Here’s the Nonsense: The Democrats and the media fear Romney as the toughest candidate to beat in 2012.
Here’s the Horse Sense: Along with the Democrats and the media, the establishment Republicans want Romney as the GOP candidate. And it’s not because he’d be the toughest to beat.
It makes no logical sense that Republicans would want the same person for GOP nominee as the Democrats and media want, but they do. They all want Mitt Romney and the logic is simple and clear.
No thinking person who wants to win a contest wants to make it harder to win. So the best thing to happen is to have a weaker opponent. Mitt Romney is that opponent for Barack Obama. The Democrats would love to have Romney be the GOP nominee for just that reason. The best way to assure an Obama re-election victory is to work to get the weakest candidate nominated by the GOP.
And since the mainstream media are simply an extension of the Democrat Party, they want the same thing, too. After all, the media are the ones who fought so hard to get Obama elected in 2008 by shielding him from the tough questions, scrutiny, and accountability that a free press is supposed to provide to protect a free society. They want Romney so they can protect their candidate, Barack Obama.
The establishment Republicans are commonly known as country club Republicans or Rockefeller Republicans. They are ones who are known for going along to get along in Washington. They really aren’t conservative and often they are more desirous of a long term career in politics than of risking it all and taking a stand for principle. They don’t want to cut spending, they just want to be in control of it. They love pork so they can stay in the good graces of their constituents. And, of course, with all this they don’t want to do anything to bring on the fury of those two giants of Democrat support, the Washington Post and the New York Times. To the establishment Republicans anyone who wants to be a true conservative and stand for principle is nothing but trouble.
The establishment Republicans want a candidate that is one of them, which makes Romney a perfect choice. They don’t really believe they can beat Obama, but if they do they certainly want a candidate who is in their camp. Their main concern is retaining the power they’ve got in Washington and continuing their pork-based careers.
So why does Mitt fit the mold as candidate of choice for all these people?
Romney’s historical success as a candidate is very poor. In 25 races he’s competed in, he’s only won 9 (those races include primary races that he’s competed in, but exclude caucuses).
In an article entitled Overestimating Romney, Jonathan V. Last reported in The Weekly Standard on December 19, 2011 that:
- Romney lost to Ted Kennedy in a 1994 Senate race by 17 points, even though 1994 was the best year for Republicans since the early 1950s.
- His supporters claim a great victory of a Republican in the blue state of Massachusetts when he ran for governor. But they don’t mention that he was the fourth Republican in a row that Massachusetts elected as governor. And his victory was shallow receiving less than half the total votes cast.
- His approval was so low in Massachusetts that he could not mount a successful campaign to get re-elected. His dismal performance gave the Democrats the governorship back for the first time in two decades.
They go on to say that “the actual impact of Romney’s tenure as governor was a huge increase in state spending.” And then they say that in Massachusetts under Romney “for every one government job created, two private sector jobs are lost.”
Romney’s record is to the left of many liberals. He doesn’t connect well with the electorate which is proven by his inability to get much past his 30% poll numbers. His personality comes across as mannequin-like making many feel he’s either cold or aloof with no real understanding of what average Americans feel.
Those aren’t the characteristics of a candidate that one would select as the best choice to beat President Obama.
But this isn’t the entire issue at hand. Romney’s chances are threatened by Gingrich. Why? Because Gingrich represents something that neither the Democrats, the establishment Republicans, or the media understand.
Newt Gingrich entered Congress in the late 1970’s and was considered a back-bencher at the time. No one thought he’d ever be much more than that. But in the 1980’s he was instrumental in Democrat House Speaker Jim Wright’s leaving office disgraced. Eventually Gingrich became Speaker of the House.
According to Gingrich v. Leftism, an article by Bruce Walker published on January 23, 2012 by American Thinker, Gingrich was responsible for the Contract With America that was highly successful and put the Democrats in a very bad position. He tells readers:
- The Contract With America promised to bring 10 important bills to a House vote and changed 8 major House procedures in the first 100 days they were in session.
- Gingrich’s promise that these would happen in the first 100 days of the new House session was kept, and he did it sooner than promised.
- The Contract generated so much support for Republicans running for state or federal office in 1994 that they won the House, Senate, most governor’s races, and many state legislative elections, breaking the iron grip that Democrats had held on America since FDR.
Walker states, “There was a reason why union goons entered Gingrich's offices and why House Democrats filed 84 ethics charges (one of which stuck, and most of which were absurd) against Gingrich when he was speaker and why Nancy Pelosi threatened to raise these ancient charges yet again. Not only was Gingrich liberals' enemy, but he defeated them.”
On his January 23, 2012 radio program, Neal Boortz cleared up and clarified what happened with the ethics charges against Gingrich by sharing this information:
All but one of the charges against him were thrown out by the Ethics Committee as not having any merit. The one charge that stuck was that Gingrich was teaching a course at Kennesaw College in Atlanta called Renewing American Civilization. He was soliciting donations from corporations and others to fund the research and the course. The charge from Democrat David Bonior was that Newt may have violated the tax law by using tax deductible contributions from non-profit organizations to teach a politically partisan course in college. If the course wasn’t politically partisan it would be okay, but David Bonior questioned whether it was politically partisan. So the charge was that Newt Gingrich may have violated tax law by using tax deductible contributions to teach a partisan college course. They also said that Newt Gingrich may have provided false information about some of the contributions to the committee. One paper filed with the committee erroneously stated that one of the groups did not make the contribution. And Newt had not reviewed that paper that had been submitted by somebody else. And it was for that that he agreed to pay the $300,000 cost of the committee’s investigation. He could have paid it out of other funds, but chose to pay it out of personal funds.
The accusation that he may have violated tax law was proven false when in 1999 the IRS said there are no improprieties in the tax filings of Gingrich and the people who were sponsoring this course. The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not only for use in political campaigns but “the course taught principles from American civilization that could be used by each American in everyday life whether the person is a welfare recipient, the head of a large corporation, or a politician.” So the IRS says there was no ethics violation and that the papers that were filed were properly filed. That’s what you won’t hear from the Obama media.
The establishment Republican candidates have not been successful in the past (anybody remember candidates like Bob Dole and John McCain?). They are trying to get Gingrich out of the way because he can win. He doesn’t care if he ruffles feathers. He will fight for America. He understands the financial crisis America faces. He understands the ideological war America faces and that it is already taking away the freedoms of the American people. He can clearly and completely articulate the problems and solutions. He will stand and fight and hasn’t let the scars from the past stop him from continuing to fight.
That’s why Newt’s a threat to Democrats, the media, and the establishment Republicans. They fear his candidacy. They know he can and will change Washington and bring the power back to the people. They are the same people trying to get Mitt Romney the nomination. If Gingrich were as big a threat as Romney, why aren’t they making such a stink about his candidacy?