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.
Lovin’ the Betty White photo!
“If I have to chose between an anti-American, free enterprise hating communist and a gun grabbing semi-socialist, I’ll chose the later. But I won’t feel good about it.”
Exactly!
It is our duty to try to make sure America does not face that choice, but we’re outnumbered.
That doesn’t mean we can’t keep the faith and try, and we just might win!
“But I think ultimately, our hatred of Mr. Obama’s liberal policies will unify the right.”
Once again, the ruling class has arranged to present a non-alternative. Under Romney, America will head toward the cliff just a little less rapidly than under Obama. Romney will be as big a disaster for conservatism than Bush.
So once again, the right unifies under that dashing Republican slogan, “Sure we really suck. But not as much as the Democrats.”
It’s getting to be time the whole system will need to be rebooted, the hard drive scrubbed and a brand new OS installed. A third party won’t fix things. That just makes sure the most malevolent of the available viruses stays in control of the computer.
That the “conservative” party can nominate Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain and Romney in succession means electoral politics no longer functions—one entire and very large bloc of the electorate is not represented. I really don’t think there’s any peaceful way to get there from here. I’m too old to go there and the current youngsters, who ought to be complaining in the strongest terms about congressmen and lobbyists and presidents who have gotten them into this mess, believe mostly in unicorns, global warming and iPads and appear to have entirely bought into the conventional wisdom that government will solve their problems—they just need more power to do good.
Love it!
You make a really interesting point about a vote for Romney basically “rewarding” all the backstabbing and sleazoid tactics that he and his minions have been conducting the past three years. The way the entire establishment GOP went about after the mid-terms to undercut the Tea Party and grease the skids for Romney has totally alientated me from caring about either the GOP or its prospects. And I say this as someone who has voted exclusively Republican my entire life, never once wavering.
If the convention comes around, and I see nothing but Romney and a bunch of slimey yes-men establishment flaks and operatives out there praising him and celebrating amid the confetti, I’ll be looking at it with a sickened, jaundiced eye that is no better than what I’d reserve for the Dem convention. Never would have remotely predicted this a few years back, but I could go third-party at the drop of a hat nowadays.
Stop it; you’re making too much sense. Can’t have that. The only comments allowed are from the yes men and brown nosers.
Well put!
“We are really screwed as a country if we resort to screaming personal attacks against anyone we disagree with.”
You may dislike the tone, but as I just said in another post, any nation in which the “limited government” party nominates Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain and Romney in succession is in VERY deep trouble. That country is governed by a ruling class who has consciously decided that there is no need for about 40-45% of the population to have any meaningful representation in government and has spent about 70 years making sure they do not.
I don’t blame those people for being very, very angry. If one is not angry, one either does not believe in limited government or one does not understand the situation.
You’ve been Zotted for your support of Mittens. You should’ve been Zotted for shallow unpersuasive reasoning, best illustrated by an unsupported (and unsupportable) phrase such as “it is clear”, among similar presumptious cliches. But heck, that’s just perfectly fitting for a shallow POTUS candidate. And if GOP loses with somebody else, you’re in a perfect position to tell us: “I TOLD YOU SO!”
and it’s just plain stupid to treat Romney as if he’s the antichrist.
- - - - -
Not if he IS the anti-Christ. He is certainly ANTI-Christ just by his beliefs, and he thinks this is just part of him becoming a god and fulfilling prophecy.
Absolutely! Who needs principles? We can WIN!!! Victory and Freedom! We ‘win’ a liberal and are free to be ruled by one!
What joy!
Not.
Still trying to get zotted so you feel ‘justified’ in your support of Mitt based on Religious reasons?
Buh bye
Betty's get'n a good work out tonight with all the Myth and Paulbots around.
I don’t know why the Zot! has to be reluctant.
This Arrogant Anal Aperture was nothing more than a condescending pimp.
LOL. I bet she is.
It should have been faster, IMO. How dare a stinking blogpimp push Myth on FR. What arrogance!
Typical liberal behavior. Like the zotted before and those who continue to beg for it, they think they think they own the world and that actions have no consequence.
Looks like the Good will has run out.
Moby was a big Mark Kirk backer.
Still is as far as I can tell. Must be something in the Illinois water.
That, or he’s just as big a dumbass as we all thought he was.
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.