Will Republicans Commit Romney-cide?

GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Don Feder

         Since 1976, every time the GOP has run a RINO for president, the party has suffered an ignominious defeat – against a peanut farmer in ’76, a serial lecher in ’92 and a Marxist in 2008.

         But Mitt Romney isn’t taking any chances. Should he secure the nomination, his primary campaign will ensure his defeat in November – 9% unemployment, a national debt hurtling toward the abyss, socialism and surrender notwithstanding.

         Last week, Romney was beaming over what he called his “historic victory” in the Iowa caucuses. Out of 60,000 votes cast for Romney and former Senator Rick Santorum, Romney beat the Pennsylvanian (who didn’t even register on the Richter scale last year) by a whopping 8 votes, or .00001 percent. Mitt was actually down 6 votes from his 2008 total (30,021 to 30,015), despite a record turnout this year.

        The victory was even more stupendous in light of the fact that Romney – who’s been campaigning in the Hawkeye state for 5 years – spent $133.30 for each of his votes, compared to the $13.33 Santorum spent per vote.

         In New Hampshire, Mitt’s most impressive move was trotting out Geritol John McCain to endorse him, and to tell the rest of the Republican field to step aside and let the coronation of Willard Mitt Romney proceed. It’s hard to say which was goofier, McCain’s crotchety performance or Romney’s conviction that he’d be helped by the endorsement of a man who called him a liar in 2008, and went on to lose to the most unqualified presidential candidate in history.

         Democrat websites had a blast digging up McCain quotes from four years ago: “Mitt Romney’s flip-flops are Masterpieces.” The Massachusetts governor is “very consistent – totally consistent – because he’s had two positions at least on every issue.” They’re also having fun with a new video comparing Romney to the Ken doll: “Both have no known set political views. Both are able to move left and right with equal ease. Both aren’t known for their conversational skill.”

         Mitt continues to wow ‘em in the Granite state and nationwide. On January 5, The Boston Herald reported: “During a lackluster performance in front of an uninspired crowd at Manchester Central High School yesterday, Romney was overshadowed by Sen. John McCain.” Overshadowed by John McCain? Cool!

         In a Wall Street Journal commentary titled “Mr. Good Enough,” Kimberley Strassel observes: “Voters aren’t convinced by Mitt Romney. They’re not certain of his convictions; they wonder if he is the leader for these times; they’re not sold on his policies or personality…. Mr. Romney is hardly an easy fit with the GOP base — from his past flip-flops on issues like abortion, to his weak tax proposals, to his concoction and defense of RomneyCare, the Massachusetts health plan that was a model for ObamaCare.”

         Strassel continued, “The threat of President Obama and his determination to create an entitlement state, combined with the dismal economy, have voters eager for a bold conservative leader.” That would be a leader who’s not “lackluster,” “uninspired” and “overshadowed” by a loser like John McCain.
         Since 2008, Romney’s strategy has changed — unlike his haircut.

         In ‘08, Romney decided that his ticket to the nomination was to pander furiously to conservatives. That didn’t work, in part because his rhetoric was massively refuted by his record, which he could run but couldn’t hide from. Romney's miraculous conversion on abortion was matched by equally implausible 180-degree turns on marriage, the homosexual agenda, taxes, amnesty, global warming, the rights of gun owners and judicial nominations.

         Having failed as a conservative four years ago – and with a hungry pack of authentic conservatives nipping at his heels – Romney decided to change course. Gone are the grand gestures of the last campaign – the red meat tossed to red staters.

         Instead, Mitt has decided to campaign on something called “electability.” He ran Bain Capital. He saved the 2002 Winter Olympics. He was elected to one term as the governor of an Eastern, liberal state, and proceeded to rack up an undistinguished record – except for socialized medicine and helping to make Massachusetts the first state with gay marriage.

         The New Mitt Romney – or is that the New, New Mitt Romney — has managed to regularly aggravate, annoy and otherwise provoke conservatives:

•  In a field of eight, he was one of only three Republicans running for the nomination who refused to sign the pro-life pledge of the Susan B. Anthony List, his mythical conversion notwithstanding. (What would you expect from the guy who put $50-co-pays for abortion in his health-care plan?) At its heart, the pledge asked a candidate to commit to nominating pro-life judges and members of his cabinet. A campaign spokesman squeaked that “this well-intentioned effort has some potentially unforeseen consequences” – like putting the signer on record promising to appoint pro-life judges and members of his administration? As governor of Massachusetts, most of Mitt’s judicial appointments were Democrats and independents – not exactly Antonin Scalia-types, one suspects.
•  Willard Mitt did an about-face on gays in the military. In a December interview with the Des Moines Register, Romney (candor is his middle name) said he now has no problem with those whose lifestyles are dangerous, diseased and disgusting serving openly in the armed forces. He explained that his earlier opposition to the measure was because he didn’t like making the change “in a time of war.” But now that the fighting is winding down in Iraq and Afghanistan, this was no longer a concern. I’m surprised he didn’t trot out his legendary Harvard stem-cell researcher to explain this conversion – or maybe George S. Patton came to him in a dream, slapped his face, and told him to get with the mainstream media’s gay agenda.
•  Interviewed on The O’Reilly Factor, also in December — and following the establishment Republican don’t-say-mean-things-about-our-first-black-president guidelines — Romney couldn’t bring himself to call Mr. Class Warfare a socialist. After constant prodding by the host, the ex-governor finally screwed up his courage to admit: “I prefer to use the term that he’s just over his head. (Give ‘em hell Mitty) I consider him a big government liberal Democrat.” Listen, Obama’s wife, daughters and dog think he’s a socialist, and are damned proud of it. So, what do you call someone who’s increased the national debt by 40% in less than three years, socialized whole industries, moved to nationalize health care, and declared war on wealth? Not a socialist, if you’re Mitt Romney.
•  After his landslide victory in Iowa, Mitt issued a call to arms: “President Obama is a nice guy. He just doesn’t understand how to run the economy.” It could go down in the annals of memorable campaign slogans. Along with: “54-40 or fight,” “Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, The Continental Liar from the State of Maine,” “Patriotism, Protection and Prosperity,” “In your heart you know he’s right,” and “It’s morning in America,” – we now have “Nice guy/just doesn’t understand how to run the economy.”
•  When it comes to the economy and stimulus spending, Obama isn’t the only one who’s clueless. Romney supported TARP, the $700-billion if-it-moves-bail-it-out program. In 2010, the businessman who would be president told FOX’s Neil Cavuto that if President Bush hadn’t pushed Big Bailout, “We were going to be in free fall that would cause the collapse of not just Wall Street, but banks all over the country, killing not only a few jobs, but all the jobs in the country.” Perfectly logical, if you’re Obama (who voted for the monstrosity) or Willard Mitt. 

         Romney has ignored establishment Republican wisdom regarding when to betray conservatives in presidential campaigns: Kiss them before the nominating convention and screw them afterward. Otherwise, he’s following the playbook.

         When Bush 41 ran for reelection in 1992, after the nominating convention, campaign spokesmen sneered about conservatives: “They don’t have any place else to go.” In November, many went nowhere – including to the polls.

         This year, Team Romney is counting on our fear and loathing of Obama to get us behind Mitt. To an extent, they may be right. But it will be support reminiscent of Manchester Union Leader publisher William Loeb’s advice to the right in 1972, when he told conservatives to “Hold your nose and vote for Nixon.”
         That worked 40 years ago, when Nixon was the incumbent and half of his own party loathed McGovern. This year, Obama has the home court advantage. He'll unleash a horde of union goons, public employees, Occupy Wall Street storm troopers, his own crony capitalists, tree-huggers, foaming-at-the-mouth feminists, and the class-envy crowd. And he’ll be campaigning from the Treasury, thanks to compliant Republicans in Congress.

         To win, the Republican candidate will have to light a wildfire at the grassroots. He’ll have to inspire a patriot army to make any sacrifice and endure any hardship to make him president. He’ll have to mobilize doorbell-ringers, callers and sign-wavers – not to mention donors large and small. It’s hard to be mobilized when you’re holding your nose and hopping from foot to foot to avoid being burned by your candidate’s record.

         I can see it now, we’ll all go into battle behind banners proclaiming: “Mitt didn’t mean anything he said when he ran against Ted Kennedy,” “RomneyCare really isn’t ObamaCare – honest, you gotta believe me,” “Obama’s a nice guy who just doesn't understand how to run the economy,” “Obama: he’s just over his head,” and “Mitt Romney – he’s good enough!”

         I believe I’ve hit on Romney’s secret strategy – He’s going to spend the next 10 months putting the country to sleep, while his campaign secretly distributes NoDoz to loyal supporters. Call it Mitt’s Morpheus Maneuver.