Sunday, January 27, 2008
Captain Ed endorses Mitt Romney
Those of you who read Ed Morrissey's excellent blog Captain's Quarters know him to be a principled conservative who thinks carefully on a wide range of issues. After much deliberation, he has announced that he will caucus for Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday.
Ed's explanation reveals his own moderation; like me (and our co-blogger CardinalPark), he thinks that Republicans have a strong group of candidates to choose from. His choice of Romney over McCain does not reflect the strong dislike of McCain evinced by many conservatives, but a preference for Romney's executive background, which he believes will confer an advantage in the general election. Ed also likes that Romney has contested every state, which his apparent second-choice, Rudy Giuliani, has not done. There is certainly merit to all of these arguments.
Ed does not, interestingly, address the "electability" questions that might factor into a preference for the Republican nomination (other than to say that nominating McCain -- a Senator -- will make it impossible to make the argument that Senators Clinton and Obama do not have executive experience). These electability considerations certainly include (i) whether evangelicals will be more inclined to stay at home if Romney -- rather than McCain or Giuliani -- is the Republican nominee, (ii) whether the immigration hawks will be more inclined to stay at home if McCain is the nominee, (iii) whether Americans would be more likely to vote against a Mormon because he is a Mormon than against an African-American or a woman for the same reason, and (iv) whether Romney's vast wealth and Wall Streetish persona will hurt more than they will help in a political campaign that is likely to be characterized by lefty/populist appeals under fairly difficult economic conditions.
Nor does Ed speak to the best thing about John McCain: He has been rock solid on support for the war while being cogently critical of its conduct, and he has a street cred with the American voter to which no other candidate comes close. Who, after all, can speak with such authority on the difficulty and importance of committing American troops to combat? On that subject, the gulf between John McCain and either of the two leading Democrats is vast, and may prove to be a far more important factor in the campaign than Romney's undeniable advantage in executive experience.
I am still undecided, but continue to believe that both parties will nominate candidates that prove to be stronger than either did in 2000 or 2004. So we've got that going for us.
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Jan 27, 04:03:00 PM:
I can't help but think of his endorsement of Romney as a cop out. The "path of least resistance" for Ed.
By , at
Sun Jan 27, 04:14:00 PM:
It just depends on whether you think the economy is more important than the war.
Romney's private sector experience will definitely help him make decisions on the economy but I personally think the war is more important.
By , at
Sun Jan 27, 05:07:00 PM:
Ed also likes that Romney has contested every state, which his apparent second-choice, Rudy Giuliani, has not done
One reason that Romney has contested every state and the others have not is because Romney is financing his campaign with his own money.
By 
SR, at
Sun Jan 27, 06:59:00 PM:
Republicans need a candidate who can respond to the Clinton machine, and can put and keep the Democrats on the defensive for the entire campaign.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Sun Jan 27, 07:46:00 PM:
So...given the fact that the average soldier these days is a systems engineer/HR clerk in camies, such a person is the only one "qualified" to "commit troops to battle?" Hmmm. Abe Lincoln had an even bigger bullsh*t posting with the Illinois militia than Dubya did with the Texas Air Guard, yet he didn't seem to take the responsibility lightly. And, uh, Woodrow Wilson. Ummm...FDR. I'd say they rose to the occasion with out first strapping on sabres. I love John McCain, but merely wearing a navy uniform and getting shot down by a missle doesn't automatically qualify you over others. He's a superior candidate to Romney and the other tools for reasons that have dick to do with the military. Indeed, from what I'm seeing and hearing, one of our ace warriors might secretly be pulling for Obama. That'd be Colin Powell. So I suppose he has faith in Barack over John. But oh--you're still shilling for Hillary so I suppose that's purely a "black thang." hahahah
By , at
Sun Jan 27, 09:54:00 PM:
How about graduating from the National War College, being the Executive Officer than the Commander Officer of the VA-174, the largest attack squadron in the Navy? How about turning around mediocre squadron and winning its first Meritorious Unit Commedation?
Does that automatically qualify McCain over others in military matters?
By , at
Mon Jan 28, 12:37:00 PM:
I've heard that McCain graduated 5th from the bottom in his class at the academy. Not exactly star material. The fact that he had a father and grandfather in high places probably didn't hurt his advancement in the Navy.
However, if all it takes is military experience, then why not run the guys who graduated high-up, and have done distinguished work since? The job of CEO requires a better rounding, and an ability to lead and manage others. I don't see that in McCain. And he's frankly wrong on the major issues of the day.
Arm-chair quarterbacking boots on the ground ain't part of the job description.
By , at
Mon Jan 28, 01:57:00 PM:
TH you bring up a great point in that the quality of the candidates this time around is far better and I completely agree. I think a fairly significant part of the partisan divide in this country owes much to the fact that we have had less then desirable choices. As much as I still like George W. for his convictions, he was and is far from perfect. The choices we have now (except for Hillary) at this point in the campaign do not bring out the same visceral animus that past campaigns have. Most of my Lefty friends admire McCain and say they would even vote for him. They say this now when they are 9 months from pulling the lever, but I think because the choices have improved, I hope the rhetoric will calm down too?
One more point that should be tossed out, is that even though McCain looks like an excellent candidate in a general election because of his "electability" there are a ton of very good people who were unelectable that got pushed to the sidelines for a weaker candidate who eventually lost. The one thing I will say about McCain is that he will not change in front of our eyes or to the groups he speaks to so I think he will hold up well on that front. How well he holds up physically to a Barrack we will have to see. He will do very well against Hillary because I cannot see her getting any prettier over the course of the next 9 months either...
By Ray, at
Mon Jan 28, 04:07:00 PM:
My particular problem with Romney, is I have ugly suspicions about what he stands for and what he doesn't. He shed many of his previous "beliefs" in an awful hurry to remake his image, and he's doing it again.
I don't have any questions about his competence -- at doing whatever it is he sets his mind to today. It's just that you don't know what he'll set his mind to tomorrow, except that it'll be good for Mitt Romney.
By , at
Mon Jan 28, 08:07:00 PM:
McCain stinks! Romney rocks!
The only thing that Romney changed on is his public position on abortion. He was personally against it, but said he would obey the law, not fight it in Massachusetts in his '94 campaign against Ted Kennedy. His brother-in-law's sister died of a back-alley abortion, so he was a bit conflicted. However, when MA decided to do embryo farming for parts, he said ENOUGH! This is too much! Came out publicly against abortion, as well as privately.
Romney is a decent, brilliant, wildly successful man. Has a long history of turning around failing businesses and launching others (Staples, Domino's Pizza, Home Depot, Brookstone, Guitar Center, etc.), rescued the Olympics, and Massachusetts.
We could not do better! Romney '08!
By Pax Federatica, at
Tue Jan 29, 12:45:00 AM:
Romney is a decent, brilliant, wildly successful man. Has a long history of turning around failing businesses and launching others (Staples, Domino's Pizza, Home Depot, Brookstone, Guitar Center, etc.), rescued the Olympics, and Massachusetts.
Actually, for those reasons I've always wanted to see Romney as the next commissioner of Major League Baseball. (Bud Selig will retire in 2012, or so he says anyway.) This is the one and only reason why I slightly prefer McCain over Romney for the GOP nomination.
That said, come November I would vote for either McCain or Romney over either Hillary or Obama in a hummingbird's heartbeat. And I strongly suspect that TigerHawk's electability concerns are a bit overrated, especially when it comes to Romney. Evangelicals may not care for Romney, but if the alternative is Obama or especially Hillary, methinks they will go to the polls for Mitt, even if they have to hold their noses while doing so.
Of course there's also the question of other state-specific races, referenda, etc. that might motivate would-be sit-outs to come to the polls. You may recall that Bush owed his 2004 re-election in part to several state referenda on same-sex marriage bans (all of which passed IIRC), which goosed the cultural-conservative turnout. That particular well has probably gone dry by now (though I could be wrong about that), but are there any others?
