published Thursday, August 30th, 2012

The Romney dilemma

It's hard to ignore the lengthy parade of Republican luminaries in the crowd and on the stage at this week's Republican National Convention that would make better candidates and, yes, better presidents than Mitt Romney.

By now, the same question has begun to creep in the dark recesses of the mind of many Republicans: "Would we be better off if Romney loses in November?"

After all, you have to get pretty far down the list of potential 2016 GOP presidential candidates before you find someone who is less conservative, less exciting or less authentic than Romney.

What conservative wouldn't rather have the chance to vote for Florida's energetic junior Senator Marco Rubio or free market firebrand Rand Paul, a Senator from Kentucky, than have to hold his or her nose and vote for Romney? Certainly, many Republicans would rather see a bona fide conservative like South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley or Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, or a true blue budget hawk like Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina or Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, in the Oval Office, instead of Romney.

Governors Chris Christie and Scott Walker, of New Jersey and Wisconsin respectively, are popular, outspoken and battle-tested. It isn't hard to imagine that either would have a much easier time than Romney of defeating the Democratic nominee.

Even former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and recent Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, each of whose popularity is muted as a result of their association with the shortcomings of the George W. Bush administration, would be more tolerable choices than Romney for many, if not most, Americans.

•••

With so many good candidates waiting in the wings for a possible run at the White House, could it be better for conservatives, the Republican Party and the nation as a whole if Romney loses and a truly great, transformative conservative emerges in four years?

Therein lies the Romney dilemma:

Should Republicans work to elect Romney, knowing that he's an unpromising -- if not outright lousy -- conservative, with the awareness that if Romney is elected, it will take Obama out of the White House, but it will also prevent the election of a far better candidate in four years?

Or, should Republicans essentially throw the election in the hopes that a gridlocked -- or even GOP-controlled -- Congress can limit the amount of damage Obama can do during a lame duck term, and a great set of Republican presidential candidates will emerge during the next election cycle?

•••

The whole scenario of Republicans bailing out on this election and focusing instead on 2016 is made more sensible and enticing by the almost comically weak bunch of candidates that the Democrats expect to trot out in 2016.

Hillary Clinton, who would certainly make for a formidable candidate, claims that she's retiring from politics and has no interest in running again for president. That leaves New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as perhaps the only sane, reasonable, scandal-free candidate Democrats have in their stable. Certainly, names like Rahm Emmanuel, Janet Napolitano and Dennis Kucinich are almost laughable as presidential contenders. It's so bad for Democrats that Joe Biden may be a serious threat to win the party's nomination in 2016, for god's sake.

Since it figures that any one of a dozen or more Republican candidates could beat the Democratic nominee in 2016, why not bite the bullet and put up with four more years of Obama?

There is only one particularly good reason not to: Obamacare.

•••

If the most important goal for Republicans in the coming months is to repeal Obamacare, it is vital to consider the most realistic way to make that dream a reality. Quite simply, that's with Obama out of office.

Even if Republicans control Congress after November, it won't be by a veto-proof majority. That means that any attempts to overturn Obamacare would, of course, be summarily rejected by President Obama.

To make matters worse, if a Republican isn't elected president until 2016, almost all portions of Obamacare will be in place at that point. In fact, several of the final pillars of Obamacare are scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2017, less than three weeks before the president would be inaugurated.

At that point, it may be possible to defund some portions of Obamacare, but truly repealing the scheme once it's almost entirely enacted is unlikely, even with the most conservative of presidents in office. As Ronald Reagan once said, "Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"

Despite creating a mandatory health insurance scheme in Massachusetts that served to inform and inspire Obamacare, Romney claims that his first priority as president would be to repeal the program.

Will Romney, who displayed the ideological backbone of a nightcrawler during his time as Massachusetts governor, be willing to uphold such a fiercely conservative -- and not entirely popular -- campaign promise? And even if Romney is willing to sign a bill that overturns Obamacare, will he have the votes in Congress to get such a bill to his desk?

If Republicans believe the answer to both questions is "yes," they should do all they can to elect Mitt Romney. However, if the answer to either question is "no," it will be better in the long run for conservative values and the Republican brand to work to elect as many Republicans as possible to Congress this November, let the Romney campaign die on the vine and put up with another four years of Obama. After that, Republicans will be rewarded with one of any number of principled, respectable, and responsible conservative presidential candidates.

27
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
hambone said...

No, it hasn't been hard to ignore the Republicans this week. I think I've done a good job of ignoring.

It's been said that Romney has a authenticity problem.

That's just a polite way of saying he's a phoney S.O.B.

August 30, 2012 at 3:35 a.m.
EaTn said...

Romney is great at collecting big money. Sure there are many more qualified right-wingers to run this country than Romney. To get to where Romney is today, you have to have money, lots of money. The next election will decide if this country is going to sell-out the presidency to the highest bidder. Will his billionaire friends buy Romney into the White House? Stay tuned.

August 30, 2012 at 5:19 a.m.
rolando said...

Speaking of "phony SOBs", how's the one in the WH working out? We are slowly learning just who and what he is, and his next term will undoubtedly cast it in concrete.

Yes, his next term. With support like that given by this so-called conservative Free Press editor, does anyone doubt it? He has gone over to the dark side. He certainly hasn't noted or studied the damage The Obama and HIS minions have done to this country in only three years. I suspect he isn't even aware of The Obama's latest E.O.

"Only one reason not to vote for Obama", indeed. Either support the right or go back to the left side of the page where you belong, dude.

August 30, 2012 at 6:37 a.m.
aae1049 said...

I was reading some polling from multiple sources, and uniformly, the public has substantially more confidence in Romney to address serious economic decisions, and to execute solutions. The time to pay the economic piper is approaching, because government spending patterns have not changed.

I could care less if they have R or D at the end of their name.I want someone to "lead, follow, or get out of the way" to address the most serious problem we have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhKjlPYBoP4

And, before you anti Corker folks start, the issues he raises are also held by Ron Paul Libertarians, and Progressive Dems. Listen to the data Corker presents before you R hate.

R's and D's just differ on the solutions. I do not subscribe to end of world nonsense, but the science in the numbers is undisputed by all political parties.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...!

August 30, 2012 at 8:13 a.m.
Walden said...

Drew, you are an utter disappointment. There is nothing more important to our Country than sending BHO back to private life as soon as possible, nothing. Your editorials are doing nothing to make sure this happens, and for that you are shameful.

August 30, 2012 at 9:07 a.m.
moon4kat said...

While I don't agree with all of Drew's assumptions and conclusions, it's clear that he is engaged in some independent thinking, rather than parroting the GOP party lines of deceit and distortion. His editorials are an improvement over those in the past; and, that's a much-needed breath of fresh air.

August 30, 2012 at 9:34 a.m.
Livn4life said...

aae1049..."because government spending patterns have not changed." You are so right my friend. If we had seen in the past three years a shift in that pattern, one might conclude the needed hope and change promised in the former campaign was being enacted. Instead, we have seen the pushing and prodding of a costly agenda only desired by elite power-mongers and those who think the government owes them a free ride. Yes the piper is waiting to be paid and hundreds, thousands, even millions of people are going to hook their horse to a wagon which is taking the economy more off the cliff. Here is what gets me...when it was a conservative White House, there was scrutiny of any and every part of "new" spending that came along, never mind that the Congress enacted most of it> It has been over and over again delclared "that" President's fault. Now that time has passed and the newly enacted things are coming down the pike costing more, there just is not the outrage we heard just about all the former 8 years. I just wonder if it was truly taken to the people, is the majority really for an unaffordable moving forward agenda more and more away from what has made this nation great? I truly do wonder about that.

August 30, 2012 at 10:13 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Not bad, though the new guy's average has fallen below Lee Anderson's after a promising start.

Our current President's administration has failed by its own standards--close Gitmo? Keep joblessness below 8%, reaching 6% in 4 years? Cut the deficit in half in 4 years? Most transparent? Shovel ready? Newfangled jobs like Solyndra will last forever?

Governor Romney would probably do less badly, but he gave us Romneycare and has not repudiated it; he has tolerated distortions by his friends about Speaker Gingrich and Senator Santorum (so how can he complain if nasty liberals lie about him?); he presumably believes a fantasy novel called the Book of Mormon (which I've read) is a history book; and he's tolerating needless bullying of Ron Paul delegates. So there's good reason not to vote for him.

Taking the editorial's point a step or two further, voting for a new party does two things: (1) it offers ideas for the old parties to pick up on, and (2) it shows the old parties where votes can be found, as they try to move from 49% to 51%. It also expresses dissatisfaction with what the old parties are doing, or with who they have chosen.

So check out the Constitution Party, http://www.constitutionparty.com/ , whose nominee Virgil Goode served five terms in the U. S. House and with which I tend to agree, or the Libertarian Party, www.lp.org, whose nominee Gary Johnson governed New Mexico with more success than Mitt Romney governed Massachusetts, and unlike Romney won re-election.

(P.S. I call the Book of Mormon a "fantasy novel" because it has no more to do with ancient American history than "The Lord of the Rings" has to do with ancient European history. I know some people would say the same of the Bible, but even unbelievers admit the Bible has SOMEthing to do with ancient Jewish history and with Christian origins. We fundamentalists know the Bible is perfect, but even unbelievers give it more credit than they give Joseph Smith's novel. So trusting Smith's novel shows poor judgment on Mr Romney's part. Smith died and stayed dead; Jesus died and rose again. Follow Jesus; Smith is in Hell.)

August 30, 2012 at 1:27 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

AndrewLohr wrote,"We fundamentalists know the Bible is perfect, but even unbelievers give it more credit than they give Joseph Smith's novel."

That is simply hilarious! My fantasy book is true, while your fantasy book is untrue.

Only from the mind of a fundamentalist thumper could that make sense.

I'm still laughing at that logic.

However, there's proof that Joseph Smith existed (though he pulled off a great scam).

Still waiting for proof of God and Jesus.

August 30, 2012 at 1:57 p.m.
jimcarwest said...

reply to "Hambone"...It's a little hypocritical to knock Romney's authenticity while overlooking how really "phoney" Obama is. Almost nothing he claims to be can be verified since he has hidden all the information. His own autobiography is full of falsehoods which he has constructed. Let's get real!

August 30, 2012 at 2:29 p.m.
jimcarwest said...

to DaytonsDarwin...Open your eyes, friend, the proof of God is all around you. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night shows knowledge." People who deny him are showing their ignorance at the same time that they accept as fact a theory of origins that relies upon fantasy. As for Jesus, do your homework. Besides the numerous historical records to His existence, the literary proofs, the movement He founded that cannot be dismissed, the millions of changed lives that cannot be explained apart from His teachings, and many more, Jesus is a fact that is only denied by naysayers who have their heads in the sand.

August 30, 2012 at 2:39 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Your rhetoric is not proof. Nor that over 1400 Christians sects claim to follow him. Nor is there any historical evidence.

Where your proof? As the claimant, you need to provide evidence of your claims. Miracles? Where's the proof? Resurrection? Where's the proof?

Anyone could make the same statement you made about anything, but that doesn't make it so.

With your logic and gullibility I hope you're not a science or history teacher.

August 30, 2012 at 2:42 p.m.
JustOneWoman said...

jimcarwest said... reply to "Hambone"...It's a little hypocritical to knock Romney's authenticity while overlooking how really "phoney" Obama is. Almost nothing he claims to be can be verified since he has hidden all the information. His own autobiography is full of falsehoods which he has constructed. Let's get real!

It is a little ignorant to post things that can easily be debunked also, but it didn't stop you from parroting the same ole lies. Did you not get the memo? Just hilarious!

August 30, 2012 at 3:59 p.m.
JustOneWoman said...

jimcarwest said... to DaytonsDarwin...Open your eyes, friend, the proof of God is all around you. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night shows knowledge." People who deny him are showing their ignorance at the same time that they accept as fact a theory of origins that relies upon fantasy. As for Jesus, do your homework. Besides the numerous historical records to His existence, the literary proofs, the movement He founded that cannot be dismissed, the millions of changed lives that cannot be explained apart from His teachings, and many more, Jesus is a fact that is only denied by naysayers who have their heads in the sand.

Why didn't they use that "proof" in the Dover trials? Man O Man, we could have been learning about creationism all this time. Dangit! Christianity has already been on trial, and failed to prove what was needed to stand ground in Dover. If it works for you to be a better person, then fine, but it doesn't for most people. They become selfish, greedy, miserable paranoid people, that have no tolerance for other's differences and individualism that our country was founded on.

August 30, 2012 at 4:08 p.m.
aae1049 said...

JustOneWoman. It is you that lacks tolerance and respect for religious freedom. To demean anyone for their religious beliefs is the definition of intolerance. That is precisely what you have written to JimCarWest. It does not work for you, fine.

Just as I respect your right not to believe. I respect Jim's right to believe. That is the foundation of America.

August 30, 2012 at 4:16 p.m.
chatt_man said...

April - unfortunately, like so many others, JustOneWoman preaches intolerance, yet doesn't practice it. They, just like Owebama, profess a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

August 30, 2012 at 4:29 p.m.
chatt_man said...

correction to my 4:29 post...'preaches tolerance' instead of 'preaches intolerance', sorry.

August 30, 2012 at 5:41 p.m.
timbo said...

I like you Drew. You are 10 times better then that imbecile Anderson. He was a power structure butt kisser. I agree with you on this article but also agree with Walden. Nothing is more important than getting that Socialist out of the White House.
Romney is a good, competent man with the right background to fix problems. He is squishy on philosophy as far as being a conservative. We should elect him now and if he turns on conservatives, we can deal with him in the primary. Difference is I will be against him if he turns on us during his administration. On theother hand, Walden will continue with the same "the lesser of two evils" argument. It is simple, Obama has to go. We will deal with these squishy, establishment Rinos at a later date.

August 31, 2012 at 8:12 a.m.
Walden said...

Good grief timbo. I thought I totally schooled you on reality a couple of weeks ago. I am no Rino, just a realist. At least you understand the undeniable need to kick BHO to the curb. Romney and Ryan are very decent men, and they have a plan to turn this country around -- very much in the Reagan tradition. Your buddy Drew is no friend of the cause to oust BHO and Plugs. By the way, stop defaming Lee Anderson -- he has more character in his pinky than goobers like you have in their entire person.

August 31, 2012 at 9:54 a.m.
jesse said...

jimcarwest i was ABOUT to give you some creditabilty and then you done went and got into the "true believer" mode!! The bottom line is"that shat has nuttin to do w/reality!! The sooner you get over that stuff the sooner you will get in touch w/ what is actually goin on in the REAL world!! You are gitten close to relatin to Andrew Lohr,and that ain't a place you want to be!!

August 31, 2012 at 10:55 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

aae1049 said... JustOneWoman. It is you that lacks tolerance and respect for religious freedom. To demean anyone for their religious beliefs is the definition of intolerance. That is precisely what you have written to JimCarWest. It does not work for you, fine.

Just as I respect your right not to believe. I respect Jim's right to believe. That is the foundation of America.

I respect. I just won't have others dictating their religion to me. I would like to hear how any laws have been proposed out of the none-believers, telling people which religion they have to believe in. NONE, there have been no laws proposed by non-believers telling believers what to believe in. You can always tell when buttons are pushed.

August 31, 2012 at 4:43 p.m.
JustOneWoman said...

I do lack tolerance....I lack the tolerance of those that continue to impose their beliefs on me.

August 31, 2012 at 4:44 p.m.
timbo said...

Walden..... Anderson was just what I said. He supported local liberals many times because his "buddies" told him to do it. He got his job by marrying the boss's daughter. He had no writing talent whatsoever and very little character. By your admiration of him, you are proving my point about you.

To show you what an old hypocrite he really was...he supported an extremely liberal Debra Matthews over conservative businessman Gregg Juster for school board, he did the same thing to his "friend" Rhonda Thurman against liberal Barbara Levi. He supported local tax increases time after time, supported any local liberal that did the bidding of his buddy Ruth Holmberg.

He had as much spine as a bowl of jello. It is no surprise that someone like you "admires" him and dislikes Drew. The truth is something you people know nothing about.

As far as being schooled by you....delusion is the first sign of mental illness.

September 1, 2012 at 8:47 a.m.
jimcarwest said...

to Daytonsdarwin...I hardly think that the limited space of this comment provides opportunity to refute the silliness of your darwinist views. It is not that hard to do with all the scientific, historicic, archeological, statistical evidence that is readily available. I hardly view your comments as proof of the darwinist view, so that must mean it is not more than rhetoric too. I have read, studied, and been schooled in your view, and have rejected it as unscientific as well as atheistic. Have you objectively studied the view you oppose? I encourage you to do so. Others with superior intellects to probably you and I have done so, and the evidence is weighty. I don't mean to disrepect your view, and I hope you will respond accordingly.

September 1, 2012 at 10 a.m.
jesse said...

Jimcarwest! in my mind the new testament is a testimonial to the fact that somewhere along the road to Damascus Paul found a stash of L.S.D.! Not puttin it down BUT a thinkin person HAS to factor in ALL the data,and when you do that the BIBLE don't hold up!!AT ALL!!

September 1, 2012 at 10:18 a.m.
jesse said...

Timbo is the best example on here of someone who wants to put every body who deviatets from his view of "righteous" up against the WALL! He is the personification if "NO PRISNORS"! And that's a fun position to take IF you are 9 ft.tall and bullit proof!!(their are several folks on here that will point out to him that that is NOT the case!!)

September 1, 2012 at 12:33 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.