Skip to comments.Mitt & Newt: A Plan to Win This Year
Posted on 04/20/2012 7:03:17 AM PDT by Josh Painter
As the dust begins to quickly settle from the hotly contested Republican primary and Mitt Romney assumes the title of presumptive nominee, its important to recognize the role Newt Gingrich has played and will continue to play in helping the Republicans win the White House and Senate this fall.
The former House speaker recently told Newsmax in an interview that he remains in the race, not as a spoiler, but to play a key role promoting a conservative agenda at the Republican convention in Tampa in August. Its a worthy goal and I have no doubt that Newt will soon be officially supporting Mitt Romney to pursue that agenda.
Michael Reagan pointed out in a recent appearance on Fox News that Republicans must now unite behind Romney to defeat Obama and his liberal agenda. Considering the uphill battle we face, I couldnt agree more.
And supporters of Gingrich and Santorum should keep in mind that the key goal now is to roll back the Obama agenda. We can only do that with a united front.
At the same time, Gov. Romney needs to realize that his nomination win came after a hard-fought battle, a war of attrition that saw one leading contender after another fall by the wayside until he was the last man standing. With superior funding and organization, Romney ultimately prevailed.
Though Newt failed to wrest the nomination, I believe he offered a very strong message that Mitt should tap into a message that may have resonated even more strongly in the general election.
Today, Newt remains the great communicator of the Ronald Reagan vision of small government, strong national defense, low taxes, and individual freedom.
He also has a track record of accomplishment, acting as the key conservative figure behind the Contract with America...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
When Sarah Palin announced in October that she would not run for the GOP nomination, I started supporting Newt because he was the only Reagan conservative left standing, not so he could be cast in the role of Romney's "conservative conscience." That conscience is a voice Romney does not allow himself to hear.
Newt's fair weather supporters such as Ruddy, Herman Cain, and even Michael Reagan cave to the GOP establishment's "Manchurian Candidate" are just signs of how corrupt the Republican Party has become and how spineless many who claim to be "conservatives" really are.
The GOP is going the way of the Whigs. It's time for a new Conservative Party that consistently stands for conservative principles. "Fantasy" sports (Fantasy Football, Fantasy NASCAR, etc.) are all the rage these days. In a fantasy political world, Reagan conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin would turn their backs on the corrupt GOP to design and build that Conservative Party to rescue and preserve the republic. Too bad that's only a fantasy.
"Must," my a**!!
Oh, wait.. he said "Republicans."
Romney is *already* “moving to the centre” (i.e. the left) now that he thinks he’s in the clear. Nobody is going to “hold his feet to the fire.” And you know why? Because conservatives were too stupid to get around conservative candidates instead of just lamely voting for Romney “because he’s inevitable.” To hold somebody’s feet to the fire, you have to have leverage on them. Conservatives have demonstrated to Romney that he can win, even when he ignores conservative concerns. Therefore, conservatives have no leverage on Romney whatsoever.
This tripe about “well, we’re gonna really hold his feet to the fire!!!” is nothing but chest-thumping windbaggery.
What’s worse - if he does somehow win the general, he may actually be WORSE than Obama, because he’ll have a compliant GOP Congress, just like Bush had. Any program Romney wants, Romney will get, and there’s nothing conservatives will be able to do about it. At least with Obama, the GOP makes a pretense of putting up a fight.
The GOP IS going the way of the Whigs - and I’m increasingly convinced that this can’t happen fast enough, even if it does shoot down that Party’s hopes in the 2012 Presidential election. Replace it with something fresh.
Me too (although I like Herman Cain as well.)
Any chance Newt gets a shot at the VP slot? That would give him President of the Senate as part of his role..a good fit from Speaker of the House.
...Which is exactly why I joined the Constitution Party. For the first time since Reagan left office, I'll be voting for a conservative candidate. After that craven surrender in the 2010 lame-duck session, I completely lost confidence in the Republican Party.
IF Romney were to be elected in November, which he most assuredly won't, he'd bring political malleability to a new level. That's what comes from having no real core values.
FOCUS! DEFEAT OBAMA! First things first! We can’t create anything new until all this CRAP is cleaned up first.
It appears our conservatives might be planning to co-opt Mittens.
If you can’t beat him, make him join you.
We have Cheney giving him the miscon business, Ryan the fiscon, and Sarah and Michelle ready to help with Socon, and Newt with Perry chomping to champion 10thcon.
If we strengthen all FOUR legs under Mittens while keeping him out of the country or on the golf course at least as much the the Zeros,
we can turn this around and un-do everything of the last three years.
It’s not like Mittens has any original ideas, anyway. He enjoys the figurehead status he fights for.
I think he’s OK with being PINO - POTUS in name only - if he messages that he can be contained.
Sounds like the convention came and went. We must have hit a Mayan calendar time warp.
Cheney ‘miscon’ meant MILCON.
You keep pushing this Constitution Party without mentioning to people that they believe in a protectionist trade policy that the likes of Bernie Sanders (S-VT) would love, and an isolationist foreign policy that would make Ron Paul supporters giddy.
The Constitution Party is not a real alternative. They will get the same nothing burger percentage of the vote they always get.
“That will take years” is the same argument the left has used for years to block drilling for domestic oil & gas. No matter how long it takes, you have to start sometime, and the sooner the better.
This republic has prevailed against all sorts of threats. If it withstood the Civil War, it can stand against a radical Alinskyite from Chicago.
Sorry, Mitt Romney and his win-at-all-costs Alinskyites just aren’t that much of an improvement over Obama and HIS win-at-all-costs Alinskyites. Both candidates are progressives, and each candidate’s supporters turn my stomach.
With Willard, a great VP selection or a poor one will represent the difference of a pile of feces with a cute little curl on the top, or a pile without. The pile is the problem, and cannot be sufficiently sugared, garnished or shaped to be other than what it is.
“each candidates supporters turn my stomach”
They cannot understand that. Truly, they cannot comprehend that they are loathsome to people with integrity. Really, between the Willard and Hussein factions we are only talking about variants of authoritarian-totalitarian leftists. The Willard faction is *usually* better at math. Otherwise their social policies, arrogance and hostility to general personal liberty are much the same.
The USCP opposes trade agreements which have the uneven plane that puts American manufacturers at a disadvantage.
As for the foreign policy issue of nonintervention, I’m not completely aligned with it, because history has shown there are instances in which preventive intervention is needed... but the party’s platform as a whole is one with which I mostly agree.
As for the USCP not being a real alternative... how much of an “alternative” is Mitt Romney offering these days?
How many of us were enthusiastic about Reagan in 1980 but thought the "Rockefeller Wing" was going to sabotage our chances when he selected GHWBush as his VP? How many of us were somewhat enthusiastic about Quayle, but not so much about GHWBush in 1988? How many of us were enthusiastic about Kemp, not so enthusiastic about Dole in 1996? How many of us were only cautiously supportive of GWBush in 2000, but roared when we learned he'd selected Cheney as his VP?
How does Romney get us ALL on board? Here's a suggestion:
Run not only with your VP but with your proposed cabinet as well.
Conservatives sometimes have to be reminded that a President is not king. He can't get anything done by dictate. Above all, he must be a quarterback for the team. While a quarterback may sometimes run a ball in to the end zone himself, more often than not he strategically uses the talents of his team mates to move the ball down the field and bring about the win.
Did anyone hear Palin the other night (4/12/2012) on Hannity when asked if she'd consider being Sec'y of Energy? Did you watch her show the following night in place of Greta? Did anyone hear our own FReeper Allen West when interviewed on Hannity (4/11/2012) and asked whether he'd consider being Romney's VP? And BOTH essentially said YES!
Newt has practically conceded. Are any of these folks any less conservative for facing what are becoming our realities this election cycle?
I have proposed cabinet and administration roles for persons who were Romney's rivals at some point. These are the skill sets we conservatives wanted applied to the places of government where they'd be most effective. Instead of rivals let's make them team players:
Rick Santorum - Sec'y of HHS
Sarah Palin - Sec'y of Energy + Sec'y of Interior (merge these)
Newt Gingrich - Sec'y of Education
Michelle Bachmann - Attorney General
Herman Cain - Sec'y of Commerce, HUD, and Head of GSA (merge)
John Bolton - Sec'y of State
John Petraeus - Sec'y of Defense
Ron Paul - Head of Federal Reserve (let the audit begin)
Donald Trump - Head Council of Economic Advisers
Paul Ryan - Head of Office of Management and Budget
Joe Arpaio - Head of FBI, and Homeland Security (merge these)
Dick Cheney - Head of CIA
White House spokesman: Mark Levin
And our own FReeper, Allen West, as VP.
I was a Perry guy. Keep him as Governor of Texas. He's doing fine right where he is.
Next: Most of these folks are honed primed and stoked from the recent primary debates. They're all sharp. Nationalize the cabinet selection process as much as the Presidential and Congressional elections.
Release every one of these folks back out onto the the campaign trail with an assignment: tackle in an "in your face" way each of these departments - stage a kick-off news conference in front of each one of them. Challenge the office holders to the equivalent of Lincoln-Douglas style debates allowing each Obama appointed office member to defend their record and their (mis)-management of their public trust.
They won't debate, you say? OK, try some new Rules for Conservative Radicals. Stalk them, dog them with cameras, shame them into the arena, watch the cowards avoid the heat, watch for and exploit their mis-steps, create and run ads based on their failures in office and refusal to be made accountable.
While this is distracting the DNCs resources, Romney can land his own punches on Obama in the same way he's managed to blow away all his opposition in the primaries. Use Romney's well funded strike teams to confound opposition at the grass roots, do what they can to discourage and depress Democratic opposition and their voters.
Face it: if Romney was able to take out his competitors in the primary don't you suppose Obama's hacks could have taken anyone of them out in the general?
Have Romney's boys sew the seeds of hopelessness and dissension in the Obama ranks, emphasize betrayal and failure of Obama to keep 2008 promises. Undermine, destroy and confound the opposition into a confused, ill-directed mass who find themselves fighting on more than one Alinskyized, freeze-the-target Presidential candidate, and instead spending their resources fighting 10+ personalities "running" for cabinet offices.
Who are the DNCs "generals" they have to call into a fight like that?
Instead of dividing us with all the endless sniping, let's quit doing the DNC's work for them and work on dividing THEM for a change!
Romney and Netanyahu both began strategic business careers at Boston Consulting Group. Agree with them or disagree with them, but admit that they are patient, long range, strategic thinkers.
One of the things Romney has been able to do in large part is to keep his persona distanced from the decisively well-calculated positioning of opposition to rivals in the primaries. His name-less, face-less cloaked "hit-men" are as effective as any guerrilla force out there, but all that activity is maintained at a plausibly deniable, comfortable, arms-length distance from Romney the candidate. I dare say it puts the likes of Nixon's and Clinton's "opposition research" squads to shame.
Sorry George. Enough of the "kinder-gentler" crap. Tight formations, and "gentlemen's wars" provided the fixed targets that let us destroy the British in our War of Independence.
I can see that machine going to work on Obama and leaving more than just a few lumps. Let's turn the "talents" of Romney's henchmen on to Obama, keep them disciplined, focused, and this side of doing any thing "Watergate," and let them go for the DNC's jugular.
If Romney is what we've got to work with this time around let's face that fact head on and let's hold his feet to the fire and make our will known as conservatives. If he's smart he'll seek our trust, and appoint many of our cabinet choices. To secure our trust he's going to have to both earn it and maintain it.
Romney will go a long and convincing way to doing that by arming, deputizing, and funding the campaign efforts of his "cabinet-in-waiting."
Focus on what? What good would it do to defeat Obama, only to replace him with a Romney who has the same impulses but fewer Congressional restraints on him?
It’s time for conservatives to focus on defeating BOTH of them. We still have seven months - an eternity in political terms, for those willing to do some heavy lifting.
“Newt gets a shot at the VP slot?”
Mitt is bereft of real ideas and just spews handler’s points.
Knowing how quickly he changes positions on heavy issues there is not way we can trust him.
I can’t put a Romney sticker on or sign up.
Some argue here it would be better if O wins again, but I am not so sure. Obama is a full fledged disaster for the county on an apocalyptic scale.
Newt as VP would help a lot for me. If Newt was in the administration he would be a strong voice to shut down or slow liberal programs.
It would also be entertaining to see him debate Bite-me.
Not gonna happen.
While, I certainly appreciate what you say, if I were you I wouldn't be quite so certain.
As evidenced in this and other articles and recent interviews, it seems that quite a number of Tea Party supporters are already beginning coalesce.
So, the question is this: if MR does exactly as I have proposed, will you still be sitting on the sidelines, while the rest of us have the best chance that conservatives will have had in recent memory to shape the debate and the outcome thereof?
The response from you cannot be, "He won't."
Just answer my question directly.
Uh huh... Dream on. Whatever helps you rationalize supporting a liberal.
SoConPubbie: ... I'd support him.
It took a few understandable twists and turns, but as I posited, ...if MR does exactly as I have proposed, ...
... even SoConPubbie will eventually support MR.
Now that your thinking has been able to grasp some of the bigger picture, you might ask yourself if MR had only 1/2 the people I just proposed for cabinet and higher offices, would you prefer to have MR picking USSC justice replacements, or Obama?
You can't say "neither," because if you are intellectually honest with yourself you already realize that it is impossible to say "neither," because, unless all justices are alive and kicking for the next 4 years the choice only comes down to this.
So, without any bobbing and weaving, just answer the question.
Agamemnon: ... if MR does exactly as I have proposed, ...
SoConPubbie: ... I'd support him.
The question was:
if MR had only 1/2 the people I just proposed for cabinet and higher offices, would you prefer to have MR picking USSC justice replacements, or Obama?
You won't answer now, but some day in the very near future you will have to have an answer to that question.
This is Mitt Romney, not the mystical, feel-good, pretend Romney that you are presenting:
You've missed the point completely. I have never presented a "mystical, feel good pretend" Romney. He's a tool like any other politician is a tool. He's one of many tools we have to get conservatism to the place where our language is leading the debate, not just left to a few self-satisfied bomb throwers relegated to the back benches somewhere.
I'm hearing MR responding to the conservative movement, going out of his way to affirm pro-life language in ways I never heard Reagan do with such frequency. I hear the clear articulation of conservatism on many topics not perfect in every possible way, but when is it ever? For the most part sounds good, sounds conservative. Pro-gun, anti-debt, anti-tax, strong defense, strong economy, strong job creation, less regulation, etc. Everything straight out of the Ronald Reagan speech-book -- and then some.
Folksy sounding brain farts in debates is not what will win Presidential elections. Clear articulation of conservatism is. You gotta look and sound the part. Gingrich is great in the articulation area though a bit frumpy in the visuals, and he should be hired to do something significant that requires great locution like dismantling the Dept. of Education. On the other hand he bounces checks. Hes not the model for business savvy that gets the US off the debt track. MR is. Newts not exactly the moral paragon where marital faithfulness is concerned (where MR by contrast is) but some people think that key core conservative value can be overlooked. Marital fidelity is essential for a moral leader, but that said I am not looking to hire Newt for a national marriage counselor either. Hes a politician -- good for what hes good for put him over at Dept of Ed. Let him play to his strength.
I see your list. Bush 1 and 2 let us down on a lot of things too, you may recall. Margaret Sanger was a family friend of Prescott Bush -- GHWBs father. GHWB and his family were all liberal (R)'s pre-1980. LauraGWB we later found out that for all her childrens ed. stuff, she is not quite so pro-life as we thought she was. Neither are GWBs daughters who are also more pro-gay post 2008 at least as bad as Megan McCain. As wonderfully grandmotherly as she is, I dont think Barbara Bush ever really gave up the Planned Parenthood line but was smart enough to shut up about it. When it came to Desert Storm (Bush 1) or the War on Terror (Bush 2), however, I wouldnt have wanted anyone else in there leading the charge.
When GWB was ready to take on Social Security in 2005 he was abandoned by his own congressional team in the breach, he stood alone - as the lone conservative with the conservative privatization plan. Abandoned by his own team. Weakness: he was too much a patrician in his own right to stick up for himself. Still would have rather had Bush 1&2 over Gore of Kerry wouldnt you? Thomas, Roberts and Alito need any more reasons in spite of all the GHWB and GWB imperfections? Actually better than any of Reagans appointees with the exception of Scalia.
if MR had only 1/2 the people I just proposed for cabinet and higher offices, would you prefer to have MR picking USSC justice replacements, or Obama?
So are you ready to answer my question, now?
In politics there are trade-offs. The key is to get more of what conservatives want and less of what liberals want. In spite of Bush 1&2 flaws, you must admit that we can thank them both for the evidences of USSC conservatism that still prevail.
MR's smart, and he structured his ground game for this primary long in advance of any of his competitors. He learned from mistakes from prior campaigns even as Reagan did in 1968 and 1976. It's why he is where he is today, and his competitors are not.
What I have presented by contrast is a possible cabinet selection for the man, which if he chose to run with it could - by your own admission - even persuade the likes of you and likely many other Tea Party Patriots to become more enthusiastic campaigners in 2012 than will be the (D) counterparts.
If you hope to have any of your agenda see the light of day, you have to win first.
I was a Perry guy. He didn't win. I can move on. If, as I have proposed it, I can have the essence of everybody who ran, and create an amalgam of what was useful to the cause of conservatism from everyone of them, I'll have what I want, and I suspect you would too.
By keeping our eyes on the prize, and always remembering that our power is derived from the bottom up, not from the top down, from a unified front, not from a fractured, self-sniping back lot, our larger mass will be in a unique position to dictate our will to the higher ups. That is the way constitutional republicanism works.
Maybe if we can all stop fighting amongst ourselves, and pining for candidates that showed themselves to be singularly incapable of carrying the message long enough to coalesce into that force, we will win the day and take conservatism forward.
If the "cabinet-in-waiting," as I have proposed it, is unleashed into the fray, the debate will continue, and our opposition will wither in the face of it. We use our politicians for what they are good for. Imperfect vessels they may be, but what ever advances conservatism should be our goal.
Pessimism in conservative ranks is merely evidence of DNC success, and I see enough of it around here lately. Lets cultivate THEIR pessimism, and if they ever thought it was Romney that they wanted to run against, I wouldnt be surprised if we all someday find out that he actually turned out to be the Trojan Horse within THEIR own midst the whole time.
Mark Levin must be on the supreme court!
"But no matter what happens we must turn out in November to vote IN as many conservatives and vote OUT as many rats as possible at all levels of government. If we don't have a conservative at the top of the ticket we must turn out anyway and vote straight conservative DOWN ticket!!"
As I made clear, I was a Perry guy. I am faced with the increasing likelihood that the guy who is the (R) Presidential nominee this fall is not as historically conservative as is Perry.
To be motivationally convincing to conservatives, my proposal essentially calls upon Romney to put his proposed cabinet nominees where his rhetoric is, and to task each of them to campaign directly against Obama's currently sitting cabinet appointments.
My proposal in post #19 is a strategy which takes voting IN conservatives and voting for the DOWN ticket to the Executive level:
"Run not only with your VP but with your proposed cabinet as well."
Absent the ability to vote for any of these persons as the nominee at the top of the (R) ticket, voting for a "cabinet-in-waiting" may prove to be the next best thing available to motivate conservatives to get to the polls.
You never answered the question. Try again.
Barring an unforseen miracle, Romney will be the GOP candidate.
When you consider the alternative of him or Obama sitting in the Oval for the next four years, its a no-brainer. On every level of government, this racist, anti-colonist, pro-Muslim, Socialist demagogue Barack HUSSEIN has been a total catastrophe. If he doesn’t go, America will not survive another four years.
What we need to do along with voting against Obama, is to get as many conservatives elected to Congress as possible to make it difficult for Romney to act out in a liberal fashion on any issue.
Beyond that, the conservatives and Tea Party people MUST put aside their reluctance to get involved personally and on a long time basis with the political process and start taking over the GOP from the bottom up by seizing local committee positions in every municipality and county in the Union.
This should not be as difficult as it seems. Despite winning state primaries, the voting indicates:
a) The MAJORITY of Republicans in every state still are unhappy with a moderate Republican like Romney. He has failed to get a numerical majority in nearly every state race.
b) MANY of those Republicans who have voted for him ARE conservatives and have done so reluctantly, feeling he is the most salable of the candidates, not the BEST candidate.
We must work towards three legislative goals:
Initiative and Referendum
I didn't say you differed. I said you didn't read what he wrote carefully enough. You have allowed your emotionalism in this discussion to cloud your perspective.
That is what this discussion is about.
Actually the title of the article and thread is "Mitt & Newt: A Plan to Win This Year." This is a strategic discussion, not an emotional discussion.
My plan is strategic and it is a formula for moving conservatism forward, even while using what are in many cases imperfect tools to get these tasks accomplished.
Politics is often times a series of "forced plays." A ground swell of conservatism from the grass roots passing straight up and through to actual proposed personalities for high office is not merely a "dream." It is in part a "forced play." If he makes the appointments I have proposed, he has made a very committed step that affirms conservatism's larger interests, and he'd be hard pressed to turn his back on these appointments. He'd have a coup on his hands if he did. See how the game is played? It's a "forced play" in a conservative direction.
I don't have to like him, I don't have to like where he came from, all I need to know and be made assured of is that the conservative outcome I want gets fulfilled. The whole of the US does not resemble Massachusetts. Romney is running now in a way that would never get him elected in Massachusetts. I don't think he much cares whether he even wins the state in the general.
Politicians are tools and they play to the crowd that is electing them. I am not a champion of Romney, but you and I have to face the fact that he's the one on stage, and barring any miracles he will be the nominee.
Think "Nugent-ly," as in Ted Nugent: if he's the guitar soloist and he's going to keep us in the listening audience, he'll have to play our tune. Without us, he'll have no audience and the show will close after opening night. Just ask Ted: a band can make or break the soloist's performance. I have just proposed the members of the "back-up band" to make Romney's performance of our tune, and that one he's playing for us right now, one that causes us to applaud enthusiastically at the end of the show. It also attracts a larger audience to our show, and in the "battle of the bands," we win, as we attract more listeners. More listeners translates to more voters.
Ted has expressed a figurative idea recently for taking out the opposition this election season. It is somewhat Nixonian in tactic and Clintonian in execution. We can learn from each of them as much as we can learn from the likes of Sun Tsu -- in fact, we don't have to admire any of these battle hardened tacticians personally, but we can learn from them. I believe Ted's phrase went something like, "we cut their heads off."
If the primaries have shown us anything it is that Romney's team has the "kneecappers" and the funding to get that part of the task accomplished. I don't have to like Romney, I don't have to like his team, but I can recognize their capabilities in this election cycle. Given our opposition, we'll need every hard-ball strategist we can find to take them down. That's all part of the ground game. The cabinet selection idea is the "vision" part of the game.
Romney needs a motivated conservative base to the White House. He hasn't closed the deal with those from whom he must draw support to be successful. I proposed the plan to close the deal and give voice to the "vision".
If he truly is a strategic thinker, he will do what it takes to coalesce his team. Romney needs us. We don't necessarily need him. He doesn't make it to the Presidency without us, but he has to run more convincingly and have some current evidence of his intent to match his current words. The more he tacks to our line the easier it will be for him to survive politically, because we have his political future in our hands.
Instead of just digging your heels in and insisting on the "never happen" line, why don't you instead train your efforts on trying to make what I have proposed actually happen. Recognize that Romney, the politician, will have to do what it takes to survive and win convincingly. I have just proposed a way to make that happen, not because I like Romney (I don't). I'd be casting my vote for his VP (Allen West, if I had my way) and his proposed cabinet.
Politicians are political animals. They are our tools to facilitating conservatism's continuing ascendancy. It is up to us to force Romney's plays in our direction. Do this in part by keeping Newt in the race to the convention, but not relying just on Newt exclusively to get this part of the task done. He's a politician. He's a tool just like Romney. He's part of the plan for conservative advancement.
In the end (if not sometime before) stand on the stage at the RNC Convention with your VP running mate, and your proposed cabinet standing up there right behind you. If it's who I proposed, the victory for our side will be resounding this November.