Image 01 Image 03

Counterweight Only Swing States In The General

Counterweight Only Swing States In The General

I would like to propose an additional criterion for Operation Counterweight, for those that want to ensure a more conservative congress to go along with a Romney presidency (It’s pretty clear that’s the contingency that OC is preparing for, so let’s talk in those terms).

The conservative grassroots cannot assume that Romney will defeat Obama without us voting and mobilizing with everything we’ve got. Romney will need our help to send Obama back to Chicago. As Instapundit reminds us in his blog comment of the day:

Plenty of otherwise intelligent people convinced themselves to vote for Obama last time. They could be stupid again. Too soon to get cocky.

Those who also want a more conservative Congress should, in the general, prioritize districts that are also in swing states. OC won’t be so useful without a GOP win at the presidential level, so this way people can go out to vote for whom they are excited to vote for while still pushing the ball forward in getting rid of Obama.

Besides, if OC had the carrot of reverse coattails (I.e. Up-ticket candidates benefitting from enthusiasm for down ticket candidates) to balance the stick of unhappiness, it can be seen as helping the party in addition to challenging it.

Now truth be told, OC does not excite me. For one, I like Romney, although sucessfully electing conservatives to congress is always a good thing. If he does not disappoint, the new conservative officeholders will be just as handy as if he did, but if he is not elected, they won’t be counterbalancing any better than congress is now.

However, putting that aside, OC will cost us some votes at the presidential level regardless, because campaign efforts properly organized and centralized can be better optimized. I understand that some will be unwilling to join up at their local RNC/Romney base of operations and ask for their marching orders, and that downticket candidates need staff too (although in all likelihood the GOP will have joint operations in many places anyway). However, it is best for the conservative movement, the GOP, and the country that we keep in mind that the left will be pulling out all the stops to keep Obama in office, and we cannot afford to waste resources in our quest to stop them.

If you can get the vote out for a candidate you are enthusiastic about, but also help Romney beat Obama, you can efficiently use resources while sticking to your commitments to focus on candidates that you can enthusiastically support. For those who for whatever reason are unable to tow the party line, this is the optimal strategy.

(As an additional side comment, while I understand advocating conservative candidates in conservative districts that have vulnerable Democrats, I don’t see why having a vulnerable Republican is a plus. In a district in which a moderate incumbent Republican is vulnerable, a more conservative candidate is more likely to do worse than better In a district where a Republican is safe, however, there is more room for primary challenges that do not risk aggravating the problem by giving the Democrats the seat.)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Is everybody writing off Herman Cain?

    Awing1 in reply to Viator. | October 10, 2011 at 10:25 am

    It would be hard for me to vote for someone who supports religious discrimination on such blatant terms. Romney is the best choice to gain the moderate vote.

      You do realize that once Romney is nominated Hollywood Media Mouths from Bill Maher to Sgt Schultz to Rachel Maddow will be offering a plethora of Mormon mockery, ridicule, jokes.

      All the stuff to make Romney “unelectable”; like the comment said, plenty of intelligent people INCLUDING MODERATES voted for Obama and MODERATES will be just dumb enough to vote for Obama again.

      I’ll show up to vote for ABO but don’t kid yourself that somehow Romney will not be assaulted with the same tactics employed against Palin.

        Awing1 in reply to syn. | October 10, 2011 at 11:07 am

        Where did I say he wouldn’t be attacked? All I said was Romney was the best chance to get moderates, as most moderates don’t care about someone’s religion so long as the candidate doesn’t want to impose it on them. And I pointed out that it would be a close call between Cain and Obama for me because I fear a man that would allow communities to ban a particular religious establishment in their community based purely on its faith. As an agnostic leaning towards atheist, such rhetoric scares me.

          syn in reply to Awing1. | October 10, 2011 at 3:11 pm

          You missed the point entirely; by the time the media is done with Romney’s religion Moderates will be so bamboozled they’ll beg for Obama to come and savior them; Moderates are just stupid enough to believe.

          Remember, it was the Moderate who voted Obama into office; why would you place such high value on losers who voted for this disaster?

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | October 10, 2011 at 3:50 pm

          I don’t think I missed the point, it was addressed when I said “most moderates don’t care about someone’s religion so long as the candidate doesn’t want to impose it on them.” I think that’s generally true.
          Moderates voted for Obama because they didn’t want another conservative after Bush and because of the media attacks on Palin. Those attacks were only effective because Palin was brand new, so there was a lot to say and people love listening to novelty. That doesn’t exist with Romney, we’ve all heard the attacks on him and on Mormonism, and most moderates are convinced he can separate his religion from his politics, as evidenced by his time as Gov. of Mass. The “Palinization” is not something you can effectively do to an established candidate.

          huskers-for-palin in reply to Awing1. | October 10, 2011 at 7:07 pm

          The “Palinization” is not something you can effectively do to an established candidate.

          Like “it’s my turn” Bob Dole and “read my lips” Bush 41?. Anyone can be “Palinized”. All you have to do is tell the lie long enough and be shrill enough. What matters is how strongly they’re defended with a big enough counter argument with those who are willing to do it.

          When Palin was getting socked with frivolus ethics complaints (500k-600k) or being accused of blood libel, a lot of people in the establishment turned their collective backs on her (would be interesting to see these same people try to kiss up to her in the primaries/general….already got one of those calls yesterday).

          Romney, what comes around goes around.

    janitor in reply to Viator. | October 10, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    I am not writing off Cain. I would almost rather skip voting on the presidential race than vote for Romney.

… send Obama back to Chicago.

We don’t WANT him back here! May we please insist on return to Hawaii?

bob aka either orr | October 10, 2011 at 11:43 am

It is time for some sophisticated decision-making here, but slowing the process is the different paces at which redistricting is going on. Here in Pa., they’re just now working on it. I don’t know who my congressman is going to be — likely either Gerlach (who has a history of enviro dubious votes) or Pitts (much closer to Tea Party ideals). I do know, though, that it’s Get Casey time for the Senate. And I’ve heard one interesting candidate — David Christian, war hero, small businessman, pretty well known in SEPA.
It seems like Murtha’s old seat is the one that is going to fall off the map, since his demise. The question becomes: will the GOP try to protect some of the newcomers (Lou Barletta, Tom Merino, Charlie Dent, Pat Meehan) or go after a Dem whose seat might be vulnerable (Tim Holden, Jason Altmire) in the congenitally-Democrat, but Reagan-Dem areas?

    Re: Protecting new Republicans vs going after vulnerable Democrat seats.

    Why can’t they do both? It would take some coordination, but it isn’t impossible to both protect the new seats and go after the vulnerable at the same time. It’s just a matter of identifying the key issues common to all districts, and attacking those that the Democrat party has ignored.

    For Pennsylvania, I would guess it’s Energy Independence (Coal Mining, Natural Gas), the Health Care Individual Mandate, Taxes (always a go-to subject), and Illegal Immigration.

“All I said was Romney was the best chance to get moderates, as most moderates don’t care about someone’s religion so long as the candidate doesn’t want to impose it on them.” (Quote, AWing1)

I don’t think that most moderates are convinced he can separate his religion from his politics, because I don’t think that most moderates have ever actually been required to consider it, since he wasn’t the nominee in 2008.

Unfortunately this will become the immediate tag-line and attack of the Liberals: Romney is a Mormon. Mormon’s want to impose their religion on everybody. They are required to proselytize by their religion. Vote against Romney so he doesn’t impose his religion on you.”

The “moderate” brainless masses (aka independents) can’t (or won’t) take the time to analyze the attack, they’ll just take it at face value, thus destroying the point of having a “moderate” Republican candidate.

I think it unlikely that Romney is the best chance at the “Moderate” vote, and he will unquestionably alienate the TEA Partiers in the process, who will be necessary in order to win in November.

Now, I won’t actively campaign against Romney, I will hold my nose and vote for him if it comes to that. But, if he becomes the nominee AND he wins AND he fails to deliver on Conservative principles Romney will be suffering from his OWN backlash in Congress where Romney’s priorities will take a back seat.

In large part, that’s why the presidency was lost to Obama in the first place: the establishment picked a “moderate” in McCain thinking that it would draw the “moderate” vote from the center. The Conservatives stayed home in protest. Doing so again will likely lead to a third party presidential candidate (at best, leading to retention of the House and control of the Senate) or the same result as 2008 (at worst, where Conservatives stay home) where the Democrat party takes back control and screws us over again for another 2 years.

If Romney becomes the nominee, I expect you’re suddenly going to see a whole bunch of scrambling at the local level by the TEA Partiers again to try to shore up the local level electoral victories in 2013, because they’ll think that Romney will ignore them or abandon them.

huskers-for-palin | October 10, 2011 at 6:54 pm

I concure. In the local circles I travel with (9-12 and TP), Romney is as appealing as milk-toast. Many have said that if Romey is the nominee, they would rather work on Senate, House and State races. He’s got a lot of work to do if he wants their help.

I’m also in touch with the O4P (organize for Palin) volunteer network and rumor has it that Palin will be issuing marching orders in the next few weeks. She and her network plan to get involved in the same manor of 2010, only bigger.

Fun times indeed.

Mr. Knee,

I would not support Mitt Romney, nor vote for him, if Joseph Smith appeared before me in person and begged.

The man is a more boring form of Obama. He is as conservative as Obama is, only slower. In other words, that dog won’t hunt.

I have come to the realization that he will be the chosen of the RNC in spite of the fact that he is the furthest candidate from a real conservative running as a Republican. So I won’t vote for the RNC candidate.

Done. No convincing. Ain’t happenin’. Obama can have the Oval Office because the RNC has once again shot their foot off in the primaries. It’s 2008 all over again and I’m not falling for it. I voted for McCain only because of Palin.

Won’t get fooled again, Mr. Knee. I’m done.

I’ll vote third party. I’m not throwing my vote away. Those voting for Romney are going to do so. If they were to vote third party instead we could swing this nation toward real conservatives instead of phoney baloney half-a**ed conservatives like Romney and McCain.

I should compromise? No. Frum should compromise. Bill Kristol should compromise. I’m done with the compromise thing. Lead, follow or get out of the way. Compromise with phoney conservatives is just getting to Obama land slower.