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.
Your assertion is unsupported by the evidence, FRiend. Please explain Romneycare, and the over-the-top methodology of his implementing the court-ordered gay marriage situation.
If that’s all you got, good luck...
BTW don’t cast too many stones on CFR, you may get wet in that particular glass house...
Then don’t offer any...
California has always been a trend setting state and the trends have definitely been more liberal. In recent years, the state has been liberal like Massachusetts. But California was no always so malignantly liberal. Massachusetts has always been so. It would be disingenuous to imply that Massachusetts has been anything else but far liberal. That being said, I also judge the man - and the results of his work. In Mitt, I see an obscure politician with questionable conservative credentials, who was elected governor of a very liberal state and projected on the national scene behind a big advertising campaign. His only appeal seems to be that he claims not to be a liberal and claims that he can beat hillary. Here we go again, right out of the chute with a dull candidate, with no broad base of support, depending upon the "hate hillary" strategy.
“and the over-the-top methodology of his implementing the court-ordered gay marriage situation.”
Wrong again. The SJC of MA implemented this. He fought it and the legislature tooth and nail. I was here and heard him rail against it. He has been an outspoken advocate for banning gay marriage and did everything he could as Governor.
Well, perhaps all that experience and education didn't factor into THIS:
‘Voters’ Who Broke Story on Romney Calls On Romney Payroll
SOMEONE on the Romney campaign goofed.
Mitt Romney is not a reliable conservative and you know it which is why you try to undercut the actual conservatives.
Romney may have fought it (I would have to read and see the evidence for myself on that regard), but the above statement is not true. Courts do not implement - and it took an act of the legislature and/or executive to implement the court's decision.
I definitely believe that is the RNC plan, but it won't happen. Rats may consume dried buffalo chips in preference to fresh dung, but Reps are far more likely to refuse any of the crap on the menu. By the time this election is over and enough hate advertising spent, Americans will elect the most hated candidate. It is no wonder that hillary is already taking the bows.
Again...
It also appears that you are unaware of the facts.
The Supreme Judicial Court only issued an opinion and advised the Legislature to act (which it never did). Even the Court acknowledged that it had no power to change the law.
The Legislature did nothing. It took no action. So after the 180 days Gov. Romney took action on his own!
Gov. Romney's Legal Counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or "face personal liability" or be fired. (At least one Justice of the Peace, Linda Gray Kelley, was forced to resign for religious reasons.)
See Associated Press article, "Justices of the peace warned not to discriminate against same sex couples" April 25, 2004.
Romney's staff held training sessions for Town Clerks, warning them to "implement" the Court decision and "uphold the law" -- although the training document admits that the marriage statutes have not been changed.
Romney directed his Department of Public Health to change the state marriage license to read "Party A" and Party "B", replacing "Husband" and "Wife". None of this was required by any law passed by the legislature or even ordered by the court.
ping to #132
Won't be celebrating the holidays with their families this season because they were murdered as a direct result of Mitt Romney's judicial appointments.
Now don’t blame Mitt, he only appointed a Liberal Democrat to the bench.
I am sure he won’t do it again...
I hope...
“Romney may have fought it (I would have to read and see the evidence for myself on that regard), but the above statement is not true. Courts do not implement - and it took an act of the legislature and/or executive to implement the court’s decision.”
Wrong again. Check the record for yourself.
Sounds like boilerplate to me.
weak, try again with improved comprehension skills.
Balanced budget, cutting spending are some of his achievements as a Governor of a liberal state.
May I suggest a stint with Toast masters or some other group who can help with communication...
Until then no need to apologize about being misunderstood...
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.