Skip to comments.Why I Reluctantly Will Endorse Mitt Romney [Why we reluctantly will zot]
Posted on 12/30/2011 6:12:25 PM PST by Neoavatara
My choice for President is Mitt Romney.
I just shuddered at that statement.
But there it is. There is the reality that 13 debates, months of bickering and intrigue, and countless discussions with conservative brethren have brought me.
It is kind of a sad reality. Is this the best conservatives could do?
So here has been my calculation for who I would support, from the beginning. First, the candidate must be electable and able to defeat Barack Obama, both electorally and intellectually. Second, they must broaden the base of the Republican Party, both on the conservative and moderate sides. Third, they must be economically intelligent and have a pro-growth plan that will overturn the Obama economic disaster. And fourth, because of the Obama experiment, they must show some executive level experience.
If you look at our current crop of candidates, the Congressional candidates (Paul, Bachmann, Santorum) all lack significant executive experience. Newt Gingrich could be argued to have some executive experience as Speaker of the House, but that is stretching the definition to the breaking point.
I think all of our candidates have more of a pro-growth plan than Barack Obama.
As for broadening the base, this is the one I had the hardest time with. For example, Mitt Romney. He would definitely appeal to independents and moderates who like a milquetoast candidate. Could he broaden his conservative wing? I think he could, but that is a hard slog for him. Could Newt Gingrich, who has years of baggage and is relatively well known, broaden his likability among moderates? Doubtful. Can Rick Perry overcome his stumbles and convince non-conservatives that he is intelligent? Unlikely. In short, I am not sure any of our candidates significantly broaden the party.
As for electability, as time has gone on, it is clear that Paul, Bachmann, Santorum, and Cain would have great difficulty defeating Obama, both electorally and intellectually.
So after all of that angst, you are basically left with potential candidates Romney, Perry, and Gingrich.
But after Perry's stumble after stumble in the debates, I can see him getting torn apart by Barack Obama in debates, in a style reminiscent of what Reagan did to Mondale. I really wanted to like Perry, but he has never risen to the occasion. His brightest moment was when he presented his tax plan, and he never showed another policy initiative as grand. And he still appears more a caricature than the man that longtime supporters of him describe.
The best qualified candidate of the remaining opposition to Romney is Newt Gingrich. All things being equal, Gingrich would get my vote. But all things are not equal. Every time I think Gingrich can leave his past behind, something comes up. He cannot seem to keep his mouth out of the way of his campaign. And he has been on top for about a month, and I am already fatigued trying to defend every new story about him. I can't imagine what another year of this would feel like. Gingrich, ultimately, is a paper tiger. He is the most well spoken of the group, bar none. But is he really a conservative? Is he, for that matter, even more conservative than Mitt Romney? I am far from convinced of this. And ultimately, he was the decisive argument for me between the two: while Gingrich's sacrifice of conservative principles largely came while he was in his own think tank with no outside pressures whatsoever, Romney's betrayal came while surround by a horde of liberals looking to take a piece of him at every turn in the most liberal state government in the Union. It is not an excuse for sacrificing his conservative ideals, so much as an explanation that makes far more sense than Newt sitting on a bench with Nancy Pelosi.
It comes down to this. I have been waiting for the better part of 4 years for someone, anyone, to show me to be the standard bearer of the Conservative revolution initially started by Ronald Reagan 3 decades ago...and these group of candidates have failed. I was waiting for a Mike Pence, John Thune, even a Jeb Bush to step forward and take the helm. They all took a pass, for one reason or another. And so we are left with the current crop of candidates, despite all of our objections.
The last debate in December was a sort of epiphany. That epiphany was that none of the non-Romney candidates was going to turn into Ronald Reagan. Ever. Maybe this wasn't an epiphany so mach as facing up to the reality. Oh, sure, there are a few Perry fanatics and Bachmann lovers still out there. They will probably hold on until the California primary. But both have stumbled too many times, and too consistently, to be considered serious any more. Bachmann's Politifact nonsense from the last debate was the last string for me. As for Perry, if he was this good in debates in August and September, he would be the leader. But it just seems to be too little, too late. Too many missed opportunities, with too much of his buffoonery now baked into the social consciousness. Santorum has never made the sale. And Ron Paul is...Ron Paul. Fascinating on pure market economics and libertarian views, but he lives in an alternate universe on foreign affairs. Jon Huntsman is a non-entity.
Almost makes you wonder if Tim Pawlenty, who was my early leader, left the race way too early, no?
So we are left with Willard Mitt Romney.
I know. My friends that read here will say this is a sellout. Maybe it is. But logically, without any knee jerk reactions, I don't see any way around this. I have for months begged others and myself to come to a conclusion that is different. But I simply can't.
But here is, ultimately my logic.
I don't think many people will rationally argue that Romney is unelectable. He certainly is. His record as governor is admirable for one of the bluest states in the union, and he has been in politics long enough to be adequately vetted.
Romney would likely pull a lot of independent voters. My really concern is, would he broaden the conservative bloc? I am far from sure about this. My conservative brethren have a deep and well developed distaste for Romney, and I am unsure if Romney can overcome it. But I think ultimately, our hatred of Mr. Obama's liberal policies will unify the right.
Romneycare is the biggest hurdle. Will Romney really stand for states rights? I honestly believe he will. I don't think he will ever be the opponent to government health care we want, so don't even propose such a thought. But our goal is to end the mandate on a federal scale. I believe Romney will be an ally in this small, marginal victory.
Economically speaking, Romney actually is the most well spoken and practical of the bunch. Although he does not support more radical reforms in D.C. such as Paul Ryan's Medicare plan, he also has a more traditional approach put forward, which would do a lot of good in rolling back Obamanomics. Romney likely would support a more radical conservative agenda for the economy if we can show there are votes in Congress for such a plan.
Furthermore, Romney has really show increased maturity on the campaign trail over the past few months. What was a wooden caricature earlier in the year now shows some humor, fraility, and joviality. His recent Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace showed a comfortable, relaxed, and human Mitt.
Last, and certainly not least, we found under George W. Bush that even a relatively well intentioned President needs to be reigned in by Congress. A Republican Congress failed to do that for Bush...it needs to learn its lesson, and keep Romney on a tight leash. Without that, no man sitting in the Oval Office can be trusted completely.
So, after all that explanation, I endorse Mitt Romney. I am not happy about it, and can't believe it has come to this. And I am sure a lot of my friends on the internet will wonder if I have lost my senses completely. But Romney is a good man, a better man than the one sitting in the Oval Office by far. And if he wins the nomination, it is time for Republicans unify, even if it is for this flawed candidate.
But Mutt Romney?
You honestly believe there's any daylight between Obama and Romney?
You're not paying attention. There's not a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Romney.
Keep up the concerned pro-Romney crap, and you'll be homeless on the internet.
If you think TPaw and Mitt are the answer to our problems just go on vacation election day.
- Lets make sure Mitt doesnt get elected then...
Well.. that would be cool with me.. but, I can read the tea leaves.
I just wish.. for ONCE in my life, I got a chance to vote for a candidate before the race in my party was OVER!
Screw Iowa AND New Hampshire!
Don’t worry. Mittens won’t be elected. He’s lost the hard core conservative base like me (us). If he makes it to the top of the ticket Zero will beat him like you have never seen before.
I expect Zero to beat him 10+ points.
I fell for the Rino and Conservative ticket last time. This time, I don’t give a shyt.. This ship is going to sink with Zero OR Romney in the wheel house. Let the correct party get the blame. If some how Romney wins it he won’t do what needs to be done. He’ll fight the conservatives in the house. He won’t cut 40+ % out of the budget, he’ll keep borrowing, he’ll keep spending, he’ll keep obamacare....
Romney is nothing but a plant from the democrats in our party. Do you think the democrats would EVER allow someone like Sarah to run in their primary?
I also agree that all primaries should be held on the same day. And they should be for party members only. The Dems always cross over when they can to help us pick our candidate.
Mitt will never win the General Election. He is toast and the Dems know it. Just wait till the Dems start bringing out the difference between Christanity and Mormons.
What do the Mormons believe.
In Heaven and Hell. Well not exactly.
Celestial - Mormons in the Presence of God for Eternity
They go to becomes Gods themselves
Terrestrial - Saved non Mormons
Telestial - Glory but an Eternity without God - darkness
all three a place of Glory just to a lesser extent.
They supposedly believe there are multiple Gods with different universes/worlds with people living on these different world. But we only have to Join our Universe’s god.
The supposedly believe the Jesus himself was married to at least two wives(pologamy).
And that POLOGAMY will be practiced in Heaven.
Sheesh I must have missed that chapter in the King James Bible.
This ole Primitive Babtist wont ever buy into this bull and vote for him. I seriously doubt our more educated Southern Babtist well either. If so that take a major portion of the Christian from voting in the southern State. I would imagine the same response in the rest of the states with the exception of Utah and Idaho.
This possibly could put Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama into play.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Nothing mentioned about other Gods or new Gods.
Im starting to think we need remedial training for many VK
= = = = =
Perhaps a correspondence course? Or an undead thread. LOL.
Tea leaves aren’t there yet. Tea is still brewing...Fight and don’t give up.
Chew on that a while, Saundra.
Who the hell cares about broadening the GOP base? What the hell happened to standards and principles. I sell out every election cycle for half wits and morons in the General. Why in the world should I do so in a Primary? Good heavens. This makes no sense.
I wish I believed you.. but, I don't.
I think, Mitt IS going to be nominated.. and, he WILL be elected...winning 40+ states. The ONLY thing that prevents it MIGHT be, a 3rd party run by Paul (ain't happening) or Trump.
I think.. Trump is just publicly negotiating with Obama for some Solyndra-style money. SHOW ME THE CASH= I'll run so you can win.
The way we elect Predidents is SO EFFED UP. How could ANYONE explain McCain winning a Republican nomination?? McCain??? Well.. here it comes again... times 2
Kinda makes one wonder where the money funding all these ‘blogs’ comes from don’t it?
Heaven forbid we get Romney. How fast can we assemble a viable 3rd party with a write in?
You know how I know he won’t make it?
The MSM is quiet about him. The establishment wants him..
I honestly think the establishment, go along, to get along Republicans in DC like to be out of power. They just want the check and perks but don’t bother them with the responsibility.
Mittens IS Obama with nicer hair. He WILL get his a$$ handed to him once the MSM/Democrat (but I repeat myself) machine gets cranked up.
Exactly. There are a huge number of independents now who are rightfully fed up with both parties. Reagan pulled in independents as well as many Democrats. All we need is someone who stands for the greatness of America and its citizens.
Beautiful!!! No salt even, though...
Isn’t it “didst”?
Good to see you!
You know you want it.
Fight?? How? I live in Kentucky.. it'll ALL BE OVER before I get a chance to vote.
I sent money to Cain.. and, now Santorum. That's about the limit of my ability to "fight".
From what I see.. it's GOING TO BE MITT. So, I'm mostly serious when I ask: Will ANYONE be left here at FR when it happens?
Just wait till the Dems start bringing out the difference between Christanity and Mormons.
- - - - -
Bingo. The MSM WANTS Romney because then they will bring out every odd LDS teaching and doctrine (Garden of Eden in Missiouri, vegetables have spirits, blood oaths like the ones Romney took, the old oath against the US government). It will be a bloodbath.
Reagan agreed with that.
I don t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party"--when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.