Romney Takes a Bow

Well, it's all over but the inevitable shouting. Romney has officially withdrawn from the race and thrown his support to John McCain. I find it both intriguing and enjoyable that he chose his appearance at CPAC to do so. His exit speech is both forceful and elegant. While fiercely defending conservative values, he also recognizes the importance of ensuring that neither a Barack Obama or a Hillary Clinton have the opportunity to take this country in a backward direction.

Mitt Romney is a class act, the likes of which we have not seen since (dare I say it?) Ronald Reagan. If Mitt is to become the (not "a") dedicated defender of conservative values within the Republican Party — for McCain patently refuses to do so — then I hope, like Reagan, we see more and more of Romney in the years to come. I hope he returns to run in '12 or '16. By then he will have become the kind of nationally recognizable figure that, like Reagan, is able to rise above what he was (in Reagan's case, an actor) to become one of the great Presidents in the 21st century. Reagan was an actor-turned-politician who was able to rise above the perception of Hollywood flakiness to become a master communicator and uniter of the party (again, something to which McCain can only aspire). Romney has that same potential to rise above his Latter-day Saint background that has seemed so appalling to evangelicals across the country and remain an active voice of the GOP as Reagan did between the 1976 and 1980 elections.

The difference here, of course, is that Reagan did not have to fight a Republican incumbent in 1980. We don't know if Romney will be facing a Republican or a Democrat incumbent in 2012, but that person will more than likely be seeking a second term. Even if we wait until 2016, however, I still firmly believe that Romney will be a wise choice for this country to make.

In the meantime, may I just say that I begin with a slow sautée in butter, adding a dash of onion and garlic powders, over medium heat...

'Twas the Night Before (Super) Tuesday

I'm sitting here in my living room wondering what our political landscape will look like tomorrow night. I'd kind of like to stay up and see the results, as much out of a morbid fascination as of a desire to see who comes out on top. In any case, tomorrow is extremely important and, contrary to my previous thoughts on the matter, California could (finally!) be the spoiler it has always wanted to be.

California has, in essence, 54 separate presidential primary contests. Each district has a winner-take-all result, so it's still possible that any of our (so-called) Republican candidates could walk away with a hefty number of delegates from the Golden State.

For me, however, all of this is really just a numbers game. The numbers of delegates matter less to me than the ideas they represent. In other words, do the Republicans in these contests really want a "conservative" for whom to vote in November, or do they want John McCain?

More and more, as I read of McCain's duplicitous double-talk I fail to understand how any Republican can truly believe that this man will support more than 10% of the party's platform if he becomes the nominee. While McCain tells the Pavlovians what they need to hear so they'll begin salivating and throw their vote his way, his recorded history tells a vastly different story of the man who would "unite the Republican party."

He's beginning to talk as if he's "learned his lesson" on immigration. So let's assume, for a moment, that this is true. Perhaps McCain really has the seen the light on immigration and will close the borders while working toward setting appropriate caps on permanent stay visas. So tell me, PLEASE, how his buddy Juan Hernandez figures into all of this. Can anyone really believe that this "one region, no borders" panderer is advising his friend McCain to build that fence? Deport criminals who happen to be illegal aliens? Establish firm guidelines on acceptable immigration reform and enforce those guidelines?

I'm sorry, but this issue alone is dangerous and significant enough to me that I will never support McCain for president. I know Hugh Hewitt and others will be sorely disappointed with my refusal to get behind this man if he becomes the nominee, but I can't do it.

And I won't.

Romney, 2008. Even if I have to write his name on the ballot in November.

Woody's Woundup for (Surprise!) Romney

Like no one saw this coming.

Ol' Woody has been sitting back on his haunches throughout the entire 2007 campaign season, primarily because the so-called "debates" to which we've been thus far subjected were little more than playground smackdowns in expensive Italian suits. We've finally gotten to the point where I've been able to hear some intelligent discourse from candidates in these "debates." That is, I've been able to more accurately gauge the intelligence of the discourse generated by the candidates, and that has helped me whittle down the choices considerably. Based on the various statements of each candidate on critical issues of immigration, national security, and the economy, I now am comfortable supporting Romney's bid to take the Oval Office next year.

I'm sure this will be a crushing blow to McCain who clearly needs the votes of as many curmudgeons as he can muster in order to capture the requisite number of delegates. However, nothing torques off a curmudgeon more than finding a candidate who curmudges better than he does. Thus McCain, who has gotten grouchier by the day, is out.

Likewise Huckabee. Ol' Huck just don't have a dog in this hunt, from my vaunted perspective. His arguments have a "well, gooooooolleeeeee!" quality to them (gratuitous reference to Jim Nabors' "Gomer Pyle" character) and he needs better fact-checking of his own record as Ruler of Clintonstan.

For reasons I've already posited, Giuliani would be acceptable if I didn't worry about his "coming out" as a RINO/closet liberal once he took command of the Executive branch.

With his finishes in Iowa, Wyoming, and now New Hampshire, Romney has finally demonstrated to my satisfaction that he has the legs to go the distance. I am not foolish enough to predict that he will ultimately capture the nomination. I am merely hoping out loud (so to speak) that he will. I intend to vote for Romney in February, if only so I can somehow add to his delegate count and give him a larger voice in the Republican convention later this year. I would be thrilled if he ended up on a ticket even as VP, unless the P-portion of that ticket is filled by McCain. Or Huckabee.

Anyway, there it is. The least important endorsement Romney will receive in this election.

Don't spend it all in one place, Mitt.

Saying What Needs to be Said

Say what you will about Mitt Romney, vote for or against him, but he's actually said something that makes me sit up and take notice.

A few days ago, this 30-second spot appeared on Mitt's web site. I found it primarily because Drudge linked it for a few days, and one or more news wires gleefully picked up on Romney's "Republicans need to clean their own house" theme. It didn't last long, and few (if any) bloggers picked up on the meme. In the meantime, it appears that Romney is taking this one on the road..

If Romney accomplishes nothing else in this campaign, up to and including garnering a nomination or even a VP shot on a ticket, I hope he drives and hammers this message across the country.

I say this as one who is firmly in the "undecided" camp for this election. Romney has the right messages, but I'm still not sure whether he has the chops to go the distance in '08. If he doesn't, but does well going into the primaries, then I suspect he could be a much more viable candidate in 2012 when the other big-name contenders will have serious age issues to contend with.

Still, I'd like to focus on this idea of Republicans being scolded about not acting like Republicans these days. Although his message is short, he chides Republicans for "acting like Democrats" in critical areas, and he certainly doesn't mean this in a good way. He criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the Katrina response and clean-up, for example. "It didn't look like Republicans were in charge," is how he put it. He's starting to trumpet a theme of cutting back on spending in Washington. At one point he commented, "We have been overspending even when we had the lead in Congress and in the Senate." In several sessions of over-spending Congresses, this is saying something.

This criticism of Republican spending habits is a particular comfort to me. I have not given money to the Republicans for many, many election cycles now. I even snap at the RNC professional beggars who call right around primary time to remind me that "we can't win without your money." One year I actually wrote a letter to the party chairman. My message has always been, "I will send you morons money when you do a better job with the money you already have."

I used to think (back in my innocent days) that Republicans spent more money on campaigns to get elected so they could do things like cut taxes and reduce spending. This is obviously not true, and Republicans are just as guilty of pork spending as their colleagues across the aisle. This is one case where Republicans ought NOT to be like Republicans of old, they just need to reinvent themselves.

Where do we even begin with the ethical/moral compass under which politicians today operate? Where, in their heavily compartmented minds, do they assume that their dirty laundry is going to remain a secret? And how do they possibly believe that, just because they happen to be a Republican, we voting Republicans are not going to rake them over the coals for it? Here's a tip, guys: if it was morally reprehensible for Bill Clinton to cigar his intern, it's just as morally reprehensible for you to play footie with some dude in an airport bathroom. Period. There can be no double standard here. If you can't keep your vices to yourself, don't expect us to forgive you (politically, anyway) just because you stand in front of a camera and get teary-eyed about it. If you get caught with your hand in the till, expect us to call for a) your resignation, and b) jail time. Loudly. Whatever good you may have done for the country can be instantly wiped away when you fail to act with integrity. It's just that simple.

So, Mr. Romney, keep hammering on that message. I really don't think this country can be told enough that they need to hold their representatives accountable for acting stupidly. It's what we do. It's how we maintain a republican form of government.

Even Democrats have to agree with that.

Romney... Romney... I Give Up. Romney WHO?

Hugh Hewitt admires Mitt Romney and grudgingly appreciates his religious background. Hewitt himself likes to invoke his friendship with the late apostle Neal A. Maxwell, and clearly would have no problem supporting a Romney presidency. So Hugh has been watching the Boston Globe's anti-Romney campaign with great interest.

This in contrast to the rest of the old media juggernauts who seem intent on simply ignoring Romney and hoping he goes away before the primaries begin early next year. My own anecdotal evidence of this "fact" is the weekend radio news roundup that CBS produced yesterday. I was listening primarily because our local affiliate is still the best place to get traffic reporting. (This was not the case last night. Last night, so long as the Mothership was talking, the locals didn't dare break in for the next hour and a quarter just to tell some poor yokels why they weren't moving on their freeway of choice. "Extended Traffic," my great-aunt's bustle.)

Anyway, just before I got completely disgusted and switched back to classical music (where they are quite right not to interfere with a performance of Mozart's 40th just because of some silly hazmat situation on the 405), CBS decided to talk about Giuliani, whom they have anointed as "the only serious threat" to McCain. This is incorrect. McCain is the only serious threat to McCain. I did, however, find it fascinating that they were quite ready to extol Giuliani's virtues as a fiscal conservative, even if his social conservatism leaves something to be desired (i.e., conservatism). Then they made, in essence, the statement that no one else currently on the Republican trail has the sort of conservative "credentials" that would hold any water with the right wing of the party.

Beg pardon? Mitt who?

So the MSM strategy seems clear. Ignore Romney enough, and he'll simply go away before Iowa even stays up late next winter.

There is a flaw in this strategy, however, and that flaw is the Boston Globe. The Globe is probably still smarting from the insult of having allowed a Republican to get elected to the governor's office of their Commonwealth of Kennedys and Kerrys, Occasionally Known as Massachussetts. Thus the Globe has ever since attempted to cast their ex-governor in the same light as the Boston Strangler (who was probably Ted Kennedy before he learned how to swim) and is going out of its way to highlight every one of Romney's perceived shortcomings.

This is a good thing, because this means the Globe is not supporting the MSM's "ignore Romney" policy, and will thus ensure that Romney continues to maintain a national presence whether CBS wants him to or not.

Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if Romney somehow captured the nomination (or even a spot on the ticket as VP) precisely because the Globe wouldn't shut up and ignore him like all good little MSMers are supposed to do?

We'd have to send the Globe a great big "thank you" should that happen. Perhaps I'll buy one of their papers next time I go fishing. Assuming they're still printing by then.