Well it's time for the "Washington insiders" to tell us how nobody but Mitt Romney can possibly win and how, absolutely, Newt would be unthinkable. Here is their sage advice from straight from the horse's mouth in the National Journal--Hotline On Call:
Insiders Not Sold on Gingrich
December 2, 2011 | 10:07 AM
The Gingrich Moment has yet to catch on with National Journal's Political Insiders. Despite former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's surge in the Republican presidential nomination contest, overwhelming majorities of both Democratic and Republican Insiders still say former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has the better shot at beating President Obama in 2012.
For some of the Insiders, Romney's well-oiled campaign and potential for moderate appeal gave him the edge.
"He almost beat a liberal icon in a blue state and went on to win the governor's race," said one Democratic Insider. "He is a very strong general-election candidate."
"Mitt Romney is better positioned to speak to independent voters," said another Democrat, "including key voting blocs like swing unmarried women." A Republican strategist agreed. "Romney is more acceptable to moderate voters, especially female voters."
Oh my! What a quandary! Whatever shall we do?
These "insiders," we are told are all knowing and all wise when it comes to politics. We simple souls have no clue as to how wise they are and we ignore their advice at our own risk.
Well . . . let's see what history says of the accuracy of the recommendations of these "insiders."
- In 1976, we all wanted Ronald Reagan, but in their infinite wisdom, the "insiders"--being all knowing and all wise said "No! It must be Gerald Ford!"
--Jimmy Carter was elected President.
- In 1980, we again wanted Ronald Reagan and they wanted GHW Bush, because Ronald Reagan "can't possibly win." We ignored their advice and chose Ronald Reagan in spite of their advice.
--Reagan won by one of the largest landslide victories in history.
- In 1988, GHW Bush finally got his chance, because everyone believed he would be a 3rd Reagan term. We went from "No new taxes," to tax and spend ala Democrat. Nice guy though Bush 41 was, as soon as the electorate got a chance to replace him, they did.
--In 1992 we got Bill Clinton.
- In 1996, running against a severely damaged President Clinton, these oh so wise "insiders" gave us Bob Dole, because "it's his turn."
--We got hammered (by that severely damaged and vulnerable Bill Clinton).
- In 2000, they wanted McCain, but we wanted GW Bush. We didn't take their sage advice and "Who knew?"
--George W. Bush defeated the incumbent Vice-president Al Gore.
- In 2008, the "insiders" wanted McCain again and this time, we foolishly acquiesced and they finally got him.
--We got Barack Hussein Obama, a man who had to be the easiest target in history.
Now, here we are again. The "insiders" are once again telling us who we should select to carry the Republican banner against this Clown Prince Narcissist in Chief.
Do Republican voters really want to listen to what these "insiders" are telling us??? They might be right--after all, they are "insiders," but their record of accuracy (or should I say "inaccuracy") leaves a lot to be desired.
I recommend that we ignore the advise of these "insiders" like the plague. They don't have a clue.
A man of principle, who runs as an unapologetic conservative and who can articulate what conservatism stands for and why it is preferable to the liberalism Democrats offer, will win hands down.
A compromiser and "moderate" who makes insiders "feel comfortable," has little to offer different from what the liberal Democrats offer.
You want to lose, follow the "sage" advice of these "insiders" and pick Mitt. You want to win, go with Newt, or Perry, or Bachmann.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!