| |
Romney for
President,
By the Editors
Many
conservatives
are finding it
difficult to
pick a
presidential
candidate. Each
of the men
running for the
Republican
nomination has
strengths, and
none has
everything — all
the traits, all
the positions —
we are looking
for. Equally
conservative
analysts can
reach, and have
reached,
different
judgments in
this matter.
There are fine
conservatives
supporting each
of these
Republicans.
Our guiding
principle has
always been to
select the most
conservative
viable
candidate. In
our judgment,
that candidate
is Mitt Romney,
the former
governor of
Massachusetts.
Unlike some
other candidates
in the race,
Romney is a
full-spectrum
conservative: a
supporter of
free-market
economics and
limited
government,
moral causes
such as the
right to life
and the
preservation of
marriage, and a
foreign policy
based on the
national
interest. While
he has not
talked much
about the
importance of
resisting ethnic
balkanization —
none of the
major candidates
has — he
supports
enforcing the
immigration laws
and opposes
amnesty. Those
are important
steps in the
right direction.
Uniting the
conservative
coalition is not
enough to win a
presidential
election, but it
is a
prerequisite for
building on that
coalition.
Rudolph Giuliani
did
extraordinary
work as mayor of
New York and was
inspirational on
9/11. But he and
Mike Huckabee
would pull apart
the coalition
from opposite
ends: Giuliani
alienating the
social
conservatives,
and Huckabee the
economic (and
foreign-policy)
conservatives. A
Republican party
that abandoned
either limited
government or
moral standards
would be much
diminished in
the service it
could give the
country.
Two other major
candidates would
be able to keep
the coalition
together, but
have drawbacks
of their own.
John McCain is
not as
conservative as
Romney. He
sponsored and
still
champions a
campaign-finance
law that
impinged on
fundamental
rights of
political
speech; he voted
against the Bush
tax cuts; he
supported this
year’s amnesty
bill, although
he now says he
understands the
need to
control the
border before
doing anything
else.
Despite all that
and more, he is
a hero with a
record that is
far more good
than bad. He has
been a strong
and farsighted
supporter of the
Iraq War, and,
in a trying
political season
for him, he has
preserved and
even enhanced
his reputation
for dignity and
seriousness.
There would be
worse nominees
for the GOP (see
above). But
McCain ran an
ineffectual
campaign for
most of the year
and is still
paying for it.
Fred Thompson is
as conservative
as Romney, and
has
distinguished
himself with
serious
proposals on
Social Security,
immigration, and
defense. But
Thompson has
never run any
large enterprise
— and he has not
run his campaign
well, either.
Conservatives
were excited
this spring to
hear that he
might enter the
race, but have
been
disappointed by
the reality. He
has been fading
in crucial early
states. He has
not yet passed
the threshold
test of
establishing for
voters that he
truly wants to
be president.
Romney is an
intelligent,
articulate, and
accomplished
former
businessman and
governor. At a
time when voters
yearn for
competence and
have soured on
Washington
because too
often the Bush
administration
has not
demonstrated it,
Romney offers
proven executive
skill. He has
demonstrated it
in everything he
has done in his
professional
life, and his
tightly
organized,
disciplined
campaign is no
exception. He
himself has
shown impressive
focus and
energy.
It is true that
he has less
foreign-policy
experience than
Thompson and
(especially)
McCain, but he
has more
executive
experience than
both. Since
almost all of
the candidates
have the same
foreign-policy
principles, what
matters most is
which candidate
has the skills
to execute that
vision.
Like any
Republican, he
would have an
uphill climb
next fall. But
he would be able
to offer a
persuasive
outsider’s
critique of
Washington. His
conservative
accomplishments
as governor
showed that he
can work with,
and resist, a
Democratic
legislature. He
knows that not
every feature of
the health-care
plan he enacted
in Massachusetts
should be
replicated
nationally, but
he can also
speak with more
authority than
any of the other
Republican
candidates about
this pressing
issue. He would
also have
credibility on
the economy,
given his
success as a
businessman and
a manager of the
Olympics.
Some
conservatives
question his
sincerity. It is
true that he has
reversed some of
his positions.
But we should be
careful not to
overstate how
much he has
changed. In
1994, when he
tried to unseat
Ted Kennedy, he
ran against
higher taxes and
government-run
health care, and
for school
choice, a
balanced budget
amendment,
welfare reform,
and “tougher
measures to stop
illegal
immigration.” He
was no
Rockefeller
Republican even
then.
We believe that
Romney is a
natural ally of
social
conservatives.
He speaks often
about the toll
of
fatherlessness
in this country.
He may not have
thought deeply
about the
political
dimensions of
social issues
until, as
governor, he was
confronted with
the cutting edge
of social
liberalism. No
other Republican
governor had to
deal with both
human cloning
and
court-imposed
same-sex
marriage. He was
on the right
side of both
issues, and
those battles
seem to have
made him see the
stakes of a
broad range of
public-policy
issues more
clearly. He will
work to put
abortion on a
path to
extinction.
Whatever the
process by which
he got to where
he is on
marriage,
judges, and
life, we’re glad
he is now on our
side — and we
trust him to
stay there.
He still has
some convincing
to do with other
conservatives.
Romney has been
plagued by the
sense that his
is a
passionless,
paint-by-the-numbers
conservatism. If
he is to win the
nomination, he
will have to
show more of the
kind of emotion
and resolve he
demonstrated in
his College
Station “Faith
in America”
speech.
For some people,
Romney’s
Mormonism is
still a barrier.
But we are not
electing a
pastor. The
notion that he
will somehow be
controlled by
Salt Lake City
or engaged in
evangelism for
his church is
outlandish. He
deserves to be
judged on his
considerable
merits as a
potential
president. As he
argued in his
College Station
speech, his
faith informs
his values,
which he has
demonstrated in
both the private
and public
sectors. In none
of these cases
have any
specific
doctrines of his
church affected
the quality of
his leadership.
Romney is an
exemplary family
man and a
patriot whose
character
matches the high
office to which
he aspires.
More than the
other primary
candidates,
Romney has
President Bush’s
virtues and
avoids his
flaws. His moral
positions, and
his instincts on
taxes and
foreign policy,
are the same.
But he is less
inclined to
federal
activism, less
tolerant of
overspending,
better able to
defend
conservative
positions in
debate, and more
likely to demand
performance from
his
subordinates. A
winning
combination, by
our lights. In
this most fluid
and
unpredictable
Republican
field, we vote
for Mitt Romney.
DATA ON THE
ELECTION
|
EMAIL CONNECTICUT
FOR MITT ROMNEY
CT
FOR MITT ESTABLISHED
IN 2005
|
