I’m a big Romney fan. I believe he, as president, will set our country on the best course possible. I appreciate the other candidates, some a lot more than others, and I believe most of them would make a good president and all of the republican candidates would be better than Obama. But to me, and for me, Romney would be the best.
If you’re a supporter of one of those other candidates, or if you’re one of the candidates yourself, let me clue you in to how I feel about the primaries and what would convince me to vote for your guy (assuming Romney doesn’t do something idiotic that would change my opinion of him.)
I believe there are a lot of people out there that do not support Romney but otherwise would simply for the fact that he is a mormon. There are a lot of people who would otherwise not support Romney but who do because he is a mormon. In both cases, we have a classic case of an absurd logical fallacy. People who demonstrate this logical fallacy show me that their opinion is all but worthless. So don’t try to play this card, ever, at all, or even hint at it.
This put Huckabee out of the running the moment he opened his mouth. Many people, particularly on The Gateway Pundit and on Free Republic are simply ignored by me because they suffer from this logical fallacy.
There are a lot of people out there who are simply misinformed or uninformed. That’s alright, we are all ignorant in one degree or another. However, those who are rash and make life-changing decisions without gaining a full understanding of the decision being made likewise are not trustworthy. I throw their opinion out the window.
If you call Romney a “flip-flopper”, you lose my attention. Ron Paul, you made that mistake, and it has cost you my potential support. Of all the other candidates, you may have been the one to earn my support, but now you won’t, because you’re clearly all-too-ready to jump on political bandwagons before considering their truth. Pretty much anyone who says Romney supports federal mandatory health insurance is in the same boat, along with those who claim that Romney “forced” “Romneycare” on the people of Massachusetts, or people who say Romney is pro-choice.
Now that we’ve discussed some of the things that will disqualify you, let’s talk about some of the things that will make me consider your opinion with seriousness.
One thing I like to see in a candidate and their supporters is a grasp of political reality. If you do not understand what it really takes to get elected president in this country, and if you cannot see why someone who completely agrees with you on everything cannot get elected, then you are really missing the boat. On the other hand, if you can say, “I disagree with this person on that, but I still support him,” then I know that you are aware of political reality, and I will pay close attention to what you have to say.
Even more so for people who understand political strategy and tactics and who behave intelligently! Gingrich probably scores highest on this scale, at least until he failed to get on the Virginia ballot. Perry fails in many regards, because he had a difficult time working Texas politically, even though hardly anyone disagreed with him! Romney, of course, walked the hardest walk a candidate alive today has ever walked, and performed brilliantly.
Another thing I like to see is someone who treats his political opponents with dignity and due respect. That is, it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with someone politically but still be kind and generous with them. It is this unique trait that made America possible in the first place. Romney is such a man. His political opponents have remarked at how kind and gracious he is, even to his worst political enemies. Tell me how you and your candidate is the same, and I will pay attention.
Something else I like to see is someone who can defend their positions and their ideas. This is not an easy thing to do. Many issues are not as simple as we wish they were. For instance, on homosexual marriage, it’s awfully hard to explain in 5 seconds why government should be involved with heterosexual relationships but not homosexual ones. (It takes about 5 seconds to even say the word “relationship” properly.) But what’s important is that you can do that, or at least say what you need to say in a clear and concise way. If there is some subtlety to your position, you should be able to make that clear. Romney, in his earlier years as a senate candidate in Massachusetts, would say that he wouldn’t overturn Roe vs. Wade despite his beliefs. This was a really, really good way of expressing his position, which is subtly different from vanilla “pro-life”and vanilla “pro-choice”. Of course, today, Romney does support overturning Roe vs. Wade, and so he simply says, “I am pro-life” because he agrees almost 100% with everything that means.
Finally, something I really, really like to see is someone who is open to new ideas. (New to them—not necessarily new to the world of ideas.) Does your candidate research issues relentlessly, calling on people from all sides of the spectrum on a topic, and debate the issue within their own mind? If not, I have no use for them. Romney has, of course, shown himself to be such a person. He is thoughtful and deliberate. If you want to see how Romney has grown in understanding, you only have to look closely at how he handled the issue of life and abortion.
Candidates and their supporters who demonstrate these abilities earn a lot of respect from me. I have always found Paul supporters to be somewhat articulate, politically savvy, and able to reason and argue. I don’t agree with a lot of what Ron Paul believes in, and I notice that not all of his supporters agree with him 100%, but we all realize we are not choosing someone to run for pope or king. Unfortunately, Ron Paul is attacking Romney with the same ignorant and idiotic argument that others have tried, which has all but completely turned me off to him as a candidate.