Curious thing, these demons Ann Coulter exposes so effectively and thoroughly. They seem to drive the emotions of those who think they stand above such bane. This legion I speak of takes on the name "establishment predetermined to elect Romney." That demon so enfolded all us conservatives we saw no other alternative. I always liked Newt-thought he walked and talked like a true conservative. But, he carried baggage in the form of marital infidelity. Conservatives don't like infidelity and rightly so. Principled people know that cheaters cheat period. They cheat their families, friends, business associates and nation. They can't be trusted. Therefore, we ruled Newt out. He can't win, we passionately declared. So we went with Romney.
And, Mitt looks Presidential. He's articulate, handsome, and the all American boy; the quintessential Boy Scout. Your grandmother loves him because he stays out of trouble. Yet, we conservatives keep the skeptical cards once out there close to our vest. In other words Romney used to make us nervous. His health care reform in Massachusetts, his waffling on abortion, and his Mormonism, not exactly orthodox Christianity, all paint a portrait of a dubious candidate. In fact Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, did a little fact checking on Governor Romney and offered this bit of information:
A review of the record shows that Romney has shifted his position on abortion numerous times since 1994 when he first ran for federal office as senator for Massachusetts. His August 5, 2007 claim that "every action I have taken as governor of Massachusetts" appears to be undermined by his October 15, 2005 decision to sign a bill seeking a federal waiver to expand family planning services in the state.
I am trying to develop as full a chronology as possible of Romney's gyrations on abortion. Let me know of any twists or turns I may have missed. Most recent update: December 20, 2007. (see the full chronology here)
Since Massachusetts days Mitt adamantly declares he saw the light. All right, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. Of course he offers several explanations depending on the month, as to why he did what he did and finally saw the light. For one, he insisted that governing in a Ted Kennedy ruled domain he had to do things a bit differently. So, what must we make of this gimpy excuse. Did he sell his soul for a high place in the Kennedy palace? If so, do we really want a sellout? Or if we trust his conversion why can't we judge Newt by the same face value standard? Newt says he made mistakes, implying he fooled around. His new found Catholicism, however, authenticates his repentance, at least in his own world. Even his daughters publicly forgive him.
Indeed, I sort of take him at his word. Furthermore, I do not seek a meek Sunday School teacher to hold the highest office in the land. I want a conservative with a proven CONSERVATIVE record who can both possesses a big vision and clearly articulate the same. Plus Newt Gingrich appeals to a broader scope of voters than Romney. Mitt looks stilted, wealthy, and made up. Gingrich inspires the informal, realness in us all. His policies clearly favored capitalism in the past while his raising eyebrows at Romney's Bain Capital strikes a positive chord with blue collar workers. In addition, Newt's southern roots impel his easy demeanor. People connect with laid back southern dispositions.
In the long run establishment institutionalist types get the tea leaves wrong. They then end up scratching their heads and perceive, "We misunderstood the American people." Most common hard working Americans want a person outside the good old boy network where tradeoffs and back room deals become the scriptures for the day. Newt may work because he knows the back room and seems to publicly rise above it. Americans like that.
Comments