Posted on 03/30/2012 2:25:10 PM PDT by Ben Barrack
Conservatives are disheartened. It's becoming increasingly apparent that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee in the fight to defeat Barack Obama. If four years of Jimmy Carter so awakened Republican voters that they nominated Ronald Reagan, why has nearly four years of Jimmy Carter on steroids so sedated Republican voters that they've decided to nominate the equivalent of Gerald Ford as the best option for defeating him?
In large part, the establishment insists on it and, like Obama, seems disinterested in the will of the people. This establishment is so invested in Romney that it is overlooking the potential consequences of one very real possibility.
What if he loses? The establishment's credibility will have been torpedoed. Yes, at great expense, but torpedoed nonetheless.
If you thought the Tea Party was angry in 2009, just wait until 2013 if Barack Obama is sworn in for a second term after defeating Mitt Romney. For starters, conservative voters will be outraged at any Republican Senator, Congressman or Governor who helped shove Romney down their throats. Accountability could take on an entirely new meaning and those elected leaders will have their feet held to the fire like never before. Romney's name will be added to the long list of liberal Republicans who couldn't seal the deal. Any attempt by establishment elitists to point to Goldwater as evidence that conservatism can't win will be met with sardonic laughter that hopefully drives a stake through the heart of the argument.
Consider the example Fast and Furious, an operation that is not only being revealed as something akin to Watergate with murder but could very likely implicate the heads of nearly every major department and agency in the Obama Administration, to include DHS, DOJ, the FBI, and the State Department. There have been multiple reports that House Speaker John Boehner has asked Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to back off of his investigation, ostensibly because of how high it could go.
While appearing on the Fox News Channel, Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation was visibly frustrated at the lack of interest on the part of Republican Party leadership relative to being more aggressive with Attorney General Eric Holder. Judson went on to say the following:
“What my friends in Washington tell me is that Boehner says what he learned from the 1995 government shutdown is ‘you never pick a fight with the president.’”
If Romney loses to Obama, Boehner will be forced to pick that fight.
If Judson is correct, it points to Boehner being more interested in running out the clock – with the November election representing the final whistle – than in a dogged pursuit of justice, regardless of where it leads. Avoiding a showdown could conceivably allow Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert Mueller, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to skate – depending on their respective levels of involvement – instead of facing impeachment and removal from office for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Boehner has most certainly come across as disinterested in commenting on the scandal publicly and won't deviate from a short statement of support for what Issa's committee is doing. It would seem that Issa is wrestling with quite the Executive Branch behemoth and could use a greater show of public support from the House Speaker.
If there are any stories the establishment wants to see go away after the election, the ones about Obama's Birth Certificate, Social Security number, and Selective Service registration are at the top of the list. Such concerns are irrelevant, they say. Besides, the election is less than one year away and it's pointless to entertain the notion. The implication is that Joe Arpaio's investigation, even if it yields anything of substance, will be anti-climactic because Obama will be out of office and everyone will have moved on.
That is, unless he wins. Then what? If you thought the Birthers were loud before, just wait and see what happens if Obama is reelected.
Not only will the Birthers – who generally don't come across as avid Romney supporters – have four more years to continue their incessant drumbeat of demands for answers to their eligibility questions but the establishment that has made every attempt to ignore them will have been roundly defeated and, consequently, forced into a position of having to listen. With the wind knocked out of the establishment, its members will also be barraged with demands that they reconcile with their base (not the other way around) for supporting yet another in a long line of incredibly pathetic candidates. As much as the elites won't want to admit it, the Republican Party agenda could be set by conservative voters who were ignored by an establishment that still doesn't get it.
Tolerance will be in very short supply.
The sad prospect of Romney as the nominee is seemingly trumped only by the prospect that Obama could get a second term, which is made more likely, some believe, if Romney is nominated. Establishment, general election Republican losers like John McCain and Bob Dole have endorsed Romney, as have Governors Chris Christie and Nikki Haley. Tea Party favorites Marco Rubio and Christine O'Donnell have as well. A dangerous type of groupthink seems to have set in among Republican politicians that has generated a bizzare coalescence around a liberal candidate when the time is ripe for a conservative one.
For crying out loud, serial liar Howard Dean said the Democrats fear a face-off with Romney most over all the Republican candidates. Those of us who understand liberal tactics know that Dean means the exact opposite; that's why he said it. It'd be like a head coach proclaiming that his team fears facing his opponent's back up quarterback in an attempt to fool the other coach into starting him. Republican elites aren't as smart, apparently. They've been told by Howard Dean that their third string quaterback gives them their best chance and, by gum, they believe it.
Something else almost certain to happen after Romney's nomination; his religion will be thoroughly vetted by the liberal media. Most Americans know little to nothing about Mormonism but that is all going to change with Romney's nomination. According to a Gallup poll, 22% of Americans are hesitant about voting for a Mormon. Some argue that Mormonism is antithetical to Chrisitianity; some argue that it isn't; still others don't much care. One thing is certain. Everyone will know more about it with Romney as the Republican nominee for president. That, too, should be a good thing no matter what side you're on.
Don't lose heart, conservatives. Instead, check out Romans 8:28, which says:
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
In 2013, the Republican elites could find themselves at the intersection of 'be careful what you wish for' and 'sleeping in the bed you made.'
I hope they're preparing for both.
Ben Barrack is a talk show host on KTEM 1400 in Texas benbarrack.com
Oh Good Lord...here we go again. “Hey, guys, let’s win by losing!” That worked so well in ‘08, didn’t it?
I swear that children led by Mr. New Castrati are running things for the conservatives and Republicans these days.
Mitt will be Obama's 2nd term. Let me explain. Our Republic is in deep do do. Very bold action is needed to turn things around -- dramatic reductions in government spending, employment, and control.
Mitt will only govern at the margins. His entire record is one of worshiping at the alter of State Power. His first instincts are government as the solution. I read mitt's platform -- it's filled with timid proposals and high sounding rhetoric. The rhetoric means nothing.
Fours years of mitt may bring us a little relief. We may have some economic growth. But, fundamentally State Power will continue to grow. The Federal employment will continue to grow. The move to implementing AGW solutions will happen and further embolden the left. Mitt will re-brand Obamacare, make a few changes and keep the 250,000 + bureaucrats hired to implement Obamacare moving forward with Socialized healthcare.
After three years of Mitt worshiping himself and enjoying "playing" President, the left will begin their final assault. The vast majority of people will still be miserable, dissatisfied with D.C and back to wanting change. The Press will beat up Mitt starting on day one, resulting in Mitt governing on a continued leftward tilt.
The people will be fatigued from 8 years of Socialists (Marxist Obama and left-leaning Mitt) Some telegenic Democrat will run and promise "good times ahead." The odds are another leftist will win.
The people will group the four miserable years of Obama with Mitts four miserable years. Mitt will be thrown out. Mitt's record will not provide enough contrast and results to make people believe we are moving in the right direction. They will be correct because Mitt will most assuredly govern strongly left-of-center. That is never a recipe of economic prosperity.
Mitt's winning will change nothing. He will only delay the inevitable. For our Republic to survive we need a bold leader who will dramatically reduce the size and scope of Washington -- nothing else will peacefully work. I feel it is incumbent of all those who cherish our Constitution to vow never to vote for Statists of either party.
Through the decades if Conservatives did not hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils then we would not have arrived at this point. These decades of RINOs and leftists have allowed the evil left to infest all levels of government, all our major institutions and degrade the moral fabric of our Republic.
I feel at total peace knowing that I will not betray our beloved Constitution and vote for either of these two Statists.
The worse case scenario under Obama is a classic reset -- which can truly provide an opportunity for Constitutional government.
Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia
Which of those five will retire between 2013-2017?
Conversely, if we nominated a strong conservative in 2016, the political climate might be such that we start seeing Judges fired.
Oh, what garbage. No one's telling me to do anything except, maybe, the FR posse who wants me to boycott the presidential election to prove . . .
And I won't worry about you. I'll worry about us.
But even if they do (finally) act, they will still be acting for the wrong reason - out of fear rather than principle.
Agreed
I can’t concieve of any reality in which the re-election of Obama is any good for ANYONE.
Romney’s chances of winning are very low.
MSM will be skewering Mormonism every night.
Do you have a contingency plan?
Sadly, no.
We need one and it involves electing as many conservatives in local, city, state, and federal elections as possible while demanding that they hold Obama accountable - up to and including impeachment / removal from office.
Like I said, Carter gave us Reagan. Carter on steroids is giving us Gerald Ford.
We haven’t learned our lesson yet and likely need further spankings.
If you thought the Tea Party was angry in 2009, just wait until 2013 if Barack Obama is sworn in for a second term after defeating Mitt Romney.Sure, but at least it will be misdirected.
Well you know there are distinct advantages to losing despite the obvious extreme drawbacks. The Supreme Court is by far the biggest drawback. The midterm election is the biggest plus. Obama wiped out Bush fatigue and 2 elections of solid rat gain in 2 short years.
If McCain had won we’d have a moderate RINO President worse than Bush and a heavilly democrat Congress (and 2010 would have been a loss of more seats or at least no gain). McCain would probably be badly trailing Hillary Clinton right now. That doesn’t sound good. The liberal Justices may or may not have retired but could we get someone good through a 60 seat rat Senate?
If Kerry had won he’d have been a one termer and the rats never would have taken back Congress. But he would have appointed at least one Justice to replace the Conservative Renquist who died, unless he would have had the forsight to resign before Kerry took office.
If Obama wins it would be really great for the 2014 midterms and they’d be hard pressed to win again in 2016 (and with who? Hillary looks creepier everyday and Biden is a court jester). If the court overturns Obamacare that would take a lot of the sting out of it. But if they court upholds it and Obama wins then socialist medicine is here to stay forever and ever. In addition Gingsberg would retire and we would lose a chance to pick up a seat. And if one of our Conservative Justices dies or gets really sick then we are screwed. Even if a Republican Senate can stop an extreme liberal from getting on we’d get a moderate at best.
So I don’t think it’s worth the risk, God help me I’d take a flyer on a RINO and hope they aren’t as big a disaster as the last RINO. If Romney wins as is as big a RINO as most of us think then we can’t win either way.
On a personal level I just hate Baraq and want to see him forever tarnished by defeat. I don’t know if I can take 4 more years of seeing him on tv.
“I don’t think it’s worth the risk.”
I completely agree. Give Obama four more years and the term “Scorched Earth” will have a new meaning.
I see the title of the thread says ‘good thing’. There are no more 'good things' options left for us. It's either bad or terrible. Much like 2008 I cant lecture anyone on how to vote. Next week is the primaries in Maryland and Romney will get it and would have no matter what; and there is no point in me voting even if I knew who to vote for.
At least in November I have state referendums to vote against : The Dream Act and Same Sex marriage.
The media's going to skewer anyone who runs against Obama. Well, perhaps not if we can find a Black lesbian climate scientist to run.
It would be about the same as Jimmy Carter winning a second term.
Our great-great-grandchildren would still be paying for his screwups.
He is right. As Schiff said: "Republicans in the minority act like Republicans, Republicans in the majority act like Democrats."
Wake up. When did voters rally and protest AGAINST spending against Dems ??
2009 to 2010
When did did voters rally and protest FOR spending against Republicans??
2010 to 2011.
Life is not simple/
When did voters rally and protest AGAINST spending and against Dems ??
:2009 to 2010
When did did voters rally and protest FOR spending and against Republicans??
:2011 to 2012
It’s true that Obama is responsible for the rise of the TEA Party and the huge gains in the 2010 elections. But the nation had to be brought to the brink of insolvency for that to happen. I’m not certain that the United States could survive a second Obama term.
For the short term, Wisconsin patriots need to get Rick Santorum to win the Wisconsin primary this Tuesday.
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.