A key-discipline lacking in many candidate-advocates is the capacity to accommodate contrary-data.
For example, this [previously] pro-Perry blogger didn’t appreciate his attacks on capitalism and [previously] pro-Newt blogger doesn’t appreciate UN-Kosher robo-calls.
Having read the blogs on three “active” POTUS-oriented sites…
…it is necessary to place the current situation into a context that allows for a healthy evolution of events to transpire.
I have begun to note the problematic pundits, but we must differentiate them from those who act based upon sincere-input. For example, it may be recalled that I spent an overnight-experience promoting the possibility of DeMint following the “Oops!” event; this gambit was ignored, but the concept was implanted. And, surely, this was a transparent effort…which, sadly, is rare among the current crop of talking-heads.
Let’s be clear: BHO must be defeated, and Mitt has alienated the base.
What remedies exist, lest a 3rd Party initiative undermine reasonableness?
A deal that might motivate the base–TEA [Taxed Enough Already] Party Movement & Evangelicals–could be modeled by the RR choice of Dick Schweiker in ’76 [reversing points on the political spectrum], although RR was criticized for having done so. The Veep position is not comparable to expectoration, and it could reflect a behavioral commitment comparable to how The Newt has absorbed Perry/Cain by coadopting their themes [10th Amendment-implementation & economy/tax-focus].
Some might view this as hollow; others might fear that this designee might be ignored as was Sarah. But few can deny the potential for this approach to motivate the party to –heal, and –send a go-forward message that integrates true-conservatism.
I am not motivated to pontificate simply to try to convince people of my rectitude, nor am I attempting to push a hidden-agenda. But there must be an action-plan [a working-hypothesis, if you will] if we are going to face realities and save the USA from another term of a newly-“validated” BHO.
I recoil @ the tactics of the GOP-Establishment, and I abhor how the MSM/LSM/ELM [Establiishment-Leaning Media] has coadopted this conduct. Sadly, FNC has been complicit, most recently a few hours ago when Rich Lawry attacked The Newt for his [negative] reaction to a knowingly-incorrect smear…instead of attacking the smear itself. And that Elliot Abrams hit-piece was effective in unnerving The Newt last Thursday [pre-debate] in conjunction with a coordinated attack, notwithstanding its having been debunked the next day.
Such orchestration may prove [short-term] effective [and seemingly validate the machinations of seasoned politicos], but they alienate [long-term] effectiveness [and undoubtedly repel sincere activists]. The fact that the TPM has produced a battle-hardened regiment is thereby upended by those who should be functioning as [grateful] colleagues.
We are Constitutional-Conservatives [encompassing all three legs of the tripod], but we are besmirched; even RS-bloggers who gloat serve only to alienate. When Rush announces Mitt isn’t a true-conservative and Santorum is known to be a pro-labor earmarker who has espoused strong social-views that would predictably alienate “independents,” is this sizable chunk of the party to be forced [as will occur in VA] to vote for a neo-isolationist who has published racist/anti-Semitic pamphlets?
Today’s WSJ piece by McGurn advised that Mitt should coadopt positive qualities in the campaigns of his rivals, but his speech [unlike that of The Newt, in SC] didn’t strike this theme. We can pine for Perry, we can identify with anguish/anger exhibited by The Newt, we can even recall the poise of Michele…but these neither alleviate angst nor inform the message that Mitt appears to be ignoring.
That Mitt has appeared to go out of his way to rebuff the TPM despite the achievements in 2008, this is unconscionable and unwise; he cannot reasonably claim that such an association [even if merely a gesture] would boomerang. One blogger yesterday suggested that he would be accused of pandering were he to associate with these people; this is the ultimate rationalization of those who would deny [and deny themselves of] the potency of these committed people.
I’ve received e-mail from a cadre of “groupies” who have read my postings @ RS, and they send a message of surprised rejection by the aggregated forces that ignored/ridiculed Perry and are now trained on The Newt. I try to be encouraging, but the wisdom of his departure from the race [only a fortnight ago!] must be questioned. Yes, The Newt won SC, but this was @ the cost of losing a strong voice, one that Mitt feared the most, one that also had to raise worriment-levels @ 1600.
My suggestion, simply, is that Toomey be ID’ed by Mitt as his putative running-mate. This would bring PA into “play” and would unify the GOP. He is a true-conservative, and he gained respect for how he conducted himself as a member of the Super-Committee. Unless someone else has a better idea, such an innovation might provide an impetus for a go-forward presentation to a hungry-public to be conveyed ASAP, short-circuiting the reality-show debates @ #19.