December 28, 2011

Okay, Folks, Time to Get Real

Hatched by Dafydd

On November 6th, we will hold an election. This is an election, not a debate, not a head-cutting contest, not a demonstration of ideological purity über alles: Two men will be nominated, and one of them will take the oath of office on January 20th, 2013.

Anybody here actually want to see the current Occupier get another term?

I like Newt Gingrich. I like Rick Perry. I like Cain, Bachmann, and I even like Ron Paul (as a dinner guest). But it's time to put away childish things; we must put on our manly gowns, gird our loins, and pull up our socks.

Among those actually running, there is one and only one presidential candidate for the Republican Party who is actually presidential; his name is Mitt Romney.

Romney is not my fantasy candidate; that would be Marco Rubio or George Prescott Bush (neither of whom would I actually vote for next year; too young and callow, they are). But Romney is the same candidate I pushed for, unsuccessfully, in 2008 -- I think he would have beaten Barack H. Obama, as it turns out; and I'm pushing him again.

The only other vaguely viable candidate at the moment is Newt... and I'm quite convinced that if Newt Gingrich is our nominee, President B.O. will waft across the country for another four years. Gingrich has so many soft spots that virtually any random attack on the Newtster will draw blood. They could accuse him of being a bank robber, a penguin, and a militant agnostic ("I don't know whether God exists, and neither do you!")... and they'd likely find three or four skeletons in his closet that buttress those charges.

So I'm joining Power Line's John Hinderacker and many other AntiLiberals in urging all conservatives, Capitalists, constitutionalists, Republicans, libertarians, neocons, and other lovers of liberty and individualism to put the toys back in the toychest and throw our support to Mitt Romney.

He wins. Every other GOP candidate likely loses. It's not worth the price to roll the dice for the sake of "purity of essence."

Vote for Romney; let's break up the circular firing sqad and instead unite against the corrupt, despotic, and ideologically insane Obama.

All right, I'm done. Anybody got an actual beef with my central point?

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, December 28, 2011, at the time of 2:05 AM


The following hissed in response by: snochasr

I have one. Suppose for a moment that Mitt Romney is NOT the only Republican (running) that can beat Obama, or that Romney cannot beat Obama at all? Your conclusion rests entirely on that assumption, does it not?

Now if your secondary conclusion is that none of us should be so foolish as to not vote for Romney if he IS the nominee, I will agree. Again, though, to assume that Romney can avoid a media-wide smear campaign of epic proportions is unwarranted-- more Hope and Change than Reality TV. Newt may in fact be the better at surviving that onslaught.

I will also grant that Romney looks more presidential, but what great policy initiative argues for his being President? At this juncture, is it prudent to be Mitt-moderate?

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 28, 2011 5:41 AM

The following hissed in response by: GW

I think that if Romney is our candidate, he will win and that he will turn the economy around. He will make little to no change to the systemic problems built up of over a century of progressivism made a part of our machinery of state. Consequently, we will see a blip under Romney, but the essential downward trajectory of our nation will continue.

I think that if Gingrich were to be our candidate, he will win and that he will turn the economy around. Critically, he will attempt to address the systemic problems of our nation - and probably get it right 80% of the time. I think that there is a good chance he would change the trajectory of our nation for the better. Thus, he gets my vote.

I am in agreement with Thomas Sowell and Rush on this one. See here. I think that you grossly overestimate the importance of Gingrich's weaknesses in respect to our nation's predicament.

The above hissed in response by: GW [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 28, 2011 7:10 AM

The following hissed in response by: MikeR

This has always been a non-issue to me. So much of this "flip-flopping" nonsense is a media creation. Romney dealt with the situations he found himself in, and one of them was as governor of a very liberal state. So did Gingrich, and so does any politician unless he's going to be ineffective. Live with it. Romney was just fine as a conservative candidate in 2008 and he'll be just fine now. Romney + Tea Party Congress seems perfectly okay to me. I don't see him vetoing spending cuts.

People with a connection to reality know what needs to be done to get the country. Romney was a hard-headed guy to get all those companies turned around. The problem today is all the ones with their heads turned backwards.

The above hissed in response by: MikeR [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 28, 2011 8:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: MikeR

Sorry, that's *"get the country back on track"

The above hissed in response by: MikeR [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 28, 2011 8:01 AM

The following hissed in response by: mdgiles

Since the beginning of the current campaign season, we've been told how Mitt Romney is the "expected" GOP standard bearer - especially by the bottom feeders in the media. Now why is that? Couldn't be because Romney's record in Mass, paints him as Liberal Lite, and gives Obozo cover on some of his most unpopular positions - can you say Obama/Romney Care? Every candidate who has stood in Romney's way has been assassinated by the media - if not Romney operatives. Nominating Romney ASSURES Oblamo's victory. Too many anti Democrats will simply sit on their hands. Every four years it's the same old garbage. Conservative blogs support everyone else - except whoever's turn it is - and then at the last moment advise us to support still another establishment RINO, because the Dem opposition is so much worse. Here's an idea. Instead of supporting still another loser, stop dragging down every semi conservative who steps forward. Or the GOP may be on the verge of going the same way as the Federalists and the Whigs. Some of us are tired of a GOP that only seems interested in keeping their perks, and not governing. At least the Dims have a consistent message - even id it is spending and corruption. Oh what the hell, I think I'll move out of the Northeast, and down South. That way, I'll be in the right section of the country when the US splinters.

The above hissed in response by: mdgiles [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 28, 2011 3:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: MikeR

"Nominating Romney ASSURES Oblamo's victory." Does the fact that every single poll I've ever seen says just the opposite - mean anything? I don't know if there's been a single exception; Romney polls better against Obama than any of the other major candidates.

The above hissed in response by: MikeR [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 28, 2011 8:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

The problem with polls is that it is a year until the election and we don't have a nominee yet. The other problem is that most polls aren't to learn information, they are to see if the major media have saturated our little brains with their intended message or not and, if not, lather, rinse, repeat. Some polls even TELL you what they want you to tell them, if you listen to the questions, while others slant their sampling so badly nothing at all is knowable.

And that's my point. If Mitt Romney is actually (disregarding polls) NOT the only Republican capable of beating Obama and NOT certain to get the nomination, then what else recommends him?

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 29, 2011 7:14 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh


I generally try not to jump into the comments section (even if I have to bite my fingers!), because I see it as the readers' opportunity to sound off without being squelched by the 800-lb gorilla of the blogmeister. But occasionally I do intercede in two circumstances:

  • If somebody's comment contains misstatements or fabrications that require immediate correction; none of that has happened in this blogpost, or indeed in any blogpost I can think of for a couple of years.
  • But the other instance is when a comment makes clear that I haven't made my point clear, thus am obliged to untangle my scrambled-egg writing.

I think I was unclear: I did not mean to suggest that Mitt Romney is the greatest GOP candidate we could possibly have, nor that he is guaranteed to beat Obama, nor that no other possible candidate imaginable could beat Obama.

What I meant to say was that he is the only candidate that I think can beat Obama among those candidates who are actually running:

  • Who actually have presidential campaign committees.
  • Who actually are on the ballots in the early primaries and crocuses.
  • Who have raised a viable war chest of donations on the scale required for a presidential run.
  • Who have actually enunciated a set of national policies on the vital issues of the day -- job creation, the economy, Red China, Iran, NoKo, ObamaCare (not just to repeal it but how to repeal it), spending, taxes, and so forth.
  • Who have participated in the debates.
  • Who consistently poll above 5% in the polling, both nationally and state-by-state.
  • That is, among the group comprising Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney (in alphanumeric order).

Within that group, there is only one candidate who I believe consistently comes across as "presidential," a subjective call: Mitt Romney.

Within that group, there is one candidate who typically polls better against Obama than any other: Mitt Romney. There is one candidate who has raised more money than any other over the last year: Mitt Romney.

(Perry slightly outraised Romney in the third quarter, but he has since fallen off in fundraising. But even in that quarter, when you deduct Perry's debt, his cash on hand was almost identical to that of Romney's.)

There is one candidate who has consistently been number one or number two in most primary polls: Mitt Romney.

Sure, if a fantasy candidate fluttered down from the sky as the second coming of Ronald Reagan, with a stellar history of executive governance and money to burn, I might switch my support to him. But there is no such candidate, and there can be no such candidate... because if he existed, we would already have heard of him (or her).

A literary phenom can come out of nowhere and suddenly be the hottest seller in the world (J.K. Rowling, e.g.); but a presidential candidate must, by the nature of the business, be already well known before he announces his candidacy for President of the United States.

There is nobody waiting in the wings to swoop in and seize the frontrunner's mantle other than one of those listed above (pace, Beldar!) -- each of which has tried, and each of which has by and large failed to catch fire. So this is it; this is our field.

And within that field, Romney is the candidate who has the absolute best chance to beat Barack H. "Bubble Boy" Obama like a bongo. And to boot, he is pretty conservative, more conservative than was George W. Bush, jr., for example, and much more conservative than Bush sr.

That is what I meant, that is what I mean.


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 29, 2011 12:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

I remember the same exact things were being said about John McCain in 2008. He was the candidate that could win.

And when they lose, all we hear is, "Well, everyone would have lost." or some nonsense like that.

We hear this same lame argument every 4 years. The horse race argument. Put your money on the one that will win, even if he doesn't win, he's got the best chance!

But, it all relies on a logical fallacy we like to call circular reasoning. It's like global warming, all the evidence points to the conclusion you want and there is no way to falsify it. If he wins, you're right, if he loses, you're not wrong.

Right now it seems like Gingrich is the worse candidate because Gingrich has had the media focus on him. The Gingrich pile on (Along with the Bachmann, Cain, Perry pile on) all came combined with Democrat Media and GOP Media talking points against the candidates in question.

This gives us the impression that these candidates are weak. We haven't had the same thing happen to Romney this cycle (Although it did happen last cycle).

As soon as the Primary crazy season is over, the Democrat machine will go to work on their preferred candidate, Romney. And we'll start to hear about his fibs about marching with black people and what have you. Suddenly, the spotlight will be on Romney and we will all see quite clearly his blemishes, just as we see the other candidates blemishes now.

Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Bachmann.... Shoot, even Ryan, Rubio and Christie all look good until the spotlight is shined on them. Which will never happen to Obama. You cannot even see Obama through his numerous blemishes, but he has a good make up artist called the MSM.

It doesn't matter which of these people we put up against Obama. The spotlight will reveal many blemishes and none of them is "The Perfect Candidate".

However, I do believe once the GOP is united behind someone, from Romney, to Gingrich to Perry, etc, any of them will be able to beat Obama.

It's sheer fallacy to try and argue at this point, in a nominating process, that one has a better chance over the others. Polls might say as much, but they work under the impression that those being polled have heard all the bad things in the last few weeks/months.

Romney has had an easy ride. That will change as soon as he becomes our candidate.

So, during this primary season, don't vote for, "Who will win." because we don't know who that is. Vote for the candidate you best believe will run this country.

For me, that's Gingrich or Romney. But I will hop on board the Perry train, or the Santorum train and even the Bachmann train if it comes into the station.

The above hissed in response by: Baggi [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 29, 2011 3:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

Does the fact that every single poll I've ever seen says just the opposite - mean anything?

I would say no it doesn't, Mike.


As I wrote above. Because the negative, hard hitting comments haven't diluted our media. Not the conservative or the liberal media.

It's been all about Cain, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Paul....

But Romney has received the royal treatment. I have seen sustained attacks against all the other candidates that have moved the needle north but never against Romney.

I do recall this happening to Romney, but it was back when he faced McCain. There are a lot of negatives about Romney, and they will all come out as soon as he's the nominee.

But as long the news isn't negative about you, and it's about your opponent, then of course your poll numbers are going to be high.

I'm surprised anyone smart enough to read a site like Big Lizards would fall for something like that.

The above hissed in response by: Baggi [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 29, 2011 3:31 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2013 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved