Skip to comments.Can Obama's Relection be a Good Thing for Conservatives?
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
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.Sure, but at least it will be misdirected.
Well you know there are distinct advantages to losing despite the obvious extreme drawbacks. The Supreme Court is by far the biggest drawback. The midterm election is the biggest plus. Obama wiped out Bush fatigue and 2 elections of solid rat gain in 2 short years.
If McCain had won we’d have a moderate RINO President worse than Bush and a heavilly democrat Congress (and 2010 would have been a loss of more seats or at least no gain). McCain would probably be badly trailing Hillary Clinton right now. That doesn’t sound good. The liberal Justices may or may not have retired but could we get someone good through a 60 seat rat Senate?
If Kerry had won he’d have been a one termer and the rats never would have taken back Congress. But he would have appointed at least one Justice to replace the Conservative Renquist who died, unless he would have had the forsight to resign before Kerry took office.
If Obama wins it would be really great for the 2014 midterms and they’d be hard pressed to win again in 2016 (and with who? Hillary looks creepier everyday and Biden is a court jester). If the court overturns Obamacare that would take a lot of the sting out of it. But if they court upholds it and Obama wins then socialist medicine is here to stay forever and ever. In addition Gingsberg would retire and we would lose a chance to pick up a seat. And if one of our Conservative Justices dies or gets really sick then we are screwed. Even if a Republican Senate can stop an extreme liberal from getting on we’d get a moderate at best.
So I don’t think it’s worth the risk, God help me I’d take a flyer on a RINO and hope they aren’t as big a disaster as the last RINO. If Romney wins as is as big a RINO as most of us think then we can’t win either way.
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.
“I dont think its worth the risk.”
I completely agree. Give Obama four more years and the term “Scorched Earth” will have a new meaning.
I see the title of the thread says ‘good thing’. There are no more 'good things' options left for us. It's either bad or terrible. Much like 2008 I cant lecture anyone on how to vote. Next week is the primaries in Maryland and Romney will get it and would have no matter what; and there is no point in me voting even if I knew who to vote for.
At least in November I have state referendums to vote against : The Dream Act and Same Sex marriage.
The media's going to skewer anyone who runs against Obama. Well, perhaps not if we can find a Black lesbian climate scientist to run.
It would be about the same as Jimmy Carter winning a second term.
Our great-great-grandchildren would still be paying for his screwups.
He is right. As Schiff said: "Republicans in the minority act like Republicans, Republicans in the majority act like Democrats."
Wake up. When did voters rally and protest AGAINST spending against Dems ??
2009 to 2010
When did did voters rally and protest FOR spending against Republicans??
2010 to 2011.
Life is not simple/
When did voters rally and protest AGAINST spending and against Dems ??
:2009 to 2010
When did did voters rally and protest FOR spending and against Republicans??
:2011 to 2012
It’s true that Obama is responsible for the rise of the TEA Party and the huge gains in the 2010 elections. But the nation had to be brought to the brink of insolvency for that to happen. I’m not certain that the United States could survive a second Obama term.
For the short term, Wisconsin patriots need to get Rick Santorum to win the Wisconsin primary this Tuesday.
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 doesnt matter because theres 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 dont know if I can take 4 more years of seeing him on tv.”
If he wins, he may be ALL you see on TV.
Conservatives don’t want “what is good for conservatives.”
We want what is good for the country. Four more years of Obama could be downright catastrophic for the country, no matter how “good” it might be for conservatives.
However, it could very well happen, God forbid.
Obama is “preying “ so we must pray harder!
There is no, none, nada, zilch good that can come from this lamebrain remaining POTUS. Any Republican will do less damage to the nation. Hell, Dennis Kucinich would do less damage to the nation.
The night Obama was elected was the worst night of my life. I was ill. I knew who he was, and what he could do. The Republicans in the House & Senate have not only done nothing to stop him, they have enabled him. These are horrible times for this country. We have never been this close to self destruction. NEVER! Last month a former Russian(now American) asked me why were allowing Obama to destroy our country. He was mortified!
Lying scum, OR the devil incarnate.....some choice we have...a chance to survive, or virtual annihilation!!
The Tea Parties should have been picketing the GOP in the House & Senate!!
The ABO vote is the largest bloc out there. If they all vote a conservative ticket with Romney on top and we win both houses Romney will be forced right. The I’m not voting crowd should at least vote for conservatives for Congress. I won’t make a case for voting for Romney because he’s such a devious bastard I can understand where they are coming from. But my opinion is like I said, Obama is simply doing too much damage a la LBJ and the Great Society. Some things can not be recovered. Obama has to go.
Keep your pants pulled up cause some people do feel that way. I don't agree with them but I see where they are coming from. As to those who say "Romney can't win" I don't know what that is other than wishful thinking for those who think he's worse than Obama. After 4 years of Obama as the adversary almost any Republican who isn't a total circus clown (Ron Paul) has at least a 50% chance. It's only Romney's negatives of 'aloof rich dude' and 'tepid support from conservatives' that even give Obama a path to victory.
stephenjohnbanker: Romney might move to the right, for purely Machiavellian reasons.
I agree, see I don't think he's a liberal, I think he's a guy who will take any position that he thinks would help him win at any given time, so his words are almost meaningless. In office I guess he would want to be popular so there's a chance he won't screw us over. I don't ascribe to him any special menace as some of my fRiends do. Unfortunately politicians like him are a dime a dozen. His daddy issues are also common due to all these dynasties we have.
Auh2orepublican: I think that winning by losing is just a way for losers to look for a silver lining. Hindsights 20/20....
True, my alternate reaity assessments could be way off (I certainly wouldn't have argued for Clinton in 96 (some people really hate Dole, I don't, and we already had Congress). And I agree Obama has got to go.
For 2008 though, I don't know. I voted for McCain. Obama was harsh medicine to be sure, Obamacare and Kagan and Sotomeyer were a hard price to pay for recovering Congress. But recovering Congress was neccessary. I don't know if it could have happened in the near term if McCain had slipped by. Chemotherapy for the Pelosi tumor?
If he gets in 4 more however I suppose I'd rather have taken my chances with Pelosi and McCain.
“I agree, see I don’t think he’s a liberal, I think he’s a guy who will take any position that he thinks would help him win at any given time, so his words are almost meaningless. In office I guess he would want to be popular so there’s a chance he won’t screw us over “
There is only a chance he won’t screw us over. With Obama, we know he wants to destroy our free enterprise system, bankrupt the treasury, and make us slaves to the State.
If we survive this....IF.....we need to try to purge the GOP of RINOS. That should be number one on the agenda. Then we Tea Party the MSM.
When you say ‘I’ you obviously mean ‘A Republican candidate’
It is very difficult for me to identify myself as a Republican. I don't automatically consider it MY winning just because a Republican won.
The last few years of GWB POTUS did that in for me. But the past 15 months I notice the Republican party seems to have a deep wish to lose.
I hate to put things in terms of Nazism, but there is a reality here: in 1932, a majority of Germans did not vote for Hitler's party (meaning they did not vote for Hitler as Chancellor, in essence). But they did not clearly align themselves with a party that could stop him. Therefore, they just a surely voted for him as if they had pulled the Nazi lever.
I don't like Romney. I voted for Newt. But in my view, anyone who does not vote against the only REAL option other than Obama in 2012 is no better than those who refused to stop Hitler. Churchill allied with Stalin, saying that if the devil himself was opposed to Hitler, Churchill would have to make some favorable references to him on the floor of Commons.
Purist conservatives, the holier than thous, better figure out that we will have ONE chance to stop Obama, but many, many chances to slow down or stop Romney.
Soetoro cannot be given another term, period.
” Purist conservatives, the holier than thous, better figure out that we will have ONE chance to stop Obama, but many, many chances to slow down or stop Romney.”
Nobody at FR has been more critical of McCain and Romney than I have been. Reality is reality, and Obama is already making deals with our enemies, predicated on his second win.
Turner thinks Romney is a "problem solver" and "manager." Obviously, that means he's not an ideologue or polemicist or visionary. That's both good and bad. Harding was excellent at cutting the debt and he was no visionary. So I can see a hundred ways Romney could be a successful president, but only one way the U.S. ceases to exist as a truly free nation---with Obama's victory.
I wouldn't vote for Stalin as POTUS. Voting for Stalin and then disowning his resulting atrocities by claiming he is ‘better than Hitler’ is immoral and worse downright dishonest. That is below my threshold of acceptability.
Wasn't Poland under Soviet rule for another 50 years?
As I recall GWB second term there was plenty of ‘chances to stop or slow down GWB’."See you at the signing " was a great example of a time when we had to. The result was the destruction of the Republican party where Democrats were beating Republicans on every single issue 2 to 1 even taxes and the WOT. We ended up with Obama and a Democrat super-majority in congress run by Pelosi that was able to to many of the things they always wanted. Repeal of DADT was one of the last ones.
Even taking back the House in 2011 resulting in a similar result, having to fight and weaken Republicans who end up caving to Obama anyway.
History shows that having to fight your own side just makes the enemy invincible. That is a very poor plan.
SOL....do you know a FReeper more conservative than me?
Please name him. 60,000 posts of despising RINOS, and pounding on the House & Senate as gutless, spineless whores. We can’t allow Obama back in without a fight. Civil War would become ontological certitude. HORRIBLE $hit would transpire!!
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.