Four long months before the first vote will be cast in the republican primary there is plenty to reflect upon from this unorthodox campaign season. First, the field of candidates is larger than ever, with 15 individuals hoping to capitalize on major rifts on the right. Meanwhile, a massive progressive transformation is taking place in our country, and across the globe. Indeed, while we have been distracted over the last 4 years, we have enabled President Obama to accomplish nearly everything he set out to do. By his own admission, he has only failed in achieving his aspirations on one plank: Expansive Gun Control. Don’t celebrate this victory yet. If we continue to pull the nails out of our own rickety house, his last mission will be accomplished within 2-3 years after the next president (who will likely select 3 supreme court justices) takes office.
The problem is that a spectrum of people on which we should agree there are generally ‘mostly good guys’ has been sloppily divvied up into two imaginary poles: The insider establishment, and the outsider insurgents.
Most disappointingly, it seems that those with mass appeal lack principles, and those with principles lack mass appeal. What we really need in the executive is not someone who is adored by all, but rather someone who all of us (from respectively legitimate points on the spectrum) can respect and appreciate. Contrary to popular belief, and potentially contrary to an earlier post on this same blog, this need not be a sellout, a compromise, a Moderate or a moderator. It simply must be an honest person who knows the role of the executive, is respected, but not idolized by a broad base of conservatives (including some moderates), and preferably not widely despised.
Sadly, the breadth of options has revealed glaring deficiencies across the board. We have several principled candidates, several smooth talkers and several in between. We have scrutinized the data to determine the candidate who is most likely to unite conservatives, moderates, and the filthy rich and detached who typically flock to the establishment. We are proud to award the Bull Gator Party’s highly coveted endorsement to the man who can bring us together and point us in the right direction; former Massachusets Governor and accomplished capitalist Mitt Romney. Please make a donation here.
Doh! The man we should have elected four years ago, the one that might have lessened the spread of our domestic social infection and taken the sting out of the global emasculation we have experienced, is not running. Often it seems, those most fit to lead are not interested in doing so. Those who are obsessed with, and devoted to obtaining, positions of power; those who comfortably bask in the spotlight and revel in grandiose ceremonies, especially those in which they are being worshipped? Look out…
This election should have been a snoozer. The Democrat field is so bad that loyal liberal voters are forced to choose between a bitter-angry millionaire establishment woman and a crazed socialist, and actually find themselves considering some of the softer republicans. Serious thinking democrats know they have no chance unless the republican party destroys itself. Guess what? We are happy to oblige. Much blood is being shed, but the United States has gone so far left in the past four years that turning it around might require something less than an extreme and polarizing force.
We might lose this un-loseable election. Mitt: Please?
Of course, some will argue, “didn’t Mitt lose?” The conventional wisdom has it that Romney did not lose because the country preferred large government and constitutional revision. There is support for the fact that Mitt lost because purists stayed home, either because Mitt was a mormon, or because his ego couldn’t didn’t stack up with that of the incumbent. (The so called “he was afraid to fight” argument).
Understanding that Mitt Romney has almost no incentive to run because a) his life is not built around the goal of running the country, b) he has a rather comfortable existence and c) he did not leave the door open to run by laying any foundation of infrastructure, we will be forced to consider the lesson of Mitt Romney 2012 as it applies to our current range of candidates.
Who can bridge this divide? Can we be united around some core principals? There are candidates who have shown flashes of this ability. As time goes on, we hope more emerge. We will continue to seek answers to these questions; that we might not be lost forever.
Pitching Liberty 
Need I remind that Mitt Romney lost the LAST “un-loseable” election”? Mitt’s a nice man; I supported him, so imagine my chagrin when I found that he couldn’t (or was unwilling to) support himself. By the election, four years will have passed since Mitt might have saved the country. In 1943, the Axis powers might have employed a winning strategy. But they didn’t, and by 1945 it was all over but the shouting. Now WE are the Axis powers, and this is our 1945. Thanks, Mitt. Thanks for nothing.
LikeLike
Ha! You responded quick. As soon as I published this I edited to address the question: “Didn’t Mitt lose?” This actually was not in response to your comment, but it sort of works out.
My only response would be that the 2012 election was nowhere near as un-loseable as this one. Mitt faced an uphill battle, because despite the fact that we have been very unpleased, Obama was an incumbent with relatively stable approval numbers, and a perception that the economy was improving.
LikeLike
Mitt seems to be the only person in the country who doesn’t understand that he could have won the election with a more combative strategy, and one that reached out more aggressively to all of the dumbass evangelicals who decided to stay home and handle serpents instead of voting to defeat the devil. I’ll never forgive those bastards, I hate them more than I hate ObaMao. No, my friend; if Mitt wasn’t perceptive enough to understand where he went wrong, he’s not our savior.
LikeLike