Posted by M. Wright | Filed in: Politics
The Hawkeye Caucus is tomorrow, and traffic is picking up from visitors searching for the political quizzes I collected a few months back. See the list of websites and my thoughts on each. My favorite candidate quiz is Glassbooth.org, which lets you select which issues are most important to you, assign your interest level to each, and then browse through the candidate’s answers on each issue and see how you compare and contrast with each.
As for myself, I’ve been sporting the Mitt Romney button at right for a few weeks now, and I was preparing a post about him around the time of the National Review’s endorsement, which basically took the words out of my mouth.
Though I tend to agree with Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter on the issues most often, neither have the same level of executive experience as Romney, nor have their campaigns instilled any confidence in their ability to manage efforts of that magnitude. I marvel at Rudy Giuliani’s record as America’s Mayor, and I consider Sen. John McCain a true American Hero, and I’m confident both would defend this country as Commander-In-Chief, but neither of them are consistent champions on domestic social issues, smaller government and second amendment rights. I admire Ron Paul’s maverick libertarianism and small-government conservatism, but his candidacy is a non-starter because of his blame-America, isolationist foreign policy, among other things. And finally, while I’m a conservative Christian, a creationist, and enjoy listening to Mike Huckabee talk, I cannot support the man for President; he is too liberal on taxes, immigration, education and a host of other issues, totally undisciplined when it comes to economics and foreign policy, and even unserious when it comes to pro-life issues and social conservatism, the area where he’s presumably strongest.
The two most frequent charges against Romney are 1. that he has flip-flopped on issues and 2. that he is a Mormon, and Mormons can’t or shouldn’t be President.
The latter of these two was addressed to my satisfaction on December 6th, when Romney gave his Faith in America address. I would not vote for a Mormon to be my minister or Sunday school teacher (I am a member of the Church of Christ, something I have in common with Fred Thompson), but I could easily support a Mormon as mayor or as my representative in government.
The former of these two was addressed to my satisfaction on December 16th when Romney appeared on Meet the Press and was grilled by Tim Russert for an hour.
As far as I’m concerned, the pro-life issue is the only area where Romney took a sharp turn, but he admits to it, his change was in the right direction, and he hasn’t returned to his previous stance (which in my mind would be necessary to prompt a “flip-flop” charge). Romney has also made his thought process clear in editorials written while he was Governor and in interview after interview on the campaign trail.
Some pro-life voters still seem to be giving a cold reception to Romney, simply because he hasn’t always agreed with them; but I thought the whole point of the pro-life movement was to win people over and convince them that abortion is wrong and bad for the country. I’m not sure what a politician must do to prove that he is pro-life, in addition to making the kind of pro-life and pro-family decisions that Mitt Romney consistently made as Governor. Furthermore, I would consider it advantageous to have a candidate who understands the issue from both perspectives and thus would be better equipped to bring others to his side.
In summary, as I explained in a comment over at Bob Krumm’s place, I support Mitt Romney because of
1. his conservative record as governor,
2. his business and civic accomplishments,
3. his ability to connect with people and strong communication skills,
4. his stance on the issues,
5. his impressive list of conservative endorsements, including the National Review, ACU’s David Keene, ACLJ’s Jay Sekulow, Heritage Foundation’s Paul Weyrich, Judge Robert Bork, Rep. Tom Tancredo, and a plurality of the GOP in Congress
Tomorrow we will find out if the other folks from my home state agree with that assessment.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 am
Only Ron Paul will change things. Mitt/Hillary same on Neo-Con establishment running the show. Mitt will destory America slowly just as Bill Clinton And the Bushes have done.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Very well thought out, Mick. My worry with Romney is that the Democrats will take him apart in the general over his past flops and he won’t be tough enough to deflect it.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Its not isolationist. Its called non interventionism, Mick. Its, you know, the foreign policy that the Republicans had just 7 short years ago.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Ron Paul made that assertion on Meet the Press, but I don’t believe it’s true, actually. In 2000, candidate Bush did say he advocated a more humble foreign policy and that he opposed nation building, but he also said, “If I think it’s in our nation’s strategic interest I’ll commit troops.” I think that applies to the actions we’ve taken in Afghanistan and Iraq, in light of 9/11 and the global terrorist network. When asked about specifics, Bush basically agreed with every military action taken during the previous 20 years.
Check it:
January 4th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Right, but is what we’re doing in Iraq right now, not nation building. We went in. We got rid of Saddam. Now, our army, is trying to keep peace, and, taddah, re build a nation.
We cannot afford to be the world’s policemen, and besides that, our constant interference in areas of the world more often than not comes back to bite us in the ass. We’d be better served to bring our military back from over seas, use the extra money to shore up our entitlement programs until we can phase them out entirely, and have people living and producing things here that grow the world economy rather than shrink it.
If we have problems with terrorists, we can use the constitutional option of letters of marque and reprisal. Send people in to go after those that are causing problems. That way, you don’t kill a bunch of innocent people and create war propaganda for non state groups who have attacked, or want to attack us.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Justin, it’s only nation-building when a Democrat does it. When a Republican does it, it’s spreading freedom and democracy and protecting vital interests (oil).
January 5th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Justin, I wouldn’t disagree that we are nation building in Iraq IN ADDITION to fighting Al Qaida and keeping them from having a base of operations there. And, yes, protecting vital interests (oil and allies, among other things) and spreading freedom and democracy. All of the above, woven together as a strategic response to Islamic Jihad, and in the national interest. You don’t agree with that strategy, clearly, but I don’t believe that’s inconsistent with previous GOP policies, and I think what you’ve written testifies that my description of Rep. Paul’s foreign policy is accurate.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I ain’t even gonna tell you who glassbooth.org paired me with.. or the next few for that matter.. you wouldn’t like it. Good post though.