The Republicans' best choice for 2016

Published June 10, 2014

By D. G. Martin

By D. G. Martin, One on One, June 8, 2014.

Romney for President.

Get used to the idea.

But, you say, Mitt Romney has made it clear that he is not interested in running again. He is a two-time loser, which makes him damaged property. And the far-right wing of the party was never happy with him as a candidate. And by the time he would first become president he would be 69 years old.

However, the super-conservatives in the party learned to live with Romney in 2012. If they think he has the best chance to beat a Democrat, they will work for him again.

And who are the competitors?

Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan.

Of these, only Bush and Christie have the solid mainstream images that could make them attractive to independents and Democratic crossover voters.

The others have strong conservative views that may inspire and mobilize the Republican base. However, those same views may be too far to the right to win over moderate and independent voters in the November election.

As for Bush and Christie, the pragmatic credentials and mainstream views that might make them competitive in a national election turn off the Tea Party and other Republican conservative voters who dominate presidential primary elections in many states.

To win Republican primaries and the party nomination, Bush and Christie would have to walk the almost impossible tightrope of getting far enough to the right to win the nomination without getting so far to the right as to make it impossible to win in November.

This is the same tough challenge that Mitt Romney faced in 2012.

And he very nearly pulled it off.

Of course, he lost the election. Like every candidate, he made some bad mistakes. Some people like NBC’s David Gregory say Romney proved himself a “flawed candidate.” But losing an election does not necessarily make him flawed.

Generally, Romney was a solid candidate, one who developed a solid fundraising effort and a national team of loyal, hardworking supporters. He came very close to defeating a well-financed, well-organized campaign of an incumbent president.

Many far right conservatives, who opposed him in the 2012 primaries, supported him in the general election. They came to admire him and like him.

Take for instance Ann Coulter, the right wing commentator, who recently spoke of her hopes for Romney, “Well, don't tell him but I'm planning on giving Mitt Romney a little more time to rest -- flying out, kidnapping him and depriving him of sleep, food and water until he agrees to run again.”

Having demonstrated that he can lead a competitive presidential campaign and win the support of the right wing of this party, Romney brings to the Republicans assets that the other possible candidates can only envy.

After brutal scrutiny by media and opponents, all the possible downsides of his character and personal life have been publicly examined. Amazingly, even those of us who disagree with his politics have to concede his personal and family lives are admirable, marred only by a story of his dog riding on top of the family car and some negative side effects on others of his business operations.

What about the age factor? Romney, born in 1947, will be 69 when the new president takes office, about the same age as Ronald Reagan when he first took office. Age might be a factor, but before Democrats make too much of it, they should remember that Hillary Clinton was also born in 1947.

Seventy is the new 50, which is how old Romney looks on a bad day.

I hope I am wrong. I hope Republicans pass him by. But if I were a Republican, I would be right there with Ann Coulter, helping with her persuasive tactics until he agrees to run again.

 

June 10, 2014 at 9:22 am
Norm Kelly says:

I know nothing about D. G. I don't need to know anything. He clears it up for us at the conclusion.

'If I were a Republican'. So we have a leftie, a lib, telling us who our best candidate is.

All of the 'serious' contenders are wannabe's; what conservatives call RINOs. According to libs, the best choice for conservatives to put up for president is a non-conservative. Christie has proven himself to be more lib than conservative. Why would we nominate a democrat for the Republican party candidate?

Romney has shown that he can't stir the base. Without the base, there's no way he could win. And if Billary is the demon candidate, we know that 99.9 percent of blacks will vote for the demon; we know that over 50% of women will vote for the demon; and invalids (those incapacitated physically or mentally), illegals will be brought out of the woodwork to vote for the demon. Therefore, the 'moderate' Republican candidate/RINO won't stand a chance of winning. Nominating a RINO is almost a guaranteed win for the demon candidate, even if it's not Billary. But then, 'what difference does it make'?

All of the serious conservative candidates are written off without question. Conservatives are told by libs that true conservatives, those who believe in the US Constitution, has zero chance of becoming president.

We've tried it the lib way. Why not try it OUR way and see what happens? Remember Reagan? I seem to recall that he won. When he ran for a second term, he won overwhelmingly. And it didn't take hanging chads to get him over the finish line. The demon party candidate received some 13 electoral votes. Seems to me the conservative candidate won HANDILY. Despite what the libs tell us, the conservative, Constitution-believer, actually can win.

It's true that libs will paint a true conservative as racist, hating women, forcing religion on others, hating gays, but we can prove them wrong. Heck, proving a lib wrong is one of the easiest tasks on ANYONE'S daily to-do list. All you have to do to prove a lib wrong is let them finish their sentence. Don't interrupt a lib when they are talking. Interrupting a lib gives them cover. Let 'em talk. It's our best defense!

(note: i mistyped above. it won't be 99.9% of blacks who vote for billary. the number will be closer to 105%. this will happen in districts controlled by demons. this will happen where voter ID is not required. this will happen because the holder doj will not only not prevent it but might encourage it. and there won't be any investigation afterward. you can't prove voter fraud just because more people voted than actually live in the district. this is an

anomaly that doesn't exist except in the minds of conservatives. there is no proof that more people voted than exist. we can show you the rolls that these people do exist or did at one time. but what difference does it make?)