It’s a curious situation. Thus far, the Republican primary has been a sitcom titled “The Search for the Not-Mitt.” The Romney forces assume it will end as a version of Waiting for Godot. There is, they believe, no Non-Mitt, so whatever disenchantments Romney inspires, he’s the man:
ESTRAGON: I can’t go on like this.
VLADIMIR: That’s what you think.
Advertisement
That’s one scenario. Conrad Black, in the column cited above, outlines another. “The nation,” Black writes, “is not turning its lonely eyes toward, Willard M. Romney, widely perceived as a plastic policy weather vane and incorrect health-care champion who was mean to the family dog”:
But the process that has produced a nominee easily for both parties at every convention since 1952 now looks likely not to work this year; there is no bandwagon, and there could be the first real draft since the Democrats chose Adlai Stevenson in 1952, and, on the Republican side, since Wendell Willkie in 1940.
The genius of the American system produces a serious leader when the country has to have one, and substitutes an improvised selection process when the normal procedures don’t work. . . . Out of this astonishing showdown of able non-presidents, either a mid-primary inspiration or a convention-eve groundswell will identify the right candidate. The office is seeking the man, or woman, but so far without success; so the search will continue.
I suspect — at least, I hope — that Conrad is right. Shortly after the 2010 election, I was invited to tag along as speaker on a National Review cruise. It was a moment of what Nanki-Poo called “modified rapture”: Republican victories were great, but not as great as they might have been. And what of the 2012 election? I thought that the pollster Scott Rasmussen, another speaker on that voyage, diagnosed the situation exactly. What, he asked, did the American people want the government to do? Only 21 percent of those polled, he reported, said that they believed that the government operated with the consent of the governed. Americans, the evidence says, do not want to be governed by Democrats. But they do not want to be governed by Republicans, either. They want a government that, by adhering to the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility, will continue that great experiment that Washington, Madison, and Hamilton inaugurated in the late 18th century: a government that managed the great trick of being an exercise in self-government.
Mr. Rasmussen also made a prediction, one that bears on the current circus that is the Republican primary contest. The prediction was this: that the Republican candidate in 2012 would not be Mitt Romney. It would not be Tim Pawlenty (this was November 2010, remember) or Newt Gingrich. Nor would it be Sarah Palin. But the candidate would, said Scott Rasmussen , be “a friend of Sarah’s,” i.e., someone who spoke up for the forgotten principles of the Founders, who believed, with Ronald Reagan, that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
Right now, today, Mitt Romney looks like a shoo-in. But I think there is a lot in what Messrs. Black and Rasmussen say. A week, after all, is a long time in politics.
Also read:
Barack Obama Will Still Be President on January 19, 2017
My thoughts and sentiments exactly. I don’t want to be forced once again to hold my nose and vote for an establishment, ruling-class Republican.
If Romney wins, he will be the not-Obama candidate.
I totally agree! My nose still hurts from how hard I had to pinch it in order to cast a vote for neoconservative John “bomb, bomb Iran” McCain. I really doubt there would be any change of substance if either “Flip-Flop” Romney or “Mr. Family Values” Gingrich were to be elected. We would still be burdened with big government advocates in fact though not rhetoric.
I would vote third party before voting for a Romney or Gingrich Republican against the Obamessiah — heads we lose, tails we lose.
Same problem as last time. Too many conservatives spliting up the same, majority vote which produces a John McCain nominee. Iowa is going to be a mess from the sounds of it. NH is Romney’s to lose – he has a home there so it’s down to South Carolina again.
None of the candidates, with the possible exception of Michelle Bachmann, is the person desired by the Tea Party type of voter (a down-sizing of government being the first priority). And she, frankly, appears unelectable. The strategy for Conservatives should recognize that whoever is President is better than the incumbent but should be surrounded by a House and Senate populated with members intent on restoring fiscal and economic sanity. The budget is, and always has been, an Article I responsibility. If used properly, spending can be reduced and improvements achieved, regardless of who occupies the White House.
My point being that it may be more important to control who sits in Congress as opposed to which Presidential hopeful carries the day. House and Senate elections are probably more critical than who wins the Republican Presidential nomination.
Considering that the Tea Party was birthed out of Ron Paul’s campaign, I find it difficult to think that Bachmann, the on who voted in favor of the recent NDAA Bill, is any where close to what the Tea Party wants, regardless of what she might say. Ron Paul is the only one that has shown throughout his entire career in Congress that he is truly in favor of a Constitutional government. He is the only one who understands why the Founders did what they did when they penned the Constitution and why it is imperative that we return to it.
Where do you get the idea that the Tea Party is birthed out of Ron Paul? Don’t be silly.
Ron Paul is GOD, doncha know? LMAO @ the retarded Paulistinians!
I’m for Romney because I’m convinced Obama will run a squeeky clean campaign and it will all come down to a detailed and rational discussion about Mitt’s and Baracks competing visions for how big government will be. I don’t foresee any stock market crashes, wag the dog wars, economic crisis, lying statistics, or assasination attempts. I can’t imagine that Barack will send his minions out to paint Mormonism as a cult craze, and I’m sure Mr. Obama will barely mention Bain Capital, and if he does, it will only be in the most respectful terms.
This will play perfectly into Mitt’s cunning hands, and his McCain II campaign will roll over the politically inept president and we will enjoy 8 more years of expanding government, but this time, the republican way!!
…and the unicorns will be having a pixie dust fight between the double rainbows…
The scary thing is that it looks like it is possible that Ron Paul–with his extraordinarily fanatical and tenacious supporters–just might possibly win the Iowa caucus–with commenters on Fox saying that who wins might really depend on the weather on the day of the caucus–if good weather and a lot of turnout Romney, if bad weather that suppresses turnout, Paul.
Well, in my book Ron Paul is the worst possible choice–a Looney Tunes candidate, whose unsuitability to be President is illustrated more and more each day. as more and more of his statements and positions surface. Like, for instance, the conspiracy theories, the racist and anti-Semitic statements in the three newsletters that he published over a period of ten years, which apparently earned Paul millions, and that featured his picture on their covers and his signature under the articles. Newsletters that Paul now claims he didn’t know the content of, and that he never read. Yeah, right.
The shrill, hysterical nuttiness of his Isolationist ideas can perhaps best be appreciated by viewing the recent video on foreign policy and our military released by the pro-Ron Paul Revolution PAC (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/28/pro-paul_pac_video_if_china_attacks_america_just_imagine.html) which–ignoring 9/11 and the entire history and context of why our military forces are there and what their mission is, ignoring Islamic terrorism and ideology–likens our presence in the Middle East to a Chinese army of occupation in Texas, and justifies terrorist attacks against our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq as perfectly justifiable and understandable.
Man, I wish “None of the Above” was on all the primaries’ ballots.
Why do people say that ( “none of the above” ) in EVERY primary season? lol
No matter who was up there, people are never satisfied. All things being equal though, I like the fact that Gingrich has the balls to tell it like it is. He was the ONLY candidate in the debates that wanted the repub field of candidates to avoid cutting each others throat, and instead focus on Obama as a team. He even took on the media for trying to pit the candidates against each other.
And what do ya know, as soon as the voters liked Newt for taking that stance, and rises in the polls, his opponents CUT HIS THROAT.. and better yet, when Newt responds, not personally, but disecting Romney and Paul’s records.. Newt gets accused of going negative when he said he wouldnt.
Newt wasnt going negative. HE was pointing out facts of record, WITHOUT exagerrating it like ROmney’s ads did to Newt. And people are downing Newt for defending himself? Telling Newt things like ” go away Newt”.
I say GO FOR IT NEWT. Your the only one who CAN take the heat without hiding behind the Super Pacs to do your dirty work like ROmney and Paul.
I was undecided, but now im for Newt!
Nominating Goldwater was not a mistake. Rockafeller would have lost, too. Sometimes you just have to take a shot and hope it works, even when the odds are against it.
I’ve lived my entire life in the rocky mountain west, never been unemployed, never been on welfare, always paid my taxes, and a lifelong Republican.
I am 65 years old and voted first for richard Nixon while I was in VietNam. I’ve followed politics closely, both local and national since Goldwater.
I am disgusted with our choices, as they are weak representations of the candidate that any conservative, constitution loving voter hopes for.
I’m tired of the east coast set determining the candidates for 80% of the country.
I think your commentators are wrong. This mess is slouching towards the cliff. An Obama reelection sets the stage for chaos and violence. Lets sit it out if a conservative can’t be found to run. Let it all collapse, which it will, without a return to fiscal responsibility. Current republican leaders are weak and ineffectual and actually democrat light. they disgusting.
and richard nixon wasnt a flamining liberal? lol richard nixon was one of the most liberal prisidents in us history.
Yikes,
What most fail to realize is that there is a credible, decent candidate who is ‘electable’ due to his fiscally conservative credentials but combined with his relatively moderate (and non stone age) social position. If you haven’t guessed yet, I refer to John Huntsman.
If a miracle happens and the Paul camp starts to lose it appeal with the Indy crowd before New Hampshire, Huntsman has a shot at 2nd place (considering Gingrich’s free fall). Then we’ll see a completely new race.
Sadly though I hope for this outcome the odds are stacked against it and the Democrats must surely be looking on a laughing…
I hopped on, Roger…but, I couldn’t find a place to get off the ride.
A week is a long time in politics, I agree. But, where are we after months of the primary season?
I can tell you where we are not. We are not at a consensus. WE, the collective non-leftists…don’t particularly like our candidates. Any of them.
In fact, we dislike them intensely, more than we like them intensely. We can point out the negatives with more energy than we can can promote their positives. The best thing about them seems to be that they are not the Fabian in the White House.
The only candidate who appears to have an energized base is the guy whose politics comes across as the unholy spawn of Archie Bunker and Rosie O’Donnell. Our entire military would be gutted and made to wile away the hours in a Rosie Bunker in Waco…which can be pronounced any way you deem fit.
The LEADING candidate in Iowa in some polls is ok with a nuclear Iran, thinks Hamas is swell, and thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Apparently, one way to approach beating Obama/Cass Sunstein/Van Jones is to be MORE nuts….to out-crazy the Marxists and confuse them by playing the race card with one hand and the truther card with the other.
Not that Ru Paul’s virtual father has cornered the market on wild ideas. Arresting federal judges and mining the moon, have a sort of moonbeamery flavor that simply spices up what is sure to be an interesting media buffet of hit jobs on non-leftists in the general election.
So, what remains, is a guy playing it straight down the Mittle. Safety first. Bland, hospital food diet of platitude with zero attitude. Ron Paul is Lady Gaga, Newt is Judas Priest and Mitt is Lawrence Welk.
A week is a long time. Especially when there is nothing at the end of it.
SETH – Sending the country bankrupt due to endless un winnable wars on everything is also Looney Tunes.
We CANNOT afford our current “in your face interventionist” foreign policies any more. They cost to much and we are going BANKRUPT. We spend 40% MORE than we earn, our debt to GDP just passed the 100% mark into banana republic territory and NO-ONE can cut anything.
Non-interventionalist is not the same as isolationist. It is a policy that financial necessity will force upon us whether we like it or not.
Cfbleachers – Don’t worry, when the White Obama weathervane Mitt (Endless Wall Street bailouts are the ONLY thing i have NOT flip flopped over) Romney wins the nomination and narrowly loses to Hopey McChange the teleprompter in chief. You will have 4 MORE years to gripe about the Stupid Party and it’s stupidity.
Neither the Democrat or Republican party has what it takes to turn the country around, look at Congress if you need proof.
Perhaps it’s time to consider the libertarian or constitution party. Many Tea partiers have already and regard them as a much better fit than the Democrat lite party. As for the argument: But they are fringe parties, well, the Democrat and Republican Party were once fringe as well.
I am not sure how the “draft” scenario works today when so many delegates are decided in the primaries. It worked back in the day when large numbers of delegates arrived at the convention uncommitted or committed to “favorite sons” (who were really available to be led by their governors to support this or that final candidate). That is not the case today. We have not yet seen an actual primary vote cast, but we will in the next few weeks, and those votes will select committed delegates. Unless no candidate is able to garner a majority of delegates, the primaries will decide who the candidate is. That is unpredictable at this point, but I would add that there is something about the psychology of primaries that makes their winner look like a winner and gain the stature of a winner. At this early stage in the process–again before a single vote has been cast–there is and should be a wide variety of views and no one having locked up the nomination. Remember that was the situation four years ago, in both parties. But as the process rolled along, candidates gained victories, delegates, and stature, and unelectable candidates like Barack Obama and John McCain were transformed in the public psychology.
Having said that, I sure wish that Mitch Daniels had stayed in the race. It does seem that he is running hard for Vice President.
They don’t even need to hold the election because I can tell you exactly what will happen in 2012: the Republicans will nominate Romney because he is the safe, moderate candidate — exactly like Gerald Ford and Bob Dole and John McCain — and Obama will be re-elected. Period.
And it will be “your” fault, or so the Ruling Class will say. Unfortunately, the Conservatives who voted for the less than useless Ford/Dole/McCain will vote for Romney. The problem is that the independents, whom the political strategists lust over, don’t vote for squish. They get “real” from the Democrats and a big bag of “fake” from the GOP. Why vote for “fake” when you can get “real”? The issues? The independents don’t understand the issues, if they did they wouldn’t be independents. No, they want somebody, anybody, with a plan. Somebody to take them down the road, any road will do, and that’s the Democrats because the GOP will never commit to a plan for risk of “scaring the independents away”.
Obama wins again because the GOP slogan will be “If you don’t vote for the Socialist then the Communist will win again” and the independents win hear “Obama is a proven winner” and they’ll go with the winner.
Romney is the worse possible choice to make here. Rove lightly touched on Romney’s Mormonism problem in his WSJ article, and mentioned how Obama will use that to advantage, to fracture the evangelical base.
While Romney’s profession of Mormonism is not a plus, I don’t consider that the main objection to him. I just can’t stand him personally and I don’t trust him. He is a slick, weaselly flip-flopper who is for sale to the highest bidder, and that’s all he is and there ain’t no more. He does not represent our interests.
http://1389blog.com/2011/10/21/gop-reject-mitt-romney-or-lose-everything/
Actually, Romney’s Mormon faith is a major plus for him. His biggest advantage publicly is his clean lifestyle and strong family valuea. He derives all of these from his fundamental Mormon faith.
I am as troubled as any by his less than clear political and economic philosophy. Again, I wish that Mitch Daniels had entered the race for President (he seems to be fully engaged in the race for Vice President). I contributed to Cain, but then his lack of media experience allowed him to be driven from the field. Still considering where to land now. Paul is right out. The best that can be said of his foreign policy is that it is naive, but that would be too generous.
Even the formidable Roger Kimball can blunder. Roger, it is flatly untrue that “Americans…want a government that, by adhering to the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility, will continue that great experiment that Washington, Madison, and Hamilton inaugurated in the late 18th century: a government that managed the great trick of being an exercise in self-government.” Maybe SOME Americans do but a great many more want a government that will provide free health care, guarantee their pensions, bestow almost two years of benefits on the unemployed, and then years more after that on “disabilities” that suddenly surface.
Good God man, how on Earth do you think Barack Obama got elected? And maintains a minimum of 40% approval ratings?
T’is true. Americans want exactly the kind of government they are getting. I dont believe it could have happened otherwise. And I dont see any way out of it. The entitlement mentality is too strong. Too strong.
Alan, I hope and believe that you are not right, at least not yet. Once raised and fed on entitlements it is hard to wean people off of them, and there are plenty of new middle-class entitlements waiting in the wings. Arthur Brooks, in his recent and excellent book, “The Battle,” demonstrates that about 70% of Americans still believe in the values that Roger listed. They may not have articulate and sharpened beliefs on that score–that is the job of free-market pro-liberty politicians. I think that is what Republican primary voters are looking for, by the way. Romney’s failure to articulate that is why so many keep looking for someone who will.
While I also hope that Black and Rasmussen are correct and someone who can inspire enthusiasm will emerge eventually, I think it’s more important for conservative Republicans to take the Senate and increase their lead in the House and down ticket in the states. 2010 was an excellent start and it needs to continue. A strong presidential candidate would help make that task easier, but even without a strong or with a losing candidate, the task is still very doable.
With both the Senate and the House packed with conservative and conservative leaning Republicans, even in the worst case, disaster scenario, a reelected BHO can be stopped dead in his tracks. The House controls spending, and with a cooperative Senate could constrain and reverse much of the damage Obama and the Democrats (and their RINO codependents) have inflicted in the past 6 years.
Absolutely right. Getting control of Congress is the best move in 2012. With enough members there, conservatives could even override presidential vetos.
The Buckley rule doesn’t recommend Romney. It rules him out. In no possible sense is he a conservative. He is a liberal Democrat who opposed the 1994 Contract with America, who favors abortion on demand and gay marriage (oh, yeah, sure, I believe his recent flip flops) and whose SOLE notable accomplishment as a politician was the institution of socialized medicine. The fact that he calls himself a Republican no more makes him a conservative than it ever did Rockefeller or Bloomberg. His promise to keep the good parts of Obamacare and to fix the bad parts makes him anathema. If Romney gets the nod I’ll be voting third party. Better an open enemy in Obama than Willard as a false friend.
Myth Buster. It wasn’t a mistake to nominate Goldwater. He should have, could have won. Except for that Daisy ad on TV. Except for that other clever little piece of Democratic propaganda about Goldwater: “In your heart you know he’s right, but in your guts you know he’s nuts.” Clever, clever. Newt Gingrich could have coined it himself, because, you see, Newt was in the Nelson Rockefeller camp then and that camp hated Goldwater, Reagan, and conservatives in general. Newt is no conservative, just a clever propagandist. Amazing how folks still swallow Newt’s propaganda.
I have been telling my family for weeks now that Perry will be the eventual GOP nominee (and this after his poor debate performances). They’re all rolling their eyes at my prediction so far, but I remain confident. Here’ why: I expect that this campaign has a long way to go, and Perry is only ONE among MANY of this years’ contenders who have seen their time at the top cut short. Ultimately, the winnowing of the GOP field will come down to a battle of attrition. Money and political skill (not just debate performances) will be the keys in this battle. And Perry has both; ask anyone who has run against him.
Finally, I agree with the quote at the end of Kimball’s article that went: ‘But the candidate would, said Scott Rasmussen , be “a friend of Sarah’s,” i.e., someone who spoke up for the forgotten principles of the Founders, who believed, with Ronald Reagan, that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Read among the current themes of the Perry campaign and those sentiments are clearly in evidence. Additionally, regarding SP, I seem to remember a friendship there, and Ms. Palin has been keeping her ‘endorsement-powder’ dry so far.
I’m all over the board, but am 100% positive I’ll never vote for Mitt. I’m sick of being told the best we can do is a moderate from the NE (see generally both Bushes) who doesnt have the balls to do anything but raise taxes (read my lips) and create more educational BS (no child left behind).
I’m betwen Gingrich and Paul. I never thought I’d consider him b/c of his perceived weakness as a general candidate, but I’m aligned 90% with Paul. Likely go with him. We need bold change and a return to the Declaration of Independence (you can keep your US bastardized Constitution).
Humorous cartoon at http://drawfortruth.com/2011/12/29/mitt-peas/ that shows how many conservatives feel about Mitt Romney.
I am tired of hearing you blathering idiots rant about sitting this one out because Mitt is not your idea of the “perfect” candidate. Romney has shown one thing over the years and that is an adept handling of crisis management and turning things around. That’s what this country needs right now … someone who can go in there and turn this ship around. Romney is the guy to do it.
I watched Mitch Daniels go through the same type of BS during his campaign here in Indiana. Fat Cat…Bah!… Wall Street!…Bah! When he got in office he had meeting after meeting with every office to have them pitch what they actually did and if it was worth continuing and how much it cost…Result: Balanced budget with money in the rainy-day fund.
Mitt did the same thing when he was governor. He balanced it out by raising fees for government services and closing up tons of loopholes. Loopholes for whom you may say….for freaking banks. All kinds of loopholes, like when banks could take real estate profits and pay no taxes on them.
And for those of you that want to sit out and pout. By the time the next election rolls around ObamaCare will already be implemented and we will be STUCK with it FOREVER. The House cannot reverse the taxes going into effect…the Senate cannot do it either..without a willing president. So from this former infantryman,stop whining, grow a pair, get off the couch, and let’s get this loser of a president out of there before he brings the whole country down on our heads.
We must draft, nominate and elect Sarah Palin president in the most crushing tidal wave of enthusiastic good judgment ever seen in the history of this nation. With that one bold move we will accomplish the dual goals of seeing America led by the greatest natural born leader in our generation, even as we witness the final implosion and last agonized shrieks of our endlessly lying extreme left loonies. Their entire movement, from the fabricated attacks on Bush beginning with ‘Blood For Oil’ to the crammed-down-our-gullets lies of Obamacare and the Shovel Ready Stimulus, have been nothing but one vile deceit heaped upon another. Such an absolute inability to deal in the truth or to face the facts of our situation and its solutions only proves that there is simply no place at the grown-ups’ table for these diseased sputa. Good riddance to rubes and bad rubbish. Time to usher in the American Renaissance, carried in on the invigoratingly freshening breeze of President Sarah Palin.
It is over when the Establishment Republicans accept the fact that the voters want Palin.
Palin chose to not run when the attacks by the Dems were followed up by the attacks from her own party.
She helped more than anyone else to get a Republican majority elected not just in the House, but in states all over the U.S.
And yet the Republican’s could not back her up against Obama’s team of thieves.
Pitiful.
We had our candidate, but the people who could have eased her way in, shot her down.
We want Palin to run against Obama, but we need the backing of the people whom we backed in 2010.
We wrote letters, emails, marched, spent money, went to meetings, voted, and the one person who drew the most crowds, kept the TP voting with Republicans was Sarah Palin…and the damn Republican party and Fox threw her to the wolves.
They didn’t even try to defend her.
We still want Palin, and it would be nice if the Republican party could return the favor as a form of appreciation for what we did in 2010.
A Romney proves to me that the Republicans have zero confidence in their own beliefs on how government should function and be arranged. Mitt as candidate proves they’re scared to death that they either cannot convey theur principle or that tge people would reject them.
If they are right on the first concern and power is what they crave, finding themselves ill fitted to the task, they should remove themselves from the process. Boehner is a case in point. McConnel is another.
If they are right on the second concern, it would be much better for the nation to know that, in the clear; that the founder’s vision has been rejected.
Mitt Romney is safe, staus quo. He would drive us over the cliff, lights on, foit on the brake; but over the cliff just the same. Compared to Obama, blind and pedal to the metal, I’m not sure I prefer the agony if a slow death.
If the travails of the nation are going to be our undoing, please let it be with a candidate with fire in the belly.
Just shows you how important it is to elect a Tea Party Congressman. Romney can’t sign what he doesn’t get from Congress.
There will never be a perfect candidate for 100% of the people to support. That said, any GOP candidate is preferable to Occupy White House Obama. In 1975-76 I was an original Reagan supporter. I did not know his religion, I knew that he had been divorced once, I knew that he once favored abortion. I also knew that he had faith in the strength of America, the city on the hill. I have followed Newt and Mitt for about 15-20 years. My favorite ticket in 2008 was Mitt/Newt. I favor Romney now as he too believes in this country and he not only comes from outside Washington, he actually believes in giving back to his country. He took no money for the Olympic rescue and $1 a year salary as governor. I still like that same ticket, but feel that the country will be better served with Newt in the cabinet. Romney/Cain, Romney/Rubio, Romney/Christie, Romney/Pawlenty are my tops for now. We do have good candidates, just not perfect ones!