« A Reaction to Last Night's Debate | Main | Corynomics »

Wednesday, October 19, 2011



It's too early to concede the nomination to Romney, but if he IS the eventual nominee I'll vote for him for the very reasons you point out, he can win and he's better than Obama by a long shot.

That said, it's even more important that the GOP enlarge their majority in the House and take the majority in the Senate (with conservatives). With majorities in both branches of the Legislature, a President Romney will be more conservative while in office.

Personally, I still prefer Herman Cain, based on his personal qualities and proven leadership as any Presidency will largely be determined by the quality of the people a President chooses as his inner-circle.


Nice post. Pretty much sums up my thoughts.


I agree with most of your points, but I am not yet convinced that Romney is the only viable candidate.

Huntsman (sanctimonious Mr. Rogers or not!) is certainly capable of appealing to both sides. You criticize Cain for his ignorance on foreign policy. Huntsman is as strong in that area as Cain is weak. He also has a strong domestic record and has supported conservative reforms (including tax cuts) that are appealing to many Republicans. Meanwhile, his willingness to serve under President Obama and his moderate positions on some issues may make him appeal to Democrats.

I also think Ron Paul stands a chance of winning. As anti-establishment sentiment is rising on both the right and the left, Paul's libertarianism is becoming more appealing to both.



While Huntsman looks great "on paper", there's something fundamentally distasteful about him in person, I'm not the only person that's mentioned the name "Eddie Haskell" in a discussion. No one that comes across as "unlikeable" will win the nomination.

As a third party candidate, Ron Paul WOULD draw voters from both the right and the left, but he won't run as a third party candidate and the GOP base won't give him the nomination, and I say this as someone who's met Ron Paul and personally like him and I agree with a lot (not all) of his positions.


William, I have to second your thoughts about Romney. I like him about fourth best. I believe four of them can beat Obama. But beating Obama is only one step. If the new President winds up being the same old establishment type president, then why bother? I am looking for someone who will shake things up. Obama shook things up alright, in a bad way. We need a fundamental tax code change. We need to remove ObamaCare. We need to remove many of the regulations put in place. We need to develop a real energy policy. What we need to do is get away from an ineptocracy. "*Ineptocracy* (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers."

Bill Fleming

“if we don’t run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we’ll lose.” — Ann Coulter.
But she's going to support him anyway.

Sounds kind of like Jon's post here.

Interesting election year alright. This race is Obama's to lose. He's holding fairly steady at around 50% disapproval, 15-20% of which are disgruntled Dems and Indies who — like Jon and Ann for Romney — are going to hold their nose and vote for Obama anyway.

And then there are Dems like me who still actually like and support Obama and Biden wholeheartedly.

I'm really not hearing any of that kind of dedication to Romney.

Why? Perhaps because there's no there, there?

What's a Romney stand for? Anything you want guys. Just give me your vote, okay?

I get sad just looking at him.

His whole countenance practically shouts, "loser."



"I'm really not hearing any of that kind of dedication to Romney."

Traditionally, no voting base commits to a candidate before the Party's Nomination. If Romney is the Nominee he will have overwhelming support, because he will pull moderate Democrat and Independent votes away from the Left. This the reason the Republican establishment wants to run Romney. Reagan didn't have full support from either the establishment or the base until close to the election.

Paul & Huntsman won't get the full support of the base, but will get a hodge-podge of voters from the spectrum and it will be not enough to either win the Nomination or beat Obama.


Disapproval around 50% and approval around 44%. Gallup and Rasmussen have him at 39 and 45 approval respectively and 54% disapproval. CNN, Time, NBC News, and Reuters have him around 50% disapproval and range from 40% - 47% approval. A couple of those polls are known to over-sample Democrat voters. Keep spinning it. If the election is Obama's to lose, well he is doing his best to lose it.

Bill Fleming

Exactly as I noted, the fact that a lot of Indys and Dems expressed their disapproval of Obama in the polls doesn't translate into automatic votes for Romney. For that, you have to look at polls that ask the question directly, taking into account that a whole field of GOP candidates have been baching Obama for months and that he has yet to even begin his campaign.

Bill Fleming

These are the numbers you want to watch, duggerSD.

Donald Pay

Obama isn't a conservative Republican. He's a moderate Republican, a bit left of where Romney has been for most of his life before Romney decided to try to appeal to just enough troglodytes to win the Republican nomination.

n order to prove to the southern troglodytes that he's not a Mormon moderate, which he is, he's going to be tempted to put some twang talking Bible thumping pond scum on the ticket. This pond scum would put a nail into the coffin of whatever slim chance Romney might have of cracking the Midwest/Rust Belt swing states.


Off your meds again, Donald?


Donald, if picking the Bible thumping pond scum would ruin Romney's chances of cracking the swing states, then why would Romney ever pick the Bible thumping pond scum? Surely if the consequences of that are so obvious that you can casually predict them in a blog comments section, surely Romney's political advisors are aware of them too...


The more I think about this post, the more I find myself agreeing with Duggersd.
Winning is only good if the prize is something you actually want. For many conservatives, a Romney win would mean about as much as finding a prize in a box of Cracker Jacks. It's kind of nice to win something, but the prize inside generally isn't something that you really want.

Maybe Romney will end up being a better choice than I think he is. He is certainly charismatic and I admire the way he handles himself in debates. And if he really means to repeal Obamacare, that alone might be a good reason to vote for him. But, as Bill notes, he is very hard to trust, and many of the other candidates are strong in the same areas he is.

Dr. Schaff notes that Bachmann and Paul are unable to change minds. He uses their legislative records as evidence. That is fair, but I think part of the picture is missing here. President Bush might have been a better president if his record were as blank as Bachmann's. One of the reasons so many people despise the former president is that he vetoed only 12 bills during his eight years in office. Part of his job was to say no when it needed to be said and he failed to do so. Similarly, part of a representative's job is to say no and to stop bills from passing. Bachmann and Paul deserve credit for having the courage to say no when others, to their shame,said yes to plans that ultimately hurt the country.

Maybe Romney will be better at changing minds than Bachmann and Paul. But I think it's more likely that he will let his own mind be changed. After all, he has in the past. And I am not sure that he is as capable of saying "no" as his rivals.

I will get off of my soap box now, after saying one last thing: Twang Talking Bible Thumping Pond Scum would be a GREAT band name!

Stan Gibilisco

And then this twist gyrated down the pike ...


If The Ego runs as an independent, it's four more years of Obama, four more years of gridlock, and an economic depression unprecedented in the history of America.

larry kurtz

It warms the cockles of my heart as I so LOVE watching you earth haters squirm over your choice of loser!


The final line on Kucinich reminded me of an old Conan O'Brien bit:

"In the year 2000, Dennis Kucinich will finally win the office of the President of the United States. Rather than move to the White House, however, he will continue to live in a tree and make delicious cookies."

The comments to this entry are closed.