First of all, I’m not posting this to defend or endorse Romney. I can name three other true conservatives I’d rather have take on and defeat Obama.
Unfortunately, they’re not running, and Romney, Gingrich, et al, are.
So, what we have now is most likely what we’ll have to choose from, assuming no one else decides to throw his or her hat into the ring.
Whether or not you think Romney is too liberal or not a conservative is NOT the point, not in this election year!
If Hillary was the President, or some other “mainstream” democrat, like Bill Clinton was, then I’d agree that nominating the most conservative candidate would be the way to go.
But Hillary or Bill aren’t the President.
And besides, who decides who is the most conservative?
And who says only the most conservative can beat Obama? We’ll each have to make that decision this November.
We need to nominate the candidate who has the best chance of beating Obama, period. And as of right now, like it or not, that’s Romney.
Taking into account only the choices we have now, Let’s look at who’s running:
Rick Gingrich or Newt Santorum? I mean Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum?
To me, other than their ages, and Gingrich’s numerous marriages, their voting records show they’re both very similar- Big-spending, inside-the-beltway, big government liberal Republicans, and not the fiscal conservatives they like to portray themselves as.
While they might claim to be conservative when it comes to social issues, their profligate spending habits while in D.C. shows that they’re not true fiscal conservatives.
Gingrich did, however, while Speaker, balance the federal budget, as he promised to do in the Contract With America in 1994.
But he also bought into the fallacy that global warming was, indeed, caused by humans.
And a few months ago, he also said: “I’ve said consistently that we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance, or you post a bond, or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.”
That sounds a lot like a back-handed endorsement for both Obama-care and Romney-care to me.
I will, however, give Romney a pass, because what he did as the Governor of Massachusetts was a state’s rights issue, and obviously did not require all Americans to participate. And I won’t even get into the commercial in which Gingrich co-starred with Nancy Pelosi.
Before he became Speaker, he was your typical, hardly known by anyone other than his constituents back home, spend-happy Congressman from Georgia.
But lately, he seems to think that all the answers to all our problems can be solved in D.C. They can’t, because D.C. is the problem, not the solution.
Jon Huntsman? He was a liberal Republican Governor in one of the reddest of states (Utah), and Obama thought enough of him to nominate him to be our Ambassador to China after he served in George W. Bush’s administration as Ambassador to Singapore. Obama supposedly chose Huntsman because he knew the language and region. So was Obama saying that there were no dimocrats who speak Chinese and know the region?
So, that leaves guess who? Ron Paul! Never, ever. “Nuff said about the “Crazy Uncle”.
As I see it, I don’t see any of these other candidates as being any more conservative than Romney, at least not if you take an honest look and examine their past voting records.
Now, all that being said…
We now have the most radical, leftist, and the only anti-American President we’ve ever had, and he must be defeated at all costs!
Imagine Barack Obama having four more years to “fundamentally [radically] transform America as we know it”, with his European-style Socialist democratic welfare state policies, as he promised to do in 2008, and has done since he took office on day one. It’s about the only campaign promise he’s actually kept.
We can count on more immigration and amnesty for the twenty million criminal illegal aliens currently living here illegally as being number one with a bullet on his socialist agenda “to-do” list if, God forbid, he has another four years to fundamentally radically transform America.
If that is allowed to happen, we’ll have lost our country, as we know it, for good, because those people will be at least a solid fifteen million more votes the dimocrats can count on during every election cycle for the foreseeable future, and the GOP could quite possibly become a permanent minority party for the next two decades, if not longer.
Obama could also possibly have two or three more SCOTUS appointments, possibly having to replace conservative Antonin Scalia, the wishy-washy and insipid moderate Douglas Kennedy, and the uber-liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
While you might say replacing Bader Ginsburg would be replacing one lib with another, you can take it to the bank that he will, not might, but will, replace her with another Elena Kagan-type leftist ideologue, who will be no older than maybe 55, and probably younger, so he or she can wreak havoc on the Constitution and our rights for decades to come, like Kagan (and Sonia Sotomayor, also) undoubtedly will for many years.
There’s also all the additional Federal and Appeals courts judges he’ll appoint, and every one will be as young, leftist, and radical, as he and Kagan are.
At this critical time in our Nation’s history, we need to put what’s best for our country first, and our politics and party second. The MOST important goal in 2012 needs to be defeating Obama.
I don’t care who our nominee is, I’ll support him and vote for him because I care more about my country than I do the GOP or conservatism or nominating the most conservative candidate. A moderate to liberal Republican President would be a thousand times better that what we have now, which is an anti-American Marxist.
Some of you armchair political strategists have been saying that Romney has no chance of winning because of his association with Bain Capital. Dick Morris disagrees.
And before anyone starts dumping on Morris as being this or that, like you do to Karl Rove, I’d rather hear from someone, like Morris, who has actually run dozens of campaigns over the last three or so decades, and won the vast majority of these, from Congressmen to Presidents, and run the winning campaigns of other politicians all over the world.
BTW, since I wrote this, John Bolton has endorsed Romney.
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on January 10, 2012
The short answer is: No! People, particularly Republicans, understand the difference between capitalism and safety-net socialism. They are even savvy enough to have heard of Schumpeter’s doctrine of the “gales of creative destruction” that blow through our economy. They grasp that if we save everyone’s job and everyone’s pension and everyone’s company, we will become so ossified, so indebted, so burdened that we will never be able to create any new jobs or wealth.
They get it that to attract capital to turn around ailing companies, you need either to have a very good lobbyist who makes mega campaign contributions or a good enough return on capital to attract private investors. Obama is trying the first way. Romney did the second. Republicans get this.
They also understand that Romney was scarcely a “predator” as Rick Tyler, spokesman for the new anti-Romney movie, describes him. Critics zero in on GS Technologies, a steel company that, like more than forty others, went bankrupt in the late 90s or the early years of the new century. Was Romney a “predator?” Was Bain Capital? What predator would make an initial investment of $8 million and then up its investment to $16 million in an effort to turn the failing company around? What “predator” would merge the company with a stronger one in an effort to preserve it in a highly competitive global marketplace?
Was Romney a “predator” when GS went bankrupt in 2001? He had left Bain in 1999. The decision to deny the GS workers their pensions and health benefits was Bain’s, not Romney’s. He was out of the picture by then.
And what of the more than one hundred thousand people who have jobs and pensions and health insurance because of Romney’s work at Bain Capital? What of the winners and the survivors who far outnumbered the losers during Romney’s Bain Capital years?
For Republicans to be attacking a Republican for winning in the free market and for turning companies around so they make a profit (without public subsidy) is a sad sight. They will come to rue their criticisms. Bain will not become the bane of Romney’s existence!
Click on the headline above to read the entire article…
