Posted by
Glen Albrethsen on Friday, February 01, 2008 5:25:49 PM
While I suppose I should welcome the help of all the "anyone but McCain" folks, as well as those who call on Mike Huckabee to quit because he can't win, I guess I feel compelled to make even a better reason to vote for Mitt Romney.
He's the best candidate.
Have you watched the debates? Has anyone articulated even the most complicated of issues as comprehensively, yet concisely as Romney has?
Look, McCain and Huckabee, along with Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and even Ron Paul, have all had great sound bite moments. So what? Do we really want to nominate a candidate based on that? I understand that's how it works, but good grief, how many times have we been right based on sound bites? Once.
The rest of the time, we've spent the four years ruing our decision.
Romney's not Ronald Reagan. Was Reagan what he became before he was thrust into the crucible of the presidency? Of course not. Was he infallible after that? No. But he is fondly looked upon for what he was able to accomplish, and the fact that he is still vilified by the left only underscores his greatness.
We've had colorful characters as presidents for decades. Romney might not be as colorful, but come on folks, are we voting for a president, or are we voting for American Idol?
I know I'm dull and boring, but I find Romney to have plenty of wit, when called upon. I also find him to have a master command of the issues, and the proper weight and care for the issues.
Do I trust him on every last thing? I think that would be impossible. I guarantee there's things I disagree with him on, and also guarantee that there would be something I would disagree on with any other conservative. That's just the way it is.
Romney's right on the economy. Only Giuliani came close and he's no longer an option.
Romney's right on the war on terror. McCain may have greater claim to such things because of his military background and his years in the Senate, but Republicans generally feel George W. Bush kept us secure against further terrorist attacks, the management of war in Iraq notwithstanding. Bush had considerably less military experience than McCain, and so have others.
Romney's right on social issues. This is the place Romney has had the greatest hurdle, convincing others that his views are deeper than a campaign conversion. I've read it and watched all that's been made available, and have come to my own conclusions about whether or not he can be trusted.
I don't think a liberal governor, given the opportunity, vetoes bills that would expand abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research. Romney doesn't believe that government should get involved in social issues. Does that mean he's for abortion? No, that just means government should not be involved in the decision. For other things, we find that to be incredibly conservative, but when it comes to issues on life, it's considered liberal. Well, in truth, there should not be a constitutional amendment banning or mandating abortion, either way. If states choose to take up the issue, fine. Then it can be battled on that front. Governor Romney now supports overturning Roe v. Wade, because he's had practical experience against it.
Romney knows first hand about progressive judges taking the law in their own hands. He has been dinged for not being more vigilant before and not doing more after judges in Massachusett's ruled that based on the state's own constitution, same sex marriage must be law. In my mind, he did as much as he could to undo it, and the liberal legislature wouldn't have it.
So, he knows the importance of having judges who will not read into the Constitution that which does not exist in it. No one else has that experience, including Huckabee.
Romney has stated, including just recently, that he supports the rights of homosexuals, but does not support same sex marriage. In this case, he does support an amendment to the US Constitution banning same sex marriage, because it would affect how we look at things like taxes and benefits of all kinds that are currently afforded to married couples. How that would read and how that might affect the ability for states to make their own decisions would have to be looked at. The federal government should not preempt the sovereignty of the states. As it is, most states have either their own bans in place, or have voted against giving such designation to same sex marriage.
Supporting the rights of homosexuals to live as they would, without discrimination based on sexual orientation is different then giving the same status as current married couples. It shows compassion while not condoning their behavior or detracting from the meaning of traditional marriage.
Most of us don't have to publicly disclose where we stand on such things. I think many of us, however, would consider it extreme to fire someone simply because they are homosexual, or keep them from getting a job because of it, or think it was anything less than a tragedy that they were murdered because of their sexual orientation, even if we do believe homosexual behavior is a sin.
Unfortunately, these are the times we live in. We find ourselves dealing with this things. And while we have to be sure that a few won't make decisions for all of us, the fight against abortion and homosexuality really won't be won on the federal level. It will be fought in our own homes and in our neighborhoods and in our communities. If we can stop any kind of governmental meddling, we've done what we can do on that level.
Romney is not a perfect candidate. Can't think of a single candidate who has ever aligned completely with my own desires. That includes Reagan. Still, Romney brings a lot to the table, and in my mind, brings more than any other candidate. The field has narrowed, and I believe there's a clear choice now. That choice is Romney.
So vote for Romney, and don't feel guilty in the process.