Gov. Romney Only Canidate Is Right On The Two Most Important Issues

Ann Coulter -  In the upcoming presidential election, two issues are more important than any others: repealing Obamacare and halting illegal immigration. If we fail at either one, the country will be changed permanently.
Taxes can be raised and lowered. Regulations can be removed (though they rarely are). Attorneys general and Cabinet members can be fired. Laws can be repealed. Even Supreme Court justices eventually die.
But capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California. There will be no turning back.
Similarly, if Obamacare isn't repealed in the next few years, it never will be.
America will begin its ineluctable descent into becoming a worthless Western European country, with rotten health care, no money for defense and ever-increasing federal taxes to support the nanny state.
So let's consider which of the Republican candidates are most likely to succeed at these objectives.
In order to allow Democrats to indignantly denounce Republicans who said Obamacare would add to the deficit, the bill was structured so that no goodies get paid out immediately. That way, when the Congressional Budget Office was asked to determine if Obamacare was "revenue neutral" over its first 10 years, government accountants were looking at a bill that collected taxes for 10 years, but only distributed treats in the later years.
Starting at year 11, those accountants will be in for a big surprise when the government starts paying out Obamacare benefits without interruption.
Because of this accounting fraud, Obamacare can still be repealed. But as soon as all Americans have been thrown off their employer-provided insurance plans and are forced to start depending on the government for health care, Republicans will never be able to repeal it.
The vast complex of unionized government workers managing our health care from Washington will fight to keep their jobs (for more on this topic, see the Department of Education), voters will want their "free" government treats (for more on this topic, see Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) -- and even if they don't, there won't be a private insurance market for them to go back to (for more on this topic, see IRS rules favoring employer-provided health care).
The only way to stop Obamacare is to beat Obama in 2012, and repeal it before the health care Leviathan is born.
Otherwise, starting in 2016, Republicans will run for office promising only to improve Obamacare. Newt Gingrich will be calling plans to reform it "right-wing social engineering."
All current Republican presidential candidates say they will overturn Obamacare. The question for Republican primary voters should be: Who is most likely to win?
2012 is not a year for a wild card. It's not a year for any candidate who will end up being the issue, instead of making Obama the issue. It's not a year for one wing of the Republican Party to be making a point with another wing. (And there are no Rockefeller Republicans left, anyway.) It's not a year to be gambling that America will vote for its first woman president, or that the country is ready for a nut-bar libertarian.
Running against an incumbent president in a make-or-break election, Republicans need a candidate with a track record of winning elections with voters similar to the entire American electorate.
Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have never had to win votes beyond small, majority-Republican congressional districts.
Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have won statewide elections, but Huntsman and Perry ran in extremely red states that don't resemble the American electorate. Only Romney and Santorum have won a statewide election in a blue state, making them our surest-bets in a general election.
But if Santorum wins, we lose on the second most important issue -- illegal immigration -- and he'll be the last Republican ever to win a general election in America.
Just as Americans ought to be able to learn the perils of a welfare state by looking at Greece, we ought to be able to learn the perils of illegal immigration by looking at California.
Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Not so long ago, this was a state that produced great Republican governors and senators like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, S.I. Hayakawa and Pete Wilson.
If even Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, two bright, attractive, successful female business executives -- one pro-life and one pro-choice -- can't win a statewide election in California spending millions of their own dollars in the middle of the 2010 Republican sweep, it's buenas noches, muchachos.
And yet, almost all Republican presidential candidates support some form of amnesty for illegals in order to appeal to the business lobby.
Among the most effective measures against illegal immigration is E-Verify, the Homeland Security program that gives employers the ability to instantly confirm that their employees' Social Security numbers are legitimate. It is more than 99 percent accurate, and no employee is denied a job without an opportunity to challenge the records.
Although wildly popular with Americans -- including Hispanic Americans -- the business lobby hates E-Verify. Employers like hiring non-Americans because they can pay illegal aliens less and ignore state and federal employment laws.
Any candidate who opposes E-Verify is not serious about illegal immigration. If anything, E-Verify ought to be made mandatory to get a job, to get welfare and to vote.
Kowtowing to business (while pretending to kowtow to Hispanics), Paul, Perry and Santorum oppose E-Verify. As a senator, Rick Santorum voted against even the voluntary use of E-Verify.
Jon Huntsman claims to support E-Verify, but also wants to give illegals amnesty as soon as the border is sealed -- as determined by someone other than us. Also, he gave driver's identification cards to illegal aliens in Utah. (You'd think a guy no one has ever heard of would be more careful about ID cards.)
Following his latest guru, Helen Krieble, Newt Gingrich is for amnesty, combined with second-class status for illegals. Instead of giving illegal aliens green cards, Newt proposes giving them "red cards" so they can stay, take American jobs, have children, receive welfare benefits, attend public schools -- and eventually be granted amnesty. The Republican primaries will be over before most voters realize what Newt's "red card" scheme entails.
Only Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney aren't trying to sneak through amnesty for illegal aliens. Both support E-Verify.
Numbers USA, one of the leading groups opposed to our current insane immigration policies, gives Republican presidential candidates the following grades on immigration: Paul, F; Gingrich, D-minus; Huntsman, D-minus; Santorum, D-minus; Perry, D; Romney, C-minus; and Bachmann, B-minus.
And that was before Romney said last week that Obama's drunk-driving, illegal alien uncle should be deported!
That leaves us with Romney and Bachmann as the candidates with the strongest, most conservative positions on illegal immigration. As wonderful as Michele Bachmann is, 2012 isn't the year to be trying to make a congresswoman the first woman president.
Two Little Indians sitting in the sun; one was just a congresswoman and then there was one.

Rassmussen Poll: Romey 45% Obama 39%

Mitt Romney has now jumped to his biggest lead ever over President Obama in a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup. It’s also the biggest lead a named Republican candidate has held over the incumbent in Rasmussen Reports surveying to date.
The latest national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the former Massachusetts governor, while 39% prefer the president. Ten percent (10%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) 
A week ago, Romney trailed Obama 44% to 41%.  The week before that, he held a slight 43% to 42% edge over the president. The two candidates have been essentially tied in regular surveys since January, but Romney remains the only GOP hopeful to lead Obama in more than one survey. Despite Romney’s current six-point lead, his latest level of support is in line with the 38% to 45% he has earned in matchups with the president this year. However, Obama’s 39% is a new low: Prior to this survey, his support has ranged from 40% to 46% in matchups with Romney.
A generic Republican candidate holds a narrow lead over the president again this week as has been the case all but three times in weekly tracking since late May.  Obama leads all the other named GOP candidates by as little as seven and as much as 15 percentage points.  Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor Rick Perry and businessman Herman Cain have all surged ahead of the president at one point but did not maintain those leads.Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul are running one-two in Rasmussen Reports’ most recent survey of the Republican race in Iowa as next Tuesday’s caucus approaches. 
Romney also has more second-choice support than any of the other candidates among likely caucus-goers. Rasmussen Reports will release new numbers from Iowa at noon Eastern today.

Gingrich Says Paul Worse Than Obama

Jill Lawerence - Newt Gingrich has finally found a politician he considers even worse than the president he calls socialist, anti-colonialist and radical. That would be his fellow Republican Ron Paul.

"I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said Tuesday in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.

Could he vote for Paul? "No." If it came down to Paul vs. Obama? "You'd have a very hard choice at that point."

From National Journal:

YEAR IN REVIEW
Most Inspiring Stories of 2011

YEAR IN REVIEWTop Political Quotes of 2011

YEAR IN REVIEW
Best Fake Campaign Ads

Gingrich's fencing with Mitt Romney seems like an afternoon at a gentleman's club compared with his slams on Paul. "As people get to know more about Ron Paul, who disowns 10 years of his own newsletter, says he didn't really realize what was in it, had no idea what he was making money off of, had no idea that it was racist, anti-Semitic, called for the destruction of Israel, talked about a race war - all of this is a sudden shock to Ron Paul?" he asked. "There will come a morning people won't take him as a serious person."

Right now in Iowa, the week before the state's Jan. 3 caucuses, Paul is a very serious person - in the top tier along with Gingrich and Romney and playing aggressively to win. "If Dr. Paul will have to soldier on without Newt's vote, then so be it," Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton said in a statement. He called Gingrich "a divisive, big-government liberal who is unelectable" and his attack on Paul a "childish outburst."

(RELATED: Romney: Gingrich Like 'Lucille Ball at Chocolate Factory')

Paul's supporters have complained for months that Paul wasn't getting the attention he deserved. Now that he's within reach of an early-state victory, the media scrutiny and attacks from rivals are escalating rapidly.

Michele Bachmann piled on Paul  in an interview Tuesday with Rodney Hawkins of National Journal and CBS News. She cited "racist statements" in Paul's newsletters and said he is indifferent about the prospect of Iran having a nuclear weapon. "Ron Paul would be dangerous for the United States on foreign policy," she said.

Gingrich unloaded on Paul after Blitzer showed a tough Paul attack ad accusing Gingrich of "serial hypocrisy." Gingrich said Paul's "total record of systemic avoidance of reality" makes him unthinkable as a president. He is, Gingrich said, "a person who thinks the United States was responsible for 9/11, a person who ... wrote in his newsletter that the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 might have been a CIA plot, a person who believes it doesn't matter if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon."

(RELATED: Perry Campaign Sues to Get on Virginia Ballot)

Gingrich declared twice during the interview that Paul won't get the GOP nomination. Benton countered with the rhetorical equivalent of "neither will you."

Conservatives and tea party activists are fleeing Gingrich due to his support for TARP and an individual insurance mandate (which he has since renounced), Benton said, while independent voters "are horrified by Newt's history of ethics violations, insider pay-to-play politics and influence peddling."

It isn't New Year's Eve yet, but it's safe to say the holiday season is over.

Gov. Mitt Romney's Electability Fraud on Republican Party?

John Hawkins of Right Wing News thinks so, but most of his arguments are unpersuasive.  He asks:

Doesn’t it say something that GOP primary voters have, at one time or another, preferred Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now even Ron Paul (In Iowa) to Mitt Romney?

It does.  On the other hand, doesn’t this say something?

Newt Gingrich (62%) and Mitt Romney (54%) are the only two candidates Republicans say would be acceptable presidential nominees from their party, emphasizing the degree to which the GOP race has narrowed down to these two men at this juncture. A majority of Republicans say each of the other six candidates measured would not be acceptable nominees.

Indeed, with Newt coming under increased scrutiny, those numbers might favor Romney today.  Doesn’t it say something that a plurality sees Romney as the candidate most likely to beat Obama, or that head-to-head polls consistently show Romney faring better against Obama than his rivals?
Hawkins then discusses Romney’s moderate image:

To some people, this is a plus. They think that if conservatives don’t like Mitt Romney, that means moderates will like him. This misunderstands how the process of attracting independent voters works in a presidential race. While it’s true the swayable moderates don’t want to support a candidate they view as an extremist, they also don’t just automatically gravitate towards the most “moderate” candidate. To the contrary, independent voters tend to be moved by the excitement of the candidate’s base (See John McCain vs. Barack Obama for an example of how this works). This is how a very conservative candidate like Ronald Reagan could win landslide victories. He avoided being labeled an extremist as Goldwater was, yet his supporters were incredibly enthusiastic and moderates responded to it.

I do not know where Hawkins got any of this.  In the first instance, Romney appeals less to moderates than you may think.  Hawkins likely exaggerates the impact of ideology on voter choices, ignoring the fundamentals.  Reagan won in 1980 in large part because the economy was terrible.  Had the GOP nominated George H. W. Bush instead, Anderson likely would not have run as an independent and Bush would likely have garnered more votes than Reagan.  That doesn’t mean the GOP should have nominated Poppy Bush; far from it.  But Reagan could run against a lousy economy, while Goldwater was running against Johnson in a booming economy.  Pure independents are the most likely to vote on the state of the economy; the argument that enthusiasm affects election outcomes is not supported much by the data.
Hawkins notes Romney is a proven political loser.  He doesn’t add “in Massachusetts.”  Not too many Republicans win in Massachusetts.  Romney did and ended unpopular, suggesting he was too conservative for the land of Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank.  But being Mitt means getting to be a double-loser to Hawkins: insufficiently conservative and not good at winning statewide in a liberal state.  Hawkins makes a related argument that Romney will be hammered for his tenure at Bain Capital.  I have no doubt Democrats will make those attacks, but they likely play stronger in places like Massachusetts than elsewhere (how they play in states like PA and OH is a valid point).  Presumably, if Romney is the nominee, he will point out that some Bain acquisitions grew (e.g., Domino’s Pizza), while others were downsized, and then launch into a spiel about rightsizing bloated government bureaucracies, something Obama has manifestly failed to do.
Hawkins claims Romney will run poorly in Southern states, but then delves into GOP primary numbers, which is not the same as electability in the general.  Currently, Romney runs as well as or better than Gingrich against Obama in swing states, including those mentioned by Hawkins.
Hawkins maintains Romney will lose his advantages in fundraising, organization and establishment support in a general election.  That’s largely true, but not an argument that a NotRomney who has been unable to match Romney in these areas is thus a better choice in terms of electability.  Hawkins also claims Romney has been avoiding serious scrutiny, which is inaccurate.
Hawkins notes “the Mormon factor” and cites a poll suggesting it’s a problem.  He does not cite the Pew poll suggesting it’s a bigger problem for Romney in the primaries and not so much in a general election.  Indeed, the poll Hawkins cites makes clear that Mormonism is a problem for Democrats.
Finally, Hawkins notes Romney is a flip-flopper, asking “Is it just me or didn’t George Bush beat John Kerry’s brains in with the “flip flopper” charge back in 2004?”  It’s not just Hawkins who thinks that, but again, the data doesn’t really support that theory.  As Jay Cost notes, Kerry did a better job at peeling away voters from the “other” side than Bush did.
In sum, there is not a “plethora of evidence” that Romney’s electability is a myth.  That does not mean that Romney must be the nominee.  Indeed, as noted earlier, the challenger’s ideology matters maybe a percent or two — important in a close election, but most things are important in a close election.  Romney is not my ideal candidate, but none of the candidates is my ideal candidate.  At the moment, to paraphrase Philip Klein (on Twitter), Romney is the only candidate showing up to the job interview wearing a suit.  With Gingrich sliding, conservatives have to hope some NotRomney can up his or her game soon.

Can Ron Paul Win Iowa In A Landslide?

Ever since Newt Gingrich started slumping in the polls, a number of pundits and bloggers have been wondering if Ron Paul might end up winning the Iowa cauci. He has a dedicated base of supporters. And currently leads in the RealClear Politics average:

Dedicated supporters are more likely to show up on a cold winter night to vote for their guy.
Commenting on Ron Paul’s surge, Byron York wonders if Paul’s supporters are, “in fact, Republicans“.
Let us hope, however, that Republicans don’t discount the essence of the libertarian Republican’s appeal:  the Texas Congressman has long been unequivocal in his opposition to big government.  He may have some rather isolationist views on foreign policy and may have showed a lack of good judgment in publishing his newsletter, but on domestic issues at least, the candidate is in tune with the times.
If he is to be successful in November, the eventual Republican nominee bears that in mind.  Should the nation be so fortunate as to see that nominee replace the incumbent come January 20, 2013, he must needs act in the spirit of Ron Paul’s domestic agenda, that is, on fiscal issues.  And perhaps even monetary ones.