Posted on 02/14/2012 12:47:25 PM PST by WPaCon
In a world where Tiger Woods can lose by eleven shots to his playing partner on a Sunday at Pebble Beach 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. However, with that said, it is becoming increasingly difficult to see how President Barack Obama is not re-elected, potentially by a healthy margin.
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.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I agree that this primary cycle has been disappointing, but Ziegler has things almost all wrong.
Someone tell John Ziegler that Sarah won’t go out with him.
He’s getting tedious.
This has got to be as brain dead a liberal screed as is typical New York Times fare. American Thinker is sinking fast.
this must be the same John Ziegler who used to run the National Hockey League (nearly into the ground...)
“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
Ziegler is saying things many hard core conservatives don’t want to hear or believe.
This doesn’t mean he is wrong.
Don't these people ever get tired of repeating the same old senseless hyperbole?
I find this blog to be quite banal, as a matter of fact.
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.
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.
“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.
You are entirely correct in your assertion.
Nevertheless, he is wrong.
Romney needs to be driven from the Republican party, not made President of the United States.
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.
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.
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?
Of course it does, unless you are a Paul supporter, then it makes perfect sense.
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.