1. I saw Herman Cain on Piers Morgan last night for a few minutes. He was terrible on homosexuality and abortion–pro-choice in all the wrong places. Meanwhile, the 9s is picking up endorsements from the likes of Steve Forbes. Cain’s done and deserves to be done, and for reasons having nothing to do with his tax views.
2. Meanwhle, we have Jim Ceaser’s subtle and witty advocacy masquerading as analysis. It’s not that he loves or even hearts Mitt. We’re stuck with him at this point, and we’re doing a lot more than settling. Dole, McCain, and both Bushes–that was settling! Now’s the time not only to respect but to learn to love the one we’re with.
3. We don’t want an inspirational president now. We’re taking more of a real break from history, and we have to get our own house in order. That’s not to say we don’t need to be responsible and involved in world affairs and do the good we can–not to mention be ready for the inevitable crisis. Mitt knows his stuff when it comes to foreign policy; he’s a realist in the good sense.
4. Mitt isn’t inspirational, but when he speaks we know he knows what he talking about. We should be proud that our guy is the competent and articulate guy. Obama’s good at talking change, but it turns out he’s pretty clueless on the how. The change we can believe in, that can really improves our lives, turns out to be fairly prosaic moves to encourage economic growth and make our entitlements as sustainable as they can be. Obamacare is not sustainable, but neither is the dismantling of our minimalist welfare state to achieve a balanced budget too soon and in the wrong way.
5. So we’re talking about the most articulate Republican president since Nixon. And the best CEO since Eisenhower. Mitt certainly doesn’t have Nixon’s “emotional issues” that experts say stemmed from his screwed up early life. Romney was raised right and exudes self-confidence and moral solidity. He’s worked hard and in the right way to get ready for the presidency.
6. The big problem is, of course, that lots or maybe most Republicans who actually vote in primaries and caucuses view the current situaton differently. They think of this as an almost-revolutionary movement that fends off national collapse with a new birth of freedom through constitutional regeneration. Mitt, they know, doesn’t believe like they believe. And they didn’t enter political life to settle for some regular Republican who’s more like a CEO than a principled statesman. Romney is no Lincoln or even Reagan.
7. All the ideological candidates have imploded, except Ron Paul. That’s bad news for Mitt. He needs to beat someone who’ll actually graciously endorse him after being defeated. Imagine Paul pumped up by impressive primary showings and lots of delegates. I think Romney beats him, but I also think Paul will go rogue in one way or another. Walk out of the convention? Third-party? We still need another candidate, and I don’t mean Gingrich or Santorum–neither of whom are really Tea-Party kind of guys (to begin a long list of problems).
October 24th, 2011 | 8:59 am
Romney is just Obama lite. Government is not a business, and when you try to run it as such, all you do is invite corruption. Considering the current state of affairs, I don’t think an open invitation is quite what the country needs right now.
October 24th, 2011 | 9:06 am
We need to win for the right reasons. I don’t see the point in putting a Republican in power who will act like a Democrat. While in the short term, it may sound like a good idea, in the long term we lose our credibility as a movement for limited government. Just look at what happended to the conservatives during the Bush administration – the blame for the debt falls right on us because we supported the “best” Republicans. I would rather have a Democrat in office than a Republican who will act like a Democrat. Let the Democrats take the blame! Here is an article that points out some important things about Mitt Romney: http://blogforliberty.com/2011/10/17/hello-world/
October 24th, 2011 | 9:07 am
Even though you’ve given up on your principles does not mean the rest of the conservative people in America have.
Go look up brokered convention if you want an idea.
October 24th, 2011 | 9:30 am
More taxes is not the answer. Cutting the size of government and not raising taxes is the reasonable way to go. No candidate, besides Ron Paul, will consider cutting the only growing job sector-Federal government. They just want to tax us more to feed the hungry beast that is the Federal government. The flat tax is a scam that will hurt us all.
October 24th, 2011 | 9:33 am
So I respect each of the above comments. They’re all about the problem I talked about in selling Romney to actual conservatives and principled Republicans.
October 24th, 2011 | 10:06 am
Nominate Romney and the GOP will lose. It will be McCain all over again.
I’ve been a republican for 25 years, and you couldn’t drag me to the polls to vote for anyone but Paul.
October 24th, 2011 | 10:58 am
Lawler is correct: no credible alternative to Mitt has appeared. That’s just the way it is. It must be heartening to Mitt that he his running only against himself, but dismaying that he is not clearly winning. We can accept his strong points.I suggest this for the conservatives: don’t base everything on the “leader”; build a movement around the nominee and push him in the direction you want. Sound political leaders understand that.
October 24th, 2011 | 11:11 am
The GOP faces a huge problem. They need Ron Paul’s 15% of ardent supporters to win the general election. We are made up of ex-republicans, independents and even many democrats.
The majority of us who are ardent Paul supporters will NEVER vote for a status quo, NWO candidate from either party ever again. We are done with your charade of ‘voting for the lesser of two evils’. We’ve found that the GOP flavor of evil is every bit as bitter as the democratic flavor.
Hence the GOP’s quandry — give us Ron Paul or face a certain four more years of Obama.
October 24th, 2011 | 11:24 am
No, he is not pro-choice at all. ” …I now realize that calling Herman Cain “pro-choice” was not just wrong, it was disastrously wrong, and for that I am sorry. I have come to understand that Herman Cain has in reality done far more for the pro-life movement than I ever have. For instance, he donated $1 million of his own money in an attempt to encourage black voters to vote pro-life. His 2004 Senate campaign made life a central issue. His work opposing abortion – especially among the black population – has led many leftist organizations to denounce him with hysterical, shrieking screeds; which is probative evidence of the fact that they were to some degree effective.”
Source: http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/10/21/a-mea-culpa-on-herman-cain-and-abortion/
October 24th, 2011 | 12:06 pm
Jonathan, I actually know what you say is right. But please check out what he actually said on the show.
October 24th, 2011 | 2:23 pm
Tab, read some of the key Supreme Court cases of the last fifteen or so years: Lopez, Morrison, Kelo, Gonzales(CA pot-case) and then imagine just those areas of our jurisprudence decided in future cases with 6-3 or more majorities on the living constitutionalist side. (A good text is the Rossum and Tarr volume, BTW) Or read Cass Sunstein’s delightful little handbook for property confiscation entitled The Second Bill of Rights. Then you’ll see what a second Obama adminstration will mean for the U.S., even apart from the guaranteed incompetence, class-war stirring, and foreign policy fumbling of the O-man. You think we’re in trouble now? You have no idea how much worse it could get. Paul should have taught you that the Constitution is the deep structure. Budgets change year by year…and even bankruptcy is not forever, but a Constitution poisoned or even hobbled by bad Supreme Court decisions requires 3/4 of the states simply to get the poison out, or years upon years of replacement.
And don’t tell me about how raw tea-party-esque people power will restrain a liberal court, once it gets appointed by an Obama re-elected due to Paulian sit-outs in 2012. You will then be up against the official rule of law, with no way to change its jurisprudence anytime soon, and the situation will be nearly as bad vis-a-vis the bureacratic authorities Obama will spend a second term entrenching.
And so, you will have only truly revolutionary actions to turn to, if you are to remain true to Paul-ism. Perhaps that appeals to your spirit. But when that Supreme Court asks Obama or a future liberal president to enforce its decisions against a real Tea Party, one that has taken up armed resistance, don’t expect conservatives like me to support you. Push me into that corner, and I’ll stand for the rule of law. And when you come to realize your only options are now reduced to sullen acceptance (with only an ultra-gradualist path out of statism possible), or impossible revolutionary action, do you really know what you’ll do? Are you really so sure about what your apparently zealous political courage is made of?
October 24th, 2011 | 2:28 pm
I’m not sure Herman’s done, but he has to learn to talk, and quickly.
I think you’re right about a right-wing/conservative third party if the GOP nominates Romney. Romney is dragging that dead, old chicken, Obamneycare around his neck like “Ole Yeller” and it’s starting to smell
really bad.
The question is can a ‘conservative’ third party candidate (Ron Paul?) win?
October 24th, 2011 | 2:48 pm
On real politics I tend to agree with Carl and Jim, and my advice is to listen to them above. Ron Paul as a 3rd party cand. can only lead to Obama’s reelection, with at least some of the consequences Carl describes. Remember that it’ll be Mitt with a Republican Congress.
October 24th, 2011 | 2:51 pm
Its early still for both Perry and Cain and until Iowa or New Hampshire there is enough time for people to get their voice. But I think verbal goofs might not be that devistating if Mitt is the only other candidate.
October 24th, 2011 | 4:01 pm
Carl, that should be a post.
October 24th, 2011 | 4:17 pm
One point that Carl misses is, What kind of Supreme is he going to nominate? Remember Republican presidents have nominated a number of foul balls to the Supreme Court and Romney’s politics seems suited to nominating foul balls. Plus, God has not revealed to us if anyone on the bench is going to die.
A Third Party run will also teach the GOP that it will either be a ‘conservative’ body or go the way of the Whigs.
Also, I think you may underestimate the antipathy directed at an either inept Obama or a malicious Obama. The Louisiana election may tell us a great deal about what’s coming.
October 24th, 2011 | 4:53 pm
[...] more Local News read here: I Woke Up and It Was a Romney Monday Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America [...]
October 24th, 2011 | 10:51 pm
“But when that Supreme Court asks Obama or a future liberal president to enforce its decisions against a real Tea Party, one that has taken up armed resistance, don’t expect conservatives like me to support you. Push me into that corner, and I’ll stand for the rule of law.”
Good to know you will support the modern liberal state. I will do what I can to subvert it.
Obama’s health care bill is a natural fulfillment of late stage capitalism and the welfare state and only dismantling those things will allow us to prevent it from returning.
October 25th, 2011 | 1:32 am
To phrase things in a more down to earth manner, our problems with Obama didn’t begin with Obama. They started with the Welfare system, particularly Medicaid and Medicare. He simply proceeded to extend those concepts and the doctrine of Government supported welfare a bit further.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact