Powerline’s John Hinderaker endorses Mitt Romney for president. Right Wing News’ John Hawkins cites seven reasons that Mitt Romney would make a poor GOP nominee. Such is the state of play in the Republican primary.
Hinderaker’s endorsement includes this curious paragraph:
The “anybody but Romney” mentality that grips many Republicans is, in my view, illogical. It led them to embrace Rick Perry, who turned out to be unable to articulate a conservative thought; Newt Gingrich, whose record is far more checkered than Romney’s; Ron Paul, whose foreign policy views–indistinguishable from those of the far left–and forays into racial intolerance make him unfit to be president; and Michele Bachmann, whom I like very much, but who is more qualified to be a rabble-rouser than a chief executive.
No one is supporting any of the other candidates on their own merits? All of the other candidates depend for their support on not being Mitt Romney? If that’s so, what does that say about the candidacy of Mitt Romney, at this late stage?
Speaking for myself, I ended up endorsing Romney in 2008 but I’ve been interested in the candidacies of others in the current race not because they’re “anybody but Romney,” but because they have strong conservative records as governor of their state or in other offices. Romney also chose to run a more moderate campaign this time around than last, opening himself up to questions yet again of just what does he really believe and how would he really govern? He ran to Ted Kennedy’s left in 1994, to John McCain’s right in 2008, and is running to most of the GOP field’s left now. As for the other candidates, they have stood for conservative principle, won important battles and helped moved their states or the country to the right. Noticing that is “illogical?”
Here’s what I look for in a candidate for the presidency, in no particular order; executive experience in the private or public sector, plus a proven ability to advance the conservative cause, plus a strong and sane foreign policy, plus strong personal character. The presidency is no place for flakes or rookies. Mitt Romney has personal integrity and executive experience and is fine on foreign policy, but has no record of advancing the conservative cause. He presents conservative plans and proposals now, which is great, but was at best a moderate to slightly left of center governor. Massachusetts is no less blue now than it was before Romney’s tenure.
Unless the nominee is Ron Paul, whoever they are will have my support if they win the GOP nomination. I suspect most Republican voters feel the same way, more or less. But we’re not at that point yet. We have had three candidates in the race who best fit my criteria, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman. A fourth, Newt Gingrich, has a solid record while in office but a less conservative record afterward, and carries significant personal baggage that would certainly cause problems for him as nominee. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum have both been strong conservatives in Congress but lack serious executive experience.
Gov. Huntsman was a strong conservative governor but has run a terrible campaign, insulting Republican voters as “anti-science” and all but obliterating his own record. Gov. Pawlenty helped move a blue state red and was a tax cutter and a bad bill veto king. Gov. Rick Perry’s tenure in Texas has seen the state leave the Democratic Party of its past behind while Texas has become the nation’s economic engine. He fought Obama’s policies while the president was still popular and many Republicans were tempted to move left. Perry stood his ground. As president, I don’t doubt that Perry would move the conservative cause forward and do everything he can to roll back the damage Obama has done without fear or apology. Both he and Pawlenty have been serious and committed conservative leaders in ways that Romney simply has not been.
None of that has anything to do with these candidates not being Mitt Romney, and supporting them or most of the others (Ron Paul excepted, though his support isn’t due to his not being Romney either) is far from “illogical.” Not a single vote has been cast, and polls still show that about half of the GOP’s voters haven’t made their minds up yet. If after watching him for five years they’re not sure that Mitt Romney is the candidate who can defeat Obama and undo the damage this president has done, then maybe it’s because Romney just isn’t that candidate.
“Here’s what I look for in a candidate for the presidency, in no particular order; executive experience in the private or public sector, plus a proven ability to advance the conservative cause, plus a strong and sane foreign policy, plus strong personal character. The presidency is no place for flakes or rookies.”
Yes to all that, and add a strong fiscal track record and balanced budgets.
Has Romney’s past three years been so significantly different that it erases what was supportable in 2008, but not now?
Let me ask the question in a better way, would the option of a Romney or McCain be satisfactory for everyone. How about this? A choice of Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, John McCain, and Gary Johnson?
Just because someone puts their name up…does that mean that we have to “support” them or we are for “anyone but them”?
Frankly, I’m underwhelmed by the entire cast of characters. I think they are neither our best and brightest, most representative or most likely to beat Obama.
This is the “B” team and Newt is the punky qb and Mitt is Plastico Bore-us.
“Refrigerator” Perry puts his brain in deep freeze too often and I don’t need some guy telling me I have no heart, frankly.
Ron Paul with or without newsletters …is looking for commitment, I’m completely in favor of his.
It’s not an “anybody but Mitt” feeling…it’s an anybody but all of them feeling. Apparently, I’m not alone. In fact, I would bet that if someone ran a poll…Paul Ryan would wipe the floor with all of them.
I do not understand the thinking that we must continue this perilous course, where it should be crystal clear by now…NONE OF THE ABOVE is the answer being screamed from the voters.
We need a course correction. Before it is too late. Or…we have to hold our noses and pick the guy who is likely to lose by the least amount. Inane.
I did not support Romney in 2008, nor will I ever.
I learned all I will ever need to know about Romney in 1994, when Newt introduced the Contract with America.
Romney was leading Ted Kennedy for the Senate in Massachusits and then the reporter asked Mitt about his Position on The Contract With America.
“That’s the House, I’m running for the Senate,” Mitt Answered.
In the Debates Mitt Refined his answer to essentially, ‘I think it’s a Bad Idea.’
And the farther he distanced himself from the Contract, the lower he sank in the polls.
And in a Watershed Year when Republicans won where they’d never won before, One Republican Sat It Out, because he showed he Had NO Vision, nor did he have the ability to take a stand that would be unpopular with the Media.
Romney is Bob Dole, Romney is Gerald Ford, Romney is George H.W. Bush. If there is One Lesson the Republican Party Needs to Learn it’s the one lesson they Refuse To Learn — “Read My Lips!”
I’ve been open to Romney but am becoming discouraged with him for several reasons.
“Gingrich, whose record is far more checkered than Romney’s”. The resaon Romney’s record is less checkered is because there isn’t much of a record there. He governed for two years as a center left moderate and then made a verbal wholesale change to center right moderate. I hear the words but don’t see the commitment. Frankly, I think he is probably more conservative than he would govern. Just too eager to parse the middle. The proof in the pudding is Romneycare. Newt is now being criticized for supporting Romneycare. Huh? If you can’t support a guy who “supported it” and now repudiates it, how can you support the guy that invented it and refuses to repuciate it?? Moreover, it will be interesting to hear what Newt says about it because there are a lot of things you can support without going all in.
Romney has run a dirty campaign the last month against Gingrich. How does that help the conservative cause? And who thinks he will do the same against Obama? Of course he won’t. His campaign against Obama will be the McCain campaign, except that Romney has better teth and is 5% slicker in the debates.
I’m beginning to realize that Romney’s entire strategy is stealth. Behind the scenes, his Ruling Class supporters work overtime to innoculate him from having to explain his, at best, milquetoast positions, by genning up controversy against the punching bag of the day. Frankly, it’s a variation of what Obama will do in the general campaign. Wouldn’t you rather have a president who runs on his record than one who wins by tearing down the other guys?
Romney is never going to attack Obama. He was so blase when O’Reilly tried to get him to paint Obama in sharp colors that it is absolutely clear that he will never bring up Obama’s past, his outrageous czars, government takeovers, redefinitions of long-held metrics, etc., etc., etc. So Obama is going to be free to lie at will. The media won’t call him on it, and Romney won’t either.
The whole idea of Romney being the candidate without baggage is just wrong. Sadly, being a Mormon is more important to more people than Newt’s personal trangressions. And Newt will be able to defend conservatism and his record better than Romney who is so cautious to not make a mistake that he never hits anything but a single. Most of the time, he works the pitcher for a walk.
But if you figure the general campaign is going to be an adult conversation about the best policy approach for the country, with a fair and balanced dialogue enforced by the mass media, Romney is probably your guy because he will look prettier and more authoratative doing that than Newt will. Otherwise, you better consider the only other guy who can win the nomination, Newt.
“I’m beginning to realize that Romney’s entire strategy is stealth.”
That’s right. The Romney campaign managed the Florida (& Nevada) move in the primaries, to his advantage & no others. This Virginia primary debacle, with the state GOP upping the ante at the last moment, has Romney’s fingerprints all over it. With Gov. Bob McDonnell as the prospective Romney running mate?
And tidbits about the other candidates, when Democrats would have waited for a better time for them? Space & time prevent more detail here, but it’s Romney again.
It led them to embrace Rick Perry, who turned out to be unable to articulate a conservative thought;
Do as I do, and not as others say.
Is Rick Perry really such a bad choice. The man has a proven record as a long-time governor of a very large, very economically viable state. So he’s not a silver-tongued devil. I kind of think that’s a blessing, given what’s in office today.