-
The Democrats’ Walmart Obsession
June 4, 2013 | 112 comments
-
Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets
May 24, 2013 | 94 comments
-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
Campaign Crawlers
Improving His Odds
Mitt Romney has emerged as the one to beat — or maybe to like.
Experts agree! Monday’s Republican presidential debate yielded two clear winners: Mitt Romney, the current front-runner who won by not losing, thanks to kid glove treatment from his fellow GOP participants. And Michele Bachmann who, while not surprising those of us who have met her and heard her speak, came across as energetic, intelligent, and aggressive (all of which she is.) She made a solid first impression on those who knew little of her prior to the event.
Tim Pawlenty’s performance was workmanlike but disappointing in energy and charisma. As Jim Antle correctly noted, Pawlenty’s refusal to back up his memorable “Obamneycare” talking point means he should not have made it in the first place. The other participants did as anticipated, with Newt Gingrich perhaps exceeding expectations and Herman Cain a slight disappointment. Ron Paul was Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum was Rick Santorum. Nary a surprise from either.
Betting odds seem to agree with the talking heads’ take: Romney’s odds of getting the nomination as determined by betting on intrade.com have jumped from 29.5% to 31.5% overnight, his highest odds of the year. Meanwhile, Tim Pawlenty has been drifting lower following a brief boost after Mitch Daniels’ exit from contention, with a major drop from about 18% to about 15% following the debate. Bachmann’s chance of being the nominee moved from 5% to just over 6%, not a huge move but a new high for her. Betting odds among the other participants were little changed. In other words, Pawlenty lost 3 points, of which two went to Romney and one to Bachmann, much in line with how judges would have scored the debate itself.
In the social media realm, Yahoo! reports that “Romney gained the most number of new ‘likes’ on his Facebook page and has the most ‘likes’ overall at nearly one million. Michele Bachmann finished with the second most ‘likes’ and totaled nearly 300,000 overall.” The report also mentions that Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty’s web search and Facebook statistics “remained flat.”
Two people who were not on the stage in New Hampshire are in third and fourth place in the betting odds, and not even declared candidates yet: former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and current Texas Governor Rick Perry. Perry seems to gain about a half a percent each day in the odds and is now trading around 13% to get the nomination according to intrade.com betting participants. Huntsman’s odds are about the same as Perry’s at this point, something that still surprises me as I think Huntsman’s chances of getting the nomination are probably half of his current betting odds. (In fact, I did “go short” Huntsman a few days ago at 17%.)
There were surprisingly few direct attacks on President Obama. Mitt Romney got in a jab at the end of the evening when he said, “Anyone of the people on this stage would be a better president than President Obama.” And in her usual take-no-prisoners style, Michele Bachmann proclaimed — in addition to making her first public statement that she is officially a candidate — that “[Obama’s] report card right now has a big failing grade on it…I want to announce tonight: President Obama is a one-term president.”
It bears repeating how few attacks there were on Mitt Romney by the rest of the GOP field. The entire panel was asked by John King whether Romney’s current pro-life view (he ran for governor of Massachusetts as pro-choice, then for president in 2008 as pro-life) was still a campaign issue or if it is “case closed.” Herman Cain said “case closed” and everyone else was silent. King has done Romney a huge favor.
In addition to not going after Mitt Romney, the candidates were routinely complimentary of each other. Frequently during the debate a candidate would preface his or her answer by referencing a competitor’s prior answer in a complimentary way. For example, when asked about Tim Pawlenty’s economic plan, Mitt Romney said “the ideas Tim described, those are in the right wheelhouse.”
The kid gloves nature of Monday’s debate suggests a realization among Republican candidates: the mission for the 2012 election is to beat Barack Obama, period. In the game of politics in which we’ve come to expect Republican circular firing squads, these candidates had their fingers off those triggers. This reflects the results of a fascinating new Gallup poll which shows that 50% of Republicans want to see the party’s nominee be the person with the best chance of beating Obama, versus 44% saying they want the nominee to be someone “who agrees with [them] on almost all issues.”
It’s the poll internals that are particularly interesting: Men care more about beating Obama than about agreement on the issues by an enormous 16% margin, whereas by a six point margin women focus on the issues rather than on victory. Furthermore, conservative Republicans care more about winning whereas “liberal/moderate” Republicans care more about policy agreement Given the intensity of conservatives in the various primary and caucus processes, this poll bodes very well for Mitt Romney who seems quite electable but has issues-related hurdles from health care to ethanol to climate change.
When I talk to Republican activist friends, the line I hear most often — including from me — is “I really want to like Mitt Romney.” It’s a reflection of our understanding that Barack Obama must fulfill Michele Bachmann’s prediction as a one-term president if this country is to regain its economic footing, restore a wide range of liberties to our citizens, and no longer be perceived as weak in international relations.
Romney’s approval of an individual mandate, even if only at the state level is troubling. Adding in his recent support for ethanol subsidies and his credulousness regarding human impact on “global warming” and it’s not surprising that one might wonder if Mitt is this generation’s Nelson Rockefeller.
My take: Just as Barack Obama is not governing to the center the way he suggested he would during the 2008 campaign, neither would Mitt Romney if elected. Yes, it’s a big bet to make, but we know what we get if we get four more years of this; options in politics are rarely optimal. I don’t mind that Romney says he doesn’t think of himself as highly partisan. I want to know if he’s highly principled. And, like much of the rest of America, I want to know if he can beat Barack Obama.
Clearly there are risks of getting bad policy if a Rockefeller Republican wins the White House, but they’re less than the 100% certainty of bad policy if this Democrat does. And while this is quite different from the argument I made in 2008 when I suggested that a McCain presidency would just be a little more “boiling the frog,” at this point I think America has learned its lesson about what “Progressivism” really is and who “Progressives” really are.
In Atlas Shrugged style, it’s time for the pro-liberty and pro-capitalism leaders of society, including those few politicians who fit that mold, to return and make a stand for our Republic. Romney’s performance on Monday in New Hampshire didn’t prove he’s that guy, but it surely didn’t hurt his case either. I still want to like Mitt Romney.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (258) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/15/improving-his-odds
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
jppc| 6.15.11 @ 6:14AM
Mitt, great. Another "go along, to get along", watered down, "moderate conservative".
In other words, the effeminate men in the media, the gay lobby, the NeoCons, the enviro-nutjobs Gaia Worshipers, all think he is "accecptable".
Great, just great.
SonOfSam| 6.15.11 @ 7:49AM
Romney is a human Ken doll: all plastic construction, and no gonads whatsoever. He wussed out in the face of a tired old fart, the "reasonable" Republican who knew how to "reach across the aisle". He could have been like Reagan in '76, who fought the good fight all the way to the convention. For that matter, he could have been like Hillary, who did exactly the same thing in 2008. Romney did nothing of the kind! And yet, THIS TIME, we are supposed to believe that he will have the conviction, the passions, the STONES to take on the billion dollar lie manufacturing war machine that is the Obama campaign. Puh-leeeaze!
Bachman, Cain, Santorum or Palin. If we don't get a principled patriotic CONSERVATIVE, we will lose, again. Just like 2008. Just like 1996. Just like 1976.
Dai Alanye | 6.15.11 @ 12:30PM
Romney made a good impression by appearing "Presidential" and making no significant gaffes.
But if you study his responses you'll notice a lot of searching for the proper answer and the exact way to express himself. Witness the "right wheelhouse" metaphor. While impressive, no doubt, to a Mississippi River pilot, what kind of ordinary American would even comprehend it on first hearing? Romney lacks the common touch.
His hesitation and small stumbles are signs of weakness in debate. He wasn't hurt in the mild atmosphere of New Hampshire, but when the going gets tough in the actual election campaign I expect him to flounder and backtrack, coming across as hesitant and uncommitted to the ideas he's expousing.
SonOfSam| 6.15.11 @ 1:55PM
The ObamaNazis in the press and fossil media will be sharpening their knives for Romney, just like they did for McCain. This would also hold true no matter which Republican was picked. We might as well choose a real one this time
JimP| 6.15.11 @ 4:21PM
I agree, except recall how McCain did himself in for the most part and the MSM never really had to uncloak their daggers. Man, what a total POS McCain was/is. Mac basically told everyone to vote for Obama. Sorry. I'm recalling what he did and is and it gets me really fired up.
Yes, we MUST do better than another RINO.
Lisa| 6.15.11 @ 8:50PM
"Romney is a human Ken doll: all plastic construction, and no gonads whatsoever."
Couldn't agree more. He makes Obama look authentic and genuine.
Cosmo| 6.16.11 @ 2:56AM
Ross: Terrible article...Please go away and quit dominating the discussion...
Any of these bloggers could write better than you.
Trump seems to be the only one who takes on Bush and Rove for the disasters they were...
mike from florida| 6.15.11 @ 8:02AM
Romney is unelectable. He's another northeastern liberal. I won't vote for him. Instead, I'll vote for a third party candidate.
Dan Hirsch| 6.15.11 @ 8:45AM
Ross, a little history for you. Romney'll win, just like Giuliani and Hillary in '08, they being the '07 "frontrunners." Sheesh! Wise up a little, willya?
SpiralArchitect| 6.15.11 @ 12:41PM
Why vote for third party ( looking like Paul and Trump will be there) when you can just vote for Obummer directly - same thing in result.
Welcome back Ross, darn, no more tennis?
Warrior | 6.15.11 @ 2:51PM
Always disliked this type of argument. If the Republican Party does not want to listen and provide us with a Conservative candidate, then the only way to force it to start listening is to stop the support. The party learned nothing from the days where Ross Perot garnered enough support to ensure 8 years of Clinton. If it means the Marxist wins, so what?? Obama has only sped up the socialist experiment that Bush put on the fast track for. Romney, if elected, will just continue the path we are on. After all, Boehner and the bunch promised a lot if we voted them into power and has delivered on nothing. His next capitulation will be on the debt limit. The only difference between the two parties is the rhetoric. On substance they are both driving us in the same direction.
TrueBlue| 6.15.11 @ 6:33PM
At least Boehner has the excuse of only controlling 1/3 of the process in creating laws and a new budget (and it's sadly something everyone seems to forget). Romney can't use that excuse since he's the one that created the whole RomneyCare fiasco on his own.
darcy| 6.15.11 @ 9:03PM
I concur, wholeheartedly, Warrior: same goal, different timelines.
Conservative House newbies show up for work and are quickly put in their place: get on board with the globalist agenda or beware of the forces against you.
Is there one righteous man among them? Or have they all bowed to expediency and pragmatics?
Occam's Tool| 6.16.11 @ 2:06AM
Please give us Michelle Bachmann, or Alan West, or any Republican with a spine on Domestic Policy who is not a dhimmi. (That rules out you know who)
Ron Edge| 6.30.11 @ 6:40PM
Warrior: You wrote:
"The only difference between the two parties is the rhetoric. On substance they are both driving us in the same direction."
I agree. The reason for that is the same "deep-pockets" that has purchased the GOP are the same who 'own' the Dems. And they are not about to release the clamp they have on both parties no matter how much it costs.
Timothy L. Pennell| 6.15.11 @ 8:45AM
If Bill Crystal likes him? If Michael Barone thinks that he's our best chance? Then we need someone else.
Romneycare? He's not even trying to say that he made a mistake. According to him, Government CONTROL of the Health Care System is the way to go.
Global Warming? "It's happening. All the Scientists say so. And people are the cause. I think we should look in to ways to confront it.: (TAXES) "The guys in East Anglia destroyed 50 Years worth of DATA, rather than turn it over to a Freedom Of Information Act Request? No, I don't see anything suspicious about that."
Like the man said: He's a Go Along, to Get Along. He's a Reach across The Aisle. He's lots of things.
What he ISN"T, is CONSERVATIVE. And, as far as I'm concerned, that makes him DOA.
We don't need any more Compassionate Faux-Conservatives.
NEXT!
BackToBasics| 6.15.11 @ 6:22PM
from your post - If Bill Crystal likes him? If Michael Barone thinks that he's our best chance? Then we need someone else.
Agree totally. And the establisment has a backup in Jon Huntsman. Look how that name is being pushed. We were told a few weeks back by the national media that the Obam camp "feared" Huntsman and Romney the most. That says it all!
I wonder if the RNC put forth efforts since 2008 to stop the cross-party voting that Dems are allowed to do in states in the Republican? I doubt it. It was talked about after they were so influential in getting McCain nominated. The Dems and the RINOs will vote in the primaries where cross-party voting is allowed to try to get one of these two nominated, maybe even Gingrich. They'll probably vote for Huntsman since nobody knows who he is and he doesn't stand a chance of beating Obam.
Sounf far-fetched? Just remember that McCain was way down in the primaries and the polls early on in 2008. He almost dropped out. But, the conservative vote was split so many ways that he was able to come from behind, largely with the help of Democrats voting for him in the primaries in the states where they were allowed to. And of course many of these same Dems voted for Obam in November 2008. I personally know 2 Dems who did this.
BackToBasics| 6.15.11 @ 6:24PM
Dems are allowed to do in states in the Republican -> allowed to do in many states in the Republican primaries?
Jack in Wi.| 6.15.11 @ 11:58AM
The winner of the New Hamshire debate was Ron Paul. He is the intellectual giant that is dragging the whole Republican Party in his direction. It was a fine and civil debate in which all the candidates were trying to catchup with Ron Paul. I thought Michele Bachman did herself some good and Tim Pawlenty held his own. Santorum and Cain are out of their depth's but are nice guys. Lets' hope that Romney ends up with as many convention votes as 2 previous front runners. John Connelly and Rudy Guilianni, one each. Hell no to another Rockefeller Republican. We have had 6 in a row. How has that worked out? About the only good thing about a Romney nomination is that we could finally get a third party. I have voted the Republican ticket for President in 11 straight elections. I will never, ever vote for Willard Romney. If the country sinks let the Democrats go down with the ship.
Alan Brooks| 6.15.11 @ 1:16PM
Mormons know how to rake it in hand over fist..
Dave | 6.15.11 @ 1:47PM
I'll try and keep the assessment short. From my section of the cheap seats, Romney's just another RINO with large bags of money and well a manicured haircut. If somehow he manages to get the Republican nod and actually beat Obama, at the end of the day we'll all still wind up in the same socialist cesspool with all those wonderful economy crushing programs linked to (alleged) man-made global warming, the cap 'n trade scam, and probably a slightly revised, watered down version of the same healthcare system he smothered the state of Teddy Kennedy with. It's the same healthcare scam Barry, Reid and Pelosi's posse had Fed-X'd to the rest of us. Oh, sure, Mitt can spin, dodge and re-adjust what he actually did while governor of Taxachuchetts ... but it won't really sway me. See, every time the man opens his mouth, I prepare by having my cuffs rolled up around the knees.
The Mittster, as president, would end up delivering us to the identical swamp Obama plans to push our heads into. But with a Romney RINO, it'll just take a little longer.
Looking ahead, if we don't get an honest to god conservative to take Barry on in this coming election, the only pump handle the next president will be priming will be the one labeled ...
Flush!
p.s. If BHO wins in '12, get your Google maps out and take a fresh look at our southern borders. Your name doesn't have to be Einstein to figure out why theaters show ... previews.
Meme Mine| 6.15.11 @ 6:18AM
I'm not the only one contacting authorities and law makers and the justice departments to have the leading scientists and NEWS EDITORS charged for this needless panic of a false war called Climate Change. We missed getting Bush.............
Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate control instead of the obviously needed population control. REAL planet lovers and REAL progressives and REAL civilized people were happy and relieved that the science was a comfortable lie wrapped in exaggeration and anointed by lab coat consultants we called “scientists”.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.15.11 @ 6:21AM
Newt Gingrich did not exceed expectations. He has a tendency to sound like an elitist and in fact he is one in his own way.
His answer on immigration was not only weak, it was total surrender which means 100% amnesty.
Nancy in NC| 6.15.11 @ 6:41AM
I don't even want to like Romney...I don't now and I won't in the future.
Who are we kidding? He's about as conservative as Obama. It's still Kool-Aid, just a different flavor.
JimP| 6.15.11 @ 6:43AM
How depressing. The "experts" decided Romney "won" the "debate". The experts are the lefties who are hoping for Romney to be the nominee because they think he will be easy to beat, and they are the etablishment GOPers who want Romney because he is "one of us". Also, Romney was the winner among Facebookers? Why am I suspicious of this statistic? A group of vacuous, self absorbed narcissistic adolescents of various ages tuned in to the watch the CNN reality show known as the NH GOP "debate"? Not credible IMO. What do you call astroturf Facebookers?
"Elvis or Johnny Cash?" Yeah, questions like those definitely determine the winners from the the losers in a debate about government policy and philosophy.
All of these debates are nothing more than Kabuki Theatre as far as I am concerned and when experts and insiders decide who the winners were they are telling you who they want or who did better than they expected at making a positive impression. Therefore Romney will NOT get my vote in the primaries. The "experts" are the de facto enemy and cannot be trusted. The "experts" are the ones who got us in the current mess.
benny havens| 6.15.11 @ 7:44AM
JimP, you hit the nail, squarely, on the head.
When the media starts to tell the voters who the leading candidate is, look out. Remember when all the lefty talk shows paraded out McCain and portrayed him as the leader of the Republican Party? Romney does not remind me of a Reagan conservative. He reminds me of a George Hamilton Hollywood hairdresser. To put it in Jersey terms, he ain't got it!
When the media makes fun of, or jokes about how stupid a candidate is, then that is the candidate to explore.
JimP| 6.15.11 @ 7:55AM
I'm with you, Benny!
Maddox| 6.15.11 @ 10:10AM
Absolutely! The liberal media is telling us Mitt is the one to beat just like they decided John McCain was the one. If they tout a candidate it time to look long and hard at his actions and words.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 8:01AM
We've seen this movie before---most recently in 2008---and it always ends with the leftist getting elected.
Piss off, RINOs---it's OUR party!
Jack in Wi.| 6.15.11 @ 12:07PM
Ron Paul has by far the largest number of activists on his side. The only one who could challege him on that is Sarah Palin. I don't hink she is running for the nomination and may endorse Ron Paul as she did his son. She is a closet libertarian with great pro-life credentials. I believe she might run as the third party candidate if Willard or someone like him is nominated. She has hinted that might be the case. About the only activists that are for Romney are the Mormons. They are the only ones that he excites. They also provide most of his campaign cash. A Muslim followed by a Mormon, no thanks.
Occam's Tool| 6.16.11 @ 2:07AM
If you vote for Paul, you're voting for a guy more pro-Muslim than Obama.
Val| 6.15.11 @ 6:53AM
And WHY, exactly, do you want to like Romeny??? Haven't we had more than enough of the "go-along-to-get-along" RINOS, just right of extreme LEFT???? And how does that "it's my turn" in RINOville get our Constitution back??? The voters want our country back, NOT backroom deals for the UN and the "global community" serfdom, with all the "global warming", ponzi-schemes .
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 10:41AM
I want to like him because I think he has the best chance of beating Obama. But I'm not ready to like him just for that reason. I want to see him stop talking so frequently like a liberal when asked about particular policies.
Albert| 6.15.11 @ 10:59AM
Ross, Romney talks like a liberal about particular policies because that's who he is. I've got nothing against the man personally or professionally, but he is who he is, and who he is, is mostly liberal. As for someone with a good chance of beating President Bozo, that's simple. Several of the Republican candidates can indeed beat Bozo, but what is required to do so is an aggressive campaign that points out Bozo's defects as a "leader", his catastrophic economic "policy", and his clear infatuation with that which is most unamerican in the World, socialism and its variants. Plus, there are enough video and audio clips of Bozo's grotesquerie of gaffes to fill hours of political TV commercials. ANY candidate with the guts to unapologetically run such ads will beat President Bozo. Indeed, Romney could beat Bozo as well, but if he does, what hath we (the electorate) wrought? A "Reagan Conservative" is not the description that comes to mind.
Pel| 6.16.11 @ 3:27AM
Albert, thanks. Right now a functional moron could beat Obama. But that is only 1/250th of the problem. The crux of the problem is ending government, lowering taxes, bringing jobs back to America, exploitation of our own national resources, border closures for all illegals, deportation of muslims, AND ending the liberal assault on schools, our military, universities, churches, and, yes, your own home.
It will take much more than a moron to begin and execute that detailed agenda.
I sure hope good conservative outfits like Heritage have been faithfully archiving EVERY Obummer and Biden gaffe. Roll tape!!!
Jack in Wi.| 6.15.11 @ 12:11PM
Ross: Romney has no chance to be elected. The base will stay home in droves or vote third party. I hope there is a viable third party if he is the nominee. Enough is enough. 6 Rockefeller Republicans in a row have almost destroyed the party. Another one will be it's death nell.
Warrior | 6.15.11 @ 2:55PM
Mr. Kaminsky. Just because he stops talking like a liberal does not mean he will stop acting and instituting policy like one. It is disgraceful that you and your band of media elites have to be Republicans instead of republicans.
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 3:54PM
Warrior, I refer you to my many articles lambasting the GOP for big spending and other liberal attributes. And I refer you to my other comments to this note to respond to your "media elite" statement.
Warrior | 6.15.11 @ 5:41PM
I'm still waiting for you and your band of "elites" to right a blog on a real Conservative candidate. Keep on trying to like the moderate and liberals like Mitt and Tim. Maybe if you would start to write about Conservatives and their values, you would actually like a candidate on their core values and not have to try so hard.
Warrior | 6.15.11 @ 5:43PM
should have been write instead of right.
Jerry Garcia | 6.15.11 @ 11:06PM
Kaminsky's not a conservative. He's a drug legalization immoral Libertarian. He wants Romney to be the nominee because he wants Obama to win.
The Hooch President, baby.
Colin | 6.15.11 @ 9:06PM
"I want to see him stop talking so frequently like a liberal when asked about particular policies."
I think I get your drift, Ross. Unfortunately, there's nothing new in your plan for him getting to 1600 Penn Ave. It's it's right out of the DNC playbook. It's under the column just after chapter 13 right beneath road campaign rule BS 666 :When on the campaign trail and appearing in the general media, try and dazzle them with B.S. and spin when facts, your record and the pesky truth may appear to impede your pathway.
Good thinking, Ross. Now, run along and enjoy your cookies and milk.
Jerry Garcia | 6.15.11 @ 11:47PM
Very good, Colin.
Pecos Pete| 6.15.11 @ 7:19AM
The USA is in deep doo doo. We need a George Patton. However, I'd vote for Donald Duck before I'll vote for King O.
I don't like Romney, but if he is the nominee (Donald Duck) then he'll get my vote.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.15.11 @ 10:16AM
Pecos ignore the Obama plants on here it is way too early to crown Romeny. Still I do agree with him on one point any of the Republicans at the NH debate would make a better President that Obama.
Here is why Obama needs to be beaten and we don't need another 4 years of his failed policies. According Obama's own Bureau of Economic Analysis, for the 9 economic quarters that Obama has been in office real annual growth in GDP has been just 1.5%. That’s less than half the annual GDP growth during the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s. Even more striking is that the rate of growth under Obama has been only slightly higher than during the Great Depression. In the 1930s, real annual GDP growth was 1.3% — just 0.2% less than under Obama.
drudge ette obama| 6.15.11 @ 7:28AM
Romney doesn't do much for me. I am waiting for electricity in ideas and presentation.
Obama won the the last election because conservative Christians sat on their arses and didn't vote. Well, now you can all see what happened when you sit something out on a one-issue disagreement. You lose big and make it harder to reset the course.
Rick Perry and Rubio. What a mix!
btims| 6.15.11 @ 8:46AM
Perry could be a pretty good pick but Rubio is too young and too inexperienced. He needs years of experience, not months.
David T| 6.15.11 @ 9:32AM
Actually, Obama won because too many conservative Christians voted FOR him to prove to themselves they weren't racist..
Michael Tomlinson| 6.15.11 @ 10:29AM
Actually he lost the Evangelicals the Barna Group found 88% voted for Sen. McCain, compared to just 11% for Sen. Obama.. He also lost the white Roman Catholic vote getting only 47%.
Three-fourths of atheists and agnostics (76%) gave their vote to Sen. Obama, while only 23% backed Sen. McCain. Non-Christian faiths Barack Obama (62%) rather than John McCain (36%).
He did get the fiscal "conservatives" (they fall easily for Democrat propaganda & media spin) like Obamacon Bruce Bartlett and snobs like Peggy Noonan, but he didn't win the Christian vote. They're more principled than other elements of the conservative movement that thought we could throw away an election or two.
Clint| 6.15.11 @ 11:53AM
Only 27 Percent of Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal Voters voted for Obama.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 12:48PM
I haven't seen this before--do you happen to have a link?
Michael Tomlinson| 6.15.11 @ 1:20PM
I'm not sure about Clint's numbers, but you can go to the below link to see Barna's breakdown and indepth results.
http://www.barna.org/barna-upd.....ntial-race
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 2:54PM
Thank you!
Clint| 6.15.11 @ 8:52PM
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11152
Ron Edge| 6.30.11 @ 10:42PM
David T.
I think Obama won because 1... The 'Independents' left Bush (perhaps some of them were motivated one way or the other because he was Black) and, 2... The economy tanked in the spring/summer of that year and Sen. McCain handled (responded to) it badly.
As for "Conservative Christians"? After 9/11: Bush's weak, and eventually misguided/ruinous, response to it, the Neo-Cons obvious contempt for the economics of the "Goldwater Republicans" ("Paleo-Cons")--- of which Sen. McCain was (or acted like) one until 2004--- and Constitutional Protections, many C.C.'s voted Democratic. Even these and the large swing of the 'Independents' nearly weren't enough as the polls showed Sen. McCain closing the gap, but too slowly: Obama won by a nearly 5% plurality instead of 10% as the polls showed in late August.
Not to worry: I, and many others, will be returning to the Presidential GOP fold no matter the harm such a person is going to cause the Economy ("Goldwater Republican", remember) simply because Obama brought on-board every person whose policies had brought about the destruction of a significant portion of the middle class and who are currently fighting tooth-and-nail to prevent any, and all, regulations which are necessary to avoid such... "Bubbles", say. That, added to his obvious support for Islam over Christians and Jews.... Well, WTH: May as well have the GOP continue to protect the wealthy: at least, he/she will support the War on Terrorism and Israel (unless, as I've been given to understand, Sen. Paul gets the nomination).
Because I think a GOP President with a Democratic Senate/House would cancel out, mostly, each others extremes, I'll probably be voting Democratic in the State Races.
Mriordon| 6.15.11 @ 7:39AM
I don't like Romney, I don't want to like him and I will never like him. Fortunately the experts only have one vote and most of them will be voting for O anyway. I admit that I wanted O to beat McCain because I thought he would create a defining moment- which he did. I knew that McCain's blathering and dithering would have set conservatism back another 4 or more years like the Bushes did for 12 years. But the defining moment is here, and it turns out to be the defining moment of the history of our country. I hope to God that Romney is shown to be the dithering Rino that he has always been and a real conservative gets the nomination and wins the election.
Ron Edge| 6.30.11 @ 10:47PM
Mriordon:
Totally agree!!
martin j smith| 6.15.11 @ 7:39AM
I agree that Romney is better than ANY DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST.
Having siad that I would say this: If you think that the Obama regime is not studying every element of Romney's Political positions-particularly those related to Obama Care,global warming and mother favorite Socialist issues you would be WRONG. And, they would be used in the campaign. I do not have to spell out how. So
while at this time Romney might be the "front runner" I would say this: OK yes, we need some one to beat Obama and the Socialists, but lets make sure that we are actually choosing the BEST
candidate. Lets also make sure that Romney or whoever actually is chosen is capable of responding to potential Socialist political adds and handle debates . THUS: I think it does Romney or the rest of the crowd no favor to not "practice" thru the debate process their ability to deal with likely Socialist responses and challenges. Now is the time to do that. Furthermore,I think it was foolish to use CNN--we need an outlet that would allow for proper questioning not SOCIALIST CONTROL of the debate.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 7:59AM
Down goes Kaminsky!
What is it with conservative commentators that despite all evidence to the contrary of a hunger for conservative principles --- what do you think is the impetus behind The Tea Party? --- they continue to insist that a conservative won't win at the ballot box? That conservatism won't win in its own right and must be smuggled in the luggage of a putative liberal?
It's crazy.
It is the liberals who run away from the label, reaching back in time (and exploiting the historical ignorance leftist educators have carefully preserved in our youth) to electrify the corpse of Progressivism instead.
We don't need Mitt Romney or any other RINO. 2008 proved that---Obama beat McLame handily. What we need is a CONSERVATIVE.
You would think people who make their living supposedly advancing conservatism would understand this.
Perhaps it's time to replace our conservative commentariat with people having more intestinal fortitude and sense.
I've been an AmSpec subscriber since 1991---I will drop the magazine in a heartbeat if you don't grow some cojones soon.
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 10:43AM
Teflon,
I didn't say a conservative won't win. I said Romney appears most electable right now, and that conservative Republicans are much more focused on winning than on issues, per the Gallup poll.
I also didn't say that I like or support Romney, just that I wish I could because I want to beat Obama but can't support a RINO.
My point was that Romney didn't become more of a RINO on Monday, and perhaps somewhat less.
I think you're reading too much into what I want to happen based on my writing what I think is happening.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 11:12AM
That is probably a fair point, Mr Kaminsky, but it is hard to separate your analysis from the cheerleading going on elsewhere in the conservative commentariat. The Romneybots have been out in force early this season---the social media stats you provide simply don't account for the candidate's tendency to mobilize supporters to produce precisely these results, which you in turn provide as "evidence" of front-runner status. You'll forgive me I hope for presuming your allegiance has been cemented by uncritically presenting such information while neglecting to provide support at all for your assertion that Romney wouldn't govern left, particularly given his recent pronouncements on global warming and RomneyCare.
What I think is happening is you and others are preparing the battlefield to suit RINO Romney---paving the way for acceptance once again and a mere 4 years after RINO McCain went down in flames to repeat history.
The blowback you're seeing here is what is fueling the Tea Party movement at present---conservatives are sick to death of being told that no conservative is electable but Marxists and liberals are eminently so. That perception is a function of the Beltway bubble most of you live in and not reflective of electoral reality.
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 12:07PM
Teflon,
I'm going to write at more length on this, but I would point out to you that just in the past few weeks I wrote two articles for TAS: One preferred Mitch Daniels to Romney and the other preferred Tim Pawlenty to Romney!
Thanks for the discussion...more later.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 12:51PM
Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney do have more than a little in common, would you not concede, Ross?
One thing they have in common is that the conservative base is thrilled by none of them, viewing them as being part of the left wing of the current field.
Why not Bachmann, Cain, or Paul, all to the right of these three? Why not Hunstman, whom Ramesh Ponnuru at NR includes with Pawlenty and Romney as the inexplicable Big Three?
You cannot claim "electability" without supporting your case and without addressing the conservative base which, after all, determines electability within the GOP. (Even despite the efforts to ignore us).
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 1:26PM
I like Bachmann. I don't think Cain is ready and I don't take Ron Paul seriously (because of his foreign policy views, primarily. His age is also a negative.)
Still, as of today, it's hard for me to see Bachmann beating Obama, in part because of what the media will do to her but also because of how historically difficult it is to go from the House to the White House.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 2:52PM
And yet in this calculus provision is nowhere made for a) a candidate who will not attack Obama where he is weakest because it is a shared weakness; b) alienating the conservative base thereby depressing turnout; c) triggering a 3rd party challenge from the right.
You're buying the Left Wing Media line, Ross---how'd that work out for us in 2008?
darcy| 6.15.11 @ 9:13PM
" . . . because of what the media will do to her . . "
Yes. The media will crucify the best possible electable Republican candidate. They have to. They have a vested interest in destroying that candidate who most threatens their cherished liberal/leftist wet dreams.
That means that we have to work that much harder in TELLING THE TRUTH to the nation. We do ourselves no favors by bending to THEIR propaganda and accepting a nominee whom even they would in truth have no real problems with.
If the MSM does not savage our candidate, then we have the WRONG nominee.
The more the MSM makes nice over our guy, ala McCain, the more we must know that our guy (no political correctness here: guy is gender inclusive) is in fact THEIR GUY TOO, albeit a watered-down version!
Michael Tomlinson| 6.15.11 @ 1:26PM
Ron Paul is not a conservative. His addiction to gov't pork (why we're in our current mess) and empathy for the homosexual agenda preclude that.
Jack in Wi.| 6.15.11 @ 2:25PM
Ron Paul and his issues are driving the campaign. He gets the most applause at the debates. There have been 3 national polls in the last few months which have Ron up as the most electable against Obama. 2 of them were up on Drudge's front page. Ron Paul for president. Rand Paul for Vice President.That solves the age question. The Paul's also have a majority behind them on foreign policy especially on cuting all foreign aid. That is supported by huge majorities. By next year noone will be for these wars. The tide has turned. In the debate the whole panel tried to sound like Ron Paul. That is great for America and the Republican Party.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 2:54PM
While I would usually agree, given the preeminence of the economy and three simultaneous foreign wars where victory is both uncertain and unlikely to forward our national interests significantly, the terrain favors Paul more than any time in a generation. At least he contrasts with Obama---Romney, Pawlenty, and Hunstman simply do not. Nor does Gingrich any longer.
Occam's Tool| 6.16.11 @ 2:09AM
Yes, Mike, I looked up Paul on Pork---funny, for a guy so pro-Arab, he does have a thing for Pork.
Occam's Tool| 6.16.11 @ 2:09AM
Yes, Mike, I looked up Paul on Pork---funny, for a guy so pro-Arab, he does have a thing for Pork.
Ron Edge| 6.30.11 @ 11:48PM
Mr. Teflon93:
That "...hunger for conservative principles..." you wrote of has been (and IS being), largely, expressed (LOUDLY/CLAMOROUSLY) by Conservatives and NOT the electorate as a whole. 2010 was an aberration because SO many of the "new" voters, who overwhelmingly supported Obama in '08, stayed home in '10 due to their intense disappointment of Obama's policies, AND/OR lack of them. Believe me!! It was NOT because so many reveled in the economic destruction of a significant portion of the middle class (You know: Those who depend on their paycheck to survive) while providing virtually everything so that those who created such a disaster were made "healthy". Healthy?? They received bonuses of $Billions in 2008 AND 2009 due to Obama's deliberate decisions!! MORE than merely "Healthy"..... Right? Also, his 'above the fray' conduct came across as "snooty/snobbish".
'Independents', as a rule, support Israel: Obama's snub of Israel's Prime Minister and of Israelis (we 'Independents' hadn't forgotten his showing the soles of his shoes while discussing "Jews": the classic/ultimate Islamic insult) created the dearth of Democratic votes in'10.
This won't occur in '12. Not after seeing the GOP's crushing of the middle class in Wisconsin, Michigan, et al. Those who depend on their paycheck AND whom are supremely, utterly, ideological will refuse to see what the GOP has in store for them, but those who understand better now will not.
Don't blame the Conservative... commentariat?...: They're (I'm assuming I know whom you mean) doing their level best to convince you and the other "...supremely, utterly, ideological" voters that electability will count heavily in '12.
Rather than excoriate them, you should listen very carefully and choose wisely.
Mark Shepler| 6.15.11 @ 8:02AM
It's a long, long time 'til 11/2012 and silly, if not absurd, to be making odds at this point. Bachmann just jumped in, Palin is lurking offstage, Perry seems to be readying himself, the whisperers are getting Christie's ear and who knows who or what else can come along?
For my money, I maintain Romney is done and will not do well in the primaries. Sure, the rest are holding fire for now but that won't go on for long. And there is no defending RomneyCare, no matter how fine the hairs between it and ObamaCare he cares to split. And they're gonna get pretty fine by the election as the disaster that is Obamacare becomes more obvious and undeniable. By doubling down on it in his Big Speech last month and then his global warming revelation I'd say he's done his chances a mortal hurt. Heck, Gingrich can't live down a silly and harmless green commercial he made with Pelosi a few years ago before he and the whole world was let in on the hoax.
Fact is, Romney is a conservative-ish sounding politician from our bluest state who is thought to be pious and true because he is Mormon, clean-cut, handsome and bespoke. It is the unspoken assumption that because he was a Rep elected in MA that he is our obvious choice. Of course, there are those that think, as I do, that it is precisely because he was palatable in MA that should give us pause. And upon examination of his prescriptions he is scarcely different than all our RINOs and pretenders who have aided and abetted the liberals in bringing our nation to the abyss.
I am sick of smart guys with "plans" for more smart people with more power and more money to manage the lives of 300 million individuals. It is precisely that thinking that is ruining us and what is behind his absolute refusal to admit his health care error. Base, arrogant pride, that is the first sin, and it is that I object most in him. I made the case here in '09 and through 2010 as the Obamacare debate heated up and again here:
www.rightwingmuse.com | Mitt Romney's Come To Jesus Moment?
fmm| 6.15.11 @ 8:13AM
Great to see comments from someone who knows what Romney and his ilk are all about.
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 10:46AM
Mark,
You may be right, but let's look at the early states.
Romney probably doesn't win Iowa but probably doesn't come in last, or even in the bottom half.
He probably wins NH going away, and same in Nevada.
Then South Carolina prob. like Iowa.
So of the first four, he should have two wins and two decent finishes, which would be better than anybody else unless some other single candidate can put together wins in both Iowa and SC. Not impossible of course, but not easy!
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 11:14AM
Of the early states, which voted GOP in 2008?
This is precisely how we wind up in this mess---frontloading the primary schedule with Democrat states so that the RINO leadership can claim conservatives "can't win". That plus the ludicrous open primaries build a narrative of RINO triumphalism which then blows up on Election Day.
Mark Shepler | 6.15.11 @ 11:24AM
Hello Mr. Kaminsky,
I hear you but I would say those calculations are, as is Romney himself, B.T.P. What's that? Before Tea Party and I don't mean the amalgamation of formal clubs and groups calling themselves some variant of it. I mean that the broad strata of electorate is awake, aware and unbeholden in a way I cannot recall in 40 years of watching the political scene. I said so here just before 11/2010 and I was right in spades. I think it continues apace. Just about everything has changed and the old odds-making no longer fits particularly regarding how it plays out in Republican politics.
Bachmann is in but we have yet to really hear from this force and won't precisely because it is not on any reservation. We will in the primaries. My guess is the great mass of Republican leaning voters feel less and less constrained or even guided by what party poohbahs and the "experts" think and so the primaries are going to be fun. I believe this election cycle may also determine whether the Reps survive or go the way of the Whigs.
As a practical consideration too unless Romney repudiates RomneyCare he will never be rid of that millstone around his neck ESPECIALLY if he is seen by Team Obama to be doing well. One word of praise for RomneyCare from Obama will undo weeks of mealy-mouthed double-talk by Mitt.
Lastly, early wins in the primaries are no sure predictors of the nomination. Remember Buchanan in '96? Well, how much more so today with all new forces and factors in play?
Romney would be 1000% better than Obama to be sure but he is no shoe-in by any stretch. I'm for a healthy, rousing, let it all hang out primary season. I want ideology and principles argued first, most and loudly. It's time to choose, not just for the Reps but for America and going with party insider considerations just won't do any more.
If you care to read my 10/10 take on the TP you can read it here: www.rightwingmuse.com | Calling the Tea Party Right.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 12:52PM
Great blog---thanks for the link.
Jack in Wi.| 6.15.11 @ 2:29PM
Romney could not win the early states last time and he won't this time. Did you hear the questioners in New Hampshire? They all sounded like Ron Paul supporters. Now maybe Ron won't win but his rhetoric and ideas will.
Jerry Garcia | 6.15.11 @ 11:15PM
The Left loves Ron Paul because he is Leftist in his morality; his drug legalization, his anti-war and anti-Israel stance. No small wonder as to this audience's cheering.
JohnC| 6.15.11 @ 8:02AM
Romney is Obama-lite and George W. Bush II -- a Trojan horse liberal, even more dangerous than a real liberal. He is an open-border / free trade globalist and will guarantee a Trump Independent run. If so, I will vote for the pro-American Trump.
gearjammer| 6.15.11 @ 9:13AM
Bush gave us Alito and Roberts. Romney will do no worse in this vital area. It is all about the supreme court. Any candidate we saw on that stage will not nominate a Kagan or Bryer. Gotta stick together and support who ever comes out on top. Bt the way. if you are out of a job or not able to advance the way you want a Romney might look good to you.Jobs and the SJC. That is the ball game. The candidates know this and that is why they did not tear each other down. They do not want a damaged candidate running against the latest face of the vile democrat party political machine.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 10:17AM
It is NOT all about Supreme Court power---Obama managed to destroy the economy quite handily without resorting to the Court.
YeloStalyn| 6.15.11 @ 11:42AM
But with his appointments he has made it much harder to undo. Thus, the Courts do not create the situation, rather cement it. That is what makes them so important. Plus, when legislation fails, the courts are the "Plan B" to still impliment policies that the left want (or to stop the right when they win at that ballot box like in California).
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 11:56AM
My contention is not that the Court is unimportant, but that it is clearly not the most important issue in this coming election given the Obama agenda has been implemented without regard to it. It remains to be seen whether the Roberts Court will rescue us from ObamaCare. If it does not, I'd argue that appointments don't matter one whit given a conservative Court endorsing socialized medicine.
Jack in Wi.| 6.15.11 @ 12:30PM
I remember Earl Warren, William Brennan, David Souter, Kennedy, Harriet Miers, Sandra Day O'Conner, Stewart, Blackmun, Stevens, Burger. What did we get from the Republican elites when the chips were down? I am not voting for Willard on the off chance he may appoint a conservative jurist or 2. Let the Party destroy itself if it nominates Romney. We probably need a new party anyhow. There is no way the liberal Repubicans will ever let the conservative pro-life majority have it's time at the top of the party. They ran a third party candidate against Reagan in an attempt to sink him. They would do the same now if a conservative is nominated. Let them have the party, if they nominate somone like Willard. This is the last defining moment for the country. The elites of both parties need to be overthrown. To hell with the warmongers and banksters.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 12:53PM
This is right on the money---it is conservative principle which is the best indicator of getting a conservative Court nominee. There's simply too much history of GOP presidents lacking same who try to smuggle liberals in, even when they don't simply put somebody on the Court who lied to them about their own lack of conservative principles.
fmm| 6.15.11 @ 8:11AM
It is not possible to like a politician if you don't agree with his politics: they are one and the same no matter what the "experts" or "authors" say. The same thing is said about His Majesty O and it is all a big joke. Vote policy to win!
bert| 6.15.11 @ 8:19AM
Thanks Rosssy, for the usual DC elite arguments that its inevitable and its his turn so Mittens should be the one . This clown would have been be running in the Dem primary twenty five years ago.
This out of touch DC GOP elite will put the Soros Puppet back in the WH if he is the GOP candidate .
This FOOL is the father of Obamacare and stands by the belief that elites like himself can FORCE people to buy something against their will !
The 2010 Midterms were a GOP sweep mostly because of the vile Obamacare/Romneycare and to some extend the global warming scam !
We must all work to stop MITTENS and apparently the Beltway elites running TAS too !
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 10:48AM
Bert,
Like others on this page, you're reading in some things I didn't say.
I never said Mitt was inevitable. Indeed, I pointed out that his betting odds are still less than 1/3 to get the nomination!
Also, I didn't say that I like or support Romney, just that his performance on Monday didn't hurt him with me (as someone who refused to support McCain for the same reasons that most commenters here don't like Romney.)
At the end of the day, as I note in the article, this will be the question: If you believe that the most electable Republican is not the best Republican on policy, who will you support?
I would suggest to you that four more years of Obama is such a horrible thought that the answer to the above question is not as easy to determine as it was four years ago.
Louis Jenkins| 6.15.11 @ 8:21AM
Romney is in the lead. Oh boy! I can hardly wait until another RINO jumps up and confuses the MSM into like him or her. Let's get it straight! We don't need another charlatan with progressive views. We need a person with the gumption to tell it like it is. The USA is in dire straights, and all I hear from Romney's mouth is more of the same worn out mantra from Obama. We haven't changed. Its the media and the politicians that have changed.
breakn70| 6.15.11 @ 8:28AM
Sorry, Ross. I'm looking for a conservative as the next Republican nominee for President. We are, and will be, in the primary stages of our nominating process. Let's see how it goes. For me, there is no front runner at this time despite what the media and the Republican hierarchy would have us believe. I just hope we don't let the liberals pick our next nominee with our insane open primary system. Wonder if that's been changed.
Maxwell| 6.15.11 @ 8:31AM
If I want a used car sales person, I'll go to a used car lot. Another slick RINO need not apply.
For those that posted above me, thank you for saying it better than I could.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.15.11 @ 8:41AM
The mainstream media and the alphabet beltway establishment had their way with us last time by getting McCain to be our nominee. They may win this time by getting Romney to fill that role. As I have stated before, I will not assist you if you continue to follow this insane scheme. However, that means little; we will not last four more years if Obama wins and we will not last four more years with another RINO who will "carry on."
I am often chastised for being a Palin supporter, the critics attributing my advocacy to some form of "cultism." Nothing is farther than the truth, if any one of those seven on that stage had Mrs. Palin’s record, expertise in governance, and America First attitude they will have earned my vote. They lie for a living, so I will not believe them; those of you that support their ilk are the ones responsible for getting us in this predicament, I will not believe you either.
Records do not "go away," people do not change, and established patterns of behavior are environmental. They cannot change their records (though they may try), they might dye their hair, comb it different or dress in different clothing (the tans fade, the root will show, that Brooks Brothers suit does not play well at the rodeo) either God (or DNA ) made them who they are.
The last premise is the kicker, “behavior is environmental.” If you place these people in their element, their niche, the comfortable place they scurry like rats to, they will behave in exactly the same way that brought us to where we are at now.
We need someone to change that environment; we cannot get there by reshuffling the deck or playing the same game with the same partners. The deck you are playing with is missing some cards, you simple cannot win.
The different partners are in place; they call themselves the Tea Party. The game is changing, the MSM and the establishment are finally out of chips. But we need someone other than a cardshark to deal fairly; we might not win but the odds will no longer be stacked against us.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 10:18AM
Hear, hear!
W| 6.15.11 @ 1:45PM
I do not disagree with anything you said. It would make a fine speech at the Alamo or Masada. But if Sara does not run, then who do you work and vote for? You cannot sit at home and allow obama to win. It is great to be a purist but that is not the choice, unless the nominee is Sara or Bachman. A squishy moderate Republican is still better than a dedicated socialist, anti-american like obama with a clown like biden. We got Clinton because the purists were upset with Bush and voted for Perot.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 2:49PM
If the GOP wants conservative votes, they have to EARN them. Period. What benefit is there to put an Obama "Me Too" candidate in and damage the party brand? Why should we be held hostage to the ambition of the Democrat Party's castoffs?
W| 6.15.11 @ 3:39PM
None of the republican candidates are obama too candidates.
Obama appointed kagan and sotamaior to the supreme court. do you want him to appoint two more like them? Clinton appointed ruth bader ginzber and stephen breyer. All far left liberals. Bush 41 gave us Souter, but he also gave us Clarence Thomas. At least with a republican you have a 50/50 chance of a good conservative judge. Bush 43 gave us two excellent judges, Roberts and Alito.
I prefer Bachman or Santorum, but if the choice on the ballot is obama vs. any republican, i will vote for any republican. And if you sit it out, then you voted for obama. if you can live with obama for four more years, then vote for him.
TrueBlue| 6.15.11 @ 7:13PM
Unfortunately that's the kind of thinkin that allows the RINO DC elites to play their bull#$%^ "my turn" game. Any RINO that gets put on the ballot for president will just get beaten the same way McCain did. People will look at them and say, "He's the same as the other guy but with no conviction."
Sticking to your guns DOES work, even if you're wrong, at least people will respect you for being able to stick up for yourself. Sadly RINOs try to sidestep or hide their record, which just makes them look guilty as hell. If instead of trying to defend their past actions they just took responsibility for them, THEN I might be inclined to vote for a RINO, but they won't do it, they don't have the balls.
Teflon93| 6.16.11 @ 10:29AM
Refresh my memory--how did Anthony Kennedy get on the Court again? How about David Souter?
Didn't Dubya want somebody else before Alito---when a conservative uprising forced his hand?
It does us ZERO good to put the nomination power in anything but the hands of a principled CONSERVATIVE.
W| 6.16.11 @ 10:58AM
Anthony Kennedy was nominated by Ronald Reagan, do you also oppose Reagan? It is difficult to be sure about judges, Kennedy appointed Byron White, who wrote many "conservative" decisions. Eisenhower appointed the two most liberal judges in history, Warren and Brennan. But the judges appointed by Dems usually stay liberal, White was the exception. At least Dubya listened to the conservative opposition to Meiers, do you think Obama listens to conservative oppositon to his nominations?
You can work to nominate a principled conservative, but after nomination, what will you do? face reality.
Teflon93| 6.16.11 @ 1:17PM
You do see that even with Reagan making the picks, we wound up with O'Connor and Kennedy, right?
Your other points simply reinforce this one: simply being a Republican isn't enough to ensure liberals aren't on the Court. Even principled conservatives like Reagan put liberals on it---presumably inadvertently.
Given this reality, you're all wet.
Teflon93| 6.16.11 @ 1:17PM
You do see that even with Reagan making the picks, we wound up with O'Connor and Kennedy, right?
Your other points simply reinforce this one: simply being a Republican isn't enough to ensure liberals aren't on the Court. Even principled conservatives like Reagan put liberals on it---presumably inadvertently.
Given this reality, you're all wet.
W| 6.16.11 @ 2:20PM
what does you are all wet mean? since you are a conservative i expected a more intelligent response. my point is we work to nominate Palin or Bachman or Santorum, who are the only principled conservatives. but what do you do if none of them are nominated? you have no choice but to work for and vote for anyone running against obama. all your pretty speeches do not change this reality. we can criticize McCain, but he never would have passed a "obamacare" or appointed all the leftists to the courts and agencies. unfortunately the choice is not always between obama vs. the perfect conservative.
Teflon93| 6.16.11 @ 4:25PM
"You're all wet" means that your argument doesn't hold water. Let's recap:
1. You claim that we must support a RINO in 2012 because we need conservative picks on the Supreme Court.
2. I pointed out that even when we have conservatives in the Oval Office---like Ronald Reagan---we get the likes of Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy on the Court.
3. I further pointed out that RINOs are less likely to even forward conservative candidates for high office as they don't agree with them, not being conservatives themselves. That's how you get a David Souter on the Court, and how we very nearly got Harriet Miers (only a conservative insurrection saved the Alito pick).
4. The implication is quite clear---having a Republican in the White House---even a conservative Republican---is no guarantee of avoiding a liberal on the Court.
That pretty much destroys your argument. Unfortunately, who we elect in 2012 doesn't really determine who gets on the Court ideology-wise---the makeup of the Senate determines that.
And we are far likelier to have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate with high conservative voter turnout than with low.
A RINO at the top of the GOP ticket will suppress conservative turnout, trigger a third party challenge, damage the GOP brand still further, and reduce the chances for a large GOP Senate majority.
Other than that, it's a genius idea.
No one has yet sought to explain why the RINOs don't hold their noses for once in their misbegotten lives and support a conservative. Nor has any RINO explained when precisely it will be the conservatives' "turn" to get the top of the ticket.
That is because the RINOs believe the answer to be "never".
Since RINOs are a small minority within the Republican Party---and one quite used to defecting to the Democrats anyway---they can piss off.
2012 requires as perfect a conservative as we can find. Period.
Because the Democrats ran a perfect leftist in 2008 and he kicked the Moderate Maverick's @ss.
W| 6.16.11 @ 11:16PM
Your premise is wrong. I did not say we must support a "Rino" in 2012. I said that we should work to nominate a principled conservative such as Palin, Bachman, or Santoru. But if they are not nominated, and your choice in Nov 2012 is Obama vs. Romney or whomever you terma Rino, then you have to vote Republican. What will you do when the nominee is a Rino? Stay home and allow Obama to win? That is the question you do not deal with. It is great to write what you write and makes you feel good, but you are not facing the question, Obama v. Any Republican?
You need to read more closely. My statements are what do we do if our conservative is not nominated. You are wasting time and effort trying to convince me and others that we need to nominate a principled conservative. We know that. But history shows we dont always nominate principled conservatives, and then we have no choice but to vote for anyone but obama.
Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were appointed by the most principled conservative president since Coolidge. While we can disagree with their decisions, they are infinetely better than anyone appointed by Clinton and Obama.
The president nominates,not the Senate. If the President nominates a good conservative and then fights for the confirmation, the nominee will usually win. Bush got Alito and Roberts without a veto proof Senate. Bush 41 fought agressively to have Thomas confirmed without a veto proof Senate. Reagan nominated Bork, but did not fight to have him confirmed, as a result we got Kennedy. But any republican, whether rino or conservative is better than a democrat, especially obama, for the supreme court. If you have to choose between obama or romney to nominae a supreme court justice, who do you vote for? Did you vote for Perot which allowed Clinton to win?
I agree with your sentiment to nominate a principled conservative, but you need to read more closely what i wrote, and your logic is weak and based on a false premise, i.e. that is want a rino nominated.
Mimi| 6.15.11 @ 8:51AM
This is just the beginning of a long, sort 'em out campaign. Forget anybody with 30% is the winner already ! We got more people to get in.... we have to hear more and see more....Only one thing matters...WE MUST CHOOSE WISELY, think ahead .....we don't want LUKE-WARM... and our guy or gal must be a WORKER. I pray for one WHOLE (NOT PART) CONSERVATIVE !
Is THAT too much to ask ???
Bob Grant| 6.15.11 @ 9:00AM
Before we make a decision on who will be our candidate, we (republicans, conservatives, etc) need to have a much-needed, and honest, debate about President G.W. Bush's role in the current state of our country and how his policies were responsible for the need to have "hope and change" resulting in an Obama presidency.
I don't believe we (collectively) have been completely honest about the damage this man has caused to our country during his administration.
He IS the Herbert Hoover of our time, no question about it, and he will be a focal point of discussion during the '12 campaign.
Let's have this discussion on OUR terms so a real consensus can be made on what type of candidate we want to pit against Obama.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 10:19AM
"There is no conservative movement." -- George W. Bush
BackToBasics| 6.15.11 @ 6:54PM
He greatly damaged the conservative movement. People praise him for his 2 Supreme Court picks but even here he was dragged kicking and screaming when he chose Harriet Meyers. I think he chose Meyers because he did not have the stomach for a fight because a conservative pick at that point kept the court 4-4-1, with the moderate being Kennedy. With Meyers it would have been either 5-3-1 for the libs or 4-3-2, with 2 moderates.
He was so stubborn on not enforcing the immigration laws and with the other weaknesses he had, he killed the conservative movement. He gained majorities in BOTH houses in 2004 and he squandered the opportunity to implement conservative policies. He felt it was better to call those who wanted to protect the border vigilantes. And though I was for the Afghanistan war I was never for the Iraq war. And how it was handled after our quick victory brought back memories of Johnson-like ineptitude when he tried to micromanage the Viet-Nam war.
I am convinced that without Bush IIs stubborness on immigration and many other weaknesses there would not be an Obam administration. If Bush had been a strong leader or even had he done everything else the same but STOPPED illegal immigration, we probably would have a Republican president today!
Bob Grant| 6.15.11 @ 9:23PM
He also didn't have the stomach to fight for a real energy policy. Remember during the 2000 campaign he said drilling in Alaska and other areas would be a priority. After winning the election he completely ignored pushing for a real energy policy.
He also did not scream loud enough about the dangers of Fannie May/Freddie Mac.
It's as though he knew he was not articulate enough to fight these two battles.
BackToBasics| 6.15.11 @ 10:56PM
Sure enough and the list could go on. He is praised for the war on terror. He did some things right; imagine of Al Gore had been president; we'd only have gotten a few UN resolutions through.
But with Bush, I cannot help but think how we might be way ahead in our fight against terror if just half the resources we poured into Iraq were put into covert operations and in both technology, tracking and manpower.
With just half or even 25% of the exependitures of the Iraq war we could have not only hunted top jihadist leaders but searched for many jihadists even to the lowest levels with smaller military footprints as in increased special teams in size and operational capabilities.....
BackToBasics| 6.15.11 @ 11:14PM
And part of that 25% or 50% that I mention could have been used to build a border wall the entire length of the US-Mexican border with more manpower to man it as well. That would be a BELIEVABLE part of a SERIOUS national security plan in response to 9-11.
What do we get instead: two major wars with Iraq not necessary and totally open borders with at least 2 attempts to get another amnesty-lite program through for the millions of illegals here already.
C Smith| 6.15.11 @ 9:03AM
Tar and Feathers
“Rigdon… made a new translation of the Bible, in which prophecies of the coming of Joseph Smith and the nature of The Book of Mormon are inserted in the 50th chapter of Genesis and the 20th chapter of Isaiah respectively…. the church was “persecuted”… on the 25th of March 1832 Smith and Rigdon were tarred and feathered at Hiram….In 1836 the Kirtland Safety Society Bank was organized (in accordance with a “revelation” to Smith)…. In March 1837 Rigdon and Smith, the secretary and treasurer, were charged with violating the state law against unchartered banks, and they were convicted in October…. In November the “bank” suspended payments and… Smith and Rigdon left the state for Missouri…. [After a] determined attempt to depose Smith… there was organized… a band… bound to secrecy under penalty of death, and formed to punish all who opposed the Church and its supreme head. Numerous crimes and outrages were attributed to them…. On the 4th of July 1838 Rigdon preached his “salt sermon” … urging his hearers to wage “a war of extermination” on those who disturbed them…. and necessitated the calling out of the state militia…. Smith and Rigdon with others were arrested and imprisoned on a charge of treason, murder, and felony… In 1842 Smith was charged with instigating and attempt… to assassinate ex-Governor L. W. Boggs of Missouri…. There seems to have been no secret about Smith’s cohabiting with other women…. he had a revelation expressly establishing and approving polygamy.” (The Encyclopedia Britannica, Thirteenth Edition, London, vol. 18, pp. 843-844, 1926)
http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....thers.html
Ken in Tyler| 6.15.11 @ 9:05AM
What an encouragement to read so many comments rejecting the idea that merely winning the election is the objective. The nation does not need someone who is "electible" or able to "reach across the aisle" this time any more than it did in '08.
The voters next year will reveal whether or not America has any hope of returning to her roots as a Democratic Republic. For that to happen, a Constitutional Conservative must move into the White House and the cleansing of both Houses of Congress must continue as it began last year so that there are enough principled representatives to follow the leadership of the new President.
If that doesn't happen in '12, there won't be enough left to salvage in '14 or '16.
Principles must trump political pragmatism and to accomplish this we who love Liberty have no option other than to emulate the founders and pledge our lives, fortunes and sacred honor to get it done.
Ken in Tyler| 6.15.11 @ 9:06AM
What an encouragement to read so many comments rejecting the idea that merely winning the election is the objective. The nation does not need someone who is "electible" or able to "reach across the aisle" this time any more than it did in '08.
The voters next year will reveal whether or not America has any hope of returning to her roots as a Democratic Republic. For that to happen, a Constitutional Conservative must move into the White House and the cleansing of both Houses of Congress must continue as it began last year so that there are enough principled representatives to follow the leadership of the new President.
If that doesn't happen in '12, there won't be enough left to salvage in '14 or '16.
Principles must trump political pragmatism and to accomplish this we who love Liberty have no option other than to emulate the founders and pledge our lives, fortunes and sacred honor to get it done.
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 10:50AM
If a more principled free-market Republican (most of you know I'm not a social issues conservative, but I don't really vote on those issues) can beat Obama, then I would certainly prefer that to Romney.
Again, I said I want to be able to like Romney, not that I do like him.
YeloStalyn| 6.15.11 @ 11:55AM
Don't any of the other candidates fit that bill of "principled free-market Republican"?
Cain is just as much of a business saavy guy as Romney is. And much more principled. Why not back him?
Or what about Paul? He's way out there on the free market side of things. Sure... he's not "Presidential" but do we really need to concern ourselves with how well one wears a suit?
The point being... WHY do you WANT to like Romney when there's nothing that, in reality, points to needing to? Sure, he's leading polls right now... but that's because no one has really taken him to task yet. And add to that the media running pieces like yours (which, I understand what you say) don't do much to change that. He didn't LOSE the NH debate so he must be the one? No... instead, write a piece that says, "DESPITE not losing the NH debate... he SHOULDN'T be the one" and start to frame the argument the right way.
All this, "Well, he's the front runner and looks electable" junk we get from the media is them trying to frame the argument in their favor. Why in the hell do we let them put words in our mouths and like it (or, as your article says... WANT to like it)?
The guys a few streets away from being a Kennedy. Stop flirting with fire and start to toss wet blankets on his campaign before it catches on like a wildfire among the masses who won't know better. Let's take the opportunity to shape the race in the name of Conservatism and the Constitution NOW before everyone starts to jump in with their ideas (which, by that time, will be molded by the left wing media which will tell them Romney is the greatest thing to come out of the GOP since sliced bread).
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 11:57AM
King's questions were invariably from a liberal mindset. Romney looked better simply because he is also a liberal. Where was the tough, challenging, free-market-based questioning in this debate?
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 12:09PM
Yelo, I want the most free-market candidate who is likely to be Obama. It's that simple. I hope someone better than Romney comes along, and as of today I am not supporting Romney...but not sure who else is both principled and electable. Pawlenty's performance last night was so disappointing...and I know that many TAS readers don't like or trust him either.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 12:54PM
What precisely is your standard for "electable" and what data are you relying on to determine it?
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 1:24PM
Teflon, at this point I can't define my standard. It's my own instinct. It's way too early to feel even slightly certain about anything. Same with the data. After all, Romney's not even 1/3 likely to get the nomination despite current perception as front-runner.
Bob Grant| 6.15.11 @ 2:04PM
Ross,
You really haven't squared who you would like to see win as opposed to who is the most electable.
To give us a sense of your political philosophy, who would you like to see as our next president given all the names bandied about?
Or as John King would put it:
Coolidge or T. Roosevelt?
Eisenhower or Reagan?
Hoover or GWB? (ok, that was a trick question 'cause they are one in the same).
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 2:43PM
Coolidge for sure, out of everyone on that list, then Reagan, then none of the above.
If I thought Michele Bachmann could win, I'd probably support her. Same for Pawlenty. None of the current crew gets a grade better than a B from me right now based on a combination of electability (again, as I see it) and principle.
Keep in mind that I differ from many commenters here in that I am not a social issues conservative. I'm much more libertarian.
I really liked Mitch Daniels, in part because of his resume, in part because of his stated willingness to put social issues on the "back burner" (which I realize many of my readers don't agree with), and in part because he was not flashy, thus increasing the chance that this election will be more about Obama than anything else.
My political views are roughly Tea Party views, i.e. focused on liberty and particularly economic liberty.
I am really really struggling with the electability versus principle question. In 2008, I made a conscious choice to go with principle and refused to support McCain. And I did that knowing that Obama would be a disaster. My son's name is Rand, after all. I wanted people to learn what socialism really is and what it will do to them and the only way to do that was for it to hit them fast, not the "boiling the frog" speed of recent years under both parties.
Now, I think the people have learned a lesson and I'm not sure how our republic will survive another four years of Obama.
Therefore, while Romney is far from my ideal candidate, it's likely that I would support him and vote for him if he's the eventual nominee.
In the meantime, I hope we get one or two better (more principled but at least nearly as electable) choices.
Have I answered your question?
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 3:00PM
If people have learned their lesson re: socialism---and I would agree with you that many of us have---wouldn't this make the conservative candidate the more electable?
In other words, isn't the "electability" template you and others are employing way past its shelflife?
If Americans do want a real change from Barack Obama, how would giving them Obama Lite encourage this?
How can one justify not voting for McCain in 2008 but voting Romney in 2012, given if anything Romney is to McCain's left?
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 3:57PM
Teflon,
YES! Conservatism is electable as long as it can't too easily be painted by the media -- who will certainly try no matter who the candidate is -- as "extreme".
That as well as questions of experience are my concern about a Bachmann candidacy even though I really like her and would much more gladly support her than Romney if she were the nominee.
As for McCain v. Romney, I think that the Congress and the focus of the electorate and the existence of the Tea Party and the fact that we've had 4 years of Obama make 2012 a very different calculation from 2008.
But I understand that this is not a slam-dunk and that reasonable people can disagree on this point.
TrueBlue| 6.15.11 @ 7:27PM
Obama had no experience either, and he got elected, so questions of actual experience don't really affect me. I'd honestly prefer someone that hasn't been infected by the DC ruling class mentality for the last decade or more (the less time on Capital Hill the better IMO).
Jerry Garcia | 6.15.11 @ 11:27PM
What psychobabble.
"Principled?"
Libertarianism isn't principled at all. Unless you call wanting drugs legalized principled. Guess it all "depends on your def. of principled". Better ask Bill Clinton.
And you downplay Herman Cain yet say you want someone really into free market enterprise. What a JOKE!
Herman Cain is EXACTLY that.
And why couldn't Bachmann win? She and Herman Cain are the most conservative of the bunch. You sound exactly like the MSM, downplaying our best.
Ronald Reagan IGNORED the MSM, as if you didn't know- and so ought any on our side.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 2:38PM
I'd posit that perception comes from the Left Wing Media---and for a reason.
"Electability" is merely a euphemism for "liberalism" with them.
McCain, who they claimed to be the most electable Republican in 2008---including Romney mind you---didn't fare so well against the most left wing and inexperienced candidate running.
I'd posit that true electability in 2012 is determined by a principled conservative who will not let the Left Wing Media dictate policy positions.
Ken in Tyler| 6.15.11 @ 9:07AM
my apologies for the double post.
George S| 6.15.11 @ 9:11AM
Highly principled? Any politician who believes government has the solution to the health care crisis they created has no fundamental conservative principles in their bones. My guess is that Romney, being a "businessman", reflexively saw RomneyCare as a way to relieve businesses of a labor cost headache plus get in good with the state's liberal voters. Romney is probably the only Republican who has been praised by Senator Ted Kennedy. That's not a good thing. No sir, not good at all.
Marco| 6.15.11 @ 9:22AM
Hey boys and girls, the pizza man or some such ain't going to make it. Romney is the likely nominee, and if he's not elected, your country is toast! Grow up, kids.
Doctor Right| 6.15.11 @ 9:25AM
The "Pizza Man"?? Is that how you refer to an accomplished executive like Herman Cain?
Do you refer to Bachman and Palin as "those b******"??
Romney has ZERO chance of winning because if the GOP foists him upon us, many of us will bolt the Party.
Sorry, not playing anymore.
Doctor Right| 6.15.11 @ 9:25AM
The "Pizza Man"?? Is that how you refer to an accomplished executive like Herman Cain?
Do you refer to Bachman and Palin as "those b******"??
Romney has ZERO chance of winning because if the GOP foists him upon us, many of us will bolt the Party.
Sorry, not playing anymore.
David| 6.15.11 @ 6:14PM
Well, yeah, I do refer to Bachman and Palin as those "boobies." What's your point?
And, if you've already made up your mind to bolt, you've guaranteed the election for Obama over a year in advance.
Political purity? That's the most basic contradiction of terms there is.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 10:20AM
Hair Helmet doesn't stand a chance. He makes Obama look genuine.
Doctor Right| 6.15.11 @ 9:23AM
It's abundantly cleat thar TASOnline is now firmly in-the-tank for Romney and RINO-ism.
As I've asked repeatedly, and will continue to ask:
What the hell is going on at TASOnline?
Romney the "clear winner"? Apparently you guys were watching another debate on Monday, or you hope that we weren't paying attention.
YeloStalyn| 6.15.11 @ 9:52AM
I don't know taht I would say that... yesterday TAS ran an article saying that Romney was the Voldemort of the GOP... and evil entity that "Shall not be Named"... a Rockafeller Republican who will do nothing but damage the nation and the (once) great name of Republican.
But yes... reading this garbage is upsetting and a bit disheartening. I feel that the reason the "establishment" (that being DC RINOS, the media, and the left) pushes Romney is not necissarily because they think the Great Zero can beat him... but because it won't matter who wins. What's the difference between driving your car off the cliff at 100 mph versus only 80 mph? Either way we're screwed and they want it that way.
The only way we're going to get this country back on track is if some of the actually wonderful candidates (Cain, Bachman, Pawlenty, hopefully Perry, etc.) will a) continue to treat eachother with respect and b) turn and show that Romney doesn't deserve to breathe the same air they do up on that stage.
They should stick together. I mean.. honestly... if any of the others (except maybe Paul... sorry all you Paulites, it's not that he's wrong necissarily, he just isn't "Presidential" in his demeanor and that turns people off) where to win the primary... would you really complain?
"Oh woe is me! Bachman won instead of Cain! What ever will I do?!?" No... I wager most of you will be, in the end, just as excited for whoever wins out on the GOP side because each of them will do just fine. You may disagree here or there, but you know and trust that they are good conservatives. But Romney... no... if he wins, the TEA Party and all its sympathizers will either turn 3rd party or sit out the vote and hand it over to the Big Zero once again.
It is up to the REAL candidates to let the nation see that Romney can't hold a candle to the rest of them. We should beat up on Zero... but that argument is already a given to the nation as a whole. Right now should be about which of our GOPers would be the best. And that should start with kicking Romney back to the curb (the one of the left side of the street with the rest of the trash).
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 10:24AM
This is right on. Conservative media outlets have added a codicile to John O'Sullivan's law: "EVEN institutions which are explicitly right wing become left wing over time." The Weekly Standard went first, then National Review, and now AmSpec. Even as talk radio and the blogosphere build conservative bastions, our former and longstanding media fortresses have been subverted from within.
Look, RINOs---we tried it your way in 2008 and lost to the most inexperienced, left wing presidential candidate in history. You were wrong. You've never admitted it. You were catastrophically and completely wrong.
We're not dumb enough to buy the same story twice. Now piss off and go learn something.
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 11:03AM
Doctor,
Please tell me what in my article suggests I'm "in the tank" for Romney. I wrote about media reaction and betting odds reaction to Romney. I wrote about a Gallup poll regarding electability versus issues agreeement. And I said I want to like Romney, which implies that I don't like him, at least not yet.
Furthermore, less than a month ago, I wrote a piece for TAS explaining why I preferred Mitch Daniels to Mitt Romney.
And just a couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article supporting Pawlenty and blasting Romney on issues! http://spectator.org/archives/.....strategery
More later...
Also, please note that I'm not the only conservative writing this sort of thing (though I wrote mine before Salena's):
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/.....42109.html
David| 6.15.11 @ 6:11PM
Ah, c'mon guys, it's one debate and you're already "eating your young." Keep up this principle vs. electability asschewing and you guarantee Obama the election.
Al Adab| 6.15.11 @ 7:38PM
At least this Conservative fully intends to "eat our young" if that means defeating an accomodationist Republican. There is no point in nominating such a person. We have followed those folks before and here we are.
David| 6.15.11 @ 7:44PM
I don't understand that point of view. Self-righteousness on the day after the election in 2012 is cold comfort.
Politics is always accommodation. Yeah, yeah, I know Reagan admonished us to "never (repeat a lot) compromise." But the American people are not going to tolerate this constant gridlock. Eventually, the people's business must be done.
Jerry Garcia | 6.15.11 @ 11:29PM
Heh, Dr. Right- you're just noticing that now??
Bob| 6.15.11 @ 9:28AM
Well GOP you are about to nominate a liberal. My congrats, bury the Tea Party and other right wing elements in your party and maybe I will vote for you someday. Global Warming Republican presidential nominee, now I've seen it all. I love it.
DRed| 6.15.11 @ 9:37AM
Mr. Kaminsky, you want to know if Mitt Romney is highly principled. I suggest you look at his record, which pretty clearly shows that he is not. He's definitely a republican, and mildly conservative, but he's more of a centrist. On many issues he's not that much different than Obama, another relatively pragmatic centrist. The amusing thing is that you have all convinced yourselves that Obama is some sort of radical marxist who must be defeated by any means necessary, even if that means electing someone who won't be very different.
Louis Tully| 6.15.11 @ 9:43AM
Its really sad to watch "conservatives" talking themselves into pulling the lever for Mitt Romneycare. But it explains a lot about our present predicament, doesn't it? Its takes more than a vanguard of committed leftists to convert the greatest free economy on earth to just another sick Eurosocialist economy. It takes followers, and lots of them. That seems to be the GOP role.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.15.11 @ 9:51AM
Louis,
You have got to be about the most "profound" contributer here, thanks.
Cheer up, I like to think of myself as a "conservative" but rest assured I will pull no lever that has Romney attached to it.
Bob Grant| 6.15.11 @ 1:25PM
You cannot afford to pull that stunt in a general election.
Go ahead and sit out the general and guarantee an Obama win. It's your conscience. Not mine.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.15.11 @ 1:28PM
Bob well said.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 1:32PM
I held my nose and voted for McLame in 2008. What good did it do? The RINOs are back for more and conservatives are being suckered yet again into the discredited RINO view of the world.
No, it stops here. The Tea Party is putting the GOP on notice that it will either embrace the values of disaffected conservatives or they will leave the GOP. I'll be joining them.
"A choice, not an echo." Remember?
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.15.11 @ 9:13PM
This is my country to do with as I wish, it will be easier on my "concience" if we make this quick while we still have some resources. The country will fail just as surely doing it your way. It is going to happen.
I am just as comfortable starting over from Obama as I am starting over from another floundering RINO. Are you that dense that you have to tell you something ten times? You get one chance my friend, and to make the best of it, it is you that has to change. You will be the one that elects Obama or allows our nation to wilt under your continued insanity, not me.
Old and Wise| 6.16.11 @ 12:36AM
The only ones who are insane are the ones like you who actually believe that re electing Obama is a good choice, and that electing a Republican- ANY Republican wouldn't be better.
You're nuts. You play right into the hands of the enemy.
And besides, just because YOU say the country is going to fail, doesn't mean it's going to.
And you say it's going to fail anyway- so why not just throw it away???
Teflon93| 6.16.11 @ 10:33AM
There is nothing magic about the Republican label. It says next to nothing about principles of governance these days.
Take a look at the GOP Congress at the turn of the century and you'll get the idea. Or Dubya or his old man.
Being a Republican isn't enough. We need a CONSERVATIVE.
Insanity is doing the same thing we did in 2008 all over again---against a candidate whose chief weakness----inexperience---is covered.
Old and Wise| 6.16.11 @ 1:10PM
Well darlin', ya ain't gonna get no conservative in the Demoncrat party, and ya know it.
Go ahead, don't vote for the Republican nominee because under YOUR own def. of insanity~ you'll give us Obama again. THAT'S the real def. of insanity!
And YOU all will GET the government YOU all deserve.
Teflon93| 6.16.11 @ 1:20PM
What does it matter that we get no Democrat conservative if we never get a Republcian conservative either?
Mitt Romney brought us RomneyCare, the model for Obamacare. Ask a Bay Stater how much government they have!
If the GOP isn't going to nominate a conservative, the Tea Party will.
And many, many conservatives will vote with their feet. What will you RINOs do then?
TLS| 6.15.11 @ 9:47AM
I don't post on here much but I'm starting to get aggravated at this gradual warming to Mitt that seems to be pervading the conservative universe. What is to like about Mitt? We know where he stands on the issues. Mr. Kaminsky writes, “Clearly there are risks of getting bad policy if a Rockefeller Republican wins the White House, but they're less than the 100% certainty of bad policy if this Democrat does.” While this is probably statistically true, what is not part of this equation or discussion is the damage that a RINO does to the general public’s image of conservatism. We seen this multiple times, most recently with George W. Since he was president during the beginning of the recent recession he, as well as conservatism, were blamed for everything. The result: President Obama. So I would say that we currently have the most socialist president in history BECAUSE we had a RINO in office just prior.
Mr. Kaminsky’s last paragraph is just classic: “. . .it's time for the pro-liberty and pro-capitalism leaders of society, including those few politicians who fit that mold, to return and make a stand for our Republic. Romney's performance on Monday in New Hampshire didn't prove he's that guy, but it surely didn't hurt his case either.” What?! At this point in U.S. history we are in desperate need of a strong, conservative leader (as mentioned in the first part of this quote) and Mitt is neither. Obvioulsy he’s not conservative, nor is he a strong leader. If he were then “. . .surely [not hurting] his case. . .” would not be sufficient. A strong leader would have proven he was that guy (or gal).
Kristal| 6.15.11 @ 9:52AM
Peter, Peter, Peter.
There you go again, using numbers and percentages to analyze, or anal-ize, the Socialistic Utopia America the Beautiful has chosen to become.
Don’t you believe in free elections?
Why, all you children out there, who putatively “grew up” to become productive workers, in the current “paradise”, should be on your hands and knees in grateful happiness that your ancestors bequeathed our rich 2011 world to us all.
Apparently you believe that knowledge is power, and after all the years you’ve spent working in the fiscal trenches, even for the great one, Ronald Reagan, why, brother, it’s your noblesse oblige DUTY to enlighten the rest of us ignorant fools.
I’ve got news for you, writing from my own know-it-all perspective---knowledge is not enough, which I’m sure you already “know”!
Just as Mark Steyn writes, so wittily, today, about how the USA hasn’t won a war since 1945, regarding foreign policy, the same thing is true with respect to fiscal AND monetary policy---
The corollary to “knowledge is power”, which is not so well “known”, but which is absolutely verifiable as witnessed by current events, is that---
If you have power, and don’t use it, YOU DON’T HAVE POWER!
It’s actually a species of the dumbing down of America, or even the defining of deviancy down---since, pace the Weiner “schnitzel” disrobing, one could realistically understand that the top leaders in D.C. ARE defined as deviants!
So, Peter, while your right-on mathematical proof using percentages and historical facts and analysis of what to DO, that is USE OUR POWER, seems irrefutable to me, in all seriousness, you can’t really think the American voters have either the ability or the willingness to---USE IT.
Besides, vested interests ALWAYS defend their hold on POWER---that is, THEY “know” how to USE IT!
Over the years, the recurrent complaint about “too much regulation”, for example, has been USED by critics like you to make a majority of voters aware, to KNOW, the actual situation, so they could use THEIR power to stop, if not reverse this “problem”.
Well, hidden in the percentages and dollar amounts regularly bandied about is a “silent minority” of American citizens, a regulatory ARMY of workers, and THEIR vested interests in keeping their well paying jobs seems to me to say---status quo, or die!
Basta. It’s enough.
Chicken Little, Death by any other name, is alive and well, 24/7.
Want to “use power”, Absolutely?
It’s not about conventional knowledge, but It is ALL to do with Understanding!
Return to what you were BEFORE your mother and father were born.
“You are never in danger of knowing what a single thing is.
To be whatever you appear to be really doesn’t make a damn bit of difference.
Remember the Divine.
Everything, and I, are simply the intoxicated play of the Absolute DIVINE PERSONALITY, who is the Radiant Life and Consciousness of ALL Beings and Things.
This play is harmless, unnecessary, superficial, without implication, without beginning or end or effect.
Therefore, abide in this Remembrance of Identity, simple and happy
Nothing that arises as experience has the POWER to delude or to undermine this Remembrance of the Divine.” Da Free John
Joe R| 6.15.11 @ 9:55AM
Remember back when Mittenz ran against Fat Ted for the Senate in '94? It was 30 minutes into their debate before they disagreed on an issue. Poor Mittenz is just the GOP version of John Kerry--he's lazy, stupid, and myopic but he has great hair.
Proud Mormon| 6.15.11 @ 10:00AM
Great day in the morning. The next President of the United States will be a Mormon. After Mitt vanquishes the "right wing" including evangelicals in the GOP primaries he will win the general election in a massive landslide. Can't we all agree Mitt is the best choice the only choice.
Citizen Jerry| 6.15.11 @ 10:24AM
Actually, no we can't.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 10:27AM
I'd vote for Davey from "Davey and Goliath" before I'd vote for Mitt Romney. Better hair, less wooden, and some principles.
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 11:06AM
Thanks for the laugh, Teflon!
Bob Grant| 6.15.11 @ 1:30PM
If you're going to go the claymation route may I suggest a California Raisin? It'd at least be more entertaining.
Jerry Garcia | 6.15.11 @ 11:31PM
Even Gumby has more appeal.
Jerry Garcia | 6.15.11 @ 11:32PM
Heck, even Pokey!
Teflon93| 6.16.11 @ 10:33AM
Pokey had the foreign policy experience.
Peppermint Tea| 6.15.11 @ 10:36AM
Well this Mormon is scared to death of a Mormon RINO president, whose centrist direction will bring more recession and Mormons will be guilty by association. (I can hear the MSM now.) Our religion should have taught him to stand up for principles, pay your bills, and be honest, NOT flirt with global warming, social programs, and freedom-sucking mandates. Bachman please! At least she has convictions, a plan, and the stones to carry it out.
TrueBlue| 6.15.11 @ 7:36PM
Ironic that it's the Bachmann and Palin that have the biggest balls isn't it?
kerry| 6.15.11 @ 10:39AM
So, you will vote for Mitt, who doesn't uphold the values of conservatism: limited government, individual freedom and a strong economy- how can you with a candidate that signed into law socialized medicine, agrees with the global warming agenda and all the wealth redistribution and destruction of freedom it implies and laughing off Shariah law threat that is arising in our courts (not mentioned in the article but I thought that his comment, that worrying over Shariah is "silly" was very telling)- none of that matters because he is Mormon? And how are you different than anyone who voted for Obama because he was black?
This smacks of extreme self absorption, this is abut YOU not our country. It is people like YOU, right alongside the selfish, greedy pat myself on the back obama voters of all colors and supposed political stripes, that truly deserve the repercussions of voting in these charlatans.
LarryK| 6.15.11 @ 10:02AM
If it's Mitt,
on my hands I'll sit!
I want a choice better that Tweedledumb (Obama)
or TweedleDee (Mitt)
Kermit| 6.15.11 @ 10:03AM
I tried to like Mitt Ronmey, but I just can NOT like him. America needs a real conservative to get us back on track to the exceptionalism that a truely free society and government can provide. I don't want to be the slowly boiled frog anymore.
martin j smith| 6.15.11 @ 10:16AM
Bob Grant: I think the issues will revolve around the Obama Policies and the state of our economy closer to the election. While I do agree with you about GWB and his destructive policies the focus really should be On Obama's failures and how WE
propose to be different . Now back to Romney.
Ross this is for you:
So lets say Romney wins the nomination. Then, Soros and his gang of Socialist Billionaires pores their Billions into Obama's campaign. Basically and add goes like this from the Obama side:
Look at this guy Romney, he says I'm wrong but listen to what he has said--Romney care clip from Mass., look at what he says about global warming ( clip on this one )etc. I say ( Obama says ) if you agree with these policies, vote for the real deal--that is me.
Ross: how to you see Romney satisfying voters, many of whom are hurting but could see Romney as either another GWB,John Mc or worse--no better than Obama or even worse than Obama ?
If Republicans screw this up you can bet there WILL BE A THIRD PARTY.
Bob Grant| 6.15.11 @ 10:37AM
My point is republicans and conservatives should control the narrative "It was Bush's fault" because much of it was Bush's fault. We would do well to distance ourselves as much as possible and NOT get caught up getting distracted in allowing the focus be on him and not Obama.
This will be a major strategy on the left. Be prepared.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.15.11 @ 1:43PM
Time to quit letting the media and Democrats control us. It wasn't Bush's fault. It's OBAMA'S FAULT!
It's Obama's fault that our economy is now at FDR's Great Depression levels of "growth," tens of millions of Americans are suffering without jobs or are underemployed, the national debt has added $4 trillion in 2 yrs, the cost of living has soared, the housing crisis is worse than the depression, our country is at war in Libya and Yemen without Congressional oversight and it appears supporting al Qaeda sympathizers and Obama is the "midwife" to another Islamic theocracy in Egypt.
Those who focus all their energy tearing down Republicans are doing the Democrat's dirty work for them. This is how they won in 2006 and 2008.
The message and the focus should be 100% on the corrupt failure occupying the White House. That's what the conservatives did in NH. It is one reason Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann are seeing their stars rising -- they're focused on making Barak Obama the issue and a one term President.
Bob Grant| 6.15.11 @ 1:54PM
Remember,
It was when Bush (Hoover) acted like a Keynesian that got us in these collective messes.
Bush's biggest blunder, in my opinion, was allowing the monetary problem to get to such a crisis level that almost a trillion dollars had to be pumped into the system almost overnight in order to avoid economic Armageddon. He lied when he said there was no leadup. His buddy Hank Paulson was not much help was he?
It was either gross negligence or corruption and whomever the republican candidate will be should not be shy about assigning proper blame on this matter.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.15.11 @ 2:10PM
This is the Obama propaganda machines job and can be easily refuted. Focus on the real problem Barack Obama. Quit wasting time beating up on Bush. I like him you don't that doesn't mean diddly in the 2012 election.
If the Democrats had not blocked Bush's multiple attempts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the housing market would have had a mild correction and there would have been no recession.
This is 2012 and Obama is President and that should be the focus. Going back and debating the past is a waste of time when tens of millions of Americans are suffering without jobs and their homes are declining steadily in value.
The National Federation of Independent Business found more small businesses are planning to shrink their payrolls rather than expand them. This is also the first recovery in which, in 7 quarters, there have been zero gains in aggregate wages and salaries.
Stay focused on the real enemy Barack Obama and the Democrat party.
Bob Grant| 6.15.11 @ 2:45PM
I agree with everything you said but make no mistake, They (Obama, MSM, Democratic party) will try to make the argument that Bush (ala Herbert Hoover) put our country in such a perilous mess than only Dr. Government can fix the mess and treat the illness. Which will, of course, take "time" (i.e, more Keynesian policy). They will try to portray this as 1934-35 all over again.
My point is to study what happened at that time to not make the same mistakes. Freely acknowledge the mistakes of the Bush presidency, discuss how Obamanomics will only add to the suffering and offer a real alternative to what will be their words: " going back to Bush's bad policies".
Conservatives MUST distinguish themselves from the Bush policies of the recent past or we are TOAST.
Citizen Jerry| 6.15.11 @ 10:23AM
Sorry Ross, but when one of the larger TEA Party groups said they might sit this one out if the RINO establishment tries to force Willard on us -- well, that should tell you something. For the sake of Reagan conservatism, no pale pastels! No more Democrat Lite!
Rick V.| 6.15.11 @ 10:23AM
"I still want to like Mitt Romney." Yeah, I want to like lime jello too. Kind of. Not really, though. It really doesn't do anything for me and I'll always associate it with laying in a hospital bed. Really, I don't care at all for lime jello. Just like I don't at all care for Mitt Romney. I don't expect lime jello from Michele Bachmann, either.
Steve A| 6.15.11 @ 10:47AM
Romney is nothing more than McCain with an MBA. He will find a way to finance Socialism a bit longer than Obama or McCain would have.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.15.11 @ 11:57AM
Romney does not have and MBA any longer, it burst into flame and incinerated the instant he signed ObamneyCare.
martin j smith| 6.15.11 @ 10:50AM
Bob Grant: I agree with the need to control the narrative. And, I think one step in that direction would be not a review of GWB's bad behavior, BUT a vetting of ALL CANDIDATES especially their weak points, but of course what strengths they have to offer. Thus my concern about Romney and there are others. What is also needed is for our side to control the DEBATES NOT THE LEFT. For the life of me I really do not get those people who went to CNN--but besides that I think its imperative that our side be the "moderators" not a SOCIALIST.
Ross: I think it is wrong to have our opposition control the debate. That is bad because it can be manipulated against us.
It seems to me based I what I have seen of so called moderate republicans-that they are more concerned about throwing Conservatives under the bus than to be Obama. That is an impression I am getting and I will bet I am not alone.
Look realistically you can do whatever you will but if you are serious about building a winning Party, behaving with disdain towards Conservatives will not help that goal. But then again, maybe there is a different agenda. W have had enough of politicians who make deals behind the backs of voters and pols who say one thing and do another. Ross I hope you get the picture that your side is not trusted. Please keep this in mind.
Controse| 6.15.11 @ 10:55AM
We win by unrelentingly, resolutely attacking Obama and his MSM propaganda empire. Who I ask would be your pick most effectively to do that? Your pick should not be Romney. Your pick should be the one with the most intense fire in their belly coupled with a proven track record of attacking successfully.
Citizen Jerry| 6.15.11 @ 11:41AM
Someone like ... Sarah Palin? Against her own party, too.
Bob Grant| 6.15.11 @ 1:33PM
Sarah is a non-factor each passing day. And thank Goodness for that!
Citizen Jerry| 6.15.11 @ 3:05PM
We'll see.
JohnC| 6.15.11 @ 10:57AM
The RINO media is already laying the groundwork for the liberal Romney or some other RINO like Perry or Christie. Rush is now saying anybody is better than Obama -- code for vote for a RINO. These so-called conservative pundits are wedded to the corporate RINO Party and will fight against any patriotic We-the-People Third Party.
Bob Grant| 6.15.11 @ 1:38PM
You underestimate the ABO factor in '12.
If you remember the run up to the '80 election, you'll recall people began to run out patience with Carter and the growing sentiment was: I'll take Anyone But Carter.
As frustrations build around the country, among all races, genders, religions, and income levels, people will conclude:
I'll take Anyone But Obama!
That could be what El Rushbo was referring to.
martin j smith| 6.15.11 @ 10:57AM
One more point--It is far too early given the fact that there are at least two additional candidates coming in the emphasize a "front runner" > But, I do get a sense of an attempt to manipulate. Too many of us are onto that so be aware. Yup--I do not trust RINOS and others who play that game.
Derek Leaberry| 6.15.11 @ 10:58AM
If Romney is nominated, one can only hope that Trump runs third party. A Romney presidency would be a disaster. The GOP might go the way of the Whigs.
DG in GA| 6.15.11 @ 11:00AM
Who exactly are these "experts" who have decided that Romney is going to be the candidate in 2012? Nobody called MY house and asked ME, and I am the typical conservative voter. I HATE Romney and will NEVER vote for him. Do I want four more years of Obama? No. But do I want the Republicans shoving Obama-Lite down my throat because he's not quite as skeezy as Obama? NO!!! The GOP needs to wake up and smell the Tea Party or there WILL be a third party out there and it
WILL make the GOP irrelevant!
Steve A| 6.15.11 @ 11:10AM
DG, I feel your pain. You need to understand the consequences of that approach though. End of USA within 20 years. As for me, I would vote for Romney to stop the bleeding a bit & keep pushing for true Conservatism.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 3:01PM
Except a Romney presidency would have the same impact on the GOP that a Rockefeller presidency would have in 1980.
We need a conservative TODAY.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 11:27AM
I think Mr Kaminsky and most conservative commentators---Jeffrey Lord being a glaring exception---are missing the story right in front of their faces: if Mitt Romney or another RINO is the GOP nominee, the chance of a Tea Party challenge go up dramatically. And in the current climate, the Tea Party candidate would be likely to exceed the Perot vote, given the terrible economy we have now that we didn't have in 1992.
John R. Tannehill | 6.15.11 @ 11:58AM
Mitt Romney is this generation's George Romney.
martin j smith| 6.15.11 @ 12:00PM
Not about Romney, but about posters who say they will not vote for so and so etc. Either these people like Obama or they are very foolish and rigid in their thinking or the are phoney. You choose.
What I want is an open debate allowing the voter to hear all candidates be questioned about their positions. Then let the voters decide. I do not want WaPO-ABC or any of the Washington Elite
on Repub side to manipulate the outcome. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too early.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.15.11 @ 1:03PM
Here is the deal Martin; the country is not the same, it is no longer even a semblance of what people used to proudly fight for and to which they proclaimed citizenship. Taxes are soaring, everything we purchase is skyrocketing in price, and we are regulated in exceedingly greater and greater increments. We cannot fly our flag or pray to our creator without the accompaniment of tort harassment. The lingua franca of progressivism is displayed in the foreign languages our founding documents are now printed in. The very same people that did this to us are our only franchised options; their only significant difference is the temporal displacement till our system fails due to their malfeasance, indifference or incompetence.
The only fool here is you. While you seem to think you are participating in a democratic political process you have been duped, the only thing you are participating in is setting the date of the onset of complete civil unrest.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 1:30PM
One of the best lines in Colin Quinn's recent historical comedy routine concerned the superiority of democracy as a form of government and went something like this: "Democracy is clearly superior to every other form of government. Communists, Nazis and monarchists only get one choice. We get TWO!"
If the GOP runs Romney, we won't even be getting that. Again.
Bob Grant| 6.15.11 @ 1:44PM
I'm no Romney fan by any means but methinks you're overstating his RINOness a tad much...IMHO.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 2:35PM
RomneyCare and global warming? Abortion?
I don't see how Romney's to the right of Rudy Giuliani.
JohnC| 6.15.11 @ 12:03PM
The economy and Dow is crashing right before our eyes. Watch and see how both the RINO GOP and Dems bailout the gambling global banks again under the mantra, socialist Greece is too big to fail. And businessman and pro-China Romney is a corporate globalist and will just perpetuate this insanity.
Peter McGrath| 6.15.11 @ 12:23PM
Romney's debate performance was lack-luster. He spouts talking points and bromides but doesn't seem capable - just like our last Republican POTUS - of stitching together cogent arguments.
We need someone who can passionately articulate why a conservative agenda is best for America. Romney - who has apparently swallowed the nanny-state paradigm hook, line, and sinker - is clearly not the guy. Conservative Republican primary voters must rally behind one of our own, and not simply go along with another compromised RINO just because he's "electable."
McCain - the media told us before plunging their collective knives into his back - was supposedly "electable." A more catastrophic mistake - McCain the nominee - is hard to imagine.
I utterly reject this media-driven narrative suggesting that Romney is a front-runner. Our enemies on the left seek to create a self-fulfilling prophecy knowing that a strong, articulate conservative, if nominated, would electorally destroy the odious B.O.
Romney is the media darling of the moment, only to become a sacrificial lamb if (God forbid) he's actually nominated.
Just say NO, NO, NO, to Mr. Nice Guy, and pray that a conservative starts to gain some traction (you'll know who that is when the media see the danger and hone in with the usual vicious, personally destructive, attacks).
Bumr50| 6.15.11 @ 12:46PM
Without reading any of the previous comments, I'd like to say that I WILL NOT vote for Mitt Romney if he is indeed foisted upon me as the GOP Presidential nominee.
1) Romneycare
2) Hat tip to significant and preventable AGW
3) LAUGHED at the idea of Shari'a in American courts.
How any "conservative" that's paying attention can still seriously consider voting for this man I cannot know.
A Romney Presidency will wishy-wash it's way to a point where it will have used Bush the Elder's Progressive policies (nation-building, untouchable entitlements, aggressive business regulation picking winners) to a point where we WILL be worse economically and socially than we are today, guaranteeing another European Socialist to come along and "save us all" in 2016.
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 1:28PM
Bumr,
Just to clarify: If you choices on election day are Romney, Obama, or a third party candidate, whom will you vote for?
Bumr50| 6.15.11 @ 4:56PM
Quite honestly I will not cast a vote for President.
I will, however, vote for my PA GOP Senatorial candidate against Bob Casey.
I cannot in good conscience vote for a GOP candidate that is so unrepresentative of my own, admittedly libertarian leaning Conservative philosophy. I actually voted for him against John McCain in the 08 primary, and a fat load of good that did as my PA primary falls so late in the process that I feel I don't have enough impact. IMO, the primary system needs a massive overhaul. It's unconscionable to me that there are states with "open primaries" where anyone is free to vote to their political advantage while here in PA we are constrained to vote within our registered party weeks after the field has already been whittled down.
I contend that if all primaries were held much closer together and limited to party registration, Hillary Clinton would be president, John McCain would not have been the nominee, and NO WAY Mitt Romney is nominated.
I'm not a hugely active web crawler, but I do frequent many conservative blogs on a daily basis. I can say with certainty that Mitt Romney is not favored by the majority of contributors, posters, and commenters on any of those blogs.
I will feel that the past three years have taught the GOP NOTHING in terms of where their base stands, and a loss will serve my interests better as a conservative than the support of yet another Progressive RINO.
I just can't do it, and I've had enough.
The GOP cannot scare me into voting with the Anybody But Obama strategy. I realize that there are many here that will disagree with me, but I feel that no matter what damage an Obama second term does to the nation, America can NEVER be destroyed so long as there are true Americans. I see them everyday in places like this.
Of course, this will all be moot if the GOP can nominate someone who is marginally conservative. I'm not putting candidates through any "purity test," nor am I asking perfection.
Occam's Tool| 6.16.11 @ 8:49PM
Well, Ross, I would vote Romney in that case. If the nominee is Paul or Johnson, I would vote 3rd Party, or write in my wife. The two latter are farther to the left on foreign policy than Obama, and would be equally destructive, if not more so. I could honestly see Paul making Kucinich his Secretary of State.
RCV| 6.17.11 @ 7:37PM
The reason Paul polls relatively well against Obama vis-a-vis many other GOP candidates is that he attracts the far left anti-war Democrats who would prefer Paul to Obama. You are absolutely right about Kucinich being his perfect Secretary of State -- a job, which in Paul's view, would have very little for the secretary to do, other than oversee the building of sandbags all around the country and waiting for our enemies to attack.
post*tenebras*lux| 6.15.11 @ 12:54PM
No. No. No. Mitt Romney is only the GOP "leader" with the GOB's (good ole boys)! Bought and paid for by the GOB's trying to cram him down the American public's throat.
Caped Crusader| 6.15.11 @ 1:09PM
Does it strike anyone besides me that nearly all our candidates are from states that NEVER go Republican and/or are RINOS
Al Adab| 6.15.11 @ 4:40PM
Yes I too have noticed that. Additionally why do states like NY, NJ, CA, IL have large delegations to the GOP convention and select our candidates when those same states will never deliver an electoral vote for the GOP?
Occam's Tool| 6.16.11 @ 8:52PM
You know, Al Adab, that's a great question. Perhaps a rule change---if you go Republican in the last Presidential election, you get triple your electoral votes at the convention. If you go Dem, you get 1/3. That would light a fire under California Republicans and New York ones. And if they keep losing elections, it should really be going to Southern candidates anyway. Texas had a lot more to do with W beating Gore and Kerry (whatever your opinions of W, he was better than those two) than CA and NY, and its delegates should count more.
Wow, what a great idea you had.
RCV| 6.17.11 @ 7:47PM
Actually the GOP carried California, New Jersey and Illinois in all 5 Presidential elections in the 1980s and 1970s, and New York in three of the five. The delegations in the Democratic convention are weighted, not just by electoral votes, but by past party loyalty. Don't know if the GOP does the same.
Casey Abell| 6.15.11 @ 1:50PM
Just looked at Gallup's latest polling, conducted before the NH debate.
Romney leads among self-identified Republicans in overall favorability (76%). He's second in "positive intensity" (strong favorable minus strong unfavorable) to Cain, who is much less better known and was still enjoying the glow from the first debate. In fact, Romey has almost no strong unfavorables among Republicanst (1%).
Guess Gallup only polled RINOs. Or all Republicans are RINOs. Or something.
The generic Repub vs. Obama race is virtually tied, 43-40 in favor of Barry. With the economy looking more and more perilous and Obama already in a tight race, it's no wonder Perry and Giuliani are making noises about the GOP nomination. I don't know if either has much of a chance, but the nomination is looking very valuable right now.
Casey Abell| 6.15.11 @ 1:56PM
Sorry about the misspellings. I'm a kreativ speeller sometimes.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 2:47PM
And how did New Hampshire vote in 2008, with a RINO at the top of the GOP ticket?
http://elections.nytimes.com/2.....t/map.html
Whoops.
Casey Abell| 6.15.11 @ 3:47PM
You know, there was somebody else on that ticket...gee, just can't remember her name right now...gimme a minute...
Halfway seriously, 2008 was a Dem dream year with an economic meltdown. No Republican was going to win. But there was that RINO who won in 2000 and 2004.
Anyway, unless his rivals succeed in driving up his very low unfavorables among Republicans, Romney has a path to the nomination. Not guaranteed by any means, but somebody's going to have to start taking him down. Sure didn't happen in the debate.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 5:16PM
Sarah Palin was McCain's mouthpiece that entire campaign. How many times did she say "Maverick"? 2008 was no Dem dream year---and that "compassionate conservative" squeaked it out twice despite tacking hard left on domestic issues. Steel tariffs? Education reform cosponsored by Ted Kennedy? Prescription drug benefits? Amnesty?
That debate was moderated by a liberal who approached every question from the left. Why should we be surprised that the most left wing candidate on the stage thrived in that environment? Why would we think when he's running against a hardened leftist that he'd have that same advantage?
You learned nothing from McCain. We did. If Romney takes the nomination, he'll have a hell of a time replacing the conservative base of the party on Election Day.
martin j smith| 6.15.11 @ 1:51PM
Ross: How will Romney get our nation back in the right direction and specifically deal with our deficit and expand and regrow our economy ? Global warming is a Red Flag and his previous ownership of Romney Care is another BIG spender.
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 2:47PM
Martin,
Far from having a solid answer for you, I share your question. The point I was trying to make about the debate is that Romney didn't hurt his case and perhaps helped it a bit. But he still has a big hill to climb to get me and other issues-focused conservatives and libertarians to consider supporting him even grudgingly.
If I had to take a stab at your question, I would say that he has been absolutely clear that he will work to repeal Obamacare and I believe him on that even while thinking he's wrong to think an individual mandate is OK at a state level.
Global warming is a big red flag as well. Indeed, the main reason I refused to support McCain is that I believed (and still believe) that cap-and-trade would have passed if he had won. That said, I simply think any real carbon-related legislation has zero chance in Congress and I don't think Romney would get involved in that battle. It's just a distraction from the real economic issues, and I think he'd say that. I wish he would just come out and say it!
Again, I am not a Romney supporter. I could be a lukewarm Romney supporter at some point but only because of my extreme interest in beating Obama.
txn4ever| 6.15.11 @ 2:20PM
The only way Obama wins the next election is if he runs unopposed. He's going down. The only real question is how bad a thumpin he will take.
As for Mitt, I don't like him because he is a Bush type big goverment Republican. Will I vote him? Yes, with thumb and finger securely wrapped around nose.
Al Adab| 6.15.11 @ 2:46PM
I will not. We will only reap the same policies and the same results Obama delivers. Slower death is death nevertheless. Romney is the post-mortem for the Conservative Movement and the GOP.
e cowan| 6.15.11 @ 2:44PM
'Romney's approval of an individual mandate, even if only at the state level is troubling. Adding in his recent support for ethanol subsidies and his credulousness regarding human impact on "global warming" and it's not surprising that one might wonder if Mitt is this generation's Nelson Rockefeller.'
That is EXACTLY what he is. And a Rockefeller VS Obama race is a wash and a disaster for the US!
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 2:45PM
When Algore cheers you on, you're NOT the guy for the GOP:
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ina-trinko
Ross Kaminsky | 6.15.11 @ 3:00PM
Hello all,
First, thanks for the comments. I hope I've done a little bit to explain my thoughts after what I thought was some misunderstanding or misstatement of my article.
The intensity of the opposition to Romney is interesting and understandable.
I keep returning to the question of how much I/we should weight electability versus principle in this particular election. I'm not asking this as a general question, not looking for the answer you'd apply to most elections. It's about THIS election.
Anyway, I've done a lot of commenting today while I'm trying to do other things and actually make a living.
So may I ask you to take a look at my web site at http://rossputin.com tomorrow when I'll post a longer note deliberating on what I take from your various comments.
Thanks again for the debate and for its civility despite (relatively minor) disagreements.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 3:04PM
Thank you, Ross---your clarification of your position and openness to alternate viewpoints is greatly appreciated. I for one agree that it comes down to this "electability" claim but would point out that you're not alone in not being able to fully define it. All the more reason to be skeptical of it!
I need to go earn my keep myself....
Al Adab| 6.15.11 @ 4:47PM
Mr. Kaminsky:
First allow me to express appreciation to an author who reads the public comments and reactions to his work.
What would it profit our nation to elect a Republican who has little meaningful differences from the current officeholder? The policy results will be the same and sadly the GOP would then get the blame. If we are destined to fall into a new dark age of tyranny, is it not better, like Cato, to die rather than submit? Should not the GOP fade into history as the party which stood for Liberty rather than as the party which compromised America out of existence? A dark scenario I understand but one all to close to fruition I fear.
Occam's Tool| 6.16.11 @ 8:54PM
Ross,
YOU are a hell of a lot of fun!
Ore Gone| 6.15.11 @ 5:11PM
When it is all said and done I will vote for who ever runs against Obama. I would prefer Michelle Bachman or Herman Cain but every vote counts and we need to turn the ship at some point. I agree with the person who said he would hold his nose and vote for Romney if it came to that. People should have come to the conclusion that it is the policies that are destroying our nation as much as the party and the policies are coming from both parties. I just hope more people are waking up.
Teflon93| 6.15.11 @ 5:17PM
Unfortunately Romney's not one of those people. What kind of fool embraces the AGW hoax AFTER it's been revealed as such?
Al Adab| 6.15.11 @ 6:02PM
It is as you note the policies that are destroying this nation. Those same policies would continue under a Romney administration in muted form. Slow death is death nonetheless. Not even with a clothespin on my nose could I vote for Mitt. We have gone down that "it's better than nothing" road to defeat too often.
Mimi| 6.15.11 @ 6:56PM
I just read the many posts...didn't take a score....SOMEBODY better get a hold of SARAH and tell her to hurry up and get in...Mitt's a NO-GO
Ore Gone| 6.15.11 @ 5:12PM
Oh, and thanks Ross for sparking a good debate!
JimBob| 6.15.11 @ 6:21PM
We need a serious Conservative in the White House for the next 8 years, not a middle-of-the-road RINO that kisses babies and backsides with equal fervor. Romney is not now, has never been, and will never be the Conservative the country needs to get us and keep us on track to fixing our critical problems. I cannot vote for this fool of a candidate.
BackToBasics| 6.15.11 @ 6:34PM
I don't care for Romney for many of the reasons already mentioned. However, even if Romney does win, he will not do enough to turn things around. I think the economy would not be good enough for him to be re-elected in 2016 and if that is the case it would not surprise me if Hillary Clinton could beat him then. Better to just get the most conservative person we can in there now. At least let's get someone whose willing to fight for the conservative policies. The national-slow-death Romneys and Bush's and RINOs in the legislative branch are painful to watch and endure. It's better to go either up, hopefully, or down while fighting.
Marco| 6.15.11 @ 7:12PM
Hooray! So it appears that we're all agreed that Mitt the Mormon shall sweep away the remnant Huckaphoney loons like the hand of God. Is there still some dissent that a guy whose claim to fame is purveying pizzas should be known as a pizza man, or is that issue settled as well?
somnolence| 6.15.11 @ 7:32PM
I absolutely won't vote if the candidate isn't Palin, Bachmann, Cain, or Santorum. And will feel no pangs of conscience that I didn't.
Pelligrino| 6.16.11 @ 3:44AM
somnolence, I like your group of four. Let's just hope your state is in an early primary position on the calendar.
I have serious misgivings as to the wisdom of our primaries structure.
I fear (like this same scenario every four years) that most concerned American conservative voters' voices/votes in the primaries won't matter. As the big money people, "establishment," and "wise media" will already be beating us over the head with a winner the 2d week of March 2012 -- long before it rolls around to a primary voting day in your state (and mine).
Occam's Tool| 6.16.11 @ 8:55PM
Somnolence---you will need to vote---you have a Congressional Republican rep that will need your vote.
That does not mean you have to vote for Romney. But, for example, I'm definitely voting for Cravaack and whoever is running AGAINST Klobuchar.
randyinrocklin| 6.15.11 @ 8:25PM
hey Ron Paul, why dontcha get your leprechaun outfit and spread some lucky charms eh?
PCP Smoker| 6.15.11 @ 8:54PM
Rocky Rockefeller resurfaces. No thanks. I'll take Michelle Bachman and all the stomach aches she causes you, you fucking leftists and DC conservatives.
Lisa| 6.15.11 @ 8:55PM
May interest you to know that when my home state, The People's Republic of Taxachusetts foolishly sanctioned same-sex marriage (creating another bureaucratic and financial hell as a result), your boy Mitt ordered that if a Justice of the Peace refuses to preform a same-sex ceremony, he/she will be fired! That is NOT the kind of man I want as my POTUS!
BackToBasics| 6.15.11 @ 10:47PM
Didn't know about it. Is he not a praticing Mormon? Another strike against him.....
Jerry Garcia | 6.15.11 @ 11:38PM
So Romney's a Libertarian, then. No wonder Ross "wants to like him".
Pelligrino| 6.16.11 @ 4:03AM
Lisa, I know that this -- what you cite -- is not ancient history. But to help out readers here, please share some web news links on this. If Romney's position is so, this needs to be closely examined.
He is definitely not "our boy" (and not a real man or decent man) if he is a supporter/excuser for homosexual evil in our land.
We all believe that so many issues (economic, military compencty, social, family, academic) are at the forefront in the demise of our nation. AND they are. But I have to say: The vile non-stop in every nook and crany advancement of perverted homosexual behaviors must CEASE. This issue, like no other, is the indicator of whether we are good or evil.
Has no one equated Greece's present anguish and sure end with its open flaunting of homosexuality for the past two decades?
I weep when I see (so far only in media photos) homosexual couples with a baby or small child. That' s assigning that child grief, confusion, and perversion right from the get-go -- a life that will never blossom.
Who did not retch at his or her TV when Obummer gave his line about "love of country" and homosexuals in military service during the January 2011 State of the Union?
Lisa| 6.16.11 @ 4:50PM
http://www.massresistance.org/.....42504.html
Moron Mitt also claimed in a 21 Dec 2007 Howie Carr show that he fought against same-sex marriage. He promised the Log Cabin Republicans in 2002 that he would NOT champion a fight against same-sex marriage. The SC of The People's Republic of Taxachusetts "found" (up their collective behinds) that not allowing same-sex marriage was "unconstitutional", but only the Legislature could change the marriage laws. However, the Legislature did nothing.
Occam's Tool| 6.16.11 @ 8:57PM
In addition, Pellegrino, as some Liberals on this site fail to note---no babies, no workers, no social programs.
I see the results of anti-marriage legislation in action every goshdarned day.
RCV| 6.17.11 @ 7:33PM
I did not retch when I heard the President speak about the brave men and women who serve our country in the armed forces who happen to be gay. I thank those Americans. And I'm very glad that most thinking people are ending this sick hatred of people whose sexual orientation is different than their own. I applaud today's action by the UN Human Rights Organization, which not surprisingly was opposed by virtually all Islamic countries.
Andy Texan | 6.15.11 @ 10:17PM
2012: It ain't his turn.
David | 6.16.11 @ 1:59AM
This debate like all lately was a big joke. Look what the RNC throws you. "These" are your choices ? And the usual leftwing clowns are the ones "hosting" the debate ... as usual. For the answer, visit : TheNewCSA.blogspot.com
Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 6.16.11 @ 2:20AM
We were told a few weeks back by the national media that the Obam camp "feared" Huntsman and Romney the most.
Tell the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party thanks for telling us who NOT to make the Republican candidate.
FRED GRANT| 6.16.11 @ 1:46PM
DO NOT VOTE FOR A MORMAN..CHECK OUT THERE HISTORY.THEY HAVE MURDERED MORE PEOPLE IN THE EARLY DAYS.AND THEY WILL BRING POLYGAMY BACK
RCV| 6.17.11 @ 7:27PM
Among the many reasons not to support Mitt Romney, this is not one of them.
solo| 6.16.11 @ 2:40PM
I'd rather swallow broken glass than vote for another RINO.
Never again!
T shirts | 6.16.11 @ 10:16PM
It must be wonderful to enter the colorful summer with nice T-shirts
See the variety selections on our store!
Soljer Blue| 6.18.11 @ 12:35PM
"I don't mind that Romney says he doesn't think of himself as highly partisan. I want to know if he's highly principled."
As others have said, all you need do is study his answers from the NH debate and you'll have the answer. Romney is a political opportunist down to his fingertips, and a full-blown RINO every which way but lose.
As for the "pundits" who say he "won" that debate, I say: Bollocks! I get the civility, applaud it, understand it. But if, as Romney said, "anyone up here tonight would make a better president than Barack Obama" -- what's YOUR reason for being there, Mitt?
He can still be taken -- Bachman or Cain, either makes a better case for the job than Mitt. I even prefer Pawlenty, and it's way early to write him off. Would I vote for Romney if he's the nominee? VERY reluctantly, but yes. And pray for 60 conservative votes in the Senate, and more in the House to hold this chameleon's coloration where it needs to be.
Intelligent Design| 6.19.11 @ 8:23AM
Romney would make a great running mate for Obama.
sex toys | 6.23.11 @ 1:27AM
Yeah ,, Hahaha , you are right .，welcome to visit www.sexdollusa.com.cheapest price and best serviser will be your best choise.our Adult toys inculding