Agamemnon: ... if MR does exactly as I have proposed, ...
SoConPubbie: ... I'd support him.
The question was:
if MR had only 1/2 the people I just proposed for cabinet and higher offices, would you prefer to have MR picking USSC justice replacements, or Obama?
You won't answer now, but some day in the very near future you will have to have an answer to that question.
This is Mitt Romney, not the mystical, feel-good, pretend Romney that you are presenting:
You've missed the point completely. I have never presented a "mystical, feel good pretend" Romney. He's a tool like any other politician is a tool. He's one of many tools we have to get conservatism to the place where our language is leading the debate, not just left to a few self-satisfied bomb throwers relegated to the back benches somewhere.
I'm hearing MR responding to the conservative movement, going out of his way to affirm pro-life language in ways I never heard Reagan do with such frequency. I hear the clear articulation of conservatism on many topics – not “perfect” in every possible way, but when is it ever? For the most part sounds good, sounds conservative. Pro-gun, anti-debt, anti-tax, strong defense, strong economy, strong job creation, less regulation, etc. Everything straight out of the Ronald Reagan speech-book -- and then some.
Folksy sounding brain farts in debates is not what will win Presidential elections. Clear articulation of conservatism is. You gotta look and sound the part. Gingrich is great in the articulation area – though a bit frumpy in the visuals, and he should be hired to do something significant that requires great locution – like dismantling the Dept. of Education. On the other hand he bounces checks. He’s not the model for business savvy that gets the US off the debt track. MR is. Newt’s not exactly the moral paragon where marital faithfulness is concerned (where MR by contrast is) but some people think that key core conservative value can be overlooked. Marital fidelity is essential for a moral leader, but that said I am not looking to hire Newt for a national marriage counselor either. He’s a politician -- good for what he’s good for – put him over at Dep’t of Ed. Let him play to his strength.
I see your list. Bush 1 and 2 let us down on a lot of things too, you may recall. Margaret Sanger was a family friend of Prescott Bush -- GHWBs father. GHWB and his family were all liberal (R)'s pre-1980. LauraGWB we later found out that for all her children’s ed. stuff, she is not quite so pro-life as we thought she was. Neither are GWB’s daughters who are also more pro-gay post 2008 – at least as bad as Megan McCain. As wonderfully grandmotherly as she is, I don’t think Barbara Bush ever really gave up the Planned Parenthood line but was smart enough to shut up about it. When it came to Desert Storm (Bush 1) or the War on Terror (Bush 2), however, I wouldn’t have wanted anyone else in there leading the charge.
When GWB was ready to take on Social Security in 2005 he was abandoned by his own congressional team in the breach, he stood alone - as the lone conservative with the conservative privatization plan. Abandoned by his own team. Weakness: he was too much a patrician in his own right to stick up for himself. Still would have rather had Bush 1&2 over Gore of Kerry – wouldn’t you? Thomas, Roberts and Alito – need any more reasons – in spite of all the GHWB and GWB imperfections? Actually better than any of Reagan’s appointees with the exception of Scalia.
if MR had only 1/2 the people I just proposed for cabinet and higher offices, would you prefer to have MR picking USSC justice replacements, or Obama?
So are you ready to answer my question, now?
In politics there are trade-offs. The key is to get more of what conservatives want and less of what liberals want. In spite of Bush 1&2 flaws, you must admit that we can thank them both for the evidences of USSC conservatism that still prevail.
MR's smart, and he structured his ground game for this primary long in advance of any of his competitors. He learned from mistakes from prior campaigns even as Reagan did in 1968 and 1976. It's why he is where he is today, and his competitors are not.
What I have presented by contrast is a possible cabinet selection for the man, which if he chose to run with it could - by your own admission - even persuade the likes of you and likely many other Tea Party Patriots to become more enthusiastic campaigners in 2012 than will be the (D) counterparts.
If you hope to have any of your agenda see the light of day, you have to win first.
I was a Perry guy. He didn't win. I can move on. If, as I have proposed it, I can have the essence of everybody who ran, and create an amalgam of what was useful to the cause of conservatism from everyone of them, I'll have what I want, and I suspect you would too.
By keeping our eyes on the prize, and always remembering that our power is derived from the bottom up, not from the top down, from a unified front, not from a fractured, self-sniping back lot, our larger mass will be in a unique position to dictate our will to the higher ups. That is the way constitutional republicanism works.
Maybe if we can all stop fighting amongst ourselves, and pining for candidates that showed themselves to be singularly incapable of carrying the message long enough to coalesce into that force, we will win the day and take conservatism forward.
If the "cabinet-in-waiting," as I have proposed it, is unleashed into the fray, the debate will continue, and our opposition will wither in the face of it. We use our politicians for what they are good for. Imperfect vessels they may be, but what ever advances conservatism should be our goal.
Pessimism in conservative ranks is merely evidence of DNC success, and I see enough of it around here lately. Let’s cultivate THEIR pessimism, and if they ever thought it was Romney that they wanted to run against, I wouldn’t be surprised if we all someday find out that he actually turned out to be the Trojan Horse within THEIR own midst the whole time.
FReegards!
