Posted on 10/02/2011 11:47:34 AM PDT by Signalman
I was part of a panel a few days ago on politics, culture and the media. And the first question put to us was right to the point: “Can Barack Obama win re-election?”
Political guru Dick Morris, Tea Party unofficial leader Dick Armey, a scholar from the Heritage Foundation all said no. It’s tough to argue with that. President Obama’s approval ratings are not good and most Americans think we’re on the wrong track. He’s lost support from his key constituents, including Jewish voters and African-Americans. Worst of all for the president, independents who supported him in 2008 have jumped ship in big numbers.
Like the others, Dick Armey offered a smart analysis of why Obama is in big trouble. But unlike the others, he ended his analysis saying, quietly and almost as an afterthought, Obama won’t win, “Unless the Republicans nominate the wrong candidate.”
That’s like saying, “Besides that Mrs. Lincoln, how’d you enjoy the play?”
“Unless the Republicans pick the wrong candidate” is hardly a throwaway line, despite the fact that that’s how it was delivered. It just may be the single most important consideration in this whole discussion.
I was the odd man out on the panel. I said, Yes, Barack Obama can be re-elected – but it won’t be because the economy is in great shape on Election Day. And it won’t be because the unemployment rate has dropped from nine percent to six percent, or seven percent or even eight percent. It won’t be because a majority of Americans do an about face and suddenly believe the nation is on the right track, I said. And it won’t be because al qaeda has raised the white flag and said Barack Obama was the reason they were putting an end to their evil ways.
If Barack Obama wins, I said, it would be because Republicans have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It will be because the Republicans picked the wrong candidate.
How would this come about? Let’s start with the fact that there’s a split in the Republican Party. There are two separate and distinct factions. One that demands conservative purity in its candidate for president and one that is far more practical and will gladly accept any candidate who can beat President Obama, no matter how moderate.
The purists want the most conservative Republican candidate to be nominated. They detest moderates. Compromise to them is tantamount to a crime against humanity. Rush Limbaugh and some members of the Tea Party are the loudest voices on the purity side.
The other side consists of followers of the late William F. Buckley, who famously said that he would support the most viable conservative candidate in any race – meaning the most conservative candidate who can actually win.
But wait, the purists say, the most conservative candidate can win. I’m not so sure. Look at it this way: Rush Limbaugh is the most famous conservative in America. He’s smart, articulate and expresses conservative ideas better than just about anyone. But Rush couldn’t win a national election. He’s way too polarizing a figure. So if Rush couldn’t win, why do the purists think that someone like him could?
As for the Tea Party: Its members have done a lot of good. Without them we might not be having a national debate about the spending and deficits and debt that are crippling our economy. They deserve our thanks and a lot of credit. But the Tea Party also brought us Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell – two horrible candidates who lost in states that Republicans would almost certainly have won if the Tea Party had thrown its support behind more moderate – more electable — candidates.
The Buckley faction would rather have a moderate Republican in the Senate, who will vote with his or her party only half the time, rather than a liberal Democrat who will never vote with the Republicans. And that’s what Nevada and Delaware wound up with: two liberal Democrats who back President Obama on just about everything. That’s the price Republicans pay for ideological purity.
I’m with the Buckley faction. I want to win. I will accept any Republican who can beat Mr. Obama. I’d vote for Charlie Sheen if he ran on the GOP line. But if the purists have their way, if the most conservative candidate in the pack manages to win the nomination, I fear there will be a second term for President Obama.
The good news for Republicans is that even if the purists don’t get their way, they’ll hold their nose and vote for a moderate, someone like Mitt Romney. They have no place else to go. And they won’t stay home on Election Day, either. They dislike the president too much to sit home and pout.
The bad news for Republicans is that independents – who have no roots in either party – might not be as generous. They may not support President Obama today as the polls tell us, but the election isn’t being held today. If the Republicans pick the wrong candidate – someone who is too doctrinaire, too uncompromising, yes, too conservative, there’s a good chance the independents will vote for Obama just as they did in 2008 – even with a bad economy.
And if Republicans lose they won’t be able to blame anybody but themselves; not Democratic scare tactics aimed at the elderly, not the president’s penchant for class warfare, not even the so-called mainstream media that once again will jump on the Obama bandwagon. If Obama wins, it will be because Republicans opted for purity and handed Barack Obama the victory.
That great American political philosopher Yogi Berra knew what he was talking about when he said, “It ain’t over til it’s over.”
While I agree with your assessment of Romney I will absolutely vote for him if the alternative if Obama.
I don’t want to look at my kids in 10, 20, or 30 years and know that I screwed them because I could not differentiate between the lesser of two evils.
Next POTUS sets SCOTUS. Be careful what you say and understand that a 2nd Obama term will be far worse than the first when he at least had to think about this election.
He did, and BOR refused to show the numbers.
But it's ok to choose an "Obama/Democrat Party Lite" RINO republican like Romney or Huntsman. Yeah, that's the ticket that will win. Just forget about Sarah Palin and the TEA Party. We don't need those "extremists".
Why is it that the Democrats are never castigated for choosing to support a vehement anti American, Muslim, Marxist president like Obama? Why are they never branded as "extremist"?
I made a mistake saying this 30 years ago. My lib friends picked it up.
Regarding DE: had Christine O’Donnell not have upset Mike Castle, and had Castle won, conservatives would be in much worse shape. Chris Coons is a novice socialist senator. Castle would have been a very powerful one. I am proud of Christine & the job we did here in Delaware in ousting a corrupt carreer leftist politician who sold us all down the river. BTW, if you want to know what Christine is like & what really happened in 2010, read her book.
I will only vote for a true conservative. I will not vote for a moderate. That will only give us more of the same, more bloated government crap that democrats and "republicans" alike have given us for years.
The ONLY way to destroy the beast is to vote in a true believer in small government. But even then, he will have to work with congresscritters who may or may not be receptive to reduction of their pet projects, or who are too scared to cut spending for fear they won't be re-elected.
Here's the controversial part...if the choice is between a rino and Obama, I just might vote for Obama. If he is given two terms he will most certainly destroy the country as we currently know it and we can rebuild it to the framer's ideals.
I don't trust any politician anymore to repeal, reduce and restore. It may very well be that the only way to get back to basics is through another civil war of sorts.
Anyone else thinking along these lines, or am I just a lunatic??? :)
These pundits just miss the entire point. Business as usual does not solve the country’s fundamental issue, that is the size, scope and intrusiveness of government.
Tea Party folks get it and refuse to compromise with those politicians who give us more of the same corrupt and ineffective government.
If this is what Bernie speaks, then he is correct. The status quo cannot be maintained, if it takes Bam and a hard crash to “fix” it, then let’s get it over with.
At least it will be over in time for my kids to still have a chance.
schu
I see Romney as a Gerald Ford sort of moderate Republican. The difference is that conservatives would have more leverage with Romney than they had with Ford. Even Ford was a lot better than Carter, Clinton, or Obama. If Obama gets a second term, he easily could be able to put a fifth leftist on the Supreme Court. Romney might be inclined to pick someone along the lines of Kennedy or O’Connor, but conservatives would be more vigilant than they were back when Bush-41 picked Souter.
Utter B.S. that the "Progressive" Republicans have been trying to sell as accepted wisdom. These were actually two pretty good candidates that the MSM combined with RINOs were able to get enough traction on to defeat. Reid was Senate majority leader and had worked with the NRA enough that they did not oppose him.
What about all of the conservative candidates that won! Bernard Goldberg acts as if none of those elected positions would have been lost if "moderates" had been run in their place. He offers the false idea that "Independents" will always be more likely to vote for the "moderate" over the conservative. I do not believe this to be true.
My point is that conservatives need to be extra careful not to say things that can embarrass themselves. They have to be more professional. But they don’t need to give up their conservative principles. We shoot ourselves in the foot when we pick a crybaby to be speaker of the House or nominate someone who can’t put more than 2 words together.
Obama has all of Hollywood and the MSM to make his case for him. We don’t so we need people who can cut across the media and establishment and take it directly to the people. That’s one reason why lots of conservatives like what Cain is doing.
Slick Willard would do just like Ford, put a leftist John Paul Stevens on SCOTUS.
Quick answer: NO!!!!
He’s finished as a viable candidate in 2012, and he likely knows it. Any of the serious contenders can beat him, even Perry.
That’s why it’s REALLY important that we consider how our candidates will do against Hillary, especially in a debate. On that Cain kicks butt, while Perry will get creamed (and it’s not all his fault, but it doesn’t matter).
Odds right now are 50%.
In other words, if the Republicans nominate a true Conservative - maybe even a Tea Partier - then the Liberal Messiah will be reelected. So the Republicans better pick a nice safe moderate. Was this article written by the Romney campaign?
Gas is 2.99 in Dallas and dropping.
That’s how Obama wins reelection.
Will blame the high prices on Bush and how Obama won against the Evi oil companies. And the people will forget how Obama caused the spike.
Yes, you are a lunatic, and I agree with you completely. However, I am willing to vote a third party or not at all rather than vote for Zero. I would say that we have a chance to hold the line regardless, by taking back the senate and expanding the lead in the House.
There is hope even with a RINO in the office of the President, though it will be much more difficult.
Conservatives are in the minority, but a minority can bring change.
Hey, only 1/3 fought against King George. And for far less than is being done to us now, I might add.
Sure he can. Have Soros’ $$$ buy some boxes, send out the new and improved ACORN and he’ll be sitting pretty.
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.