Mitt is inevitable — we have to get behind Mitt – he has the greatest chance of beating Obama.
That’s an excusable position to have if you’re a Republican senior in Florida who’s been inundated with a blizzard of anti-Newt ads and you have no memory of the 1980’s and/or no acquaintance with the right-wing blogosphere, where you can find the corrected record. Romney’s scorched earth campaign against Newt has been so full of over the top, hypocritical distortions – I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like it in a Republican primary. Mitt is making as many bitter enemies on the right, as he will have on the left if/when he’s the Republican nominee. How does this make him the best candidate to beat Obama?
RWNs’ John Hawkins polled conservative bloggers on their choices in the Republican primary race. The results in a 4-way match up were encouraging for Newt:
1) If you had to pick the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee today, which of the following candidates would you select?
4) Ron Paul: 11.6% (8 votes)
3) Rick Santorum: 21.7% (15 votes)
2) Mitt Romney: 31.9% (22 votes)
1) Newt Gingrich: 34.8% (24 votes)
But out of three choices, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich, Romney won with 39.1% of the votes.
And he blew away the competition as the most “electable”.
4) Which candidate do you consider to be the most “electable” against Obama?
4) Ron Paul: 2.9% (2 votes)
3) Rick Santorum: 10.3% (7 votes)
2) Newt Gingrich: 32.4% (22 votes)
1) Mitt Romney: 54.4% (37 votes)
I’m shocked that there are so many conservative bloggers backing Mitt, and that in a 3-way race, he wins.
Dan Riehl has a message for those of you who are backing Mitt: Wake Up, Conservatives: Mitt Romney Is Running As A Leftist:
Mitt Romney is doing precisely what Progressives and the media do year after year. He is unable to debate honestly on conservative ideas and win. Scratch the campaign pressed and ready veneer and Mitt Romney is center-Left. If he were in the White House, he’d be crafting legislation with Democrats and liberal Republicans, not conservatives.
George Soros agrees: Romney = Change That Matters Little.
There is an alternative to this – those of you who should know better. Either Gingrich or Santorum are substantially more conservative than Romney, and both politicians would have a good chance of beating Obama in the Fall. We’ve seen the underdog win before, as Riehl argues:
What the Reagan era and victories demonstrated was that conservatism can win based upon ideas and principles. I don’t believe that’s changed in America, even if we currently lack top notch genuinely conservative political leadership. But it’s sad to see so many would be conservatives either abandon principle to support Romney, or perhaps to not understand what conservative principles even are.
And Melissa O’Sullivan recently noted in NRO, even her liberal friends are impressed by Newt’s rhetorical gifts:
Electability? The gender gap? Two very liberal women friends of mine who voted for Obama have come up to me recently and said they like and would vote for Newt. Why? Because he’s “so damn smart”!
But for some reason, we’re going to let the establishment bully win? William Jacobson writes Romney is winning his battles, but losing our war:
Newt rose in the polls in the fall on a positive message of not attacking fellow Republicans. Newt’s great moments in fall debates were refusing to engage when debate moderators sought to pit candidate against candidate. The message of a united front against Obama and a bright conservative future resonated with the Republican electorate like nothing else.
Romney had no positive message to sell or at least was not good at selling it, so in Iowa Romney, his SuperPAC, and the Republican political and media establishment launched Scorched Earth I on Newt, what David Limbaugh appropriately called “relentless, unmeasured scorched-earth savagery.”
The attacks on Newt were highly personal and deliberately demeaning, eiptomized by National Review’s notorious “Marvin the Martian” issue.
Even then, Newt tried to stay positive in Iowa until the last few days, and Newt paid the electoral price.
Ever since then, it has been downhill, with Newt launching negative ads in South Carolina and Florida and Romney unloading with far greater resources. Some of the ads run by or for Newt have been as negative as those run by or for Romney, if only in smaller doses. The rhetoric has escalated on both sides.
But make no mistake about it, the reason the Republican campaign has turned so nasty and so divisive is because the Romney campaign and its supporters decided in Iowa to win at any price, a theme which continues to this day even if it means embracing Nancy Pelosi and distorting the history of the Reagan revolution.
This will not be put back together easily. The smugness and condescension are salt on open wounds.
Why are we letting the bully, win, conservatives?
SEE ALSO:
Jimmie Bise: I’m For Newt, and Here’s Why.
Legal Insurrection: No, Newt did not endorse the Obamacare mandate
Legal Insurrection: A glimmer of a glimmer – The latest polls show Newt closing in…
Could Mitt’s scorched earth tactics be backfiring?
It may be backfiring big in the Cuban community. Dan Reihl reports: Reaganite Fla. Cuban Leader Backs Newt, Blasts Mitt For Distortions
MORE:
Keith Koffler: Newt Gingrich Takes it to the Establishment
Read it – he’ll make you giggle a little, and we all need to lighten up a bit.
Nice Deb 
The problem with the Massachusetts Moderate is he *wants* to *be* President so bad he’s willing to crap in his own backyard and burn down his own house to attain it. I just hope, for the republic’s sake, should Mittens become the nominee this way, that he and his establishment hit squad remember the power of negative ads that got them there – and they don’t shy away from going ‘full monty’ negative against BHO. John McCain gave them the template for *losing* to BHO – go ahead, pretend you’re a gentleman in the general Mittens. You will lose. And be exposed for the hypocritical opportunist you have now made clear you are. You, Sir Mitt of RINO, chose the low road in Iowa – guess what, pal, there’s no going back now.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
LikeLike
I don’t see him going full Monty against Obama. I think the Massachusetts Moderate will moderate his tone for the general in an attempt to win over independents. He won’t go for the jugular like Newt would. He’d be McCain II. This is like Groundhogs Day, and it’s the Republican establishment, and electorate who keep NOT LEARNING.
LikeLike
The unfortunate fact is Obama will be reelected:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
The economy will probably continue to improve along the margins. Obama will take credit, the media will support that lie, Obama’s polling numbers will continue to rise and we’ll be stuck with the liar-in-chief for another 4 years.
Gingrich would only make that a greater certainty.
The country has consumed the Kool-Aid (the Jim Jones variety). Because of that, the only choices we have left are greater or lesser degrees of nation destroying Socialism. It has come down to — will all of Western Civilization collapse in 3 years, 20 years or something in between? Any way you slice it, we’re going down. Don’t blame the politicians — blame the voters.
LikeLike
Why do people point to today’s polls as if those numbers can’t change? As this primary has proven time and time again – polls can very quickly change – the question is who is most likely to move the needle. I think that person is Gingrich.
I also disagree that the economy is going to get better, some economic forecasters are predicting another recession, this year, in fact.
LikeLike
“Why do people point to today’s polls as if those numbers can’t change?”
Because that is what is available to us at this moment as we select a candidate.
“the question is who is most likely to move the needle. I think that person is Gingrich.”
Neither Romney nor Gingrich will “move the needle”. Both are — according to their records, not their rhetoric — big government Republicans. Owing to voter ignorance (at the national level), the best we can hope for in this cycle is to slow the decline. Obama will probably be reelected. But, if we can make some progress in the Congress, we can prevent Obama from doing far more damage.
“some economic forecasters are predicting another recession, this year, in fact.”
Much of that depends upon how quickly Europe collapses. In the near term, the business cycle is creating economic improvements at the margins. My guess is that will — to Obama’s benefit — hold up through election day. But, as I stated previously, within the next 3 to 20 years all of Western Civilization will completely collapse under the weight of the Welfare State (with the Big Three Entitlements “leading” the way):
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/07/our-biggest-long-term-budget-issue.html
Owing to voter ignorance (and human nature) there’s no stopping that. We’re done. All we can do now is slow the inevitable collapse. I would prefer to be more optimistic. But, this is a mathematical certainty.
LikeLike
Santorum, as much as I like him, and support him, is more of an establishment Republican than Gingrich. Newt’s neither establishment nor tea party -…as Baseball Crank noted in this very insightful piece, “What The Republican “Establishment” Really Means”, Newt’s a believer in finding less confrontational ways to start unraveling the entitlement state..
http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2012/01/politics_establ.php
Gingrich has spent his career pissing off establishment figures – as evidenced by who’s lining up against him in this primary.
LikeLike
I have been saying for months now that the last time I saw such a concerted attack to demonize and delegitimize a political figure was the left doing it to Sarah Palin. I am horrified. I really have had all of the intellectual dishonesty and arrogance directed towards voters and the Tea Party movement that I can take for this election cycle. I am leaving the Republican Party after 30 years. I will support Republicans in the future, but solely for strategic reasons. I think it time for the Tea Party started to run candidates at the local level and build up the strength to make a viable third party. If I am convinced of nothing else, it is that the Republican Party no longer represents my interests as a conservative.
LikeLike
Pingback: Monday Roundup 1/30/12 Allen West for VP Edition
I would like to see a tea party effort to identify by name exactly who are the ‘republican establishment’ figures who seem so determined to simply take the next man in line. As time goes by I see very little difference between the style of Romney and Obama. I cannot fathom how Obama could possible be re-elected. I see the polls that show him getting 50% support… I do not believe them. Typically such polls take two democrat opinions for each republican opinion. There is no other way he gets 50% support.
I agree Deb, that Gingrich has always cut against the grain within the party. I love that. He is a patriot who runs for country to promote the values most in the ‘republican establishment’ have forsaken for some small measure of power. It matters not who runs, a Dole, McCain, or Romney – this type of so called republican cannot win because they do not have the backbone to stand up for conservative values.
I read reports that Romney is outspending Gingrich 20-1 in Florida. If he buys the nomination in this manner where is he going to get a the money to outspend Obama – who spent $750M to get into office the first go-round?
The tea party was very effective in the last election cycle. I hope it gets ramped up again before it is too late.
LikeLike
In a perfect world, I would merge Michele Bachmann’s National Security positions with most of the rest of Ron Paul’s agenda. In a substantially less perfect world, I might prefer Newt over Mitt. But, in the real world, with Mitt trailing Obama by 2.4% and Newt trailing Obama by 12.8%, I’m not willing to risk backing Newt:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
For those who doubt the polling accuracy, I ask if you followed the polling preceding the 2008 election. The polling turned out to be extremely accurate.
If Newt is the nominee, the Lame Stream Media will have a MUCH easier time (dishonestly) demonizing him (vs. Mitt). Former members of Congress are always FAR easier targets. That goes double for Newt. This means Newt would, over time, likely fall even farther behind Obama.
Like it or not, Mitt is our best hope this year.
LikeLike
I don’t think 2012 is going to be a typical year as far as polling goes, but I’m not paying attention to the national polls right now, anyway – most of them over-sample liberals, and are not to be trusted. Their whole purpose is to make people buy into the “inevitable” narrative.
As for who can best navigate through the Democrat media complex shit-storm that’s going to hit whomever our candidate is – I think Gingrich is the guy.
LikeLike
SBVOR, you may be right about the polls. I hope not. If 50% of the country actually thinks Obama is doing a good job we be in the midst of zombies. My apologies if I offended any real zombies…
LikeLike
“I’m not paying attention to the national polls right now, anyway – most of them over-sample liberals, and are not to be trusted”
That’s called denial. Scott Rasmussen is generally considered to be a Conservative (with a very good track record on his independent polling):
“In 2008, Rasmussen projected Obama would win by a 52% to 46% margin and the final results were 53% to 46%. In 2004, Rasmussen was within half a percentage point of the actual vote totals earned by both Bush and Kerry.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/scott_rasmussen_biography
Rasmussen currently shows Obama with a 51% approval rating (and trending upward):
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
Rasmussen has Obama leading Romney by 6% & Obama leading Gingrich by 17%:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
I don’t like what the polls say. But, I am confident they are accurate (within the margin of error). For the last 12 years, I have watched with dismay as my fellow Americans became more and more drunk on the Leftist Kool-Aid. That, unfortunately, is the current state of our union.
LikeLike
Deb — Just FYI, my previous comment (bearing 3 substantiating links) was thrown into moderation. I only mention this so that you might take a look in your moderation bucket. Thanks…
LikeLike
That’s called denial.
No, that’s not denial. That’s based on looking how these polls are done and seeing the sample bias again and again. I trust Rasmussen and would agree that Newt has his work cut out for him if he’s the candidate. But I don’t live and die by these polls. They can change on a dime.
If Obama really has over a 50% approval rating, though – whatever the other polls say right now doesn’t matter. We’re sunk.
But I don’t think that 51% approval rating is going to stick because the many things that are about to blow up in his face – an economy going from bad to worse, fast and furious, and all of the green energy failures Republicans can point to.
Right now, people are watching the insane mud-wrestling match between the candidates (THANKS Romney) and they’re all looking dirty. That will change. The American people are fickle.
LikeLike
Nice Deb,
I sincerely hope you’re right.
LikeLike
I hope so, too. I know one thing, though. Putting up another moderate /lib Republican is a recipe for failure. Ask yourself when the last time was that lead to a successful outcome. I’d rather go down fighting with a conservative, and focus on the House and Senate, than nominate another sure loser RINO.
LikeLike
Nice Deb,
Those (like Rush) who think we’d be better off nominating a more stalwart Conservative fail to realize (or, admit) just how loony tunes the majority of our voters have become.
Hey! Remember that, before becoming President, Reagan was a far left Liberal. Maybe a President Mitt would surprise us in a similar manner. I can hope, can’t I?
LikeLike
I for one do not recall Reagan as ever being far left. Maybe he was at some point in time but I never saw it. I do see Romney putting out half truths and complete lies then assuming more lies and ridicule will make believers of all of us. That isn’t going to happen – at least not all of us. I have had enough of the ‘hope and change’ nonsense.
LikeLike
I don’t think Mitt is a far left lib – I just think he’s a weak establishment moderate.
—
Another thing I forgot to mention re the issues that are going to hurt him in November.— The Obama administration has ticked off the Catholic church like no other President has ever done before. If the Obamacrats think their assault on our religious liberties can be compared to the war in Iraq because the Catholic church opposed that, too, they’ve got another thing coming.
The Catholic church may not have approved of the Iraq war, but American Catholics were allowed to form their own opinions on whether or not it was a “just war.”
What they are doing when they force Catholic employers to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception, and almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies, is an outrage. It is seen as a direct attack on our faith. Those life issues are considered “non negotiable” meaning that for Catholics, they are always morally wrong and must never be promoted by the law.
Last Sunday, Catholic churches across the nation read a letter from the bishops slamming the Obama administration for the policy. The letter wasn’t read at our church, and I’m going to find out why.
I don’t know if the Obama administration is even smart enough to know how many votes they’re going to lose over this.
LikeLike
[quote]Mitt is inevitable — we have to get behind Mitt – he has the greatest chance of beating Obama.[/quote]
Isn’t that pretty much what you say when you say you won’t “throw your vote away on a sure loser” (referring to Santorum)?
/just saying
LikeLike
No. Good grief. Not at all.
I’m talking about watching the polls right up to the day of the election and if it looks like it’s going to be a blow-out – (my favored not-Romney is behind by double digits) – I go with the not Romney who actually has a chance. There is a point in which you have to accept what the polls are telling you.
Btw, Santorum just announced on the Laura Ingraham Show that he’s leading in a MO poll and also in an Ohio poll.
LikeLike
John says:
“I for one do not recall Reagan as ever being far left.”
Quoting Wikipedia:
“Reagan began his political career as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and an active supporter of New Deal policies.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Early_political_career
A wide range of sources readily verify this. Listen to Reagan in 1946 and tell me if he does not sound exactly like Barack Hussein Obama:
So, again, my hope is that Mitt might surprise us and become the Conservative that Reagan ultimately became.
LikeLike
Typo in my previous comment — 1946 should have been 1948.
LikeLike