Posted on 12/14/2011 4:23:06 AM PST by expat1000
A year ago today few of us probably thought that the primaries would come down to debating whether Romney or Gingrich are more conservative. It's a rather thankless and pointless debate currently being settled by cherry picking statements on single issues. The bottom line is that neither man is particularly conservative, certainly neither man is a small government conservative. But the odds of anyone like that getting to the finish line were never very good.
The only two consistently conservative candidates in the race, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann were ridiculed off the stage by a "conservative" media which never gave Santorum a chance and rushed to drown Bachmann the moment that Perry took the stage. Now that media is racking up pageviews on Romney vs Gingrich, tearing down both candidates for fun and profit.
Over the last several weeks we have gotten a thorough grounding in each man's negatives. But we have also gotten a reminder of how each man got here. And we have gotten heavy doses of hysteria.
Gingrich and Romney are both widely hated. Gingrich is hated by the insiders, Romney is hated by the outsiders. As Speaker, Gingrich was a convenient way to make Clinton look better. Now he's being used for the same purpose again, to make Romney look better. And Republican voters are being asked to choose which of the men they hate less. This is not a particularly good process for choosing a nominee. But it's also how we have consistently ended up with poor nominees.
The game isn't over yet. People still have a chance to unite around an alternative candidate. Perry is still hanging around looking for support. He's marginally more conservative than Romney and Gingrich, but with a much lower profile on the national stage, it's hard to say how much. Bachmann and Santorum are also still in the race and they may surprise everyone.
This is still an open process, which is why threatening third party runs or demanding that a candidate drop out of the race is unconscionable. If your candidate can't win Republican primaries, then how is he going to win the general election? Particularly a three-way election.
Sure a sizable chunk of Ron Paul's support comes from the left, but not enough to do anything but turn him into the Republican version of Ralph Nader. And Nader gave the election to George W. Bush. Encouraging a third party candidacy by a fringe candidate before a single primary is nothing short of blackmail. It's thuggish behavior to try and intimidate voters with a third party candidacy. The message is "Vote my way or I'll see to it that Obama wins."
Yes we are rapidly closing in on the "Anyone but Obama Nominee". Whoever it will be will have major minuses. That's life. If we can elect a right of center congress, then even a marginal Republican will do. If we can't, then anyone is still better than Obama.
Back in 2008 the argument was that rather than voting for McCain, we should let Obama run the country into the ground for four years and radicalize the base. Mission accomplished. Obama has done more damage to America in four years than Fat Man did to Nagasaki in an hour. The base has been radicalized. And we're still back at the table with the old McCain dilemma.
The people who told us to wait four years may now tell us to wait another four years. And then maybe another four, until a proper candidate stands for office and makes it to the nomination. Doing it that way is like trying to win a war by losing battle after battle until the right general comes along. The Union won the Civil War that way, but it doesn't seem like the best strategy for the rebels.
Despite all his flaws, I think four years of McCain would have been much better for this country. I think four years of Gingrich or Romney or Perry will be better for the country than another four years of Obama. Anyone who wants to test that thesis can look back at the last four years and then imagine what they would have been like if Obama was a lame duck fowl.
Anyone who is unhappy with that choice, there's no one stopping a Bachmann or Santorum surge. No one but the same conservative media that got us where we are now. And if that doesn't happen, then we've still got the same calculations to make.
Romney is probably more electable. Gingrich is better on the issues. Gingrich currently seems better under fire but everyone keeps saying that he's bound to implode. We'll see. Romney hasn't melted down either, though he has made some mistakes during the debates and in interviews.
On foreign policy Gingrich wins by a landslide. On domestic policy, Gingrich will go with his own ideas, which will have shades of Teddy Roosevelt to them. Romney will have his experts in the room to develop a centrist policy. The difference here is that Gingrich will go his own way, Romney will follow a practical variation of the liberal consensus.
Neither candidate is very conservative by Tea Party standards, both men are fairly conservative by the standards of the alternative. Anyone claiming that there is no difference between Gingrich and Romney and Obama except race is engaging in hyperbole. There's no doubt that either man will do his own brand of damage and that the country will shift X degrees in the wrong direction, but it's better than shifting Y degrees in the wrong direction.
Personally I like Gingrich well enough. I have no idea if he can get elected, he's not the ideal man for the job, but he also bounced back from a trouncing by his own party, and won the debates without playing the ankle biter. He can speak intelligently about an issue and appears to think about them, instead of shoveling out a safe position. He isn't afraid to take controversial stands or confront the invisible hand of the media.
Romney is probably a surer bet for winning the election, but, and this is not an endorsement, I would be more comfortable with Gingrich in the Oval Office, because when the 3 AM call comes in, I don't think he'll work out a consensus and then bring the least controversial response to the table.
Gingrich is a survivor who keeps bouncing back. He's the dog with a ball who won't let it go. There's something admirable about that. It's the attitude of a man who might be able to make it through the firestorm. Romney has polished himself into a shiny instrument for leveraging open the door to the White House. The biggest question though is what is really inside that shiny interior.
We have seen Gingrich turned out for all the world to see and we know some of what drives him. Romney's guts are still a mystery. When McCain tried to transform himself into a non-threatening smiling mannequin to win the election, he fumbled the ball badly. And yet I think the angry McCain, the direct to the point man would have done better. Romney doesn't have those negatives, but he lacks positives. His only real appeal is a projected sincerity and a prospective electability. Is that enough? Who knows.
This is not going to be an ordinary election, but it has been a depressingly ordinary enough primary. We aren't going to walk away from it with a man or woman that everyone believes in, but maybe we'll walk away with a winner. It's not much of a consolation prize, but there's a joke about rather being right than being president. I would rather that the right man was president, but I will settle for any man other than the one already filling the office.
Indeed it is. This is what separates him from the Slickmeister. The Slickmeister could come off as a likeable centrist, not an arrogant Marxist.
If Obama didn’t have an automatic 30% approval rating,he’d be near single digits in approval!
Obama must go, and any of our candidates would be a vast improvement over what we have now. But I’ve lost my excitement and enthusiasm for the election because I’m not crazy about any of the names left. Kind of the way I felt when Fred Thompson dropped out in 2008. I disliked McCain even more that most of us dislike Romney today and I felt like a deflated balloon. We all did. Yet, something changed in that election that brought back the momentum and excitement, and it even had many of us reach for our check books to send the McCain campaign a little something, or ask how we might volunteer. If you look back on the 2008 archives of FR you will see how enthused we were. So what happened? PALIN. One of the smartest picks of a VP in presidential history.
If McCain did not run such a horrible campaign following that pick Obama would still be just a Senator from ILL.
We can only hope that Newt, Mitt, or whoever can really give the VP pick some thought and think back to 2008. There are a number of names that would give us that feeling back.
And what's the alternative??? The GOP is just as guilty if not more for allowing and encouraging the jobs that these people used to work at to go to Mexico and China...
So what's the difference??? The GOP will kick these people to the curb and drive over them???
That's the way the Democrats see it because that's what the GOP pretty much claims...
Neither party has any plans out there to bring jobs back...
***Neither party has any plans out there to bring jobs back...***
Newt and Huntsman discussed the China conundrum in great detail during their C-Span debate. They presented sound solutions.
There is a video available if you missed it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH0drHeIfcQ
That video is short - sorry.
Just google Gingrich Huntsman debate and find the longer version.
I have thought this for a long time and still think it. In the end we will see who wants Obama out bad enough to vote for the last man standing.
I see very little chance for anything but collapse.
LLS
My pet Lepracaun, who has never left Ireland, could beat Obama.
My pet Lepracaun, who has never left Ireland, could beat Obama.
I love how the Establishment is trying to decide who our choices are BEFORE A SINGLE VOTE HAS BEEN CAST.
The idea of the primaries is to get the best candidate you can. Fundamentally, that would mean a conservative, a limited-government person who will at least try to move the ball our way for once.
Newt and Mitt are both progressives and progressivism is the enemy of human freedom. As a traditional conservative, if my ballot contains two progressives and a libertarian, I’ll opt for the libertarian — and it’s not even close. For all my disagreements with libertarians, they’re limited-government people. Progressives (even “right-wing” progressives) are NOT.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Romney come in fifth in Iowa. (Maybe even lower if Cain’s people decide to stick with him as a protest of the way he was treated.) I can see any or all of Gingrich, Bachmann, Paul, and Santorum finishing ahead of The Mittster.
Mitt has another, unacknowledged problem among conservatives with long memories: his father, who was an out-and-out liberal Republican and Nelson Rockefeller’s stalking horse. In this case, the apple didn’t fall very far from the tree.
If the Republicans nominate a “progressive”, they WILL LOSE, just as they did in 2008. The three big Republican victories of the last 30 or so years were achieved by running as unabashed conservatives.
Which is something like saying that they're better than cancer. That's not a very high standard.
I wonder if the next president will find themselves under pressure from newly mined congressmen and senators to act on conservative issues and approve initiatives we hold dear lest they find themselves in opposition to their own party?
Bush was rarely in the news when he had a majority and I would prefer a president who isn’t a glory/camera whore/hog.
If Clinton can be forced by voter consensus and political opportunism, what then of a President who again has clear majorities which mitigate challenges from a certain party?
We must support a strategy that focuses on super majorities of both houses. New reps will be of the tea party or more closely represent our ideals, hopefully forcing a new president to pick a side and it ought to be for his team.
Example:
Romney is just as inconvenient a choice as a general McClellan was for Abraham Lincoln and since we can’t very well fire him, perhaps we can force the ludditte into action by voter pressure and house pluralities.
I hate to think of Romney in the White House and will oppose him even in the general(my thing) and my visceral disgust that he might even be considered but wanted to pose the thought.
Sorry the post isn’t as cogent as it should be. I’m posting from one of these stoopid smart phones and need to learn how to use it.
I wonder if the next president will find themselves under pressure from newly mined congressmen and senators to act on conservative issues and approve initiatives we hold dear lest they find themselves in opposition to their own party?
Bush was rarely in the news when he had a majority and I would prefer a president who isn’t a glory/camera whore/hog.
If Clinton can be forced by voter consensus and political opportunism, what then of a President who again has clear majorities which mitigate challenges from a certain party?
We must support a strategy that focuses on super majorities of both houses. New reps will be of the tea party or more closely represent our ideals, hopefully forcing a new president to pick a side and it ought to be for his team.
Example:
Romney is just as inconvenient a choice as a general McClellan was for Abraham Lincoln and since we can’t very well fire him, perhaps we can force the ludditte into action by voter pressure and house pluralities.
I hate to think of Romney in the White House and will oppose him even in the general(my thing) and my visceral disgust that he might even be considered but wanted to pose the thought.
Sorry the post isn’t as cogent as it should be. I’m posting from one of these stoopid smart phones and need to learn how to use it.
Exactly why we need to seize the opportunity and nominate a real conservative, not a Biog Government “conservative.”
Exactly why we need to seize the opportunity and nominate a real conservative, not a Big Government “conservative.”
History from Nixon to Ford to both Bushes shows that "progressive" Republican Presidents pull Republican Congresses to the left, rather than Congress pulling the President to the right. ("Well, we have to support our President," don't you know?)
I had thought Bushes as I was writing but still “just wondered”.
Ford isn’t really a good example as he was merely a place holder whose political imperative was congeniality of sorts.
I can see your point about Nixon but I’m gonna think about him.
I just can’t believe Romney is even in this race much less even some sort of after thought.
He has no interesting positions nor any I recognize as representing my ideals of political policy.
Males me sick to think this Oklahoma Weathervane is allowed to get this far.
Then again, this election more of a lottery than one of choices.
“Somebody’s going to win...maybe you!”
Barry is that vulnerable and that why we have so many candidates.
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.