Because most philosophies that frown on reproduction don't survive.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Confessions of a Reluctant Romney Supporter

I haven't written much of anything about the GOP primary contest, despite the fact I have been following it closely, in part because I found myself so incredibly dissatisfied with all the candidates. However, as the field narrows and appears to be actually competitive, and various people I respect line up behind candidates, it seemed like it was time to come out of the closet as something I'm not very enthusiastic about being: a Romney supporter.

This is not because I'm particularly fond of Romney. I don't trust him a great deal, I'm not clear how solid any of his principles are other than his conviction that he should be president, and I don't find him particularly inspiring. As various candidates have had their five minutes of popularity for the achievement of not being Romney, I kept hoping that one of them would manage to pull ahead and show some stature. I was particularly hopeful about Rick Perry, but he just didn't seem able to run a campaign.

So why support Romney?

I'll start with the positive. While I'm not enthusiastic about Romney, I think that most of what the GOP needs in order to oust Obama this year is simply a credible alternative who doesn't scare people too much. Given how bad the economy is and how unpopular some elements of his policy have been, "not Obama" can be a solidly popular candidate by that virtue alone. In this regard, I think Romney's blandness may actually be an asset -- especially as it's combined with very solid verbal abilities which should be able to stack up well against Obama on stage. Romney is also a company man. He is a consultant through and through, and since right now I actually trust the party more than I trust any of the candidates, I actually prefer the fact that Romney is likely to be guided fairly efficiently by the party establishment and the establishment advisers. I'd rather have a solid candidate, able to guide by his own vision, but lacking that I'd at least like to have an able executive willing to be guided by the right advisers.

That's about as positive as my feelings get. Now for the negative approach. There are at most four candidates at this point: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Ron Paul. Ron Paul I consider wrong pretty much from beginning to end. Santorum actually strikes me as a strongly principled social conservative, and in some ways I do like him, but I just don't see him as having the executive presence to lead the nation or to succeed against Obama onstage. Maybe in a fairer world he would be a good candidate, but in the world we're in I just don't think he'd stand a chance of winning. I have some fond memories around Gingrich and the Contract With America, since that's a period when I was first enthusiastically tracking politics as a teenager. However, Gingrich himself flamed out badly and hurt the Republican party in the '90s. His personal life shows him as being even less trustworthy. He's got strong combative instincts, and at times it's fun to imagine him going head to head with Obama on stage, but his combative instincts also apply to opening fire on his own foot. Often. With Gingrich as the nominee, the GOP would be "living in interesting times" in the very worst sense of that ancient curse. And even if he could win, I wouldn't trust Gingrich any more as president of the US than the last GOP president to have come back from utter political defeat and exile: Richard M. Nixon.

It frustrates me no end that there aren't better candidates out there in a year in which Obama should be an easy target, and even at this late date if someone better came along than Romney I'd be happy to switch to someone better, but in the current state of the race Romney seems to me like the best one.

6 comments:

Mark Adams said...

Sorry but you are wrong. The only answer to the ATTACK on LIBERTY is Dr. RON PAUL, MD!!!

Jenny said...

I am sadly, reluctantly, resignedly going to have to agree with you.

I like Santorum generally on policy, but his demeanor comes across as whiny and moralizing. That isn't going to fly these days.

While I would love *LOVE* to see Gingrich obliterate Obama in a debate, I am not sure what else I can count on with him. He brings so much baggage that the country is full of people who will not vote for him in any circumstance. And that gets us four more years...

TrueBlue said...

If Santorum looks boring to you, just remember that Calvin Coolidge was pretty boring too, and his policies gave us the Roaring Twenties. Personally, I like boring when it comes to politicians.

Odds are things would have kept going good if so much of the country hadn't been borrowing 2/3 of the money they spent on speculating. Massive lending and borrowing caused the Great Depression (not Coolidge's policies)... kind of like the massive lending and borrowing in the housing market crash.

On a related note to the housing topic, keep an eye out for another possible crash in the college sector as the federal government plans to increase student loans by over 50% in the near future. All that lending and borrowing, without income to pay it back...

defendit said...

Romney won Nevada today and I am jumping on the bandwagon. Newt comes across as a hypocritical manipulative, big-govt mastermind type with an ego bigger than the national debt. I really learned so much about these two candidates and my esteem for Newt rocketed - straight down - with everything I've learned about him. He was IN on the Freddie and Fannie scheme which caused the bankruptcies, then bailouts and then tea-party in the first place. I used to be a NO-Romney Republican but as the campaign progressed he fell into the good enough category and then graduated up to the best of the bunch from among the 4 Republicans. I love Paul on economics and domestic but have no faith in his positions on state sponsors of terrorism pursuing wmd and putting the world and humanity in jeopardy. I don't buy his blame-America first nonsense at all. Do people know what overseas military operations and military discretionary spending upon which our security rests accounts for about 18.7% ? This means that 81.3% is going into everything else! History has shown that tyrants terrorists and fascists must be put in check and discouraged from acts of expansion proliferation aggression and terrorism because if they are not they will only gain ground and power from which it will only become costlier more dangerous and difficult to face. Looking the other way and not interfering will NOt make America's enemies love liberty and civilization. That is the REALItY and it ain't pretty. They only respect strength, and military strength more than any other kind. I like Santorum but we're wasting time money energy with this extended primary I think its gone on long enough and I believe the best candidate from the four has emerged ( I was for Herman Cain) which is why today I decided on Romney.

defendit said...

Romney won Nevada today and I am jumping on the bandwagon. Newt comes across as a hypocritical manipulative, big-govt mastermind type with an ego bigger than the national debt. I really learned so much about these two candidates and my esteem for Newt rocketed - straight down - with everything I've learned about him. He was IN on the Freddie and Fannie scheme which caused the bankruptcies, then bailouts and then tea-party in the first place. I used to be a NO-Romney Republican but as the campaign progressed he fell into the good enough category and then graduated up to the best of the bunch from among the 4 Republicans. I love Paul on economics and domestic but have no faith in his positions on state sponsors of terrorism pursuing wmd and putting the world and humanity in jeopardy. I don't buy his blame-America first nonsense at all. Do people know what overseas military operations and military discretionary spending upon which our security rests accounts for about 18.7% ? This means that 81.3% is going into everything else! History has shown that tyrants terrorists and fascists must be put in check and discouraged from acts of expansion proliferation aggression and terrorism because if they are not they will only gain ground and power from which it will only become costlier more dangerous and difficult to face. Looking the other way and not interfering will NOt make America's enemies love liberty and civilization. That is the REALItY and it ain't pretty. They only respect strength, and military strength more than any other kind. I like Santorum but we're wasting time money energy with this extended primary I think its gone on long enough and I believe the best candidate from the four has emerged ( I was for Herman Cain) which is why today I decided on Romney.

TrueBlue said...

I don't think jumping on the Romney bandwagon is the way to go though. Romney is liberal in every sense of the word. Gun Control, Abortion, Big Government... and on and on and on.

The concept that just because he is a successful businessman he must be a Republican is laughable. Soros, Buffet, and Bill Gates (Sr. AND Jr.) are all successful businessmen and they're liberal Democrats through and through.

We should be trying to convince people to support Santorum, not jumping on the Romney bandwagon to slightly slower growth of government.