It would appear that the editors at NRO took my advice and have endorsed
Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination..
I know the rap on Romney being a 'flip-flopper', and to me, that rings a little hollow. I don't think I want a candidate that has never reversed their position on anything and never will. That's not leadership and dedication, that's blind stubbornness. As NRO points out, Romney ran a competent senate campaign against Ted Kennedy, in 1994, where he called for an end to illegal immigration, welfare reform and school choice.
There is the whole question of his position on abortion. I can see it being an evolving issue for some people, and frankly, if the pro-Life wing insists on an absolute position as a litmus test, then they deserve the candidates they're going to get. When the whole issue of human cloning came up, Romney made a principled stand which was unpopular... the majority of Massachussets voters favored cloning and cutting up as many fetuses as doctors could cook up. He also was the point man in attempting to reign in the runaway supreme court of Massachussets that had decided to dictate law by fiat from the bench when same-sex marriage was decided by a panel of judges, not the voters.
As I've said before, I'm not thrilled with him. He has his shortcomings, and he strikes me as a little too slick sometimes. And there's still the cloud of whether he bribed the IOC to come to Salt Lake City or not. But if you dig deep enough, you're going to find similar skeletons on just about any candidate. So, I think I'm dialed in and prepared to vote in next month's primary.
Bookmarks