Skip to content

Nomination Excitations: Rolling In The Deep Do-Do [Updated Below]

06 April 2012 @ 10:05


I’ve refrained from commenting on Tuesday’s primary results because, as has happened a number of times this election season, I wanted to spend some time contemplating whether it’s time to throw in the Anybody But Romney towel and declare the match over.

The question is: Is it still worth opposing Willard M. Romney?

I think it is.

The fact still remains that, while exit polls show a growing number of conservatives have accepted that Romney will win the Nomination, we don’t want him as our standard-bearer.

So, to continue the fight is worth it (1) on the odd chance we can prevent him from getting the Nod and (2) to show him and the Establishment that we are a force to be reckoned with.

The way I feel at this moment:

= If Willard is the Nominee, I will vote against Obama by pulling the lever for Romney, but I will refuse to campaign for him in any positive way; I will just make the case that, by voting for Willard, you are just preventing another four years of lawlessness and disorder and Treason. I will not seek to raise anyone’s hopes that Willard will be anymore than a ‘an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks’, a President who, at best, will slightly slow our speed as we head down The Road To Serfdom. I will not repeat what I did for John McCain in 2008.

= I will continue to expose the GOP Establishment for the corrupt hacks some of them are and, as for the rest, I will show how they have their heads firmly stuck up their arses.

= I will continue to urge people to vote for Rick Santorum as long as he remains in the race. If he drops out and Newt stays in, I will not be a hypocrite and urge people to vote for him, as I still believe he is a despicable human being. If Mr. Santorum withdraws, I will urge people to vote for Ron Paul as a protest vote against the GOP.

= I will concentrate on promoting candidates for the House and the Senate who appear to truly share our conservative beliefs. Hopefully, I will not let myself be hoodwinked by the Nikki Haley types again.

= I will continue to plot ways the GOP can be made to go the way of the Whig Party and how we can plan to create a new party.

= I will continue my preparations for when things get worse.


-In his day after column on Tuesday Night’s results over at The American Spectator, Stacy McCain wrote:

…If Romney is indeed now the “inevitable” nominee, it is a status he has obtained by crushing conservative opposition in an astonishingly expensive and negative campaign: According to the Washington Post, Romney’s super PAC has spent nearly $30 million on advertising, 91 percent of it on negative ads aimed at either Gingrich or Santorum. By some estimates, the Romney campaign is spending at a rate of more than $15 per vote, compared to less than $6 per vote for Santorum.

None of that was mentioned Tuesday night in the post-primary discussion on Fox News, which predictably cut off Rick Santorum’s speech halfway through, and then predictably began discussing the campaign in terms of when Santorum would drop out and how Republicans could “coalesce” behind Romney who, the commentators declared, is now definitely the inevitable nominee. Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, Mary Katharine Ham, Stephen Hayes — every voice on Fox News was singing the same predictable tune from the hymnal of inevitability. Santorum’s supporters have been complaining for weeks about the transparent pro-Romney bias at Fox, and it was perhaps not entirely a coincidence that conservative columnist Michelle Malkin — a Fox News contributor who endorsed Santorum in January — chose Tuesday to link election coverage from MSNBC and CBS at her popular blog. The bandwagon psychology of the front-runner’s argument, which has been gathering force ever since Romney’s Jan. 31 victory in Florida, has nearly overwhelmed all rational resistance. Anyone who continues arguing against Romney’s inevitability is increasingly viewed as a spoilsport, if not indeed a madman.

A sort of cognitive dissonance is at work: Three months into the primary campaign, Romney has gotten about 41 percent of Republican votes so far. According to projections by the Associated Press, however, Romney now has 655 delegates, which is 57 percent of the “magic number” of 1,144 needed to clinch the nomination at Tampa. Delegate-rich states that are home to millions of conservative voters are still weeks away from their primaries, including Indiana and North Carolina on May 8 and Texas on May 29. Yet such is the pressure now to unite Republicans behind Mitt’s moderate banner that Tuesday night on Fox News, Krauthammer argued that Santorum should quit even before the April 24 primary in his home state of Pennsylvania.

Mark Levin read parts of Stacy’s speech on his show Wednesday Night, agreeing with him.

Stacy commented:

…It was evident that “The Great One” sees the same ominous signs that concern me, that he knows what these omens portend, and that he would like to alert his listeners to the fact that they are being propagandized and indoctrinated.Unfortunately, judging from the reactions by Levin’s callers, there are a lot of people who don’t get it. They misunderstand what Levin is saying — what I am saying — about the obvious weaknesses of Mitt Romney’s campaign. The uncomprehending callers seemed to think that this is merely a matter of personal opinion, and that their admiration for Romney or their disdain for Rick Santorum are the most relevant facts to be discussed.

Some people can’t see the omens or lack the experience to interpret what these auguries signify. When we try to point out to them the portents of impending doom, these people respond, “Well, that’s your opinion.”

These people are sticking their head in the sand and refusing to see that Willard M. Romney is not the choice of those folks who do the grunt work in Republican campaigns [ie: conservatives] They want a real, believing conservative. Add to that the fact that Willard has created a lot of bad feelings by his relentless negative campaigning which means he faces a situation where many of us give him a vote only because we are choosing the lesser of evils, but we will not work for him and will not donate to him at the levels he needs. And let us not forget that Romney is winning primaries in states that he more than likely will not win in November.

-Then there’s the issue of Willard’s religion. The Left has begun their attack on Mormonism, with self-proclaimed Socialist Larry O’Donnell leading the way, with people like David Gregory setting-up the stage. Both are making it quite clear that Romney is very involved in his Church [they keep mentioning that he is a Bishop of the LDS].

Stacy McCain lays it all out for us:

And my friends, this has just barely begun. That little shot from O’Donnell? It was like the signal gun to start a massive barrage.

Maybe you have never done any research into the history of Mormonism. Maybe you have no idea how much material there is to work with. Maybe you are unaware of how many ex-Mormons and other critics of Mormonism have already gotten in touch with national news producers and reporters, eager to help them with “research” for all those in-depth feature articles and multi-part series about the LDS church.

If you don’t know any of that stuff, you can be forgiven for thinking that any negative media focus on Mitt Romney’s religion would automatically be seen as unfair and bigoted by independent voters. But just wait and see: If Romney actually does win the Republican nomination, and if it ever appears that Mitt poses a serious threat to Obama’s re-election, then the gloves will come off and you will be disabused of your naïveté.

Let us not forget that the Left is not at all restrained by any belief in Morality, that their motto is, as it has always been, ‘By any means necessary’. They will take whatever actions they believe necessary to reach their goals.

And they will be successful in their efforts with a good number of people.

Willard has a lot of problems — including his serial changing of his positions, his dullness, his inability to give an inspiring speech, his campaign tactics, Romneycare, etc. — that are much more important than Mormonsim. However, it does not help him out at all that — and any truthful person will admit this — when people hear just the honest Truth about Mormonism, their first reaction is, ‘Well, their rather strange and odd, aren’t they’. There’s certainly enough in their version of the story of the World that will come off as very strange to many people. Also, that ‘Happy Happy Joy Joy’ attitude they all seem to have creeps some people out [South Park did a hilarious episode on this].

We just have to hope that, like they often do, the Bolshes go too far in their attacks on this matter and cause a backlash tsunami [many, many novenas wouldn’t hurt], but don’t get your hopes up.

Check out another post by Stacy here where he further plots out the lines of attack the Left will take [obviously, Stacy is quite familiar with the Leftist Playbook]

As for the argument that goes, ‘Well, if the Democrats make an issue of Romney’s religion, that will allow us to bring up the whole Jeremiah Wright issue again’, I must ask:Do you really think that Willard and his highly paid GOP Establishment consultants will dare bring up any part of Barack Hussein Soetero-Marshall-Obama’s murky past considering they think he’s ‘a nice guy who is in over his head’ and they have a deadly fear of being labelled ‘raaaaacists’? [Marvelous!]

As for the argument that it is incumbant upon we conservatives to rush to Willard’s defense when the Left pursues it’s Mormon line-of-attack, don’t be surprised if many Catholics will not rise to do so. As Governor, Romney did a Barack Hussein Obama to The Church, as the Boston Catholic Insider points out in an excellently researched post [tip of the fedora to TOM commentator ThomasD]:

In 2005 Romney vetoed a bill to provide access to the so-called “morning-after-pill,” knowing his veto would be overridden, but months later, he decided Catholic hospitals did have to give the morning-after pill to rape victims. Key points to note:

  1. Romney had publicly claimed the bill did not apply to private religious hospitals
  2. On December 7, 2005, Romney’s Department of Public Health said that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals could opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections
  3. On December 8, 2005 Romney reversed the legal opinion of his own State Department of Public Health, instructing all Catholic hospitals and others to provide the chemical Plan B “morning after pill” to rape victims. He was quoted as saying, ““I think, in my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.”

Sounds to me like Catholics have a good reason to sit back and watch Willard deal with this alone.

The Pro-Romney people had better wake up and smell the doom.


I hope to update this post later in the day…

UPDATE at 1857…


-Stacy McCain has spent the past forty-eight hours or so deep in a study of why and when Newton Leroy’s Campaign imploded.  He’s gone through pages and pages of financial reports and his own reporting from the past several months and points to 30 January as the day it became apparent that something was rotten in the state of Newtmark.

He’s filed two reports on his findings, one over at The American Spectator and one over at his own joint, The Other McCain.

A highlight from the former:

Santorum’s low-budget campaign, which had made it through 2011 with just $2.1 million in contributions, proved more resourceful than Gingrich’s better-funded operation, which had collected about $12.7 million in 2011. Federal Election Commission reports showed the Gingrich campaign began January with more than $2.1 million cash on hand, compared to less than $280,000 for Santorum. When those reports became public at the end of January, many observers concluded that Newt was best positioned to go the distance against Romney’s big-money organization — a perception that the Gingrich campaign was eager to amplify. On Jan. 31, the day of the Florida primary, Newt’s spokesman announced that the campaign had raised $10 million in the final three months of 2011 and another $5 million in January. This was true, and anyone could see from the FEC report released that day how much Gingrich had raised in 2011, but the official report for January wasn’t due until Feb. 20. A CBS News reporter noted at the time that Gingrich’s spokesman “did not, however, provide an amount for the campaign’s cash-on-hand.” So the question of how fast Newt’s campaign was spending its money — the “burn rate” — in January would remain unanswered for another three weeks. No one seemed to realize at the time that Gingrich’s burn rate was unsustainable, although the signs should have been obvious that Monday at the airport in Fort Myers.

Driving to Gingrich’s rally that afternoon, I had listened to Rush Limbaugh’s radio program and remarked on my blog that “the commercial breaks were pretty much wall-to-wall attack ads, Mitt vs. Newt and Newt vs. Mitt. It seemed as if the anti-Newt ads were the majority.” In fact, Romney’s campaign and its allied “super PAC” were outspending Gingrich and his super PAC more than 3-to-1on advertising in Florida. Newt’s forces could ill afford the reported $2.2 million they spent on ads in the Sunshine State, and they were also spending big money for the candidate to travel across Florida for campaign events in a state where polls clearly indicated Gingrich would lose by a double-digit margin. On that Monday before the primary, Newt and his entourage were flying around Florida aboard a 16-seat Gulfstream jet for five rallies — in Jacksonville, Pensacola, Tampa, Fort Myers and Orlando — which drew a combined attendance estimated at less than 1,500.

No one in the Fort Myers audience seemed worried about where Newt’s money was going, which eventually proved a far more serious problem. Three weeks later, when the Gingrich campaign filed its next FEC report on Feb. 20, the campaign reported that while it had received $5.6 million in January, it had spent $ 5.9 million — an average of $190,000 a day — even while the campaign’s debt was increasing. Although Newt’s campaign had entered 2012 with $2.1 million cash on hand, it had also begun the year with $1.2 million in unpaid bills, so that the net balance was $900,000. In January, however, even while the Gingrich campaign’s expenses were outstripping contributions by $320,000, Newt also added another $527,000 in new debt. Thus, while his FEC report showed Gingrich ended January with about $1.8 million cash on hand, this amount exceeded the campaign’s total debt by only $62,505.

A highlight from the latter:

Yesterday, I did some research and discovered that Gingrich and his entourage were flying around Florida that day aboard a 16-seat Gulfstream IV jet. And what made Jan. 30 so historic was that on that day, according to their Federal Election Commission report, Newt’s campaign spent $970,826.77.

That was the peak — the pinnacle, the acme, the zenith — of Gingrich’s campaign spending. On no other day throughout the course of his entire campaign did Newt 2012 spend more money than on Jan. 30.

Not only that, but comparing reported estimates of attendance at Newt’s five rallies that day, the crowd at Fort Myers — which I estimated between 250 and 300 — may have been the biggest. In all, on that day when Gingrich hit his spending peak, his combined audience for all five events totalled fewer than 1,500 people.

And his campaign spent $970,826.77.

You can dispute Stacy’s opinions, but the facts are the facts.

One has to wonder if the whole Gingrich Campaign wasn’t a scam from Day One, or, at least, started that way and is ending that way.

-In another posting by Stacy from today, he offers some good insights on perceptions and campaigns, especially Newton’s.


From Alicia Cohn, over at The Hill, we learn:

The GOP presidential front-runner, speaking to reporters and editors at the Newspaper Association of America conference on Wednesday, described what he called “striking” changes in the journalism industry since his last White House bid in 2008.

“Then, I looked to Drudge or Fox or CNN online to see what stories were developing,” he said. “Now it’s Twitter, and instantaneous reaction. In 2008, the coverage was about what I said in my speech. These days, it’s about what brand of jeans I am wearing and what I ate for lunch.”

To be fair, Romney has tweeted in the past from his official account about his breakfast choices. Elsewhere, the cut of his jeans has been the subject of comparison with President Obama.

“Some people thus welcome the tumult in your industry, heralding the new voices and the unfiltered or supposedly unbiased sources,” he said. “Frankly, in some of the new media, I find myself missing the presence of editors to exercise quality control.”

So…Mitt disdains The TEA Party Movement, until recently ignoring it, but, it seems, he still dislikes The Army Of Davids. Way to go, pal, in getting us to support you.

Well…at least Willard doesn’t wear Mom Jeans.

-In a post where I mostly don’t agree with what Gingrich supporter William Jacobson writes, he does make one point that is spot-on [tip of the fedora to the Evil Blogger Lady]:

Romney has embittered a large segment of the people he will need to rally around him. Profound and historic dislike of Obama is the only thing that will prevent a third party movement or a massive stay-at-home movement.

And it hasn’t stopped. Romney supporters have shown themselves to be sore winners, and there’s nothing worse than sore winners heading into a general election.

Just in the past few days Ann Coulter needlessly attacked Sarah Palin, and Jennifer Rubin compared conservatives who still don’t support Romney to “birthers.” With vocal and visible supporters like this, Romney doesn’t need enemies.

-In light of Paul Ryan’s endorsement of Willard M. Romney, Quin Hillyer offers, perhaps, the most plausible theory behind the Representative’s action:

Paul Ryan endorsed Mitt Romney? Big surprise. The man wants to be vice president. Plus, he isn’t turned off by Romney’s support for TARP, because Ryan was for it, too.

Thanks for the remind, Quin.

What a grand disappointment Paul Ryan is.

-Richard McEnroe has received an e-mail from PGOPM, the Pragmatic GOP Movement, and it’s about what you might expect from their kind [WARNING: Justifiable Bad Language].


His huddle with conservative advisors has been interrupted by the fact his daughter Bella has had to be hospitalized again.

Know Mr. Santorum and Family that you are in my thoughts and prayers.


The final word goes to Michael Walsh [emphasis mine]:

So I guess I agree with both my pals: Hugh [Hewitt], in that Romney is the likely nominee — if he can keep it. And with [Pat] Caddell, in that if — given the importance of this election — he can’t make the case against Obama, the GOP ought to dump him and replace him at the convention with someone who can. The stakes for the nation are too high to observe the formalities; “by any means necessary” ought to go for both parties.

For there are two schools of thought here: One is that a cardboard box plus Marco Rubio/Paul Ryan/Allen West can beat Barry and his disastrous economic record. The other is that the Democrats — ideologically motivated as never before — will brazenly risk stealing the election because they know that the next one won’t matter. That this is the Big Show, the culmination of the Cold Civil War, and that if they win in ‘12, it’s all downhill to infinity, the New Soviet Man and beyond.

The choice, as they say, is ours.


  1. 06 April 2012 @ 11:08 11:08

    AMEN! I’ve said exactly – exactly the same thing! I cannot, in good conscience, support Romney, but yes, he is a slight improvement over Obama! But OHHHHH how it angers me that the GOP, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, the American people, are so gullible as to buy the lies without thinking for themselves! VERY FRUSTRATING!

  2. Adobe_Walls permalink
    06 April 2012 @ 11:23 11:23

    I’m afraid we must resign ourselves to the reality that conservatives will have to some degree be in opposition to each an every administration whether Bolshevik or Republican well past the foreseeable future. This would have been true no matter who on our side got the nomination. For example if Perry were elected we would have had to be vigilant and hammer him relentlessly on Islam and immigration and to some extent the 10th amendment (I’ve noticed that many of these Governors seem to think the 10th gives them extensive leeway to do things that are unconstitutional).

  3. 06 April 2012 @ 16:38 16:38

    A little trivia for your consideration…today is the anniversary of the founding of the Mormon religion in Fayette, New York, April 6,1830.

  4. Rosalie permalink
    06 April 2012 @ 18:52 18:52

    If it ends up being Romney, I’ll pull the lever for him. Why? Because he’s not a Marxist. I was hoping for more this time around.

  5. M. Thompson permalink
    06 April 2012 @ 19:14 19:14

    Well, I came to the same conclusion as well. If/When Mr. Romney is nominated, I’ll hold my nose. But I’m not going to be all that enthusiastic about him. What got Mr. McCain the enthusiasm he did? Mrs. Palin. Mr. Romney needs someone to inspire people to vote for him.

    And yes, we need to start building the farm team. Push for the most electable conservative you can for every office. Where do future Congresscritters and the like come from? State legislators and municipal officials.

  6. 06 April 2012 @ 21:01 21:01

    As we look at perhaps the most important election in US history, and perhaps even in human history, we are stuck with Mittens?

    I constantly ask, is this all we have?


  1. Saturday Links: Facebook Friend Pics Volume 10 » Conservative Hideout 2.0

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: