Romney's Cheap and Empty Win

The American Spectator ^ | February 1, 2012 | George Neumayr

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Mitt Romney's plastic and philosophically vapid campaign secured an easy victory in Florida on Tuesday night. Sunshine state GOP voters swallowed his "electability" argument whole, according to the exit polls.

It appears that country club Republicans have succeeded again in duping the GOP electorate into crowning a "centrist" Republican. Never mind that "centrist" Republicans rarely win the center. They usually lose the center while sapping the spirit of the party's conservative base.

Out of Bob Dole's and John McCain's tattered Big Tent steps another "reformed" RINO, Mitt Romney, who will receive, should he win the nomination, a similar thumping from the Democrats.

But let's say that he is "electable," for the sake of argument. Who cares? The purpose of politics in a republic is not simply to win but to win on sound principles. A party that pursues victory by scrapping or sidelining its platform will have no truth left with which to govern once it does.

If "electability" is the goal, why don't the politically correct plutocrats of the GOP just call for a one-party state? That way they could win every time.

The "electability" argument is bankrupt on both philosophical and practical grounds. It destroys the party's soul and guarantees defeat.

Even though Romney paid for this Florida win on his debit card -- outspending Newt by millions -- he still couldn't nail down the rank-and-file vote. Seven out of ten self-described conservatives didn't vote for him. This foreshadows the boredom and disgust that will keep conservatives home in the fall.

[neverdem]

"The GOP is signing its own political death warrant by backing him."

A third party may have to emerge.

Conservatives have to take over the GOP. The RINOs must be primaried.

[Logic n' Reason]

Well, while you are pausing and wondering, why don't you try some logic and reasoning. It will get you farther.

Thank you so much for the personal attack....really makes your arguement "stand alone", doesn't it?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

A third party may have to emerge.

There are already over 50 "third parties"

Ska-Rew the GOPE RINOs...get in there and take it back. They need to return to the private sector, or just plain retire.

Too bad we have to pay for it.

[RFEngineer]

“Like I said, going over the top in your anti Newt rhetoric doesn’t even serve your stated purpose.”

You and I have different opinions on Newt’s conservatism.

I don’t think he’s conservative, he’s at best a “qualified” conservative, like GWB - in his case “compassionate”.

So my rhetoric against Newt, I feel, is not unfair. I want to convince other Newters to think about what you’ll really get with him - and that is, in my opinion is a watered down version that will be compromised away as to be meaningless.

You’re right that a brokered convention is a test in my mind. My expectations are pretty low for that - but I think that if conservatives could mobilize and push for this, even if unsuccessful, it would be a positive sign. It would be relevant to me. Will it influence the overall end candidate? Probably not - but it may influence the candidates behavior. That’s about the best expectation.

“Meanwhile, if you think verbally eviscerating the by far leading non Romney candidate is the way to get us Conservatives anywhere, I thoroughly disagree.”

I don’t think I’m quite eviscerating Newt. Rather, I would argue that if you think supporting Newt gets Conservatives anywhere, I would thoroughly disagree.

I think my argument is bolstered not by what Newt says, but what he does. I will agree with you that Newt has said some conservative things. I just don’t believe him, based on his past behavior.

I think you should consider his behavior, not just words.