While Obama has been a disappointment for many people, they are not quite sure they are ready to pull the lever and fire him.

For me, the question is, “Who will more of these folks in the center be inclined to replace Obama with?”

The answer is Romney.

Romney has no chance to win election in november. He has more than proved that in the last two weeks. He is the subject of the Administration’s attack and they are already winning the argument again Mitt Romney. He is toast before he begins. He is mr. 1 % incarnate. Good luck with your choice, but I have seen this story play out before.

and on that Romney loses. Sure he was dealing with a Democratic legislature, but the point is he didn’t even try to buck them, but caved and appointed liberal judges.

acat, got that picture re the judges handy?

so Mitt would almost certainly be a fairly weak executive kept in line with a robust Republican majority Congress. And his ego doesn’t seem so enormous, by presidential standards, that he would compromise these conservative principles rather than admit a mistake. Gingrich has it on the merits style and performance wise but seems to be so ill-suited to the task of governing I can’t even feel good about telling people that he would be a competent President who would make this a better country.

Give it up, at this point Romney should drop out.
After 6 plus years and tens of millions spent what has Romney accomplished?
Lost Iowa twice with fewer supporters this round than last.
Lost South Carolina twice with his major competitor taking over 40% in a four way race.
In the process of losing Florida for a second time. His 20 plus point lead in the polls evaporated in less than a week.
Every poll shows 70% or more of the conservative base just isn’t that into him. It’s time for Willard to wake up and do the right thing. He claims he loves this country and is running to save it. He can contribute to helping this country. He can take down the attack ads and stop the smear campaign. He can drop out and endorse our nominee and help defeat Obama. Of course these actions would be selfless and not about personal ambition. So Romney got the character Rick Perry has already displayed? I doubt it but we will see.

I’m with Ann Coulter and Elliott Abrams on this one.

‘Course around these parts right now, saying so as you’ve done takes a lot of courage. I’m glad to hear from you.

Why stop at Mitt, you should go all the way to Ron Paul instead.

This is why Reagan’s son supports Gingrich. Ron Reagan also opposes Romney for RomneyCare.

Romney has not given any indication of a transformation of his views. If Romney wins election, we will need a new party. One that actually believes in conservative principles.

What his comopany did to small corporations, his campaign is now trying to do to Newt Gingrich:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-paints-gingrich-as-mentally-unstable/2012/01/26/gIQAM2b0SQ_blog.html

The more I see of Miitt’s campaign, the less inclined I am to vote for him..

Then, yeah, I’ll support Romney. But (and I speak, I believe, for many) I will do so without any ardour or enthusiasm, and I will merely tolerate him and wait for 2016. And I only support him by virtue of the fact that he has a basic ethical code which is lacking in Newt Gingivitis

Contrary to the popular opinion that has been passed to voting public forever by the beltway elitists elections are not won in the middle. Elections are won on enthusiasm. Those in the middle are in the middle because they don’t really have an opinion one way or the other and they will be swayed by whichever side is most entusiastic. If you’ll look at voter turnout, you’ll see independent voters always skew to the side with the highest turnout.

If I’m a dedicated motivated partisan, I’m going to drag my less dedicated less partisan (read independent) friends to the polls with me. They are going to vote how I vote because I asked them and they really don’t care one way or the other.

If I’m less dedicated and merely feel obligated by civic duty I’m not dragging anyone anywhere. My independent friends simply won’t go, because no one asked OR they’ll go with another friend and vote opposite.

So appealing to the middle is appealing to nothingness. That’s exactly where Romney is at. He has no appeal within the party except to those who mistakenly believe he can score with independent voters. Obama supporters will be more enthusiastic that Romney voters and he will win all the battlegrounds.

The candidate is going to have to have a plan that resonates LOUDLY with a core constituency to be successful. The only choice to win is Santorum. He has an economic plan devoted to manufacturing that will score points with blue collar working class voters that are “mad as hell” with the state of the country.

And who are they mad at? Well Washington elitists like Obama, Washington power brokers like Gingrich and Wall St CEO types like Romney.

Go read all the Romney fluff pieces, what they will not talk about is Romney’s record of supporting conservative causes, because it doesn’t exist.

I’ll take an inconsistent conservative like Gingrich over a consistent moderate like Romney, thank you very much.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/27/soros_not_much_difference_between_romney_and_obama

And, further, it will mean the end of Reagan’s 11th Commandment. Only the extremely well-heeled and well-connected need apply in the future for the GOP Nomination– Because, if any moderately-monied conservative who is reviled by the establishment peeks above the trench-line, he (or she) will be mowed down by the twin assaults of endless money, and endless, untruthful mendacity and lies. Romney and Paul have sowed poisonous seeds that will reap a foul, foul harvest if Romney becomes the nominee.

During the first 50 or so years of his life on this mortal coil, Mitt Romney (following in the footsteps of his unctuous father) made it clear he had no use for conservatives, or conservatism. He certainly governed as a mush-filled moderate. In fact, the entire REASON for “Romneycare” is that he bough the leftist narrative that Government was responsible for picking up the tab for people’s doctoring. A true conservative would have broomed the crap off his desk the minute it landed there– not signed it into law, much less lend his imprimatur to it. It, and Romney, is a gold-plated, 24-carat, diamond-encrusted, wall-to-wall sham in this regard.

Romney has surrounded himself with the anti-Reagan’s from the late 1980′s and 1990′s: All are Bush family loyalists, and they’ve had a hate on for Reagan that wasn’t even stanched by GHW Bush’s appointment as Vice President. It is a blood rivalry that goes back to the Ford Fight of 1976, if not before. They are all “Good Government” Republican– not a single, thoroughbred conservative among them. And, thus, will Reaganism be buried.

I am thoroughly, completely disgusted with “Mitt” Romney. He represents EVERYTHING that is warped and misshapen about politics: He is a social-climbing technocrat, with unlimited amounts of time, money, connections and no particular reason to run for the Presidency, except that his father did.

I shake my head…

is that he can’t be bought or sold, because he’s too wealthy.

I find it impossible to believe that he won’t self-immolate at some point like his father and fiscal conservatism will rise on the ashes of the two-party tryanny,
Have faith voters will see through all the bs that is happening now and then there will be a strong visceral reaction against Romney. I think it’s already starting to happen. The next cycles of political thought can take us no where but up, to a Republican Party of real ideas.

Go ahead and laugh out loud. He would lose the south. Millions like me, will not vote for him. He is dishonest and I believe more dangerous to our causes than Mr. Obama. Book it, Romney nomination means 4 more years of Obama. Period.

I believe we need a governor. Mitt doesn’t excite me, but he is the only gov left standing.

If Mitch Daniels wants to get back in, I’ll gladly switch to him, but that doesn’t seem to be happening so Romney it is.

The biggest mistake of the Tea Party has been to nominate unqualified people for higher office (Senate and Governor) at times. We appear poised to try to do that with Mitt.

Blame it on whoever … Huntsman for his choices in his campaign, Daniels / Jindal for sitting it out, Perry for thinking that running for President was like running for Governor.

I like what Mitt did in business.

I like what Mitt did in turning around the Utah Olympics.

I hate what he did with Mitt-care and I think it weakens him as a candidate.

I agree it is a sad commentary on the political state of affairs that most conservative Republicans wrote off Huntsman at the start of the campaign without doing any due diligence of his record and supported candidates as grossly incompetent and morally repulsive as the zero sum scenario are now left to contemplate. People glued on to Mitt who might have given Huntsman a longer look if the other half of the electorate didn’t seem hellbent on pushing neurotics and halfwits.

But whatever his mistakes, and I agree Jon made some of the same strategic errors as Mitt ’08, it is absolutely in our power to resist, by ignoring the polls, the horserace or strategy and voting for the best candidate, to keep them in the race, giving others who follow a chance to vote for the best instead of the worst.

Blame it on whoever … Huntsman for his choices in his campaign, Daniels / Jindal for sitting it out, Perry for thinking that running for President was like running for Governor.

think of themselves as conservative when, according to his background story, he self-defines as a moderate:

“Back then I was socially conservative but slowly moved away from that on the issues of abortion and gay marriage, especially in the recent years.”

Actually, I guess he’s a fiscal conservative, social moderate. Which equals morality and freedom be damned, just leave me alone to make money!!

This election will most likely be about Obama which is why arguing about electability is pointless. If the incumbent has the headwind of an awful economy there is not much he can do to win other than demonize his opponent. Still, Mitt or Newt don’t have enough baggage to sway the average voter away from the fact that unemployment is high and growth is low. Mitt can win back conservatives by choosing a strong conservative VP.

What I worry about is what happens when Mitt is elected because if he doesn’t make a strong effort to repeal Obamacare then he will tear the Republican party apart. In this case he will get primaried in 2016 and might even draw a third party challenge.

is no better that any of the lefties. He knows damned good and well that Newt was found not guilty by the IRS of the Dems political hatchet job in the congress. Yet he runs these add. He’s no better than Cooter, who started all these lies back in the 90′s.

He’s scum.

He’ll get my vote if he’s the nominee.

But nothing more.

Like what? The solutions for entitlement reform have been rejected out of hand, and I’ve heard nothing that is of particular encouragement on a jobs/better economy front that is particularly encouraging (a cap gains tax cut as the central piece of your economics platform? really?).

If Romney is a “solutions” guy, then where are his “solutions”?

http://www.redstate.com/rsklaroff/2012/01/28/cage-fight-game-on/

Have discussed this newsflash on my new diary-site.

Critique invited….

Sarah has not formally endorsed Newt but she did a great job deciphering the difference between the Establishment tin suit Romney with the only real conservative that she feels can beat Obama and that is Newt. She was on with Justice Jeanne from Fox and Sarah made is clear Newt is feared by the Establishment because he would shake things up and actually look for solutions. She also made is clear that Newt has true conservative credentials and not Romney. She poked fun at Romney’s pathetic attempt to defend Romneycare as being on the State level as if okay to FORCE people to buy something as long on state level…Socialized medicine.

She also touched on the history and she is correct if you look at Romney’s histoty he has never been conservative and never supported Reagan at all!! Sarah contrasts that with Newt who while, spent years in Congress, is clearly being attacked by all the DC Insiders now which as Sarah says should tell the GOP voter something!!

And she is right Newt’s negatives are higher because of the millions Romney and his goons are spending to portray Newt that way!! But like she said Obama will vet Romney with that billion dollar war chest and his flip flopping recent conversion to conservatism will be exposed for all to see not just the GOP. Romney will crumble like a deck of cards!! Romney is a liberal and Obama will have field day showing Romney today, Romney in the 80s, Romney today, Romney in the 90s,,,it will be brutal. There is no way this tin suit will stand the scrutiny!! I can just see the independents…oh yeah Romney is a man of true conviction….right!!! And the conservatives already cannot stand him….so where will his support come from??

The liberals will support Romney!!! OH I forgot they already have Obama!! Romney will be cooked faster than a ribeye steak at Longhorn Steakhouse!!

The following is a discussion on Romney’s positions over the years. You decide for yourself who he really is?

As the Florida primary looms closer, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has more and more strongly identified himself as a consistent conservative and Republican voter, and in Thursday’s GOP debate he implied he always has been.

But a review of the facts paints a different picture and counters Romney’s assertions. In the past, Romney has often gone to considerable lengths to distance himself from Republicans and conservatives.

• Romney had been a lifelong independent before he decided to run for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts in 1994, the Boston Globe reported at the time.

When Romney debated Kennedy, Kennedy accused his opponent of trying to return the country to the policies of Reagan-Bush. Romney retorted: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

• The Los Angeles Times reported that after Romney entered the ’94 Senate race, his wife Ann said: “We didn’t know a single Republican when we jumped in.”

The Times also disclosed that Romney even considered running as an independent “before rejecting the idea as impractical.”

• When House Speaker Newt Gingrich was promoting his “Contract with America” in 1994, Romney’s aides said he “had not read the document and had no plans to support it,” the Globe reported.

The Washington Times observed that Romney “criticized the Republican campaign agenda, the ‘Contract with America,’ as too partisan.”

• Brent Bozell’s Conservative Victory Committee attacked Romney in 1994 for “running away from conservative Republican themes” and espousing a “left-wing agenda.”

• Washington Post columnist David Broder observed during the 1994 Senate campaign: “Eager to show that he is a moderate independent and no ideologue, Romney stressed his support for universal health insurance and abortion rights, criticized the Republican ‘Contract with America,’ and was more outspoken than Kennedy in arguing that the Boy Scouts should not exclude homosexual youths.”

• In 1992, Romney voted in the Democratic presidential primary for Paul Tsongas, one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate, saying Tsongas’ views were more closer to his own than Bill Clinton’s.

• Romney donated to the 1992 campaign of U.S. Rep. Dick Swett, a New Hampshire Democrat; Rep. John LaFalce, a New York Democrat; and Democrat Doug Anderson, who was running for the Senate from Utah.

Romney defended the donations, saying: “I don’t think they’re mortal sins,” according to the Boston Herald. Press reports suggested he made the donations because of personal relationships or business reasons.

• The Deseret News in Utah reported that Romney’s 2002 campaign for governor in Massachusetts “features an endorsement from a self-described ‘liberal Democrat’ — Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson.”

Romney returned the favor, endorsing Anderson’s re-election campaign in 2003.

Anderson later called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush for “abuses of power” and “human rights abuses.”

• Romney in 1994 “disassociated himself from Reagan and Bush policies and said he would be independent of Republican Senate leaders,” the Boston Globe reported.

“Romney offers himself as the candidate of change. What he would change from is obvious; what he would change to is still unclear.”

During the CNN debate in Jacksonville, Romney gave listeners a more emphatic impression of his past Republican credentials, saying, “I’ve never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot. And — in my state of Massachusetts — you could register as an independent and go vote in (whichever) primary happens to be very interesting. And any chance I got to vote against Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy, I took. … I have always voted for a Republican any time there was a Republican on the ballot.”

Romney also stated during the debate after being elected governor of Massachusetts he became more conservative. This statement appears more truthful. On fiscal matters then Gov. Romney and Massachusetts’ Democratically controlled legislature clashed frequently. Romney holds the state record for gubernatorial vetoes.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Romney-Was-Independent-Not/2012/01/28/id/425824

…will prompt this diarist to rethink his posture!

All ran as true conservatives and WON!!!

Ford, HW Bush (after raising taxes), Dole, and McCain ran as centrist and LOST!!!!

When Republicans run as CONSERVATIVES they WIN!

I rest my case!!

Think about this…all this talk about Mittens being the money guy able to create jobs, fix the economy, blah blah blah.

This man outspent Huckabee 20:1 and still lost Iowa in 2008. He has been campaigning for 6 years and can barely get more than 25% of the votes. Even with the GOP establishment behind him, he has Newt snapping at his heels and actually humiliated him in SC. In a nutshell, Mittens is a lousy campaigner!

Now picture him in the general against Obama…..by most accounts, the two are not that far apart! So why change? And for once, Romney will be outspent and the MSM will be against him and the GOP establishment can’t help him! And he has no debating skills to bail himself out! And all his lies will be magnified 100 times by the MSM. And Obamacare will be off the table, given that he is the GrandDaddy of Obamacare.

And this should bring all you Rombots back to reality….Obama as a freshman senator with zero experience took down the much vaunted Clinton machine in 2007 and reduced Hillary to tears! Just imagine what he would do to a frackless Mittens.

So it is not too late to switch to Newt. At least with Newt, we have a fighting chance.

The choice you make in candidates is a reflection of your worldview. You simply dismiss the fact that Romney instituted socialist healtchare with a mandate. Apparently, that type of thinking is perfectly okay with you when you choose candidates. True conservatives understand that those who support or ignore Romneycare will support other big government solutions. So, you’re not conservative. At best, i would classify you as a moderate.

Oh, it is a big government solution whether Heritage Foundation or other “conservatives”, including Newt, supported it at some point. And yeah, you are a moderate (or liberal) Republican for supporting a candidate who enacted Government Mandated Socialized Healthcare. Government run healthcare is not something true conservatives believe in. I know it’s fashionable to say one is a conservative. Some people have come to believe that saying you’re a conservative simply means you are a Republican. But, Republican does not equal Conservative. Being conservative connotes a certain set of principles. “Conservatives” who support mandates aren’t really conservatives.

The person you choose reflects where you stand on the spectrum Look, if I voted for Lenin, I’d be a socialist. You support a guy who passed government healthcare, is anti abortion and milquetoast on taxes. You’re a moderate.

Mandates are the band aid to the solution. The problem is high health care costs, which is caused by price fixing of medical services. Fix that and unreimbursed hospital care will drastically be reduced. THAT’S a free market solution. A socialist solution is to FORCE everyone to buy health insurance. That’s your guy Romney.