Can you clarify your position on Romney? You don't like him, but you think he's the best choice for president? WTF?Like everyone else, I do not vote because I like a candidate so much as I do not like the other guy. Th ere is no such thing as finding the perfect candidate, but picking apart the flaws of a candidate you generally oppose is easy. The question becomes which candidate has enough good qualities to raise him above the herd of nominees for you to decide he ought to take on the opponent you really do not like.
Let me take these two points in order.
First, I do not like Barack Obama as president. He was too inexperienced to be elected to the job in the first place. He has not learned much of anything in the three years since taking office. His freespending offends my fiscal conservatism. His lawless attitude about circumventing Congress to pass his agenda and ignoring laws like DOMA offends my sense of law and order. His notion the United States should apologize for conducting foreign policy in accordance with its interests and taking a subordinate role in international affairs is humiliating even to a semi-isolationist like me. In short, Obama has not done much of anything that suits me. Not only do I not see that changing in a potential second term, he would likely be even more reckless because reelection would no longer be a consideration.
But not everyone sees Obama this way. I do not buy into the idea he is toast in 2012 regardless of what his poll numbers say right now. He does not need to be as successful in the electoral vote in 2012 as he was in 2008. He can pull in only the traditional blue states and still win by picking off some borderline states. All it would take is only minor success with economic recovery--unemployment dropping a few points, for instance. Americans do not like switching horses in midstream unless given a compelling reason to do so.
There is another point I do not believe a lot of conservatives are considering. Obama panders worse than just about any politician I have ever seen. He will do anything to appeal to the largest amount of people. He cannot do that with his domestic record in 2012canymore than he could run on his threadbare, extreme far left Senate agenda in 2008. Remember, he did not campaign on anything substantive. It was hope, change, and healing the planet by rolling back the tides or some such megalomania. He is going to have to run on substance this time around, though there will certainly be an underlying theme that opposition to him is racism. The only success Obama can arguably claim is in foreign policy: killing Osama bin laden, killing Muammar Qaddhafi, and removing the troops from Iraq. Most Americans are uninterested in foreign policy, particularly during bad economic times, but we do rally ‘round the flag during military operations. Do not be too surprised if obama takes military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Not much of anyone would criticize him for it, and he may even earn a political advantage.
The bottom line is that we cannot nominate any Republican candidate and expect obama to go down easily. That means it is necessary to be less idealistic and more realistic about who we choose. Frankly, not all the nominees stack up to Obama. Voters have already proven they are willing to overlook a lot of problems in order to voter for him. The Republican candidate has to be better than him at convincing voters he is better.
Which brings me to my second point--Romney is the guy to do that. There is a certain sappy sentamentalism in the fickleness conservatives have embraced anyone but Romney. For heaven’s sake, the right considered Donald Trump for a while there! The longing for a ’better” candidate centers on the idea Romney is not a true conservative. If we could just find a true conservative, he would become the next president.
Well, I am skeptical. Presidential candidates need to win moderates and independents in order to win the White House. Romney has a much better shot at that than anyone else does. Does that make him a great potential president? No, of course not. Does that make him more electable than the other Republican candadates? By and large, yes., and that is far more important than nominating a pure conservative just we can go down in flames next November with our ideological purity intact.
Truth be told, I feel like I am taking less of a hit in my principles than in 2008. Back then, I supported Rudy Giuliani because I thought his fiscal record as mayor demonstrated the skills needed to guide the country through a bad economy. I was willing to overlook his progressive social values because he had more important qualities. (I am also of the opinion a presidential candidate’s social views are more a litmus test of character than a policy guideline, but I digress.) I absolutely did not want to vote for John McCain, but I did anyway solely because he was not Obama. Many people seem to have forgotten Romney was considered the solid conservative alternative to McCain back then. Nothing has changed in the ensuing four years other than the narrative about him.
It all boils down to the necessity of getting rid of Obama and moving on from there. A second Obama term would be far more disastrous than a first term for Romney, and I am not all that certain Romney is not the best man for the job among the candidates anyway in terms of being able to win. Frankly, I have not seen anyone give a better argument for another republican candidate that does not amount to “I agree with everything Alternative candidate says, therefore he can win.” That is not enough, folks.
UPDATE: Great minds think alike: Victor Davis Hanson argues for Romney for many of the same reasons I do.
UPDATE II: Romney still leads the pack.
0 comments:
Post a Comment