Why I'll vote for Romney

The rest of the Republican world has pretty much decided whether it prefers John McCain or Mitt Romney. Now, finally, I have too. Both candidates have major strengths and distinct weaknesses. Either would have my vote in November. But I believe Romney is the better choice.

This view may seem odd in light of the following comment I made a few weeks ago:

Every time it looks like McCain will break away from the pack, I panic in anticipation of four years of watching him stick it to conservatives on a more than occasional basis. When things seem to be breaking Romney's way, I panic in anticipation of an electoral rout in November followed by four years of a Clinton or Obama presidency.

Surely the prospect of having McCain stick it to conservatives periodically is the lesser evil compared to a lop-sided Democratic victory followed by an utterly non-conservative Clinton or Obama regime.

But voting on the basis of electability is often a fool's errand. Right now, Romney looks like a long-shot in November. He should be an attractive candidate -- smart, knowledgeable, good looking, extremely articulate -- but he's run into voter resistance even among conservatives because of his flip-flops, possibly his religion, and a general failure to connect. If he overcomes these problems and defeats McCain the rest of the way, then he'll have done enough to establish his potential electability to my satisfaction. If he doesn’t, the issue will be moot.

Meanwhile, Republicans should not take too much comfort from McCain's performance in polls against Clinton and Obama this far from November. The McCain I saw in the California debate last week didn't look particularly electable. With the economy emerging as the overwhelmingly central issue in the campaign, with McCain's nasty streak increasingly on display, and with his reputation for straight-talk diminishing before our eyes, I'm not prepared to base a vote for the Senator on electability.

The decision thus comes down to policy and effectiveness. I give Romney the edge on both counts.

Rick Santorum says that when he was in the Senate, there were three parties -- the Democratic party, the Republican party, and the McCain party. This is an exaggeration, but it contains some truth. Think of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, "McCain-Byrd" (the gang of 14 deal), and now McCain-Lieberman. On some of the most important issues of our time -- political speech, immigration, judicial nominations, taxation, and now climate change -- McCain has been more comfortable with liberal or centrist positions than with conservative Republican ones. Let’s not deceive ourselves into believing that this will change if McCain gains the highest office in the land. It’s far more likely that we’ll actually have a McCain party instead of just a McCain faction.

By the same token, we should not believe that, as president, Romney would be the same across-the-board conservative he's running as. But nothing in Romney's record as governor (as opposed to his record as a candidate for office in liberal Massachusetts) suggests that he won't govern as a reasonably reliable conservative. At a minimum, Romney will understand that there can be no "Romney party" -- any attempt by him to forge a "third way" by allying with the Democrats ultimately would leave him hopelessly isolated. McCain may be willing to accept that risk, but Romney surely isn't.

Finally, we get to the question of effectiveness and administrative ability. Romney has demonstrated these qualities throughout his career; McCain not so much. Yet, McCain is correct when he asserts his superiority over Romney in terms of foreign policy and national security experience, and when he takes credit for his role in denouncing the administration's approach in Iraq and leading the charge in favor of the surge. Though McCain misrepresents the facts about what Romney said on the subject, there’s no doubt that, where McCain led, Romney followed – and cautiously at that.

In the end, the choice boils down to two very different decisionmaking styles. Romney decides by immersion in "the data." McCain decides based on “instinct” – some combination of a few old-fashioned conservative values (keep government spending down and our defense strong); generalizations from his experience (e.g., torture didn't work on me, so waterboarding should be outlawed); and whatever he happens to pick up from people of various persuasions whom he happens to respect.

Instinct can trump data mining at times, especially with respect to decisions that fall within the decisionmaker's area of expertise. It did so with respect to the surge. However, as I put it a few days ago, "a president who consistently relies on instinct and pooh-poohs data is likely to make major mistakes. Unless one thinks McCain is a genius (and I don't), we'd probably be better off with Romney's approach to making decisions.”

So I end up favoring Romney. I suspect that many more Republicans favor McCain and, having taken this long to make up my mind, I certainly respect that point of view. And, while I’m fairly concerned about what a McCain presidency would look like, I intend to vote for McCain if he’s the Republican nominee.

"Years ago, I highly respected John McCain, but over the last 8 years, he’s just not the same person."

He's a vindictive, bitter old angry 'RAT - lover in reality. And if he gets beat in '08, it's going to send him off the deep end.

I was reeeeeeally disappointed watching Romney treat him with kid gloves in that last debate. He passed up soooo many openings that McCain gave him to say the things that would have caused McCain to blow his stack with steam coming out his ears right there in front of millions of people.

We are looking for somone with BALLS!!! Excuse my french! But why Romney's handlers aren't allowing him to show us some mojo is beyond me. Do they have a tin ear, too, like Bush? Don't they realize that the BIGGEST complaint us movement conservatives have had against Bush is the fact that he has allowed the street-fighter 'RATS to walk all over him?????

Romney allowed street-fighter McCain to walk all over him and elbow him around at will during that debate, and couldn't even muster up any righteous anger or indignation at what that bald-faced liar was doing to him.

If he'd have taken it to McCain on that stage, I will guarantee you he'd have rallied the base to his side and he'd have won that Florida primary, hands down.

He has one more day to show some MAJOR brass ones, or it's over. If we can't have A CANDIDATE who is WILLING & ABLE & EAGER to take on the low-life 'RATS and USE FIRE TO FIGHT FIRE, how can we enthusiastically work for the Republican candidate between now and November?

McCain's done even before he starts. He may get some grudging votes from some of the conservative base, but they won't put themselves out to get out the grass-roots to make the calls and lick the envelopes, etc. He KIDS himself.

It is as Rush said the other day:

"One of the reasons why the conservative vote is split is not because the Reagan coalition has gone away.

You have basically three legs of the conservative stool.

There's subsets of this, but you've got the economic, the fiscal; you've got the social; and you got the foreign policy conservatives.

Among these foreign policy conservatives -- these are the neocon guys -- they believe in a big government.

They believe in big, active executive, compassionate conservatism. They love this. That's why they like McCain. He's a big government guy.

Without anybody in this race that has all three of those legs firmly understood, then the conservatives all over these states and all these primaries are splitting off one of those three legs, the two, three that matter to them most.

Like the social conservatives, a lot of them are going Huckabee because he's a minister, because of abortion.

The economic conservatives, a lot of people are going to Romney -- and those are the small government types.

The foreign policy national security conservatives, those are the most important ones, those are the ones going to McCain.

Of course, he's picking up independents and moderates as well, and so the reason for this fracture is ....because there's not one candidate that incorporates all three legs of the stool."

I agree with that completely.

Now if Romney can convince the national security / foreign policy conservatives that he has the BALLS to take it to the enemy, many of them will NOT BE AFRAID to vote for him.

Let's face it! National security is the number one responsibility of the President / Federal Government and our FREEDOM must be defended above all.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that many of these short-sighted, pouty "social values voters" would be perfectly happy living under a dictatorship as long as the tyrant is what they would call, "a Christian".

Well, I'll let a "mature" Christian answer that idea, here and now:

If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent.

But the inquisitor _who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven_ will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with _the approval of his own conscience_ and his _better impulses appear to him as temptations_.

And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be.

A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign.

It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated.

In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right.

We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future.

To attach to a party programme--whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence--the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication."

~ C.S.Lewis -- (Lewis addresses theocracy - the most potent form of Religious involvement in government - in an essay entitled, "A Reply to Professor Haldane" (75-76). On Sotries. ed. Walter Hooper. Harcort & Brace Co. Orlando, Florida. 1996.)

Of course he was merely agreeing with the Framers who held to the _biblical worldview_ and forbade a "religious test" for political office. bttt

TERRORISM EXPERT ENDORSES ROMNEY!! Spread the word! I tried to post it on Breaking News but it didn’t go through - perhaps you can?! TIA

Dr. Phares explains why it is critical that we elect someone to the White House who genuinely comprehends the scope of the danger posed by the enemy and knows what must be done to defeat it. He then tells us who he thinks is the best choice for that awesome responsibility and carefully lays out his reasons whyThe Candidate Who Can See the Enemy, Can Defeat It - HUMAN EVENTS .

EXCERPT” Americans need to see and know that their future President can man sophisticated rhetoric, is ready to go on the offensive, and move against the enemy before the latter jumps at American and allies targets. Being just tough and willing to strike back heavily is not anymore an acceptable threshold. We need the next President to be aware of what the other side is preparing, preempt it and do it faster than any predecessor. The next stage in this war is not about sitting in the trenches and increasing the level of troops wherever we currently are. It will be about moving swiftly and sometimes stealthily and reaching the production structure of the enemy. And to do this, our projected leaders need to identify and define the threat doctrine and design a counter doctrine, a matter the US Government has failed to achieve in the first seven years of the war.

The two leading contenders on the Republican side, McCain and Romney, both recognize that there is an enemy, are committed to defeat it, but identify it in different intensities. Senator McCain says it is “Radical Islam,” and pledges to increase the current level of involvement. On Iraq, the former Navy Pilot says he will continue to fight till there are no more enemies to fight. To me that is a trenches battlefield: We’ll pound them till they have no more trenches. Governor Romney says the enemy is Global Jihadism, and it has more than the one battlefield of Iraq. And because the Jihadists are in control of regimes, interests and omnipresent in the region and worldwide, the US counter strategies cannot and should not be limited to “entrenchment” but to counter attacks, preemptive moves and putting allies forces on the existing and new battlefields. Besides not all confrontations have to be militarily. The difference in wording between the general term “radical Islam” and the focused threat doctrine “Jihadism” says it all. One leads to concentrate one type of power in one place, regardless of what the enemy is and wants to do, and the other concept lead to pinch the foe from many places on multiple levels and decide over the ending process of the conflict.

I am sure Senator McCain can follow the same reasoning and catch up with the geopolitics of the enemy but so far Governor Romney has readied himself better in the realm of strategizing the defeat this enemy. The next stage of the war has to do with a mind battle with the Jihadists. The latter aren’t a just a bunch of Barbarians set to bloodshed. They have a very advanced strategy, projecting for decades, and they are ready to confront our next President and defeat the United States. This is why I have come to the conclusion that -based on what was provided to the public by the four leading candidates- Governor Romney has the capacity of managing the counter strategies against the Jihadists, only because he stated to the public that he sees the enemy as to who they are. And if a President can see them, he can defeat them. His Republican contender, now leading the polls, can sense them but haven’t shown them. The leading candidates on the other side are making progress in the opposite direction: One wants to end the War unilaterally and the other wants to make Peace with the oppressors. In short, if elected, Romney will try to destroy the mother ship, McCain will supply the trenches, Clinton will pull the troops back to the barracks and Obama will visit the foes’ bunkers.

Hence, as is, I have recommended Governor Romney for the Republican Primaries as first among equals while considering Senator McCain as a genuine leader. If Romney is selected I believe America may have a chance to try new strategies. If his contender is selected, we will have four or eight more years of the past seven years. On the other side, I have suggested to counter-Terrorism experts to help Democratic candidates restructure their agendas on national security in line with the reality of the enemy: For I would like to see both Parties presenting a united vision of the threat while differing on how to confront it. That would be the ideal situation America can be in and a response to the deepest will of the American public.

To read the FULL article - click here The Candidate Who Can See the Enemy, Can Defeat It - HUMAN EVENTS .http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24808

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.