Mitt’s Other Conservative Problem
The last thing I want to do is get into an analysis of a debate performance. But Daniel Casse claims Mitt Romney “blew it” last night. Romney did defend himself well from the rude sneering of Sen. McCain. McCain appeared to be a sore winner after his Florida victory and looked small and vindictive. However, Romney didn’t launch salvo after salvo needed to combat McCain’s “inevitability.” Casse writes,
Romney should have been on attack mode from the first moment, stirring up every conservative trepidation about McCain, stressing his unreliability as a consistent voice for the cause. “We don’t need a maverick, Senator, we need a steadfast, principled and predictable conservative leader,” was the line I was waiting for. Instead, Romney dove head-first into McCain’s alleged smear about who supported the surge — a minor kerfuffle given all the other heat McCain has taken these last few months.
Why didn’t Mitt do better? It’s because he’s still a recent convert to conservatism. It’s only been a few years since he has evolved from liberal Northeastern Republican to self-appointed Reagan standard bearer. It takes years of consuming conservative books, magazines, and weblogs to develop the intellectual thinking processes needed to launch into a full-throated defense of conservatism. Romney’s thinking comes from his business experience. That’s good, but it’s not enough when engaging in ideological debate. An interesting question would be to ask him what his favorite conservative book is.
Even if his conservative conversion is genuine Romney still hasn’t had the time to develop that core, that conservative instinct. He may think and believe conservatism is the right set of ideas, but one must soaked in it to get to the point of defending it in a Presidential campaign. Mitt’s not there yet.
I’ll say it again: Romney would have been better off running in 2012 (assuming no Republican wins this year). Another four years would have taken away much of the suspicion of his conservative bonifides. In addition he would have four more years to internalize conservative ideas in order to better employ them as rhetorical devices.
“The Man Who Blew It” [via Michelle Malkin]
“It’s because he’s still a recent convert to conservatism.”
Hint: He’s not. Well, he’s as much a convert to conservatism as John Edwards is to the war against poverty.
Fred was real. Mitt is a fraud, an illusion generated by a pretty face speaking all the pretty words conservatives want to hear.
Sean, remember this, if you remember nothing else about Romney:
“I have indicated that as governor, I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice, and so far I’ve been able to successfully do that” May, 2005
Look past his words. Remember his actions; or lack thereof.
This is a man who compromised his beliefs and his church’s beliefs when politically challened. Conservative? Hardly.