Posted on 02/04/2008 8:48:07 AM PST by Jeff Head
What follows are my reasons for supporting Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination. I will admit upfront that Hunter and Thompson were far and away my 1st and 2nd choices for the GOP bid. I do not like the fact that I must now consider a 3rd choice...but that is the way things have turned out and given the remaining field and the stakes, I must choose the best I can. It is a sad day in our nation that this is the case...but it is.
Mitt Romney has an unarguably strong record in the private sector managing, making over, and creating busineses that were not only profitable, but that employed tens of thousands of Americans. Detractors will point to the fact that in some instances, employees were laid off when he either consulted with, or managed certain companies and had to cut out excess or failings to improve the bottom line of the organization.
Would those same detractors rather that the entire business fail? That all of the employees lose their job? Let's face it, our economy is a free market economy, not some socialistic economic farce like the marxist nations adopt that attempts to relegate employment and work to a state entitlement. In the free market, business succeed or fail based on their profitablity. Succeeding is good for every one, the individuals employed, the management, the share holders (if there are any), and for the economy. Mit Romney has made a career out of understanding this and making it happen.
...and this is not to mention, which you will never hear from those same detractors, the fact that Mitt has created businesses that employ far, far more people than he ever had to let go. Like Staples for example.
I might add...this management on Mitt's part goes far beyond what one of his chief opponents and detractors has tried to make light of as "merely managing". It takes a real leader to manage in the fashion that Mitt has done in business. Decision making, leadership, getting people on board with the necessary changes and then moving forward. Mitt clearly has been able to do this in the private sector and to marginalize that accomplishment and effort by either discounting it as simply "hiring a manager", or equating it to not wanting to have someone who "hands you a pink slip", is a slap in the face to the entire private sector and smacks of narscistic and socialistic views of the free market economy which is so critical to the well being and health of our society...including its government. Those other candidates prove by their own words a basic misunderstanding of the free market economy, and an almost contempt for it. Mittt understands the free market and what it takes to be successful in it like no other in the race and it is a critcal issue facing us all.
Now, let's talk about Mitt's changes. Mitt comes from a culture, the LDS faith, that believes people in a society which is free, should obey and sustain the law. It is engrained into the fabric of that culture. Even when you do not agree with it. Mitt was a bishop and a stake president in that organization...volunteer, non-paid, leadership positions where he faithfully executed and put forward to the members of his church in that area the church's position on any number of issues...most notably abortion and homsexuality. The LDS church is one of the most outspoken opponents of abortion and homsexual agenda. Mitt could not have held those positions (before his political career) without sustaining the church's position on those issues.
So, what happened? This is something that has troubled me. Despite a faith that decries these things and is reconginzed as among the most conservative segments of society as a whole, Mitt, when running for governor of MA, one of the most liberal states in the union, vocally supported abortion rights and homsexual rights, , but extending to the 2nd amendment as well. I believe Mitt ran on those planks for several reasons, none of which I agree with. One, his parents were fairly socially liberal, as he indicates with his refernce to his mother. She was personally against abortion and would not have ever had one...but she supported the so-called "right" to choose.
This is a key to understanding Mitt's earlier position.
I believe Romney has always been personally against these things...but since the law of the land said it was "legal" he rationalized his support of it using his mother's "I am against it but feel that people should be able to choose", to rationalize his own political position in a liberal state where that type of thing was required to get elected.
Second, his cultural position in the LDS faith to "support and sustain the law" led him to rationalize supporting and sustaining bad law in these areas in conjunction with his political career.
I do not agree with any of that. Never have, never will. Irrespective of what a group of people "proclaimm" as the law, as the Supreme Court did in 1972, there is still fundamental right and wrong. Romney was wrong on this...he convinced himself to politically support "laws", and follow the example of his parent on something that was intrinsically wrong, as evidenced by his own personal feelings against it.
But, like Reagan, who also changed positions on the very issue of abortion, Romney changed. He admits it openly. He says he was wrong. I believe that changing hearts and minds on this issue is a big part of the fight and I will not discount a man who has professed that change openly nd publically. I will welcome the change...although I personally would have rather seen several years of support for the new positoion before supporting Mitt for president. Unfortunately, I do not have that luxury in this election. But I have listened closely to people like Santorum, Hastert, Tancedo, and others who have discussed just these issues with Romney before endorsing him. I believe those men...and I believe in my own heart that Romeny can and has changed.
The platform and issues Romney is running on now are, therefore, much more closely aligned with my own. From the War on Terror (which Romney correcly identifies over all his conteders as a war against Islamic Jihad), to the battlefronts in Iraq and Afganistan, to Gitmo, to ANWR, to abortion, to marriage, to his economic policies, to taxes, and any number of other issues...Romeny is now much more closely aligned with my own feelings on these issues than any other GOP candidate, and certainly than either of the democratic candidates.
I also know this about Romney...he is a man that tries to keep his commitments. From his clear virtue with his wife and family, to keeping business promises, to keeping his political promises. He takes notes specifically on those promises and then tries to fulfill them. I believe he will do the same here and be true to the commitments he is making and the people who are lining up and supporting him.
As a result of all of this, and despite the fact, as I have said, that Hunter and Thompson were far and away my 1st and 2nd choices...with the field that remains in the GOP, Mitt Romney now has my vote and support in this election. I believe he has the positions, I believe he has the conservative support, and I believe he has the resources to carry the fight to a successful conclusion against McCain and then against the democrats.
If he wins, I believe he will hold the line against the DNC, and against the members of the GOP who tend to align with liberal issues. I believe he will continue to take the fight to the enemy in the war, and believe he will institutue economic policies that are much more healthy and much more sound and good for the nation than either the tax and spend liberals, or the compassionate conservative spending policies of the current administration. Romney is much more likely to leave us fiscally sound than any of the other contenders.
I also know that there are others who fundamentally disagree with this. So be it. They have a right to their feelings and their research and their decisions based upon it. Particualrly in an election where the GOP is down to 3rd and 4th choices I will not discount or smear them for it. It is their right to do so...it is their duty to study it out and make their best decision. I may not agree with their decisions at this point, but I support them in coming to their own...and will try and rationally set forth my own reasoning in an attempt to influence others.
Finally, I will personally also not join the ranks of those who will either not vote at all, or vote for the DNC as an effort to try and bring about such bad conditions that the conservatives must change. I would rather, for the sake of my family and community, find someone who will hold whatever ground possible, than give it ALL over to those whom I know will take away as much ground on all fronts as possible. That is a course that is, IMHO, fraught with danger. We may lose too much ground and not be able to get it back in our lifetimes, or those of our children. I will not risk that. But that is my opinion and my own decision and the direction I will choose throughout this election.
Having said all of this, admittedly, Romney still has has a huge mountain to climb. Big name party leaders (of the Ford and Rockefeller variety IMHO) are lining up behind McCain and Huckabee seems intent on splitting what remains of the conservative vote. But with what happened in Maine on February 2, where Romney won with a majority over both McCain and Huckalbee combined...and with the overwhelmimng majority here on FR now supporting him (and this is probably the most conservative site on the internet), and with the backing of people like Hastert, Santorum, Tancedo, and so many others...I believe Romney does has the best chance, and he has my support in going for it.
>How many years have we cried for Republican control, just to get it and get huge government, excessive spending and corruption that makes me want to puke.<
That’s the truth, no matter what any Party freak wants to say.
Romney's purported conversion on abortion is nothing like Reagan. In 1967 when Reagan was presented with the legislature's bill, no one was thinking about abortion and no one had any idea what planned barrenhood were really up to and what their plans for the future were. Being a decent man, Reagan was completely blindsided by the abortionists' malevolence. To liken Romney to Reagan in 1967 after the passage of 35+ years of mass butchery which Romney publicly supported as an adult man, in opposition to none other than Ronald Reagan, is too much to take. Where was Romney those 35 years; in a cave?
Reagan began to vigorously study the issue and the Therapeutic Abortion Act. He asked his longtime adviser and Cabinet secretary Bill Clark — a devout Catholic who had contemplated the priesthood — for counsel. “Bill, I’ve got to know more — theologically, philosophically, medically,” Reagan confided. Clark loaded up the governor with a box of reading materials, which he took home and read in semi-seclusion. Edmund Morris later said that, by the time the Therapeutic Abortion Act reached his desk, “Reagan was quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas.” Years later, Reagan remarked that he did “more studying and soul searching” on the issue than any other as governor.Nonetheless, he signed the bill. Reagan and his staff calculated that if he vetoed the bill, his veto would be overridden by the state legislature. Therefore, he decided to do what he could to make the bill less harmful, arguing for the insertion of certain language that eliminated its worst features and allowed for abortion only in rare cases — such as rape or incest, or where pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother.
The Therapeutic Abortion Act became law. And as would happen with nearly every abortion law in the years ahead, the mental-health provision was abused by patient and doctor alike. Reagan biographer Lou Cannon notes that even the bill’s Democratic sponsor confessed to being surprised that physicians so liberally interpreted the law.
Reagan was shocked at the unintended consequences of his action. Morris said Reagan was left with an “undefinable sense of guilt” after watching abortions skyrocket. Cannon claims this was “the only time as governor or president that Reagan acknowledged a mistake on major legislation.” Clark called the incident “perhaps Reagan’s greatest disappointment in public life.”
For Reagan, one good thing did come out of this disappointment. As Georgetown’s Matt Sitman notes, “It is impossible to understand his later staunchly pro-life positions without grasping the lessons he learned from this early political battle.” Reagan, says Sitman, survived the ordeal with a “profoundly intellectual understanding of the abortion issue…. It was in 1967 that his ideas concerning the beginning of human life were fully formed.” He now had a cogent understanding, politically and morally, of abortion and its implications.
Reagan would later denounce abortion so strongly and so frequently from the Oval Office that Bill Clark has compiled a 45-page document of Reagan’s quotes on abortion, collected from the official Presidential Papers. Reagan even authored a small book — Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, featuring contributions from Bill Clark, Malcolm Muggeridge, and Mother Teresa — that was published by the Human Life Foundation in 1984. White House moderates wanted Reagan to delay publication until after the 1984 election, fearing it would turn off pro-choice Republicans, but Reagan refused. He would not be burned again on abortion. No more compromises.
Ronald Reagan emerged from 1967 repentant, but ready for future battles. The damage was done; of course, the results were nothing compared to the travesty that a group of men in black robes in Washington were planning six years later.
Reagan's Darkest Hour
I do not know who I'm going to vote for tomorrow. McCain is insane. Romney changes positions depending on the election, and Huckabee is Jimmy Carter in Republican drag. But please, do me a favor and don't liken Romney to Reagan on abortion-killing. Tomorrow is dreary enough without having to endure that calumny
Cordially,
Dude. You could have just wrapped it in one word versus 1000 words..McCain!
Thanks.
Too late for '08....gotta dance with who's left standing.
It's ABC (Anybody But Clinton)
Finally post 207 he gets around to his entire list. JK, glad I’m in there somewhere even if it is the “entire list”. I agree Hunter Thompson were on my list, but they are gone, and I agree there is now only one choice for Republicans, or conservatives. At least those who are willing to cast their vote.
I consider Reagan to be the best President in my life time and one of the 2 or 3 best Presidents in the history of thos country.
As your article states, after hsi darkest hour he repented...which means he felt he had somethign very serious to repent of regarding abortion. My point on this issue is simple...without saying Romney is going to be another Regan in the least...Romney has also, by his own admission, repented of his views and actions on abortion.
You and some others here spend a lot of time trying to read something into what Mitt said and feel threatened by it. What has he done that really caused you or yours damage. McCain on the other hand has done some very serious damage with his liberal stands and if nominated it will assure that we have amnesty. I will never forgive McCain for calling the Swift Boat guys frauds. Some of those guys were every bit as much heros, and more than McCain.
Truth is, McCain has betrayed us for years. There is NO doubt!
Weigh that with what would happen to our country with Barry or Hil in the WH and what options are left?
We’ve come down to what will we accept. I accept Mitt Romney and will be voting for him in the March 4th Texas primary.
I’ve watched Romney during the debates and believe he would do what’s right if president. He would run the country like a business. Hopefully a successful one. He mentions the War on Islamo-facishism a lot. I like that.
John McCain’s actions for the past 8 years are finally catching up with him. I’ve grown to despise him. If he is the face of the republican party I don’t want to be associated wit it.
Huckabee. Well I feel he’s not presidential material. His Arkansas record and he’s a little too religious for me. Seems real weak on foreign policy.
Fred. Wish you were still here but you’re not.
Cheney. I’d love to see you president but you made your choice. Thanks for your service to your country.
I have come to the same conclusions as you, and for many of the same reasons. I also preferred Hunter and then Thompson (I also liked Tancredo). Given the choices that are left, I’m leaning toward Romney and hoping that his changes on some very important issues are genuine. I know what Juan McAztlan stand for and will do. If McAztlan does get the nomination (Heaven forbid), I will vote third party or write in Hunter or Thompson and vote “R” for the rest of the ticket.
This has to be the worst election cycle I’ve seen in my 52 years of living.
Thanks for responding. Today is really a critical day, IMHO, in our nation's history. I hope conservative Americans across the nation surprise the prognosticators...like we did on the amnesty bill whose author is now leading in all of their eyes and polls.
Agreed!
Sorry.
No apologies necessary from Jeff Head.
Indeed this is a critical day.
How we went from John McCain in SC 2000
to John McCain today, only the passage
of time or short memories explains it.
This is where many of you are mistaken. I don't have to dance. I don't have to run off the cliff just because the rest of you are.
If George H.W. Bush had been elected in 1992, the Repubs would most likely have not reclaimed the Congress in 1994. Long term thinking/planning gets shcrt changed in favor of short term expediency. I won't play that game. If it means non-compliance, both peaceful or violent, so be it.
Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney...sure there are differences, but the political ends are not all that different: Civilian disarmament, ascendency of the homosexual agenda, amnesty. I'd like to be able to vote for Romney, but his past position on vital issues leads me to distrust his current seemingly expedient choices.
Enjoy the drop.
Oh my....
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.