By: Edmund Jenks – West Coast Editor
Mitt Romney wins big in Neveda – Romney 48% | Gingrich 23%. It says a lot about a man that due to his embrace of Mormon religious beliefs doesn’t gamble, smoke, or drink to win by such a large double-digit margin in a state that made its name for a lax attitude toward vices … he deserves a serious look.
Mitt Romney claims he is a (big c) Conservative but has trouble proving it. When ever he opens his mouth shows he has a disconnect when it comes to firing people or the poor. We know what he meant to say but the method of articulation leaves a lot to be desired.
If one looks at the way Government has honorable business people follow the law, they actually believe the Government has adequate “safety net” program solutions to help the poor and if they need fixing, fix them. Afterall, businessmen provide jobs at every level of the scale and if someone wants a job … they are available, even at a minimum wage.
This is one area a career businessman can be blind to the fact that minimum wage, which is legislated and has to be followed, may cloud the thinking on a Conservative level. It is hard to see the equation that a minimum wage creates dependency on a very deep level that can not be broken.
Mandated minimum wage, it could be argued, eliminated basic apprenticeship and building block skills through which young businesses learn how to treat entry level workers, and young entry level workers learn how to treat a businesses they work for.
Another issue that has voters uncomfortable with Romney is his ability to become a Chameleon in the face of what he feels is the path of least resistance to win. It is this quality, that if recognized to be the core political survival instinct of Mitt Romney, might be the path that Tea Party principled voters could embrace a Romney Republican party nomination for President of the United States.
This excerpted and edited from Townhall –
The Case For Romney
By: Jonah Goldberg – Townhall – Feb. 3, 2012
Years ago a friend told me a story from her days living in South America. The movie “Wayne’s World” had come out, and she went to see it. She spoke English, but it was interesting to read the Spanish subtitles.
For instance, early in the film, Wayne says: “Shyeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt!”
The Spanish subtitles read: “Yes, when judgment day comes.”
Needless to say, something was lost in translation.
This, in a nutshell, is Mitt Romney’s biggest problem.
Romney doesn’t speak the language naturally.
He speaks conservatism as a second language, and his mastery of the basic grammar of politics is often spotty as well.
Many conservatives argue that Romney’s stiffness is a superficial objection, and that he’s a solid conservative who can appeal to moderates and independents. Other conservatives think Romney’s lack of fluency is a real problem, not because it proves he’s faking his conservatism but because it would put him at a severe disadvantage in the general election in the same way authentic but stiff liberals like Gore and John Kerry suffered from their inability to comfortably interface with carbon-based life.
And others simply think Romney’s a big faker.
It’s this last group of anti-Romney holdouts I’d like to address.
The Tea Party arose in no small part out of a delayed allergic reaction to the rhetorical and, to a lesser extent, policy problems of George W. Bush’s presidency and the deep resentment that came with having to vote for John McCain in 2008. These disappointments were visited upon the conservative base by something the naysayers (often problematically) call “the Republican establishment.”
With the raised expectations from the Tea Party’s earlier successes, conservatives are extremely reluctant to settle or compromise simply on the say-so of the establishment. For good reasons and bad, Romney seems like a compromise. And no matter how begrudgingly a conservative comes to accept the reality of Romney’s nomination, the diehards immediately proclaim any support for Romney to be proof of membership in the establishment. In fact, it seems like the best definition of a Republican establishment member these days is simply someone who has made peace with his disappointment prematurely.
It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you.
A President Romney would be on a very short leash. A President Gingrich would probably chew through his leash in the first 10 minutes of his presidency and wander off into trouble. If elected, Romney must follow through for conservatives and honor his vows to repeal ObamaCare, implement Rep. Paul Ryan’s agenda, and stay true to his pro-life commitments.
Moreover, Romney is not a man of vision. He is a man of duty and purpose. He was told to “fix” health care in ways Massachusetts would like. He was told to fix the 2002 Olympics. He was told to create Bain Capital. He did it all. The man does his assignments.
In this light, voting for Romney isn’t a betrayal, it’s a transaction. No, that’s not very exciting or reassuring for those who’d sooner see monkeys fly out their nethers than compromise again. But such a bargain may just be necessary before judgment day comes.
Before the Tea Party became the Tea Party, it was Tea Party principles that had George W. Bush withdraw Harriet Meyers name from being considered for the supreme court … and GWB was never accused of having Chameleon political instincts.
Duty and purpose combined with Chameleon political instincts of Mitt Romney means that Mitt Romney could be turned through a dedicated focus put up from a Center-Right country. One might say that trust will not be earned or given, but … applied.
After his decisive win in the GOP Nevada caucuses, if one were to count themselves as being convinced demand the best from Mitt Romney in his support of the Bill-Of-Rights, Rule-Of-Law, and an adherence to the Constitution of the United States.
– Article first seen as Romney And The Uphill Slog Of Transaction With Tea Party Trust at Technorati –