On October 8th 2011 in an article in The American Thinker entitled "Palin's Withdrawal Means Obama Wins" Robert Eugene Simmons Jnr. wrote an astonishingly, actually, "astounding" still doesn't do his prescience justice, predictive analysis of where the GOP primary campaign would end up.
Perhaps Mr. Simmons is not so much gifted with the gift of being a seer, as having a mind freed from too close partisanship so that he sees the wood and the trees. In considering his so clear sighted predictive post, it struck me that perhaps the aficionados of the various candidates, Cain, Santorum,etc were so attached to their favorites, that the mechanisms in place to defeat them, so obvious in hindsight, were not apparent.
If one believes ones favorite is immune to the schemes of his or her opponents, one might tend to overlook them, or dismiss them, when in fact they were highly effective. I read it that Simmons considers only Palin could have been a serious challenger to Romney, or rather the forces backing Romney, as everything possible had been dug up and thrown at her. This was a pleasure none of the other non-Romney's had yet experienced.
I see it differently, and believe that although the various forces would not have the same manner of trying to defeat her if she ran, she might not have been able to compete with Romney's money-as Gingrich found to his cost in Florida.
That won't be a problem in 2016 if, as Simmons and I both agree, Romney will lose to Obama for the reasons he sets out in his article. Below is an extract from his piece which shows his amazing analytical skills in action. Please read the whole piece at The American Thinker AT THIS LINK
N.B. Cain left the campaign on December 3rd 2011 for exactly the reasons Simmons predicted he would
Rick Perry dropped out on January 19th 2012 for exactly the reasons Simmons predicted
"So here is how the election will go. The media hasn't seriously opened up on Herman Cain, but most assuredly they will. Cain has been in business for decades, and the liberal media will troll through every relationship, every business deal, every word he has ever spoken. If that fails, the lies will start. To see evidence of this, we need not look at far as Palin. Rick Perry, another progressive, was attacked for something that someone painted on a rock on land his family leased out. That narrative will be used to attack both Perry and Cain -- Perry for having "allowed" it and Cain for making a big deal over "nothing." Both narratives will be forwarded, potentially in the same program. Once the liberal media goes through Cain's past with a fine-toothed comb, they will doubtless find disgruntled business adversaries, accusations of infidelity, and more.
All of the personal attacks will be done to assure that Romney gets the nomination. The GOP bigwigs will do it because they feel it's Romney's "turn." The media will do it because Romney will be far easier to defeat than a Tea Party candidate. Because Palin has withdrawn, her endorsement will be of limited value, as she has drawn most of her influence from the mortal fear the establishment and liberals had of her becoming president. Without that fear, her power will be practically inconsequential.
The propulsion of Romney to the nomination is already in full swing, as evidenced by the trivial "scandals" plaguing the news cycle about Perry, Cain, Bachmann, and everyone else who is a threat to Romney. At the same time, the media is being absolutely kind-hearted to Romney himself.
Once Romney wins the nomination, the liberal media will open up on him just as they opened up on McCain. Prior to McCain winning the 2008 nomination, he was the darling of the liberal media. But after McCain took the nomination, everything changed."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/palins_withdrawal_means_obama_wins.html#ixzz1t29pisuP