|
|
February 4, 2008Convince me of the Merits of Mitt - UPDATEDI am genuinely torn about my vote tomorrow. I’ve been writing for the past few days about my complete disillusionment with the far-right and their finger-wagging, hyperventilation that Republicans and “true” conservatives must vote for Mitt Romney, for no other reason, apparently than because he is not John McCain. There has been some really shameful demagoguery against McCain from people who ordinarily would show some respect for a man who spent 6 years in a VietCong POW camp, too, which to my way of thinking says many more negative things about the sign-holders and aspersion-casters than it does about McCain. UPDATE: Here is an except from the link below - the statement of a fellow POW of McCain’s who does not support him politically:
The man has a son in Iraq and one at Annapolis - he is undoubtedly a Patriot. To call him a “Benedict Arnold” as these people do is disgusting and out -of-line. It is, more than anything, what I find disturbing about the excesses of the far-right. - End Update McCain is not my first or second choice, and there are some legitimate concerns about his temperament and his manner, but he also has some strengths and I am tired of opening my email to hysterics suggesting that America will end if McCain gets the nomination. I’m tired of turning on talk radio and hearing - nonstop, day after day - lecturing about what a terrible man McCain is, and why I should not vote for him. It is significant to me that no one is telling me why I SHOULD vote for Romney. No one is telling me how great he is, and giving me a reason to want to vote for him. They’re just telling me “McCain is bad!” So, I’m asking:
When I look at Romney I see a smart businessman who will probably be good on taxes. But I also see a guy who only became “pro-life” when it became politically expedient to do so. I see a guy who only clearly supported “the surge” after it became a success. I see a guy who is still flip-flopping on the second amendment - and about other things. I see a guy who has a blandness to him that will be eaten alive by either Obama’s stunning charisma and energy, or by Hillary’s machine - I don’t believe he can actually win the White House. This is what I am seeing in the candidate who the “true conservatives” are telling me is the “best” representation of conservative values. All of the red meat being thrown on talk radio is stunning. I just listened to 1/2 hour of Rush talking about how bad McCain is, but not how good Romney is. He came back from break with another “song parody” about his McCain obsession and I turned it off, because he has nothing new to say, and he’s not going to give me a positive reason to vote for Romney; this speaks volumes to me. What are Romney’s positives? Has he demonstrated, somewhere, a quality of enormous personal resolve that tells me I can count on him to nominate constitutionalist justices to the SCOTUS without folding when the Dems breathe hard? Has he shown a commitment to the troops that makes me believe he is a qualified CIC who will make his troops his first priority? I heard Rush say today that McCain didn’t support the Bush tax cuts, that he denigrates profit and that he is bad on immigration, as the issue is defined by the hard right. Okay. But…he is consistently pro-life. He is consistently pro-troop. Do those things - the former backbones of the GOP - no longer matter, when profits and taxes are on the line? Are those “principles” just not as important as the ones you’re telling me will have you voting for a Democrat in November? For crying out loud, tell me the God’s honest truth, here: do you REALLY think Mitt Romney is going to do what you want on Immigration? Of course he won’t. Nothing I’ve seen of Mitt tells me this is a passionate issue for him. What does Romney passionately stand for, besides getting Romney into the White House? I do not see tremendous commitment to anything besides Mitt. So, I’m asking respectfully - all you Suddenly Romney! fans - convince me: tell me why I should vote for Mitt “and like it,” and do it without using the words “John McCain.” I’m willing to be convinced. But it has to be on the Merits of Mitt, and nothing else. You have about 24 hours, starting now. This is a chance for the Romney side to talk up their candidate without falling back on vituperation or the “not McCain” card. If nothing else, I’d like people to be able to say that they get both sides when they come to this site, and that no one is ever bullied. http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/02/04/convince-me-of-the-merits-of-mitt/trackback/ 111 Responses to “Convince me of the Merits of Mitt - UPDATED” |
February 4th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
[...] Convince me of the Merits of Mitt [...]
February 4th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
You know, I’m great fan of McCain, but I like him better than Romney.
With John McCain, you know what you are getting, whether or not you see eye to eye with him.
Mitt Romney is clearly a superb administrator. He’s a business and even a miracle worker when you consider his efforts in pulling off the SLC Olympics when they were falling apart.
If the President of the United States were an administrative office only, Romney would get my vote. Well, that office is a lot more than administrative.
John McCain may not be the ideal conservative candidate, but so what? Since when do conservatives of a particular stripe have a lock on the Republican party?
The Republican party is not ‘owned’ by one kind of a conservative or another any more than the Democrat party is ‘owned’ MoveOn.org or Kos.
Anchoress, there is a saying in the investment business that ‘past performance is no guarantee of future earnings.’
That’s for the lawyers. Of course past performance is an indicator of what to expect.
Vote for the candidate who best represents the past you can relate to- because in the end, chances are that is what you’ll get in the future.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I think Mitt Romney has changed his postions. However, I think, if he is a life long Mormon, he probably changed his positions to win in Mass. and, not to win the White House. I live in AZ and my husband grew up in Pocatello, ID. We know and live among many, many Mormons. Their positions on social issues are very conservative and family oriented. I think Mitt Romney has come BACK to his conservative positions (but not done it in a very elegant way, sigh)and will hold up to them. I don’t think he is “slick”, I think he really wants what is best for the country.
Also, I don’t think John McCain will have a chance against Barak Obama’s youth and vigor. At least Mitt Romney is a “change” and fresh face to compete with him. On issues, he wins hands down.
I am afraid that people are backing McCain only because he is the devil they know. His pleasure in working with Democrats and slamming his party and President is disconcerting.
Pray hard and think long…
Leslie
February 4th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
As always, Siggy is right.
Character counts in the Presidency.
This says a lot:
There’s a reason for that–John McCain is who he is; he’s authentic and like Bush, you know he means what he says.
I know, you wanted convincing on the merits of Mitt. Okay, he has nice hair.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
[...] message to the Anchoress–this is another reason for you to vote for McCain.) [...]
February 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Well, our primary isn’t until 4/22 (we may be the last in the nation). I’m not even sure Mitt will still be on the ballot.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I can’t convince you to vote for Romney because you haven’t ever liked him. He’s too “beige” for you, etc. For you to ask me to do it is as pointless as those atheists who ask Christians to convince them that God exists when they’re not even open-minded enough to be agnostics.
I could tell you that Romney is business-savvy and - more important to me - understanding of working people. I could tell you that he does what he says he’s going to. I could tell you that he has an old-fashioned sense of treating others decently even when he disagrees with them (which I find refreshing and truly “presidential” behaviour). I could write that he knows just what “globalization” means for our industries and for our country in general. I could tell you that he’s wealthy enough that lobbyists and foreign interest groups aren’t trading contributions today for four years of favours.
Then, of course, you will supply your own personal “buts” and it won’t really matter.
As my grandpa used to say, “Vote for whomever you trust, then pray he wins.”
February 4th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Why will Romney make a good President?
Virtue
Romney is slandered by the flip/flop meme. He has flipped. He is unlikely to flop. Reagan flipped. I flipped. You, Anchoress, flipped. Romney is a guy trying to be the best he can be, and to contribute as best he can. I admire that. His vanilla doesn’t turn me off. I think Romney would make a better, more interesting, more admirable friend than any of the other candidates. Romney is slandered by the flip/flop meme. I look at him, and I see virtue.
Talent
Enough said.
Energy
Who REALLY has the energy to conduct the long campaign: McCain or Romney? Romney is the happy warrior. Romney looks refreshed on the campaign trail. Romney has the spiritual, emotional, philosophic grounding necessary to maintain the fight through to the end.
Speed, Agility
Who REALLY has the organizational and intellectual and philosophic agility to rapidly respond to campaign attacks, and to changing campaign conditions?
Judgement, Temperament
Romney, in his entire career, has shown that he accumulates data, then keeps a cool temperament and chooses a best course . McCain, in his career, has shown he is not good at accumulating data. It’s a weakness for McCain. Combine McCain’s temperament with his weakness at accumulating data… not good.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Jean -I was perfectly serious when I said I was willing to be convinced. Yes, I think the guy is beige…but I’m willing to consider him, because I see both McCain’s strengths and weaknesses.
And I certainly appreciate his “treating others decently even when he disagrees with them” - indeed I’ve admired that behavior in President Bush, even when the right has decried it as “wimping out.”
You’ve told me about his business acumen, which I had already recognised. Please tell me how Mitt will be for us on the War on Terror, our Troops, the SCOTUS justice nominations and abortion. THAT is what I want to know about. Please tell me what it is about Romney, on those issues, that I should appreciate and consider.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
OK–here’s my best shot–I too have gone from #1 Fred Thompson–gave him money–#2 Guiliani–no money, just prayers and now #3 Mitt Romney–
Here’s why–
1. as Don Rumsfield said ‘a new set of eyes” to the problems of Washington–not a long term Senator with lots of baggage and friends and lobbyists
2. Brings dignity (much like President Bush) to the office with respect for and actually a humbleness (media wants to call him arrogant like they called Bush cocky) of the OFFICE of President–not the title—and that is missing from Clinton and McCain…
3. He loves his family–and has lots of children and grandchildren so there is NO WAY he would pull out of Iraq or diminish homeland security–but he (unlike McCain) does NOT want to close Gitmo and bring terrorists here to our land and our lawyers…
4. His switch to pro-life is not as hard to swallow as McCain’s gang of 14 and votes FOR stem cell research–and if Mitt Romney gets elected, it will be on the backs of conservatives and President Romney has the integrity to remember that and stick to his guns!
5. I agree with Michael Reagan’s article “John McCain hates me” and he does seem to look at his Democratic senotor friends with less contempt than all of us…
6. Rick Santorum’s endorsement put me over the top–I heard him live on Laura Ingraham right after spending and hour in Adoration at my church–and not only do I admire Senator Santorum and all his positions (what a great Supreme Court nominee heh) but his endorsement was from the heart!
so good luck Anchoress–My sister and I LOVE YOU! …and Following your lead–are giving up politics for Lent (God help us!)
February 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Speed and agility? Okay…I’ll give you that.
Will he be a good CIC?
February 4th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I really don;t like either Romney or Mccain. Yes they are both flawed in my opinions. Romney is the used car salesman that will say anything t get elected. McCain has just stabbed the backs of Republicans too many times, especially the last few years. I think that it is his grudge against Bush. Also the fact that McCain was thinking about chaniging Parties in 2001 also puts me very much of him.
My favorite 2 candidates are already gone so what to do. Do I go with the man that is a used car saleman, or the man that joins with the Dewmcras more often than the Republcans. It is a hard choice, but I will go with some on that is not a detriment to the party and many of his fellow Senators from the Republcan side d not like him.
I know you want reasons for Romney, but there are more reasons not to vote for McCain. Also the way he trated his first wife is very bad, he left her for a new and inproved version that has money in her family. Ot is very Kerryesque. Woithout his new wife’s family , he would not bein politics at all.
Romney may has flip flopped and changed his mind on things, but he did get elected to oine of the most liberal states in the country, s to do that yu have to go to the left. McCain on the other hand is form a conservative state ans has moved to the left. I would rather have someone who is moving to the right not the left.
Just my 2 cents.
And if it is McCain as the nominee, I will vote for him over Hillar or Obama. I am not one of the pople crazy enough ot let a Democrat win just t stick it to the Republicansm, that is what happened in 2006 and look who we got, Pelosi and Reid, 2 ofthe bggest bafoons every to hold leadership positions in Congress.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
War on Terror
Romney has a deeper understanding of the Jihad threat than any other candidate. Romney has asked the right questions. He gets the cultural and tribal thinking which is at the root of the threat. This is why Romney speaks of a societal effort to turn back the Jihadi threat. No candidate could conceive or manage or lead such a societal effort more effectively than Romney. Romney certainly understands the flow of monies (from oil wells to banks to Jihadis). [insert joke about understanding religious movements here]
Nothing about Mitt Romney suggests “wimp.” He will make the hard calls to protect our nation.
SCOTUS
Romney understands the concept of “judicial restraint”. Not all Repub candidates do. Romney believes in judicial restrain. Not all Repub candidates do. When you understand and believe in something, you will fight for it.
abortion
As Romney has stated, again and again, that he is Pro Life, I can only assume you worry about Romney and flip-flopping. As stated previously, Romney is slandered by the flip flopping meme. I explicitly trust Romney on this issue.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Stix - the rule is Don’t tell me about McCain!
Okay, all - so I am hearing some reasonable things about Romney - new set of eyes, etc. I already knew he was family-oriented, that doesn’t automatically translate into his being a reliable CIC, though.
They are both flawed but we’re all flawed, so I discount that.
Who is going to HOLD when things get ugly with the Dem Congress?
By all definitions Bush should have been a lame duck since 2006, but he managed to be productive in 2007, and he will likely be moderately productive in ‘08.
Assuming the GOP Candidate gets the Oval OFfice in ‘08 -and that’s a big assumption - which will Romney hold? Why do you believe that? His flipping on abortion and the surge don’t bother you?
February 4th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Romney understands where money comes from (hint: not Washington D.C.)
I agree with Romney’s stated positions on life, immigration, taxes, entitlements and the first ammendment.
I believe Romney’s successes strongly suggest that he plays well with others.
As far as I know, Romney is untouched by scandal, immaturity or intemperate behavior in his personal life (indeed, character does matter)
As for flipping and flopping, Romney has explained that some of his views evolved when he realized his actions as governor would have more profound effect than any opinion (abortion). I see no change in Romney’s position on the surge. Frankly, until he decided to seek the presidency, providing advice on military strategy was not exactly in his job description. I don’t understand why Romney is called-out for adopting so-called politically-expedient positions when his opponent-in-chief (who must remain nameless) gets a pass for doing a 180 on immigration by saying, “The people have spoken.”
I believe both leading GOP candidates have the potential to beat Hillary but the candidate not named Romney would have no prayer against the Dem’s new rock star.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Will Romney be a good Commander in Chief?
Romney’s entire life is an advertisement for the virtue which has led to his many successes.
If your request is:
“Prove to me Romney will not wimp out on making hard calls to protect our nation,”
then I cannot prove it, as I cannot prove a negative.
I can say Romney is obviously well-grounded, has made virtuously tough decisions his entire life, and would not have accomplished what he has without possessing toughness and courage. IMO, Romney is cool headed, he accumulates data, he knows how to analyze the data, and his entire life is advertisement for his willingness to make tough decisions. That, to me, is completely Presidential.
Your question, I think, is actually about a quest for greatness in a leader. Great leaders can have vanilla personalities(to you, I don’t believe Mitt’s personality is vanilla). If virtue, intelligence, and ability to analyze daa and make tough decisions is not Presidential, what is?
Where will Mitt lead us? He will lead us to an integrated societal fight against Jihadism. He will inspire us towards the virtous decision making and action he has displayed all of his life. He will lead us toward respect for family and life. He will lead us towards smaller, less intrusive government. He will lead us towards a more virtuous and less cynical government.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Romney did not flip on the surge.
Romney was careful in his statements about the surge. Romney did not understand the surge success as quickly as McCain understood it, and Romney does not have the military knowledge McCain has.
I’m convinced Romney does fully understand the Jihadi threat we face. I suspect he may, in some ways, understand it better than all other candidates.
Okay, enough comments for today. Thanks for this opportunity. Life calls.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Commander in Chief is the real question…
Let’s see…He has “stuck with his faith”, “stuck with his wife” stuck with committment to turn around the Olympics. He has successfully governed Ted Kennedy’s home state and has been a highly successful CEO of many companies… He is sticking out this political process (better than most). If the “cocky cowboy” can be as solid in so many ways, I believe the “used car salesman” will be just a strong–AND he will be able to articulate much better than most…
He, along with Rudy were the only two candidates who didn’t publicly deride our current president and his decisions–and that says a whole lot about his character versus other unnamed competitors…
February 4th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Where to begin, ON the pro life issue I don’t believe it was done out of political expediency but of growth and leaving behind his knee-jerk reaction that made him support it in the first place. He saw some one close to him die from a botched abortion and his emotions clouded his better judgement, it happens to all of us at one time or another. with the passage of time and growth he came to realize that he didn’t see the entire picture and changed. I believe the change to be real. As for character, he has never cheated on his wife, not divorced, raised 5 good sons. He spent 2 years as a Mormon missionary, paying his own way, serving his God. that was a great personal sacrifice. Everyone knows how Mormon missionaries are treated, harassed, tormented, spit-on, eggs thrown at them, sworn-at, shot at, and the list goes on. It is not easy he didn’t quit but served 2 years and then came home to further serve in his church as a Bishop(pastor) and Stake President leader over many wards(dioceses) it was voluntary and in addition to his working his full time job. He was willing to sacrifice his time and talents to help others. to me that shows character. I don’t believe him to be bland but just not shown in the best light by the media, look at the way the media portrays President Bush, I believe they do much the same to Mr Romney. I believe he will support the troops, he hasn’t done anything to show he wouldn’t, once again I believe the media says and shows only what they want shown, portraying him as a “flip-Flopper” which in some circles is code word for Mormon. The Gun thing is just weird and I don’t know what to think about that. Mitt is an unknown in many areas and that does cause one to ponder voting for him . I will say this on a personal note if I may about McCain. Much has been been said about his having been a POW, I admire that but it raises so many red flags for me because I personally know a POW, I grew up with him, his and his wife’s family lived near me, I went past his in-laws house everyday as they lived just down the street, for a few years his wife and two daughters lived with her parents while lynn was in a POW camp. For many years they didn’t know his fate and then when they knew where he was and what was happening, well it was traumatic. When Lynn finally came home the change was dramatic, he was a shell of a man and deeply troubled, he woke up at night screaming and shaking and crying, it was horrible. He was examined by doctors and declared sane, and he was, but he was deeply scarred, no-one going through something like that gets out without some damage done to the mind, no-one McCain included. I don’t think Mitt’s a self-serving man, you don’t become a LDS bishop and Stake President by being self-serving, no they are very much service oriented callings, sometimes more than 20 hrs a week. no he is not selfish. I have family that has had personal experiences with McCain, and Family that have had personal experiences with Mitt, going by what they say and their experiences I’m voting for Mitt. Sometime it is what it is a vote against McCain because we believe he truly is worth voting against. Romney might not be worth voting for but McCain is worth voting against, it is what it is.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Ok, Anchoress, here’s what I know: Romney does a lot more fact-finding before he makes a decision than most politicians. When he’s made a decision, he sticks with it. He thinks about the long-term rather than the most expedient or (God help us) “the next four years”. So I trust he’d choose good candidates for the Supreme Court.
He isn’t afraid to take a stand. He got clobbered by the usual suspects in 2005 for saying that the War on Terror means we ought to investigate mosques that preach Islamic militancy and young male would-be immigrants from Islamic hotspots. He condemned Harvard’s invitation to Mohammed Khatami and as governor would not allow state agencies to facilitate the visit (they usually assist visiting dignitaries). Again, there were demands for his apology and his head, but he didn’t back down.
He supports the troops. He was one of very few governors who went to Iraq (in late spring 2006) specifically to see the troops from his state. He doesn’t support a troop withdrawal because of its long-term consequences. He wants to increase funding to 4% of the GDP in order to bring the military back to pre-Clinton levels. I also like his plans for health care.
I don’t think he’ll “flop” on being against Roe vs. Wade. Even as a “pro-Choice” governor, he thought abortion was acceptable only to prevent the death of mother and in the case of incent or rape. So he was never one of the it’s-the-woman’s-choice types, the sorts who find it hard to be pro-Life because they believe in some bizarre “right to privacy” that includes the right to kill one’s children.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Do you know what I hate?
I hate going into the polls and knowing I don’t really, really SUPPORT and TRUST either guy.
In truth, I’ve only ever had the sensation of voting for someone I proudly supported twice. Both times it was Dubya. And I never regretted those votes.
I would like to feel that again.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Good discussions. I’ve enjoyed the post and the comments.
I am still on the fence and don’t know what to do. I will say that the conversation here has made me less discouraged about both candidates.
Thanks, all.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Romney is underestimated. I think he would be a very effective and courageous leader. The best way to understand Romney (or any candidate for that matter) is to examine his past. Romney founded and lead and grew one of the most successful companies around — note: his company was also rated best company to work for from 2003-2007. In addition, he turned around several companies in financial trouble. That takes leadership. I can hear people say those were just businesses; well, if you can’t run a business, you probably won’t be able to run a country. I think this is one candidate whose leadership is underrated.
Romney has a better understanding of fighting jihad and other geopolitical concerns. He understands them on a intellectual basis. Romney is a very calculating guy. An enemy will have to take Romney’s intellectual ability into account. Even while campaigning for super Tuesday, he stated he was solving it like a Rubik’s cube. He understands Russia is trying to expand its periphery, he understands the threats facing Pakistan, he is by for the most suited for the emerging powerhouse China. By the way, almost all are concerns revolve around some type of economic challenge. Romney’s strongest area.
Romney — no doubt — is a very loyal and understanding guy with strong family values. His head is always cool under pressure, he doesn’t take things personal, he really loves this country.
The more you get to know Mitt, you’ll find the more you like him. He would be one of the top 5 greatest leaders in the last 100 years… I honestly believe that. And America may just pass him up… you should make sure they don’t! God bless!
February 4th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
According to Victor Davis Hanson, Romney is a “nice guy with enormous talents,” who is intelligent, vigorous, well educated, and pleasant. He has executive experience in the public and private sectors. Personal attributes weigh more heavily than what the candidates say they want to do. Circumstances change, and the Senate has to approve anything significant. That requires negotiation, compromise, and the flexibility that Romney’s background says he has, and that people criticize him for. Admittedly, that flexibility is less than attractive, in anyone. But if he gets anything done at all it will be by giving the Dems something they at least think they want. As far as electibility, “Republican governor of Massachusetts” says a lot, but anyone who can win the Republican nomination probably has broad enough support to be ‘electable:’ if the Republican nominee gets elected, it will be because the Democrat lost. That sounds pessimistic, but the Dems have made a habit of doing just that.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Anchoress: One thing you may want to ask your dear readers is if anyone attended a McCain and/or Romney ralley in Flrodia or New Hampshire, and what was said there. A Florida friend of mine who attended both said McCain indicated he had a “secret plan” to capture Osama bin Laden and his 50-minute speech was bellicose and martially-oriented enough to be worrisome; it is as if he has no interest in the domestic. I am hoping someone can chime in after seeing these men live, at one of their rallies.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Anchoress: This a good summary of issue stance with corresponding history of action, which you may find useful:
http://www.issue2008.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I may have something to help you. I don’t like the way the McCains have been treated, not in 2000 and not now. I did a post last night on The Pink Flamingo. While I was uncovering material, there were places where I cried when I discovered how badly conservatives have treated these people. There are some very nasty attacks aimed at McCain from the Right. Some, like the Jack Wheeler lie machine, are so vile they are past the point of no return. I was dismayed the number of people who have picked up the story and run with it, even though the lies Wheeler is spreading were debunked 8 years ago.
I don’t see McCain supporters going after Romney on a personal basis, but on his flip-flopping. I also don’t see Romney asking his supporters to scale back the very vile and personal attacks on the McCains. That bothers me.
Both men and Mike Huckabee are far more acceptable than either Hillary or Obama. My personal assessment of Romney is he’s the GOP version of John Kerry and that he is something of a narcissist at best. That’s okay. He is out for himself, and will do just about anything to finish first. If that is the case, he wants to look good, so he will govern that way, so we win as a country.
I like John McCain’s character.
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
Here is the link to yesterday’s posting.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Oh, no! I think my well-reasoned comment disappeared.
In a nutshell…
1) War on Terror
As a previous poster noted, Romney supported the President and never spoke against the surge.
Romney was one of the few governors to visit the troops in 2006. He outraged the usual suspects in 2005 when he supported investigating mosques that advocate jihad and the young male immigrants who come from Islamic hotspots. As governor, he condemned Harvard’s invitation to the former Iranian president and wouldn’t allow state agencies to facilitate the visit. Again, the usual suspects called for an apology or his head.
He has called for 4% of the GDP to be spent on military, in order to raise it pre-Clinton levels. He knows that pulling out the troops in the short-term will damn us in the long-term.
At the same time, he’s not a hater. He has pointed out that the jihadists come from undeveloped areas where the majority of the people live in abject poverty and have little in the way of education. He wants an international partnership to support secular educational systems and economic changes for such countries.
2) Abortion
Even as a “pro-Choice” governor, Romney limited his acceptance of abortion to protecting the mother’s life and cases of rape or incest. He never recognized any “right to privacy”. I think his change is not so much a “flipflop” as a reasoned decision. It’s not unlike his opposition to same-sex couples and his support of private insurance for the poor and working poor, rather than a national health care system.
3) Decision-making
Romney is a lot more thoughtful and does a lot more fact-finding than most politicians. He also looks at the long-term and not just the expedient (or, God help us, “the next four years”). I would trust him to choose a Supreme Court justice.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
The Anchoress: “Convince Me of the Merits of Mitt”…
Yeah, what she said … Then again, someone is going to need to convince me of the merits of McCain, as well….
February 4th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
A-Just follow your heart and you will vote for the one you believe is better for our country. It doesn’t matter what anyone else says once you step into that booth. At that time it’s you, your conscience and God.
Follow your heart.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
“He, along with Rudy were the only two candidates who didn’t publicly deride our current president and his decisions–and that says a whole lot about his character versus other unnamed competitors…”
I really think this is important. Even former Presidents haven’t respected the code of honor allowed a sitting Pres- as you, yourself, have pointed out in past posts.
And, i’d heard what FARRWESTMOM stated on Mitt’s decision to support abortion before– emotion that was replaced w/knowledge once he’d been educated more on the truth of destruction. That’s growth(& an informed conscience)– that’s healthy. And, in a way- that’s admitting that one can change a point of view. He shouldn’t have to apologize for moving Rightward :).
I wonder who either of these Presidential hopefuls will surround themselves w/once in the House? That’s really important, too. Who will be informing and pepping up the Pres?
——-
What is the “q”-word i’m looking for that McCain’s voice reminds me of? Ahhhhh. Found it. Querulous.
——-
Mitt doesn’t remind me of a used car salesman– unfortunately, he does remind me of Kerry. I think that’s the hair, too. Not the character. I can’t see Mitt supporting abortion rights and then taking Communion(if he were a Catholic) as if he were deserving of this honour.
As for me– i like Huckabee.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I, for one, really cannot give anyone a good argument to vote for Romney (indeed, I’ve not asked anyone to do so) other than he is not McCain, whose own number one argument, it should be noted, is that he is not Hillary, and if folks do not support him, then she will be elected.
We really are in an untenable position, where we have been presented with nothing but unacceptable choices, and the number one reason for voting for this person or that person is really nothing more than a form of political blackmail.
And since I cannot come up with a good argument for voting “for” Romney or “for” McCain, I will do the only thing that I can do in good conscience, and that is to vote “against” Hillary — Not in November, but NOW. If Hillary and the prospect of continued Clintonism presents such a grave danger to the Republic (and I agree that it does), then I will not wait until November to do what I can to stop her and Bill. My vote next week in Virginia’s primary will have Barack Obama’s name on it.
But let’s remember — the ultimate decision is still NINE months away.
As for Romney, if he pulls it out, he has nine months to make the argument of why I should vote for him. Or, better yet, he should quit pandering on individual issues and simply tell us what his deep-down fundamental political philosophy is. Should he win the nomination and general election, I do believe that he will be more thankful and grateful to social and economic conservatives, and therefore will be more likely to listen to them and promote their issues.
As for McCain, if he prevails, well, he and his supporters has nine long months to further alienate and antagonize me even further than he has done in recent days. In November, if left to my own devices, I might have simply voted a straight Republican ticket, whomever the nominee, so as to prevent a Dem victory (which is not the same as voting “for” whomever is the Republican nominee). But these last few days, in serving me cow-pie and telling me that it is prime rib, McCain supporters have done a fantastic job at cementing my opposition to him. And if that is the way that McCain and his supporters are going to act when they want our vote, how are they going to treat us after he is elected, when he no longer needs our support?
February 4th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Bender, I think in all fairness, many McCain voters will say precisely what you have - that the way the far-right has demonized McCain has cemented their vote for him.
I am truly - after this thread - more conflicted than ever about my vote tomorrow…but I have felt HONOR BOUND to defend McCain from some of the incredible venom that the Romney supporters (I should say the FAR RIGHT HYSTERICAL Romney supporters on talk radio and not the reasonable sane ones who have posted here) have unleashed upon a man who is undoubtedly a patriot.
After this bit of ugliness - the excessive/obsessive rancor of Rush, the whackadoodle pronouncements of Coulter - I may never be able to listen to them and be amused again.
I thought this sort of mud-slinging was reserved for the far left. But as I said the other day, the far-right has become all it hated.
I am very, very proud of the folks who read and comment at this site. You’ve all been wonderfully reasonable in your arguments, clear and respectful of each other.
Which means it IS possible to have civil discourse in politics. Although…it’s probably boring radio!
February 4th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Anchoress, the spin doctors have done a good job of making Mitt Romney look like an opportunist and a man with few principles. However, if you asked almost any Governor qustions about the surge when it was proposed depending on their party, most would have been in the same boat as Romney. Governors do not get classified briefings and intelligence updates or briefing by the top military advisors, Senators do. Mavericks very seldom make good leaders in government. It seems like Jesse Ventura was a maverick and he wasn’t that good of a governor and he really didn’t accomplish much during his time in office. Romney has a record of achievement in both the private sector and in State Government. What leadership qualities can a career politican bring to the arena that can be measured against a proven track record of performance? Career politicians rarely become good leaders they are at best good at selling themselves and tooting their own horns. Health and age are factors that have to play out in this drama as well. Romney seems robust and healthy and seems to have stamina and energy whereas the leading Republican candidate seems to be without energy and looks old and tired. I don’t know about you, but I think most people could be catagorized as flip floppers because most people change over time and they arrive at different positions at different times in their lives. Mitt will be able to debate the Democratic nominee forcefully whereas I am afraid that is not the case when it comes to the so called front runner in the Republican race. Romney has a temperment that is better suited to lead and he is by far a better communicator. In the end I am afraid that we will miss an opportunity to put the best candidate forward because somehow people think that a war hero will win in the general election. There is no doubt that if he is the nominee he will be treated by the MSM like our nominee in 96 was and the outcome will be the same. As for the talking heads on the right they are not really helping the average Republican make up their minds based on facts they are looking for purists and they never will really find one that can be a winner.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
As soon as I convince myself of the wonders of Mitt, I’ll give you a shout out, A!
I have tried really hard to convince myself that McCain will make a good president - and he might. But that famous temper of his scares the bejabbers out of me and that’s the truth. Do we really want a hothead being followed around by the nuclear football?
From my experience as a paralegal and legal secretary, I can tell you that good managers can and often do accomplish amazing things, things that their more “brilliant” or accomplished co-workers are unable to achieve - so from that standpoint, Mitt Romney might be a solid alternative and someone with good moral character who doesn’t cause people to develop BDS might be a restful change for our nation.
I have to say, neither HRC nor Barack Obama impress me at all with their experience, character or vision. Attempts at style, no substance. Empty suits.
And yes, this campaign has been tediously long - which doesn’t help, does it?
February 4th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I have always been a Romney supporter. I just believe that when it comes down to it, he knows how to pursue his objectives in an effective way so that they will be successful. He’s a hard worker–not everyone goes to Harvard business school and law school at the same time. While he gets a lot of derision for how wealthy he is, he is wealthy for a reason. I could totally see him cutting government waste and reforming programs to run more effectively.
Ultimately, Romney is a practical guy. People accuse him of flip-flopping, but at the end of the day, he is not going to do something that would have disastrous results or do something irresponsible. One sees this in how he handled the abortion in situation in Massachusetts. He accepted that he could not change the public’s opinion on abortion there and agreed to abide by the status quo. Yet, when he was in office, he kept an exacerbation of these policies in check. He recognized that had any other more liberal politician been in his place that he or she would have most likely continued the erosion of pro-life values. On Iraq, he would never bring the troops home based on his political popularity polls because of his knowledge of what the consequences of this action would be.
I’ve read about how he comes to decisions about issues, which is that the situation is evaluated from every possible angle and there is culture of honesty in his staff. This would be very effective in any military action he would ever have to initiate.
Again, I also think he would be a good representative to the world of what American values and would be a good example to the country itself. He has a reputation of being unfailingly decent to those he works with. (But at the same time, he’s obviously assertive to have led the company he led). His family is strong. He’s just overall a good guy.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I don’t think Romney is a bad man. I would never say the kinds of things about him that McCain bashers say about McCain, such as he is a traitor. But I think he is politically opportunistic.
The thing that bothers me is how many of these people who think that Fred! was just the berries in spite of his support of McCain Feingold and yet they use McCain Feingold as an example of how McCain has erred. I do not know one single person whose first amendment right have been diminished by McCAin Feingold. Most people do not even understand what it is, or care. In this respect conservatives are hypocrites. McCain has a decent Conservative rating, he has voted with conservatives a hell of a lot more often than Hillary has and yet loud mouths like Coulter say they would just as soon see her president.
That tells me more about the cry babies on the right than it does about McCain.
My problem with Romney is that we are not voting for a CEO, we are voting for CinC. If it was the former, we should try to get Bill Gates to run. Romney was a typical northeastern moderate/liberal governor. Now all of a sudden he is the vanguard of conservatism and McCain is a liberal. That is absurd.
Romney has changed positions on every major issue, from immigration to embryonic stem cell research. In every poll out there he is obliterated by the Democrats.
So why would I vote for a guy who will fold every time it suits him, just so he can get beat a few months later? To please Rush? Well do people like Rush care what I think? Obviously not.
I was looking at Pew research findings and the only Republican out there with a favorable rating over 50 is McCAin. Romney’s is 29. There is no way someone with ratings like that can win a national election. The American people know McCain and by and large they trust him. Maybe the far right has no faith in the American people, but then again I am not sure the American people has much faith in people like Rush and Coulter anymore.
It has occurred to me that Rush is looking at the money thing. A Democrat administration of Hillary or Obama would undoubtedly give him lots of new material and that is good for ratings. That and he wants someone who will say how high when says jump. That is not McCAin.
I also think the accusations that McCain betrayed his country are disgusting. I do not think it is necessary for a CinC to be have been in the military, but if these people are going to attack McCAin’s years of service it is worth noting that Romney was a missionary in France back then. Who had it tougher? Who sacrificed more? And speaking of sacrifices, my number one concern are our young men and women in uniform. I would hate to see their sacrifices go down the tubes for the sake of political expediency. We need a president in the White House who will try to secure a victory. I don’t have a grudge against Romney, but I don’t think he will make it that far.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
GJMiller:
I think the stories about McCain’s temper are hyped. He has been the subject a good deal of abuse here lately and so far he has not lost his cool. Which is more than can be said for Coulter and Rush and half the right wing blogosphere.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Looking at and commenting on some other folks’ positive things about Romney –
–Fresh face - yes, the country is enormously tired of the same old, same old
–Not a life-long, career politician - yes, he has an authentic understanding of real-life, rather than the absolute fantasy land of government and politics
–Outsider - yes, outsiders make vastly better presidents than Washington insiders
–Energy, youth - especially if Obama is the Dem nominee, not being an old man will be a factor
–Governor - only viable candidate to have run a government, senators historically make bad candidates/presidents
–Management style/decision-making - similar to positives from being governor, must necessarily rely on others to advise and do the work and implement policy, rather than trying to do everything himself, and rather than arrogantly thinking that he knows everything
–Lack of Military Experience - yes, this can be a positive, in that he knows that he is not a military expert and, thus, would rely on those who are military experts. He would let the generals be generals and conduct the fight that they deem necessary. On the other hand, John McCain is a military know-it-all, and he would be certain to micro-manage the war effort, looking over every second lieutenant’s shoulder to make sure that things are done his way. McCain’s repeated criticisms of Rumsfeld show that he would continue to believe that he knows better than anyone else.
–Taxes and spending - a business background would seem to provide a person with a greater understanding of real-life economics.
–Pro-life, marriage, and other social issues — the big question mark. Is he a squish? Would he cave and end up solidifying Roe, rather than seeing it overturned? Well, he does seem to be a believer in God, and perhaps he has a conscience that would not permit him to break his word — to show himself to have been a liar — at the risk of burning in hell as a result.
–Temperment - well, I’ve not heard of any stories of vindictiveness or inability to control anger
–Base support - as much as he has been a pandering, flipper, Romney has not consistently and repeatedly antagonized people who are on his own side — he has not burned bridges and sown salt in his allies’ fields. Getting the base to go along with Romney would seem to be a much easier job than getting the base to shut-up and quit crying and get in line behind someone that none of them like or trust.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Romney’s executive record in the government, business and nonprofit sectors would make him the obvious choice in peacetime. This isn’t peacetime.
I was pleased when Mitt returned to Massachusetts. I voted for him for governor, hoping he would go on to run for President.
Now I no longer support him. I don’t oppose him but he no longer has my affirmative support.
My disappointment happened when Mitt did not run for reelection in 2006. He declined to put his gubernatorial performance to the electorate’s vote of confidence.
Suppose, instead, he had been reelected in 2006. Today he’d be the sitting Republican governor of a very liberal state–a plausibly conservative governor who had defeated an attractive black opponent in a Democratic year. IMO the Republican nomination would be his to lose today.
Otoh if, like George Allen, Romney had lost in 2006, he’d have no shot at the 2008 presidential nomination.
Mitt’s 2006 decision may well have been objectively correct–but it was a calculation. I was looking for a degree of boldness.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
All of this is good reasoning…GM Roper also had a nice graphic a few days ago. You know me, I like pictures.
I think he would make a good CIC in that he would ponder and pray before making any decisions. McCain, I’m not so sure. His temper (and prideful arrogance) is well-known.
Just pray when you’re in the booth - I did (I voted early last week). My ears buzzed when I reached for the McCain button, but subsided when I moved away. I know it sounds silly. If God can create the heavens and the earth, He can even use a miserable sinus infection to answer my pitiful little whispered prayer on the way in - Help me! I don’t know! I can’t decide!
With all that said, regardless of WHO wins the GOP nomination, I will still support them in November. The choice on the “other side” turns my stomach.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I know this isn’t a real answer to your question, but when I am in a quandary about who (or what in the case of Propositions), I often look at who is supporting whom.
A classically liberal friend of mine, whose opinion I respect even when I disagree with him, likes Romney b/c he is a self-made man and that will drive the “special interests” nuts. Romney can’t be bought.
OTOH, the MSM, whose opinion I truly distrust, seem to like McCain far too much for my comfort.
Sounds petty, I know. I was leaning toward Giuliani and he has thrown his support to McCain, so he must have seen something as well.
I would feel better if I knew who the potential VP candidate was–perhaps that would provide some balance. (Or some color!)
I also know that very often what happens during the President’s tenure is unexpected. I don’t think GWB expected that the U.S. would be attacked and that he would be a wartime president. So, while we ~think~ we know what characteristics will be important for our President to have during the next four years, we could very well be wrong. And that’s where character becomes important. Both McCain and Romney have their strengths and weaknesses on that score.
Could be that either man will do, which makes the choice just as difficult.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
If the Republic survives this election and the next 4 years, I move that we go back to letting the pols in smoke filled rooms choose the nominees. These primaries are having the candidates tear each others guts out. Bad for them, the parties and above all, the country. Besides, the old pros chose at least as wisely as we the peep.
But that’s not what you asked. One reason to vote for Romney.
He & Huckabee are the only ones with executive experience; The others, like them as much as you please, have never run so much as a lemonade stand.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Mitt Romney is the only candidate that is not hostile to private enterprise.
Mitt Romney is the only candidate that doesn’t have a knee-jerk propensity towards government intervention.
Mitt Romney is the only candidate that understands economics and where prosperity comes from. The other candidates are wealth consumers, Mitt Romney is the only wealth producer.
I also believe he is far less likely to micro-manage warfare and not let his ego get in the way of sound judgement.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
As a former FredHead, I sympathize with you. John McCain was not my 1st choice either, but I have decided to vote for him over Mitt Romney. As Fred himself said, “I would ask people to think of one thing - when our worst enemy’s thinking about what he can do to the United States of America, who do you want sitting on our side of the table representing you? That’s probably the guy you ought to elect president.” And though I may disagree with him at times, I know he puts his country before all else… his defense of the surge proved that.
The endorsement of the Tennessee Conservative Union Newspaper summed up the reasons pretty well:
****
I don’t always agree with John McCain, but I have always admired him. He suffered and fought for his country and prevailed. Perhaps that’s why I’ve been sickened by the attacks on him by some Washington-based conservatives this week. One went so far as to say that McCain is more liberal than Hillary Clinton.
It makes you wonder if some of the more cynical have decided a new Clinton or Obama administration would mean better fundraising, higher rating points and more books sold.
Perhaps I’m just too old-fashioned for the modern media based conservative movement. I always knew one thing about Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, which is that the country came before person, principal came before party and philosophy came before personal profit.
The selection of candidates this year provides no clear choice for conservatives. If you believe the primary job of the president is to be the spiritual leader for the Country, then Mike Huckabee deserves your consideration. If you feel America needs a successful businessman to manage the economy, then Mitt Romney would seem to have the resume.
I cannot question any conservatives vote in this very unique and volatile election. I do question the credibility of the talking heads that have chosen to attempt to destroy McCain rather than simply oppose him.
In this time of war and generation of terrorism I still believe that Job One for a President is Commander and Chief. Can there be a clearer choice for Commander and Chief than John McCain? I’ll be casting my conservative vote against the terrorists, in favor of a strong national defense and for the future Commander and Chief John McCain.
-Lloyd C. Daugherty
Chairman ,
Tennessee Conservative Union
February 4th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Tonight on Fox I saw Romney talking about he is going to teach the liberals in the party a lesson. He mentioned that lots of pundits like him.
See this is my problem with Romney, he is sucking up to people who do not like anyone. These people have been bitching about Bush for years. They have been bitching about McCain for years. They have been bitching about the lack of political purity in the party they think they own lock stock and barrel for years. There is nothing positive or hopeful or inclusive or open about them, like Mikey, they hate everything.
Today Bob Dole entered the fray and said enough is enough. McCain supported the party when it needed him most and this needs to stop. I guess that means that Dole will be the next guy Rush has to bad mouth.
Do the Republicans want a party with broad appeal, or a right win fringe group that is hostile to a large segment of the American population?
As for Romney being the only guy who believes in money and profit or whatever, I just do not believe it. The only semi poor guy running is Huckabee. All these people have money, they know about how to make money. They are not upstart peasants who don’t understand the laws of supply and demand.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Noatak
Romney does not believe in government intervention? Really? He is the only one who has sponsored a mandated state level health care system too. There was a time when this alone would have been enough to kill any chances of being called a conservative.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Anchoress, My family is thee most important thing in the world to me, and of everything in my life, I am most proud of how well my daughter turned out. I am very impressed with Mitt Romney’s family. While building an incredibly successful business he raised five fine sons. To me, that is a great and difficult achievement and an good indicator of a man’s character.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
1: Mitt has executive experience, McCain, Hillary, and Obama don’t. He’s the only candidate left who has any understanding of how to run a large organization.
2: If Mitt gets elected, it will be on the backs of the Republican base. Unless you assume he’s a dishonorable man, this means he will owe, and know that he owes, a debt to that base. No “Comprehensive Immigration reform” during his Presidency.
Mitt’s not my first choice. Rudy was. You want to know what’s great about Mitt? Go check out Hugh Hewitt’s site. I voted for Mitt because he is an acceptable choice, and McCain isn’t. Remember “They don’t have to fall in love, they just have to fall in line”? Remember how well it worked for President Kerry? Oh wait, that’s right, he lost.
So would McCain. Because the people he needs to work to get him elected, are going to work for him. Not us little people “bigots”.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Here in Massachusetts, Gov. Romney let us all down big-time on Second Amendment matters. I can’t say I’m in much of a mood to help him work the same magic at national level.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I’ll tell you why I’ve supported Mitt since before his exploratory committee. But first — understand that I’m an Independent conservative who is an irreverent, “high church,” Episcopalian. I have little to no identity with the “far right” and don’t listen to talk radio (except public radio when driving).
I support Mitt’s Immigration policies. His positions that I support (summary following) have been consistent: secure border/build fence, deport criminals, issue tamper-proof cards, hold employers accountable via existing fed. data bases, enforce existing laws, offer humanistic/realistic time-lines for illegals to leave and return thru legal channels, offer temp. visa options in critical work-areas (i.e., agriculture) as needed, encourage legal immigration and review areas of our greatest needs in technology and research and honor those who wait to come to the US legally.
Mitt probably has more expertise in national security than acknowledged. As governor, his highway patrol were trained and instructed to report illegal immigrants; he took a stand on the presence of terrorist nation visitors to his state (no special security), he headed Olympic security in the post-9/11 era — requiring national and international coordination. He talks the talk and names names of any and all major international leaders —- he is brilliant in explaining the challenge(s) we face …. and he surrounds himself with experts.
He has amazing economic development skills and insight — on both a global and national scale. He has demonstrated these skills at the state level in bringing Mass. from brink of bankruptcy to a multiple-billion dollar surplus. He reduced taxes (never raising them) by reduction in dept and expenditure waste and duplication AND by adjusting fee schedules which were normally covered by the general fund. His admin. policies and “business net” expanded Mass. job markets — contrary to what certain others tell you ……. he also attracted high tech buinesses and industries that left other states.
He wants to expand R&D among our suffering industries through incentives — not hand-outs. He wants accountability AND expansion. He knows how to build markets and expand markets —— he’s brilliant in this regard. He supports American soverignity and is not affiliated with the CFA ….
His judicial recommendations (approved by his liberal legislature) were conserative.
He recognizes that for everything we do or want or value as a society, there must be a strong economy.
He believes in fixing problems to promote long-term growth, not assigning temporary bandaids (such as tax refunds — though they are good for short-term fixes).
He supports states-rights and options, denouncing the nanny-government tax and spend … His state medical plan is unique (to Mass. and should be unique to every state) and it works. Recent adjustments and changes after his admin. have attracted criticism, but the system is providing health care and reducing state cost.
I have no doubts of his potential to serve as a C in C: He is pro-military … he’s visited our troops around the world and wants to expand personnel and our military budgets. He wants to focus on advanced military technology via use of the US industrial military complex and implies linking it as to our floundering “other” industrial complexes — I like that he prefers negotiation and diplomacy rather than strong-arming or threatening …. he proposes an immediate network of nations that will form a global organization to confront terrorism and radical islamic jihadists — to include moderate Islamic nations. He talks the talk of strength against terrorism — emotionally and more importantly, intellectually. He does not share intervention or aggressive tendencies proposed by his competitors (i.e., “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran”). He wants Iraq to take responsibility for its own defense and development. He has repeatedly referred to the importance of trusting the military leadership in the field …. He endorsed the surge IMMEDIATELY and has respectfully criticized GWB’s admin for not more efficiently assisting Iraq in post-Saddam recovery.
IMO, Mitt has changed positions less frequently that his critics want others to believe. His changes have been methodical.
In decision making — he’s thorough and relies on those around him for input before making the final decision. And he’s got a hellova track record for decision-making.
He supports ADULT stem cell research and, without referring to his wife’s disease, suggests that within it may lie the secrets to cures from terminal diseases …. MS, Parkinson’s, Alzheimers, spinal injuries, etc. Actually — we’re already seeing progress in the potential of adult stem cell research.)
He was a pro-life governor in a pro-choice state. His democrat legislature determined that the abortion fee would be part of the health plan — not Mitt. He is personally against gay marriage, but supports every person’s right to employment, to enjoin legal contracts, etc.).
Mitt is a man of courage, faith, dedication and competence. IMO, he is the most consummate candidate for the presidency. He took no salary as governor or when re-organizing the Olympics. He’s said he’ll take no salary as President …. the examples of altruism surrounding this man would take another blog.
And I’ve said all this in support of Mitt Romney without once referring to the bigots, the liberal press who fear him or any of his opponents who fear and envy him ….
Ask me more questions if it matters — I don’t speak for him, but I’ve read and studied the man to tell you what I THINK he thinks or would do ….. American needs Mitt Romney —— now more than ever.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Dear Anchoress: As several other commenters have said, Mitt Romney will bring tons of energy to the Presidency. These days, that’s important.
Supreme Court Justices: I think Romney’s inclination is for originalists, but remember, the