Skip to content

October 27, 2011


The Inevitability of Mitt Romney

by RogueOperator

A piece in American Thinker, “The Premature Coronation of Romney,” reads very familiar for two reasons: the air of “inevitability” surrounding Romney’s campaign reminds one of the “inevitability of communism” meme; and secondly, the Democrat-friendly media are playing mindgames with the electorate to try to secure the nomination for Romney. Mitt is the “heads I win, tails you lose” for the left. That is because he is essentially a status quo candidate that will do virtually nothing to shake up Washington.

A combination of reading informs these observations. Firstly, in the 1970s book None Dare Call It Conspiracy, the author Gary Allen makes the following observation:

In reality, Communism is a tyranny planned by power seekers whose most effective weapon is the big lie. And if one takes all the lies of Communism and boils them down,
you will find they distill into two major lies out of which all others spring. They are: (1) Communism is inevitable, and (2) Communism is a movement of the downtrodden masses rising up against exploiting bosses. (p. 18)

This resistance-shriveling meme of “inevitability,” in accordance with Sun Tzu, demoralizes an enemy and removes its will to fight. Allen’s broader point is that most people confuse socialism with a movement of the downtrodden workers, when actually it is an ideology ready-made for elites to accrue political  power. (See my recent article, “The World Banking System: By Socialists, For Socialists” for more on this view, which preceded my reading of Allen’s work.) Just pointing out that both the Communist Party of the USA and the main corporate and banking titans backed Obama in 2008 is sufficient to demonstrate there is no fundamental inconsistency between socialism and big money, for now.

So conservatives have seen this “inevitability” play before, and know it is propaganda meant to disarm resistance. It’s not going to work again.

Secondly, there is Phillis Schafly’s A Choice Not an Echo, which specifically digs into the way Republicans, Democrats, and the media try to preselect the American people’s presidential candidates.

Let us first compare a passage from Jared Peterson’s American Thinker piece:

And finally, responding to Shieffer’s question about whom the White House expects to run against, Norah O’Donnell (CBS News chief White House correspondent, born in Washington, D.C., BA and MA from Georgetown, noted savager and libeler of a young female supporter of Sarah Palin and asserter of false claims of racism against Newt Gingrich) got in the last good riff for Romney:

I think there was a growing sense this week that Mitt Romney is likely going to be the Republican nominee…

But this member of the CBS panel couldn’t stop there, and she proceeded to give the Verdi aria rendition of how Obama’s campaign will trash Romney once he’s nominated: ” … to paint Mitt Romney as Wall Street’s best friend.  I heard from David Plouffe, the President’s senior advisor, that there is, of course, growing anger at Wall Street amongst independents, Republicans, and, of course, Democrats.  They’re going to paint Mitt Romney as a Wall Street sympathizer, someone who wants to roll back Wall Street reforms, who in the debate with Julianna this past week said that he is against a payroll tax, calling it a band-aid.”  And on and on.

Norah seems to have forgotten the plan.  First get him nominated.  Then savage him.

Now let us go to a passage in Schafly’s A Choice Not an Echo, written in 1964:

One of the favorite tricks of the Democrats is to try to get the Republicans to pass over their strongest candidate and nominate instead a candidate who will be easy to beat. For example, in 1948 the Democrats cooperated with the king-makers to persuade Republicans to nominate a “me too” losing candidate, Tom Dewey, instead of the Republican Majority Leader, Bob Taft. The Democrats said they “hoped Republicans would nominate Taft” with the same reverse psychology that Brer Rabbit pleaded with the fox, “Oh, please don’t throw me into the briar patch!” (p. 27)

Can anyone see Mitt Romney really taking it to Obama in general, let alone on such pivotal issues as Obamacare? Are we going to again pander to the “me-too” moderate middle as the country shifts hard to the left? This is like trying to drive straight while the road veers to the left; we’re all headed for a crash.

Americans need a hard-talking, principled, and unafraid leader to take it right at the leftists and their corporatist, crony capitalist allies. There is no perfect GOP candidate running, but those are the minimum requirements. Nominating a moderate version of Obama is not going to cut it. We conservatives need to push back to undo what the socialist Democrats have wrought. And a smiling, status quo candidate like Mitt Romney is not going to get the job done.

There is nothing inevitable about Romney’s nomination. As Schafly’s book demonstrates, since it assisted in getting Goldwater nominated in 1964 despite fierce opposition across the board, we can get our candidate of choice to become the GOP nominee. And importantly, this time, the president cannot hide from his abysmal record. That is why I endorse Herman Cain, warts and all. At least he has shown he is unafraid to take it to the left-wing media. Let’s hope he would show the same verve taking it to Obama.

As posted on Political Crush.

7 Comments Post a comment
  1. arva
    Oct 27 2011


    • Oct 27 2011

      Thanks for chiming in Arva! Was that a Ghost reference, by the way? LOL

      • arva
        Oct 27 2011

        Guilty. P.S. was and is da man.

  2. The Kasich kerfuffle really gave the most recent look at Mitt’s wishy washy nature and reveal yet again how un-committed this man is to core conservatism…a base in 2010 that told the establishment “your doing it wrong” is rejecting Mitts liberal true nature.

  3. Oct 27 2011

    I believe Cain will be our nominee and would he would be smart to have Newt as his vp. I wish Newt would be our nominee because he is truly the best man for the job. There is no doubt in my mind Newt would shred Obama on every issue. Cain is a skilled debater as well and with a little sharpening he could take it the stuttering Obama.

    • Oct 27 2011

      Yeah but I think a more “theatrical” matchup/comparison would be more entertaining and enlightening…

      Obama (a man who creates problems) Vs. Cain (a man who solves problems)


      Biden (a man who can’t think) Vs. Newt (a man who never stops thinking)

      • Oct 27 2011

        That would be an interesting and perhaps a winning contrast.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

%d bloggers like this: