There’s an opening here though. See, as much as it makes me uncomfortable to see other Republicans attacking their opponents as liberals, I’m glad they did because it lets primary voters see a) what’s waiting for him from the Democrats, and b) see how Romney reacts to the attacks. And therein lies his opening to unify everyone, because the biggest issue many of us have with Romney is that we don’t think he’s going to have the balls to punch back and go after President Obama, the Democrats, and the usual Obama Media Complex.

Let’s see Mitt give a full throated defense of capitalism and conservatism as a whole. Defend his record. Point out that while having to fire people may have sucked, in the long run it helped the companies grow and hire more people in the long run. Show conservatives who don’t trust him that he’s not going to accept the liberal premise behind every issue, and hit back against any and all class warfare rhetoric thrown at him…which in this case are coming at him from people on our own side.

I want to see Mitt Romney show us that he’s more than just slightly better than Obama, and here’s his chance. It’s the difference between simply voting for him in November, and actively campaigning for him before then.

There’s hasn’t been a quote that has better summed up Romney’s base of support then from one of his surrogates yesterday, “It’s not even about picking someone with your own beliefs and principles.” Say what you will about Ron Paul supporters, but they at least have specific domestic and foreign policy beliefs that they advocate for. Romney supporters? All they tell you is that “he can win” without any evidence that can back it up.

What is a single accomplishment he had as governor? HE CAN WIN! What’s a single conservative principle that he is passionate about? HE CAN WIN! Have you ever taken a close look at his “job creation” record? HE CAN WIN!

And this is where the frustration for us activists (or as one Mittbot called me, “conservative wack jobs”) comes from. For a lot of us, we started to get involved after the debacle of the McCain campaign and our first taste was 2010. There we found dynamic leaders with bold ideas for turning the country around, advocated for them, and got them elected. Now we find ourselves with a candidate who is slightly better than Obama and thinks simply not being Obama will get him a victory, and that seems to be the one principle the Mittbots support. Democrats supported the same principle in 2004 with John Kerry.

This is where the Mittbots usually start with their indignant, “well, who are you gonna support when YOUR candidate drops out?” I’ll vote for slightly better for Obama. But support? Show any enthusiasm or energy for? There are hundreds of other candidates running in other races who share my own “beliefs and principles.” I’ll support them.

P.S. Don’t get me wrong, none of this is to say that he other candidates haven’t all been different shades of terrible.

And to add to that frustration…

“I have great regard for Sen. McCain. I love the man. But it’s another example of establishment piling on. It seems the more establishment piles on, Dole, McCain, all the rest, nobody cares. Nobody cares about this. I mean, none of the endorsements that Romney picked up have been a thing in terms of how people respond, because the people are looking for a new generation of leadership. They’re looking for a new approach to problem solving in this country. You can get all the Doles and McCains in the world as Romney probably will, but in the end, nobody cares.”

Why does Jon Huntsman, the “RINO,” the “liberal,” the guy who should be running in the “Democrat primary,” seem to get conservative/activist/tea party/reformer frustration better than any of the other candidates?

I’m a Not-Romney guy. Newt Gingrich is my Not-Romney of choice. I’ve already discussed why Rick Perry campaign and Jon Huntsman campaign haven’t impressed me. Rick Santorum? I’ll have to Google him when I get home, but meh. But while I prefer one Not-Romney to the other two and it would be easier for him if they dropped out, this jive where people demand [candidate X] drop out and endorse is ridiculous.

I know everyone keeps getting more unhinged on the internets when you disagree with them, but three things…

1. If a candidate has something to say and people who believe in them, I want them as part of the debate.

2. If your candidate isn’t strong enough to win without everyone else dropping out and endorsing them, they’re too weak to beat Mitt Romney and sure as hell too weak to beat Barack Obama.

3. Obama and Hillary Clinton campaign all throughout the primaries in 2008 to the cries of “the infighting is weakening the party.” How did it work out for the Democrats that year?

Everyone put your big boy diapers on.

My friend and colleague Jimmie Bise was lamenting the other day on the Twitters on how none of our candidates are talking aboot the issues (disclosure, we’re both Gingrich supporters). You hear a lot of who is being mean, who should drop out, who’s lying…the candidates are almost on the verge of ragging on each other mothers.

There’s hasn’t been nearly enough talk aboot jobs/taxes/economy at all, and that includes the candidates themselves not talking aboot their plans (Huntsman’s and Perry’s were particularly good). Newt Gingrich tried to rectify that with a bus tour across Iowa touting his economic plan…

The American people create jobs, not government. It starts very simple–lower taxes, less regulation, an American energy plan and actually be positive about people who create jobs, the opposite of the Obama plan.

The Wall Street Journal, at the very least, has taken notice…

It’s a great message, and it’s getting to the key issue, which is economic growth. And his plan, really the most aggressive now, and it shows you how timid Romney’s is in comparison. Gingrich going for an optional flat tax, down to 15%, cutting the corporate rate down to 12.5%, which would make the U.S. among the most competitive in the world. It’s a big argument, and it’s going to create jobs.

There is a huge thirst for this kind of thing. And you talk to voters who are at Gingrich events and Romney events, they’re tired of hearing the candidates say the same thing over and over: that they’ll kill ObamaCare, cut regulation, cut spending. They expect that from the candidates. They want to hear something more about a pro-growth policy. And so Gingrich is on to something there.

His flat tax would be 15%, optional. Rick Perry’s is 20%. And Gingrich would, if you choose the flat-tax option, do away with almost all of the deductions in the code. So it is the most ambitious plan. He’s also saying, “No static analysis on revenues. We’re going for growth.”

Watch more…

I had touched on this last week, that while Romney goes through the motions and rattles off the basics when it comes to tax reform, he always falls back on Obama-esque class warfare rhetoric, yet while still claiming to reform taxes and lowering them on the “rich” that he claims he can’t do because he can’t get elected that way.

This was recently discussed WSJ Journal Editorial Report…

I mean, what I have here is Romney’s own economic document. This is the first page of tax policy, in which he attacks President Obama for class warfare, saying: “He’s calling middle-income Americans ‘millionaires and billionaires.’ He actually includes every household earning more than $250,000.” Page two, his tax proposal, says he will cut capital gains and dividends and interest rates for anyone with an adjusted gross income of under $200,000. It’s an obvious contradiction. That’s Barack Obama’s position.

So he’s going to debate President Obama on taxes by having the exact same position, only not really, but kinda yes?

Watch more…

I like Mr. T’s taking on the entire Republican Primary better though…

Then of course he goes and reminds us why so many activists don’t like him and necessarily trust him. Romney was recently on one of them tele-townhall’s for some tea party organization, and said the following…

But I am not looking to do something, which dramatically reduces taxes for the top 1%. If we go out there and starting touting plans to drastically lower taxes for the very highest income people, not only will we get our head handed to us politically; we will as a nation find ourselves stalled in getting tax reform that is sobadly needed.

To be fair to him, as you read in the transcript, he did run through some of the typical tax reform talking points. The problem is that instead of rejecting the Obama/Occupier class warfare rhetoric like a conservative should, he justifies it. His first instinct is to pander to it. As opposed to pointing out how the 1% vs. 99% bullshit is just that…

Not to mention, if he’s serious about tax reform, that means lowering taxes on ALL AMERICANS including the top 1%. When liberals whine about tax cuts for the 1%, they’re talking about the few reforms Mitt mentioned in the transcript. So what’s it going to be? He’s going to lower taxes for the rich without lowering taxes for the rich?

A Republican candidate should be talking aboot Americans has a whole, as one people. The Democrat candidate is the one who breaks people into classes to play them off each other. Maybe someone should explain that to Mitt Romney.

Though if enough people complain, he’ll probably change his mind anyway.

Long story short, Mitt Romney is the only candidate who will be on the ballot for the Virginia primary. NO OTHER CAMPAIGN GOT THE NECESSARY SIGNATURES TO BE ON THE BALLOT (with the exception of that clown Ron Paul). Granted the rules were changed slightly after a lawsuit from last year…which I might be willing to take into account if the other candidates had never run for office before in their lives, and therefore never knew that there are a certain amount of signatures you need to petition your way on to any ballot.

It’s called, ironically enough, petitioning. It’s what you have to do for any elected office you run for anywhere. It’s why when you form a campaign, the first thing you do is see how many signatures you need, see what arcane rules and regulations you have to follow, and send volunteers out to collect signatures.

It’s why Mitt Romney started collecting signatures to get on the Virginia ballot in August and the other campaigns apparently didn’t.

I’m afraid that President Romney will be to conservatives what Governor Schwarzenegger was to California, and I have a preferred Not Romney that I feel everyone else should ditch their Not Romney and rally behind. That said, I still want to beat Obama. If your campaign can’t organize well enough to organize a petitioning drive, how the hell are you going to beat the President of the United States?

Because seriously? I’m just some schmuck blogger whose political experience is all of three years in the Young Republicans, and even I know better.

***Apparently there are a few states where petitioning doesn’t exist, so I was wrong aboot that.  However most states still do, and Virginia was one of them.

The primary has been a race between Mitt Romney and Not Mitt Romney. The general looks like it’s going to be a race between Obama and Not Obama. Romney, at least according to the current polls, looks like the strongest Not Obama to draw independents, disenchanted Dems, and other voters who would not ever normally vote for a Republican.

This is where we come in. Because the current resident has been such an unmitigated disaster, we’re going to have voters voting for a Republican Presidential candidate that normally wouldn’t ever vote Republican. We have to make sure they go down the line. A voter who is open to voting Republican for President for the first time could be open to voting Republican in US Senate, State Senate, Congress, Assembly, etc.

If you’re unhappy with Romney as our nominee, that’s fine. If he’s not conservative enough for you, you’re not alone. But then look down ticket and make sure we have people running who are conservative enough. Find that “Marco Rubio” where you live that would absolutely crush an opportunity of having all those voters willing to give someone with a (R-State) a chance.

The bullshit that a Romney candidacy is the end of conservatism and the tea party is just that, bullshit.

Nikki Haley endorsed Mitt Romney in 2007. Mitt Romney endorsed Nikki Haley in 2009 when she was running in the SC-GOV primary and was fourth in the polls. They obviously have a personal relationship, and there’s more than a good chance that Nikki Haley honestly believes  Romney is the best person for the job. Maybe if there was a viable conservative alternative who was the perfect candidate it may have been different, but that candidate isn’t running and it sure as hell isn’t Rick Perry.

Anyone seriously hurt by the Haley endorsement, thinking she did it for a job, or thinks that she’s “done” with conservatives needs to change their diapers, back away from talk radio and pick up a book or at least go for a walk. There are more important issues facing the country than people’s Arbitron ratings, and the Republic is not going to fall because [Governor X] endorsed [Candidate who less less conservative than I approve of Y].

His entire base seems to be the media who a) doesn’t vote in Republican primaries, and b) doesn’t vote for Republican’s in the general. So how does Huntsman go from 2% in the polls to where he’s competitive?