The American Spectator : RINO Romney Is the Least Electable

Text Size

Another Perspective

RINO Romney Is the Least Electable

By Peter Ferrara on 1.11.12 @ 6:07AM

And his economic policies would be warmed-over Bush Sr. and Dole.

In 1980, George H.W. Bush was making the same argument against Ronald Reagan that Mitt Romney is making this year. Bush argued that he was the most electable against Jimmy Carter. The big money Republican establishment was behind Bush because they feared that Reagan was too radical to win, and would carry the entire party down to historic defeat, like Goldwater did.

Reagan even lost Iowa to Bush on that argument. But Reagan carried forward the pro-growth, supply-side economic message that ultimately swept him to the nomination. That message then led to landslide victory in the fall, carrying the Republicans to control of the Senate, and effective control of the House.

Real world election results showed just who was the most electable. After two Reagan landslide wins, it took George Bush just one term to trash the Reagan coalition, crawling out of town in 1992 with just 38 percent of the vote, barely better than Alf Landon in 1936.

Long History of Rejecting Conservatism

Romney assured Massachusetts voters when he was running for the Senate in 1994 that he did not want to go back to Reaganomics. He said during that campaign, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

Romney was also one of the few Republicans in 1994 to refuse to sign on to Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. He said during that campaign, “In my view, it is not a good idea to go into a contract, like what was organized by the Republican Party in Washington, laying out a whole series of things that the party says ‘these are the things we are going to do.’ I think that’s a mistake.” That mistake led to an historic Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. But Romney was one of the few Republicans to lose that year.

True to form, even today Romney is effectively promising not to take America back to pro-growth Reaganomics. Cowed by President Obama’s class warfare rhetoric, Romney promises to eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends, but only for middle income Americans. He says he would do that because they, not the wealthy, were the ones most hurt by the recession.

But effective tax policy does not distribute tax cuts based on who “needs” a tax cut the most. That is Obama neo-socialist class rhetoric. Effective tax policy enacts tax cuts that will do the most to promote economic growth and prosperity.

That is what Reagan did in cutting tax rates across the board for everybody, including the wealthy who have the most resources to invest. That is what the middle class and working people actually need most, cutting tax rates that will promote their jobs, higher wages, and personal prosperity.

Romney the Republican establishment businessman is telling us with his limited, crabbed policy kowtowing to Obama’s class warfare rhetoric that he feels, like Bush I and Republican RINO moderates generally, that he cannot explain and defend good supply-side policy to the public. Given his background and who he is as a rich Wall Street takeover artist, he personally may be right about that. Who is going to take seriously a Wall Street millionaire calling for tax cuts for millionaires? That is why he personally is not a good vessel for carrying the Republican standard this year. He is actually a perfect caricature for the neo-Marxist class warfare arguments of Obama and the Occupy Wall Street rabble. That is one reason why Romney, in fact, is the least electable.

Romney’s understanding of economic policy as a businessman is overblown. There is no real history of those with private business experience coming to Washington and making good policy there as a result. See, for example, Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The term that free market activists use in Washington to refer to the business reps they know from first hand experience is “corporate pukes.”

Only those from private business steeped in ideology and intellectual battle have done well advancing the free market cause in Washington, such as William Simon.

RINO Country Club Republican Establishment Takeover

On monetary policy, Romney again thinks like an establishment, country club, Republican businessman. He thinks devaluing the dollar against the Chinese currency is the key to restoring growth to America. But that cheap dollar policy actually only discourages the investment in America essential to getting the economy booming, as investors fear lower returns from a declining dollar, inflation, and the boom and bust cycles that such policies cause. Reagan favored a strong dollar policy that slew a historic inflation, and drew skyrocketing investment capital to America from around the world, resulting in a historic, 25 year, economic boom.

With Mitt Romney as the nominee, the Republican Washington Establishment will be back in charge, and the Reagan Revolution will be long forgotten history. That was the meaning of the endorsement of Romney by John McCain, embraced by Romney with such relish.

Page: 1 2 3 >

About the Author

Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (460) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Carol| 1.11.12 @ 6:41AM

I agree Mr. Ferrara.

I cannot and will not vote for Romneycare.

I'll keep it to myself because everybody will blame people like me for using principle instead of following the RINO Party's orders and you can bet your last dime Barack Obama gets term #2.

Jack in Wi.| 1.11.12 @ 7:46AM

Romney is probably unelectable. Obama will use him for a punching bag. Romney = Obama, Romney Care, warmongering chicken hawk, big bankster, defender of such unconstitutional things as the Patriot Act, the TSA, endless ex-rays, at airports, endless bailouts for the rich, endless bankruptcy and endless loss of civil liberties for the rest of us. It is Ron Paul or ruin. He is the only Constitutional Conservatve running.

Tenn Slim| 1.11.12 @ 8:04AM

Spot On
Romney will wilt, cower and evade during the Election debates.
Obama will smile, tolerate the f... and win.
We are in deep deep deep trouble.
Semper Fi

poet756| 1.11.12 @ 8:45AM

Once again the democrats have picked our candidate. Get ready for McCain...The Sequel
Donna Brazile, Gore's campaign manager was gloating because she says Romney was her choice to guaranty Obama a second term. The last time republicans acted like conservatives was when Gingrich was speaker and forced Clinton to cut Capital gains taxes and reform welfare, which led to 5 years of surpluses. And in a debate, Gingrich would wipe the floor with Obama.

johnnyboy361| 1.11.12 @ 11:09AM

Gingrich has ruled himself out by committing the apostasy of running anti-capitalist adds. Unfortunately we have a week field this time.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:01PM

Romney has ruled himself out by attacking conservatives. Unfortunately, he has the Republican media establishment protecting him.

Peter Ferrara is not one of them.

CrackerHound| 1.12.12 @ 12:47PM

Johnnyboy, The way I see it , Newt was just going after a rival during an election campaign. He was wrong but no big deal. He has in fact backed off of that line.

Step back a little and you will see that Newt is far more preferable to Mitt.

1)Will destroy Obama in debates.
2)Better contrast to Obama who has done everything wrong and is the actual candidate who is "unelectable"
3)Can make the case for a positive and effective agenda for America
4) Is a fighter while Mitt is being endorsed by McCain who is Romney's mirror image (extreme RINO).

Mitt is 2008 all over again. It is glaringly obvious. Romney is the weakest candidate...not Newt.

TxJim| 1.11.12 @ 1:28PM

Saying Gingrich will wipe the floor with Obama ignores two things..

1. He cant even wipe the floor with Mitt Romney.. so assuming he would with Obama is pure fantasy.
2. He wont get the nomination.. so saying that is like saying the Steelers are better than the Patriots even though they lost to Tebow and will never play them in the playoffs this year..

Maybe if Newt breaks 20% in a primary or caucus, I will give your comment any credibility.. Debates are practice.. the election is the game.. Newt cant even make it out of the locker room..

TrueBlue | 1.11.12 @ 2:15PM

Which is why Newt needs to drop out and back someone else with a statement by that person that Newt will be his financial advisor.

JulieAZ| 1.11.12 @ 10:10PM

If Newt can debate Mitt one on one then I think it's over for Mitt. Mitt will take Newt on if he's the last one. Mitt is still targeting Newt, so there must be some worry there.

I'd still rather have Newt. Newt may have endorsed a healthcare mandate, but Romney actually implemented it in the only political stint he had..... in a Democrat state like Mass. I don't think he had a hard time doing that. That's how he gets things done - does what the Left wants.

Even Rush Limbaugh flipped out on how Romney said his tenure at Bain was like how Obama did the bailouts. Rush also thought Newt was using language of the Left, but Romney agreeing with the premise Newt's group put forward was worse.

Newt is a cranky SOB but I'd rather have that then another John McCain wannabe.

Andrew P| 1.12.12 @ 2:39AM

Newt will NOT be the last one. Tinfoil Hat Paul is the alternative to Romney that is pulling ~25%. Even if all the others drop out, Paul will still be in it because he has legions of anti-war followers.

Let's face it. None of the conservative candidates look or sound like Presidents. None of them are head and shoulders above the others. Do a thought experiment. Imagine that Romney was simply deleted from the field. Who emerges on top? Awfully hard question, isn't it??

David Gatlin| 1.24.12 @ 11:06PM

"Maybe if Newt breaks 20% in a primary or caucus, I will give your comment any credibility"

Hey, it's me....from the future. What if Newt broke 40%? Time to give his comment some credibility.

mixplix| 1.11.12 @ 7:58PM

I'll second that comment.

Fletcher Hanks| 1.13.12 @ 7:49AM

He is the spitting image of Obama. This is very important if America will create the New World Order. This is why so much has been spent on splitting the Patriotic vote: Perry, Santorum, Huntsman, Ron Paul, are all part of the US Constitutional bunch. Romney is undefined, easily will take up where Obama left off. Obama, Romney, who cares - communism/ Federal Reserve marches on. The New World Order will come about, if we are to control the Chinese. Inflation makes China's profits worthless. Give it time, all will continue on its path.

Vly Walker| 1.13.12 @ 8:00AM

Obama and Romney are the same. This colorlessness is very important! Many states allow both parties to vote in primaries, in this way Democrats can vote for the beatable candidates in the Republican Party. Whether Romney or Obama become President does not matter, both will do our bidding and usher in The New World Order. Then the Planet will be a safe Oligarchy. Be patient and watch. After the election ill educated by design, Americans will flock to join our military, which is why we starting sending jobs out of the country in 1997 September. By 2000 the 18 to 26% job growth was stopped, and we now have many patriotic Americans ready to take the oil fields in the Caspian Sea area. Ever read "The Grand Chessboard"? 400% more oil there than ever was in the Persian Gulf! Romney? Obama will start the drive over again.

Intelligent Design| 1.11.12 @ 8:26AM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/o.....care_n.htm

Vern Crisler| 1.11.12 @ 9:27AM

At this point, if Romney wins the Republican nomination, Obama's election is guaranteed. We need to focus instead on electing conservatives to Congress. That will limit the damage Obama can do in the next four years.

USSAlabama| 1.11.12 @ 11:34AM

"We" - Mr. Ferrara included - are likely to get as GOP Nominee that candidate whom 'mischievous' cross-voting Dems elect in 'our' Primaries.

Take note.

Alabama has a R governor chosen by cross-voting Dems in Republican Primary.

teresa| 1.11.12 @ 6:58PM

That is why all the Dems voted for Huntsman and Ron Paul in New Hampshire and not Romney? Romney got over 50% of the Republicans in NH.

Give me a break. Dems did not vote for Romney and they are not giving us our Nominee. Quit acting as though the voters are stupid and you are the only intelligent one out there. I am tired of the pious conservatives thinking only they are not duped by the Establishment and all others are nothing but sheeple. You sound like a fascist.

Cosmo| 1.12.12 @ 1:57AM

Well said, Teresa....Voters are never going to put serial-adulterer Gingrich in the White House...
He should go back to the House and take over as Speaker from the worthless Boner...
I feel like Romney is going to be a pleasant surprise to Conservatives...

USSAlabama| 1.11.12 @ 11:46AM

Search definition "mischief voting" . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting

TxJim| 1.11.12 @ 1:29PM

Im hearing more GOP repeat your sentiments.. the election is in Nov.. and you are already quitting in Jan..

BackToBasics| 1.11.12 @ 4:03PM

I'd like to think you are right, VC, but I think he's too dangerous to leave in power even with a Republican House and Senate. His power grabs will not stop and the Republicans seem too timid to stop him, even when they have control of the chambers. They will worry about"riots in the streets" and being maligned in the media if they try too hard to stop him.

Should Have Impeached| 1.11.12 @ 9:58PM

"At this point, if Romney wins the Republican nomination, Obama's election is guaranteed. "

- You sure know how to discourage a guy.

"We need to focus instead on electing conservatives to Congress. That will limit the damage Obama can do in the next four years."

- I'm not so sure.... Obama is apparently quite able to work around (without) Congress.

wfox| 1.11.12 @ 10:26AM

Earth to Carol. Romneycare is not on the ballot BHO is

loulou| 1.11.12 @ 10:28AM

Neither will I.
I cannot vote for another RINO.

Sara| 1.11.12 @ 11:16AM

If he is re-elected it will be because of people such as you. Thank you very much

Carol| 1.11.12 @ 12:33PM

Sara:

You are a RINO who doesn't have any convictions.

Anthony| 1.11.12 @ 1:22PM

Carol, You and your fellow travelers in la la land, with your sanctimonious "convictions", will allow the Muslim Marxist and the D party to finish off America.
No conservative is happy here, but fools like you, who pretend to be above the fray, will set us all up as sitting ducks. No thank, girl.
But at least you'll have your principles to choak on as Obozo shoves them down your throat.

Purp| 1.11.12 @ 1:54PM

Apparently, you don't have any principles. Tell me, how will you ever elect a president with principles, since you won't know one when you see one. Those willing to ignore their principles will never live by their principles. There is more to life than winning an election.

Anthony| 1.11.12 @ 2:23PM

One of my New Year's resolutions was to give trolls like you Purp, up. It's useless to talk to morons such as yourself. So this will be my last reply to you, the swamp reptile that swims at TAS.
The other resolution I made was to become a much better marksman.
Hope not to see you around the hood.

Carol| 1.11.12 @ 2:28PM

Did you see those principled RINOs in Congress have stuck us with over a trillion more in debt?

Love that non-principled RINO Party no different than the Marxist Party.

Tim the Enchanter| 1.11.12 @ 5:15PM

Nice choice we have: "Progressive" and "Progressive-Lite". It's like choosing between two plain doughnuts.

Purp| 1.11.12 @ 8:37PM

You mean Reagan and the Bush Boys? They stuck us collectively with 10.7 TRILLION dollars on the National Debt. Sure, Clinton added a Trillion and Obama has had to add 3 Trillion to clean up Bush's mess. But put your mouth where the money is, will ya? Go do some homework and find out for yourself.

Purp| 1.11.12 @ 8:35PM

Well, if you do, you can say hello to my Barrett82a1. Y'all think we ain't packin' .. Keep thinking, Sunshine.
We want our country back from you Corporatists, those that downgrade government because you know it is the ONLY entity powerful enough to stop IBM, GE, Exxon, BP from taking over and dictating to the world - if it's not already too late. Free enterprise, my foot. It's been long dead .
The sooner you shut up, the better for reducing pollution in our country - let's see how long it is before you open your trap again ... you'll get Romney and lose - again. Hahaha

W| 1.11.12 @ 9:40PM

Purple
Didn't you get the DNC email that GE is a good corporation and Imelt is O's bud?
What's the name again of the Fortune 10 company where you supposedly work?

Purp| 1.11.12 @ 9:54PM

Once again, the name of the company I work for is NONE of your business, period. At least I work, which is more than I can say for you.

W| 1.12.12 @ 6:54AM

Purple
Another lie from you. You post that you are a consultant to a Fortune 10 company to give some credibility to your lefty comments, then when asked the name of this fictitious company, you don't answer.
Afraid to post your real occupation?

W| 1.11.12 @ 2:44PM

Anthony,
Good comment. The holier than thou crowd is good for whining and complaining.

merlin| 1.12.12 @ 5:57AM

Sara,

If you are going to Hell in a handcart, and a RINO slows the descent by a few mile per hour, you will still arrive at the same destination, just a few minutes later.

When I hear people say there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats, I have to agree because who wants to take the position that a bit less of socalism is better than lots of socalism? We need NO socalism.

When the progressives get only half of what they demand because the RINO's compromise, the progressive win. They just get the rest later.

Sorry that this comment is a bit disjointed, but I think you get the idea. I don't think I can vote for Romney.

Vly Walker| 1.13.12 @ 8:03AM

Romney and Obama are identical. They are both going to do what is necessary to bring about the NEW WORLD ORDER. So why worry. The elections are set, as are the machines for the tally. Why waste your worry time on such things. We know what is best for mankind.

Lyneuss Fields | 1.11.12 @ 11:25AM

As someone who was born, baptized and physically and emotionally molested by Mormonism, first and foremost, Mitt Romney is a Mormon missionary. Historically, missionaries of this cult will say and do "anything" to enhance revenue flowing into their Mormon Money Machine. Romney's flip-flopping on every issue important to conservatives is manifestation of the warped values and beliefs this dangerous cult propagates. The evidence to support facts detailing Mormon crimes against humanity (e.g., murder, rape, extortion) throughout the 19th and 20th centuries is plentiful and odious. The false and easily disproven claims within their Book of Mormon are laughable. It is no coincidence that both Romney and Huntsman’s paternal great-great grandfather was Parley P. Pratt—a Danite, murderer and polygamist.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......-hoax.html

Vern Crisler| 1.11.12 @ 12:17PM

I wish Romney would have been MORE Mormon. From what I've seen of Mormons, they tend to be conservative (with some notable exceptions).

Lyneuss Fields | 1.11.12 @ 3:41PM

First, all power within Mormonism is held by Priesthood holders. A mission is the highest calling a Mormon Priesthood holder can fulfill. Romney is a Priesthood holder, missionary and bishop. 10% of his worth goes to tithing; therefore, needless to say, there couldn't be a better Mormon.
Most non-conservative Mormons I know are independent besides our friend Harry Reid who is a convert to Mormonism.

Andrew P| 1.12.12 @ 2:48AM

Just wait until the General Election. Team Obama will bash Mormonism directly, a topic that Republicans won't touch in their friendly contest. You will see ads touting Obama's nice Christian family and depicting Mormons as a Demonic cult. You will see scenes from "Attack Of The Mormons", which was remade by Cherry Red Productions, right here in Washington DC. You will see a billion dollars worth of images of Romney being morphed into Demons, complete with vampire fangs for Bain style capitalism.

Lyneuss Fields | 1.12.12 @ 9:22AM

The crimes at Mountain Meadows were not a vaudeville act. 120 innocent pioneers were murdered in 1857 and left out on the valley floor for two years. This was done by residents of Cedar City, Utah. 110 years later, in 1967, I was beaten, held down and urinated on in Cedar City as a 15-year-old boy. The great-great grandchildren of those 1857 molesters chanted Moses, Moses, while they carried out their crime. It was an attack on modernity, because I had worn sandals to school.
Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, crimes of murder, rape of true believing women and extortion are documented by the perpetrators and Church historians throughout Mormonism's Journal of Discourses and Comprehensive History. Mitt Romney was a bishop and is a Mormon priesthood holder. He is running for President of the United States, and therefore should be vetted about crimes against humanity committed by his church.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......gious.html

Seek| 1.11.12 @ 7:14PM

Actually, the abuse continues. There's a nonprofit group with LDS connections called "WWASP" that runs behavior modification camps throughout the U.S. for troubled youths. You don't wanna know what goes inside of them. Think of what was depicted in the movie "Sleepers," only much worse. A few, I believe have been shut down.

JulieAZ| 1.11.12 @ 10:19PM

I must be living in a naive world. My neighbors are Mormon. They seem like really good people. But even they told me the Mormon church excludes people and they are not proud of that.

I'm on the HOA here and all the members are Mormon, we hold the meetings in their church. They did cut out our landscaping vendor of 6 years to bring in an unlicensed friend in the church. I had to circle the neighborhood to get them to reinstate the old vendor because the new guy didn't have the crew or licenses. I got a lot of heat for that from them. I guess that was the "exclusion" part my neighbor warned me about.

I guess every religion has its horrid stories. I am Catholic. We all know those stories.

But somehow, I always attributed Mormonism to the stereotype of Canadians - that they are all so nice.

Time to get checked.

runningdeer| 1.12.12 @ 12:35AM

No, you don't need to be checked. You are just a good person who wants to see the good in people. You probably do see more good than a lot of people see.
I don't know much about Mormons. I have met some and lived near some who are very nice people. Good family people. Helpful neighbors. I prefer to think of those and to think of how beautiful the Mormon tabernacle Choir sounds . Just breathtaking.

Alan Brooks| 1.11.12 @ 12:53PM

"...warmed-over Bush Sr. and Dole."

Dole wasn't good enough to be butler at the White House.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 6:12PM

" That is why he personally is not a good vessel for carrying the Republican standard this year. He is actually a perfect caricature for the neo-Marxist class warfare arguments of Obama and the Occupy Wall Street rabble. That is one reason why Romney, in fact, is the least electable."

Since it's a two man race between Romney and Ron Paul, I guess this is pretty good news for Ron Paul...

rhoetus| 1.11.12 @ 7:04PM

We are voting for Ron Paul in the Arizona Primary. He is the only genuine candidate, the others are just creations of their respective campaigns.

spike59| 1.13.12 @ 7:50AM

Ron Paul is a faux fiscal conservative who LURRRRRRVS expensive earmarks, a phony Constitutionalist who promises actions as President that are not authorized in the Constitution, and has a track record of falling in love with nearly every tinfoil hat conspiracy theory to come along-that's why he's loved by the Birchers, the Klan, the 9/11 Truthers...he's a joke, and the worst thing going for him is his insane cult of wild-eyed followers who resemble nothing more than Obamazombies, albeit spouting different mindless slogans

antidote| 1.13.12 @ 5:51PM

From your mouth to god's ears, four more years!!!!

Hobbes| 1.15.12 @ 1:44PM

I remember when the Spectator wasn't a PR tool for the Republican Party, but was a journal of conservative ideas with no connection to any political hack party.

Clint| 1.11.12 @ 6:50AM

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

Romney Had The Third Lowest Job Growth As Governor Of Massachusetts.

Romney Is A Job Gravedigger.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To South Carolina.

riccardo| 1.11.12 @ 8:27AM

Romney didnt create jobs in Mass becuase under his watch, Mass unemployment was at 4.8%. You want to cite a meaningless metric about his relative position in job growth, when the fact is....everyone in MASS was ALREADY employed! Idiot!

Rifle| 1.11.12 @ 1:11PM

I don't care if Romney created 5 million jobs and brought Massachusetts to a 0% unemployment rate.

Will I vote for the follower of a polygamist false prophet, and a man who gained the Massachusetts governor's office by favoring homosexual marriage and a man who turned his back on 45 million slaughtered unborn babies..... a number equal to a 911 terrorist attack everyday for 41 years?

NO I WILL NOT!!!!!

Kent Carson| 1.11.12 @ 5:02PM

A little bit of education for you, cult chaser.

"Mormons, for all the other things that set us apart, believe first and foremost that Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer."

Tim the Enchanter| 1.11.12 @ 5:21PM

They believe in "a" "Jesus Christ", not THE Jesus Christ.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 6:17PM

@Rifle:

"I don't care if Romney created 5 million jobs and brought Massachusetts to a 0% unemployment rate. Will I vote for the follower of a polygamist false prophet, and a man who gained the Massachusetts governor's office by favoring homosexual marriage and a man who turned his back on 45 million slaughtered unborn babies..... a number equal to a 911 terrorist attack everyday for 41 years?"

How about a guy with a thirty year record of being consistently and strongly pro second amendment?

How about a guy married to the same woman for almost fifty years?

Someone that has confessed Jesus as his personal saviour?

Someone consistently pro life and sponsoring a "life begins at conception" amendment to the Constitution?

Seek| 1.11.12 @ 7:16PM

If it's Ron Paul you're thinking of, he's the same man who has announced that each state should devise an immigration policy as it sees fit. No deal, mister.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 9:47PM

@Seek:

You mean how it's laid out in the Constitution?

spike59| 1.13.12 @ 7:55AM

not to mention, a man who truly believes that traitor Bradley Manning is a patriot, that Iran is no threat to anyone, and that all we need to defend our country is a handful of subs, and who has the gall to suggest, after being utterly unable to control (or even keep an eye on) his own pitiful little whackadoodle website, that he should be entrusted with heading the Executive Branch of our Government

emo| 1.11.12 @ 8:46AM

""The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To South Carolina.""

I support the Tea Party, but you might want to actually win something before exhalting such hubris

Clint| 1.11.12 @ 2:04PM

Uh Oh !

Here It Comes.

Winning Our Future | King of Bain "When Mitt Romney Came To Town"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_evS-T-c35M

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To South Carolina.

poet756| 1.11.12 @ 8:46AM

Here in SC, the democrats are urging their voters to vote for Romney. Nuff said.

USSAlabama| 1.11.12 @ 11:30AM

Citizens must demand that States close Primaries to cross-over voting.

The thing that is too soft to be called voter fraud has been dubbed "Voter Mischief".

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:03PM

Why did Nikki Haley endorse a candidate opposed by 75% of Republicans? I used to like and respect her.

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 1:04PM

VP or cabinet post perhaps?

Dan| 1.11.12 @ 1:08PM

Better yet, why would someone endorse a candidate opposed by 90% of Republicans?

JC| 1.11.12 @ 2:30PM

For the same reason most others. He is the best of the available flawed candidates.

TxJim| 1.11.12 @ 1:35PM

I will be voting for Gingrich.. As long as he stays in the race he will attack Romney.. adding to the Obama gameplan for the fall..

Romney is bragging saying the Bain Capital attacks failed.. well the Obama Bain attacks wont fail.. especially now that they know exactly how to approach it since the GOP approach failed..

TrueBlue | 1.11.12 @ 2:18PM

The attacks from the conservative (at least fiscally) side failed because they didn't get the media attention those same attacks would get in the general election vs Obama.

USSAlabama| 1.11.12 @ 2:30PM

TXJim - what you also need to understand is that Dems are voting in R Primaries and choosing the candidate through what is know as tactical voting.

In Iowa last week DEMS voted for Ron Paul; last night they turned out in NH for Huntsman (at least).

Actual R voters in NH was *down* 16%.

The onus is on Reince Priebus and the RNC to refuse the delegates (they are not planning to).

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 6:21PM

@USSAlabama:

"Actual R voters in NH was *down* 16%."

I wonder why Republican voter enthusiasm is so low?

It's almost like most all of the candidates aren't all that different from Obama.

Almost all of them are big government spending, billionaire/wall street funded, war promoting guys... just like Obama.

All but one, at least...

JulieAZ| 1.11.12 @ 10:24PM

I'm learning a lot on this site.

Unfortunately, I'm more upset.

I have an idea to start a business...but I'm thinking I'm screwed for a long time now.

Mark| 1.12.12 @ 9:28AM

"Tactical voting" is a double-edged sword. Recently, it worked very well in Alabama's Fifth Congressional District when a flip-flopping Parker Griffith was canned and replaced with an honest conservative. The point is well taken that divergent political parties should be electing their representatives without the influence of subversive interests. However, if given the opportunity, I would never miss a chance to subvert extremist political intent.

Kent Carson| 1.11.12 @ 5:08PM

Yes, even they want Obama out!

Vlady| 1.11.12 @ 9:55AM

Hey genius, do you realize that your support for Dr. Paul is helping Romney get elected? Did you happen to notice that in your rant you mention Mitten Romney's support for pretty much everything gay, all day, all the way; and yet you curiously fail to mention that Dr. Ron Paul voted for gays in the military.

TrueBlue | 1.11.12 @ 2:24PM

Kind of like Paul and his supporters say they support the Constitution but are against taxing imports, huh?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

Free trade is killing our economy just as much as the regulations are. How can you rail against corporations leaving the country to go somewhere it's cheaper and they can't be taxed by us on one hand, and then whine that they are taking American jobs on the other. If you're for Free Trade then it shouldn't matter where the company has their facilities, should it? Keep up that regulation and income, corporate, and capital taxation; bring on the Free Trade agreements; and watch the businesses flee en masse.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 6:29PM

@TrueBlue:

If a solution is not Constitutional, we should consider alternatives that are.

That said, one of the primary reasons that we are losing businesses to other countries is our "highest in the world" corporate tax rates.

So, as a Constitutional solution, we could start with that...

I'm sure there are other Constitutional solutions to consider, as well.

Is it now a fact that Republicans wipe their asses with the Constitution to the same extent that the dems and leftists you revile do?

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 6:32PM

@TrueBlue:

Are you saying that NOT doing importing is unConstitutional?

I have never heard this issue come up before.

I'm really interested in what you are saying...

Please elaborate.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 6:36PM

@TrueBlue:

Sorry... NOT doing import tariff would be unConstitutional?

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 6:26PM

@Vlady:

"Paul voted for gays in the military."

Was there a vote held to make the military fully gay?

Ron Paul voted for that?

How about this, VLady...

There's absolutely NO actual difference between Obama and Romney.

None.

Please explain to me the differences?

So, why, exactly, would I care if voting to move the football closer to more liberty hurts freakin Romney?

Only Ron Paul has a real chance to take the youth, undecided and disaffected dems that we would need to beat Obama.

So, maybe you should be mad at the Republican party for pissing away their only real chance at beating Obama... if they were to nominate Ron Paul.

I can't wait to hear your re-iterations of what you've heard Rush and Mark Levin bang into your head this afternoon.

Please proceed.

John Daniel| 1.11.12 @ 7:05AM

Romney appears to be the Washington Post's pick. 'Nuff said....

rhoetus| 1.11.12 @ 7:06PM

Or the Washington Post's daft prick.

somnolence| 1.11.12 @ 7:33AM

Romney is bad, but Obama is terrifying. It seems academic to me, and I will follow through accordingly in November, contrary to Ferrara's losing, sour grapes attitude. All of the history and precedence cited above is B.O.- Before Obama and the tripling of the deficit and throwing millions of Americans out of work and into oblivion along with returning servicemen who will line up in unemployment rolls. Romney has the organizational skills that Washington insiders/trading insiders such as Gingrich and Santorum don't have. So all you whiny, disenchanted losers just stay home this fall with your toys, pout, and if Obama gets back in perhaps you can even suck your thumb.

Big Tony| 1.11.12 @ 7:57AM

This is a weak argument for weak milquetoast candidate. And just like the lefties you wrapped up your weak argument with name calling.

JulieAZ| 1.11.12 @ 10:28PM

Ann Coulter on yesterday's Mike Gallagher show said Santorum and Gingrich were "whiny bitc###" during the second debate last Sunday.

I used to like her when she aims at Democrats. I don't know what happened to her. I thought she was conservative. But she is more pissed that Gingrich was married 3 times and that --- in a free market --- made 1.6 million for his consulting firm with Fannie/Freddie. I guess Newt's capitalism is not as good as Mitt's capitalism?

Andrew P| 1.12.12 @ 3:11AM

Coulter has come out for Romney. She sees him as the best of a very flawed bunch. The reasoning is obvious. He is the only one who looks and sounds at all like a President. He and Paul are the only ones with both money and organization, and these are a prerequisite to beating Obama. The fact that those two are the only ones on the VA ballot is proof that this is a 2-man race. Perry might look good on paper, but in practice he has been a total flop. Huntsman has ran an incredibly horrible campaign, and as he has personal wealth, he has no excuse for this. Newt was ejected from the Speakership, and yes he does sound whiny. He was also unable to beat back Romney's negative ads in Iowa. Santorum got his clock cleaned by 17 points in a Democratic Wave year, the worst of any 2006 incumbent.

Dai Alanye | 1.11.12 @ 9:06AM

Surely even a Romney apologist should be able to see that so-called "organizational skills " are less important than the right policies. We need someone who can lead an advance not organize a retreat.

Dan| 1.11.12 @ 1:19PM

That's the point. We have candidates that have nice records and want wonderful things that appeal to conservatives "...pick me I'm the Reagan Conservative...", but they are struggling to organize a campaign to beat the RINO. If you think you are the best presidential candidate, and can't even organize support to beat a RINO, maybe the RINO is actually the better candidate for the job.

TrueBlue | 1.11.12 @ 2:26PM

They're struggling to beat the RINO because there are too many of them. They are splitting the vote, which is exactly how we got Bush Sr./Jr. and McCain. They need to all get together, find out who has the best actual record with the least possibility of flubbing and the least shady past, then rally around that person (Newt and Huntsman are not in this category).

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 6:35PM

@TrueBlue:

"They need to all get together, find out who has the best actual record with the least possibility of flubbing and the least shady past, then rally around that person"

But, if the Republican establishment and the MSM tell you he's not electable... then dismiss him and move onto the next RINO.

GymRatPro| 1.11.12 @ 9:07AM

And your position, just like that suggested by Ferrara, will further depress right wing voter turnout in November. The Chicago machine will trump (pardon the slur) everything the Romney super pac etc. can throw at the wall. Four more years, coming your way!

poet756| 1.11.12 @ 9:11AM

What is the difference between a democratic far left liberal and a republican far left liberal. It could well be the republicans would be better off losing to Obama. That way the crappy economy would be blamed on democrats and not republicans.

wfox| 1.11.12 @ 10:30AM

That was the same argument that was made last time. How is that working out for you. Please grow up

Hypernonpartisan| 1.11.12 @ 11:43AM

I'd say things went pretty well in Nov 2010.

This country needs a party that believes in limited government, States rights, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. To get that, the existing Republican party must be destroyed. There will be some temporary pain along the way.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:07PM

One step back to take two steps forward....

The Republican party has divided itself into two factions. One faction looks and acts an awful lot like liberals.

martin j smith| 1.11.12 @ 7:38AM

Oh I saw news( I use the word loosely) footage of Romney and his acolytes and I say to myself this is Obama -Light. Paul and his Acolytes are Obama and Huntsman is a lost child--who will go anywhere to get his lollypop.

Putting it bluntly--NO.

If the Republican Party thinks they are fooling anyone it is themselves.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:11PM

Romney described himself as 'progressive' in TV on videotape in 2002.

Even Obama never used that language to describe himself.

Republican operatives on TV think they are fooling us everytime they talk. They think we're stupid.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 6:41PM

@martin j smith:

"Paul and his Acolytes are Obama"

No need to explain this?

Paul is the only GOP candidate that could make a cogent case for his differences from Obama..

Virtually opposite in every way....

-Anti SOPA
-Anti NDAA
-Anti Patriot Act
-Anti unConstitutional military actions
-Anti big government spending
-Anti Crony Capitalism

How exactly is Paul = Obama?

unless, of course,

spike59| 1.13.12 @ 8:00AM

How exactly is Paul=Obama?

well, for starters, BOTH have this insane idea that President=Emperor, and that they can unilaterally rule

there's also the matter of their obvious disdain for Israel and an eagerness to gut our military

paranioa, extremely thin skins

inability and unwillingness to work with others who don't toe the line 100%

addiction to earmarks

not to mention they both have a cult following of wingnuts who flip out whenever their 'messiahs' are criticized

Cpm| 1.13.12 @ 4:16PM

Bingo! And Paul's wingnuts will eventually re-elect BHO.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.11.12 @ 7:40AM

Anyone But Obama...

That being said, the only two SUCCESSFUL conservative candidates are Gingrich and Perry.
They both accomplished pretty great stuff.

KennesawJack| 1.11.12 @ 7:49AM

Unfortunately, Ken, we are caught in the "Anybody but Obama" trap. The only solace I can find in voting for Romney is the prospect of another conservative Supreme Court Justice being appointed during a Republican Presidency. That assumes, of course, Romney would appoint a conservative and our spineless Republicans in the Senate would confirm him or her.

Indy| 1.11.12 @ 8:52AM

Indeed that is key, could we force Romney to appoint an Alito / Roberts or will we get a squish? We all know how Graham will vote given his support of both Kagan and Sotomayer, he rubber stamps everyone because it is who the President wants, no advise and consent, that's a farse.

With Sununu as an advisor to Romney, he gave us Souter as the article points out, and Christie as a main supporter, he supports Global Warming, I am worried...so much is riding on this election.

Andrew P| 1.12.12 @ 3:20AM

It will depend on the Senate composition. Remember when Bush nominated Harriet Miers? The beatdown from the GOP grass roots forced Bush to withdraw the nomination. If the Senate hadn't been so Republican at the time, Miers would have gone through. If there is a strongly conservative Senate next year, Mittens will have to nominate good Justices. If Reid retains control or the GOP barely squeaks in, Mitt will appease the Left.

poet756| 1.11.12 @ 9:13AM

Romney nominated liberal judges in Ma. So what do you believe? What he says or what he does? That's exactly how we got Obama.

Donn| 1.11.12 @ 10:14AM

I lived in MA when Mitt was govenor. He did not nominate liberal judges - get you facts straight - stop buying the BS. Taxes in MA would have gone through the roof if it wasn't for Mitt. Mitt had to work with Democrats (90% of the commonwealth) to get anything done. Much like Ronald Reagan worked with Tip O'neil to get things done in Washington or has all of my fellow conservatives forgot that!

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 10:19AM

What the nation does not need is another accomodationist republican. Someone here asked yesterday what a president Romney with a Dem congress might be like. Scary thought. How often do we Conservatives have to follow this wing of the party to defeat before we learn?

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:14PM

Romney is a big tax hiker. Romney tried to raise taxes so much even the Democrat state legislature opposed some of his massive tax hikes.

Romney even raised taxes on blind people.

Please see Deroy Murdoch's article on Monday at NRO on this. It's more bad stuff about Romeny the GOP doesn't want us to know.

BurkeVA| 1.11.12 @ 10:24AM

You have put me in the unattractive position of defending Romney. He appointed Liberal judges because he had to get the approval of an 85% Dem legislature. I am hopeful a GOP-controlled Senate will be able to effectively guide judicial appointments, although dare we forget that Bush One appointed Judge Stephens, albeit with a Dem-controlled Senate.

scotchieguy| 1.11.12 @ 10:36AM

Ken, have you been asleep the past week? Newt is out-Newting even himself in a colossal meltdown of incredible proportion. He is the consummate petulant brat. He is a total embarrrassment to himself and the party.

Somewhere, Obama is laughing his bleepin ass off at how stupid the repub party is. There is no electable republican left on the shelf. Perry? Are you serious? He can't even form the most elementary sentence. Every time he opens his mouth, I cringe. The only thing that will save us is if someone else jumps in who is 1), an adult who can form a sentence with more than three words in it and, 2), somewhat who is conservative and electable--Rubio, Ryan, Kasich, etc.

Andrew P| 1.12.12 @ 3:25AM

No one can jump in. The filing deadlines are mostly past. Running requires money and organization. That is simple reality. A brokered convention is possible in theory, but who could they possibly pick? Barbour just took himself out with the 200 pardons. Ryan and Palin would be the only possible picks.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.11.12 @ 7:41AM

The article is full of misleading information. Overall Reagan was not a tax cutter. And H.W. Bush lost the Presidency due to Perot's third party run.

The truth is that the Republicans never had a real conservative.

Romney knows how to make markets work and is not the fool portrayed in the article.

Mr. Ferrara loves Newt. Well, life is full of choices.

It appears the establishment will try to derail Romney who actually has the skill and cunning needed to suceed in the business world. Now, according to Pistol Pete, Romney is to dumb to tie his shoelaces. Yeah.

Jabber3| 1.11.12 @ 8:05AM

Peter has gone overboard trying to justify himself to the anyone but Ronmney crowd. I understand he is a staunch Gingrich supporter but that train has left the station. Ask yourself if there is one person in this field besides Romney who would represent the Republican Party with the resources and support to defeat Obama. Ron Paul? Rick Santorum? Rick Perry? Jon Huntsman? Certainly not histrionic Newt Gingrich who has just launched an attack on capitalism and America. It is ludicrous to say Romney is unelectable when he is the only candidate in this field who is electable.

joanne| 1.11.12 @ 8:54AM

Jabber 3-You are the only one in this bunch of idiots who see the big picture. Obama has got to go.
He is no lon ger a blank slate, now we see him as deangerous to our country.

JBH| 1.11.12 @ 9:23AM

Jabber3 has it right.

Great victory speech last night by Mitt and very clear distinction with Obama.

scotchieguy| 1.11.12 @ 10:41AM

It is a trap. Watch what he does, not what he says. BTW, the plastic, fake, candy-ass smile needs to go. He looks like a plastic-looking toy president.

Vern Crisler| 1.11.12 @ 12:19PM

Newt did not launch an attack on capitalism and America.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 6:45PM

@Jabber3:

Currently, Paul is the ONLY candidate, other than Romney with the money, organization and enthusiastic supporters required to go all the way.

Paul is the ONLY GOP candidate that can draw actual distinctions between himself and Obama.

Paul is the only GOP candidate that has DEMONSTRATED in the first two primaries the ability to garner large percentages of cross over dems, independents and the youth... all which were critical to Obama in 2008.

Yeah... there is one actual alternative.

Marco2| 1.13.12 @ 12:43AM

Un problemo, senor, Dr. Nutjob es muy loco. And, being a lunatic, he will, as always, win absolutely nothing. Here in SC, there and everywhere, it's Romney, boys, so y'all can just go back down into mama's basement.

spike59| 1.13.12 @ 8:04AM

Paul is the ONLY candidate who would guarantee a 50 state win for ObaMao...once Axelrod and the MSM start flashing excerpts from the Daily Romulan Newsletter day after day, the only votes the GOP would end up with would be from the Birchers, 9/11 Truthers, and the StormFront crowd-they would not only lose at the top of the ticket, but would likely lose the House, and the Dems would pick up HUGE gains in the Senate-

Dmac| 1.11.12 @ 9:07AM

The only reason a third party came along is because so many Americans are sick of the crap that the Democrats and Republicans keep fprcing on us. I look at it as Bush costing Perot the election and we need a Perot now. We need a choice and the RINO establishment is doing everything in their power to deny us a choice.

irish19| 1.11.12 @ 10:49AM

Perot shot himself in the foot by getting out and then getting back in. He coulda been a contender.

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 11:50AM

Perot gave us Bill Clinton. Gee, thanks Ross.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:18PM

If Bush wasn't so bad, Perot would never have gotten as popular as he did... leading to Bill Clinton.

But Clinton lead to the big Republican takeover in '95 and welfare reform and a balanced budget.

So, Perot was good. We took a step back with Clinton, but it lead to greater success.

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 1:01PM

Paul:
It did ultimately lead to the 1994 success and we must not forget that. We also need to recall that it was a strong statement of principle, not simply me too pragmatism, that brought the results about. Where is that statement of principle today?

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 3:32PM

Well said. Thank you.

W| 1.11.12 @ 1:05PM

Clinton never responded to the terrorrists attacks on the 1993 World Trade Center, the Khobhar Towers, the USS Cole, our embassies in Kenya and elsewhere in Africa, and he cut and ran from Somalia after 20 Americans were dragged through the streets. This weakness, except for a few missiles shot during the Lewisnky depositions, led to the 9/11/2001 attack.
Perot was disaster.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 3:35PM

Very good points. I can't disagree with you.

However, you are postulating about something that did not happen, while I'm justifying based on what actually happened. 911 or some type of major attack might have still occurred without Clinton Perot.

Dai Alanye | 1.11.12 @ 9:16AM

Perot is the excuse used by GHW Bush and his supporters. The truth is that Perot took some voters from Clinton as well as Bush. Had Bush acted like a man instead of a squish he could have strolled to re-election, and Perot wouldn't have been a factor.

Gingrich isn't the best of the remaining choices, though. Santorum gives much of the Gingrich experience and policies without the erratic behavior and excessive number of wives.

USSAlabama| 1.11.12 @ 9:33AM

Or the goofy-looking jewelry junkie he is married to now.

David T| 1.11.12 @ 12:52PM

BHO--Bush did not lose because of Perot. A comprehensive national exit poll found that Perot voters were almost evenly divided between Bush and Clinton as their second choice for president. Without Perot, the poll results indicated that Clinton would have won by 5.8 million votes, as opposed to the actual 5.3 million-vote spread.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.12.12 @ 3:14AM

That's the CNN version but that's not true. See kevinwillis.net for a good analysis.

Jack Straw| 1.11.12 @ 7:59AM

I thought that the TEA Party rising meant that some Americans were waking up. I thought that it meant a return to principles. Instead, the overwhelming sentiment coming from the exit polls is,"RINO was the most electable." Absolutely pathetic. No standing on principles, just following the media's premise and reeking of fear. The best we can hope for is a trio of Romney/ No-Broehner/ McConnel, and there isn't a full spine between the 3 of them. Does anyone think that these clowns will be the reformers that this country needs? They will deliver their leadership positions back to the Dems by 2016 when everyone figures out how weak that they are, just trying to keep the Titanic afloat. Then, we will see the endgame of the Progressive machinations. This is just sad to behold.

“Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” -Hamilton

Mimi| 1.11.12 @ 9:46AM

You sound like you are GIVING-UP....DON'T!
The libs and Dems are calling the shots and causing this havoc...They already are ready to march to the polls in So. Carolina !
Tey are skewing things to the RINO'S....Wait for FLORIDA it's REPUBLICAN only...hopefully, The Gingrich Pac adds will slow Romney down. He was willing to bravely take the heat as a revenger. When the Rino's cry, they need to be told "This Ain't BEAN BAGS".
Soon the Conservative wing has to coalesce and merge in order to save the country around the BEST vote getter. It is NO time to give up....reach into your pocket, call your friends get this show on the road!!!

loulou| 1.11.12 @ 10:33AM

The same thing happened in 2008--Democrats nominated McCain for us. Why wasn't this flaw in the nomination process fixed?

Why are Democrats and Independents voting in the GOP primaries?

irish19| 1.11.12 @ 10:53AM

Good catch, Mimi. I am so disgusted with the pundits and commenters who were trying to convince us Romney was inevitable before a single vote had even been cast. Then, after Iowa and NH, which were not closed, they tried again. I fully agree with you-let's see what Republican voters have to say.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:21PM

I agree with you 100%. Thanks. How many total voters from Iowa and NH were tallied?

A few hundred thousand? They over-emphasizing the first two primaries.

Tenn Slim| 1.11.12 @ 8:01AM

This year, 2012, will be the Repubics turning point.
If the RHINOs get the helm, we can expect a further entanglement from the Left. A further demise of private sector production. It may well appear that the "bacon is saved, " initially during the Jan 20 hupploah, but come summer of 2013 and on, we will then feel the grasp of the Civil Service wrath in further regs further rules, all OKED by the Oval Office Rhino. Obamacare will be "too difficult to arbitraily repeal" etc.
Romney and his ilk will simply grease the way for the Saviors of the Left come 2016.
By that time, our current crop of youngsters will be selling apples in the streets, AKA the Great 21st Century Depression.
We have ONE CHANCE. Lets not let this one go by.
Semper Fi

Kurt| 1.11.12 @ 1:22PM

Tenn Slim,
I think you are right and seeing a venture capitalist leading the Republican race is beyond disheartening to me! I lived through the eighties and nineties as american companies were bought up, the profitable parts sold off and then production sent out of the country! I had friends that had worked many years at a factory suddenly laid off when production was sent out to slave labor nations! To have a man that profited massively from this type of cannablism of the american worker leading on the republican side of the coin is beyond DISGUSTING!!

Mike Gallien| 1.11.12 @ 8:19AM

Give me a break! Do you actually believe that in a choice between Romney and Obama, moderates, conservatives, and libertarians will opt to vote for Obama or not vote at all? An absurd notion! Obama is toast regardless of who the Republicans nominate.

T. Holcomb| 1.11.12 @ 10:56AM

If Romney is the GOP nominee the Conservative base of the GOP is very likely to stay at home and not vote in November.

Richie| 1.11.12 @ 8:59PM

Staying home would be a big mistake. However, Romney will still not get my vote the same way McCain in 2008 did not get enough conservatives to vote his way! What matters is the conservative base because if you lose your base, then, you are toast! The so called independents are mostly
liberal and Romney will never be liberal enough for those voters who will vote for Obama again!
In the exit polls last midterm elections in 2010,
42% identified themselves as conservatives and only 25% identified themselves as liberal. All we need is a conservative candidate be it Gingrich or Paul but, not a Romney! I will not vote for Romney if he is the nominee and give my vote to someone else running independently. However, I will vote for conservatives running for the Senate and Congress. It is time we stand for our principles of low taxes, small government and free markets. If not, I am not settling for an Obama lite RINO in Romney.

spike59| 1.13.12 @ 8:07AM

then you are settling for 'Full Flavor ObaMao' instead-period.

spike59| 1.13.12 @ 8:06AM

that's not supported by polling AT ALL

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:23PM

I have to disagree. Many millions of conservatives will not vote for Romney. I think the media will convince enough independent people that the economy is improving and the Romney will stop the recovery.

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 12:58PM

Paul:
Right again. The press has already begun telling us daily how wonderful the economy is. Never mind that it has gone nowhere near its 2007 levels. By the time November rolls around it will all be Bush's fault.

KennesawJack| 1.11.12 @ 1:14PM

Al, I have the greatest respect for your views but on this one, I have to say you're wrong. Working class Americans are being pushed, and I mean pushed hard, by the Obamarx economy. No amount of Goebbelsesque slanting by the press will sell this time. When people drive through their neigborhoods and see home after home in foreclosure and friends and relatives out of work and facing ruin they'll vote against this Mussolini wanna be. Ironically, the presses' unfettered fawning over Obamarx in this cycle could very well prove to, finally, be their undoing. To paraphrase, "You can bullshit some of the people some of the time, but you can't bullshit all of the people all of the time." and I truly believe Joe six-pack has had it with the bullshit. I'm a small business man and I know how many of my customers are out of business and how many fewer employees I have today than 3 years ago. This administration is a Potemkin village, led by an Emperor with no clothes whose praises are sung by the Court Jester. The jig is up on these clowns. Romney is damn sure not my first choice, not even close, but anyone who stays home rather than vote for him is, in my opinion, every bit as much a fool as his (shrinking) legions of Kool-Aid drinkers.

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 2:46PM

Jack:
Honestly, I hope you are right and that the propaganda blitz will fail. Sadly, I fear people prefer Ceasar to the boistrous sea of Liberty.

KennesawJack| 1.11.12 @ 3:16PM

Not this time. "Yon Cassius has that lean and hungry look" and Cassius is the average American.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 3:45PM

I agree with Al. I hope K is right.

But I think the liberal media is just too influential. I know. I have smart, conservative friends who are not interested in news or politics and are influenced by the headlines. Some of them believe in global warming. Why? Because they've never heard anything contrary. They're too busy working, raising family and tending to their house....

How much influence does the media have?

I'd say 20 point advantage.

Kent Carson| 1.11.12 @ 2:32PM

Respectfully, you're nuts, Paul. These millions of conservatives you speak of would turn out to vote for a two headed goat that sleeps around to get Obama out of office.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 3:41PM

Calling me nuts isn't exactly very respectful.

There's no need to tarnish your name in this forum like that. I did not stoop to the liberal level and insult you.

I think some could make the 'George Will Calculation' where it's better to have Obama as prez and to hold the 2 houses, ala 1995, so we can stop all legislation. Whereas, if Romney is prez, the GOP might be more willing to accomodate the prez with bad legislation.

Kent Carson| 1.11.12 @ 5:31PM

It was just teasing you, Paul. Forgot to throw in the smiley! :-) Sounds like Will's calculation fails to consider SCOTUS appointments, and that trumps any such idea of holding two houses and giving up the executive branch.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 9:03PM

Thanks for the reply. I agree... unless you include the possibility of a GOP Senate led by... Rand Paul and never approving any SCOTUS nominees or if necessary, filibustering all nominees. In reality, Republicans are too meek.

riccardo| 1.11.12 @ 8:22AM

What the author fails to realize is that today, there are 4 times the number of Independent voters, registered American Indepedents, that there were in Reagan's era. For Romney to tell the BLUES in Mass that he didn't want to return to RR doesn't bother me in the least. Have you seen what he did while Governor? He very much practiced supply side econ! Last night in NH, with 6 candidates in the race, he took home nearly 40% of the vote. That's an ass kicking BY ANY STANDARD! But folks like you keep saying he's weak and unelectable. Get on board the Romney Train, man. It's leaving the station and we're riding it to DC to FIRE OBAMA!

Teflon93| 1.11.12 @ 10:31AM

Jacking up taxes (dishonestly calling them "fees") and implementing socialized medicine has nothing to do with supply side economics. You can tell by how few jobs Massachussetts created under Romney's tenure.

loulou| 1.11.12 @ 10:33AM

Did he cut SPENDING??

scotchieguy| 1.11.12 @ 11:03AM

Did Reagan?

Vern Crisler| 1.11.12 @ 12:20PM

Did he have control of Congress?

somnolence| 1.11.12 @ 8:23AM

Lately Gingrich and Perry sound more like the Obama opposition against Romney, and it is costing them big-time. Rush, among others, has tried to point this out, and of all the candidates pitted against Romney only Paul seems to get it. Peter Ferrara sure doesn't and neither do many on these responses. Reagan WOULD NOT approve of the tactics used by Gingrich or Perry, both of whom will soon be dispatched beyond the election process.

Vern Crisler| 1.11.12 @ 12:22PM

Romney was bragging about his job creation, and Newt was pointing out that he eliminated jobs. He's just puncturing Romney's myth-makiing.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:26PM

But Romney drew first blood. He and his minions in the media used lies and distrortins against Gingrich and Perry. They must fight back, maybe not to help them, but to fight. Romney drew first blood.

mitch poremba| 1.11.12 @ 8:26AM

This article was spot on, I can't stomach another RINO who will be Obama lite, barely. Obama is a Marxists, yet Mark Levin says we should get behind whoever is our elected to head our party. For someone like Mark Levin to teach us principals, yes I agree we need to get Obama out, yet I have principals too, like not voting for McCain because I can't bring myself too vote for the lesser of two evils, same with this RINO, I have principals and morals, not unlike the rest of the moderate republicans, who can't see thru the fog. I'm for Perry or Paul, but could be okay with Newt.

Nancy in NC| 1.11.12 @ 8:39AM

So exactly what principles do you adhere to? Neither Perry or Gingrich are all that principled. And Newt electable? He can't even get along with his own party, and he has certainly shattered the 11th commandment : "Speak no ill of other Republicans".

Mitt is not my candidate, but I will hold my nose just like I did in 08. If we don't get rid of Obama, New Zealand is certainly going to look like a viable option for anyone with more than 20 or so years to live.

mitch poremba| 1.11.12 @ 9:12AM

I think myself as a ultra conservative, I don't want the goernment running my life, telling me what to eat or feel my crotch up at the airport. I want to keep most of my money and spend like how I see it should be, freedom and liberty, not big government like the RINO's which are Democrat lite. But I could change my mind by election time and do what you are going to do, because with Obama, this country is already in a police state. So Nancy from NC, I may hold my nose and vote for Mitt, but we need to also change the RINO's that head the republicans in the House and Senate.

Vern Crisler| 1.11.12 @ 12:24PM

Newt followed the 11th commandment but Romney and Paul didn't. Newt has learned that Reagan's maxim only works when you're running against honorable Republicans, not snakes.

spike59| 1.13.12 @ 8:08AM

two words: "BAIN BOMB"

Newt is misnamed...he's a snake

Joseph| 1.11.12 @ 9:20AM

Mark Levin says “we should get behind whoever is our elected to head our party.” Elected by who? So far, Romney has won two states that allow Democrats and Independents to vote in a Republican party, which is ridiculous. This, unfortunately, has given him the momentum (code for “reason for ignorant voters to pull his lever because he won somewhere else so he must be good”) to advance futher.

I will follow Mr. Levin’s advice ONLY when the Republicans close their primaries to Democrats and Independents, or refuse to seat the delegates of any states that allow crossover voting. Want me to get behind who the Republicans nominate? Fine. Make sure it is the Republicans who are doing the nominating.

USSAlabama| 1.11.12 @ 9:38AM

Open Primaries are a huge issue. It is a near equivalent of 'allowing' voter fraud, only it is ~called~ "Voter Mischief".

Pathetic.

mitch poremba| 1.11.12 @ 9:49AM

BINGO!!

loulou| 1.11.12 @ 10:36AM

Ditto.

irish19| 1.11.12 @ 10:56AM

Spot on!!

Drunken Sailor| 1.11.12 @ 12:50PM

Simple solution but difficult to get passed. The Republican party needs to pass the word that any state that does not close their primary to cross votes will have their primaries moved to the end of the pack.

KennesawJack| 1.11.12 @ 1:17PM

Wonderfully obvious solution. if only the Republicans would do it. Could I please have some of what you're drinking? It seems to promote clarity of thought.

Drunken Sailor| 1.11.12 @ 3:10PM

Bourbon. KJ though any top shelf adult beverage may do. To bad we can't fill the capital house with it. Even if it doesn't clear their thoughts perhaps it will make them to drunk to make it to the Senate floor and kill the rest of us.

W| 1.11.12 @ 8:26AM

Mr. Ferrara
You served in the Bush Justice Dept, not much loyalty from you, is there?
The problem with your analysis is that you assume Romney to be the same as Bush 1, and you imply that Gingrich is Reagan. Gingrich is no Reagan, unless you are thinking of Ron Reagan,Jr. And if Romney is Bush 1, it is still better than Obama, or Newt, or Rick Perry, or Ron Paul.

Donn| 1.11.12 @ 10:18AM

You are absolutlely correct!!!

Ryan| 1.11.12 @ 8:29AM

The one thing that I think would separate Romney from McCain and Dole is his relative youthfulness and he seems to be a more savvy campaigner with better organizations. I think he could beat Obama.

He'll probably pick Santorum or someone similar as a running mate if he gets the nomination to placate conservatives.

Dai Alanye | 1.11.12 @ 9:21AM

Santorum as Romney's VP is Mitt's only hope, and ours, too, if we want to give truly conservative principles a chance. Romney alone will be middle of the road at best.

Vlady| 1.11.12 @ 9:58AM

"Romney alone will be middle of the road at best."

He won't be middle of the road. We will go the same direction as we are going under Obama; the only real difference is that the trip will be slower. As for Santorum as VP, it won't help us much because as a VP he won't have the authority to do much.

loulou| 1.11.12 @ 10:37AM

Santorum spends like a liberal. Check his voting record. The only thing conservative about him is his opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

scotchieguy| 1.11.12 @ 11:10AM

He opposed TARP.

Kent Carson| 1.11.12 @ 2:37PM

Santorum lost his last Senate race in PA by 18 points. As the nominee, he would not even carry PA. For VP, far better to go with Marco Rubio.

Mimi| 1.11.12 @ 6:01PM

Santorum has done himself darn good in this Primary....He sure would win us PA.

Teflon93| 1.11.12 @ 10:32AM

McCain was a war hero. What was Romney doing while other men his age were fighting for America?

You'll find out if he gets the nomination.

loulou| 1.11.12 @ 10:38AM

McCain was not a war hero. He was a POW who was stupid enough to get shot down.

steve| 1.11.12 @ 11:08AM

loilou
please go vote for the Democrats or Ron Paul. We don't want you as a Republican.

spike59| 1.13.12 @ 8:10AM

what makes you think LOULOU is a republican? she's likely a troll from Kos or PuffHo

Teflon93| 1.11.12 @ 11:56AM

McCain was a war hero. Not least of which despite enduring horrific torture---not one minute of which you could take without spilling your guts---for some years, McCain actually REFUSED a North Vietnamese offer to release him due to his being the son of an admiral. The code among prisoners was that any parole would be granted to the longest imprisoned. McCain honored that code and endured the most severe torture of his captivity for it.

That makes him a hero.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:28PM

I can't stand John McCain or his daughter, but he was a genuine war hero.

KennesawJack| 1.11.12 @ 1:36PM

Well said. That, I think, is pretty much every conservative's opinion.

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 2:42PM

Yes gentlemen, it is.

W| 1.11.12 @ 2:57PM

I also agree. McCain deserves our respect.

Incidentally, the book "Game Change" about the 08 election has an interesting chapter on McCain. Anyone who thinks there was a well organized Republican establishment to select McCain should read this and other accounts.

McCain was disorganized, changing advisors, arguing with everyone, no strategy, and his campaign was usually broke. He wanted to pick Lieberman for VP but decided on Palin at the last minute. They knew next to nothing about her. She was not vetted, and not prepared, although she did well given the circumstances.

The worst part is McCain forbade any discussion of Obama's ties with Wright and Ayers/Dohrn. Hillary also would not attack Obama about Wright but Bubba wanted to attack him.

If this is the well oiled Republican establishment, we have problems.

Gary B| 1.11.12 @ 8:40PM

No, he wasn't. He fell backwards into hero status by getting shot down and, because of his father, was released early. Compare that to a grunt who charges a machine gun nest, deliberatley risking his life to protect his buddies. Of course he deserves our respect if only becasue of the torture he endured, but let's not over do it. Lots of others did, too.

KennesawJack| 1.11.12 @ 8:56PM

Gary, you don't know the facts. McCain was offered early release because of his father and turned it down. For that, he was brutally tortured. I can't stand the man as a politician but to dismiss his service as anything less than heroic is, for lack of a better term, simply obscene.

bill| 1.11.12 @ 8:36AM

Hello, Romney lovers:

It is not over yet!

Romney stole IA, bought NH, and will be defeated in SC.

SC is the land of liberty and free-enterprise. No country for "big government liberal RINO" like Romney or Santorum.

We must STOP Romney because:

-pro-abortion
-pro gay marriage
-pro gun control
-RomneyCare
-Supports climate change

And this why Santorum should be defeated in SC:

-opposed "Right to Work" state law, favoring big labor unions over worker' choice
-voted for raising debt celling 8 times
-NCLB
-voted against free trade

We must support Rick Perry. He has southern heritage and conservative credentials to win in SC. Gingrich will be my second choice.

Winning NH as a GOP contender means nothing. Success of GOP nominee depends on the winning plurality votes in the South. The biggest test yet to come to Romney, SC. He'll be sucked.

It's a whole new ball game!

steve| 1.11.12 @ 11:09AM

bill,
Perry got 700 votes in NH. He might get 1400 in SC.
You or me could get more than 700 votes. Perry should go home and work on the fence with Mexico and learn to speak.

bill| 1.11.12 @ 12:11PM

SC and FL have a different demographic of people. Majority of voters are Evangelic Christian in SC, and senior citizens make up a good portion of voters in FL. Romney's stances on RomneyCare, abortion, gay marriage, and climate change will sink his campaign. He cannot win in SC or FL, and will never recover from that. Romney won't be the GOP nominee, it's Rick Perry.

Kent Carson| 1.11.12 @ 2:41PM

Good grief, Bill! I guess you're unable to read polling. Google is your friend. In a room of undecided SC voters last night, after the NH race was over and the speeches made, the majority went with Romney, and Ron Paul took second. Rick Perry has ZERO chance.

bill| 1.11.12 @ 3:24PM

KC, I guess we have to wait until Jan 21 to see who the winner is in SC. Obama campaign wants Romney because he is the least electable candidate besides Santorum and Huntsman.
Rick Perry will revive his campaign and win SC in 10 days.
It's a miracle.

Marco2| 1.13.12 @ 12:55AM

Un problemo, senor, Li'l Ricardo es muy stupido. Uno, dos, ...........TRES, you moron! I doubt that the voters here in SC want to make TX's disgrace a regional one. After his 3 or 4 per cent showing, won't this idiot finally go home, assuming they'll have him?

truzak| 1.11.12 @ 8:42AM

So when the lackluster, vacuously-principled, country-clubbing, moderate Republican gets the nomination, then proceeds to get destroyed by the most destructive and incompetent president in the history of the Republic, will the Republican Establishment replace its nightmare scenario of conservative Goldwater with the latest nightmares of Dole, McCain, and Romney and finally start backing conservative candidates? Me thinks not.

Crawler| 1.11.12 @ 8:45AM

ABO...

And if that means I have to suffer through four years of a masquerading conservative rather than whither away to seed four more years with an usurping, idealistic, narcissistic and inexperienced ex-community organizer in charge, well, then, so be it.

ABO...

joanne| 1.11.12 @ 8:46AM

The media would stop at NOTHING to make the country feel ill at ease with Romney.Obama is a
wolf in sheeps clothing-showing his true colors now(maybe because he's scared he'll lose) in ignoring congress. I have news for him and the dems(I used to vote democratic, and now I see all of them as smarmey liars) -he ius using power grabs, and people DON'T like it, and don't trust this agitator in chief.
2012 can't come soon enough. Who's with me to kick this soc ialist fraud out on his a**?????

JBH| 1.11.12 @ 9:31AM

sign me to kick his ass

looking forward to it

emo| 1.11.12 @ 8:47AM

fact is none of the candidates are electable.

Crawler| 1.11.12 @ 8:50AM

Looking at the current "R" presidential candidates, it should be apparent to all just how important a major seat change in the senate is needed and should be priority one.

KennesawJack| 1.11.12 @ 9:05AM

Crawler, it's important but things will change fundamentally only if the seats go to truly Conservative Republicans and if McConnell can be replaced by someone with conservaive convictions and the courage to go with them. McConnell is an establishment puppet.

Casey Abell| 1.11.12 @ 8:59AM

Yeah, look how electable all those other Republicans were last night.

Casey Abell| 1.11.12 @ 9:02AM

By the way, why is this called "another perspective"? Anti-Romney rhetoric is the party line around here. "Same old perspective" would be more honest.

Teflon93| 1.11.12 @ 10:33AM

It's a conservative publication. Why wouldn't you expect it to be anti-liberal?

We certainly don't expect RINOs like you to be anti-liberal.

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 11:46AM

Casey:
It matters not at all which republican can win a blue state GOP primary nor does it matter if he can "compete" in blue state general elections. We need the electoral votes not competitive losers. FL, VA, and Ohio are ones we must win to elect. Romney v. Obama is a distinction without a difference.

Teflon93| 1.11.12 @ 11:58AM

Romney puts ZERO blue states in play and diminishes chances the GOP will turn VA and NC red again because he has no appeal whatsoever to Blue Dog Democrats.

Running a liberal on the GOP ticket guarantees a loss. Americans aren't stupid---given a choice between a real liberal and liberal who says conservative things to conservatives, they'll go with the real liberal every time.

steve| 1.11.12 @ 1:09PM

Al Adab, who do you like.

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 2:41PM

Steve:
For a number of reasons we have done a poor job of defining our candidates. Too busy killing each other off is part of it. Because of that the positions and records of individuals are blurred. I would hope that SC and FL will define the candidate who can carry those states in November. That is the one I would back. We have not yet seen that electric or defining moment which raises the cream to the top.

In short I have no name for you... as of yet. I would willingly support several of them however.

KennesawJack| 1.11.12 @ 7:49PM

I've said this a few times before and will say it again. I'm not at all sure our eventual nominee is even in the race yet. I'm praying for a brokered convention and a draft Daniels or Ryan result.

somnolence| 1.11.12 @ 9:00AM

Ken, Perry is at least a Washington outsider, and has accomplished some great stuff. Gingrich is a collaborator with HillaryCare along with the Heritage Foundation, a career Washington insider Beltway politician, and like the rest of Congress, has access to insider trading on Wall Street privileges that the rest of us don't have. Gingrich is a hypocrite.

KevinL| 1.11.12 @ 9:01AM

I guess you have to meet a dead line. But do you guys have to keep writing the same stuff. There is no Reagan this time around. Romney is a fine nominee. If he isn't electable, no one is.

Phil| 1.11.12 @ 9:01AM

Personal savings accounts like Chile? You have to be kidding. This is intelligent right wing thought- to propose we devolve into some form of South American banana republic? LOL. Obama wins in 2012 thanks to the right wing forfeiting the match.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:32PM

I support personal savings accounts to replace the ponzi scheme. It has nothing to do with devolving into a banana republic.

It's about individual freedom against big gov't (i.e. conservative vs. liberal).

bill| 1.11.12 @ 9:07AM

Romney can run but he cannot hide his record as being a "big government liberal MA moderate RINO." He bought NH but will be thwarted in SC and FL.
It's South, the land of liberty.

loulou| 1.11.12 @ 10:39AM

Democrats will vote for their dream candidate RINO Romney in SC.

bill| 1.11.12 @ 1:13PM

It's O.K., because conservatives will vote for Rick Perry, who will clinch the GOP nod.

Indy| 1.11.12 @ 9:07AM

One thing I'd like to understand is the makeup of Congress now v. Reagan Days. Perhaps it is as simple as comparing the members of the Progressive Caucus (really Socialist Caucus) back then and now. When Willard says he will reach across the aisle, he will be reaching across to more Schumers and Pelosi types and less Evan Bayhs and no Zell Millers.

The GOP does nothing to educate voters, the we must compromise line is dangerous, compromise with who Harry Reid / Pelosi, really is that what Americans want? Explain to voters what that would mean. McConnell and Boehner do not have the stomach to do that...if someone in leadership does not step up and do that along with Rubio / DeMint / Rand Paul and West, America loses.

Let's focus on Congress, not just POTUS

1ConservativeUSA| 1.11.12 @ 9:12AM

As a fellow conservative, I agree with the author that Mr. Romney is not our ideal candidiate.

Here's the problem: We don't have a Ronald Reagan nipping at Mr. Romney in this election cycle.

I like Rick Santorum and I believe he is a true conservative. Does he have the persuasiveness and gravitas to beat Mr. Obama? Well, I think my toe-nail clippings should be able to beat Obama, but I'm not the only person voting in November.

Regarding Newt, I love his mind and I believe he espouses conservative principles and policy. Unfortunately, Newt's missteps are usually very harmful. His "right-wing social engineering" comment regarding Paul Ryan's budget was nearly unforgivable (Thank you, God, for allowing me to forgive Newt for this). His demonization of Romney / Bain Capital is very harmful to the conservative cause.

So, my eyes and ears are still open as we seek solid conservative leaders. This, by the way, for the long term and not just for this election. If Mr. Romney happens to win the Republican nomination though, you can bet your ass I'll vote for him.

Dr. X| 1.11.12 @ 9:23AM

We're witnessing the death of the Republican Party. Simple as that.

Derek Leaberry| 1.11.12 @ 9:24AM

Romney isn't even showing much leg for conservatives. He has declared that he will retain Obama's homosexuals openly serving in the military law. He has refused to state that he would nominate strict constructionist judges; remember, he nominated many liberals to the bench as governor of Massachusetts. He ignores all social issues questions.

What can be seen here is a reprise of the George H.W. Bush presidency. No thanks. Better to re-elect Obama, win a 2014 landslide, and nominate a conservative in 2016.

crookedwren| 1.11.12 @ 9:49AM

Obama's Second Term is the End of the Republic.

Don't wish for it.

Teflon93| 1.11.12 @ 10:34AM

Romney's 1st term would be the End of The Republic. He has no intention of reversing Obama's course, he just wants to sit in the driver's seat.

Rightmindedmom| 1.11.12 @ 9:25AM

Wake up, Conservatives! Didn't y'all say that "the Media is never choosing our candidate again!" after 2008? You're letting them do it AGAIN! OK, Sarah's not running -- but don't let that mean that the RINO is going to win by default -- choose Newt or Santorum -- whichever one is the Anti-Romney highest in the polls. Why?
Because DONNA BRAZILLE LET THE SECRET OUT -- THE DEMS WANT ROMNEY TO WIN THE NOMINATION. They WANT to run against the "Wall Street fat cat". Don't let them choose our candidate again. Don't let it happen. Fight for the conservative that can FIGHT and WIN.
Mom in Wisconsin

loulou| 1.11.12 @ 10:40AM

Choose Perry.

Ken Royall| 1.11.12 @ 11:04AM

Romney's competitors have all self-destructed without the media's help. It is their own fault sorry.

j-rage| 1.11.12 @ 9:26AM

It's time for articles like this to cease. Immediately. Romney is the nominee. You look to be at least 50 sir, so it's time to stop acting like a spoiled teenager.

And you don't even believe the b.s. you wrote. Romney may unelectable nationally and if so that signifies two things: 1. people from your movement have forced Romney himself so far to the right that even he can't get back to the center 2. no Republican can win at the presidential level again, at least not anytime soon.

But, least electable? Right, when national poll after national poll not to mention battleground state poll after shows he's the only one who can make it competitive. Just as I might add was true of John McCain. Conservatives have this fantasy that Republicans lost because of McCain.

Let me clue you in. Republicans lost in 08 because of Bush. The Democrats could have left their candidate line blank and won. The facts are only McCain polled within single digits of Obama (sinnce Romney ran hard right-- and I'll bet you endorsed him last time like the all the other hypocrites who wanted to stop McCain), and what do you know-- he held the margin to six points, which means he deserves a significant share of the credit for the House takeover by holding down the spread.

When wil the right wing wake up and realize they constitute appoximately a 30% minority in this country? That means you need another 20+% of voters if you want to win. And the way to get it is not to draw a "bright line contrast" that highlights the crazy positions some of the candidates esposuse (you're right-- a RINO is less electable than candidates who want to eliminate half the government, ignore/arrest/impeach judges they don't like, or are opposed to birth control. Please, I don't know what's sadder, that you believe this or that this inanity will find a receptive audience on sites such as this.)

Maybe a Ronald Reagan could win by drawing a "bright line contrast" in an election like this, but guess what, Ronald Reagan would be a RINO in today's party! You've still got some years left sir. There's still time for you to have an epiphany. And also grow up.

Mimi| 1.11.12 @ 10:02AM

j-rage.....Articles like this must stop?....This is AMERICA ...Land of the FREE...Did you ever hear of FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!

Z Boog| 1.11.12 @ 10:05AM

The pen is mightier than the sword, my friend. Just because you can say it doesn't mean you should.

Z Boog| 1.11.12 @ 10:05AM

I kind of want to print this out and frame it. I could not have spoken my sentiments any better!

Teflon93| 1.11.12 @ 10:35AM

Romney won what, 4 delegates?

You damned RINOs can sit down, shut up, and wait while the people VOTE.

That's how it works in America.

It isn't a bunch of you blue state little girls sitting in an MSNBC green room picking our candidate.

j-rage| 1.11.12 @ 7:25PM

Nope, it's the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire, who already picked Romney, then South Carolina and Florida where he's leading by double digits. And then all the caucuses and primaries in February where only Romney (and Ron P)aul had the foresight and organization to be prepared. And then Super Tuesday where most of the states favor, guess who, Romney.

You just got served.

Liberal Soup n Crackers| 1.11.12 @ 9:43AM

There is no "Reagan" running in this nomination race!

crookedwren| 1.11.12 @ 9:44AM

One -- how DID Reagan get the nomination? What did he do? How did he "campaign"? (I was busy doing other things back then. I -- naively -- believed that the CPUSA and the Internationale were located inside the boundaries of that Wall that finally came down.) MAYBE -- if we studied that bit of history -- we might understand how conservatives can win.

Two. Why are Republican primaries open when the Dems' aren't? Who made up that rule? Why does it stay that way? What's the "up" side to it?

Three. My head is swimming with bad-Romney, good-Romney, bad-Gingrich, good-Gingrich, loser-Santorum, good-Santorum.

OBAMA'S SECOND TERM IS THE END OF THE REPUBLIC.

ObamaCare will not be repealed under Obama. I think we could pressure anybody with an R after his name to repeal ObamaCare. We hit the phones, we get Bachmann and King and AFP and such to pull permits, we get the Tea Party Patriots and such to put out the call, and we're there -- thousands strong. A Republican President will cave in an instant. Only a Dem. President has the chutzpah to ignore not only Constitutional procedures for passing legislation but also the voice of "WE the People." (Which is why I don't understand my sons who have bought the lie -- they were taught it in our schools and universities and through all our media.) ONLY A DEM WOULD "RECONCILE" A BILL THAT WON'T PASS IN THE SENATE , a bill that is so unpopular, thousands of people protested repeatedly -- busy people, working people, people who had to go home to work and take care of themselves so the govt. won't have to do it.

To those of you threatening to stay home if a certain candidate is the Republican nominee, think again. Consider carefully.

Look. There are some I'd rather not have to vote for. That's true.

But then I look at Obama.

ANYBODY BUT OBAMA.

Not too long ago I saw a bumpersticker on the back of a fairly nice pickup truck. I liked it.

"Anybody Else for President"

In normal times, I would have scoffed at that. Now?

It's sanity.

The alternative is cultural and federal suicide.

T. Holcomb| 1.11.12 @ 11:16AM

The only problem with that is this: Electing Romney as President is the same as re-electing OBama.

Drunken Sailor| 1.11.12 @ 12:56PM

Bullshit!. He isn't my choice but even Romney would be a improvement.

somnolence| 1.11.12 @ 9:45AM

ANYONE who believes ANYTHING Donna Brazile or Debbie Wasserman has to say already has problems equal to those of Gingrich(who is campaigning in S.C. with a Democrat, btw) and Perry, who lately are acting as though Brazile is their sister.

JimP| 1.11.12 @ 9:45AM

Thank you, Pete, for the stroll down memory lane that we regular folks don't have all the data to present and for the history lesson for those too young to recall. It was/is GHW Bush and his acolytes that are the real voodoo economists.

Hopefully your columns, particularly of late, will have a positive effect on the Newt Derangement Syndrome affecting so many allegeded businessmen and conservatives. The NDS hysteria has been truly over the top even on comment threads.

Cactus Jack| 1.11.12 @ 9:46AM

I completely agree with the author.
I don't see how Romney will be able to even 'win' a debate with Obama. Listening to him and is like watching the acceptance speech of the first place winner of a run-on sentence contest. He jabbers and jabbers meaningless statements buzzwords and phrases designed to mesmerize an audience of fools. How, except for establishment money, has such a dud come so far?
Obama would 'win' debates with Romney on style points alone. While Mitt stands there chattering his nonsense and denials, all Obama would have to do is mug for the camera and belittle with facial expressions whatever Romney had just said.
Sometimes while watching Romney and his wooden, constrained, boring performances, I wonder if he isn't a very close relative of Al Gore, Jr., who but for the grace of God and the good public servants of Florida, almost stole the White House through fraud in 2000.

j-rage| 1.11.12 @ 10:10AM

Where has this Romney can't debate notion come from? In case you weren't watching (or following the pundits who actually score these things), Romney won every debate except one (the $10,000 bet debate).

For ONCE, Republicans aren't going to have the "dumb candidate" in the race, and that in itself should be cause for celebration. McCain wasn't dumb (although portrayed that way), just old, but before him W, Dole, HW, and even Reagan (unfairly) were considered intellectual lilliputians.

Now Gingrich is obviously smart too, but there's a big difference between he and Romney who is every bit as smart. Romney manages to convey intelligence without talking down to the rest of us. Gingrich displays his intellect in a way that conveys his belief that every person within the sound of his voice is his intellectual inferior.

Teflon93| 1.11.12 @ 10:37AM

Romney wasn't even challenged and all of the moderator questions were from the left. As the liberal in the pack, he got a pass.

That pass will be revoked in the general and we saw what a prissy little girl Romney becomes when even mildly challenged in that Bret Baier interview.

somnolence| 1.11.12 @ 9:47AM

Brazile is clearly playing down the expectations for Romney for the cameras and soundbites. It won't work with me in the primaries, and it won't work in the general election. There was a Democratic primary yesterday in N.H. also. Fox Business News said 5% cast votes for somone other than Obama. I have yet to hear that news this morning on the Today Show, for sure.

Kent Carson| 1.11.12 @ 3:49PM

Running unopposed, Obama only got 82% of the vote in NH.

http://www.cnn.com/election/20.....?hpt=hp_t1

Write-ins got 10%! I don't know where the other 8% is hiding.

Dan A| 1.11.12 @ 10:01AM

At first it was only slightly perceptible but over time, it became obvious that the Republican establishment, to include most of what has now been exposed as establishment conservative media icons, had no intention of letting the "ankle biters" in the Tea Party interfering with "their" election. This is payback time in their minds for Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle and Joe Miller, they won't be denied again.

Assuming for a moment that the "establishment" is successful and Romney not only gets the nod but wins in November, they (the establishment types) are in for a rude awakening. Their notion that the Tea Party is dead is wishful thinking and that reality will become extremely evident on day one of a Romney presidency.

The establishment believes they have effectively given Romney the election by virtue of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, essentially making the remaining 46 states irrelevant. They (the establishment) ignore us at their own political peril.

Kent Carson| 1.11.12 @ 3:53PM

Last exit poll I saw last night showed that 38% of people identifying themselves as strong conservatives voted for Romney. It was a similar percentage for those identifying themselves as pro Tea Party. Dan, you may now exit your bubble.

Z Boog| 1.11.12 @ 10:02AM

LOL. Keep dreaming, Peter. Romney's going to win, and your fantasy extreme right attacks are not going to hinder him.

Teflon93| 1.11.12 @ 10:38AM

Hey genius---it's the "extreme right"---that is, conservatives---who pull the lever for the GOP each election cycle.

We stay home and you fools go back to your joe jobs.

loulou| 1.11.12 @ 10:42AM

Right--WE'RE the ones who made the idiot Boehner Speaker of the House.

Teflon93| 1.11.12 @ 12:00PM

Boehner is the second coming of Bob Michel. The conservative candidate for Speaker was Mike Pence.

Other than not having facts on your side, you're doing just fine...

bill| 1.11.12 @ 10:02AM

If Romney gets the GOP nod, Obama will be a shoe-in, it's 2008 all over again.

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 11:40AM

Bill:
Even if Romney wins it will be the same old compromise story once more.

bill| 1.11.12 @ 1:15PM

Al Adab,

Actually, that was a joke. Romney will lose in SC and FL, and his campaign will be in disarray. He will never get the GOP nominee, instead it'll be Rick Perry.
The South, no country for RINO!

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 2:28PM

Bill:
It is clear we need that facetous font.

RCV| 1.11.12 @ 3:06PM

The polls in SC and Florida say otherwise, bill. And its your pal Perry and Gingrich who, by hanging on despite any chance, will insure Romney's nomination by splitting the conservative vote, who can take the blame.

Donn| 1.11.12 @ 10:09AM

Donna Brazil stated Mitt was the easiest to beat - Mitt's the candidate they want. If you have any brains and remember any history, that's what the Democrats said about Reagan twice and both Bush's. Mitt is the only one who can win it for the Republicans. If my fellow Republicans keep looking for the ideal John Bircher - we can be assured a Democrat in the White House every 4 years. I'm an old time conservative before it was fashionable in the 1980's. Let's get behind Mitt so we can win!

Richard | 1.11.12 @ 10:17PM

Don't believe what a Dem says. What Brazile really means is the opposite. The Dems are scared of Romney who has developed his organization to wage a full campaign against Obama. Obama is toast! Mark my words.

Steve851| 1.11.12 @ 10:11AM

Romney is not least electable by a long shot. Indeed, I think he may be electable and become another W who did so much harm to this country and very nearly destroyed the GOP for all time. And I must say the latter may not be that bad if the GOP is going with fringe candidates like Santorum, not ready for prime time guys like Perry, or big government divisive guys like Gingrich. The GOP continues to be lost. I'm pretty likely to be sitting my third presidential election in a row out. The GOP can decide to redeem itself by nudging in Dr. Paul's true conservative direction or it will go to oblivion. The only candidate I see that I would vote for is another historically true conservative like Hintsman, even though he is running a horrible campaign. I'm tending toward the destruction of the GOP to replace it with a real conservative party. Please!

catsmeow| 1.11.12 @ 10:22AM

I'm a Tea Party guy. From my perspective, we're working at the grass roots to install state party chairmen, state representatives, and on up to congressional people. We are at the beginning of an era that might last 10 or 20 years before it culminates in another Reagan. In the meantime, we will learn from past mistakes and hopefully install a Congress that will help guide our nation in a direction of fiscal sanity and individual freedom. Each of the candidates has flaws, and none of them can claim to be the clear conservative choice. I can think of no woman or man who would be less likely to destroy his party, if elected, than Newt Gingrich. He is a narcissist, corrupt, big-government guy. He is Obama 2.0.

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 11:39AM

Steve,
Romney os to the left of W. He is also the candidate republicans rejected four years ago in favor of the "more Conservative" (it;s a relative spectrum) McCain. He is also the candidate of the republican party that has opposed Conservatives since his father and Rockefeller ganged up to obliterate Goldwater. If Romney was not conservative enough four years ago, why is he acceptable today?

catsmeow| 1.11.12 @ 10:15AM

Mitt Romney has pledged to undo Obamacare his first day on the job. Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, and Chris Christie are not running. Gingrich has a long record of supporting big-government solutions, engaging in corrupt practices, and if for no other reason than he's bounced through a series of marriages, he is without doubt unelectable. He is a small man. Cain was flawed. Perry stumbles and his record shows serious deviations from conservative principles, starting with the concept of American citizenship. The polls don't lie. Romney will beat Obama.

rightasrain| 1.11.12 @ 10:34AM

Exactly. We can only choose from among who decided to run. Perry proved a terrible campaigner, Pawlenty quit, Bachmann never resonated and quit, Newt Gingrich is the only cause Newt Gingrich is interested in and Santorum will have to spend so much time defending his positions on social issues, he'll never even get to talk about the economy. That leaves Romney.

Teflon93| 1.11.12 @ 10:38AM

Mitt Romney pledged to defend women's abortion rights forever.

How'd it turn out?

loulou| 1.11.12 @ 10:43AM

Why do people keep mentioning Christie? He's a RINO. Do some research, please.

catsmeow| 1.11.12 @ 10:54AM

Don't care if he's a RINO or a PIANO. He's nails.

Teflon93| 1.11.12 @ 12:02PM

Don't mistake rudeness for toughness. Christie will fold like a cheap suit on social issues and the environment and has.

JC| 1.11.12 @ 2:22PM

Christie extracts the maximum possible given the power he has aggregated in NJ. He does not paralyze his state simply because he is opposed (as e.g. Obama). Christie has charisma. He challenges sacred cows. He pushes in the direction of financial sanity. He explains complex problems in language that is recognizable. We could do far worse (and have) than to have Christie as the nominee.

Dan| 1.11.12 @ 11:03AM

"Mitt Romney has pledged to undo Obamacare his first day on the job."

Does anyone take this seriously? I don't. His first day on the job will be a wine and cheese reception for all the Bain alumni who bankrolled the campaign.

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 11:35AM

On his first day in office he will meet with the Democrat leadership to fashion a bipartisan compromise. Is that what we are seeking through our votes?

Richard | 1.11.12 @ 10:26PM

You're wrong Dan about any attachment of Bain's current partners to Romney. I've read that they are contributing to Obama's campaign. Why? Because they already know (from their past experience working with Romney) that Romney is a tight wad. This means that a president Romney will be a proponent for controlled federal spending and push for economic freedom (another word for true capitalism) and not crony capitalism.

billcarson| 1.11.12 @ 11:05AM

If Republicans are smart, they'll push whomever they want during the primaries, then vote for whoever gets the nomination. If you forget that this is about unseating the little messiah, then you need a brain transplant.

Melvin| 1.11.12 @ 10:15AM

Can it be said that the Republican Establishment elites now embrace Fascism?
Come on people, there is no longer a separation of powers, it is acquiring power. Notice in the phraseology of both the Republican and Democrat leadership, and the propagandist media, how many times they use the word, "Power." No longer do we hear, "Govern or Represent." These words have been replace with, "Czar, and Rule," that are more comfortable with a fascist style government than a representative one.
If Romney were is own man, he wouldn't have to seek and audience and approval from a fellow Globalist(Bush) of the, "New World Order."
Below is a statement that applies to both political parties to one degree or another.

THE 7 CONDITIONS (WARNING SIGNS)THAT FOSTER & FUEL FASCISM ARE:

INSTABILITY of capitalist relationships or markets

The existence of considerable DECLASSED SOCIAL ELEMENTS

The STRIPPING OF RIGHTS AND WEALTH focused upon a specific segment of the population, specifically the middle class and intellectuals within urban areas as this the group with the means, intelligence and ability to stop fascism if given the opportunity.

DISCONTENT among the rural lower middle class (clerks, secretaries, white collar labor). Consistent discontent among the general middle and lower middle classes against the oppressing upper-classes (haves vs have-nots).

HATE: Pronounced, perpetuated and accepted public disdain of a specific group defined by race, origin, theology or association.

GREED: The motivator of fascism, which is generally associated with land, space or scarce resources in the possession of those being oppressed
By Laura Dawn Lewis CouplesCompany

BurkeVA| 1.11.12 @ 10:18AM

This really is an excellent analysis and presentation, with, in my opinion, one major element left out. Bush had only Reagan to deal with, which is why Reagan eventually solidified the Conservative vote to defeat Bush. Romney has Gingrich (the guy who should be the next president, but probably won't), Perry and Santorum, plus Perot, oh, I meant Paul, all splitting the non-Romney vote. Result: Romney wins the nomination. As can he be elected, with no pun intended, a ham sandwich, although not Ron Paul, can defeat Obama. It matters not a whit about Romney's record or anyone else's record or so-called baggage. Obama seeking re-election is like a football coach asking to keep his job after going 0-16. Ain't going to happen.

bull-gator| 1.11.12 @ 10:22AM

The only cnadidate that can kick BHO's butt is Rick Perry, but the left MSM and the right MSM (fox news: your are a joke) will not and cannot allow a true patriotic American to be portrayed in a positive fashion. I'm sure he will not be the nominee and prepare your collective selves to be "ruled" by the nasty little dictator wanna be for the next four years.

Cactus Jack| 1.11.12 @ 11:21AM

Perry is and was my choice too, bull-gator. And here's another little thought to chew on about Romney... he has four sons and not one of 'em ever had a flash of patriotic testosterone that led him to a recruiter's office. Even during times of national crisis, none of Romney's little silver spooners felt an urge to man up and serve in uniform.
That tells me patriotism and defense of liberty was never discussed around the Romney dinner table.
I love Rick Perry's line about two semesters of micro-biology turning him into a pilot... as if commanding and flying a C-130 cargo plane is a piece of cake.

sdm| 1.11.12 @ 10:22AM

I love all you Newt people...this guy does NOT demonstrate the values that I have. He talks a good game but he is so inconsistent it's kind of unbelievable. Perry is a joke and can't even talk...I don't like some things about Romney but he's clearly the best candidate. I love all of these political "experts"...guess what the WEAKEST FRONT RUNNER EVER...just won the first two states and is going to carry SC too. What then?

BurkeVA| 1.11.12 @ 10:30AM

You nailed it. Providing leadership and management skills to take back the House after 40 years, balance the budget 4 years running and pass Welfare Reform with Clinton the president and a Dem Senate clearly demonstrates how inconsistent, whatever you mean by that, Newt is. He angers people, because that is what leaders who get important things done, do. They step on toes, and when the victims of the toe stepping get some power, they strike back, clear and simple. As for what then, don't forget Obama will be running on his record, whether he likes it or not, and, my friend, he ain't gonna win with that record, period!

Kent Carson| 1.11.12 @ 4:00PM

Having won the first four primaries, he'll still be portrayed as the weakest front runner ever!

Steve851| 1.11.12 @ 10:43AM

The GOP has three issues that will kill it. In no particular order, it is sitll dominated by foreign adventurist neocons, W, who campaigned against that thread in 2000, demonstrated that it probably does not work, and that in any event, we are incompetent to advance the philosophy. Beyond that, no one has stepped up and said that we will have to raise taxes a lot to support the philosophy. Another problem is the social issue stuff which should be absolutley none of the federal government's business. At heart, I tend social conservative, but in political philosphy it is absolutely none of the federal goernment's business and bleeds millions of votes. As Mitch Daniels said, truce! Finally, the GOP's xenophobia on immigration is incredible. No rationale. Waste billions on an unsecurable border and more useless government employees to "secure" the border. A true conservative wants government out of our lives and to stop wasting money. I do not see that in the GOP candidates except for Dr. Paul and possibly Jon Huntsman. The GOP at present is lost and if it does not find its way ASAP, destroy it.

VonMisesJr| 1.11.12 @ 10:45AM

Von Mises wrote that the wealthy were not opposed to socialism since it terminated future competition for their businesses, and locked in their wealth and status in perpetutiy for their families.
I think it is time to be clear that the GOP establishment has sold out the common man for their own power and wealth. They must be opposed and we need to elect more conservatives on local levels and in the congress.
The Democrats represent the poor that want an increased entitlement society, and the rich that want to protect their status and wealth.
Unfortunately, the GOP liberal establishment has decided to become D-lite and compete for the rich vote, and hopes to be admitted to the cabal. But this is a failed policy for the nation, since the Democrats will match their rich and raise them the poor.
So it is time to find new leadership. Hopefully we can nominate Newt or Santorum who will infinitely better than Romney the RINO. But we also should not let up from strenghening the congress and state houses where we can force conservative policies.
If we do not stop Obama, the financial and monetary systems may collapse. Romney will at least slow down the car from going over the cliff. But to save the nation, we must replace the GOP leadership: McConnell, Boehner, the Bushies and Rove.

Teflon93| 1.11.12 @ 12:03PM

The Democrat Party is a compact whereby the rich agree with the poor that the middle class should give their wealth to the poor.

It has become clear that the GOP Establishment shares that compact.

Meaning the middle class needs to make the Tea Party a real party.

VonMisesJr| 1.11.12 @ 1:39PM

Methinks that they are not as redistributionist as the Marxist, but if the socialist are winning, they want to make sure they don't get left behind fighting for the losers.
But they are just as willing to protect privilage among their own and their rich benefactors as the liberals.
We need to get over it and admit the GOP establishment doesn't love us.

smitty41| 1.11.12 @ 10:48AM

Mittens in 2012
The BAIN of your existence

TJ| 1.11.12 @ 10:51AM

Peter--you make so many good arguments for policies that Newt Gingrich helped implement in the early '90's but sadly, Newt the man has blown himself up just as so many that worked with him during that same timer period knew he would. Other candidates who could offer the same message have been pushed away.

We've already fallen (in January already, ugh) into the so-called "middle class" narrative created by the Dems, and we don't have a candidate who can change the narrative.

Your next step needs to be to try to influence (with facts and history as you always do) the message-makers and platform creators (who will Romney listen to?) that their current economic message is like the "B" side to Obama's latest record and that it doesnt' separate Romney enough.
Good luck!

NOT ROMNEY!| 1.11.12 @ 10:54AM

I will vote for any of the other republicans except willerd romnneie. I will vote for obumma first. Maybe that is what this country needs. Think people are pissed now? If they can't see things clear now, they deserve 4 more years of STUPID. Then they will pull their heads from their butts and know which way is up.

KennesawJack| 1.11.12 @ 1:42PM

Yeah, and you probably play Russian Roulette with no empty chambers.

9thID| 1.11.12 @ 10:55AM

I could NEVER pull the lever for Romney, but even more unelectable are the "GOP" Liberals Huntsman and Ron Paul. If these last two wolves-in-sheep's-clothing spoilers would drop out, a more Reaganesque conservative could take on Romney...

billcarson| 1.11.12 @ 10:59AM

OK, then you want Obama to win.

T. Holcomb| 1.11.12 @ 11:32AM

Electing Romney wouldn't be any different than re=electing OBama.

9thID| 1.11.12 @ 2:00PM

We got burned with the "lesser of two evils" in 2008 and Romney is a surefire 2008 McCain Redux. Once again, the elitist RINO establishment is telling the "unwashed masses" to vote for our status quo guy or else! Or else, what?

somnolence| 1.11.12 @ 10:55AM

Oh, for crying out loud. I'll say it for Romney if he won't say it. Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum have about as much in common with the common man as Daddy Warbucks does. They both get $175,000 per YEAR pension courtesy of us, the taxpayers. They are all entitled to Wall Street insider trading tips on stocks by a privilege granted to themselves. None of us have that privilege. So repeat, again, Newt and Santorum are with the common man? Who besides Perry is the outsider in this race? Romney is the smartest tactician and has the best organization in this race. Obama has Holder, lol. Romney will perhaps follow the lead of Nixon, moving to the center/pragmatic to utterly defeat the most pitiful incumbent since Carter, fairly easily in fact.

billcarson| 1.11.12 @ 10:58AM

All I care about is seeing Obama booted out. I'm a little concerned though about all this "Rommney can never win talk." Would it be the intentof some Republicans to lose rather than have Rommney win? If so, they are crazy to talk this way.

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 11:31AM

What would a Romney administration look like? Would it repeal Obie-care, balance the budget, decrease regulation or lower taxes?

If not what would be the point?

So what if he can win primaries in blue states or compete but lose in places like NY or CA in the general? The electoral votes of FL, NC, VA and Ohio will decide the election. If Obie wins any of those it is too late.

johnnyboy361| 1.11.12 @ 11:06AM

This analysis is wrong. Romney is not going to run on tax cuts for the rich (nor would any sane candidate). He will run on middle class tax cuts.

ZackBauer| 1.11.12 @ 11:07AM

Maybe, just maybe, a conservative will write an entire article, or speak for an entire 5 minutes on Fox News, without mention Ronald Reagan. He's dead and buried, his "revolution" was a blip on the historical radar screen, and he was a B actor and C president. Move on.

johnnyboy361| 1.11.12 @ 11:14AM

Perhaps the author might have made some sort of argument explaining why all of the polling data is wrong when it suggests Romney is the most likely to beat Obama with Ron Paul in a close second. For an article designed to argue that Romney is the "least electable," it's sloppy journalism to leave out that key point.

Treylor| 1.11.12 @ 11:18AM

I want to get rid of Obama, and I've always voted Republican, but at this point Romney doesn’t inspire me to go vote, in fact he bores me to death. I can only imagine how much worse he's going to look after the Dems spend a billion dollars destroying him. I still think the MSM is pushing Romney on us, ever wonder why when Romney attacked Newt it was all-good, but when Newt does it he's some kind of deranged person...get real.

Kent Carson| 1.11.12 @ 4:05PM

Treylor, how did that exciting, dynamic, American Idol champion work out for us in 2008? It's a shame that competence and real accomplishment bore you, but this country needs a big dose of both right now.

Luis Mayor| 1.11.12 @ 11:37AM

Pete I read your pieces all the time. In this piece, however, you are grossly unfair to Republicans and mostly to Governor Romney. Sorry.

cesplin| 1.11.12 @ 11:38AM

Let me see you worked for Bush. Are you a RINO.
Unless you want Obama you need to pull on your man pants and support Romney.
I am old enough to remember Reagan being treated in a similar way as Romney and Romney will be as great as Reagan.

David R. Rochefort| 1.11.12 @ 11:42AM

How did this happen? This was supposed to be our chance after the Obama fiasco to finally implement some truly conservative policies, get the deficit under control, do away with wastefull programs and departments... What a disaster, even if Romney is elected.

rightasrain| 1.11.12 @ 11:59AM

Short answer: Paul Ryan didn't run.

JC| 1.11.12 @ 2:28PM

+1 @ rightasrain. The Tea Party is a grass roots movment. It might be 15 years before the ideal Tea Party candidate is nominated and elected. Who knows. In the meantime, the TP and like-minded conservative movements need to seize control of the machinery from the local to the state, and on up into Congress.

TxJim| 1.11.12 @ 1:48PM

The Tea Party hijacked the GOP... and if Obama is elected.. will crash it into the ground..

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 2:24PM

Jim:
If the Tea Party hijacked the GOP, why is Romney getting votes? He is a republican, not a Conservative and certainly not a TPer.

mangrovemama2002| 1.11.12 @ 11:47AM

The RNC/GOP certainly needs me more than I need it.

I will vote for a 3rd party.

My ex-spouse, who ran around on me, has treated me better than the RNC/GOP.

I hope that they get buyer's remorse with respect to their Ken-doll candidate.

catsmeow| 1.11.12 @ 11:52AM

Ok. So some of you are either trolling for Obama or sincerely would rather watch the country spend four more years slouching towards socialism and impotence than lose some of your virgin purity. I like Mitt Ok, but I can think of a couple conservatives who, if they would have run, I would have been enthusiastic supporting. Which of the alternatives is worth electing? Which of the alternatives has a snowball's chance of getting elected?

Drunken Sailor| 1.11.12 @ 1:24PM

Exactly!! Leave it to us to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

real conservative| 1.11.12 @ 11:54AM

The author is a moron. Perhaps he prefers the Occupy Wall Street theatrics of Gingrich, Perry and Huntsman - an outright denial of freedom of economic choice and the benefits of creative capitalism - to imposition of taxes on capital gains and interest on those making over $200k. I don't see how parroting Democratic talking points makes any one of these three more electable than Romney, and I fail utterly to see how this trope has anything to do with supply side pro-growth economics.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:47PM

Would you rather vote for semi-conservative liar or a progressive liar?

Romney is the one who FIRST used liberal talking points (lies and distortions) against the other candidates. Difference is, Romney was and is being protected by the media.

They treat Romney with kid gloves, but openly attack Gingrich, Perry and Paul at every chance.

real conservative| 1.11.12 @ 3:20PM

I will vote for the capitalist. 'Nuff said. And by the way Newt was on the board of Forstmann Little. You know, the private equity shop. Guess they only created jobs. What a turd.

Naturalborn Texicanette| 1.11.12 @ 12:15PM

Perry is a doer. He gets things...important things....DONE! Period!!!

I DO think he can best impress with facts and not rhetoric. He says what he means and that says to ME, that pundits cannot easily "spin" his words.

Words, words, and MORE words........I want a "doer" not a mouth for president.

Mitt is a mouth, Paul is a mouth, Rick S. is a mouth.......................all going on and on and on. So who is gona DO????????

I am not impressed........

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:50PM

I agree. However, Romney, Fox News, NRO, Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Brit Hume, Dick Morris, Michelle Malkin, Rich Lowry (to name a few) attacked Perry enough early on to ruin his image.

If Romney made a gaffe, he would be defended, while Perry would be forever mocked.

Romney has similar media advantages over conservatives that liberals have.

JC| 1.11.12 @ 2:25PM

whiny talk

TxJim| 1.11.12 @ 1:51PM

Perry is a punchline.. here is why..

Perry has very strong convictions and its easy for people to believe that he represents what he says..

The problem is.. Rick cant communicate it very well, and many of the things he says are so far out in left field, that most people who he needs to vote for him, wont do it..

Russ Riekeman| 1.11.12 @ 12:19PM

While you offer several recent examples of higher taxes leading to lower tax receipts, I wonder if you could answer this. My casual research using IRS stats going much further back, reveals no clear link between tax rates, tax receipts or economic growth. The extreme growth of the 50's and 60's in the face of huge taxes on the wealthy springs to mind. Do you have such a study? If so could you share? Because I don't think one exists.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:42PM

If you cut my taxes, my life is improved, not harmed. My standard of living increases. I invest more, spend more, donate more.

It's a postive thing. Not negative. What more stats do you need?

TxJim| 1.11.12 @ 1:58PM

Well when Bush gave everyone a tax credit via the 2008 stimulus what happened?

He encouraged everyone to SPEND it.. and most people paid down their DEBT with it (I did).. Most people didn't donate or invest more.

Its easy to see how spending is just what most Americans do.. even to the point of debt.. and when you give them more money, they are either going to spend more and be irresponsible.. or they will pay off what debt they have from already having spent to much, which will be called the responsible thing..

Spending more money on more stuff is not an increase in standard of living..

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 3:52PM

Spending, or course, does not correlate with job creation.

Business investment correlates nearly perfectly with aggregate job creation.

The point is freedom. Liberty. It's my money, for me to spend as I desire, not whether it's good or bad for the country or the economy.

Gerard| 1.11.12 @ 1:12PM

Money in "my" hands will be used to invest in real estate,children's education, stocks bonds, whatever, or spent to purchase goods and services and thus, recycled (and thereby, multiplied) thru the economy. To me, that is far more stimulating than turning it over in the form of taxes. That is a no brainer in my thinking.

TxJim| 1.11.12 @ 1:54PM

There is none..

KateS| 1.11.12 @ 12:31PM

How disgusting. The author is a shill for Newt Gingrich. Thanks for helping deliver an Obama win. You think Romney can't be elected...Newt had credible ethics violations when he left Washington years ago. Newt's attack on capitalism yesterday was shameful, and the author is shameful for this story today...telling the republicans who voted for Romney that they are wrong. I will lay the Obama win at the feet of the far right. You've played into his hands perfectly.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 12:40PM

When will Romney get vetted?

It happened to all the other candidates and we saw their approval numbers drop.

When will they go after Romney like they did the others?

They won't. Romney is their man. The decision has been made.

Al Adab| 1.11.12 @ 12:49PM

Don't woory Paul, after he gets the nomination the Democrat press will eviscerate him nicely.

Who Knows?| 1.11.12 @ 12:43PM

My immediate reaction to your latest litany of lamentations is the flashing in mind of “It’s okay, ma, I’m only dyin’?

Yes, America IS dying.

Another Bob Dylan snippet, which has always served me, also seems quite appropriate for all the already too fat and otherwise too “prosperous” Americans---

“When you ain’t got nothing, you ain’t got nothing to lose.”

My economics education, at UCSB no less, somehow snuck into my mind---the only true law could well be that of the intersection of supply and demand.

I was wondering about how it would apply to STUPIDITY.

There’s certainly a vast supply of THAT!

Perhaps the cleverest indoctrination was the spreading of the “wealth” known as “self esteem”. Why, everybody’s a genius, when it comes to THAT!

I think of it as stupid to the stupid power, on into exponential infinity. When truly stupid people have high self-esteem, why it’s impossible to make them aware of THAT!

So, what’s the universe to do, to wake such dummies up?

How about let them indulge their stupidity, physically, emotionally and even mentally? What percentage of Americans are grossly, bodily, STUPIDLY fat or obese, again? How many of us get off on emotional-sexual “soap operas”, of all varieties from TV and movies, to our personal lives? And, of course, these Internet days, why the burgeoning blogosphere is loaded with STUPID faux intellectuals, as well as all the other venues for such people.

The thought that the con artists will run out of marks bleeds into the STUPIDITY dam bursting, in my mind’s eye.

Maybe I’m experientially ruined, in that at near 70 years of age, after three or four years of regularly enjoying my local YMCA, seeing and being around so many old and fat people has made me a cynic. But, I don’t think so. Even too many of the youngsters go from pudgy tykes to fatso teenagers, right before my eyes! And, random visits to a local mall confirm the STUPID FAT vision.

Weak, fat and STUPID---that’s the TRUE American condition.

And---hello Forrest Gump!

Stupid is as stupid does---and, folks, that’s some DOING!

Conserdude| 1.11.12 @ 12:47PM

Mr. Ferrara, please.
I share your skepticism of Romney, but 2012 is not 1992; the party itself has shifted rightward in the last generation. Besides, there was no other viable conservative alternative to Romney: Gingrich, whom you defend, has reminded everyone in the last week what a deeply flawed character he is with his attacks against free-market capitalism; Pence who wimped out from running; Christie and Ryan who aren't ready; Santorum who last lost by 18 points and had no money; Perry who is uninformed and not ready; etc.

David| 1.11.12 @ 12:52PM

KateS, you really say a lot things that are NOT based on FACTS.

If you bothered to read my posts on this site you would understand that the ethics violations against Newt were NOT CREDIBLE. He does not have my support, but every candidate deserves to have the truth and the entire truth told about him/her.

The 68 ethics violations were trumped up charges by dems to run Gingrich out of office - and it worked. 67 of those charges were completely dismissed having no basis in fact. The 68th one stuck and Gingrich paid a SMALL fine for it. He followed the advice of a CPA and tax attorney on some obscure, incomprensible tax law.

Please get your fact straight KateS. The readers on this site deserve better. Why don't you spend your time answering the many faults of Romney that are pointed out in this article instead of staying in his cheering section?

wodiej| 1.11.12 @ 2:07PM

cheerleading is easier than actually getting facts. thanks for yours.

JC| 1.11.12 @ 2:15PM

Who cares about that. The reasons why Newt cannot be elected are very simple. His name is Newt. He cheated on wives. He cheated on a wife with cancer. He took over a million dollars for a couple hours of history consulting from Fannie Mae. He sat with Nancy Pelosi to inform Americans global warming was a good enough reason to tax us schlodes more. Almost nobody who worked with him or for him respects him.

LarryK| 1.11.12 @ 12:59PM

"If it's Mitt, in 2012 I'll sit!"

JC| 1.11.12 @ 2:07PM

You are most likely paid by Obama to sew discord. Or you're big on global solutions for global warming maybe.

Gerard| 1.11.12 @ 1:06PM

How does Iowa and New Hampshire get to go 1st and more or less put every Conservative candidate behind? Why not just those 2 states ALONE vote for President? Wht cant EVERY state vote in a primarynon yhe same day? eith this system...we are ONLY goimg to get moderates ..at best...out of this nutty system it seems to me.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 1:16PM

It's a system designed to nominate rejects like McCain and Romney.

More people went to two football games than voted for Romney in the last two primaries.

Bill| 1.11.12 @ 1:10PM

If Romney wins the nomination and loses the election, it will more likely mark the end of establishment Republican candidates. There will be a huge, very angry conservative backlash that will that will dwarf the Tea Party.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 1:17PM

I'm thinking the same thing.

daboss| 1.11.12 @ 3:45PM

didn't we say this last time around?

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 1:12PM

I just heard Romney on the radio say the other 5 candidates have spent their entire lives in politics.

That's a complete lie.

After college, Perry served in the military and then worked as a farmer.

If Newt, Perry or Paul said the same thing, the Republican media establishment would treat it as a 2-day non-stop story to mock them.

But it's Romney, so there's no analysis.

Kent Carson| 1.11.12 @ 2:29PM

This should help you figure it out:

Rick Perry has been in government 26 years
Ron Paul has been in government for 23 years
Newt Gingrich has been in government for 20 years
Jon Huntsman has been in government for 14 years
Rick Santorum has been in government for 12 years
Mitt Romney has been in government for 4 years

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 3:57PM

Kent, now that is a start. Good work!

robbie| 1.11.12 @ 1:14PM

Ann Coulter likes Romney. That's good enough for me. Romney was not my first choice, but he may be the best we have running. If he's on the ticket, I'll vote for him and pray for the best.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 1:24PM

Ann Coulter said there are 2 issues in this campaign: ObamaCare and immigration, and Romney is the best on healthcare because he's the only candidate who said he'll repeal ObamaCare, and that Romney is the only candidate who'll fix immigration.

She is desparate. Actually, the economy, taxes, spending, the size of gov't, etc. are also issues important to voters this election. All candidates said they'll repeal ObamaCare, not just Romney. Also, Romney was the one who said he'll keep parts of ObamaCare (he flopped it later.)

Why would lie like that? What has happened to Ann Coulter? She's turned into a complete liar.

She also said the Tea Party people are nuts... that all they care about is Obama's birth cerfitificate.

Ann Coulter said Rick Perry supports national amnesty. It was an out-light lie. She said that's much worse than Romeny supporting cap and trade. In fact, Romney and Christie supported amnesty.

I've lost all respect for Ann Coulter and will never listen to her again. She has turned against conservatives, using liberal tactics.

TxJim| 1.11.12 @ 1:39PM

Thats funny... she said the two biggest weaknesses of Romney.. immigration and Obamney Care.. any attacks he makes on Obama Care will have zero credibility.. Romney as the GOP candidate marginalizes their attack on it..

wodiej| 1.11.12 @ 2:05PM

Never had any for her. She's hateful and rude. Her school girl gushing over Chris Christie put me over the edge not to mention that she is friends w vulgar and rude Bill Maher.

KennesawJack| 1.11.12 @ 3:24PM

Great legs, though.

JC| 1.11.12 @ 2:09PM

NumbersUSA is the recognized leader in research and advocacy for stricter immigration laws. While none of the current candidates receive excellent grades, they give Romney their highest mark. They do not have a stake in any of the candidates. Nor are they trolls.

Paul from SA| 1.11.12 @ 3:59PM

They said she had a boyfriend for the first time in her life. I think that changed her. First love... delusions...fantasies....

TxJim| 1.11.12 @ 1:37PM

Poor Peter.. he really wanted Newt Gingrich to win..
He is echoing the true sentiments of the majority of the GOP..

They know that Mitt cant beat Obama..

wodiej| 1.11.12 @ 2:03PM

thanks great article. Unfortunately America has been dumbed down and many just don't get it. Monkey see, monkey do. Actually being informed takes too much time from reality shows and football.

Kent Lyon| 1.11.12 @ 2:11PM

So, what are the alternatives to Mitt? Gingrich? He has self-destructed with his vicious attack on Bain and venture capitalists. Ron Paul? Please. Yes, Ron Paul would cut spending, but so far that we would have an Iranian flotilla with nuclear tipped missles docking in Caracas. Santorum. Good guy. Not enough substance to get anywhere. As Obama has shown, Senators don't make good Presidents, nor Presidential candidates.
Romney's core competence, as the ad says, is competence. Calling him timid is way off the mark. The man who took down William Bulgar in Massachussetts is no wuss. Romney has created more wealth for more people than any man in America, and he's done it the old fashioned way, with hard work, a great brain, guts, persistance, determination. He's showing that in the primaries as well. He worked since the last election cycle to elect Republicans. Yes he had his own interests at heart. But, as an elected official, he gave his constituents what they voted for in Massachussetts. He has shown the most respect for those who elected him of any politician in recent memory, with perhaps the current gov of Virginia excepted. Romney was a practicing capitalist. He became a practicing democrat as a politician. Mr. Ferrara has little or nothing to fear from Romney, and, I'd bet that Mr. Romney would by happy to listen to him and discuss his proposals and insights (which I agree are phenomenal, and right for the nation). Please, Mr. Ferrara, do your best to get Romney's ear, and make your influence felt. Don't despair over Romney yet. I predict he will be as or more effective than Reagan. Why? Because his main goal is to succeed for America.

Paul| 1.11.12 @ 2:14PM

What a bunch of bull. Romney is a classic Republican. The people, like this author, who use the term "RINO" generally are the real RINOs -- because they are the ones who are trying to pretend that the Republican Party is something it is not. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and George W. Bush were Republicans. All today would be labeled "RINO" by the right wing nuts who can't make reasoned arguments, so they simply call names. (Reagan, the "God" of the conservatives, had more liberal positions as governor of California as Romney.) If Romney loses to Obama, the right wingnuts will be responsible.

Richard| 1.11.12 @ 2:57PM

Paul, your arguement has some legitimate points. Reagan's spending was no differenet than Bush's spending other than in pure increase in the debt. We as conservatives need to stop using Reagan because he was not much better. Our examples should be Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Jackson...these gentlemen knew and kept government limited. The last 110 years of our history has been a "progressive" nightmare. This is what needs to be turned around and the fact is that none of these candidates can do that.

Kent Carson| 1.11.12 @ 2:25PM

A lot of people here don't have a clue . . . a Romney/Rubio ticket will mop the electoral map with Obama. The middle determines elections. Obama has clearly lost the middle and only Romney will not give an inch of it back. And enthusiasm? This next election must be about Obama, and there will be overwhelming enthusiasm to toss him to the curb.

daboss| 1.11.12 @ 2:29PM

The best we can hope for now is a brokered convention and a white night being nominated to replace the poison pill.

That would be interesting and fun. I would write in Palin!

Gerard| 1.11.12 @ 3:32PM

Is it too much to ask for the evental Nominee to take the best parts of each other candidates ideas and incorporate them into his own?
The Best of paul, the Best of Gingrich, the Best of Romney, Santorum etc?

Carlos| 1.11.12 @ 2:34PM

LOL @ all the deranged, socialistic, anti-Mitt desperation in here.

Mr. Ferrara needs to sober up, ROMNEY HAS BEEN BEATING OBAMA IN NATIONAL/BATTLEGROUND POLLING SINCE LAST YEAR.

A center-RIGHT fiscal conservative like Romney won IN MA. If he can win there, obviously he can win anywhere.

This article is such a joke. So says I, the ambassador for rationality/sanity here.

A VOTE FOR ANYONE BUT ROMNEY IS A VOTE FOR OBAMA.

ROMNEY/RUBIO 2012.

Steve in PA| 1.11.12 @ 2:40PM

You guys are being way too hard on Romney. He was a different person back in 1994 and he was surrounded by liberal legislators. He also vetoed liberal bills something like 800 times when he was governor, I believe a record. He cut taxes. I don't really think Romney is a RINO, and I think he certainly has the charisma, money, and organization to end Obama's re-election bid.

Aaron Burr| 1.11.12 @ 2:44PM

I don't know how to break it to you Peter but things have changed a bit since Reagan won in 1980. Besides, there is no Reagan in this race and you're not going to get one. Paul would lose all 50 states, Santorum will run out of money in a month and your idol Gingrich is flailing around like Ahab going after the white whale regardless of the damage he does to other Republicans.

Obama is eminently beatable, the House majority can be expanded and the Senate can be captured with ease. But instead of focusing on things that really will have the potential to change things you waste your time whining about purity of conservative credentials. Pathetic. What else do you want? Anybody who thinks another term of Obama would be better than a first term of Romney is a moron. This kind of purist clatter makes me hope the independents and DINOs are smarter than what we're seeing here.

And BTW, to all of you religious bigots smearing Romney's Mormon faith, shame on you.

Richard| 1.11.12 @ 3:43PM

Aaron Burr - You are right to say that a Romney first term would be way better than any Obama term, but you miss the fundamental problem. At best the only thing a Romney presidency will do is to manage the current mess that is our country. The man has no bold ideas to fundamentally change our country back to what it was before the "Progressive Movement" began 110 years ago.

A part of me would rather see Obama win, just so he can quickly kill a wounded America, rather than see another RINO like Romeny try to give America minimal first-aid. We have major fiscal problems that people choose to blindly ignore and attempt to repair with more government intervention.

Lastly, to sit here and blast people who are standing by their conservative purity or integrity or belief in founding principles is shameful.

No revolution ever began with people who went along with the establishment or the satus quo!

Aaron Burr| 1.11.12 @ 4:24PM

Guys like you scare me. "...quickly kill a wounded America"? Are you nuts? Do you have any idea what type of disaster you are advocating? Obviously not or you wouldn't be advocating it.

The country is not going back to your idyllic 19th century view (and we're not giving up antibiotics, cars, airplanes, microwave ovens, telecommunication or the Internet, either). It's a different world and we have to adapt to it. Get it. If you really want to live like 110 years ago move to a nice Amish community and get used to horses, baking your own bread, reading by candle light and getting your info by snail mail - and no more posts to your favorite blogs.

And I'll blast anybody who's ideological premise, however purportedly pure, advocates the kind of radical outcome your post would seem to imply. You toss around terms like "revolution" without the slightest clue of what you're talking about. I've seen the carnage of civil war in the streets up close and it's not something any sane person would even want to contemplate.

KennesawJack| 1.11.12 @ 8:03PM

AB, excellent post but a few observations. The Balkanization of the country has already begun, much to the delight of the Obamarx crowd. Sewing discord is the Alinsky way. I think a violent revolution is not in our future but I don't find a protracted dissolution of the Union impossible or, for that matter, at all improbable. Obviously, not thoughtful person wants that to happen but I'm somewhat less than sanquine that we can pull back from the level of polarization that exists among us. I'm curious about something, why the Aaron Burr moniker? Burr, himself, tried to split the union. You seem to have nothing in common (unless you're into duels with big money centrists).

Aaron Burr| 1.11.12 @ 9:23PM

Actually, Burr was VP to Jefferson and, while they eventually became estranged, he was very much opposed to the Federalists led by Hamilton who wanted a stronger central government. The treason charges against him were largely fabricated and he was acquitted on all of them. Historians Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg write that Burr "was not guilty of treason, nor was he ever convicted, because there was no evidence, not one credible piece of testimony, and the star witness for the prosecution had to admit that he had doctored a letter implicating Burr."

I got in the habit of using the moniker on liberal blogs because most of the morons there didn't get the irony that at core Burr was basically a Jeffersonian small government guy and most of them, despite their claims of revering Jefferson, are actually modern stateists/Federalists like Hamilton.

W| 1.11.12 @ 9:48PM

Welcome, Aaron.Interesting comments. Where did you see the carnage of civil war?

Aaron Burr| 1.11.12 @ 10:06PM

Vietnam. Part war of aggression, part civil war. All ugly.

MikeG| 1.12.12 @ 9:14AM

What part was civil war and what was agression, not following you here. Please explain.

KennesawJack| 1.11.12 @ 9:51PM

True that. One of the great cons in modern American politics is the hijacking of Jefferson by the Democrats. If anything, in today's world, Jefferson would be a libertarian. Not sure about all your facts re: Burr but will take your word.

Aaron Burr| 1.11.12 @ 10:15PM

Agree, Jefferson would be closest to a libertarian - although I suspect the Barbary Pirates might find him a bit more aggressive than certain popular libertarian candidates we have around today :-)

Also, don't take my word for it on Burr. The Wikipedia entry is pretty good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr

and this 2007 biography, "Fallen Founder - The Life of Aaron Burr" by Nancy Iisenberg is excellent.

RCV| 1.12.12 @ 1:42AM

Agreed. Great book.

A. Hick| 1.11.12 @ 3:15PM

The photo of "Wall Street Willard" in between Poppy and Dowager Barb is priceless "1000 words won't do" imagery.

The GOP is rapidly becoming a national joke, behaving like some party of the grandees in a banana republic. Romney will force the reactionary dullards running it to define predatory leveraged buyouts and corporate raiding as "free enterprise" and "healthy capitalism." Rumor has it, the Bushes and other Republican bigwigs are telling Naughty Newtie he better not proceed with his Bain barrage in SC if he wants any future in the Party.
A contray view of all this is that Newt and Ranger Rick are working "for the team" and helping Mitt get out in front of all this nasty stuff before the general election, but it won't work, as he will become the right wing version of John Kerry: the "perfect"candidate who turns out to be the "nightmare" candidate.

Mitt's parasitic business background will be the gift that just keeps on giving. Mitt's fundamental problem is that his private sector experience he touts as the panecea to "fix" American's economic troubles is acutally emblematic of a specific business model that has ruined the United States economically, enriching a speculator class whose financial well being is divorced from the broader economic interests of the nation. Romney is put in the unfortunate position today of having to say that any criticism of his record, or corporate raiding and outsourcing in general, is an attack on capitalism itself, and off limits. He is already being goaded into doing it on national TV.

The general election message is now set. Alexrod will tailor each Bain ad for whatever swing state it will run in, and it will feature pathetic trailer park, outsourced workers from that state telling about their own personal hell wrought unto them when "Mitt came to town. " Just pick a company from the targeted state that was chopped up and run into the ground by Bain, and run with it. There won't be any shortage of them.

Romney will defend it all by saying he "created more jobs than he destroyed," which depending on how you juggle the numbers can be argued is true, and then for act two he will have to explain in his own stiff, sh*t eating way why the ones he "created" were low paying ones at retailers like Staples selling Chinese made office equipment, and the ones he destroyed were at U. S. factories operated by companies like Ampad that once made the junk Staples now sells and paid probably double and more in wages. Which explains why he is doomed to lose, probably, and just a place warmer for Jeb 2016 and the next war.

If the unemployment rate is lower in November than it is now, Romney is a sure loser.
Compound that if the Supreme Court does anything less than directly invalidating the Affordable Care Act this summer.

And then there is Seamus, and the vacation from hell. Romney will get laughed out of town over that.

MUTTS FOR MITT!!!!!!

Help hose down PETA!! Jump on the station wagon, and join Mitt's "Poop on America 2012" campaign today!!!!

BackToBasics| 1.11.12 @ 4:21PM

Good Points. You are so right about high-paying jobs being replaced with lower paying jobs. It's never discussed on the Republican side of course as well as the Democrat side.

from yor post - "and just a place warmer for Jeb 2016 and the next war"

I think Romney will win by about 3 % if he gets the nomination but the prospect of Jeb Bush being nominated in 2016 might scare more people into voting for Romney this time around. I 'd rather see Romney in the WH rather than another SUPPOSEDLY, most-conservative of the Bush's.

Roy| 1.11.12 @ 11:22PM

"and the ones he destroyed were at U. S. factories operated by companies like Ampad that once made the junk Staples now sells and paid probably double and more in wages"

Yes, "Romney destroyed" jobs that were paying twice as much as their actual market value.

I have no doubt Axelrod will claim that, but if Republicans agree..we're in big trouble.

BackToBasics| 1.12.12 @ 12:22AM

Those who had jobs making "junk" would likely want to get them back again. Why do you only cite "Staples" products? Wages have dropped in autos, construction and engineering. We made a lot more than just "junk" as recently as the late 1990's. The markets supported the "junk" and the high end products and services because people were making more. We had an equilibrium that was undercut by outsourcing of jobs and services to countries that would do the same using slave labor and slave wages.

A. Hick| 1.12.12 @ 1:10AM

I cited Staples because it was a specific company bought by and given the "Bain treatment," and I suspect that Romney will cite Staples often when confronted with criticism of his Bain record because in the case of Staples it was "saved" because it offers low wage jobs selling cheap foreign made office equipment of the type once made in the US. I also cited Ampad because it, like Staples, was given the "Bain treatment," but unlike Staples it went under while in the clutches of Bain. Ampad was a US maker of office supplies and equipment. When I said "junk" I was making a rhetorical point about the selling of outsourced products at companies like Staples, I was in no way commenting on the usable quality of the items, or saying that the US made goods that these products replaced were "junk," and you are certainly right that this pattern goes well beyond office equipment. Bain, in fact, if I am not wrong, bought up and "junked" American steel companies, textile mills, etc., all resulting in all sorts of manufacturing outsourcing. But pay attention to Staples, because Romney will use it's example as a defense to criticism of him.

I can tell you with certainty that the mere cost of production is not the main issue behind why there is little clothing, etc. made in the US anymore. I recently decided to market a series of novelty clothing items, and I have researched the cost to obtain the items from what few US manufactures remain versus buying them from foreign production sources. The difference is about 50 cents per item (2.00 vs. 2.50), (while the Union made ones are about twice as high, around 4.00), and I can assure you I can still make a profit buying the US made ones, even the union made ones.

This phenomena of outsourcing is complex and is motivated by more than just the actual manufacturer's desire to squeeze the last bit of profit out of something on a cost accounting basis. Certainly the windfall profits of corporate raiding is part of the problem. Companies like Bain could care less about how any of these products are made, they are not in the business of making anything except huge profits on buying and selling companies.

Another driving force behind "outsourcing" over the last 30 years is the belief by certain Western elites, and I could put the Bushes squarely in this group, that "industrializing" third world economies would insulate them against the then Soviet threat to destabilize them, and later the belief that an interlinked world economy would be less likely to fight world wars, certainly a goal for decades. The bottom line in this worldview is that if your "enemy" also owns a good bit of your debt, or relies on selling you a good chuck of its GDP production, it will not want to blow you up, and vice versa. Good intentions maybe, but you know what they say about those. For some people, like the outsourced US workers, that road map to world peace runs through a rather hot piece of geography.

A. Hick| 1.12.12 @ 1:33AM

One thing I would add is that the practice of “outsourcing” is not often primarily driven simply by a producer’s desire to reduce production costs, but rather has resulted from a deliberate pattern of economic and social engineering, promoted by governments, particularly regulatory and tax policy in the US (including some "deregulation" of financial practices), which incentivizes this practice. Sadly, as long as the Republican Party is in the thrall of the leadership group exemplified by Romney and the Bushes, I see no hope that they will reverse this unless pressed to do so by significant social and civil disorder in this country to affect such policy.

Kurt| 1.12.12 @ 3:57AM

Why do so many refuse or ignore to see this? I have vivid memories of friends, neighbors and local people that lost jobs to these corporate predators in the 80's and 90's and how it destroyed many of their lives and sent many of them to early graves and to see a profiteer to these practices leading for the republican nomination is simply more than I can handle! I will vote for Obama before Romney if he wins the repub nod!

BackToBasics| 1.12.12 @ 2:22PM

To A.Hicks - I was agreeing with you when I answered Roy below your post. When I came back after my first reply it was about 8 hours later and I had forgotten your "Staples" example. So, my mistake in that regard.

I am aware of some of the thinking behind outsourcing, importing many high-end professionals, etc. I know that the elites think that they have to reach an equilibrium of sorts in order to "stabilize" the world. I also know that some elites worried that if we didn't open our southern border and provide a "release valve" for Mexico that it was only a matter of time before Mexico becaue a communist dictatorship.

I think there are other ways to try to promote these things than to destabilize and loot the US in the process. I don't think anyone can balance out these types of policies, shear greed, outright betrayals, mistakes and stupidity to figure out why things are going south in a hurry. But they all play a part and I do not see any candidate who is FOR America and her native-born citizens FIRST.

I am no fan of the Bush's either. I think we are in agreement on these issues.

Robert| 1.11.12 @ 3:35PM

The media always try's to link things together, with past personalities if they don't understand them. Mitt isn't Bush, and has lots more appeal to people who don't want career politicians, and x lobbyist.
Business people and Captains of Industry are held
in much higher esteem than, your average run of the mill politician.

Oldefarte| 1.11.12 @ 3:40PM

Peter's always intelligent arguments are very convincing, but again the ultimate goal should be to defeat Obama/Democrats. The question becomes IS IT BETTER TO NOMINATE A CONFIRMED CONSERVATIVE AND THEN TO LOSE THE ELECTION, OR TO INSTEAD NOMINATE A MODERATE WHO CAN WIN? We all want conservatism, but who is electable and winnable? Reagan cannot be compared to the current situation, since none of these Republicans are [and never will be] Ronald Reagan, and it is ludicrous to attempt to associate Reagan with them. Reagan was a once-in-a-lifetime politician. Conservatives understand this fact and that to win in November, a settlement for one of the available Republicans must be made. We don't have a choice, since to not vote and stay home on election day means an Obama/Democrat victory and ultimate destruction of this country. The one/only question should be who is best suited to WIN!!!!!!

Leslie Schwartz| 1.11.12 @ 3:43PM

Sorry Peter, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Paul, are equally un-electable.

stephen didovich| 1.11.12 @ 4:09PM

would you people like to see president andrew cuomo in 2016 grow up romney is no jerry ford or nelson rockefeller or richard
nixon its either romney or obama

fitsofprofit| 1.11.12 @ 4:18PM

Alright...Mitt Romney is 100% most likely of the current candidates in the republican field to win the 2012 election. Why? Because the election will be about President Obama, and our current economic situation. Realistically, anyone nominated has a pretty darn good chance of winning, unless they undermine themselves by doing or saying something idiotic, and of the current field of contenders, Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry have a unique history of undermining themselves with diarrhea mouth and lack of self control. Mitt Romney has the most self control, knows to keep this election about the Economy, and not come off as a mental ward escapee.

Spencer Mac| 1.11.12 @ 4:26PM

I think the arguement is pretty weak, Bush Sr won his 1988 election in one of the largest margins ever FYI. He lost with a third party(republican type) candidate that took 18% of the popular vote. I think Rmney is the most prepared presidential candidate in 50 years. This Author sounds like a Idealogue, fixed on names and labels. Get over it, to govern you work with people, you dont stare at a list of ideals and watch things take care of themselves. How many peices of legislation has ROn Paul passed???????? 2!!! out of..........450 peices of legislation. Why because he cant work with someone who doesnt agree with him

fitsofprofit| 1.11.12 @ 4:29PM

In Any Case, just get out there and VOTE. We need president who is actually going to accomplish things, who actually loves this country, and will actually work hard to achieve the goals that most Americans want to see achieved.

Steve LeMaster | 1.11.12 @ 5:19PM

Gingrich:

“The Reagan era is over. The George W. Bush era is over. We’re at a point in time we’re about to start redefining, as a number of people have started talking…” Yes, they are. Every one of these Republicans is starting to talk about redefining the party, and this has been going on since the early days of this, not just now.

sasdigger| 1.11.12 @ 5:35PM

My wife and I have been Republicans, like our parents and their parents before them.

We recognize the destruction of America under the Chicago School-Acorn-Socialist OBAMOB.

For the first-time ever we will sit out the 2012 election rather than vote for RINO Romney. I have never seen such a Republican Establishment and Media (eg., Fox news) capitulation to compassionate moderate politics.

Republican Establishment you threw down the gauntlet, ignored conservative concerns, and precipitated an immovable rift. I do not consider myself a tea party member but I empathize with their middle class family values agenda.

rightasrain| 1.11.12 @ 6:38PM

I understand your frustration, but not your decision. I am an enthusiastic tea party supporter and will vote for whoever the nominee is. At this point, I'm resigned to Romney. I figure if I voted for McCain in 2008 when I merely suspected how bad Obama would be, that it's imperative to vote for our nominee now that we all know with certainty how bad Obama is.

Kent Carson| 1.11.12 @ 7:34PM

You understand Obama's destruction of America, but are willing to sit on you butt and let it continue? Brilliant! Team Obama thanks you. Mitt Romney, and every Mormon I know, is very conservative and has strong family values.

KennesawJack| 1.11.12 @ 8:07PM

You, sir, and your wife have lost your minds.

Aaron Burr| 1.11.12 @ 5:50PM

Go ahead. Sit at home. Hold your breath and turn blue. Who cares? And when Obama wins his second term you and those like you will have sentenced our children and grandchildren to a future impaired by less freedom, increased nanny state intervention and staggering debt. And you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. Congratulations on sticking to your principals.

Somebody should have taught you long ago that your position - however heartfelt - and your best interests (and those of your family) are not necessarily the same thing.

redman| 1.11.12 @ 6:42PM

I lol'd heartily when the author referred to Obama as a socialist.

He's farther to the right than George W. Bush was, imho. Just another Wall Street puppet and warmonger, just like Romney.

Alex David| 1.11.12 @ 6:59PM

To me, a vote for Romney is a vote for ObamaCare. That bill is the reason I want this current president out of the Oval Office. It has cost me dearly as a small business owner.

When the public option was abandoned by the administration, they looked for a "Plan B". They found it in RomneyCare. They used the mandate directly from RomneyCare as the foundation to fund ObamaCare.

I do not think the MSM or the right actually know how many folks like me will simply sit our this election if Romney is the nominee. I simply will not vote for him and I think their are a large number of Tea Party folks like me who think the same and this is not being represented in the polls.

Aaron Burr| 1.11.12 @ 9:05PM

So how are those stalwart Tea Party candidates Sharon Engle and Christine McDonnell working out for you in the Senate? Great plan. Go ahead. Sit at home. Don't vote. Hold your breath and turn blue. And when Obama wins his second term you and those like you will have sentenced our children and grandchildren to a future impaired by less freedom, increased nanny state intervention and staggering debt. And you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. Congratulations on sticking to your principals.

As a practical business person somebody should have taught you long ago that your position - however heartfelt - and your best interests (and those of your family) are not necessarily the same thing.

BackToBasics| 1.11.12 @ 11:26PM

I would hope all who are considering sitting out would rethink their positions for one main reason. That reason is that we are likely to have a Republican House and Senate. Even Romney will more likely approve most of what the legislative branch passes.

Drifter| 1.12.12 @ 3:10PM

So, you would rather have the real BO as your President?

Your distaste for RINOS is admirable. It is the reason I am no longer a Republican but it is not a valid reason to vote for Obama...

Martin Owens| 1.11.12 @ 7:15PM

Christ help us.
Romney is a phony, Gingrich is a burglar, the smaller fish stand no chance, and they're all of them Big Government men, one way and another.

Except Ron Paul, who glows in the dark.

And they will tackle an incumbent President who is perfumed with every establishment liberal sanctity, defended by MSM so deep in the tank for him they'll grow webbed feet and gills by November.

Here's hoping the Mayans were right after all....

sundevil| 1.11.12 @ 7:49PM

Well, get used to it and hold your nose if you must, but Romney is it. Voting for a third party is a waste - remember Perot voters effectively voting for Clinton? Use you frustrated energy to make sure we elect hard core conservative Congressman and Senators. If the Tea Party can take over all of Congress, Romney will go along. Trust me ;)

Lloyd Daub| 1.11.12 @ 7:50PM

Any GOP candidate will be a better President than the incumbent. But the key to economic prosperity is the number of fiscal conservatives in the House, and then in the Senate. It's time that the parts of the federal government that are actually in charge of taxing and spending legislation re-take their correct Constitutional role. Then a RINO in the White House doesn't matter as much.

el polacko| 1.11.12 @ 7:57PM

i'm so weary of this childish 'rino' name-calling. disagree with a fellow republican if you do but labeling them as un-republican and writing them off is not the way to strengthen and grow the party.

Bob E Gerbing| 1.11.12 @ 8:04PM

Wrong...... I would have voted for Sarah Palin, or Herman Cain in a heartbeat..... the fact that Mitt is here, means he has MY VOTE..

If we continue the inbreeding fight, we will re-elect obama, and that can NOT happen if America is going to continue as we know it.... geez...... get over it establishment, Mitt is going to be the guy that won the nomination.... not my first choice, but my first choice over pure socialism.... Like I say, obama and the democrats are taking us in the car, to the cliff at 80mph....a Republican will take us there at say... 50mph... I want a bit more time to prepare

AgentRose| 1.11.12 @ 8:22PM

Unfortunately, I believe the RINO's will only learn from this probable defeat. He had all the money in the world to hire the finest staff. He has had 2 years to practice and everyone waits for some tough talk and clear talk about the crisis in this country---what comes out? basically accepting Obama's premise about GM takeover as if it was at all related to what happened at Bain.! This is scary! The Republicans have NO LEADERSHIP. It will only be a miracle if they win.

If anyone goes third party, i.e. Paul, or the report by Aaron Klein of a mysterious secret third party candidate with ties to Obama, who already is on the slate in 12 states
http://kleinonline.wnd.com/201.....rty-drive/ plus a little voter fraud and more aliens granted amnesty to vote---it's over!!!

The StatistQuo| 1.11.12 @ 8:37PM

What Mr. Ferrara fails to appreciate is the non-Romney/non RINO's are colossal failures as both candidates and credible conservatives. It is not Romney's fault that Perry and Gingrich have abandoned free market capitalism; that Cain lacked fundamental knowledge of the issues; that Bachmann lacked credibility as Presidential material and Santorum is just too little, too late? You better make the best of it. Romney is about to run the table.

Anders13| 1.11.12 @ 9:05PM

Oh you of little faith and naivety.
Perry and Gingrich are attacking the left's current support for Romney.
The MSM is in the position of having to join in the attack or defend Romney. Both are bad for Romney. Why should Romney get a pass from the MSM?!

Machtyn| 1.11.12 @ 8:56PM

I guess someone has to say it, so I guess you drew the short straw. Like Ronald Reagan, Romney is completely unelectable.

Anders13| 1.11.12 @ 8:55PM

Excellent article! Thankyou! Thankyou!

somnolence| 1.11.12 @ 9:49PM

Gingrich WOULD NOT wipe the floor with Obama. That is a myth. Gingrich's uncontrolled temper tantrums are on full display currently, and he would lose it while Obama would just grin for the camera. Romney=Cool, Calm, Collected, and will use Solyndra, Holder, the G.M. bailout, the war on coal mining and oil drilling effectively against Obama without flying off the handle. Gingrich wasn't beaten in New Hampshire, he was buried. If Romney comes in THIRD in S.C. with 23-25% of the vote, even then that realistically is a victory for him. Four years ago he came in fourth, with 15% of the vote. He will eclipse that by at least 8-10 percentage points this time. Repeat, even that would be a victory for him because so many on this page have buried him there. I don't think so, and by February 1, high drama will be in the air with Mitt coasting away from the rest of the field.

Richard V | 1.11.12 @ 11:20PM

Agreed with you, somnolence. When the dems crow that Romney is easy to beat, don't believe them. it's rather the opposite. They are scared sh*****s of Romney. Only Romney has built the organization in every state to wage a long national campaign against Obama. Romney is not a DC inside trader! He earned his wealth the old fashion way, he worked for it using his skills and brains.

Bob| 1.11.12 @ 10:37PM

Great column. Newt and his people should be all over this argument to knock Romney and the usual creeps of the party on their keisters, as the great RR would say.

Bob| 1.11.12 @ 10:37PM

Great column. Newt and his people should be all over this argument to knock Romney and the usual creeps of the party on their keisters, as the great RR would say.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel | 1.11.12 @ 10:57PM

Peter -

Nice commentary! And, I would add an additional "component:"

America will never know the real Romney until it [mistakenly] elects him, - and, then it will be too late.

Undiscriminating and ignorant voters will often say that a candidate's religion doesn't matter. Nothing could be farther from reality. Romney is a Mormon. They have very weird pseudo "Christian" beliefs. One of them is that the devil was Jesus' brother.

Check out the wild world of Mormonism for yourself.

Go to: carmdotorg [Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]

Then click on Mormonism or enter Mormonism in its search. Here, following, is the specific link:

http://carm.org/mormonism

You will be amazed and informed at what you read, and the short video which is presented. Romney is not the cool and collected person his image makers would have you believe. Mormonism is a perverted religion and those who support it, have to be highly suspect.

Finally, remember when the minority voices were warning about Obama and his longtime membership with radical Rev. Wright's black liberation church? The religious affiliation of a presidential candidate, does, indeed matter!

Richard V | 1.11.12 @ 11:23PM

You're a bigot, Sir!

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel | 1.12.12 @ 12:08AM

Richard V -

Re: Your glib response comment concerning me, and not the topic:

Contrary to your apparent (hate mongering type), charge, I consider myself, somewhat, of an educated voter. I hope that you can be that also, when considering voting for Romney, either in a primary or in the national presidential election, should he become the GOP candidate.

Furthermore, I don't think it is bigoted to exercise free [political] speech in the tradition of our nation's 1st Amendment rights.

Finally, I think that (next time), before you call someone a bigot, (simply because you may disagree with their opinion), you should remind yourself not to unfairly judge other individuals - especially when you do not, or cannot subsansiate your personal opinion of them.

I will leave you with the following, for your thoughtful reflection:

Absolutes and Christ’s often misunderstood words of “Judge not…”

http://www.thechristianmessage.....often.html

Brian| 1.11.12 @ 11:32PM

I am among atleast 50 republicans that will not be voting this year. I suspect there are millions like us.

Charles| 1.11.12 @ 11:37PM

It's astonishing that someone can get paid to write such drivel.

Peter Ferrara may have some skills as a lawyer but as prognosticator -- or even a person with minimal insight into current events that could lend itself to modest extrapolation -- he is a total abject failure.

Don't forget, Peter has predicted (several times in fact) that Obama would not even RUN in 2012. He has even predicted Obama would resign in shame.

Uh huh. How's that prediction going for ya Peter?

Now he takes the ONLY candidate who MONTH AFTER MONTH and POLL AFTER POLL -- CONSISTENTLY BEATS or ties with OBAMA and trashes that candidate as unelectable.

Well Peter -- O great Nostradamus that you are -- if all the other candidates are polling at double digit defeats to Obama -- who do you "predict" would win?

Given your record and skill I suspect you would choose any candidate who scores at -40 points to Obama.

You need to learn to kill the chickens properly before you read any more entrails.

Liberal Reader| 1.11.12 @ 11:57PM

Well you guys haven't tried Ted Nugent yet. Maybe he'd be more electable than Romney.

POST American| 1.11.12 @ 11:48PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

Sometimes the surface really IS the soul.

That picture says it all.

AGAIN, for the slow of thinking,
it's the 4 decades on, capstone Globalist
RED China set up, sellout and TREASON OP.

--------------IT REALLY, REALLY IS

All else is chickenfeed and sideshows.

Liberal Reader| 1.11.12 @ 11:54PM

I don't think you all get it.

The Republican party is not an idealist mission to transport foolish and alienated refugees from post-industrial America back to some agrarian, eighteenth century Utopia, complete with mandatory Sunday morning protestant services, blushing, bonnet-donning women, and happy black slaves.

It's a political outfit whose three goals are these: to find ways of accomplishing downward pressure on wages, to cut taxes, and to reduce regulation.

Liberal Reader| 1.11.12 @ 11:56PM

... And yes, Romney will serve just fine.

And no, none of the other clowns in the clown car are anywhere near as electable as he is. Be serious.

somnolence| 1.12.12 @ 12:48AM

Pastor Bickel, Bay Buchanana(Pat's sister)converted to Mormonism from Catholicism. I wouldn't advise you referring to her as belonging to a "perverted" religion in front of brother Pat. You might need dentures if you don't have them already.

POST American| 1.12.12 @ 1:17AM

--------------ABSOLUTE FINAL WORD---------------

"America better watch it
or in a couple of decades
we're going to be a minstrel
show ---for RED China."
-Gore Vidal
1985

-From the very heyday of the
CFR-RED China Globalist sellout
and TREASON OP.

--------------------BUSH was there----------------------

-----------------MAKE NO MISTAKE------------------

--------WE ARE DEALING WITH TREASON-------

There is NO higher crime.

-----------------------------TIME TO MOVE.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever| 1.12.12 @ 1:22AM

Exactly, as I have stated so, in my own blogs.

The Republican Party establishment, and colluding Independents, not to mention the far left liberal media, are absolutely determined to put that Liberal RINO Romney, in the Republican Party Nomination seat, and then the White House, instead of Newt, which would be the death nill of the Tea Party Conservative influence, thus would destroy any and all Constitutional Conservative Tea Party causes and issues to be implemented, let alone addressed.. such as limiting the US Federal govt, in size, scope, and power..

Romney is the Anti-Tea Party candidate, who is being touted as the sensible moderate middle class electable Republican. Romney will absolutely maintain the status quo, as well as destroy Reagan Conservatism, forever.

Ronald Reagan did not mean LBO’s, Bailouts, Buyouts, and Crony Capitalism, when he implemented his pro-capitalist economic recovery policies, so that American wall street firms, and corporate businesses, can practice corporate raiding, insider trading, and other such profitable enhancement and enrichment practices, at the expense of healthy/profitable business companies, the working employees, their pensions, their families, and their communities. In other words, just because Romney and Bain Capital, could legally destroy healthy profitable business companies, let alone unhealthy business companies, jobs, people’s pensions, families lives, and their communities, does not mean it is good and right.

If a company fails on it’s own through bad business practices, and declares bankruptcy, then so be it, that’s the free market system.. But when a company like Bain Capital and Romney, comes in, and buys out the company, that is business healthy, and supporting working families and communities, then carves it up for sale to the highest bidder, making hundreds of millions of dollars at the company and workers expense, thus destroying those people pensions, communities, and lives, then that is NOT Free Market Capitalism, like Rick Perry said, that’s "vulture capitalism".. It’s wrong, and should be illegal, as far as I’m concerned.

Romney is the real life Gordon Gekko, the epitome of corporate greed. He must be vetted on it, and should and must be accountable for..

But this is not merely about legal or illegal corporate practices, more so than it is about Romney’s core values of Morality, Integrity, and Ethics, thus is about Romney’s personal character, especially if he wants to be the U.S. President.

So the Romney Bain issue matters, as it is all about who we really want to be at America’s helm, as the next U.S. President. Someone who exemplifies Reagan's courage, morality, integrity, and ethics, ie; Conservative Values and Principles, or cronyism, false conservatism, and no personal character qualities of worth..

Kent Carson| 1.12.12 @ 2:22AM

Note to TeaPartyPatriot: Delusional much? Bane did not participate in hostile takeovers. Bane offered funding to distressed companies. Newt, with Freddie Mac money hanging out of this pockets, is the one calling Romney a moderate. Who is your Ronald Reagan in this year's GOP field? I don't see him in there.

bop berrigan| 1.12.12 @ 7:29AM

The Democrats must be slobbering at the jowls. The country needs jobs and the Republicans nominate a venture capitalist who eliminates jobs. No wonder the Dems think that Mitt is the perfect candidate to run against Obama. Whoopee..

bop berrigan| 1.12.12 @ 7:29AM

youfamissim | 1.12.12 @ 8:09AM

Thanks Again, Peter for a thoughtful and accurate post. You must have been a blacksmith in your former life - you always strike hot metal with force. Romney... bland, bleary, and cowed. His animations during debates reveal much about him. He looks like a scalded dog when punched squarely in a debate. He smugly stands center stage - having earned the position after taking his lumps 4 years ago. How the establishment now considers him electable is curious. He was not their favorite son then. What's changed?

Steve R| 1.12.12 @ 11:00AM

You Romney bashers truly make me ill. The field is the field so freaking deal with it! If he is the nominee, get behind him. Is there any doubt that he is better than Obama? If you say no, then you are just out of your mind. I have my own problems with Romney but those problems pale in comparison to my problems with Obama. And there will be enough Conservatives in Congress to keep him under control should any of his more liberal tendencies rear up.

Liberal Reader| 1.12.12 @ 1:12PM

As someone who wishes Obama weren't so centrist, I'd be interesting in learning exactly what you think the difference between an Obama administration is from a Romney (or H. W. Bush) administration.

Sure there'd be a few push-backs in the regulatory community, a few canceled clean-water regs or whatever to satisfy the vampires on K Street.

But in terms of an overall vision of what the federal government is for and what it ought to do?

I don't think there's very much difference at all between a corporatist Republican and a corporatist Democrat. They just have to satisfy different coalitions as they carry out their run-of-the-mill centrist policy goals.

Clayton| 1.12.12 @ 11:57AM

To the folks citing polling data as to why Romney will beat Obama you are proving the point that Peter is making. G.H.W. Bush was the most electable, he was polling better than Reagan. We all know how that election turned out. As for the Bain comments, it is not anti-capitalism to point out his record as a job creator that he touts is going to be called into question when Bain destroyed some jobs. I am a free market guy and think that capitalism is the best system in the world, but Mitt needs to stop touting his time at Bain as a real job creating experience because that will get pounced on. Not because of anti-capitalism, just because he didn't creat jobs. Ron Paul has had 1 piece of legislation passed by the way, for whoever said 2. Additionally, the fact that Romney has been endorsed by McCain ( lost ), and Bush 41 (lost) is evidence of the need to nominate a more conservative candidate. Also, look up the demographics of independent voters, the facts are that give or take a few, half of them are more conservative than the GOP, not all indies are moderates or middle of the road. This could give some weight to the argument that if Romney splits the middle of the road vote with Obama, takes all Republicans and Obama takes all Democrats you would still be left with a decent voting block that would be turned off and not be motivated to show up for a more moderate candidate. We know that Obama will not take all Democrats, but I think this is the root to the argument being made. As for Mormonism, I really wish it would be left alone. Mitt is last on my list and it has absolutely nothing to do with his religious views. They are vastly different than mine, but far better than radical Islam. I do feel like we are setting ourselves up for a repeat of 2008 with Romney, it just seems to have happened that way over the last 30 or so years. I hope the GOP will rally around the best candidate to beat Obama, although they may not be polling that way now. Just a few things to consider! Have a great one and hopefully we will all be much happier when there is a HOPE that there will be a CHANGE to Obama's employment status!

AzRep | 1.12.12 @ 12:33PM

Sour grapes from a sore loser. Apparently, the days of Ronald Reagan showing class and congratulating Gerry Ford after a tough loss are long gone.

nova9047| 1.12.12 @ 12:41PM

Newt is stuck in the 1990s.
Santorum is stuck in the 1890s.
Paul is stuck in the 2090s.
Perry is still on training wheels.
Welcome to Mitt 2012. Deal with it.

Glenn Koons| 1.12.12 @ 1:22PM

The problem is, Mitt is being so savaged unfairly, that voters just will not look anymore to Newt or Rick S for aid. Newt is too angry. And that has undone him. I wanted Newt and still do, but it appears that voters now do not. So we Pubs get Mitt and and hopefully a Conserv VP who might actually attack Obama and the socialists. If Mitt takes the nomination, will conservs support him? I will but then an Obama admin. is the worst thing in the last 70 yrs. that could happen to America.

David| 1.12.12 @ 2:09PM

Hey folks, this is information on Santorum from RedState. It was published on January 6, 2012.

I keep telling everyone to get behind Santorum now - support him with five bucks. Forget Perry and Huntsman and Gingrich and Paul. Santorum can win - and win as a conservative.

The following is From RedState.

Here are his ratings from when he was in Congress:

American Conservative Union — 88%
National Right to Life Committee — 100%
Americans for Tax Reform — 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee — 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce — 88%
League of Private Property Voters — 94%

Now remember, this is Santorum’s House ratings, in a DEMOCRAT district. How many Republicans in Democrat areas vote this conservative? Kirk? Snowe? That’s conviction! Santorum is NOT a ‘big government conservative’ but an across-the-board mainstream conservative with a solidly conservative voting record, albeit marred with the support for earmarks and some spending bills that many Republicans in Bush eara fell prey to.

Yet another source that looks at Santorum’s record is Jen Rubin, who likewise absolves Santorum of the phony claim that he is a big-government conservative:

“While in Iowa, Texas Gov. Rick Perry tried to begin a line of attack on Rick Santorum claiming that the former Pennsylvania senator is a big-government conservative. That attack seems poorly thought through (shocking, I know from such a meticulous campaign) for several reasons.

First, Santorum is to the right of Perry in some important ways. Santorum opposed the Troubled Assets Relief Program; Perry wrote a letter on the day of the Senate vote urging Congress to pass legislation to avert a meltdown. Santorum, as we saw in the debates, is likewise to the right of Perry (and Newt Gingrich, for that matter) on immigration.

Indeed, Santorum’s supposed deviations from conservative orthodoxy are similar those of his rivals. He voted for earmarks and highway funds. Gov. Perry took the money. Santorum voted for Medicare Part D; Gingrich lobbied for it, and Perry said in a debate that he wouldn’t repeal it.”

“And finally, Santorum has put together an aggressive spending reduction plan. He’s for the balanced-budget amendment. He’s embraced Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan. He’s in favor of Social Security reform, against energy subsidies, for privatizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and in favor of repealing Obamacare. The guy is no liberal when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Is he to the right of Gingrich? Yes. To the left of Ron Paul? Yes. But so are most GOP voters.”

Where Santorum deviated from the conservative line, like his vote on NAFTA and his support for earmarks, he was doing the exceptional thing, and those deviations were in most cases catering to his constituents. But UNLIKE most Northeast Republicans, that ‘catering’ did not extend to abandoning conservative principles again and again. They’ve been the exception to the rule that Congressman and Senator Rick Santorum held. With his support for lower taxes, prolife and profamily policies, conservative Judges, for balanced budgets and entitlement reform, against McCain-Feingold, for school choice, against TARP and Frank-Dodd. Rick Santorum has had a solid and mostly consistent conservative voting record.

Santorum further has a solid and conservative agenda for President. Romney timidly talks of getting spending maybe down to 20% of GDP. Rick Santorum fully supports the Republican balanced budget amendment that caps spending at 18% of GDP. He wants lower tax rates for all, going to a 10%/28% two tier tax rate and lowering corporate tax rates.

While Gingrich criticized the Ryan roadmap, Santorum embraced it. Newt supported Medicare Part D, supported at one time healthcare mandates, and supported all the Bush programs that conservatives object to in Santorum’s voting record. Romney has gone further of course, embracing not just TARP, but healthcare mandates and failing to even fully criticize the Obama stimulus spending. Only Gingrich or Santorum will wage a campaign that fully challenges Obama’s whole agenda and actually works to repeal it. Newt has pegged Mitt Romney rightly as a Massachusetts moderate, but Newt is not without flys in his ointment either, from global warming to embracing Hillary, Pelosi and Al Sharpton (!) at various times in attempts to ‘reach across’ bipartisanly.

The bottom line is that between Newt, Santorum, and Romney .. Santorum is the one who is most fiscally conservative and who will have the most fiscally conservative administration as President.

Both Newt and Santorum are conservative. Just not perfect conservatives. For those who say that Santorum is not a ‘true conservative’, I would argue simply that if an 85% ACU rating and leadership on conservative issues in Congress for almost 2 decades is not enough, you will NEVER find a ‘true conservative’ in the Presidential field.

For the rest of us without that fine a filter, yes, Rick Santorum is a ‘true conservative’. Conservatives will be happy with his SCOTUS picks, his support of our military, his support for life, his tax reform and entitlement reforms, his pro-energy policies, his economic growth agenda, his fiscally responsible budgets, and his appeal to get America working again.

Mark Anderson| 1.12.12 @ 2:10PM

The only thing I like about you Peter, is that your bald, and yet unlike most conservative bald men, you don't shave your head to pretend you have control over it. Conservatives have been waging class warfare. Conservatives just like to keep it quiet.

David| 1.12.12 @ 2:12PM

Steve R, this is the primary. The candidates do bash each other and the people commenting here support his candidate.

Yes, we will support Romney if he IS the nominee. However, we are in the process of selecting the nominee. So you deal with it.

Drifter| 1.12.12 @ 3:05PM

Who then is electable? Barack Obama perhaps!

Get a Clue| 1.12.12 @ 4:53PM

Why is this so hard for "conservative" bloggers to understand? The question is not Romney's purity. The question is, who do you want in the White House, Obama or Romney? Conblogs may love (what they see as) true conservatives, but those truebluers aren't electable against anybody, much less Obama.

Sunnyr| 1.12.12 @ 7:39PM

I feel like I have been holding my nose and voting for one RINO after another for the past many years and I am tired of it. I will not vote for Mittens, or Newt or Santorum. All DC Insiders or Wall Street Money Men.

Rick Perry is my candidate. At least he is a real conservative with a record of accomplishment and will be a Real Commander in Chief who even knows how to pronounce the word, "corpsman."

Go Rick! 2012

valwayne| 1.12.12 @ 8:29PM

The Republican field is what it is. Its pretty clear now that Gov Romney is the most conservative candidate that can beat Obama, and its more and more evident that he will be our nominee. Ranting against him at this point is rather dumb, unless you plan to vote for Obama. Romney will govern as a reasonable conservative because he will want to win relection and he knows he face a massive challenge from the right, if he doesn't govern as a conservative. And even though I'm a conservative I want a conservative/pragmatic President that gets our economy moving and people back to work. Obama's arrogance and abolute insistence on his extreme left wing ideology and agenda has divided the nation and done terrible damage. I don't want someone so stuck on ideology, even a conservative, that they do what Obama has done from the right. Reagan was conservative yet pragmatic. He was willing to take 80% and go back later for the rest. Romney / Rubio 2012!!!

POST American| 1.12.12 @ 10:26PM

----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------

"We are in the 11th hour of the Globalist
RED China set up, sellout, world TREASON
and, most 'deliciously', -------EUGENICS OP."
-Post American

'Delicious'?

---We now learn the Sinamix Corp. is
supplying 'flavor enhancers' sourced in
the flesh of the electively aborted unborn.

It's in all kinds of processed foods.

---CHECK IT OUT---

'Rule by X--spurts' ---deeply, deeply
funded, endlessly promoted, utterly
directed by the NGOs and capstone
'benny violent' foundations.

Vivisectionists/ Behaviorists/ EUGENISTS
-er, we meant, 'social engineers' and 'Bye-O
ethicists'.

The white coated priest class
is their creation and is their
KEY instrument of CON-troll.

Unless we realize that unthinkable has
already been done to us ---we're finished.

------------------------------------------NO JOKE

vols1785| 1.13.12 @ 7:53AM

This Ferrara is a gasbag, much like his mancrush, Newton Gingrich.

Any of these guys will beat Obama, simply because incumbent Presidents do not win re-election when the economy has shriveled into nothing under his watch. Happened to Dubya's dad, and it'll send Citizen Barack back to Chicago.

Romney will be a fine President, we are seeing Gingrich's kooky side now, and I for one do not want his chubby fingers on our nuke button when he goes bipolar.

Jim| 1.13.12 @ 8:53AM

Reading the comments here is rather depressing.

Of course anyone can beat Obama. If the jobless recovery fails he is toast, even many of his past voters will turn out to vote GOP.

The depressing thing here is reading the whiny Rino bashing elitists that no nothing of compromise. Racist, homophobic believers in BIG GOVERNMENT telling a doctor how to treat his patient or a priest who he can marry sicken me and drove me to the Democratic party.

Ron Paul is the best Republican but you are too addicted to BIG GOVERNMENT and the USA as the world's policeman to allow your one last shot at the best man for America.

Becka James| 1.15.12 @ 9:27PM

And just yesterday, Ron Paul announced to the world that we should have empathy for the poor Iranians and just leave them alone. At some point, the stupidity of the man must eek through to some area of your brain, yes?

Tom| 1.13.12 @ 10:13AM

The writer is absolutely correct. Here is my take on it. The Congress controls the purse. The person in charge the last time we had a balanced budget? Newt Gingrich. The man who authored the Contract with America and the 21st Century Contract With America? Newt Gingrich. The man who led Republicans to the majority after 40 years of Democrat rule? Newt Gingrich. The man who commands not only the big picture, but the minutae of pretty much every topic, and therefore would shred Barack Obama in a debate? Newt Gingrich. Now look at Romney. He can't run against Obamacare because of Romneycare. He will be painted as what he is--a man worth $250,000,000 who made much of his money wrecking companies and leaving a trail of broken lives behind him. Obama will show the picture of him with his Bain buddies where they all have $100 bills sticking out of their pockets and shirtsleeves, and he'll show pictures of Mitt's five houses and he will ask, "Does this man have your interests at heart?" The answer for man "average" Americans will be a resounding "NO!" and Obama will win. Newt Gingrich is the man Obama truly fears, which is why the mainstream press is trying to destroy Newt--they're in the bag for Obama and everyone knows it. Don't take my word, take the word of Donna Brazile, a Democrat operative for years who recently let it slip that the Dems think Romney is the weakest candidate. Romney is tailor made for Obama while, as I already said, Obama fears Newt Gingrich. I'll take Gingrich and his record over Romney and his record any day.

Gussie Fink-Nottle| 1.13.12 @ 3:41PM

With Newt, they won't show his 5 houses, just his line of credit at Tiffany's - and perhaps how long it took him to pay that down. "He wants us all in orphanages, he won't be able to work with either side, he's a family-values hypocrite, he'll take away SS & Medicare as we know it. How will he get anything done when even R's hate him, etc." A liberal media that called Bush II 'the most right-wing president of the century' who went to war to 'reward his oil buddies' won't lack for labels to pin on any of the candidates...

Brian Richard Allen | 1.13.12 @ 11:36AM

John Sidney McCain's lock-stepping-Goebbels-Media and "other "Democratic" potty-activist-inspired, encouraged and facilitated "nomination" gave me the entire campaign and election-day off in 2008.

And should the RINO, Romney "win" this year's Primary?

My wallet stays in my pocket and November 6 2012 will be another Stay-At-Home Day.

Gussie Fink-Nottle| 1.13.12 @ 3:32PM

Withering -but amazing - article! A home run!
I always need to navigate between the Smerconish types that think only Jon Huntsman is electable (most conservatives + independents + picking off a few Dems = Win), the Christies who think only Romney is electable (most conservatives + most independents + a few Dems concerned about the economy = Win), and the Ferraras who think only conservatives are electable (every conservative voting & volunteering + other concerned tea partiers + half of independents = Win).
I agree with Ferrara: Americans tend to take a sharp right turn after a sharp left turn.
My only criticism of the article: The line, "...largest capital gains tax cut in history... from 28% to 20%. Despite that cut... revenues soared $84 billion higher for 1997-2000 than projected..." is disingenuous. This represents the "dot com bubble" that burst in 2001 and robbed Bush II's tax cut of its mojo.
I'm also not very concerned about Romneycare hurting him: Mass. passed it to use as their health care while Obama passed his as "a good start", a way to get the government foot in the door for later tampering, hoping to reach single-payer health care over 10-15 years.

Leftshot| 1.14.12 @ 2:40AM

All good points, but the best evidence that Romney is least electable is this:
- No matter which candidate is up, down, in or out Romney hasn't been able to get above the 20s in percent support in his own party. Roughly 3 of 4 Republicans seem to have already decided on "anybody but Romney".
- In a country where (as Gallup just reported) 20% are liberals and won't vote for Romney, 40% are conservatives who don't see Romney as one of them, and 30% are moderates who don't know what to expect from him, where is his 'base' and how is he going to muster enough voter support to win?

CJM| 1.14.12 @ 5:02AM

The author notes the very reasons I refuse to vote for Romney, who is, in my opinion, just another obama. Romney is always in the forefront of the other republican candidates because the left-wing media has decided he is their choice for the republican voters--at least that way, if he wins the coveted Oval Office, they are assured that the obama agenda will proceed as planned.

David| 1.14.12 @ 11:14AM

After having pushed the inevitability of Romney for months, it's incredible that establishment Republicans are now having second thoughts about their choice. Romney is liberal lite. Romney is McCain. Romney will loose to Obama if he is the nominee.

Ron| 1.14.12 @ 12:30PM

What a total jackass. You are a "fellow" a fellow jackass.

Becka James| 1.15.12 @ 9:25PM

This article is spot on. Personally, I do not believe Romney can beat Obama, despite all the chest beating from the so-called conservatives about it. Not a chance. He is a moderate phony, whose own healthcare mess leaves him no room to criticize Obamacare. He stands for little of substance, and sorry, but he looks like a wax figure. No personality and nothing likeable about Romney. He is not conservative, and he certainly won't and can't rouse the base. People like Ann Coulter and Chris Christie will have a lot to answer for after pushing this lemon on the voting public. Obama will clean his clock handily.

joe| 1.15.12 @ 10:50PM

Romney is as appealing to listen too as the electronic operator on the phone. She is saying it but has no clue what she is saying. He needs to use better analogies and work on his sincerity. His power is in the money he has available to campaign with, not his message or the way he delivers it.

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|54 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|46 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|29 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|70 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|9 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|17 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|20 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

James Gandolfini, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 9:13PM

An Alternate History of the Syrian Civil War

John Tabin | 6:13PM

Peter Wehner Responds

Jeffrey Lord | 5:39PM

CBO Gives Ammunition to Immigration Reform Supporters

Jordan Gonzalez | 5:28PM

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 5:07PM

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

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

By George Neumayr

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

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

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

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?