Posted on 12/14/2007 2:15:27 PM PST by bethtopaz
I’ve decided to support Mitt Romney for president. Intros are never easy, and I’m mostly going to dispense with one here. But, I will say that I didn’t get to this point by conventional means. I’ve cycled through almost every candidate in the race, with my leanings changing sometimes daily. A month ago, I was a Rudy guy. Three weeks ago I leaned towards John McCain. For a brief moment, I was terribly hopeful about Fred. And of course, from November of last year until August of this, I supported the same candidate I’m endorsing today. Let me first begin by explaining what caused me to jump off the Romney express in the first place. Simply put, I was looking for a winner, and hoping for an across the board conservative. For a lot of the year, Romney looked like both. After August, I wasn’t sure about either. The moment that brought about this decision came in an earlier debate. Governor Romney was asked about Iraq and, in a statement that seemed too cautious by half, he acknowledged that the surge was “apparently” working. You might remember it. McCain got pretty upset, and so did I. It wasn’t that I thought that he was weak on defense; not exactly. I’d heard him speak eloquently about foreign policy issues in the past, and I saw him do so afterwards. My dismay was more fundamental; for the first time, I began to believe that Romney’s overwhelming caution made him a very beatable candidate. He hadn’t fought very hard to dispel flip-flopping concerns; he kept personal aspects buttoned up, and here he was punting on one of the defining issues of the day.Enough was enough, and at the time I said something like “Romney’s going to slowly fade into irrelevancy if he can’t take few risks”.
What’s changed since then? Well, for one thing, the possibilities have narrowed considerably. Four months ago, or even four weeks ago I could have convinced myself that McCain had a reasonable chance of getting the nomination. But, certain doors have mostly closed and, though I’m sure his partisans disagree with me, I think that’s one of them. He doesn’t seem to be close enough in any of the post-NH states, to get anywhere with a single victory. The top tier has also changed. Mike Huckabee runs even with Rudy nationally, and leads in a number of early states. This is, as far I’m concerned, a disastrous development for the party. Mike Huckabee is no conservative, and I’m convinced that the Republican party he’d create would be utterly unrecognizable to Reagan Republicans. Faced with the possibility of his nomination, it would be reckless for me to sit on the sidelines, and passively watch the destruction of our coalition. The Huckabee surge has also caused me to re-examine my view of Rudy Giuliani. After abandoning Romney, I was pretty close to supporting Rudy. He’s a wonderfully accomplished guy. His record on crime and taxes would make any politician envious. And of course, on 9/11 he showed real leadership. That’s something you can’t manufacture, and we all too often take it for granted. But, ultimately, when I saw what Huckabee threatened to do to the Republican coalition, I couldn’t justify supporting someone moderate to liberal on social issues. You can’t rage against one politician for breaking up the party, and support another who might do the same thing, albeit along different fault-lines.
But, my support of Romney is not solely a result of process of elimination. Something has happened in the last few weeks which I didn’t expect; Romney hung around. His pulse dipped, but never flatlined. I think people sometimes miss what Romney’s done this election cycle. Huckabee likes to refer to himself as an underdog, but in some ways, Romney’s rise has been far more unlikely. Both Fred and Mike had their free media extravaganzas. Both candidates have been “the flavor of the month”. Rudy and McCain entered the race with excellent name recognition and strong poll numbers. Romney’s been in a unique position. He started from nothing, and he’s been given nothing from the press. Every inch he’s gained he’s earned, and though he’s fallen down at times, he’s always picked himself off of the canvas. What’s more, his strategy has been the only one that’s proved relatively durable, in the face of new challenges. He has a strong early state presence. His national numbers are ticking him up into a solid 3rd place. Rudy and Fred have, in contrast, pursued unorthodox and at times incoherent pathways, and they’re paying a price for it now. Romney’s seen through the haze of a deeply unusual primary process, and picked a remarkably level-headed strategy. That’s impressive, and I think it speaks to his ability to compete in a tough environment next year. I’m also seeing signs, for the first time, of a less cautious Romney. He boldly gave his faith speech, and he’s benefited. He’s been more willing to question candidates on their records, and more eager to defend his. He’s less nervous in debates, and more forthright. He’s improving as a candidate and as a politician, and it shows.
Now on to specifics. I think Governor Romney is uniquely prepared to deal with 21st century challenges. He’s conservative, virtually across the board. Yes, he’s shifted on a few issues, but everyone has, and I’ve yet to be convinced that Romney’s any worse then Rudy or Huckabee in this regard. And often, where Mitt’s positions are different, he actually has a record to support his new stance. He’s now pro-life, and he governed as a pro-lifer. He’s more forceful on immigration, and he’s vetoed a bill giving in-state tuition to illegals, opposed drivers’ licenses, and deputized the state police to enforce immigration laws. He’s firmer on his opposition to gay marriage, but he fought for the cause on Capitol Hill and on the Massachusetts Capitol steps. Maybe these are flip-flops, but at least they’re flip-flops reinforced by actions. Both Rudy and Huckabee shift their positions, without any explanation, and without any record to support the new stances.
Domestically, Romney’s very well versed. He understands how an economy functions; why societies rise and fall, why growth starts and stops. He’s tackled tough issues like health care, sometimes with controversial solutions, and always with seriousness of purpose. He fought to keep charter schools and for better pay for better teachers. On foreign policy, he’s worked to learn more about the nature of the conflict (note his speech at the Herzliya Conference), and where he does lack experience, I’m convinced that his rigorous method of executive decision-making will help to fill in the gaps.
Deciding who to support in this race, has been one of the hardest things I’ve ever done. I don’t expect that I’ll persuade many, and I’ll likely antagonize a few. What once might have seemed like neutral commentary, will now be filtered through a “bot” lense; stray comments will set off alarms, and my readers will undoubtedly think “this guy has an agenda and I won’t be suckered”. There’s not much I can do about all that, except to say that I’ve tried to be fair in the past, and I’ll try to be fair in the future. But, there’s one part of the assumptions that they’ll have gotten right; I do have an agenda, though it’s not the one they suppose. I’m here, on this site and in the political arena, to defend that great legacy of conservatism, which began in earnest with Burkean traditionalism, and which has, for the past 25 years, found its home in the Republican Party. And I think that, flawed though he is, Mitt Romney best advances this agenda.
by Matthew E. Miller @ 4:13 pm. Filed under Mitt Romney
While his record in elective office is awful, his statements are pleasing. Every other candidate is generally consistent with their public statements and public record as follows:
Guilani and McCain: awful
Romney and Thompson: fair to good
Paul, Hunter and Tancredo: good to excellent.
RuPaul LOL
Paul? Paul is a nut bag.
Welcome aboard.
Wonder if he thought about
1. How Mitt Romney was pro-abortion, even providing state-funded abortions for $50, until he decided to run for national office
2. How Mitt Romney panned Reagan
3. How Mitt Romney was such a liberal he voted for Dukakis
4. How Mitt supported gun-grabbing bills, like the Brady Bill, well, until he decided to run for president
5. How he imposed socialized medicine on his state
6. How he said he would be more gay-friendly than Ted Kennedy
7. How, most recently, he immediately threw Rush Limbaugh under the bus for the phoney soldier bit
Romney has a social and economic liberal record that is left basically the entire Republican Party.
It's a RINO.
I Found A HorseThanks for the tip. $2 to Show.
Well said!
I've got to see a man about that horse. Be back shortly.
For me, its Romney or Thompson.
Love your tag line. Why couldn’t Hunter be the one to rise, instead of Huckster. Is it all because the MSM is pushing him, or has he done something that Hunter should emulate? Can he get some traction in South Carolina? And did you hear that poofster, Shep, asking today when Hunter is just going to give it up? What a jerk.
He'll make a strong and trustworthy president.
Romney raised his hand to the global warming question. I will only vote for him if all else fails by next november. Fred still has my primary vote.
He is strong on some of my secondary issues but he has changed or glossed over his stance on ALL my major ones.
Romney is an opportunist who will say nearly anything as long as he thinks it improves his chances. I.E. no convictions or core beliefs (at least none that he lives by). Fred Thompson is the opposite. And the guy I will be voting for.
Doggone it, I thought this was thread was gonna be about Mr. Ed!
I found a dime at lunch time.
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.