Get off Romney's Back

Bad-mouthing Romney is like saying Ronald Reagan was a failure because he didn't colonize China.  Romney is a conservative who will work well with a GOP Congress.  His flipflopedness is both on purpose and irrelevant.  Time to get off his back.

Previously I wrote an article on American Thinker promoting the ticket of Romney and Rubio, and boy, did Romney and I get soundly thumped by many of the AT readers.  I consider the attacks on Romney from conservatives to be unwarranted, incorrect, and self-destructive.

I get the feeling from observing reader comments that many of them never stray from the conservative choir.  They should, because otherwise they fall into the trap of hearing the same sermons every day and believing their viewpoint is the only one that exists.  To our advantage, this was one of Obama's problems: He never watched Fox news or listened to Mark Levin, Rush, or Michael Savage on the radio, so he never really understood the passion that existed on the other side of the isle.  He truly believed that once he was in office and people had a chance to get to know him, they would love him and everything that he did and stood for.  Not that his listening to Rush would have changed his mind, but he would have had a better understanding of how to deal with his self-proclaimed enemies.  Instead, his ignorance and arrogance led to the 2010 shellacking and will, hopefully, lead to a landslide GOP takeover in 2012.

I make a habit of reading articles from a variety of sources.  I venture into the murky waters of the Huffington Post, The New Republic, and Politico.  In fact, I glance through those sites every day.  When I am feeling well rested and alert, I even flip on MSNBC. Why?  Because I like to know what they are thinking and how to combat their foolishness.   I also get tidbits to use against them.  Very often I comment on stories there in hopes of talking sense into people who never visit AT or NRO.

Conservative readers might be shocked to find out the whacko left believes what they need to do is nominate an arch liberal -- Obama is too "centrist" in their view -- and they would easily win the White House and usher in a new, long-lasting progressive agenda.  They think the GOP wins everything because it is better at negotiating issues and that liberals always "cave."  Sound familiar?   Aren't those the inverse arguments of strong conservatives?  The point is that not everyone sees things as we do, and they get to vote.  We can't be Obamanesque and take the other side too lightly.

Since we aren't likely to change the mindset of most liberals (there are exceptions, as AT's Robin of Berkeley will attest), the most important target for us is the independent voter.  They are as wishy-washy and inconsistent as ever.  They don't know what to think, and in general, they don't like either party.  They don't like what they consider whackos -- left or right -- and unfortunately, they consider the tea party whacko (which they aren't, but that's the subject of a different article).

While I love Herman Cain, I fall into the group of those who are Cain skeptics; people who say they like Cain but don't think he can win.  This enrages many strong conservatives who say, "Why not?"  They say the base will stay home if Romney is the nominee.  That's a crock.  As conservatives, they simply cannot be stupid enough to stay home and let Obama win again.  If they are that stupid, they deserve what they get.   I believe the anti-Obama sentiment is strong enough among conservatives that they will go to the polls and vote in record numbers even if Donald Duck is the candidate.

Yes, I am taking your conservative vote for granted because I know you aren't that stupid, and because, more than ever, the independents are who we need to cater to in this election.  Remember, it is something along the lines of majority rule, not the most righteous or the smartest.

Personally, I very much like all the GOP candidates, and I will passionately support whoever gets the nomination.  If I had to choose now, it would be between Gingrich and Cain, with the previously aforementioned Rubio as VP.  But as I stated in my previous article, I will be voting for whoever the pollsters say has the best chance of beating Obama.  Period.

Now, cheer up!  I have some points to consider while you grouse around about Romney and what bothers you about him:

  • 1. Flip-flopping. Politicians have been doing this dance as long as I can remember, and it never seems to affect their chance of winning. Witness our current President. He flipped and flopped all the way to the White House. His popularity started shrinking when he got specific. When Americans discovered what "fundamental change" actually meant, they didn't like it. Taking strong positions will sink your political boat faster than a torpedo. We want to win. My guess is Romney will say whatever he needs to get elected. Good. More power to him. Let's win first, and then decide on a course of action.
  • 2. You simply cannot doubt his conservative viewpoint. Read his Concession speech after dropping from the 2008 race. He had nothing to lose by stating his true opinion.
  • 3. Romney is an executive. Executives make decisions and settle problems. The job of the executive is largely crisis management, gathering consensus, fixing problems, and projecting leadership. Romney's background demonstrates particular skill in all these areas. Remember, even if we get a 60-seat House, there will be differences in viewpoint and opinion among Republicans, and if not handled carefully, some GOP gridlock could occur as we witnessed with Dem control in 2009 and 2010. That would virtually guarantee a return of the Dems in 2014. The President is key in bringing those views together. Romney can do this as well or better than anyone.
  • 4. Concerning complaints about "Romneycare" in Massachusetts, would you expect him to just veto everything that came across his desk? Remember, he was working for the people of Massachusetts then, not South Carolina or Utah. He was doing what the oxygen-deprived blue people wanted. Isn't that what he's supposed to do? Don't we conservatives agree with the concept of as much state control about those issues as possible? If so, what's the beef? Do you really think he will veto a repeal of Obamacare? Not a chance. That bill will fly across his desk faster than a Nolan Ryan fastball.
  • 5. As an executive, if he has a GOP controlled House and Senate, he will do absolutely whatever they want. Therefore, what is most important is to get a strong Senate in our control and keep the House. Motivating our base is not as important as de-motivating the Democratic base. Outside of Huntsman, Romney is the least objectionable to the left and to the independents. In that regard, he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
  • 6. If Romney is elected and we get a 60-seat GOP Senate, all is peachy. If, however, we get something less than 60 seats in the Senate, we will need some compromise from some Dems to repeal Obamacare and achieve other conservative policies. Romney will fare better at getting productive results than virtually anybody else. And he can sell those results to the bulk of the American people.

I understand the viewpoint that this may be the only time we will ever have to dramatically correct the recently wayward course of our great nation, and that anything less than a strong conservative is something of a wasted opportunity.  I also know that if we lose this election and Obama is reelected, we can kiss the America we know goodbye.  That scares the bejeebers out of me.   

Gingrich would be great, Cain would be terrific, and Romney will be very good.  So would any of the others who don't appear to have a chance at this time.  So, from here on out, I hope we quit trash-talking our own candidates.   And whoever is the eventual GOP nominee we should all enthusiastically support.  I will.  I have my contribution check sitting here.  I'm just waiting to fill in a name.

If you experience technical problems, please write to