Put down the Ben & Jerry’s, it’s not over. As a matter of fact, it’s only just begun.

With the inundation of negativity abounding for conservatives over our depressing whimpers of lament, here are three reasons you should not give up hope for a big change in November of 2012.

1. “Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.” ~ Abraham Lincoln

It’s very easy to become convinced through main stream media that all hope should be abandoned.  However, you can always seek out evidence proving otherwise.

Rasmussen Reports produces Daily Presidential Tracking Polls.  Admittedly, this is similar to weighing yourself every day.  Certain circumstances on a day-to-day basis, like a late night left over pizza binge, can affect the numbers greatly.  As of Friday February 3^rd, current GOP front runner Mitt Romney was polling neck in neck with the President at 45% in a potential election match-up.  This is the first time Romney has polled this high against Obama since late in December.  The numbers are issued daily and you can have them delivered directly to your inbox each morning. Defeating an incumbent is never easy, but these numbers show it’s possible.

2. It’s about Obama

Up until now in the GOP race, the candidates have remained in a circular firing squad.  Admittedly, this was disturbing in the beginning until you realize it’s necessary to have great sparring partners if you want to be prepared to deliver a TKO in the main event.  There will be no new carpet bombs left to throw.  And in turn, it will allow the Republican nominee to stay on the offense focusing solely and heavily on Obama’s failed record.

According to Rasmussen in the same poll, only 26% of the nation’s voters “strongly approve” of the President’s performance whereas, 41% “strongly disapprove.”  The President’s new effort to promote an increasing number of people to apply for the food stamp program is only receiving an 11% favorable response.

And the positive job numbers that were just released, which I am pleased about and believe is a wonderful thing for our country, do not include the over one million job seekers who have essentially fallen out of the system because they have given up hope of finding employment.

3. Don’t Underestimate American Fortitude

Lastly, don’t underestimate Americans and their ability to protect the country they love.

The number of Americans who label themselves as “Democrats” have now reached an all-time low with 32.5%, whereas those who consider themselves Republicans stands at 35.9%.  Neither of which were reportedly held at gun-point.

It’s important to remember the fight for conservatism and the ideology of the framers of our constitution will always be a lifelong pursuit from one generation to the next.  We will never have “arrived”.

Like the great Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Difficult does not mean impossible. It just means a sweeter victory.

No, Mitt Romney is not a racist. As I researched history, over the years I have come to find that the opposite is the case. The Romney Family has a legacy of pro-civil rights, progressive activism and an understanding of how poverty and inequality can hurt people.

This portrait would jibe with Mitt Romney’s image as a progressive Governor of Massachusetts, while suggesting any serious conversion to conservatism would not only entail a change in viewpoint but a rejection of Mitt’s Father, George — someone he has regularly mentioned as a major influence while campaigning. Taken as a whole, the new information could serve to fuel existing significant doubt amongst an already skeptical conservative base that Romney’s already vague conversion to conservatism is more one of electoral convenience than a principled decision.

During all of this advocacy, his son, Mitt, was evolving as a man. He idolized his father and emulated his legacy. Mitt Romney lived amongst Blacks in metropolitan Detroit. He went to the prestigious Cranbrook School. One of our board members, Claude McDougal, is a fellow alumnus of the school.

Buzzfeed first reported the elder Romney’s connection to Saul Alinsky, along with photos of the two men together, in a report from yesterday.

“I think you ought to listen to Alinsky,” Romney told his white allies, according to T. George Harris’s 1968 book, “Romney’s Way.” “It seems to me that we are always talking to the same people. Maybe the time has come to hear new voices,” he said.

The Progressive Alinsky is infamous and actually toxic on the right. Given George Romney’s endorsement of him, coupled with his acknowledged strong influence on son Mitt, will do little to assure suspicious conservatives concerned about Mitt Romney’s record as a Progressive, including his introduction of RomneyCare in Massachusetts.

Mocking the mainstream media, Gov. Palin said, “I call them dumbarses.”

Gov. Palin continued:

They, thinking that by trotting out this old Gingrich divorce interview that’s old news — and it does feature a disgruntled ex, claiming that it would destroy his campaign — all this does, Sean, is incentivize conservatives and independents who are so sick of the politics of personal destruction, because it’s played so selectively by the media, that their target, in this case Newt, he’s now going to soar even more. Because we know the game now, and we just won’t put up with it. Good call, media.

Good call, Sarah Palin. Debate after debate, it has been Newt Gingrich who has hammered the MSM on its preferential treatment of Barack Obama and his liberal agenda. And many conservatives across America are eating it up.

Starved for passionate expression of how the political and social dictates of the Obama “regime,” and its closely allied Media, have attempted to oppress and ridicule American voters with conservative leanings, Newt has let everyone know that the battle is on. He has articulated conservative ideas like no other candidate, though the other candidates may embrace those ideas themselves.

Those who actually get caught up in the rehash of Newt’s past marriages are missing the point. When it comes to moral character, American voters can either believe what the former speaker has said, about his call to forgiveness and reconciliation–or not. They can either heed Gov. Rick Perry’s endorsement statement, that admits to Newt’s imperfections, while it also points to the power of redemption–or not.

For three years, Americans have been faced, on almost a daily basis, with an overreaching president who has beaten them down. He has wagged his authoritative finger at them, on almost a daily basis, chiding them for seeking prosperity, scolding them for their intrinsic belief in the freedom of the individual, and filled with angry reproach when they speak of America’s exceptionalism. This president has apologized to leaders of other nations- some of them America’s enemies- for what he considers to be America’s greedy excesses and overly inflated pride.

Americans are looking for someone on their side–an advocate, if you will–someone who can lead the charge against those who would wish to destroy those ideals and ideas that made America great. No doubt, like the rest of us, Newt Gingrich is far from perfect. But his passion for those American values, and his unmatched ability to articulate them, has captured the hearts and spirits of many conservative Americans.

According to The Hill, in a CBS This Morning interview, New Hampshire Republican primary winner Mitt Romney, said that his work to increase profits for his investment firm, Bain Capital, “was no different from the Obama administration’s auto industry bailouts.” Mr. Romney said:

In the general election I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler – closed factories, closed dealerships laid off thousands and thousands of workers – he did it to try to save the business.

Mr. Romney’s comments came in response to criticism by fellow Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, that, during his tenure at Bain, he engaged in “looting” start-up companies and “vulture capitalism.”

During his daily show on Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh urged his listeners who were driving to “pull over” as he played the audio of Mitt Romney’s response. Gov. Romney’s reply to the criticisms are just as unbelievable as the criticisms themselves. Aren’t true conservatives against the government auto industry bailouts and TARP, for that matter? Why draw that comparison, and no sharp contrast, instead, to the president’s socialistic policies? Oh…I forgot…Mitt Romney doesn’t believe the president is a socialist.

Is Mitt Romney’s point, “You did it, too, Mr. President, so you can’t criticize me?” Worse, does Mr. Romney believe that the president did, in fact, “save” the auto industry?

Or, are conservatives seeing what they already suspect: that conservatism is not really this man’s native language? In that case, the reality may be that Mitt Romney is unable to explain what capitalism is, and how it really works. Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry may have set themselves up for a fall with their comments, but is Mitt Romney the candidate to be representing conservative Republicans in the general election?

Lots of questions…not many answers…for now.

Yes, it is perfectly OK to fire someone if you are not satisfied with their performance or service, especially if you are the one forking over the dough. That is what makes a free market, capitalist system run in high gear. It feeds competition and pushes service providers to deliver the very best quality. Accountability is an important reason why free societies produce more than controlled societies. Moreover, it’s why many trust the private sector over government. This was precisely what Romney was referring to. Anyone who pays for a service ought to have the ability and right to terminate any agreement with a service provider if certain expectations are not met.

Answering a question about health care Monday morning, Mr. Romney said he would allow individuals to have their own insurance because it would provide the insurance company with an incentive to keep its clients healthy.“It also means that if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them,” Mr. Romney said. “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”

He added: “You know, if someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I want to say, ‘You know, I’m going to get someone else to provide that service to me.’”

Mr. Romney was making a point that many Republicans agree with — that individuals should be able to have their own insurance, and choose the plan they want.

But the comment was immediately seized on by one of Mr. Romney’s Republican opponents, Jon M. Huntsman Jr., as he spoke to supporters in Concord, N.H.

It one short statement, Mitt Romney defended capitalism better than any Republican in the field. In fact, a lot of these Republicans are taking pieces of the Obama script of class resentment and using it against Romney’s real and actual experience in the private sector.

Now Romney has said, “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I want to say, ‘You know, I’m going to get someone else to provide that service to me.’” Simple, elementary competition. Capitalism 101. And conservatives go, “Eek, a mouse!”

“Totally Irrelevant” John Huntsman: “It may be that he’s slightly out of touch with the economic reality playing out in America right now, and that’s a dangerous place to be.”

“All over the place” Newt Gingrich: “Read the New York Times to see how evil Romney is.”

“I’m a light weight” Rick Santorum: “Romney is just a manager, a CEO.” Really? Is that all?

“Where am I? Why am I here?” Rick Perry: “I created a ringtone that plays, ‘I like to fire people.’ Brilliant.

The rest of Romney’s comment puts the issue in a totally acceptable light.

“I think some people imagine, by the way, that I just went directly to the top position in industry, and in business, that I started off as vice chairman or chairman or C.E.O. of Bain,” he said. “You probably know I started off actually at the entry level, coming out of graduate school in business. First in the Boston Consulting Group. Worked there for a while and then was asked by some folks to go over and join Bain, which was a much smaller company at that point, maybe 25 or 35 professionals. And joined that firm again at the bottom level, and was able over the years to work my way up.”

Oh the humanity! Oh the arrogance! What are we to do with this kind of man running for president?

The status quo will not survive the year. Our debt and spending have reached catastrophic proportions in the context of global financial difficulties and political upheaval. Consequently, by the end of 2012, America will either have taken a decisive step toward socialistic collectivism in the name of “equality” and “social justice,” where businesses and owners are punitively taxed to “pay their fair share,” or America will take a major step in the direction of returning to our Founders’ constitutional government, restoring the rule of law, federalism, free enterprise, and individual initiative and responsibility.

The American people will decide which path to take in the 2012 elections, not only in the general election on November 6 but also in the nominating process in primaries over the next several months for all major offices, including the presidency. Conservatives must act in a concerted and informed fashion in all of these contests to shape the public dialogue and thoroughly vet the candidates.

To achieve these ends, top conservative leaders acting under the umbrella of the Conservative Action Project have released “A Conservative Consensus for 2012” announcing agreement on major policies. These issues span all three wings of the conservative movement: economic, social, and national security.

The Conservative Consensus speaks to economic issues of fundamental tax reform, Obamacare, overhauling regulation, and energy production. It tackles social issues of strengthening families and advocating traditional values and religious liberty. And it covers defense issues of protecting the homeland, military superiority, and national sovereignty.

This document also advocates specific issues all conservatives must regard as essential. America needs a strong Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that caps federal spending. Immediate and drastic cuts to the federal budget. No corporate bailouts. The Second Amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right, as is voting, so the ballot box must be protected from fraud and corruption. Because voting is also a citizen’s duty, reasonable conditions must be enacted to safeguard our democratic process. And none of these can succeed unless the right people are appointed as judges to our federal courts.

Achieving these goals is a tremendous challenge, and true constitutional conservatives must relentlessly pursue building a true coalition between the three wings of the conservative movement.

This means that true conservatives must not allow anyone to redefine conservatism as only about fiscal issues and the reach of government. Constitutional conservatives understand that strong families are the essential foundation for long-term economic prosperity. The demographic reality is that declining birth rates and rampant abortion creates a devastating loss of human capital that cannot sustain our entitlement systems or economic growth, and also result in millions of unfilled job positions that become a magnet for illegal immigration.

Fortunately most conservatives understand that national security is crucial to America’s success. But some wrongheaded individuals seek to silence or marginalize social issues, oblivious to the profound reality—proven throughout history—that where families crumble there is an unstoppable public outcry for government to fill the void with massive entitlements and programs. Government always grows when families fail.

Some economic leaders with libertarian or liberal beliefs fail to grasp this simple fact, and so pervert the concept of freedom to mean that individuals are free to do whatever they like, free of any concept of right-and-wrong or of personal responsibility or self-control. They willfully ignore our Founding Fathers, who believed that limited government only endures when individuals govern themselves.

Some social conservative leaders are making the same mistake. They were right to reject an unrealistic “truce” on social issues. But some are essentially calling for a truce on economic issues, supporting candidates who stand for traditional values but are not reliably conservative on limiting the size, scope, and cost of government.

While both social and economic issues are indispensable, and both move votes, the reality is that fiscal issues are moving more swing votes in this cycle than value issues. Social conservatives will overreach if they force voters to choose between the two by insisting on traditionalist candidates who are not also warriors for free markets, federalism, fundamental entitlement reform, and a strong Balanced Budget Amendment. Social conservatives must demand equal standing, not superior standing.

A perfect example where all three branches of conservatism can join forces is our national debt. America is now $15 trillion in debt, an unprecedented level exceeding 100% of our Gross Domestic Product. The only time we even approached such a proportion was the end of World War II, where we were in a global war that threatened our very survival as a nation. Instead of a temporary military emergency, our current debt is being fueled by deficits of over $1 trillion every year Barack Obama has been president.

In addition to an economic issue, this debt is a social issue. Our profligate spending is intergenerational theft, saddling each member of the next generation with over $120,000 in debt once they become taxpayers. That’s a mortgage on a house, with no house.

It is also a defense issue. The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said our national debt is the single greatest threat to national security. We are on track to be paying $600 billion per year just in interest on the national debt, more than our entire military and security budget. This hamstrings our ability to defend our nation today while developing weapons and systems to protect us tomorrow.

Another reality is that constitutional conservatism cannot become our national policy without all three branches of government. If conservatives retake both houses of Congress it can only block bad legislation. Without a two-thirds supermajority, conservatives in Congress cannot override presidential vetoes of good legislation or undo harmful administrative regulations through the Congressional Review Act.

We need a constitutional conservative in the White House. Not all Republicans are part of the solution, and some leading Republicans are even part of the problem. America needs a president who is reliable on fiscal issues, and social issues, and defense issues. Two out of three is not enough. Ronald Reagan was all three, and only a Republican solid on all three bases can pick up President Reagan’s mantle to lead this country through the daunting challenges we face.

In our system of government, none of this will succeed without the right people serving in the federal judiciary. But judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, so if the American people elect a constitutional conservative president and a Senate willing to fight for judges, there are scores of spectacular lawyers and scholars who are faithful to the original meaning of the Constitution. If we elect the right people, they can take care of the courts.

The courts are imperative for all branches of the conservative movement. In addition to abortion, same-sex marriage and religious liberty, the Supreme Court is deciding all-important economic issues like Obamacare and national security issues like Bill of Rights protections for terrorists captured by our military on foreign battlefields. All conservatives must demand that only principled originalists be nominated to the Supreme Court and lower courts.

So America faces a historic choice. And conservatives face a historic task, of making the case to the voters for how and why constitutional conservatism is the way to return our nation to strength and stability, and electing national leadership that will honestly and definitively tackle these challenges for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

Several outlets on the Left—such as The New Republic—are raising an alarm about this disturbing new term, saying that it’s secret code for “absolutists” and “zealots” on economic issues, overturning Roe v. Wade, and implying that constitutional conservatives are segregationists bent on creating a theocracy.

As two constitutional conservatives who wrote a new book on the issue, Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America, we’ll correct the record on defining constitutional conservatism, how it now dominates Republican politics, and why America needs it so desperately.

Constitutional conservatism is the system of government the Founders gave to this country. They set out a series of principles on the rights of man and the role of government in the Declaration of Independence, including that God creates us equal and gives us rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit (not guarantee) of happiness, that government exists to secure these rights, and that the people either consent to this government or have the right to change it.

After years of trial and error, the country then adopted the Framers’ proposed Constitution to be the Supreme Law of the Land to fulfill the Declaration’s purpose. This Constitution strictly defines the federal government as one of enumerated powers, giving it authority over specific areas of our national life, splitting its powers between three branches that check each other, and leaves the states sovereign on all other matters. They also declared certain individual rights. Knowing that they were fallible human beings, the Framers also included an amendment process so that when the Constitution was found lacking, a complex supermajority could change it (and have, twenty-seven times).

The Far Left wrongly suggests that constitutional conservatism is retrospective. Instead it recognizes that in less than two centuries constitutional conservatism made the United States the most powerful, prosperous, successful, and free nation in world history. This was no accident. Constitutional conservatism is what allows us to achieve such heights, and will reinvigorate America and brighten our future to the extent that we return to those principles.

Constitutional conservatism is a unified governmental philosophy. Despite attempts to fracture conservatism into economic, social, and national security factions, constitutional conservatism shows how each of these three builds on the other two in the context of limited government. Flourishing businesses and safe homes are vital to strong families. A vibrant economy and virtuous citizens are essential to fuel national security. And stable families and secure communities are necessary for long-term economic prosperity. This is part of the formula embodied in the Declaration and Constitution, and ubiquitous in the writings and speeches of our presidents and national leaders, from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.

Despite the Left’s current obsession with Michele Bachmann, she’s not the only Republican candidate claiming the mantle of constitutional conservatism. The same could be said of several presidential contenders, from Tim Pawlenty to Herman Cain, to others not even running (yet?), such as Rick Perry.

Constitutional conservatism is central to numerous campaigns this cycle, not just the presidential race. From Indiana’s Mike Pence for governor, to Florida’s Adam Hasner for Senate, to Texas’ Ted Cruz for Senate, scores of candidates running for office embrace the U.S. Constitution as the blueprint for America’s future happiness.

It’s not backward-looking to survey the lessons of history to plot a course for the future. That’s what the Founders did as devoted students of more than 3,000 years of philosophy, history, theology, and government when they wrote the Declaration and later proposed the Constitution. Our system of government is the culmination of millennia of human trial and error, and our recent troubles reinforce the reality that we must return to those principles.

No manmade government is perfect, and if it were no system run by fallible human beings can deliver perfect results. But the fact remains that our recent forays into government interventionism, social engineering, transnationalism, federal mandates, living in unprecedented debt, and looking to government to save us is only worsening our situation.

Technology advances and economies evolve, but human nature doesn’t change, and so neither do the timeless principles for ideal government. Constitutional conservatism is the system of government for optimizing our freedom and happiness, and it’s once again ready for prime time in America’s national life.