Today's endorsement of Mitt Romney by the National Review encapsulates much of the thinking the led me to backing Romney over a year ago: he's the candidate who best matches my values - though certainly not perfectly - who would also be a good President, and who can get elected. Or, as the editorial states:
Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest....
Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.
In a nutshell, that's why I'm more enthusiastic to vote for Romney than any other GOP candidate. I've had some readers ask why. The editorial above comes closer to matching my own thinking than anything else I've seen in print.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 11, 2007 10:14 PM | Email ThisRomney is in the forefront of using Linux and Open Source in Government. I hope he can bring that commitment to the national level.
Posted by: John Bailo on December 11, 2007 11:07 PMHas he changed his positions on certain issues? Yes. BUT--and this is a huge BUT--he has actual governing experience under his current set of positions. He isn't just talking the talk--he has been walking the walk. Quite effectively, too.
He agrees with most of my issues (I'm a huge fan of Friedman as well as Clarence Thomas) AND he has the intellect and the ability to reach across the aisle and get it done. Not only that, but how many republicans do you know that have been elected governor of Massachusetts?
Mitt's also as clean as a whistle. I can't find anything that reflects negatively on him. Hiring a contractor that hired illegals? He did all he can to make sure it wasn't happening, and when it was found out (to Mitt) the second time, he severed the contract despite the fact the guy was a close friend and member of his local church. This is the kind of guy that values ethics over friendships--the kind of guy that can win in DC because the sleazy connections won't wear him down.
Mitt is also endorsed by several liberals in MA, not because of his positions, but because of his leadership style. They said they'd rather work with him than their own party, because they have more of a voice with Mitt. That is, they feel better represented by Romney even though he is opposed to them politically.
One last thing--his policies are practical, actually implementable in today's political climate. Sure, it isn't revolutionary, but revolutionary doesn't win. We need gradual changes towards conservatism, effective, real steps, not idealistic jingoism. That's the way to change the country, reversing the trend of the 20th century the same way they were implemented--one at a time.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on December 11, 2007 11:17 PMThe National Review endorsement is nice, but it looks to be a template. That first paragraph quoted could be liberally applied to most if not all of the R's. And the last one quoted is just basic mush stuff that can be rehashed and has been for just about every candidate in either party.
I don't believe they interjected so early in the 2000 primary but if I recall, they weren't so keen on McCain so maybe felt they didn't ride the winner. I wonder if like the Right to Life group, they came out a little too early. The Right to Lifer's completely missed the boat when they came out jumping on the Thompson bandwagon, not expecting Huckabee to be competitive so soon. Did the National Review editors have this written up a few days ago to get printed and now will see their candidate begin to falter?
Posted by: Doug on December 11, 2007 11:38 PMWe don't need a President in office with sketchy personal morality that distracts from their leadership responsibilities.
He has done a bang-up job running big companies, knows how to generate revenue, and bail out a failing Olympics.
Bill Clinton spent hours in the WH discussing policy matters with his staff. This statement is based upon comments several staffers have made after leaving.
I think we can get that with Romney, but with one exception. Mitt knows how to make decisions, while the other occupant couldn't. And, more often than not, they will be the right decisions.
For me, Romney is slightly ahead of Giuliani who is also a star.
Posted by: swatter on December 12, 2007 06:53 AMFirst, Is there some voter prediction money pool that I am unaware of where I can go collect money for all the candidates that I chose that won? I always thought that you were supposed to pick the candidate that matched your values, not the one you think will win.
Second, They have no clue who is viable. At this time in 2003 Kerry had like 4-5% of the vote. Same was true with Bill Clinton. For all we know Alan Keyes campaign may take off any day now.
Third, Romneys health care plan (both the one he implemented in Massachusetts, and proposed for the rest of us) is NOT conservative by ANY definition. Health is far too important to entrust in the federal government regardless of whether the candidate claims to be a conservative or not!
Travis
Posted by: Travis on December 12, 2007 08:14 AMLink:http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010979
Posted by: tc on December 12, 2007 09:27 AMLink: http://www.observer.com/2007/it-s-not-romney-s-religion-his-reversals
Posted by: tc on December 12, 2007 09:32 AMI think you have to look at the old joke, "how do you know if a politician is lying... His lips are moving".
For president you have the advantage that nearly always the candidates have a long voting record to look back on. Look at how he voted and that is a good sign of things to come.
Dr Paul has a 20 year record of consistantly voting for small government. Not once has he voted for a tax increase, any increase in gun control, etc... It is that 20 year record that I am voting for in the primary. The man is not only for small government, but he is the last honest politician.
Posted by: Travis on December 12, 2007 09:55 AMI do agree with you (and I know you vote D) that he just seems too perfect and too pretty- kind of like a Stepford candidate. I kind of like my presidents to be grizzled and not silky.
I got over my reservations based upon the Salt Lake experience and his job resume. Unlike Clinton, I think he can get the data and then MAKE A DECISION. And by all measures, no one has disputed he is a great human being.
Nancy, how can we know how any one of the candidates stand on any issue? Take Code Pinkos and the moveOn crowd. They put a lot of time and energy in getting the Ds to take over the House figuring they knew where the Ds stood. Only to find out that things were not what they were purported to be.
Posted by: swatter on December 12, 2007 10:00 AMThe only reasons those two slimeballs got anywhere near the oral office is the MSM and the overall non-viability of the left wind liberal bolshevok democrap party to come up with actual viability
Clinton got in by Perot - both times
Carter, Clinton and Kerry were all SOB's dredged up by the party when their front leaders were crashing and burning -- and especially Carter and Clinton -- unknowns outta their own states -- and slipped in late in the game
The same scenario is developing now -- with the MSM being the strings -- the hildabeast is rapidly falling - what BS -- she has been running for most of the last 16 years -- and was held up as inevitable -- I still say Barack is just a shill to activate the black voters and provide an imaginary competitor to the 'beast -- but he has risen a bit more than had been anticipated -- what now? - can the queen make it back or will she be dumped? -- I remember several polls over the last 2 years of nationwide potential voters that could not came up with more than 49% that said they would even CONSIDER voting for hildabeast - one quite recently I believe -- the party movers and shakers are getting worried -- Barack can no way win overall against any of the real GOP frontrunners -- I wonder who the democraps will pull outta their collective A$$ this time to try to get back in the whitehouse?? Of course if they (MSM) can keep the Ron Paul BS wagon going and get a t'urd party going to suck off some potential GOP voters - and along with their usual VOTE FRAUD - the damm demo's can get anything elected to anywhere -- look around locally for that
Kennedy and Carter were both elected mostly by vote fraud -- Clinton by the fools that voted for Perot --
At least the vote fraud in Florida and the G-D MSM were thwarted in Florida in 2000 and the Swiftboaters came to the rescue in 2004
The MSM is currently pushing Huckabee -- since they think the demo's can beat him --
What is going on in this country was thoroughly and accurately illustrated by the BS CNN U-Tube "debate" with all the set-up questions and the fact that the demo's can thumb their noses collectively at a FOX debate -- what gives here??
Thank all the gods for the internet and blogs -- the next 11 months are going to be vewwy vewwy interesting
Posted by: Bill on December 12, 2007 10:05 AMBecause short of John Edwards, I haven't seen anybody on either side as willing to do this as Romney.
Posted by: cliff on December 12, 2007 10:15 AMNo he got in by Perot the first time....the second time was he won was because the GOP ran a washed out candidate named Bob Dole. Dole would have been great....in 1980, he was a has been (much like McCain is now) in 1996.
The MSM is currently pushing Huckabee -- since they think the demo's can beat him
No, the MSM is focusing on him because he may actually take Iowa. Everyone loves the a good "come from behind to win it all" story and here it is. A smooth talking come from behind preacher who is taking on the bigger, more established candidates (Giuliani & Romney) and winning (at least according to the polls). People in Iowa seem to love his down home preacher style as well as his conservative values.
Personally, I'd care more about who wins Nevada & South Carolina than Iowa/NH. Those GOP strongholds will determine who goes on to win on Feb. 5th.
I may be wrong, but I think the guy is genuine.
I've heard interviews of the kids and they sound real, as compared to other kids who the parents don't want them around talking but want them around for family shoots. These kids are actually out there campaigning.
Posted by: swatter on December 12, 2007 12:42 PMRandi, the Screamer, Rhodes would call it a donation, while I would say it was good campaign literature.
Why would anyone, dog, donate to National Review- aren't they for-profit? I think my explanation sounds more like it. Et tu?
Posted by: swatter on December 12, 2007 01:13 PMI did like that Fred looked more animated in this debate--I really like his positions and him not fearing coming out against things like the NEA and global warming, but hadn't seen much fire. Maybe he is making a start on that...
Posted by: Bill H on December 12, 2007 02:22 PMThe money he donated was a sponsorship, among others, for National Review's 10th anniversary event in DC early this year. It wasn't about giving money to a magazine, it was about sponsoring an event and getting prominent billing at a gathering that would be attended by many a grand poobah in the conservative establisment.
Leave it to left-wing talk radio to presume $10k buys an endorsement from the the nation's leading conservative periodical. Of course, the same folks like campaign finance "reform" too.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 12, 2007 07:25 PMSpeaking of left-wing, I subscribe to truthout.org and media matters. I can't get past the headlines, but the headlines sure do show what is happening on all the issues.
Posted by: swatter on December 13, 2007 06:59 AM