The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Why Romney is Weak vs. Obama

Text Size

Since I wrote this little blog post the other day, picked up at Real Clear Politics, all of a sudden (by coincidence; I’m not claiming I had anything to do with it, but just am remarking on how rapidly the ‘meme’ has taken off) all sorts of people are suddenly realizing that Mitt Romney is hardly the candidate with the best chance to beat Barack Obama.

It certainly isn’t all at the Center for Individual Freedom, but we did have a written colloquy on the subject the other day, with Troy Senik and Ashton Ellis insightfully joining me in weighing in. Actually, Jonathan Last made the case earlier, here. Tina Korbe, a rising star, argues the same thing at Hot Air. Phil Klein at the Washington Examiner makes the case that Romney’s flip-flopping is a big liability in a general election (as it was for Al Gore and to a certain extent John Kerry). Back in late December, John Hawkins at Right Wing News also argued the situation quite well. Of course, Peter Ferrara made the case right here at the Spectator, although he also segued into (strong) arguments against Romney’s ability to do a good job if he were elected anyway. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection also has questions.

The scholarly take on it, again doubting Romney’s electability, was by Larry Lindsey at the Weekly Standard. From the center-left, the very smart former U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) thinks his (former) party doesn’t have much to worry about from Romney: “The fact, however, is that Democrats have not had to strain to plan the race they would run against Romney. For four days in the week, they will paint him as a flip-flopper who has occupied both sides of a lot of ground; for three days, as an entitled tool of corporate interests who made millions doling out pink slips on behalf of a shadowy management firm.” Also at NRO, Andy McCarthy doubts whether we can know who is more electable.

At the New York Post, John Podhoretz writes a piece about Romney headlined “Never Has a Winner Looked so Beaten.” The column is brutal. It calls Romney “one of the weakest major candidates either party has ever seen.” Also: “[N]obody loves him. No one is inspired by him.… Claiming he should be president because he knows how to run a business may be the least stirring message any candidate has seized upon since Michael Dukakis foundered in 1988 by claiming he could bring ‘competence’ to the White House. And his liabilities are undeniable. Even though Gingrich’s assault on Romney’s record of laying off workers when he was running Bain Capital is breathtaking in its disingenuousness, that record does happen to be one of a dozen glaring weaknesses in Romney’s biography, political history and approach that President Obama and his team will be able to use to their advantage.” And Jonah Goldberg writes that Romney’s “authentic inauthenticity problem isn’t going away.”

Plenty other similar pieces are out there, all in a rush. And they are all correct.

I try to look at these things from three perspectives based in my own experience. [MUCH MORE]I’ve been a political activist/political professional/presidential campaign state executive director/presidential caucus organizer/leadership Hill staffer, so I have a participant’s perspective. I’ve been a PR executive, so I then try to look at it from a marketing perspective. And I’ve been a journalist/columnist for 15 years, so there’s the close observer/outsider perspective. (This is not to boast about my background, but only to explain HOW I arrive at looking at things, from different angles, as a way to check my assumptions — althought I do have a long record of getting it right.)

Anyway, here’s what I see. I see, first, a candidate who “fails to inspire.” This is hugely important. It’s the old Dole/McCain/Bush 41 thing again: Without energizing one’s base, it doesn’t matter if you can get a few extra percentage points from “swing” voters (even assuming it’s true that those extra few points are achievable — which is probably not true anyway, because if you aren’t inspirational, you aren’t inspirational, period, meaning you don’t inspire the middle either). It’s also true that millions of voters really can decide to stay home; remember that Karl Rove estimated that up to 4 million expected Evangelical Bush backers stayed home in 2000 after being disgusted by last-weekend news that Bush had had a drunk driving arrest way back when. The result, of course, was a race that took six extra weeks to decide.

Next is a candidate’s history, which was the basis of my original post on this front. Aside from winning the governorship against extremely weak opposition in a three-way race where he failed to get an actual majority of the vote, in a state that despite its liberalism had become accustomed to electing Republican governors (for 12 straight years), Romney still has never won an electorally significant victory that wasn’t in his native state (Michigan) or in a state that is his backyard and site of his vacation home (New Hampshire). Even in Iowa, his mere eight-vote win after five years of work there amounted to six (yes, count them, exactly six) fewer votes than he earned four years earlier in the same caucus system.

Then there’s the attacks on his tenure at Bain Capital. The attacks are over-the-top and unfair. But coming from the left in a general election campaign, they will work. That’s how a weakened Ted Kennedy in a Republican year blew open a tight race against Romney and won by a landslide — by attacking Bain (and by some subtle but effective exploitation of anti-Mormon bigotry, which unfortunately and unfairly and sickeningly will probably cost Romney a point and a half from otherwise GOP voters this year as well). What’s particularly devastating here is when a candidate’s big vulnerability is in the very area he tried to, and expected to, make his biggest political strength. Romney’s main selling point has been that he is a good businessman who proved himself in the private sector; if that gets taken away, he’s toast, because his record as governor was nothing to write home about, with his only significant “achievement” being the execrable one of Romneycare. This is very much akin to what happened to John Kerry, who tried to make his major selling point his supposed military “heroism,” when the highly on-target Swift Boat attacks made that same military service into a slight net liability. You can’t win when your biggest selling point is actually a vulnerability.

Romney, indeed, is the perfect foil for the Obama campaign, first because he is the very epitome of a Republican born rich who got richer by moving money around — a millionaire plutocrat who just can’t relate to “ordinary” Americans, and second because he is yet another Republican political/dynastic legatee. Think about it: We’ve gone from one Bush trying to outdo his Senate father by becoming president, to another Bush trying to outdo his president father by winning two terms as president, to a McCain trying to outdo his admiral father and admiral grandfather by becoming president… and now to a Romney trying to outdo his Michigan governor father and failed presidential front-runner by this time succeeding as a presidential front-runner. In the hands of the $800 million Obama campaign, this can easily by portrayed as a rather creepy and anti-American reliance on dynasticism.

Combine that with what appears to be a plastic insincerity (again, the “flip-flopping” charge was devastating against Al Gore and can be so again), with a “how dare you question me” attitude that increasingly has shown itself in debates, and with an utter failure to “connect” emotionally with what once were known as “Reagan Democrats” (old-ethnic. i.e. Italian-American/Polish-American, etc., blue collar workers, culturally conservative and on economics distrustful of Wall Street), and you have a recipe for an extraordinarily weak general election candidate.

Against all of that, all Romney can offer is a supposed greater acceptability to the educated, less culturally conservative, right-leaning economically, urban and suburbanites who are being targeted by Obama in places like Virginia and North Carolina. But the key thing here is that while these folks may be more socially liberal, they tend to vote more on the basis of their slightly upper-middle-income economic expectations rather than on social issues, and they’ll vote either for or against Obama based on those analyses regardless of who the Republican nominee is. But it is the blue-collar worker, or small-business retailer, who (polls show) votes more often on cultural cues (not necessarily social issues per se, although that is sometimes the case, but more on stylistic cultural cues and concerns) than on other factors. Again, this is obviously a gross over-generalization (as is most 30,000-foot-level political socio-analysis), but these are indeed, as Rick Santorum keeps saying, the people who swing elections in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Missouri. The are far more likely to swing behind Santorum (or Gingrich, or Perry) than behind the stiff rich guy with a “weird” religion and no middle-cultural social affinities (“shooting… small varmints” and flipping on homosexual “marriage”).

While general-election polls ten months out are not at all predictive of final results, they can indicate basic information about viability. Candidates with higher name ID (especially with low current “hard negatives” like Romney) can be expected to do far better than ones with low ID, low familiarity, etc. Thus, it is highly instructive that in recent polls in both Florida and North Carolina, Rick Santorum did almost exactly as well (margin of error) against Obama as Romney did, despite Romney’s far greater familiarity to voters.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, Romney just can’t campaign against Obama’s single biggest vulnerability, Obamacare. There are just too many similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare, too many bad results from Romneycare (busting the budget, etc.), and too many video clips of Romney from six years ago saying that he hoped that even the individual insurance mandate would become a “national model.” This will absolutely hobble Romney’s campaign. In fact, it might be an insurmountable problem.

All of which is to say that Willard Mitt Romney has very low growth potential in a general-election campaign against Obama. His downside might be not as low as John McCain’s was, four years ago, but his upside is negligible. As Larry Lindsey’s analysis (mentioned above) explains, this can be an easy recipe for what I call a “respectable loss.” But a loss is a loss is a loss. Romney is a weak general-election candidate who isn’t likely to get any better.

PattyMor| 1.13.12 @ 2:08PM

I don't want Romney because I can't trust him. He says that he would repeal Obamacare, but I don't believe him. Romneycare was his signiture piece of legislation as governor and Obamacare is more or less the national version.

And his flipflopping on abortion. Somehow I get the feeling that Romney is just being opportunistic. He was for abortion to run for governor and he'll choose prolife to run for Prez.

And he once described himself as a moderate, a progressive!! Progressive means you're for the big, oppressive, centralized federal gov'ment. Telling us what kind of toilets and light bulbs to buy from atop Mt. Washington.

Dan| 1.13.12 @ 4:03PM

Even Romney's own shadow doesn't trust him.

EVERYTHING there is to be known and understood about Romney is encapsulated in the fact that the Bush clan supports him, and that John Sununno is out there flacking for him and threatening big money donors not to contribute to anyone else, ------ OR ELSE.

For a guy who is supposedly so intelligent, so well educated, so "capable," how then did that guy get himself on every side of every significant left/divide under the Sun.

Even the Surge he waffled on.

Old Fan| 1.14.12 @ 7:23PM

This is silly. When one studies Romney's record, it is clear he fulfills his promises. Romney's tenure as Gov. in Mass was excellent. He balanced an inherited budget deficit of 3 Billion, cut taxation 19 times, turning around an entrenched Democratic Partisan anti-Business climate with sound conservative principles empowering the Private Sector.

Romney has stood firm against a number of the Democratic Partisan mantras, including admirable vetoes for gay marriage, minimum wage increases, even funding for illegal immigration.

Hillyer is simply mistaken. It is regretful to see. Many from the sideline selling opinion, who have no genuine private sector accomplishment, never won an election, have no experience in governing, are providing a very poor offering.

Many are stuck on a simplistic fashionable devotion, which has turned serious conservatism into a weak shell game. Identity political games often only enable the opposite.

Here we see many want to run away from advocating conservative Free Market principles, for fear of leftist populism. It is really quite regretful. So all those cries for a bold conservative are now being tossed under the bus, because some are claiming a proven Free Market CEO cannot win in the General Election? As if we are going to cede the essential Private Sector even before the GOP Primary is over?

None of it makes sense. It is almost as if many don't even understand Private Equity or the US Free Market System. It is all embarrassing coming from the sound side. It is simply not sound conservatism.

Ann Coulter seems to be way ahead of the curve again, leading beyond the fashion. She is right, Mr. Romney is the best offering. Romney is an ideal candidate at this time, especially when the election will be a referendum on the power of the Private Sector, vs. the weak Public Sector Malaise provided by Obama and the disastrous Democratic Party.

Mr. Hillyer can do better. Perhaps it is already too late. But he simply is not seeing it clearly today.

Sapwolf| 1.14.12 @ 9:39PM

Buddy,

I've gone over all the candidates with a microscope.

Romney, mainly for the reasons stated in this column, will probably lose to Obama. He has ZERO upside, and the Dem/Lib/Statist/Media machine will bring him down enough.

I've already decided to pass this election and not even volunteer in my local precinct.

He is that discouraging.

Let's focus on the Senate races and take it back while we continue to reform the GOP from the counties to state to national level so that we can run a Scott Walker or another solid, prudent, courageous conserative who has enough libertarianism to unite our coalition.

Walker 2016

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 10:34PM

Sapwolf,

Scrape the algae off your microscope lens; you may be able to get a glimpse of reality.

Old Fan| 1.14.12 @ 10:49PM

Totally misguided Sapwolf...

Completely wrong. That is why two recent polls, including one from Rasmussen, have Romney leading in the sampling over Obama?

Here is the ultimate sign you are deeply mistaken, I would walk through fire to cast my vote for any GOP Candidate in this upcoming Election against Obama.

You simply are mistaken, and I highly doubt your really have studied the sound Free Market Record of Mr. Romney, he is that proven of an Executive, turning failure after failure around.

As MA Gov., Romney balanced an inherited budget Deficit of 3 Billion. That is not a positive? Romney cut taxation 19 Times. That is another "zero" upside? Romney lowered regulatory burdens turning around an entrenched Democratic Partisan anti-Business Climate, unemployment dipped to 4.7% when Romney was Gov. This too is not a positive?

Romney vetoed gay marriage, minimum wage increases, funding for illegal immigrants, etc. Are you sure you studied his record with a microscope? So many upsides, which you claimed are "zero" suggest you didn't not look too carefully through your blurred lens.

Did you know Romney tried to reinstate the Death Penalty in MA? A very admirable conservative effort indeed.

Sorry, Sapwolf, you are mistaken. Ann Coulter, Gov. Haley, Sheriff Babeu, Sen. Thune, Jack Welch, John Bolton have it right.

Also, it is clear, Hillyer could not be more mistaken. Anyone who claims to be a Conservative, should never embarrassingly suggest successful Free Market Enterprise is a loser in US Politics.

Romney is only rising in SC - leftist attacks on Bain are proving deeply misguided:
"Romney opens 21-point lead in South Carolina: Reuters/Ipsos poll"

Same thing will happen in the General, as the vast Majority of Americans who work in the Private Sector will not appreciate another failed Democratic Partisan Beltway Celebrity attacking positive Private Enterprise. Washington Politicians like Newt, Obama, etc., who try to attack the powerful US Free Market are always going to look pathetic.

Sapwolf| 1.15.12 @ 3:46AM

The danger with Romney is not that he won't win. He probably won't.

The danger with Romney is if he wins and governs Dem light.

That would devastate the GOP, further weakening it.

If we take the Senate, Obama cannot destroy the country like a bunch of bloggers fear.

This country is bigger than Obama.

Have a little fait and be patient, but don't put your faith in Romney.

We can do better.

Roywil| 1.15.12 @ 3:29PM

I was going to post my opinion. But now I don't need to. Perfectly said, Sir. No one says MR is the perfect candidate, he's just our best shot...and every poll shows that. No brainer.

YOu are an idiot| 1.14.12 @ 11:50PM

stay home and Obama wins... that makes you an idiot. YOu know 100% what Obama will do and have no idea what Romney will do other than his promise to repeal Obamacare on day 1, appoint conservative judges, uphold DOMA, etc... you are really stupid buddy.

Sapwolf| 1.15.12 @ 3:49AM

Not really. I'm in Iowa so my vote won't make a difference at the national level anyway if Romney squares off against Obama. Romney will not win Iowa anyway.

The big battle will be Ohio. There, a vote will matter for sure.

Chris k| 1.15.12 @ 6:31AM

I think this blog and Sapwolf are right on. When you do negative attacks ads like Romney has, it means you have a poor record. Just look at Obama. Remember Romney attacking Perry for calling Social security a Ponzi scheme(which is true). All these attack ads from Romney, Gingrich, and others are turning me off. It just shows we have learned nothing over the last 3 1/2 years. So how does that inspire me to vote for Romney?

Rick| 1.14.12 @ 11:22PM

I fully agree. We conservatives are going to implode by knocking Romney down. Our #1 objective is to defeat Obama. Romney is far and away our best offering other than say a Mitch Daniels enters the race. This is just plain foolish.

Even Ronald Reagan changed stances several times on abortion, taxes, immigration.

I want to defeat Obama and I am afraid that Mr. Santorum running around talking about abortion when we have a crumbling economy is not going to get this done. I am very pro-life but man oh man, we have to concentrate on economics and then when we win, we get going with the conservative social ideas.

AlsatianWolf| 1.15.12 @ 9:59AM

Romney is definatley the best canddidate on either side. Anyone who skips the elction based on far right ideology might as well vote for the socialist Obama.

Chris k| 1.17.12 @ 7:51PM

I don't see a Romney endorsement in my comments. It is his style of politics that turns me off. I am tired of the negative politics of Romney, Gingrich, and Perry. It is this reason why I can't vote for either of them. We are 16 trillion in debt, and we are getting Politics as usual? Really?

MumblyPeg| 1.15.12 @ 12:06AM

OldFan, GTFO. You've been trolling your uninformed blather on NRO for months, now you're chumming up the Spectator.

Admit it. You are a paid Romney operative. Shut up already. We, the American people, get to decide not Mitt's treasure chest!

the_iowa_hawkeye| 1.15.12 @ 2:12AM

And according to the polls, W
e the American people are choosing Romney.

Sapwolf| 1.15.12 @ 3:50AM

No. Only about 30% are determining it.

Jim| 1.16.12 @ 2:09AM

Old fan,
You need to look at numbers more closely. Romney got the same 25% of the vote in Iowa as he got in 2008. That means he won over no new voters even though he's been campaigning there for four years straight! And his numbers only went up 8% in NH since 4 years ago. I understand that it's mostly conservatives who vote in primaries, but there's no evidence romney is winning over independents either. He's just not exciting. Remember in 2008 when independents fell in love with Obama? Go ask 100 independent voter nowadays what they think of Romney, and I bet not one gets all giddy the same voters did for Obama.
You also bring up Romney taking stances against gay marriage and minimum wage increases, but the majority of the country is now in favor of gay marriage and minimum wage increases. So his stances on those two issues will not win over independents. And a recent poll of polls by Realclearpolitics had Obama beating Romney by two points. With a terrible economy, the republican candidate should have a ten point lead over Obama. The fact that Romney is currently losing to Obama says he's not really winning over independent voters.
And it's great that Romney balanced the Mass budget, but most voters probably don't know that because Romney is not a good communicator. So that accomplishment may not help Romney either

David Zaduk| 1.20.12 @ 1:47PM

Bold, conservative, free market. He is none of those, and as far as understanding private equity, no most people don't, but they still vote, Ron Paul is the only candidate who can excite the masses of independents we need to win the white house and congress

Old Fan| 1.14.12 @ 7:24PM

fckewe| 1.17.12 @ 7:41AM

Thank you for pointing out the obvious! Too bad the ethically blind get a vote. Funny how they stand on 'Moral Legislation" as the cure all and just ADORE embezzelers, legal or not.

Jack in Wi.| 1.13.12 @ 4:10PM

Romney and Ron Paul are tied head to head against Obama. They are both the only ones who have a chance of beating him. They both have national followings and money. Newt, Santorum, Huntsmen and Perry were all about spliting the conservative and libertarian vote. The only real conservative in the race, Ron Paul, has by far the best chance of success. He gets lots of support from the young, disaffected Democrats, and leads Obama among independents by a large margin.

Romney does well against Obama. But I consider him un-electable. He is a bankster,
warmonger, flipflopper, lover of bailouts for the rich and the loss of civil liberties for the rest of us. In fact I think his election would be a disaster for conservatives. He would suck the life out of the opposition from the right, just like the Bush's did.

70% of the people want no more bailouts, no Romneycare, no war with Iran, the end of the current disasterous wars, the Fed audited, and the Federal government massively down sized. Romney is not the man to sell such a program. Ron Paul is.

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 5:43PM

Those polls are meaningless---the top 3 or 4 Republicans are all within the MOE of each other, it's a year out, and it's the Electoral College that matters.

How on God's green earth does a Massachusetts liberal like Mitt Romney appeal to enough Blue Dog Democrats in NC and VA to turn them red again?

Answer: he doesn't.

This is going to be a slaughter.

Steve851| 1.14.12 @ 11:15AM

Romney can't beat Obama, but it won't be a slaughter. I would argue that Romney will be a good place-card holder for the GOP, giving it another four years to get its act together. Santorum, Perry and Gingrich would all be disasters for different reasons. Huntsman would be okay, but he is going to out of the hunt as fast as Santorum and Perry will be. It's a little too soon for the Dr. Paul movement, but it may ultimately prevail in a somewhat more moderate form and save the GOP by 2016.

Ron| 1.14.12 @ 11:25AM

I would say pretty much any of the pub candidates could beat the Incompetent in Chief, we can not allow four more years of failurs

GymRatPro| 1.14.12 @ 12:16PM

Except that your premise is ridiculous. None of the current cast can take down Obama. As Hillyer suggests, perhaps 2016 will bring a more seasoned, electable group of candidates.

Malcom| 1.14.12 @ 2:45PM

Dr. Paul's movement will never win a general election. He has a strident group of supporters but they are only 10% of the general vote (everyone and his grandma has 10% of the general vote). Dr. Paul is not a conservative, has abandoned the Republican party in the past, and now wants to be the standard bearer of the party? If he has such a great following go start a 3rd party.

David Zaduk| 1.20.12 @ 1:51PM

About that 10%, its now about 20%. Now go read about the tipping point of ideas.

Peter Kondos| 1.14.12 @ 1:32PM

Ron Paul is an isolationist. He will not defend freedom. Basically the only way I can describe him is: "that he is nuts".

David| 1.14.12 @ 2:22PM

There's a big difference between non-interventionist and isolationist. While it's in vogue to paint Paul as some iconoclastic nut case, he in fact believes in a strong national defense -- defense being the optimal word -- rather than preemptive meddling.

In other words, just because you have the biggest hammer in the world, don't go looking for nails to drive.

Malcom| 1.14.12 @ 2:47PM

And what does Dr. Paul say about defending our borders? He wants to be a "non-interventionist" at the border too from what he says.

Quartermaster| 1.16.12 @ 11:54AM

His positions on immigration are disturbing. Liberatrians are insane in that regard.

David Zaduk| 1.20.12 @ 1:53PM

I can't understand him so he must be nuts, What's nuts is thinking we can keep up this global charade of policeman and not go broke.

NoLawyers| 1.14.12 @ 4:45PM

Jon Huntsman should he get the opportunity, would beat Obama. He has a great record of achievement. He would attract some Democrats and most of the independents when offered the choice between Huntsman and Obama. Sure, he has stands that I do not like in his "social conservative" beliefs but right now, the economy is the critical item and Huntsman could turn things around. Romney is ----- well, nobody knows what Romney is at the core.

David Zaduk| 1.20.12 @ 1:57PM

America will not elect a homophobe, and Huntsman is too conected to Opus Dei.

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 10:36PM

Not true, Jack.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....dates.html

fckewe| 1.17.12 @ 7:45AM

67% of the citizens are benefitting from the Affordable Healthcare Act. But your really criminally misleading misstatement is that Obama is polling ahead of Romney AND Paul together. The poll question asked is not represented by the answers given.

If the question asked, "Would you vote for Romney or Paul against Obama? Who would lose the election? Either Romney OR Paul.

Clint| 1.13.12 @ 9:03PM

When Romney ran Bain Capital, his word was not his bond.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ory_1.html

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.

UDoinItWrong| 1.14.12 @ 6:19PM

The South will rise again, too, right?

LOL ... wow....

fckewe| 1.17.12 @ 7:46AM

I have been laughing at that Charlie Danielism for decades. The only thing that rises in the South are redneck peckers when their sisters are in the shower.

Worried for the country| 1.14.12 @ 11:01AM

Try looking at Romney's complete record instead of edited clips from '94 when a neophyte politician was trying to take down Ted Kennedy.

Romney has a deep resume. Bain is an important part. It takes leadership to build a team and have success in business. He was also a successful governor during a time of economic crisis. He also led the SLC Olympics turnaround. I would hire him in a minute to help turn around the country.

Romneycare is completely overblown. Romney will repeal Obamacare. Romneycare was only a 60 page law. Obamacare is 2300 pages and is a disaster. I live with Romneycare and it isn't a big deal. I can attest that it did clean up ER wait times just as promised. However, the bottom line is it is a state's rights issue. Romney is big on making the Federal government smaller and pushing as much as possible back to the states. This is a very originalist constitutional principle.

Silly Romney fan...| 1.14.12 @ 11:44AM

...you clearly don't realize how politics (and YouTube) work. And the rest of Romney's record actually looks worse than his '94 campaign. But let's look at the record, shall we?

1994: Failed to win office in the largest national Republican landslide in history. Says he wasn't aligned with Bush/Reagan and will do great things for gay rights.

2002: Barely won the MA governorship with a lower percentage than the three previous governors (all of whom were also republican). Calls himself a 'progressive'.

2006: Passes RomneyCare, one of the most liberal policies in the history of the states, inspiring Obama to do the same. Spends 200+ days of his final year traveling the country and watching his MA gov approval ratings drop to the 30's, making re-election impossible.

2008: Loses to the guy...who lost to Obama. To make it clear, two wrongs don't make a right.

2012: Wins the GOP nomination among the weakest field in memory, with a bunch of real-time gaffes (10k bet, 'envy', 'I like firing people', etc, etc) teed up for Obama to load into the cannon.

Romney isn't for shrinking government at all. In his only governing actual track record, he expanded a health care entitlement program like no other governor had. He's a technocrat who believes, as he did at Bain, that his top-down genius will lead the way. He believes in shrinking other peoples' ideas of government and in growing his own.

Worried for the country| 1.14.12 @ 12:20PM

Spin, spin, spin...
Not really worth a reply but a couple points:

'94: Romney was up against Ted Kennedy in the polls in August. Kennedy was sweating big time. He took a personal mortgage on his home so he could run distorting attack ads to win. Mitt was a neophyte politician then but it was fun watch liberal Ted squirm.

Reagan lost to the guy who eventually lost to Carter. Your argument is just silly. Mitt lost in the GOP primary last time because he is a Washington outsider. He isn't the establishment.

Look at his resume. The SLC Olympics turnaround was impressive. He is a leader.

People just dismiss him because he is from MA. He had 800 vetoes in MA. He shut down whole departments in MA and he left MA with fewer state employees. He did this with a 85% dem. legislature. Imagine what he will do with a GOP majority and Paul Ryan.

Ever wonder why the liberal Boston Globe hates him? They endorsed Huntsman in the NH primary. The conservative Boston Herald endorsed Romney.

Cut cap and balance with Mitt and Paul Ryan.

AndrewL| 1.14.12 @ 5:10PM

Cut, cap and balance is actually a perfect example of Romney's insincerity. Romney backers like yourself tout his supposed leadership qualities. But when the debt ceiling debate was happening last spring did Romney lead?

No, in fact, he hid from the press and avoided commenting on it, to the extent that journalists coined a term to joke that he was in the "Mittness Protection Program." That stands in contrast to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, who led the fight against raising the debt ceiling, and Jon Huntsman, who went on record to endorse the Boehner plan.

Once Gingrich, Santorum and Pawlenty endorsed cut, cap and balance, Romney announced he was for it too - something he has repeated in debates ever since. But Romney has never elaborated at all on what that meant. His proposed policies would not allow us to balance the federal budget.

Personally, I'm skeptical that CCB stands a real chance of passing anyway. But Romney is pandering on this issue just like on many others. That's the opposite of bold leadership - it's called leading from behind, like Obama.

C Puckett| 1.14.12 @ 6:41PM

All Obama has to d,o is ask weather the country might want to reconsider electing an investment banker after the 2008 crash.
and he wins

joanne| 1.15.12 @ 8:17AM

All we the people have to ask is"COULD YOU TAKE ANOTHER 4 YEARS OF THIS?" or do you want a capitalistic society or a banana republic????? What do YOU think genius??????

AlsatianWolf| 1.15.12 @ 10:06AM

Except he wasn't a banker.

Sapwolf| 1.14.12 @ 9:42PM

We dismiss him because he a chronic liar who knows not what he stands for.

the_iowa_hawkeye| 1.15.12 @ 2:17AM

Actually, Romneycare was developed by the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly a liberal socialist group. And he most certainly did govern as a conservative while in Mass. He CUT spending in the state. I am not talking about cutting the rate of growth, he CUT spending in real dollars. No other GOP candidate can say that.

Malcom| 1.14.12 @ 2:50PM

You lost the argument at "he was also a successful governor". You have to be a Ron Paul supporter (aka. pot head) to believe that.

UDoinItWrong| 1.14.12 @ 6:33PM

Don't let these trolls get to you. They are either liberals posing as conservatives or angry supporters of one of the other Republican candidates. Some of them have been on the Kool-Aid for so long that they are no longer capable of rational thought and spout things like "Romney = Obama Lite!" and "Romney really doesn't plan on following his platform - he's going to do exactly the opposite if he gets elected!" This kind of mindless, unsubstantiated drivel makes me fear that the US population is in fact getting dumber...

fckewe| 1.17.12 @ 7:51AM

2000 pages of it was compromises the Republicans insisted on and the BLUE balled leadership was cowardly enough allow. The purpose of them was to expand the obstructionist goals ofthe RED party. Write more flaws into the law so we can point them out as Obama's fault.

If mandatory insurance is a crime, an unconstitutionality, then why don't the RED's argue against AUTO insurance mandates by states? It's because they don't believe in the concept of taking a bribe from insurance lobbys and voting against their own special interest campaign financing.

Lew| 1.14.12 @ 3:18PM

This article is may as well be an endorsement of Gingrich or Perry, but it fails on so many levels. Last point first, Obamacare is the philosophical antithesis of Romneycare. Romneycare has the free market at its core while Obamacare is aimed at taking health care out of the free market forever. Furthermore, conservative think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation were all over the individual mandate when they thought of it as a vehicle to support the free market principles behind Romneycare. What they failed to see was how Dems (led by Obama, Pelosi and Reid - aka, the Three Stooges) could use that same mandate to destroy free market coverage of health care. That is the inherent treachery to many if not all "big government" solutions to societal challenges; no matter how benevolent the original intent, Dems can always invent ways to adulterate it.

Romney is by no means a perfect candidate, but he appears to be the last, best chance we have left. The rest of the current GOP, by comparison, is so much worse. Romney, in comparison to Newt, is rock solid and unmoveable on all his current positions. Newt has a longer, deeper list of flip-flops than Mitt.

joanne| 1.15.12 @ 8:10AM

Excuse me Patti...do you or can you believer anything that this wanna be king says. I have been voting a long time, and have never felt the fear and angst from as Joe Wilson put it so succinctly....Liar.

RainingInOhio| 1.15.12 @ 8:17AM

I think that Americans will vote for someone who is the opposite of Obama. Romney fulfills that well. He is a capitalist instead of a socialist.

Mike| 1.13.12 @ 2:18PM

Great article. I agree completely. The right has been attacking Obama for 3 years straight. By contrast attacks on Romney have only just barely begun. Obama is still beating Romney in the polls. Romney has little to offer. Obama's approval is low, but so is the approval for all government. Just because Obama is not as popular now as in 2008 does not mean he won't pummel Mitt into a wet noodle.

Dan| 1.13.12 @ 4:04PM

Romney isn't a man.

Romney is a weird caricature of everything wrong with crony Capitalism, and by the time the Democrats and the media get done with him, --------- even his own sons will want to throw up at the mere thought of who and what he is.

And that is the honest-to-God, no-shit assessment.

Jerry| 1.14.12 @ 12:31PM

Dan, you are so coooooool dude, I sure wish I could be tough & swear like you...
The likelihood that Romney wins the GOP nod is great. So, when & if he wins, what are you going to do vote for OBAMA? Not me. Romney is the likely person to go the distance & he'll get my vote for sure ! Have a good day!

Sapwolf| 1.14.12 @ 9:43PM

Neither Obama or Romney will get my vote.

GOP Senate 2012

JM| 1.13.12 @ 2:26PM

Romney's personality is his biggest flaw. Presidential politics is a popularity contest at heart. The more charismatic candidate almost always wins. Romney can't even tell a joke, let alone rouse a crowd to standing applause. How is he possibly going to compete with Obama on the campaign trail? Romney's dynastic wealth and idiotic comments that concerns over inequity of wealth are simply "envy" don't help either. He can't connect to average people on a personal or platform level.

Gadfly| 1.13.12 @ 2:54PM

Unfortunately, I think that's a problem with all of the current Republicans other than Perry (and he's proven himself pretty much unelectable for other reasons). Santorum is a wet blanket, Huntsman's a smarmy jerk, and Gingrich is like a crotchety old uncle. Of the all of them, I think Gingrich is the most charismatic, but even he can be pretty polarizing.

If the Republicans don't take the presidency in 2012, it will be a failure of the field. None of these guys look very likely to beat Obama, and Obama should be very beatable.

JM| 1.13.12 @ 7:29PM

Gadfly,

The only Republican who has thus far run with any stage presence, charisma, or humor has been Herman Cain. Herman Cain was entertaining. He was likeable. He was fun.

Unfortunately, he was a poor candidate as well because he knew nothing of foreign policy, and hadn't really though through his flat tax.

But it's a testament to his charisma that it took multiple sexual harassment allegations to eventually knock him out of contention.

Perry also had a folksy repeatability but is dumb as they come.

The rest, whatever their other merits, don't have enough spark between them to light a candle.

JM| 1.13.12 @ 7:30PM

*Perry also had a folksy LIKEABILITY but is dumb as they come.

(correction)

BurkeVA| 1.14.12 @ 8:52AM

I am not a Perry supporter, but a man who has for ten years been a very successful governor of Texas, which has the 13th largest economy in the world, may be a lot of things, but "dumb as they come" is not one of them. Comments like that simply nullify anything you have to say, and you probably do have some important points to make. Please try again.

Perry wasn't dumb...| 1.14.12 @ 11:46AM

...just inarticulate. I'm not a Perry supporter either, but he (and Huntsman, who I also don't support) have the most actual executive experience with pretty good track records. But inarticulate isn't good enough vs. Obama. And Huntsman isn't really sure whether he's a conservative or a moderate.

Malcom| 1.14.12 @ 2:52PM

"dumb"? No, just inarticulate and not running for president for the last 6 years.

dawngazer| 1.14.12 @ 4:54PM

Perry has my vote. He has the job-growth record, the fire-in-the-belly, the core convictions. He can hold and run with the banner if the GOP will coalesce around him.

None of the candidates are perfect--not one. Which one cared enough about this country to volunteer to serve in the military? Only one.

Perry for President in 2012

Dan| 1.13.12 @ 4:07PM

Actually, you hit upon something still up for dispute.

To wit, WHAT exactly is Romney's greatest flaw?

Is it his wooden campaign presence?

Or is it his serial departures from the truth?

Is it his attempting to pander himself with tens of millions of conservatives, when he himself shares nothing in common with them?

Is it his brazenly lies?

Or is it his apparat. those willing to sell their souls advancing the political interests of the empty suit?

We could go on and on.

Romney is a liberal.

Jerry| 1.14.12 @ 12:35PM

Teflon93, your nose is growing guy!

Teflon93| 1.15.12 @ 4:13PM

Don't take my word for it---take Romney's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU

Why do you think you MittBots were drawn to him in the first place? You're 95% RINO.

Jerry| 1.14.12 @ 12:34PM

Well, with the above dubious & untrue comments, ROMNEY will definitively be getting my vote !

GO ROMNEY!!!

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 2:43PM

Finally, Quin!

We've been challenging you to look at Romney's ideology and record for a long time if you wanted to avoid being tarred with the Establishment brush. Don't know what took you so long but you pulled the trigger.

Mitt Romney is not a conservative.

It's that simple.

He is a liberal politician whom the world has passed by and who mouths conservative things from time to time to get elected . Period.

He shouldn't be President.

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 10:46PM

American Idol for President is so 2008. This nation is thirsty for a competent leader. Obama has lost the independent vote, and Romney will not give it back.

11/17/2011
"But when it comes to the ever crucial bloc of independent voters, Romney trumps Obama by a 12-point margin – 53 percent to 41 percent."

Quin| 1.13.12 @ 3:42PM

Dear Teflon,
I'm glad you liked it, but I'm frustrated, because I have written numerous, numerous things critical of Romney, and nothing nice about him except for two comments about how he "sounded" effective in several early debates. I've ripped him for five years, and have documented that fact. It's alarming when a writer can be accused of secretly rooting for or trying to help somebody even though everything he writes in public is the opposite. In effect, that's an accusation that the writer is lying, and that his motives are dishonest. That's not right. It's just a low blow.

Dan| 1.13.12 @ 4:20PM

Nothing you have written equals the enormity of what you did.

When one compares rhetoric with the deed, the deed in your case will forever taint.

We have to understand where the campaign was when you went off on your bender against Gingrich.

At the time Gingrich was moving to an almost controlling plurality position in the polls. Pawlenty had departed because of Romney's minion, Michelle Bachmann. Perry, despite the promise had never gained liftoff, and because of his debate performances never would.

So who was left?

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann.

Former Congressman, former Senator Rick Santorum.

Former Congressman, former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich.

And when you came to that political situation, you chose instead to start comparing the guy who did so much for conservatism and the Republican party to David Duke! And that was just for starters.

Had The American Spectator team thrown its weight behind Gingrich, you would have formed a counterweight to the bought and paid for team over at NR, {Romney and his money people had been making contributions to NR's non-profit wing for years... and we all know how important that can be for a publication}.

When Romney started attacking Gingrich you chose to jump on board the Romney train.

Now you belatedly understand that Romney is likely to get himself and the cause obliterated next November, ------ hence this piece.

Gingrich never had the money to respond to tens of millions of dollars of attack ads. Who in the GOP's recent past could have? Gingrich needed people with some influence to step into the breach and recall not simply his misdeeds, but what he had done, AND what he still could do.

You failed us badly Hillyer.

And what's more, you failed the country.

Romney, even were he to prevail in November, DOESN'T DESERVE THE WHITE HOUSE.

And the reason he doesn't deserve it is that he has spent his political and public career telling one deception after another. Romney is a creature who brings the entirety of civilian oversight into disrepute.

His pandering, his serial falsehoods, his endless lies and spins, ---------- it all betokens an intellectual AND moral degeneracy!

And his "success" at Bain Capital doesn't wash that way, in fact, it highlights.

What a man does with great wealth often reveals the kind of man he is.

In Romney's case, AND THAT OF HIS FAMILY, for his wife and sons aren't exempt from so damning a judgement, for they've been right along for the ride for the last SEVEN YEARS, in Romney's case he went out and sought to glorify himself.

No cause animates Willard Romney other than Willard Romney.

In his own weird way, he mirror images the guy in the White House.

MikeG| 1.13.12 @ 4:59PM

You think NR likes Romney because he made a contribution to the magazine?
You think AmSpec is here to push Newt?
You think not supporting crazy Newt equals failing our country?
You think Mitt is worse thatn Obama?

You are out of your mind. You make Clint and Jack seem rational.

Dan| 1.13.12 @ 9:19PM

As for NR, just four years ago Lowry and NR had on their cover "Run Newt Run." Now he's a bum, an unhinged bum running amok across America's political landscape. Just four years ago Lowry thought Gingrich EXACTLY what America needed, and thought Newt had matured, acquired additional seasoning that made him uniquely suited for the White House.

Now of course he's a bum.

Is Am Spec here "to push Newt?"

Well they have to push somebody now don't they. They don't get spared, NONE of us get spared, for all of us have to decide who in particular gets to square off against Obama. That decision is fraught with consequence. Haven't you been paying attention to the 12 years of the Bush family running the country. Didn't you get the memo about the damage those two did to the country and the GOP?

So NO, I don't think that Am Spec should have "pushed" Newt, but once the selection process narrowed as it did, THEN I thought they had no choice but to push Newt, for otherwise we'll all be stuck with Romney.

"Failing" the country?

Again, ONCE the selection process narrowed as it did, ------- what other option remained than Gingrich.

Haven't you been watching the debates?

Who else can rouse the base, who else can rouse the party, who else provides intellectual and ideological counterweight to the media and obama?

Mitt "worse" than Obama?

I didn't say "worse," though for sure that argument can be made, and if Romney prevails, IT WILL BE MADE, and it won't need to be made by me, it will be made by the march of events. An ally I never sought, but the march of events will surely be an ally of mine nonetheless.

Any other observations Mike?

MikeG| 1.13.12 @ 9:22PM

Yes, Dan. You sound exactly like the Paul supporters. But that is your choice.

Interested conservative| 1.14.12 @ 11:21AM

Except he seems to support Newt.

Rick| 1.14.12 @ 9:55AM

Mitt is a guy who bundles money from wealthy people who want to keep "business as usual" He is not the "pro-business" candidate. He is the pro "business as usual" candidate, i.e. crony capitalism. He has only one core conviction: making sure that he, and his rich friends, get richer. On every other issue he has changed positions in order to try to get elected. Its obvious that the people at NR were in the tank for him, maybe because of donations, maybe because they are his core constituancy. Obama bundles money from unions and gives it back ten times over in pro-union policy. Mitt will do the same with corporations, and the people who own them. As much as I dispise the OWS movement, Mitt and his supporters are the poster children for who they seek to demonize. And most importantly, the single greatest issue for the right, Obamacare, is off the table with Romney as the candidate (if you don't believe it, look at the three year trend line in Obama's popularity on Rasmussen: the only lasting impact of any action was when it shifted from positive to sharply negative at the time Obamacare was passed. All the other fluctuations are basically background noise).

Richie| 1.14.12 @ 10:58AM

The reason Mitt Romney has been able to amass
his huge campaign war chest is the politically connected bank and broker CEOs who got TARP and the bonuses with it are laying it out for Mitt. He is the boy of the Corporate Crony Capitalists who have nothing to do with capitalism. These
banks and brokers should have been allowed to fail under "real" capitalism for their recklessness yet, taxpayers are made to pay for all their losses so that, they will be made whole! Romney should lose the nomination if conservatives want to win.

Teflon93| 1.15.12 @ 4:15PM

The GOP Establishment is also out there twisting big donor arms on Romney's behalf.

If Romney were so great at Bain, why have Bain employees given most of their donations to Obama?

Joe| 1.14.12 @ 11:04AM

This is correct. The overwhelming establishment/pundit onslaught against Newt was an unforgivable act of cowardice. Whatever his flaws, he is infinitely more conservative than Romney, and has done more for conservatism electorally and policy-wise than anyone except Ronald Reagan. Welfare reform, capital gains cut, balanced budget, the list is long.

And this guy is suddenly public enemy #1, totally unacceptable, and gets plowed under in favor of MITT ROMNEY?

The only way the Republican Party AND the conservative movement pull themselves out of the drain they're now circling is if Newt wins SC. If Romney wins it, it's four more years of Obama. Guaranteed.

Sapwolf| 1.14.12 @ 9:49PM

Exactly. At least Gingrich has a reocord of reform compared to the leftist record of Romney in office.

ABR!!!

Anybody but Romney!

Dai Alanye | 1.14.12 @ 12:47PM

Gingrich killed the Gingrich campaign. Without his boasting and bloviating, his running off-message to tout moon mining and the war on judges, and his amazing show of self-congratulatory certainty, the negative ads run against him wouldn't have worked, and he'd have won Iowa going away.

Unfortunately the man can't stand prosperity. Gingrich is like a renowned gunfighter who shoots himself in the foot while showing off his quick draw.

WL| 1.13.12 @ 5:06PM

HILLYER!!!!

I changed my opinion of your writing around the day after Iowa, I think. Since then you have been pretty close to alot of our thoughts. I accept that I (along with others) may have been wrong about your motives.

BUT, you have to understand the mentality of us folks out here....

When we have known for years that Willard is the puppet for all that is phony in the Republican Party, we want to see him and ONLY HIM taken to task. When you do things differently (even if you think that is right, and it may be) it's hard to see that. We are getting very astute at sniffing out those who go along with us OTHER THAN the critical moments...

Our party is full of them. It's hard for us to come to terms with the fact that most of our Conservative columnists fire hot and heavy at the establishment when it is too late...and fire straight at our opposition favorites when the time is right, as it was before Iowa.

I hope that helps you understand where we come from...

And lets face it. You could be a liar...and I could be a liar...and other commenters could be liars...we just don't know...

The only thing we are pretty sure of is that John McCain and Willard Romney...are DEFINITELY LIARS.

Spartanfan| 1.14.12 @ 11:53AM

I started my business 20 years ago... Despite all the attempts of George HW, BJ, George W, and now Barry to put me out of business, I have survived...

If Romney is the Republican nominee, I... STAY... HOME...

I will not vote for him... if that means 4 more years of Obama, so be it. One of the days, the Republican Party will learn that we do not want "Me-Too, Democrat-Lite Republicans" anymore...

...and without our support, they are toast... at ALL levels of government...

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 10:55PM

That's okay, Sparty. Stay home! Romney doesn't need you. He has the independent vote and voters with "good sense." Team Obama thanks you for your support!

Spartanfan| 1.15.12 @ 10:00AM

As I said... So be it...

Sooner or later, the Republican Establishment will get the message that they need to be a party with a different view... not the same party with a different name...

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 6:00PM

I understand your frustration, Quin, but bear in mind that with the GOP Establishment foursquare against Romney, conservatives have had to read their own journals of opinion like the Russians had to read Pravda.

The reticence of some GOP pundits to admit they were in the tank for Romney early on---which they clearly were given the way they massed to trash every Not Romney frontrunner, often assailing them on issues Romney was clearly more liberal on without even noting the fact---led to the correct perception that many of our opinion writers were hiding their true opinions.

You yourself slammed Newt Gingrich relentlessly and repeatedly---often for the very same things Mitt Romney had done only moreso. Given the race at the time was Romney v. Gingrich, you can't blame us for wondering if you'd gone the Ramesh Ponnuru/Rich Lowry/Bill Kristol/Karl Rove/Charles Krauthammer route.

Is it fair? No, it's not. But I don't think you and others adequately appreciate how betrayed conservatives feel by many we used to call our own with great pride. I had to cancel a National Review subscription I've had for 20 years. I didn't want to---but as Brent Bozell noted it just isn't the magazine Buckley founded anymore.

Even Wlady's gone MittBot lately---disturbing giving AmSpec truly is our last bastion.

Opinions will differ among conservatives but seeing so many of our number actually embrace the man who provided the template for socialized medicine--a bright red line if ever there was one---has been extremely disheartening.

We need to FIGHT. Too many of you are treating this election as though it's just another cycle and as though things will be just fine so long as a Republican is in the White House.

It isn't so and many of us know it.

I have criticized you in this space---but I also took you at your word when you said you opposed Romney. I also said I was looking forward to a takedown of Romney as passionate as the takedown of Gingrich---and here it is.

You have to understand that there is a growing number of conservatives absolutely disgusted with the weak sister RINOs in the GOP and ready to bolt the party in hopes it can be replaced with a conservative party which will not just fight for the status quo but roll back socialism. The Tea Party movement is a warning. I hope that you and other conservative opinion writers will rise to the challenge, rediscover the fire in the belly you earlier had, and FIGHT.

If you're this frustrated with conservatives, you ought to be absolutely livid at the RINOs and the liberals who are destroying this country. I know I am.

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 6:48PM

That should read "foursquare FOR Romney", of course.

Quin| 1.13.12 @ 6:52PM

Thanks for the constructive discussion. For the record, Bill Kristol has fought as hard as anybody to find an alternative to Romney. Rich Lowry has written extremely favorably about conservative options other than Gingrich, and has written about how uninspiring Romney has been. Jennifer Rubin, often accused of being in the tank for Romney, has been very much an enthusiast for Santorum. In short, there's anything BUT a pro-Romney conspiracy out there. I stick by all my stated reasons for writing that Gingrich was problematic, and we've seen in recent days (with his anti-capitalism attacks) just how untrustworthy and unprincipled he is. I think the problem was that so many people bought into the conventional wisdom that it had come down to a Mitt-Newt race. When I insisted otherwise, people thought I was secretly trying to help Romney. Well, no: I insisted otherwise because I truly believed somebody else -- either Santorum or a late entrant like Jindal -- could emerge. The early polls were idiotic, as were the pundits who relied on them. The race was, and remains, volatile. There are more than two choices. And conservatives, of all people, should not be swayed by conventional wisdom about who is and isn't "viable."
Anyway, thanks again for your polite and thoughtful explanation. Much appreciated!

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 7:33PM

Who has Kristol fought to enter the race though, Quin? He wants more RINOs. Kindly tell us when Kristol leads a "Draft Palin" movement. I'll want to be prepared for Judgment Day.

Lowry trashed Bachmann and Perry along with Gingrich while advancing two liberals---Huntsman and Romney---and a conservative (Santorum) who he figured would be dropping out soon. Read that editorial---it's not hard to figure out why conservatives are angry at Lowry.

Jennifer Rubin is another David Brooks/David Frum and has become ideal conservative talk radio filler because one need only read her columns on the air to bring the angry righties to the phones. I haven't seen any Santorum enthusiasm but then I stopped reading anything she wrote as she trashed conservative frontrunner after conservative frontrunner. She became a "conservative" what, ten minutes ago?

Remember that many of these pundits kowtowing to the GOP Establishment were for Romney from the outset---Gingrich wasn't the first conservative frontrunner they trashed but the FOURTH.

It's not a conspiracy, it's a lemming run. All the sheeple soliciting Strange New Respect line up behind whomever's been anointed----same as they did in 2008 with McCain. They don't have to meet to plan this stuff---they just need to watch which way Karl Rove leans and follow suit.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, Quin, but I think on this one you're still not quite understanding the stakes and the level of anger that many rock-ribbed conservatives have with our opinion leaders. This isn't the John Birchers we're talking about but your grade A Spectator subscribers---the folks who've been with you at least since El Rushbo used to run your ads on his TV show.

You're absolutely right about the phony "electability" narrative but what's missing is a thorough analysis of the field from an ideological lens---which is what most of us look for from you lot during primaries. People are already voting---it's late in the game to be realizing Mitt Romney is a liberal, you know?

But have a great holiday weekend and please keep manning the battlements---we need every authenticly conservative voice we can get!

Quin| 1.14.12 @ 11:12AM

With respect, you are dead wrong about Rubin. She has written about 20 pieces favorable towards Santorum while barely praising Romney at all. You are wrong with respect to Kristol, unless you consider Paul Ryan a RINO. He desperately tried for months, in public and in private, to convince Ryan to enter. He backed the idea of Jindal entering. He even floated the idea of Rubio entering. He consistently argued that Romney and Gingrich weren't adequate choices. As for Rich Lowry, look at the latest issue of NR and at the recent weeks at NRO: Wall to wall favorable stuff on Santorum. They also published a pro-Santorum piece by me way back in October. And they liked the idea of Jindal, too. Look, I talk to these people. They are good people. And they are nowhere near in the tank for Romney. The simple fact is that the race was never a two-man race between Romney and Gingrich, so it was not an abandonment of conservatives to point out all the many many flaws of Gingrich, that ethanol-subsidizing, RYan-budget-trashing, philandering, Scozzafava-endorsing, conservative-bashing super-egotist who would have been mincemeat against Obama.

Spartanfan| 1.14.12 @ 12:17PM

Quin...

This was a great column you wrote... however, Teflon93 could have been ME with his criticisms and responses.

Out here in "Flyover Country" (as Rush calls it), we see very little support for anything conservative from the national "conservative" writers like Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Jennifer Rubin.

I remember George HW Bush and his wife Barbara totally trashing Sarah Palin on a TV interview when she first appeared on the national scene. (She's a wonderful young lady who ought to go back to Alaska, Mrs. Bush said.)

We see the horror of George W Bush and his No Child Left Behind law. That law has spawned havoc in our schools - and yet just the other day, W was pleading that we should not mess with the "Great Success" of NCLB. But, at the time that law was being debated and written, we didn't say anything because Bush was a Republican and we had to support him.

Well, with NCLB, Prescription Drug Coverage and an incredibly huge bailout for irresponsible banks, Bush opened the door that Obama walked through.

And we have had it.

We will no longer support Liberals just because they happen to be Republicans.

And still, in an Election year that is SCREAMING for a Conservative to stand up and voice our ideals to a public finally ready to hear them, we get national writers like Jennifer Rubin foisting a Northeastern Liberal Republican on us as the "ONLY" candidate who can beat Obama.

No more Quin... We will not support them. Politicians like Romney (and the Bushes) are just as much of a problem as militant Liberals like Obama are.

In fact, they are WORSE. We can fight Obama... but we can't fight Rinos. If we don't support them, we risk allowing Liberals to win elections (according to the meme from the national press.)

Well, no more. The line in the sand has been drawn...

If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, I stay home on Election Day... and if that means four more years of Obama, so be it.

And there are MILLIONS out here just like me.

MDWC| 1.14.12 @ 1:30PM

Here in the swingy great lakes, there are groups of us forming to offer mutual support to one another to not give in - as sad as it is to say, we WILL stay home in November if Romney is the nominee.

Spartanfan and Teflon93 are representing a large number of us. We can thank Obama for the realization that it has been big-government, Republican power grabs that opened up the door to him. He has opened our eyes that it is truly the vision of our Founders - limited, Constitutional Government that empowers states and assigns the Federal with the duties of international relations, defense, and relationships among the various states - is what we want. The behemoth of the Federal government is the biggest danger to our liberties, including religious liberties. We are a nation which at its heart was not founded to be an economic powerhouse or a world power, but one founded for liberty. Those other things are the fringe benefits. We need to re-educate our population on the value of liberty. It may be a few decades of bloody battle, but it is beginning. I am encouraged by such as a government teacher in my local public school whose students are being guided to this realization. We will resolve once again as a nation as to what the role of the Federal Government is - we will either embrace liberty or we will forsake it - but the battle is at hand.

Obama is the most incompetent, unqualified, and oppositional to the American vision of any President. It is a shame we have apparently no strong opponent. But, electing more Republicans who are just there to manage our decline is not going to win us over any more.

Santorum has much appeal with religious conservatives and those midwest swing voters mentioned in this article, but his record shows him as just another who has actively embraced big government. We need to awaken these religious conservatives (of which I am one) that the greatest danger to our religious freedoms is a huge Government infrastructure. Paul is offering a clearer choice with domestic policy, but his views on foreign relations and esp. self-defense, are not in-line with a large segment of the population. I had liked Perry as one who seemed to combine a sincere realization of the need to reduce the size of Government along with his administrative experience; I have been disappointed at his communication skills and blunders.

There was a recent CBS poll that showed 57% of GOP primary voters were not satisfied with the field. It is a disgrace that we could not put forth a stronger candidate. My family in Ohio is still hoping one may arise - either a late entry to the primaries or from a hung convention - or for the first time in 60 years, they may it home on election day and weep for their country.

Spartanfan| 1.14.12 @ 12:19PM

Oh, one last thing... Your final comment on Gingrinch is dead-on.

I ain't voting for him either.

If the Republican party can't come up with better than this, they don't deserve any support.

Teflon93| 1.14.12 @ 8:08PM

I am 100% with you, Spartanfan, and a large chunk of my conservative friends here in NC agree with us.

Here's a Politico article which highlights why so many of us don't believe Jennifer Rubin to be a conservative at all, much less to fit Quin's description:

http://www.politico.com/news/s.....66854.html

Here's Jonathan Chait---no conservative---picking up on the Rubin-is-a-MittBot meme:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2.....rubin.html

What precisely are Rubin's conservative credentials? Had any of you heard of her before she became the "conservative" blogger at a very liberal newspaper?

Iska Waran| 1.14.12 @ 2:07PM

Quin,

Of the remaining candidates, who do you want Republican voters in SC and FL to vote for?

Teflon93| 1.14.12 @ 3:28PM

I can only judge them by what they write, say, and do, Quin. Lowry claimed the top-tier candidates in this field at the outset were Pawlenty, Huntsman, and Romney. NR has trashed every Not Romney frontrunner right up to Santorum---and I have no doubt he's next.

Paul Ryan isn't a RINO but he's also no three-legged conservative. He is very narrowly focused on the economy and is a technocrat of the Romney vintage. Can you tell me which strong social conservative Kristol now or has ever supported?

All I can say about Jennifer Rubin is you are very out of touch with the conservative base regarding her. Again and again she has trashed the conservatives running in this field; I'll gladly look up some of her Santorum commentary to see if she's changed her tune. You haven't addressed the point about her being a very late convert to conservatism if a convert at all---seems like whenever the "token conservative" spot opens in a very left wing paper or cable news outlet people spring up who no conservative even recognizes.

Do you think your personal relationships with people who aren't all that conservative may color your views of where they stand ideologically?

Joe| 1.14.12 @ 11:05AM

But it HAS come down to a Mitt/Newt race. No other candidate can defeat Romney.

Sapwolf| 1.14.12 @ 9:50PM

I think you made a typo.

The GOP Establishment at this point is 100% FOR Romney.

You are not paying attention.

Clint| 1.14.12 @ 3:40AM

Mittens' Campaign Money Trail.

Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $199,800
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
Bank of America $126,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250
EMC Corp $117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250
The Villages $97,500
Vivint Inc $80,750
Marriott International $79,837
Sullivan & Cromwell $79,250
Bain Capital $74,500
UBS AG $73,750
Wells Fargo $61,500
Blackstone Group $59,800
Citigroup Inc $57,050
Bain & Co $52,500

Richie| 1.14.12 @ 11:11AM

Yes, bought and paid for by the crony capitalists who got those fat hefty bonuses and TARP all at
the expense of the US taxpayers. If there is one
more good reason to ditch Romney in favor of
another candidate----this is it!

Old Fan| 1.14.12 @ 4:22PM

The term "Mittens" is a silly childish demeanor revealing a very juvenile source. Hardly conservative.

What is worse, is the attempt to attack a proven Private Sector success from the left. Conservatives embrace the Free Market, especially the concept of using capital to support sound interests.

Jack Welsh, Ann Coulter, Gov. Christie, Sen. Thune, Gov. Haley, Sheriff Babeu, Amb. Bolton, etc. have it right. Mr. Romney is outstanding, and a very strong Candidate for the Presidency. We need a proven 'turn around' CEO to shake up Washington.

Sapwolf| 1.14.12 @ 9:54PM

Mittens is a term that denotes Romney's childish wishy-washiness, flip-floppiness, lack of convictions, and lack of courage.

From a political perspective, Romney is a light-weight and the term Mittens denotes....he who will be ripped to sthreds in the general election.

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 11:01PM

Let's get an escrow set up, Sap. I'll put a lot a money exactly opposite of where your light-weight mouth is. You're dead wrong; the Romney ticket will spank the Obama ticket.

Doug| 1.13.12 @ 2:49PM

I would also add that I do not trust Romney to stand up for conservative views if he has a split or Democratic congress. He will compromise faster than W ever did and we will continue our march into European stagnation.

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 6:06PM

This is perfectly crystallized.

If Romney were to win the presidency:

1. He wouldn't have sizable conservative majorities in Congress because a good number of conservatives will stay home---just as they did in NH;

2. His own liberalism makes him far more sympatico with the Democrats than the Republicans, so you can bet he would do just as he did in Massachusetts---advance liberalism while claiming he could do no other;

3. Since Romney's failure will inevitably be blamed on the GOP, any effort to pull him rightward will be fought not only by RINOs but by weak sister conservatives trying to protect the party brand;

4. Romney has shown zero interest in granting conservatives anything of value. All he had to do was renounce Romneycare and take that off the table---the great flipflopper wouldn't even do that.

Romney would be worse than Nixon---he would be Gerald Ford II.

Old Fan| 1.14.12 @ 4:45PM

We see the most dysfunctional offerings from Telfon at the NRO, clearly stuck on some unhealthy bias against Mr. Romney.

In this offering we see a complete distortion of reality. It is all fabricated nonsense. A "liberal" doesn't balance an inherited 3 Billion budget deficit, cut taxation 19 times, or lower regulatory burdens to turn around an entrenched anti-business climate in MA. Nor do liberals veto gay marriage efforts, minimum wage increase proposals, or even funding for illegal immigrants as Mr. Romney did as Gov. of MA. In fact, liberals do not try to reinstate the Death Penalty as Mr. Romney did in MA.

Teflon simply does not know the record, and their bias doesn't allow them to even care about providing basis - which is essential to real Conservatives.

Teflon is completely wrong, Romney won the Conservative Vote in NH:
Romney Dominates NH - Conservative Vote

The folly is backfiring, as the rally to Romney grows...
"Romney Fund-Raiser Is a Hit Thanks to Attacks"

Teflon93| 1.14.12 @ 8:12PM

Old Liberal shows up like a bad penny whenever Little Lord MittleRoy's record is exposed.

But don't take my word for Mittens' liberalism---listen to the man himself:

And here's Willard's sad record on tax hikes---which any Bay Stater could have told you about. Calling taxes "fees" doesn't change their nature:

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....oy-murdock

There were good reasons why Romney didn't dare run for a second term as Massachusetts governor---MittBots like Old Liberal just won't tell you about them.

kf451| 1.13.12 @ 2:55PM

"Romney just can't campaign against Obama's single biggest vulnerability, Obamacare."

Yes, yes, yes! Great article.

Old Fan| 1.14.12 @ 4:57PM

Sorry, but this is mistaken.

Romney will have the best offering to challenge the horrid Obamacare in the General Election. Romney will remind everyone he provided a State Level Reform - stunning to see some on the sound side unable to recognize the difference between a Federal Mandate which Newt admitted on Beck's show he still entertains, vs. the State Level Mandate which Perry himself provided with his sale of Merck Vaccinations in Texas. Conservatives believe in Federalism and the 10 Amendment. Romney will not only remind all about the State Level offering, the need for local communities to create what they feel fits their needs, but will remind everyone the MA Reform never raised taxes, never raided Medicare, never created a Government Run system, never affected the plans of those 92% with existing Health Care coverage, got the 8% to pay their fair share, etc. Ironically the MA Reform is extremely popular in MA, vs. the unpopular fiasco of Obamacare.

But most importantly, Romney will remind everyone he led everyone to contribute constructively to the offering (including the fine Heritage Foundation), and passed the State Reform in the treasured "democratic" process we hold dear, as opposed to the Democratic Partisans who bribed, threatened, forced the will of a few to be implanted onto all with Obamacare.

Romney will be ideal to challenge the horrid Obamacare.

Sapwolf| 1.14.12 @ 9:58PM

Oh, so you mean he'll flop back over and criticize Obamacare and find a MAGICAL difference between O-care and Romneycare that he can hammer O on?

For Frith's sake, get your head our your *ss.

MumblyPeg| 1.15.12 @ 12:36AM

Obivous. Troll is obvious.

More blather from OldFan, campaign paid operator from the Romney-bot treasure chest.

GTFO out, OldFan. Nobody's buying it.

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 11:09PM

Wake up, kf451. Romney had steadily campaigned against Obamacare. Repeal & Replace: http://tinyurl.com/73f8klq

David W| 1.13.12 @ 2:55PM

THEN WHO THE HELL DO WE SELECT??? Perry and Newt have taken themselves out. Santorum seems to be the only current candidate with a chance. Do we force Sarah to run? If you are trying to convince us to go with Ron Paul I don't think that will work.

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 3:06PM

Santorum it is. Buy your sweater vest early!

Old Fan| 1.14.12 @ 5:07PM

Teflon has jumped from candidate to candidate over the months. It is quite amusing.

The hype over Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, now to Santorum, from the fashion has been embarrassing.

But Teflon is a unique case, posting a vivid anti-Romney bias which is far from healthy for some time on NRO. It is all about defeating Romney for this commenter.

Ironically, this is exactly what the Democratic Partisans are trying to do, stop Romney. One has to wonder, as we have seen it before, when Democrats pretend to diminish Our best offering.

Teflon93| 1.15.12 @ 4:18PM

I support conservative candidates---indeed, as Old Liberal knows but lies about, I have stated since the beginning here and at NRO that I support Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, and Perry---in that order.

Old Liberal likes to claim that we conservatives are "purists"---and yet we are the ones who support half the GOP field, whereas he supports only Romney. If Romney doesn't get the nomination, Old Liberal's going to be voting for Obama.

Gadfly| 1.13.12 @ 3:38PM

Santorum is at least as flawed as Romney, in terms of both electability and conservatism (he's a die-hard social conservative, but not at all fiscally conservative or a believer in federalism).

Dan| 1.13.12 @ 4:25PM

The guy is running around with an idiotic sweater vest.

He might as well stencil out of date, out of style, right on his forehead.

A little thing like that is foolish of course.

But not for the optics of a campaign season.

You have to look the part, you have to be stylish.

It's a detail, and for many men it appears frivolous, but in politics it isn't.

MikeG| 1.13.12 @ 5:00PM

Now even Santorum is bad?
Only Newt is good. Is Newt your father?

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 6:08PM

Santorum opposed TARP, which is a lot more fiscally conservative than most of the field.

http://www.redstate.com/wosg/2.....servative/

Let's face it---when the choice is the guy who jacked up taxes, implemented socialized medicine, and implemented gay marriage, there's plenty of room to the right.

Gadfly| 1.14.12 @ 2:17PM

Samtorum opposed Tarp while he was out of office and was preparing to run in a republican primary. Doesn't mean anything. In contrast, this is the guy who said he "doesn't believe in the whole idea of personal autonomy."

Teflon93| 1.14.12 @ 8:14PM

Most Catholics don't---we are not Objectivists.

Santorum's opposition to TARP was public---and in marked contrast to Romney's support for it.

But than Romney's never seen a big-spending government program he didn't like.

Quartermaster| 1.16.12 @ 12:25PM

Personal autonomy is another way of expressing free will and free moral agency. By saying you don't accept that you are saying you are an automaton, which places you firmly in the Calvinist camp. That's a very strange place for a Roman Catholic to be, my friend.

rightasrain| 1.13.12 @ 4:24PM

This is precisely the problem. Quin might think he's breaking new ground in this article but we are all aware of Romney's negatives and have been for a long time. I know of no conservative who enthusiastically supports him. The problem is there is no better alternative. Romney's negatives, great as they are, are not as bad as Newt's, Perry's and Santorum's. I'm sick at the lack of a better choice but that's the reality of it.

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 6:10PM

Negatives how?

Romney can't even appeal to REPUBLICANS.

Was 2008 that long ago? How'd you forget how that movie turned out?

We don't even have a RINO war hero to cast in the lead this time.

rightasrain| 1.13.12 @ 8:08PM

If you are referring to Santorum, his negatives abound. As you are undoubtedly aware, he has wandered off the conservative reservation on numerous occasions and seems eminently comfortable with right-wing social engineering. But that is surmountable in my opinion. What kills him for me is the social conservatism. Not that I disagree with all his positions, it's that I cannot bear the thought of making this election about abortion and gay marriage when the country is on the brink of economic collapse. I fear that is precisely what will happen. But I hope the process plays itself out. Why should a few thousand people in a handful of states get to pick the nominee?

Teflon93| 1.14.12 @ 1:09AM

Pro-life is a majority position and anti-gay marriage has only recently become a 50/50 proposition. The election will be about the economy regardless. Santorum is certainly hated by liberals---but that is a feature, not a bug.

The nomination process is what the GOP Establishment wants it to be. It makes zero sense to have the Republican nominee chosen by blue states---especially those allowing Democrats to vote.

I would much rather see states get to choose when they hold their primary in an NFL-style draft order---with the state with the largest plurality for the GOP presidential candidate the last time around choosing first as to both date and order (no picking an earlier date than a more Republican state).

But that benefits Boehner and McConnell and the like not at all, so it will not happen in our lifetimes.

The people are clamoring for change but are unlikely to get it through the political process as currently constructed.

Yet another RINO nominee will spell the end of the GOP. Conservatives are too angry and the stakes are too high to tolerate another milquetoast candidate getting whipped by a Marxist.

rightasrain| 1.14.12 @ 8:17AM

In 2008, the MSM began the drumbeat that Sarah Palin was an idiot and all our time was spent trying to convince people otherwise--not on the issues. With Santorum as the nominee, all our time will be spent trying to convince people he's not a knuckle-dragging bigot.The MSM will never leave his social conservatism alone and we simply can't risk such a distraction.

Teflon93| 1.14.12 @ 3:33PM

Yes, that is true, but you also have to remember that the media is faaaaar to the left of the voters on social issues. Newt got a boost because he took them on; Santorum will get that same boost. There is a good reason why journalism ranks at the bottom of professions in terms of respect---and why Fox News clobbers their left wing competition.

I understand you're not a social conservative and see these issues as a potential distraction, but also please realize the most important piece of the electorate in any cycle is the base. The first job is to excite the base since they not only come out to vote but get others to do the same. McCain would've gotten absolutely crushed had he not excited conservatives with his Palin pick---there was no other reason for us to vote for him.

Romney's made zero effort to engage conservatives. Were he the nominee, I and many other conservatives who held our noses and voted for McCain will stay home. This RINO streak needs to end.

rightasrain| 1.14.12 @ 6:47PM

It's not that I'm not socially conservative. I just find those issues to be second tier when the ship is sinking. I hope you change your mind about not voting if Romney's the nominee. Maybe that was understandable in 2008 when we only feared how bad Obama would be. But now that we know with absolute certainty just how transformationally bad he is for our country, I think it's imperative to vote. I will vote for whoever the nominee is.

Teflon93| 1.14.12 @ 8:15PM

My apologies for misunderstanding your position re: social conservatism.

What good will it do to vote for a nominee who won't reverse Obama's course but merely slow it---if even that? The collapse has already begun.

Quartermaster| 1.16.12 @ 12:30PM

The moral problem is what has led to the economic problem. Any attempt to fix the economic problem without looking to solve the moral problem is futile.

The problem here is that so many of teh Churches are trending leftist themselves, that they have moral authority to speak on the moral issues anymore.

In the end that means we are royally screwed. Mene mene tekel upharsin.

Dai Alanye | 1.14.12 @ 1:04PM

Santorum's conservative rating was 88% when in Congress, and he has trended more conservative since. Discounting The Elfin One, not conservative but some weird brand of peace-through-weakness libertarian, who among the practical alternatives is more conservative than Santorum?

Note also the populist streak in his policies that voters also found attractive in Palin. With good name recognition Santorum would be very close to leading Romney right now.

Joe| 1.14.12 @ 3:02PM

I guess a lot of people aren't up to speed. Gingrich is rapidly pulling even with Romney in SC. Newt is the only alternative.

Old Fan| 1.14.12 @ 5:03PM

Mr. Hillyer is simply mistaken. Romney is clearly the best offering, and will do very well in the General.

Santorum is unfortunately another career Washington Politician of 17 years - entering the Beltway only 5 years after leaving Law School. Rick stayed after his historic defeat, like Gingrich to peddle influence. Santorum not only has a record of massive Earmarks, he bizarrely opposed "Right To Work" - far from Conservative.

Ann Coulter is right about Mr. Romney, a vivid conservative because of his excellent Free Market Capitalist accomplishments. He is a proven Executive with a stellar record coming from outside the Beltway with serious economic credentials. Romney is articulate, sound, serious, proven, capable. He will do very well in the General Election and has the potential to be a good President.

ncatty| 1.13.12 @ 3:21PM

Estamos jodidos.

Rick V.| 1.13.12 @ 3:54PM

Mr. Hillyer - I seem to recall reading somewhere how President Nixon's reelection team in '72 essentially chose their DEM opponent (George McGovern) by eliminating all the stronger opponents, particularly Edmund Muskie. It appears that the Obamanoids have their dream opponent. Four more years for the O-team.

Richie| 1.14.12 @ 11:09AM

If conservatives are fool enough to do a replay of 2008 when McCain the RINO lost because conservatives deserted him in droves----Romney in 2012 will suffer the same fate! The problem with Romney is the liberal lamestream media has been heavily promoting him as the conservative candidate and bashing endlessly the other conservative candidate. Donna Brazile herself on national TV gloated that Democrats want Romney as the Republican nominee because he is the weakest candidate. I give her kudos for her honesty. Only fools continue to worship at the
altar of RINOs promoting Romney as the best
thing since, sliced bread! This guy will not cut it
and conservatives will pass and Obama get a 2nd term because of it!

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 11:19PM

Richie, it's ridiculous to claim that this is another 2008 when "The One" was selected in a popularity contest. Obama now has very poor record and a 50% disapproval rating. He's lost the middle in droves, and he will not get that vote back from Romney. Newt, Perry, Santorum . . . he'd get a lot of those independents back.

Dan| 1.13.12 @ 3:59PM

A little late for this belated understanding that you did the bidding of the Romney campaign team, don't ya' think?

Once Pawlenty left because Michelle Bachmann tried to run to ingratiate herself with Romney, and thus position herself on the ticket, and as the heir apparent afterwards, and once Rick Perry blew himself up with his campaign debate performances, ---------- once that happened, there was only one candidate with the national conservative credentials capable of stopping Romney.

But instead of supporting that candidate and putting whatever personal grievances you had with him aside, you chose instead to attack him and compare him in the same breath as David Duke.

Comes now this piece, designed to save my journalistic credibility once Romney gets his doors blown off.

I can rush to my readers and recall this piece where I supposedly warned of the dangers latent in a Romney nomination.

But more knowledgeable readers will well and forever recall your rantings about the one guy who could have prevented that Romney nomination.

Now it's time to save my journolistic

Larry Bone| 1.13.12 @ 4:07PM

Totally agree Romney is a weak candidate. A candidate to win would have to be an alternative to Obama, would have to truthfully promise to do something different Obama would not do to change conditions for the better. Since Romney is too similar to Obama particularly on healthcare, that pretty much makes Romney unelectable. The irony is that Ron Paul offers to dismantle the FDA which seems drastic except if the FDA actually supports pharmaceutical company survival instead of public safety. Vioxx was discontinued because the Merck, the company pulled it from the market after 500,000 heart attacks occurred involving the use of Vioxx. It would seem Obama has been already been reelected if Romney is the Republican candidate.

Dan| 1.13.12 @ 4:27PM

He's not "weak."

"Weak" would have been John McCain.

Or in this go-round, "weak" would have been Rick Santorum.

"Weak" can sometimes prevail.

But Romney isn't weak per se. Romney is a disaster, he's a walking, breathing caricature of crony Capitalism, complete with something like fifteen mansions.

Spartanfan| 1.14.12 @ 12:32PM

...and a Liberal Republican on top of that...

Worried for the country| 1.14.12 @ 3:33PM

You sound envious of success. Something I would expect from a democrat.

15 houses? You've been watching Newt's propaganda pieces. Newt had to pull that one. Mitt has 3 homes.

Sapwolf| 1.14.12 @ 10:00PM

He is the DREAM candidate for Obama to face.

Romney will be cut down, and I can already imagine the "I told you so" quotes all over the blogs come November.

Casey Abell| 1.13.12 @ 4:26PM

Sorry to break the news to Quin, but his heartthrob Santorum looks headed for a fourth-place finish in South Carolina, behind Romney, Gingrich and Paul.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....-1590.html

If Santorum can't even make the top three in the SC Republican primary, much less the NH primary, we're supposed to believe he can defeat Obama? Yeah, right. Only in Hillyer's fantasies...which I'll admit are pretty entertaining.

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 11:23PM

Santorum could not carry PA against Obama. He lost his last Senate race by 18 points.

Loadmaster| 1.13.12 @ 4:28PM

Rick wouldn't have a chance again the Chicago Machine and Axlerod. Sweater vest and all. Too clean cut and too nice. This is a NEWT fight and he's the only one that can gut the machine.

PCC| 1.13.12 @ 4:37PM

The re-election of a president is a referendum on the incumbent and, except in times of war, is a referendum on the economy.

On that basis, Romney is the strongest candidate in the Republican field and the least likely to torpedo his own campaign with an outlandish remark or some big old skeleton tumbling out of the closet.

A few more weeks and then, hopefully, we can disband the circular firing squad for another four or eight years.

Oldefarte| 1.13.12 @ 4:38PM

OMG, if we've got an average chance with Romney, then we have no chance with ANTI-ABORTION RICK [whose only claim to fame is his fathering of multiple children due to his being a GOOD CATHOLIC]. This inspirational drum has got to stop being beaten to death, since [although no doubt partially true] its existence is significant of STUPIDITY. We've had inspiration from JFK, Clinton, and now Obama; and where has it gotten us as a nation......increasing amounts of governmental welfare dependence and larger and larger federal government. The worthless morons in life that ignorantly depend upon someone else inspiring them politically or otherwise to do what they should have the intelligence, courage and gumpsion to do on their own accord has got to cease. Wasn't it Reagan who claimed that the everyday heroes in life were the average little guy who does what is required of him? Why do people always want to beocme inspired by political leaders? Why don't semi-intelligent voters instead want a professionally competitent politician to assume command of their government and to run it successfully like that of a private industry CEO? If we demand inspiration, why not elect Jeremiah Wright or Jesse Jackson as president? This country is on the verge of financial and other destruction, and we simply do not have four more years of existence left. If we don't elect a competitent administrative-manager with either adequate business or political credentials to run this country going forward, we should all think seriously about annexing Cuba as our 51st state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WL| 1.13.12 @ 5:22PM

You are usually a nitwit when you comment. You are a nitwit in this comment too.

We have an electorate. You are only 1 in 300 million inside of that electorate. That electorate likes to be inspired whether you agree with it or not....

So your "manager" will lose and manage NOTHING.

So shut up.

Oldefarte| 1.14.12 @ 11:09AM

GTH and stay there moron! If you weren't so stupid, you'd understand the definition of 'electorate' is "a body of QUALIFIED voters". The dumbars like yourself that depend upon becoming inspired are intellectual morons who can't tie their shoelaces with instructions from their mommies, depend upon taxpayer-funded governmental welfare for their financial existence, and are worthless mostly to society as a whole. You are no doubt one of the imbiciles who were inspired by the HOPE & CHANGE of 2008, and who we all now have to thank for the unstimulus, the welfarecare, that lack of domestic energy development [aka oil pipeline construction approval and preventing of offshore oil drilling permits], the government suing individual states over their enactment of illegal-immigration laws, etc. Go get your GD inspiration from some nutjob liberitarian old fool or some radical socialists obtaining their talking points from a vile, racist preacher etc; but don't infect the resto of us with your STUPIDITY OF INSPIRATION NEEDED DUE TO YOUR ONW PERSONAL WORTHLESSNESS, okay??????

Spartanfan| 1.14.12 @ 12:34PM

You really get vulgar and call people a lot of vile names on this site, ya know?...

Makes your commentary look like the rantings of a complete idiot...

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 6:15PM

...although it is fun to watch the anti-Catholic bigots warm up to the Mormons---who happen to largely share the Church's view of procreation.

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 7:36PM

Romney, you'll note, has five children. Santorum has six.

Quelle difference!

Quin| 1.14.12 @ 11:14AM

Santorum has seven.

Worried for the country| 1.14.12 @ 3:31PM

How about Bachmann? I think she wins this contest.

One child passed away; I believe it's six living children.

Kingofthenet| 1.13.12 @ 4:41PM

I think it would take Ron Paul to win the Presidency. None of the other Republicans are going to pull ANY Dems, and only a modest amount of 'independents' . Ron Paul gets the young vote, and can tailor his message to get even a ton of Dems (AntiWar, for example) No one really can hate the guy and those who like him are VERY energized. He just have to drop some of the Gold Standard and other Extreme Libertarian BS to look very reasonable.

Nick| 1.13.12 @ 6:18PM

Hey Kook!

I'm still waiting for you to explain exactly when a fetus (unborn baby in Latin) becomes a child.

You are an expert on the subject, correct?

Kingofthenet| 1.14.12 @ 11:33AM

Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.

Nick| 1.14.12 @ 2:33PM

A very poor attempt at deflection, Kook.

I did use simple English. When does the fetus (Latin for unborn baby) become a child, precisely?

Quartermaster| 1.16.12 @ 12:39PM

Nick, he answered you directly, with no attempt at deflection. You're simply making yourself look like a jacka$$.

Nick| 1.16.12 @ 8:10PM

Quatermaster,

I think you need to take a remedial English class. Kook did not answer my question. He only gave arbitrary definitions to biological terms.

I asked him when does the fetus (Latin for unborn baby) become a child, precisely?
Read more closely, next time, okay?

Dai Alanye | 1.14.12 @ 1:12PM

"Ron Paul... can tailor his message to get even a ton of Dems"

But will lose more Republicans than the Dems he gains. Besides, most of the Dems who vote for Paul to be nominated will slide back to Obama in the general election.

SCPOret| 1.13.12 @ 4:48PM

If you think Obama is bad now, just think of how it's going to be after he kicks Romney's a$$. The spin will be how the people love him and what he has done and now he'll institute every socialist thing he can. He'll keep on ignoring the constitution and in 2016 declare himself Dictator fo Life ala Fidel, Chavez, Kim Jung Il, and every other socialist dictator.

9thID| 1.13.12 @ 5:01PM

Romney is McCain refried and reduxed.
Newt isn't much better with his political and moral baggage, and professorial & arrogant demeanor.
Huntsman is a bad Obama joke.
Had high hopes for Perry, but he is not ready for primetime yet, and his weakness on immigration/amnesty haunts him. Too bad he doesn't have Gov. Brewer's cojones.
The worst of all, of course, is crazy Liberal-tarian uncle Ron. All the other candidates would have to die in a mass causality event for him to be the nominee, and even then I doubt it.
That leaves Santorum as the only hope for a 3-legged-stool Reagan conservative who can beat Obummer...

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 11:28PM

9thID, McCain has been in the federal government for 24 years and has zero private sector experience, much less accomplishments. Yes, he and Romney are pretty much mirror images. Get real!

George S| 1.13.12 @ 5:11PM

With all that said, Quin, now give us one reason why someone would vote FOR Obama? I'd love to meet the mental case who thinks what we need is four more years of the same.

Time to get off Romney's back if he wins SC or FL. The remaining field is not inspiring anyone to the point where a come-from-behind is going to happen -- it would have happened already (you think the numbers would be the same if Palin or Rubio were in the game?)

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.13.12 @ 5:42PM

So, many in the liberal press don't like Romney. That's probably his greatest asset.

This article doesn't make sense because all the others but Perry carry serious baggage.

Dai Alanye | 1.14.12 @ 1:16PM

Wouldn't you say that the appearance of stupidity is serious baggage? Because that is Perry's main problem -- and considering the bad campaign decisions he's made, his stupidity might be actual.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.16.12 @ 7:39AM

You're right.

Butch| 1.13.12 @ 6:14PM

Well, this should have been the number one feature article--about six months ago! Now, I fear it is almost too late.

Any conservative who couldn't see Romney's shortcomings on electability six months ago must have been looking at the world through Northeastern, Ivy League lenses.

Had he not failed so often, he also would have been a career politician. His private sector experience was easy to package politically as corporate raiding, and however legal, it reflects one of the more unattractive aspects of capitalism. It will be used against him.

Flip-flopping is one thing; flip-flopping on an important moral issue like abortion is abnormal, and it reflects a manufactured political persona, which he manifestly projects: Ken doll, programmed robot speaking in perfect sound bytes, just too handsome, well-groomed, well-spoken, and born with a silver spoon in his mouth. No struggles, no rags-to-riches story, just somebody whose past is unknown until he suddenly emerges as CEO of a heavily-capitalized venture capital firm. Did he work his way up the ladder, or start at the top, or near it? I haven't read the answer to that one way or the other.

He can't even open his mouth about Obamacare. And the rest of his performance as governor is lackluster and unaccomplished. Granted, Massachusetts was at near-full employment during his term, but the record of job growth is weak.

He did not serve in the military, but neither did any of his five sons, and during a time of war.

The election cannot be won without carrying the entire south. Most of those "evangelical Christian" voters in the south are Southern Baptists, many of whom consider Mormans as something worse than heathens--more at heretics. A Deacon in a Baptist Church and member of the Board of the largest Baptist school in my city told me that they accepted Jews, Hindus, and Islamists, but not Mormans, and he told me why. In a nutshell, heretics. (Let me say that I personally have nothing against Mormans and a lot of respect for them.)

We will lose California and all the northeastern states regardless of the candidate, and that is where his primary appeal will be. I don't think he is any more electable in the midwest and west than any other Republican candidate would be.

He has too many exploitable negatives, and he will be going up against the biggest campaign war chest in human history.

doclover| 1.14.12 @ 12:19PM

Your southern baptist friends are bigots. Ever heard of it?

Luckily, obama has taught us that a president can get elected even with bigots around, so I'm not too worried.

Dai Alanye | 1.14.12 @ 1:20PM

Far more bigots voted for Obama than against. After all, aren't many liberals bigots at heart? Anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-life, anti-military, anti-free enterprise... the list could go on and on.

Spartanfan| 1.14.12 @ 12:39PM

Nice comment... Yes, Many "Conservative" writers should have been writing this months ago...

...MANY months ago...

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 11:33PM

Barack Hussein Obama has absolutely no chance of carrying any southern state against the Mormon. The lord and savior of the Mormon faith is Jesus Christ. Obama's allegiance to an almighty is up for debate in the South.

somnolence| 1.13.12 @ 6:49PM

Romney will campaign against Obamacare and win on the issue. Mark my words.

kingsmill| 1.14.12 @ 10:31AM

Willard will try and sell his top down, coercive fiasco as a product of the great laboratory of democracy -federalism. He will be (correctly) laughed out of any chance in November.

somnolence| 1.13.12 @ 6:52PM

Hillyer and Podhoretz: The main advantage Romney has is that he isn't Barack Obama. I predict that Romney may very well carry 40 states. His main issue: he hasn't presided over tripling the debt or throwing millions out of work to the tune of 15.5 percent unemployment. Obama is nothing, as the polls are showing now even WITH the anti-Bain ads.

Dai Alanye | 1.14.12 @ 1:25PM

Please. Liking Romney is OK, but portraying him as a big winner is delusional. He's weak... weak, weak, weak. Mr Milquetoast goes to Washington weak.

somnolence| 1.13.12 @ 6:57PM

Conservatives didn't stay home in N.H. Read Dick Morris's analysis which calls your observation B.S.

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 7:05PM

Republican turnout was down 16% vs 2008. Non-Republican turnout was up---which is where Mittens' support came from.

Unfortunately they will be voting for Obama in the general. Along with no shortage of RINOs---just like last time.

Richie| 1.14.12 @ 11:20AM

Independents voted for Romney which is allowed
by Republicans in a number of states with open
primaries. So, it should not be a surprise that RINOs keep getting picked to run against the liberal Democrats. Establishment RINOs don't care because all they want it is their power.
Conservatives should back conservative candidates for Senate and Congress. If Romney
ends up winning the nomination then, Obama will win re-election!

SpiralArchitect| 1.13.12 @ 8:00PM

Quinn, you have torn down everyone in the GOP with one exception I know of, Buddy Roemer.

Is he your man or are you dedicated to the current POTUS?

Should we simply forgo the elections and yield to Obama's Totalitarian reign??

Anxiously awaiting your reply, thx.

Quin| 1.14.12 @ 11:16AM

I have repeatedly praised Santorum for a full year and a half. I wrote far more positive posts about Cain than negative ones. I praised Bachmann's debate performances. I loudly beat the drum for Jindal or Ryan to get into the race.

Rob| 1.13.12 @ 10:06PM

Great column, Quin! Very interesting discussion above.

I think Gingrich was right on target when he pointed out that Romney governed as pro-abortion even AFTER his supposed pro-life conversion, and so cannot be trusted. Similarly, Romney talked a lot about favoring traditional marriage but his administration in practice acted otherwise by changing marriage licenses from "husband" and "wife" to "Party A" and "Party B" without a legislative basis or a court order directing him to do so. He also talks about how he didn't raise taxes in MA but doesn't mention how he greatly raised fees, and of course massively expanded the size of state government via Romneycare.

Having said that, I am impressed by Romney's extensive preparation for debates. I have no intention of voting for him, but do see him as formidable opposition.

kingsmill| 1.14.12 @ 10:51AM

Precisely, Willard used his executive apparatus as governor to ease the implementation of homosexual coupling under color of law. He then postured rhetorically as a defender of marriage to preserve his viability as a national gop candidate.. Willard is very slippery but to little effect. He was headed for huge defeat in Ma,before He bailed out.

Crustacean| 1.13.12 @ 10:30PM

Swell. I'm as disgusted as anybody by RINOs. Now that that's settled who the Hell that's satisfactory to all of us genuine Conservatives do you think is going to suddenly leap forward to become the nominee--and has this miraculous person been tipped off to it yet?

Teflon93| 1.14.12 @ 1:14AM

Santorum's just fine. I supported Bachmann, Cain, and Perry in the current field as well. I don't know any conservatives who didn't support at least two.

But then, I don't know any MittBots who supported any of the conservative candidates period.

Their "purist" cries are pure projection----RINOs never tolerate a conservative nominee, which is why when it was Reagan's "turn" they supported first Bush the Elder then John Anderson on a 3rd party ticket in 1980, when it was absolutely imperative to beat Jimmy Carter. Reagan simply whipped 'em both.

Larry Bone| 1.14.12 @ 1:32AM

Romney is weak in the do nothing sense of the word. Mild and moderate could be used to describe people who will do little or almost nothing to solve any problem. Weak, mild and moderate people lack the ability to observe that anything is wrong and focus mostly on how what they are saying is perceived by those most upset by a particular problem. In Washington elected officials tend to look out for the industries and companies that have contributed most to them regardless of whether their most successful products are unsafe for the public. Obamacare threatens to bankrupt federal and state budgets once it fully goes into effect as a way of looking out for and protecting the pharmaceutical companies who it really only benefits. It took 500,000 people being harmed by Vioxx before that drug was pulled, not by the FDA but by the company that manufactured it. Obamacare will enforce many dangerous unsafe drugs on people that would not take them if the drug companies were forced to disclose how truly unsafe they actually are. Or these drugs are enforced on foster children or the elderly who have no advocate that there basic human right of not being drugged against their will with unsafe drugs be respected. It seems all about huge short term gains at any cost regardless of safety considerations and the only future is the next moment or the next big sales reports. The corporate crony culture that both Obama and Romney come from has no obligation to people or the economy or safety. Their only obligation is to safeguard the individuals or companies that gave them the most money to stay elected or become or remain President. In Russia we are laughed at because they say they see our economy collapsing while Obama and Romney believe or want us to believe that could always withstand trillions in debt always or that is what we are supposed to believe. If Romney is our best bet to salvage the economy than we are finished.

BurkeVA| 1.14.12 @ 9:08AM

I have read this blog and the comments with great interest. I was stunned and very angered when, as Newt began to take a large lead in the GOP field, the GOP talking heads and political insiders attacked him with a vengeance not seen since Clinton was president. Clearly, Newt has pissed off a bunch of folks in the GOP, but isn't that what effective leaders do? To get things done, toes must be stepped on, and Newt got things done: 1) control of the House after 40 years; 2) Welfare reform, with Clinton as president; 3) 4 consecutive balanced budgets. There is much more. This guy is a leader, but you so-called experts on the Right had your feelings hurt by him somewhere along the way and decided, no way would he become president. Well, geniuses, your destruction of one of our own may very well have prevented a true conservative from being our nominee. Well done!! The good news is that it may not be too late. If the conservative vote will coalesce behind Newt in SC, followed by endorsements by Perry and Santorum, Newt might just pull this thing off. It would be nice if the American Spectator figured this out and started working FOR the only conservative with a chance to get the nomination instead of working to destroy him!...One last thought: This year's election will be about Obama, not the GOP nominee. It would take major mistakes by Romney during the general election campaign for him to lose to Obama. You grately underestimate the anti-Obama mood in America. Barack is in for a long election night. Bad for him, wonderful for us.

Tom| 1.14.12 @ 12:15PM

Don't forget Newt was also the author of the Contract With America and is the author of the 21st Century Contract With America. Anyone read that? Google it, it's an awesome document. I'm with you, I think Newt is the guy.

Adam| 1.14.12 @ 9:45AM

What is the point here? If Romney loses you want to say I told you so? I live in SC. I will vote for Romney if it looks close and Paul if Romney has. Big lead. This election cycle has completely turned me off to "conservative" magazines and thought leaders. As you and they don't really believe in limited government and individualism. I have been shocked and disgusted. Gingrich support and Santorum support has been very telling.

martin j smith| 1.14.12 @ 10:05AM

Then why is the Republican party leadershit so hell bent on Romney--now here is a clue--the McCain endorsement. THEY WANT TO LOSE. That is right I think the Republican Leadershit want to throw the election just as they did in 2008 with McCain. Will they get away with it ?We will soon find out. I would say this for those who do not buy the Republican Kool Aid. Do not fall for the so and so should drop out. That is complete horse crap. I am annoyed that Cain and Bachman dropped out. No, let Gingrich attack Romney as should the others. because we have to get to the bottom of what is up with this guy. I would vote for Santorum or Perry or a candidate who might just be a late arrival if it is the right one.
I have serious doubts about Newt but he should attack Romney Care and no one has done this as far as I know yet. Not in a big way.

tom | 1.14.12 @ 10:05AM

I have told all family & friends if Mickey Mouse is the only candidate running against Obama Mickey's got my vote. You "so called" conservative writers can't begin to fathom the anti-Obama sentiment in this country!

Fredfilopek| 1.14.12 @ 10:19AM

Tom you can't begin to fathom the hatred of conservatives by moderates and liberals in this country. Why else would Obama be well ahead of perry ,gingrich and company

Fredfilopek| 1.14.12 @ 10:14AM

Why won't Romney reveal his tax returns? What does he have to hide? We know he is wealthy. This question will not go away and will further harm a candidate that has many trust issues.

Richie| 1.14.12 @ 11:29AM

Careful. You liberals want Romney to be the nominee, remember? And you are bashing him?
That is a big surprise but, I will agree with you
because Romney has not been vetted enough as to his positions on Romneycare, his crony capitalist ties, etc. The establishment RINOs and liberal Democrats love Romney because he will not win and will not upset the apple cart as well!

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 11:40PM

Romney is hiding a zillion dollars. This compares favorably to Obama hiding his birth certificate and his obviously poor grades in the courses he may or may not have attended. :-)

Kenn Amdahl | 1.14.12 @ 10:15AM

The Democrats have orchestrated this to perfection, first deciding that Mitt was the weakest opponent, then distracting the primary voters with Cain, Trump, Bachman etc until it was too late. The Dec 3 blog posting of the Wordguise Alembic, explains this in a humorous way.

Fredfilopek| 1.14.12 @ 10:22AM

The democrats did that? I guess paranoia has reached a new level among you folks. It's pretty funny.

Richie| 1.14.12 @ 11:14AM

Donna Brazile foremost liberal Democrat said on national TV that Romney is the weakest candidate
and Democrats want him to be the nominee and you liberals don't believe one of your own?

Mugatu| 1.14.12 @ 12:19PM

I know it may be hard for you to understand, wanting someone and orchestrating the whole thing are 2 different things.

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 11:42PM

Yeah, and the panel rightfully laughed at Donna.

timlt| 1.14.12 @ 10:22AM

but santorum and newt and perry and paul have even less of a chance. no way will moderate indies and disaffected dems go for any of them.

grow up - its gotta be mitt.

youre just helping the obama lovers with a piece like this.

Manny2011| 1.14.12 @ 10:27AM

He'd be a failed candidate in the general election because many conservatives simply won't vote for him. Even though AmSpec doesn't want to cover this, many know about other serious problems in his record you haven't mentioned. For instance:
His actions implementing gay marriage in Mass. were in clear violation of the Constitution. (See ebook, "How 'gay marriage' came to Massachusetts: Gov. Mitt Romney's Failure," amazon.)
He failed to uphold the Parents' Rights law in Mass. (on sexuality issues in the schools) and actively supported radical homosexual programs in the schools thru his "Governor's Commission on Gay & Lesbian Youth," his proclamations for gay "Youth Pride" events, and his Kevin Jennings-designed "Safe Schools" programs in his DOE. (See ebook, "Romney vs. Family Values.")

somnolence| 1.14.12 @ 10:33AM

Is Bain really as bad as Barack Obama, or Harry Reid? I hope the nominee trumpets that phrase over and over and over again.

Worried for the country| 1.14.12 @ 10:47AM

There are many reasons conservatives should like Mitt. You only have to look at his record as governor where he turned a $3B deficit into a $2B surplus by government shrinking reforms. He left office with fewer state workers. He did this with a 85% democrat legislature. He vetoed 800 bills in 4 years. Bush only had 11 vetoes in 8 years. Mitt is a professional reformer and will do quite well with a Republican congress led by Paul Ryan.

However, this article is about electability. Mitt is clearly the most electable of the field. He has vast executive experience. The country likes to elect presidents with executive experience. Obama had none and it shows. This is a stark contrast. There is a perception that Romney is a moderate. That works to Romney's favor in a general election.

Romney should be a conservative's dream in this environment.

Cut, cap and balance all the way.

Sapwolf| 1.14.12 @ 10:46PM

Lies and madness. You must be a lefty toad to be touting such lies.

A True Conservative| 1.14.12 @ 11:10AM

Even if none of the choices could win the presidential election, I would prefer a more consistent conservative candidate than the flip-flopping blue-blood. That way at least we will get the grassroots turnout for the congressional elections. The inelectability of Romney combined with the betrayal (by Republican kingmakers) of the tea party will lead to a loss of seats in the house, or at least foregone seats.

Daninkansas| 1.14.12 @ 11:11AM

I certainly don't know how this mess of a nomination will turn out, or should. But I am encouraged by the knowledge and passion of the commenters at The American Spectator.

Josh Brown | 1.14.12 @ 11:19AM

Mitt is only weak against Democrats that will vote for obama no matter .

somnolence| 1.14.12 @ 11:23AM

New Hampshire merely reflects NUMEROUS polls which state even registered Democrats are fleeing from Obama. No, they won't vote for Barack in numbers "just like they did in 2008"; not with his deliberate infliction of calamity upon the economy of this nation.

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 11:48PM

The people that think we're going to have a do-over of 2008 with The One and his Hope & Change are delusional. The enthusiasm has died; the love is gone; the former believers are deeply disappointed.

Hdandy| 1.14.12 @ 11:26AM

Obama could not have invented a better candidate to run against. A privileged rich guy, born into wealth, charismatically impaired, defending his company's job destruction as unfortunate collateral damage of healthy capitalism while his campaign contributors are bailed out, and, to boot, is unable to effectively attack Obama's biggest vulernability- Obamacare because of Romney care. Some guys are just lucky.

Indy| 1.14.12 @ 11:27AM

The media has done a terrible job as have the other candidates for not exposing Willard's position on a VAT. Newt and Perry have really blown it by their attacks from the wrong direction, the one thing they can still do which be a great service to the voters is to flush out Romney's position on the VAT (not ruling it out which in political speak means yes). If we end up stuck with Romney as the nominee, we must force him to take a NO stance on the VAT now. SC / FL, remaining candidates it's up to you, we cannot rely on the media.

Richard Cummings | 1.14.12 @ 11:39AM

One factor is the hatred of Obama on the right, which is why they are falling in behind Romney. It would be a mistake to underestimate him, notwithstanding his weakness, which are legion. The unemployment numbers will determine the outcome. If they are not bad or better, Obama wins. If they stay the same or get worse, Romney wins. It is as simple as that.

Tammy| 1.14.12 @ 11:41AM

Weak! Unelectable! Flip-Flopper! etc. Are just words the media throw on us, with the only intention of psychologically intimitading voters.

Why is Romney weak? Simply because the author wants us to believe he is and for that he cites a bunch of commentary from his fellow journalist friends, to "reinforce" his "assertion" - because his other freinds say so too.

I'll tell you what, after this country elected a guy who hasnt finished his first term as junior senator, whose patriotism, americanism, even citizenship was questioned, whose upbringing was so atypical even for a multicultural country like the US, whom wouldnt qualify to even be elected to government period, anything goes. A candidate with solid credentials, exec experiences in both public and private sector, etc, IS electable. Flip flopping? Puleesee..Obama changed positions everytime during the campaign and as president has been even weaker.

So this is the deal: Republicans and independents: YOU HAVE GOT to stop playing into the media hands. Follow your own instincts and convictions. DO not allow the media to "define" the candidate for you. YOU do it!.

Terry Gain | 1.14.12 @ 11:45AM

The media has done a terrible job as have the other candidates for not exposing Willard's position on a VAT.

Romney doesn't have a position on VAT - other than being willing to look at it as an alternative to Income Taxes.

It takes incredible accounting and business knowledge and savvy to succeed as a venture capitalist. Romney is the only candidate with the work ethic and forensic skills to right the American economy.

Indy| 1.14.12 @ 12:09PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/.....91220.html

All I am saying is ask the question, Gov. Romney do you support a VAT? Yes or No

Indy| 1.14.12 @ 12:13PM

Sorry, hit enter too soon. So if he is open to it as an alternative to income taxes, do you really believe the corporate income tax would go away? No, it would be layered on top. Corporate income taxes already are passed through to consumers, a VAT would as well. In Europe, look what has happened, VAT starts at 8% and now is, what 20%? and what has happened to the price of consumer goods? No way, a VAT would be a terrible idea, once that door is cracked open, we know where that will lead. This is a significant issue and one that needs immediate air time.

Worried for the country| 1.14.12 @ 2:03PM

Romney has come clearly against a VAT.

Indy| 1.14.12 @ 3:49PM

Glad to hear it, link please? The wsj article was pretty recent, it sounded like the door was still open.

Worried for the country| 1.15.12 @ 6:07PM

I saw a CNN panel interview with a Romney operative (Kevin Maddan?) and the VAT question was put to him. He responded that Romney is dead set a against a VAT tax. He also implied that Romney will likely be coming out with more details on a more aggressive tax plan soon. To this point he's only made noises that we need a simpler system that broadens the base and lowers rates.

I also saw the WSJ editorial report on Fox News right after the interviewed Romney. The VAT issue came up and they disclosed that Romney indicated the VAT would be more economically efficient (as most economists agree) but he stated he would never support it unless it completely replaced the income tax. This proves the case once again that candidates should get into theoretical hypotheticals at their own peril.

The WSJ article you refer to was an op-ed piece that set up a straw man: "there's a rumor that Romney might support a VAT". Then they spent the entire article making a case why a VAT would be bad with an income tax.

Gregory Pillori| 1.14.12 @ 12:03PM

You nailed it Bro. I have been saying the same things, although with a lot less heft, for a year now.
Question: What is the difference between Chris Christie and Mitt Romney? The answer is personality and character - Chris has plenty, Mitt has none! Chris was able to win a majority with the same kind of electorate that Mitt/Rov et. al. are aiming their campain stratigy at by being a character, not by being capable or sucessful. Suburbanites have blue collar roots, and like their working class brethern they left behind, they still cheer for hearty characters whether they are sucessful or not (i.e. Cubs).
Chris had baggage, but that baggage played to his strong points not against them. On the other hand, Romney's baggage goes aginst his strong points (Romneycare & pink slips). Why, on God's green earth, would a great buisness manager have to hand out pink slips or force people to pay for insurence. If Mitt had "big character" he might be able to overcome these issues, but he is plainer than toast and couldn't fire-up a typical suburban jane or joe if his life depended on it.

Clint| 1.14.12 @ 12:09PM

" In its recent look at Romney's record with in 77 companies he worked with at Bain, the Wall Street Journal said that 22% of them filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed up shop within eight years of the fund's initial investment. "

Mittens Romney Is A Job Gravedigger.

Kent| 1.14.12 @ 11:55PM

Distressed companies came to Bane for cash, but 22% didn't make it past 8 years? That means the 78% made it. On the surface, that's sounds like a pretty good success rate for companies in dire need of capital.

Tom| 1.14.12 @ 12:10PM

I've been saying this exact thing for a while. While there may be inaccuracies in Newt's account of Bain, there are two points to consider. First, at its heart it's true, and there is video of Romney saying that creative destruction tends to hurt a lot of people. Second, the Democrats are sure to bring this up, and probably more ardently than Newt has. Also, as Romney so smugly said to Newt on the stage in New Hampshire, "This isn't beanbag." I'll take Newt's record any day. The man in charge in Congress last time we had a balanced budget, author of the Contract With America, leader who took Republicans to the majority after forty years of Democrat rule. Add to that the fact he's an awesome debater and he would shred Barack Obama. Romney won't.

Worried for the country| 1.14.12 @ 12:35PM

Newt's resume is impressive but he has a leadership problem. He would be risky as President. Dr. Tom Coburn and other conservatives fired Newt as speaker because of his unsteady leadership.

Also, bad Newt is unelectable. He is the Nancy Pelosi of our side. He is reviled by the left. We NEED to make this election about Obama's record, not a flawed personality on our side. Finally, Newt has a big woman problem. Ask your circle of women friends? I have he has a real problem with women voters.

Robert| 1.14.12 @ 12:25PM

Wow. Great intelligent article. An eye-opener.

Rob| 1.14.12 @ 12:46PM

Ah, but Obama needs to run against his own record, making any challenger a strong one!

Peter Kondos| 1.14.12 @ 1:18PM

I don't believe you understand the American electorate. This 2012 race for President has to do with Mr. Obama. The candidate that has to face this incumbent has to be a rational, intelligent human being. That person is Mitt Romney.

sean| 1.14.12 @ 1:41PM

Spot on Peter

Eric| 1.14.12 @ 3:45PM

Nailed it, Peter Kondos! What everybody on here seems to be missing is that this election will be what all 2nd-term Presidency attempts ALWAYS are: first and foremost, it's a referendum on the incumbent.

Romney may not be the darling of the conservative set, and for understandable reasons. But he doesn't scare the hell out of moderates and independent voters, who always end up deciding these things in the end.

Nominate a Santorum, and there's a good chance Team Obama is smart enough to turn this election into a gays/abortion/pro- or anti-Duggars attention-deflecting sideshow.

With Mitt Romney, the focus will be on Obama's performance.

And that's why Mitt is actually the *strongest* candidate the GOP can field right now.

And don't worry -- enthusiasm at the polls will be there when Mitt puts Paul in the VP slot (no, not Ron Paul . . . Paul Ryan). ;)

Peter Cornwell| 1.15.12 @ 11:26PM

The 2010 election was a referendum on Obama; 2012 will be the same, only much more decisive to get him back to Hawaii or wherever he came from (we haven't really vetted that out yet, have we?). I still am puzzled by the return of the Winston Churchill bust to the British embassy. Do we, the American people, have an issue with England? If so, let's hear it. Romney would be more presidential in one heartbeat.

lfbill| 1.14.12 @ 1:19PM

This article is spot on. The logical follow-up question is why is the Republican establishment so consumed with getting Romney the nomination given that he is such a beatable candidate. I believe the answer is that the Party establishment is forever lip-locked to the Bush family, and that another loss like McCain's, and a clear path for Jeb in 2016, is much preferred to giving the Party back to the Reagan conservatives that have become the Tea Party.

Worried for the country| 1.14.12 @ 1:35PM

You got it.

All those polls showing Romney beating Obama are a Bush plot.

Also, Axelrod and the DNC are in on the Bush plot by attacking Romney during the primary.

sean| 1.14.12 @ 1:39PM

All these articles about Mitts chances in the general election never tells the WHOLE story. This election is gonna be about Obama and the economy under him. You know what's gonna excite the base? Kicking Obama out of office. You know what indies are looking for? Someone who can fix this country in a bipartisan manner. Too many conservitives are hellbound on nominating a Sharon Angle or Christie O'Donnel than defeating Obama. This isn't 2008, 2000, or 1996 for the GOP, we are running aganst an unpopular incumbent during a bad economy, and Mitt has proven he can stay on message and make it all about Obama and the economy

Kent| 1.15.12 @ 12:07AM

It's so simple, Sean. You said it perfectly, and thankfully, most people get it.

JohnLeeHooker| 1.14.12 @ 1:39PM

Mitt is the flip flopper? LMFAO: close gitmo, most transparent, will eliminate waste in budget ( HAS NOT EVEN PASSED a budget), won't lose coverage, won't lose doc, will NOT add a dime to the deficit, $5 TRILLION in new debt, will reduce premium costs...good lord - odumbo is the king of liars and flip floppers!

Adumbrate| 1.14.12 @ 1:41PM

Romney = McCain . He cannot connect.

This country is toast.

Carlos| 1.14.12 @ 1:47PM

Like Quin, ALL the other chorus of quasi delusional, lying pieces doubting Romney's electability, couldn't be more wrong.

-ROMNEY HAS BEEN BEATING OBAMA IN NATIONAL/BATTLEGROUND POLLING SINCE DEC. 2010.

-ROMNEY JUST POSTED A 6% LEAD OVER OBAMA IN A RECENT RASMUSSEN POLL. HIS BIGGEST LEAD TO DATE.

-IF ROMNEY WON IN ULTRA LIBERAL, BLUE MA, HE CAN TRULY WIN EVERYWHERE & ANYWHERE.

Yet another desperate, distorted hit piece trying to stop Romney's march to our nomination, & the WH.

ROMNEY/RUBIO 2012.

Mimi| 1.14.12 @ 1:50PM

After the Bain article got 4 Pinochio's Newt came out and did the right thing in having the Pac delete all untruths or stop it cold! He asked Mitt to do likewise ....lets see what happens!
Newt numbers are going up...but the Dems all got calls to go vote in the GOP Primary for Romney!
Are we gonna let the LIBS choose our nominee...AGAIN ???
There is so much EXCELLENCE in Newts program for the country....folks look at his website!!! By all rights he should have QUIT after Romney and Paul spent 4 mil on his destruction....I think he believes the country NEEDS him NOW....he certainly loves this country!!! Stronger ...after the RAW beating he took he's good to go...I just hope he stays in until we have some CLOSED, GOP ONLY primaries.

BurkeVA| 1.14.12 @ 2:58PM

I just read the Post's Four Pinnochio piece. That piece is all Pinnochios. There is not one substantive criticism of the Bain Film. The writer used all supposition and speculation. That is why the makers of the film have asked Romney to point out exactly which parts are the false parts, so they can be removed. It is all a smokescreen.

Worried for the country| 1.14.12 @ 3:29PM

Did you read the WaPost piece that Newt uses to criticize the Romney superPAC?

Their primary argument was FreddieMAC didn't contribute to the housing crisis and economic downturn. Their source was an unnamed liberal economist. There are many other economists that agree with our view that FreddieMAC was pivotal to the housing collapse.

Also, your dismissal of the WaPO piece on Bain, is frankly, pious baloney. Two of the firms outlined didn't even overlap with Romney. What do you say when a firm gets sold by Bain and then goes under two years later.

Caveat Emptor!

Kent| 1.15.12 @ 12:10AM

Newt . . . cheated on a wife with cancer . . . Freddie Mac money hanging out of his pockets . . . yeah, that's THE candidate for conservatives, alright!

Robert W. Wilson| 1.14.12 @ 1:50PM

I knew Mitt Romney in Boston. He was the smartest guy in the room. Best questions, most strategic thinking

He is the only one who has a 50/50 chance of beating Obama.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

Worried for the country| 1.14.12 @ 2:07PM

Romney has a record as a fiscal conservative. What he did to close a $3B deficit with an 85% dem legislature was impressive. Imagine what he will to with a GOP majority at the federal level.

Conservatives should be cheering. Mitt is a fiscal conservative but he has a moderate brand. He has oodles of diverse executive experience. All of this makes him the most electable candidate.

Brooke| 1.14.12 @ 2:11PM

The flip-flop issue intrigues me. My gut tells me that the charge will be less effective against a Republican than it has famously been against Democrats. Perhaps because Dems are less rigid, and more accepting of evolution of thought, than Republicans? Not trolling here, I'm a Republican ...

Ken Royall| 1.14.12 @ 2:18PM

The glaring omission in all of these anti-Romney screeds is they fail to make the case for the other candidates in the race. We could try to run Santorum who would be pilloried as being a radical social con who wants to impose his religion on the populace. All this at a time when economic issues are paramount. We have the serial alduterer and 90's retread Newt Gingrich (who resigned office under a cloud), who has backed more whacky causes in the last 10 years than any politician past or present. He makes Mitt look like an amatuer flip-flopper. We have Ron Paul who would dismantle the military and allow the Jews to be slaughtered. Then there is Rick Perry, who can't remember which 3 government agencies he would eliminate and has a helluva time forming a coherent sentence. He is soft on immigration and appears to be to the left of Obama in regard to private equity.

Mitt supporters like me know full well he will face criticism for his record in the private sector, which was actually a fantastic success by any measure. Show me an investor who bats about .800 and I will show you a superstar. Whatever the case may be, there are no perfect Conservative canndidates in the race. Given the pro's and con's of each I think Romney is our best shot at getting rid of Obama. You could very easily write an article this long against ANY of the candidates we have running, lets be honest here. You could also write one 10 times this size against Obama. Bottom line, Mitt's pluses outweigh his minuses by far.

Indy| 1.14.12 @ 4:11PM

All of the candidate have at least one major flaw, how sad for our country at this critical election, we have this field to choose from

"Mitt's pluses outweigh his minuses by far"

I disagree, RomneyCare is the biggie, I do not trust him to go to the mat to repeal ObamaCare.

Face it folks, these are the choices we have, stronger candidates decided not to jump in so we have this lot to choose from.

david hilton| 1.14.12 @ 5:14PM

Yes, there may be no perfect conservative candidates 'in the race', as you point out. But there are certainly perfect conservative candidates out there. And we should not let the Dems wishful thinking determine the Republican nominee. The new rules that free convention delegates to exercise their own judgment and disregard previous pledges make it extremely easy for Christie, Huckabee, Guiliani . . fill in the blank . . or whatever strong candidate could actually win this race to jump in now or in the spring and still win it. Ballot access is way over-rated. Write-in candidates, if well-funded, can easily win this nomination.

A. Hick| 1.14.12 @ 2:27PM

Excellently argued article. The coming campaign will, like most postmodernist elections in the US, center on a "reality show" presentation of alternatives, which Romney should lose for many of the reasons outlined in the article. It will be "Bain vs. Solyndra," or the corruption of greed vs. the corruption of good intentions. Never mind where good intentions often led. It will be the legacy of the Birthers vs. Romney's ancestral polygamists seeking exile in Mexico. But the one thing Mitt has that Obama doesn't seem to have is CrateGate. As fantastic as it seems, the mental image of Romney’s hapless hosed down wet dog crapping all over his station wagon on the ride to hell will sink him. Each voter, with a little help from David Axelrod, will put himself in the position of that dog, and ask themselves, will I enjoy the ride with Mitt in the White House? More will decide they won’t than would.

Romney is a tragic figure of Shakespearean proportions. The wily Alinsky mentored Barack Obama bet not just his reelection campaign on Mitt Romney being his opponent; he bet and structured his entire presidency, and its legislative agenda around it, because he knew the GOP just could not help itself, and would nominate him. I believe that if the Affordable Care Act had never been smartly considered and engineered by the most insidiously brilliant Democratic President since…maybe Bill Clinton, Mitt Romney would be barnstorming the country right now telling Republicans and all Americans how Obama had failed to solve the nation’s health care dilemma, and how he, Mitt Romney, would bring to the United States the private sector solution for universal access to health care he brought to Massachusetts. The same individual responsibility blueprint Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation advocated for years. And Rush and Sean and Bill and Glenn and the whole gang at Fox would be cheering him on.

Instead we are left with Mitt, the “say anything” flip flopper who will have to disgrace himself this fall in debates with Obama, and say he still stands by the idea Obama stole from him, but only for Massachusetts, not for the rest of the country.

Romney has been running for President his entire life, yearning to avenge the despicable destruction of his rather progressive father’s political career over perfectly (in hindsight) valid comments about the conduct of the Vietnam War. He is at heart, I believe, an amiable if stiff rich guy who views himself not just entitled to the job, but like some sort of digital age version of an eighteenth century Enlightenment monarch, worthy of the job. He spent his youth ruthlessly making money to prove his worth in corridors of power (and in America money is power). Now, like his father (a mainstream Republican in his time, and a capitalist in the mold of Henry Ford who today would be defined by a majority of the party as a socialist and multi-culturalist), Mitt wishes to “give back” to the country that gave so much to him, and I suspect he privately loathes having to impersonate the right wing demagogue one must in order to win GOP primaries.

I cannot imagine how Mitt will ever successfully avenge his father’s long ago wrongful political ambush, unless he accepts just getting the Republican nomination vindication enough. Considering the humiliation he is and will have to go through until he loses in November, I suspect he will to the end of his life always ask himself if it was worth it.

Alts| 1.15.12 @ 1:47AM

A. Hick, tell Obama hi for me will you? That's quite a rant and I would laugh if even a single reader bought any of it. Nice try thank you.

KateS| 1.14.12 @ 2:46PM

Mr. Quinn is doing more dirty work for Newt Gingrich ...destroy all the republicans we can so I can get my guy elected. Not a chance smart guy...wait and see.

DAVE| 1.14.12 @ 3:05PM

You all seem to have forgotten that Obama now has a record, something he did not have to campaign on in 2008. Can't wait for the ads showing long unemployment lines while Michelle and Barrack fly on seperate jets to lavish vacations. Barrack can't hide out this time and the voting public is on to his game (Jimmy Carter 2). Nov 2012 will simply be a replay of Nov 2010.

Indy| 1.14.12 @ 4:21PM

The majority of the voters are well versed in pop culture and sports. Many know nothing of Fast and Furious, Solyndra, the real unemployment rate, the debt / GDP ratio, the true impact of ObamaCare both in loss of freedoms and the true costs and future taxes that will come if this beast is not repealed in 2012. They vote based on 30 sec sound bites, they believe O saved us from another great depression and they believe the class warfare rhetoric...the masses believe if only we taxed the rich more, we could afford entitlements.

Yes, O has a record but he has the media on his side and voters who have a poor understanding of economics. The cocktail party is pushing Willard because it's his turn.

Do not underestimate the Chicago Machine nor the ability of the GOP so snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Kent| 1.15.12 @ 12:13AM

Barack has played over 1600 holes of golf . . . hope and change! And America thought he'd be very busy as president.

AzRep | 1.14.12 @ 3:12PM

Mr. Hillyer needs to actually look at the data.

In January, 1980, Gallup found Ronald Reagan was trailing Jimmy Carter by 34%. Reagan was later beaten in Iowa by a near unknown and the fight see sawed back and forth for some time, with Reagan winning South Carolina and George H.W. Bush winning Michigan. In November of that year, Reagan beat Carter by 10%, with unemployment at 7.7%.

In January, 2012, Romney is trailing Obama by 5% nationally and leads in the swing states. Romney will sweep Iowa, NH, SC, Florida and Nevada and put the nomination away early. Obama will be lucky to face Romney with unemployment at 8.7%, much less 7.7%. Romney is also a better debater than Obama and is putting the strongest campaign organization in the field since the Reagan operations of 1980 and 1984.

You can hate Romney all you want, but try to stay in touch with the facts.

Kent| 1.15.12 @ 12:23AM

Thanks, AzRep! Some people here won't let facts stem the tide of their delusional thinking.

George W.| 1.14.12 @ 3:15PM

Midterms was the biggest landslide in 78 years. Virtually every economic indicator is worse than last year. Romney will mop the floor with B. Hussein. The country needs a brilliant turnaround financial expert to clean up after a financial disaster. There's never been a more qualified businessman/politician to do so.

Bemused| 1.14.12 @ 4:00PM

The elephant in the room for Romney and one he has flip-flopped on is simple: Climate change.

If someone was to ask Romney:
"If you were irrefutably shown that ALL peer-reviewed studies of climate change supported the so-called consensus, and that there was not one peer-reviewed study that supported any of the contrarion theories, not one, what would be your view of man-made climate change?"

It puts Romney in a tricky situation. Does he, as an intelligent person who understands the onus on proof and the highest standards required of peer-reviewed science, say that yes in that case I accept that humans are causing climate change, or does he use weasel words to get around it and play to the Republican base, and which in all likelihood they will still see through?

Indy| 1.14.12 @ 4:23PM

I agree with you his flip flop on climate change is hard to overcome but "The elephant in the room for Romney " is RomneyCare, here he had every chance to say it was a mistake but he still defends it.

Worried for the country| 1.14.12 @ 4:30PM

Romneycare is not a problem for Romney. It is a Romney strength. As he's being doing, he will clearly call for a repeal Obamacare. He will point to the states rights arguments. He will then take apart all that is wrong and corrupt about Obamacare (although every candidate will do that) and clearly show how a one size fits all is wrong for the federal government.

Romneycare was only 60 pages. Obamacare is over 2300 pages.

Indy| 1.14.12 @ 10:10PM

"Romneycare is not a problem for Romney. It is a Romney strength. " Many of us will strongly disagree with you on this, have you done the research to see how much costs have increased in MA? Do you know how much Federal taxpayer money was spent to prop it up? Obama had to spend money to prop it up so he could get ObamaCare passed. ObamaCare was based on RomneyCare. Waiting times for medical appointments have increased, costs have jumped...a strength, I think not.

"He will then take apart all that is wrong and corrupt about Obamacare ?" and that is a concern, I believe he will not fully repeal it, if he doesn't, the structure will be in place. We will need a full repeal and replace it with a free market solution such as increased HSAs, all for sales of insurance across state line, etc.

"Romneycare was only 60 pages." so what? 60 pages or 2300 pages, both laws have translated into rising costs. I doubt MA residents are fully supportive of Romneycare, they certainly would not if federal funding was pulled which would result in higher taxes for MA.

Worried for the country| 1.15.12 @ 10:41AM

Indy, thank you for a very thoughtful rebuttal. Your post is a stark contrast to propaganda and distortions spewed by many on this board.

I would probably agree with everything you've written if I wasn't better informed. How, you may ask? I've been purchasing health insurance in MA for the last 30 years, before and after Romneycare. I am a user of healthcare in MA. Also, there was a gubernatorial election in MA last year where health insurance was a major part of the debate because the GOP candidate was a former health insurance CEO and had proposed major reforms. Unfortunately, a democrat ran third party and Perot'd the GOP candidate and Deval Patrick squeaked out a win without a majority.

Health insurance costs have gone up a smaller amount than the national average since Romney care. Also, I can attest that wait times have not changed with Romneycare? Why is that? Prior to Romneycare, 92% of the population had insurance. Now, 96% have insurance. Adding 4% to the insured pool won't make noticeable difference in wait times and didn't. If a similar program was instituted in Texas where only 75% have insurance and then it jumped overnight to 95% I'm sure there would be a large impact on wait times. That's why we can't have one size fits all solutions. Push it to the states and let states work out their own best system.

Romneycare was sold as a solution to overcrowded ER rooms. Some people who could afford insurance but didn't purchase it were rolling the dice and using ERs for care. I can personally attest that the ERs have been cleared out. The wait times prior to Romneycare were horrible, not they are OK. So Romneycare has worked as advertised and that is why it is popular in the state. Did Romneycare bring down costs? I can't prove it one way or the other there are so many related causalities but I don't see how it could have increased costs.

All that said, I am not a fan of Romneycare. I think there are more pressing state reforms required like increase competition. I notice you mention HSA's and you name is Indy. Are you from Indy? I read Mitch Daniels piece in the WSJ describing his HSA solutions and how successful they've been. I also read a similar piece in the WSJ by the founder of Whole Foods describing a similar success. The GOP candidate in MA was pushing for similar reforms.

Indy| 1.16.12 @ 10:35AM

Worried, I appreciate your feedback, hearing from those living under Romneycare is helpful. I have read comments from others in MA who complain about rising costs. The article below discusses proposed changes to address rising costs "It’s a serious problem: Massachusetts boasts that 98 percent of its residents have health insurance, but the state is stricken by the highest health care costs in the country.

Although Gov. Deval Patrick believes he has the cure, his cost-containing plan will require hospitals, physician groups and other health care providers to rethink nearly every aspect of how they deliver health care.

It’s not just a facelift; it’s more like reconstructive surgery.

Patrick has filed legislation that would require all health care providers – doctors, hospitals, specialists, therapists and the like – to align themselves into networks called Accountable Care Organizations, or ACOs, that will get paid a fixed amount each year for a patient’s care"

The data point that would be helpful is how much federal taxpayer money has been poured into the MA plan. If the Federal funding was never given, how much more in taxes / premiums would MA residents pay? Romney continues to boast about the success of the plan from a increased coverage prespective but I do not recall him saying anying about reduced costs. If Patrick's proposals pass and the answer is fixed costs, I predict a greater shortage of providers who will flee the state.

I have read a lot about how Obamacare was based on Romneycare and with 27 AG suing, it counters your point about Romneycare being a strength for Mitt.

I go by Indy for Independent, Mitch Daniels is one I wished had jumped in the race, I believe he would be a much better candidate than Romney but the field is set. I too, read the Whole Foods CEO article and agreed with it. HSAs will reduce costs, Paul Ryan is an advocate for HSAs too.

You are correct about the 3rd party candidate impact on the governor race. If Romney is the nominee, I will vote for him but the unknown at this point is a possible 3rd party run by Ron Paul, we know what happens if that scenario plays out. I look forward to debating with you on other threads.

Worried for the country| 1.14.12 @ 4:24PM

Several candidates have flipped. Clearly Newt has flipped. Huntsman was running on the 'pro-science' plank early on but seems to have back tracked.

I don't think this is a major issue in the general issue but it certain to come up.

For me the right answer is to acknowledge the science but also acknowledge it is not settled science and needs further study. This is a no-cost way to defuse the flat earther charges.

The GOP candidate should come out strongly against any economy crippling cap and trade scheme. I think they've all made that stand clear.

Old Fan| 1.14.12 @ 4:17PM

This is a terrible offering from Mr. Hillyer. He reveals he is stuck in the most provincial fashion. Another sideline pundit who never made in the real Private Sector, and has not clue about what he is speaking about. It is absurd to see some so-called Conservatives so susceptible to populist - leftist nonsense. The lucrative Conservative Industry is being weakened with some truly poor efforts.. Some are merely peddling a weak shell image game, and don't seem to even understand the actual Private Sector. Those stuck in the fashion don't even seem to be able to recognize the attractive conservative nature of this proven Free Market Capitalist of Mr. Romney. Ann Coulter is quite right, Mr. Romney is a very strong offering and will do very well in the General Election. Conservatives should welcome the defense of the US Free Market System. This election will be all about the powerful Private Sector symbolized by the competent, serious, proven Mr. Romney, vs. the dreadful Public Sector malaise provided by the awful Obama and his terrible Democratic Party.

The American Spectator sinks in reputation with this nonsense. Mr. Hillyer is deeply mistaken, and should step back. He is following some dysfunctional folly right off of a cliff.

Douglas Parker| 1.14.12 @ 4:24PM

There may be something to what you say. Then again, there's the inconvenient fact that Romney is the only one of the Republican field who is qualified to actually be President.

david hilton| 1.14.12 @ 5:05PM

Except of course for Senator Santorum, who actually has a distinguished record to run on, having risen to the third highest position in the Senate. And being re-elected, something Romney cannot claim.

Douglas Parker| 1.14.12 @ 7:03PM

Santorum is a joke. He doesn't want to be President so much as Procurator of Morals. PA finally caught on to him and awarded him a well-deserved retirement.

zphoton| 1.14.12 @ 4:43PM

But you're forgetting his greatest strength....he's not BO, and anyone who acres about America's future won't make that mistake again!

jakee| 1.14.12 @ 4:53PM

The GOP may as well concede right now because Romney is the best in an ugliest dog contest.

david hilton| 1.14.12 @ 5:03PM

Why on earth is it 'unfair' or 'sickening' for voters to withhold their support from Romney because of his Mormon religion? What else tells us more about his character, judgment, and intelligence than that?

I say this as a Mormon myself who knows the roots of prejudice in this country. But I also respect the right of voters to weigh all factors in making their judgment, just as I would in determining whether to vote for a Buddhist, a Catholic, or a Muslim. I cannot logically or fairly deny to others the same scope to make their own judgments about my Mormon faith. It is neither 'unfair' nor 'disgusting' for them to do so. It is this kind of political correctness, which attempts to make a candidate's religion off-limits, to which Mr Hillyer pays obeisance in this article that is truly disgusting.

M Bauman| 1.14.12 @ 6:22PM

My God, I hope every republican primary voter takes note of Mr Hillyer's words.
I don't want any of this postelection sniveling about how "Nobody warned us!".
But two more points:
1) Even if Mitt Romney does win over some moderate voters, these are the people who routinely vote for divided government and split their ticket.
This would be a net loss for republicans in congressional races assuming a Romney candidacy depresses conservative turnout.
2) We need a leader with vision and the will to confront the monumental crises our nation faces, not a business manager with an indeterminate political philosophy.
At this point an open, brokered convention would seem to be the last, best chance for the Republican Party.
To vote for four years of Mitt Romney is to ensure eight years of Hillary Clinton.
You have, indeed, been warned.

SnowballII| 1.14.12 @ 6:31PM

The only reason that Mitt Romney appears weak in a race against Obama is that the Republican voters cannot unite around him. This will play right into Obama’s hands but it is hardly Romney’s fault. The rest of the GOP candidates are totally unelectable. Even though several of the other candidates are more conservative and represent the religious right they have no appeal with independent voters or even moderate Democrats that with a good candidate can be lured to the other side. Furthermore, in case of a win it is also important to have a President that doesn't clash with the rest of the world the way George W Bush did. Romney has a lot of self-made money representing the truest form of the American dream. How can this be a negative thing? The one who cannot spin this properly should change their line of work. Furthermore, even Romney’s appearance has come into question as he by some is considered too handsome. Once more this could easily be spun the right way as good looks always is important in public jobs. Thus, the problem lies with bloggers and professional thinkers bitching about that they cannot get their ideal candidate and do anything to ruin Romney’s chances and thereby feed the Obama campaign with ammunition. For once the Republicans have a dream candidate that has the chance to attract voters beyond the traditional demographics. And once elected President, Romney is not totally disliked by the Democrats meaning that he actually has a chance to get something done during his term, contrary to what Obama has succeeded in doing. Therefore, the voters in the upcoming primaries and Republicans in general should rally around Romney as soon as possible which would help him conserve money and also gain more since he could focus on fundraising fulltime. This is a must if he is going to have a chance to outrun Obama in the upcoming ad-war that is incredibly costly. Those who focus on destroying Romney should realize that they might as well vote for Obama and wait for another four years for their dream candidate. However, in four years’ time the Republican nominee will most likely face a determined Hillary Clinton that will have a ton of executive experience as well as experience of foreign policy. In addition, she will have the backing and possibly also campaigning of two ex-Presidents. No social conservative religious right candidate even though being the dream candidate for the Republican base will have a chance against her well-oiled machinery. Thus, if bloggers like Mr. Hillyer don’t mind waiting another twelve years searching for the one that fits all their fantasies they better fall in line quickly and unite and support Romney. Finally, Mr. Hillyer claims that the signing of the health care bill in Massachusetts is Romney’s weakest point which excludes him from attacking Obama. This is just ridiculous. The signing of this bill is actually Romney’s biggest opportunity to attract independent and even Democratic voters. So I say once more: Rejoice for the optimal Republican candidate that is Mitt Romney.

Indy| 1.14.12 @ 10:24PM

"The only reason that Mitt Romney appears weak in a race against Obama is that the Republican voters cannot unite around him." Romney could not even stand up to Bret Baier, he says what voters want to hear, I don't trust him, he has changed positions on many issues and the one he should change on is Romneycare but he still defends it. Look at the rising costs of healthcare in MA, a success? No way. I am an unaffiliated voter as are many conservatives I know, not one independent that I know thinks Romneycare is a good thing, it turns us away from a him as a candidate, certainly not a draw.

"For once the Republicans have a dream candidate that has the chance to attract voters beyond the traditional demographics."

Really, a dream candidate? If that were true, he would be running away with the nomination. There is no such thing as a dream candidate. Romney is a big government liberal and he changes positions like the wind, he will say whatever he thinks we want to hear just to get elected.

Kent| 1.15.12 @ 12:30AM

Romney may indeed be running away with the nomination. He is already the only non-incumbent to take both Iowa and New Hampshire. If he takes South Carolina and Florida, this thing is over early. Romney/Rubio, or Romney/Ryan, will beat Obama at least as badly as Obama beat McCain. The election will not be close.

Indy| 1.15.12 @ 10:29AM

O won Iowa by 10 pts, they re-elect Harkin a strong progressive to the Senate. Romney was supposed to run away with NH, come on they love McCain there so of course Romney took NH.

"Mathematically, no candidate can seal the nomination until late April, which leaves a lot of campaigning yet to be done....

Including projections of how Iowa’s unbound delegates will vote at the August convention, ABC News’ running delegate tally shows Romney (20) leading Rick Santorum (12), Paul (three) and Huntsman (two)."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po.....-just-yet/

Ron Paul has a lot of influence in the outcome of this race, what will he do? and more importantly, what will his supporters do?

It is a mistake to think O will be easily defeated, the Left plays nasty and they own the media...our voting population has been dumbed down, 47% pay no Federal Income Taxes, most do not understand the difference between the real unemployment (U-6 data) v. official unemployment (U-3 data)

Becka James| 1.15.12 @ 9:21PM

Nope. You are wrong. If Romney is the nominee, he will lose to Obama. If it isn't going to be a clear conservative with an alternate view of America, Obama is going to win. Romney is not a clear conservative. Period.

Alts| 1.15.12 @ 1:34AM

I just love when Obama apologists or anti-Romney 'conservatives' say that Republicans struggle to get behind Romney. If they struggle to get behind Romney and he is in the lead, then what do those spin doctors call it when the other candidates that are well below Romney in the votes & polls?

Indy| 1.15.12 @ 10:15AM

Simple math explains why the other candidates are behind Romney, there are too many of them and they are splitting the conservative vote.

I don't like any of the candidates, my top choices opted not to run, Pence decided to run for Governor, if he were in the race, I think he would be leading but we have to live with the B team on the field. Like in '08, I will be voting against O. Those of you who think this will be an easy win for Romney are forgetting one important factor, what will Ron Paul do? If he runs 3rd party, the majority of his supporters will follow him and that will be enough to hand the election to O.

I also don't think Romney nor his supporters are prepared for the Alinsky tactics to come and they will most definitely come.

Another thought, if the worst case scenario happens and SCOTUS does not overturn ObamaCare (ruling is expected in June), the only way to get rid of it is to repeal, do you really believe Romney will go to the mat to repeal it? I don't, I think he will fold like a house of cards.

The VP choice may help, I for one would prefer to keep Rubio in the Senate and Ryan in charge of the budget, perhaps West would be a good one, he understands the ideology of the hard Left, I don't think Romney does.

Our Republic is at stake, we cannot wait until 2016, whoever wins the nomination needs to be fully prepared to be a one term President because the choices that must be made now are difficult and will make him unpopular, I just don't see Romney as the one strong enough to do that and unless we all work together to elect good people to the Senate / House to tackle entitlements, Romney will fold...I hope I am wrong about him but nothing he has done gives me a reason to trust him.

CrazyHungarian| 1.14.12 @ 7:45PM

Except the election will be Obama vs. not-Obama. We are likely to see a bigger version of 2010.....

Barbara Espinosa | 1.14.12 @ 7:52PM

AMERICAN FREEDOM by BARBARA: bit.ly/wYS3Ym ROMNEY'S JUMP FOR JOY A LITTLE EARLY...There's a long way to go.Perry is the only candidate that has current experience in creating an environment for job growth. Why choose a candidate that has been in DC forever and voted to create the things they are now running against. Romney couldn't beat McCain, McCain couldn't beat Obama why think Romney can beat Obama. Ronald Reagan didn't win Iowa, New Hampshire or SC he didn't have a win until NC.Good Rick Perry interview this guy should be President...http://youtu.be/0x5Tjg9M77M also bit.ly/wYS3Ym www.americanfreedombybarbara.com

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 10:30PM

You don't have a clue, Quinn. Yeah, a few people agree with you . . . so what! The middle determine elections, and Obama has lost the middle in great numbers. The only GOP candidate that does not give back an inch of the middle is Romney. The Romney/Rubio ticket will wipe the electoral map with Obama/Biden. We say goodbye to the empty suit, and it will not be close. 47% voted against the 2008 American Idol Champion during the perfect storm, and it will be much higher this time around.

somnolence| 1.14.12 @ 10:36PM

Reuters: Romney leads in S.C. by 21 points. What's that about Rick Perry again?

Jozy Wales| 1.14.12 @ 11:02PM

The incredible stupidity of the anti-Romney comments is amazing. Many must be pro-Obama operatives. Any republican is 1000x better than another 4 years of Obama. Obama is pure evil. He hates this country. I especially find the hostility towards Romney, because he is a successful capitalist very anti-Republican. If you want redistribution of wealth, don't pretend you are Republicans. I am totally unimpressed with Quin's resume. Political consulting is very far from a science. Romney is hated by the pseudo-Republicans because they are anti-Mormon , anti-Northeastern, and anti-rich bigots.

ray| 1.14.12 @ 11:11PM

Just becuase the Paulbots turned up in their typical hyper spamming masses doesn't mean you were right. Sorry

Commonman| 1.14.12 @ 11:37PM

Reaon Obama is weak against nearly anyone.

Unemployment.
Spending
Deficits
Cap and Trade
Czars
Vacations while nation suffers
Health Reform

By the way,
Romney said he would repeal it.

Nuff said.

Jeff Kramer| 1.14.12 @ 11:48PM

Child, please. Romney will clean Obama's clock. This thing is so over.

teliason| 1.14.12 @ 11:48PM

Well, I guess we can all just pack up and go home and concede the race to Obama then since the great Quin Hillyer (oh, thanks for listing your resume in this post Quin) has said so. Great thing voters don't listen to the pundits. Since no candidate will ever live up to Ronald Reagan, I guess you and the conservative punditry will forever claim the GOP field is weak. Pretty sad.

JWnTX| 1.15.12 @ 12:00AM

No matter WHO the Republican candidate is, they will beat Obama in a landslide. 2/3 of the American people fear an Obama re-election more than any other possible headline for 2012. It ain't going to be close--for Newt, Mitt, or, God forbid, Ron. Huntsman would even find smooth sailing in this election.

Becka James| 1.15.12 @ 9:19PM

No, Romney can't and won't beat Obama in a landslide. Neither will Ron Paul. Neither will Huntsman. Wait and watch. Romney can't do it.

Derek Tyler| 1.15.12 @ 12:23AM

It is not a gamble that Romney will beat Obama.
Who will be his VP pick?
It won't be Rubio.
My guess is Christie, Paul Ryan or Jim DeMint.
Obama Finis.

Kent| 1.15.12 @ 12:33AM

Why not Rubio? That would make Florida a lock. I would go with Rubio or Ryan.

mike| 1.15.12 @ 12:41AM

Weaker candidate that who? Gingrich? The guy is more than a little megalomaniac, more than a little morally challenged, and a terrible team player. I can't see Perry, unless he improves a lot real quick. Santorum is a good candidate for leader of the Christian right. He'll energize the base with his promise of a culture war, and maybe do well with socially conservative Democrats, but at the cost of energizing the Democratic base and alienating the large group of socially moderate swing voters. Republicans might have to accomodate Paul a bit, but I can't imagine they are going to nominate him. Not sure how he is doing in general election polls.

cimbri| 1.15.12 @ 1:58AM

Rocky Mountain/BRC Poll: Romney BEATING OBAMA in Arizona

Head-To-Head:

Mitt Romney 43% (+6)
Barack Obama 37%

Barack Obama 44%
Ron Paul 36% (-8)

Barack Obama 43%
Rick Santorum 34% (-9)

Barack Obama 45%
Newt Gingrich 35% (-10)

Voter| 1.15.12 @ 2:12AM

Am I supposed to buy any of this? This article's spin hinges on the premise that most voters do not study the candidates themselves, the issues, and think for themselves. Does that happen? Of course. But I don't buy that most Americans read a headline, or catch a commercial on TV, and tell themselves, "a-ha! That guy's been too successful to be a legitimate candidate, he's not a real person. Let's vote for the guy that already there taking from successful guys and giving to the little guys. Or better yet let's vote for the guy that can say that he is Ronald Reagan conservative the most times."

Becka James| 1.15.12 @ 9:17PM

Just a slight hint here for you - MOST voters actually do not study the candidates, the issues, or think for themselves. The fact that you question this is beyond belief to me. How do you think we ended up with Obama? Good grief.

ignatzk| 1.15.12 @ 3:39AM

>>his only significant "achievement" being the execrable one of Romneycare.

Dan H| 1.15.12 @ 5:51AM

Romney just makes me sick to my stomach. As soon as I think about him I just end up being in a bad mood for a couple of hours. I PLEDGE to never vote for Romney for any political office and to boycott the products of serivces any organization that has any connections to Bain, as soon as those connections are made known to me. THIS is how much I hate this man--this chameleon, this charlatan, this garbage bag that floats in the political wind. I will forever loathe him (and a few others*) for bringing this race into the gutter just when we were seeing a brilliant man, who was head and shoulders above everyone else in knowledge, intellect, actual conservative accomplishments, going out there and SUCCESSFULLY exciting the base by communicating and defending true Regean conservatism; he was taking taking off in the polls like a rocket ship! I always thought Romney was an unethical man who is clearly inferior to Newt in all regards and his actions affirmed my thoughts.

THIS is the sentiment that all you pro-Romney guess are going to get from us anti-Romneys. No you can't count on us with this ABO crap. We're just going to sit this one out and formalize a third party around the Tea Party. A party that means business. A party that won't allow their _political enemies_ to choose their leaders in open primaries). It may take 12 years to accomplish it and this nation will be in horrible shape but we will eventually save this nation from progressivism and it won't involve dealing with the same pseudo-conservatives we are dealing with now--those that want to "manage the decline" in their favor.

* Paul, Bachmann. (I am especially disappointed in Bachmann because she just didn't get the obvious hint from voters that it "wasn't her time" but instead managed to do damage to those much more conservative than Romney. The only respect I have for Paul is that he is getting young people to at least consider a view other than the one that Democrats put out.)

Janeway| 1.15.12 @ 7:18AM

It will be a tough race for the nominee whomever is selected. You may consider him weak but the voters are who count and their opinion. You seem to think only someone that can "inspire" the base like Obama inspired the left can win. Other than the evangelicals and Tea Party wing of the party most Republicans just do not require all the drama you seem to need from a nominee. We are a pragmatic bunch and just because Dole and McCain were certainly boring doesn't mean that Romney is equally as Goldberg puts it, inauthenic. Yes, there are those that refuse to vote because of his religion or hair or something equally silly but they probably need to join some other Party or create another party. Populist movements do not last and neither will this one. What should concern the writers and pundits is the popularity of Paul not the weakness of Romney. Romney will win and if we are lucky he will be President and you can spend his entire term nitpicking how uninspiring he is while we get this country going in the right direction. I remind you, this is not American Idol, althought that seems to be what you want. Pushing a far right social conservative will not win this election. Inpendents get to vote and they will not go for extreme positions. Ex Tea Party Person.

TruthandConsequence| 1.16.12 @ 3:17AM

I think this is right...for political reasons, Romney is perceived as a moderate. what the right thinks is an insult is, in fact, a favor because it widens Romney's appeal to independents. At the same time, anyone familiar with his personal life knows Romney is as socially conservative as any candidate out there...more than some. his economic conservatism is well understood and his stand on illegal immigration is appealing to conservatives - so, making him out to be some kind of liberal republican does not carry water, but it is politically useful.

joanne| 1.15.12 @ 8:08AM

HACK!!! The media doth protest too much. I stopped reading after the 2nd. paragragh.
People 2 to 1 are AFRAID sir of the inept wrecking ball being re-elected.
2012 can't come soon enough.

Tim| 1.15.12 @ 11:21AM

I would tell the editor to stop getting deep into the minutiae because the general voting public only sees two things......Obama bad, anyone else better.

Peter Cornwell| 1.15.12 @ 11:18PM

Exactly.

somnolence| 1.15.12 @ 11:49AM

The campaign will boil down to the Usurper vs. the Usurer, Obama. There are even questions right now if Obama really won the state of Indiana in 2008. Add that on top of tripling the deficit, student loans at 1 trillion dollars currently, 15.6 real unemployment, returning G.I.s facing oblivion in the job market, usurping the Constitution on Obamacare by ignoring the 10th Amendment, disobeying judges orders by not opening petroleum reserves, etc. and the Usurper, Romney, appears to be in very good shape.

Sparky| 1.15.12 @ 11:59AM

Great article , but how dare you criticize the "Anointed One" who has been preordained the nominee by the Republican elite, the political talking heads, and the Obama campaign.

This entire process has more to do with who has the most money rather than electing the candidate that is the TRUE Conservative!

William Capps | 1.15.12 @ 12:38PM

We in America need to understand something about Government. Lobbyist rule the elections and elections are about perception and deception onto the average American. It is about confusing the majority of the public in order to achieve the gain of the minority. Most lobbyist work for an organization that in its entirety is nothing more then elite folks on the left and right who try to shape policy. In the end the middle class pays the price. Thus major reform and hard economic choices need to be made in order to salvage the country.

Reform:

Lobbyist in most cases are former elected officials or staffers shape policy both in the State and Federal Government. In allot of cases they help draft a bill. I am not advocating the band on lobbyist, that would be unconstitutional and I would oppose it.

I would fight to make All lobbyist communications with Government be made to the public. I would also make all lobbyist sit before any committee that is in charge of the area's they cover for such public policy and state for the record why government needs to make a rule or law. I would also make a law that state any lobbyist that receive funds from foreign country's or there citizens must be made public and stated on the record at and committee hearing. Call it sunshine call it being honest.
I would also make a law that states on the record, that all lobbyist even if it was a former elected official or a staffer of the Federal Government and has had contact with elected officals; to try and shape or help write policy.
Doing this will enlighten the American People as to what is going on within the halls of Government.

Energy and Economics

One of the reforms in this area is this. Ban any lobbyist that receives any funds from a foreign government or citizens from a foreign country. You can bet your bottom dollar that our Government has sold our economic and energy future out to other countries.
This is why we have no sound energy policy to harvest our energy needs and this is what led to NAFTA and free trade with the largest dictator on earth China. This has cost America trillions in lost wages revenue for the country. It has led to the increase demand of the nanny state and the increase in taxes to pay for it. It has led to this major economic downfall that we have today.

I would charge just as much in tariffs that countries charge us.
I would make the tax rate for manufacturing companies zero percent so long as their products are made in the USA and the products they need to make there goods are made in the USA. This alone would start a production boom.

Retail stores would pay out 15% in taxes providing 75% of there goods they sell are made in the USA.

This will alone be a shake up to the world America is going to be an economic giant once again.

I would open up all federal land for energy exploration and if an energy company decides to sit and not harvest it. The Army Corps of Engineers can hire folks who will and then use the money to pay off the National Debt.

In closing. The Citizens will continue to demand as some would put it, the nanny state. Unless policies are in place to promote jobs and productivity in the USA. Government will continued to be pressured because we do not want to see kids living on the street.

If you want to end the nanny state, then something must be in place for Americans to make it. Unless these truths are recognized. Then the direction this country is on, will be a nasty ending.

William Capps
Laurel, Maryland

Leapold| 1.15.12 @ 1:56PM

Wow 15 paragraphs about how Romney is weak against Obama and nothing about Obama. Very illuminating.

Dien Cai Dau| 1.15.12 @ 5:16PM

The similarities between obumma and romney are far too many to list here so I decided to list the differences
1. obummas half black
2. romney ain’t

Becka James| 1.15.12 @ 9:15PM

And yet, despite all of the obvious problems with Romney, we have people like Ann Coulter, John Bolton, and Chris Christie supporting him. This is precisely why this conservative woman might just stay home instead of voting. I'm tired of being lied to, and I'm tired of being played for a fool.

noone| 1.15.12 @ 9:23PM

I really believe that the committee to re-elect Obama was the biggest force behind the media constantly referring to Romney as the candidate Obama fears. Of course he doesn't fear him - Romney is the Republican candidate most similar to Obama. Obama would have a field day!

Kent| 1.16.12 @ 2:31AM

If that is the case, it's another clear indicator of the thorough ineptness of Team Obama. Romney with give Obama a shellacking.

Peter Cornwell| 1.15.12 @ 11:16PM

The imperfect Romney. The businessman. It is time to get over it for republicans looking for Mr. Right. The issue is not whether the choice will offer a candidate with the perfect answer to all social and economic issues. The issue is whether the electorate will tolerate a leftist dictator, who has no use for the constitution. Romney may not be perfect, but he is vastly preferable to what we have now, or four more years of the same or worse. Checks and balances are at stake.

TruthandConsequence| 1.16.12 @ 3:11AM

If there was ever an argument that a President should have a resume of leadership and experience, Obama quashed it forever. Obama won with promises what he could not provide in experience. With Romney, we have the luxury of weighing him as a businessman, an ngo organizer, a state Governor and a past candidate for the Presidency. That is quite a few points upon which to judge him - and, in many respects, Obama just remains an enigma - although this time we will have four years in the Presidency by which to judge him and enough with promises.

Mike Daly | 1.16.12 @ 5:42PM

Why Romney actually IS electable -

1 - The attacks on Romney and Bain are backfiring as people take more of a look at his involvement there.

2 - The general class-warfare campaign for Obama is also not working because people are seeing for themselves the waste the Democrats have been in power and the fact their policies have failed to reignite the economy.

Renverseur| 1.16.12 @ 6:45PM

Write in Mike Huckabee. he is the strongest possible GOP challenger Obama could face. I know Governor Mike has said he is not running, but America needs him. He will not turn away from a strong draft movement.

Dann | 1.17.12 @ 5:13PM

Conservatives believe in Federalism and the 10 Amendment. Romney will not only remind all about the State Level offering, the need for local communities to create what they feel fits their needs, but will remind everyone the MA Reform never raised taxes, never raided Medicare, never created a Government Run system, never affected the plans of those 92% with existing Health Care coverage, got the 8% to pay their fair share, etc. Ironically the MA Reform is extremely popular in MA, vs. the unpopular fiasco of Obamacare.

A REAL Patriot| 1.31.12 @ 9:33PM

I never believed I'd experience American Fascism until I read all these uninformed, un-researched, ignorant, remarks. George W. Bush did more to ruin this great country than Obama ever imagined. When are you guys planning to burn the Congress, and send storm-troopers? How about some internment camps for your enemies? You know nothing about the Constitution or those great men who framed it. White Trash, all of you. Have you no decency? Have you no scruples? Have you no class?

The American Spectator

The Spectacle Blog

Why Romney is Weak vs. Obama

View all comments (331) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

PattyMor| 1.13.12 @ 2:08PM

Dan| 1.13.12 @ 4:03PM

Old Fan| 1.14.12 @ 7:23PM

Sapwolf| 1.14.12 @ 9:39PM

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 10:34PM

Old Fan| 1.14.12 @ 10:49PM

Sapwolf| 1.15.12 @ 3:46AM

Roywil| 1.15.12 @ 3:29PM

YOu are an idiot| 1.14.12 @ 11:50PM

Sapwolf| 1.15.12 @ 3:49AM

Chris k| 1.15.12 @ 6:31AM

Rick| 1.14.12 @ 11:22PM

AlsatianWolf| 1.15.12 @ 9:59AM

Chris k| 1.17.12 @ 7:51PM

MumblyPeg| 1.15.12 @ 12:06AM

the_iowa_hawkeye| 1.15.12 @ 2:12AM

Sapwolf| 1.15.12 @ 3:50AM

Jim| 1.16.12 @ 2:09AM

David Zaduk| 1.20.12 @ 1:47PM

Old Fan| 1.14.12 @ 7:24PM

fckewe| 1.17.12 @ 7:41AM

Jack in Wi.| 1.13.12 @ 4:10PM

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 5:43PM

Steve851| 1.14.12 @ 11:15AM

Ron| 1.14.12 @ 11:25AM

GymRatPro| 1.14.12 @ 12:16PM

Malcom| 1.14.12 @ 2:45PM

David Zaduk| 1.20.12 @ 1:51PM

Peter Kondos| 1.14.12 @ 1:32PM

David| 1.14.12 @ 2:22PM

Malcom| 1.14.12 @ 2:47PM

Quartermaster| 1.16.12 @ 11:54AM

David Zaduk| 1.20.12 @ 1:53PM

NoLawyers| 1.14.12 @ 4:45PM

David Zaduk| 1.20.12 @ 1:57PM

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 10:36PM

fckewe| 1.17.12 @ 7:45AM

Clint| 1.13.12 @ 9:03PM

UDoinItWrong| 1.14.12 @ 6:19PM

fckewe| 1.17.12 @ 7:46AM

Worried for the country| 1.14.12 @ 11:01AM

Silly Romney fan...| 1.14.12 @ 11:44AM

Worried for the country| 1.14.12 @ 12:20PM

AndrewL| 1.14.12 @ 5:10PM

C Puckett| 1.14.12 @ 6:41PM

joanne| 1.15.12 @ 8:17AM

joanne| 1.15.12 @ 8:17AM

AlsatianWolf| 1.15.12 @ 10:06AM

Sapwolf| 1.14.12 @ 9:42PM

the_iowa_hawkeye| 1.15.12 @ 2:17AM

Malcom| 1.14.12 @ 2:50PM

UDoinItWrong| 1.14.12 @ 6:33PM

fckewe| 1.17.12 @ 7:51AM

Lew| 1.14.12 @ 3:18PM

joanne| 1.15.12 @ 8:10AM

RainingInOhio| 1.15.12 @ 8:17AM

Mike| 1.13.12 @ 2:18PM

Dan| 1.13.12 @ 4:04PM

Jerry| 1.14.12 @ 12:31PM

Sapwolf| 1.14.12 @ 9:43PM

JM| 1.13.12 @ 2:26PM

Gadfly| 1.13.12 @ 2:54PM

JM| 1.13.12 @ 7:29PM

JM| 1.13.12 @ 7:30PM

BurkeVA| 1.14.12 @ 8:52AM

Perry wasn't dumb...| 1.14.12 @ 11:46AM

Malcom| 1.14.12 @ 2:52PM

dawngazer| 1.14.12 @ 4:54PM

Dan| 1.13.12 @ 4:07PM

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 5:43PM

Jerry| 1.14.12 @ 12:35PM

Teflon93| 1.15.12 @ 4:13PM

Jerry| 1.14.12 @ 12:34PM

Teflon93| 1.13.12 @ 2:43PM

Kent Carson| 1.14.12 @ 10:46PM

Quin| 1.13.12 @ 3:42PM