Who has a path to the nomination at this point/ Maybe Romney or Gingrich; theoretically Perry if he can turn things around in the next few weeks.

But what about the other serious contender named Inconclusive?

The best polling in Iowa suggests a four way tie right now. And what about a close race for Romney from Newt in New Hampshire? This race was supposed to be clearly defined by South Carolina or Florida, but it may not happen. If no single candidate is gathering huge numbers of delegates by the time we get to Nevada, there’s a good chance it’s not going to happen in 2012. Then the winner of the primary season is Inconclusive.

Red State should be having a conversation about this. Inconclusive means a brokered convention. We need a conservative candidate who can win a convention and win a general election and Red State can play a role. I think that means asking what kind of conservative can be nominated by a convention of this sort and trying to convince such a person to accept a draft. My own sense is that the folks who could win a fight inside a convention are fairly few: Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan.

Can Red State coalesce around one of these folks? I think so. My own vote would be with Paul Ryan, but I think Red State should be prepared to open up a deliberation if Mr Inconclusive does well in the early caucuses and primaries.

1. 27.8 Giuliani +13.3
2. 14.5 Thompson
3. 12.8 Romney
4. 12.5 McCain
5. 9.3 Huckabee
6. 4.7 Paul

Giuliani was still running away with it. Hot Air reporting today that UL endorsement avgs. 11pts for their chosen. So, it remains to be seen whether Gingrich is going to keep going with this.

He is still a weak candidate, after you take away the 30-60 second soundbites, he is left to stand on his record.

Newt is no better candidate…I hope people start waking up fast!

Rick Perry now has a Dan Quayle problem. We can call it an oops potataoe.

I don’t think intrade is the end-all-be-all of outcome consensus, but it’s definitely something that I take note of.

Looks like pretty much all of that drop was due to people betting on Newt (Cain and Perry are <5%).

Seems that since the race is in such flux, that the big money donors are sitting at the moment. Cain’s fundraising has now dropped off considerably. They are having to use a month old poll showing him in the lead in fund raising emails and letters.

What gets me is that I have been reviewing the 2008 election with the GOP primary. I do remember that the media kept tearing down each conservative candidate as they came into the race and jumped to the lead, just as they have done this year.

I was the most excited about Fred Thompson when he got into the race. The news kept saying that he wasn’t putting forth the effort to win the GOP nom. People then moved to Rudy Giuliani while John McCain was nearly broke and at 5% in the polls.

Once McCain started to win and it was a race between him, Romney and the Huckster, I thought Romney was the best of the 3 at the time. People still voted for McCain even though he was known to keep insulting GOP conservatives. What I didn’t know is that McCain’s voting record was quite conservative.

I am hopeful that as we go through the primaries, people will be serious enough to ignore the LSM and vote for the most conservative candidate (Perry) in the end.

If I wanted to be fed the DNC’s talking points I could head to Daily Kos every day. This anti-Mitt tirade has got to stop.

So if he WILL be the nominee (as the article title states), why in the world are we doing the DNC’s job for them? We’re better than this.

If you don’t like Mitt, that’s fine. He’s not my favorite. But if not, then WHO? I like Bachmann and think she might make a comeback, but I’ll be the first to admit that she’d be a longshot in the general.

I was worried about this very thing. Dick Morris believes that early attacks inoculate a candidate against later attacks. It enables the response: “This has been thrown around for months and I have already addressed it numerous times, next question”.

The man’s been running against Republicans and against conservatives for months.

He plotted to run against his boss while still serving as ambassador. When he landed in the US after serving in China, he had a campaign ready to go.

But I’m a social moderate and a Yankee, and I appreciate that this is a southern/western party with many social conservatives and Huntsman has been pretty undiplomatic with this majority of the party.

I might well cast my (meaningless) ballot for him , but I don’t really see the party embracing him.. I think he would kill in the general though, probably getting more electoral votes than any other candidate.

Despite the bad shape the country is in, this election is still going to be extremely tough. For all his failings, Obama is a fantastic campaigner, and he’ll have the resources to run a vicious campaign.

Still, I think the broader point you make is important: If it isn’t going to be Romney, who do we want instead? RedState seems to have a quota of about 3 Romney-trashing articles per week, but nobody beside a few Perry-supporters in the comments ever bothers to lay out a positive case for an alternative candidate.

I think Romney would destroy conservatism because he thinks like a Dumbocrat. Everything is negotiable for him and he bends his principles to fit the situation.

If all your predictions are true, we are going to win in 2012 and there is no reason to choose a marginal Republican like Romney as our candidate.

Clearly we need romney to come in and fire all the stiffs. I’m convinced.

Romney shows with Romneycare he believes in non of these things.

Americans are not stupid. They want people with true convictions. Romney is just like Kerry and will lose.

Just look at his record as Governor of MA and the positions he took while running for Governor of MA and for the U.S. Senate in 1994 against Ted Kennedy.

Most electable? Mittens lost by 20 points in 1994, quite possibly the most Republican year ever (along with 2010). Almost no one lost in 1994 and yet Mittens managed it by 20 points. Also, he declined to run for Governor in 2006 because he knew he was a dead duck if he had.

you channel YOUR energy into making a case for Romney, if he’s your candidate?

This is the primary. We support candidates we support and oppose those who we disagree with. Many on RS, Erick apparently included, believe that Romney is a bad, bad choice and are writing in opposition to him. This is to be expected.

Every Republican should support the candidate their conscience dictates, and we all should rally to all the candidates when they come under attack from the left. I think a tough primary is good for us because it makes our candidate in the general election stronger.

We should not forget who the bad guys really are start focusing our fire on them.

I want to have this discussion before the nominating die is cast, not after.

I agree with the concept of your post, that tearing down Mitt Romney is not particularly productive. However, the polling data at this point is meaningless. Polls that compare Mitt Romney to Barrak Obama at this point mean precisely squat. Rick Santorum polls very poorly, but that is a reflection his low name recognition, and has nothing to do with the qualities, both good and bad, of Santorum. (Note: I do not support Santorum, I just use him for illustrative purposes!) The only poll of consequence this far from an election, 11-12 months, is the presidential approval number, and Obama is upside down. So there is no real evidence at this point for a given candidate.

That said, to argue FOR somebody is far more productive than arguing AGAINST somebody, as you imply from your post. I agree. I am undecided. All of the candidates have had good moments, and all have had … well … bad moments. The question I ask myself is who would be the best POTUS, not who would be the best candidate. These questions are NOT the same. For example, Obama was clearly the better nominee for the Democrats in 2008, but there isn’t much doubt that Hillary would have been a less incompetent POTUS (I would not say “better” president, just less incompetent!).

You are right on the money with your Romney criticism.

The consequences of Romney being on the Republican ticket are disastrous for the Republican party.

Kudos to you and other conservatives who are actually speaking the truth about how lousy Romney is. Sadly, it seems that other conservative sites are quietly being pulled into the Romney tractor beam (*ahem, NRO, Townhall, and possibly Hot Air).

Thanks for not stretching Reagan’s 11th commandment beyond all common sense. I am sure he didn’t enact his commandment to allow a candidate like Romney to be shielded from criticism. How else will the Republican party reform itself if the Repubs don’t have the courage to pull the party back to conservatism.

If that requires purging candidates the likes of Romney, the Republican party as a whole will be the better for it.

Have you watched how testy and nervous Mitt gets when challenged by another Republican? He starts sweating profusely, talks very fast, stutters, uh, uh, uh, in my view, in my view….. What’s impressive about that? He does fine as long as he gets a heads up on the questions in advance and relies on his 5 year training in front of mirrors. Whenever he’s taken off his game, off his talking points, and gets a good, fair in-your-face challenge he flubs up as much as the next guy. Debating Obama is going to be tough for anybody. For all those bragging that Newt can slam dunk debates, look at his responses when he gets asked a touchy question. He immediately attacks the moderator and while Republicans cheer and love it, it will get very old very quick because EVERY question will be framed to bring out that cranky old timer side of Newt. All questions will be geared toward making Obama look like the smartest and most capable.

Instead of us hanging out hats on debate performances as the means of picking our nominee, let’s decide that 30 sec sound bytes in debates are meaningless and simply stop watching debates and talking about them. We are allowing the media to make debates a much bigger deal than they should be.

its garbage, and the reason for not wanting Romney is because he is garbage. Who care if someone can debate, its about who can really fix this country. Mitt Romney will not beat Obama and the video above shows why, Romney cannot even convince his own party to trust him because he is not anywhere close to what we need. The whole washington insider press has pushed behind the guy, but it has not helped. Romney is the worst candidate to run against Obama, in fact he is not even running that far right of Obama, and people know they cannot trust him. Thats why all the left wing media wants Romney, they know its done for us if we nominate him.

Allot of the base will sit home. You can call us idiots if you want but many of us just don’t see Romney as a conservative at all.

then I would have to choose Perry over Romney. Perry has the idealogy and the competency, he just isn’t the most articulate of the candidates. I want a candidate that understands that energy production fuels the economy and that the federal government is there to protect this nation and assist the states (not the other way around).

His record in MA proves that.

His record in MA proves that.

For one Perry is a very competent governor and Gingrich was a very competent speaker.

But who cares about competency when you are not going to push conservative legislation anyway.

Romney’s competence is also a media creation. All he did was buy profitable companies and bankrupt them to make profits. He was never a self made man.

Gingrich helped change the compass of the country and Perry has kept the economy in TX running better than most states.

Oh yeah don’t forget even in good times Romney’s record of job creation in MA was abysmal while passing Romneycare to kill more jobs.

Thanks for this post…. its been my point all along about the “Flip flopper” label. It worked well on John Kerry because he was juxtaposed against Bush who was looking like a rock with his foreign policy and the last thing you wanted was someone wishy washy defending the nation.

This will be different. Romney should be able to deflect the charge by pointing out Obama’s many, many flip flops. You pointed out some but there are more including not taking public funding for his presidential campaign in 2008, associating with lobbyists, and his stance on gay marriage.

Obama’s as sly as a fox. He knew America liked what Bush was doing on the war on terror.

The big difference is Romney flip flopped on his RECORD not just his word.

It’s like when Kerry flip flopped on Iraq after he voted for it.

Anyway we know the Dumbocrats are hypocrites. They say they hated Bush’s policies and then when Obama uses them they say nothing.

I’m sure the tone will change when the nominee is chosen but now is the time to get the candidate that is the most conservative and not have the LSM choose them for us.

Yes most conservatives will come around if Romney is the nominee but he passion will not be there.

I’m sure the tone will change when the nominee is chosen but now is the time to get the candidate that is the most conservative and not have the LSM choose them for us.

Yes most conservatives will come around if Romney is the nominee but the passion will not be there.

I already saw a 30-second version. It hits the mark just as well as the 4 minute one.

…

First, I don’t think Gary would run under the L mantle.

Second, I don’t think the Ron Paul people will settle for anyone who isn’t Ron Paul.

Third, Gary Johnson has a much smaller base of support.

Ron Paul could in a worse case scenario get 4-5% of a vote if the electorate is truly depressed.

Gary Johnson, despite his supriority to Ron Paul, wouldn’t break 1%.

I like Gary Johnson in that he would have improved the Republican debates if he would have been included in more of them. He isn’t shy about cutting spending or vetoing bills.

Gary Johnson used the veto pen like Darth Vader used the force choke hold. . . and Gary did it with a smile.

I am not in any way advocating for it, but the danger for a third-party candidacy is real.

Romney will prompt a mass exodus from the Republican party the likes of which we have not seen in a long time. Romney is not responsive to so many concerns that conservative voters have. I know good, solid conservatives that will absolutely vote third party. I’ve told them about the ramifications for that, but they are resolute.

I am cautiously hopeful that we can reform the Republican party and that we need to work in the party system. But we registered Republicans must deal with the reality that large swaths of voters will abandon the R ship if Romney is the nominee. So how do we avoid it? Stop believing the pundits and think for yourself. Challenge the opinion makers. Pick better candidates.

Perry is the best, hands down.
Paul is a terrific candidate.
Newt is deeply flawed, but a tremendous alternative to Romney (and Obama).
Bachmann is an opportunist, but is better than Romney.

All of the above candidates could probably successfully run without risk of tripping the third-party landmine. Run Mitt and watch what happens. We have been fed Mitt propaganda for months and conservatives are going to take it out on the Establishment if they continue to game the system.

Again, I am not advocating for it. I think it will be disaster if it happens. As a registered Republican, I would try to stop the mass defection but it would be like trying to stop an avalanche.

than any of the other candidates. I just think they’re giving up a little “taste” of what we have to look forward to regardless the candidate. I think this ad was more in retaliation to the recent Romney ad against Obama.

Barney Frank is being snide in “endorsing” Newt Gingrich. He certainly doesn’t support him in any way.

As for why Newt is supported, it is because he is brilliant, articulate, and has a record of balancing the Federal Budget for four years running. He is an original thinker who can skillfully argue his positions. He understands Washington well enough, and is driven enough to be the best selection to make if one wants to see a transformational conservative agenda realized.

if he could ever get any traction. They just don’t believe he’s viable right now. If he can ever change that perception, his numbers will skyrocket

that they probably aren’t vetting the other candidates positions as much. Many assume Newt is conservative because he was to the right of most of the country in the 1990s. Cain is a blank slate.

You are raising a fascinating issue that every conservative ought to thoughtfully consider.

What HAS happened since the sweeping success of 2010? My theory is that the Establishment has done it’s best to co-opt the Tea Party movement. Nothing destroys a strong movement like subversion within.

Where does the subversion come from? I vigorously contend that neoconservativism has savaged the Republican party and the neocons are desperately trying to marginalize the Tea Party movement. Before you think that I wear tinfoil hats all day, I urge you to familiarize yourself with the founders of the neoconservative movement and to understand what they believe. Fundamentally, they are statists. They are NOT in favor of limited government. They like big government, but for different reasons than your typical socialist. The neocons are fascinated with the idea of American Empire and they need a big government to make the United States a modern day Rome.

We now have “conservative” pundits that are doing the Establishments dirty work. They are bought. Plain and simple. There are good, conservative websites and newspages out there (Erickson and Redstate are a good example), but many have been co-opted by political operatives who are interested in preserving the status quo. Let’s run down the list:

(Note: I’m not saying crawl under a rock and avoid listening to the people listed below. I am saying be aware of what they are saying and how they are using rhetoric to shape your opinions.)

FOX News: Roger Ailes (propagandist), Hannity (cheerleader), O’Reilly (demagogue), Krauthammer / Kristol (Neocon spokesmen)
Fox News is clearly in the tank for Romney. All of their election coverage is slanted to either directly prop up the Romney campaign or to continue the divide and conquer strategy by preventing any coalescing effect in the Republican field. Note how much fawning coverage they gave to Cain and now Gingrich. The idea is to keep the base occupied with candidates who will either run out of steam or will be dragged down by their past long enough to splinter the vote in Romney’s favor. Note how they treat Perry. Note how they treat Paul.

SRN Media: Salem Radio Network is in the tank for Romney. Michael Medved is a neocon shill. Brilliant debater. He has done a remarkable job subverting true conservatism from within. I admire skillful persuasion and Medved’s got it. But he is dangerous for people who love limited government. Hugh Hewitt is also subversive to limited government principles. Note how both men react to Rick Perry and Ron Paul. Paul makes Medved and Hewitt hysterical. (We should ask ourselves why.) They are a little more careful in trying to steer people away from Perry. If they were open about it, many of their listeners would be on to their little ploy. So the narrative of their shows is a subtle exercise in moving their listeners to the conclusion that Romney is the inevitable and only electable candidate. Many people are unfortunately under the spell that these two men cast.

WaPo: Jennifer Rubin is doing the Romney campaign’s dirty work while working as a “journalist” for WaPo. She has strong neoconservative ties. Thankfully, most people are on to her little game and are just tuning her out. Her fifteen minutes are almost up.

RINOs: Note the squish Repubs who have endorsed Romney. They would face the wrath of the party bosses and money men, if they didn’t fall in line. Many of these endorsements are not principled at all, but are pure political calculation. The thing is, many of these RINOs misread the tea leaves and will face the wrath of the Tea Party when their election rolls around.

Townhall: Heavily infiltrated by RINO thinking

NRO: Heavily infiltrated by RINO / neocon thinking. Also, William F. Buckley’s maxim to support the most conservative and electable candidate possible is stretched to absurd proportion here. The Establishment has a strong pragmatic streak. Unfortunately, pure pragmatism leads to silly results (see John McCain, 2008).

Hot Air: It’s hard to tell where Morrissey stands right now. In the last couple of weeks, it seems that the rhetoric has turned to shape opinion in the direction of “Newt v. Romney.” Sadly, I think that this will turn into “Romney is the last man standing . . . (fake sigh).” It’s a much more subtle form of persuasion. HA may be squeaky clean on this issue, but I have my eye on them. (For example, I notice there was very little mention made of Sheriff Arapaio’s endorsement of Rick Perry on the site. Curious, indeed.)

Why? There is a strong desire by neocon statists who have infiltrated the Republican party to maintain this broken system. Reformers like Perry and Paul will be ignored. Faux and critcally flawed candidates will be propped up as diversions.

Why Romney? Because he is allied with neocons. Look at his foreign policy team. My goodness. Military adventurism all over again. Neocons love military adventurism and they camaflouge their desire through seemingly harmless rhetoric (“We need a strong America”, “America needs to take the lead”) Who doesn’t want us to be strong or to lead? Exactly. Very clever use of rhetoric. What we should be asking is how we can demonstrate strength wisely and in what ways we should lead. Romney won’t ask the tough questions of the statists. He’ll play along. He is a “consensus builder” and gives the statists / neocons / Establishment the perfect cover to continue with their tinkering of our Republic. Romney is bought and paid for.

All of these forces have used the media to propagandize the conservative voters into considering three dubious choices: Cain, Gingrich, and Romney. They have also used their influence to steer candidates away from the true reformers (Perry and Paul).

Your post is money because it highlights the war that is going on in the Republican party. The result has significant consequences for all of us.

I am praying someone else besides him will win cause I am going to have a hard time Holding my nose while voting for him.

If we don’t let ourselves be manipulated. Look Fox has done a great job on many issues by showing America for what it is. But hey Romney is allied with thier business interests most.