What if it’s Romney vs. Obama in 2012?

Mitt Romney has two significant flaws as as Republican candidate:  Romney Care in Massachusetts and the fact that he is a Mormon, which is anathema to many committed Protestants and Catholics.  During the 2008 primaries, some people were saying that he was so flawed they couldn’t possibly vote for him, even if it meant abstaining and handing the election to the Democrat.

It’s possible that there will be a Romney vs. Obama match-up in 2012.  Do you think conservative voters will find themselves as constrained as they were in 2008, or has Obama proven himself to be so awful that any Republican who can make it through the primaries will get the vote?  How far will doctrinal purity go when the alternative is another 4 years of Obama?  (I framed this post around Romney, but ultimately the question goes to any Republican, no matter how flawed, versus Obama in 2012.)

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Charles Martel says

    As a Catholic, I have no problems with Romney’s Mormonism. It’s not as though he’s a Muslim who is commanded by his capricious, bloodlustful god to kill Jews or treat women like crap. Besides, how much can you dislike the only religion in the world that considers Jews to be Gentiles?

    As for RomneyCare, he could win the 2012 election with a simple gesture: Tell voters that many people of goodwill thought that it would be a good thing. But it turned out otherwise. “I saw it from its inception and how it was intended to work. And I can tell you now from my insider’s view that after seeing the result, I now know it cannot work.”

    When the left begins its predictable assault on him for pulling a Kerry, he can face the camera and say,”Which do you prefer? A man who’s been there and will truthfully tell you that socialized medicine does not work, or a man who knows it cannot work but will never admit he’s wrong?”

  2. says

    I don’t find Romney to be a good communicator when it comes to economic issues. He says stuff that is mostly correct, but he says it in a manner which is too much about labels and abstractions…Lacks the ability to make points in a simple, clear, and persuasive manner.

  3. jj says

    That’s the thing: your last sentence.  Given that the mass of the electorate has the attention span of a gnat, I’d say Romney’s biggest flaws aren’t Romnerycare and being a Mormon – they’re Romnerycare and being as exciting as watching grass grow.  He isn’t an electrifying presence.  And he needs to knock it off with the Alex Baldwin possum-fat hairdo, too.  (All unimportant cosmetic BS, of course - never kid yourself that it deson’t count.)

    I don’t give a much of anything at all about him being a Mormon either, but the MSM is going to do a number on that, and it doesn’t, unfortunately, lend itself to close scrutiny.  If Katie Couric gets off the main roads and out into the Wasatch and Uintas east of Heber along 35 out into the foothills, she’s going to spot them – because they’re there and impossible to miss.  Everywhere.  Including having a picnic lunch nice days in the park across the street from the local cops, too - despite that Utah will tell you it’s been outlawed for the past century. (Do I need to define “them” and “it?”)  

    In rural Utah Warren, (even though he was living outside of Utah because his profile was too high nationally) is just one of the numerous Jeffs boys.  There are lots of them; it’s one of the original old settler names.  Katie’s panties will instantly knot into a wad, as will Diane’s, and maybe Brian’s too, when they begin to spot the multiple-wife folks.  First: this community, which makes up a fair old percentage of Utah to this day, exists.  Second: everybody out in the country all know it, and know them, and know where and who they are.  Third: the cops, local and state, all share that knowledge, and do zero about it.  Four: the judicial system knows all about it, too, and doesn’t much address – unless it’s unavoidable – the fact that the defendant (on trial for chicken-stealing) has six wives and 17 kids, several of whom may be the judge’s god-children.

    I do exagerrate – but by damn little, as those of you who have wandered around back-road Utah are well aware.  And though me and Charles and the rest of us don’t care – Katie and Diane and Brian are going to put some spotlight on this – and it isn’t going to hold up well.  They will shove it up Romney’s fundament – and louse up a lot of quiet, peaceful, prayerful little lives, too.  I don’t particularly approve, but I’m aware the impetus behind the practice for Mormons is very different than the male-supremacy, “I’m a stallion,” “is not my winkie enormous?” crap that impels Muslims, too.

  4. SADIE says

    I am more concerned about the choices at the moment. I don’t think the old guard will ‘tolerate’ Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin. If they go with West or Cain, they’ll be called Uncle Toms. Under no circumstances can Newts or such be considered. There must be a candidate that appeals to the Tea Party and I don’t get the feeling that the GOP has really grasped the political landscape and their input from the 2010 results.
     
    I think we need a plan B.
     
    Plan B:
    This is the scenario where we are handed a weak or unacceptable candidate. It then becomes the absolute priority of conservatives to elect the right senators. This will give us the two-thirds that are needed in an emergency.

  5. Mike Devx says

    I won’t even consider the possibility of Romney vs Obama.  What Charles Martel said is a good starting point – for Romney to at least admit he was wrong – but I also require him to walk shirtless for a few miles whipping his entire back bloody, crying “Mea culpa, mea culpa!” to the very heavens themselves.  Genuine repentance and contrition – and then we’ll see.  His utter and complete lack of WISDOM surrounding RomneyCare is the primary problem.  It’s not RomneyCare itself… it’s his lack of WISDOM.

    You’re sitting around a campfire and someone says, “Hey, let’s play a game.  I want you to imagine being burned to death alive… or being fed inch by slow inch into a metal grinder until you die.  Which would you prefer?”

    The proper answer is not to spend time mulling over which is better.  The proper answer is to talk about something else.

    Once you’re actually faced with that horrifyingly grim choice… THEN it may be time to consider it.  But right now, today, I’d rather think of sunshine.

  6. Tonestaple says

    Mostly what jj said, but I can’t countenance the mild attitude about plural marriage, whether it’s jj’s or just law enforcement in Utah.  If Katie or Brian called the state of Utah out on it, it would be well deserved.  It is illegal and it is grotesquely oppressive of women.  The motivation for plural marriage in Islam and in Mormonism isn’t different:  it’s all about collecting a harem and keeping the girls down on the farm lest they “see Paree”.

    If Romney’s the nominee, even though I find the possibility painful, I will vote for him, holding my nose just as I held my nose for McCain (although not for Sarah).  There are governors out there who would be great and could run rings around Obama on anything executive.  As an example, I just heard the governor of Oklahoma on Hugh Hewitt’s show a few minutes ago and she sounded plenty sharp, plus she has also been in Congress.  Christie isn’t our only option, no matter how much fun it would be to watch him campaign against Obama.

  7. SADIE says

    Actually, jj, I found him horrifying.  I have no idea how many watch and listen to him, but if it’s more than just his immediate family and a puppeteer pulling his strings – I am looking into the abyss and the ‘viewers’ are robots who are being programmed and finely tuned daily.  I am really wondering, since I have never seen his program: Does it draw a cross over audience from NYTimes or the other way around. I don’t watch the other guy either, Jimmy Fallon. Do they both work for the same network?

  8. stanley says

    Third party. The fact that the Repuglicans are even considering Romney puts me off big time. This is another setup like Clinton-Dull and Obama-McCain. Third party NOW and forget the intellectualizing. This stinks.

  9. JKB says

    If it’s Romney vs Obama, I’m writing in Palin.  

    Romney is to long in the tooth to learn to fake sincerity now.  Plus, he’s stood behind Romneycare to long to bail on it now.

  10. jj says

    Tone – I don’t know a lot about what Islam’s justification is, and there’s no question their attitude to women is grotesque.  Hell – their attitude to each other – ask a Sunni what he thinks of the Shia – is bad enough, as is their attitude to kids, dogs, cats, etc. – but that is not shared by the Mormons.  The Mormons were not making a “males are superior” point; they were making a religious point.
     
    The Mormons had – have, whatever turns you on – a belief based on a specific Christian teaching.  For me, it’s a weird piece of a very minor sectarian bit of Christian teaching – kind of like the whole idea of the “rapture” that is very popular among what we would probably regard as fundamentalist teaching.  The concept of the “rapture” doesn’t really appear in what we might regard as “mainstream” teaching – Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, etc.  (Charles, if I screwed that up, I rely on you to correct me.)  This strikes you, obviously, as weird, but it is most definitely there.
     
    The Mormons hold – or held, if you prefer – to a belief that is equally outside the mainstream – but is nonetheless, most definitely there.  The belief, stated simply, is that there is a thing called the “Suk.”  (Sometimes “Souk,” sometimes “Suq,” sometimes other things, but I think “Suk” is most common, if not most correct.)  This is the “waiting room” of souls.  The idea is that God created a finite number of souls.  The end of the world, and the ushering in of God’s kingdom on Earth, can only begin when all of the souls have had the chance to receive bodies, and born.  (This, interestingly, wraps around and into an old Jewish, though it mostly survives in Kabbalah, belief that when the end of time begins, the last person born will be born without a soul.  In Christian theory, this person will be the Anti-Christ.  Thus do Christianity and Judaism collide, and we are reminded once again that Christianity is really just the latest sect of Judaism.)
     
    Anyway, the Mormons latched on to the idea that there is a finite supply of souls available to be born and appear on Earth.  Therefore, the quicker you can use them up, the quicker you can empty out the Suk,  the quicker God’s kingdom on Earth will be ushered in.  Thus, it becomes the duty of everyone to procreate as fast as possible, to burn through the supply of souls, and get God down here to establish His kingdom.  Women are limited: they can only give birth once every eighteen months or so.  Therefore, each man gets however many women he can support, and his duty is to impregnate them as often as possible, use up all the waiting souls in the Suk, and hasten the arrival of God’s kingdom.
     
    The Mormons are working toward the goal of bringing on God’s kingdom.  I don’t know what the hell the Muslims think they’re doing – and I doubt if it’s so altruistic – but that’s what’s at the base of the Mormon belief in one man having many women.  Keep them reproducing, use up the souls in the Suk.  Get God down here, and hasten the arrival of His kingdom.
     
    Most of the older Mormon families – which are all over Utah – are pretty religious.  I don’t know what most of the Muslim men are.

  11. jj says

    See, this is what happens when you’re writing three things at once.
     
    The waiting room of souls, or hall of souls waiting to be born, is the Guf – not the Suk (or Souk, or even Suq)  I was discoursing on Arabia, and now I have to go correct another post in another place, too – Sheesh.
     
    Although it’s an odd coincidence, two three-letter words having to do with, in some senses, the ame stuff.
     
    Anyway Tone, the hall of sou7ls waiting to be born is the Guf.  Sorry.  It doesn’t change the Mormons, they didn’t screw it up – just me.

  12. says

    Hmmm? Obama vs Whoever-Republican.  I am getting hopeful that enough folks here in the US are getting so sick of Obama that he will lose no matter who the Republicans nominate.

    I think, as Sadie has suggested, only a Newt (with all his “baggage”) would cause the Republicans to lose, even with him though it would be a close race.

    As far as the multiple wives (er, excuse me I mean “plural” marriages; don’t want to offend anyone) thing goes with the freaks in the desert remember that it doesn’t just abuse women and young girls it also creates outcasts of the young men who would otherwise be “in competition” for those young women. Many of those young men are chased out of their communities because they dare to stand up to the “old men.” I’ve read several sources (books and news reports) that have suggested that many of the young men homeless in western-state and mountain-state cities are just such young men – chased out of their communities by the older men who feel threatened by them.  It does cause me to wonder what effect this multiple-wives type of thing has on the young men in Muslim societies who cannot get brides?  Are they turning to fundamentlism, in part, because of this?  Just a thought.

  13. SADIE says

    I am member of AMAC (conservative version of AARP). Every few months, there’s a magazine. In the most recent volume, they broke down ‘choices’ into two tiers of candidates with a blurb about each.
     
    First Tier:
    Huckabee
    Romney
    Gingrich
    Palin
    Second Tier:
    Guilliani
    Bachmann
    Pawlenty
    Santorum
    Ryan
    and Dark Horse
     
    As I mentioned above, the press will skewer the women and I would skewer some of the others. The guess is: Who’s your Dark Horse, if none of the above are acceptable or viable?

  14. says

    I don’t assume I’m typical in any way, but I would vote for any Republican candidate against Obama. A former big-L Libertarian in my youth, I became finally convinced during the last election cycle that a third party will never work in national elections as we know them now, and will only stupidly split votes (so, I love to see it on the Left, and hate to see it on the Right). My only fear is that electing a really stupid or unknown-quantity Republican will boomerang on us for the worst, just as electing stupid, inexperienced, stealth-socialist Obama has hurt the Democrats in a big way (as it hurt the country).
     
    I would love to see a Dark Horse come out of the primaries as Reagan did. I remember well how the media and the left ridiculed and discounted him. That’s why at this point I am not discounting a Herman Cain yet. I am waiting to see how the candidates perform and present themselves. And remembering the case of Reagan, I don’t worry too much about how the media will attack Republican or conservative candidates–the people decide in the end. But by November 2012 we on the Right have to be united. I will hold my nose if I have to and work hard to elect any Republican candidate–can’t be any worse than McCain was. And yes, I think the country will be ready to vote in a Republican for President–Obama is that bad. I can’t even imagine Obama holding his own in the Presidential debates against ANY of the Republican contenders, and I’ll bet the Democrats know that.
     
    But like I say, I’m not typical–I listen to the debates as arguments, not beauty contests.
     
    Meanwhile, I am darn encouraged by our broadening bench of inspiring stars (Christie, Rubio, et al.) and the ideas and support propagated in the national conversation by the Tea Party. Thank God for Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, Rand Paul, and the rest. The future looks better than I ever expected thanks to these trends, if the Right can ultimately work together when it counts, and talk and govern like effective, statesmanlike grownups. That’s our country’s only hope.

  15. says

    Palin for President and she should be able to turn the press skewering into an asset.  However much firepower she draws from the other side, I think she is equally capable (far more capable than the likes of Romney, anyway) of drawing excitement from our side.  We should not let our opponents dictate who our candidate is, merely by the viciousness of their attacks. 

  16. Charles Martel says

    I’m with Quixote on this. Watch to see whom the left most vociferously attacks. Given that most leftist pundits are incapable of controlling their rage or need to project their demons onto others, they will let us know in abundantly clear terms which potential GOP candidate they fear the most.

  17. stanley says

    18,

    These are not “normal” times that can find solutions with our “normal” institutional methods. The “normal” institutional methods of the lasT 30 years have been corrupted and distorted to the degree where they are only an illusion of being a “solution”. I am with Gerald Celente in predicting a 3rd party. Is this good or desirable to me? No. But since I don’t believe normal methods will work and I am a “whatever works” kind of guy, then 3rd party. In time the R and D establishment will officially join and be one party, the 3rd party, conservative, will then become the new 2nd party as counterpart to the new other party, the oligarchs. This should have been done after clinton. 

    Sarah Palin, alienated by her own party qualifies her as a 3rd party candidate because her party is not truly conservative. However, cynical as I am and distrustful of things on the national media I am reserving final judgemen on her.

    My definition of conservative: using the lessons of the past on which to base decisions for the present and a framework to making plans for the future.

  18. says

    The third party is effectively taking over from within the Republican Party, although the battle rages on. Administration Republicans who don’t “get it” will be replaced by conservative candidates, and the process is already underway from the precincts up. This is most encouraging. I put my support behind that struggle, as I see it succeeding in the past mid-term elections. An outside third-party candidate that would split the vote on the Right would be a disaster, unless the country comes to such a widespread consensus that that is the only way–and I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

  19. Tonestaple says

    Your pardon, jj.  I wasn’t thinking in terms of mainstream Mormons and what Joseph Smith made up, although given the number of wives he collected, you do have to be very suspicious of his motives.  I was speaking of the awful effects I have read about in the modern FLDS groups where, regardless of whatever theological justification they have dreamed up, it is all about harems and controlling the womenfolk.  Why else would they kick out young men who present virile competition to the old farts?

    Polygamy is never a good deal for women.

  20. jj says

    Tone – it’so skin off my nose, I’m an Irish Catholic (insofar as I’m anything).  Here’s a piece I saw years ago in Esquire, which may give a somewhat different – and perhaps more realistic viewpoint.  As I said, I have no idea what Islam thinks it’s up to.  And you know what?  (PC Alert!  PC Alert!):  I don’t give a warm fart on a wet Wednesday what they pretend to be up to, either: they’re crap.

    Polygamy – I’m not equipped with terribly strong feelings one way or the other.  My strong feeling is reserved for the nonsense that is Islam.  (Though you’ll notice how courteous I am, capitalizing that “I,” which has certainly not earned it.)

    http://www.standard.net/topics/features/2010/04/19/brady-udalls-1998-esquire-article-lonely-polygamist

Leave a Reply