 |
| Courtesy of rickety.us |
I suspect most bloggers or commentators don't endorse candidates; perhaps they want to maintain a facade of independence. (It really doesn't work; in Andrew Sullivan's currently published rant against the conservative take on Obama, he, in fact, lists a number of progressive ideological complaints against Obama, but describes Obama's reelection as even "necessary".)
This blog did not exist in 2007; it started well into the summer of 2008. I had supported Bush's election and reelection, but my reasons didn't follow the standard talking points from media conservatives. (The fact that the Democrats nominated nondescript, uncharismatic, undistinguished career progressive ideologues as candidates made the decisions no-brainers.) I honestly thought that Bush would bring an end to partisan bickering. Unlike Obama, Bush did have a track record of bipartisanship as governor of Texas. But I became disillusioned with Bush's leadership and decisions, starting with his selection of Dick Cheney as VP. I had always been fiscal hawk even during my college progressive salad days as an undergraduate. I didn't oppose the Bush tax cuts, but I faulted Bush for letting spending get out of control, being disengaged from Congress, inadequately managing a dysfunctional occupational strategy in Iraq, failing to negotiate reforms in social security and immigration (making necessary updates from Reagan's efforts (negotiated with Dems)), and expanding Medicare benefits without adequate funding at a time Medicare was in even worse shape than social security.
I saw both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as manifestly unqualified and unacceptable for the Presidency, but given the rebuke the American people gave the GOP during the 2006 mid-terms, widely viewed as a rebuke of our now unpopular Iraq occupation and returning control of the Congress to the Democrats, I knew the GOP's chances were slim in retaining the Presidency as Bush, with plummeting approval ratings, largely retreated to the White House after the debacles of the crony Alberto Gonzales AG and Harriet Miers SCOTUS nominations (which even I couldn't defend), social security, and immigration reform.
I was, and continue to be, horrified how the media conservatives like Limbaugh seemed to think the way to go in 2008 was a return to Reagan conservative orthodoxy. In fact, the GOP failed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent while the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress. It was very clear to me that we needed like I would call a "Goldilocks" conservative whom could draw a clear contrast from George Bush.
McCain seemed the obvious choice: he had distanced himself from Bush and the ideological right on bipartisan legislation (especial campaign reform and immigration), his membership in the Gang of Six, and his votes against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. I was sufficiently impressed with McCain's prescient critique of Iraq occupation sizing.
I thought, and continue to think, social conservative issues are more about securing the base than expanding the voter base. I think from a practical political point of view, it's always better to be positive than judgmental, negative and divisive about fellow Americans. There's a distinction here; yes, I'm critical and judgmental about Obama's efforts to date. I'm talking more about things like blaming unauthorized aliens for failed immigration policies, welfare recipients for failed, morally hazardous New Deal and Great Society programs, etc.
Mitt Romney did not make a great impression early in the 2008 race because he was spending a lot of his own money to promote his candidacy, which to me came across as "trying to buy the Presidency", and I thought some of his position shifts were politically motivated.
The big problem was that the 2008 GOP campaign was largely driven by ideological issues like the Bush tax cuts, and not enough on flat economic growth, the Fed's easy monetary policies, the exploding deficits and regulatory empire building. McCain had some fundamental flaws that became problematic during the general campaign: in his effort to (unsuccessfully) appease the conservative base, he slavishly ensured his votes had the Bush Administration's back, boasting a 90% or better voting consistency. This cost him a lot of credibility with the centrists whom should have been in his corner during the general campaign: why you were bragging to the American people about your ties to a President with a 30% approval rating? Then there was the class warfare language he used during deliberations over the tax cuts and an interview he had given where he admitted that economics wasn't his strong suit.
Then McCain's behavior during the general campaign showed himself shooting himself repeatedly in the foot: his selection of Palin always seemed to be more of a tactical decision, based on surprising the opposition and trying to politically exploit the fact that the Democrats failed to nominate a popular Hillary Clinton--in fact, in one of the dumbest political moves of all time, Obama had selected Joe Biden rather than Hillary Clinton, whom wanted to be named (and had earned it). McCain should never have selected Palin: she was the first-term governor of a lightly populated state. In hindsight, it's easy now to see how McCain needed someone to balance his military/foreign policy expertise, and Romney was it. (Recall that the economic tsunami came down right after the GOP convention.)
It was clear when the McCain campaign didn't make Palin available to the press that something was terribly wrong. Even I was impressed by some of her early speeches, but it was quite clear that she wasn't up for the role, and that put McCain's judgment on the table. Then there was his bizarre suspension of his campaign and unsuccessful attempt to postpone the Presidential debates, and so here was Obama accusing McCain of trying to duck out of a debate tailored to McCain's own background. The McCain campaign then resorted to its own version of federal interventions, while they failed to blunt the Dems' characterization of McCain as a reckless deregulator, which was preposterous on its face. It was also clear during the debate series that Obama had been better prepared to handle John McCain's predictable rhetoric and attack (e.g., on earmarks). When you are hundreds of billions in deficit, you can't focus on, say, 2% of federal spending. So Obama was able to say, look, I've promised to eliminate earmarks, too, and besides earmarks aren't material relative to the overall budget. McCain really didn't have a good response to that, and he should have (for reasons obvious today). What's worse? "Political spin" John McCain was less attractive than "straight talk" John McCain.
(Let me be clear here: I like George W. Bush and John McCain and don't regret voting for them. But I'm still that former professor whom always graded scrupulously honestly; I used to tell my students I wouldn't hesitate flunking a family member or close friend if they failed to perform in my classroom. For example, I used to grade essay questions by rank-ordering all the answers at the same time among 30 or more students.)
So that's the past, and when I look at what needs to be done to defeat Obama in the general election, you have to look at someone whom has the ability to think on his feet, can provably negotiate with the opposition, knows business and the economy inside out, has proven executive knowledge, skills and experience inside and outside the public sector, knows what drives economic growth and job creation, and can deal with a $3.5T budget. There's only one man in either party (or outside: definitely NOT "the Donald Trump") and that's Mitt Romney.
Why Have I Changed My Mind on the Ron Paul Endorsement?
First, I initially intended to endorse Romney for reasons I just specified. If you go back in past posts, I indicated around the time Tim Pawlenty dropped out of the race after the Iowa straw poll and subsequently endorsed Romney that I was planning to do an endorsement (clearly Romney, because why else did Pawlenty preempt my own selection?)
Second, if you look at my posts since the Ron Paul endorsement, you will see that I have been very critical of the people attacking Romney.
Third, I purposefully used the term 'preliminary' in my endorsement of Paul and suggested that my final endorsement might change. I specifically wanted a Ron Paul vote in the Iowa caucuses.
It is very clear why I like Ron Paul; from a standpoint of principled pro-liberty conservatism, his views come closest to my own and are much more direct and consistent. I continue to be critical of the way Mitt Romney responds to certain issues, and I prefer a more direct "straight talk" approach. For example, take the question about why he didn't run for reelection. He should have said something like this: "Dick Cheney was not going to run in 2008, and it was an open nomination. When I ran for governor, I wanted to show people that I could apply the same executive experience I showed in the private sector and apply it to public sector problems. I proved that it was possible to work with Democrats and lead the state to a surplus instead of a deficit. Now if I decided to make a run at the White House, I needed a national springboard like becoming head of the RGA. If it didn't look like I was going to be able to mount a serious run for the White House, I might consider reelection as governor. But once I knew I wanted to make that run, it wouldn't be fair to the people of Massachusetts for me to be a part-time governor for two years."
In voting for a President candidate, there are a couple of things I look for: governing principles and executive skills. If you look at my blog description, on policy I'm clearly closer to Ron Paul. The issues I have are with Ron Paul's lack of public sector administrative experience and his political skills in pushing relevant legislation. He also needs to tone down some of his provocative rhetoric. I'm also concerned that the Dems might focus on some of his more unorthodox policy positions (e.g., drug legalization).
Am I Going to Be Critical of Romney During the Rest of the Campaign?
I would prefer not, but I will call them as I see them. I still don't like his rhetoric on China. I want to hear more of an acknowledgment that we are not the world's policeman and there are no sacred cows in the budget and we need to stay away from nation building. I want to hear tougher rhetoric about the Fed's artificially low interest rates.
