Washington Post PostPartisan Blog: How the Tea Party nominated Mitt Romney

[Julian Englis]

From The Washington Post PostPartisan Blog:

The great mystery of the 2012 Republican nomination contest is why conservatives, who clearly were uneasy with Mitt Romney, chose to sit on their hands and thus accept him rather than rallying to one of the alternatives out there – whether it was Tim Pawlenty, or Rick Perry, or Haley Barbour, or John Thune, or even, late in the day, to Rick Santorum.

Ed Kilgore has a good theory today: it’s that the GOP has moved so far to the right that none of the candidates has a clean slate on the issues which motivate Tea Partiers. For example, Rick Perry’s downfall was as much about immigration and vaccination as it was about his poor debate performances; Rick Santorum was an earmarker. And thus to voters, it was hard to see any of the (actually very real) differences between Romney and his opponents.

Could be! But I prefer a very similar, but more elite-driven explanation. The problem perhaps isn’t so much that conservatives couldn’t tell the difference between Romney and the others. It’s that the others failed to gather enough resources to run viable campaigns – and that failure was because for conservative leaders, sitting it out has become the only safe choice. Support Thune, and next thing you know you’ll be accused of supporting TARP. Support Santorum, and you might be an earmarker. Support Perry, and you may be accused of practically begging young girls to become sexually active (because Perry supported cancer vaccinations). Even worse: you never know which of a candidate’s old policy positions will become retroactively radioactive because Barack Obama adopts it. So there’s no way to know what the safe selection might be.

So conservative leaders stayed quiet, with the exception of a handful who endorsed Perry before his campaign imploded. And as a result, Thune (and Daniels, and Barbour, and others) never got into the race all the way, and Pawlenty dropped out in the summer, and Santorum never had the resources to compete.

The whole thing at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/how-the-tea-party-nominated-mitt-romney/2012/03/23/gIQAhr08VS_blog.html

Ah, yes, conservatives boxed in by their own need to be more pure than the other. Political correctness at its most enjoyable?

[grantcart]

1. Simpler explanation

While Romney is a deeply flawed candidate he is atleast a reasonable facsimile of a national candidate.

All of the others were even more deeply flawed and either discredited or completely unable to handle the complexity of organization or the depth of issues of a national campaign.

Even so Romney is going to just barely get it.

Had they nominated a single competent (i.e. Conservative Governor) Romney would have been dead meat.

[Julian Englis]

2. Would you be able to name any competent conservative governors whom might have run?

Honestly, I have no idea who could fit the bill. I imagine some one would but I cannot think of one off the top of my head.

[Mr.Turnip]

3. Really if the Teahadist had managed to rally behind Newt or Santorum entirely

One of them would have won.

[Blue_Tires]

4. The real answer is because the "Tea Party" is just an illusory, all-encompassing boogeyman

controlled by billionaires up top...It's supposed to be the icon of angry white middle-class America, but it's just a mirage that miraculously morphs its aims and goals whenever it is convenient...It helps that it's gotten propped up by certain shills in the media, and some useful idiots buy into what's being sold to them so they can feel like an against-the-grain third-party revolutionary instead of the same old GOP they've always been...

Three full years later (and I asked this then), can ANYONE give a proper, concise summary of what the TP stands for? Do they have one leader who isn't self appointed? Have any of these podunk state/county/regional party leaders EVER had a consistent message when CNN and Fox give them air time?? And yet, so many people want us to believe the TP is some unstoppable tidal wave with unbreakable, behind-the-scenes control of the GOP -- Why even several GOP leaders have thrown up their hands in public because they're supposedly so powerless to stop the TP crazies from taking over the primaries (even though their boy Ron Paul is still an afterthought)...

Once upon a time, there was a "real", if I can call it that, Tea Party born in the aftermath of the '08 election that was the unholiest of marriages uniting disgruntled Ron Paul supporters (smaller, smarter group of organizers and net activists, but many of them are loner kooks), and Sarah Palin supporters (WAY larger group of knuckle-dragging cultists, but they've got more people, money and Palin is a lot more marketable/media savvy), along with a sprinkling of the LaRouche/Rockwell/Alex Jones/Stormfront/Birther crowd...All they had in common was a hatred of the president and the somewhat sane people who had the nerve to say anything positive about him, much less vote for him...While this moron convention is investigating Kenyan birth records and infighting over whether Paul or Palin should lead the new American republic in 2112, the Koch crowd and their partners quietly take over and steal the budding TP name and budding media recognition to make it their own to control, and the moron convention is too dumb and disjointed to notice...

The bottom line is if the TP (which isn't a party anymore so much as a political platform for zealotry) had a fraction of the power the media ascribe to it, then Ron Paul would be running away with this primary (or they'd drag Sarah into the race kicking and screaming) and they'd sooner burn the nation down before throwing their primary support behind the current candidates who could never live up to their schizo views

[JNelson6563]

5. I have often wondered at those on our side

who would do the same thing to the Dems.

Julie