An article written by Tom Blumer by the above title appears in today’sPajamas Media. I have been and continue to be amazed that Republicans would even consider Mitt Romney a potential nominee, much less a “frontrunner”. We’ve documented his incessant flip floppery and transparent opportunism on numerous occasions, as have others. He is, in fact, the Republican version of John Kerry and, although establishment Republicans would be just fine with one of their own, his nomination would likely lead to open revolt among grass roots conservatives (you know, the folks who are actually responsible for the GOP’s sweeping victories earlier this month). Blumer begins by pointing out what we all have known all along:
The serious rumblings are already out there. Undaunted by the failure of one of the most expensive presidential primary runs in history, Mitt Romney apparently wants to take another shot at getting the GOP’s nomination. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is “quite sure” Romney will run, and has said that the former Massachusetts governor “would be my preference.”
Of course he’s running. He never stopped. Everything he did during the run up to the mid-term election was in furtherance of his own self-interest. From his tendency to endorse candidate who were already far ahead to his hilarious penchant for endorsing candidates who have already won their primary illustrates this fact. The fact the Mittster has earned the endorsement of Orrin Hatch speaks volumes. Tone-deaf establishment Republicans likeJohn Thune and Orrin Hatch are responsible for the current mess in Alaska and the prospect that we may be stuck with Arlen Specter Lisa Murkowski for another six years.
It was the decision of these two fools and others to allow Murky to keep her Republican seniority after she had decided to run against the Republican nominee for Senate. Think about that. As we predicted, Murky exploited this decision to make the only case she had to Alaska voters: vote for me and I’ll use my seniority to keep Alaskans dependent on federal handouts. If Murky’s lead holds up, a plurality of Alaskans are apparently satisfied with being wards of the state. Hatch explained his decision to effectively assist Murky’s campaign against the Republican nominee thusly:
“We all respect the system, and she still is a Republican senator,’’ said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah.) after the closed party caucus. “It’s just a matter of good taste. We decided to keep the status quo as long as she’s a senator.’’
Of course. Hatch, who was first elected to the Senate in 1976, has obviously had his judgment clouded by a severe case of “establishmentitus” as his support for Murkowski and Romney makes clear. It’s time for him to move on. Let’s hope he gets primaried in 2012 and meets the same fate as Robert Bennett. Blumer goes on to explain the Republican proclivity to nominate bad candidates for no other reason than they are “next in line” or something, whatever that means:
Sadly, there’s a hoary tradition in the GOP that certain establishment-favored candidates, even though they’re not the best available, have somehow earned “their turn.” That belief has usually led the party straight to the presidential political graveyard, which includes the campaign corpses of John McCain (2008) and Bob Dole (1996). Following that tradition this time around would mean that the party’s “it’s my turn” nominees would have moved from a somewhat conservative and usually credible war hero (Dole), to an occasionally conservative and all too often not credible war hero (McCain), to a decidedly not conservative and not credible guy who didn’t serve (Romney). There’s a reason why the GOP is often called the Stupid Party.
The Stupid Party is correct. Am I the only one who believes it’s more than passing strange that the GOP almost always thinks the best candidate for the next general election is one who lost the last primary? GOP campaign slogan: Onward to the future with yesterday’s loser. Not particularly inspiring is it, but that’s essentially Romney’s argument for the nomination. Blumer goes on to destroy the myth that Team Romney lost in 2008 because McCain, Huckster, et. al. made his Mormon religion an issue:
Cry me a river. As far as I know, and I followed the GOP primaries very closely, the only evidence that anyone attempted to use Mitt Romney’s religion against him was one alleged early-December 2007 push poll in Iowa. Oddly enough, the only people who came forward to claim they had received the offensive phone calls were Romney campaign operatives, who “somehow” forgot to tell the press that they were on the candidate’s payroll.
On the candidates payroll? Like Evangelicals for Mitt? Shocking that. No, Mitt didn’t lose because if his religion. He lost because he’s a transparently opportunistic flip flopper who changes his views as often as he changes his audience and, when he does make a decision, it’s decidedly not conservative (see Romneycare). Blumer explores these reasons in detail before closing with this:
The majority of the USA’s population, which Frank Luntz recently found is sensible, constitution-loving, and conservative, cannot and will not abide Mitt Romney receiving the GOP’s presidential nomination in 2012. We’ve had more than enough of this Mitt.
Indeed we have. The importance of Romneycare in 2012 can’t be overstated. If Republicans choose Mitt Romney in 2012, they will have effectively left their biggest issue to use against President Obama on the table. Obamacare, after all, is based on Romneycare. Mitt Romney even bragged that Ted Kennedy was the first person he consulted when developing the plan. You can’t make this up. How will Republicans be able to run against Obamacare if their own candidate’s signature “accomplishment” is not qualitatively different? If Republicans are dumb enough to nominate Mitt, they will have unilaterally disarmed themselves. The Stupid Party indeed. Stupidity like this, as Blumer notes above, is something conservatives will no longer abide. The establishment better figure this out…or go the way of the Whigs.
Read Blumer’s entire piece here.