Posted by
Glen Albrethsen on Saturday, January 26, 2008 6:11:11 PM
Since the rather cordial Republican Debate XIV that took place Thursday, the gloves have come back off during stump speeches and on the airwaves in Florida. Senator John McCain now contends that there is a difference between being a leader, which he claims to be, and a manager, which he asserts his closest rival, Mitt Romney, would be.
He is also claiming that it is more important to have governmental experience on a committee than business experience in order to keep the American economy strong and on track.
Romney fires back that by McCain's own admission, one he denied flatly when asked by Tim Russert from Meet the Press during the debate, that he was not as versed on the economy as he needed to be. This comes from a couple of statements he has made, one a couple of years ago and another very recently, when speaking with bloggers during an online forum.
Romney also questions whether or not someone who only has government experience, like McCain, is the right one to be a steward of the economy, and continues the mantra that "Washington is broken" and only an outsider, like himself, and others like him, can fix it. Those who have been in Washington so long no longer can because they are part of the problem, not the solution.
If I thought McCain would be the kind of leader I would like, someone who would adhere to basic principles while reaching across the aisle, I might be more inclined to vote for him. Instead, what I see is someone who can be very principled, as well as very vindicative. Someone who feels he is right, regardless of the circumstances.
In many ways, that's what we've had with George Bush and Dick Cheney the last eight year. And while I have to believe things would have been worse under an Al Gore or John Kerry presidency, I can't say that I'm all that thrilled with the direction this country is going in.
More government, more federal regulations and control, more bickering and gridlock, is not what I think we need.
If I thought McCain's admiration among the Independents and some of the more moderate and even liberal Democrats were Reaganesque in nature, stemming from a respect of his mostly conservative ideals, rather than joy in the fact that he has been willing to shift their direction on many issues, rather than cause them to shift his way, and rankle the Republican party rank and file in the process, mainly the conservatives among them, I could see myself voting for him.
Maybe a President McCain would be different than a Senator McCain. Actually, I have little doubt that such would be the case. I just don't think he'd be the kind of leader I want. I think he would move to the center on too many issues--global warming, immigration, free speech, judges, etc. I think he would end up alienating more than uniting, castigating more than building consensus, especially if his temper flew out of check and he continued his "my way or the highway" mentality.
I'm not asking for compromise, but good grief, just because you're at odds with someone over something doesn't mean they're your mortal enemy for eternity. Particularly if the difference in opinion is based on heart felt principles.
What I see in Romney is someone who has the capacity to listen to and work through differing opinions. There have been plenty of times where his own thoughts about things have proven wrong, There have been other times where his gut was right. However, in either case, he has insisted that the evidence be put forth, sifted through, and that solutions, viable, real solutions be reached.
Some might find this to be compromising at it's best. Some might think that means he has no core beliefs or principles. Some relish in the adversarial state that is conservatism vs. liberalism, the us against them, the thrill of victory over the heathen.
Well, if principles are sacrificed in the compromise, then yes, I agree. That is the worst thing, and I think far too many moderates fall into that category. However, there are many other times where a combination of philosophies work the best, even if they are not ideal.
Romney has experience with that. His experience in business, with the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympics and four years as a governor in the bluest of the blue states (Massachusetts), qualify him. He has held to principles in the onslaught of opposing opinions and thoughts, and he has worked to a compromise in other situations where core beliefs weren't at stake.
I think Romney is a leader. A CEO is a leader. Being the head of the Olympics is being a leader. Being a governor is being a leader. He has the most combined and varied executive leadership experience of anyone on either side.
No, Romney isn't a war hero. No, he didn't even serve in the military. Nor did his sons. That didn't stop Bush from defeating McCain in 2000. It didn't stop George H. W. Bush or Bob Dole from losing to Bill Clinton before that. It didn't stop Kerry from losing to Bush in 2004.
A leader needs convictions. A leader needs principles. Especially in those moments of deep crisis, in those darkest of hours. The rest of the time, though, he still needs to set the tone, show forth optimism and a can do attitude.
Not in adversarial way. Not in a vindicative way. In a quiet, confident and firm manner.
Does that describe McCain?
I think not.