Tuesday, November 29, 2011

The Irrational Anybody But Mitt Romney Crowd

The goal isn’t to defeat Romney. Its to defeat Obama. However, that isn't the goal of the anti-Romney crew. They want to defeat Romney so badly that they don't care if America gets another four years of President Obama.
It never ceases to amaze me of how irrational the anybody but Mitt crowd is.
They’re willing to accept Newt Gingrich who supported Cap and Trade, medicare plan D prescription medication coverage, and the creation of the TSA. Additionally, he's had approximately 84 ethical violations against him while he was Speaker of the House, cheated on his wives and was a lobbyist for Fannie and Freddie who was paid $1.8 million in “consulting fees." Moreover, Newt Gingrich doesn't have the kind of character that conservatives want in the White House.  Finally, if Newt has the opportunity to go against Obama in the general election, he would be most likely to lose the Presidential election in 2012 much like John McCain did in 2008.
They’re willing to accept Herman Cain who has private sector experience but no public sector experiences, cannot articulate a serious foreign policy position on Cuba, Libya  and has accusations (unproven yet) of sexual harassment and adultery. Moreover, his "999" plan would be a disaster for the economy.
They were excited about Rick Perry who supported a force mandate of immunizing young girls against sexually transmitted diseases, cannot debate to save his life and has very little to offer in terms of domestic or foreign policy.
Moreover, the anybody but Mitt crowd was excited about Michelle Bachmann until they realized she has no leadership experience and hasn’t made any major accomplishments in Congress other than being on the Intelligence committee.
Then there’s Rick Santorum whose campaign is barely breathing. He’s a great guy but he has nothing to offer either. For the anybody but Mitt crowd, he’s a great choice. The problem is…he can’t defeat Obama.
It amazes me that these so called "conservatives" have been flip flopping on all these candidates when the best choice is obvious to the rest of us:
Despite President Obama’s horrendous policies and governing record, he nevertheless has a pretty good chance of winning re-election in November 2012, not only because the U.S. economy may be showing some improvement by then, compared to this year, and not only because he will have killed more Al Qaeda leaders than did Mr. Bush, but because the GOP isn’t sufficiently rallying behind the only worthy candidate: Governor Romney. Never underestimate the GOP’s willingness to shoot itself in the foot electorally.
GOP conservatives falsely accuse Romney of “flip-flopping,” even though his character is stellar and his campaign themes have been both good and steady, and even though fickle conservatives themselves have flip-flopped almost weekly, dashing about promiscuously and desperately seeking “anyone but Romney” – first Sarah Palin, then Donald Trump, then Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, then Herman Cain, and now – the worst of all possible speed dates – Newt Gingrich.
What is so delusional about the anybody but Mitt crowd is that they're willing to support all other severely flawed candidates just to ensure Romney loses this election regardless of the fact that he broad spectrum of appeal democrats, independents, moderates, tea party and conservatives. Jennifer Rubin, in her column for the Washington Post, points out that this unhingedcrowd wants a pure candidate rather than a candidate who is appealing to a wide spectrum of the American people:
The point, you see, is not to advance (incrementally or otherwise) the conservative ball but to remain forever aggrieved. Whatever deal is attainable and whichever candidate is acceptable to a broad cross-section of Americans are almost by definition unacceptable to those voices.
Jennifer Rubin also out that the anybody but Romney has a different yet irrational agenda than the rest of America:
Notice how their interests now diverge from the interests of the party in gaining governing majorities and the White House? They’re only happy if the most flawed candidates survive? Something is amiss. Indeed it is. You’ll hear plenty more of it, and some weird defenses of candidates, any candidate other than Romney, any candidate who couldn’t possibly win. The far right echo chamber is going to be screeching at fever pitch. The rest of the party, and the country at large, will be just fine. 
Lets look at Mitt Romney to see how irrational they are in opposing Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is a fiscal conservative. He's had a long and successful career in business. He's got a great economic record when it comes to job creation, taxes and fees, and getting the state of Massachusetts out of a $3 billion deficit to a $2 billion surplus. With his wealth of experience and success in the public and private sector, Mitt Romney has an excellent jobs plan that will help get America on track if he's elected President in 2012.
For social conservatives, he is the most appealing candidate since he's been a strong family man since he's been married once to the same woman for 42 years. No sexual harrassment charges against him. No accusations of adultery. Romney has been able to create the ideal family: stable marriage, stable family, stable job, great home and lots of grandchildren. He's pro-life, opposes gay marriage and is a strong supporter of the family.
For legal conservatives such as myself, Mitt Romney is the most ideal candidate. He has assembled an amazing team of legal advisors for his 2012 campaign. He has vowed to appoint judges who will not legislate from the bench and who will follow the Constitution.
When it comes to the issue of health care, Mitt Romney has been a strong conservative. Mitt Romney was opposed to the idea of a nationalizing our health care system as early as 1993 or 1994 as President Clinton was pushing to pass HillaryCare. He was opposed to opposed HillaryCare 2.0 in 2007.
Moreover, Mitt Romney adopted the Heritage Foundation's proposal to implement the individual mandate at the state level. Once he implemented RomneyCare, he received a lot of support from conservatives. One of the reasons why they liked it is because the cost of RomneyCare was less than 1% of the state budget. RomneyCare was not a big issue for Romney during the 2008 Presidential election. 
However, conservatives have unjustifiably and unreasonably became angry at Mitt Romney when President Obama became President and passed ObamaCare. Its important to remember that Obama flip flopped on RomneyCare by opposing it during the 2008 campaign before supporting it in his presidency. A close look at the facts reveal that there is no possible way that Obama modeled ObamaCare after RomneyCare. There are too many differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. Despite these facts, too many conservatives think that RomneyCare is a socialist program simply because of Obama's false claims that he used RomneyCare as a template for ObamaCare. However, RomneyCare is not a socialist health care program. Moreover, RomneyCare is constitutional and ObamaCare isn't.
Mitt Romney has repeatedly promised to repeal ObamaCare and that he would do so on the first day of his Presidency. In fact, Paul Ryan, the conservative Congressman from Wisconsin, has stated that he is very confident Mitt Romney will honor his promise if he is elected President. In addition to repealing ObamaCare, Mitt Romney unveiled a new health care plan for America that is not based on his health care plan in Massachusetts.
The facts are clear. Mitt Romney is a great leader. He was an major player in getting Republicans elected in the 2010 midterm election. He's also the most electable candidate who can defeat President Obama in this election. He's also the only candidate who can remain competitive with Obama when it comes to raising campaign funds. 
Its clear that the anybody but Mitt Romney crowd is irrational given that each of the 2012 candidates is not the candidate conservatives of all stripes are looking for. Mitt Romney is the right candidate for this election and they refuse to accept it despite Romney's experience, qualification and character.


  1. Paul Ryan is not a representative of my great state, MN. Wish he was, though...

  2. Thanks for pointing out the error. It has now been fixed. :)

  3. I chalk it up to unspoken, anti-mormon bias. Romney's resume is far stronger than the rest of the field and yet he can't consolidate support amongst many in the party. At some point, you just run out of rational explanations.

  4. Yup, it's irrational. It's also offensive. The GOP is now to the point where it is looking at a Mitt-alternative who's been thrice-married and is the ONLY House Speaker in the HISTORY of the US to be found guilty of ethics violations.

    On my blog (which is an eclectic-mix blog, not just politics)I just put up a post that point-blank asks whether the GOP is the party of values or not. Republicans have neither the sense nor the foresight to realize that the entire downballot is affected by who's at the top of the ticket. They seem willing to throw their entire "party of values" argument under the bus in 2012.

    What really gets me is that Gingrich is pulling ahead in Iowa.


    As someone on the outside looking in (yes, it's me, indy voter, again) all I can say is right now the GOP looks like it's full of baloney on the matter of values.

  5. Indy voter, would you be interested in writing an guest article for my blog?

  6. Hi, J...sure, it's been frustrating to watch from the sidelines, so it would be nice to have an outlet to express an indy viewpoint to Republicans.

    Also, while the Anybody But Romney crowd has run from one candidate to another to another like a bunch of headless chickens zig-zagging across the road, I've known for a couple of months that I'm voting for Mitt Romney in my state primary, which is kind of ironic considering that many of these folks like to call indys fickle.

    Not only that, they like to say we don't stand for anything, but we do and I since I can only speak to my one vote I'll use myself as an example. After Gingrich's surge as the latest Anyone But Romney candidate--which exposes GOP hypocrisy on the issues of values and ethics, along with raising the ugly possibility of religious bigotry--I decided that if Mitt Romney isn't the GOP nominee I'll be making a principled third party vote.

    So I do stand for something--in this case knowing where I won't stand, and that's with a bunch of hypocrites and bigots who are blinded by the arrogant belief that Obama has made himself such a sitting duck that indys will have no choice but to vote for the moral-ethical minefield that is Newt Gingrich.

    If they get their way and Gingrich is nominated, these folks will undoubtedly batter indys and disenfranchised Democrats with the argument that third party votes (or not voting at all) will re-elect President Obama. But as I recall, a lot of Republicans stayed home in 2008 because they couldn't bring themselves to hold their noses and pull the lever for McCain. So I feel no obligation to hold my nose and vote for their candidate, particularly if they nominate a morally and ethically challenged candidate like Newt Gingrich.

    So while the Anyone But Romney crowd is doing their headless-chicken dance, I know how I'm voting in 2012. In a way my "Romney or Third Party" decision is my own little personal counter-offensive to what they've been doing.

    How do I transmit an article to you? I think there might be a space limit to the comments section and I don't notice an email link for you on your blog. You can email me at ariespointkay@ymail.com.

  7. Indy Voter, I tried contacting you via e-mail but it didn't work.

    You can find my e-mail if you scroll down to the very bottom of this blog and look in the bottom left hand corner of it. You'll see my e-mail there.

  8. That's interesting--over the past week I also had some problems receiving online Christmas order confirmations (which did eventually arrive). I had just figured the delays were attributable to the season but maybe ymail was having some problems.

    But no matter--as long as there's a way to get an article to you everything's good. I'll write one up and if it's not something you think would be of interest to your blog followers, I'll post it on mine.