Romney Denialists

Though I have yet to read anything on the Internet that caused me literally to bash my laptop computer into the nearest available hard surface, comments like this, in the comments section of a popular conservative website, come pretty close:

Oh no we won't.  The GOP has been forcing us to choose their candidates.  No thank you.

As most of you reading this probably have already guessed, the "oh no he won't" the commenter is vowing is that he won't unite behind Mitt Romney should the ex-gov of Mass win the GOP nomination.

Well, let me be the first to break the news to Mr. Oh-No-I-Wouldn't:  Oh, yes, you will.  You may say you won't, you may even think it.  But when the bell tolls midnight on November 5 and the Ghost of America in Decline Future forces you to confront the prospect of four more years of Barack Obama, the nanosecond dawn breaks on the 6th, you will propel yourself from your bed like the proverbial bat out of hell and pull the "R" lever - yes - even if the label next to it says "Romney."

Or maybe I'm wrong and this commenter really, truly will never vote for Mitt Romney, no way, no how.  In which case, he's definitely in the right political party.  "The Stupid Party" is not an appellation they just give to a political party; it must be earned.

I flirted with Cain for a while, then Perry, then Gingrich, but all three imploded and did so solely through their own actions, as by now anyone but the willfully blind can see.  Which leaves me with Romney, for whom this conservative intends to vote if he wins the nomination.  And considering what's at stake in this election, four more years of Obama, I really don't care if he's RINO -- which, incidentally, Romney is not.  RINO?  Heck, I'll vote for a rhino, even a yellow one, if such a rhino exists and it's a Republican.  Call me a yellow-rhino Republican.

So let's skip the childish oh-no-we-won't protestations and go right to the laptop-hurling part of the above comment.  That's the notion, long past its use-by date, that some Svengalian "GOP elite" is "choosing our candidate for us."  Or should I say, for me, since I do, in fact, take such attacks, which I see all too often, personally.

I call the people who say this stuff, Romney Denialists.  Romney Denialists are grassroots Republicans who so virulently oppose Mitt Romney that they cannot imagine any Republican liking, let alone voting for, Mitt Romney; and who therefore are in total denial that Romney is, in fact, the overwhelming choice of the Republican grassroots.  They simply cannot accept the obvious fact that Romney won both the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary fair and square and legitimately leads in every poll I have seen, going forward.

Precisely how this mysterious "GOP elite" manipulates the majority of GOP primary voters into voting their way, the Romney Denialists never say.  But perhaps the answer can be found in the comment areas of conservative websites if I'm correct that at least some of these posters are the same guys who routinely use the pejorative "sheeple" for Republicans who support a policy or position that differs from their own..

In this view, no Svengaliism is necessary:  The "GOP elite" simply promulgate their preferred candidate's name and the "sheeple" vote accordingly.

May I suggest an alternative explanation?  Could it be possible that the "GOP elite" applied their reason to a particular set of facts, reached a conclusion, and that the majority of GOP rank and file, applying their own reason to the same facts, reached the same conclusion?

It would be wonderful to rally behind a solid conservative with charisma, with the intellect and oratorical skills to effectively articulate and defend a consistent conservative philosophy.  But as Ann Coulter pointed out, Ronald Reagan isn't running this year.

So we're left with this lot, every one of whom is flawed in one way or another, from Gingrich's environmentalism (to the point of appearing in an ad with Nancy Pelosi), to Michele Bachmann's running a campaign so inept that her entire New Hampshire staff quit (as, by the way, Gingrich's senior staff did, too) and the Tea Party, whose values she purports to represent, urged her to drop out.

The question really boils down to priorities, and precisely because we don't have a Ronald Reagan running this year, we're left with an either/or choice:  Should the priority be standing on principle, or should it be defeating Obama?  I suspect that the Romney Denialists fall into the former camp and I freely admit that that's a respectable strategy.  It was, in fact, the strategy in '64 and we all know what happened:  Goldwater got creamed -- but it set the stage for the conservative resurgence and Reagan's election in 1980.

It also enabled LBJ to enact Medicare and Medicaid.  Those contemplating staying home on Election Day rather than vote for Romney might want to consider the virtual impossibility of repealing either program today and then decide how much they relish the prospect of trying to repeal ObamaCare if Obama is reelected and his signature "achievement" becomes equally entrenched.

But I digress.  The main point I want to make is that while it's a perfectly respectable conservative position to oppose Mitt Romney, it is an equally respectable conservative position to support him, for those of us who are dead set on denying Obama a second term.

To suggest otherwise -- that we conservative Republicans who have pledged to support the GOP nominee, whoever it is, have cast reason and independence aside to be led by the nose by a "GOP elite" to cast our primary vote for a candidate who is their choice, not ours -- is not only disrespectful, it's insulting.

Gene Schwimmer is the pundit-proprietor of Schwimmerblog and author of The Christian State.

Though I have yet to read anything on the Internet that caused me literally to bash my laptop computer into the nearest available hard surface, comments like this, in the comments section of a popular conservative website, come pretty close:

Oh no we won't.  The GOP has been forcing us to choose their candidates.  No thank you.

As most of you reading this probably have already guessed, the "oh no he won't" the commenter is vowing is that he won't unite behind Mitt Romney should the ex-gov of Mass win the GOP nomination.

Well, let me be the first to break the news to Mr. Oh-No-I-Wouldn't:  Oh, yes, you will.  You may say you won't, you may even think it.  But when the bell tolls midnight on November 5 and the Ghost of America in Decline Future forces you to confront the prospect of four more years of Barack Obama, the nanosecond dawn breaks on the 6th, you will propel yourself from your bed like the proverbial bat out of hell and pull the "R" lever - yes - even if the label next to it says "Romney."

Or maybe I'm wrong and this commenter really, truly will never vote for Mitt Romney, no way, no how.  In which case, he's definitely in the right political party.  "The Stupid Party" is not an appellation they just give to a political party; it must be earned.

I flirted with Cain for a while, then Perry, then Gingrich, but all three imploded and did so solely through their own actions, as by now anyone but the willfully blind can see.  Which leaves me with Romney, for whom this conservative intends to vote if he wins the nomination.  And considering what's at stake in this election, four more years of Obama, I really don't care if he's RINO -- which, incidentally, Romney is not.  RINO?  Heck, I'll vote for a rhino, even a yellow one, if such a rhino exists and it's a Republican.  Call me a yellow-rhino Republican.

So let's skip the childish oh-no-we-won't protestations and go right to the laptop-hurling part of the above comment.  That's the notion, long past its use-by date, that some Svengalian "GOP elite" is "choosing our candidate for us."  Or should I say, for me, since I do, in fact, take such attacks, which I see all too often, personally.

I call the people who say this stuff, Romney Denialists.  Romney Denialists are grassroots Republicans who so virulently oppose Mitt Romney that they cannot imagine any Republican liking, let alone voting for, Mitt Romney; and who therefore are in total denial that Romney is, in fact, the overwhelming choice of the Republican grassroots.  They simply cannot accept the obvious fact that Romney won both the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary fair and square and legitimately leads in every poll I have seen, going forward.

Precisely how this mysterious "GOP elite" manipulates the majority of GOP primary voters into voting their way, the Romney Denialists never say.  But perhaps the answer can be found in the comment areas of conservative websites if I'm correct that at least some of these posters are the same guys who routinely use the pejorative "sheeple" for Republicans who support a policy or position that differs from their own..

In this view, no Svengaliism is necessary:  The "GOP elite" simply promulgate their preferred candidate's name and the "sheeple" vote accordingly.

May I suggest an alternative explanation?  Could it be possible that the "GOP elite" applied their reason to a particular set of facts, reached a conclusion, and that the majority of GOP rank and file, applying their own reason to the same facts, reached the same conclusion?

It would be wonderful to rally behind a solid conservative with charisma, with the intellect and oratorical skills to effectively articulate and defend a consistent conservative philosophy.  But as Ann Coulter pointed out, Ronald Reagan isn't running this year.

So we're left with this lot, every one of whom is flawed in one way or another, from Gingrich's environmentalism (to the point of appearing in an ad with Nancy Pelosi), to Michele Bachmann's running a campaign so inept that her entire New Hampshire staff quit (as, by the way, Gingrich's senior staff did, too) and the Tea Party, whose values she purports to represent, urged her to drop out.

The question really boils down to priorities, and precisely because we don't have a Ronald Reagan running this year, we're left with an either/or choice:  Should the priority be standing on principle, or should it be defeating Obama?  I suspect that the Romney Denialists fall into the former camp and I freely admit that that's a respectable strategy.  It was, in fact, the strategy in '64 and we all know what happened:  Goldwater got creamed -- but it set the stage for the conservative resurgence and Reagan's election in 1980.

It also enabled LBJ to enact Medicare and Medicaid.  Those contemplating staying home on Election Day rather than vote for Romney might want to consider the virtual impossibility of repealing either program today and then decide how much they relish the prospect of trying to repeal ObamaCare if Obama is reelected and his signature "achievement" becomes equally entrenched.

But I digress.  The main point I want to make is that while it's a perfectly respectable conservative position to oppose Mitt Romney, it is an equally respectable conservative position to support him, for those of us who are dead set on denying Obama a second term.

To suggest otherwise -- that we conservative Republicans who have pledged to support the GOP nominee, whoever it is, have cast reason and independence aside to be led by the nose by a "GOP elite" to cast our primary vote for a candidate who is their choice, not ours -- is not only disrespectful, it's insulting.

Gene Schwimmer is the pundit-proprietor of Schwimmerblog and author of The Christian State.