Replies

Unfortunately, I think you are right.

We need to coalesce around a single candidate NOW, or by the end of the month, Romney will have the nomination to all intents and purposes wrapped up. I will not vote for Romney, under any circumstances, and whatever and whoever the alternative may be. I think many here feel likewise.

However, while so many here seem to agree that we need to unify around a non-Romney candidate, and do it quickly, poster after poster adds a caveat along the lines of ‘so long as it’s MY guy...’ ...and the circular firing-squad starts up all over again. Which begs the question: how to agree which candidate to unify behind?

I’ll say first out that overall, I think the quality of the Republican field is shockingly poor. Were those 6 guys on the stage this morning REALLY the best American can produce to run for the highest and most powerful office in the world? There is something wrong with a system which results in only the most mediocre of the mediocre being able or willing to stand forth and offering themselves for election.

All the remaining ‘conservative’ candidates have flaws, and none would be my own candidate of choice. All of them have certain positions with which I disagree: some more than others, and some, to such an extent that I’d have to hold my nose and grit my teeth to pull a level for them. But to some extent, this is inevitable: Jesus ain’t running in this election or any other, so we’re never gonna get a perfect candidate. And unless you’re running a clone of yourself for office, you’re never likely to find a candidate with whom you agree on EVERYTHING, either.

We have to make do, right now, with what we have, and if we continue to squabble endless over who the anti-Romney candidate it, then by the time the dust settles (and it’s starting to settle already) it’ll be too late. So it’s crunch-time, and decision time, and the real question surely has to be ‘of all the candidates who remain who could by any stretch of the imagination be called conservative (i.e. not Romney or Paul) who is most likely to be able to win the general election if he gains the nomination? It’s November that matters, remember: winning the nomination gains you (and America) nothing if you go on and lose to Obama.

The answer, in my opinion, has to be Newt. I have my own issues with the guy (a man who led the impeachment of Clinton whilst committing serial adultery himself at the same time) but he’s the best we have left, unfortunately, when it comes to having any hope of getting the job done. It’s a sad comment on America that that’s the case, but it is. HOWEVER, having said that, I’d support another candidate at this point, even Perry (whom I despise, and have said so publicly here in the past) if I was convinced that they were better able to do the job.

We need to coalesce behind one guy though, not after SC and Florida, but right now. Momentum is a dangerous and very powerful thing in politics, and when thev establishment and MSM are added to it, it is unstoppable, as Romney will be by the end of this month if some of us here can’t bite our lip, swallow our preferences and personal interests, and do what we should be able to see must be done.

Easier said than done, of course. There are all kinds of counter-arguments: “But Santorum is better because...” or “But Perry ..” - to which I’ll answer in advance: you may be right. But unless you’re prepared to put a sock in it, eat humble pie and settle now for what you may see as second-best, you’ve gonna end up with something much, much worse.