The Maverick Conservative

Like National Review, I have come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney should be the Republican nominee for President.

I watched a portion of today's Republican debate in Iowa, and Romney simply stands out too far in terms of truly representing the Republican message.  As National Review said, he is the ONLY Republican candidate who can unite all THREE elements of the republican Party:  Social, economic, and foreign policy conservatives.

I had not expeccted to make up my mind so soon.   I had been undecided among Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee.

Why did I come to this sudden decision?  It is because Romney continues to show that he can articulate a solid CONSERVATIVE philosophy in all areas, and back it up with performance in a LIBERAL stae (Massachusetts).  By contrast, Huckabee and Thompson have MAJOR flaws.

What is the primary flaw that Romney has?  NO.  It is NOT his Mormonism,  where the attacks have only made him look GOOD (see previous entries in this blog).  The primary alleged flaw of Romney (pointed out here long ago) is that he is an "empty suit", filled by whatever positions he feels he needs to take at the moment.  That is, he has FLIPPED on abortion, and some other things (NOT including the ridiculouas smear that he hired a landscaper who employed illegal immigrants), depending on whether he was running for election in Massachusetts or not.  

However, Romney is fairly convincing on explaining his changes in position.  More importantly, he is articulate and CONSISTENTLY CONSERVATIVE, in the positions he is now taking--positions that he is taking so STRONGLY that another flip is inconceivable (NOT really true, I think, of Theompson or Huckabee).

I could live with Thompson or Huckabee, but it hit me like a religious revelation that they just were NOT impressing me.  Thompson MIGHT make the best PRESIDENT, but it is clear to me that he is NOT a great CANDIDATE (although the potential is there for hm to improve).  Thompson does not seem to know how to RUN for President. 

My position on Mike Huckabee is influenced by some things that most of the public may not know.  Along with McCain, he used to be a regular guest of Don Imus (back when he was a FAT man).   In case you don't know, in his later years (before the Rutgers girl basketball team momentarily did him in), Don Imus became enamored of PHONIES (including John McCain).  Even though Imus made a career of supposedly rejecting pretention and phony "convention", he became a PROMOTER of certain kinds of phonies.  That specifically included John McCain and John Kerry, along with media types like Dan Rather and the entrie NBC/MSNBC cast of gold standard hypocritical PHONEIS. 

Was Huckabee a phony on Imus?   Partially.  He was not as big a phony as most, but he came across as a person (like McCain) clearly out for PUBLICITY.  Huckabee WORKED at being a "good guy".  He worked TOO HARD at it. 

As I have stated previously, I am concerned at how Huckabee LEFT the Republican Party in Arkansas--where Republicans have not seemed to do well after he left.   Is that because Huckabee was too hard an act to follow, or because he did not really build a Republcan Party in Arkansas so much as pursue his PERSONAL AMBITION (see the above paragraph about his regular appearances on Imus--in Imus' incarnation as the ultimate EASTERN insider, which made Imus one of the biggest phonies of all).

Then I saw Huckabee answer a question at the Iowa debate.  It was a "glib" answer, but eh OPPOSITE of conservative philosophy.  He talked about how health care should NOT depend upon your wealth--how poor people should receive EQUAL health care with rich people.  That is something Hillary Clinton could have said.  It is FALSE.  It is essentially a LIE.  That is, it is a LIE that poor people can EVER have equal health care with rich people.   A rich person is able to fly to a specialist in HONG KONG.  Are we going to fly rich people to specialists in Hond Kong?  Nope.  That is just something that "sounds good" (to say that rich and poor should receive the SAME health care).  It is a STUPID "goal".  The proper goal is to have the best health care for the maximum number of people.

That answer reminded me of what I don't like about Huckabee.  He has a preacher's gift of gab.  But, even MORE than Romney, he says what he thinks SOUNDS GOOD. 

Lest you think I am a phony, let me assure you that I still like Huckabee (as I tended to do in his appearances on Imus--albeit with the same qualms I have now).  I would vote for him against a Democrat.  I can say the same thing for Thompson, who I continue to believe might make the best PRESIDENT (if he did not have to run for the job).

Romney, however, can ARTICULATE a CONSISTENT conservative vision across the board.  I don't see that the other Republicans can do that. So Romney it is, even though I know a few extra things about Romney as well (not especially favorable).

My older daughter lives in Boston.  She lived there when Romney was governor. She is INFECTED and INFLUENCED by the leftist culture of Boston.  Nevertheless, I trust her to tell me the truthe AS SHE SEES IT.  What she has told me about Romney suggests that Romney has the usual problem of a person raised in privilege, who has a record of being IN CHARGE (such as of the Olympics).  Romney appears to be something of an ELITIST.  Unlike Huckabee (is it real?), Romney does not easily adopt the populist mantle.  For example, Romney (in the midst of this media driven SCARE about subways) decided to show the people of Massachusetts, and Boston, that there was nothing to be scared of.  So Romney set up this media even where ROMNEY would ride the "T" (the Boston subway).  Problem:  Romney soon made it obvious that he had NEVER ridden the "T" in this life--at least in any recent year.  He totally ruined the attempt to show himself a "regular person" not afraid to ride the "T".  It was obvious that this was the ONE AND ONLY time that Romney was ever goig to ride the "T".

Okay.  So Romney is not a "regular person".  Do we WANT a "regular person" to be President?  It would be nice if Romney could relate to people a little better than he does, but he IS able to articulate that consistent conservative philosophy.   You can't have everything.

Thus, it is Romney. Since this blog is almost always RIGHT, we might as well adopt Romney by acclamation.  It is a done deal.  I do think Romney is going to be the Republican nominee, and will make the BEST Republican nominee.  Giuliani is too liberal.  McCain is hopeless.  My reaction to Huckabee and Thompson is set forth above.  In the end, Romney is the most COMPLETE conservative candidate (despite the flaws in his record).   I acutally feel relatively GOOD about him as the nominee--a feeling I just do not have about Huckabee or Thompson, even though I would support either over a Democrat.  Romeny will make a GOOD candidate.  He may not make a GREAT candidate, but that animal does not seem to exist.  Democrats don't even have a candidate reaching the level of "fair".  In that context, "good" ain't bad.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this