Posted on 01/28/2007 12:52:35 PM PST by Obilisk18
Of all the speakers this past week at the Herzliya Conference, Israel’s premier counterterrorism and security gathering, no one dazzled ‘em like presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Other White House wannabes, including John McCain and John Edwards, also made appearances, but they spoke via satellite, whereas Romney was in the flesh. But that alone cannot explain the stark disparity in performance.
As anyone who’s seen Romney knows, he cuts an impressive physical presence, he’s charming and can deliver a hokey line with the best of them. What I had not seen from him before, though, was any real indication that he had more than a passing knowledge of foreign policy or a decent handle on the global struggle in which we are engaged.
After what I witnessed, however, it’s hard not to be a Romney cheerleader.
What was most extraordinary was how clearly Romney articulated the nature of the common enemy Israel and the United States both face. It was, by far, the most remarkable speech on the topic given by an American politician of either party, on television or in person.
One line in particular captures how thoroughly Romney understands our jihadist enemies: “Contrary to the Baker-Hamilton Commission, resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict will not magically mollify the jihadists.”
Don’t let the clever phrasing hide the serious message. The origins of modern Islamic fundamentalism long precede the creation of the Jewish state of Israel, and Palestinians merely serve as convenient propaganda to rile the masses. And as the world has seen, radical Islamic propaganda can be found just about anywhere: ultimately untrue stories about the flushing of a Qur’an, quoting a medieval scholar, or even cartoons. Romney gets that.
It’s not just that Romney strongly supports Israel—that would hardly distinguish him in American politics—it’s that his support is rooted, at least in part, in a textured comprehension of Islamic fundamentalism. For proof, read the next few paragraphs of Romney’s remarks:
“No, what we should have realized since 9/11 is that what the world regarded as an Israeli-Arab conflict over borders represented something much larger. It was the oldest, most active front of the radical Islamist jihad against the entire West. It therefore was not really about borders. It was about the refusal of many parts of the Muslim world to accept Israel’s right to exist – within any borders.
“This distinction came into vivid focus this summer. The war in Lebanon had little to do with the Palestinians. And it had nothing to do with a two-state solution. It demonstrated that Israel is now facing a jihadist front that from Tehran through Damascus to Southern Lebanon and Gaza.
“As Tony Blair astutely put it, Hizbullah was not fighting ‘for the coming into being of a Palestinian state…but for the going out of being of an Israeli state.’
“Yet we have still not fully absorbed the magnitude of the change. As far as our enemies are concerned, there is just one conflict. And in this single conflict, the goal of destroying Israel is simply a way station toward the real goal of subjugating the entire West.”
On the topic of the most pernicious present threat, Iran, Romney also offered a coherent strategy for nonviolently combating Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. He laid out a 5-point plan that included economic and diplomatic isolation of the regime, prodding Arab states to lock arms with the West, and working with “progressive” Muslims in Iran and elsewhere to “defeat radical Islam.”
Like many, I believed that Romney’s Mormon faith would be an electoral deal-breaker, especially with evangelical Christians who dominate GOP primaries in the South. That still may prove true. But unless his competitors are able to discuss our battle against radical Islam with as much aplomb as Romney displayed in Herzliya, the former Massachusetts governor could easily stake out a leadership position on the single most important issue facing America.
That alone might not result in victory, but it will certainly help Romney make it further than many now believe is possible.
I believe Mitt Romney holds more conservative positions in domestic and foreign policy, taken as a whole, than President George W. Bush. The issues of immigration and government spending restraint that redgirlinabluestate mentioned are excellent examples of the differences between the two men. They have similar, hawkish approaches to the War on Terror based on Romney's public statements.
I want to qualify my assessment as one who greatly admires President Bush and served in his campaign organization when he ran for Governor of Texas and as a Bush delegate at the 2000 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia. I’m not a G.W. Bush basher, and I’m quite familiar with his philosophy of government and character.
That's a real good point. With these 'less-than-stellar' candidates, such as McCain, Hunter, Brownback, etc., at BEST we'd get another Bush type figure - meaning conservative on paper, and maybe in practice (through Supreme Court nominations), but not an truly great inspirational leader - to most Americans, not just conservatives. They'd probably bumble through 4 years getting tossed around at will by the media. At this point I see only three candidates who have the potential to be Churchill/Reagan type figures: Gingrich, Romney, and Guiliani.
Rudy/Romney or Romney/Rudy for 2008.
Looks good to me.
Mitt and his 5 sons have not served in the military and had silver spoon upbringing
So, did you vote for Kerry in 2004 then, since he had more combat experience than Bush?
I heard this speech yesterday. I hate to agree with a headline, but I thought it was "dazzling."
I have to admit that after hearing him speak in two small group settings, I felt the same way. He has an indescribable leadership quality that you don't encounter very often.
His wife was also an impressive speaker. A few of his sons were in attendance as well. Nice family.
Don't forget Romney and Michigan.
His father was a very popular Govorner of Michigan, and IIRC Mitt grew up in Michigan and has strong ties to that state.
That could get us 16 years straight! And, I think they could win California. Scary!
Though Bush was not in combat, he was still in the mlitary, more than someothers.
The Hoover Institution has been hosting Presidential hopefuls. The latest visitor was Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney who spoke to, and received questions from, the Senior Fellows yesterday. For about one hour, he heard some tough inquiries, answered without notes, kept his cool, and talked analytically rather than in platitudes. I was impressed, and came away thinking that being a conservative governor in Massachusetts must have sharpened his debating skills and given him insights about dealing with the therapeutic mindset. I don’t know what he thought of us, but most of us thought him quite impressive.
Now VDH is apparently one of Romney's Foreign Policy Advisors . The Iran speech does appear informed VDH writings.
LOL good one!
Victor Davis Hanson is a positive addition to the Romney team. Who handles the VDH ping list? They may be interested.
I'll give you a few more:
1)Fought against gay marriage as governor, and he will win (he forced the legislature to put an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment on the ballot, and it is almost certain pass next year).
2) He balanced the budget without raising taxes, getting a leftist-dominated state to cut spending.
3) Fought embryo cloning.
4) Vetoed a bill promoting the morning-after pill in MA.
5) He's a financial professional (founder of Bain Capital), and therefore the best qualified of all potential candidates to deal with the looming fiscal crisis stemming from medicare and social security.
Seriously, what's there not to like? Okay, he's a recent convert to the pro-life cause, but he's done more for that cause than any of the other possible candidates. He was gay-friendly 14 years ago, but his views changed, and his very vocal fight against gay marriage demonstrates the sincerity of that change.
He's the only realistic choice for conservatives, and a pretty good choice at that. I'll take a recent convert to the conservative cause over a tepid candidate who only pays us lip service any day.
I hear that. The North Vietnamese really got to him. Tragedy, that. But we can't take a chance on nuts.
Forced economic arrangements.
You can't have universal coverage unless you use the force of government to make people do things they don't want to.
Romney dazzles, Hillary charms...it is going to be a long 18 months.
Our congressman (Pete Hoekstra) is supporting Romney and that is making me take a closer look at him. Hoekstra is rock-solid conserative and I believe he has a channel to my mind cause he votes the way I would have on everything.
I believe Romney would win Michigan. The name is well respected here.
Romney is absolutely the smartest candidate running. He is a man of great accomplishments, and is a brilliant executive.
It's perfectly reasonable for the government to force individuals to do things when the failure to do them has negative consequences on others.
That's why it's perfectly reasonable for the government to force you to buy auto insurance, keep your front yard in good condition, mow your lawn and rake your leaves, sweep the snow of the sidewalk in front of your home or business, etc.
People who choose not to buy health insurance take a significant risk of becoming wards of the state. If they get seriously sick, they can just go to an emergency room and stick the rest of us with the tab if they can't afford to pay it. It is thus perfectly reasonable for the government to require some minimum level of catastrophic coverage so as to prevent such freeloading.
It also has the added benefit of reducing adverse selection costs.
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.