12/09/2011 (10:21 am)
I have plenty of reasons to oppose Mitt Romney’s candidacy, but I am shocked that nobody has brought this up about him: he is Barack Obama’s ideal choice for an election opponent.
Barack Obama is weak as a candidate because his administration has instituted draconian, top-heavy policies that are draining the national coffers. The campaign that will successfully overthrow him is the one that emphasizes smaller, less intrusive, less costly government.
Mitt Romney, however, cannot run that campaign. He instituted the same draconian, top-heavy policies that are now draining the Massachusetts government.
Barack Obama’s strongest campaign strategy will be to polarize the nation against the rich 1%, blame the 2008 crash on Wall Street capitalists, and paint the Republicans as the defenders of the rich capitalists.
Mitt Romney made his money and reputation as one of those Wall Street capitalists. He is the perfect target for Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.
So Mitt Romney is the worst possible candidate to unseat Barack Obama, and the best possible candidate for Obama to run against.
Now do we all see why the press has been calling Romney the inevitable Republican nominee, and has been avoiding any negative stories about him? The notion that Romney is the only Republican who can beat Obama is pure nonsense. The notion that Romney can beat Obama at all is nonsense. Romney is Obama’s choice for opponent.
4 Comments »
Comment by Dale
So Phil, what do you think about Newt. I’ve always thought he had too much baggage to run but I’ve been finding myself taking a second look at him. Also everything I have been reading about Mitt Romney can be summarized in the statement “ANYBODY BUT MITT ROMNEY”. I think there are a lot of conservatives that might stay home rather then vote for the guy. As for me I’d vote for anyone except Obama.
Comment by philwynk
Newt Gingrich is arguably the best thinker in the Republican party, and is also the person who has done more to advance practical conservatism in my lifetime than any other living human being. That’s remarkable since he’s not entirely a conservative, but it’s true. A Speaker of the House from 1994 through 1998, he was responsible for welfare reform, the Contract With America, and the surpluses of the Clinton years (remember, Congress holds the purse strings of government.) He’s also erratic, mean, difficult to predict, prone occasionally to endorse a big government program, and is reported by many to be a less-than-desirable leader.
All that said, Newt was my choice for nominee early in the game, and remains so. He would easily beat Obama, I think, unless the left manages a worse-than-usual slime bath, or unless he literally implodes on the campaign trail.
Of the other candidates I could most happily support Rick Santorum, but his campaign needs a miracle in Iowa just to stay in the running. I don’t know much about Rick Perry but he does not strike me either as a good thinker or a good leader. I like Michele Bachmann but I don’t think she’s sold herself as presidential material.
I am not paying attention to “baggage.” It does not matter what baggage candidates have; if your favorite does not seem to have baggage now, just wait ’till about a week after they become the nominee. Democrats know how to assassinate character. It’s just about the only thing they do well. They’re going to say vile things about any Republican, and about 40% of the public is going to believe them, no matter what our candidate is really like. Learn from Herman Cain, from Dan Quayle, from Sarah Palin, from Robert Bork, from Henry Hyde, from Ken Starr…
Comment by suek
I’m still very undecided. Actually, your critique of Romney is one I haven’t heard before. At this point, I’d prefer Romney over Gingrich, based on the need for executive ability – which I think Gingrich doesn’t have. I’d like to see them as a team – Romney to do the executive part, Gingrich to guide him in the swamp of DC, and the attack dog.
I readily agree that Gingrich is more capable when it comes to taking on the opponent – something none of the others seem to do effectively. In fact, it seems to me that _all_ of the candidates have something worthwhile to offer…I’d sure like to see them work as a team, but it also seems to me that the primaries tend to get so caustic that it would take a real magician to form them into a trusting team after the elections are done.
Comment by GW
Good to see you posting, Phil.
I agree with your take on Romney. He is the 1%. Indeed, I wonder how much of Obama’s class warfare rhetoric over the past several months was a strategy adopted in anticipation that his opponent would be Romney.
I agree that Gingrich would be the strongest opponent we could put up against Obama. But at this point, it seems that the professional pundit class has the long knives out for Gingrich to a degree not seen since the left unsheathed their knives for Sarah Palin. I have never seen anything like this on the right – even directed towards Obama. It may well be that Republicans end up with Romney as the nominee only because Gingrich lies dead and decaying somewhere between the headquarters of the NRO and the Washington Post.