As a Canadian and a Conservative, I am quite curious about the political dynamic posed by Mitt Romney. Obviously Mr. Romney presents the GOP with a very unique set of circumstances and raises many intriguing questions about his policies. On the one hand he seems to have solid conservative credentials, on the other, he seems to have been a bit over the map, and now styles himself a "Reagan Republican." What I think Americans, and even Canadians Conservatives like myself need to understand is what is in this candidate 'for us.' I don't mean 'us' (in terms of Canada) I mean 'us' in terms of the Conservative movement altogether as our Canuck Conservatives tend to follow in the coattails of American Conservatives (who follow in the footsteps of Southern Conservatives).
Right now that banner is held high by George W. Bush who, despite his missteps, has done a fair job of keeping the Right on the right track by cutting taxes and holding the line against Liberal encroachments. With the House and Senate now in the hands of arch-liberals like Nancy Pelosi (aka Hillary Clinton part duhhh!) it will take a strong and credible Conservative hand to steer control of both back into the correct and proper Conservative mainstream that the Republican Revolution in 1994 did much to inaugurate.
Perhaps Mitt Romney is that man, but perhaps he is not. The dilemma can best be summed up in a joke in the old Soviet Union: "What is the difference between Dubcek and Grobachev? The difference is that there isn't a difference." Brought forward today the question can be and must be reasonably asked is "what is the difference between John F. Kerry and Mitt Romney? The difference is that there isn't a difference."
This comparison is one that Conservatives, north and south and IN the South cannot under estimate or under-appreciate. Kerry tried to be Liberal to the liberals and progressive to the progressives. He failed on both counts, underestimating the conservative streak that permeats American politics; women wear footwear during summer that stands as a walking joke to that man's political ambitions. And though Mitt Romney's Conservative credentials are far more impressive than Kerry's Liberal/Progressive credentials ever were, the Republicans cannot afford to take lightly any political resemblance or accusations of flip-flopping that would and could undermine an otherwise successful political campaign by an apparently well-qualified candidate, regardless of who it is. Conservatives, unlike Liberals and Democrats, don't have the luxury of being foolish or appearing stupid for the simple reason that we ARE Conservatives, American and Canadian alike. That's because people are politically-conditioned to expect less of those on the left than those on the right; they're the ones who get their pants dirty while standing up in the corridors of the White House, while we're the ones who get our pants dirty playing football, baseball, and road hockey. It's the natural order of things. The OTHER thing that Conservatives cannot afford to appear is wavering on the issues because that is what MAKES us Conservatives in the first place.
Perhaps Mitt Romney is that person but it's too early in the campaign to prove that, one way or another. Time will tell, at least on that score. Until it does it's best for him and others not to let people start drawing comparisons between them and Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a saint, the hem of whose garment no one can yet touch, on the left or the right. But even Reagan had his flaws and made mistakes. What he did not do was flip-flop or even appear to do that.
That's the difference between a successful campaign and a failed one. It's also the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. The candidate who learns this lesson will be the next presidential nominee and the President of the United States of America. The one who doesn't will be the Democratic nominee for president and should save time and begin preparing their concession speech even now.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
Right now that banner is held high by George W. Bush who, despite his missteps, has done a fair job of keeping the Right on the right track by cutting taxes and holding the line against Liberal encroachments. With the House and Senate now in the hands of arch-liberals like Nancy Pelosi (aka Hillary Clinton part duhhh!) it will take a strong and credible Conservative hand to steer control of both back into the correct and proper Conservative mainstream that the Republican Revolution in 1994 did much to inaugurate.
Perhaps Mitt Romney is that man, but perhaps he is not. The dilemma can best be summed up in a joke in the old Soviet Union: "What is the difference between Dubcek and Grobachev? The difference is that there isn't a difference." Brought forward today the question can be and must be reasonably asked is "what is the difference between John F. Kerry and Mitt Romney? The difference is that there isn't a difference."
This comparison is one that Conservatives, north and south and IN the South cannot under estimate or under-appreciate. Kerry tried to be Liberal to the liberals and progressive to the progressives. He failed on both counts, underestimating the conservative streak that permeats American politics; women wear footwear during summer that stands as a walking joke to that man's political ambitions. And though Mitt Romney's Conservative credentials are far more impressive than Kerry's Liberal/Progressive credentials ever were, the Republicans cannot afford to take lightly any political resemblance or accusations of flip-flopping that would and could undermine an otherwise successful political campaign by an apparently well-qualified candidate, regardless of who it is. Conservatives, unlike Liberals and Democrats, don't have the luxury of being foolish or appearing stupid for the simple reason that we ARE Conservatives, American and Canadian alike. That's because people are politically-conditioned to expect less of those on the left than those on the right; they're the ones who get their pants dirty while standing up in the corridors of the White House, while we're the ones who get our pants dirty playing football, baseball, and road hockey. It's the natural order of things. The OTHER thing that Conservatives cannot afford to appear is wavering on the issues because that is what MAKES us Conservatives in the first place.
Perhaps Mitt Romney is that person but it's too early in the campaign to prove that, one way or another. Time will tell, at least on that score. Until it does it's best for him and others not to let people start drawing comparisons between them and Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a saint, the hem of whose garment no one can yet touch, on the left or the right. But even Reagan had his flaws and made mistakes. What he did not do was flip-flop or even appear to do that.
That's the difference between a successful campaign and a failed one. It's also the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. The candidate who learns this lesson will be the next presidential nominee and the President of the United States of America. The one who doesn't will be the Democratic nominee for president and should save time and begin preparing their concession speech even now.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
