-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Political Hay
Getting It Right Next Time
How conservatives can overcome their losing record in Republican presidential primaries.
What happened yesterday in Pennsylvania wasn’t just the end of Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign. It was the conclusion of a year-long battle between the Republican establishment and disaffected conservatives, which culminated in the collective failure of the candidates to the right of Mitt Romney to deny him the nomination.
It’s a familiar ending. Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain all beat back conservative insurgents to win the Republican nomination. Only the elder Bush went on to win the White House, and then only once. Had New Hampshire independents not swooned for McCain in 2000, George W. Bush would have found himself quelling a conservative insurrection led by Steve Forbes. The story is as old as Tom Dewey and Dwight Eisenhower defeating Robert Taft.
Movement conservatives have captured the Republican nomination during a competitive primary process only twice: Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Ronald Reagan in 1980. After Reagan won two terms as president — by landslide margins both times — many assumed the conservative takeover of the GOP was complete.
These assumptions proved ill founded. In 1988, many conservatives rallied behind Bush senior as Reagan’s loyal vice president and heir apparent. Those who still preferred bold colors to pale pastels split between different variants of conservatism: religious conservatives for Pat Robertson, supply-siders for Jack Kemp, and a smattering of conservatives who for various reasons liked Dole, Pete DuPont, and Alexander Haig.
Bush won the nomination and the presidency, dispatching a smug, diminutive liberal governor from Massachusetts who seemed to think the country longed for a return to the malaise of the Carter years. But it was a Pyrrhic victory, as Bush soon broke conservatives’ hearts: he raised taxes, rescued racial quotas, and presided over a slow erosion of the gains from the Reagan years. By 1993, the Democrats once again controlled both elected branches of the federal government.
In 1996, conservatives again split. Some were resigned to Dole. Economic conservatives liked Phil Gramm, social conservatives were for Pat Buchanan, supply-siders were attracted to the Forbes flat tax plan. The right made its stand against Dole in the early states but the race was over by Super Tuesday.
Four years ago, national security hawks joined establishment Republicans in supporting McCain. Evangelicals flocked to Mike Huckabee while other movement conservatives split their votes between Romney and Fred Thompson. This time the primary campaign was effectively over after Florida.
This year the race continued past Super Tuesday. If Santorum had held on in Pennsylvania on April 24, it might have been June before Romney clinched. Santorum had many disadvantages: he was a Northeastern Catholic most popular with Southern evangelicals (with Newt Gingrich still in the race), an ex-senator who hadn’t won an election in twelve years, an underfunded candidate who was vulnerable to being outspent 4 or 5-1, the leader of a campaign organization more appropriate for his previous status as an asterisk candidate.
Yet if Santorum had done just a bit better in Michigan and Ohio, we could be having a very different discussion right now. Santorum showed future conservative contenders how to go hunting where the ducks are. As the New York Times columnist Ross Douthat observed, a Republican like Bobby Jindal could take the Santorum coalition — Southerners, Midwesterners, evangelicals, Catholics, and Reagan Democrats — and build on it.
One way to build on this is to do better among these groups than Santorum did. For example, Santorum lost Catholics — his coreligionists — in Ohio (by thirteen points) and Michigan (by seven). He needed a stronger showing in the Midwestern primaries and caucuses, where he had mixed results.
Alternatively, imagine a candidate — a Kentucky senator, perhaps — who could hold onto the Ron Paul vote while reaching more deeply into the Republican base. A presidential contender who could win more evangelicals, more older voters, and more partisan Republicans while still putting up big numbers among the independents and young.
That combination could have won Iowa this time around. It also would have potentially made for a more competitive New Hampshire primary, marrying votes for Paul and Jon Huntsman to the Santorum and Gingrich voters. This hypothetical campaign wouldn’t be dead on arrival in the South or closed primary states.
Perhaps the Pauls aren’t your cup of tea, even when served cool. That is something a Tea Party candidate for the presidential nomination will have to resolve early because a divided conservative vote spells doom for a conservative insurgent. Imagine if the same candidate had won Iowa and South Carolina.
Conservative primary voters are more discriminating than ever, looking seriously at the flaws of old heroes like Gingrich and new saviors like Rick Perry. They are more willing to keep the primary contest going than before. All they need is a candidate to lead them.
What if that candidate, come 2016 or 2020, is a current rather than former elected official? Someone with no votes for Medicare Part D or No Child Left Behind in his record? Someone who has governed, without tax increases or TARP bailouts? The bench will not be as depleted from the Bush years next time.
By winning 11 primaries and caucuses, Rick Santorum was the most successful conservative insurgent since Ronald Reagan in 1976. But that still isn’t good enough. The right is seeking to emulate Reagan in 1980 instead.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (216) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/11/getting-it-right-next-time
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
sagman888| 4.11.12 @ 7:41AM
"Don't feed the trolls."
Who are the trolls? Posters posing as conservatives, furious that Romney is it, saying that Romney and Obama are Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and promising to stay home on election day.
No conservative who's actually watched Obama and Romney could say such a thing. Therefore, I believe that people who come to this site (and others) promising abstention in November are Dem plants trying to depress turnout for Romney. You cannot be aghast at what Obama is doing to this country and sit on your hands complaining that Romney isn't right enough and call yourself conservative, principled, whatever. Masochistic, maybe.
Jack in Wi.| 4.11.12 @ 8:54AM
Acccording to polling the most electable Republicans were always Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. The elites of the party stay in power by putting up a lot of frontmen to split the conervative vote. In 1996 for example it was Gary Bauer, Bob Dornan and Alan Keyes. They took enough votes from Buchanan to ensure Dole's nomination. Ron Paul in order to be the nominee probably, had to win Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, they moved the vote counting to a secret location, and got the evangelical that are controlled by money bribes and warmonering to push Santorum. In every state they kept using either Gingrich or Santorum to keep Paul from being the only opponent Romney had. Well now it is essentially down to Romney as inevitable, and Ron Paul as the opposition. We will see how it goes in the remaining states. In Virginia with Romney having all the endorsements and a lot of money it was 60 40.
There is no way that Romney can win without us. The tiny minortiy of people voting in these Republican primaries are not reflective of the general electorate. Over 40% of the population now calls themselves independent. Only 27% remain braindead Republicans. Ron Paul and his ideas run the best among young people and independents. Why would young person or thinking independent vote for a bankster and warmonger like Romney? In order to put together a winning coalition Romney has to move to the libertarian side. That is why he is kissing up to the Paul's. It will take more than that to get us over on his side. He will have to dump his neocon foreign policy and at least push for a complete audit of the Fed. There is no way this country is voting for another warmonger or elitist like Romney. He is somehow going to have to change. We all know Willard can change his principles at the turn of a leaf. Lets hope he gets his act together and puts up a winning program for peace and prosperity. If he does he will sound a lot more like Ron Paul, then G W Bush.
T.L.P.| 4.11.12 @ 9:54AM
Jackie Boy. Why would anyone, besides Clint, bother reading past your 1st sentence? And - "The Pauls"?
Why am I thinking that there's an Amber Alert that goes out immediately, every time you leave your house, to get the Mail?
C'mon. RON PAUL IS DEAD.
Stop wasting your life on Ron Paul, and get out there and find yourself a reputable Cult that's making preparations to Beam Up the the Alien Ship that's on the Dark Side of the Moon. (Just, be careful. You don't wanna end up on Farrakhan's Mother Wheel.)
"Here. Drink this."
Teaghan| 4.11.12 @ 9:55AM
Jack, they ALL change like the wind, kiss whatever behind needs to be smooched. It's who looks good on camera in their $1200.00 suit and who promises the most. At least we won't have the old man this time to embarasses us. We have Mr GQ !
Mike Hawk| 4.11.12 @ 11:07AM
Electable is a meaningless and useless term. Obama was unelectable. Ron Paul has no chance of being elected as he won't be nominated. 77 yr old crackpots don't go anywhere.
JimP| 4.11.12 @ 11:20AM
Ron Paul was the one who had a deal with Romney to not criticize the other, yet it was Newt and Rick who were establishment plants? LOL
Kool Aid overdose alert.
Clint| 4.11.12 @ 6:29PM
That's A Lie.
You're A Liar, JimP.
"Ron Paul: I won’t commit to backing Romney if he’s the nominee
“I’d talk to him and see what kind of a foreign policy he is going to have,” Paul, a congressman from Texas, told reporters at a rally two days before most of Missouri’s counties hold their Republican caucuses. “Mitt’s a friend and we talk a lot. We just disagree on the issues.”…
Sacto Joe| 4.11.12 @ 2:22PM
After thinking about this for a while, I conclude that Romney may be the perfect candidate. I will not vote for him but rather will vote against Obama. All I expect from Romney is to not scare me. Obama scares me and, I suspect, scares lots of others also. I am ok with bland. I hope he does not embrace something that promises big changes back to some ideal circumstance. We need to wait a while to set a new course and, if and when he gets elected, Romney will need to demonstrate that he is worthy enough to be trusted to govern conservatively. Bland is good.
Ed Norris| 4.11.12 @ 4:17PM
Joe, you may very well be right. The real issue I do have with Obama is the fact that if he is re-elected, he will take that as approval of his policies so far, including those that are divisive, such as jumping on to the race bandwagon, or going seesaw on the private and public sectors, etc. I don't like Obama, but consider this: If Romney had just gotten elected to be different from the previous guy, he's pretty much up a hill with the pressure on him to prove it. And if he doesn't turn out to be all so great, well, we don't have to vote for a Romney re-election. Again, I have almost always found that ideal conservative candidates can't be found. However, we can put the pressure on Romney to govern conservatively, and he would likely lean right of center given that the conservative segment would have made a difference for him, should he win.
I will admit, I sometimes hope Romney takes on Jindal as a running mate, because his record makes loads of difference. If not, I hope we could try upstaging Romney in 2016, Jindal or Ryan might have a chance, if he doesn't resonate well enough with the GOP by then.
jocon307| 4.11.12 @ 10:53PM
I hope that you are correct, but this is always the sales pitch a candidate who won't "scare" people.
This is why I actually think it is very unfortunate that Romney was not the nom. last time. And I also think he would have been a much, much better pres. for the last 4 years.
Well, we'll see
Quartermaster| 4.12.12 @ 10:02AM
In the unlikely even that Mittens is elected, he will scare you. He will scare you a lot. Prolly just as much as the Kenyan. sagman888 above is deluded thinking that Mittens is much different than the Kenyan. Mittens doesn't scare George Soros in the least. Cain, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul scare Soros to death. But not Mittens. Soros lurves him some Mittens.
Romney stands little chance against the Kenyan because there isn't enough of a difference to matter. Mittens is just another Masshole libtard Gov. That there's "R" behind his name is a shame, as it's not anything meaningful.
T.L.P.| 4.11.12 @ 9:44AM
I don't understand Mr. Antlers Story.
Are you trying to say that, "Once again, Conservatives, and Conservatism was FOILED by the likes of Karl Rove and Jeb Bush"? That, it was DONE IN by the The Establishment Republicans from the Rockefeller Wing?
I disagree. I say that Conservatism Lost, because it didn't buy a ticket. As in The Lottery, one needs to "Be in it, to Win it". Or, in a different parlance: One needs a "Horse in the Race".
For anyone to claim that Newt Gingrich is a Conservative, they would have to have been buying Coke from the same guy that Obama used to get His from, for the last 20 Years. (Or, from Whitney Houston. I would have accepted either answer)
He's a "Global Warming Guy". That's him over there. Sitting on the sofa with his New Best Friend - San Fran LYING SLUT - Nancy Pelosi. She's the Big Lib Botox Queen who suffers from Dementia, and owns all those Vineyards and Restaurants that don't hire UNION people. (Like all of the Hollywood Stars who Film in Canada, to avoid paying Union Scale.)
There he is (Gingrich), calling the Smartest Guy in D.C. - Paul Ryan - "A Republican Social Engineer".
Then there's Rick Santorum. He's a good man. A good Husband. And he seems to be a good Father. So am I. So's my Brother and my Neighbor. He was never gonna be the one. Like Al Gore, in 2000, he couldn't even win his own state.
Ron Paul? The only two guys on this site who like him, are a guy who writes in Ancient Cryptography About: Bunders? Israeli Firsters? Something About Lying Smearers. He's Got A "Bibi Gun", Or Something, And He Believes That There's A Tea Party Wherever He Happens To Be, That Day. And He Seems To Think That Every Word Starts With A Capitol Letter.
(Is there a Doctor in the house?)
The other one just HATES JEWS.
The reason Conservatism didn't win, was that NO CONSERVATIVES got in the race. I think that they thought that this guy, couldn't be beat. The 1st African American President. Everybody likes him. He's the 1st African American President.
Nobody ran. Nobody wanted to do the work. Paul Ryan. Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, in South Carolina. Fat Ass/Big Mouth, in New Jersey. The Cuban Kid with NOTHING on his Resume', in Florida.
The problem we have, as Conservatives, is that all of our best people are Brand New. They just got in. It's easy to see why a brand new Governor would choose to stay where He or She is. And we can't run someone just because they're Handsome, and can lock up the Cuban Vote in Little Havana. The road forward is clear: We need to set our differences aside, and come together as a Team. How many Professional Sports Teams have we known, whose Players Hated each other's Guts, but still managed to come together ON THE FIELD, and Win Championships?
The Marxist Muslim has to be defeated. If that means we don't get our 1st choice? Then so be it. We cannot survive 4 more years of this.
To the Governors of the States that have enacted Voter I.D. Laws, only to have those Laws ruled "Invalid" by a Lying, Thieving, Racist CROOK - Eric Holder - on Voting Rights Grounds, after he let Obama's Black Buddies get off Scott Free, on obvious Voting Rights Violations, I say this: Be the Gander. Do as the Goose does. Go forward with your I.D. Laws. How can an Administration that Spits on Court Orders for a living, and gives Get Outta Jail Free Cards to Black Radical Marxist Street Gangs who Violate the Voting Laws, on their behalf, win a Case against you in a Court of Law? This has already been through the Supreme Court, and even Super Lib - John Paul Stevens - ruled in favour of the state of Indiana's Voter I.D. Laws.
Do it.
This would force a Confrontation that would shine the light on who, and what these MFers really are, and how they operate outside of the Law.
It's time to pick a fight.
Teaghan| 4.11.12 @ 9:59AM
Fantastic post TLP. Utterly fantastic!
Bo Darville| 4.11.12 @ 11:04AM
Amen, brother.
richard ryan| 4.11.12 @ 11:35AM
"Cuban Kid with nothing on his resume" is an intelligent, well-spoken conservative who is young enough to do big things in this country. And he will.
T.L.P.| 4.11.12 @ 11:50AM
NOTHING on his resume'.
I didn't say he's Punk. I just said that he hasn't done anything.
I'm a well spoken Conservative, but I'm not ready to run for President.
"I'm T.L.P. and I'm running for President. I'm a Smart, Well Spoken Conservative, and even though I have nothing to point to as a means of proving my Electability against a Sitting President. I am good looking, and, by golly, one of these days I'm gonna do big things."
See the problem?
Maybe he will do "Big Things" in this Country.
When he does, then we'll talk.
richard ryan| 4.11.12 @ 2:18PM
Obama just had a few years in the Senate (not much of a resume), and look what he's done!
T.L.P.| 4.11.12 @ 4:31PM
You're exactly right, Dick. Can I call you Dick?
Just look what he's done.
Dumb*ss.
Quartermaster| 4.12.12 @ 10:05AM
I think the irony is lost on you.
Noah Webster| 4.11.12 @ 12:39PM
It's "Scot-free", not "Scott Free".
T.L.P.| 4.11.12 @ 4:29PM
Best post of the day.
Congratulations.
GGinPG| 4.11.12 @ 1:02PM
Ummmm...Perry?
GETRIDOFHIM| 4.11.12 @ 1:10PM
Bravo. Best post I've read in quite some time. I wholeheartedly agree with you re: "Do it." Ignore Obama and Holder's "rules" just like they ignore the Constitution and the majority voice of the American people. Yes, Obama must be defeated at all costs. GET RID OF HIM.
Nicolas D.| 4.12.12 @ 7:23AM
Could you please give one specific example of ignoring Constitution?
Do you speak about BUSH who ignored the constitution when he embarked us in a useless, extremely costly war based on lies??
Gary B| 4.12.12 @ 12:01AM
Great post, TLP!
Nicolas D.| 4.12.12 @ 7:21AM
Marxist Muslim, REALLY?!
Are you that stupid and deceitful?
What a joke... Obama would be a centrist in most of European countries, some of them far better running than USA (Germany, Sweden etc.).
Obama killed Ousama Ben Laden and have taken a difficult decision.
T.L.P.: you are an EMBARRASSMENT for the right...
BTW what about the weapons of mass deception from the crooks Bush and Rove and Cheney...
Tommy Frisco| 4.11.12 @ 10:07AM
sagman,
I know conservatives who stayed home in 2008. I voted for McCain, but vowed to never vote for a RINO again. I must break that promise and vote for Romney whom I believe is more of a RINO than anyone else I can think of.
That said, I am already disgusted with sanctimonious pundits and commenters who say a person is not conservative if he doesn't vote for the lib/moderate candidate (Romney). If you were a conservative, you wouldn't be a Romney supporter.
Your guy will be on the ballot in November. I will vote for him. Now shut the h*ll up!
Bo Darville| 4.11.12 @ 11:06AM
If you're at a restaurant and you order the steak and the waitress says "I'm sorry, we're out of steak". Do you pick the next best choice or let them give you a plate of fecal matter?
Byron Keith| 4.11.12 @ 11:39AM
Sticking with your restaurant anaolgy, you do neither; you leave and go to a better restaurant.
This cannot happen as long as conservatives believe that the Republican Party is the only restaurant that'll even (grudgingly) let us in the door, and that we are incapable of establishing a better restaurant . The first is true, and the second is possible but untried. It is tragic that in politics the phrases "American ingenuity" and "build a better mousetrap" just do not seem to apply. Instead, we are told to fall behind whatever leader that party designates for us, with lockstep loyalty that would do any tyrant from Caesar on down proud.
Until we build a conservative party - that serves 100% American red-meat steak, if you please - conservatism will have no place in American politics. We'll just be choosing between donkey dung and elephant dung.
Darin| 4.11.12 @ 1:14PM
The name of the restaurant is USA. Where you gonna go? Chez France?
Byron Keith| 4.11.12 @ 1:44PM
Under the leadership of the two parties running the restaurant, Chez France is coming here. I believe the USA deserves better.
Tommy Frisco| 4.11.12 @ 11:51AM
Karl, is that you? If so, I'll ask you this, Why do you insist on supporting candidates who are just barely to the right of the Dem candidate? Why do you ignore and ridicule conservative patriots until you need our votes in November? Do you really think walking toward the cliff is much better than running toward it?
Again, I will vote for your guy even as he moves to the Left during his general campaign so that he can pick up a few of his precious moderates and independents. What else do you want from me? Do you want me to be excited about being headed for the cliff? Is that what I'm supposed to tell my children and grandchildren?
Byron Keith| 4.11.12 @ 12:12PM
I am not "Karl," and if my comments have the appearance of sarcasm, please accept my apology.
Tommy Frisco| 4.11.12 @ 12:19PM
Sorry for the confusion, Byron. I was replying to Bo. I agree with your comments.
Byron Keith| 4.11.12 @ 12:25PM
I kind of figured, but thank you for the reassurance.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:31PM
If you're at a restaurant and order steak but the people who run the restaurant serve up shit, do you smile and eat it, figuring the alternative would be worse?
Phil| 4.11.12 @ 8:56PM
Funny what 4 years does in the minds of the eduma'cated electorate. Back in 2008 Romney was the "Conservative Alternative" to John McCain. His '08 winnings in rural America made John King's fancy maps light up like a red dwarf! And now, in 2012 he's a RINO. Seems to me like Romney's done a whole helluva lot less flip-flopping in a lifetime than the GOP base has in four years.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:35PM
Let's put that to the test:
GOP Base:
Pro-Life
Pro-Free Market
Anti-Big Government
Anti-Socialism
Anti-Gay Marriage
Pro Religious Liberty
Mitt Romney
Pro-abortion until age 60, now claims pro-life
Pro socialized medicine, TARP, auto bailout, then anti to some degree (speeches only)
Said he was anti-gay marriage, signed it into law
Said he was pro religious liberty, on own initiative issued exec order forcing Catholic doctors and nurses to distribute abortifacients against their conscience
So other than that....
Danram| 4.11.12 @ 10:45AM
I laugh openly at any supposed "conservative" who claims that he/she is going to stay home on election day because they don't think Romney is conservative enough. Romney may not be their preferred candidate, but anyone who could seriously think that he isn't a better alternative than Barack Obama is brain-dead. 99.999% of these people will show up on election day to vote against Obama if not for Romney.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:36PM
Not in the South we won't.
PaulC| 4.11.12 @ 10:51AM
You're wrong in at least one case. I'm no Dem plant (I'm a registered Republican who has voted Republican in every election since becoming eligible to vote in 1972), and I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidate in November if I have that choice. Make no mistake, I want to see Obama lose, but I'm not willing for hold my nose and vote for a non-conservative like Romney.
Mike Hawk| 4.11.12 @ 11:09AM
You will be electing Obozo. Don't worry though. You won't have to make that choice in 2016 as there won't be one should Obozo win again.
PaulC| 4.11.12 @ 11:22AM
I don't believe the situation today would be significantly better if McCain had won in 2008. Romney is an improvement over McCain only in that Romney isn't we'll past his prime. But to call Romney a conservative is to wring all meaning from the word. He's not even close, except rhetorically, and only when it suits him.
Renaissance Nerd | 4.13.12 @ 11:29AM
McCain is not very conservative, true. I didn't vote for him in the primary, even though I live in AZ. However we would be better off in EVERY way if he were president. Instead of $5 trillion in new debt, there would only be $1.5 trillion. Instead of Obamacare we'd have...no change from before Obamacare. Instead of tax hikes looming on the horizon every year we'd have stable tax rates for a few years at least, allowing businesses to plan for the future, a little bit. McCain is fairly conservative fiscally, less so socially, but he offered no massive changes to the status quo. While the status quo is a slow march towards fascism, with Obama we got a sudden lurch farther than any time in the last 100 years, more even than Roosevelt or Johnson. He's trying to establish $1.5 trillion deficits as the new normal. ANYTHING that slows down the progressives is better. Republicans may be far too 'go along to get along' to suit me, but until I have a better choice I'm with them. Tossing away my vote on a hopeless candidate like Perot or sitting home are not good options. Conservatives are supposed to be grounded in reality, and the reality is that our nation is veering towards a cliff. Even a reborn George Washington might not be able to stop us from going over; a president has very little real power, the real action has always been in the Congress and Courts. Romney may not be perfect, but he will at least try to keep us from going off the cliff, if for no other reason to protect his own wealth and that of his set. That's better than steering towards the abyss, even if he fails.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:37PM
Nope, YOU will be electing Obozo.
That's what happens when you force a slimy crapweasel liberal like Romney down conservatives' throats---right after you did it with McCain four years earlier.
Vern Crisler | 4.11.12 @ 1:14PM
I'm with you PaulC. I will no longer vote for a moderate Republican, especially a lying snake like Romney. I will write in Sarah's name if I have to.
I do plan to vote for conservatives for the House and the Senate, but this time it's better to have Obama facing a conservative Congress than having an empty suit working together with Establishment Republicans.
No matter how you look at it, a Romney nomination is a disaster for the Republican Party, and a Romney win in November would be a even greater disaster for the Republican Party.
We've already been down this road before. Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, g-ddam you already.
Mike Hawk| 4.11.12 @ 4:48PM
Why don't you just go vote a straight Democrat ticket. That's the effect you will have.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:38PM
Good idea!
I'm in.
Now how are you going to find enough diffident metrosexuals to make up for my lost vote?
Skippy| 4.11.12 @ 4:57PM
"Absolutely right!"
BHO
aware| 4.11.12 @ 6:33PM
Vern! I do believe you are beginning to see the light!
One Party, 2 wings.
sagman888| 4.11.12 @ 9:48PM
"Romney nomination is a disaster for the Republican Party. ..."
I wish people who say things like this would use a modifier like "probably'; otherwise, let the rest of us know how to predict the future. You cannot say definitively that Romney will be bad for America. What we do know is that Obama is most definitely a disaster and most probably would do worse in a second term.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:38PM
Point to anything he's DONE in his past that points toward conservative governance.
We'll wait.
Occam's Tool| 4.11.12 @ 12:28PM
Next time, how about raising some money and establishing a campaign team before running, huh?
Bricks without straw is always tough.
Die Fledermaus| 4.11.12 @ 5:08PM
Oh, thank you oh sainted one! I've been wondering who was the holder of what is or isn't conservative. Not only to you crown yourself, you are kind and benevolent enough to give the rest of us the table of contents on how to think.
I pray to you oh enlightened genius.
Go to hell.
NoLawyers| 4.11.12 @ 5:20PM
"No conservative who's actually watched Obama and Romney could say such a thing." Which Romney are you referring to? Obama is evil and (maybe) Romney is less so, so I should vote for (maybe) less evil? I think that big enthusiasm for that opportunist would do more harm to the Republicans who won't win with Romney than a poor turnout which would say that the Republicans are not dumb enough to be captured by a creep who won the nomination by burying his adversaries with negative ads. His negative ads bought him the nomination. The only salvation will be getting control of BOTH house and senate. If Romney had won with positive ads, then just maybe I'd be able to vote for him.
Phil| 4.11.12 @ 9:12PM
"The lesser of two evils" argument has about run its course. What a joke to think that everyone's idea of "good" and "evil", especially concerning politics, is somehow measurable! The only perfect candidate in the world would be ME, and likewise for everyone else. The only person anyone is going to agree with 100% is themselves. So there will ALWAYS be a lesser of two evils on the ballot unless MY name miraculously shows up! And the same goes for each and every one of us. So stop with the "lesser of two evils" bologna and let's start talking about what is best for America in November, and let's center that around reality (just in case there are those still under the delusion that voting for anyone but one of the two-party candidates will make any difference). Just because you get a "warm fuzzy" writing "Sarah Palin" on the ballot in November doesn't mean you did the right thing for the future of freedom in America.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:29PM
You MittBots are geniuses.
First you ignore the existence of the conservative GOP base---which, btw, is about 80% of the party's voters---then you proceed to piss off even more of us with your ridiculous conspiracy theories. All the more ironic since YOU'RE the conspiracists who foisted this dog's breakfast of a candidate upon us.
DRA2010| 4.16.12 @ 9:40PM
The other trolls are the Democrats and Progressives who are voting in the Republican primaries (it's not as if there are any Democratic primaries for them to worry about) in order to cause turmoil in the Republican ranks, and to try to select a candidate less likely to defeat Obama.
Republic primaries need to be restricted to Republicans!
Tom| 4.11.12 @ 7:55AM
sagman888,
One doesn't have to be a troll to be aghast at the GOP nomination "Progressive (R)" against "PROGRESSIVE (D)."
What Romney has said he'll do during the primaries is consistent ONLY with his record of situational core values, varying on the audience before him that day.
His record while holding elective office was one of:
a) being the beta-tester for Obamacare;
b) being for the "global warming / climate change" hoax;
c) being pro-gun control;
d) nominating "moderate" judges ...
And so on.
I won't stay home on election day, I will vote for the "lesser of two evils." But leading up to then I won't volunteer time, donate money, do bumper stickers or yard signs. That will be for members of the "Ruling Class" Republicans and those hallowed "moderates" and "independents" to do -- he's their candidate, not a candidate of anyone who wants to start rolling back the Progressive tide that has been hollowing-out the Constitution for 100 years now, i.e., since the 1912 election of Woodrow Wilson.
sagman888| 4.11.12 @ 8:14AM
I respect this position. What I can't abide, and what I am suspicious of, is a "conservative" who leaves his ballot on the floor because it's Romney.
Obama is an existential threat to America. A second term for this guy, unbound? I have nightmares. Romney may be a) through d) but he isn't going to destroy the country in order to transform it.
And by the way, the man held elective office a long time ago. The guy who's been running does not at all sound like the guy who was Governor of Massachusetts. You think he's pulling a scam and will govern like a liberal? I can't see that. Is it remotely possible the things he's been saying over the months--the conservative things--he actually believes? And is he the kind of man who will defy Congress, subvert the courts, and trample the Constitution? What evidence of that is there?
Tom| 4.11.12 @ 8:28AM
>>You think he's pulling a scam and will govern like a liberal? I can't see that. Is it remotely possible the things he's been saying over the months--the conservative things--he actually believes?
Obama is an existential threat to the country, which is why I'll still vote for Romney, albeit reluctantly and with zero enthusiasm.
Could Romney (from a conservative standpoint) surprise to the upside?
It's theoretically possible ... and I'd love to be proven wrong and for him to do so.
But after George H. Bush / George W. Bush (not to mention Dole / McCain), consider me cynical through well-founded experience.
The Big E| 4.11.12 @ 12:24PM
Sagman,
Here's the thing you, and so many like you, do not seem to get - it doesn't matter if you think conservatives who won't vote for Romney in November are idiots. It doesn't even matter if they really ARE idiots. The point is - THEY WON'T BE VOTING FOR ROMNEY. Those are votes he will NOT be getting because they will not be cast. That has been the great fallacy with his campaign from the beginning, and it is the reason he will lose in November. He cannot win without the support of the base - and I don't just mean their votes, I mean their money and their time and their energy as well. He does not have that support, and I can think of nothing he can do or say which will earn it.
The election is Obama's to lose. Obama might lose it, but there is nothing Romney can do to win it.
Die Fledermaus| 4.11.12 @ 5:13PM
You bounce off the walls nicely. Romey's record as governor shows he will be more than happy to "work with" a "bipartisan" group to do all you say he won't.
Dem-lite here we come.
And why should we conservatives vote for a phony who ADMITS he panders to the room? He says, "well, Mass is a liberal state so I acted thusly" is not a good reason to vote FOR him.
His primary campaign, beyond BS rhetoric, never touts his plans (59 point economic plan? really?), they just rip his opponents.
He runs campaigns like a liberal Democrat and assumes the room like AlGore.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:41PM
What I can't abide is someone willing to whore themselves because somebody's wearing a Republican jersey.
THIS is your candidate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU
What precisely is there for conservatives to support?
Le Cracquere| 4.11.12 @ 3:54PM
Agreed. The man's got my begrudging vote, but not a scintilla more. Once the Bucket of Warm Spit That Walks Like a Man loses to Obama in the fall, let us speak no more of him.
I think it unwise to withhold one's vote in November--but if people do, and it results in a Romney loss, let's have no whinging about the voters who stayed home. Romney and his partisans had their chances to appeal to their interests, and they'll be the ones who ought to take a hard, long look in the mirror.
The Big E| 4.11.12 @ 4:50PM
Amen. Romney and his crew expect full, unwavering support from people to whom they offer nothing in return but occasional ridicule and a lot of hollow rhetoric.
But wait and see, when he loses, it will be blamed on conservatives for not supporting him, he and his kind will never accept responsibility for alienating the base. It will always be our fault, regardless of how badly they screw it up.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:42PM
Did any RINO take the blame for McCain's loss in 2008?
After assuring us he was the ideal candidate because "the media loved him", he was a "maverick", "able to appeal to independents in a way no conservative Republican could", etc?
Hell, how many high profile RINOs voted for Obama anyway? Christopher Buckley, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks et al?
Von Mises Jr.| 4.11.12 @ 8:16AM
New Jersey and Governor Chris Christie provide a microcosm of the problem with the Republican establishment.
New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the nation, among the highest unemployment and a severe foreclosure problem. Christie's solution is Agenda21 facilitated by a Rapid Foreclosure Bill that will deliver property to government ownership, and to provide "affordable housing" throughout the state.
The first problem is that the subprime "affordable housing" scheme is what brought us to this point in the first place. The federal government through Fannie and Freddie created a glut of underwater mortgages and foreclosures to collapse property values.
Christies solution: A "Development and Redevelopment Plan" to pass by Executive Order that creates an unelected, unaccountable board for property use restrictions. Page 38 of the 41 page plan concedes that it coordinates with the Federal Plan, and clearly states "decisions may be made at higher levels" (read DC and UN).
A Bill is quietly being rushed through Trenton to foreclose on homes across the state and have the state create its own Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac with publically financed bonds (read taxes) to buy homes in ALL neighborhoods (except perhaps Christie's town) and create 30 year "affordable housing" for sex offenders, felons, drug addicts and the homeless. Property values statewide will necessarily collapse.
Then we can all move into "smart growth" tenement buildings around Jersey City, and Christie and the rulers can have Morris County all to themselves.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.11.12 @ 8:39AM
Good comment.
John Navratil| 4.11.12 @ 11:01AM
Von Mises Jr.
Good post! Christie has a lot going for him, not least of which is his confrontations against SOME entrenched interests.
My view of Christie is that, like Phil Gramm, he is also an ideologue. He points, generally, in the correct direction for me, but then hits a foul ball. I'm quite sure he is not what I would like for a leader.
richard ryan| 4.11.12 @ 11:38AM
C.C. is a physical train wreck. I wish him the best, but he's a heart attack waiting to happen.
Von Mises Jr.| 4.11.12 @ 12:08PM
Hi John,
Americans for Prosperity had to pull Christie from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap and trade scheme kicking and screaming. He just borrowed $107M to implement ObamaCare.
My point is Christie is not who people think he is.
Marco2| 4.11.12 @ 8:25AM
Disgruntled conservatives have put up the likes of Pat Robertson, Steve Forbes and the bumbling Ricks against George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and Mitt Romney, and wonder why they lost? Fielding a half dozen also-rans with 5 or 10 per cent support apiece will guaranty their losing in perpetuity.
Bo Darville| 4.11.12 @ 11:08AM
I wonder why all the big dogs sat out this one. They must've known that Romney and Obama would have too much money to fight.
Indy| 4.11.12 @ 11:51AM
I think the A team sat this one out because they know the reality of what we face and did not want to be the captain of the ship when they ran into the perfect storm with no way out.
The Big E| 4.11.12 @ 12:27PM
Indy,
I think you're absolutely right.
Renaissance Nerd | 4.13.12 @ 11:41AM
So you reckon the 'big dogs' are a pack of cowards? Who haven't the patriotism to get into the fight when most needed? Perhaps they, who actually personally know Romney, are more confident in his abilities and don't believe he's the danger that the sages of the comments sections continually warn about. My main question for Romney is this: does he believe in management or leadership? He's been a Mormon Bishop and Stake President, positions requiring excellent leadership skills, but antithetical to management philosophy (as is the whole of the LDS Church). He has the experience and ability to be a leader, but he was educated as a manager. Which will he choose? Both Bushes saw the presidency as management, and both failed despite demonstrating leadership ability when dealing with the military. Reagan saw the presidency as a national leadership position, and is beloved...BELOVED...still. I have no evidence that Romney believes in leadership instead of management, but I have a little hope.
Clint| 4.11.12 @ 8:31AM
Happy Ass RINO-CINO's Put Up The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain.
Now, They Give Us Their McCain Redux
Danram| 4.11.12 @ 10:42AM
Clint, you are precisely the kind of intolerant, absolutist dumbass that holds the Republican Party back. You and a hundred more just like you aren't fit to shine John McCain's shoes.
Nothing in this wworld would make me happier than to see you and the rest of the ultra right-wing loons split off to form your own little fringe neo-Nazi party. That way you can nominate Sarah Palin for president every four years and everyone will be happy.
Mike Hawk| 4.11.12 @ 11:12AM
You are a Democrat/ Socialist and Nazis are Socialists and Liberals like you are dummasses. Clint is just wandering aimlessly since his Libertarian guy is out of it.
Occam's Tool| 4.11.12 @ 12:30PM
Clint goes back to his successful Iranian male prostitute business. See you in 4 years, Clint, and always use rubbers!
Mike Hawk| 4.11.12 @ 4:50PM
If Rube Paul is still around in 4 years he will be 80 yrs old. That will be OK by Clint though 'cause he will probably still be able ride his bicycle.
Clint| 4.11.12 @ 7:08PM
Little Micky Hawklette Is Mitten's Kitten, Now.
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.....
Clint| 4.11.12 @ 7:05PM
Tool Job's The Screwball Israel Firster Smear Bund Maniac,Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney, Back In June.
Tool Job Services His Mancrush, Bibi
Clint| 4.11.12 @ 7:00PM
You're A Smear Bund Serial Sociopathic Liar, Little Micky Hawkletee.
But You Already Know That.
Nicolas D.| 4.12.12 @ 7:27AM
Mike Hawk GET BACK TO SCHOOL please and to History 101.
Nazis were extreme-right people, you are so ignorant, their name is just a name. The best best proof EVER is that Nazis have slaughtered HUNDREDS of socialist members from the German socialist party in the 30s.
I understand now why far-right people like you believe in crazy things... they are ignorant!
Renaissance Nerd | 4.13.12 @ 11:47AM
Nazis were anti-capitalist socialists. The worst fights are always intramural; of course they were against other socialists and communists. The Bolsheviks killed all the Mensheviks; does that prove that therefore they weren't communists? And History 101 is no use; the books written by 'progressives' used in most history classes will of course identify Nazis as right-wing, because 'progressives' don't want to be associated with them despite sharing 90% of their beliefs. Nazism as right-wing is the most successful Big Lie of the last 70 years.
Die Fledermaus| 4.11.12 @ 5:17PM
And you are exactly the kind of cowardly, bend over and take it from libs, moron that keeps this country forevery moving towards marxism.
You just think your crap doesn't stink if you just help to slow down the demise.
John McCain was a man in the 1960's. He's now an old fart that needs to be in a nursing home under 24 hour care.
Clint| 4.11.12 @ 7:09PM
Yeah, What He Said.
Clint| 4.11.12 @ 6:42PM
You're Full Of RINO-CINO Crap, RINO-CINO Phoney Conservative, Danram.
John McCain Is The Serial Traitor To Conservatism,Who Gave Us McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
RCV| 4.11.12 @ 1:25PM
...where's that "open convention" you and your Tea Party were headin' to, Clint?
Mike Hawk| 4.11.12 @ 4:51PM
It's open to question now.
Clint| 4.11.12 @ 7:11PM
So's Your Mitten's New Kitten Mouth, Little Micky Hawklette.
Clint| 4.11.12 @ 6:57PM
Where's Your Boy, Obama's Obamacare, Obama LawBoy, RCV ?
G. Tracy Mehan, III| 4.11.12 @ 8:45AM
The Reagan case is interesting. While being an authentic and articulate conservative, he had a substantial political and, most importantly, financial base in California, one of the world's largest economy. So he was a conservative with a huge infrastructure behind him. The only candidate who approached this level of backing was Governor Perry, but he had other issues. So any scenario for conservative primacy in the primary process has to consider the financial or economic variables in the equation, not just the political.
Matthew Quigley| 4.11.12 @ 9:58AM
Reagan had a unique ability to meld social conservatism, fiscal conservatism and strong defense into a coherent whole. He could move easily from discussing tax cuts, to strengthening defense, to the sanctity of life without blinking an eye...and do it in a manner that even a relatively uninformed voter could easily grasp.
Rick Santorum, who is no doubt a good man, earned his moniker "Senator Sanctimonium" because his social conservatism was so often presented in a "holier-than-thou" manner (and, let's be blunt: Social conservatism is a massive turn-off for Constitutionalists and libertarian-leaning conservatives. Many social conservatives come off as the same kind of control freaks as leftists, just from a different angle), appealed mainly to Evangelicals and other strongly religious people. Perry could have appealed in a Reaganesque manner, but he wasn't quite the communicator that Reagan was. Perry had strong social, economic and defense bona fides, but when he went into discussing his religious beliefs...in detail...he started to stall (and drew media ire, but that would have happened anyway).
Cain also had Reaganesque qualities, but because he was a black conservative, the media had to gin up charges that would have made Bill Clinton look like a saint...never mind that under scruitiny those charges fell apart like rotten cheese, they had their intended effect, and drove a strong candidate out of the race. The efforts against Bachmann were also despicable (the "corn dog" photo...anyone remember that?), but Bachmann's main strength is her ability as a legislator. While I was disappointed to see her leave the race, I knew she'd make a serious mark in the House.
Gingrich is a candidate with the intellectual firepower to humiliate 0bama. He has issues, but ones that he is able to overcome. He also has acknowledged the mistakes he made in the past and has worked to overcome them. I was never much of a Gingrich supporter (Cain always was my preferred candidate), but given the choice between a social conservative who seemed stuck on abortion, a Massachusetts liberal who implemented the blueprint for husseincare, or a former Speaker of the House who has several skeletons in his closet, I went with the guy who has the skeletons...at least those skeletons were public and well known, thus, little likelihood of nasty surprises. The remaining candidate (whom I shall decline to name, for obvious reasons) had a vociferous, often deranged following, and positions which were both consistent and frequently insane. Not an ideal situation.
Now we seem to be stuck with the establishment's choice, and what should have been an easy victory has now been delivered to the jaws of defeat. It's conceivable that Romney may turn his guns toward 0bama, but I doubt he'll do it with the gusto with which he attacked the other Republicans. His tenure as governor of Massachusetts will be an issue...and it ain't pretty. He's anti-Second Amendment, wishy-washy on issues of personal liberty, and set the precedent for government control of medical insurance now being pursued by the federal government. hussein will have a much easier time against Romney than he would have had against Cain or Gingrich...or even Bachmann. Santorum would have been a babe in the woods against a hyena like 0bama, and a dispassionate viewing of his campaign style shows the validity of that assessment.
To take down hussein requires a level of blood lust that few Republicans can muster. hussein is a power-hungry and power-crazed product of the harshest political environment in this country. Texas politics may be hardball, but Chicago politics are played for blood...sometimes literally. It takes a candidate with a level of unpleasantness to defeat someone who has emerged from that kind of a swamp...and Romney lacks it. Santorum lacked it. Cain could have deflected it...but Gingrich revels in it. That's a fact. Gingrich has the blood lust and the level of nastiness needed to take hussein down. Romney doesn't. He comes from the "don't piss off the Marxocrats, we might not get invited to cocktail parties" wing of the Republican Party. Thus, by seeking to be "gentlemanly," the Republicans have thrown this country to the sharks.
No, I am NOT sorry to see Santorum out...but I'm not thrilled that Romney is now the putative nominee, either. Romney, to be blunt, is just another prog (his own words...search them. He did call himself a progressive) taking us to serfdom...just at a slower speed than hussein would. I see no reason to be energized about this development.
Connection, Not Compromise| 4.11.12 @ 10:51AM
Matthew,
You make an interesting and well-stated argument for Gingrich.
Vern Crisler | 4.11.12 @ 1:24PM
Excellent post Matthew.
GETRIDOFHIM| 4.11.12 @ 1:26PM
Matthew - Excellent. Newt is the man who could flick Obama off his shoulder like a piece of dandruff. He would be the very best candidate to debate Obama - bar none. I am disappointed that the Establishment "won" and got their way. Newt would have rocked their comfy little boat like no other would - the establishment want status quo. Poor America - I fear her best days are behind her - and us.
Tired Taxpayer PRM| 4.11.12 @ 2:19PM
Can I comment on "the best candidate to debate Obama"?
You do realize that Obama does not have to debate and if he and his handlers think he would lose a debate they would refuse to participate?
No one beyond political junkies really watches debates anyway. Everyone gets their impressions from the “news” coverage after the debate.
Also, even if Obama loses a debate (in reality) the PPD (Progressive Propaganda Department, AKA "news") will spin the results to make Obama the greatest debater since Lincoln. Obama could come out on the stage high on crack and just stand there drooling and the media would spin it as a win.
Choosing someone to be the presidential candidate on the basis of his or her debating skills is worse than useless.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.11.12 @ 8:48AM
If Rick Santorum was a conservative he might have had a chance.
All the candidates listed including Ronald Reagan did little for practical conservatism. Reagan supporters hate to hear it but Reagan significantly increased the size and scope of the federal government, raised taxes many times and also stuck America with the illegal immigration problem which haunts us to this day.
George H.W. Bush lost his second term and gave us the Clintons because he raised taxes after promising he would not raise taxes. In that sense, he was a tax cheat.
In the litany of Republican candidates we have yet to see a real conservative elected.
If Romney is elected he may prove up to the task of cutting government, cutting taxes and ending Obamacare once and for all.
However, one thing is for sure.
The public didn't buy Santorum's fake conservative act and now all the AMSPEC whiners are having their day to cry.
It won't accomplish anything but it's their right.
Joe| 4.11.12 @ 1:12PM
My, you are myopic.... You decry all the "fake" conservatives... And then celebrate Romney. What on earth in his past political experience convinced you he is, in any way, shape, or form, a conservative?
I know you detest Obama as much as I do; but let's all be honest. Mitt Romney is not a conservative.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.11.12 @ 3:02PM
I hope you don't make your own financial decisions because you're apparently dense.
Yes, that's my point and I'm glad you got it. There haven't been any conservatives so why should Romney be any different?
And supporting a candidate who is in direct opposition to Obama is not celebrating anything it's doing the right thing.
DTOM!| 4.11.12 @ 7:33PM
Yeah, that's why Santorum won 11 states.
Romney is our Etch-A-Sketch Biden.
But I will crawl over broken glass, swim through molten steel, jog through clouds of mustard gas to vote for him over Barack Hussein Obama!
Don't Tread On Me!
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:45PM
88.1 lifetime ACU rating---which is a helluva lot higher than yours or Romney's.
Santorum's deviations from conservatism came to shore up the Bush administration. It was party loyalty which hurt him.
Romney's never had that problem---he's been kissing Teddy Kennedy's ass since Day One.
martin j smith| 4.11.12 @ 9:03AM
Trolls are the ones who want to descourage Republican voters from supporting our Etch a Sketch against Obama. I will vote AGAINST Obama and by trolls I include Ron Paul supporters
Chris| 4.11.12 @ 9:52AM
THIS VOTE SHOULD BE COUCHED AS A VOTE AGAINST OBAMA AND HIS
[M]ARXIST [S]TAIST [M]EDIA.
IN OTHER WORDS THE MSM LOST THE ELECTION FOR OBAMA BY THEIR "VERY OWN" MALPRACTICE OF BACKING HIS LIES AND DECIEPT.
Ryan| 4.11.12 @ 10:07AM
And leaving their capslock on.
Parasitic Host of the 49.5%| 4.11.12 @ 10:40AM
That reminds me, I need to find the rest of my reciepts before April 15.
Nancy in NC| 4.11.12 @ 9:24AM
Since Obummer can't run on his record, he will continue the divide and conquer game. I don't intend to participate. At every opportunity I will speak of Obummer's lies, deceptions, Marxist/Socialist theories, his distaste for the Constitution and anything American.
And I intend to start working on getting a true conservative elected in 2016.
Louis Jenkins| 4.11.12 @ 9:27AM
"Getting it right the next time?" Who is saying there will be a next time? Obama, if he wins this fall, will tear this country assunder. All ammendments will be dust, all creature comforts that we have grown accustomed to will be trashed, many of the people, even posters here, will wind up sequestered in FEMA camps, free internet a thing of the past, spitting in the face of our allies, you name it. Once re-elected Obama will have the time to do the things he promised on the open mike. The entire political landscape of America will change. We cannot tolerate another four years of Mr. Obama.
PattyMor| 4.11.12 @ 9:33AM
I am to voting for the Etch-A-Sketch candidate against the radical O'Bama. No yard signs, no money and no furvor. As Karl Rove once said about Christine O'Donnell, you got her on the ballot, now you get her elected. Touche.
Tommy Frisco| 4.11.12 @ 9:49AM
Well said, PattyMor. My sentiments exactly.
redmanrt| 4.11.12 @ 10:49AM
Sick at heart, I feel the same way. Rush apparently feels the same way. It doesn't matter much what we 4 individuals do or don't do, but I fear we speak for millions.
John Navratil| 4.11.12 @ 11:04AM
PattyMor,
My sentiments, precisely. The good news is that it appears I won't need quite such a large clothes pin as last time.
Chris| 4.11.12 @ 9:42AM
Conservatives CAN NEVER win against Chicago's professional "Bomb Throwers" while sitting down to take a leak. Too Sissified while the left will stop at nothing including La Cosa Nostra selling out their "Very Own" at every level.
For example; No "Conservative" thusfar has raise any "Judicial Notice" of the material fact the left is "Dominated & Controled" by the "Mobbed-Up" Teamsters Union, Laborers, SEIU and most other Unions, but fail and REFUSE to drag out the 2nd/7th Circuit Court Records and expose this factual corruption to the American People,[including its total cost to the American taxpayers] while Scott Walker is fighting for his Political Life, as the Teamster Union Semi Truck passes by in the back ground.
"Cream Puffs" Conservatives get eaten alive every time and NEVER learn, even as they get their ASSES handed to them every time, while the EVIDENCE sits in the office's of the various District Court[s] file archives ripe for the picking.
Too scared to drag it ALL OUT.
Don't forget to wipe!
Calvin| 4.11.12 @ 10:09AM
I agree with this sentiment and add that the worst of the cream puffs are those that leave their ballots on the floor because once again perfection eludes them. There will be dissapointments ahead and it is unrealistic to require everything immediately. In the Senate if everything goes well the Democratic Party will still have significant power and be able to negotiate things that we will not like. Our system requires a steady pressure over a period of time to get things done. The cream puff wants to throw down his gun and run at the first sign of trouble. This will be a long fight and I hope that there will be enough of us that are up for it. Along with support for the unfortunate Romney lets work for a more conservative Senate and House. Lets not forget about working for more conservative state governments. Romney will get in less trouble if we give him that. On a sinking ship I have no respect for those that think they are doing a service by running around screaming that we are all going to die. Man up and get to work!
canuckistani| 4.11.12 @ 10:39AM
Reagan was a fluke. Get over it.
The American people are wholly subject to an entitlement economy. Doubt it? Just ask them, and guess what answers you get?:
"Get your governmant hands off my medicare!"
"How can I own a home without a mortgage interest deduction?"
"Why should I build a plant, a stadium, a power corridor, a for-profit pipeline, farm, or resort without significant and extorted cash from tax-payers?"
"We need 'too big to fail' to protect our fragile financial sector"
"Let's go to war, send other people's kids, and how dare you ask me to pay for it?"
When I see cons answering these replies with "Enough" and building a winning candidate around this simple mantra, then maybe we'll have something to talk about.
'til then, Rino Willard will be your Bain....I mean bane.
liberalistani| 4.11.12 @ 10:44AM
What's this 'we' tyrantface?
Calvin| 4.11.12 @ 12:21PM
You are stuck with President O and the functionally idiotic class called progressives. Sure we have our problems but they are not as bad as yours. Enjoy your over sampled polls for awhile. By the way you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
jernigc| 4.11.12 @ 10:04AM
For many of us Rick Santorum wasn't a conservative. He was a large government republican who supported pushing social issue at the federal level, and supported an interventionist nation building foreign policy rather that defense. These are not conservative things--they work against individual freedom and liberty.
The message from Governor Romney and the RNC should be that we are going to return to our constitutional roots. The Republican Party would improve its appeal and ability to win future elections if it would emphasis that we are a nation formed around the concept of individual freedom and liberty and personal sovereignty. The role of government is to secure this freedom, beginning with protecting property rights.
I agree that many of the social issues important to Mr Perkins and Senator Santorum are important to society and that as a nation we have drifted away from the right path on many issues. This is particularly so for placing value on the family. However, it is not the role of the federal government to work these issues. Social values are the purview of the individual and of each State. The solution to these issues can vary and as the founders envisioned each state should be empowered to craft its own solution. Social conservatives like Mr Perkins unfortunately apparently don't think this is so. Personally, I don't believe that these people are conservative in the way a majority of people define the term. And certainly not in a constitutional sense.
For far to long the Republican Party has endorsed working social issue at the national rather than state level despite these issue falling outside of the enumerated responsibilities found in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution; and, supporting a foreign policy based on nation building rather than defense. Both of these types of action are not conservative, they a progressivism from the right which uses the coercive power of the state to accomplish subjectively define goals. Supporting these types of action by the federal government violate the concept of federalism and fly in the face of limited government. The Republican Party would be well served by jettisoning these platform issues.
wodiej| 4.11.12 @ 10:11AM
The country has more than social ills and Santorum was not the answer. Unfortunately, neither is Romney. Gingrich is the guy and people keep walking by him like he's invisible. Perhaps the vision is just too deep for them to take a leadp.
GETRIDOFHIM| 4.11.12 @ 1:35PM
Absolutely right. Blame the media and the establishment republicans and democrats for this. Newt is the candidate they fear the most and people can't, or won't, see it. It is very telling about our society at this juncture - the young don't know their azz from their elbows and the middle-aged are too busy with their lives to really get involved and they unfortunately listen to "Anderson", "Whoopie", "Clooney", and the MSM, and the seniors - while they hate Obama, won't vote for Newt because of his past "baggage". Everyone agrees that Newt is the best debater, the smartest and the one who can articulate his ideas and plans the best - so what's the problem America???? The best man is right in front of your faces - WAKE UP.
idalily| 4.11.12 @ 3:46PM
Jernige, you are a voice of sense and reason. Kudos.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:47PM
Tell that to the citizens of Massachusetts who endured Romney's Big Government social meddling. Tell that to the Catholic Church, which had to close hospitals after Romney suddenly decided they should be forced to pass out abortifacients. Tell that to Mass pro-lifers who have to pay for babies to be killed because that slimeball Romney was committed to abortion.
JASmius | 4.11.12 @ 10:11AM
>>Conservative primary voters are more discriminating than ever, looking seriously at the flaws of old heroes like Gingrich and new saviors like Rick Perry. They are more willing to keep the primary contest going than before.
JimW9| 4.11.12 @ 10:16AM
Santorum: weak, flawed, angry candidate
Gingrich: Too stuck on his own image and likeness
Cain: He started falling apart with his "Who's Syria" black-out before his pathetic response to the sex charges did him in
Bachmann: First-time-itis - she can grow
Perry:
Paul: my crazy uncle
Next
And by the way: if American Spectator really wants an internecine fight on its hands just keep promoting the Bobby Jindals of the world who are NOT eligible to become president. And if you think that this is a fringe, wing nut issue go ahead. You will find out that there is a relevant and sizable minority of Republican voters who still care about the constitution.
canuckistani| 4.11.12 @ 10:43AM
Perhaps the antiquated constitutional requirement for citizenship needs to be abandoned?
Or are our sensibilities and frailties too fragile to examine?
JimW9| 4.11.12 @ 10:54AM
canuckistani
Will you clarify your argument. What I see you saying is that you believe the Natural Born Citizen constraint to be antiquated. Or is your argument that defenders of this constraint are simply weak-minded and frail?
I will assume it is the former as the latter is not worthy of comment. Is not the current crisis proof of the need of this constraint? It is abundantly clear that the documentation provided by the President is fraudulent (forged?) and demands an immediate congressional inquiry. Regardless the facts surrounding this outrage why would we not, as a nation, want to ensure to the most reasonable standards possible a minimization of risk of subterfuge at the highest elected position in the land?
canuckistani| 4.11.12 @ 1:40PM
My view is both, actually.
The Natural-born thing is wholly antiquated - conjured up by silver-spooned mutineers as a revolutionary vestige.
The sensibility I describe is one that enables birthers and the like to persist in their paranoid delusions. The governor of the state of Hawaii has confirmed the birth filing is accurate and certified. But we still have an issue with it.
Why a nation of immigrants cannot have any citizen run for president is a problem - and US citizens - yes even natural born ones - have dual citizenships all over the world due to consanguinity of grandparents and Israel's right of return.
Many issues have been addressed in 25 amendments. More are obviously needed. This should be one, as should the electoral college.
bill glass| 4.11.12 @ 11:25AM
agreed 110%
Drummer| 4.11.12 @ 11:27AM
There are those who continue to overlook the fact that both Jindal and Rubio are no more qualified than the imposter in the White House, and for the same reason!
Mike Hawk| 4.11.12 @ 4:52PM
Bullshit again.
NeilBJ| 4.12.12 @ 4:34PM
Your well-reasoned rebuttal would otherwise convince me that Drummer is wrong, but he is correct.
Neither Jindal or Rubio is a natural born citizen as recognized by the Court in Minor v. Happersett. A natural born citizen is one born in a country to citizen parents. Jindal's and Rubio's parents were not citizens when they were born.
Occam's Tool| 4.11.12 @ 12:32PM
If Romney has a Republican Senate and House Jim and Paul can keep him in line (DeMint and Ryan).
Tommy Frisco| 4.11.12 @ 4:32PM
I thought Jim DeMint was retiring this year. Is he not?
BTW, why didn't we hear any demands for DeMint to run for the GOP nomination? All I heard were calls for Christie, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Daniels, Jindal, or Ryan.
Clint| 4.11.12 @ 7:14PM
Tool Job's The RINO-CINO,Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman,Mittens Romney Back In June.
jlkthree| 4.11.12 @ 10:19AM
Reagan used to be a DEMOCRAT! and did more liberal stuff as governor than Romney.
Some "conservatives" are blind as a bat.I'd love to see these morons hold Reagan to their own "perfect conservative" standard.
JASmius | 4.11.12 @ 10:32AM
Indeed. As Governor of California, Reagan signed (1) a tax increase, (2) a pro-abortion bill, and (3) Affirmative Action legislation. Three deviations from "True Conservatism" that constituted islands in a sea of orthodoxy, but deviations nonetheless. And yet today's Tea Party would have crucified him for it and thrown him aside.
I'd also correct another of Antle's points: Reagan didn't win in 1980 as a "conservative insurgent"; that's what he was in 1976, when he ***lost***. In 1980 Reagan was the ***"Establishment"*** candidate - or, in other words, it was "his turn".
Vern Crisler | 4.11.12 @ 1:27PM
JASmius, you are so full of it.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:48PM
Except Romney's rap sheet is 200 pages long.
Here's the video short version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU
Whoops.
Danram| 4.11.12 @ 10:35AM
How right you are, jlkthree. I just posted the exact same thing below.
canuckistani| 4.11.12 @ 10:45AM
More selective amnesia.
People go on as if he had control of his faculties after taking a bullet. He didn't.
Ho Chi Minh-ions and Thatcherites had the same delusions about their messiahs.
smith| 4.11.12 @ 10:23AM
Every vote counts, but those in Indiana. Now that rommnie has been selected by a few to be the gop presidential canidate. I have been thinking, pehaps the national elections should be held like the primaries. Begin in ohh say sept. with ohh for instance say Iowa, then drag it out for several months. That should work fine. If Donald Trump don't run as a independent, Obuma has had the next election handed to him. FbidenCK YOU gop.
canuckistani| 4.11.12 @ 10:48AM
Huh?
The system is set up to prevent money candidates from steamrolling the process. Romney failed last time as did Hillary. This time Romney had more establishment types in his back pocket thus making it more difficult to rely wholly on ground game. The fact Santorum et al were a dismal slate also helped Willard.
My suggestion is to rotate the roster each cycle.
Ed Norris| 4.11.12 @ 4:22PM
The system largely discourages people from simply steamrolling the process. Romney appealed to moderate Republican voters, such as Republicans outside of the Bible belt. The South primarily went to Santorum, with some exceptions by Gingrich. Even with the primaries, most states are not winner-take-all, so even in some states that Romney won, Santorum and Gingrich could still win some delegates. At this point, with Gingrich so in the pits, along with Ron Paul, they are both guaranteed not to really win significantly before the showdown. Romney has it handed to him by Rick Santorum.
Eric | 4.11.12 @ 10:24AM
Ha! I know conservatives who are unhappy with Bobby Jindal and think he's betrayed them. I disagree,but they are out there.
JASmius | 4.11.12 @ 10:44AM
I think there's a distressingly growing section of the Right that enjoys feeling betrayed, enjoys being "insurgents" battling the EEEEVIL ESTABLISHMENT, enjoys always being on the outside looking in. They take comfort, even pride, in losing elections because in order to win, much less govern, some degree of compromise is inevitable, and they find ANY compromise intolerable and unacceptable. So rather than getting the vast majority of the proverbial "loaf," they would rather starve to death and take their purportedly venerated "principles" to the grave, unblemished and equally dead.
Or, to borrow a phrase, "Live pure, die pure, and leave a principled corpse." What an inspiring epitaph for a "movement" whose last animating "principle" was self-destruction.
Danram| 4.11.12 @ 10:26AM
What cracks me up is the fact that, if Ronald Reagan were running today, a lot of the supposed "true conservatives" that today worship his name would instead be deriding him as "just another RINO". Reagan raised taxes multiple times while he was governor of California, which is an unforgivable heresy in the eyes of today's extreme right. This idea that Reagan was some kind of "pure conservative" is laughable.
The reason the far right keeps coming up short in the nominating process is a) they're a minority of the Republican Party, no matter how much they try to convince themselves otherwise, and b) they scare people away who might otherwise be inclined to support them because of their intolerant obstinance on social issues. I'm a lifelong registered Republican who wants Barack Obama out of office as much as anyone, but even I would have been very hard-pressed to vote for a shameless Bible-thumper like Rick Santorum.
canuckistani| 4.11.12 @ 10:51AM
The problem is a conservative platform devoid of 2nd amendment and women's issues could be a winning strategy, but the minions of FRC and NRA refuse to stand aside for at least one important cycle.
Until they do, this tune will be played again and again.
You now have a yankee rino mormon carrying your water. Well done.
Bo Darville| 4.11.12 @ 12:00PM
I just don't think the self-proclaimed "True Conservatives" have ever had a good candidate run... And if they did they'd claim he wasn't one, anyways.
Vern Crisler | 4.11.12 @ 1:32PM
All of you sunshine conservatives and Republican whores have been forewarned. Now that moderate Romney is the candidate, all of the stupid country club Republicans (moderates) are coming out of the woodwok to bash real conservatives, and to make the Gipper over into a country club Republican, too.
We warned you this was going to happen, but you wouldn't listen.
canuckistani| 4.11.12 @ 1:43PM
RR was a loner on his ranch in Santa Barbara.
The republican brand used to stand for things: commerce, security and individual rights.
With the dixiecrats moving their hatriot caravan over in the last 45 years, it no longer represents that vision.
JASmius | 4.11.12 @ 10:26AM
Wow, somehow the AmSpec server ate most of my comment. Let's try this again.
{{Conservative primary voters are more discriminating than ever, looking seriously at the flaws of old heroes like Gingrich and new saviors like Rick Perry. They are more willing to keep the primary contest going than before.}}
And THAT is why "conservative insurgents" never overthrow "The Establishment" - the accursed tighty-righty purity fetish.
If Tea Partiers want to actually win elections instead of just "making a point" and "standing on principles," they've got to grow up and realize that there's no such thing as a 100% pure "True Conservative"; just a field of good, decent 80%-90% orthodox center-rightists, only a portion of which are nationally viable and qualified (i.e. governors) for the presidency. And then they have to pick one of those mostly conservative governors, stop sweating the occasional speck of foot clay, and unify behind him/her. If TPers had done this a year ago, we may well have been celebrating Mitt Romney dropping out of the race and clearing the way for Governor Pawlenty or Governor Perry to knock off Barack Obama. Instead the Tea Party's stubborn insistence on perfection made Governor Romney inevitable, and they have nobody but themselves to blame for it.
Put another way, the B-grade ninja movie approach - an army of bad guys attacking the Bruce Lee protagonist one at a time - has a vanishingly small chance of success. How 'bout next time we try the Rocky II method? 'kay?
LESD| 4.11.12 @ 10:28AM
Let's not pretend that only President GHW Bush raised taxes. President Reagan did it too.
Very conservative candidates have faired poorly over the years in Republican primaries because Republican voters have preferred moderates. And if conservatives can't win among Republican voters, they certainly can't win a vote decided by the broader electorate. It's time for "movement conservatives" to stop wondering why the voters keep getting it wrong and to engage instead in some honest reflection.
Danram| 4.11.12 @ 10:38AM
Excellent post. It wasn't the "establishment" that cast all those votes that enabled Mitt Romney to rack up that huge lead in delegates, was it? No, it was Republican primary voters. In fact, if it hadn't been for Democrats crossing over to vote for Santorum in open primaries in the hopes of sabotaging Romney's candidacy, Romney's margin would have been even bigger.
canuckistani| 4.11.12 @ 10:55AM
It was also grenade tossers like Santorum that ginned up the abortion and healthcare issue and helped to rid the party of reason for a critical period.
BHO rolled the party since last August and we fell into their trap.
BHO is beatable, but cons MUST stop taking the bait EVERY single time. Ignore him and retake the message.
Michael McDonald| 4.11.12 @ 10:34AM
A larger problem than selecting a conservative nominee is that of arriving at a realistic agenda for the future. For example, unwillingness to accept Medicare Part D betrays a mindset opposed to even a market-based solution to health care, and will always result in liberal political victories, and eventually a socialistic society.
Takin' It To The Libs| 4.11.12 @ 10:49AM
Wasn't it enough to just stick with ruining the Doobies?
The Big E| 4.11.12 @ 10:40AM
How to win next time? What a joke.
I've about become conviced that the Republican Party has never had any intention of winning this election.
Thnk about this - following 2008, a grass roots movement arose called the Tea Party. The Tea Party wanted limited government, lower taxes, reduced spending, etc. Neither current political party shared those values, but their message resonated most with the base of the Republican party.
By the way - for all you Republicans who adhere to the delusion that the Republican Party favors smaller government because you personally do, you need to go back and study a little history - and quit lying to yourself. Individual Republicans may well favor limited government, but those who run the Republican Party most certainly do not.
So, in 2010, the Tea Party attached itself to the Republican Party because of its alignment of basic values with the Reoublican base, ran candidates - not only against Democrats but also against Republicans who did not share those basic values - and brought the Republican Party the biggest - and broadest and deepest - electoral landslide in the history of off year elections. As the President himself put it - they got shelaqced.
So the Tea Party pushes the Republican Party into the victory lane, and what does the Republican Party do? Throw them under the bus.
If the leaders of the Republican Party were even remotely competent, they would have adopted the Tea Party movement as their own. The Tea Party offered them a broad based, powerful grass-roots movement which had demonstrated both its ability to raise money and elect candidates - a movement which, without any help from the Republican Party itself, generated a wave of energy which drove Republican candidates to victory nationwide in races from Senate to dogcatcher.
But the Republican Party threw them under the bus.
Why?
Because to adopt them as their own would mean adopting their values - those same values which resonated with the Republican base - i.e. - limited government, lower taxes, less spending, etc. No career politician - Democrat or Republican - wants to limit the size of government. for to do so is to limit their own power.
Ergo - the Republican party would rather lose the election and see Barack Obama re-elected and their status and influence preserved, than to allow a conservative, likely supported by the Tea Party, win and see their status and power reduced.
I said after Iowa - a Romney nomination equals an Obama re-election specifically because Romney cannot tap into the energy in the Republican base. I've seen nothing to change that assessment, and plenty to cement it. The Republican party will lose this election because their would rather lose to Obama than win with a conservative. Its that simple.
I will vote for Romney in the general election. I will vote for anyone - ANYONE - over Obama. But it will be as an unaffiliated voter, not as a Republican, for I no longer am one. I will not be a member of a party which does not even remotely reflect my values - the same reason I will not be a Democrat.
And as for next time - there will be no Republican Party next time. And as for me, I say good riddance.
Bo Darville| 4.11.12 @ 12:04PM
The Tea Party just hit the scene. Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich have been around forever. It takes a little time to climb to the top. All the Tea Party candidates that got elected happened just 2 years ago. You can't rise that fast unless you're a minority Democrat.
The Big E| 4.11.12 @ 12:38PM
My point is that though the TP was very new, they generated tremendous energy. If the Republican Party truly wanted to win, they would have tapped into that energy by adopting it. Instead, they rejected it outright without any cogent reason.
The only conclusion is that they rejected that energy because they kn ew it might take them to victory, but it would do so at the cost of their own prestige and power.
They weren't willing to do that. Their own prestige and power was more important to them than the Country. Its that simple.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:50PM
RINOs don't want to win presidential elections---just make sure conservatives don't.
They want to control Congressional chairmanships---that's where the money and influence are.
A.C.| 4.11.12 @ 10:48AM
I see Bobby Jindal pictured in this article. I voted for him to become governor, but the second he got into office, he began a program of self-promotion that eclipsed his responsibilities and duties as governor. In fact, he has applied his conservative principles in a ruthless way and cut programs no matter their merit. Be wary of Gov. Jindal.
JD| 4.11.12 @ 11:01AM
Once again the GOP nominee is chosen before I can vote. Once again I left with something, I am less than thrilled with. In 1988 I voted for Bush and thought I was getting a Cadillac but I only got a Volt. Since 1992 my vote for president has come down to the lesser of two evils and it is getting damn old. I will vote for this nominee; however, just like in 2008, knowing he probably will not win election. Which was whole point of this article.
redmanrt| 4.11.12 @ 11:04AM
"Ergo - the Republican party would rather lose the election and see Barack Obama re-elected and their status and influence preserved, than to allow a conservative, likely supported by the Tea Party, win and see their status and power reduced."
I am also forced to reach this conclusion.
"And as for next time - there will be no Republican Party next time. "
By 2016 there may well be, in effect, only one party left.
redmanrt| 4.11.12 @ 11:07AM
We can already give it a name – The Permanent Majority Party or PMP.
snrsache| 4.11.12 @ 11:11AM
What a stupid article. First define presidents who won as :true conseratives" and the ones who lost as RINOs regardless of the facts then claim RINOs can't win. The real truth is Goldwater is the only true conserative the party has ver nominated and look where that got us.
Mitch| 4.11.12 @ 11:15AM
4 years ago Romney was one of the so called CONSERVATIVE alternatives to moderate John McCain; so what has changed in 4 years; other than A>He ran a more disciplined, well organized campaign, B>Others, more vocal about social issues (but which Romney agrees with totally) wer NOT as discipline, well organized and to be fair, had less money...Mr. Romney was not my first choice; but he is a GREAT alternative to Obama. I will not be holding my nose when I vote for Mitt; I will be cheering him on; because his failure could very well mean the failure of America as we know it.
Jerry| 4.11.12 @ 11:19AM
Gov. Jindal is NOT eligible to be President.
Read the Constitution - Artivle II, Section 1:
"No person except a Natural Born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Consitiution, shall be President of the United States."
NBC = Both Parents Must be Citizens of the USA when the chil, future president, is Born. Jindal's parents were not citizens. Nor were obama's - he's a Fraud!
Larry| 4.12.12 @ 1:57AM
Actually, US law stipulates only one parent need be a US citizen for the child to be a citizen, but actual facts do not seem important to most posters in this forum
NeilBJ| 4.12.12 @ 4:41PM
There are two misunderstandings in your reply to Jerry.
1) The president must be a natural born citizen, which is a class of citizenship distinct from citizen. A natural born citizen is one born in a country to citizen parents.
2) No law can change the Constitution. The amendment process is the method by which the Constitution can be changed.
EML| 4.11.12 @ 11:36AM
This commentary is way off base. There is no moderate establishment vs conservative base war in the Republican Party. First off, Santorum is as establishment as it gets. 15+ years in DC, king of porkbarrel spending, big union supporter, named one of the most corrupt senators of his time. Definitely not someone conservatives would rally around in a 'normal' year.
No, this was a war between the rational, practical wing of the party who wants to nominate the most conservative candidate who can beat Obama, and the irrational wing who learned nothing from 2010 (O'Donnell, Buck, Angle) and are easily swayed by the loudmouths on talk radio. Many of us Romney supporters realized early on that all of the alternatives had fatal personal flaws that made them unpalatable to the general electorate: Rick Perry = George Bush but dumber; Newt Gingrich -> arrogant, condescending, and his personal life is reprehensible; Michelle Bachmann -> too controversial; Rick Santorum -> too likely to get bogged down by social issues, rather than the econominc issues that are important to tea partiers. In short, Romney is the only logical choice.
If there had been a true conservative who didn't have all the fatal flaws of the "conservative" candidates we ended up with (Daniels, Thune, Pence, Rubio, Ryan), that candidate would have cruised to the nomination. No question about it. This wasn't about conservative vs establishment, this was electable vs unelectable. Next time, get a conservative candidate who can actually win on the ballot.
Le Cracquere| 4.11.12 @ 3:42PM
Gee, way to make the people you're describing want to bury the hatchet and get behind your candidate. And that's also a nice touch, defining "unpalatable to the general electorate" as anyone to the latter's right. I'm energized!
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:51PM
Yeah---which is why everyone who can get a senator on speed dial and has a Harvard degree endorsed ONE guy.
You ain't seen nothing yet when it comes to fatal flaws. Romney's going to get his ass kicked right out of the country club along with the rest of you Ruling Class bootlickers.
Tim| 4.11.12 @ 11:41AM
This article can be reduced to the following:
In Politics........
"The Golden Rule Works"
He who has the Gold makes the rules!
The establishment Rinos could have destroyed any conservative because of their superior bank roll.
Unlike Reagan, most of the current crop of conservatives don't have a vast following
of wealthy like minds but then Reagan was around for awhile before 1980.
We will now see if the Rinos can do the same to the Obama socialist very wealthy machine.
Sure Gingrich and Santorum stepped on their swivel stick a few times but comparred to Romneys's flip flops and phony character flaws they are purists.
All this said....Obama has to go.
My gut tells me we will be stuck with OBama for 4 more years.....if Obama Care is struck down.
JohnLeeHooker| 4.11.12 @ 3:34PM
MEMO to evangelicals: this election is NOT ABOUT JESUS OR CONTRACEPTION
MEMO to "true conservatives": this election is NOT ABOUT JESUS OR CONTRACEPTION
this election IS about booting obama and preventing his 2+ appointments to the SCOTUS
good lord people - THINK
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:52PM
Oh, I thought it was about Romney's 59 point whatamajigger.
Because obviously it can't have been about Obamacare.
R. Freedom| 4.11.12 @ 11:48AM
Yeah, I remember the things that were said when Muhammad Ali fought Smokin' Joe Frazier: that Ali (who had more money than Smokin' Joe) had a better training facility, better trainers, & better organization; that the boxing establishment (like Howard Cosell) was behind Ali; that boxing ringside fans cheered louder for Ali; that Ali could afford expensive cornermen like Angelo Dundee & Bundini Brown; that if only Smokin' Joe were 3 inches taller; that Ali danced around too much & wouldn't stand & fight; etc.
We should work in politics (like in life) to make everyone feel a winner, and take some of the competition out of primary races. Towards that end, perhaps we should ban campaign ads and debates, and just have the candidates' husbands or wives read their spouses' résumés to congregations in public auditoriums. And afterwards have the candidates' spouses describe how warm, wonderful, & loving their husbands or wives are. Perhaps we should ban polls showing one candidate leading another, because those kinds of things hurt the feelings of candidates' that are trailing & makes them feel bad. So, we should all work towards a utopian, egalitarian end in politics. Because the way it works now, it's way too competitive, and the more talented, resourceful, better prepared man always wins.
Chuck| 4.11.12 @ 11:49AM
They're won't be anymore chances for conservatives to nominate one of their own, now or ever. The Tea Party is too weak to stop Romney and the alternatives were pathetic. Romney will soon show his liberal fangs when he courts independents and other liberal groups weakening first on abortion (he never was pro-life) and other issues that matter to both social and economic issues, you heard it first right here.
Bo Darville| 4.11.12 @ 12:08PM
Romney was pretending to be liberal to win in Massachusetts.
Zboog| 4.11.12 @ 12:04PM
People like James Antle are people who absolutely INSIST that there is some council of "establishment conservatives" picking who they want to be the nominee.
Let's get the record straight. Romney won because he's a business guy who spoke about the economy and is the best poised to go against the president. Santorum lost because he's an idiot and kept saying dumb things about contraception, earmarks, etc. People like James Antle are the ones who perpetuated an exhausted primary because everyone like him insisted there was a secret council of establishment conservatives swaying the primaries.
Santorum was a bad candidate. You guys are making it worse for Romney who many believe can win and can really help the nation. Stop complaining about your "establishment vs insurgent" theory, and get on board to get Obama out. Otherwise we'll have trillion dollar deficits, increased taxes, another recession, and a complete ignorance of America's problems.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:53PM
Romney one because he spent millions of dollars sliming conservatives with b.s. tv ads they couldn't answer for lack of money. And because he had a 6 year head start kissing RINO ass to line up the apparatchiks.
Dixie Pixie| 4.11.12 @ 12:06PM
WTF just happened?
The Conservatives were the most popular kids at the Dance.
Every one wanted to be us including Huntsman and Mittens.
We had far more intellectual depth and brilliance in the readership on American Spectator alone than the New York Times and Nation combined.
The Socialists are still stuck on FDR's ideas from the 1930's and are getting the same results FDR got.
Conservative Ideas, on the other hand, are forward looking and set in the 21st Century not the 18th Century ideas of the Socialists.
So what went wrong?
Let us admit that President Reagan was the most exceptional of American Exceptionalism.
Like “Bear” Bryant or Burt Rutan, we will never see his like again.
It is way past time to bury “Reaganism” and re-craft “Conservatism” for the political and economic conditions we are now in.
Second Conservatism must get much better at internal organization than the Socialists.
We will never beat them at the Big Money Game as they have control of the public purse of Trillions.
So we must be a lot better at the fundamentals of organization than the Socialists.
Third, the Conservatives must learn to focus its efforts on the limited political situations where it can win.
Fighting every phantasm of the “KurturSmog” only dissipates our efforts.
Conservatism must learn to focus, Focus, FOCUS.
Fourth, We must never let anyone but Conservatism define what Conservatism means.
Conservatives must ruthlessly define, defend and enforce it its beliefs.
No longer can we afford to let anyone claim he is a Conservative unless he or she proves it by ACTIONS NOT WORDS.
The day when a person like Huntsman can claim to be Conservative must be over less Conservatism become a meaningless label.
Face the facts, we Conservatives lost again and it was our own fault.
We have to change our methodology or face political dissolution and obliteration.
Ed Norris| 4.11.12 @ 4:23PM
FDR was willing to unlock trashloads of oil and hydropower, something today's left is largely unwilling to do.
Dixie Pixie| 4.11.12 @ 4:55PM
FDR pioneered the political tactic of buying political support thru the disbursement of money collected by the Federal Government.
It worked as there was a lot of low-hanging fruit from “Rural Electrification” and thus the required power generation systems to the final conversion from horse-powered transportation to a oil-gasoline transportation systems.
Obama is running the classic FDR playbook under vastly different economic environment / conditions thus getting the economic results (another Great Depression) without the infrastructure benefits.
Tim| 4.11.12 @ 12:57PM
The pressure on the Rinos never was higher.
If Romney looses to a socialist anti constitutionalist light weight like Obama the Rinos are done for 25 years or more.
Dixie Pixie| 4.11.12 @ 5:09PM
Unfortunately, the RINO's will take the rest of the Republican Party down with them.
The Conservatives will be pulled down with the undertow because the RINOs will insist on party loyalty above ideological survival.
Mittens will ether save the Moderates as the Leadership of the Republican Party or be its destruction.
Face the facts, the Conservatives lost.
Darin| 4.11.12 @ 1:08PM
Look, I'm very conservatve and have been since high school. I like, and deeply respect, Santorum just like I did Palin. Unfortunately, they are just not Presidential timber. Simply being conservative isn't enough; one needs to be brilliant. One needs a stage presence. One needs to be in the top 0.1% of effective communicators. One need to be politically savy. One need a proven record of executive experience.
Just because someone is conservative doesn't mean he is fit to be President. A year ago, Rick Perry was my dream candidate: a popular three-term governor of a giant state who was photogenic and enacted tort reform and other fiscally conservative programs.
But then he opened his mouth and stuff both feet inside.
Santorum has the right values and character, but is missing many of the other things it takes to be President. Romney is smarter than Santorum. Romney had a better record of proven executive leadership. Romeny had a better organization.
Oh, and Romney doesn't have a "Google Problem".
Jeb Bush would be a better, more conservative candidate than Romney. Give Jindal a few more years as Governor and the same is true of him. Get Rubio some executive experience, ditto.
But the fact of the matter is, Santorum doesn't have any more experience than Obama had. He's not ready.
Mike Hawk| 4.11.12 @ 1:10PM
You are out of luck. No candidate meets your criteria. Least of all Obama.
Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:54PM
Translation: Darin thinks great hair is a presidential necessity.
Old Fan| 4.11.12 @ 1:22PM
This piece is very odd. First, how is Santorum, a career DC Politician who voted for Title X, Minimum Wage Increases, a Bridge To Nowhere, even opposed the Right To Work, a Conservative? Rick is the symbol of Big Gov, who even allied himself with the dreadful Arlen Specter. Newt is also a DC Insider, who was never honest about his campaign for Rockefeller over Goldwater. Gingrich on the Fannie/Freddie Payroll embraced numerous left leaning concepts over the years, and cost us all dearly in the 1990's. Where did some, like this author get the idea failed career DC Politicians were more Conservative over proven Private Sector/Free Market Capitalists like Mr. Romney? It is a failure not of the GOP Primary, but of the fashion peddling itself as Conservative. It is stuck on identity, emotion, etc., not very sound. Romney was the Conservative choice in 2008, and Levin, Limbaugh, Hillyer, Kristol, etc., looked absurd contradicting themselves this time around. Kristol seems stuck on DC Insiders, as he pushed for Newt-Rick as he did for McCain. This piece only tends to enable the lackluster. Both Newt/Rick could not even manage getting on the Ballot on where they live in VA. Two typical Beltway Politicians with no Executive Experience, no real ability, no genuine accomplishment outside of the coddled Capital. Time for some to think about why the fashion is so weak amongst us these days. Ann Coulter got it right again, some should take a step back and try to consider why she is so accurate with her insight.
Controse| 4.11.12 @ 1:52PM
Seems curious there is no mention of what Romney's relentless, lying attack ads did to his opponents in this astute analysis of where the campaign has been. Take Florida for example. He ran 65 media spots trashing Santorum for every one Santorum ran making his case. Reading this one would come to believe Romney's ideas won out over those of his conservative opponents'. Are you sure you don't write skits for Saturday Night Live?
A. Hick| 4.11.12 @ 1:59PM
All this talk of Jindal, etc. is nonsense. The GOP is the POB (Party of Bush), and in 2016, after Mitt and his Mutt lose, the nominee is Crown Prince John Ellis. Don't worry, though, Jeb, like his wastrel brother before him, is a solid "conservative," and all those groups you mention will turn out in droves, and crawl out from under every rock between the Appalachians and the Sierras to sing psalms and hosannas on the way to vote for him against Hillary.
Tom| 4.11.12 @ 2:38PM
I will vote for Newt. I vowed never again to be blackmailed into voting for a RINO. I also will not vote for Romney if he makes it to the general. The lesser of 2 evils is still evil.
JohnLeeHooker| 4.11.12 @ 3:29PM
newt: life time taker of tax payer dollars, lobbyist, serial adulterer, essentially tossed from COngress in disgrace...great choice
thanks in advance for the 2+ SCOTUS appointments obama will make
Tim| 4.11.12 @ 3:09PM
Tom:
I can't argue your basic point.
And there lies the problem....While I believe you would not vote for Obama you and millions of sincere folks may just sit the election out.
The Rinos don't get That.
The problem for Romney in particular and the Rino Corporate Ink, in General, is that they have to start kissing major Tea Party Booty and do it so it doesn't come off Phony.
Since it will be phony that is a tall order.
I think first things first.
Let's pray that the Supreme Court rejects Obama Care in June.
JohnLeeHooker| 4.11.12 @ 3:27PM
let's see - true conservative:
newtie: NEVER worked outside of academia and govt. HE OWNS PART OF THIS PROBLEM. OH, wait, he did work as a LOBBYIST
ricky: apart from 4 years as a junior attorney HAS NEVER WORKED OUTSIDE OF GOVT but did somehow manage to buy a $2 mil house in VA.
romney: gov of a state, turned around the olympics, successful business man who balanced budgets, negotiated contracts, solved problems
pick the "true conservative" HINT: did NOT spend his life taking tax payer dollars!
obeara | 4.11.12 @ 3:42PM
I think Jindal is not a "natural born citizen" so not eligible under the Constitution. To see his picture at the top of your article was a hint that the Constitution was off the table for you. But not for me. I gave money to the Rubio campaign, and voted for him, but I am disappointed to find him involved in Presidential considerations when he is not qualified under the Constitution. When you write future articles you might include the issue of following or ignoring the Constitution as one of the issues we Republicans must face and deal with.
loulou| 4.11.12 @ 4:09PM
Correct. Neither Jindal nor Rubio are "natural born" US citizens as their parents were not yet US citizens at the time of their births. Jindal and Rubio are "native born" US citizens.
obeara | 4.11.12 @ 4:15PM
If we vote against our conservative values, and vote for Romney as we ignored our values and voted for McCain last time, if Romney wins, we will be expected to vote for his VP in the future, and you can bet he will not represent our values. Obama could be removed from office based on his birth issues. Either his not being "natural born" or his forged birth certificate routes could be taken, but we do not have to sell out our values by voting for Romney to get rid of Obama. The fact the GOP politicians and judges won't act to challenge Obama's eligibility means the GOP is a worthless party for conservatives. Unless we start a new one, we have do not have a political party. I am still registered Republican, but now I know it is worthless. and they won't again get my vote for candidates who do not respect my values. And for me, if the Constitution is ignored, then we have nothing to base our once decent government on. We are lost.
NoLawyers| 4.11.12 @ 5:09PM
Please Lord, give us a candidate who will focus strictly on economic sanity and putting a rein on government intrusion. That's it. Nothing else. The only one to come close to that was Ron Paul and his foreign policy stance was too idealistic in a straponabombkill theinfidels world. Mitch Daniels might have done it but oh no, he took back his wife who left him. The Republicans need a good flush.
james| 4.11.12 @ 5:38PM
Wow, these comments are filled with weeping, whining, and gnashing of the teeth. "True conservatives," whoever they are, need to come to the adult table and quit making up conspiracies about the "establishment." All we keep hearing about is some supposed core of the Republican party that is supposedly "conservative," supposedly anti-Romney, and supposedly anti-establishment. But Romney won more votes from actual Republican voters than any other candidate, by far. And stop with the split conservative ticket conspiracy theory as polls showed that Gingrich's supporters were evenly split between choosing Romney and Santorum as their second choice. Republicans chose Romney, so either he is palatable to the "conservative core" or there is no "conservative core" to the Republican party. Perhaps the "conservative core" is not actually "conservative" but is instead several shades right of conservative. Perhaps the supposed "conservative core" is just a euphemism for evangelicals. I don't know. What I do know is a "core" of the GOP actually voted for Romney.
If you are "conservative," then you cannot support Obama and his spread of harmful policies, nor can you stand on the side and watch it. If you are "conservative," then you don't begrudge the success achieved in our capitalistic system. If you are "conservative," then you believe individuals and private organizations should have less government fetters that interfere with freedom and growth.
Al| 4.11.12 @ 7:19PM
Not sure the author is taking it seriously enough. I remember my first political awakening after the Carter years prevented me from even "hearing" what liberal democratic politicians were trying to say for decades because my disappointment at their performance classed them as next to useless.
David| 4.11.12 @ 8:07PM
To the morons who claim that Santorum is no more ready to be prez than Bam Bam was:
Santorum spent 4 years in the House, 12 in the Senate, and rose to the number 3 post in the Senate. He was a major player in welfare reform for which Newt likes to take all of the credit. Santorum always cast votes on critical issues, some of which were used against him in this campaign.
Bam Bam spent some years in the Illinois state senate, had no accomplishments, and voted not present ad nauseum. He also got that senate seat by default - he fraudulently had the other 3 candidates' petitions thrown out which resulted in them being taken off the ballot.
He won his Senate seat in Congress and after 18 months, with no accoomplishments, started running for prez.
As Hillary said, she and Biden had a wealth of experience, and Bam Bam has a speech that he gave in 2004.
Santorum the same experience as Bam Bam??? You can't be serious!!!
Betty| 4.11.12 @ 9:40PM
I am not encouraged. I do not feel inspired by Mitt Romney. I do not believe he is sincere.
This is not a good feeling. And I believe much of what W. James Antle, III has written is accurate.
Lucy-Lee de C0rtez| 4.11.12 @ 10:40PM
I guess I'm not a true conservative
I figure killing innoent children, totally unacceptable.
So Gov Romney, forgetaboutit.
In 2011, he tells the National Review he supports legal abortion in the case of rape. And then he said he was pro life!. That was 2011. Last fall!
Killing innocent children to punish a felony?
Gov, that's not pro-life.
Here's what that is, Governor. Lunatic.
Better a weak Obama for 4 years, than maybe 8 years of an empty suit, before we get to try somebody decent.
PCP Smoker| 4.11.12 @ 10:59PM
There is nothing weak about Obama. His EPA, under Lisa Jackson, still instituting policies that "command and control" the economy. Pull your head out of your ass. I don't like the Mormon liberal, but Obama is the worst of all time.
PCP Smoker| 4.11.12 @ 10:57PM
Mittens won because he had money, and because idiot Tea Party ended up talking themselves into voting for Romney. Reference Coulter's ridiculous defense of RomneyCare. Reference also the myriad of articles by Quinn and Katshitsky, and the rest of the Romenyfags supporting this creep.
Please, Antle, no advice from you on how, we, conservatives, can elect the right candidate.
kelsonus| 4.12.12 @ 9:09AM
1144 and then it's done...
SteveH| 4.12.12 @ 12:55PM
The problem is that the Republican Party has become "the stupid party" and I say that as someone who has voted reliably Republican since the 70s. The "establishment" are big government Progressives that think the Wall Street is the entire world and love a good monopoly and can't wait for the next unnecessary war - they cost the party credibility and will not back a true conservative. On the you have the religious Progressives that call themselves social conservative but there is nothing conservative about trying to have the government run our personal lives at gun point. The true conservatives are the TEA Party and libertarians that want the government out of our lives. Progressives in both parties will continue to push this country toward financial collapse and away from freedom - the only difference is what flavor of freedoms they want us to give up and how quickly they bankrupt us.
Phil Byler| 4.12.12 @ 1:03PM
As the saying goes in America's favorite pasttime, it ain't over until it is over. Newt is still fighting. So should all real conservatives. Romney still needs between 400 and 500 more delegates to secure the first round nomination, and he does not have a lock on them.
Magic Underwear| 4.12.12 @ 6:06PM
BELIEVE IN IT!
JohnInFlorida| 4.13.12 @ 12:03PM
"It was the conclusion of a year-long battle between the Republican establishment and disaffected conservatives ..."
If you think this battle is concluded ... well ...
You are probably correct that the Republican Party has finally convinced conservatives that they have no place in the GOP, but incorrect that the war is over.
Barring a successful conservative "coup" at the convention in Tampa (not likely), the phoenix-like birth of a "Conservative/Grizzly/Freedom Party" from the ashes of the Republican Party seems certain.
I cannot begin to describe the level of anger and disgust I feel ... anger and disgust aimed not at Obama and his Socialist?/Marxist?/Communist? minions, though there is plenty of anger and disgust aimed there ... but anger and disgust directed specifically at those who many call the Republican Establishment (GOP-E).
The GOP needs to go the way of the Whigs.
a. Conservatives MUST strike out on their own if conservatism is to have any chance of influencing the direction of the USA in 2014 and beyond.
b. Then, the GOP-E can discontinue portraying themselves as an alternative to the Democrat Party and just declare their true colors as the somewhat right-leaning wing of the Dems ... progressives who are a bit right of the radical anarchists that now control that party.
Usually, when I reach this point in my reverie, I say to myself "boy, am I glad I'm 60 and not 30" and try and convince myself that I'll be dead and gone before things get "too bad".
Our founders were exceptional men ...
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, ... leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits ..., and not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government ..."
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."
" . . . I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that [Christian] religion have not a controlling influence."
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
It's just too bad they could not prevent what they could foresee because today, as I muse on where we're headed, I don't see the USA of my past ANYWHERE in the future. I just see a powder-keg ... waiting for a match.
CVO| 4.15.12 @ 3:20PM
I love Rand Paul. Paul and Jindhal might do the trick.
JohnInFlorida| 4.23.12 @ 6:54PM
I hope you're right, I fear you're not ... God help us all.