Erick Erickson on (most) of the Things Wrong with Mitt Romney, Plus: What I Think
Ask Mitt anything because he'll tell you just what you want to hear to get elected
Graphic c/o

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

The truth hurts. Mitt Romney sucks and sucks bad. And it's not that I am still debating whether he is a liberal or a Country-Club republican; it's that he simply stands for nothing and says whatever needs to be said to whatever group wants to hear. And you know where standing for nothing gets us during these perilous times: more, more, more socialism like we see today. It is the path that Washington has thrust upon the nation and someone with no convictions or core will simply continue that trajectory.

This is something that us Tea Partiers (and indies, libertarians and conservatives) fear the most about the man: unlike Reagan, he has no core.

On this note, RedState's head cheese Eric Erickson lists most of the reasons that have brought us to this conclusion, writing:

Should Mitt Romney win the Presidency, conservatives will find this pattern play out repeatedly. Romney will head in a direction conservatives do not like and they will bitch and moan repeatedly and maybe, just maybe, he’ll part his hair in their direction.



Mitt Romney is not the George W. Bush of 2012 — he is the Harriet Miers of 2012, only conservative because a few conservative grand pooh-bahs tell us Mitt Romney is conservative and for no other reason.

That is precisely why Mitt Romney will not win in 2012. But no worry, once he loses, Republican establishment types will blame conservatives for not doing enough for Mitt Romney, never mind that Mitt Romney has never been able to sell himself to more than 25% of the GOP voters. It’s not his fault though, it is the 75%’s fault.

The worst of it. Meet Mitt running for president, aka Mitt Inc.:

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a man devoid of any principles other than getting himself elected. As much as the American public does not like Barack Obama, they loath a man so fueled with ambition that he will say or do anything to get himself elected. Mitt Romney is that man.

I’ve been reading the 200 pages of single spaced opposition research from the John McCain campaign on Mitt Romney. There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled. The man has no core beliefs other than in himself. You want him to be tough? He’ll be tough. You want him to be sensitive? He’ll be sensitive. You want him to be for killing the unborn? He’ll go all in on abortion rights until he wants to run for an office where it is not in his advantage.

But, something that I disagree with:

Conservatism is already dying. Republicans on Capitol Hill are about to raise taxes on the American people with this Super Committee, but they’ll say they are just “raising revenue,” not taxes. Conservatives will give them a pass as they have on virtually every other major issue. Conservatives keep giving passes to people who shouldn’t be given passes because conservative in Washington have been there so long, they’d much rather get invited to the cocktail parties and avoid awkward encounters.
I don't think that conservatism is dying. In fact, the ethos of self reliance, responsibility, the abundance of free markets and the founding concepts of this nation (like the banner at the top of this site) have never been more desired by the public. It's the repubican party that is dying (and has been for a long time). And there is a big difference. The repubican party is not conservatism. If anything (as you see with leadership such as statist John Boner and the other clowns in leadership positions), the party has done the most damage to the conservative political cause. For they tell conservative America what they want to hear (to get elected) then do the precise opposite.

In other words, the legacy of "conservative" George W. Bush.

Erickson sees this too:

Washington, D.C. conservatives will also rally around Mitt Romney, just as they kept doing over and over and over with George W. Bush even after steel tariffs in Pennsylvania, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the GM Bailout, and TARP. At some point the public will cease taking conservatives seriously when the most prominent conservatives — those in Washington who pose as the faces, voices, and writers of the conservative movement at large, keep throwing their lot in with a guy who keeps selling out the very principles conservatives claim to hold dear.
Unfortunately, Erickson's conclusion is laughable at best:

I’m starting to think I need to walk it back on my rejection of Jon Huntsman. Because I’m starting to think even he would be more faithful in his conservative convictions than Mitt Romney.
Then again, he may have a point: perhaps even John Huntsman would be more faithful in his convictions than Mitt Romney. And that is truly pathetic.

Check out and spread the word. Head over to RightKlik for more on the pretzel candidate.

Via Memeorandum.


  1. I don't think he was saying that conservatism is dying in the populace as the rise in the Tea Party demonstrates. He was stating that conservatism, and rightfully so, is dying in WASHINGTON! It seems that a politician can get elected as a conservative, but once in DC, it goes out the window as the body politics is so polluted and rotten, that one can't maintain being a conservative and survive in DC.

  2. Who supports Mitt anyway? I know they leave remarks here and there, but who are these people? How did they get on board with Mitt, and why are they supporting him?

    Does Mitt actually have SUPPORTERS, or does his "support" merely consist of misguided people who don't like Obama and don't want to support any of the other Republicans?

    What if the Romney campaign was flat broke? How many supporters would he have then?

    The only argument I ever hear for Romney is that Obama is a disaster and Romney is the only electable Republican. I don't think anyone has challenged that argument sufficiently.

    How do we know Mitt would be more appealing to the voters? What's the evidence?

    I'm not endorsing Huntsman at this point, but are we saying that Romney can beat Obama in New Hampshire and Maine, but Huntsman can't?

    Romney can beat Obama in Colorado, but Huntsman can't?

    Romney can beat Obama in New Mexico, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio but Huntsman can't?

    Team Romney has created a myth of inevitability that to my estimation is not supported by the facts.

  3. Our #1 goal over the next 8 weeks should be to reach out to our friends in IOWA and implore them to reject Romney.

    I'm working on a video that I plan to release on Monday. Of course I'll roll it out here and at RK. I think it will be well received and I hope we can make it go viral for Republican voters in Iowa.

  4. "I think it will be well received and I hope we can make it go viral for Republican voters in Iowa."
    If it's good, I'll post it on my youtube page...
    I have a good following.

  5. In a sense Romney's worse than the rest of the GOP prez wannabes because he changes his position depending on who he's talking to, and depending on the hour of the day (ie, his views on Health care). I don't love Dr Paul but at least he's consistent (and Paul does value the US-Con--however quacky his economic ideas are at times. IN Paul-town, yd probably get a fair trial ).

    The Romneyites are like their mormon-master Mittster-- changing their tune depending on mood or status of their bipolar disorder.Like this scumbag, one "Byronius" of New Worlds--he pretends to be an AlGore type (he's a "vegan" freak--and voted for Obama), and then shifts gears and he's a Romneyite. In reality, Byro IS as scheming, deceptive, and confused as Romneyites are in general (and crypto-white-supremacists as well, as his attack on Cain indicates).


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.