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.
“When did it become standard procedure to support a candidate due to what the polls say rather than what the candidate says? I am quickly losing all faith in my fellow Americans.”
No one’s saying you can’t support a candidate that doesn’t have a chance to win. Some people just like rallying behind a winner.
“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.
Fred thompson has flopped, Duncan hunter would find it difficult to get name recognition. So Mitt Romney is the only reliable conservative worth voting for in the race.
Mitt is the one!
I don’t love Romney, but I don’t like Guiliani.
I’m not against Romney - I’m just not for him yet. Other than his gift of looking good on camera, what makes him stand out above the other top 3 or 4? I’m not certain he is any less than they are, but I haven’t heard anything from him that makes me say “wow!, thats my guy.”
I wonder, If he was a older overweight bald guy would he still be in the race?
I understand and appreciate your points.
I believe your tagline line should be blue man in a blue state. Very typical for blue state moderate....
More and more, it’s starting to look like Delay is going to be right. I’m starting to get the feeling we are going to get our clocks cleaned next year.
Reliable?
Well lets see how one couple feels:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1928826/posts?page=23
Sorry, since they are dead it must be a “no comment’
You Mitt folks, you 13% on a Conservative site, have no clue what “reliable conservative” means, and yet take pride in selling Conservatism and indeed the country down the river for your beautiful well coiffured RINO...
Talk about poll driven sheep. What about supporting the guy you believe would be the best man for job and not be worried about not picking the winner?
Remember Howard Dean's poll numbers 4 years ago today?
I think you were the one who used to post the “astronomy pictures of the day.” My son was fascinated by them.
“I believe your tagline line should be blue man in a blue state. Very typical for blue state moderate....”
I’m a moderate because I support Romney?? Don’t question my beliefs, none of these candidates are perfect. I can go down the line on all of them.
I agree with your analysis.
That’s the way I see it. I have no particular love for Romney, but he is conservative and he does have a chance in 2008. Among the candidates he’s the only one with a chance to win 2008 and carrying the conservative torch. Rudy has a good chance of winning, but he’s no conservative. A win with Rudy is still a loss for those who want to see conservative principals and values applied.
Fred campaign has FLOPPED, got it??
The Giuliani express is running on track to capture the nomination, Mitt is the only one who has the energy and the money to stop it.
It is very easy to pick a single judge of the many judges Romney appointed in a state where Democrats control overwhelmingly the legislature and who can easily block any of this appointment. Romney’s solid trackrecord of conservatism in business, personal life, olympics, executive leadership is well known and proven compared to a lazy actor who does not have the momentum in the campaign.
I always feel like romney is trying to sell me a used car.....it's just a gut feeling I get.
Yeah if its between satan and a used car salesman I'd have to buy the car...but until then No Way!
“What about supporting the guy you believe would be the best man for job and not be worried about not picking the winner?”
Who says we think Thompson is the best man for the job?
Wow. You’ve been around here as long as I have. Maybe longer
Yeah. I used to post those pictures sometime in the 90’s early on maybe 96-97. I don’t recall. I see other guys post them from time to time. They’re real gobsmackers.
Thanks for remembering.
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.