"But I would rather stand on principle than settle today. That’s why Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin and Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham and all the rest are standing where they are today. And I don’t think that constitutes “derangement.” I think that’s good citizenship. I think that’s how you keep ideas central, and keep ideas politically viable — whether you win or lose a given race."
Breaking news: I cast my vote for Mitt Romney this morning in the Empire State. (Something that won’t surprise anyone who reads NRO’s “The Corner.” While I’ve flirted with Thompson, McCain, and even Giuliani along the way, I’ve long leaned Romney — having first been impressed with him when he was governor of Massachusetts, battling cloning and showing competency, intelligence, and conservatism.)
I often give talks to high-school groups about conservatism. I tell them conservatism is a temperament. It’s a philosophy. It’s a movement. But at its heart, it’s a temperament.
Today on Super Tuesday, this primary season isn’t over on either side. So I voted for the candidate with the most conservative temperament. Is he perfect? Who is? Is his record perfect? Whose is? But on a slew of issues Mitt Romney’s record and talk reflects a conservatism about him. And this is not a wholly new place for him to be. As NR pointed out in our endorsement of him in December, Romney didn’t do a 180 on every policy issue to become a conservative yesterday, or a year ago when he decided to run for president:
Some conservatives question his sincerity. It is true that he has reversed some of his positions. But we should be careful not to overstate how much he has changed. In 1994, when he tried to unseat Ted Kennedy, he ran against higher taxes and government-run health care, and for school choice, a balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and “tougher measures to stop illegal immigration.” He was no Rockefeller Republican even then.
We believe that Romney is a natural ally of social conservatives. He speaks often about the toll of fatherlessness in this country. He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism. No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage. He was on the right side of both issues, and those battles seem to have made him see the stakes of a broad range of public-policy issues more clearly. He will work to put abortion on a path to extinction. Whatever the process by which he got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.
I don’t understand the tendency among some of my conservative friends to “settle” early on. I think that this instinct — to first dream of Ronald Reagan’s reincarnation and then to immediately transition into settling, casting aside a viable conservative option — misses the point of primaries. Senator McCain has served our nation valiantly, both on the battlefield and off. But he’s also sponsored and led on legislation that calls into question his conservative temperament. Some conservatives suffering from Bush fatigue may think that it is wise to settle early — that they’d rather not be disappointed again — they’d rather know early on, say, that amnesty will be par for the course, and at least now they’re prepared.
But I would rather stand on principle than settle today. That’s why Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin and Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham and all the rest are standing where they are today. And I don’t think that constitutes “derangement.” I think that’s good citizenship. I think that’s how you keep ideas central, and keep ideas politically viable — whether you win or lose a given race. (Excerpted) For more of this article go to:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZmM3MTE0NzhiMzdhNTM1MTM1OWE0YzAxMjAzODZhZjQ=