Thanks to Conservative 'Issues,' Obama Now Holds All The Cards

American Thinker ^ | 2/14/2012 | John Ziegler

[WPaCon]

American Thinker typically has articles that most freepers would agree with. This is an article that I'm sure most freepers will disagree with in many ways. At times, it's critical of Rush, Palin, Newt, and Santorum, while it also has good things to say about Romney.

I agree that this primary cycle has been disappointing, but Ziegler has things almost all wrong.

[Mr. Peabody]

Someone tell John Ziegler that Sarah won’t go out with him.

He’s getting tedious.

[MrEdd]

This has got to be as brain dead a liberal screed as is typical New York Times fare. American Thinker is sinking fast.

[Buckeye McFrog]

this must be the same John Ziegler who used to run the National Hockey League (nearly into the ground...)

[publius321]

“The clearest track to an Obama defeat since the primaries began has always been for Republicans to rally around Mitt Romney and then use his potential appeal to independent voters...”

Yeahhhh, the clearest track is to replace their socialist with our own socialist.

Join us in the war against stupidity. http://www.MitigateRomney.com

[SoFloFreeper]

Ziegler is saying things many hard core conservatives don’t want to hear or believe.

This doesn’t mean he is wrong.

[mtg]

The clearest track to an Obama defeat since the primaries began has always been for Republicans to rally around Mitt Romney...

Don't these people ever get tired of repeating the same old senseless hyperbole?

[Larry Lucido]

American Thinker typically has articles that most freepers would agree with.

I find this blog to be quite banal, as a matter of fact.

[Larry Lucido]

For example:

and where Joe Paterno can be fired via cell phone for the actions of a former assistant coach, almost anything previously "unthinkable" can indeed happen

Stopped reading right there.

Of course, I would have stopped reading in any case. I hate excerpts and won't give a blog that demands to be excerpted any hits at all. They don't deserve our traffic.

[kevkrom]

Ziegler is saying things many hard core conservatives don’t want to hear or believe. This doesn’t mean he is wrong.

Perhaps, but his slobbering love-fest over Romney does mean that he's wrong.

Romney is the least well-suited candidate to take on Obama because he can't beat him on any critical issues -- the best he can say is that he would have done much the same, only maybe a little less so.

Obamacare? Off the table.

Bailouts? Not gonna happen.

Immigration? Yeah, well, not much there either.

[cotton1706]

“The clearest track to an Obama defeat since the primaries began has always been for Republicans to rally around Mitt Romney and then use his potential appeal to independent voters and unique connections to the key states of New Hampshire, Michigan, and Nevada to effectively block the president’s path to 270 Electoral College votes.”

This line alone is laughable. Let’s see the record

1972 - 49 state landslide (Nixon ran as a conservative)
1976 - Close loss - outlier due to Watergate but Ford was a moderate; had Reagan taken the nomination, he probably would have won over Carter
1980 - 44 state landslide - clear conservative nominee
1984 - 49 state landslide - clear conservative nominee
1988 - 40 state landslide - conservative coattail election; Reagan’s third term
1992 - loss - moderate nominee
1996 - loss - moderate nominee
2000 - close win - conservative nominee but not trusted due to his father
2004 - close win - conservative nominee or at least ran as conservative
2008 - loss - moderate nominee

Obama is not going to get any new states. He is not going to get Virginia or Indiana again and will probably lose North Carolina, Ohio and likely Wisconsin. He might not get Iowa.

A conservative can sweep Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Hampshire and will likely take Florida and Pennsylvania. Game over.

Romney would run a wishy washy campaign that would likely lose. If he can’t beat Santorum in Michigan, he can’t beat Obama. New Hampshire’s going republican either way and Nevada is run by a political machine.

[houeto]

Ziegler is saying things many hard core conservatives don’t want to hear or believe. This doesn’t mean he is wrong.

You are entirely correct in your assertion.

Nevertheless, he is wrong.

[In Maryland]

The author of the American Thinker article wants to annoint Romney President when Romney has never been able to come close to winning a majority of REPUBLICANS in a primary, as far as I can recall. Why assume he can win a majority from across the political spectrum?

[ansel12]

Romney needs to be driven from the Republican party, not made President of the United States.

[b4its2late]

I don’t know who this author is but he sounds like a Romney supporter who is going to pick up his toys and go home pouting.

[LucianOfSamasota]

I don’t think I can predict the result of an election beforehand. But I know the point of the exercise is to elect a man who will govern well - a Christian conservative in my POV.

Has the electorate already been seduced into godless, secular self interest? Will the election be stolen with Holder’s help, (never forget Obama’s job was voter fraud/community organizing)? How do we know without conducting the experiment?

But if we don’t try for a change, the Marxists have already won.

[Lady Heron]

This reality is not because of anything Obama does done to secure re-election, but rather because the Republican Party and the conservative movement have created a set of circumstances where the paths to defeating the president are now more difficult to find than an unemployed evangelical Christian in the South with a Mitt Romney bumper sticker on a foreign-made vehicle.

How blind and stupid so you have to be to write this when it is the country club rinos refusing to listen to their base that has gotten us here?

[OldGoatCPO]

Doesn't mean he is right either. Just for the sake of argument, say Newt loses big in Arizona and drops out, where will his support go, Ron Paul or Santorum? If Newt drops out whose numbers rise, Romney's or Santorum's? Ron Paul will not win the primary, where do his supporters go? Will they go to Romney or split? No matter how much money Romney spends, outside of the Northeastern States he is not that popular. No I did not forget Florida, women bolted on Newt, and analysis indicated Santorum had name recognition problems in Florida. Romney needs to show he can win in the heartland, and not by 7 votes. No matter who wins, they will have an up hill fight, with Romney oops...Obama care off the table Obama has the edge. Santorum has issues especially because of his faith, but saying he will lose independent woman now before the general election is a stretch.

[OldGoatCPO]

Doesn't mean he is right either. Just for the sake of argument, say Newt loses big in Arizona and drops out, where will his support go, Ron Paul or Santorum? If Newt drops out whose numbers rise, Romney's or Santorum's? Ron Paul will not win the primary, where do his supporters go? Will they go to Romney or split? No matter how much money Romney spends, outside of the Northeastern States he is not that popular. No I did not forget Florida, women bolted on Newt, and analysis indicated Santorum had name recognition problems in Florida. Romney needs to show he can win in the heartland, and not by 7 votes. No matter who wins, they will have an up hill fight, with Romney oops...Obama care off the table Obama has the edge. Santorum has issues especially because of his faith, but saying he will lose independent woman now before the general election is a stretch.

[itsahoot]

This doesn’t mean he is wrong.

Of course it does, unless you are a Paul supporter, then it makes perfect sense.