I am weary of all this “conservative alternative” talk regarding Mitt Romney. The idea that Romney is anything other than a conservative is utter and total nonsense. I rarely listen to the elite media (“They”) except for NPR when I’m on the road but Fox News, however, has so disappointingly fallen into this nomenclature trap.
Any casual observer would know that They have an agenda. They always do. It was recently revealed, for example, that actual journalists had signed petitions calling for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s recall. How in the name of journalistic ethics can these reporters be trusted in reporting the facts surrounding that issue? They can’t be but it doesn’t matter because their agenda supercedes any ethics. But it is endemic of the decaying culture of the supposedly independent and unbiased “Fourth Estate”. Judges were involved as well, rendering them impotent to rule on any issue regarding the supposedly offending legislation catalyzing the recall (restricting collective bargaining for public employees [gasp!]) but that’s another story.
But back to what They are up to with the GOP nominating process. Clearly the race is fair game since it’s the only game in town, it deserves scrutiny, analysis and focus. But it also deserves fairness from not only Them but the GOP family as well.
The facts are clear: Romney will kill Obamacare, block grant medicaid and other subsidy programs, submit a responsible budget to Congress, appoint conservative judges and put the brakes on an out of control NLRB, among other important conservative agenda items. Sound familiar? It should: All the other GOP contenders are on board, too.
So why are we being told we need a “conservative alternative”? Santorum agrees with all the above as does Gingrich. Ron Paul, maybe, he’s smart, incisive, fun to listen to but it just ain’t gonna happen with him. But he’s not a “conservative alternative”, he’s Libertarian in nature, which in many ways is certainly well and good. But let’s get real.
Romney is the only governor in the race. That doesn’t mean he should be anointed but it does mean he has executive experience. Ok, so was Carter but so was Reagan. Mitt, though, had the onerous task of trying to govern a midnight blue state with a political philosophy founded in capitalism, rather than statism, which clearly put him against the prevailing winds in the 14th largest (population-wise) state in the Union. And I’d say he did right well for his state and himself. He struck the best deals he could when could for individualism and private enterprise, no small feat in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.
The constant Santorum screeching about Romneycare and Obamacare misses the entire point. We oppose Obamacare because it is an overreach by the federal government to meddle into the affairs of the individual. It is a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment, as it usurps powers not granted to it by the Constitution and which are, therefore, reserved to the States.
If there is to be any kind of governmental meddling into the affairs of the individual, then it should be on the state or local level. Each state should and ought to be free to experiment with programs to address what it considers a problem or in need of reform. What works for one state may not work for another. And there’s simply nothing wrong or unconstitutional with that.
Obamacare, however, seeks to nationalize what might not be such a big problem thereby imposing its rule on all states. This is unconstitutional in that particular context. Romney knows that and has succinctly and persuasively articulated his position. Do I like Romneycare? No, but then I’m not a citizen of Massachusetts. That’s their problem, if it is a problem, for them to solve. One thing’s for sure: The federal government has no right or basis in law to try to solve it for them.
These are all fine, conservative men running for the highest office in the land (see above comments re Ron Paul). Any one of them would be infinitely better that what we have now. Santorum is a fine man, I’m sure, but he comes across somewhat angry (“B***s***” he said to a reporter recently) and he had some problems getting reelected to the US Senate from his own state. Newt is so smart and innovative that if we could appoint a president, he’s our guy. And he’s also had incumbent related issues. And Paul certainly has a unique take on certain issues so unique, in fact, that it moves him a bit out of the mainstream.
When all the dust settles, we may be cheering on Mitt. And all the other candidates have that they would do that if he’s the nominee. Romney has his gaffe issues but he also has a cherry disposition, much like Reagan. He comes across as someone willing to lead and that knows how to lead.
If this sounds like an endorsement, it’s not. I’m just saying we need to get off of this baseless and simply untrue mantra that the GOP is looking for a “conservative alternative” to Romney. He is a conservative. It may well be that Romney traveled a road to get to his conservative roots but so did Ronald Reagan.