Prescript: If you plan to comment on this thread, whether positively or negatively, please read the whole post first. And also any other posts if people choose to respond.
Well, Super Tuesday is coming up in four days. 938 Delegates are up for grabs by four Republican candidates...really two, but the other pair have their own political spoiling effect. The count does not make any candidate instant nominee, but it is a big chunk of the ammount. So I guess whatever happens, the candidate will be known by wednesday. So I think this is as good a time as any to add my voise to the noise.
As I wrote a few weeks ago, before the primaries & caucases, I have chosen to back Romney as my candidate. He was not my first choice, and neither is he my dream candidate, but I believe he is the best person to represent the GOP in this election season. McCain may look like a good choice, but so did Ford in '76 and Dole in '96. Romney is not Reagan, let me say that right now. But I do not want a Reagan...Reagan was the candidate for the issues of the 80s, Romney is a candidate for the issues of now.
I: Economics
In a period of possible recession, McCain has admitted he does not have a strength in knowing how to shape an
economy. That's a big selling point, isn't it? That if he's elected, people hope McCain will pick economic advisors (ie Commerce Sectretaries et al) who could save us from possible recession and return the United States to fiscal and economic prosperity. This is just my wallet and savings account talking, but I want someone who knows about the ups and (more importantly) downs of economic life. I pick (and trust) a
Summa c** Laude graduate over the man who has as much a chance of plunging us full-tile into recession as he would of bringing us out of said recession.
II: War on Terror
As you know, my opinion on the war in Iraq has changed over the course of years. I supported it at first...in fact, I supported the war since I joined Gaia Online in '03. I believed the Iraqi people were capable of handling democracy, but that belief has been greatly strained with the inter-sect violence and continuing Al Qaeda in Iraq silliness.
However, the war against terror and Al Qaeda is bigger then Iraq and even Afghanistan. This is a worldwide war that Bush has failed to expand out of two nations. Just look at Waziristan and Pakistan. Romney may not have a strong position on the war issue, I think he can deal with the conflict better. Focusing on one country when the threat is international no longer makes sense.
I do agree with McCain that we need to continue our presence in Iraq...long-term bases in the region are necessary to continued stability. It worked in Germany and Japan, and it could work in Baghdad and Kabul if we do this right. But we have to deal with the whole problem, not one or two foci (and yes, foci is a word
rofl ).
III: Immigration
Use whatever euphemism you want, "comprehensive immigration reform" is amnesty...when someone says "a spade is a spade", it does not mean someone else calling it a "hand-held earth displacement device" is talking about something else.
The McCain-Kennedy bill, or S. 1033, was an attempt to pass amnesty just like in 1986. It had some minor border enforcement provisions, but so did the old bill. Now Republican voters are asked to trust McCain; trust that he will enforce the border, trust that he will prosecute employees who flagrantly employ undocumented workers, trust that he will have America's interests at the forefront of his mind? I'm sorry, but on that I must say "trust but verify"...lol, I got a Reagan reference in
xd . Not to mention when fellow Senators pointed out his bill was amnesty, McCain called them racists and xenophobes...showing a moderate predilection to honest debate when faced with opposing information.
Romney may not be strong on this issue, but he seems intent on fixing his weaknesses. He has seen what has happened to other politicians who supported illegal immigration, and seems astute enough to know what the people want.
IV: National Election
In an election year where you have a charismatic Democrat candidate either way you look, this is not the time to pick a man who appears to share more with Ford and Dole then with (Teddy) Roosevelt and Reagan. I want a candidate who can take on the Democrat candidate issue for issue with applomb and conviction. I want a candidate who can speak from experience on the pending economic issues of the United States. I want a candidate who can point out the euphemisms that the Democrat will use on the issue of illegal immigration...because so many in the GOP also doublespeak on the issue. I want a candidate who will not stand on his past laurels, but continue to work to improve himself.
But I also want a candidate who knows how to work with the Democrats. Both of the main Republicans have experience in this, but in different ways. McCain has worked with men like Feingold to limit First Amendment rights in creating less competetive elections...and living in California where there is severe gerrymandering, I should know what lacking competetiveness means. McCain has worked with Kennedy to pass amnesty-not-amnesty...understand that Kennedy would not support such a bill if it did not include widespread amnesty provisions. McCain has worked with the Gang of Fourteen to filter judicial nominees beyond that which is already provided by the constitutional requirements of the Congress.
Romney worked with the Democrat legislature as Governor of Massachussetts, but what did you expect in a Democrat-led legislative body? But unlike another Republican Governor, my very own Manchurian candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger, Romney used his pulpit as governor to advance conservative and Republican issues instead of bowing to legislative dominance in a bid at fake bipartisanship. Romney repeatedly vetoed bills he felt were objectionable...if the legislature overturned his veto, does that mean Romney is not a true conservative?
V: Final Comments
Personally, I have no problem with McCain. He has his views, some which are not mine, but he has every right to hold them. I view his service to this country as I viewed Kerry's in '04...with a view to him as a possible commander-in-chief, and nothing more. But the presidency is more then a civilian posting to military command. A President leads the nation in war and peace. We are currently in limbo in that respect...fighting abroad, yet not in a verifiable war-time standing. The Chief Executive needs to know both paths, and lead equally in both.
Romney is not a warrior, but he has more knowledge with domestic issues then his competition. In terms of war, I think Romney can delegate competant people to carry on a flexable conflict against exterior threats. In terms of peace, his experience in running innovative business will give him the ability the chart a better course in the fickle global economy. And in that, I feel I can put my trust in the man.
PS: Since this is the first election in half a century with a wide-open election in both parties, how people vote this year may decide the course of politics for our liftetimes. Please consider that when you go to the polls.
Reply
