A number of well-respected conservative talk radio hosts have been concerned that Romney seems “stuck” at below 50% of GOP voters in most state primaries to date. How, they ask, can Romney beat Obama if he cannot consistently muster 50% of the GOP vote? I believe these concerns are unfounded.
First, let’s agree that there is no reasonable scenario under which Mitt Romney will not be the Republican presidential candidate. It’s over. The numbers do not lie.
So that leaves the question, who will win in November?
A number of well-respected conservative talk radio hosts have expressed concern that Romney seems “stuck” at below 50% of GOP voters in most state primaries to date. How, they ask, can Romney beat Obama if he cannot consistently muster 50% of the GOP vote? I believe these concerns are unfounded.
In any primary campaign with three or four major candidates (or even two major and two minor candidates) remaining in the race, it necessarily will be very difficult for any one candidate to consistently poll more than 50% of voters.
Here's why. Suppose as few as 15% of voters give their combined support to the two minor candidates in a four-candidate primary. That leaves just 85% of the remainder to be divided between the two major candidates. If the major candidates virtually split the vote, with one receiving 43% of the vote and the other 42%, the 15% voting for the minor candidates added to the 42% to the second place major candidate, a whopping 57% of GOP voters in the primary will not have voted for the primary winner! That is perfectly normal for a four-candidate race.
However, when the choice is narrowed down between the GOP nominee and another four disastrous years of the worst president in US history, the GOP vote will be 100% behind their nominee. For any GOP voter to make another choice in the general election would tantamount to committing an act of electoral treason.
Those who are concerned that Romney is not "conservative enough" must now consider the real question. Is Romney better or worse for the nation than Obama?
Has Romney claimed we are no longer a Christian nation? No. But Obama has.
Has Romney claimed he will sign a bill repealing Obamacare? Yes. But Obama will not.
Has Romney committed his administration to increasing domestic oil, coal, and gas exploration and recovery? Yes. But Obama will continue to use his administration to block any such efforts with higher and higher gas and electric prices the consequence.
Has Romney made private sector job creation a major thrust of his administration? Yes. Obama has presided over the longest stretch of double-digit unemployment since the Great Depression. Obama inherited much lower unemployment when he assumed office than there will be when he departs. Obama is openly disdainful of private enterprise capitalism.
Has Romney committed to controlling the growth and cost of government? Yes. Obama has accelerated government growth and has not had a single budget passed during his term in office while presiding of staggering deficits and the most rapid build-up of national debt in this nation's history! And he had two years of a solid Democrat Congress when he first took office and managed to parlay that into the first-ever downgrading of US Bond ratings.
Has Romney promised to remove unproductive federal roadblocks to expanding free enterprise and job growth? Yes. Obama’s open hostility to the economic vitality of free enterprise capitalism is deep-seated and irrational.
Has Romney promised to eliminate the nearly four dozen unconstitutional Czar’s Obama appointed? Yes. Obama created them.
There is not a single fiscal measure or economic policy issue where the two candidates do not come up as polar opposites.
No rational, informed person could sustain the position that "there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Romney and Obama." It is foolhardy to even think such a thing.
Perhaps Mitt Romney is not today’s Ronald Reagan, but who is? And it might just be that what this country needs most at this juncture is a Mitt Romney who can pave the road for the Ronald Reagan of tomorrow.
To those Ron Paul supporters whose rigidity might impel them to write in Paul’s name instead of supporting Romney in November, I have one suggestion. Review each of Ron Paul’s key issues and actually investigate which candidate, Romney or Obama, would be most open to considering the merits of Paul's views. I submit that by doing that you must conclude that Romney is the far better choice than Obama. For example, consider the likelihood that Romney or Obama would take a stand to reign in or even abolish the Federal Reserve. Which of the two is more likely to take the advice or Ron Paul? Romney or Obama? No clear-thinking person could possibly answer Obama. That should tell Ron Paul supporters what they must do in November if they care at all for their country's future survival.
Finally, it would be a big mistake to focus only on the Presidential election.
Congressional elections are extremely important, particularly the Senate races. No matter who is President, the Senate needs to be put in the hands of a new generation of bright young Republicans. The Senate has been in the grip of a highly partisan political hack ever since Democrats took control after the 2006 elections. It is very important that the largest Republican Senate majority possible is elected in 2012 so that, should some horrible stroke of bad luck result in Obama being re-elected, the Senate will have a veto-proof and filibuster-proof majority of Republicans pledged to repeal Obamacare.
Remember, readers, November 6 is “national take out the garbage” day!
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.