Posted on 04/10/2012 8:09:46 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
The news came today, about 1:00 PM Central Time, that Rick Santorum is suspending his bid for the Republican nomination for President. (The reader should be reminded of the health issues of the Santorums’ daughter Bella, and is urged to remember the family in prayer.) Reaction was mixed. “At last,” some said, “we have all the deadwood and pretenders cleared out of the way (Newt and Ron Paul are too insignificant to matter, right?) and we can rally around the sensible choice. Go Romney!” Others reached for the Hemlock: “Oh, no, the last good Christian man standing is gone! We can’t vote for that RINO, and Gingrich is no better than Clinton!” Still others began frantically urging a Third Party (champion to be named later), and yet another group persisted in bitterly clinging to their weed and Ron Paul signs.
All of these things are to be expected in the immediate aftermath, when the shock is still reverberating in the mind and the big picture not yet realized. It is to help tease out the big picture that this piece is written.
Let me say at the outset, that I am NOT a Mittbot: a cursory glance at my posting history (from 2 in the morning following Palin’s selection as McCain’s running mate, posted in the very chair I am sitting in now) will make clear: my heart belongs to Sarah, yet she is not running. And I am well familiar with the legendary bug-zapper thread and the assorted Romney trolls getting their well-deserved ZOTs ever since then. I have absolutely NO wish to join them. But at the same time, since Romney has both the momentum AND the backing of the GOPe, we movement conservatives need to look at the situation as it really is, not as we would wish it to be, in order to move from defensiveness to victory. (“Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?” No, and it wasn’t over when Jimmy Dhimmi Carter was elected; nor when Clinton was elected (and re-elected); and the 2008 coronation of Teh One did not prevent the 2010 Republican landslide.) We have to move intelligently; but we have to know the real situation in order to maximize our chances of success.
Right now, Romney has somewhat less than half the delegates needed to secure the nomination outright. Apparently, both Romney and Gingrich are making a play for the loyalty of Santorum’s delegates; and there are a couple of large states (for example, Texas) who have yet to vote. The apparent game plan of the anti-Romney camp is to deny the delegates to Romney necessary for him to win “by acclamation” as it were, on the first ballot; at which point all delegates are free agents; and presumably a compromise candidate (Gov. Christie? Jeb Bush? Our Lady of Wasilla?) ushered in.
There are two problems with this: first, the GOP-e and their version of Richard III’s famous cry, “A RINO! A RINO! My kingdom for a RINO!” -- meaning, the oft-repeated warning that those behind the levers of power in the GOP are willing to sacrifice the Presidency to Obama, if it means that they retain the House and take the Senate, with the lucrative committee chairmanships, influence, and their role as “Protectors of our Freedoms”TM. And the second is the choice of Vice President: the conservatives are hoping against hope that Romney will throw a bone to the base by nominating (for example) Col. West, or Marco Rubio. Forgive me if I’m non-plussed at this, since we KNOW that McCain basically threw the last election to Obaama after naming Sarah Palin, and alternately muzzling her and having aides stab her in the back; and the House and Senate leadership are no better; remember when their pledge to roll back the Tsunami of Obama debt magically shrunk from $100 billion to a mere $18 billion -- and that in projected increases? Has Obaamacare (BOHICA been repealed or merely punted to the Supreme Court (who also rubber stamped McCain-Feingold despite universal agreement among the pundits that it was Unconstitutional)? And can you name the highest-ranking Tea Party favorite in the House hierarchy?
So the big picture of the Presidential election is this: on the Republican side, Romney won’t admit it, but he may end up needing the votes of the movement Conservatives, if only to counter the election-time shenanigans of the Democrat Party machine (the same one which allowed petitions signed “Mickey Mouse” to count toward the recall of Gov. Walker, the same one which is fighting photo ID at the polls); he of course doesn’t like the “Tea Party extremists” as in his mind they are linked with the religious right; even though the Tea Party was primarily about out-of-control spending. And the Tea Party as well as the movement conservatives are desperate, both to try to reclaim the Republican Party as a home which will actually advance some of their ideas instead of merely patronizing them as the Democrats do African-Americans, and as a last-ditch effort to keep Barack Obama from a second term of devastation in the White House.
The sticking point is that neither side wishes to yield: Romney’s strategy is to run to the center-left as far as he can (in the same vain attempt to avoid the press presenting him as an extremist, as was done to both Bush and McCain); the conservatives are tired of being told to bend over and take another for the team, and promptly being told to kiss off after the election.
The technical term for this is a Mexican Standoff : two opponents who refuse to negotiate, because neither one is willing to offer anything of value to the other.
(Or, think of two people holding paintball guns pointed at each other.)
That’s for the GOP. What about the larger election? You know, the one to unseat Barack Obaama?
As it turns out, there’s another kind of Mexican standoff which applies to that. In that type, there are THREE opponents, each one armed: A is pointing a paintball gun at B, B is pointing a paintball gun at C, and C is pointing a paintball gun at A. (You see how tolerant and open-minded I am not to be using real weapons. Together we thrive!)
In a two-person Mexican standoff, the first person to shoot their paintball usually wins. But in a three-person version, the first person usually *loses*: if opponent A goes ahead and shoots B, then while A is occupied, C can shoot A: B is removed by A’s shot, A is removed by C’s shot, and C is the only one left standing. So in this case, the standoff is between the RINOs (embodied by Romney), the movement conservative, and Obama. What is to be done? Each opponent has a divided field of fire: Romney can attack Obama, but he can’t count on to the support of the conservatives: many of them are actively working to undermine him in order to “make the RINOs pay” or on the theory that the rest of the country will come to their senses after four more years of Obaama. A similar consideration applies to the GOP Party chieftains attacking conservatives if the conservatives go after Obaama. Finally there is Obaama: while he can attack Romney with impunity, doing so will not prevent the conservative grass roots from “poisoning the well” of the electorate against him, given the state of the economy, gasoline prices, inflation, racial tensions, and the Middle East. And if he targets the conservatives, Romney can point out his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, holding himself forth as “the sensible alternative”.
How do we break this impasse? More importantly, how do we break it in our favor?
The answer is to take a look at past elections. What and how resulted in powerful GOP wins; or, more precisely, in powerful conservative wins? Certainly not the historical playbook of the GOP, running as “Meek Mr. Milquetoast” with the slogan: “...but...but...we’re too NICE to be as mean as they say. Really!” (Seen in everything from Bush ’41 and his tepid anti-Clinton whine at the last minute, “Wouldn’t be...prudent” to Bush ’43 and his refusing to answer the “Bush Lied, People Died” smear, to McCain’s “Do not fear this man as your President.”) Instead, the GOP’s greatest victories have come from fearlessly proclaiming conservative values: from Renaldus Magnus to the Sarah Palin rallies to the 2010 Teanami. So, how do we apply this to a lifelong blueblood RINO? Remember the biblical admonition to be “as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.” Remember also the famous line from Winston Churchill that “if Hitler invaded Hell I should at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” Let us realize that we have the power to make life very difficult for either Mitt Romney, OR Barack Obama. We have not only our vote -- which has been the assumption behind so much of the infighting -- but our voices. We should do two things: first, get involved in the fight on the conservative side. Make phone calls, send mailings, get involved on the discussion boards online, among friends, and at the office. Let people see that the problem is not merely Obaama, but an entire philosophy; and that there is a better way. And the second? Fight for all of the down-ticket offices you can, from dogcatcher, to City Council, to State Houses, to Governor, to the House and Senate.
And when it comes to the Presidency? A little horse-trading is in order, which a financial maven like Romney should appreciate. You may not be able to get our votes, Mitt; but you can have us working actively with you against Obaama, or sniping at you from the sidelines. What are you willing to do to secure our help?
We don’t have to vote against our principles, certainly, but a little arm-twisting would certainly be in order.
Hint: As an example, in case anyone has forgotten, here's an excerpt from Sarah Palin's VP acceptance speech at the GOP National Convention in 2008, most of which rings even more true today, than when it was first spoken:
I've noticed a pattern with our opponent.
Maybe you have, too.
We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.
And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.
But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state Senate.
This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot — what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.
Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.
Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.
Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.
Congress spends too much ... he promises more.
Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.
The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.
(See, I told you I was a Palin fan.)
So you're saying that someone can be elected president without being on the ballot on all 50 States?
Seems doubtful.
What's to prevent the top electoral vote States from getting together and creating unified laws that enable them to elect the president they want, and simply cut out every other State?
No, I think that a candidate for president OF all 50 States must be qualified IN all 50 States, as long as the qualification requirements are limited to simply verifying the Constitutional requirements.
And btw, this won't just stop with the States - there are also Constitutional requirements for verification that were dismissed by Pelosi and Boehner last time, that their positions can be held to this time.
Kudos for an excellent screed, GW! Very well laid out.
“God save the republic.”
God also helps those who help themselves. Yes, I know the quandary and hope that at least this goes to an open convention.
But your earlier statement was correct - the man sitting in the White House IS Evil Incarnate. He can, and is racing to, utterly destroy this country and all patriots fighting for it.
“If Romney is elected we will need a congress able to keep his liberal tendencies in check almost as much as for Obama.”
Mittens can be kept in check - BHO cannot.
You’re so right.
The problem with the Tea Party—as well as it’s strength—is that there is no central leadership.
*****************************
The TEA Party is a grassroots movement and certainly does not need a central leadership. Leadership stems from the local citizens who volunteer their time in their communities, although there are several TEA organizations that seem to occasionally get on TV.
We don’t need a third political party. We need to ensure that the Republicans increase their members in the House and secure a veto-proof majority in the Senate. ...Then, even if Obama does gain a second term he will be hog-tied! (Just as Bush was in his last two years and Clinton was in his last six years)
The Dem pundits keep talking about how Clinton handed Bush a great economy but don’t mention that it was the Rep Legislature that did so, and the Dems talk about how Bush gave Obama a deficit but don’t admit that they ruled Congress his last two years and caused the deficit that was far beyond the war costs.
“Then, even if Obama does gain a second term he will be hog-tied! (Just as Bush was in his last two years and Clinton was in his last six years)”
NO, he will NOT be! The fatal mistake many (even here) make is in assuming that BHO is like any other President we’ve seen in our lifetimes. More attention needs to be paid to how he’s not only said he’ll just go around Congress to do what he “needs to do”, but how he’s already doing so - through frightening EO’s, radical Czars and cabinet heads (HHS, EPA, DHS and many more), SCOTUS appointments (which the gutless R’s didn’t stop), under-the-radar, back-door international agreements, etc. And that’s just what he’s doing during THIS term, when running for re-election.
A second term would be completely unfettered and many can’t begin to imagine how horrific. But it would be, and it would also be the end of our republic.
B. Hussein Obama, for so many reasons, hates America and he hates us.
At least I live in a state where, if Romney needs my vote to win, he has already lost.
Technically, the candidates aren't on the ballot - electors pledged to vote for them in the Electoral College are. I have no idea, and I doubt there are any precedents, whether a state's Attorney General (say) can invalidate a vote in the EC on the grounds that the Elector can't vote for someone unqualified under that state's laws. The House can (I think) when it formally counts the Electoral Vote.
What's to prevent the top electoral vote States from getting together and creating unified laws that enable them to elect the president they want, and simply cut out every other State?
It's called "National Popular Vote"
Does anyone have a link to it?
Does anyone have a link to it?
Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?
Note: half-a-million views.
Cheers!
Thank you so much!
It should provide for some very interesting reading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.