Tuesday, 3 January 2012

The "Right" Candidate is the one who can Win


What I am about to say will not please many readers, but, in the present circumstances, the best possible outcome of today's GOP primary vote in Iowa would be for Mitt Romney to win and then go on to become nominated as the Republican party candidate for this year's US presidential election.

There is one reason for that, which is that Romney is the only candidate with a reasonable chance of beating Obama, and that is all that matters.

Ron Paul supporters, who view Dr. Paul as the last great chance to save the West, need to wake up to a dose of reality, he might be if he could win, but he can’t win, so he isn’t.

Likewise, members of the “anyone but Romney” brigade need to realise that the only beneficiary of their strategy will be Obama. Not one of the various alternative candidates are serious contenders with the remotest chance of winning in November.  Just close your eyes for one moment and try to imagine either Gingrich or Santorum in the White house and the lunacy of that proposition becomes clear.  Neither man has the gravitas, or basic attractiveness to appeal to the uncommitted centre and disenchanted Obama supporters who will be essential for victory in the America the Democrats have created.

This is no time for joke candidates. Did they learn nothing from the debacle that was Herman Cain?

As to the other options, Perry briefly looked like a president, but all that fell apart the moment the moment he opened his mouth and although Michelle Bachmann appeared impressive to start with her credibility was swiftly undermined, less by her wild eyes, than by her by her seemingly compulsive proclivity for saying incredibly stupid things.
 
Romney is the right candidate  If America is to survive. He is also the right candidate for Nationalists who need to break a habit of a lifetime and finally unite around someone who can actually win.  For too long we have demanded that the "right" leader must have qualities which are almost impossible to achieve. We have to realise that in the real world a cynical and compromised victory is worth a thousand ideologically pure and noble defeats.

Ideological purity is not worth a damn if it can’t achieve power.

Republicans should take a lesson from both the both the British Labour and Tory parties which persisted in appointing ideologically pure losers to lead their parties into electoral defeat. Only blinkered politicians in the Tory party could have imagined that Hague, Duncan-Smith or even Michael Howard were anything other than electoral poison albeit sound on policy.

Likewise, the Labour party had consigned themselves to eighteen years out of power until they eventually bit the bullet and elected the most ideologically impure of candidates Tony Blair.  An act which was disastrous for the Britain, but which gave Labour power, and the ability to change the country beyond recognition. 
 
Just imagine what could have been achieved if that power had been used for good.

Thankfully Labour has again embraced defeat with their choice of two more totally useless leaders (the stupidity of choosing the unelectable Miliband brother is risible) the Republicans must not make the same mistake.

If America is to survive and undo that the damage which has been done, it needs to defeat Obama and remove the malevolent Democratic party from power.  If the only man who can do that is not ideologically perfect, we are long past the point where that matters.

America, and indeed the West, may not have the time remaining to survive a principled failure.

______________________

Update: From this morning's news I see the latest "Anyone but Mitt" joke candidate managed to force a score draw.  It is starting to look more like Obama is safe for another four years every day! If so, America may not survive.  Up to you guys!

28 comments:

Liberal Heresy said...

Why?

The question should be would there be significant change? Would any of Obama's policies actually be overturned? Would Bush junior's?

Should not you ask yourself whether the position of POTUS is in fact the commanding position or is it just the public face of a more permanent layer of power?

Anyone but Blair? We have Cameron FGS! Removing a leftish frontman from power does not remove the progressives from power.

Anonymous said...

The only difference between Obama and Romney (with anything that matters anyway) is physiological.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Yes, but nominating someone who can't win won't get rid of the progressives either.

Romney may not be an ideal candidate, but he is the only one who can win, and the alternative is another four years of Obama, which is surely worse.

Anonymous said...

"Browning America" by Perry Oldham

A "Browning America"
Oh boy! I can't wait!
No more welfare, food stamps or Section 8,
Favelas as far as the eye can see,
Full of brown and black masses in poverty.

A Browning America
Oh joy! What a fate!
A babel of strangers - ain't Diversity great?
With a white elite ruling, above the law,
Paramilitary cops: how their splendid tanks roar!

A Browning America
Ahoy! Stop the hate!
Little street children beg and smoke crack at the gate,
And don't you be caught after dark out of doors,
For the streets are alive with pimps, robbers and whores.

A Third World America
Like Troy - it's too late!
Now the tide can't be stopped and the flood's in full spate,
And in place of that sunlit childhood home,
All I hear are the groans of a dying Rome.

Anonymous said...

Yes I agree Its Romney for Prez. He has a C- on immgration , which is the main point of this election.
Obama and Ron Paul both share an F. on immgratoin - source numbersusa.com
As to Ron Paul , the same people who projected magical qualites on OBama are now projecting onto Ron Paul.

Anonymous said...

Sarah,
You are absolutely correct. Mitt Romney has to be the candidate if the Republicans are to have any chance of winning the Presidency, and for the US to achieve any progress. For a better explanation than I can give:
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-12-28.html
Happy New Year.
roger in florida

Anonymous said...

Spot on, Sarah. Added to which Romney is the only candidate sound onimmgration.

Anonymous said...

"As to Ron Paul , the same people who projected magical qualites on OBama are now projecting onto Ron Paul."

What planet are you living on?

Tobias said...

I just wanted to say I totally disagree. Stand up and do what you believe is right. Accepting the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Macaw said...

I just read that Romney won the first round in Iowa. If he goes on to be POTUS, how long will it take for him and the republicans to right the mess that Obama has made. If memory serves, the USA is 15 trillion in debt (could be more).

I have not seen much on his foreign policy. How is he going to handle China, the Euro crisis, the oil exploration off the Alaskan coast, Iran (as they just will not go away), et al.

As an outsider I still cannot grasp that Obama could succeed in another four years where he will totally obliterate the US from any first world standing.

Liberal Heresy said...

"Romney favors increased immigration to the United States and opposes illegal immigration, saying "I want to see more immigration in our country, but more legal immigration and less illegal immigration." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Immigration

Radical times call for radical solutions. The USA is in trouble, like Russia in Afghanistan it is over extended, in a deep depression has almost separated itself from its constitutional safeguards (Bush & Obama)and has a wide range of other problems.

If we accept that underneath most candidates is a more durable power structure then why promote someone who will give to Americans an illusion of change without substance? Is this not how the political pendulum system allows the retention of power? Was Bush better than Obama? The dire straights of America's situation means that Paul is being considered, although he himself is still a 'wet'. Let us hope that RP can make inroads, but even if Romney wins, it is just a staging post towards an eventual larger crisis.

Rusty Mason said...

"Ron Paul supporters, who view Dr. Paul as the last great chance to save the West, need to wake up to a dose of reality, he might be if he could win, but he can’t win, so he isn’t."

Sarah, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The duty of each of us is to vote for the best candidate, not to try to guess what the rest of the herd will do. We've been doing THAT far too long and look where it has gotten us.

You need to "wake up," my dear. No candidate will save us; people will get the kind of government we deserve and we, frankly, are real stinkers. Second, none of the other candidates is any different from Bush or Obama. Shut off the FauxNews and clear your head.

Rusty Mason said...

"Ron Paul supporters, who view Dr. Paul as the last great chance to save the West, need to wake up to a dose of reality, he might be if he could win, but he can’t win, so he isn’t."

Sarah, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The duty of each of us is to vote for the best candidate, not to try to guess what the rest of the herd will do. We've been doing THAT far too long and look where it has gotten us.

You need to "wake up," my dear. No candidate will save us; people will get the kind of government we deserve and we, frankly, are real stinkers. Second, none of the other candidates is any different from Bush or Obama. Shut off the FauxNews and clear your head.

Liberal Heresy said...

And here is the reason not to promote the other end of the horse in the two party pantomime.

Cameron's hollow promises gives the MSM license to play along.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thecolumnists/2011/10/anthony-browne-immigration-appears-to-be-cooling-as-an-issue.html

John McNeill said...

I'm really surprised to see this. I wouldn't dream of telling British nationalists to vote for the Tories to keep Labour out. They are both rotten parties, likewise the GOP is just as bad as the Democrats on immigration, a few exceptions of course.

We're beyond political reform at this point. Let Obama/Romney do their damage, and pick up the pieces afterwards.

Anonymous said...

Obama would be the best POTUS by far. Let him have another four years. The quicker the US and the West fall, the quicker we can begin to rebuild. Perhaps if enough Whites watch long enough, some will clue in as a Third Worlder works to make the US another Third World country.

yorkshirebob said...

Sarah,just picked up on a comment to the Frank Ellis 'Letter to the Home Secretary regarding Emma West'(Anonymous 3 January 2012 3.26) Unfortunately the Ellis letter is off your blog screen. I really like this guy's way of thinking which dovetail's nicely with the two latest comments on this blog, John McNeill and Anonymous 4 Jan 2012 @ 16.58

Dr.D said...

Romney would be very little different from Obama. They are both socialist, they are both for the NWO. If this is the choice, we lose either way.

Romney won Iowa by only 8 votes out of over 220 thousand votes cast. That means that Santorum effectively tied him, and further that Ron Paul was very, very close behind.

In actual fact, Ron Paul may get most of the electoral votes because the Paul people were organized to stay after the popular vote to secure election to the party offices that will eventually determine the state's electors. The electors are not bound by the popular vote but may vote there consciences, which may mean that they vote for Ron Paul when the final Electoral College vote comes.

Liberal Heresy said...

Immigration: Illegal aliens are recognised as largely illegitimate across all racial groups in the US (even Mexicans).

The majority of these come from Mexico which does not offer quite the same logistical hurdles that Europeans would face in moving their illegal aliens out of their territories.

As their number increase their presence incurs significant burdens on the host population, making normalisation (amnesty) very difficult politically.

Additionally, it appears that due to high levels of legal immigration from mostly non-western countries large parts of the US are voluntarily self-segregating geographically and those that do not segregate locally and culturally.

The productive sectors of the US economy are creaking under the weight of the demands upon them and the debt mountain is likely to become increasingly unserviceable.

I like to assume that the increasingly illiberal measures taken in the US show some foresight regarding these issues and are making provisions for a cataclysm.

If this Pollyanna'ish thumbnail is in any way a fair representation of what is occurring then eventually European America can rescue itself.

Whether it then includes within its ranks those determined to ignore what has gone before, i.e. race blind liberals will depend on how big the crash, how scarce the resources and the quality of the leadership that forms around them.

N.B. This may appear totally garbled. Blogger Comments boxes are not ideal.

concentric said...

That's like me saying Britain must vote for Cameron because he's the only one who can beat Brown.

Truth is, Obama is the same as Bush. Mitt will just increase government spending go to war with anyone and everyone Israel doesn't like just like Obama. I''m voting for Dr. Paul in the primary. Isn't it a little early for this? There just primaries. If you said this after Mitt had already won i'd get it but it's way to early.

How's The Dave working out for you by the way? Because Mitt will work out the same.

Anonymous said...

Hello Sarah, long time reader, first time commenter. I was wondering, with the "rachet-effect" that the left imposes (politically, in the media, socially, etc.) and the right meekly accepts- would it not be interesting to vote the radical into power for 4 more years? Then hope for the increasingly raised racial conciousness of the dwindling majority to hit a breaking point resulting in a casus belli that would force real "CHANGE". Otherwise, I forsee a Republican president who simply maintains the status quo and merely keeps the Office warmed up long enough until another Democrat comes along to move the chains yet again to the left, to national calamity, to the reduction of the white majority to a politically-weak minority, to the destruction of a once great nation. What say you? Madness? Or a temporary betrayal for long-term loyalty to what really matters?

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

No its not madness, there is certainly an argument that another four years of Obama would expose the progressive agenda for what it is and that would be the end of it

However it is a huge risk

Jim said...

I really agree with you on this one and I have been hoping for Mitt Romney mainly because he is the only high profile GOP candidate who is not an extremist.

We don't need an ultra rightist in there.

an American moderate would be in the far right in Europe and even Obama would be considered a moderate in most of the world.

being a little left of the others hardly makes him a commie Marxist as I've heard.

The main problem with our current President is a lack of leadership experience so he really doesn't know how to express his ideas so people understand him.

Too used to preaching to the choir and it doesn't help he has surrounded himself with cronies.

although that is business as usual in D.C which is something he did promise to avoid.

john said...

Uh Jim, there is NO candidate, including Paul, who is an 'far rightist'. Oh, if you're out there with lenin, maybe so, but not in reality.
Paul could indeed win if he had any support from the RNC, but they are in reality no better than the DNC, so no support for him would be forthcoming no matter what the rank and file of their constituency thinks. He would never be allowed to win. Assuming that voters really had any say to begin with. Do any of you here REALLY think that your/our votes mean anything? The 'president' is installed by the jewish bankers that pull all the strings in the US [and Britain]. The citizen has no voice. Period.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me John but you don't consider Newt Gingrich and Rick Sanitorium to be a tad far to the right of the normal person?

The primary fault I find with Ron Paul is he falls short knowledge regarding foreign affairs and we can't afford another presicent who has not got a clue about the rest of the world.

We are accustomed do leaders who don't know anything about their own people but it would help if they at least had some knowledge about what goes on in the world at large.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is ruinous on immigration, but anyway, would not be allowed to win for other reasons entirely, ie because he would try to stop Wall Street and the Fed from mugging Main Street.

Romney is electable (unless he really screws up on the nomination of a running mate) and almost anything is better than Obama.

Obama is not a moderate. He is trying to destroy the traditional USA, and has succeeded remarkably well so far. There is no upside in another 4 years of this, so Romney it has to be.

Who knows what Romney really thinks; point is, he might save the US economically, and might at least obey the law on immigration.

As to saving the traditional US, that's up to traditional Americans. If they live in economic fear, they will be much less effective. This is the goal of communists like Obama everywhere; deprive people of their economic independence, and they become pliant.

Just look at Europe.

Anon.

Anonymous said...

Where is John Doerr's credibility when he told a generation of MBA students he did the right thing by firing Steve Jobs? John Doerr should ask Kit Wong why Chinese engineers only sought venture capital when they were out of work and Wong told them to start restaurants to learn entrepreneurship as they rejected Wong when they had safe jobs. Foreign students can be bright, but faculty exaggerate their brilliance because foreign students are servile in doing work and favors for faculty and not demanding that professors actually earn their tuition keep. Moreover, faculty like that foreign students are either afraid, complicit or morally ambivalent about the immoral grant guzzling behavior of professors. In many cases they are more likely to share the professors' anti-Americanism than American students. Meanwhile perfectly good American engineers have to get jobs at Home Depot. And Google cancels my account for saying these things but dares to complain about censorship. Why should the liberal media get SOPA protection?

Anonymous said...

If electability is the issue, Mit Romney is the big loser here. He is a Mormon, and hence , anti-trinitarian. That was not a significant issue in 1790, but modern America will never elect a Mormon. The evangelical vote will stay at home if he is nominated, and without their votes, the Republicans will lose. Four more years for Obama garaunteed. Ron Paul has broad support rom the right, left, and middle, which gives him a good chance of winning in a general election. If he loses the GOP nomination, there will be no-one who can grab swing voters, and Obama will win.