Let's be perfectly honest: Mitt Romney excites no one except for Mormons, political consultants, and Jennifer Rubin...

Maybe we should just ask Mitt: Are you electable?
Graphic c/o ExposeMittRomney.com

By the Left Coast Rebel

...To everybody else on the right, Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama would be a "lesser of two evils" election where we'd grudgingly back Mitt because we wouldn’t lose as badly with him in the White House as we would with Obama. That's not the sort of thing that gets people fired up to make phone calls, canvass neighborhoods, or even put up "I heart Mitt" signs in their yards.

--John Hawkins, Townhall.com, December 27, 2011: "7 Reasons Why Mitt Romney's Electability is a Myth"

I would add neo-conservative liberal flake A.M. talker Michael Medved to Hawkins' short list of fervent, unflappable Romney-bots.

Hawkins' seven-point list on Romney's unelectability is spot-on (I missed it with the busy holiday); here's a synopsis and my take on each point from his article (his words in italics):

1) Likeability (Mitt's lack thereof). I tell friends that Mitt Romney reminds me of that opportunist fraud of yesteryear -- "Tricky Dick" Nixon. I don't know what others see (that steady 20% primary voter); I see Romney as stiff, cold, robotic and unlikable. So does Hawkins; Hawkins thinks voters in January, 2012 will too.

2) Mitt's a loser. Hawkins writes, "There's a reason Mitt Romney has been able to say that he's "not a career politician." It's because he's not very good at politics. He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994. Although he did win the governorship of Massachusetts in 2002, he did it without cracking 50% of the vote." No analysis needed on my part. Again, just why is ultra-liberal Mitt "inevitable"?

3) He's too liberal for the South in the General. My heart is in the South, as opposed to the Left Coast where I hail from, and I agree, he's too Northeast-liberal.

4) The "inevitability" establishment canard won't play for poo-poo in the General. Hawkins writes, "Yet, every one of those advantages disappears if he becomes the nominee. Suddenly Obama will be the more experienced candidate in the race for the presidency. He will also have more money and a better organization than Mitt. Moreover, in a general election, the establishment and beltway media will be aligned against Romney, not for him. Suddenly, Romney will go from getting a free pass to being public enemy #1 for the entire mainstream media." I'll add to this: and because he's a liberal, the conservative grassroots won't coalesce around him, even given the stakes. I saw this dynamic with my own eyes with John McCain's "Maverick" run. Conservative voters in the GOP bastion of San Diego just stayed home.

5) Bain. I don't necessarily agree with Hawkins that Bain is Romney's albatross. But, his lack of defense for his record is certainly suspect. Voters can sniff out a fraud. And Romney's likely tepid support for his capitalist record will sink his ship. And given the choice between even a socialist -- Obama -- and a fraud (Romney) they will unfortunately choose... a socialist. It happened in 2008 after all. Plus, the Obama $1,000,000,000 Machine will absolutely roast Romney with Bain.

6) Mormonism. Hawkins thinks religious bigotry will play against Romney. Not sure about that, who knows? My opinion has always been that Romney is bad because he's a statist, not because he has a certain faith.

7) Flip-flopper. This also dovetails into 5) above, when voters face a choice between a fraud (flip-flopper) and the real socialist deal, they will likely choose the real deal. Mitt's flips and flops beg the question -- even from a political junkie like me -- what does he believe? What does he stand for? What's his core. Answer: nothing but the status quo. And we all know where the status quo is heading for in this country.

Read Hawkins' Townhall.com piece and debate it out in the comments.

Updated: Brilliance from Dr. Milton Wolf @ the Washington Times:

“Mitt Romney is masterful at defending Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich is masterful at defending conservatism... Mr. Romney is like the Apple app store for candidates: Got a problem? There’s an app for that. What’s your tax plan? There’s an answer for that. Flip-flops? There’s an answer for that. Romneycare? Bain Capital? There are answers for those. Job plan? There’s a 59-point answer for that… When given opportunities to defend conservatism with questions about his tax returns and hunting, Mr. Romney stammered through painful answers and defended only himself, not conservatism.”

Hat-tip: the super-smart bunch at The Heathen Republican.

Updated x2: Linked by John Hawkins @ RightWingNews, thanks!


  1. Spot on Reb, and thanks for cross posting this at TLP.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, one of my reasons for my exodus from the Bay State was Mitt, so if I hated him as Gov, why would I vote for him for POTUS.

    It's either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson who will get my vote in November.

    1. Chris: The choice of Romney is a false choice. Millions will bolt for Johnson and Paul (if he goes third party). What an eye-opener it truly is to see how the Republican party works.

    2. I honestly don't think RP will bolt the GOP. Me may not endorse the nominee but if he jumps ship it will undo a lot of the groundwork he has laid and also hurt Rand within the party for a slim chance of VP this time around or if he makes a run in 2016.

    3. I hope you're right, I would like to work for Rand in 2016. If he wants it, I think he has a shot.

  2. I agree with everything you are saying... but Mitt wouldn't be the first president to form his steadfast opinions based on whatever the poll numbers are that day, and/or what gains the most political advantage. There was a certain womanizing president (who is related to the current Secretary of State) who basically ran on the platform of pandering to the majority, and in addition to serving two terms, he is still fairly well liked. Romney may be only marginally a more conservative choice than Obama, but that doesn't mean he can't win.

    1. Nick: I agree and disagree. First, I didn't fall for it but Clinton had a charm that people bought, a believability, "I feel your pain..." etc. Romney does not have this. A politician that has no core has to have this Clinton ability that people relate to. Also, I think Romney can win, I just think this list of 7 points points to inevitable headwinds that the GOP establishment is ignoring.

  3. Chris, I believe you are correct about Paul, for the reasons you point out.

    Thus Johnson will likely get my vote. Perhaps this is throwing it away, or as some would say helping to get Obama reelected, but I'd rather vote for principle and my conscience. In the end that is what is important to me. That, and other than Ron Paul the rest of the republistatists are no better than Obama.

  4. "What an eye-opener it truly is to see how the Republican party works."

    Yep. That's the key point for me. They aren't selling their souls for Goldwater, they are selling them for Romney.


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.