Mitt & Newt: A Plan to Win This Year

Focus on what? What good would it do to defeat Obama, only to replace him with a Romney who has the same impulses but fewer Congressional restraints on him?

It’s time for conservatives to focus on defeating BOTH of them. We still have seven months - an eternity in political terms, for those willing to do some heavy lifting.

“Newt gets a shot at the VP slot?”

Mitt is bereft of real ideas and just spews handler’s points.

Knowing how quickly he changes positions on heavy issues there is not way we can trust him.

I can’t put a Romney sticker on or sign up.

Some argue here it would be better if O wins again, but I am not so sure. Obama is a full fledged disaster for the county on an apocalyptic scale.

Newt as VP would help a lot for me. If Newt was in the administration he would be a strong voice to shut down or slow liberal programs.

It would also be entertaining to see him debate Bite-me.

It appears our conservatives might be planning to co-opt Mittens.

Not gonna happen.

FOCUS! DEFEAT OBAMA! First things first! We can’t create anything new until all this CRAP is cleaned up first.

The problem is, you and others who think like you do, will be doing the same thing every election cycle, telling us defeating the current greater evil of the Dem candidate is more important than having your completely non-Republican GOP candidate lose.

Our response, knowing this is: If not now, when?

If not now, facing a GOP-E hand-picked, lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal who no more represents you or me, then when?

Assuming Romney becomes the (R) nominee, he will need to coalesce the base. He must do this convincingly for conservatives and Tea Party to get on board full throttle, not just halfheartedly.

He won't.

The whole idea of a Romney nomination was to move to the center(left).

He won't. The whole idea of a Romney nomination was to move to the center(left).

While, I certainly appreciate what you say, if I were you I wouldn't be quite so certain.

As evidenced in this and other articles and recent interviews, it seems that quite a number of Tea Party supporters are already beginning coalesce.

So, the question is this: if MR does exactly as I have proposed, will you still be sitting on the sidelines, while the rest of us have the best chance that conservatives will have had in recent memory to shape the debate and the outcome thereof?

The response from you cannot be, "He won't."

Just answer my question directly.

FReegards!

While, I certainly appreciate what you say, if I were you I wouldn't be quite so certain.

As evidenced in this and other articles and recent interviews, it seems that quite a number of Tea Party supporters are already beginning coalesce.

So, the question is this: if MR does exactly as I have proposed, will you still be sitting on the sidelines, while the rest of us have the best chance that conservatives will have had in recent memory to shape the debate and the outcome thereof?

The response from you cannot be, "He won't."

You're right he won't.

His record does not support it, that is my direct answer to your hopeful and lacking in historical context scenario.

If he were to magically change his spots and turn into an actual conservative, I'd support him.

But nothing in his record supports your head-in-the-sand hopeful scenario.

This is the actual record of Mitt Romney, minus all of his lies:

I think he’s OK with being PINO - POTUS in name only - if he messages that he can be contained.

Uh huh... Dream on. Whatever helps you rationalize supporting a liberal.

Agamemnon: ... if MR does exactly as I have proposed, ...

SoConPubbie: ... I'd support him.

That's right.

It took a few understandable twists and turns, but as I posited, ...if MR does exactly as I have proposed, ...

... even SoConPubbie will eventually support MR.

Now that your thinking has been able to grasp some of the bigger picture, you might ask yourself if MR had only 1/2 the people I just proposed for cabinet and higher offices, would you prefer to have MR picking USSC justice replacements, or Obama?

You can't say "neither," because if you are intellectually honest with yourself you already realize that it is impossible to say "neither," because, unless all justices are alive and kicking for the next 4 years the choice only comes down to this.

So, without any bobbing and weaving, just answer the question.

FReegards!

Now that your thinking has been able to grasp some of the bigger picture, you might ask yourself if MR had only 1/2 the people I just proposed for cabinet and higher offices, would you prefer to have MR picking USSC justice replacements, or Obama?

And when will your thinking be able to grasp that Romney has never done an honest thing in his life politically?

And when will your thinking be able to grasp that Romney has never done a conservative thing in his life?

This is Mitt Romney, not the mystical, feel-good, pretend Romney that you are presenting:

The following has been established in this discussion:

Agamemnon: ... if MR does exactly as I have proposed, ...

SoConPubbie: ... I'd support him.

The question was:

if MR had only 1/2 the people I just proposed for cabinet and higher offices, would you prefer to have MR picking USSC justice replacements, or Obama?

You won't answer now, but some day in the very near future you will have to have an answer to that question.

This is Mitt Romney, not the mystical, feel-good, pretend Romney that you are presenting:

You've missed the point completely. I have never presented a "mystical, feel good pretend" Romney. He's a tool like any other politician is a tool. He's one of many tools we have to get conservatism to the place where our language is leading the debate, not just left to a few self-satisfied bomb throwers relegated to the back benches somewhere.

I'm hearing MR responding to the conservative movement, going out of his way to affirm pro-life language in ways I never heard Reagan do with such frequency. I hear the clear articulation of conservatism on many topics – not “perfect” in every possible way, but when is it ever? For the most part sounds good, sounds conservative. Pro-gun, anti-debt, anti-tax, strong defense, strong economy, strong job creation, less regulation, etc. Everything straight out of the Ronald Reagan speech-book -- and then some.

Folksy sounding brain farts in debates is not what will win Presidential elections. Clear articulation of conservatism is. You gotta look and sound the part. Gingrich is great in the articulation area – though a bit frumpy in the visuals, and he should be hired to do something significant that requires great locution – like dismantling the Dept. of Education. On the other hand he bounces checks. He’s not the model for business savvy that gets the US off the debt track. MR is. Newt’s not exactly the moral paragon where marital faithfulness is concerned (where MR by contrast is) but some people think that key core conservative value can be overlooked. Marital fidelity is essential for a moral leader, but that said I am not looking to hire Newt for a national marriage counselor either. He’s a politician -- good for what he’s good for – put him over at Dep’t of Ed. Let him play to his strength.

I see your list. Bush 1 and 2 let us down on a lot of things too, you may recall. Margaret Sanger was a family friend of Prescott Bush -- GHWBs father. GHWB and his family were all liberal (R)'s pre-1980. LauraGWB we later found out that for all her children’s ed. stuff, she is not quite so pro-life as we thought she was. Neither are GWB’s daughters who are also more pro-gay post 2008 – at least as bad as Megan McCain. As wonderfully grandmotherly as she is, I don’t think Barbara Bush ever really gave up the Planned Parenthood line but was smart enough to shut up about it. When it came to Desert Storm (Bush 1) or the War on Terror (Bush 2), however, I wouldn’t have wanted anyone else in there leading the charge.

When GWB was ready to take on Social Security in 2005 he was abandoned by his own congressional team in the breach, he stood alone - as the lone conservative with the conservative privatization plan. Abandoned by his own team. Weakness: he was too much a patrician in his own right to stick up for himself. Still would have rather had Bush 1&2 over Gore of Kerry – wouldn’t you? Thomas, Roberts and Alito – need any more reasons – in spite of all the GHWB and GWB imperfections? Actually better than any of Reagan’s appointees with the exception of Scalia.

if MR had only 1/2 the people I just proposed for cabinet and higher offices, would you prefer to have MR picking USSC justice replacements, or Obama?

So are you ready to answer my question, now?

In politics there are trade-offs. The key is to get more of what conservatives want and less of what liberals want. In spite of Bush 1&2 flaws, you must admit that we can thank them both for the evidences of USSC conservatism that still prevail.

MR's smart, and he structured his ground game for this primary long in advance of any of his competitors. He learned from mistakes from prior campaigns even as Reagan did in 1968 and 1976. It's why he is where he is today, and his competitors are not.

What I have presented by contrast is a possible cabinet selection for the man, which if he chose to run with it could - by your own admission - even persuade the likes of you and likely many other Tea Party Patriots to become more enthusiastic campaigners in 2012 than will be the (D) counterparts.

If you hope to have any of your agenda see the light of day, you have to win first.

I was a Perry guy. He didn't win. I can move on. If, as I have proposed it, I can have the essence of everybody who ran, and create an amalgam of what was useful to the cause of conservatism from everyone of them, I'll have what I want, and I suspect you would too.

By keeping our eyes on the prize, and always remembering that our power is derived from the bottom up, not from the top down, from a unified front, not from a fractured, self-sniping back lot, our larger mass will be in a unique position to dictate our will to the higher ups. That is the way constitutional republicanism works.

Maybe if we can all stop fighting amongst ourselves, and pining for candidates that showed themselves to be singularly incapable of carrying the message long enough to coalesce into that force, we will win the day and take conservatism forward.

If the "cabinet-in-waiting," as I have proposed it, is unleashed into the fray, the debate will continue, and our opposition will wither in the face of it. We use our politicians for what they are good for. Imperfect vessels they may be, but what ever advances conservatism should be our goal.

Pessimism in conservative ranks is merely evidence of DNC success, and I see enough of it around here lately. Let’s cultivate THEIR pessimism, and if they ever thought it was Romney that they wanted to run against, I wouldn’t be surprised if we all someday find out that he actually turned out to be the Trojan Horse within THEIR own midst the whole time.

FReegards!

if MR had only 1/2 the people I just proposed for cabinet and higher offices, would you prefer to have MR picking USSC justice replacements, or Obama?

No, since he would still pick far-left, Progressive Liberals as his own record, while mouthing out his "Pro-Life" conversion is concerned.

He picked 27 far-left, progressive liberals out of 36 nominations.

Legal analysts say candidate Romney is different from Gov. Romney.

Liberty Counsel Action Vice President Matt Barber said Romney’s appointments were constitutional “living document” poster children.

“Many of Romney’s appointments were not only liberal, not only Democrats, but were radical counter-constitutionalists. How on earth can we expect that, as president, he would be any different?” Barber asked rhetorically.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Mitt Romney’s actions as governor scream from the rooftops that he cannot be trusted with this most important of presidential responsibilities.”

Barber cites two specific examples of Romney’s radical appointments.

“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney not only failed in this regard, he appointed a number of very liberal, if not radical, ‘living, breathing’-minded judges to the bench,” Barber said.

“Two that come to mind were extreme homosexualists Marianne C. Hinkle and Stephen Abany,” he said. “They both had a long history of pro-gay activism, yet Romney didn’t hesitate to put them on the bench.”

“These are people who outrageously believe the postmodern notion that newfangled ‘gay rights’ trump our constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights,” he said.

Baldwin agreed, citing Romney’s statements about the two requirements he actually used when selecting judges.

“Romney did focus on two criteria: their legal experience and whether they would be tough on crime. In other words, the nominee could be a gay activist or a pro-big government, pro-quota, pro-gun control Democrat Party hack who detests every judicial principle treasured by our founding fathers,” Baldwin said. “But if he happens to be tough on crime and have prosecutorial experience, he gets past the Romney filter. Many of Romney’s nominees fit that description.”

Baldwin added that Romney did have some ideological criteria for many of his nominees:

“It was criteria commonly used by the left. For starters, his nominees were mostly pro-abortion. Indeed, while campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney told the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) that his judicial nominees would more likely protect abortion rights than would those of a Democrat Governor, according to notes from a person attending this meeting.”

You've given me a pie-in-the-sky, hope-n-change scenario concerning what Romney, in a perfect world, would do. The only problem is none of us will see this transpire because his past actions, always the best indicator of future actions, are so diametrically opposed to your hopeful scenario.

MR's smart, and he structured his ground game for this primary long in advance of any of his competitors. He learned from mistakes from prior campaigns even as Reagan did in 1968 and 1976. It's why he is where he is today, and his competitors are not.

So by smart do you mean his move to the center?

Or his consistantly lying about his record of left-wing, Progressive Liberal achievements?

Or making excuses for his Socialized Medicine program called Romneycare by trying to cover for it using the 10th Amendment?

Or lying, on the record, about there being 50 dollar abortions in his RomneyCare?

Or lying about Newt's record?

How about lying about Rick's record?

If he were smart, and principled, he would have had an actual conversion to conservatism, and admitted how wrong he was in the past.

You've missed the point completely. I have never presented a "mystical, feel good pretend" Romney. He's a tool like any other politician is a tool. He's one of many tools we have to get conservatism to the place where our language is leading the debate, not just left to a few self-satisfied bomb throwers relegated to the back benches somewhere.

Not, he's not a tool, he's a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal.

There are documented instances of him lying time and time again about his record.

He would destroy the national GOP as a home for conservatism, much as he totally destroyed the GOP in MA because of his tax and fee increases, because of his support for Abortion, his implementation of Gay Marriage, his implementation of a regional Carbon Cap-and-Trade program, his implementation of the fake "Assault Weapons" ban, etc., etc., etc.,

When GWB was ready to take on Social Security in 2005 he was abandoned by his own congressional team in the breach, he stood alone - as the lone conservative with the conservative privatization plan. Abandoned by his own team. Weakness: he was too much a patrician in his own right to stick up for himself. Still would have rather had Bush 1&2 over Gore of Kerry – wouldn’t you? Thomas, Roberts and Alito – need any more reasons – in spite of all the GHWB and GWB imperfections? Actually better than any of Reagan’s appointees with the exception of Scalia.

No comparison between Romney and GWB.

GWB was genuinely Pro-Life, Romney, after his supposed "Pro-Life" conversion nominated an extreme left-wing Abortion supporter, and then went on to state how he would still protect MA abortion laws and stated that he supported embryonic stem-cell research.

Again, another lie by Romney.

GWB was mostly conservative with some glaring non-conservative policy positions: Immigration and fiscal conservatism.

Romney, on the other hand, is whole-heartedly a liberal:

Face it: if Romney was able to take out his competitors in the primary don't you suppose Obama's hacks could have taken anyone of them out in the general?

Have Romney's boys sew the seeds of hopelessness and dissension in the Obama ranks, emphasize betrayal and failure of Obama to keep 2008 promises. Undermine, destroy and confound the opposition into a confused, ill-directed mass who find themselves fighting on more than one Alinskyized, freeze-the-target Presidential candidate, and instead spending their resources fighting 10+ personalities "running" for cabinet offices.

Apparently you did not get Jim Robinson's message the other day:

A reminder for those who are not receiving the message:

Romney is a pathological compulsive liar. Lie after lie papered over with more lies. Doesn’t even flinch when caught in bald faced lies, simply tells another big whopper to cover up or dodge the issue. Funny thing, the man actually seems to believe his own latest lies and simply ignores the glaring record of his past actions/lies. And you have true blue establishment elite RINO Republicans like Karl Rove enabling and backing up his lies. Their motivation is simply to hang on to power (and riches) any way they can.

I’ve stated many times since Romney started running for the presidency way back when that I’d never vote for him and I will not. He cannot lie his way out of his decades long record of support for abortion, Roe v Wade, planned parenthood, gay rights, gun control, global warming, amnesty, liberal judges, big government, compulsory or socialized health care (RomneyCommieCare), mandates, Keynesian economics, support and approval of TARP, bailouts, stimulus packages, i.e, every damn liberal progressive issue that comes down the pike.

C’mon. These are the reasons the tea party sprang up and the reasons he and Rove loathe the tea party and our tea party conservative candidates. Romney famously expressed his loathing for Reagan-Bush conservatism several years ago when he was trying to run to the left of Ted Kennedy and now he’s cloaking himself in Reagan conservatism, knowing full well that it’s a lie, but he knows it’s the only way he can possibly win, er buy the Republican nomination.

Screw Romney!! I absolutely will not support or vote for a proven compulsive liar with a known record of abortion and big government socialism, liberal appointments, etc. He still lies about RomneyCommieCare today. Calls it a “conservative solution.” Get real!!

Listen to what Ronald Reagan had to say about the elites pushing socialism on America via compulsory health insurance:

Ronald Reagan speaks out against RomneyCommieCare

There will be no campaign for this Massachusetts liberal liar on FR!!

Damn the libs and RINOS, full steam ahead!!

But no matter what happens we must turn out in November to vote IN as many conservatives and vote OUT as many rats as possible at all levels of government. If we don't have a conservative at the top of the ticket we must turn out anyway and vote straight conservative DOWN ticket!! Just think of it an off cycle election and pour on the TEA!! It'll be doubly important that we control both houses of congress and as many statehouses as possible.

Restore the 10th amendment!! Impeach the leftist president whoever he may be!! Restore Liberty!! Rebellion comes from the bottom up!!

WOO HOO!! I CAN SEE NOVEMBER FROM MY HOUSE!!

No Bama!! No Romney!! Go tea party rebellion!!

Mark Levin must be on the supreme court!

You won't answer now, but some day in the very near future you will have to have an answer to that question.

You were saying?

SoConPubbie, you may want to read what Jim Robinson wrote a little more carefully:

"But no matter what happens we must turn out in November to vote IN as many conservatives and vote OUT as many rats as possible at all levels of government. If we don't have a conservative at the top of the ticket we must turn out anyway and vote straight conservative DOWN ticket!!"

As I made clear, I was a Perry guy. I am faced with the increasing likelihood that the guy who is the (R) Presidential nominee this fall is not as historically conservative as is Perry.

To be motivationally convincing to conservatives, my proposal essentially calls upon Romney to put his proposed cabinet nominees where his rhetoric is, and to task each of them to campaign directly against Obama's currently sitting cabinet appointments.

My proposal in post #19 is a strategy which takes voting IN conservatives and voting for the DOWN ticket to the Executive level:

"Run not only with your VP but with your proposed cabinet as well."

Absent the ability to vote for any of these persons as the nominee at the top of the (R) ticket, voting for a "cabinet-in-waiting" may prove to be the next best thing available to motivate conservatives to get to the polls.

FReegards!

You were saying?

You never answered the question. Try again.

FReegards!