Here's why I'm supporting Mitt Romney for President...
For me, a political conservative, a candidate for the Oval Office must meet four criteria: possess moral authority, be ideologically correct, be qualified, and possess competence. Mitt Romney is the only candidate that passes that four-prong test. Let me explain.
By moral authority I mean someone who has a personal life beyond reproach so that they may, without hypocrisy, take a moral stand on social issues. Romney's sterling record in his private life, evidenced by his marriage and family and lack of closeted skeletons, means he easily outdistances other "top-tier" Republican candidates in this arena. I just don't see how Guiliani, McCain or Thompson can tell the American public with any degree of credibility that they respect the sanctity of marriage or that abstinence should be taught in public schools. Romney can because he has personally practiced what he preaches.
Next, for ideological correctness a candidate must believe in small government, in protecting life, in traditional marriage, and in God. And he or she must have actually taken action to back up their professed beliefs. Again, Romney fits the bill here as he drastically reduced spending and waste in Massachusetts, fought against embryonic stem cell research and expanded abortion rights, defended traditional marriage at both the state and national levels, and is sincere in his religion as shown by his willingness to stick to it when it might be more politically expedient to distance himself from his faith. Guiliani, McCain and Thompson all have strikes against them with at least one these four key issues, and some of the second-tier social conservatives, like Brownback or Huckabee, are not small government politicians. I'm looking for the complete ideological package, and only Romney brings that.
In my third criteria, being qualified, Romney is a career-long executive; and not only that, he is an amazingly successful executive in extremely difficult circumstances. One might even say that Romney thrives when a situation is in utter disarray. Being President of the United States is the most demanding, unforgiving executive position in the world. Why would we not want someone who has proven his worth time and time again in the most trying of executive conditions? McCain and Thompson have weak resumes when it comes to this, and just as one wouldn't go to a dentist to have open heart surgery, why should we entrust the Oval Office to a legislator? Guiliani has some notable executive experience, but he also has some major missteps. After all, before being mayor he was an attorney, not an executive. Some of the second-tier candidates have executive experience, but not a lifetime's worth, and not with the unparalleled success ratio of Romney's.
Finally, a candidate must demonstrate competence in their previous ventures. Romney exudes competence. McCain and Guiliani have shown competence in their respective fields, though they have track records of incompetence, or in McCain's case, competence in getting the wrong thing done (see McCain-Feingold, etc.) Thompson, other than his work on getting McCain-Feingold passed (which isn't a compliment), really has nothing much to show for his eight years in the Senate. Competence is not a word mentioned in the same sentence as the ex-Senator from Tennessee. Some of the second-tier candidates have exhibited varying degrees of competence, but none to the extent of Mitt Romney.
In the end, only Romney clearly shines in all four of these areas. And it will take just such a candidate to defeat Clinton/Obama because only someone like Romney will be able to excite all bases of the GOP enough, as well as attract independents and moderates, to keep the Clinton/Obama out of the White House. For Republicans it is either Romney or Clinton/Obama, an easy choice if you ask me.
For me, a political conservative, a candidate for the Oval Office must meet four criteria: possess moral authority, be ideologically correct, be qualified, and possess competence. Mitt Romney is the only candidate that passes that four-prong test. Let me explain.
By moral authority I mean someone who has a personal life beyond reproach so that they may, without hypocrisy, take a moral stand on social issues. Romney's sterling record in his private life, evidenced by his marriage and family and lack of closeted skeletons, means he easily outdistances other "top-tier" Republican candidates in this arena. I just don't see how Guiliani, McCain or Thompson can tell the American public with any degree of credibility that they respect the sanctity of marriage or that abstinence should be taught in public schools. Romney can because he has personally practiced what he preaches.
Next, for ideological correctness a candidate must believe in small government, in protecting life, in traditional marriage, and in God. And he or she must have actually taken action to back up their professed beliefs. Again, Romney fits the bill here as he drastically reduced spending and waste in Massachusetts, fought against embryonic stem cell research and expanded abortion rights, defended traditional marriage at both the state and national levels, and is sincere in his religion as shown by his willingness to stick to it when it might be more politically expedient to distance himself from his faith. Guiliani, McCain and Thompson all have strikes against them with at least one these four key issues, and some of the second-tier social conservatives, like Brownback or Huckabee, are not small government politicians. I'm looking for the complete ideological package, and only Romney brings that.
In my third criteria, being qualified, Romney is a career-long executive; and not only that, he is an amazingly successful executive in extremely difficult circumstances. One might even say that Romney thrives when a situation is in utter disarray. Being President of the United States is the most demanding, unforgiving executive position in the world. Why would we not want someone who has proven his worth time and time again in the most trying of executive conditions? McCain and Thompson have weak resumes when it comes to this, and just as one wouldn't go to a dentist to have open heart surgery, why should we entrust the Oval Office to a legislator? Guiliani has some notable executive experience, but he also has some major missteps. After all, before being mayor he was an attorney, not an executive. Some of the second-tier candidates have executive experience, but not a lifetime's worth, and not with the unparalleled success ratio of Romney's.
Finally, a candidate must demonstrate competence in their previous ventures. Romney exudes competence. McCain and Guiliani have shown competence in their respective fields, though they have track records of incompetence, or in McCain's case, competence in getting the wrong thing done (see McCain-Feingold, etc.) Thompson, other than his work on getting McCain-Feingold passed (which isn't a compliment), really has nothing much to show for his eight years in the Senate. Competence is not a word mentioned in the same sentence as the ex-Senator from Tennessee. Some of the second-tier candidates have exhibited varying degrees of competence, but none to the extent of Mitt Romney.
In the end, only Romney clearly shines in all four of these areas. And it will take just such a candidate to defeat Clinton/Obama because only someone like Romney will be able to excite all bases of the GOP enough, as well as attract independents and moderates, to keep the Clinton/Obama out of the White House. For Republicans it is either Romney or Clinton/Obama, an easy choice if you ask me.
posted by James Phillips | 11:06 AM
|
0 comments
