Posted on 03/30/2012 2:25:10 PM PDT by Ben Barrack
Conservatives are disheartened. It's becoming increasingly apparent that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee in the fight to defeat Barack Obama. If four years of Jimmy Carter so awakened Republican voters that they nominated Ronald Reagan, why has nearly four years of Jimmy Carter on steroids so sedated Republican voters that they've decided to nominate the equivalent of Gerald Ford as the best option for defeating him?
In large part, the establishment insists on it and, like Obama, seems disinterested in the will of the people. This establishment is so invested in Romney that it is overlooking the potential consequences of one very real possibility.
What if he loses? The establishment's credibility will have been torpedoed. Yes, at great expense, but torpedoed nonetheless.
If you thought the Tea Party was angry in 2009, just wait until 2013 if Barack Obama is sworn in for a second term after defeating Mitt Romney. For starters, conservative voters will be outraged at any Republican Senator, Congressman or Governor who helped shove Romney down their throats. Accountability could take on an entirely new meaning and those elected leaders will have their feet held to the fire like never before. Romney's name will be added to the long list of liberal Republicans who couldn't seal the deal. Any attempt by establishment elitists to point to Goldwater as evidence that conservatism can't win will be met with sardonic laughter that hopefully drives a stake through the heart of the argument.
Consider the example Fast and Furious, an operation that is not only being revealed as something akin to Watergate with murder but could very likely implicate the heads of nearly every major department and agency in the Obama Administration, to include DHS, DOJ, the FBI, and the State Department. There have been multiple reports that House Speaker John Boehner has asked Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to back off of his investigation, ostensibly because of how high it could go.
While appearing on the Fox News Channel, Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation was visibly frustrated at the lack of interest on the part of Republican Party leadership relative to being more aggressive with Attorney General Eric Holder. Judson went on to say the following:
“What my friends in Washington tell me is that Boehner says what he learned from the 1995 government shutdown is ‘you never pick a fight with the president.’”
If Romney loses to Obama, Boehner will be forced to pick that fight.
If Judson is correct, it points to Boehner being more interested in running out the clock – with the November election representing the final whistle – than in a dogged pursuit of justice, regardless of where it leads. Avoiding a showdown could conceivably allow Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert Mueller, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to skate – depending on their respective levels of involvement – instead of facing impeachment and removal from office for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Boehner has most certainly come across as disinterested in commenting on the scandal publicly and won't deviate from a short statement of support for what Issa's committee is doing. It would seem that Issa is wrestling with quite the Executive Branch behemoth and could use a greater show of public support from the House Speaker.
If there are any stories the establishment wants to see go away after the election, the ones about Obama's Birth Certificate, Social Security number, and Selective Service registration are at the top of the list. Such concerns are irrelevant, they say. Besides, the election is less than one year away and it's pointless to entertain the notion. The implication is that Joe Arpaio's investigation, even if it yields anything of substance, will be anti-climactic because Obama will be out of office and everyone will have moved on.
That is, unless he wins. Then what? If you thought the Birthers were loud before, just wait and see what happens if Obama is reelected.
Not only will the Birthers – who generally don't come across as avid Romney supporters – have four more years to continue their incessant drumbeat of demands for answers to their eligibility questions but the establishment that has made every attempt to ignore them will have been roundly defeated and, consequently, forced into a position of having to listen. With the wind knocked out of the establishment, its members will also be barraged with demands that they reconcile with their base (not the other way around) for supporting yet another in a long line of incredibly pathetic candidates. As much as the elites won't want to admit it, the Republican Party agenda could be set by conservative voters who were ignored by an establishment that still doesn't get it.
Tolerance will be in very short supply.
The sad prospect of Romney as the nominee is seemingly trumped only by the prospect that Obama could get a second term, which is made more likely, some believe, if Romney is nominated. Establishment, general election Republican losers like John McCain and Bob Dole have endorsed Romney, as have Governors Chris Christie and Nikki Haley. Tea Party favorites Marco Rubio and Christine O'Donnell have as well. A dangerous type of groupthink seems to have set in among Republican politicians that has generated a bizzare coalescence around a liberal candidate when the time is ripe for a conservative one.
For crying out loud, serial liar Howard Dean said the Democrats fear a face-off with Romney most over all the Republican candidates. Those of us who understand liberal tactics know that Dean means the exact opposite; that's why he said it. It'd be like a head coach proclaiming that his team fears facing his opponent's back up quarterback in an attempt to fool the other coach into starting him. Republican elites aren't as smart, apparently. They've been told by Howard Dean that their third string quaterback gives them their best chance and, by gum, they believe it.
Something else almost certain to happen after Romney's nomination; his religion will be thoroughly vetted by the liberal media. Most Americans know little to nothing about Mormonism but that is all going to change with Romney's nomination. According to a Gallup poll, 22% of Americans are hesitant about voting for a Mormon. Some argue that Mormonism is antithetical to Chrisitianity; some argue that it isn't; still others don't much care. One thing is certain. Everyone will know more about it with Romney as the Republican nominee for president. That, too, should be a good thing no matter what side you're on.
Don't lose heart, conservatives. Instead, check out Romans 8:28, which says:
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
In 2013, the Republican elites could find themselves at the intersection of 'be careful what you wish for' and 'sleeping in the bed you made.'
I hope they're preparing for both.
Ben Barrack is a talk show host on KTEM 1400 in Texas benbarrack.com
My problem is that Obama is hell bent on destroying this country, and he has no respect for ANY laws. Four more years, and he could accomplish it. Look at the damage he has already done to our economy.
It really doesn’t matter because there’s no way in hell Romney can win. He should have been worried about winning over conservatives instead of winning Obama strongholds for delegates.
Anyone who thinks withholding a vote from Mitt Romney is worth that can kiss my Libertarian/Republican tookus.
The writer has asked the single question, even more stupid than RINO’s.
It is utterly mindless, to even contemplate re-electing Obama.
” It really doesn’t matter because there’s no way in hell Romney can win”
Then you had better prey for Sheriff Joe. There won’t be a free country in 4 more years.
Congressional Republicans only act like Republicans when there is a Democrat in the WH. When there is a Repub in the WH then it is Demo-lite.
It depends on what you mean by "a good thing", and THAT depends on what you think Obama is really all about.
Since I don't think my friends with AR-15s are a match for real soldiers, and since I think if Obama is re-elected that it will be the last election for quite a while, then, no, I don't think it will be a good thing at all.
PRAY that is..: )
Look at how effectively Romney had demolished his Republican rivals.
None of us may like Romney, but success has its own quality.
If Romney gets the nomination, and is even (half) as determined and effective, against Obama in the general election. He just might be unstoppable.
We shall see. I’ve been infuriated, but also impressed with the effectiveness of his machine so far.
He’s not going to win and it doesn’t matter how desperately we try to convince ourselves differently. John McCain had a better shot and the Palin gambit isn’t going to work a second time around.
Thinking Romney can win the white house is pure denial.
I understand your pessimism.
It comes from having watched McCain throw the last election.
Whatever else he may be, Mitt Romney is not John McCain.
I truly believe McCain suffered from a bit of Stockholm Syndrome, as a result of his unfortunate visit to the “Hanoi Hilton”. Sorry but that’s what I’ve come to believe.
Mitt Romney is accustomed to winning. Consistently, and irresistably. Overwhelming force.
I am fully prepared, should Romney win the nomination despite all best efforts to the contrary, to trust our beloved country to his care for the four years, it will take to convince Sarah Palin to run against him.
Obama must not win re-election.
This is for all the marbles.
I think that “winning by losing” is just a way for losers to look for a silver lining. Hindsight’s 20/20, and we can say “Carter’s 1976 victory led to Reagan’s two terms” only because they happened, not because they were certain, or even likely, to happen.
And let’s look at how a RAT president winning a second term have “helped us.” Clinton winning reelection in 1996 actually resulted in GOP House and Senate losses in 1998, and we got slaughtered in the 2000 Senate races (and almost didn’t take the presidency back). And had Carter won reelection in 1980, not only would we not have taken back the Senate that year, but Carter would have named the likes of Judge Reinhold and Mario Cuomo to SCOTUS. And when LBJ won JFK’s second term, he swept in huge RAT majorities, and it would be 16 years before we would take back the Senate (we had lost it only 8 years earlier) and 30 years before we took back the House (which we had lost only 10 years before).
So I’d rather win the 2012 presidential elections, even if it helps a few Senate Democrats marginally in 2014.
I did not vote for McCain....he is a head case.
Romney might move to the right, for purely Machiavellian reasons. Obama will just destroy the U.S. financial system, put us 20-24 TRILLION in debt, embolden our enemies, and possibly SCOTUS. There are no good choices here, just degrees of evil. But based upon what Obama has done to us thus far, there would be nothing left. Pray(not prey) for Joe Arpaio.
If four years of Jimmy Carter so awakened Republican voters that they nominated Ronald Reagan, why has nearly four years of Jimmy Carter on steroids so sedated Republican voters that they've decided to nominate the equivalent of Gerald Ford as the best option for defeating him?
You fight an election with the candidates you have. You don't get to wait until you have good ones. And you can't run imaginary or non-existent or dead candidates.
Romney's name will be added to the long list of liberal Republicans who couldn't seal the deal. Any attempt by establishment elitists to point to Goldwater as evidence that conservatism can't win will be met with sardonic laughter that hopefully drives a stake through the heart of the argument.
Or just added to the list of candidates who couldn't seal the deal. The idea that there was some marvelous conservative out there who could have done won when Dole or McCain didn't just doesn't hold water. We got those nominees because there was no such candidate in existence. We should nominate Gingrich or Santorum and watch him lose to finally drive a stake through that argument, though if we did, the inevitable rejoinder would be that Gingrich or Santorum wasn't a real conservative.
If you thought the Birthers were loud before, just wait and see what happens if Obama is reelected.
Because there's a better chance of overturning two elections than one? Look at what happened with Clinton. These things build up and build up and suddenly they're history and nobody talks about them anymore.
In Clinton's case they built up to impeachment before the bubble burst, but that won't happen with birtherism. If Obama's reelected, people are gradually going to come to think of him and his eligibility as part of the past.
Obama's reelection would mean more Democrats on the Supreme Court. For that reason it's to be deplored and if possible, prevented. Not sure about the rest of your argument, though. Every president runs out of steam in his second term.
If Obama's reelected, that will happen to him. He'll worry about his "legacy" as Clinton did, but it will be more a matter of picking something doable or already done, rather than starting some massive new project.
All this assumes that Republican retain control of at least one House of Congress. If the Democrats hold the Senate and retake the House, Obama may have a second wind.
He’s pretty much demolished every challenger so far.
It all hinges on whether Romney will follow through. I mean we’ve all seen how McCain operates.
McCain is only really concerned about winning, when defeating “another Republican” is involved. Want to see John McCain go extreme about something? Put him at odds with a Republican. Like, in Arizona against another Republican for his Senate seat.
RUTHLESS AND DETERMINED.
Against Obama? Dumbass and defeatist. He even suspended his own campaign. Worst. Candidate. Ever.
Romney’s not that way. Romney’s a gazillionaire, because he’s used to getting his way.
I’d much rather the guy who’s used to getting his way, be on our side.
Then start looking at property overseas. I own a small house in Austrailia : )
Au contraire. I guess I'm one of the few who thinks this could possibly be a blowout of sorts---by very, very narrow margins in a number of states (OH, VA, FL, NV, CO, IA, and so on).
First, I don't think any president (perhaps Truman was an exception) had polling this low across the board and ever won reelection.
Second, Freepers are all too anxious to call Romney "ruthless" in the primary, but forget he will be far more ruthless than McCain in the general. He is, however, sneaky, and much of his dirt doesn't end up on his own hands. I think this will be the case.
Third, exceptionally high gas prices and high unemployment are just about to send moderate Dems to the GOP. And, not surprisingly, a lot of suburban Dems (say, for example, my wife's friend and her daughter, who both voted for O last time) love Romney and will be voting for him. Rightly percieved or not, they see him as an "Eisenhower" moderate.
Fourth, while the money gap is big now in Obama's favor, I think that will close as Republicans glumly conclude it's either Romney or Obama, and the nation cannot stomach Obama.
Last, Romney may very well select a Palin-type energizer for veep. Or he may not. But if he does, that alone would be a, as they say, "Game Changer."
” On a personal level I just hate Baraq and want to see him forever tarnished by defeat. I don’t know if I can take 4 more years of seeing him on tv.”
If he wins, he may be ALL you see on TV.
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.