should be able to beat Obama, and that is all that matters.

    IF we get just a slight majority in the senate, and a reasonably conservative president then we can undo a lot of the damage.

    But four more years of this disaster and we won’t have a nation left to defend.

  • Mary Beth
  • chihank

    Mitt Romney changes his positions frequently. How can any conservative trust him? While it is preferable to nominate someone new for 2012, the best of retreads would be Mike Huckabee. The former AR Governo has principles and character unlike flip-flopping Romney.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      lead to letting several very bad criminals get back into society, sweeping ugly situations under the rug for his own son using the office of governor to do it, and raising taxes and spending the likes of which would make Bill Clinton blush…

      i know its not fair when someone attacks character without details.

      • chihank

        If you go by the early polls, Huck remains the most well liked potential GOP 2012er with both primary voters and independents. The criminal issue may hurt him, but it might not hurt him down the road. So far the issues hasn’t hurt Huck at all. People may give Huck the benefit of doubt on Maurice Clemmons because he is a compassionate Christian.

        • Finrod

          Look what it got him.

    • aesthete

      “The former AR Governo has economically progressive principles and no character”

  • catt

    ANY of the other candidates can attack Obamacare in terms that voters can get their heads around: we’re against it and they’re for it. Simple.

    Romney is holding up Romneycare as a major achievement because he invested so much of his reputation in it and also because he can’t afford to be perceived as flip-flopping yet again. Instead of a simple we’re-against-it-and-they’re-for-it distinction we get endless dissection of Romneycare vs Obamacare.

    With any other candidate Obama would be running away from the issue … but he’ll want to get Romney talking about Romneycare as often as possible. For one thing it tends to turn off conservatives and for another the more voters see Romney and Obama as basically having the same views on health care reform the more it neutralizes a weak point of Obama’s. Needless to say the media will be spending a lot of time talking about how Romneycare and Obamacare are so similar.

    That’s bad enough but I think it’s worse. What exactly does Romney say about Obamacare? That it should be repealed entirely? If he tries to say that Romneycare was a major achievement but Obamacare is a wretched mistake … while the media are saying 24/7 that Obamacare is just Romneycare on a national scale … Romney’s going to be painted as trying to have it both ways. What other choice does he have though? To try to paint himself as the person most qualified to “fix” Obamacare?

    Moreover if you’ve got the candidate Romney saying that Romneycare was a great achievement … imagine that you’re a down-ticket candidate running for congress or governor or whatever and you want to attack your opponent’s support for Obamacare. Every time you bring it up you’ll get a barrage of questions about why you don’t make the same criticisms about Romneycare. Every time Romney says something positive about some idea out of Romneycare that’s also found in Obamacare you’ll be asked to clarify whether you’d support Romney in keeping that feature. On the state level you’d be asked why … if Romneycare is as great as the candidate himself is saying … you don’t support a similar approach in your own state. The more Romney says in favor of Romneycare the more quotes you’ll find yourself being asked to respond to.

    I see people saying that running Romney just means that health care can’t be the focal issue it would be with any other candidate. As if that’s not such a big deal.

    That underestimates the problem hugely. Running Romney … with Romney forced to defend Romneycare to avoid looking like he’s yet again being an opportunist … turns every pro-Romneycare statement into a landmine for any candidate who wants to come out in favor of repealing Obamacare. Yes there are valid points to make … but the _best_ case is getting down into the kind of distinctions that will make most voters eyes glaze over in confusion.

    Romney is an excellent campaigner. With his reputation for flip flopping though he’s got to be extremely careful. If he tries to say on the one hand that Romneycare was a great achievement … while he’s also under tremendous pressure to come out strongly against Obamacare … I don’t see how he pulls that off. Either he becomes an advocate for Obamacare “reform” … turning off a lot of his support … or he ends up with a position that is easily painted as Romney trying to have it both ways and he spends a great deal of time trying to spin his way out of that.

    Of course the obvious solution is to draft Christie. :-)

    I think it would take Christie all of about three sentences to demolish Romneycare and Romney’s chances in the early primaries. And yes I know this is unrealistic to hope for.

    • AceInTX

      Please copy and paste it to a Diary and post it as is

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)
    • graciegirl

      was to have admitted it was a horrible mistake and that Romneycare PROVES what a disaster Obamacare will be.

      This post is the first one that has proven how insane it would be to run him. I wish I could cut and paste just this post and send it everywhere. I’ve tried, does not work.

      Yes, make it a diary but don’t agree with you about Christie!

  • Flagstaff

    who needs and would cross-support a conservative Congress. Which means, we really, REALLY need to elect a Conservative Congress, no matter what.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      it assists in down ticket elections… having a moderate causes down ticket candidates to explain the gap between the national nominee and their more conservative view.

  • victrola

    Ultimately, I’m a pragmatist, and what I keep coming back to is how would a Romney Presidency be different than say a Tim Pawlenty? My answer is, not much different. I think in terms of policy, they’d probably have a nearly identical agenda. My fear with McCain was he’d cross us on Amnesty (which is why I couldn’t back him in the primary) With Romney, I really don’t have any big fears like that, even though he’s far from my ideal as a conservative.

    I have ZERO doubt that if a repeal for ObamaCare was put on Romney’s desk by a Republican House and Senate, he’d sign it. I also have no doubt he will nominate judges like Alito and Roberts, that he’ll extend the Bush tax cuts, cut spending, have a strong foreign policy, support free market job growth, etc.

    When I look back at Bush, the two areas I was most disappointed with was spending (which actually seems silly now) and mainly that Bush was such a poor communicator that made selling his agenda, even with a Republican Congress, extremely difficult. Much of Reagan’s success (even with a Democrat Congress) was due to his ability to effectively communicate his message. Whenever I’ve seen Romney speak, I’m impressed and he oozes credibility, and I think that he’ll do well with independent voters, which is a big part to the success of enacting a conservative agenda and fighting liberal Democrats.

    Honestly, 90% of what conservatives can realistically hope to achieve will be simply throwing Obama out of the White House. There is no “Reagan” figure out there that’s going to fix everything, that’s why I’m not going to split hairs, I can find fault with every Republican running. Pawlenty backed Cap and Trade, Mitch Daniels wants to call a truce on social issues, is open to higher taxes and a nationwide VAT, Gingrich endorsed global warming, and more baggage than an airport (he could never win an election anyway), etc.

    Ultimately, there is no perfect candidate, so I’m backing the strongest one. For me personally, it’s come down to Pawlenty and Romney, unless of course someone like Chris Christie or Paul Ryan jumps in. I believe Romney can beat Obama handily, and that can make me overlook a lot of flaws.

  • jerry39

    As an all around (all 3 legs) conservative, I have never considered Newt in my top 5 list due to belief he would not be strong on the social issues. A review of my diaries and posts will confirm the importance of the social issues to me and that Mike Pence was my first choice, lest you think I am Newt guy pretending not to be.

    I am on the board of a Catholic school that recently brought Newt and his Wife in for a fundraiser to screen their new movie

    “9 days that changed the world.” Without question this was one the best documentaries I have ever seen. It was about Pope JPII’s 1979 trip to Poland during the height of Soviet power. The film is so powerful and relevant to our struggle against creeping socialism that it would be impossible for someone to have created the film unless they had a rock solid understanding of the foundational elements of social conservatism. Those ideas and truths that socon’s are constantly forced to explain so that others can extrapolate why ALL conservatism relies on social conservatism for its foundation. His talk before the film also conveyed the relevance of that struggle in 1979 to our struggle.

    If every socon saw that film, I think Newt would be on the map in a big way.

  • lgbpop

    I am so sick of the Republicans nominating DemocratLites! I am starting to understand why Bob Taft has so many followers, whose general attitude was they’d rather lose with Taft than win with someone else….or Goldwater’s battle cry twelve years later, “a choice – not an echo!”

    Romney is a weathervane who has and will continue to bust a gut to be liked – even if if means outspending the Democrats. Most of the other pretty haircuts being bruited about are of the same stripe, willing to spend us into oblivion more slowly than the Dems.

    I’m tired of this nonsense.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    You heard it here first.

    Romney MAY want the job. So did Harold Stassen. This hardly out-qualifies the rest of the field.

    This election will be about repealing Obamacare– pure and simple. And Romney has a gigantic red albatross around his neck called “Romneycare” that will (and indeed already has) doomed his candidacy.

    Can you imagine the rhetoric from Barack Obama? “So my opponent says we need to repeal a federal law to ensure quality, low-cost healthcare because of a federal mandate to buy insurance. Then why did he author this exact same program he signed into law in Massachusetts that required the same thing? It doesn’t make sense!”

    And, in fact, it doesn’t.

    • catt

      He’s the frontrunner in the sense that he seems at this point like the most likely nominee … unless something big changes. Like maybe Christie being drafted or something. Just putting that out there.

      Romney doesn’t out-qualify the rest of the field. Who said he did? The primaries aren’t good at selecting the best qualified candidate.

      Obamacare is _probably_ going to be Obama’s weakest point … things can change but that’s a good guess right now. If the primaries were good at selecting the candidate best equipped to attack the opponents weakest point Romney would have no chance … and it would follow that the election will be about repealing Obamacare.

      Unfortunately the primaries aren’t designed to pick the best qualified candidate. If Romney is the nominee then the election won’t be about repealing Obamacare. In fact the chances of repealing Obamacare go way down if Romney is the nominee and even if he wins.

      The arguments being made for how Romney wins the nomination are fairly convincing. The primary schedule favors him. He’s got tons of money and great name recognition. He has the Presidential Look. There’s no SoCon candidate with unified support and if the SoCon vote is split then that helps Romney. If those factors don’t make him the frontrunner then what would?

    • powertothepeople

      but who beats him so far? Huck, not even his wildest dreams, Rudy if he enters, never going to happen. The problem again, just like with McCain, is no one that is worth a dime is running. So far the only names in the maybe will run barrel are

      Romney

      Huck

      Trump

      Cain

      Pawlenty

      Daniels

      Newt

      R Paul

      A long shot list includes

      DeMint

      Bauchmann

      Thune

      Palin

      Most of the long shots will not run if any do run and out of the probable list, who can beat him? I just do not see any that can and unless a DeMint or Bachmann get in, who else stands a chance based on conservative record and likability. Cain has his fine points but he is not going to be able to beat these powerhouses this time.

      So hate to say it, and I really hate to say it, unless someone else gets in with the ability to beat Romney, he will be our nominee.

  • conservativemusician

    The MSM will always let us know both who they want and don’t want for the GOP presidential nominee. They fear Palin like the plague, but they love Romney, so this should speak volumes to anyone who is paying attention at this point. He has weaknesses and has flip-flopped on a number of things for which he will have a hard time getting around, but he also has the highest name recognition of any serious candidate out there, so he is the presumptive front-runner just like GWB was before the 2000 election.

    I’m not willing yet to concede that Romney will be the nominee, but right now, I’m siding with you streiff. I will not vote for him in the primaries, but if he ends up winning the nomination, he will have my full support.

    As conservatives, we cannot make the mistake again of staying home because Romney does not punch all of the conservative buttons perfectly. If Obama is reelected, Obamacare will not get repealed and by the time he leaves office in 2016, it may be too late to right the ship and we will be screwed for generations. Our only hope then is that the Supreme Court will find the whole thing unconstitutional next year, but this is no certainty.

    We already know that black and other minority voters will flock to the polls next year to support Obama again, so we have to come together as conservatives to fight this off and not cast protest votes against our nominee because he/she is not conservative enough. Obama has got to go – period. Yes, we should vote for the most conservative candidate that we can, but if Romney gets the nod, we can’t sit home again.

    We owe it to the future generations to take our civic responsibility seriously and get out to vote in droves just like we did last year. Next year’s election may very well be our final opportunity to roll back Obamacare and the socialism and generational destruction it will bring from which we may never recover.

  • Michael Dugas

    Our biggest problems are financial, our economy is in the tank, inflation is on the rise and we are living with high unemployment and you are willing to, in your own words, “….. settle for a social conservative who is a fiscal squish.”
    I ask this with no malice or sarcasm but are you really serious?

  • ZootSuit

    Diaries and positions like this are the reason I don’t come around here that often and, indeed, I am generally coming to the point where I simply do not like conservatives. Not RINOs or CINOs, not “Congress critters” but conservatives.

    The fact is (okay, admittedly, only most) conservatives no longer stand for anything.

    Most conservatives make up excuses just as badly as most liberals. Most conservatives are just as blinded by their emotions and unwilling to look at facts, are just as bigoted and narrow-minded, as most liberals are. Most conservatives are just as ignorant of history as they claim most liberals are. Most conservatives want to destroy America just as much as most liberals: it’s just that conservatives want their so-called candidates to do it.

    Truth be known, after listening to birthers, and people like supporters of Christine O’Donnell, and yes, even some Tea Partiers, I am beginning to think that many conservatives are literally just as crazy as the Moveon.org crowd and many other liberals.

    Case in point: now many of us are trying to convince ourselves that Mitt Romney is (at least a social) conservative. This from the man who once pledged that he would be a bigger supporter of gay rights than Ted Kennedy. And note, unlike his explanation for flip-flopping on abortion, I’ve never heard him explain this one.

    And let’s also not forget that in campaigning against McCain, Romney was conducting push-polls in Florida “asking” if elderly GOP primary voters would still vote for McCain if they knew McCain opposed Bush’s Medicare Part D. Quite frankly, that was probably John McCain’s finest and most conservative moment outside of Vietnam and Romney was running against it.

    And let’s not forget that in Michigan, Mitt Romney was promoting several billion dollars of tax-payer funds in support of the auto industry. Even McCain was opposed to that. Let’s face it, as someone else on this board once said, Mitt Romney was for auto bailouts before auto bailouts were cool.

    As much as I hated John McCain, I must confess that despite the rhetoric, McCain was probably more conservative than Mitt Romney. Yet Mitt Romney was being touted by some (and is still being touted by a few) as the conservative alternative to John McCain.

    Wow! Just WOW!!!

    And unless I am accused of hating Mitt Romney, let’s take a look at a few other popular Presidential candidates.

    Take Mike Huckabee. From his tax increases, increases to the size of government, felon pardoning, and “Club of Greed” comments, even most of the people on this board will admit that Huckabee is nothing mrore than a pro-life liberal. But when you consider that he also supported the erstwhile GOP candidate in NY-23 a few years ago — Diane Scouvava [I don't remember her name but I am ceratin everyone here remembers who I am referencing] — a candidate who literally was to the Left of Barack Obama on the subject of abortion, then I must question his pro-life credentials.

    Furthermore, most people want to forget that it was not John McCain who commented about illegal aliens being “G-d’s children” (or at least, McCain did not say it forst), it was Mike Huckabee. Look it up. Indeed, look at Huckabee’s record on illegal immigration, which include things like support for taxpayer-funded grants and scholarships for illegal aliens in Arkansas public universities. Yet now, most conservatives, even among those who oppose him, want to believe that Huckabee would send Chuck Norris to the border to personally kick the arse of every illegal trying to cross.

    Plus, I personally think Mike Huckabee is both stupid and a liar. He could not explain his “Fair Tax” idea and lied about talking to the originators of it. Furthermore, I utterly despise his comments and insinuations about Mitt Romney, publicly making comments like, “Don’t Mormons believe that Christ and Satan are brothers.”

    As much as I despise Mitt Romney, and as much as I may disagree with the theology of the Mormon religion, those comments were just beyond the pale.

    I honestly will vote for Barack Obama before I’d vote for Mike Huckabee.

    And let’s not leave out Sarah Palin, a woman who is and was less, yes less experience and qualifications than Barack Obama. And what were her meager accomplishments before she quit: a 31% increase in the size of state government, a “windfall profits” oil tax increase, paying billions to a Canadian company for work that will probably never get done, and, of course, “ethics” legislation that was so convoluted that even she couldn’t navigate through it. The very definition of being hoisted by one’s own petards. Sorry folks but when you take off your tinted glasses, Sarah Palin does not come of as either very smart or very conservative.

    Indeed, I am both amused and dumbfounded when people try to claim that having a child with Down’s Syndrome makes Palin conservative. Really? I know a fairly liberal couple in New Hampshire (at least they are registered Democrats and still tend to vote that way) who have a daughter with Down’s Syndrome. Does that mean they count as conservatives.

    The bottom line for me is this: until we conservatives face reality and stop trying to convince ourselves that “our guys and gals” are better than “their’s,” we are just as guilty for destroying this country as the Barack Obamas, Nancy Pelosis, and Harry Reids. Indeed, we are more guilty because we say we know better.

    Rhetoric means sh*t. Records and actual accomplishments are what counts. And when you actually look at the records and accomplishments of most so-called conservatives, they aren’t much (if any) better than that of the liberals. The tragedy is that the conservative rank and file wants to complain about it but truth be known, they don’t want to change it.

    • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison
    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      I agree with some of what’s been said regarding rhetoric and records…

      I disagree entirely with the summation that Conservatives are the problem…

      “Conservative” is de jour at the moment. It became popular to be anti-liberal with the libertarian crowd which used to spend much of their time trying to distinguish themselves from conservatives…

      My firsthand experience with tea partiers in Twin Falls, ID of all places was ex-union democrats, libertarians (Luap Nor ilk), and general Republicans that scale from RINO to Conservative, and Party insiders to “I’ve never done this sort of thing before…”….

      The moment Tea Parties became organizations with mission statements is the moment that you could easily see someone hijacking a grassroots movement with an agenda…. for good or bad… it is what it is…

      Ultimately, Redsate has ALWAYS been “Conservative in the Primary, Republican in the General”….

      Most “true-conservatives” are going to do everything they can to push candidates and outcomes to the right through debate and organizational efforts.

      If I may be so bold… I think you’re getting “burned out” because you may be realizing that nothing political is pure…

      My advice is utilize your God-given talents to promote the good you can influence by the means you feel are justified and honest… what more can you do?

    • conservativemusician

      But you lost me when you said, “I honestly will vote for Barack Obama before I?d vote for Mike Huckabee”. You’re not really serious about this, are you? You’d actually vote for Obama, the most liberal president in this country’s history who is determined to run the country into the ground and spend us into oblivian? If he gets another 4 years in office, I really believe this country will be finished because Obamacare will be funded and will then most likely never be repealed.

      I understand your frustration and many here feel the same, but you need to get some perspective because there is still a long way to go in getting things turned around. We are past the point of throwing temper tantrums and either staying home or casting protest votes because no one running on our side measures up to Reagan’s standards of conservatism. Everyone running has baggage and strengths and weaknesses, but we have to face the realities of our situation, no matter how unpalatable and no matter how large the obstacles will be in fielding a suitable nominee to face Obama.

      Hope you will hang around for the fight because everyone is going to be needed to send Obama packing next year.

      • ZootSuit

        Looking at Mike Huckabee’s record, there is nothing that indicates that he would be better than Barack Obama. Including on abortion, where Huckabee supported that woman in NY-23.

        You want to complain about Obama. For that matter, conservatives calling and defending the failed liberal policies of George W. Bush “conservative” is exactly what made Barack Obama possible. Sorry, but I’m no longer trying to defend the indefensible anymore.

        I am fighting for my country. I simply recognize that my fight is not just against self-admitted liberals and progressives but also against self-deluded conservatives who for some reason think just having an “R” behind a candidate’s name someone makes them better.

        And yes, I think Mike Huckabee is just that big a liberal himself, despite whatever political party he’s a member.

        • conservativemusician

          Even with the blemishes on Huckabee’s record (and I don’t like him that much either as a potential candidate), he’d still be a much better president than Obama. Heck, just about any other serious and potentially electable candidate on our side would be a quantum leap in a more positive direction than Obama and his bunch of socialist whackos. Can’t you see this?

          Like streiff, I’m simply being pragmatic and realistic about the situation we are facing. Keep in mind that if you do vote for Obama, then you and others who do the same will be part of the problem, not the solution. You will also be repeating the same mistakes that were made in 2008 when many conservatives either stayed home or cast protest votes as you are intending to do if you don’t get someone who is conservative enough for you. At that point, you and others who are equally shortsighted will have no one to blame but yourselves for the results of reelecting a socialist because when you had the chance to do something about it and make a positive contribution, you instead did nothing.

          If we are to apply the standards for conservatism that you are espousing, then no one will be worthy enough to run against Obama. This is not practical, so we have to do the best we can to field the most conservative and electable candidate in the primaries. I have hope that this can be done as there is still a long way to go, so again, I hope you will come around and hang around for the fight.

          Respectfully,

          conservativemusician

          • ZootSuit

            His [Huckabee's] rhetoric may be better but there is nothing in his actual record that would indicate it. And having an “R” behind your name does not count.

            Heck, if you look at their actual records as governor, Bill Clinton was more conservative than Mike Huckabee.

            So seriously, what has Mike Huckabee actually done that makes you think he would not be as liberal as Obama?

          • conservativemusician

            I really have nothing more to add to this discussion because you are not open to seeing another point of view other than your own. I agree with and espouse the policy of this web site which states that we vote conservative in primaries and GOP in the general election. If you don’t agree with this, then you should probably be posting elsewhere.

          • ZootSuit

            I just think you are wrong.

          • conservativemusician

            And with your disagreement with me on this issue, you are also disagreeing with one of the main tenets of this site which is, again, voting conservative in the primaries and GOP in the general election. If you want to argue the merits of Huckabee or any of the serious potentially electable the candidates on our side, fine, I’ll be glad to. This goes on here every day and will intensify as the months pass. But at the end of the process when the GOP nominee is chosen, we have a responsibility as conservatives to do the right thing and vote, even if it means holding our nose for candidates we don’t fully agree with, which BTW I and many others did in 2008 when voting for McCain.

          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

            Huck cannot win. Period. Would I vote for him? Sure. Of course.

            Would I do so enthusiastically, donate money, and work diligently to organize for him and get out the vote? Um. Probably not so much. I’d try, but it would be halfhearted at best. Making questionable arguments on behalf of Christine O’Donnell (which I did on RS and regret a bit) was unpleasant enough, and she was just running to be one Senator out of 100.

            Votes don’t win elections. Organization does. Winning an election requires getting out the vote among registered party memebers and convincing enough of the (relatively few) genuinely independent swing voters. You have one vote, but if you can convince ten or twenty others to do so, then you have ten or twenty votes.

            Nominating Huck is like peeing on our campfire while giving the Democrats a bottle of lighter fluid to spray onto theirs. Just not a good idea.

          • conservativemusician

            I would certainly not vote for Huckabee in the primaries because I think we can do much better, but like you, I would vote for him if he were the nominee. I don’t think he is going to be the nominee anyway as he has lots of weaknesses. Romney has a better chance than Huck does, but he also has lots of issues and Obama will pick him apart over Romneycare.

            The problem we are facing once again in this election cycle is that we are not focussing on the strengths of our potential candidates. Instead, we will probably be nominating someone with the least amount of weaknesses because everyone running on our side has a record and none of them are considered pure conservatives by most of us here. Even the vaunted YouTube king Christie (who still says he is not going to run) is a RINO on a number of social issues although he’s great on fiscal issues. I really find it odd that Ann Coulter is willing to dismiss Christie’s socially liberal views and say he is the only one who can win.

            I really have no preference on any candidate right now and will not until everyone who is planning on running officially throws their hat into the ring. Until that point, I will temporarily agree with streiff in that Romney as the current front runner has the best chance of beating Obama…even with Romneycare looming in the background. Maybe he’ll have recanted his support for socialized medicine by then and come up with a good counter defense to the attacks on flip-flopping that will certainly come his way.

          • aesthete

            have endorsed third-partiers in the past (including Tancredo in CO and the guy in NY-23), I wouldn’t call the conservative in the primary/GOP in the general rule ironclad. It is a good rule of thumb, but like any consequentialist rule, one that has exceptions. IMO, outliers like Huckabee or Paul should be among those exceptions.

        • powertothepeople

          over even the Huckster, then I must argue that you are not fighting for your country, you are simply a take my ball home kind of guy, you are not a conservative, and you are a squish, period!

          And as the other esteemed poster stated, this site does not allow the kind of crap you just stated and it will not tolerate it long. We never, and I repeat never, say screw the party I will vote dem if so and so gets in especially when it comes to Obama.

          • ZootSuit

            Actually, for a while this site officially supported Mark Begich (D) in the 2008 Senate race in Alaska, although that endorsement was later changed to something like “no preference.”

          • powertothepeople

            Erick’s announcement in early 2009 that this site was always conservative in the primary, republican in the general. In the same post he addressed his position on “my guy did not win so I am voting dem” and he stated people who chose that position were not welcome on the site.

            We all know there may the occasional exception to the rule, but stating Obama should be voted for over _____________ is not one of them. Take the worst person we could put up and they still do not try to drive this country towards socialism, do not bow to foreign dignitaries, do not try to force Obamacare on us,……….and the list could go on and on and on. I agree with you Huck is bad, but I disagree that Obama is better. And if the mentality that A 2012 republican controlled congress could and would stand against the very dangerous policies of Obama and his minions, then keeping Huck in check would be even easier and more safer for us.

          • powertothepeople

            Forgive me, I am struggling tonight with my Alzheimer’s and words are failing me tonight so this will have to be it for me till tomorrow.

            In my last sentence I forgot to finish the first part of the sentence,

            And if the mentality that A 2012 republican controlled congress could and would stand against the very dangerous policies of Obama and his minions

            Should have “is correct” after the word minions.

          • ZootSuit

            This is a case of, despite rhetoric to the contrary, when I look at the actual record, I do not think a particular Republican (Mike Huckabee) would be any better, indeed, would be worse than, a particular Democrat (Barack Obama).

            Unlike just about any other possible GOP candidate (including Sarah Palin, by the way) and despite what Huckabee is saying at the moment, can you provide any evidence, any record of actual conservative accomplishments, that Huckabee would not be just as big a liberal as Obama?

            Indeed, aesthete listed quite a few reasons why he would be.

          • powertothepeople

            and you answer the questions, and the answers are Obama, Huck, or both.

            Who would be more than willing to take our guns for the future ease of implementing a police state

            Who is more than willing to use fed intervention to force union desires and bondage on states,

            Who is more willing to take state rights away,

            Who is more willing to radically alter tradition in this country not based on merit or factual studies that show the need to change them, but rather due personal agenda

            Who is willing to do whatever is necessary to stop any and all domestic natural resource gathering and increase our dependency on foreign sources,

            Who is more willing to drastically cut our military all for the reasons of bowing to foreign pressure

            Who is willing to open our borders under or North American Agreement which would set us up for disaster.

            Who takes their advice on policy from staunch socialist and communist

            And the list could go on and on.

            The point I am making is that while you or anyone could make a great case that Huck should never be president, and I would agree completely with them, I have a hard time buying into someone saying that a tax loving, government growing, intrusive candidate who has proven to not be a conservative is as bad as a man whose policies and beliefs would drag this country down into the mud, would change our way of life forever, and who would enslave us to their socialist/communist views and at the end of the day is the most dangerous president we have had to date. The comparison is just not there. Huck is not the one we should look to, that is a given, but Obama, his advisers, his beliefs, and his policies are not only far left but they are very dangerous as well. Even the nutty whack job Ron Paul is no where near as bad nor as dangerous. But thankfully, neither stand a chance at getting elected, so all this is a waste of time.

          • ZootSuit

            Literally accept for the issue of gun rights — yes. I’m giving you that one — Huckabee’s record indicates that he would be better than Obama?

            Nothing!

            Again, forget the rhetoric and look at the record, on most issues Mike Huckabee is at least as liberal as Barack Obama. Again, please show me something in his actual record!

            And by the way, considering how he has flipped to the Left while talking to the Right, I’m honestly not all that certain he would stick up for the Second Amendment if it became a fight. And worse, I fear that if it came to that, if Mike Huckabee were President then many conservatives would start excusing him on that.

            Case in point, (not about the Second Amendment specifically but how conservatives were silent about most of Bush.s liberalism), look at conservatives under George W. Bush.

    • acat

      As we saw on Red State back before CPAC, there’s lots of different definitons or measurements of conservatism. Two front pagers had competing diaries on the subject…

      Your last paragrah is the key one, for me. It’s not what politicians say that matters, it’s what they do. What their records show. Ignore what they say, watch what they do.

      Mew

      • ZootSuit
        • Michael Dugas

          I agree about The Huckster, I agree about Romney etc etc etc but here is where you ARE wrong,
          “Diaries and positions like this are the reason I don?t come around here that often and, indeed, I am generally coming to the point where I simply do not like conservatives.”
          So because you don’t agree with some people diaries or their positions you do0n’t come around as much? Nobody is going to find a collection of people that they agree with 100%, hell 75% would be unusual. Would you want to participate in a activist site where everyone was in lockstep with each other? Where all points of view are the same and no new or different ideas are offered? That leads to stagnation my friend.
          There are a whole lot of us who agree with a lot of what you say but it sure says a lot about you if you deny us your input and ideas because you don’t agree with everyone.
          I personally haven’t found a POtUS candidate yet, for the ’12 election, that I am comfortable with. Unlike you though I could not vote for Obama….the guy is a want to be dictator. You stated, in reference to politicians, Ignore what they say, watch what they do. Hasn’t Obama shown us enough?
          One of the great aspects of Redstate is the ability to share ideas, to change hearts and minds, and if people where to not offer up their thoughts to those they disagree with then they have no right to complain when they are disagreed with.
          In the end if you don’t come here as much because you are beginning to dislike conservatives than why show up and say they are as bad as liberal? Why come here at all if it doesn’t do something for you?

          • ZootSuit

            It’s that I think some of the arguments are silly and hypocritical . It’s the way we try to convince ourselves that “our” candidates aren’t so bad. Take this diary, for example.

            Personally, if Mitt Romney were the nominee, I would vote for him (after vomiting, puking, cutting myself and suffering a brain aneurysm beforehand and then vomiting some more, cutting myself some more, suffering a stroke and then buring the hand I pulled the voting lever with afterwards). But make no mistake, Mitt Romney is no conservative, social or otherwise.

            Indeed, as bad as Obama is, can anyone provide any evidence that Mike Hukabee would be any better?

            Huckabee’s record certainly doesn’t indicate that he would be. I am not joking when I say I’d rather vote for Obama.

            It’s like with Sarah Palin. Before she was nominated in 2008, there were many people who thought she was not qualified. But the day after she was actually nominated, many of these same people were writing diaries about how qualified she was.

            And this was in addition to the people — supposed conservatives — who were arguing that Palin should be and/or was a great selection because she would win the “womens’ vote.” I thought — I hoped — that conservatives were above such “genderidentity politics.

            I guess I was wrong.

          • Michael Dugas

            Conservatives-R-Us or whatever, there are going to be people who are going to have differing views. Take me for instance. I don’t know what moniker I would really fall under….Conservative, Constitutional Conservative…whatever. A whole lot of what I believe is right is NOT going to be accepted by everyone. My Dad considers himself a Conservative Republican, and to a point he is, but I find most of his “conservative” beliefs to be socially based, mainly abortion. He’s very much a moderate on fiscal issues and national security issues but don’t you dare tell him that. People are VERY sensitive about the labels placed on them because those labels mean different things to different people. Some of the discussions we have, at times, made me wonder about his understanding of conservatism and what it means, I guess to me, to be a conservative. But I won’t ever STOP talking to him about those issues because even if I can change one persons mind than I believe I am doing good.
            As you can tell from just this one string there are a bunch of people who agree with you. I mostly agree with you, especially concerning the discussed group of potential nominees. But if your viewpoint were to disappear from Redstate because you don’t like the opinions of some of the posters here it would be a loss for our side and it would be a lost chance to change or influence those disagreeable viewpoints.
            We need to, as a group, as a party, to work together on what we do agree upon. Fix those things and then deal with our disagreements. If we get stuck now arguing over what we don’t agree on it’s going to be like the last Republican administration where we had all the control but got almost nothing done because of internal squabbling.

          • ZootSuit

            My problem is that conservatives doing and then excusing themselves for doing — indeed, often complementing themselves for doing — the exact same thing they condemn liberals for doing.

            For example, I don’t mind if someone defines “conservatism ” as only being pro-life. I disagree adamantly that that is the only things that would or should define “conservatism” but I’m not going to get angry. But it is when you define conservatism as only being pro-life but then support someone who supports for abortion could almost be called infanticide, then yes, I have a very real problem with that.

            Indeed, to use just this one illustration, if Mike Huckabee could support that women in NY-23 (who, by the way, ultimately left and supported the Democrat in the race), then how can he complain about Obama’s support of abortion?

            And this is just one of many, many, many, many problems I have with Mike Huckabee.

          • conservativemusician

            (n/t)

    • aesthete

      I really wish that I could blame the sorry state of federal gummint (and not a few state govts) on the pols or even the Dem rank and file, but in so many respects, the pols are just a reflection of the people who support them: when conservatives can flip from attacking conservatives who point out Bush’s horrendous record to piously decrying Obama’s deficits, something is wrong with the partisans of the nation. When conservatives hold entirely inconsistent views and attack others for aiming for consistency, there’s a problem. When conservatives protest policies that they cheered on while in power (the PATRIOT Act and TSA, among others), the’re a problem. When semi-reformed Trotskyites and proud social democrats are telling *us* who is and is not a true conservative, and who we should drum out of the conservative movement, it is our fault for going along instead of challenging the state of affairs. For that matter, when democracy becomes the focus instead of liberty, something’s gone wrong.

      It is just sad that Clinton is easily the most conservative President of the post-Reagan era (at least, domestically): if Romney is elected, it will simply confirm that the Republican party is hostile to conservative values. By all means, vote for the least bad option; our two-party system allows little recourse. However, voting and campaigning for someone does not make them worthy of defense, especially when they act against our interests and values. There’s no point to electing someone if you’re going to let him get away with violating our principles.

      • ZootSuit

        Please note, as I believe I mention both here and elsewhere, I would vote for Mitt Romney (after due penance, of course) if he were the nominee. In fact, the only place where I think I may disagree with you and many other posters in this thread is that between the two, I actually think Huckabee is worse than Obama.

        Amazing, I know, but can you think of any area where — based on actual performance and accomplishments and not on rhetoric — Huckabee is better than Obama?

        • powertothepeople

          that you make this argument speaks volumes, but the proof lays simply in the fact that Huck did not drive his state towards unrepentant socialism as Obama has done with this country. That alone, and there are plenty of other example, makes Huck the much better choice.

          Quite frankly your rants are absurd. Huck will not win, most here do not like Huck myself included, but we at least are able to accept the fact that if somehow he did win, we would still never vote for what has to be the worst president in this country to date.

          And again, not a mod, but friendly advice. So far your words have escaped Moe, Neil, Streiff, and Bill. I would suggest that if this is how you feel, you know the whole take my ball home thing, I would suggest you forget about continuing to announce it to the site if you enjoy your time here. From past experience, there will be no warning, only a G’Bye and it would be a shame for you to lose your account over one piss poor piece of judgment.

          • aesthete

            Whoever wins in 2012 will be dealing with a GOP Congress: would you rather have an Obama constrained by the GOP, or a Huckabee who uses his GOP majority to enlarge government?

            Huck was worse than his predecessor, Slick Willie, on spending and regulation. There is little indication that he would be any better as President, and with a GOP Congress to facilitate his agenda, I imagine that he would be significantly worse.

            On foreign policy, Huckabee trumpeted the same line as Dems until about a year ago: in the ’08 campaign, he literally compared the US to a popular cheerleader who needed to be less stuck-up and more humble to cater to world opinion — no joke. The Bush bashing on foreign that he engaged in was coming from the left — I’m not a fan of the guy’s foreign policy, but attacking it from the globalist left perspective was absurd, and leads me to think that he would be at least as bad as Obama.

            On judges, Huck’s “model” is a pro-life liberal who bent AR’s constitution to find a right to pilfering the money of another, and Huck has called for such blatantly un-Constitutional practices as a federal ban on workplace smoking and SCHIP — no constitutionalist there!

            On free trade, Huck was arguing the protectionist line, ditto with the free movement of labor. OTOH, he was also atrocious on border issues, and no amount of Chuck Norris commercials will convince me that his flop was anything other than political in nature.

            You tell me, pttp: what issues does a President deal with besides defense, spending/regulation, trade, judges and border security that would be so pressing as to give Huck the nod above Obama? There’s a strong case to be made that Huck would be worse, and an even stronger one that Huck would be at least as bad and have no conservative opposition as Obama would if he were re-elected.

          • Michael Dugas

            n/t

          • Doc Holliday

            would bring in more Repubs in Congress, Obama more Dems. I could live with Huck restrained by a conservative Congress. Is he near the top of my list? No, he is near the bottom. But my list right now is more lateral than vertical, so far count me unimpressed by the bunch. I would would consider control of the Senate our top priority until I see a really good candidate.

          • aesthete

            Candidates like Huck would have very few coattails outside the South + Iowa. I’m also not convinced by the argument that the GOP Congress would be anything but a rubber stamp for Huck: Bush’s agenda was 100% supported by his GOP Congress, and outside of a few stalwarts like Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, and maybe some others like Bachmann and Marco Rubio (God bless ‘em), there won’t be anyone not toeing the line. If Obama is still President, the GOP has an incentive to unite against whatever he’s doing. If it’s a GOPer, the GOP will pretty much play to whatever leadership says, and if that “leadership” is an unrepentant statist like Huck, they’ll all be singing the praises of Medicare Part E, the Seniors Under Congressional Kare (SUCK) Bill, and whatever other abominations Huck and co conjure up. Bottom line: I don’t trust Huck to do anything but dramatically expand government, and I don’t want to vote for the guy who thinks that I’m not a good little Christian simply because I don’t like tyrannical government.

          • ZootSuit

            Consider the silence of conservatives under Bush.

          • Doc Holliday

            but I think some Repubs have learned their lesson. I believe the new blood would stand up to a statist. I can’t imagine Huck winning without bringing in more Repubs than Obama, it just doesn’t work that way. But how did I get in the position of defending Huck? This is like arguing what is worse, freezing to death or burning to death lol.

          • chihank

            Huck has a decent shot at winning the nomination esp, if Palin sits the primary out. Huck could win IA and SC. Mittens could win NH. Then Huck and Mittens duke it out for FL and MI. Huck polls very well in the South and Midwest. He could take the nomination. Also Huck’s book, “A Simple Government” is #2 on the NY Times best seller list. Thus there is interest in Mike Huckabee.

          • rightwingmom52

            I live in Alabama, and I don’t know anybody that likes Huckabee. Palin, yes; Paul, a few; but Huck, none. Most people still seem to be in a wait and see mode.

          • powertothepeople

            against opposition even now against Obama? Do you expect a miracle in less than 2 years?

            So the answer is easy,

            If you think a republican congress in 2012 would be able and willing to stand against a very dangerous Obama, then it should be a cakewalk to stand against the problems that would arise with Huckster. And at least he would not take us towards socialism..

            So the answer is Huck, no if and but about it. And sorry, while Huck is a joke, to state he would be as bad or worse than Obama is laughable at best. Huck never met a tax he did not like, he loves to increase government, etc but to this day I am yet to see him push a socialist agenda as I have seen Obama push on a daily basis.

            And on a side not, all this is sort of absurd, Huck stands about as good of a chance at winning the nomination as I do. But even if he did, he is still a better choice than Obama if only by a small margin.

          • powertothepeople

            out of all the possible candidates, Huck is my least favorite. Most here know my opinion of Palin and her ability to lead, so me saying I would chose her a 100 times more often then Huck says it all. I would chose Trump over Huck, God help us if it comes to that, but no matter my feelings on him or any of the other leaders, no way in hell would I chose Obama over any of them period, ever, end of story. He is pure evil and absolutely dangerous, he must go even if we have to nominate Mr Hanky, The Christmas Poo from South Park.

          • aesthete

            I’d be inclined to agree with you. Honestly, I was taken aback by the fact that Bush was the biggest expander of the welfare state since LBJ, and that as a matter of percentage, he expanded government more than any of the previous Presidents. When a guy like Huckabee says “you ain’t seen nothing yet” in response to that record, I take it seriously: especially when he has a record to back up that rhetoric! Even now, after all that has happened, Huck supports big gummint, p*ss poor foreign policy, and un-constitutional programs.

            If massively expanding government, lurvin him some taxes, and believing that government is better suited to manage my life isn’t akin to socialism, I don’t know what it is, and I don’t want to know! All I know is that I don’t want it anywhere near my party. To me, a vote for Huck is pretty much equivalent to a vote for Ron Paul: a choice that is unlikely to present itself in my lifetime, but one that makes it impossible for me to vote GOP, nonetheless. I understand if others feel that a GOP Congress to constrain him, but find such thinking optimistic.

          • powertothepeople

            I never think or would say a republican controlled congress would constrain anyone and that is my fear.

            You stated do I not think a republican controlled congress in 2012 would be able to stop Obama, and my answer is no. They could, but they will not. And I took it a step further, if you believe they will put a stop to the very dangerous policies of Obama, then it should be easy for them to stop Huck. He is a moron, but he is yet to show he is a dangerous moron. He is not going to try to take our guns, he is not going to back the unions up to using fed force to rule for them, he is not going to allow blatant voter intimidation to happen across this country, and so on. He would raise our taxes and do some other very non conservative things, but to date he has not shown himself to be dangerous which Obama has done time after time.

            My only point is this, Huck is not winning any more than Ron Paul would win. But setting aside the surety, Obama has to go and there can be no concession on that.

            I am in absolute agreement that Huck should never be dog catcher much less President, But Obama should be ran out of this country and we need to focus on that. And if our nominee is __________ and that person is not the best we could offer, we need to kick ourselves in the rear many times, stand in the mirror in shame that we pulled another 2008, but at the end of the day we have to concentrate on making sure Obama and as many of his sheep are fired and never again allowed to hold office anywhere.

          • aesthete

            that the esteemed Republican members of Congress (why are you laughing? :) ) are shameless hacks who change their position based on whether the guy who’s in charge will give them scraps from the dinner table or not. Obama, being a Dem, will not, since his groupies and ours are mutually exclusive; Huckabee will. It’s sort of like how Clinton was great only because he wasn’t able to do much with Reps blocking him on a lot of his agenda.

          • powertothepeople

            very much that our congress is as close to useless of something could be. I also agree Huck is crap and should not be president. But we will have to take this interesting conversation up at a later date as my head is not clear right now. As the day wanes, it becomes harder for me to function at a somewhat normal rate and the meds do little to help.

            But would love to carry this on another day when my mind is closer to normal than it is now.

          • ZootSuit

            I thought you said you had Alzheimer?s as something like a joke or hyperbole: My apologies for my misunderstanding.

            Whatever our disagreements here, you have my utmost respect.

            Best wishes.

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

            I am wondering because reading PowertothePeople often gives me conniptions, nothing in his writing even hints at Alzheimer’s. Don’t take this as an attack or rebuttal Power, I am just not seeing it. Some here think I am not as strong late at night for other reasons, ok, not some, just one person. That person may be right but not in the way they think.

            I do have a few pops now and then, but I also am suffering from tremendous stress as the lone caretaker of a person in late stage Alzheimers and a parapalegic. Please no one say they are sorry for me, it is life, our gigs change from time to time. But my point is that you write better than I do Power, and I have literature degrees. I suffer from stress that can cause a lack of coherence or desire for coherence from time to time. I still can battle with the best of them when it comes to content!

            But seriously Power, why would you think you have Alzheimer’s? I have seen it up close and the way you write, the way you fight, there really is not even a hint of it.

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

            He said his medication for it doesn’t work as well as he’d like.

          • Doc Holliday

            I still have to say as a layman who has watched the disease progress up close, I would get a second opinion PTP. Basically the only real Alzheimer’s medicine is Aricept. They start you low and raise it over time. There are many meds that help certain symptoms, off the top of my head Namenda, Zocor, Trazadone, clonopin, it really depends on the troubles you have. The real problem with the disease is that the effects change, your mood and sharpness can change from week to week and even throughout the day.

            This is not really the place to discuss it, but if I were you I would get more testing. There are many diseases, such as Parkinsons, that have similar symptoms but need other treatments. It is mostly guesswork trying to diagnose Alzheimer’s.

            Anyway, I hope the best for you, as I would for anyone suffering any condition, friend or foe, conservative or liberal. I will pray for your health.

            Doc

          • Doc Holliday

            meant Zoloft, not Zocor. BTW, have you had your thyroid checked?

          • powertothepeople

            and why would you think yourself able to give a diagnosis on a major disease just because you care for someone with advanced Alzheimer’s and because you read a persons writings? Got to be careful Doc, some may consider what you are saying an insult to their honesty………..

            Setting aside all that, I will pass your ideas and concepts of the disease off to my specialist and maybe I will get lucky and he will have been wrong these past two years.

            Really not sure it matters though, my wife has said I have had dementia (which Alzheimer’s is by the way) my entire life, they only now gave it a name.

            But again, kudos to you for standing in the gap for your family member, it could not be easy. And it is something we dread as this progresses, but we have done our best to prepare for what is coming.

            PS, that is not the only medicine….. and the medicines vary by stage. On another side not, my grandfather had Parkinson and the two are no where near the same and the difference is easily seen by medical staff.

          • powertothepeople

            First and foremost, hate to hear of your family member. It is a nasty disease and to be in the final stage of it, has to be tough.

            That being said, you seem to want to know more personal info about me as this is the third time you have asked for more info. If you would like to know me better, within reason I am more than happy to go into more but it will not be done on this public forum, provide me with an email and we will chat.

            But on this matter, I am willing to share a bit more. I am UNDER the care of a specialist and in my second year of Alzheimer’s.( the technical stage would be early/mild stage three) This is the disease in its very early form and is somewhat well controlled by medicine. I forget words, I tend to get irritated easier, depressed a bit more, things like that. And as the day progresses, things get worse or tougher for me especially if stress is involved in the day.

            Now, not sure what you know about the disease, but you do not go from diagnosis to slobbering idiot in one day. It takes years to lose most of your mind and it is a slow drawn out process,

            As far as my writings, I must say thanks that you feel mine are better than yours. I tend to think mine are on the lower level of writings and on the site I rank barely about spammers. I am just no good at writing, never have been. But regardless, Alzheimer”s does not end you life or your abilities. Many have written published books after having the disease longer than me and being further along. Richard Taylor comes to mind along with a lady who wrote a kids book about her disease, Rhoda Cohen. They were and are further along yet still were able to write a published book, my rambling drivel should not impress.

            You have a questioning type make-up and that is a good thing, but if you want to question me and know more, next time provide me with an email and I will be more than happy to talk with you and give you whatever info you need within reason.

          • Doc Holliday

            as a caretaker I am bombarded by “help” from others in the form of advice I have heard over and over. So I know it can get annoying.

            I am not questioning your honesty or anything else, my intention was to be supportive. I simply meant that your writing does not make me think of someone with that disease, and I said I was a layman.

            I could explain myself more, but I am just not interested in continuing this. I can say this, the written word is a very poor form of communication, particularly when people don’t know each other and don’t TRUST each other. Just something I noticed.

            Good luck.

          • Doc Holliday

            and you obviously don’t trust ME. I should have said nothing, like everyone else.

          • Doc Holliday

            and you know it. It was a fair question and I did not push it, nor did you answer it.

          • aesthete
          • powertothepeople

            and I am sure you know this so I am preaching to the choir, we throw the word socialism out way too much. Growing a bigger government or raising taxes in itself is not socialism. It is def not conservatism, but it is also no where close to socialism. True socialism should scare the socks off of all of us and Obama not only wants socialism, but he desires it. He has not driven us full force that way, he has done it the same way every other country has done it, bit by bit.

            Huck is not a conservative and his policies are crap, but he is as far removed from socialism as Obama is from conservatism.

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

            (In no particular order)

            Ron Paul.
            Sarah Palin.
            John McCain.
            Bob Dole.
            George HW Bush.
            My Dead White Cat.

          • acat

            but otherwise agree with your list.

            I’d also vote for this guy:

            Zombie Reagan

            Mew

          • ZootSuit

            I want you and everyone else to know that I stand by what I wrote, no matter who disagrees with me. Unless conservatives can become honest about themselves, then this country is doomed, no matter what who occupies the White House and/or controls Congress.

            If you decide to disable my account, no hard feelings.

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

            We don’t ban people for saying they like Democrat X more than Republican Y.

            I’d consider banning people for going out of their way to say they’d vote that way. I’d ban people who’d promote such a vote.

            But this sort of candidate comparison isn’t something I’m ready to ban for, no.

          • ZootSuit

            And for the record, if the choice actually came down to Obama vs. Huckabee, I don’t think I would be promoting my vote. I’d be too busy contemplating suicide.

          • acat

            from which to try to ride out the country’s suicide…

            Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)
          • Doc Holliday

            I don’t think “experience” makes one statist better than the other, it probably makes them worse. Of course I would take Huck over Obama because one loves America and the other does not.

            btw, nice to see you around these parts Zoot. I know in the past I agreed with almost everything you said other than your core philosophy :) and you know what I am talking about. I respect your tenacity, anyone who tries to get you to change your mind is really wasting their time.

          • ZootSuit

            Even when we’ve disagreed, I hope I have been logical, factual and consistent.

          • Doc Holliday
        • aesthete

          I have consistently said that Huck is the only candidate who would make me vote third party. (If I were living in a battleground state, I might pull the lever for Obama, execrable as he is.)

          • ZootSuit

            And in case my account is ever disabled, my e-mail address is zootsuit_redstate@att.net. Please stay in touch.

    • runner12

      conservatives insulting. It is as if you painted everyone with a broad brush without stopping to think that people are individuals and not groups of people to be slated into a category. Conservatism is not a person or candidate, it is a set of principles and ideals. If said person claims to be a conservative and fails to uphold the conservative ideals, he or she is NOT a conservative.

      I have not problem with your issues with some GOP candidates, especially on Huckabee. Perhaps you should distinguish between Conservative and Republican. There is a BIG difference.