I write this:
"I think we might all be surprised to see how much of a core conservatism might actually reside there."
And you write that?
Romney might actually be a stealth candidate from the right and you are worried about him not announcing that -- just doing what could be done as he could do it well-behind enemy lines. It's a lot easier to be a vocal outstanding conservative politician in Georgia than in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts is a lot like Vichy France: would you have criticized a mayor of a town in the Vichy, who, while he outwardly appeared to support the Nazis actually did what he could do to oppose the totalitarian regime as best he could?
What I am saying is that I speak as one who lived through an era in New England where Kennedy liberalism took a mesmerizing hold of what was once one of the most Republican states in the nation from a time post-Civil War until 1952 when JFK entered the Senate.
You are in California and from what I have read here on FR, also one who left Mormonism for evangelical Christianity. Welcome! I applaud that change of heart and faith walk.
In the last 45 years California was blessed with 2 terms of Reagan as governor (exception being his legalizing abortion); you had Prop 13, Pete Wilson, Prop 187, alot of back and forth with conservatism rising and falling and rising and falling in the arena of CA politics. Orange County is still largely conservative in spite of the loss of Bob Dornan back in the mid - 90's. You are in a real bad spot now, I agree, but I believe you still have a viable conservative opposition in your state.
There is no such viable conservative opposition in MA -- not in the last 45 years of the post-JFK assasination era. MA just got rid of its last Kennedy-in-office vestige when Scott Brown was elected. Understand that. We are truly all operating behind enemy lines up here. With the exception of a few years here and there, I am a native New Englander. To understand what one is able to do in a place like this politically is to live in a place like this.
Romney did about as well as anyone with an (R) next to his name could expect to do in this region. "Romneycare" - a title stuck to him like "Star Wars" was stuck mockingly to Reagan by Kennedy -- that Romney signed was not the terms that were negotiated. But with 90% (D) entrenched in the legislature set to over ride a veto and knowing there was still more to oppose (e.g., Partial birth abortion) you have to pick battles to survive here politically.
I disagree with states mandating the forced purchase of health insurance. I also disagree with State income taxes. Wealth and jobs have flowed away from high tax high mandate states to states that have neither (e.g., Florida and Texas). That said, both rights reside within the purvew of states rights to do so, and this is Federalism.
State legislatures are laboratories. Each state tries programs to learn what works best for them and what doesn't. I suspect that if health insurance is able to be negotiated comepetitively across state lines, those states setting up exchanges and mandating health insurance will eventually dismantle their expensive programs as the populace rises up to call for their elimination.
As far as I am concerned I am hiring a politician to do what I want him to do. That's it. I don't have to like them. I think too many conservatives are trying to make friends of politicians the way parents are too often busy make trying to make their kids their "friends." Result is too often that the kids don't respect the parents and the politicians don't respect the constituents.
I actually think Romney has plenty of good conservative principles even as many Mormons I have met do. I suspect you had sterling ethical principles as Mormon as you have today. My point is you can't tell me that a guy whose religion believes America has something to do with the lost tribes of Israel is going to do something that doesn't affirm American world supremacy. I don't have to agree with the man's religion but if that's what incentivizes him to make sure America's world supremacy is affirmed both economically and militarily, and beacon of freedom, I can support the politician because he is doing what I want.
How many "conservatives" have said they'd do things conservatively and they turn around and disappoint us? Like the parable in Scripture where the guy says he'll plow the field and doesn't vs. the guy who said he wouldn't and has a change of heart and does it. Which one did the Master's bidding?
Similarly, which ever one calling himself conservative and espousing conservatism actually does stuff to move the conservative ball down the field to get into scoring position is the conservative I will support -- regardless of whether he's a Mormon.
I hope that to a significant degrees I can trust (that is not without"Trust but Verify") them to keep their word to me. But that typically takes a constant effort from the grass roots, and the those grass roots have often booted that kind of thing up to politicians to take care of almost exclusively -- and they have been disappointed too many times in the past.
The grass roots must always practice "eternal vigilance" to keep the politicians on the straight and narrow. Unlike any other time in the ast 45 years today I see conservatives motivated to do just that from the grass roots all the way up to the Presidency.
In politics there are trade-offs. The key is to get more of what conservatives want and less of what liberals want. In spite of Bush 1&2 flaws, you must admit that we can thank them both for the evidences of USSC conservatism that still prevail.
MR's smart, and he structured his ground game for this primary long in advance of any of his competitors. He learned from mistakes from prior campaigns even as Reagan did in 1968 and 1976. It's why he is where he is today, and his competitors are not.
On another thread I have presented a possible cabinet selection for Romney, which if he chose to run with it could persuade the likes of Tea Party Patriots to become more enthusiastic campaigners in 2012 than will be the (D) counterparts.
How's this for a novel idea: Run with your proposed cabinet
If you hope to have any of your agenda see the light of day, you have to win first.
I was a Perry guy. He didn't win. I can move on. If, as I have proposed it, I can have the essence of everybody who ran, and create an amalgam of what was useful to the cause of conservatism from everyone of them, I'll have what I want, and I suspect you would too.
By keeping our eyes on the prize, and always remembering that our power is derived from the bottom up, not from the top down, from a unified front, not from a fractured, self-sniping back lot, our larger mass will be in a unique position to dictate our will to the higher ups. That is the way constitutional republicanism works.
Maybe if we can all stop fighting amongst ourselves, and pining for candidates that showed themselves to be singularly incapable of carrying the message long enough to coalesce into that force, we will win the day and take conservatism forward.
If the "cabinet-in-waiting," as I have proposed it, is unleashed into the fray, the debate will continue, and our opposition will wither in the face of it. We use our politicians for what they are good for. Imperfect vessels they may be, but what ever advances conservatism should be our goal.
Pessimism in conservative ranks is merely evidence of DNC success, and I see enough of it around here lately. Let’s cultivate THEIR pessimism, and if they ever thought it was Romney that they wanted to run against, I wouldn’t be surprised if we all someday find out that he actually turned out to be the Trojan Horse within THEIR own midst the whole time as Governor of MA.
FReegards!
