Question: Who will be the Republican gladiator to do battle with Obama?
Answer: ROMNEY WILL BE THE NOMINEE.
Repeatedly, political pundits said Romney could poll a meager 25 percent of the primary vote; a credible contender would arise to challenge Mr. Flip-Flop.
Question: Who would yank the nomination out of Mr. Bland’s s well-manicured hand? Answer: Nobody. ROMNEY WILL BE THE NOMINEE
The Logic: Republican candidates must fulfill two mandatory qualifications:
A) Be a conservative ideologue.
B) Be acceptable to the non-ideological independents.
A and B are mutually exclusive. It’s impossible. Right? Wrong! (Not if insincerity is your secret weapon.)
ROMNEY WILL BE THE NOMINEE (it even rhymes)
Bachmann, Perry and Cain fulfilled the ideologue mandate, but were clearly unacceptable to the Independents and additionally, they so blatantly demonstrated their ignorance and unpreparedness for the job of President that they became “Palinated” and the Saturday-Night-Live Corollary kicked in. The more likely the choice of parody the less likely the choice of party.
Ron Paul is an ideologue with a functioning brain. Dr. Paul calls for drastic government reduction including no national health insurance and ending most social programs. He should be a perfect candidate for the Right, but he gets into trouble when suggesting we must reduce our military, stop invading other countries, and cease supporting countries like South Korea, Taiwan and Israel. If you ain’t gonna bomb somebody, you can’t be a Republican contender with right wing support.
Huntsman appears to be reasonable, knowledgeable, and a social conservative, but he worked with Obama as an ambassador. Oops, not an ideologue, thus thrown out at first base.
Santorum, God Bless him, is a great ideologue, but his Christianity for all, and Church equals State policies make him unappealing to the independent voter and not a good investment for the Republican fat cats. No money equals no campaign.
GingRich, in my humble opinion, could have pulled it off. He can play the part of ideologue, and his intellectual gibberish might attract the Independents. But he has a personality, or better said, a personality disorder which triggers animosity. If one pisses off Rove, The Wall Street Journal, and George Will, it’s time to pack up the campaign.
|2002 – would “preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose”||Supports overturning Roe vs Wade and defunding Planned Parenthood|
|“not campaigning for an amendment of some kind” re: life begins at conception.||Would “absolutely” support such an amendment|
|1996 flat tax was a “tax cut for fat cats”||“the flat tax has positive features”|
|National health care- “we can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country”||“it would be wrong to adopt (the Massachusetts law) as a nation"|
NOW … Here comes Mitt. Romney slithers perfectly in the Mittle between those oppositional qualifications. He is successful by doing the thing which he is most criticized for, “Flippin’ and Floppin.”
Romney is now cartwheeling to the right. (Kerry’s acrobatics went the wrong way). The base may not trust him, but Romney now says the “RIGHT” things and Christian right wing fundamentalists forgive a sinner. This base yearns for a candidate to beat Obama. Romney is more bland than a firebrand, but he says the right things; they need to believe him. Right Wing fundamentalist have a penchant believing the illogical.
Independent voters read between the lines. The flop side words of Romney are not appealing to many independents, but they perceive the flops as a political ploy; believing he’s insincerely kowtowing to the Tea-Party base. Lack of sincerity reassures Independents. Perceived insincerity allows them to believe as President he won’t actually work to reverse Roe vs. Wade, Medicaid, and DADT. They can believe that Romney is a moderate in a teabag .
Romney’s fault, his insincerity, is his strength. It mollifies the base and provides reassurance to the moderate… hence
ROMNEY IS THE NOMINEE