It was only after much thought that we decided that the time was right, and the issue important enough, to convey to anyone who happens across this page with our humble thoughts on the upcoming election. We realize that we may offend some with this posting and the fact that it’s on a family blog (but hey—it’s our blog!), and if so, simply skip this post. In short—take it for what it’s worth—
our goal is to get it off our chest, and hopefully to inspire some thought. Apologies in advance for the long post.
Missouri voters, along with people in too many other states, will go to the polls on Tuesday, Feb. 5 in order to select presidential nominees. We adhere to the Jeffersonian Liberal political philosophy, which is best (but far from perfectly) exemplified in today’s Republican Party. We made our choice through the prism of the following three statements:
1. We are overtaxed, overspent and overregulated;
2. The best example America can set for the rest of the world is to live by the mantra: “free people, free markets”; and,
3. We are, in fact, in a global war against terror. Not by choice, but by necessity.
With that in mind, we are proud to support Mitt Romney, who we believe is someone whose character, values, ideals and accomplishment match the high calling of the presidency.
Reaching this conclusion was a long but ultimately not difficult process. First, being Republicans, we desire to vote for a Republican in the Republican primary.
Of the serious contenders, that knocks out Mike Huckabee, who evidently aspires to import the failing Christian Democratic Party of Europe across the Atlantic. More problematic is Huckabee’s poor judgment and crass (and classless) play on anti-Mormon bigotry. The final straw was his quote in the
New York Times Magazine, in which he said, “Don’t Mormons believe Jesus and the Devil are brothers?”. Of course they don’t, and we have a difficult time believing that he didn’t know that. We would be even more disheartened had this statement been made genuinely and not as a cheap shot to score a higher count among the “evangelical” vote in Iowa. At least the cold political calculation merits some measure of respect, and isn’t merely the meanderings of an untrained mind.
Huckabee also has an (in the words of a good friend of ours) “infantile” view of foreign policy, which would result in national embarrassment when he chats with Gordon Brown, Kevin Ruud and Angela Merkel, not to mention whoever happens to be in power in the Middle East and Russia at the time. We could go on with a litany of other reasons why we don’t think he is fit for office, but it would be a waste of space.
It also knocks out John McCain, who has spent over 20 years in the Senate and has gotten very little accomplished other than sponsoring the biggest restriction of free speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 (which were mercifully overturned). He was also a fierce opponent fo the Bush tax cuts of 2001, joining other stellar conservative voices of the time such as Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Speaking of campaign finance reform, perhaps (just perhaps) McCain calculated after his involvement in the Keating Five Scandal (wherein he allegedly took money from the banking industry and then tried to persuade federal securities regulators on their behalf) that the ONLY way for him to be taken seriously was for him to become a crusader to get “corporate” money out of politics. Newsflash: money finds a way, just like water, where it’s needed. Nature and politics abhor a vacuum. As to his passion for the issue, it says something that Sens. Coburn (R-OK) and DeMint (R-SC) have had better success in their freshman terms sinking “earmarks” than has McCain. If McCain were a classic Republican, I doubt he would be receiving praise from Joe Lieberman, Chuck Hagel and the editorial staffs of the major newspapers that swoon over him. Straight Talk? In modern vernacular: “whatever”. The more practical problem of McCain is that he can’t be trusted to run an effective campaign. Both national campaigns he’s run have imploded under their own weight at some point, which should cause us to ponder if he could effectively run the White House.
Fred Thompson is a conservative, but he’s never managed anything bigger than his own checkbook and was ill-advised to enter the race. He played a great Rear Admiral in
The Hunt for Red October, with one of the most memorable lines in movie history concerning Russians and their propensity for well-laid plans. We could vote for him, but even with a couple of unproductive terms in the Senate he hasn’t been much of a leader…on anything.
Rudy Giuliani, while liberal on some social issues, closely rivals Romney on economic issues while being a genuine and articulate voice on our plight against radical jihadists. On the social issues, at least he acknowledges one of the tenets of classical liberalism: that issues not enumerated in the Constitution (i.e., abortion, marriage laws and anything else that governs the health and welfare of the citizens) should be decided by the states. His pledge to nominate judges who adhere to that view is enough for us, and frankly is the sum of what any president can do to advance the “social conservative” cause. Because of that, Giuliani is a strong second choice. The problem for us is that Giuliani is probably the most likely to select Mike Huckabee as VP, as he’ll need Huck’s supporters to hold it all together…what with James Dobson and others of his ilk threatening to bolt the GOP for a third party candidate.
Romney has problems as well. It looks an awful lot like he’s changed positions in anticipation of a presidential run on several issues, such as abortion, stem cell research and immigration control. However, he’s landed on the right side of each of the issues as far we’re concerned, and we trust that he would stay there once elected. It’s worth noting that he governed as a pro-lifer in the most pro-choice state, and was soundly skewered by the local media. Judging by the heated level of skewering that he did get, we can judge that he’s probably a pretty good Republican.
He looks like he was selected from central casting for the part, which makes some people give pause. Some say that he’s “too prepared” and “too articulate”. We say, since when is being prepared and articulate a liability? Do we really want another nominee who stumbles over words?
He’s from Massachusetts (or is he?), and the last national candidate from Massachusetts was (and remains) a disgrace to that state. His healthcare reform plan in that state didn’t exactly adhere to certain principles of free markets. We note, however, that he was able to enact reform in a hostile political environment that does in fact include private insurers, and that he willingly acknowledges the fact that the plan isn’t the best for the country as a whole.
Last but not least, he is Mormon. We frankly don’t think this should even be an issue. He’s Mormon, Guiliani is Catholic, McCain is Baptist and so on—who cares? What should matter to everyone is how someone’s faith will advise their decisions once in office. We defy anyone to come up with a group of people in this country who are more consistently patriotic, sincere and hard-working than Mormons. We can’t possibly see how those traits should be frowned upon, or how being a Mormon is a liability on judgment. Some would vote for anyone but a Mormon, including an atheist and a number of non-practicing Catholics, forgetting that we're voting for Chief Executive, not Senior Pastor.
We even think that it approaches a moral duty for those on the “religious right” to support Romney. Why? Because he stands for everything they stand for, is perfectly positioned to win the nomination with their support, and would advance their agenda once elected. The religious right was founded on conservative "Christian" ideology, but has to evolve now that it is a force in order to remain relevant. Opposing Romney because he is Mormon convinces everyone else that their darkest fears of them are correct: that they are judgmental theocrats. In Iowa, exit polling showed a large number of “evangelical Protestants” voted for Huckabee because they said that “the candidate’s personal religion is very important” in their decision. We struggle to conceive of something that brings as much shame on the “religious right” movement as that statement. Sure, it’s good if more Christians become involved in politics, but to vote for someone because they are a “Christian” is another matter entirely.
What Romney lacks in a long and steady record, he more than makes up for in personal integrity. He has been married to the same woman for over 38 years and has five sons who have all quit their various (and in most cases) lucrative careers in order to help their dad’s campaign, full-time. As James Bond said in
Casino Royale: “I suppose that says something”.
He is a man who, by all outside accounts, has led a life faithful to his faith, which of course is more than can be said of some of the leading “Christian” candidates. Let’s not forget that one of the Mormon principles is that “The glory of God is intelligence”. Romney certainly exemplifies that, and one could do much worse as far as a life endeavor.
Romney in fact is an intelligent, articulate and accomplished businessman, executive and governor. He single-handedly turned the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games from an unmitigated disaster into a success. His discipline and executive skill are demonstrated in his well-run campaign that has been virtually flawless. Unlike Thompson, McCain and Huckabee, he has himself been an exemplar of energy, focus and discipline without relying on surrogates to carry those buckets.
He can persuasively present an outsider’s view of Washington in a way that McCain certainly cannot. Americans yearn most now for competence, particularly from someone outside of Washington. Romney has inarguably demonstrated that value in his personal, business and political dealings. And did we mention that he built his impressive net worth (which is estimated at well in the $100s of millions) primarily through his work at Bain Capital, which took over ailing companies and turned them into profitable enterprises? He makes a compelling case that he could do the same in Washington, and he’s smart enough to actually do it.
Furthermore, with the possible exception of Guiliani, Romney has been the most outspoken candidate on the issue that should top the list of priorities of every voter: Islamic fundamentalism. For instance:
“…the Jihad is much broader than any one nation or nations. Jihad encompasses far more than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For radical Islam, there is an over-arching conflict and goal - replacing all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, destroying America, and conquering the world." (Mitt Romney, Remarks At The George Herbert Walker Bush Presidential Library, 4/10/07)
It’s comforting that at least one major presidential candidate understands and admits this vital fact. We’ve not said a word about the Democrats, but we challenge any and all to find a statement that any of them have made that comes close to this acknowledgment of the obvious. That fact alone is enough for us to take them out of consideration.
Romney also understands that, in order for Western Civilization to combat radical Islam, we must do everything in our power to help moderates reform from within. McCain’s approach may be satisfying in the short term (search YouTube for “McCain” and “Bomb, bomb, bomb…bomb bomb Iran”), but he hasn’t articulated his plan to solve the issue long after he’ll be six feet under. Romney has an understanding (likely due to his unquenchable and slightly odd obsession for every relevant detail and fact available) of the long-term battle and what must be done.
Thank you for your time. We hope it's taken in the spirit in which we intended.
