Skip to comments.Should Conservative Women like Christine O'Donnell "settle' for MITT ROMNEY?
Posted on 01/06/2012 8:19:55 AM PST by Moseley
Mitt Romney rolled out coordinated endorsements by tea party leaders Christine O'Donnell and Nikki Haley (Governor of South Carolina) and Ann Coulter in about the same week, just when Newt Gingrich was ahead of everyone nationwide in the Presidential Republican primary race.
Yes, the endorsements did make a huge difference, because they crowded out attention for Newt Gingrich just at the moment (intentionally planned, no doubt) that Newt Gingrich was surging ahead of all the other GOP candidates. Whether or not anyone will vote as Christine O'Donnell recommends, the story "stepped on" Newt's best week in public relations term, crowding out news of Newt Gingrich suddenly dominating the presidential field. The trio of endorsements used up the oxygen that Newt needed to climb on top and stay there.
People heaped scorn upon Christine O'Donnell for allegedly abandoning her conservative principles and conservative base and the tea party movement by endorsing Mitt Romney.
Curiously, Nikki Haley and Ann Coulter mostly got a pass from conservative critics for their identical endorsements. Only Christine O'Donnell came under attack.
The three ladies' endorsement of Mitt Romney was mistaken: But understandable.
The 2012 campaign is marked by one dynamic in particular: Way too many candidates. Come on, guys. As my friend from Eastern Europe always says in American English: "Are you just kidding me right now?" (Too smart to take politics seriously, she is sharper at political insights than most American political junkies.)
So Ann Coulter, Nikki Haley, and Christine O'Donnell chose to abandon "true love" in the Republican presidential primary in favor of the pragmatic, unromantic expediency of the rich, unfaithful (politically), boring guy who offers safety and security.
Supposedly Mitt Romney can win. He may not excite us, but at least he will put a roof over our heads. Yes, I am laying on the analogy thick, and perhaps unfairly. But as a metaphor -- not as reality, of course -- the image is compelling: Pragmatism versus idealism. Security versus desire.
The choice to bet on the safe breadwinner, rather than an exciting and daring conservative like Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum or even the flamboyant Newt Gingrich, is far more than a Freudian peek into the psychology of the fairer sex.
This reflects the fundamental tug of war right now within the GOP between the pragmatic moderate wing and the idealistic conservative wing.
Ultimately, although my metaphor is vivid and controversial, my point is gender-neutral, once the image is perceived: It is Christine O'Donnell's Machiavellian campaign manager Matt Moran -- obviously a man -- who is the greatest cause of Christine O'Donnell's endorsement of Mitt Romney. (Christine will protest otherwise.)
It is the male dominated moderates among the GOP who fret and worry and behave like a battered spouse.
Give me a Michelle Bachmann any day. If I had to go to war, I would rather have Michelle Bachmman and Sarah Palin carrying an M-16 nearby (I hope I could keep up with them) than a hundred so-called men from the Republican National Committee. I would feel more confident attacking an enemy tank column, literally, with Christine O'Donnell shouldering the bazooka nearby than with 90% of the men in the GOP playing that role.
This is only a metaphor for a gender-neutral dynamic, in which it is men who are exhibiting most of these behaviors. Yet I will push the metaphor:
Sure, Mitt Romney has "cheated" (politically) on us in the past. Sure, we have to overlook (metaphorically speaking) the unidentified (political) panties in the back seat, the suspicious charges on the credit card, and the late night phone calls with someone hanging up when a woman answers.
No less than John McCain highlighted in the 2008 campaign Mitt Romney's open declaration that Mitt Romney is pro-choice and for gun control and against the Ronald Reagan legacy of Republican thought.
SEE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS33Hkgnls4&feature=player_embedded SEE ALSO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU AND SEE ALSO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fThdWagJ4&feature=related
But the ladies forgive Mitt Romney.
The ladies will overlook Mitt Romney's ideological philandering.
Mitt Romney may have played the field (politically). But he offers (supposedly) security: He can win. (Just ask him. He will tell you he can win.)
Maybe Mitt Romney will cheat on us again (ideologically). But the kids need a roof over their heads.
You have to listen carefully to what my friend Christine O'Donnell actually said. Oh, heck, shame on you all. We have to listen more carefully to everyone, always.
Christine says she knew the questions and concerns.
So she asked Mitt Romney about them.
(Note that this is a gigantic leap of personal growth, to actually ask about rumors, instead of just assuming rumors to be true.)
Notice what happened: First, the Mitt Romney campaign actually talked to Christine, listened to all of her questions, and answered her questions.
That's good politics.
The Mitt Romney campaign won endorsements in part because they did their job: They answered the phone. They reached out in response. They answered questions. They shmoozed. They won. Others snoozed while Romney shmoozed. You snooze you lose. You shmooze, you win.
But, second, Christine O'Donnell ignores all the evidence of ideological philandering because... Mitt Romney told her that he really means it this time.
The evidence that Mitt Romney will really be a conservative this time?
According to Christine's interviews: Mitt promised !
Mitt Romney answered Christine's questions by giving her his promises and assurances. Well what more do we need?
And yet the crowded Presidential field clearly presented us with a mess. The desire of Christine O'Donnell, Nikki Haley, and Ann Coulter to pull people together under one consensus candidate is entirely understandable... and perhaps ultimately essential.
In Virginia a few years back, three conservative candidates were running in the primary for Virginia State Senate against an establishment liberal Republican. After the primary campaign had been under way for a couple months, one Saturday the three conservative candidates and their leadership team went into a house in Western Loudoun County for an all day meeting.
Three conservative candidates went in to the all-day meeting. One came out. The other two endorsed the third and dropped out of the race. One conservative ran against the liberal Republican. The conservative candidates honestly looked at their various strengths and resouces and chose one of the three to be the conservative standard bearer.
That story is remarkable because it is (sadly) rare. Why did we have to have so many great conservatives all dividing the vote in 2012?
In reaction to this dynamic, Christine O'Donnell had been cautioning for many months on her Facebook and Twitter accounts of the need to come together against the Democrats. It is understandable, on one level, that her concern to win in the end raises serious concerns about the ridiculously over-crowded Presidential field on the Republican side.
Politicos debated whether Christine O'Donnell's endorsement would matter. Christine has not yet made up her mind where she is going from here. Drifting aimlessly, Christine does not currently demonstrate her place in the political landscape. However, if she ever settles upon a cause that catches her attention, Christine will be a holy terror as always, if she moves beyond her campaign manager: If Christine O'Donnell and Matt Moran discovered a bomb under their chairs, Matt Moran would talk Christine into sitting there and waiting for the bomb to go off. After all, they might trip and fall on the way out the door. Better to face the comfortable certainty of dying in a bomb explosion than the terrifying risks of what might happen simply walking out the door. There could be dinosaurs outside who mysteriously came to life. Aliens from another galaxy might blow up the planet in 4 minutes, so why bother getting up out of your chair? If there is a a thousand dollar bill on the ground, don't pick it up, it might be laced with a rare tropical disease. I mention these concerns because they are symptomatic of what is wrong with the Republican party -- the very timidity that Christine O'Donnell got involved in Republican politics to try to cure. We have to decide as conservatives what we are really trying to achieve.
I guess that in the end Cristine REALLY was a “Witch(B)”!
She’s a witch. He’s a warlock. Sounds like a match made in 7734. Look for the new Sister Wives starring Mitt, Ann, and Christine.
Gee Romney has a loser supporting him. Christine O’Donnell
“...The choice to bet on the safe breadwinner, rather than an exciting and daring conservative like Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum or even the flamboyant Newt Gingrich, is far more than a Freudian peek into the psychology of the fairer sex...”
Yep, the girls gave their support to the guy who has slept with so many pet liberal causes.
Who??? I would have never considered looking for voting advise from COD so why would I care what she thinks even if she wasnt supporting Romney?
She was propped up as ‘conservative’ hero/saviour in 2010 due to a specific electoral situation in DE at the time. But she lost that election to a Democrat so there is no point in continuing that theme. I never bought it anyway.
Those old Bill Maher interviews and her debate performance told me she wasnt a great candidate to run but she was all we had at the time there (I don’t live in DE.).
Christine, Nikki, and PERRY are determined to hand this to Willard the Lib.
South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary Rasmussen Reports
Gingrich 18, Romney 27, Santorum 24, Paul 11, Perry 5, Huntsman 2
The choices presented to me, at this time, are pathetic. There is enough stress in my life now to make me feel like moving to an island. Sadly, there is nowhere to go to get away from this mess.
Stop the world, I want to get off. If it was not for my faith (see my tagline) I could not function.
Your forgot to mention the LSM, who once again is going to pick the Republican candidate. First McLame, now Romney, who next, Olympia Snowe?
Title should be “Should Conservatives Even Discuss Stupid Ditzes Like Christine O’Donnell?”
I’ve come to the conclusion that most people who run for office do so to cash in. It’s typical Machiavelian politics. Determine which way the crowd is running, jump in front and yell “Follow me!”
Curiously, Nikki Haley and Ann Coulter mostly got a pass from conservative critics for their identical endorsements. Only Christine O’Donnell came under attack.
You clearly were not reading the threads here at FR at time these endorsements were made.
I think “jump the shark” was the expression of the day, along with some considerably less constructive feedback.
"Vote Count Error? Did Rick Santorum Really Win the Iowa Caucuses?
DES MOINES, Iowa - Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes
and jotted the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page.
He said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa
got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadnt.
When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and Ive got a
20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa, True said. Not Mitt Romney.
"Several UNREPORTED news reports have it that Romney
did not win the Iowa Caucuses.
Barring any objective, verifiable proof that shows more than 12 votes mistakenly
being credited to Santorum, Romney lost."
Romney for Obama in 2008
Late in October, The American Spectator's The Prowler revealed:
"Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers
have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election.
'Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won't be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012,'
says one former Romney aide
'The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney.
"Some former Romney aides were behind the recent leaks to media, including CNN, that Governor Sarah Palin was a 'diva' and was going off message intentionally."
The Palmetto Scoop reported: "One of the first stories to hit the national airwaves was
the claim of a major internal strife between close McCain aides and the folks handling his running mate Sarah Palin."
"Im told by very good sources that this was indeed the case and that a rift had developed, but it was between Palins people and the staffers brought on from the failed presidential campaign of former Gov. Mitt Romney, not McCain aides."
"The sources said nearly 80 percent of Romneys former staff was absorbed by McCain and these individuals were responsible for what amounts to a premeditated, last-minute sabotage of Palin."
aides loyal to Romney inside the McCain campaign, said The Scoop, reportedly saw
that Palin would be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012 or 2016, which made her a threat to another presidential quest by Romney.
"These staffers are now out trying to finish her off .hoping it would ingratiate themselves with Mitt Romney."
"Who's the Palin Leaker from the McCain Campaign?
National Review Online The publication of a Vanity Fair profile of Sarah Palin
appears to have opened old wounds in the McCain campaign.
... the source of the Diva leak was Nicolle Wallaces husband."
ann Coulter is a know nothing in my book. She is a first class phony, and politically speaking once again doesn’t no sh*t about what she’s talking about. I don’t hold it against her that she had sex with Heraldo, but in my mind she’s finished, along with Peggy Noonan of having anything meaningful to say.
All this unproductive fretting about a “crowded field” and forcing candidates to drop out from the competition to not “split the vote” is simply a system of a broken voting system. Voters need to have the option to order candidates by rank or give candidates a score rather than simply pick one name out of a multi-candidate group. The current voting system is tailor-made for a fringe candidate to win with a small minority of the vote. Either change the system, or get ready for that to happen more and more often as more people get wiser to how the system can be gamed.
It’s utterly amazing how much unnecessary consternation third-party or multi-candidate races cause. It’s all an enormous, unproductive waste of energy and effort that could be rendered obsolete by simply refining the voting system into something that would truly reflect the will of the voters.
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.