Someone Needs To Defend Governor Romney..
I wrote this article a few days after the election, but put it aside assuming the back-biting would subside. Although there have been some conservatives defending Mr. Romney, the grassroots conservatives such as myself don’t seem to be among them.
Talk about fair-weather friends! Apparently President John F. Kennedy was on to something when he said, Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. It doesn’t seem that long ago that laudatory articles were being published and the airwaves were filled with voices praising the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the United States. It may be true that those who were reluctantly supported his candidacy were less likely to criticize him during the campaign, but surely he didn’t turn into a pumpkin at midnight leaving not even a glass slipper behind.
Was Governor Romney the perfect candidate? Absolutely not, but then who is? I was not an early supporter of Mitt Romney’s, and even now I can’t say that I agree with his position on every issue nor with every decision he made during the campaign, but the unseemly need to strip the man naked and flay him alive just doesn’t reflect my understanding of conservative behavior. Let us agree that the man lost, the one fact that is indisputable, but I’m afraid that I just don’t agree with what many suggest is “the rest of the story”.
As was the case in the general election, the first question that must be answered by Republicans is whether there was a better candidate available. In the final analysis I would suggest that the answer for 2012 is that the best choice available was Mitt Romney. Many conservatives may well disagree with that opinion, but the inability of the other candidates to survive the intense scrutiny of the primary season tell a different story. Although the concept of “electability” is often maligned by many conservatives, I would suggest that any candidate’s lack of appeal to the greater electorate should certainly be taken into consideration.
For the most part, it seems to me that no good can come from a rehashing of old news highlighting how and why the various Republican contenders eventually flamed out and suspended their campaigns. I will say that from what I understand there was a significant group of individuals, primarily from the Ron Paul campaign, who resented the way in which those who represented the Romney campaign went about conducting their business. Perhaps those individuals might wish to consider that the quest to secure the office of the Presidency is not for the faint of heart. The fact that they were unable to outmaneuver the forces supporting Mitt Romney in the primary strongly suggests what their fate would have been had their candidate become the Republican standard bearer. I am a strong supporter of grassroots involvement, but the truth of the matter is that naivete at the highest levels of political competition is unfortunately not a winning characteristic.
The sour grapes component in Mitt Romney’s eventual defeat becomes somewhat obvious when one considers that had any of the other candidates made the cut, conservatives of every stripe would have certainly been expected to support the winning candidate in the general election. It is unfortunate that their hurt feelings and political immaturity may well have played a significant part in re-electing the President. There is a fine line between standing on principle and taking your ball home because you didn’t get exactly what you wanted.
So, assuming that nothing new comes out about Governor Romney, what is it about the man that makes me want to defend him? As I said in an article published in October:
After reviewing his life story I do think he is such a man which is why I am voting FOR Romney, not just against Obama. Obviously it is impossible to know anything for sure, but he seems to be a man of the highest integrity. A man who loves his country and the principles which made it great. A man who has standards, but also that human beings are not perfect. A man who will stand up for America and American Values without apology and yet welcome those who espouse those same values regardless of minority status.
This was a man whose real crime was that he truly believed the electorate was still primarily composed of those who supported traditional American Values. In other words, there was a kernel of truth in the liberal charge that Mitt Romney sought to bring back the values of the 1950’s. Of course where liberals and conservatives differ is in how they define those older values, but from the point of view of the conservative it should have been a slam dunk.
There is no real point in revisiting all the characteristics associated with Governor Romney which made him much more than a “weak candidate”, but instead I would like to share with you what I consider to be the defining moment of his candidacy. This was the moment that stripped all pretense of artifice and revealed the inner man who trusted his fellow Americans to do the right thing. I refer to the moment during the second Presidential debate when he proved to the world that the President was lying and Candy Crowley defended the lie with a lie of her own.
Some have criticized him for how he handled the follow-up and the discussion which took place after the event, but what I see is an honest man who truly believed that goodness does eventually win over evil. There is no doubt in my mind that he left the auditorium that day believing that he need not embarrass the President any further by making any additional comments. Look at his face. Look at his movements, his expression, and listen to the sound of his voice. This was a man who was fully confident that his fellow Americans, regardless of ancestry, would vindicate his belief in their inner goodness.
Sadly he, and many of the rest of us, were to be disappointed.
(As an aside, an interesting fact to note is that MSN lists this debate as the First Debate..rather then the second..I guess that first one really was that bad)
http://now.msn.com/candy-crowley-corrects-romney-during-first-presidential-debate
AaronInvestigates 
A little different from usual, especially the teen video and story video, but I enjoyed your article very much, CC. In this following statement…
” I will say that from what I understand there was a significant group of individuals, primarily from the Ron Paul campaign, who resented the way in which those who represented the Romney campaign went about conducting their business. Perhaps those individuals might wish to consider that the quest to secure the office of the Presidency is not for the faint of heart. The fact that they were unable to outmaneuver the forces supporting Mitt Romney in the primary strongly suggests what their fate would have been had their candidate become the Republican standard bearer. I am a strong supporter of grassroots involvement, but the truth of the matter is that naivete at the highest levels of political competition is unfortunately not a winning characteristic. ” …
Would you say the Libertarian and/or Independent response to Romney was quite disappointing, and was possibly a reason for his loss?
Also, this…
” but the unseemly need to strip the man naked and flay him alive just doesn’t reflect my understanding of conservative behavior. ” …
I haven’t been reading any Romney bashing from Conservatives. Have you seen quite a bit?
Thanks for your interest and perspective.
Yes, I did try to break up the page a bit.
Yes, those who didn’t come out to vote based on their belief that it didn’t matter were certainly a factor in re-electing Obama.
Yes, I’ve seen quite a bit of Romney bashing…either on its own or in response to the few who defend him.
Thank you for acknowledging my questions, cc.
I did view Romney as you did here:
” Obviously it is impossible to know anything for sure, but he seems to be a man of the highest integrity. A man who loves his country and the principles which made it great. A man who has standards, but also that human beings are not perfect. A man who will stand up for America and American Values without apology and yet welcome those who espouse those same values regardless of minority status. ” …
The opposition during the campaign pointed out what they felt was ‘wrong’ about him as a state governor, that he was more leftist in their view with his decision-making, implying hypocrisy, and they loved to cite his abortion flip-flopping, as well as atrocities with Bain and lay-offs.
I can see that he has the Globalist perspective, after reading a prospectus of his, that stated to the effect that we needed a different economic approach, that I interpreted to mean including foreign nations…but – he also wanted to bring some of our own foreign industry back here. I felt that of the two candidates, that Romney would have done more to improve our economy, overall.
But, despite everything else, it was the “man” and his American cultural principles and foundational beliefs (that I read in articles that contributed info on his personal life events) that told me ‘who’ he is, not just what he is capable of doing, that caused me to view him as the better “man” of the two for the job.
Enjoyed seeing you, and miss conversing with you.
Take care.
Great comment…As I already mentioned, I’m not saying he didn’t have his problems, but look at the alternative!
As far as being a “globalist”, he was pretty clear that he was not a fan of China.
I do think he believes in American Values and, as far as the both parties are the same meme, which you know I am not completely against, my point is the “surface” vote also counts.
Thanks again.
Thank you! I also think the surface vote counts. Assuming the overall agenda is the same with both Parties, it’s apparent they take different routes to get there, and those routes directly affect our economies, and in some cases, the ‘issues’ of our lives. The fact that I think Romney does actually care about the US’s direction it’s headed (and that I think Obama ‘does not’), if only for the sake of his huge extended family, that’s enough for me.
Exactly…even if I accept that both parties essentially answer to the same group of people, I much prefer the carrot over the stick. I also truly do believe in traditional “American Values” and I do believe Romney would have been a better choice in that regard. Neither of those points take into account the dangerous loss of American Prestige overseas.
Take care.
I appreciate your thoughtful tone in your efforts to defend Romney and Republican values. Yet, I’m amazed that you continue to insist President Obama lied about his statements on the killings in Benghazi.
You wrote, “I refer to the moment during the second Presidential debate when he proved to the world that the President was lying and Candy Crowley defended the lie with a lie of her own.”
This is an excerpt of the transcript of Obama’s remarks: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”
There is ample video evidence to show without a doubt that this is what the President said. I just the video footage from Fox News and from PBS. I watched and heard President Obama say these words! I simply cannot understand how conservatives can refuse to believe what is so well-documented.
I appreciate your comment and link, but we obviously disagree on the context of the President’s remarks. Although it is my opinion that the wording used by the President on 9/12/2012, as well as the way in which he attempted to frame the event, suggests he was attempting to present a different narrative than the one you suggest, it’s obvious that you disagree. This suggests that my best course of action is to provide you with the reasons I believe otherwise by first l touching on the speech itself, just for the record, and then by putting the speech in its proper context as only one instance of an ongoing effort to misrepresent what really happened in Benghazi.
From the speech: Transcript from Fox News…see link below.
“The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.”
Do you see the word “terrorist” in the sentence? Do you see anything in the statement suggesting that he is dismissing the narrative which blames some obscure video which he is in the process of spinning as the cause of this “unplanned and spontaneous attack” both domestically and throughout the world?
Obviously not.
“We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.”
Unfortunately too little, too late, and as we now know from numerous sources, he was well aware, or certainly should have been, of the very good possibility of an attack as well as the abysmal lack of security. If nothing else, that narrative alone suggests “the buck stops with” Obama.
“I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.”
So what? I find it hard to give him any credit after he watched his Ambassador die and did nothing to prevent it.
” And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. ”
Again, more meaningless garbage which, nothing personal, progressives will eat right up as if talking tough after, again, watching someone die is enough to relieve him of his responsibility for the deaths in the first place.
He goes on to say:
“But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”
This is him “talking tough” and once again counting on his supporters to equate talk with action and thus point to these words as showing that he “really means business” and he is “standing up” for all Americans. Problem is..no “terrorist” in the statement, not to mention that he knew full well that the event to which he was referring was no act of “senseless violence”, but a concerted and well planned attack by a heavily armed and highly trained para-military force.
No attempt to point any fingers. No attempt to suggest the video was simply a red herring. No attempt to suggest that these were forces allied with al-Queda, or anyone else for that matter. I’m sorry, but your interpretation simply does not hold up under scrutiny.
“Already many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.”
No they didn’t. This is just another, shall we say, incorrect statement which contains barely a kernel of truth. Sure, after it was all over they may have swept in, but that hardly merits any commendations from the President of the United States after four American citizens were just killed while the “Libyan security personnel” stood idly by or, even worse, possibly facilitated it.
“Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’ body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had tied.”
And on and on with the “misrepresentations” of what happened on that fateful day in Benghazi.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/transcript-president-obama-remarks-following-deadly-attacks-at-us-consulate-in/#ixzz2DPkhXPPM
So, no, his remarks on 12/12/2012 don’t even come close to providing an accurate picture or calling the attack “terrorism”. Let’s remember that he cannot use the excuse of “waiting for more information to come in”, and not just because he watched it happen in real time, but also because if that were so how come he gave any other details which later turned out to be false?
What I have presented so far is simply food for thought and, as I said at the outset, not meant to elicit a response from you. Call it background, if you will, with the “real” argument to be presented in the next comment. Unfortunately this one took more time than I planned and as a result it may be several hours before I present “Part II”.
Hope it wasn’t too much…or too little.
Part II..I probably should have simply written an article, but in any event…..
The previous comment addressed the President’s remarks without really taking other remarks and responses into account. Let’s see if “the rest of the story” can provide any additional support for one opinion or another.
I first direct you to the link
You don’t need to agree with the author’s political position to view the tape and come to your own conclusions. Essentially, the “Nick Robertson report” completely debunks every one of the President’s claims related to the events on 9/11/12 both in Cairo and Benghazi. It was taped prior to both events and thus, at the time, was simply a newsworthy story providing some insight into planned events which were about to unfold. By the time the story was scheduled to air it was spiked because the events which had transpired in the interim, including the President’s reaction to those events, put it in the position of contradicting the President and actually proving him to be providing a false narrative.
Here’s a link to the Wall Street Journal providing a time line of events and comments by the administration.
Note Presidential Spokesman Jay Cutter’s remarks, particularly the one from 9/14/12
Susan Rice…9/16/12…reiterates that it was a “spontaneous….response to what happened in Cairo”
The President and the Secretary of State appeared in paid advertising on Pakistani Television where they continued to knowingly propagate the false narrative of “the video” being “responsible” for numerous acts of violence in a way that not only was detrimental to the interests of the United States but also contributed even more acts of civil disobedience which resulted in numerous injuries and some deaths.
As reported by CBS news…:
“The advertisements appear to be an effort by the U.S. government to dampen chaos surrounding the film and undo some of the damage to America’s image in the Muslim world……
Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya. Two people have died in protests in Pakistan.”
You’ll note that the video is still being promoted as the “cause” of the demonstrations, including the events surrounding the death of Ambassador Stevens.
Had enough? If not, I am just getting started….
Why is the producer now sitting in jail for an alleged parole violation?
Why did the President and the Sec. of State feel the need to apologize for the video?
Why were numerous Administration officials, including the President, continuing to issue statements in support of the video narrative if he, as you claim, had already made it clear to the world, including the citizenry of the United States, that what happened in Benghazi was an “act of terror”, i.e. terrorism?
Sorry, there is little, if any, support for your position to be found in the original remarks, much less when one takes them in context….
Thanks.