Can a Romney loss to Obama be a good thing?

Yes, part of this is "glass half full" thinking but as I looked at it further, I began to wonder if a Romney loss to Obama would actually be a good thing. No, I'm not any less conservative than I was yesterday. Just imagine what the political climate will be in 2013 if the Republicans retain a majority in the House and get a strong majority in the Senate while still having to deal with Obama. Will the Republican establishment finally be forced into a fight - something it avoids like the plague? Here is my latest piece over at Red County:

Can Obama's Reelection be a Good Thing for Conservatives?
Ben Barrack

Conservatives are disheartened. It's becoming increasingly apparent that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee in the fight to defeat Barack Obama. If four years of Jimmy Carter so awakened Republican voters that they nominated Ronald Reagan, why has nearly four years of Jimmy Carter on steroids so sedated Republican voters that they've decided to nominate the equivalent of Gerald Ford as the best option for defeating him?

In large part, the establishment insists on it and, like Obama, seems disinterested in the will of the people. This establishment is so invested in Romney that it is overlooking the potential consequences of one very real possibility.

What if he loses? The establishment's credibility will have been torpedoed. Yes, at great expense, but torpedoed nonetheless.

If you thought the Tea Party was angry in 2009, just wait until 2013 if Barack Obama is sworn in for a second term after defeating Mitt Romney. For starters, conservative voters will be outraged at any Republican Senator, Congressman or Governor who helped shove Romney down their throats. Accountability could take on an entirely new meaning and those elected leaders will have their feet held to the fire like never before. Romney's name will be added to the long list of liberal Republicans who couldn't seal the deal. Any attempt by establishment elitists to point to Goldwater as evidence that conservatism can't win will be met with sardonic laughter that hopefully drives a stake through the heart of the argument.

Consider the example Fast and Furious, an operation that is not only being revealed as something akin to Watergate with murder but could very likely implicate the heads of nearly every major department and agency in the Obama Administration, to include DHS, DOJ, the FBI, and the State Department. There have been multiple reports that House Speaker John Boehner has asked Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to back off of his investigation, ostensibly because of how high it could go.

While appearing on the Fox News Channel, Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation was visibly frustrated at the lack of interest on the part of Republican Party leadership relative to being more aggressive with Attorney General Eric Holder. Judson went on to say the following:

“What my friends in Washington tell me is that Boehner says what he learned from the 1995 government shutdown is ‘you never pick a fight with the president.’”

If Romney loses to Obama, Boehner will be forced to pick that fight.

If Judson is correct, it points to Boehner being more interested in running out the clock – with the November election representing the final whistle – than in a dogged pursuit of justice, regardless of where it leads. Avoiding a showdown could conceivably allow Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert Mueller, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to skate – depending on their respective levels of involvement – instead of facing impeachment and removal from office for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Boehner has most certainly come across as disinterested in commenting on the scandal publicly and won't deviate from a short statement of support for what Issa's committee is doing. It would seem that Issa is wrestling with quite the Executive Branch behemoth and could use a greater show of public support from the House Speaker.

If there are any stories the establishment wants to see go away after the election, the ones about Obama's Birth Certificate, Social Security number, and Selective Service registration are at the top of the list. Such concerns are irrelevant, they say. Besides, the election is less than one year away and it's pointless to entertain the notion. The implication is that Joe Arpaio's investigation, even if it yields anything of substance, will be anti-climactic because Obama will be out of office and everyone will have moved on.

That is, unless he wins. Then what? If you thought the Birthers were loud before, just wait and see what happens if Obama is reelected.

Not only will the Birthers – who generally don't come across as avid Romney supporters – have four more years to continue their incessant drumbeat of demands for answers to their eligibility questions but the establishment that has made every attempt to ignore them will have been roundly defeated and, consequently, forced into a position of having to listen. With the wind knocked out of the establishment, its members will also be barraged with demands that they reconcile with their base (not the other way around) for supporting yet another in a long line of incredibly pathetic candidates. As much as the elites won't want to admit it, the Republican Party agenda could be set by conservative voters who were ignored by an establishment that still doesn't get it.

Tolerance will be in very short supply.

The sad prospect of Romney as the nominee is seemingly trumped only by the prospect that Obama could get a second term, which is made more likely, some believe, if Romney is nominated. Establishment, general election Republican losers like John McCain and Bob Dole have endorsed Romney, as have Governors Chris Christie and Nikki Haley. Tea Party favorites Marco Rubio and Christine O'Donnell have as well. A dangerous type of groupthink seems to have set in among Republican politicians that has generated a bizzare coalescence around a liberal candidate when the time is ripe for a conservative one.

For crying out loud, serial liar Howard Dean said the Democrats fear a face-off with Romney most over all the Republican candidates. Those of us who understand liberal tactics know that Dean means the exact opposite; that's why he said it. It'd be like a head coach proclaiming that his team fears facing his opponent's back up quarterback in an attempt to fool the other coach into starting him. Republican elites aren't as smart, apparently. They've been told by Howard Dean that their third string quaterback gives them their best chance and, by gum, they believe it.

Something else almost certain to happen after Romney's nomination; his religion will be thoroughly vetted by the liberal media. Most Americans know little to nothing about Mormonism but that is all going to change with Romney's nomination. According to a Gallup poll, 22% of Americans are hesitant about voting for a Mormon. Some argue that Mormonism is antithetical to Chrisitianity; some argue that it isn't; still others don't much care. One thing is certain. Everyone will know more about it with Romney as the Republican nominee for president. That, too, should be a good thing no matter what side you're on.

Don't lose heart, conservatives. Instead, check out Romans 8:28, which says:

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

In 2013, the Republican elites could find themselves at the intersection of 'be careful what you wish for' and 'sleeping in the bed you made.'

I hope they're preparing for both.

More here.