Why Romney?

September 6, 2007, 12:00 pm; posted by
Filed under Articles, Steve  | 14 Comments

You probably didn’t watch the Republican debate from New Hampshire last night. I didn’t either, not live — I had better things to do, like watch the Yankee game and talk to my lovely girlfriend. But I did fire up the old DVR to give it a cursory glance before watching the Federer/Roddick match and going to bed.

For your information, I supported Alan Keyes, possibly the only black Republican presidential candidate ever, in both 1996 and 2000. I was actually on the ballot for Dr. Keyes during the 2000 Republican primary, where I received a whopping 1,041 votes as an alternate delegate. I agreed (and agree) with him on almost every issue, and though I knew he stood little chance of being elected, his brilliant oration and commitment to principle improved the political environment and held his fellow candidates accountable.

I did not like George W. Bush in the 2000 primaries. I hated his accent, I suspected he wasn’t well-informed, I disliked his focus on fundraising, and I couldn’t stand the seemingly overconfident bravado he oozed. Yet he was — I believe — the best candidate in November, and so I voted for him.

Well, this Republican cycle, unless you are an anti-war libertarian, there is no Keyesian candidate to support. With the exception of Giuliani’s social liberalism, McCain’s push for amnesty, and perhaps Huckabee’s odd charge toward an intrusive federal government that bans smoking in public and ‘declares war’ on obesity, almost all the Republican candidates agree — on almost everything.

There is no real front-runner, and given the monotonous group and how difficult it will be to win in ’08, I think the principal concern for Republicans should be selecting a winner, an electable personality, rather than some set of ideas unique to that person. The Supreme Court and the battle against terror are too important to fall on an ideological or religious sword, to cede control of our nation to Hillary Clinton.

Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul cannot win; they frequently seem dangerously unbalanced.
Duncan Hunter cannot win; he is a gravely serious man who should be protecting our border, not running our country.
Sam Brownback cannot win; I can barely type his name without yawning.
Mike Huckabee cannot win; a nice story, but unqualified to run the nation — and way too eager to let government run our lives.
And John McCain cannot win; he’s Bob Dole all over again, and though he’s right on Iraq, after eight years of Bush obstinance, it’s simply not a winning issue.

This leaves Romney, Giuliani and Fred Thompson.

Just like W. in 2004, based on Giuliani’s personality, past, and positions on the issues, I won’t vote for him unless I have to in November. As for Thompson, remember that everyone’s been able to project onto him their own image of the perfect candidate. He’s popular like the backup quarterback on a losing football team, as much for who he isn’t as for what he is.

But look at Romney’s strength in the earliest primary states. He’s first in Iowa, by a lot. He’s first in New Hampshire, by a lot. He’s ahead in Michigan. Giuliani leads in a few other early states, so unless Thompson can jumpstart his campaign almost immediately and nose ahead of Romney among all conservatives, it’s going to come down to a two-man race that won’t include Fred.

Romney is eminently electable.

Yet several of my fellow Bweinh!tributors refuse to even consider him, simply because of his religion. This makes sense if you believe that faith in the Mormon religion is so ridiculous, illogical or dangerous that its adherents should automatically be disqualified from elective office; that it would be preferable to elect a president ethically opposed to some tenets of your religion, as long as he or she pays lip service to one of its more liberal denominations; that God would remove His hand of guidance and protection if our executive didn’t possess the ironclad theology of the adulterous Kennedy (Roman Catholic), expletive-spewing Nixon (Quaker), or astrology-embracing Reagan (Presbyterian).

Guess what? I could — and would — vote for a Buddhist candidate if he was the best candidate for the office. I could, and would, vote for the right Muslim. I could, and would, vote for an atheist, assuming we agreed on enough of the issues. A Jew. A Hindu.

I can certainly vote for a Mormon, for although I believe their theology is incorrect and their holiest books are founded on fraud, that has almost nothing to do with one’s fitness for public office. It’s not Christianity and it never will be, but neither is it Scientology, based on brainwashing for profit, requiring for its belief total detachment from reality. We can oppose its teaching as false and misguided without insulting its faithful by assuming they’d have to be insane.

It’s fine to support Thompson now. It makes sense. But if it comes down to a choice between Romney and Giuliani, you’d better think hard about whether that decision will be based on logic, or the triumph of religious dogma over political pragma.


Comments

14 Comments to “Why Romney?”

  1. David on September 6th, 2007 12:47 pm

    Excellent article. Almost thou pursuadest me to be a Romney supporter. I believe exactly like you do. I will vote for whoever has the best chance of defending the conservative side irregardless of thier religion.

  2. Mike J on September 6th, 2007 2:07 pm

    I echo David’s thoughts. I couldn’t quite get there with you on Alan Keyes, but you have some great insight here. And like you I find enough of a threat in the vacuousness of mainline Protestantism to consider it far more dangerous than Mormonism.

  3. David on September 6th, 2007 3:17 pm

    I actually am an admirer of Roger Williams, and a proponent of separation of church and state, in the sense that any type of religious qualifications being attached to political office is dangerous. If they can do the job well, and not push anti-Christian agenda, I’m willing to support them.

  4. Dan on September 6th, 2007 3:20 pm

    Well said. Romney and Thompson right now are my top two. However, it is still so early in the race (what is the need to campaign for president for two whole years?) and time will tell exactly where these two will fall.

    On a side note, I found it interesting to see that Ron Oakerson and John Madden were on the ballot as delegates for John McCain. (OK so it’s not actually that John Madden…)

  5. Djere on September 6th, 2007 6:24 pm

    As I told Steve via text message, in a two-horse showdown between Mitt Romney and that fetus-eating, carpet-bagging shemale Hillary Clinton, my vote’s going to Ralph Nader.

    This is New York.

    My vote’s a loss anyway.

  6. Steve on September 6th, 2007 6:29 pm

    Care to explain the rationale behind that decision?

  7. MC-B on September 7th, 2007 7:30 am

    Hooray for democracy!

  8. Djere on September 7th, 2007 11:22 am

    The “winner-take-all” nature of New York State’s electoral contest means that, no matter which candidate I vote for, a Democratic Elector will represent me.

    If the Empire State (Excelsior!) were to switch to the Maine Method (Dirigo!) where each congressional district was responsible for the selection of an Elector, it would be a contest where each vote would count.

    But since that will never happen, each time I pull the lever for a Republican Elector, they might as well play a sound effect of a flushing toilet…

  9. Ethan on September 9th, 2007 7:15 pm

    Romney? Are you serious Steve? The only way that guy survived as governor of liberal, gun-grabbing Massachusetts was to sell out his conservative positions. As the only candidate who has a consistent stand for people’s rights, Ron Paul has my full support.

  10. Steve on September 10th, 2007 12:42 am

    I would expect you to support Ron Paul; he’s a pretty consistent libertarian. I, on the other hand, am not, and never will be.

    My least favorite thing about him is his delusion that ending the battle against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan would make us safer somehow.

  11. Ethan on September 10th, 2007 2:49 am

    You never will be a Libertarian huh? Be careful about making such statements… lol… but in regards to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I do think the war in Afghanistan has probably helped our security… minimally. But the War in Iraq was extremely pointless, and as one of a long series of conflicts, armored and cold, that the U.S. has had with multiple other countries around the world for the last several decades, it serves as a powerful reminder to the rest of the world how the U.S. is the world’s only superpower, and as such, is in a position to be feared and therefore needs to be brought down. A change to a less aggressive foreign policy, begun by the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, would work towards making our country less of a threat to the rest of the world, and when something is less of a threat, it does not need to be controlled… and this in turn would reduce the likelihood of future terrorist attacks. And of course, if the second amendment rights that Ron Paul a strong supporter of had not already been severely eroded on September 11, 2001, I think it highly likely the U.S. would be home to 2 more skyscrapers than it is.

  12. Job on Romney : Bweinh! on September 10th, 2007 9:35 am

    […] I get it. A lot of my fellow conservative Christians support Mitt Romney for President. Ya want a […]

  13. David on September 10th, 2007 1:19 pm

    I believe in the concept that we are fighting terrorism overseas to avoid fighting it here and I think it is notable that we have seen no repeat of 9/11 type acts during the reign of Bush II. He has my respect and support. Should we be less agressive and quit throwing our weight around so much? Probably, but when I ask myself where it isn’t easy to find a place to start.

  14. Steve on September 10th, 2007 5:23 pm

    Ethan, I don’t believe for a minute that terrorist attacks on our country are a result of our status as the world’s only superpower. England is under attack. Spain has been terrorized. France faces the same issues.

    This is not a fight between America the big bad bully and the rest of the world, pushed into a corner by our arrogance. This fight is being waged by radical Islam, an insidious and evil branch of religion that preaches hatred of you, me, Paris Hilton and Ted Kennedy, not because of who we are or where we call home, but because they honestly believe it’s required by their God.

    Pull our troops home from Iraq right now and you give those people a moral and symbolic victory that will cost us one hundred-fold in lives and treasure down the road.

Leave a comment!