Why I Reluctantly Will Endorse Mitt Romney [Why we reluctantly will zot]

Neoavatara ^ | December 30, 2011 | Neoavatara

[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.

[ansel12]

The difference is that the public knows the worst about Newt, and he has been dealing with it for years.

When they start on Romney and strip the meat off of him, it will stun and shock the American people.

The flip side negative is the damage to Christianity and conservatism as our own talk show hosts, writers and commentators are seduced to use all their talents, conservative roots, and creativity to find new language and philosophical, and even religious reasons why Mormonism is not really a cult but is acceptable to the Christian conservative voter.

This is the big breakout that Bishop Romney and the Mormon religion have been fighting for, for many decades.

[marron]

You say you have been waiting for an alternative. Many of them have been chased out for the last four and one half years by Romney folk, starting with those picked up by the McCain campaign who started on Sarah Palin.

This is true. The worst attacks on conservatives often come from fellow Repubs and when they do, surprise surprise, they always seem to come from Romney supporters. I wasn't always convinced Palin was our best hope for president, but I always saw her as stalwart and a fighter, and the attacks on her were almost always below the belt.

And, when by Repubs, almost always by either McCainiacs or Romniacs (often the same people).

So, not a chance I will support him.

[AmericanInTokyo]

I have ten years on you here at FR, and I say Mitt Romney and his supporters, reluctant or otherwise, can shove it where the sun don’t shine. Got it?

[Private_Sector_Does_It_Better]

“Oh they will attack any candidate, I’m not disputing that. But the idea that Romney can win just isn’t viable. I used to be Mormon and I can give you a playbook of the crap the MSM will use. Mitt as the nominee is a much easier win for Obama. MUCH easier.”

I totally agree that Mitt is an easier win for Obama than Newt would be, I’ve never even remotely implied otherwise. That’s why I’m voting for Newt, he would aboslutely destroy the teleprompter president in a debate. But Mitt could win, a lot can happen between now and november. The one thing I’ve learned above all in politics is that this far out it’s impossible to tell what political tides will turn.

On another note, I’d REALLY love to see Newt as a VP nominee so we could watch him debate Biden. That would be awesome!! Biden is a dolt and Newt would humiliate him. I have despised Biden for a long time.

[Graewoulf]

If YOUR goal is to continue the growth of the size of the US Federal Government, then your key assumption: “ - - - have a pro-growth plan - - - “ for your candidate is consistent with your goal.

Just “grow the economy” so the Federal politicians can keep on spending.

Since you are a true-believer in BIG Government, this won’t make any sense to you, but here goes anyway:

WHEN YOUR OUTGO EXCEEDS YOUR INCOME, YOUR UPKEEP WILL BE YOUR DOWNFALL. Think about it once a day, painful as it might be.

Romney would be an excellent choice for you and the LIBS, (Lovers of Infinite Bolshevik Socialism), in “both” political parties.

BTW, if your other goal is to “broaden the base” of the Republican Party, doesn’t that lead to a bunch of fat-assed, bloated, political fat cats?

[going hot]

Any of my chickens could debate Biden.

A mirror could debate biden, and win.

[Private_Sector_Does_It_Better]

Yes, but Newt might just make him cry. :)

[shibumi]

Congratulations!
Your arrogance, condescension and generally snotty attitude have finally paid off.

Your self-pimping posts have earned you the "Turd in the Punchbowl Award."
Toast yourself with a big cup full,
And a heaping helping of

[shibumi]

In a recent exchange with TheOldLady, you said the following:

"So in fact, the analogy is you and I vising Mr. Robinson’s house, I start smoking and YOU tell me to leave, without understanding whether or not Mr. Robinson and I have and an understanding.
So I am disappointed you are upset, but that will in no way change my behavior."

Sometimes it might be a good idea to listen to people who have been in the house longer than you have. Especially if the guest in question (TheOldLady) is well thought of, knows the "lay of the land" better and is, in general, a lot smarter and quicker witted than you have proven yourself to be.

And pay especialy close attention if she's got one of these on her desk .....

[humblegunner]

The pimp finally manages to post without excerpting and THIS happens?

Just damn.

[bcsco]

But here is, ultimately my logic.

Here, ultimately, is your sellout. That mean he bite the dust, Kemo Sabe. Yes, Tonto, but why waste a silver bullet when we have the all powerful ZOT at our means. Now, for the fun...

[shibumi]

Hoisted on his own Mobyness.

[Dr. Sivana]

I like that strategy, but Paul, being the nutbag he is, will think all the votes are really for him and not a protest.

Yeah, and my three year old thinks the entire candy jar is just for him. It doesn't change reality. Paul can think whatever he wants.

[Salamander]

It's a bitch.

[Condor51]

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.

And here 'IT' is. The reality of a Zot!

5, 4, 3, 2, 1 .. Zot!!

[Absolutely Nobama]

ZOT! ZOT! ZOT! ZOT! ZOT!.........

The blog was doubleplusungood.

[Jabba the Nutt]

"First, the candidate must be electable and able to defeat Barack Obama, both electorally and intellectually."

Mitt would not recognize Obama as a socialist. Why not? Well, if Obama and ObamaCare is socialist, then Mitt is socialist. And this is a recipe for success in defeating Obama electorally and intellectually. Really? I'm not sold.

"Second, they must broaden the base of the Republican Party, both on the conservative and moderate sides."

Reagan did this by bringing Americans over into mainstream conservativism. Romney proposes to do this by being a squish who appeals to everyone, where they are now. He persuades no one. He hasn't persuaded the author of this piece.

"Third, they must be economically intelligent and have a pro-growth plan that will overturn the Obama economic disaster."

59 points full of trims, squish and mush that don't offend anybody and therefore don't create opposition and don't create excitement for supporters and in the end, if completely enacted will not have a great effect. This will pave the way for the return of more hard socialism from the Democrat Party. "And fourth, because of the Obama experiment, they must show some executive level experience."

I would prefer this, Romney's one term as Governor, who did not run for a second term due to a 34% approval rating aren't going to set the world on fire. Why is Romney considered experienced to be President? He himself cites his business experience. What has he really run? Cain had more direct hands-on business experience, than Romney at Bain Capital.

There seem to be more myths about Mitt, than anyone else out there.

[Arrowhead1952]

Sure is a nice purge of the mitt and RP supporters the past few days!!

[JSDude1]

You can suck it! Mitt Romney isn’t conservative in any sense of the word. J.S.

[tbw2]

If Romney is the Republican nominee, is it better to vote for Romney or not vote at all?
Is it better to have a RINO win or Obama win?