Dakota Beacon

The elephant in the living room at the moment is this question:  who should the Republicans nominate to run against Obama?  It is understood that we cannot afford one more term of misgovernment and abuse of the Constitution.  One more such term could well mean the end of the Republic and the ushering in of a dictatorship along the lines of Mussolini’s Italy.  It wasn’t good for Italy and it most assuredly would be bad for us.  So here we are at the crossroads and a choice to make.  Who can defeat this monster?

At  this moment we have two choices.  I say two because despite the nominal candidacy of Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, they are not viable.  While Ron Paul actually had a powerful message and a strong and very loyal following, he chose to go soft on the one man – significantly the one the press likes – who most strikingly contrasts with his own message and espoused beliefs, Mitt Romney.  The charge has been made that he is in cahoots with Romney and at the risk of really irritating his fierce remaining troops, he has done zilch to dispel that notion.  His son, Rand, who had been highly visible in his campaign, and whose own career has been outstanding in the Senate, further tarnished the image with his inappropriate comment that it “would be an honor” to serve as Romney’s vice presidential choice.  Since that day neither of the Pauls has repudiated the obvious charge of collusion.  And, significantly, there has been no real verbal attack on Romney despite the irreconcilable nature of their positions.  Romney, for his part, has, like the press, largely ignored Paul’s campaign.

Gingrich has run a really odd campaign, highly negative against first one and then another of his rivals.  It would remind one of Roller Derby.  He has no cohesive following and can’t possibly win nomination at this point.  His viability evaporated several months ago with poll numbers dropping so far as to preclude any margin of error saving him.  He is intelligent and pragmatic.  He's no Don Quixote.  So why does he persist?  His own ego might have accounted for this for a while, but it has long since passed the point where he is doing anything other than embarrassing himself.  Or is he?  We’ve begun to notice an interesting phenomenon.  After the first round of dropouts – Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Huntsman, McCotter, we have a field of four.  The common labels are “Romney” and “non-Romney” due to the total unacceptability of Romney to Conservatives and the upsurge of Conservatives becoming involved in the political process through Tea Party activity and general participation in party politics.  President Obama is a huge motivator.

So, look at the “non-Romneys”.  Ron Paul (bought), Newt Gingrich (why?) and Rick Santorum.  We know that Paul and Gingrich will not be nominated.  Paul is probably – or was – the best man to preserve the Constitutional Republic because he has the most accurate and complete understanding of it.  Our problems are directly traceable to failure to follow our laws, our Constitution.  But he is apparently in the Romney camp, overtly or covertly, depending on your perception.  That makes three.  Newt Gingrich has vowed to stay in the race, despite single-digit poll numbers and consistently losing primaries.  This has to be costly and would seem pointless.  All he can do is prevent Santorum from winning clear majorities  . . . hmmm.  What happens when Rick Santorum fails to win a clear majority – even if he wins the most votes?  Romney is declared the winner regardless. 

Romney has not won anything of consequence.  Where he has done better is where Democrats will without any doubt take the state in November.  Where he loses big is where Republican strength will be found in November.  Is Newt Gingrich still running this expensive campaign by special request and arrangement with someone?  Hey, I’m just asking the question here.  The question really asks itself, it’s so obvious.

At the moment when Gingrich really lost this he was sailing in the Greek Isles and shopping at Tiffany’s.  That seemed out of focus to many of us.  His staff walked out.  He lost many supporters. He lost much of his credibility.  His campaign was lost that week.  Really, folks, couldn’t he have bought his wife some Tiffany’s trinkets  or treated her to a special cruise AFTER he won election?  Obama did, after all. Of course, to most of us a cruise in the Adriatic or a box from Tiffany’s would be a bigger deal.  Then he came out like a pitbull on Bain Capital.  Which gave him a little “street cred” temporarily, and yet he is not hurting Romney by remaining in the race – in fact he is Romney’s biggest asset.   His own chances for winning do not exist.  And yet he will not drop out.  Seriously, do we have a tag team effect here?  When Santorum wins less than 50% he loses big in delegates.  Gingrich’s presence can only help Romney, whom he purportedly hates.   Calista might have far more to do with the Republican endorsement process than anyone thought. 

The Players:

Mitt Romney – not doing well with Conservatives anywhere, anointed by the press as the “lead”

Ron Paul – apparent sellout to Romney camp whose followers now believe he’s in it for the “message”

Newt Gingrich – seemingly there only to deny votes to Santorum

Rick Santorum – struggling but viable opponent of Romney

Think about it.  It adds up.  Maybe there is only one non-Romney.  

And why should all this concern us so much?  Because it is IMPERATIVE if we are to save the United States of America that Obama be defeated before he invokes martial law or any more of our fragile rights are taken from us.  Romney cannot be the man to do this.  The most poisonous items on Obama’s agenda have been Obamacare and his death-to-the-economy “environmental” policies.  If there is one man in America who would be unable to speak with conviction and fight back on these it would be Mitt Romney.  He pioneered Obamacare.  He is an environmentalist cap-and-trader.  He is, in fact, a Democrat.  His wife quipped that until 2008 they did not know any Republicans.  Why would any legitimate Republican support this man?  The only case to be made for him is the one manufactured by the press – “inevitability” – whatever that is.  And guess what?  On the day he sealed up the nomination the press would begin trumpeting the “inevitability” of another Obama term.  Are we going to buy into that as well?  If we buy the one we’ve bought the other.  They come as a set. 

If we are to stop the rapid and “inevitable” decline and descent into the hell of totalitarianism – a hell from which we who are alive today will never see America emerge again – we must be very careful that we nominate a candidate who will 1. Rally the anti-Obama forces (and they are legion) and 2. Be a Conservative once elected (not “run as a Conservative”) .

The big flap as this week begins is the “hot mic” moment where we hear Obama, in a moment of unvarnished duplicity, convey to the Russians that he can be “more flexible after the election”.  But we heard Romney say the same thing last week:  “I’ll run as a conservative”.  What is that supposed to mean?  He’ll RUN as a conservative.  What would he govern as?  And voters will not be so dumb – most of them – as to fall for it.  This is the time to step back, take a good look at the field of those willing to run on their OWN candidacy – and unite behind the only genuine, honest, legitimate non-Romney in the room.  That would be Rick Santorum.

Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government and the Executive Committee of the Valley Tea Party Conservative Coalition for whose website (vtpcc.com) she blogs.