Is Romney Really The Most Electable Republican?

The GOP establishment has been telling us since before the primary season began that Mitt Romney should be our choice because he is the most electable. The more conservative candidates will scare away the independent voters needed to win in November. More likely they tell us that because in the Good Ol’ Boy Club it is his turn. And, because he is a moderate and because the party bank rollers have already invested a lot of dough in Mr. Romney.

We also have the Democrat establishment and their propaganda arm the MSM telling us that Romney is the most electable. We are supposed to believe that Romney is the opponent the Democrats fear most. The truth is that there is no one they would rather run against than Romney. Axelrod & Company have planned their whole class warfare strategy around Romney since last summer. They believe they can make the presidential election about Romney, a 1 percenter, and not  about Obama and his record. I would bet that they have already invested a tonne off money in campaign ads about Romney.

Folks, if you still think Romney is the best choice to defeat Obama, please look at this video that I shamelessly borrowed stole from a recent post at Bunkerville.  If you’ve already saw it, I wouldn’t expect you to suffer through it again.

Seriously, can you see this guy going head-to-head with Obama and the Democrat machine? I mean really, “the trees in Michigan are the right height”?

Well, there is some evidence that the Good Ol’ Boy Club may be seeing the error of their ways. And, then maybe not.

ABC News ran this story last Friday: Top GOP Senator Says ‘If Romney Loses Michigan, We Need a New Candidate’. Here are some quotes from the unnamed GOP Senator:

“If Romney cannot win Michigan, we need a new candidate,” said the senator, who has not endorsed anyone and requested anonymity.

“We’d get killed,” the senator said if Romney manages to win the nomination after he failed to win the state in which he grew up.

When the Senator was asked about Santorum, he replied tha he believed that Santorum or Gingrich would lose 35 states. When asked who then, the Senator replied Jeb Bush.

Really? Jeb Bush? I don’t know much about Jeb Bush; but, what I know is his last name is BUSH! The Republicans might as well conceed the election now.  If the thinking of this so-called top GOP Senator is indicative of the way the GOP establishment thinks, I predict the Republican Party will soon be history.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

41 thoughts on “Is Romney Really The Most Electable Republican?

  1. Man, that was one painful video. I shudder to think of what will happen if he is our candidate.

    Personally, I still plan to vote for Ron Paul, but I also like Rick Santorum. I have a problem with his desire to push the social issues (even though I happen to agree with most of his positions), but he would be a vast improvement over Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

    Jeb Bush? Really, that’s who some people want to jump into the race? You are right. We might as well concede the election now.

  2. I’ve been saying for some time that 2012 could be a good year for the Whigs. The Republicans are apparently phoning it in.

    In a recent appearance on “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me,” P. J. O’Rourke offered the explanation that all of the varsity candidates got food poisoning in the GOP cafeteria, so the people running are all the JV team. That would explain a lot, wouldn’t it?

    Pres. Obama should be vulnerable, but I don’t think that any of the GOP candidates in the field can take him, and there’s no way that the name Bush isn’t toxic at this point. GWB was no party, and the idea that we should have three Presidents from the same family elected within a quarter-century is easily assailed.

    I think it’s too late to draw in a new candidate. Coming into the field via convention floor-fight rather than the primary process is going to make the candidate look weak. Unless there’s an absolute wonder out there, and I don’t see him or her. It’s certainly not Jeb Bush or Sarah Palin.

    1. I can’t argue with a single point you made, WKEN. I don’t see any of the GOP being able to stir up enough enthusiasm to knock-off Obama. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts. I hope to see you here again real soon.

  3. Agreed that in the video Romney sounds inane. Too much caffeine or not enough? Jeb Bush was a pretty good governor of FL (and he’s fluent in Spanish with an hispanic wife which could help grab the hispanic vote) BUT he is a Bush and that is the albatross. Besides the fact that many conservatives, including me, understand that Bush 41 and Bush 43 were not true conservatives at all–and neither is Jeb. He is not an option.
    I will be voting for Paul in our state’s primary because although he cannot win the nomination, I want him to have enough backing to bring his constitutional views to the Repubican platform.
    As far as president? Honestly, Santorum makes me uneasy at times and I honestly feel like Romney has more common sense and is more conservative than folks would have you believe. Iran will be a huge issue for the next president. I see Santorum getting us hot & heavy in a war. That’s just my take.
    Bottom line: None of the remaining candidates would be my first choice. But ANY of them will be 1,000x better than Obama.

  4. Jeb Bush is a bland nothing. So is Mitt Romney. That’s just the kind of politician that the GOP party leadership likes.

    I’ll play devil’s advocate for a tick. In some elections an empty suit is a viable alternative choice. Sometimes you want a dull boring dude to contrast with the record of the incumbent.

    The problem is that this election calls for a guy who understands the dire generational choices that are at stake here. Tim Pawlenty didn’t. Jeb Bush doesn’t. Mitt Romney doesn’t. Out of all the non-threatening moderates that are even sorta connected with this race, not one of them really gets that entitlements reform and serious reductions in government spending and programs are the only options we have left.

    That’s one of my biggest problem with the ‘Draft Jeb’ canard. It’s my biggest fear about Mitt.

    I dunno. This election sucks.

  5. The fact that if Mitt loses Michigan there is a call for a new candidate shows us that this whole primary procedure is nothing but a sham designed to let the people think they are chosing the nominee, when all along the party has its candidate already chosen.
    Mitt Romney has been chosen for us and I agree with you, he is unelectable and the Democrats have built their whole campaign around defeating Mitt Romney and the OWS crowd is all part of it.
    I feel that none of the four candidate remaining in the race can defeat Obama, but the only candidate with an even lesser chance of defeating Obama is any candidate with Bush as a last name. That would clinch the victory for Obama and I can’t believe Republicans would make such a stupid mistake.

      1. So am I! They are more interested in keeping power than they are about doing what is right for the future of the country, and in this respect they are no better than the Democrats. We are being played for fools and I for one am sick and tired of it.

  6. He’s the Goldman Sachs candidate, all he has to do is read the ol’ prompter. They just have to connive them him in the Oval Office, let him sign the papers they put in front of him and the fleecing of America will continue.

    Everybody here knows I’m a Ron Paul (plan A) or Gary Johnson (plan B) person. I’m done with the freak show known as voting for the R and hoping for the best.

  7. I’ll vote for him if nominated. Unfortunately, I don’t think Republicans have good candidates to draft at this point. I like a lot of young Republicans, like Rubio and Ryan, but they have not reached their prime yet. In any event, I’ll vote against Obama.

      1. No. But to me it’s not so much about GOP either offering or not offering a choice, but a regrettable fact that we don’t have a worthy leader for 2012. We just don’t. And we have to make it with what we have.

  8. I’ve heard this same old line in my many years of watching the various presidential elections beginning with Goldwater-Johnson in ’84. Sometime the predictions are right and sometime wrong. Johnson won a landslide in ’84 because with the help of the famous “Daisy Ad” he was able to paint Barry Goldwater as a dangerous extremist—also the JFK assassignation of just a year before left many thinking Kennedy’s programs could only be continued under LBJ. Some years later it was Reagan vs “The Progressive Peanut Farmer” and the tables were reversed despite the warning from the establishment republicans.

    Its time again to put a true conservative up against the most liberal president in U.S. history. Obama must be stopped in 2012!

    1. I’m not convinced we have a true conservative in this race, Ron, but I agree that we have to do everything possible to get Obama out of office. As I replied to others, I am not sure any of the candidates can provide the motivation needed to get out the vote. I hope those that believe the desire of defeating Obama will be the only motivation needed are right.

  9. You can’t and shouldn’t decide on a candidate based on a 43 second video. I think Romney has a good chance against obama.

    Having said this, i don’t particularly have anything against all the others in favor of Romney, well maybe Gingrich, he seems a bit crazy and whacky. The primaries are there to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Romney has to win in them before he can run as the republican candidate, just like the others.

    If he wins he wins, if he doesn’t then get behind the guy who does. Ultimately the real objective is sending barack obama home. Even Gingrich would be better than obama, i don’t think he can beat obama, but i think he’d still make a better president than obama.

  10. I for one welcome Obama’s reelection and ask that my new socialist overlords look favorably upon my skills. I can be quite helpful rounding up recalcitrant capitalists for work in the underground salt mines.

  11. Fortunately for us, there’s a political lifetime to go before the election. It is increasingly obvious that, during this political lifetime (9 months) we’re going to see a big increase in gasoline prices. That’ll lead to a drop in the economy. I am not hoping for this, but it’s already starting to happen. Obama has no one to blame but himself for that mess. Also, something I pointed out months ago is starting to get some traction (not because of me, but people with more influence are beginning to talk about it): Re-electing Obama will cause a recession in 2013 because of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, increased taxes for Obamacare, and now because of the added taxes on the eevile rich. Combined with increased fuel prices, we’re screwed.

    Romney is not the candidate I’d have run. That would be Paul Ryan. But look at it not as “who is the candidate who represents us perfectly” and more as “who of the available candidates can do damage control?” Damage control looks like signing a bill to repeal Obamacare, and prior to such a bill’s passage, doing whatever is necessary from the executive level to put the whole damned thing on hold. Damage control looks like holding the line on taxes at a minimum, while Congress actually works to simplify the tax code.

    But here’s the deal… Obama cannot be re-elected. I would vote for a crap covered rock before I’d let that happen. People can say that Romney is just Obama-lite, etc., but Obama is Obama-strong. Even if we could stifle any further progressive BS by retaining the House, Obama will not repeal Obamacare. Obama will continue spending 1.3 trillion more than he takes in, and do it all without a budget. Obama will continue taking more power into the executive branch by utilizing regulatory agencies to make the laws Congress will not give him. And, Obama will continue to make lifetime appointments of progressives who don’t even notice the fact that we have a Constitution to the courts.

    I’d rather have any Republican (who can be steered in a more Conservative direction by Republicans in Congress) than Obama (who will do what I’ve outlined above, plus continuing to be a total idiot regarding foreign policy). There is no way this country will elect Paul or Johnson. God bless them for pushing the Libertarian views more strongly into the public consciousness, and perhaps someday a true libertarian can win election, but it won’t be this time. Gingrich has too damned much baggage. Love some of his ideas, but he’s not the guy for the top job. Santorum will alienate the moderates and even the libertarian leaning fiscal conservatives with his social conservatism (plus, he may be a moron… he has walked straight into the Democrat trap on this contraceptive issue, making statements that seem designed to alienate as many non-social-conservatives as possible). That leaves us with Romney. He may stumble around on that video, but I’ve also heard him multiple times being very eloquent about the dangers of debt, the stupidity of tax increases, and the need to make it easier for businesses to thrive (lower taxes, less regulation). He would’ve approved the pipe line. He would not continue thwarting domestic energy production. Am I a fan? Not really. But Ryan didn’t run. Rand Paul didn’t run. Col. West didn’t run. Rubio didn’t run.

    We are well and truly screwed if Obama is re-elected. “The most electable guy” does need our support, because the option is the planned 2013 recession that nobody wants to live through. We’re busy looking for the non-Romney, when we need to be looking for the anybody-but-Obama, and making a case for why.

    1. Pat, congratulations on this comprehensive and common sense approach. You are a pragmatist of which we don’t have enough on the right.

      Your economic reasons of why 2013 may enter into a recession and, therefore, Obama won’t get re-elected, are all correct, i.e., “the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, increased taxes for Obamacare, and now because of the added taxes on the eevile rich. Combined with increased fuel prices,…”

      [Note: You are also right about the Romney video clip, but I may additionally point out that it was an editorialized clip – cut and trimmed in tempo – by no other than MSNBC]

  12. I read this a few weeks back:

    I’ll give this to the Democratic insiders; they generally make no pretense to being other than what they are (and what we know them to be): liars, thieves, charlatans, demagogues, and despots. But we’re confused about Republicans because they claim to be something better, even though in the ways that matter most, the GOP behaves almost the same as the Democrats. In fact, when it comes to looting the taxpayer on behalf of the banks and corporations, Republicans are the past masters. Let’s not forget that the bailouts of AIG and the big banks, TARP, and the greatest mass plunder in history started under George Bush and his Secretary of Wall Street, Hank Paulson. Seen in this light, Republicans actually do more harm than Democrats because they operate under the false colors of individual liberty, limited government, and fiscal responsibility, keeping us deluded and therefore trapped. If the GOP and its Conservative myrmidons observe these principles at all, it’s only when they are out of power. —Thomas Moore (Beware The False Alternative, The Free Magnolia, Vol.4, No.1)

    1. I understand that sentiment, Bob. I think, however, that four years of Obama have been a wake-up call. This recession is a wake-up call. I’ve written about this at my blog. What I think we’ve woken up to, and this includes politicians, is that a state that is too big and a debt that is too big will sink us. I think Republicans are able to look across the Atlantic and see our future in what’s happening in Europe. Democrats still want to pursue the Euro-socialist policies that got them into that mess in the first place.

      As an aside, isn’t that just friggin’ weird? Democrats continue to pursue policies that have been tried and are failing in Europe, as though we’re still ignorant of the outcome of the ever increasing welfare state, the green energy boondoggle, etc.

      I think 2008 and the Obama years are the fiscal equivalent of 9/11. Just like most people wanted to pretend that radical Islam was not at war with us until the towers fell, most people (including politicians) wanted to believe the state could grow ever bigger and take care of more things for us until the crash in 2008, and proof positive that doesn’t work in the subsequent years of Obama.

      1. I agree, Pat…or maybe the political equivalent of Pearl Harbor. But the Capon Republicans don’t have the cojones for a fight, and the center keeps moving further and further left.

  13. Jeb Bush? People are tired of dynasties, and the Bushes in particular. The idea is ridiculous. The basic problem is that everyone knew that Romney was going to run and that it would be a tough fight, so some people who should have stepped into the ring chickened out. So many others in the GOP establishment are even more compromised than Romney is, so it would not have made much difference if they ran or not–we would still be in the same place we are now. The GOP needs to be revitalized if it is to survive.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s