Re-posted by PJ Media

Hearing the news that conservative “rising star” Florida Senator Marco Rubio has endorsed Mitt Romney, one could now say his nomination is a “slam dunk”.

That phase, you may remember, was famously attributed to CIA Director George Tenet in 2002 as he assured President Bush about the evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Now, Mitt Romney’s presumed “slam dunk” nomination reminds me of another infamous phase from that same Iraq War era.

“You go to war with the army you have—not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”

That statement, uttered in 2004 by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, was in response to a soldier’s complaints about equipment shortages.

So now it is time for a “teachable moment.”

Take Rumsfeld’s quote, revise it slightly and apply it to Mitt Romney as the GOP 2012 nominee.

We will battle Obama with the candidate we have –not the candidate we might want or wish to have at a later time.

This statement should be the Republican Party mantra going forward.

As Republicans, do we really have a choice?

President Obama 2.0, his second-term sequel will be a disaster movie with the name “Unleashed.”

We only saw a glimpse of it this week with the Russian “open mike” incident and Obama is well aware, if re-elected, he will never have to face the voters again.

He will rule as much as possible by Executive Orders. He will find ways to do end runs around Congress, if the knows they will not go along. He will have at least one, maybe even two Supreme Court seats to fill, and that will be his most enduring legacy.

The possibilities are endless how Obama 2.0 will find ways to trample the Constitution.

And who will stop him short of impeachment?

As a concerned American, I believe it is imperative that President Obama is defeated. Thus, Republicans must rally around Mitt Romney because he is the candidate we have – not the candidate we might want or wish to have at a later time.

Now all you disgruntled Republicans out there, repeat this quote twice in the morning and once at bedtime.

Trust me, you will feel better.

Re-posted from PJ Media

Recently, I heard a rumor from an “in the know” Republican political operative about Democrat presidential jockeying for 2016.

The topic of the 2016 race arose while we were discussing the question first and foremost on the minds of all political junkies in 2012. Who will Mitt Romney select as his vice-presidential running mate?

After weighing in with my prediction from last year that current Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell would be chosen, the political operative said that in spite of how hard McDonnell’s people are in fact pushing to make that happen, he disagreed that McDonnell would be tapped.

However, he suggested that McDonnell should run for Virginia Senator Mark Warner’s open seat in 2014. Open seat?  That statement raised my eyebrows.

For an open seat means Senator Mark Warner would not be running for re-election in 2014.  Apparently this rumor is making its way around Washington.

If true, this could have a tremendous ripple effect for the 2016 Democratic presidential race because Senator Warner then plans to run for governor of Virginia in 2013.

Here is why this rumor is important.

Warner’s long term strategic reasoning is that he will have a better shot at the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 if he is a sitting governor rather than just a run-of-the-mill senator.  More revealing, is Warner thinks the longer he stays in the senate, he will accumulate a pesky voting record that will come back to haunt his presidential campaign. (As a prime example, nothing could be peskier than Warner’s recent vote against  the Keystone pipeline.)

Everyone in political circles knows that Mark Warner has a burning desire to occupy the Oval Office, and running for president as the governor of Virginia is an action plan that could actually work in his favor.

For those of you not familiar with Virginia politics, it is important to note that the governor of Virginia is limited to only one four-year term. However, the law allows a former governor to seek the office again, just not consecutively.

This law is tailor made for Warner’s presidential time table, having already served as governor of Virginia from January 2002 – January 2006.

During those years Warner was a popular and successful executive. So successful in fact, he thought his one-term as governor would be enough to launch a bid for the White House in 2008.

He found out otherwise, and then cited family concerns as the reason for not making the run.

As only a former one-term governor, Warner knew he needed to continue building his national resume if he was to make a future run for the presidency.

So, in 2007, Warner announced he was doing what other Virginia governors have done and that is to run for the United States Senate.

The opportunity to run for the 2008 open senate seat vacated by a popular long time senator, who just happened to have the same last name, was for Mark Warner, the political equivalent of picking low hanging fruit.

Mark Warner’s Republican opponent, also hoping to fill retiring Senator John Warner’s seat was Jim Gilmore, another former Virginia governor (1998 -2002) who preceded Mark Warner.

As expected, former Governor Mark Warner crushed former Governor Jim Gilmore by 31 points, winning 65% to 34%. To make Warner’s victory even sweeter, Barack Obama won the state in 2008. Not since LBJ in 1964 had a Democrat presidential nominee won Virginia.

Since then, Senator Mark Warner has kept relatively quiet in the senate, but that low profile is deceiving.  For Mark Warner is a very smart, ambitious, self-made millionaire business-man who is using his time in the senate to learn all about domestic/international issues, and cement relationships that will help in his quest to become a formidable presidential candidate in 2016.

Back in September of 2010, I wrote this piece speculating that Mark Warner would appear on a presidential ticket before 2016. My thinking was President Obama would replace Vice-President Biden with Senator Warner for a host of good political reasons.

Obviously that was not to be,  but there is still a high-stakes game of musical chairs among current and former Virginia governors with questions worth watching this year and in 2016.

Will Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell get tapped by Romney to be his VP?

Will Senator Mark Warner leave the senate to run for governor of Virginia as a platform for a White House run in 2016?

If Romney does not choose McDonnell or if a Romney/McDonnell ticket is defeated, will McDonnell run for Warner’s potentially open 2014 senate seat?

To make matters even more interesting, the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza thinks a Mark Warner vs. Bob McDonnell presidential show down may be in the offing for 2016.

Finally, let’s not forget the saga of two more former Virginia governors, Democrat Tim Kaine (2006 – 2010) and Republican George Allen (1994 – 1998). They are currently battling each other for the open Virginia senate seat being vacated by Senator Jim Webb who defeated then incumbent Senator George Allen in 2006.

(Surely you remember Allen’s now infamous “macaca” incident?)

This Kaine/Allen senate race is one to keep an eye on for the outcome will help determine which party wins control of the senate.

Anyway you look at it, there are way too many Virginia governors running around always running for something.  But watch closely, for all their collective ambitions could have a profound effect on national and presidential politics in 2012 and 2016.

There is only one thing worse in presidential politics than getting caught NOT having sex with an intern in the White House and that is having your presidential campaign and character defined by an Etch A Sketch and your dead dog.

Unfortunately that is the situation now facing Mitt Romney.

The only good thing about the Etch a Sketch debacle is it has now replaced  Romney’s dog narrative in the news cycle. But I fully expect the dog and the Etch A Sketch to follow Romney around until November.

For those of you who have successfully avoided the dog story, that is no longer an option, because it has gone viral and is now a social and cultural phenomenon. Even the Sunday morning news shows have been dogged.

On ABC This Week, Rick Santorum equated Romney’s dog saga with Romney’s character, and based on this incident, asked the viewers if Romney was the kind of person who you would want in the White House.

Santorum was responding to a question about his top strategist who pointed to the dog story as an example of Romney’s flawed value judgment.

Did Romney cheat on his wife? No. Did he steal from the taxpayers? No. Those are normally the types of behavior that would justify calling into question a candidate’s character and judgment, especially during a presidential primary campaign on national television. But no, this story is about a dog, long dead and stems from a Romney family vacation dating back to President Ronald Reagan’s first term.

So, before we go any further, let’s review the damaging doggie details.

Back in 1983, Mitt Romney’s dog Seamus was transported in a crate on the roof of the family car because the car was totally packed as his large family was heading for a vacation to Canada.

Along the way, Seamus did his business in a messy, wet, brown, doggie kind of way and drippings began to appear on the car windows.  Daddy Mitt stopped at a gas station to hose off the windows and then continued the long drive.

For the record, Seamus died in 2006 so he was not available to defend his owner.

However, here are 10 reasons why a family story from 1983 has landed front and center in the 2012 race for the White House.

1. The media and bloggers keep it alive.

2. The professional left keeps it alive.

(Will someone please tell me the difference between these two groups anyway?)

3. Dog lovers keep it alive.

4. Animal activist groups keep it alive.

5. Social media and the web keep it alive.

6. Comedians keep it alive.

7.  Mitt Romney haters keep it alive.

8. President Obama’s team keeps it alive.

9. Newt Gingrich keeps it alive.

10. Rick Santorum and his staff keep it alive.

And why will all of the above continue to keep this story alive?

Because it serves their agenda which is to stop or defeat Mitt Romney. They all know in a close race, either for the nomination on in the general election, this nearly three decades old tale strikes an emotional chord that could be the difference between victory and defeat for Mitt Romney.

After all, there are 78 million dogs in the nation and their owners vote.

For all these reasons, Seamus has become an opinion leader more than any Westminster Kennel Club winner could ever dream of.  (Seamus protesters were there too!)

Seamus has also has become the political equivalent of a Rorschach test. For after hearing the infamous story you interpret, and respond according to who you are and where you stand socially and politically.

This issue could hurt Romney all the way to November because people read into it what they want and that is usually not in Romney’s favor.

On the liberal side, MSNBC’s Rachael Maddow says the story “could help define Romney as “cold” and “unfeeling” and “out of touch.” It was, she said, “the kind of intangible that can define a presidential campaign. “  Please note, this is the one and only time Rachael Maddow and I have ever agreed on anything.

The Republican candidates are nicer of course, just questioning Romney’s character and judgment.

Not holding back, is Lanny Davis, a prominent former “Clinton Team” member and Fox News analyst. He wrote in a January Fox News editorial that the Seamus issue makes Romney unfit to be president.

Seriously?  A declaration like that from a somewhat credible, albeit partisan spokesman who defended Bill Clinton during his dog days, is further proof our national discourse has reached new lows.

So while America is in the process of tanking, please take this opportunity to enjoy “The Best of Seamus” – and with 2,920,000 Google mentions there was a lot to choose from.

Seamus is now America’s most famous dead political dog leaving FDR’s Fala and Nixon’s Checkers in the dust.  But even from dog heaven, despite these hard economic times, Seamus has generated his own economic stimulus package, making his owner proud.

Check out the web site Dogs Against Romney.com which bills itself as the official “Dogs against Romney Store.”  Here you can purchase t-shirts, mugs and bumper stickers with slogans like “Mitt is Mean”, “I Ride Inside” and “Dogs Aren’t Luggage.”

Seamus has a Wiki entry of course, and is so famous that he even has his own “gate” scandal called Crate-gate, which no doubt equals Watergate in Democrat dog years.

Crate-Gate: Mitt Romney, his dog Seamus, and your vote, is the headline on the Seamus Facebook page.

All this fame has made Seamus a bona fied You Tube star with 105 videos the last time I checked. The best produced video stars a singing Seamus in The Mutt Romney Blues. This was produced by Brave New Films a well established liberal media group funded by George Soros …no surprise there.

As all loyal You Tubers know, only A-list celebrities get rewarded with an extra special video of Hitler reacting to whatever “news” story is in the headlines. (The first one I ever saw was Hitler reacting to Sarah Palin’s selection as VP.)  Here is Hitler reacting to Tebow defeating the Pittsburg Steelers.  You get the idea.

So now that Seamus is a top dog, he too gets spoofed with “Hitler finds out Romney strapped his dog to the car roof”. The sickest line is when Hitler screams to his generals about Romney’s cruelty. Well, you just have to see it for yourself.

Finally my “Best of Seamus” selections conclude with this question asked in the headline of the Seamus 2012  home page, a web site that is everything Seamus and reads: White House or Dog House for Romney?

I fully expect the dog and the Etch A Sketch will be with us until November and become Romney’s negative symbols like windsurfing was for John Kerry in 2004.

For it is only a matter of time before political cartoons have Seamus playing with an Etch A Sketch. Then, the Obama- friendly media can use both symbols to totally define Romney.

After all, what could be worse than a political flip-flopper who straps his dog to the roof?

Re-posted from PJ Media

So what does the Etch A Sketch firestorm really mean for the Romney campaign?

The answer is bad news and good news depending on where you stand politically.

For the record, here is the entire exchange that has the chattering class all a twitter.

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

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

First, here is the bad news.

Fehrnstrom’s answer about a reset for the fall campaign is exactly the reason why Romney has not caught fire with the base.  Sure, they may eventually hold their noses and vote for him but Fehrnstrom’s statement is significant because it is so visual.

An Etch A Sketch symbolizes what the Republican base thinks are Romney’s loosely held views that will be erased when it is politically expedient to do so.  The even worse news is Fehrnstrom’s remark has wiped away all the momentum Romney had after winning the Illinois primary coupled with Jeb Bush’s sought after endorsement. Both events were significant and both allowed Romney to breathe easier on his way to sealing the deal for the nomination. Romney will still be the nominee of course, but an Etch A Sketch will forever stand as the symbol of mistrust with the base.

Now here is the good news.

Moderates and independent voters in key battleground states who are looking for an alternative to President Obama are generally not scared off by Romney’s brand of conservatism. They think in his heart he is a moderate who has been forced to the right by the likes of Gingrich, Santorum and a rabid red-meat base who now comprise the majority of Republican primary voters. They are assuming and fully expecting that Romney will move to the middle for the general election.

So from a moderate voter point of view, Fehrnstrom’s remark makes sense and is possibly a sigh of relief.  Of course exactly how Romney moves to the middle and on what issues, is still to be determined.

However, here is where the general election stands now.

The Real Clear Politics average has Romney losing to Obama by 4.5%. So clearly Romney needs to make major headway across the political spectrum if he is to capture the White House and have some coat-tails to help win the Senate and keep the House.

Unfortunately, Etch A Sketch will now be the symbol of the “anyway the wind blows”, flip-flopper argument that President George W. Bush successfully used against Senator John Kerry in 2004. An argument that Obama had already fully intended to use against Romney even before he was handed the Etch A Sketch gift.

For in politics, once you give voters a strong symbol that represents an existing narrative, that symbol becomes who you are.

Just ask John Kerry who is forever linked with windsurfing.

Re-posted from PJ Media

One unintended consequence of this competitive GOP presidential primary is a tarnishing of the Republican “brand.” Not that the brand image was all that shiny before the primaries, however, the last three months of candidate in-fighting has done what may be irreparable damage with certain key voter groups.

Most important among these groups are moderate/independent women who could be the deciding factor between victory and defeat in crucial swing states.

An ABC/Washington Post poll released today revealed that women back in September of 2010 favored the GOP by 11 points as the party that “best represented their personal values.”  Today, that number has shifted 5 points in favor of the Democratic Party accord to this poll.

Now, I do not believe Mitt Romney was responsible for this shift and I will refrain from naming the presidential primary candidate whose statements have caused moderate/independent women to flee the Republican Party.  However, attracting women swing voters back to September 2010 levels for the general election becomes Romney’s burden once the primary circus is over.

Fortunately, Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann Romney, is best positioned to help bring moderate women back into the party and most likely will be utilized as Romney’s “Ambassador to Women.” Mrs. Romney is a polished speaker, comes across as genuine, is extremely likable and connects well with audiences.  I am confident she would be a model First Lady.

Believe it or not, women actually care about who is First Lady of the United States, probably more than they care to admit and vote accordingly. (I personally know numerous women who did not cast their vote for John Kerry in 2004 because they did not want  Mrs. Heinz-Kerry to be First Lady.)

But can Mr. and Mrs. Romney help undo the damage caused by a former Senator from Pennsylvania and make the Republican Party more women-friendly again?

The answer is “yes,” but only if there is enough time to turn it around.

A re-branding of the entire Republican Party image is badly needed for the general election but especially with moderate women.

For if this race drags on and women swing-voters who have now found a safe haven in the arms of President Obama and the Democrats, decide to stay there come November, the Republican Party runs the risk of losing not only the White House but the Senate and possibly the House as well.

Another reason why it is time for Republicans to band together and stop fighting each other before more damage is done with women and other key voter groups.

Re-posted from PJ Media

Q. Congressman West, you have decided to run for reelection in newly drawn Florida District 18, where there are more Republican registered voters, instead of your current Florida District 22 that will also be redrawn to include more registered Democrat voters. This decision points to a realization that your conservative message only plays well in Republican-leaning districts, and that if you stayed in your current District 22 your chances of reelection would have been substantially reduced. Why do your strongly held conservative principles seem to be so polarizing among the general voting population?

A. Conservative principles are not new — after all, our nation was founded on conservative principles of limited government, individual responsibility, and a strong defense. The problem is these principles have been ignored by the liberal progressive politicians and certain media which have convinced much of the voting population that government can solve all their problems, will take care of them from cradle-to-grave, and it is our nation’s fault that our enemies wish to do us harm.

Traditional conservative principles are threatening to a populace spoon-fed liberal progressive lies and misrepresentation.

Q. Martin County Sheriff Robert Crowder will be challenging you  in a GOP primary in FL-18. Crowder has said that “outsiders shouldn’t be able to move in and get a free ride.” Are you concerned about Crowder’s primary challenge? Will Crowder’s entry into the race force you to make any changes to your campaign strategy or message?

A. Every member of the House of Representatives must stand for reelection every two years. There is no such thing as a “free ride.” It is up to the voters to decide who will best represent them on Capitol Hill. My conservative message is not a campaign strategy, it is my fundamental belief. I always have and will continue to stand for the strong conservative principles on which this nation was founded.

Q. The conventional wisdom among Democrats is that you are “too radical.” Do you resent that label? Do you believe there is any truth to that moniker?

A. What concerns me deeply is that today, the traditional principles upon which this great nation was founded are somehow considered “radical.” Some argue 236 years ago, the idea of forming a nation where power derives from the individual and not from a monarch was “radical.” The fact that patriotism, belief in God and a willingness to fight for our constitutional freedom and liberties is labeled by some as “radical” simply demonstrates to me how misguided liberal Democrats have become.

Q. Democrat congressional candidate Patrick Murphy, who was in a primary battle with Democrat Lois Frankel for the opportunity to run against you in FL-22, announced on February 8 that he is now following you to FL-18, where he most likely will be your opponent in the November general election.

When Mr. Murphy announced his intent to run against you in FL-18 he said the following: “Today our campaign is putting Mr. West on notice. … There is no safe district he can run to.”

Please comment on Mr. Murphy’s assertion that you are running to a safe district.

A. Fascinating.

Q. Regardless of what any Democrat says about you, the fact remains that your message is resonating with conservatives. The proof is you have raised just under  $5.8 million from around the nation in the 2012 election cycle.

This is remarkable because it is more than any member of Congress except Speaker of the House John Boehner, who raised $12 million. By comparison, fellow Florida Congresswoman and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz raised just under $1.7 million.

You also out-raised Florida Senator Bill Nelson, who is running for reelection ($5.6 million vs. your $5.8 million). Why do you think your fundraising ability is so high — more like a senate campaign than a congressional reelection?

A. The conservative message we profess is resonating across the land. The American people are looking for a strong messenger — look what happened during the 2010 mid-term elections. More and more Americans are waking up and realizing this country is on the wrong track, and we need to get back to the fundamental principles that made this nation great.

I never shy away from the truth. I will not be silenced by political correctness. A strong voice is needed to cut through the liberal cacophony of the current administration and its mainstream media allies.

Q. Do you regret not running against Senator Bill Nelson, especially since you have outraised him?

A. Nope.

Q. As a rising star and leader in the conservative movement with great national media appeal, where do you see yourself in five years?

A. Let me start by saying that five years before I got elected to the United States House of Representatives, I was in the desert of Afghanistan. I could never have imagined that today I would have the honor to serve our nation in the United States Congress. I have spent my life serving my country. I will continue to serve, in whatever capacity I can. Ultimately, that decision is not mine. It belongs to the American people, my family, and God.

Q. If Governor Mitt Romney is the GOP presidential nominee will you ask him to campaign for you in your new congressional district?

A. I think Governor Mitt Romney will have plenty of other priorities more important than campaigning for a freshman congressman.

Q. Do you believe Governor Romney is a conservative?

A. John Locke said: “I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.” Over the course of his tenure leading the state of Massachusetts, one might question the conservatism of some of Governor Romney’s decisions. Governor Romney, as a Republican, had to govern one of the bluest states in the country. I certainly believe Governor Romney is more conservative than President Obama.

Q. As you know, Florida is a must-win state for Governor Romney in a general election. If Romney asked you to campaign for him or with him statewide in Florida, would you say “yes”?

A. I shall wholeheartedly support the chosen Republican candidate for president — unless of course that candidate is Ron Paul and we had a discussion and an understanding on where we disagree on foreign policy.

Q. Do you enjoy all the media attention you often garner, especially after you have said something that is perceived as controversial?

A. I believe we need to change the conversation in this country. I believe that we need to challenge the status quo. I believe we need to shake the foundation of the entrenched special interests. Most important, I believe in stimulating ideas and forcing the American people to do what we do not do enough of today: think! What I say is only controversial to those afraid of the truth.

Re-posted from PJ Media

Nothing infuriates me more these days than when I hear a pundit on television talk about how a long Republican presidential primary, possibly even to June, will make the candidates stronger so that the eventual winner will be better primed to take on President Obama.

The example always given is 2008 when Obama battled Hillary until June. The reasoning is that their lengthy battle enhanced and refined their collective campaign skills so that one of them was able to be elected president in spite of the vicious battle.

Yes, that was true in 2008 but there is one huge factor, captured in one word, that renders those presidential primary circumstances completely different from what the GOP faces in 2012. That word is incumbent and incumbent presidents have all the advantages.

So instead of Republicans lulling themselves into a false sense of security with the “we are just like they were in 2008 and it turned out well” attitude, Republicans should look to 2004 for a more realistic assessment of what we will be up against should this primary drag on. Unfortunately the historical comparison is definitely not in our favor.

Consider 2004, when President George W. Bush was running for re-election. In early March 2004, his presidential performance rating was 49% approval with a 48% disapproval.

Then, on March 3, 2004, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry became the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee after a decisive Super Tuesday victory, forcing North Carolina Senator John Edwards to drop out of the race.

Here is a transcript of what Gwen Ifill of PBS said that evening about Kerry’s victory.

“Kerry’s near-clean Super Tuesday sweep made him the Democrats’ presumptive nominee and set up an eight-month challenge to President George W. Bush. He spent last night and today rallying his troops and preparing for the campaign’s next phase.”

It is instructive to note here that John Kerry had eight full months of preparation time to run against a well-funded incumbent whose approval rating only stood in the high forties.

From this same transcript it, is also worth revisiting what John Kerry said on that victorious evening in early March 2004:

“Tonight, the message could not be clearer all across our country — Change is coming to America. (Cheers and applause) Before us lie long months of effort and of challenge, and we understand that. We have no illusions about the Republican attack machine and what our opponents have done in the past and what they may try to do in the future. But I know that together we are equal to this task. I am a fighter! (Cheers and applause)”

Yes, John Kerry was a fighter, but fighting against even a weak incumbent with an eight month start proved to be too much a fight for Kerry the Vietnam veteran.

Let’s shift back to 2012, where many Republican leaders and even more primary voters are deluding themselves into thinking a long drawn-out primary battle is good for the eventual nominee’s prospects against President Obama.

Obama, like President Bush in 2004, will be well-funded, super organized, and currently has virtually the same approval rating (48.9%) as Bush had when Kerry became the presumptive nominee in March of 2004.

But John Kerry, with a long lead time and a united party behind him, still lost to Bush in a close election. (The last Gallup poll before the election had Bush at 48% approval. However, just after the election he jumped to 53% approval.)

Now, in 2012, facing a polarizing incumbent, the GOP itself is dangerously divided, an issue that John Kerry never had to deal with.

The GOP candidates, as a result of inflicting damage upon each other with super PAC help, not even a factor in 2008, are becoming weaker by the day while Obama is gaining strength. The Real Clear Politics average has Obama defeating Romney by 5.7%, a huge increase over a few months ago when Obama and Romney were virtually tied. (Santorum runs even worse, losing to Obama by 8%.)

To make matters worse, the new Republican nominating rules for 2012 (with the objective of making the primary contest more competitive by changing the way delegates are allocated ) practically ensures that the primary fight will be dragged out until summer.

So now, every day that the GOP does not have a strong presumptive nominee is one less day to prepare against a president who flies around on Air Force One campaigning non-stop while taxpayers foot the bill.

Republicans need to think seriously about John Kerry’s eight months of prep time in 2004 as the example to be emulated, rather than being falsely comforted by the June 2008 battle of Obama vs. Hillary.

Ideally, if, starting in March, Mitt Romney were to become the official presumed nominee, and had eight months to gather momentum — it would be just enough time to help unite the party, improve his wounded image, and gear up for the general election.

Then, with such a timetable, Romney would have a decent shot at defeating our incumbent president — for I strongly believe he is the only GOP candidate this year who is capable of attracting enough independent and moderate voters to garner the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House.

But such a timetable at this stage of the primary game show is pure fantasy.

Meanwhile, it’s back to the front lines of the primary battle with Republican base voters who correctly say that Romney will lose against Obama. Yes, if he wins the nomination, and then has four less months than John Kerry had in 2004 to prepare against an incumbent, Romney will more than likely lose the general election and it will be the Republican base that defeated him.

Re-posted from  PJ Media

Could Nevada be the new Florida in determining the winner of the 2012 presidential election?  If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee (and, yes, he is still is on track despite Rick Santorum’s surge) my hunch is Nevada will be the mother of all battleground states and here’s why.

Click on this map and you will see how Romney red wins with 272 electoral votes while Obama blue loses with 262.

However, the latest Real Clear Politics (RCP) average shows Obama leading Romney by 4.2%. This RCP poll average is growing in Obama’s favor. It was bumped up by two full points recently with the latest unemployment rate dipping to 8.3% which the Obama-loving press played up to sound like the rate had just dropped below 5%. Additionally, Obama’s growing lead could also be a signal how the GOP primary battle is hurting Romney’s chances. Unfortunately, this battle does not look like it will end anytime soon.

With all that in mind, click on this map to see how RCP views the national electoral landscape. It gives Obama a decisive 217 to 181 advantage right at the starting gate.

My Republican electoral victory theory with Nevada as the last grand prize is based on five important battleground states all turning to Romney. If any one of these five are won again by President Obama it’s game over, four more years.

The five, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana are what I fondly call the red rogue states. Together they account for 86 electoral votes.

In 2008 Obama swept them all, while in 2000 and 2004 they all went for Bush.

For the sake of my fantasy theory, assume Romney is successful in these five red rogue states. Then, add their 86 electoral totals to the 180 electoral votes from the 2008 McCain states. Fortunately for the Republicans, the 2008 McCain states gained a net of six electoral votes in 2012.

(Texas gained four, while Utah, Arizona, Georgia and South Carolina each gained one. Missouri and Louisiana each lost one.)

Add 86 to 180 and Romney is at 266. So close yet so far.

Enter Nevada with six electoral votes up from five in 2008.

In 2008 Obama won it, 55% to McCain’s 43%. Bush in 2004 barely won Nevada 51% to Kerry’s 48%. Then in 2000 Bush was stronger against Gore, 50% to 46%.

Those six electoral votes from Nevada bring Romney to 272 and a seat in the Oval office. (270 are needed to win)

Why do I think Nevada is winnable for Romney given Obama’s 12 point victory there in 2008?  Here are a few reasons.

First, Nevada’s Mormon population is 6.5%. If they vote in a block, which is most likely, that gives Romney a huge boost up front.

Second, Nevada has the nation’s highest unemployment rate at 12.6% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Will Obama’s 2008 hope and change leave Nevada voters hoping for another change in the Oval Office?

Third, are voter registration statistics.

According to the office of the Nevada Secretary of State in January 2012 there were 447,881 registered Democrats and 400,310 Republicans — roughly 10% more Democrats. Then factor in 172,463 non-partisan voters and 48,972 independents for a combined total of 221,435 “up for grabs” voters.

With Nevada’s high unemployment rate is it plausible that 65% of the 221,435 non-aligned voters could break for Romney, leaving 35% for Obama?

If so, that means Romney wins 544,242 to Obama’s 525,383. This assumes all the registered Republican and Democrat voters stay with their party, which of course will not happen, but just how much crossover to expect is difficult to predict at this time. However, you get the idea what it will take for Romney to win.

(Note: there are a total of 1,082,705 registered voters in Nevada. Green, Libertarian, and other comprise 13,079 which are not included in these totals mentioned above. However, if all 13,079 voted for Obama that would bring him to 538,462 compared to Romney’s 544,242.)

Any way you slice it, the general election in Nevada will be a nail biter, maybe even on the scale of Florida in 2000 without the hanging chads. But, considering these three factors Romney could be positioned to pull off a victory.

Here is my favorite Republican victory equation for 2012:

McCain’s 2008 states with net six, plus five red rogue states, plus Nevada’s six with 65% independent vote  = 272

Now I know what some of you are thinking, “There is another way for this equation to work,” so here it is.

Let’s say Obama wins Nevada, or rather the unions and Senator Harry Reid “win Nevada” for Obama. Fortunately for Romney, there is another influential little state, where he has a vacation home that just happens to have the last four electoral vote pieces he needs to complete the White House puzzle.

So let’s try this equation once again…  McCain’s 2008 states with net six, plus five red rogue states, plus New Hampshire’s four electoral votes = 270.

Then you might imagine how “Live Free or Die” — New Hampshire’s famous Revolutionary War slogan, will be infused with new meaning on election night.