Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Elections

Romney will take Ohio

It seems pretty certain now that Romney will take Ohio.  Momentum is on his side, and has been for days.  I talked to two people who were lukewarm in their support of Romney until the Rush Limbaugh comment (combine that with Santorum bringing up things the people have decided on their own a generation ago); now they are sure they want someone who is stable and predictable and conservative enough.  Obama has to be beaten, they say. And I just remind you that he was the conservative candidate against McCain last time around.  For what it's worth, I predict he takes Ohio by five points.  The rest of the states on super Tuesday are just numbers, but Ohio is a moral victory.  The rest of the primaries are mere details to this.  From now on Romney should talk only about his programs and why Obama should lose.

Categories > Elections

Discussions - 6 Comments

Peter, let me tell you, all us true conservatives are just SOOOO happy about it. We get yet another slick politician with no political compass (much less a rudder) -- and I'll bet we go broke half as fast under Mr. Romney!

Until the GOP establishment (i.e., coastal Republicans, plus Midwestern analogues) begins to "get it," there really isn't any hope for this country. We don't need better managers for the Federal leviathan. We need fundamental rethinking and bold action.

I predict an Obama victory in November, and the only people to blame will be the GOP lemming-class.

What's anybody going to do against that Leviathan? Whoever is elected, even Ron Paul, he is stuck with it, unless Congress acts to dismantle it. The conundrum for any conservative in office will be how to reduce it; do you put it all on a diet, do you lop parts off, do you weed departments out like gardens?

I had decided I could vote for Romney even before reading Bill McGurn's article today, "Reagan was a Sure Loser, Too." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577263624201684582.html?mod=rss_opinion_main&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fxml%2Frss%2F3_7041+%28WSJ.com%3A+Opinion%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

McGurn ends with the obvious -- Mr. Romney is no Reagan. However, to be a successful president, he will have to do more than manage the mess we have, he'll have to sort it out, at least as much as any human can. He seems to want to be a sucessful president. I'll trust to that.

Redwald, who is your solution? Good old Ron "it-doesn't-matter-if-Iran-gets-a-nuclear-bomb" Paul? Don't try to act like any of the non-Romneys are any better just because you don't like Romney.

Henry Paulson offered an explanation (retrospectively) of the challenge he faced and the methods he employed: "Congress does nothing unless there is a crisis". The institutional practice and culture of our contemptible national legislature does not permit anyone to sort anything out. They service particular rent-seeking constituencies and strike poses. That's it.

The following has to happen if anything is to be repaired:

1. The Republicans acquire a minimum of 53% of the seats in the House and 58% of the seats in the Senate.

2. The filibuster rule is abrogated.

3. The Republicans acquire the Presidency.

4. The Republicans re-acquire an understanding of basic arithmetic and figure out they have to raise taxes as well as cut spending.

5. They actually raise taxes and cut spending in an unexpected burst of public spiritedness and indifference to the opposition's slimy p.r. campaigns.

---

And I am Marie of Roumania

Marie,

No one likes to make hard political choices. I have no argument with your list, except maybe about the filibuster, but know that may be sentiment based on "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and not good sense. I begin to feel sorry for anyone in office who, in order to do the right things, will have to do things that make everyone angry -- or at least groups of people angry, which in aggregate might prove to be everyone. At this point, the people we elect in November may have no choice but to do the hard things.

I suppose I could also argue with you about raising taxes. Our government does need revenue; there's no doubt about that. So, raising taxes seems inevitable, though with the caveat that we raise taxes in ways that do not kill markets and economic growth. I read something persuasive about that and hope I remember where and what in the morning.

I'm willing to tolerate a good deal of "baggage" IF the candidate is a bona fide conservative. Romney just isn't, and at one point in his career said as much. He is a classical (weasel) politician who will say or do anything to get elected, and any GOP'er who thinks differently is just fooling himself. Was he to the right of McCain? I don't remember that at all, but regardless he is not a man of the Right, and the true base of the GOP doesn't support him (look at those "wins" he's racking up, for crying out loud).

Unless the economy gets remarkably worse this summer, I think Obama will be reelected. I truly hope not, but most of the conservatives I know simply loath Romney (it's much worse that it was with McCain - at least McCain was a war hero). I truly suspect some of them will not flip the switch for the Romnitron.

I have been a fan of Newt Gingrich, and that's who I voted for in a primary a while back. He's done and said things that are questionable in the past, but I've never doubted his fundamental conservativism. And without doubt he's the smartest man in the race. But apparently a good chunk of the GOP would rather have a Ken-doll for their candidate.

Oh well...let the lemmings run. I guess I can survive another four years of Obamanation.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/17325