Wednesday, August 22, 2007

More on Mitt   [David Freddoso]

From a friend who once worked for Romney:

I would only point out that I don't think it's good for conservatism for people to be quite so caustic about someone whose views correspond with their own.  I can understand some criticism and doubt — no one has to vote for the man — but I would hope it's only because they think they have a more reliable agent of conservatism someplace else, rather than because they are outraged that he ever took positions contrary to theirs.  If the test for purity is too demanding, it ultimately is going to convince other politicians that conservatives are impossible to please.

While I agree that there's no reason for the outrage, the bad rap on Romney is precisely that "trust" issue, best articulated in a debate question he received months ago: Have you ever changed a position on anything so that doesn't benefit your political ambitions? 

I have believed for about two years now that Romney could have avoided this problem, but only by employing a very different strategy — a huge gamble that would have required him to spend a lot of money and energy. He should have run for re-election in 2006, and done so as an unabashed conservative, knowing he would lose. That way, all his "changes of heart" would have been out and done with, and in a way that would have appeared much less self-serving than they do now.

If he had done reasonably well while preaching the conservative Gospel in Massachusetts — say, 45 percent or so — he would be telling conservatives today that he did everything he could and had no regrets. His "lost cause" would be perceived as an act of bravery and a feather in his cap, and a lot of us would feel a lot better about him.

08/22 04:58 PMShare