First, my thanks to the Mitt-haters on this site.  Bouncing up against your stonewall of circular arguments helped me find and define Romney’s conservative core in a way that showed me how he is a stark contrast with Obama and with Newt and Rick.

With Obama, Newt and Rick, government is at the center of their worldview.  It fills their lives and their thoughts .  They have vastly different views on the role of government, but government is still what their thoughts turn to first.  Their view of the private sector, the real America, is colored by the lens of Washington.  In the perfrmance of their jobs they answer to their collegues, the press and through the press to their constituents.

When they attack Mitt about being a ‘vulture capitalist’ at the core of their attack is the accusation that Mitt never set out to create jobs.  He wasn’t concerned with making life better for others.  Mitt only wanted to make money.  He only answered to the stockholders.

To which I say, amen.

Real jobs are created by capitalists who want to make money.  Newt and Rick believe this on some level, but they have never lived it.  It is a foreign world to them.  You might as well ask them what it is like to fly like a bird or swim like a fish.  Their world is Washington.  Capitalism is Mitt’s world.  He understands that do gooders that set out to create good paying jobs either go bankrupt, or become politicians and create wealth destroying government jobs in the name of serving their constituents.  Capitalists create jobs ONLY because it allows them to make more money.  They give them good wages ONLY if they are worth their wage.

Most of us see Mitt’s world from the other side, but we still see it and live in it.  For us, if we want a good wage we either have to become better workers than the next guy, thereby increasing our value.  Or, we need to enter a field where there exists a shortage of qualified workers, thereby forcing the greedy capitalists to bid against each other for our services.  Not, (Mr. Santorum), by forcing people to work in unions where everyone is ‘equal’ and high wages become a right.

What is freedom and the American way?  The ability to hire or be hired by our own merit in the pursuit of our own INDIVIDUAL happiness.  It is what made and will make this country great and unlike any other nation in the history of the world.  Our founders got this.  Mitt gets this and it is the core of his conservatism.

I really want to support Mitt Romney.  My wife and I sent him money in 2008 and 2 days before he left the race we ordered 25 road signs in preparation for the Louisiana primary.  We still have them, but have put none of them out.  I am not sure that Mitt will bring about the fundamental change that Washington needs. 

I don’t really care about the gaffes.  They are a part of politics.  His recent gaffe free support for indexing the minimum wage to inflation is extremely concerning to me.  While I know it would be politically improbable, I believe eliminating the federal minimum wage is a great idea, not raising it.  Instead, the minimum wage issue should be ignored until it becomes irrelevant, because entry level wages exceed the minimum wage.  In some parts of the country this is already the case. 

The very concept and discussion of a minimum wage is a liberal, big government win.  It contradicts the basic premise that wages should be set by the marketplace.  It denies that in the long run, market determined wages would result in greater prosperity throughout the economic spectrum.  A federal minimum wage lends credence to the ubiquitous progressive talking point that the one percent would choose to have us all living in squalor if it weren’t for government and union protection.

Government should only perform functions that it can perform better than the private sector.  The federal government should only perform functions that it can perform better than state or local governments, or functions that are required by the constitution.  A federal minimum wage fails on all three tests.  Liberals don’t recognize the tests.

Mitt needs to focus on conservative, constitutional principles.  He needs to demonstrate an unwavering faith in capitalism.  Sidetracks into liberal ideology bring everything he says into question.  They bring into question his conservatism.

Again, I want to support Mitt.  I believe he has the best experience and skills of all the candidates.  I believe he has the greatest potential to transform Washington. I don’t know if he wants to.  And if he does, I don’t know if he has the unwavering faith in and commitment necessary to stand up to the Washington establishment.  

I believe Ron Paul has what it takes to remake Washington, but that it wouldn’t matter, because his foreign policy would lead to the collapse of America from without.  I believe that the election of the other candidates would continue the collapse from within.  I believe Mitt could perform the turnaround our nation needs on all levels.    

Will he choose to?  My hope is dwindling.  I join the chorus that yearns for another candidate, but all I hear are echoes.

There is one common thread in what has brought each of the other “frontrunners” back to the pack.  They were all brought down by breaking news.

For Bachman the breaking news was Perry coming in.  His entry was bold and effective and pretty much the high point of his candidacy.

For Perry I don’t believe the weak attacks on vaccines, illegals or racial insensitivity brought him down.  The breaking news that brought him down was his even weaker responses to these attacks in his pathetic early debates.   

Cain wilted after breaking reports of harrassment and rumored infidelity.

Despite a great deal of known baggage, including ethics violations and admitted infidelity, Newt soared to the top.  What broke him was $1.6 million from Freddie and Fannie and lobbying attacks which were weakly and belatedly refuted. 

I heard McCain’s attack ad against Romney from 2008 on Hannity last night.  Can Newt hit him any harder?  What new thing can he hit Mitt with?  Romneycare is yesterday’s news and every time Romney says he will end Obamacare, granting waivers on day one, a few more people who hate Romneycare come around to believe he means it.  Hammering on Romneycare will not change anyone’s mind that hasn’t already been apalled by it.  Repeating flip-flop liberal attacks that were effectively made by  McCain, Rudy and the Huckster during the last go ’round will likely result in yawns this time, except by those who are already against him. 

Is there anything out there to stop Romney?  I think a flat out dazzling debate performance by Perry could get him a second look.  There is nothing substantial holding him back, just perception.  While Newt is bashing Mitt, Perry should stay above the fray and reintroduce himself.  He’s got a record no one else can match!  Play nice, unless he gets a softball on Paul’s foreign policy.  Then jump with both feet!   I believe that as slim as his chances are that he will catch fire in time to stop Romney he is the only one with a chance.

That question was posed by Mark Belling on his Milwaukee radio show.  I am sure many of you recognize him as a frequent fill in for Rush.  Then Belling went down the the list: abortion-flip, gun control-flip, global warming-flip, immigration-flip, health care-flip, union support-flip, taxes-mixed at best.

I supported Mitt Romneyin 2008, but then McCain and Huckabee were the primary options.  IMHO Fred never did what was needed to become a viable candidate.   I believe in ’08 Mitt was the best option.  I have since read Mitt’s book, No Apology, and some of the sections left me far from satisfied that Mitt really gets it.  So I entered this cycle with an eye for a better candidate, thinking surely after the last few years of conservative awakening a better candidate would come forth.  I wasn’t waiting for another Reagan, I was hoping for someone better!  A conservative hero that had learned from Reagan’s mistakes in making good faith deals with the Dems!  I am still waiting. 

I will not support Newt unless there is no other option but Obama.  Integrity and trustworthiness, even and especially in a candidates personal life matter to me.  For you Cainiacs and Perry supporters, let me say I believe those candidates are obviously more solid conservatives than Romney.  I like their vision.  My main reluctance in supporting  them is I don’t trust their ability to avoid the fatal stumble that would lose them the general election and I have little confidence in their ability to succeed in bringing their visions to pass if they do manage to win the presidency.  They still have a short window to mature as candidates and change my mind, but for now I am one of those elusive conservatives that is tepidly supporting Romney.

This is not a blog to defend Romney’s weaknesses.  I acknowledge there are many.  This is a blog to answer the question ”what significant issues has Romney not flipped on?”.  For me this also answers the question of why I can support Romney while acknowledging that he is probably to the left of me on many issues.

First, he loves this country and believes in American exceptionalism and always has.  No flip.

Second, he loves his wife and has honored what I consider the most significant vow a person can make.  No flip.

Third, he does not tolerate red ink.  He finds a way to get whatever he takes charge of into the black.  No flip. 

Last, competance.  Romney is a highly intelligent workaholic and an exceedingly capable manager of people.  He gets stuff done.  Roughly quoting a voter in New Hampshire, he said he doubts any of the candidates can fix the mess in Washington, but he feels Romney is the only one qualified to try.  I agree, and I am grateful that Obama doesn’t have Romney’s skills.  I would love to see what Romney would do in a year with a filibuster proof conservative congress.  I am glad I didn’t get to see him for a year with Obama’s congress.  No flip.

Senator McCain,

You have said for months that when you are President you will veto any bill with an earmark and make the author famous. Why not start now? Tell the American people about the earmarks in the initial bailout bill that caused you to initially side with the house republicans. Make the authors famous!

Also, the next time Obama or anyone else mocks you for focussing on $18billion in earmarks, explain that earmarks are just one cut of the pig that is devouring Washington. They are easy and obvious to explain, but there is much more. Then make like a butcher and tell us about the rest of the pig.

Read More →