The Mitt Romney Puzzle
Posted on February 1, 2008
It is true that I want John McCain stopped. And, between McPain… I mean McCain… and Romney it would be Romney that is closer to the principles of a conservative when choosing a presidential candidate for the GOP.
But, this is not to say I endorse Mitt the Malleable, either. The puzzle about Mitt is which Mitt are we supporting? The Mitt of generally left of center politics that ran against Kennedy, and ran for Governor of Massachusetts or the generally right of center Mitt that is now running for president? Or even the Mitt that claims he is an arch conservative?
In that vein, I saw a quote from columnist Jeff Jacoby that sums up a couple of things for me, yet frames the question here perfectly and highlights the reason that, for conservatives, supporting Mitt is problematic.
Here is what Jacoby wrote:
“Romney’s very public migration rightward over the last few years is a different kind of act, one intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them. In 1994, Romney struck me as an extraordinarily bright, talented, and decent man—and a political neophyte who fell for the canard that the only way a conservative could win in Massachusetts was by passing for liberal. [Now,] Romney is where he should have been all along.”
Were Mitt’s views really “liberated” from his past, wrong headed left leaning ideas? Perhaps yes. Or perhaps if all you want to see is a politician that is warming to conservative ideas, then Romney fits the bill?
But, can we believe him? How are we to assume that his drift rightward is genuine? Most of his record shows a man not of conservative bent. Yet, as he geared up to run for president, suddenly and over the space of only a few, short years time, he becomes the conservatives’ best friend?
Why should we believe this sudden turn around? Why should we not just assume it is a cynical ploy by Mitt for the support of conservatives and that once in office he will revert to lefty Mitt? It wouldn’t be the first time that a Republican left of conservative ran on conservative platform and then veered left once in office (can we say Trent Lott?).
For his part, Jacoby seems to swallow Mitt’s turn around whole. So, it begs the question to be asked: does Jacoby just see what he wants to see, or does he see what really is? And that is the problem with Mitt Romney’s supposed drift to the right. To believe it, one must suspend any examination of the record, cross one’s fingers, and think good thoughts that it is all true.
Personally, I judge a man by his actions, not by his claims. By Romney’s actions he is no conservative — he shows as a moderate. Sadly, there is no contest between John McCain and Mitt Romney. McCain is far, far worse. But, Mitt is no prize either.
I don’t know about you, but I am getting tired of being asked to chose between the less of two worsers.
Trackback URL
Comments
7 Responses to “The Mitt Romney Puzzle”
Leave a Reply
Indeed. Have you put any thought into why the choices end up being so bad?
I think it’s the fact that you can only vote for one of many candidates. This forces everyone to make predictions about who’s electable, who’s got staying power. This gives the MSM a perfect excuse to shape the race focusing ridiculous attention on the horserace instead of the issues.
If you let people vote for all of the candidates they find acceptable, that whole dynamic disappears. Guys like Thompson and Hunter wouldn’t have been kicked to the curb so carelessly.
Mr. Huston, you’re so close. You’re almost there. Just a few more steps…
It’s the endorsements people give when they have more to lose than to gain by the endorsement that matter. Ingraham, AND ESPECIALLY HANNITY, have more to lose by endorsing Romney than to gain, since they know they risk alientating the probable winner and his supporters with the endorsement (McCain). It shows Hannity and Ingraham have beliefs that matter more than their personal interests, and it reaffirms to me that they are principled. This is also the reason that Crist and Swarzenegger’s endorsements of McCain mean nothing. They’re opportunistic. They were waiting to see how they could gain the most personally with their endorsements. Unlike most, I believe McCain is a sure loser in the general election — perhaps the weakest candidate the GOP could run against a democrat, and I think it’s bigotry that’s secretly killing the GOP this election — anti-Mormon bigotry.
KT,
Almost there? You mean almost there to support Mitt? If that is what you mean, I have already publicly proclaimed my intention not to vote for any of the last three GOP nominees in either the primary or the general election.
Rudy and Huck want to have political favors. That is why they are still hanging around. McCain is the number one political favors guys. He is a Washington insider that really will keep things the same. Just look how he has all the hovering lobbyists and political junkies hanging around. He is NOT a straight talker nor has he ever been a straight talker. It is a media based falacy. Why does the political establishment want McCain (and are sending out endorsments)? It is because they know they will get a return on their investment with McCain. They will want a favor later and McCain will deliver it to them.
Romney on the other hand doesn’t really care about offending politicians or the media, because he is interested in the American people and making a legacy of greatness for the USA. Romney is not going to Washington to gain favor with lobbyists or to make friends with politicians, but to get this country turned around. He is the only hope to really unify the GOP and the USA. What is more unifying than a candidate that wants to actually work for the good of all the citizens. Romney can work with the Democrats as well as McCain. Romney doesn’t bow to their agendas and owe them political favors as does McCain.
Vote Romney for real leadership and strength to get things done to fix Washington.
I am not sure there is much difference between McCain and Romney despite what they attempt to claim. My major gripe against both is that they back killing human beings for medical experiments which they then attempt to hide by calling it stem cell research. Next to that both are free trade supporters of the type who willingly remove Americas defense against hostile foreign economic attacks and outsource it to foreign bodies such as the WTO. That seems no different from those Democrats that would remove our military defense and outsource it to the U.N. I much prefer Huckabee who appears to oppose both of these actions.
No, Mr. Hutson, I mean you’re almost there in seeing Mitt for what he is. A mirror. Real, genuine people aren’t puzzles.