In 2008 I supported McCain. I respected him as a hero, but I glossed over his conservative values, or lack thereof. I recall sitting at the caucus back then and arguing, against the Ron Paul supporters, that we had to have a candidate who could beat Obama and in my view, only McCain stood that chance. I did not like Romney then, and I still do not trust the man. Had I maintained the character of conservative values, I would have supported Mike Huckabee.
I was horribly disappointed in McCain’s performance from that point forward, but still believed that he had the best chance to beat Obama. His VP selection was interesting; I quickly gained respect for this feisty woman and felt that her heart was in the right place. McCain’s team failed to properly prep her for what she was about to face, and I lay that fault at McCain’s feet.
I had read two books on McCain – one by him and one about him in which he cooperated, and of course there were glowing reports of his heroism, stamina, and experiences. He spoke the right words about values, but as time went on I realized that he lacked the true conservative values tht a Republican candidate should have. At the time I guess I just didn’t understand how important that was. Seeing the stark contrast with our current president, the importance of having values, and defending those values, became more and more obvious to me. And in the final analysis I concluded that I had failed to either know what values I stood for, or to be able to articulate them, even to myself.
That has all changed now. I am a conservative and I support conservative values. I believe the Constitution means what it says and that it MUST be followed (or appropriately changed), and not simply ignored. It was this flaw in my character in 2008 that caused me to support John McCain as the Republican nominee. Don’t get me wrong. I still believe he would have been a better president than what we have now. I suspect that we would be engaged in far more foreign conflicts and that our Defense Department would be excessively over-extended. We would not be feeling the crunch of unemployment as severely, and the over-regulation of businesses would not be so extreme. We would still have problems, but they would be different problems and society would continue to adjust to them. As a society we would be better. But that’s no excuse.
When Republicans nominate a person who truly demonstrates conservative values, we win. When we nominate a moderate, we lose. Just compare Reagan to McCain. I think I’ve fixed my personal character flaw concerning a true understanding of conservative values. That’s why I support Santorum in the current race and will continue to work against Romney. Once again we have a clear choice between a conservative who truly lives his values, and a clear moderate, if not liberal-leaning, alternative.
Romney was on the news this morning talking about how his business background would help to fix the economy and how he knew he would get the delegates before Tampa. As I’ve noted before, business experience is fine, but it is VASTLY different than running a country. He also made note of his “outsider” status, while his competitors all held positions in DC. Forgetting, of course, that he is as much a life-long politician as the others and more so. He even grew up in a politician family. It’s engrained in him. But conservative values are not.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. As Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey taught My-my-my Generation, I won’t get fooled again. I stand for the conservative values and will not get sold a bill of goods that suggests that we need to nominate the “one who can beat the opponent.” As Reagan proved, true conservative values can beat the opponent every time. Yes, Romney would be an improvement over the incumbent, but he is NOT what is best for the country. And quite bluntly, I doubt that he CAN beat the president in a head-to-head competition. Just as McCain couldn’t. I think Santorum said it best in the Florida debates – we cannot afford to give up the Obamacare argument in the general election. Nominating Romney does that as our first shot out of the barrel. What a ridiculous position to be in.
Rick Santorum has the support to gain the delegates to defeat Romney. Santorum is far more likely to gain the support of Newt Gingrich (if Newt chooses to leave the race). I do not believe that Gingrich would be inclined in any respect to support Romney after his slash and burn campaign against Mr. Gingrich. Which once again speaks more to Romney’s character or lack thereof than to the former Speaker’s. There is no question that Romney is the “establishment” choice. Despite some other pundits suggesting that there is no “establishment” I suggest you go look at how the schedule of primaries was established by that “establishment.” Isn’t it curious that Romney-favored jurisdictions moved to the front of the line while less Romney-friendly ones were moved back? The hope was that he would lock it down before the others even got a chance to voice their opinion. And then Rick Santorum did something wonderful – he won in Iowa! Started to mess up the plans. Clearly Romney has the biggest treasury, and again – because of establishment support. We need to re-invigorate the grass-roots for Santorum. We need to make that contribution, however small, to help him fight the anointed one. As noted this week – when you outspend your opponent 5 to 1 in Alabama and 3 to 1 in Mississippi and STILL come in third….well, you should not be allowed to buy an election anyway. But that’s a post for another day.