The Odious "Electability" Argument for Romney

[JoeB131]

Whenever you hear a Romney supporter praise Romney, it's because Romney is "electable".

I find this argument odious for the following reasons.

The first is that it pre-supposes that a true conservative can't win unless he can fool enough people into thinking he's really a "moderate". It was the argument behind McCain's candidacy and it failed then. You have the worst economy in 80 years, a president who is clearly in over his head, and you have conservatives arguing we shouldn't run a conservative? Seriously? Why do we even have a movement, then, if all we are going to offer is warmed over variations on what they are presenting?

The second is, if Romney is so "electable", why does he keep losing elections. He lost to Ted Kennedy by 17 points in 1994, at a time when Teddy's reputation was in the mud due to his nephew's raping someone at his house. He lost to John McCain in the GOP nomination fight in 2008 despite spending three times as much money as McCain did.
When he was considering running for re-election in 2006, polls showing him trailing potential Democratic challengers by double digits convinced him otherwise.

The only election he ever won was against a non-entity for governor in 2002. And he only got 49% of the vote after outspending her 10-1.

Is Newt the ideal candidate? Nope. Most of them were disuaded from running by the sandbagging by the Beltway Establishment.... but at least Newt stands for something. And he wins elections.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not really much reason to read the whole post when you start off with an outright lie in the first line.

 

[JoeB131]

Not really much reason to read the whole post when you start off with an outright lie in the first line.

Did I need to use smaller words for you?

I think you need to read any post by JakeSnarky, CaliGirl, Toro or Maple....

That's the argument they make. In fact, it's pretty much the only argument snarky makes...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The first is that it pre-supposes that a true conservative can't win unless he can fool enough people into thinking he's really a "moderate". It was the argument behind McCain's candidacy and it failed then. You have the worst economy in 80 years, a president who is clearly in over his head, and you have conservatives arguing we shouldn't run a conservative? Seriously? Why do we even have a movement, then, if all we are going to offer is warmed over variations on what they are presenting?

Because a majority of voters know that rightist dogma is just as bankrupt as leftist dogma – they have no intention of jumping out of the liberal frying pan into the conservative fire.

GOP party bosses also know the fundamental facts of presidential elections, and one constant is a republican candidate needs a significant number of democratic votes to be elected; their ‘theory’ is that Mitt is more likely to win over democrats than Gingrich.

Last, there’s no reason republicans should feel entitled to a conservative president, democrats certainly didn’t get a liberal in Obama.

 

[JoeB131]

The first is that it pre-supposes that a true conservative can't win unless he can fool enough people into thinking he's really a "moderate". It was the argument behind McCain's candidacy and it failed then. You have the worst economy in 80 years, a president who is clearly in over his head, and you have conservatives arguing we shouldn't run a conservative? Seriously? Why do we even have a movement, then, if all we are going to offer is warmed over variations on what they are presenting?

Because a majority of voters know that rightist dogma is just as bankrupt as leftist dogma – they have no intention of jumping out of the liberal frying pan into the conservative fire.

GOP party bosses also know the fundamental facts of presidential elections, and one constant is a republican candidate needs a significant number of democratic votes to be elected; their ‘theory’ is that Mitt is more likely to win over democrats than Gingrich.

Last, there’s no reason republicans should feel entitled to a conservative president, democrats certainly didn’t get a liberal in Obama.

Unfortunatley, you did get a liberal in Obama.

What you didn't get was a COMPETENT one.

As for these "bosses", they are the ones who gave us McCain, gave us the Bushes, gave us Dole. Reagan won despite them and over their howls of anguish, and he was the most successful GOP presdient of my lifetime.

 

[uptownlivin90]

The first is that it pre-supposes that a true conservative can't win unless he can fool enough people into thinking he's really a "moderate". It was the argument behind McCain's candidacy and it failed then. You have the worst economy in 80 years, a president who is clearly in over his head, and you have conservatives arguing we shouldn't run a conservative? Seriously? Why do we even have a movement, then, if all we are going to offer is warmed over variations on what they are presenting?

Because a majority of voters know that rightist dogma is just as bankrupt as leftist dogma – they have no intention of jumping out of the liberal frying pan into the conservative fire.

GOP party bosses also know the fundamental facts of presidential elections, and one constant is a republican candidate needs a significant number of democratic votes to be elected; their ‘theory’ is that Mitt is more likely to win over democrats than Gingrich.

Last, there’s no reason republicans should feel entitled to a conservative president, democrats certainly didn’t get a liberal in Obama.

Unfortunatley, you did get a liberal in Obama.

What you didn't get was a COMPETENT one.

As for these "bosses", they are the ones who gave us McCain, gave us the Bushes, gave us Dole. Reagan won despite them and over their howls of anguish, and he was the most successful GOP presdient of my lifetime.

God forbid we ever get one of those.

 

[oreo]

Whenever you hear a Romney supporter praise Romney, it's because Romney is "electable".

I find this argument odious for the following reasons.

The first is that it pre-supposes that a true conservative can't win unless he can fool enough people into thinking he's really a "moderate". It was the argument behind McCain's candidacy and it failed then. You have the worst economy in 80 years, a president who is clearly in over his head, and you have conservatives arguing we shouldn't run a conservative? Seriously? Why do we even have a movement, then, if all we are going to offer is warmed over variations on what they are presenting?

The second is, if Romney is so "electable", why does he keep losing elections. He lost to Ted Kennedy by 17 points in 1994, at a time when Teddy's reputation was in the mud due to his nephew's raping someone at his house. He lost to John McCain in the GOP nomination fight in 2008 despite spending three times as much money as McCain did.
When he was considering running for re-election in 2006, polls showing him trailing potential Democratic challengers by double digits convinced him otherwise.

The only election he ever won was against a non-entity for governor in 2002. And he only got 49% of the vote after outspending her 10-1.

Is Newt the ideal candidate? Nope. Most of them were disuaded from running by the sandbagging by the Beltway Establishment.... but at least Newt stands for something. And he wins elections.

Agreed 100% --You can look at the polling data since the start of these debates until now. Mitt Romney is STUCK at 20--25%.. We saw Perry moved way ahead of Romney--then Perry falls. Does Romney move up--NOPE. We saw Cain move ahead of Romney--then he drops out. Does Romney move up--NOPE. We see Newt gaining in 3 or 4 of the first primary states--gaining double digit leads over Romney--the attack ads come out from the Romney and Paul campaigns. Does Romney move up--NOPE. Paul--Perry--Santorim--and Bachmann move up.

It's couldn't be more clear--GOP primary voters do not want MITT ROMNEY as their nominee--no matter how hard the GOP establishment is trying to shove him down everyone's throats.

Now whether or not these continual personal attacks on Newt Gingrich are going to work--as he sent out another e-mail today refusing to attack other GOP candidates--following Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment will tell the story to this race. Will primary voters be swayed by 1/2 truths--distortions of the truth--and GOP establishment endorsements of Mitt Romney? We'll see.

But clearly--Newt Gingrich is the smartest candidate on that stage. He has a real record of reducing the size of the Federal government and it's spending. A 4 year balanced budget--and leaving office with a projected surplus budget. And I trust him to do that again.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Does anybody else think all of the Republican candidates this year suck? There's NOT ONE I'd vote for that I believe is truly "electable". My support for Ron Paul is wishful thinking but not realistic. I'll vote for him proudly without a shadow of a doubt that he won't win the nomination. Otherwise, they all suck. I would of voted for Christie, McDonnell, Ryan, or even Tim Pawlenty for God's sake. But Jesus Christ the field absolutely sucks... Romney and Newts electability are about the same. If America is ready for 4 more years of WHO FREAKING KNOWS WHAT... then it's a toss up. If you think either of them have any balls to change the ClintObamaBush machine you need to be medicated.

 

[oreo]

Does anybody else think all of the Republican candidates this year suck? There's NOT ONE I'd vote for that I believe is truly "electable". My support for Ron Paul is wishful thinking but not realistic. I'll vote for him proudly without a shadow of a doubt that he won't win the nomination. Otherwise, they all suck. I would of voted for Christie, McDonnell, Ryan, or even Tim Pawlenty for God's sake. But Jesus Christ the field absolutely sucks... Romney and Newts electability are about the same. If America is ready for 4 more years of WHO FREAKING KNOWS WHAT... then it's a toss up. If you think either of them have any balls to change the ClintObamaBush machine you need to be medicated.

Liberals support Ron Paul--not because he is the ultra--conservative--who claims that he would cut 1 trillion dollars out of the budget in one year--that's against what they stand for. Most liberals want a bigger Federal Government--which requires more government spending and higher taxes.

But--liberals support Ron Paul--of which 95% of what Paul is for---is completely against their ideology. So they become single issue voters--and that issue is Ron Paul's stance on legalizing all currently illegal drugs in this country--and the patriot act.

You wouldn't believe how many posts I have read from Liberals stating that they would vote for Ron Paul--but if he doesn't win the nomination they'll vote for Obama--

So they're credibility on who would be the best GOP candidate just fell by the way-side.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atvFdbDToLs]cnn - ron paul vs newt gingrich - patriot act - YouTube[/ame]

 

[uptownlivin90]

Does anybody else think all of the Republican candidates this year suck? There's NOT ONE I'd vote for that I believe is truly "electable". My support for Ron Paul is wishful thinking but not realistic. I'll vote for him proudly without a shadow of a doubt that he won't win the nomination. Otherwise, they all suck. I would of voted for Christie, McDonnell, Ryan, or even Tim Pawlenty for God's sake. But Jesus Christ the field absolutely sucks... Romney and Newts electability are about the same. If America is ready for 4 more years of WHO FREAKING KNOWS WHAT... then it's a toss up. If you think either of them have any balls to change the ClintObamaBush machine you need to be medicated.

Liberals support Ron Paul--not because he is the ultra--conservative--who claims that he would cut 1 trillion dollars out of the budget in one year--that's against what they stand for. Most liberals want a bigger Federal Government--which requires more government spending and higher taxes.

But--liberals support Ron Paul--of which 95% of what Paul is for---is completely against their ideology. So they become single issue voters--and that issue is Ron Paul's stance on legalizing all currently illegal drugs in this country--and the patriot act.

You wouldn't believe how many posts I have read from Liberals stating that they would vote for Ron Paul--but if he doesn't win the nomination they'll vote for Obama--

So they're credibility on who would be the best GOP candidate just fell by the way-side.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atvFdbDToLs]cnn - ron paul vs newt gingrich - patriot act - YouTube[/ame]

I like Paul on his economic and social policies, I'm pretty libertarian leaning, I'm a little more "pro-family" than most libertarians though (I guess). As for his foreign policy I agree with about 70% of it. He's a military vet, and is strong on military and veterans benefits, probably the strongest republican in the race. He get's my vote on those grounds.

As for liberals supporting him, great, I honestly wouldn't care how he got elected.