My buddy Mark Levin tweeted a Washington Post article written by establishment writer, Robert Costa, adding the warning, “Romney, the couldn’t lose candidate in 2012.” Conservatives remain dubious about another Romney run, for good reason.
Romney, the couldn't lose candidate in 2012
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow)
The points to how great the reception has been in GOP circles, to Romney’s surrogate support of candidates for office, concluding that his projected popularity against Obama has surged, however says that he couldn’t beat Hillary either.
Regardless of what he has personally said, there are many establishment Republicans who would like to see Romney enter the race for 2016, based solely on his popularity as a surrogate. But they are hanging their hope on a false premise.
The establishment believes that Romney lost because he went too far right in a country that is lurching left. Both suppositions are wrong. Romney lost because he represented everything conservatives (both Republican and Democratic) dislike in a candidate for President.
Romneycare was the biggest problem with Romney. The consultants tried to appeal to conservatives by invoking the Tenth Amendment, but it failed because of numerous reasons, one, that it isn’t a conservative approach for any governing authority to take control of the health care system, and two, that defending it made it impossible to use Obamacare against Obama. Add to that the fact that Romney was a well-known flip-flopper on issues near and dear to conservatives including pro-life history, and the rise of big government. Any review of Romney’s record in Massachusetts was met with, “What was he supposed to do? He had to deal with a government of Democrats!” Which did not sufficiently answer any question and exposed him as a man over-willing to give away principle in order to get along with the other side.
The geniuses (sarcasm) who controlled his campaign were supposed to be the best of the best, and as Levin mentioned, repeatedly said that Romney couldn’t lose, as opposed to the long list of conservative alternatives who were deemed, “unelectable.” In the end, despite winning over most conservatives in November, the old adage that a liberal Republican cannot win against a radical Democrat proved true. And that’s what you get for working with the modern Democrat Party.
The Romney handlers bragged that he was just like Reagan in various ways, again to try to ameliorate conservative scorn, but in a very stark way, he was not. He did what the establishment believes is Reaganesque, which is to appeal to Democrats, however, Reagan appealed to the innate conservatism that is still in the hearts and minds of many people, some even who would more consider themselves a conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican. Ignoring philosophical differences is maddening enough, but flipping them between those who historically vote for one party or another is also currently how the establishment of the Republican Party is trying to explain away what happened in Mississippi.
The current Republican Party is adrift on a raft and taking on water, and hopefulness of outcomes that cannot be like the WaPo article tries to promote, matches the hopefulness the establishment used to get Romney into office. They hoped to change the outcome of an election using brute strength against the conservative American, which led to would-be Reagan Democrats not voting, along with some of their Reagan-coalition conservative voting family.
The charges from some establishment members like Ann Coulter, that some conservatives wouldn’t vote for a Mormon or that they didn’t like that he was a wealthy man rang hollow. Those same conservatives that were smeared admired him for his wonderful family and personal success. What really happened, was that the Republican Party wanted a nominee that would appeal to everyone except conservatives in their never-ending quest to erase and forget what Reagan stood for, and fought for, and won as a result. Twice. In landslides.
People have disliked using “RINO” to characterize liberal Republicans. They think a Republican is a liberal, going along to get along with any and all Democrats. RINO to me, is as it suggests, a Republican in Name Only. That is because a true Republican is part of the Reagan coalition and a Reaganite understands what the party should stand for. The Party has loused up its standing with conservatives so badly that people are calling themselves, “Platform Republicans” because too many Republicans do the exact opposite of what the platform stands for.
Reagan set the standard for coalition work by being steadfastly conservative, and defining the three-legged stool of what an American, regardless of prior party affiliation, will vote for. He was a complete conservative, as are millions in this great nation. Strong defense, free-market principle, and strong social values encapsulates what millions of Americans believe they stand for. Those qualities in a politician win, especially when the politician has a good record behind him, and a way of communicating them to thousands starving for leadership.
So what if Romney runs again? With Chris Christie and Jeb Bush as the leading RINO savoir-faire candidates, he’ll split the RINO vote, and in the end, with polling against Hillary, another Marxist offering from the radical-lunatic leadership of the Democrat Party, none of them can win.
What we need is an unabashed Reaganite, calling for an end to big government, believing in the greatness of the individual, and invoking God, family, and country, to bring this nation to its feet once again, and turn it away from the darkness of a nation in decline.
