(Vanity) The 2012 Election, A Mexican Standoff

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.

 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:

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.

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.

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.

Romney and Co, hate the Right with a passion.

Why would we “work with him to defeat Obama”?

Why would he even expect conservatives to help him defeat the left, when leftwing Rinos have actively worked WITH Dems to defeat us?

We don’t want a leftwing government, why would we vote for leftwing Romney?????

We DON'T "have to" vote for him at all. That's my point: it is the wedge with which the RINOs have co-opted the right for a long time.

I'm arguing that we turn that around on them: not only do we not HAVE TO vote for Romney, we don't even have to grudgingly support him.

Only, instead of doing it automatically, why don't we extract bargaining power from the *threat* of doing it?

And boomerang the RINOs "Hobson's choice" threat to conservatives, RIGHT BACK AT THEM?

As I wrote,

 We don’t have to vote against our principles, certainly, but a little arm-twisting would certainly be in order.

Cheers!

Romney’s gun barrel is bent around to point at his own posterior. What can he attack Obama on that will not come back to hurt him (from his own comments?)

Health Care? Romneycare
Global Warming? Nope
Taxes disguised as fees? Nope
Social issues? Nope
Even spending, illegal immigration, and cutting government have Romney quotes to be used by party D in the gunfight: Soros and the media.

Romney and Co, hate the Right with a passion.

Why would we “work with him to defeat Obama”?

Romney doubtless has contempt for movement conservatives, but he doesn't want to put them in re-education camps and lay waste to the country, as some of Obaama's cohorts apparently do.

They just want us to be stuck in middle-class jobs without opportunity for advancement.

Which is infinitely preferable to "a boot stomping on a human face forever."

(But not as good as a Newt/Palin ticket.../brokered convention> .)

For ordinary humans, yes.

But Mitt Romney speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

You know the cartoons:

Romney apparently hasn't figured out that the Dems have him on video contradicting himself.

I don't want to vote for Romney: but Obaama is an existential threat to the survival of the US (unilateral nuclear disarmament for one thing)

There *is* no good choice between the two.

Well, I didn’t want to spoil the thread saying that we have no choice but Romney. But I agree that we somehow have to get together and find a solution.

The problem with the Tea Party—as well as it’s strength—is that there is no central leadership. Somebody needs to rally the troops. Maybe Sarah is the one.

Either we manage to deadlock the convention and head Mitt off at the pass, or we need to somehow agree on a candidate that will pull the so-called social conservatives and the libertarians together.

You can’t have one without the other, but the RINOs and the Dems have certainly done a great job of playing on their differences and splitting the conservative vote. Again and again and again.

You can’t have fiscal sanity without moral sense and Christian values. Freedom requires self-discipline, which can come only from religion freely chosen, as history has proven. And you can’t have a return of morality as long as big government is increasingly in charge and busy corrupting the people to maintain its power.

My own feeling is that the GOP is defunct and hopeless, and that we need a new party. But if the delegates at the convention can somehow throw off the yoke of corruption and do the right thing, that would be fine with me!

But Romney is a lying, self-loving, gay-activist, big-government babykiller. I simply cannot vote for someone like that, not even if Obama is even worse.

"We don’t want a leftwing government, why would we vote for leftwing Romney?????"

My first thought was:

Because the man sitting the the White House is evil incarnate. If Bill Clinton was president I might be inclined to set this one out. But even though Mittens is the worst candidate in the history of the GOP I am still going to have to vote for him - and then go home and vomit.

But on second thought - if he doesn't pick a real conservative as VP I might very well stay home.

People over time get the government they deserve. This is what happens when the majority of the population bases their decision on what they see in a couple of TV ads and nothing else.

God save the republic.

This is what happens when HALF OF THE VOTERS STAY HOME AND ,i>the majority of ~~the population~~ THE ONES WHO ARE LEFT bases their decision on what they see in a couple of TV ads and nothing else.

There, all fixed.

Repealing the direct election of the Senate; instituting Voter ID (with purple thumbs in indelible ink); eliminating absentee balloting; and a couple of other similar ideas, should help a lot.

Cheers!

This is what happens when HALF OF THE VOTERS STAY HOME AND the majority of ~~the population~~ THE ONES WHO ARE LEFT bases their decision on what they see in a couple of TV ads and nothing else.

There, all fixed.

Repealing the direct election of the Senate; instituting Voter ID (with purple thumbs in indelible ink); eliminating absentee balloting; and a couple of other similar ideas, should help a lot.

Cheers!

God save the republi

T all you Romney haters, I just want to remain you all that the republic is more important than all the feelings you might have about him, and aaaobama is working to destroy the Republik as we know it, and we might not be able to put it back together again after another four years, so hold your nose if you must, but get that bastard out of there this time, we can work on getting a real both fiscal and sosial conservative person for next time, this time we clearly were not able to, but Obama got to go, Now

Extremely well written, good job.

However, I simply do not see how Obama is going to be on the Democrat ticket.

The reason? A number of States have already passed new laws, that are now on their books, requiring every candidate for president to prove their natural born status.

Obama can’t do this - nothing he’s evidenced meets the legal qualification. And if you want a one-stop shopping experience about the subject, just look up Sheriff Joe.

Now, his lawyers might argue that as a sitting president, his natural born status is presumed to be valid. But - that’s not what the State laws say. They say - show it. And sitting president or not, how is it a problem if it exists?

Then there’s the problem with his admittance that his father was not an American citizen, which nixes the deal right there, no matter where he was born.

Yeah, he’ll sue - but how can he win?

And one more thing - if he goes down, Hillary is the de facto Democrat candidate. With all of this against Obama, do you really think she’ll let him slide on this issue again? Especially when all she’d have to do is beat Romney?

Her people are the ones who have pushed the birther subject all along - this in an established fact. And it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if she’s also behind the Romney campaign. Why? Because she knows she can beat him, just the way she knew she could beat McCain - and McCain and Romney know it too - they know their job is to split the conservatives out of the Republican Party, divide the votes, and lose.

So I just don’t see that it will be Obama-Romney. If anything, it will be Hillary-Romney, which Hillary will win.

Unless there’s a brokered convention.

Then it could be Hillary versus Palin.

And Palin would win.

The reason? A number of States have already passed new laws, that are now on their books, requiring every candidate for president to prove their natural born status.

If (as I suspect) these are red states, it won't affect the electoral vote; and Obaama may sue (especially if these states would be enough to change the outcome of the election); holding office in the meantime, as his Merry Men instigate race riots all the while, the better to pressure the opponents into giving up.

See also Odinga, his cousin, for whom he campaigned.

NO cheers, unfortunately.

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.