Critics of Romney who argue that hes really a liberal and boosters who claim that hes a true conservative both err by attempting to understand Romney through an ideological prism. In reality, hes a businessman who wants to apply his well-honed management skills to the public sector. If one is to be successful in the business world, the important thing is to satisfy customers and maximize profits.
This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. The Romney-haters on this site insist that he's a genuine, ideological leftist. This is foolish. Romney gets along by going along. It is up to us to make sure that it is conservatism with which he finds himself going along.
We need to get Romney elected, get genuine conservatives elected to as many other offices as possible, and then start a morning-in-America nationwide conservative revival along the lines of the big tent, small government, free enterprise, fiscally conservative tea party movement agenda.
We conservatives have a lot of good young prospects coming up through the ranks. It is a tragedy that none were ready to assume the mantle this year but that's how it goes. We work with what we have now and set ourselves for steady progress over the longer term.
Start where you are.
Use what you've got.
Do what you can.
This is the way of success.
Many RINOs base their political identity on their ability to "work with" Democrats, and will fight tooth and nail against anything which would undermine that. I disliked Romney less than McCain in 2008, but since then he's shown himself to be more and more of a leftist at heart.
If a conservative were to be elected President in 2012, such a person might be able to turn the government around without a major crisis of legitimacy happening first. If that isn't going to happen, it would be better to have a President whose actions can be seen by many as being those of an illegitimate tyrant, than one whose actions, while somewhat less tyrannical, are more widely perceived as legitimate. In that regard, another Kagan on the court would be far less dangerous than another Souter. If states have to stand up and openly denounce Supreme Court decisions which directly contradict the plain language of the Constitution, it would be better for them to denounce decisions which are written by openly partisan Democrats than ones written by pseudo-Republicans like Souter.