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.
Read McCain Liberberman before you post any more hyperocritcal nonsense about flip flops.
McCain supports a $.50 a gallon Fed Gas tax increase. Read the bill before you try to lie anymore about McCain’s “Conservative” creditials.
that is my impression also.
Isakson and Chambliss are supporting McCain too...some Georgia Republicans want to throw them out because of it...but I know you remember Max Cleland and Wyche Fowler.
Is there any more pie?
Thannk you. You are too kind. But I agree regarding Romney at this point and have made my decision after a lot of thought, discussion, and prayer. For me, at this point, it is the right decision. Others will have to make their own, but though I will try and use reasoned dialog to influence others, I will do so without smearing or degrading them for coming up with a different conclusion in such a tough election cylce when most all of us are down to 3rd and 4th choices.
Jeff: you are a good writer, but you seriously need a proofreader. I’m half way through Dragon’s fury and I stand by my comment.....
But what do you expect coming from a technical writer???
Time to put the Maverick out to pasture. For good.
Personnel IS policy, Jeff.
Would you please correct the spelling error in the title of this article and change “cam” to “came”? Thanks in advance and so sorry for the inconvienence.
McCain is a no-go for me. He never had a friend that he didn’t knife. At this stage of the game that leaves Huck and Romney.
Like you my preference was Hunter till he left the field, and then Thompson. Along with Tancredo, they were the only conservatives running, and they have all packed it in.
Between Huck and Romney, they both have a lot of baggage, and whichever anyone chooses, you’ll have to choose to ignore some of their baggage. Huck has irritated me with his several and repeated remarks to the effect that controlling illegal immigration was some how unchristian. He has backed off on his remark several times, but if he keeps talking he always comes back to it. It is where his heart is, it is how he instinctively sees the problem.
So between that, and the overall superior ability that Romney brings to the table, is why I decided to back him. If someone else thinks Huck is the better man, I won’t argue. But I’ve decided to go with Romney.
That's right. You have to be very, very liberal.
picky...picky...picky
There is more pie! None for McCain.
Want to talk about flip flops?
Let talk about McCain and Iraq.
2003 for the war.
2004 for the war against how it was run.
2005 for the war but wannted 250,000 more American “boots on the ground”
2006. Fathers the Baker Commission. Wants to cut a political deal with Iran and Syria so the USA could slink away from Iraq
2007. Presidential Campaing dead in the water. McCain has surogates fraudlent start claiming HE was the real father of the Surge stategy.
So what to compare flip flops McCainbots?
Well, it's today or never....and I'm thankful Rush is giving it his all.
I hope each of you in the primary states gives YOUR all for Mitt tomorrow.....even if someone has to carry you to the polls in a handbasket......or you may need that handbasket when the leftists take over this country.
Leni
Great piece, Jeff. I’m rapidly (yet hesitatingly) coming to many of the same conclusions myself.
http://romneyisafraud.blogspot.com/
Fraudo Flips on Gay Rights Flip. Again
While stumping in New Hampshire recently Willard Mitt reportedly extolled the virtues of gay couples raising children by saying that “(t)here are other ways to raise kids that’s fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That’s the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice.” (source: Boston Herald, June 10, 2007)
Zounds. Willard Mitt, in New Hampshire, said that gay couples raising kids is the American way.
This after Willard Mitt, in South Carolina, said that while same-sex couples “are actually having children born to them (i)t’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact.” (source: Boston Globe, February 18, 2006)
This after Willard Mitt, in Boston, signaled support forgay pride.
Of course while in New Hampshire Romney never said that gay couples raising children was “right.” He only said that it was “the American way.”
So is Willard Mitt really saying that he supports gay couples raising children? Or that he is against the American way?
Only his weatherman knows for sure.
Countdown
In honor of Willard Mitt’s recent appearance on Countdown with Keith Olbermann wherein he declaimed lobbyist Ron Kaufman’s role as a leader in his campaign we reprise for your dining pleasure our paeon to Kaufman’s links to Team Reform, titled: Picket Charge or Grate Minds Think Alike.
For dessert here’s Senior Advisor Ron Kaufman humping Willard Mitt to MSNBC.
Oh yeah, and here’s a press notice from Romney for President, Inc. listing Ron Kaufman as chair of the Romney for President Massachusetts Steering Committee.
Glad Willard Mitt cleared that thing up.
http://romneyisafraud.blogspot.com/
I, too, underwent a conversion. Romney isn’t my first choice; Duncan Hunter is. McCain is no choice at all. Why not just run a Clinton/McCain ticket?
That’s one of the reasons I can say without hyperbole that Mitt Romney, in addition to being the most accomplished liberal from either party to ever hold a Governorship, is the biggest fraud in American politics today, bar none.
Thanks for your reasoned views, Jeff. Don’t worry about jpf, he doesn’t really read anything - just gets on any pro Romney threads and starts his bashing.
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.