US election 2012: Mitt Romney Goes Two for Two

By Charlie Wolf for the Daily Mail
Updated: 18:03 GMT, 11 January 2012

The race is now Mitt Romney's to lose.

www.inulpoker.com | Agen Poker Terpercaya | Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya | Poker dan Domino Terbaik |

It was expected he would win in New Hampshire but everyone has been trying to create unmatchable expectations for him. If he doesn't win by 25% said some, then it is not a convincing win. Other detractors said they would only be satisfied with 40%. He not only took 39% but also the first two polls back-to-back, Iowa and New Hampshire; unprecedented for a non-incumbent.

Former British Ambassador to the United States, Sir Christopher Meyer tweeted yesterday that he 'will eat a red sock if Romney hits the magic 40% mark.' Romney stands at 39.4% of the vote. Maybe not the whole sock, but Sir Christopher should at least have a couple of bites, not on-the-bone, but on the heel.

As for the so called 'true conservatives,' Gingrich, Santorum, (tied at 9% each) and Perry (with the dreadful one percent predicted for Jon Huntsman), their definition of conservatism didn't seem to play well in the Granite State.

Romney is increasingly looking like someone competent enough to fix the economy and get America back on track

Attacking someone (Romney) for practicing free market principles at Bain Capital -- in a free market state like New Hampshire, seems pretty boneheaded to me, and obviously to the people of New Hampshire as well. In fact, I watched in disbelief this morning at 4:30 as Newt delivered his closing speech, talking about the principles of "the free market" and being the "heir to Reagan" and had to chuckle.

The free market is red in tooth and claw. It is about competition. Completion is about winners and losers. That means that some people do get fired - but hopefully rehired somewhere else. It is the essence of a vibrant economy - it is the total opposite of the sclerotic socialist system with its cradle to grave employment for slackers who need to be cossetted and nannied.

Romney made his money in the free-market. He convinced private individuals to fund the companies he wanted to buy --ailing companies that were about to go bankrupt anyway. He turned them around. Yes, some people, mainly management, lose their jobs, but due to people like Romney, many more don't.

Free choice is about being able to "fire" the supplier who is not delivering. It is a paramount principle in America - it is the reason the service is so good in retail stores and that you get big helpings in US restaurants. It is because Americans value hard work, and value the dollars they have earned. They don't give the dollars that represent their sweat, tears and hard work for nothing; they want value for money. (Speaking of which, did I hear someone mention Solyndra?)

I don't think the three muppets that are Gingrich, Santorum and Perry understand that. Neither does Jon Huntsman, though his billionaire father (who invented the styrofoam packaging your Big Mac used to come in) does. Ron Paul, who came to Romney's defense for his time at Bain Capital does.

If anyone can really claim to be the heir to Ronald Reagan, it is actually Mitt Romney, because he was the one at the coal face, in business, actually applying in real life, the principles of Reagan's free market philosphy.

Several things to take away from New Hampshire:

Ron Paul has a level of momentum that cannot be ignored. No, he will never become the candidate with his isolationist foreign policy stance, but his views on small government are proving, more-and-more to resonate with the public.

Eventually, Romney will need to make some sort of pack with Ron Paul. Paul has --besides the libertarian nutters-- an important constituency that needs to be heard on the size of government. Romney's biggest fear would be Paul getting enough of a vote to push him to a third party run for the presidency.

The exit polling says quite a lot about voters' motivations:

-They were not as interested in 'true conservatism' (posited by Santorum and Gingrich) or as motivated by social conservatism (gay marriage).

-They were motivated by two things: The economy and someone competent enough to fix it (Romney) and second to that, someone who can beat Obama (Romney, once again).

-Romney polled well across the board including self-described conservatives, women and independents.

Republican presidential candidates need to stop this internal fighting and stand behind Romney if they want to have a real chance of beating Obama

It is also important to note the strength of feeling against President Obama. Independents seem to be swinging to the Republicans to remove Obama. For Republicans as a party, they have to understand where the new centre is, it is not social conservatism (as important as that is) but the economy.

Yes, they want candidates with strong personal values, people who live those values; that can sum up all of them (with the possible of thrice married Gingrich). But most important to them --after the rank incompetence and lack of leadership from Barack Obama-- is someone competent enough to fix the economy and get America back on track.

That still appears to be Romney.

For the others, if they continue with these silly attacks on Romney they only show their version of the Republican Party to be out of date. The only way for the Gingrich/Santorum (and to a lesser extent) Perry triumvirate to have any chance of a challenge is for only one of them to stay in the fight; all they are doing now is splitting the social conservative vote three ways.

If they are serious about challenging Romney than one of them needs to drop out now. That won't happen and at least their attacks, while giving fodder to the Obama campaign, will at least make the issue old news by November. Romney needs to just stay above it all as he has.

If the second tier pack wants to make a move, one needs to get out now. I would suggest Gingrich. His ego will not let him. He is due to give a "major" speech at 9 AM East Coast time. I can only assume it will be more anti-Romney invective; not attacking Romney but the free market principles that made Romney a lot of money.

Attacking someone for being successful? That almost sounds British.

var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});

www.inulpoker.com | Agen Poker Terpercaya | Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya | Poker dan Domino Terbaik |