Posted on 11/21/2007 6:06:37 AM PST by Reaganesque
So this is probably the last thing I saw myself doing nine or ten months ago when I first started seriously following the 2008 race and committed to support Sam Brownback. But here I find myself doing it nonetheless. So I suppose a little bit of explanation here is in order.
In the first place, I want to rehash something I said a long time ago (Nov. 27, 2006 to be exact) about a three-way race between Romney, Rudy, and McCain:
More below...
As I said several months ago - in a three-way race between Romney, Giuliani, and McCain, I'd vote for Romney. Apart from Brownback (who can't win, however much I like him), there are no personally committed pro-lifers on the 2008 slate. While a committed pro-lifer would certainly be the most desirable choice, the second choice would be a guy who knows which side his bread is buttered on. So, if faced with a choice between a guy like McCain, who has a pretty good pro-life voting record, but recently joined Christine Todd-Whitman's "We hate the religious right" PAC, his voting record is less important than the fact that he's historically shown a willingness to spit in the eye of social conservatives just for kicks and press accolades. Mitt, on the other hand, can apparently be trusted to pander to the voters he needs, which in this case is us.
That analysis still stands. For a while, the Fred Thompson campaign gave me hope for someone who might be a little more solid on the issue, but looking at the polling right now leads me inescapably to the conclusion that Fred Thompson is toast. He's not polling any higher than third in any state right now, and Romney has even moved into second in the crucial state of Florida. I just don't know that Thompson has what it takes to get back up off the mat right now. And while I feel a lot better about supporting McCain than I did a year ago, I still just can't make myself trust him at all. I made it a special point to get on McCain's conference call last week so that I could hopefully get just that little assurance I needed to sway me into his camp - and in my estimation, he blew the question. Like I said, I could get behind McCain a lot more easily than I could at this point last year, but he still isn't my first choice. As for Huckabee? Well, let's just say that I lived in Arkansas while he was governor, and my state tax burden was higher than my federal tax burden. And also that I worked on Jim Holt's 2004 campaign. I hope that explains why I have never seriously considered voting for him.
So what about Romney? Well, you know what? I'm going to maintain some intellectual honesty about all of this. I think a lot of his positions are staked out based on his estimation of what the voters he needs want. That's not exacctly the most comforting feeling in the world, even if you're in the group he needs at the moment (as us SoCons are). But I have to think at this point that, at least on abortion, he doesn't have another flip left in him, and I think he knows it. So that's good enough for me.
As for the rest, there's a lot to like about Mitt Romney (Crank's excellent and well-researched series on his weaknesses notwithstanding). The guy, I think, did a good-faith job of governing as a conservative in a liberal state. He's shown a real competence at managing organizations - which, let's face it, is a welcome change of pace after the last four years. His personal history is squeaky clean - absolutely no skeletons in the closet. And I think his health plan will be hated enough by both sides of the aisle that we won't see any national healthcare plan passed during his tenure in office, which is a victory in and of itself. In all other areas, I don't seriously doubt that he'll govern as a conservative. I have, in all honesty, a *lot* less doubt about that than I had about Bush in 1999.
You know, I think one of the things about blogs and the internet is that it's made it a lot easier to go back and nitpick what people have said and that doesn't always do us a service. We're not always going to get a guy who's been a doctrinaire conservative from birth, although the internet has made it so that we expect that. And if it appears at times that Romney is a relentless triangulator - well, for Pete's sake, he's a freaking politician. That's what politicians do. And if the end result of their triangulation is that they pretty consistently come down where you are, then I guess it's time to be happy about that.
The bottom line for me right now is that for all my personal naysaying and doubting, I have to admit in the end that Romney has worked the hardest, run the smartest campaign, and outlasted all other Republican comers save Rudy, and we all know how I feel about Rudy. In the end, if I had to choose between seeing Romney and Rudy standing, it wouldn't even be a close call. When I examine the field, I see only one candidate left standing with a reasonable shot of winning the White House who would govern as a conservative, and that candidate is Mitt Romney. So from now on, I'm tossing in with him, for better or worse.
In closing, let me say a few things that I hope some Romney supporters will take to heart. It doesn't really do a lot of good to pretend that Romney is perfect, or that he hasn't made a mistake, or that his positions on certain things haven't changed. That's just insulting to people's intelligence and it turns people off from the candidate. May I humbly suggest that the better way to convince skeptical Republican voters that Romney is someone they could support is to encourage them to ask themselves, "Will he govern as a conservative?" I know that part of the reason it took me so long to come around to this position is that I heard too many people saying the former, and not enough repeatedly asking me the latter.
Oh come on, you deliberately misrepresented what I said and you claimed something totally wrong. This is not the first time you have done it and i have pointed it out before. If this is your debating tactic, well then stop responding to my posts.
Have the decency to admit that you are making things on your own.
However if you find comfort in the support of the masses who have tended to select RINOs, go for it, it is a fitting home for Mitt supporters...
I hope we will bring them better than that, and will continue to try and help them see a real conservative in the race.
No need to get frustrated.
“I hope we will bring them better than that, and will continue to try and help them see a real conservative in the race.”
...and who would that be???
Hope you don't mean that. I voted for Ross Perot in 92 and look what I caused. I'll vote for any republican before allowing Satan to move into the White House again.
So... you support Hillary... I’m sure she’s a whole lot closer to your views, isn’t she? Jeez... Good riddance to folks like you
RINO ROmney has a whole lot in common with Hitlary. Just look at his record in Mass.
You are DISGUSTING!
Thompson and Hunter seem to be popular.
Among those who know conservitism...
In other words, despite the available evidence, you believe he is a conservative.
I do not.
Those who want to destroy the GOP should support Mitt Romney.
Romney pledged to build the Massachusetts Republican Party, but in fact he did almost nothing. During his tenure there were two elections for the entire Legislature (2004 and 2006). In each election the Republicans lost seats. Republicans now hold the fewest seats in the Legislature since the Civil War.
During the four years of Romney’s tenure, the number of registered Republicans in Massachusetts fell by 31,000. During that same period, the Massachusetts Democratic Party gained 30,000.
- Boston Globe 11/2/2006
In the 2006 elections, most offices were not even challenged by Republican candidates. In the November general election for the six statewide Massachusetts constitutional offices there were more Green-Rainbow Party candidates on the ballot than Republicans!
The party’s slide has been so precipitous that Republicans yesterday did not contest 130 of 200 legislative seats, fielded a challenger in only three of 10 congressional districts, and put up fewer candidates for statewide office (three) than the Green-Rainbow Party (four).
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006
In 2006, while Romney was chairman of the National Republican Governors Association - a group dedicated to electing more Republican governors - his own hand-picked Republican successor as governor lost badly to the Democrat, despite the fact that Republicans have held the governorship in Massachusetts since 1990. Romney largely ignored the Massachusetts elections and spent most of the time during the campaign out of state building his presidential campaign. He came back and publicly campaigned for the Republican candidate the day before the general election!
“Locally, this is a rebuke to Mitt Romney and checking out within six months after being elected and having accomplished almost nothing,” said [Jim] Rappaport [former chairman of the state Republican Party].
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006
“Romney arrived on the scene with great promise, but is leaving the Republican Party here in shambles. Not only are the Republicans yielding the governor’s office for the first time in 16 years, but registered Republicans have fallen by 31,000 since Romney took office, and their legislative presence is at historic lows. But it worked out fine for him: He is now chasing the prize he really covets, the presidency.”
- Boston Globe 11/8/2006
“The Massachusetts Republican Party died last Tuesday. The cause of death: failed leadership. The party is survived by a few leftover legislators and a handful of county officials and grassroots activists who have been ignored for years. Services will be public and a mass exodus of taxpayers will follow. In lieu of flowers, send messages to New Hampshire Republican voters warning them about a certain presidential candidate named Romney.”
- Boston Herald, 11/12/2006
:::::getting the popcorn::::::
Mr. Romney is a pro-illegal gun-grabber. I won’t vote for him in the primaries.
The wording is clear and its meaning is not ambiguous, so need to offer lame excuses.
Thompson? You mean the guy who worked so hard against tort reform and should be a sponsor on Campain Finance Reform, or as it should be called McCain-Feingold-Thompson? That guy?
Hunter? Yeah, a fine conservative, but he’s got about as much chance of being elected as Kucinich.
Heh. Mitt Romney expecting us to believe he’ll appoint conservative judges based on his horrid record is what is disgusting.
Reliable conservative? Perhaps you can show how he was a reliable conservative throughout his last government job - being the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachussetts?
The people saying they will never vote for Romney will nevertheless be going to the polls in November of 2008.
They will be going there because no one ever votes FOR anyone. One votes AGAINST people. Always. No exceptions.
You will vote against Hillary by punching a chad in Romney’s row.
Maybe, but does that make you feel good as a conservative?
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.