Time to End the “Anyone but Mitt” Conservative argument
This week, the Spanish people won a major victory by turning out the Socialist government that had been in power since 2004. As many will recall, the conservative People’s Party had, as a friend of mine e-mailed me earlier today, won after a major terrorist attack “by cynically exploiting the terrorist tragedy a few days before the election and reversing what otherwise would have been a sure reelection victory for Aznar’s People’s Party. Aznar had presided over an economic boom for Spain, and the Socialists have turned it into an economic catastrophe.”
So Spain’s people have wisely turned to conservatives to seek a way back to economic prosperity, rather than keep putting in power a left-wing party that seeks to extend an unsustainable welfare state in such a manner that leads to a loss of jobs plus pending total economic collapse. Clearly, the people of Spain do not want their country to become another Greece.
The question is whether our own people will do the same for the United States in the coming 2012 presidential election, arguably the most important one since 1932 and 1936 and the rise of the New Deal. The election is one for the Republicans to lose, and sadly, they may indeed do just that.
Yesterday, the annual Restoration Weekend run by the David Horowitz Freedom Center ended, and I must report that a spirit of impending doom hovered over the event. Pollsters John McLaughlin (not the TV host) who advised Bob Turner in New York’s 9th District historic election, and Pat Caddell, gave the startling figures that indicated how Obama might actually win an election that by all accounts, he should lose.
One question is that which all conservatives should now ask themselves: Which of the current Republican candidates has most of the chance to unseat Barack Obama? That answer is only one: Mitt Romney. In her address to the conference, Ann Coulter broke Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment, that one should not speak ill of any Republican. She publicly made the argument that only Romney can win against Obama, and she then proceeded to skewer those who believed in backing Newt Gingrich as the true conservative in the race. Coulter went through Gingrich’s ever changing record, and showed how many times he took positions that were anything but conservative, and that dovetailed with those taken by liberal opponents of all Republicans.
In today’s Wall Street Journal, Allysia Finley writes that “Republicans might not particularly like Mitt Romney, but they may have to learn to live with him if they want to take the White House next year. So suggests a poll released today by Purple Strategies, which surveys voters in 12 swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.”
When lined up with Obama, she points out, his negatives are less than those of any other Republican candidate, and “Mr. Romney also fares the best of all the candidates in a head-to-head match-up against the president, running even with him at 45.” Moreover, another poll taken yesterday showed that in the critical state of Michigan, Romney won over Obama by a substantial majority.
Yes, I know that Newt Gingrich is way head of Romney in other polls, and now is at the top of his game. But once the Freddie and Fanny mess registers with voters- and Newt’s own crony capitalism when he was out of office becomes widely understood- his own poll ratings will fall as did those of Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman.
Another thing to fear is the widening call among Democrats for a “draft Hillary” campaign. Will Clinton break with the administration, and give the o.k. to put her name into play by those Democrats who realize Obama’s slim chances for re-election, and acknowledge his growing unpopularity? Will Obama voluntarily step down and ask that she be the candidate, as Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen suggest in today’s WSJ?
They give the President the following advice: “He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”
If Obama took this advice which he certainly does not want to hear, Republicans would have a very tough time winning. As Caddell and Schoen argue, “A CNN/ORC poll released in late September had Mrs. Clinton’s approval rating at an all-time high of 69%—even better than when she was the nation’s first lady. Meanwhile, a Time Magazine poll shows that Mrs. Clinton is favored over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 17 points (55%-38%), and Texas Gov. Rick Perry by 26 points (58%-32%)”
Hence they note that were she to run, many swing voters, independents and blue-collar Reagan Democrats would undoubtedly vote for her—guaranteeing a Democrat Party victory. The two pollsters are partisan Democrats, and they argue she would as president reign in the deficit, work to create political reconciliation, move her party to the center, get bipartisan support, as well as save the social safety net.
At Restoration Weekend, Caddell passionately spoke about the need to save the country by defeating Barack Obama. Were Hillary not to run, Caddell obviously would be voting for a Republican, since he fully realizes the damage Obama has done to our nation, and if he won, as Caddell said, the country we all grew up in will cease to exist.
So it is not out of the question that if other Democrats feel the same way, the pressure may develop that is so great that Obama will be forced to step down, much as LBJ did during the Vietnam War.
So, once again, Republicans must look honestly at the current choice, and make the one most likely to give them a chance to run the only candidate with any possibility of winning against Obama, and were Hillary to run, have the chance to actually wage a strong campaign against her as well.
The time to keep going with an “anyone but Mitt” strategy must come to an end. If Republicans are serious, they should unite around Mitt Romney.
no thanks
Ah, c’mon newrouter, give Romney a chance. As his new TV ad demonstrates, he’s fully worthy to be the GOP standard-bearer.
ABC News describes the ad:
As video footage shows vacated business and foreclosed homes, Obama can be heard saying, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”
But the ad does not make clear that in the speech Obama was actually quoting an aide to his Republican opponent at the time, Sen. John McCain.
Not as good, perhaps, as Newt blaming his bad behavior on excessive zeal to help the nation, but not bad, not bad at all.
Good for Ron Radosh for warning the social conservatives that they are courting disaster if they nominate the non-Romney candidate instead of the only candidate who can beat Obama. Although many conservatives claim the mantle of classical liberal, the 18th century Founders were not theocrats. See my own warning of incipient doom here: http://clarespark.com/2011/10/24/turning-points-in-the-ascentdecline-of-the-west/. Or read Niall Ferguson’s latest book on Civilization.
“the 18th century Founders were not theocrats.”
neither are social cons. the smears don’t work any more you racist.
What hogwash.
Lefty/RINO pundits keep lying to us by repeating the claim that “Romney is the only candidate who can beat Obama,” even though nobody likes Romney, nobody respects Romney, and a truly vast number of people hate Romney with the white-hot thermonuclear fury of ten thousand suns.
Romney would be electable only if he were running unopposed.
He’s another McCain, only slipperier and even more left-leaning.
GOP: Reject Mitt Romney or Lose EVERYTHING!
I can understand when conservatives are frightened of the mass culture they imagine to be constructed by “secularists.” But Romney is no secularist. For the fear of secular society (and by that I mean religious pluralism, not atheism), see http://clarespark.com/2011/11/21/cormac-mccarthy-vs-herman-melville/. In my view, populism is a problem for both the so-called left and for the hard right.
Okay, if Gingrich tanks, he tanks. But to say, “he can’t win” is to beg the question. To say, “he’s *gotta* tank” is to stack the deck. Let’s see if he (or Cain or Bachman or Santorum) can win. It is simply to early to claim that “only Romney can defeat Obama.” Current polls are purely hypothetical. Most people simply are not paying attention, and will not for many months.
By the fall of 2011, the economy will be so bad, and the national mood will be so foul, that conservatives (by whatever definition) will be able to get their man (or woman) into the White House. Let’s play offense, not defense. Let’s play to win.
And for the record, if winning means voting for Romney, I’ll do that without hesitation next fall.
Amen to this blog. Mitt is the only completely sane Republican candidate and more importantly, the only one who has a chance of attracting independents away from Obama. We are facing a difficult future, economically and politically, we need some one with stability and common sense. The fact that Mitt has changed his position at times is in his favor as far as I am concerned. Keeping one’s stance no matter what is not always a sign of sanity or even clear vision.
Maybe Hillary will get a chance, but I think Barak is too full of himself to ever step aside. Either way, I can vote for Mitt, while the others leave me holding my breath and scratching my head.
So the new slogan should be “NOBODY BUT MITT” !
Shalom, Cantor Bob Cohen
“the only one who has a chance of attracting independents away from Obama.”
where was mittens during the 2010 elections?
Getting conservatives elected, that’s what he was doing in the 2010 elections; and in the 2009 and 2008 elections, as well. Here’s just a sample of the people for whom Romney campaigned and to whose campaigns Romney contributed:
Governor Bob McDonnell, Virginia
Governor Chris Christie, New Jersey
Governor Terry Branstad, Iowa
Governor Nikki Haley, South Carolina
Senator Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania
Senator Marco Rubio, Florida
… and literally dozens of other Senate, House, state level and even local level campaigns across the country each year. Check out Free and Strong America, his national and state PACs, and see how much money went from there to conservative candidates everywhere. He’s done his part to swing this country to the Right, which is why I trust that his “conversion” is real.
Mitt or not Mitt Team R really didn’t put their best foot forward this time around
it’s a lot like 2008 except without the creepy arkie dude
You have no idea with what awed dismay I read this article.
Romney will lose, if Romney is the nominee – there is no way he can attack Obama, because he has done all the same things on a much smaller scale.
As always, I will vote for Romney if he is the nominee. But I beg my fellows: Please, please, please, do not make me have to vote for Romney!
Big assumptions based upon the premise that the “dancing with the stars” voters ever consider such vague matters as public policy….
Just why should we “unite around Mitt Romney”? We need someone who is drawing the conservative to rally around him or her. Conservative attention in the coming election, the most critical in the history of this Republic, should not be focused on looking at the current choice and selecting the one with the best chance of beating Obama. The objective is not to win a debate against an arrogant, incompetent political mediocrity. It is to do what the Spanish have just done: THROW OUT THE ROTTEN SOCIALIST PARTY! Howard Dean’s DNC scammed the nation in ’08 with the Audacity of Hype and for 3 years they have been ramming through Socialist legislation and insane spending. Their Pitchman is now openly campaigning for re-election with doctrinaire class warfare rhetoric. Yet not one contender is using the key word we want to hear: SOCIALISM! As in the disastrous [08 campaign, the prattle is about issues and nuances.
The candidate that the Conservative majority is seeking, and must emerge, is the one who will, openly and aggressively, ,challenge the present Administration’s collective team and the party they have usurped, as committed Socialists of the Ayers/Castro/Mao stripe, hell-bent on destroying our Constitution and Free Enterprise. He/She will be the one who rallies the votes of the Tea Party AND the hugely important Independents. The last thing we need is a Fearless Fighter, like McCain, who measured up to the country-club elitist standards of the RNC, and never, ever, once uttered the words Socialist or Chicago Machine during the campaign.
What the Socialist/Democrat Party has done to this Republic, in the guise of Hope and Change, in a scant few years, is outrageous, beyond belief, and beyond toleration. We must be championed in this electoral run-up by a candidate who is filled with that sense of outrage, who confronts the Alinsky/Axelrod team relentlessly, hammering them with the term SOCIALISM. The truth will send them into a foaming frenzy of denial and frustration. We must not choose, now, someone we hope will squeak through. I continue to be amazed that those like Radosh and Roger Simon, who long since cast off the Communist creed, seem to lack any of the fury of outrage that fills so many of us who fear for the future of this once-free Nation. To the barricades!!!
Liberalism: The inability to learn from one’s mistakes.
RINOism: See Liberalism.
Before any discussion of who can beat Obama in 2012, can we at least agree that Obama is the worst president in any of our lifetimes? (And I’m old; I worked on both of Reagan’s campaigns — and he wasn’t my first!) That he has done more damage than any of us thought we’d ever see from any American president? That should he win another term, our republican form of constitutional government will likely not survive it? Are we really so pathetic that we think America is going to tolerate another term from this historic national disgrace and embarrassment? If you think we might, then you might as well move on to the next comment because you’ll probably forget to timely register and vote in any event.
My dog could be Obama. Mickey Mouse would beat Obama. Any human candidate whose fly is zipped on November 6, 2012, will beat Obama. Period. So why decide to choose between the certain destruction of the republic in say, four years under Obama, or 10 years under the next RINO. The difference between Obama and W., or Romney, is nothing more than speed and intensity. I reject both and demand a 180 degree course correction.
Before I get into some recent election analysis to suggest why Romney is the MarxistStateNBC/MSM “reasonable and electable Republican” — I assume everyone but John McCain and Karl Rove know how eager they are to elect a Republican — suffer me a moment’s diversion to lay out a small portion of Romney’s election night acceptance speech that keeps playing over and over in my nightmares:
“Now, to business. As you all know I have said during the entirety of the campaign that one of my first acts as your president would be to sign the repeal of Obamacare. Well we didn’t quite get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate so I can’t promise that will happen. But what of an executive order, or orders, to cease program implementation and funding? I could do that, but after lengthy discussions with my legal team, I have determined that it would be hypocritical for me to rely on executive order authority after spending the past year criticizing the abusive over-reach in executive orders by the prior administration. Therefore, I have determined that the best plan of action begins with the recognition that many good ideas are contained in Obamacare, and the better ideas are worth saving. Rather than an axe, I therefore propose that we take a scalpel to the legislation as we move forward as bipartisan servants of the people. You know, we faced similar issues head-on when I was governor of Massachusetts . . ..”
I’m back, and have wiped the sweat of trepidation from my furrowed brow. While I certainly agree that Romney is likely to defeat Obama since he is breathing, it’s only because Obama is that bad, not because Romney is the most likely victor against Obama from the Republican field; to the contrary, he is one of the least likely (see MSM praise). To get to the heart of the matter, if you believe that it is important to win the Independents to prevail against Obama, then you should abandon Romney with all haste. If one does not give the Independents a crystal clear choice, then one may not sway them. The choice between Romney and Obama may be crystal clear to you and me, but to the average uninvolved independent voter — someone too lazy to do any research themselves — Romney will be Obamacare, Pro-choice, Cap-n-Trade, and anything else Brian Williams tells them he is/was after the sudden MSM discovery that he is clearly a man without a core and definitely unelectable. The truth pales in importance to perception in politics, and that’s why Obama wants to run against Romney and is doing everything possible to destroy his conservative challengers.
The sole question is, “will a true constitutional conservative candidate drive Independents back to Obama?” I think it is instructive to look to the 2010 elections for the answer if you believe the same factors are in play — or as I do, even more so! If not, what has gotten better? If anything, it’s all much worse. The Tea Party isn’t in remission as the left likes to delude itself. They’re just watching and waiting as Obama and his base “occupy” their beloved country.
I’ve posted the following stats before so my paste of portions of it may not flow perfectly, but you’ll get the point I’m sure. Let’s take a look at some 2010 election stats for “conservative extremists” running in the most hyped races.
Delaware: Let’s do the worst one first. With no support — instead outright contempt — from Castle and the RSCC, an endless national media assault led by RINOs like the “Architect,” Karl Rove, and we must admit, rookie mistakes by candidate O’Donnell herself, this extremist lost the sacred Independents 48-45 . . . in Connecticut! Imagine a gracious Castle endorsement of his own party’s victorious primary candidate, party support from the RSCC and the RINOs, and fair media coverage — OK, the last one ‘s a pipe dream, but the others sabotages were self-inflicted wounds which led to a massive 48-45 drubbing from Independents . . . in Connecticut! Do you think eliminating the in-house treason mentioned might have been good for a percentage point or two flip, or five, or 10? A gracious endorsement and active support from Castle alone would have turned the contest. He was after all, quite popular before he chose stewing in his own self-absorbed bile over doing the right thing.
With a very similar lack of establishment support in Nevada and Colorado how did the conservative extremists fare with Independents . . .
Nevada: Extremist Angle won Independents 48-44.
Colorado: Extremist Buck won Independents 53-37!
How nice might election night have been in Colorado and Nevada if our glorious establishment hadn’t convinced gullible Republicans looking for an excuse to fail that conservatives could not attract Independent voters and they should stay home and watch on TV as Rove and company helped assure their own self-fulfilling prophetic defeat. And they did. Why don’t you ever see those numbers on Rove’s white board?
Florida and Wisconsin: It is conveniently forgotten that two of the Senate’s most stalwart right-wing extremist constitutional conservatives, the DeMint-like Rubio and Ron Johnson, managed to win somehow. Rubio slaughtered RINO Crist; Johnson won 85% in the Wisconsin Primary before unseating ultra-leftist Feingold . . . in Wisconsin! Both right-wing extremists won Independents by DOUBLE-DIGIT margins. And lest we forget, extremist Mike Lee won too!
In short, the most conservative candidates won the Independents in each of their races but one, and as I recall, Ms. O’Donnell may have been a witch, but still lost only 48-45 in the Progressive sewer of Connecticut. What happens when we let the MSM/RINOs convince Republicans to stay home because extremist constitutional conservatives can’t win? What happens is the Independent voter’s wishes are ignored as the self-fulfilling prophesies of the Karl Roves of the world time and again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The self-promoting Rove and his ilk fully understand that the only way they can remain relevant is if the establishment maintains itself by defeating conservatism.
The article notes a poll that “. . . surveys voters in 12 swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.” We need Romney to win those state? Didn’t we just look at conservative extremist results from Colorado, Nevada, and Wisconsin? Seems to me the way to take these elections out of the contested swing state column is to give the Independents a REAL CHOICE — America is not yet a Marxist sewer. We are a conservative nation and we will reject Obama everywhere we are given a crystal clear choice. An articulate conservative will landslide Obama from coast to coast. Romney?
Imagine a world without RINOs. It’s easy if you try.
Christine O’Donell ran in Delaware. She may not be a witch, but she is a lamplight-seeking flake. It is easy to talk about values and quite another thing to successfully and competently legislate and govern.
Sorry about the brain fart Connecticut/Delaware mistake; no excuse, wasn’t even drunk.
But I hope you recognize that if she is indeed a flake (and I understand the argument), it only strengthens my point. Even as flaky as this candidate may have been, she lost Independents by only 3% — in Bidenville, all assaults notwithstanding.
There is also the pressing problem of gaining at least 14 more Republican senate seats and maintaining a House majority, no easy task. Otherwise, it would be extremely difficult to get rid of ObamaCare.
The election should end the argument. If the voters decide they want Romney, that’s fine. The suggestion that we should rally around one candidate or other, whether Romney, Gingrich or anyone else before anyone has cast a vote defeats the purpose of actually holding primaries.
I would also caution against voting for someone at this stage just to rally around someone. People should vote for someone they like. If you only vote for someone you think other people will like, you will wind up with a Republican version of John Kerry circa 2004, someone nobody liked but thought other people would like.
Parties don’t defeat parties. Parties defeat themselves. If we were selecting the head of an interest group, then picking the candidate with the purest ideological record might make sense, but political parties have one job: to elect their candidates. Mitt Romney has done his homework. He is knowledgeable and well-spoken and he has the temperment and insight to be a great president. He also has, due to his ability to attract voters from the middle, the greatest ability to win the general election. We cannot afford four more years of the disaster that is the Obama administration. None of the candidates are perfect but Mitt Romney is the best of the field. He deserves our support.
Why do we need to Rally Round Romney? He has yet to receive a single primary vote for this election. He is polling relatively low numbers for a supposed frontrunner. I see nothing in Romney that makes me think he will actually stick up for conservative values. There is no hurry here, so let’s take it slow.
I can’t imagine a greater victory for Liberty and our Republic than Hillary elbowing Obama aside and running for president, keeping the first black president from being reelected.
Were Hillary not to run, Caddell obviously would be voting for a Republican, since he fully realizes the damage Obama has done to our nation, and if he won, as Caddell said, the country we all grew up in will cease to exist.
“the country we all grew up in will cease to exist.”
Doesn’t this nonsense ever get old?
I find it ironic. I asked people in the supercommittee thread to make a realistic plan for compromise instead of just whining..
So far there have been two suggestions and each has included such America-wreaking features as “get rid of the EPA” and drop the tax rate to 2%.
The nuts who haunt this website would end the America we grew up in if they could, but Obama is just an ordinary politician, continuing our legacy unchanged.
Why the total disconnect between rhetoric and reality?
As many will recall, the conservative People’s Party had, as a friend of mine e-mailed me earlier today, won after a major terrorist attack “by cynically exploiting the terrorist tragedy a few days before the election and reversing what otherwise would have been a sure reelection victory for Aznar’s People’s Party.
The People’s Party defeated the People’s Party? Now that’s democracy.
The opinions expressed are not only sensible but worthy of real review…does anyone remember the Barry Goldwater campaign? We can’t make that same error again. As much as we think Romney is THE MAN we should also wonder why BHO’s machine offers him as THE MAN to run against BHO…Mitt may be a GREAT GUY but we really need a leader…”he or she may be out there” — we gotta find ‘em!
They cry out, “Why should we rally?!”
So they don’t have to lose again, that’s why. So they don’t torpedo our party and split our coalition, that’s why. Because Obama is nowhere near as weak as people think he is, that’s why. Because 2012 matters enough for them to look past the biases of whatever ultra-conservatives have poisoned their prejudiced little minds against the ideal candidate for the fiscal crises facing us, and facing every other nation.
The tantrum-inclined right wing should grow up and educate itself; get both sides. Primary season has been fun, but the time of real, adult decision is fast approaching.