Skip to comments.With Mitt in the lead, anti-Romney Republicans weigh their options
Posted on 02/04/2012 3:31:39 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
Those who continue to believe that Romney can be stopped are focused as is the campaign of Newt Gingrich on the possibility of a long delegate fight. They have largely given up hope of anyone winning a knockout victory over Romney, hoping instead that some other candidate can prevent the former Massachusetts governor from wrapping the race up before the Republican National Convention, which is set for Tampa, Fla., in late August.
We have never gone through a delegate fight like this, said Bob Vander Plaats, an influential conservative and the head of the Iowa-based Family Leader organization. You need around 600 delegates to win, and I think that will be very difficult for Gov. Romney.
Vander Plaats added that the reason Gingrich has been emphasizing that there are 46 states to go in the contest is because he can do the math.
Similar themes are sounded by prominent conservatives in the media. Erick Erickson of Red State wrote Thursday that the fact that many states award their delegates proportionally, rather than on a winner-take-all basis, could play to Gingrichs advantage.
If Gingrich is serious about staying in till the convention, he could deny Romney a first ballot win and spare the base from the man they dont like, even if Newt himself cannot get the nomination. He is more of a long shot today than he was a day before Florida, but he can still be the nominee, Erickson wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Comment: He is Obama lite!
Comment: He is Obama lite!
Same here. I will never vote for Romney in any election whatsoever.
I’m not in disagreement over the fact that the GOP is splintered. The outcome of that split is the important part. If you are of the opinion that Obama must be defeated this year, then a split is self defeating.
An internecine battle will hamper the Republican candidate no matter who it is. No matter how strong the Tea Party thinks they are, they are not, at this time, strong enough to take over the party and force it to change directions.
The struggle for the hart and soul of the GOP will be long, hard and bloody. The ruling elite will not go quietly.
We have the single issue illegal immigration voter, who will vote for anyone who says they’ll deal with the problem, no matter what else the politician may want.
And we have the single issue abortion voter, who are the same on that issue.
Then we have the whole-spectrum social conservatives, who will bear any burden and pay any price... for any politician that promises to enact laws/state apparatus to force the behavior of all Americans that way, regardless of what such a thing might then be turned in support of.
And then there are the libertarians, who would dismantle our government and hope the world will ignore us.
Finally, there are the fiscal conservatives, who don’t want to pay for very much...and want a politician that will shrink government to the size that can exist on the small amount of money they wish to pay.
Any conservative stupid enough to team up with Romney will be permanently stained for the rest of his or her political career. The ticket will go down in history as the last Republican run for the presidency, the 2012 equivalent of the Winfield Scott/William Alexander Graham Whig ticket.
I’m with you:)
As for me ... if it gets us to a Conservative GOP, I prefer a splintered Party. 2012 is flat going to suck. But I am done with the GOP Elite running conservatism.
“But I am done with the GOP Elite running conservatism.”
I agree with you, but if that is the approach the conservative wing of the party wants to follow, they will have to forgo the strong desire to win national elections for awhile.
That is a hard choice to make, though most likely a necessary one.
One way to look at this...do we want Obama for four more years and teach the GOP elites that the voters matter, or do we want Romney for 8 years. We are F’ed either way.
What is the distinction between a Rockefeller Republican and Obama lite? Seems to me to be one and the same.
Most citizens agree that this November is a crucial point in the history of the Republic and may determine whether America's future lies down the dark road of tyranny by government, a road which many nations have traveled across the centuries - OR, is it possible that enough enlightened citizens use the force of their Constitutional prerogative as its "KEEPERS" (Justice Joseph Story) and bring about a return to its limits on and protections FROM their elected officials, as both Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln advised us to do.
"These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."
Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught doctrines which conflict with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountains whose waters spring close to the blood of the Revolution.
Jonah Goldberg wrote this week that Mitt Romney is "not speaking the language (of conservatism) naturally."
Sorry, but Romney's problem is deeper and more significant than that. In several instances, Krauthammer has observed that Romney seems to be incapable of explaining conservatism.
When a person is steeped in the ideas of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Washington, it just "naturally" slips through in the ideas they convey. Remember Reagan?
Do Republicans seriously want to conserve (preserve) America's constitutional principles? Or, are they just objecting to Democrats? Do they have a passion for liberty? Is this just about changing the Party in power, or is it about preserving freedom?
If their concern is for convincing enough voters to reject the idea of "a government big enough to give you everyting you want" and turn to advocacy for "a government small enough to allow you freedom to keep most of what you earn," then they'd better get busy seeing that someone is nominated who has been "marinated" (to use a word coined by Ingraham last night on "The Factor") in the Founders' ideas (isn't that what conservatives purport to "conserve"?).
So far, Mitt Romney demonstrates no such immersion. He has been "successful" in benefiting from the founding ideas, and he recites familiar words and phrases from patriotic speeches and songs, but that is different from understanding and being able to call up and articulate the philosophy which made such success possible.
Ronald Reagan's life and letters reveal that he had "immersed" himself in the ideas of liberty for years before he agreed to run for President, and that is why he could set "issues" in light of constitutional "principle," and explain his advocacy or rejection of solutions in by that light.
The other three candidates--Paul, Santorum, Gingrigh--couch their answers to questions in a manner which indicate personal study and understanding of the Constitution's protections, each in his own way.
Of the two so-called "frontrunners," however, the lifetime history scholar, teacher, legislator, and participant in what was called "the Reagan revolution," appears to be the one most likely to be able to successfully articulate and distinguish those ideas to voters, if given the chance to compete with the "counterfeit ideas" of tyranny cloaked in righteous benevolence by Obama.
Is "politics as usual" to win the day, or might we not bring Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, and others who embrace founding principles together to help to create a "passion" for liberty among citizens sufficient to defeat the counterfeit ideas which are leading the Republic to ruin?
The following is excerpted from "Our Ageless Constitution," p. 181:
"It was John Adams who said: "The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people." Clearly, the Founders' passion was liberty, and in order to secure that liberty, they sought out and incorporated into the United States Constitution those ideas and principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence.
"The French historian, Guizot, once asked James Russell Lowell, "How long will the American republic endure?" Lowell replied: "As long as the IDEAS of the men who founded it continue dominant."
"Herein lies the answer to the question, "Will the Experiment Succeed?"
"It can and will succeed IF the motivating "principle or passion in the minds of the people" is LIBERTY, and if that passion causes them to exert the determination and will to complete the needed restoration of the IDEAS upon which the great American experiment was based." ---(End of excerpted material)
LOL. You can't splinter it any more than it already is.
My option is very clear — I no longer contribute to the Gutless Old Party.
Count me as one of those. I'm at the point in this election I was in when Fred Thompson dropped out in 2008. We were down to Huckabee, McCain and Romney. A trifecta of flawed candidates. The only thing that got me excited again about the election was the pick of Sarah Palin. That's what we all need to pray for again this time - a very wise choice of a VEEP.
That logic seems correct. I won't vote for Romney. I just won't.
I saw an interview with Katrina Pierson, Dallas Tea Party organizer, and she said that people forget Ron Paul has quite a few delegates that will NEVER go for Romney and this may swing toward keeping him out. Getting Ron Paul more delegates may be the best way to keep this goofball from the nomination and also a way to let the GOP know Americans want more than Obamney. It’s an interesting idea....
Try posting on FR “Go Romney” and see how truly splintered the party already is. You would get chewed up and spit out. While on other conservative forums you will find those believing Newt is the more progressive of the two, or a dreaded inside the beltway insider. Yes the splintered party is very real. What will it take to mend it? One helluva VEEP choice maybe? Hateful attacks by Obama on our nominee could get us to rally around him, also a possibility.
“Having a brokered convention, is the only way to stop Romney, but there is the risk of having a splintered party.”
I don’t know that a brokered convention would produce a more acceptable candidate than Romney. whatever, the party is already “splintered.” I have voted for the GOP nominee in every election since 1976. However, this time I refuse to vote for Romney IF he is the nominee. Of course, I won’t vote for Obama either. I doubt there will be any third party candidate I could support either. So, looks like I will be staying home (or leaving that portion of the ballot blank) for the first time in my 58 years.
So, as far as I am concerned - the GOP of Ronald Reagan is splintered and now beyond restoration.
“What will it take to mend it? One helluva VEEP choice maybe?”
That won’t work for me. I WILL NOT vote for Romney even if Palin was his veep. He is forever unacceptable to me. IF that is the best the GOP can produce...I’m now an independent (conservative one).
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.