Why I Am Endorsing Romney Now - Obama A Strong Second Choice

My mention of Obama as an alternate in the title is not a joke, or an anti-McCain vote. My rationale for both that and for endorsing Romney now are below.

Before pundits crown John McCain inevitable, or the primary season ends, the Republican Party would be smart to engage in some internal straight talk of its own. Perhaps only they, as a combined force, can alter this race. Already it has begun telling ardent supporters like me, the problem is us, not the party itself. Yet, in a rare year with a wide open race - no likely heir to assume the crown - the Republican Party's defined process has so far failed to produce a viable candidate who can speak from the heart to convince the base he deserves their support. Without that support, they cannot win in the Fall.

Perhaps it is overly dependent on open primaries, some reports now suggest as much as twenty percent of the vote in Florida's purportedly closed primary was cast by Independents and Democrats. That's more than enough to give any candidate a win.

But the over-all failure is not one of any particular candidate, or the base itself - the current failure results from a corrupted party establishment that too often abandoned, if not betrayed, conservatism; was arrested, more than proclaimed; and grew government, over spent and mis-managed America and, to some extent, a war - precisely as one would expect from liberal Democrats. Despite newly-assumed positioning and protestations to the contrary, John McCain is far more indicative of that problem, than a potential cure. He has been a part of Washington for far too long, as have many, unfortunately.

Party big wigs, hot shots and tavern-weary, inside the beltway, pundits will say either - conservatism has changed, what's wrong with you? Or, can't you see John McCain's a fine man who is one of your own? He's not a too long in the tooth DC politician, part and parcel of the establishment and its problem; he's the cure.

Unfortunately, the former is demonstrably false; and the latter is just more lecturing from a party apparatus unable, or unwilling to face the truth. It has failed its base, often with McCain, partnered with a Feingold, or a Kennedy, leading the charge. In 2008, as things stand, Republicans will pay a terrible price at the polls for their failures, not just John McCains, should he get the nod. Republicans dare not think they can use Hillary to scare the base ala Karl Rove. We are smarter than that and, as a group, smarter than them - a lesson too long forgotten by too many DC insiders. Mark my words.

Former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson sprang from no one's political radar and, even before entering, simply his image captured much of the base. Had political skill and cunning matched reputation, a Republican Party united behind a Reagan conservative might well now be marching to victory in 2008. Do not tell us a fundamental conservatism is dead. Yet, many pundits selling a moderated, or modernized conservatism will be sure to not remind you of Fred. It's easier to dismiss him as a flawed candidate, leaving the base with, and as the problem. God forbid, it can't be them. But it is them, and the base knows it, even if they don't. Or, they simply won't admit it, which is even worse.

Based upon his concession speech last night, Mitt Romney is slightly tweaking his approach. And don't tell us it's flip-flopping, or re-casting Mitt. It's how the game is played in primaries. Would you have us believe John McCain hasn't tried to steal Fred's role, casting himself as the one true consistent conservative, as opposed to the moderate with a thumb in conservatism's eye he actually is? That is perhaps the greatest single flip-flop of all in this campaign.

Romney has realized the base sees him as the consensus candidate, flaws and all. He spoke as an outsider crashing the gate. That's precisely what the Republican Party needs in the Fall, especially given a decade or two of dissembling conservatism and corrupt DC pols. Romney has proved to be the most analytical, yet nimble campaigner in a bizarre primary year. His campaign has displayed a competence unmatched by any other, despite how various state-wide votes, often counting on moderates and all but Northeastern liberals, turned out. Such competence was not the case with McCain. He bankrupted his campaign early. Why should we trust him to not do the same with the nation?

More than any other candidate, Romney has displayed a determination to win while playing politics; yet, stopping short of slinging mud, or outright lies. After Florida, John McCain cannot say the same. Does character no longer matter to conservatives? Have we come to that? If so, I'll pass.

The Left has unfairly claimed the Right always relies on the politics of fear. With his talk in Florida of wars to come, for the first time, that charge of fear-mongering is real. Unfortunately, barring another attack, it will not resonate across the population. Exit polls and surveys tell us that. McCain may be a fine man, but as a candidate he's a one-trick pony, unable to win an important upcoming race. His new campaign tactics now inspire revulsion, if anything, across much of the Right.

Mitt Romney's family life and moral grounding epitomize traditional Republican values. There is no media-whoring maverick in his past. Since when has being loved by the media, or being a contrarian - a maverick - figured into anyone's conservative bona fides? It hasn't and it never will; that alone should tell you much.

My first choice for President in 2008 is Mitt Romney and my second choice is Barack Obama. And that would not be an anti-McCain vote. Like Romney, Obama is a man of vision and character and electing the first black president would ultimately do more to pry away black and other minority voters from a decadent American liberalism, than would anything else.

Certainly it would do more in that regard than anything any Conservative could hope to say - media darling, or not. One could no longer make the argument that America is racist, or unfair. Not when a black man has risen to the highest office in the land. And he will have done it without the need for some futuristic utopia which the Left insists we need. He would be a self-made man and his own worst enemy when arguing for a socialist-like, or welfare state. Also, multiculturalism cannot ultimately exist within a nation in which all races are seen as one. Has that not always been a conservative value and vision? I would assert it has.

My long-term goal is and will always be the furtherance of solid conservative principles that no more require modernization, than the Constitution itself. And I vote for people and to win. Right now, there are two people worthy of my support in this race. Both decisions would represent my belief in conservative principles and a forwarding of the Movement's agenda, long-term.

Mitt Romney is the only candidate on the Republican side capable of truly uniting the base and going on to win in the Fall. I support him for his competence, class and, yes, his consistency over a life well led, much of it not on the public dime, or planning and plotting inside a failed Washington as to how he, but not genuinely conservative principles, can move ahead.

I strongly encourage my conservative friends  and colleagues to rally behind Mitt Romney for the very hard fight just up ahead. We are fighting an establishment just as short-sighted, as it has been corrupt.

Whether it's helping to raise money, make phone calls, or get out the vote, Mitt Romney as the last man standing anyone can honestly call a loyal conservative needs our help. Win, or lose in the Fall, if Romney doesn't get our support and the Republican nod, conservatives will be left homeless under McCain. No president has not reverted to being himself once in office. The Party will be over, as it were. And as we don't support government subsidies, a boot-strap re-building on our own will cost conservatism much. Yet, we must prepare for that eventuality, too - should it emerge. That fate for conservatives and the Republican Party can be avoided. It is not too late.

For now, we must pursue victory and we must do it behind the one candidate who best typifies our cause. And that's why I am supporting Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination, not as a front-runner - as an establishment crony like a Governor Crist might do - but now when he and Reagan conservatism need our help the most.

In short, society can, should and will move on. Laugh if you will, but we do need change. And the Republican Party needs it as much as anyone else. The choice the Republican establishment now has to make, is - do conservatives move forward with them, or without?

Comments

[PierreLegrand]

Standing right next to you! McCain as anti establishment is a joke...the Republican party apparently needs to be taken out to the woodshed!

[Hannibal Smith]

Agree with much of you here, but I just can't see pushing the button for Barry. The groundswell of Oprah-fied progressive fervor that would sweep this nation would guarantee you'd never even have the opportunity to vote for a Conservative again, at least not for an office above Water Commissioner. I like the point about Obama being self-made, and negating the argument for racial collectivism. But do you think anyone will listen to that? The press? Ha! Voters? They'll never hear the arguments? Obama himself? He won't need you any more. Progressives don't need you. They don't want you. They want you silenced and your ideas dead. They do not "compromise." They retreat, regroup, rework their messages and return through any door left open or any weakness they can exploit.

There will be no Reagan to follow a disastrous (for liberty) Obama (or Clinton) presidency. It's not worth the risk.

[Steve]

I could not agree more with your stance on both Romney and McCain. Conservatives better get it together and stand behind Romney, because it's obvious that it is in McCain's blood to sell out conservatism at every turn.

But as for voting for Obama should McCain be the nominee, I urge you to reconsider. Yes, I too would LOVE to see a black president- or a Hispanic, Asian, or woman for that matter- and yes, it would do wonders for American PR around the world, but to vote for Obama is to vote for partial-birth abortion, a redefining of marriage, a Iraqi slaughter due to US troop pullouts, increased global jihadism, open borders, blanket amnesty, the demonization and puishment of the wealthy and (job creating) corporations, and an infusion of socialism into this country that both you and I love.

McCain is a terrible choice to lead this country, but Obama is worse, and it shouldn't matter that he's (half) black. He is simply bad, and lacks experience on top of that.

I would hold my nose and pull that lever for McCain, but God willing, I pray it doesn't come to that.

[elixelx]

I intend to invest my life savings in nose-clips so that all you putative Republicans can have BOTH HANDS FREE with which to pull the levers for John (The Hero) Mccain in November 2008.

I figure you 2-3 million dumb enough to buy into Romney are dumb enough to make me a rich man!

Each pin, which rather looks like a clothes-peg, comes inscribed with your name on one side and "I preferred you know who" on the other!

Real Republicans won't need them as all we'll have in our nostrils is the sweet smell of success!

Quickly now, only one per customer. Unfortunately they only come in yellow!

[seekeronos]

If you are truly endorsing Mitt at this point, Dan... I recommend then that you lose the McCain rotating ad on the right if you can, and put a Mitt widget or three up in its place. :)

[Terry Ann]

I wouldn't mind Romney or Obama. Sadly, I don't think we're getting either. Sigh.

[D2Boston]

This essay captures my sentiments exactly -- every detail reflects my thought process and feelings relative to this race as it stands today, as well as the months leading up to it. I'll never vote for John McCain, but if necessary (i.e. if McCain wins the nomination), I will most certainly vote for Barack Obama if he is the Democratic nominee -- despite the fact that I disagree with the vast majority of his policies.

[nishizonoshinji]

iff (if and only iff) romney gets the nod mormonism will become a huge issue.
can u see america voting for a prospective POTUS who belives dead jews can be baptized into the mormon faith an that native americans are the lost tribe of israel? hello...gaza? MENA?
good luck with that.
and if that happens we will learn WAAAYYY more about mormonism than we want to know.
be sure dems will capitalize on that.
mccain has not attacked on that cuz he'd lose party evangelicals.
i bet the dems are praying for a romney campaign. hehe.

im in denver.
obama-mania is off the charts here.
hes jfk reincarnated, lol.

[nishizonoshinji]

btw...obama gets my vote.
even if its a write in.
an im a registered republican!

[Wahoo Willie]

Oh my, oh my, oh my aren't we some sad little partisans today? Can't we just all be happy that the ambulance chaser finally figutred out that the voters have him figured out? Some of our "conservative" friends are actually saying that in a race between McCain and the Hidabeast they would A: Vote for Hilda?? or B; Abstain? How totally, freekin' pathetic. Do you think the demonrats feel like that? I mean all they have are dems to vote for and faced with a two dem race some reps would vote for the leftist or not at all to keep from voting for the dem-lite guy. Oh, puleeze check yourselves. Now certainly if it comes to OB and Big Mac then ye should pull the "change" lever. OB makes a lot of sense, he wants to change things. Hilda on the other hand makes her hubby look like.....well, it's just scary. Ya got no hope folks, GW has ruined his party for at least 8 years. Make yourself the best deal you can and sit back, enjoy the ride. They can't take all of your money, somewhere between 50-60% but not all.

[Seixon]

I've come to about the same conclusion. Obama and Romney are the only honorable candidates left in this race, and I can't see myself voting for anyone other than them. I think the Democrats would do themselves a great disservice by selecting Clinton, and the same goes for the GOP if they selected McCain.

If it comes down to Clinton-McCain, we'd have to senators running against each other for the nomination. When's the last time that happened? Ever? There's a reason senators don't usually win in a presidential election - they are too ingrained in Washington politics to be likable.

Neither McCain or Clinton are likable, but Romney and Obama are. They represent new blood in what has become quite a stale pool down in Washington, and if we're going to get the country to fulfill it's potential, that's who we need. Not the same old, same old. Bill Clinton was a DC outsider. W. Bush was an outsider. Let's put another outsider in there instead of making the great mistake of letting the foxes tend the hens.

[sunrise]

I'm getting to be ok with McCain at this point. D.C. is in such gridlock that maybe getting a guy who'll cross the aisle on occasion isn't such a bad thing. Dubya blew us off on Harriett, Dubai, immigration etc so it isn't as if it counts to stand as a conservative block. Obama is out there saying he'll make everyone get along but he's a bit young to take on the establishment and if you believe he can I suggest you review history ala Carter. At least with McCain we know his blend of conservatism plus his popularity with both sides in Washington might give us some true leadership.

I'd wager the independents/moderates would be more likely to go with McCain at this point, you need to take what victory you can instead of having a snit about the imperfections.

[IslamoLlama]

I'm a little bit floored. Obama and Romney are practically polar opposites. And these are your top to picks for Presidency? Baffled doesn't even begin to describe my reaction.

It won't last, of course. Even if it is an Obama v McCain race, the Mitten Men will come crawling back into McCain's pocket like the McCain-ites came crawling back to Bush in 2000. Someone will point out that Obama is a liberal and McCain stands strong against terror, and that'll be that.

Rush'll drop to his knees, Hannity will grab his ankles, and it'll be McPain for President as the only sane choice for America.

[simonsez]

Isn't Denver the eastern most subburb of Los Angeles?

Wait till Big Tuesday. Soon after that, the Hill and the Big O will bury the hatchet and tag team up for an unstoppable run to the Whitehouse under a Hillary/Obama ticket. The Hill will see that the O is a huge plus to rally the base and the black vote come election night and the O will realize that he needs more seasoning and will come to understand that the big prize is not yet his to obtain.

Unless things tank (which is a good bet they will) you could have a dem lock on the Presidency for the next 16 years! All the pundits poo poo that, but they forget their own words when they say the Clintons will do anything....I repeat ANYTHING, to get elected.

I won't like it and might move a few thousand miles away over the next few years, but that is the reality we are facing. Romney has all the required creditials, but the one critical flaw (sorry, but in this case a spade is a spade) of Mormanism means he could never be President. VP maybe, but Prez no way, no how. He can run the Olympics and he run a state, but the nation as a while will not buy into that for an elected President.

I have great respect for McCain, but it is time for him to go away. He won't and I predict that he will be a gracious loser in the general election, but he is going to get trounced and trounced big. Many of us conservatives will not show up for him on election day unless he makes some drastic changes - changes he is not willing to make.

[Samir]

I laugh at your suggestion that people cannot complain about racism when the president is African-American.

That notion is actually racist in and of itself, IMHO.

[docweasel]

Romney one of the only "honorable" candidates in the race? Listen, if Romney weren't a multi-millionaire, he wouldn't even still BE in the race. How honorable is that?

Next off, Dan's claim that "only Romney can unite the base"- screw uniting the base (which I don't even buy it will) if it alienates more than half the electorate in the process. Independents and anti-Clinton Dems will vote for McCain, in greater numbers than "true conservatives" will sit out against Hillary. Not so with Romney. Independents would then break Democrat.

Last off, exactly how did Romney get to be the "only real conservative?" Because he says so? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, did he not govern the Socialist Republic of Massachusetts, enact state run health care there (now in debt to the tune of a quarter BILLION USD), support abortion rights, was lax on immigration, ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy on gay rights, etc.

Then he "saw the light" and had a revelation, kinda like Mormons did in 1978 when they all over sudden decided that blacks WEREN'T too defiled to deserve the priesthood (something Romney has never distanced himself from, btw). Convenient and political transformations come easy to Mittens.

I call shenanigans. All this Mitt support, based on faith in a guy hardly anyone had even heard of 2 years ago, is just McCain Derangement. Ok, he pissed off the base. He's still more conservative, has better creds and is MORE GODDAM HONORABLE that flip flop mitt.

Yesterday was the brightest day I've seen in the campaign so far. It tells me the Republican party is rejecting the worst impulses of conservatism, the bigotry, the nativism, the prejudice.

McCain hopefully will win the nod and then the election. And I think he won't be a perfect president but he'll be as good as it gets, at least for '08.

To actually say you'd hand the keys over to a neophyte like Obama really makes me question either your judgment or your honesty, Dan. No one can say with a straight face this guy is ready to run the Free World. He's not. Not by a longshot. He'd make a very good VP, IMHO. President? No. Even he can't say what he'll do when he gets there, he just keeps telling people to HOPE. I HOPE he drops out soon.

[melanzan]

Well said, Dan! Really well said....For those not happy about the prospect of a McCain (or another candidate's) administration, you are obliged to DO something about it beyond just whining. Conservatives take action in addition to responsibility for their actions. Donate money. Volunteer. Make something happen, don't just wait around for some Godot to rescue the party, conservatism or the country.

[Yehudit]

Three words: War on Terror.

Obama will be an appeaser, McCain won't. Obama will ensure that US foreign policy moves as far left as Jimmeh Carter. McCain will keep it within the general course Bush set. That's my overarching issue. End of story.

There is a time to be pure, and a time to vote for someone generally in the ballpark and win. Romney can't win, McCain can.

[David M]

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 01/30/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2008/01/web-reconnaissance-for-01302008.html

[Wahoo Willie]

"the Clintons will do anything....I repeat ANYTHING, to get elected."
Simon you've made more sense than most everybody here. Except for the 16 years of demonrats thing.Not even Americans are THAT stupid. Anyway, I like OB but VERY concerned for him if he comes out ahead of Hilda for the big one. John Conolly is dead now, right?

[rotarymunkey]

If it comes down to a choice between 3 Senators (i.e. those who have treasonously refused to secure our border, enforce federal laws, eliminate sanctuary cities, etc, etc, etc, and the choice of 1 outsider who was first a successful businessman, then a semi-successful Governor, I know who I'm picking! We're electing the leader of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of gov't folks!

BTW-on a side note, if President Bush's executive order instructing federal agencies to ignore earmark attachments (pork-barrel funding) on Congressional bills stands in court (as it's sure to be challenged), we might have just witnessed THE defining moment of the Bush Presidency! That is a brilliant move, and one sure to stick in the craw of many liberal mouths. And you know what? He is right! Earmarks should not be attached to bills which have already passed both houses of Congress. That makes them unvoted amendments, and that's contray to the Constitution.

[Gekkobear]

How dare you not vote for McCain if he's the nominee?

I mean, if your choices are a big-spending republican (GW Bush) or a big spending Democrat (Bill Clinton) well we saw Bill Clinton expand domestic discretionary spending by over 50%, and tack new additions onto Medicare and thus critically expand spending and the debt.

Wait, no, that was Bush. When Clinton tried that stuff, the Republicans in Congress acted Conservative and opposed him. When Bush tried the same thing, the same Republicans lined up behind him.

Showing one thing. If you really want Liberal laws, Liberal spending, or Liberal action from the Government, you need a liberal Republican. A Democrat just can't get the same level of liberal action through Congress.

So if you're looking for someone who can unite Congress in silencing political speech, amnesty, an end to tax cuts, taxation that is more "fair" to the poor and doesn't "favor" the rich like we have now, energy controls for Global warming, etc. then McCain is obviously the best choice.

I presume the McCain supporters here are looking for this brand of liberalism and have realized a Democrat couldn't get this through Congress... but McCain can.

More Liberalism, vote McCain.

[syn]

From my understanding about the Mormon faith, they have excellent princples with regard to disaster preparedness and survival tactics, so I'm thinking why not a Mormon; at least Romney will do great things with the military.

When I examine The Church in America I find:

Evangelical members embracing Al Gore's Greenie movement; so much for rights endowed by our Creator and seriously, we cannot fight a Long War fueled by corn.

Church of Christ, Methodist, and Catholic members have no problem with anyone stealing American citizen's personal identity because Jesus loves everyone; so much for law and order or national security.

Methodist ministers endorse politicans who voted for continuing partial-birth practice; so much of respect for life.

Epscopalian(sp?) members are divided in all directions so I have no idea what is their faith.

Jewish members eternally vote for the Democrat Party which has been actively helping to defeat America in her time of war; so much for fighting the GWOT, helping Israel or ending Iran's nuke program.

If I am to consider the religious position of any particular leader I rather appreciate the Mormon position of being prepared for disaster, at least this is something worth consideration in these uncertain times.

[Sara]

McCain won by 5% in Florida, not exactly a landslide and he wouldn't have won at all without his lies and distortions of Romney's record. His last minute robo call to Cuban-Hispanics saying Romney wanted to establish relations with Castro was the straw, plus the dems and independents who registered Republican to vote for their favorite dem candidate, McCain, estimated to be 17-20% of the vote. McCain can't win Republicans or conservatives. Romney will win Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Montana and take a hefty share of the Calif. delegates, even if he doesn't win outright, since it is not a winner take all state. Texas is a toss up for delegates as well. If you read Hewitt this morning, there will still be 900 delegates at stake after Super Tuesday, and many of those in states that split delegates. Romney, even if McCain is ahead in the delegate count, will come in to the Convention with a hefty number, so nothing is a foregone conclusion.

[Sara]

And syn, the Mormon church's outreach to Native Americans and Hispanics is legendary. They do not believe in the public dole, rather they believe in self-preparedness and education and taking care of their own without the government. This is a big plus to me. Disclaimer: my son is a Mormon convert and so was my Mother.

I have no idea what Northern Calif. will do (they are like a foreign country), but Romney is very strong in my large So. Calif. county. I think Calif. will be a blood bath since the Hispanics I've talked to, and that means most of those who live and work around me, a very large number, will not vote for Obama and can't stand McCain.

[syn]

If it is about three words, War on Terror then how can we fight with a CIC who believes our military in Gitmo is using torture, that Gitmo should be shut down, or believes the US should join the International Criminal Court or believes Open Borders will stop Jihadist from entering the country?.

Further how will a CIC, who strongly believes in Al Gore's Greenie movement, be able to wage war if he is restricting all our energy resources; as far as I know jet fighters and tanks cannot run on corn.

[sheryl]

This matters to me. Romney last night:

"At a time like this, America needs a President in the White House who has actually had a job in the real economy. You see at a time like this, knowing how America works is more important than knowing how Washington works. The Democrats think that America's greatness flows from our government. They're wrong. The source of America's greatness is the American people – hard-working, innovative, risk-taking, family oriented, God-fearing, freedom-loving American people have always been the source of America's greatness, and they always will be. And so the right course for America isn't to strengthen our government, but to strengthen our people. And to do that, we're going to have to change Washington, and change will begin with us."

Strengthen Americans is exactly why I voted for Reagan and exactly why I will vote for Mitt Romney on February 5th.

Because McCain has folks like Juan Hernandez on his team, I feel he really isn't interested in the conservative base and feels he can win the presidency with moderates and independents, then let's see him do it.

I don't vote to make someone else lose, I vote in who I believe in and that's Mitt Romney.

[sheryl]

doc weasel says:

"Yesterday was the brightest day I've seen in the campaign so far. It tells me the Republican party is rejecting the worst impulses of conservatism, the bigotry, the nativism, the prejudice."

Please explain this further. What do you mean bigotry, nativism, prejudice? When did living by the rule of law and being proud that your country wants to keep it's origins?

If white pasting faced Canadians were illegally crossing the border in huge numbers into America, I would still hold true to my belief system. I don't think you would.

Keep your white man's guilt to yourself please.

[Teej MacArthur]

I agree 100% and am proud of your statement and call to arms. Republicans and conservatives must not fool themselves about the choice ahead of us. Those of us in the 21 states to vote next Tuesday represent the final firewall or the vanguard (take your pick) of conservatism in this nation for years to come, and it all rides on WHAT WE DO this week. Don't hold anything back.

[Sharon]

Amen. I want to believe in Romney. Listening to a little of Rush today, I felt some hope. Maybe some revelation will turn up that makes McCain unelectable and Romney will be able to jump into the breach. I actually thought that was shy John Edwards was saying in, hoping for an ethical violation so egregious that Hillary or Obama are forced out.
Keep the faith Dan. There are a lot of us out here that feel the same as you do. If only the rest of the party would wake up.

[Yoda]

Florida independent. Disenfranchised I was. Some voted, why not I?

[Terry Gain]

Dan

You prefer Obama to McCain? I'm shocked. It's as if someone has hijacked your blog.

Over the last 5 years the American military has waged a war with lukewarm support, indifference and even opposition from the American public. It is clear that victory in this war is now within grasp and the American military wants to finish the job. The the only thing that can deny them the victory they so richly deserve is a premature withdrawal.

If Barack Obama -pleasant personality that he is - is elected President he will in an instant risk undoing everything that has been accomplished in the last 5 years with incalculable sacrifice by America's military families. The threat that an Obama Presidency poses to the aspirations of freedom loving Iraqis and the GWOT is obvious. The damage to the American military tradition will be devastating. Would you send your sons to fight for a country that so disrespects the sacrifice of its miltary families that it elects a know-nothing naive pacifist as CIC?

The Mullahs in Iran are barely able to contain their enthusiasm for an Obama presidency.

The suggestion that this naive pacifist isn't the worst candidate - by a country mile - of the 4 remaining contenders is ludicrous.

[Dan Riehl]

Terry - I understand what you are saying. But I also believe this political chess game is played on several levels. I do not assume anyone gaining the WH will simply withdrawl poste-haste. I do notbelieve political spin from either side.

Don't assume two things - that Obama will get the nod on the Dem side, or that Republicans have a chance in 08, regardless of who is running. We are in a primary season. I endorsed the best person on both sides. That does not mean I will vote for Obama in 08 anymore than the NYT's endorsing McCain means their board will vote for him. You don't think that's the case, I trust?

When I endorse in the general, assuming I do, I'll post it here. But if the Dems are going to win, I'd prefer Obama to Hillary by a mile.

[Jake]

Bizarre - Romney is the one who is truly conservative? The guy will stand for anything - look at his run against Ted Kennedy in 1994. Get a grip. What is conservative about Romney trying to buy the primary with his millions?

[Joseph A. Miller]

As an ex-Republican and an ex-conservative, I can honestly say that in reading this thread that I was right to leave. Yes, boys and girls, fear, hatred, and mindless attacks on anyone who disagrees with you form the basis of the conservative mindset. And naturally you're all wonderfully pro-torture (such good little Christians) and certainly convinced that the Awful Godless Terrorist Loving Libruls are threatening our country's survival, when in fact it's you people who are killing America. Some 40% of the entire national debt in our nation's history has been accumulated since Bush took office, caused by conservative idiots who actually still believe in the Laffer Curve. SEVENTY PER CENT of our national debt was accumulated under Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Lesser. Every single measure of our nation's well-being is worse because of you people. And got news for ya, folks--if they had their preference, our nation's people would take Bill Clinton as president over W by a margin of TWO TO ONE. (Check out any major opinion poll.) So you little right wing children nominate whomever you damned well want--Mr. Flip-Flop or "100 More Years in Iraq" McCain, because we Democrats are going to beat your brains out on 4 November--and then laugh in your faces.

BTW, I can't think of a single good thing in our country's history that conservatives have been associated with. Not one. From defending slavery to supporting the Confederacy to Jim Crow laws to fighting against women's suffrage to trying to stop child labor laws, and all the other stains on our country's history, not one good thing is associated with you people, and I mean NOTHING.

[Stanley Krute]

It is not surprising to me that GOPper conservatives who still support Bush also support
Romney (according to various exit polls). Like Bush, Mitt is a total phony, just a slicker
smarter one than GWB. Fool ya once, fool ya twice, do you folks EVER wake up ?

[fasdf]

No president has not reverted to being himself once in office.

How do you apply this to Romney, though? Is he "being himself" when he pretends to be a conservative, or when he pretends to be a liberal?

Hillary voted for the war, supported and praised the surge, supported threats against Iran, supports keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely, and supports torturing terrorist suspects in some circumstances. She's refused to retract any of the above in any significant way, in spite of a lot of nutroots pressure, so apparently she really believes in these things. In that respect she's more conservative than McCain, and probably more than Romney who strikes me as someone who would do a cost/benefit analysis of any potential war and that's a recipe for inaction. And very, very definitely more so than Obama, obviously.

[B. Russell]

Hannibal Smith - what a drama queen! A win for Obama is a loss for American liberty? what planet do you live on? We've lost innumerable liberties *under Bush* if anything Obama is only likely to reverse Bush's trashing of the U.S. Constitution. It's positively *astonishing* that you can't see that. Warrantless wiretaps. Loss of habeus corpus, self-declared increases in executive power left, right and center. Did you know every single email you write is scanned by the U.S. government? And, now a Bush appointee to National Intelligence has drafted a plan to scan every American's emails, file transfer, web phone calls and web searches whenever they feel like it. It's intellectual dishonesty - plain and simple - to pretend that a win by the Democrats would be a loss for freedom. and you know jolly well that neither Obama nor Clinton will return all the troops from Iraq right away if that's what's at the bottom of your "liberty" beef. What a load of bullcrap.

Besides all that we currently have a President who doesn't believe in evolution and prides himself in not being particularly well read. Obama would be an improvement of astronomical proportions.

And, thankfully, a lot of Americans are coming to see that.

YOUR LOSS OF FREEDOM IN DETAIL:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_drafting_plan_to_allow_government_0114.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3833172&page=1
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1927542620070919

[g. powell]

Terry,
The reason there has been 'lukewarm' support for the war, in case you don't remember, is because we were LIED to about the reasons we are there. Saddam Hussein, as vile as he was, had NOTHING to do with 9/11. That was Osama Been Forgotten. Remember Him? The attackers were mostly Saudi Nationals...our 'allies'. There were no weapons of Mass Destruction.
There will be no 'Victory' in Iraq, even if violence is temporarily down because this is a Civil War.
Read a little history honey, hone up on your facts! Because we sent our sons (and daughters) to Iraq does not mean it was for a noble cause. Even Alan Greensapn has finally said it's about OIL.
Democracy comes from the gound up, and cannot be 'installed' by point of a gun or by a foreign Military Power.
Having just returned from Vietnam, I was deeply saddened by the thought of our 55,000 lost lives there, and they were truly in vain. As hard as that is to admit. We now have normalized relations with them, there is massive investment in tourism and manufacturing, you can stay at a Sheraton, eat at McDonalds and KFC, have a fantastic beach and cultural experience, and it's still Communist! Just like China! who supplies everything you buy at WalMart!
It's Not about Democracy. It's about BUSINESS!
What is truly devastating to American Military Families is to be sent into an unjustified war with no plans beyond the initial bombing, and with no plans for ever leaving a country where 90% of the people want us to leave.

[docweasel]

Judgeing from the venom and even the first obscenity (even if its starred out) I've ever seen on Dan's blog, I have to believe Dan just has a real dislike for McCain. I don't know why exactly, but its definitely clouded his thinking. Seriously, peronalities aside, there's no question McCain has, be word and deed, shown to be the best candidate for homeland defense, WOT, and is the most conservative. This sudden love for Romney by everyone is just because he' the only guy standing, and boy do some conservatives hate McCain. He make their blood boil. Since I find myself increasingly disenchanted with the far right, who I see as being on the wrong side of history vis a vis gay rights and immigration, on par with the old Dixiecrats who went down swinging, but they went down. You're going to lose, and hopefully it this year that the tide swings. I'm kind of tired of the disgruntled Hugh Hewitt wing and the racist Michele Malkin wing battling to see who can be the most reactionary and drag the party down with them. Talk about Goldwater!

Also re:
Keep your white man's guilt to yourself please.
Posted by: sheryl | Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 04:26 PM

While I like to keep personal details out of my posts, know that I'm probably considered at LEAST 3/4 brown person by people like you who seem to keep score on this. I'm only 2nd generation American on both sides, so maybe that's why I have a bit more empathy for freedom of immigration and don't have such a "I've got mine, fuck you taking a slice of my pie" since people like you seem to think the American Dream is a zero sum game.

Dan, keep posting the angry posts, get it out of your system. Word of advice, because I detest Romney at least as badly as you seem to detest with McCain (but by my lights I have much better reasons ;)

More facts and less venom. If your aim is to convince anyone. You are probably one of the most balanced and temperate guys on the net, and I mean that sincerely, and although I disagree with you I respect your ardor, even though I think its very misplaced.

I think you do great service when you are more head-driven than heart. This Florida loss seems to have really set you off. I'd say take a day off but its probably better to write some angry posts while you're angry, get it all down. Its like getting it said gets it more in focus and you can see the big pic.

Just saying, because I always have respected your blogging and you're one of my blogging idols, man.

Hell, its only politics, its not like its football or something important ;)

[Jordan Weber-Flink]

Pierre from the first comment - you are deluded. I am a progressive and an Obama supporter, and I think conservatism has some excellent ideas (a few) and some pretty decent ideas (a lot) and some really stupid ideas (more than a few), and to insist that me and all of my nameless "brethren" who of course are not individuals capable of rational thought is infantile and unhelpful; you have succumbed to the "enemy" meme and the quality of your discourse has suffered as a result. Your cynicism and anger is the problem that the new generation is fighting to destroy. To insist that I inevitably "want you silenced and your ideas dead" and that "They do not 'compromise.'" is small minded and foolish.

[Dan Riehl]

"you're one of my blogging idols, man."

Geesh, wouldn't have expected that, Doc. Thanks. My issue is with McCain, true. Long story, but he cuts me the absolute wrong way. I don't buy him at all, never have since I laid eyes on him. That's only ever been true of a few pols, Bill Clinton being one.

As for the far Right, I agree it can go too far and risks marginalization on certain issues from time to time. But it's much less dangerous to America than the far Left.

In the end, we are increasingly governed by a political class, right and left - that sits in power, laughs, and let's the idiots (that would be us) play. For better or worse, Romney is NOT totally one of "them." McCain most assuredly is. Maybe not at first, but he certainly is now.

[docweasel]

Of course I mean it. You and Glenn Reynold are the two most balanced and temperate political bloggers operating, period, and have been for as long as I've been reading.

I'm somewhat hobbled by the fact we decided to make a group blog but all blog under one identity (and even post comments on forums with all of us using the same pseudonym, that's why you can google a lot of contradictory "docweasel" opinions and writing styles) and the fact that we have a legacy of humor and ribaldry on the old http://docweasel.com site that carries over to the blog. There's no way, even if any of us were that talented, we'd get the nod for being temperate, serious or even fair-minded.

I do personally take it as my goal to fight what I see as the Christian and religious right perverting the main messages of Christ, and they weren't trivia like make sure to go to church every Sunday or Baptist or Jewish or Mormon or even Muslim absurdities like don't eat pork or don't drink caffeine, and he didn't damn sure didn't stress worrying about securing borders over helping those less fortunate or casting the first stone at someone because you believed their sexuality was immoral.

To me, raised a Catholic but lapsed, but still instilled with what _I_ believe were his main messages, which over-rode all that Old Testament stuff: love thy neighbor, unreservedly; don't judge people, that's God's job (he aaid this, clearly and memorably several times) and treat people how you would like to be treated. That's it, there are no more rules or commandments necessary, those 3 cover it all, and they are all 3 basically the same rule anyway.

So, with this view, avoiding religiosity and moral judgements, is what drives my politics, seriously.

It has informed my views on gay rights, immigration, government responsibility towards helping the poor and disadvantaged, and most importantly innocent children, who are certainly not to blame for their parent's shortcoming.

That' the crux of what I'm on about: I believe EVERY SINGLE ILL THAT PLAGUES THE WORLD TODAY can be traced to the mistreatment, neglect, abandonment and alienation of children by the adults of this world, and then its passed on to their children.

That's the one big thing, the big picture, the only thing that matters, the next generation, the survival of the species. And so that's why I blog. I'd probably do a better job with those goals if I were less foul-mouthed, less intemperate, less venomous and less extreme.

You have always had those virtues locked up. This is the first issue on which I've seen you "virtually" lose it. Its shakes my worldview! :D

[sraseattle]

What is it with conservative white guys suddenly getting Obama fever? Don't get me wrong, as a progressive with over-the-top support for Obama I'm totally thrilled to see it. I'm just curious as to the sociological reasoning? Anyway, whatever that reasoning may be by all means welcome to our club. Coffee and cake are in the corner, feel free to help yourselves to the maple bars. Go Obama!

[hisgirlfriday]

OK I am a liberal, but I kind of agree with most of this blog post. The way you feel about McCain is sort of similar to how I feel about Hillary. I'm not sure whether if Obama doesn't get the nomination I will vote Republican, but I sure as heck don't like the Clintons and it will be difficult for them to keep me in the fold even if they pick Obama as their Veep, because I so desperately want the Democratic Party purged of the Clinton influence the same way you grassroots conservatives want McCain gone... even if it means another four years (ugh). I also find myself, to my utter disbelief, liking Romney a lot better lately even though I disagree with him on just about every issue but I guess a lot of that has to do with him leading the change charge for the Republicans and I certainly couldn't agree more about Washington being broken. I think another thing is my heart does go out to Romney for the unfair attacks/scrutiny on his religion the same way I see my guy have to fight intolerance/ignorance about his background.

As for your argument that you might want to vote for Obama because then you can say racism isn't an issue, while I do think that goes too far I have wondered if some of the unsaid conservative support for Obama is the idea in the back of their heads that maybe if Obama is elected president they can push to end affirmative action.

Whatever the reason though, the fact that so many Republicans have resisted the impulse to drag Obama through the mud (at least so far) despite pointing out he is a liberal they disagree with does make me feel better for our democratic system if that means the Republican Party will be moving back toward their roots as the party of Lincoln and away from the divisive Southern Strategy.

[nomad]

Whoa! "One could no longer make the argument that America is racist, or unfair."

If memory serves there has been a self-professed Christian in the White House (especially the current guy) for - well, since the founding of the country. That doesn't stop David Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin et al from claiming, loudly and regularly, that Christians are an oppressed majority.

Remember the War on Christmas, or are we too far into January for that?

Take your pick: either having a member of that identity group in the Oval Office either (a) shows the country is not biased against that minority - in your example, blacks or; (b) you can still be in the Oval Office and be roundly oppressed.

You can't have it both ways.

Sounds like a game of "heads I win, tails you lose".

[MarK COSGROVE]

i've seen the comment "leader of the free world" on here and in other places. can you stop, really, please, stop calling the US president that. he's not. since your current prez was elected the world (in case you haven't noticed) has stopped following you. Remember a leader without followers is just a guy taking a walk. So until you elect someone the rest of the world actually respects, you forfeit the right to call him the leader of the free world.

[Mike Alexander]

I find this idea of Romney as the authentic conservative kind of silly. The man was governor of Massachusetts. Could Ted Kennedy or John Kerry win statewide office in Texas? Of course not. The only Democrat that could be governor or senator from Texas would be a conservative or "blue dog" Democrat (e.g. Ann Richards). It goes the same way for the other side. The only Republican who could be governor of Massachusetts would be a liberal or "Rockefeller" Republican like George Romney.

Mitt is not a true blue conservative. Neither is McCain. A true blue conservative would support neither and vote third party or stay home in the fall. He would hold out for someone like Fred Thompson.

But few things are "true blue" in politics. If you are a conservative *Republican* and this party identification means something to you, then sitting out and letting the Dems win to teach the party a lesson is not an option. But if you are a *Republican* partisan then you have to acknowledge something that few conservatives this year want to acknowledge. The Republicans are the party of the South, no longer the party of Lincoln. You cannot be both. The Republican party has run two bona fide Sotherners for president, the current president (who is actually an immigrant but has been accepted by Texans as one of their own) and Fremont in 1856.

The 144 year span with no Southerners shows that the old Republican party was the Northern party. In contrast, the Democrats often ran Southerners, and, until Gore in 2000, they won *every* time they did so. It no longer makes sense for Democrats to run Southern men and you will note John Edwards, obviously the strongest candidate in a conventional (pre-2000) sense was decidedly rejected this year. Gore chose not to run. Their time is past. On the other hand, if the GOP wants to win it had better start nominating Southerners. Fred Thompson obviously was the best choice as he was most acceptable to the non-Southern part of the party. But he is gone. Today it's Mike Huckabee who is the true representative of the modern Republican party.

Yes he calls the Club for Growth the Club for Greed, but that's just Jacksonian tilting at "money power", a 175-year old tradition. It doesn't mean anything--hasn't he proposed the most regressive tax plan of any Republican?

[Mike]

You have got to be kidding me. More and more, this campaign has revealed that conservatives don't really give a shit about the war on terror or the main battlefield currently in this war, Iraq. One thing I know about Obama, he would abandon Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran the moment he got in there. That's all I need to know to vote for anyone who is his opponent. If you are okay with him doing that, after supporting the war, then go fight the next frickin' one yourself.

[Mark]

In your article you say "Do not tell us a fundamental conservatism is dead"

Can you please define what fundamental conservatism actually means? I was a Republican when they used to talk about limited government. However, when you consider that Reagan's most lasting accomplishment was to double the size of the country's prison population, this seems like the most empty promise of all time.