Topic category:  Election Fraud

The GOP nomination process has held my attention since it began. I am among the many Americans who realize the survival of our constitutional republic is at stake this November. President Obama must not only be defeated, he must be crushed in a landslide so massive it sweeps away Democrat control of the Senate and once again puts the adults in charge. Anything short of that will be a serious obstacle to our nation's embarking on the dramatic changes needed to put our nation on sound economic and fiscal footing.

Consequently, following the GOP primaries has been an experience that is both painful and disheartening for the course it has taken. We have candidates who have been advised to "go negative" by attacking their GOP opponents rather than speaking out about the devastating impact to this country that a second Obama term would bring (as if things aren't bad enough). People don't really want to hear candidates (or their PACs) blasting each other with invective and innuendo. People want to hear what each candidate views as the critical issues and how, specifically, that candidate would approach solutions to those our nation's problems.

Each of the surviving candidates has merits that would make any one of them far better than the alternative (another four years of Obama). So it has come down to evaluating how each of the candidates conducts himself during these primaries. At one point, I was impressed with Newt Gingrich for staying above the fray and obeying Reagan's cardinal rule to speak no ill of your fellow Republicans. Then along came South Carolina and Newt joined the chorus of negativity that he himself had been victim of in Iowa. Newt's concession speech the night of his second-place finish to Romney in Florida may have been the pinnacle of this primary season for him.

Since Florida, it's been one negative campaign after another, until just recently when candidates must have begun to realize that they were turning off voters in droves (low turnouts tell a lot). Romney appeared to be gaining voter approval and that resurgence was capped off with a convincing win in the Illinois primary. When his win was apparent, Romney delivered perhaps his best post primary speeches of the campaign (his "Gingrich" moment?) in attacking the utter failure of Barack Obama in his term as President.

Romney's speech took it right to Obama and is the approach that will be effective and have wide appeal to both conservatives and moderates as well as Republicans, Independents, and dissatisfied Democrats. Only Progressives, Marxists, Socialists, and others on the rabid far-Left could find fault with Romney's analysis of Obama's dismal record.

Yet the first thing Romney's senior campaign advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom does the morning after the election is go on CNN and undercut everything Romney said in his speech the night before, claiming what Romney said was "just part of getting the nomination. We'll wipe it out when we get into the general." That kind of brazen puffery is an egregious insult to the American voter! Not only has Fehrnstrom insulted the American voter and undercut the credibility of Romney's campaign with that idiotic statement, he has taken the hard-fought budding support for his campaign from conservative voters and simply tossed it aside. Back to square one!

And why? Based on his comments to CNN, it is because he believes what is characterized as "establishment Republican" belief that a conservative candidate cannot beat Obama. To the contrary, it will take an effective conservative candidate who is both sincere and direct with the people to remove the present presidential blight. Any attempt to "out moderate" Obama is doomed to failure. Haven't any of these establishment "Republicans" ever seen the polls that reveal that 60% of the people in this country are either conservative or leaning conservative? So why try to appeal to so-called "moderates"? Appeal to that 60% whether they are Republicans, Independents or Democrats.

But it will never happen with people like Fehrnstrom in charge of candidate's campaigns.

I can attest to this assessment. To date, I've been lukewarm to the Romney campaign as I failed to see any evidence that Romney understands that unconstitutional governance (on a massive scale and by both parties) is responsible for our nation drifting to the brink of complete collapse over the past few years. My biggest concern with Romney has been that he hasn't seemed genuine, nor does it appear he appreciates that it will take a lot more than just better executive skills to fix the quagmire in which this nation finds itself mired. Then in recent weeks, I was just beginning to sense that maybe, just maybe, Romney does "get it" and that he might make the best candidate, particularly with recent strong numbers when pitted against Obama in polling.

Then along comes this incompetent blowhard, Eric Fehrnstrom, to speak on CNN, essentially claiming that what candidate Romney had told the nation the night before was a bunch of malarky designed to fool conservatives into giving Romney their support.

There is only one thing that Romney can do to demonstrate he is in charge and is a true executive responsible for his own campaign. At the very least, Romney must fire Fehrnstrom and apologize to the people for his poor choice of advisor. That swift action, coupled with a short, simple speech that reinforces his sincerity Tuesday evening, would at least strike a match that might begin to re-ignite a building fire of conservative support that was doused by Fehrnstrom's asinine remarks on CNN.

Get to it, Mitt. Time is wasting. The choice is yours - it's either Fehrnstrom or your candidacy.

Bob Webster
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)

Biography - Bob Webster

Author of "Looking Out the Window", an evidence-based examination of the "climate change" issue, Bob Webster, is a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s). He is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.

A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.