Which Republicans?

Timothy Birdnow

Proof that establishment Republicans - and many of the intellectualoids on our side - are completely clueless (or dishonest).

This courtesy of the Federalist Patriot:

"For the past year, the question has been whether Mitt Romney would be acceptable to the Republican party. ... Some pundits continue to dream of a great conservative hope who will enter the race and save us from Romney -- perhaps even at a brokered convention. But the voters have now had two opportunities to speak. Two thirds of voters in New Hampshire said they were satisfied with the field. Romney has won a solid victory there. He succeeded with Tea Party supporters and self-described conservatives. And now Newt Gingrich has offered Romney a gift. By attacking him from the left as a heartless tycoon, he has given Romney the chance to campaign as the defender of capitalism and free markets. ... While it's too early to say the race is sewn up, it is looking very good for Mitt Romney."

Mona Charen

Oh REALLY?

Exactly what voters are Mona discussing?

Are they the 282 voters who wrote in Barack Obama's name on the Republican ballot?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71342.html

Or was it the top write-ins for Ron Paul?

According to Politico:

"The Republican congressman from Texas led all write-ins in the Democratic primary with 2,273, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 1,808 and and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman at 1,228."

End excerpt.

Perhaps it was all the independents who turned out?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/new-hampshire-primary-10-key-exit-poll-results/2012/01/03/gIQAM2oopP_blog.html

"Nearly half of voters in the New Hampshire Republican primary were self-identified independents, and 45 percent of voters were registered as “undeclared.” Both numbers are higher than in competitive GOP contest back to 1996. The independent surge was a boon to Paul and Huntsman. Paul topped the field with 32 percent of self-identified independents, and Huntsman’s 23 percent was more than double his showing among rank and file Republicans. Romney won nearly half of self-identified Republicans, with no other candidate breaking 20 percent."

End excerpt.

Please note that 40% of voters are described as "satisfied" with the Obama policies.

This is important because it shows that New Hampshire was NOT a Republican primary election, but included a large contingent of Democrats who came to tamper with the results. While many of these newly-minted Republicans voted Huntsman or Paul, I have little doubt that many voted for Donna Brazille's choice for the GOP nominee.

From the CBS post-New Hampshire debate analysis:

"BRAZILE: Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him -- and for Democrats, you know what? It was good news for us.

KARL: Why is that?

BRAZILE: Because we believe that the weakest candidate is the candidate that the Republicans are not attackin', and that's Mitt Romney.

KARL: Oh, come on.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No, you don't believe that, Donna."

End excerpt.
co
And as for Iowa, the caucuses were lousy with Democrats who reregistered.
http://mynorthwest.com/11/603368/Iowa-Democrat-going-Republican-for-caucus-

Does a fairly liberal cornbelt state, a state that sent Tom Harkin to Washington, really qualify as a barometer for the national mood? Does the liberal northeast qualify? Neither of these are conservative strongholds. New Hampshire used to be fairly solidly GOP (as liberal northeastern states go) but it has been filling with refugees from Massachussetts, Vermont, and other Democrat bastions in recent years. We are NOT getting the will of the core Conservatives, of the Tea Party.

Mona Charen should know better. I suspect that secretly she does.

Party politics works a certain way, and the insiders in the party do not care about actually making changes for the better in America so much as maintaining their comfortable, easy, and priviledged lifestyles. I believe the party chose John McCain in the last election cycle; he was way behind, yet never seemed concerned, and suddenly a fortuitous series of circumstances pushed McCain forward to become the nominee. I strongly suspect that the party told Romney to sit tight, his time will come. Now the old boy's network is honoring their promise to Romney.

Everyone makes out - except the American People.

Now, I will support Romney, moreso than I supported John McCain who delighted in stabbing his friends in the back. But I won't like it. If Romney is president we will have to fight him as much as the Democrats. Remember the Bush presidency, where Bush tried to foist Harriette Myers on us as a Supreme Court Justice? We had to scream bloody murder to get him to do what he should have done in the first place. Remember his attempt to push amnesty? We're going to have all of these problems, and many more, if Romney is elected. And don't forget, we'll have to get him elected first, and I have little doubt the Democrats have all sorts of nasty surprised they'll dig out for Romney. We are going to have to find ways to defend a guy we don't much like.

And money won't flow for a Romney as it would for a better candidate. And enthusiasm will be tempered. And less volunteers will come forward. This will be a pale, dull candidacy; if he wins it will be because everyone hates Obama and not because anyone loves Romney.

There's not much to work with here.