Romney: Nomination by Attrition?

Nota Bene: Allen hits it out of the park with this article, which pretty much lays out what lies ahead for the Conservative base of the GOP. The Donks, the Drive-Bys and our own back-stabbing RINO establishment are determined to foist the Mittmeister upon us in much the same manner they saddled us with John McCain in 2008. If that happens, make no mistake: Barack Obama will be elected to a second term. — Bulldog

As the fight for the Republican nomination drags on, those vying for it seem determined to make the Main Stream Media’s self-appointed job of choosing a less-than-Conservative Republican candidate for us, easy.

In fact, at times, the nomination choices appear to have just exited the clown car at the circus.

What are our choices?

We have a wacky old isolationist (Ron Paul), who is now talking about the possibly of running as a third party candidate…again.

There’s a former employee of Obama’s  (Whatever-his-first-name-is Huntsman) whose ideological stances are better suited for the Democratic Primary.

There’s a female candidate (Michele Bachmann), who, while excellent as a speaker at Tea Party Rallies, has been labelled as having “crazy eyes” by the MSM.

There’s Rick Santorum…who?

There’s Texas Governor Rick Perry, whose pro-amnesty stance and tongue-tied debate performances have put the brakes on a promising campaign.

There’s Herman Cain, who, while seemingly in the process of overcoming a bimbo eruption, has been hurt by it and by less than stellar responses to foreign affairs questions, not to mention suspicions about the aptitude of his campaign staff.

Realistically, that leaves two Washington insiders: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

Gingrich has both surprised and shocked the MSM and Conservatives alike with his performance on the stump.  His answers have been forthright, logical, and easy for the average American to understand. Plus, his boldness in standing up to the Main Stream Media has been being well-received by the American public.

His biggest obstacle is the public’s reservations about his personal life, with the perception that he cheated on a woman riddled with cancer, and delivered divorce papers to her on her death bed.

Gingrich’s daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, wrote the following in an article titled “Setting the Record Straight”:

As for my parents’ divorce, I can remember when they told me.

It was the spring of 1980.

I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.

Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.

Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.

It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won’t repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here’s what happened:

My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.

Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.

She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.

The tumor was benign.

As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.

As have many families, we have healed; we have moved on.

We are not a perfect family, but we are knit together through common bonds, commitment and love.

My mother and father are alive and well, and my sister and I are blessed to have a close relationship with them both.

My sister and I feel that it is time to move on, close the book on this event and focus on building a great future. We will not answer additional questions or make additional comments regarding this meaningless incident, which occurred more than three decades ago.

As I said, my mother is a private person. She will not give media interviews. She deserves respect and should be allowed to live in peace.

Knowing the MSM, she won’t be allowed to.

As far as Mitt Romney – the Main Stream Media’s candidate of choice – is concerned, his biggest piece of baggage is Romneycare and his refusal to distance himself from it.

Jeffrey Anderson, reporting for, reports that:

On Labor Day, during the GOP presidential forum in South Carolina, Mitt Romney had the following exchange with the host, Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.). DeMint asked, “As you know, if you’re the nominee, the president is going to say that you implemented Obamacare in Massachusetts. How would you describe what Massachusetts did, the mandate to buy health insurance at the state or federal level?”

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Romney replied, “That will be one of my best assets if I’m able to debate President Obama, as I hope to be able to do, by saying, Mr. President, you give me credit for what you’ve tried to copy in some ways.”

Romney immediately continued: “Our bill dealt with 8 percent of the population, the people who aren’t insured and said to them, if you can pay, don’t count on the government. Take personal responsibility. We didn’t raise taxes, Mr. President. You raise them $500 billion. We didn’t cut Medicare. One president in modern history cut Medicare, this president, and I’ll say to him, why don’t you give me a call and I’ll [tell] you what to do right and what not to do. And the critical thing is this: He dealt with — we dealt with 8 percent; he dealt with 100 percent of the American people.”

Romney curiously concluded, “It [ObamaCare] has got to be stopped, and I know it better than most.”

It’s true that Romney didn’t cut Medicare. (Nor, as a governor, could he.) Romney’s health-care law, however, applies to all Massachusetts residents, not just 8 percent of them — even if only 8 percent were originally out of compliance with it. Like ObamaCare, Romney’s health-care law requires 100 percent of residents, with perhaps very few exceptions, to buy (often heavily taxpayer-subsidized) government-approved health insurance. True, the vast majority of Massachusetts residents already had insurance when the law was passed, but that’s the case nationally as well.

And Romney did raise taxes on those who violated this newly imposed insurance mandate.

…During the South Carolina forum, Romney also reiterated his oft-repeated pledge that, on day-1 of his administration, he would issue a “waiver from ObamaCare to all 50 states” (a proposal that is also highlighted in his newly released economic plan). But Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, has already been issuing more than enough ObamaCare waivers — including waivers to two entire states that also happen to be swing-states in the upcoming election: New Hampshire and Nevada.

So, where does that leave us?  Is the GOP going to screw up what should be a fait d’accompli by nominating a flip-flopping moderate in the tradition of Bob Dole and John McCain?

Is nominating a Conservative too much to ask for?

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Romney: Nomination by Attrition?

  1. Dana Pearson says:

    There must be some percentage of the electorate that feels something like the following:

    1. The US spends too much money (over a $trillion between Afghanistan and Iraq) and has too many servicemen in places where they don’t belong: Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, the Persian Gulf, South Korea and Uganda.
    2. Libya is actually closer and easier to get to than the above places. The French, English, Hillary and McCain pulled off what seems so far to be a vast improvement in Libya at a relatively small cost and no cost at all in terms of American servicemen’s lives.
    3. The Obama and Bush stimulus plans were disasters that added over a $trillion to our debt.
    4. The Fed and TARP bailouts of 2008 propped up institutions that should have failed.
    5. Global warming is an excuse for more regulation and taxes.
    6. There should be no national sales tax.
    7. The problem is spending not the personal income tax code.
    8. The megarich should pay a tax on capital gains in excess of 0%.
    9. At least some mortgage interest should be deductible.
    10. The megarich will be OK if estates of over $5 million are taxed.
    11. Medicaid should be returned to the states.
    12. Character counts.
    13. The US should not have one of the highest Corporate tax rates in the developed world.
    14. The Fed should be audited.
    15. Social Security and Medicare benefits should not go to same sex married couples or same sex civil union couples.
    16. Illegal immigration should be stopped cold.

    There must be a significant percentage of the electorate that agrees with the above. For those folks Ron Paul can be eliminated because of his character, specifically the racist garbage that came out under his name in newsletters in the 1990s. Paul’s endorsement of Lonegan in the 2009 NJ primary also shows that Paul is willing to make endorsements without knowing a thing about the character of the candidate he endorses. Finally, Paul and Lew Rockwell seem to be joined at the hip to the point that Rockwell may be pulling the strings.

    Huntsman is a social liberal, which may be fine for some fiscal conservatives, but is a deal breaker for me.

    Cain is an empty suit DC lobbyist who wants to institute a national sales tax. His Libya gaffe was disastrous. Why is he the only candidate with four separate women accusing him of sexual improprieties relative to women who either were working for him or were asking for help from him in finding employment?

    Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi were perfect together in a global warming advertisement. Gingrich was a drug company lobbyist and was paid money by Fannie or Freddie. Gingrich is on his third marriage this time with a wife 23 years his junior. The current one had an affair with him while he was married to wife #2. I don’t like his position on NAFTA and GATT. While I liked him in 1994, his time is past, at least for me. His character alone is a deal breaker for me. If he was unfaithful to his wives, he’d be unfaithful to the constitution.

    I like Michelle Bachmann the best. I think she is not obsessing about changing the tax code around. She opposed Obamacare, TARP and the Debt Ceiling deal. I trust her on spending and social issues — but not too much on foreign policy.

    After Bachmann, I could live with Perry, Romney or Santorum. These three (and Bachmann for that matter) have baggage they could do without, but no deal breakers for me. In 2008 Romney was the conservative alternative to McCain.