Why I Helped Found NotMittRomney.com
I don’t like Mitt Romney.
I never have and I probably never will.
You see, politicians like Mitt Romney have a history of screwing over movement conservatives.
You know the type.
Lincoln Chafee. Arlen Specter. Charlie Crist.
You might say, “No way! Romney’s more conservative than those guys!”
Is he really? What gives you that impression? Is it because he’s telling you what you want to hear right now, when he needs your vote?
Well, if Romney gets elected, which Romney will be President?
Romney 1.0: The left-of-center Republican who was adamantly pro-choice and wasn’t a fan of Reagan or the Contract with America during his run at Ted Kennedy’s seat?
Romney 2.0: The moderate, center-right governor of Massachusetts who left after one term because he would have lost if he ran again in 2006?
Romney 3.0: The fire breathing “conservative alternative” to John McCain who pretended like he was the reincarnation of Reagan?
Romney 4.0: The guy who’s running now, who believes whatever you believe, no matter what you believe?
Remember how Nancy Pelosi said we need to pass Obamacare “so you can find out what’s in it?” Well, is it any different with Mitt Romney? Does anybody really have the slightest idea what he’d do as President? Nobody can even reasonably predict where the guy will be on any issue six months from now, much less what he’ll do if he becomes the leader of the free world.
What’s the positive argument for Romney supposed to be?
That he’s not a “career politician?” Well, the only reason he’s not a “career politician” is because he’s not very good at it. If Romney had beaten Ted Kennedy in 1994, he’d be on his third term in the Senate now. If he could have won in Massachusetts in 2006, chances are he would have done it. Mitt’s approval rating when he left office was in the thirties.
Is Romney’s strength supposed to be his “electability?” What makes anyone think he’s particularly electable? Even most conservatives don’t like Mitt; so what makes people think independents will love him? Slick, moderate northerners like Mitt usually run weak in the South; so he’s more likely than the other top tier candidates to lose North Carolina and Virginia. He also brings no new states to the table and is even guaranteed to lose his own home state of Massachusetts. While it’s genuinely great that Mitt has business experience, it certainly didn’t make him into an effective governor in Massachusetts where his signature issue, Romneycare, was a disastrous failure.
So, what’s left? Inevitability? It’s funny because that’s what was said about Harriet Miers. Remember? She’s been selected, Bush isn’t going to withdraw her nomination; so you might as well give up on getting a real conservative like Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. How about the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill? We were told it was a done deal and that it was a waste of time to even fight. Yet, when conservatives said “no” and stuck to our guns, we turned the tide and stopped amnesty. We can do it again and in reality, it’s easier to stop Romney. Today, if it were just a three way race between Romney and any combination of Cain, Gingrich, and Perry, Romney would be in third place each time because the overwhelming majority of conservatives don’t want him as the nominee.
That’s why we want to speak out.
A lot of conservatives think exactly the way that we do, but they don’t want to take any flack for hammering Romney, think Romney is inevitable, or aren’t in a position where they can risk making the potential Republican nominee for the presidency angry. Well, we can speak out on their behalf and we think that after the Tea Party helped deliver the strongest performance for the Republican Party in 50 years, it’s a mistake to go backwards and select a guy like Mitt Romney as our nominee.
Do grassroots conservatives really want to spend a year defending a flip-flopping hack that we don’t even like? We already have one man running for the presidency whose every promise comes with an expiration date; so does America need two candidates like that? Does this have to be yet another “lesser of two evils” election where people have to hold their nose and choose between two candidates that they don’t want?
In 2008, conservatives let the GOP establishment and the mainstream media select our candidate for us. How did that work out? Do we have to go through that again? Do we have to wait another 4-8 years to have a candidate who actually represents the views of the majority of people in the Republican Party?
I say “no” and that’s why a few months ago, I talked to Ali Akbar and suggested we put together a website called Notmitt romney.com. We’re working with Matt Mackowiak, Tiffiny Ruegner and as many bloggers and activists as we can to stop Mitt Romney now, before it’s too late.
Soon enough, we’re going to have a nominee and conceivably, we may be stuck with that person as our candidate for the next 8 years. Conservatives may not agree on everything, but I do think most of us can agree that our nominee should be Not Mitt Romney.
So now it’s Ron Paul’s turn. The diminutive Texas libertarian is poised in the latest polls to win the Iowa
Does it break some unwritten rule for a columnist to bring his readers’ attention to his own book? If so,
The Democrats have it all wrong when it comes to one of their choices for a new President Barack Obama