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.
yeah but i dont deliberately misrepresent others remarks or interpret things out of context. Either you are a liar or someone who has major issues with comprehension. Either way it seems you need to some assistance.
Yes, he will. He already governed conservatively in Massachusetts. It just takes an objective look at the actual record to see that.
As Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe put it: "Romney’s very public migration rightward over the last few years is . . . intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them.
Another thread today tells about the murder of a couple by a felon released early by a liberal Democrat, Romney appointed, Mass. judge. In that article were quotes from Romney on his criteria for nominating judges. He thinks political affiliation does not matter--just look at the background in law. Now, that sounds so great--party affiliation should not matter--the operative word being should. That said, tell me whether or not the liberal Democrat ideologies of Ruth Ginsberg, David Souter, et al have mattered in decisions affecting our way of life.
Both Giuliana (who I would have a hard time voting for) and Fred Thompson as lawyers, know the law and have both stated they would appoint conservative, strict constructionist judges. Giuliana parsed his language a bit, so I have some doubts.
vaudine
“The Governor of the most radically liberal Democratic state in the US is being marketed as if he is a slightly conservative Republican. Horse crap!”
Don’t blame it on the state, he governed as a conservative. I know I live here.
**********************
Reagan, conservative’s “perfect” president, was the governor of the very blue state of California, where I live. It’s pretty hypocritical of people to criticize Mitt Romney for the same thing and then tout Reagan as the Savior of the Conservatives.
Mitt Romney 2008!
However, even prior to authorizing state troopers to coordinate with ICE he denied illegals driver's licences in 2003, denied tuition breaks to illegals in 2004 and insisted everyone one learn English. His mind has always been in the right place -- on law and order and national sovereignty -- as opposed to others like McCain, Huckabee, Rudy etc who have always been weak on this issue.
I doubt he would have teamed up with Sheriff Joe, if he didn't have the right idea on immigration. Mitt is endorsed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ. Sheriff Joe Tells Why Romney Is the One
I suggest that you read the book by Hugh Hewitt, “A Mormon In The White House: Ten Things Every American Should Know About Mitt Romney.”
The more you learn about Mitt Romney, the more impressed you will be.
Let me know what you think of the book.
I am leaning towards Mitt. He has his defects, but I am very impressed with his business acumen, success with the Olympics, and fact that he was elected governor from a very democratic state. With his business experience, government experience, and MBA and JD from Harvard, he is the most qualified individual running for President bar none.
******************
This is why I am supporting Mitt Romney:
1) Conservative Policies
2) Executive Experience, and
3) A Proven Track Record Of Success.
I especially like his “Bain Way” of solving problems.
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.
***No, Hunter has worked the hardest and done the most with the least. Romney had his millions. Fred had his spotlight and squandered it. Name recognition comes as a result of the process — it can be acquired.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
Posted on 11/15/2007 3:43:17 AM PST by Kevmo
I don’t particularly care for Romney, but if he gets the nomination, I’ll support him. At that point in the game, it’s either a Republican oe democrat who gets the vote, and I sure as hell ain’t voting for the dem.
Hunter has a huge support here in FR, but in the real world his polls are low.
It is important for the candidate to have name recognition and fund raising skills and not just win FR polls.
I hear ya there. There were plenty of us that knew Bush was a RINO globalist supreme back in '99. But there were plenty of others that were snookered/swayed by all his Christian talk (as if it somehow made him a conservative), which of course was quite appealing to voters after eight years of the Slickster.
She explains why she chose Mitt instead:
She candidly acknowledges that she always liked Fred Thompson, in part because his support of causes like Scooter Libby “warmed her heart,” but ultimately concluded that Thompson could “not hold a candle to the Governor on intellect or leadership.”
Long also explains that leadership “matters tremendously” in selecting a president. For her this includes “the ability to direct the many and far flung team” that a president needs to confirm judges and lead the Justice Department. She cites Romney’s experience in business and running the Olympics and as Governor as proof he can “lead a large organization and then delegate” to competent managers.
Long argues that Romney “is the only one I’m absolutely sure” will give us more nominees like Justices Alito and Roberts. Long is an articulate spokesperson both to bolster Romney’s conservative credentials and to take aim at Thompson, the opponent who clearly will pose a threat to his efforts to woo social conservatives.
“Our country faces a new generation of challenges, which has presented our courts with a new generation of legal issues. As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney witnessed firsthand the impact our courts can have when facing these new challenges. I believe that he, better than any other candidate for President, understands the need for our courts to respect democracy and the will of the people. I believe that he, better than any other candidate for President, would nominate judges and justices of the highest caliber, who would be faithful to the text, history, and principles of our Constitution. I look forward to working with the Governor.”http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11799
If they were, we would've been inaugurating President Alan Keyes in 2000. ;-P
==> “The last time I looked “FDT” was running at 3% in NH. He’s in last place behind Ron Paul. Maybe time to start looking at another candidate.” <==
I believe that the majority of the financial (and demonstrative) support for Ron Paul comes from the far, far left wing kook fringe and has nothing at all to do with conservative principle. I don’t believe he has demonstrated any measurable amount of the latter.
Every presidency begins with an oath to “Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,” which I interpret to include the Country that enshrines that document. That oath is sworn to G_d, so it is meaningless without true faith, and futile without the character, commitment, and personal integrity that give it force.
But faith, character, commitment, and integrity are not enough in this complex world - the President also needs intelligence, perception, judgement, and flexibility to deal with constantly changing and evolving situations that are far beyond the scope of “contingency plans” that no longer match the world as it is.
We develop our political persona by combining these into a set of paradigms that become the principles that define our political positions, then invent or adopt a simplified catch-phrase to capture (without fully describing) and label - with a positive spin - their support or opposition to particular actions. Unfortunately, in far too many circumstances the greatest amount of influence over choosing these labels is to identify with the largest number of voters, and the greatest influence on actions is the money contributed, whether to the campaign funds or for personal gain.
NOT A SINGLE CANDIDATE OF EITHER MAJOR PARTY IS IDEAL, SO QUIT INSISTING ON PERFECTION!
In my opinion:
Guiliani is personally impressive - quick-thinking, charismatic, engaging, intelligent, and intensely patriotic. But his personal life is a mess, and his anti-life positions on abortion and stem-cell research contravene his stated religious convictions, and would make him a very bitter choice for me - only marginally better than Clinton or Obama.
McCain has an apparently compelling personal story, but I do not believe that it means very much about what kind of president he would be. His primary objective - for years now - has been his presidential candidacy rather than any of the principles he has claimed, and his ardent support of CFR did violence to the Constitution. He might select better judges, which ranks him only slightly above Guiliani on my list.
Tancredo has been a one-note candidate - and while I like that illegal-immigration note, it is not enough.
I have a friend who has been a constant Republican party operative (and occasional candidate) in Eastern Arkansas and North Mississippi. He likes Thompson, and REALLY likes Huckabee - both of whom he knows fairly well. But another one he admires is Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, a failed candidate from bygone years. Alexander claims to be conservative, but is actually a pretty squishy moderate who requires constant prodding and reminding to remain conservative.
Thompson has a perfect pro-life voting record, and the noises about his alleged failures on this topic are just that - noises. I was disappointed with his split vote on impeachment, and unmollified by his explanation. And I believe that if basic human rights are being violated under color of the Constitution due to judicial error, amending the Constitution to make those rights explicit is a perfectly proper solution. Huckabee is right on the Human Life Amendment issue, and Thompson’s convoluted and legalistic state by state solution is wrong. Roe V Wade might be the worst jurisprudence ever to emerge from the bowels of the USSC, but overturning it would not prevent a reoccurrence. The same applies to the equally odious free speech limitations of McCain - (Thompson) - Feingold.
ALL branches of the federal government are a creation of the PEOPLE, and the artificial “wall of separation” between the Supremes and the people needs some doors and windows, or it will be torn down by the owners.
But Thompson has NOT been reluctant to chastise the USSC, and I think that he might be the best of all for his potential judicial appointments.
Huckabee is smart, articulate, and personally charismatic. He has the most executive experience in government of any of the candidates in either party, and he had to step in and clean up a governmental disaster left by a governor on his way to several years in jail. And he is honest, on the scale we have to use for politicians. But he has supported large tax increases, soft treatment of illegal aliens, and major intrusion of government into private lives. He claims to have changed his views on all of these issues, but has not demonstrated these changes anywhere but in rhetoric. I wish I had a real idea of his judicial nominees, but I have heard nothing but platitudes so far.
Duncan Hunter strikes almost all of the right notes with me EXCEPT for lack of chief executive experience. In addition, the military experience of Hunter and his son are a strong positive. Also, he has been a VERY effective congressman, and has been responsible for several important pieces of legislation. But his chances, like those of any member of the House, are virtually zero. I MIGHT support him in the primary, and would CERTAINLY vote for him, but do not expect to have that opportunity.
Romney has a LOT of positives. He has both government and real-world chief executive experience, a solid plus. But that it was in Massachusetts raises alarm bells that are not silenced by an examination of his record there. His conservative actions were largely symbolic, including appointments, while his liberal record there is substantial and real. The health plan is a perfect example of what NOT to like about him, and I am concerned that he is way too moderate in his heart toward the illegal alien invasion. But if he is the candidate, I will enthusiastically support him.
So. Thompson will win Tennessee easily. He won’t need my vote, so I expect to give it to Hunter on principle, and expect my state to go to Thompson. But let me be clear - ANY of these is better than ANYONE on the left side.
Hillary Clinton is a beast. None of our Republican candidates are beasts. I don't particularly like John McCain, but if he's the choice I would gladly support him too. Mitt Romney has got a lot of energy, he's got business sense, he knows how to get things done. If he's the guy, I'll support him.
President Bush has been a big disappointment to me. But he got two conservatives on the Supreme Court. That’s more than Gore or Kerry would have done.
It looks increasingly like the only person that stands between HRC and the Oval Office is Mitt Romney!
In the meantime, we have a general election to win. If we foul ball this election by the eternal in-fighting amongst fellow Republicans, we will be rolling out the red carpet for HRC.
No doubt about it. ...although if not for the pressure exerted on the President by us rightwingers we'd have Harriet Miers on the court instead of Alito.
Regarding the upcoming election, as RINOish as the GOP frontrunners are every last one of them would choose SCOTUS justices far preferable to those chosen by Hillary. Any of the Dem candidates would stack the court with hardcore leftist-activist types, and if history is any indication the GOP Senate would confirm them without much opposition.
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.