All of the GOP candidates fell well short of the conservative ideal this year, and they were to a certain extent fairly evenly matched. There was no obvious go-to choice for conservatives this year. Romney's win of the nomination only proves that conservatives weren't able to get one of this year's candidates nominated. In four years we will have other candidates who didn't run this year (Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, ???). I see no reason to conclude that we conservatives will not be able to nominate one of our own in the future.
———In four years we will have other candidates———
The rest of the lesson is very plainly visible here on Free Republic. There is no such thing as a “Conservative”. There is an extremely wide variation of views with specifics among individuals quite variable. There was no consensus enabling one candidate to be thrust the forefront. It seemed that what was good didn’t matter. It was that which caused one to be against that prevailed.The result was smaller coalitions of those who could accept that which others, other conservatives disdained.
Then there is poor ol’ pissant. He got so riled and vociferous, he got zotted.
My solution is a CONSERVATIVE SECONDARY. A method must be developed to weigh and measure qualifications, develop consensus, and result in one or at most two conservative candidates in the Republican Primary.
We do not need a third party. We need a strong Conservative Coalition residing under the Republican tent. It might be a Tea Party Coalition but with several competing Tea Parties it may never come to pass. Bravado and “By God I won’t ever vote RINO” must be softened by developing real strength in a coalition.
Until such a coalition is existing and functioning, the probability for prevailing at a national level is slim.
I think it should be Newt’s job and legacy to begin just such an effort