Mitt Romney is not the Savior of the Republic

It’s pretty clear over at places such as Uncle and Robb (the last one is really funny, go click), that Mitt Romney isn’t lighting the gun blogosphere ablaze with enthusiasm. I think the problem is that Mitt Romney is not the savior of the Republic at a time when people feel like the Republic needs one.

I recall a conversation we had with one of Bitter’s lobbyist friends when campaign 2012 was just getting started. Her friend noted that Romney was surrounding himself with the same people Bush did, and Bush Part III and Part IV are certainly not what we really need right now.

So I set my expectations for Romney low. All I’m looking for Romney to do is to replace the Chicago machine with the devil we know. I’m looking for him to make better Supreme Court and Federal Court appointments than Obama would, and I’m looking for the White House to remain accountable to voters, and have to stand for re-election in four years. That’s all I’m really expecting. I think Romney can probably also be counted on to, at least, ease off the accelerator a bit to give us more time in the game to see if we draw a winning hand in the future.

It’s worth noting that both parties are making attempts to purge their moderates. Dick Lugar is increasingly looking like he’s going down in Indiana, and the defeat of blue dog Democrats Tim Holden by a much more left-wing challenger, and the defeat of Jason Altmire by a more left-center candidate, are actually pretty remarkable in politics. This doesn’t happen often, and when it does, politicians take notice. This will be an opportunity for both parties to grow new leadership.

But that doesn’t necessary portend good things, having both parties polarized. I’m not sure where having the GOP lead far right and the Dems leading far left is going to lead. If we fight culture wars, the Democrats tend to win independents. But if we’re arguing about deficits, spending and the economy, Independents tend to follow the GOP.

But will the GOP be smart enough not to fight culture wars while we drive off the fiscal cliff? Like Nixon going to China, the Democrats are probably the only ones who can defuse the entitlement bomb. Will a far left Democratic Party be able to accomplish that? Will the GOP have political cover from Independents to do it over the objections of the left? I don’t really know. A lot is going to happen in the next decade. All I’m counting on Romney to do is give it time to play out, while we solidify our Second Amendment protections through the courts.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. More on Mitt Romney
  2. Mitt’s Out
  3. More on the Nuge Rhetoric

30 thoughts on “Mitt Romney is not the Savior of the Republic”

  1. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: All I ask for from MittBot 2012 with regards to guns is to appoint judges that will respect and expand on Heller and Macdonald and sign Concealed Carry Reciprocity when it passes Congress next year.

    If he does that and goes through the Federal bureaucracy like a Jack Welch with a Sawzall, we’re ahead.

  2. Ron Paul (despite the lamestream media trying to pretend he isn’t) is still in the race, and according to some polls just behind Romney in delegates. I would much prefer Paul over Romney, but I will vote for whoever wins the republican nomination, as NOBODY can be as bad as Obummer is……..

    1. Ron Paul is not still in the race. It’s not a media conspiracy. Oh sure, he may technically be, but Mitt Romney is the nominee, unless you can explain how Ron Paul can make the delegate count from here.

    2. Wrong.

      As of today (30 April) it is mathematically impossible for Ron Paul to attain the Republican nomination.

      Nomination requires 1144 delegates; Ron Paul has 80. There are only 962 unpledged delegates, meaning if RP were to sweep 100% of all delegates from here to the convention, he would still end up more than 100 delegates short.

      Hope does not trump bad math. Just ask everyone who voted Obama the first time who remain unemployed.

      Link to delegate count: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

      1. But you assume that all of Romney’s delegates will remain that way- given that his Iowa ones are certainly in doubt, if not others (just look at what happened in Louisiana). Paul and his supporters can certainly cause Romney to fall short of the needed 1144 delegates, which then puts up a second vote- where the delegates can vote however the choose. It could be chaos.

        But to say its over means you don’t understand the delegate process at all.

        1. Then you go to a brokered convention, where Party leaders will make damned sure that Ron Paul is not the nominee. I think it’s honestly time for the libertarian wing of the party to find new and better leadership. Ron Paul was never going to be anything more than a dead end for carrying that message.

          1. Well yeah- since they’ve been screwing him out of votes the whole election.

            They do need to find new leadership, because Ron is getting old. But its hard to find someone better. He was never a dead end because he spread his message. Sure the point was to try to win, and he did try. But a nice secondary point was to spread the libertarian message, and he did a great job at that. He went from 5% to 20% or more in the vote from 2008 to 2012. That’s pretty damn good for someone who is foolishly called crazy.

            And if he can prevent Romney from winning the presidency, that will be even better.

            1. “And if he can prevent Romney from winning the presidency, that will be even better.”…..

              Right, and end up with Obama part two no thanks……

              1. You’re getting Obama part two whether its Obama himself or Romney.

                I fear a Romney presidency much more than a Obama presidency.

        2. There is a difference between understanding the bylaws and understanding the process.

          Your scenario requires that a significant number of political people walk away from a sure-candidate to support a man who cannot become the candidate even under your stretched contemplations.

          So in your world, these political creatures have to choose between two options: support the nominee and possible future President; or make some kind of odd-ball stand over Ron Paul that causes “chaos”, only to be over-ridden and hated by all associated with the possible future President.

          Your scenario also conveniently overlooks a simple truth: Paul had his chance in these states and already lost.

          Now who doesn’t understand “the process”?

          I think RP is a nice guy, but he is not going to be President. Ever. The best you can hope for is that the organization he is building and the fundraising machine he is creating can support and assist his progeny when his time comes.

          Which is the ultimate hilarity of all this: Ron Paul knows he cannot be President. He is just trying to grease the skids for his son – where the real action will someday be. I got no problem with this, but I’d hate to think the Paulbots don’t know about it as they send hard-earned cash to Team Paul.

          That’s my only issue with Ron Paul – he should be talking honestly about his chances and what he really wants from all this. He appears to be taking a long view and his son is the heir to his work. It’s a great story, but not one people today want to hear.

          The younger Paul might be President someday. But not his father, no matter how much a small percent of people wish it could be.

  3. Its hard to get excited over somebody is helped create ObamaCare and can be as anti-gun as Obama is. Romney is no friend of gun owners. I have no confidence he’ll pick anybody good for the bench.

    The problem with Romney in the White House is that he can get the same things through that Obama can’t, just because he has an R next to his name. That’s very dangerous.

    And even if gun owners come out unscathed, the other 9 amendments (okay maybe not the 3rd) will be destroyed. Great.

    1. Romney is a political weathervane. He’ll go where he thinks his interests are, which are going to be vastly different as POTUS, than it was as Governor of Massachusetts.

    2. I am no fan of the mandates at any level, but the simple fact is the Federalist system allows states to do things the Federal cannot. As long as they do not violate your fundamental rights, they can “experiment” with just about anything. That included RomneyCare. Recent Supreme Court arguments had the justices and the state AGs all agreeing that states could pull it off – the only question was whether the Federal could use some other power of theirs to implement the same.

      The people of Mass have had plenty of chance to rid themselves of their mandate, yet still overwhelmingly support it. I do not see that as a Bad Thing. For them. They had a governor who gave them what they wanted under a Federalist system that makes such things possible.

      I do not want such a mandate and will oppose it at the federal level and within my home state. But if the knuckleheads of Maryland vote it in (a possibility if SCOTUS goes against it), I will have to make a choice.

      That said, Romney is running for governor of the United States. He will be President. I think he probably understands that difference more than our current chief executive, who comes from a line of thought that all government is the same extension of a progressive central authority to be exercised over the people, “for their own betterment.”

      Romney doesn’t need to carry a six-shooter. He needs to ignore guns and just sign the bills we send him from the Congress, and appoint some originalist judges. Along those lines, we all better start paying attention to the House and Senate races. The progressives are planning one or both as a fall-back to losing the White House.

      1. I meant to say, “Romney is not running for governor of the United States.”

        Grammar fail.

  4. The Republic does not need a savior, it needs an active, intelligent voting public. There are signs that the voting public is becoming more aware of their complicity in the current state of the union.

    I still haven’t had anyone explain in a satisfactory manner how compromising with someone who is wholly wrong is a good thing for anyone. Partisan politics has been defined as a wholly Bad Thing for the country. I don’t think that world means what you think it means.

    1. The Republic does not need a savior, it needs an active, intelligent voting public.

      Very true. Of course I fear that means we’re totally screwed :)

    2. “active, intelligent voting public”

      Very true. But for now, I’d settle for a not-deceased, not-illegal alien voting public.

  6. ExurbanKevin nailed it. And what he has articulated is exactly what we should expect from President Romney.

    Think about strategy for a minute:

    The economy is in the tank, and we are drowning in regulation. Fixing that is going to be Romney’s focus, and that’s where he ought to focus. Roll back the bureaucracy, cut expenses, let the economy flourish. That’s where we need executive attention.

    With Heller and McDonald already in place, the courts are doing a fine job of dismantling our worst gun laws. As long as they are doing the heavy hauling, he has no need to spend energy fighting a battle that is already overwhelmingly going in our favor.

    And Paul Clement is reputedly on his short list of SCOTUS nominees.

    That’s more than enough to get me excited.

    1. Paul Clement certainly did a service on McDonald. However, his anti-brief on Heller has never been adequately explained anywhere I have seen. Was he following orders or did he dream that up on his own? If someone would like to enlighten me, I would appreciate it.

      1. My understanding was that he was representing his client (following orders). That’s not to say the argument in Heller reflected his personal beliefs on the matter of the Second Amendment.

        1. So W was untrustworthy on 2A issues but we are supposed to trust Romney.

          Is there a source for your information. NRA inside info? That could explain why they hired him for McDonald.

          I know that the NRA was initially opposed to Heller, on tactical grounds. They turned out to be wrong but it was appropriate to be prudent. This wouldn’t seem to apply to the DoJ however.

          1. I don’t have any inside information about what went down inside Bush’s DOJ that lead to the Administration sending Clement to argue for the petitioners in Heller. But Clement, as Solicitor, had a duty to his client that’s separate from what he personally believes.

            Clement was likely picked by NRA because he’s an extremely experienced and well-respected attorney for Supreme Court level work. That’s one reason he’s likely on the short list for Romney.

            There are no guarantees in this. I was pissed as hell at Bush for letting DOJ oppose Mr. Heller. But there’s another fact that if it hadn’t been Bush in power, we would have lose Heller, and McDonald never would have happened.

  7. Pingback: 2012 Romney Campaign… my sentiments exactly. « In Defense Of Liberty

  8. I note that Romney picked Robert Bork as his “Constitutional Advisor.” Since during his failed SCOTUS confirmation hearings, Bork indicated that he thought the Second Amendment was a collective right, rather than an individual right; and that the 10th Amendment was a “dead letter,” that does not look good for anyone who is hanging their hat on Romney’s judicial appointments to be his saving grace. My perception is Romney is still pandering to the social conservative wing, which places its culture war issues far above any others, and only uses the RKBA for vote-getting rhetoric.

    1. Doesn’t Scalia also believe that the 10th Amendment is a dead letter? Or maybe it was that the 9th was a blot on the Constitution.

      In any case, I don’t even fully trust even the Conservative Supreme Court justices we have. As it is, I would be more comfortable with someone that Mittens puts up, than I would be with someone Obama appoints!

  9. There’s two basic paths here, and Americans are going to have to chose one:
    1. Out of many, one.
    2. Multiculturalism.
    Democrats have fractured America with the second, constantly hyping the differences between us rather than united us with our similarities. No society can work with different rules for its citizens

Comments are closed.