I want a President who will protect us, not get us killed. I am like most red blooded Republicans that way, I suppose, tempered by a desire not to inflame anyone unnecessarily. Mitt Romney has shown the determination to protect us, the ideas to be effective, and the demeanor to do it well.

Mitt Romney has a demonstrated grasp of the foreign policy challenges we face from radical jihadists who want to kill us and from states with bad actors, like Iran. Consider Romney's speech at the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference in Israel one year ago. Many of you might not have been paying attention then, so, it is worth having a look at if you are serious about national security.

After that, take a look at his speech at Yeshiva University back in April.

What you will see emerging is a complex and comprehensive strategy to confront the threat of radical jihad in the future and to strengthen our national security against all threats. It is a plan. We don't have to wonder what Mitt Romney would do as President because he is laying it out for you.

Compare McCain...

Now in fairness, check out John McCain's speech in July to Christians United for Israel. He does, for example, suggest that America have a disinvestment policy from Iran. We appreciate this because that is exactly what Romney tried to get done in MA and had proposed 6 months before McCain's speech.

Finally, consider this kind of rhetoric, joking, parody, or whatever it is. Now, I thought this was sort of, water under the bridge but since McCain looks like he could be the nominee and with all of this talk recently about national security, I am compelled to revisit it.

This kind of talk is just dangerous coming from a President. How do you think other countries view that sort of stuff? The answer is they use it to prop up their governments by pointing to the outside threat America poses to them. They rally their countrymen around that threat so as to avoid internal pressures that would weaken them. This is the kind of stuff that people who are decision makers ought to have the sense to avoid because it is so downright inflammatory and counterproductive. Simply put, a President McCain would make George Bush 43 look like a first rate statesman and diplomat.

There is another problem with this kind of talk. Namely, the general election.

How the Democrats will Beat McCain...

What voters need to realize is that Republicans are never going to lose to the Democrats on being too weak on national security. That isn't going to happen anytime soon. There are two avenues, the way I see it, that the Democrats may use to beat us in November: The economy and national security.

The Economy:

The democrats will crush McCain if the economy is tanking come November. This is one of the reasons that Romney will fare very well against a democrat in the national election. The other reason is that he can effectively take away their signature issue of health case, something no one else can do.

National Security:

The democrats will also, potentially crush McCain if they can effectively paint him as a warmonger. There are a lot of people, including many Republicans who are not too happy about having run into the war in Iraq. McCain will fall desperately if the war in Iraq is going bad in November. He has tied himself to its success or failure. If it is going badly, the Democrats will likely clean house against McCain. Like it or not. Why? Because he will be seen as part of the group of people who got us into the mess.

What if the war is going well in November? It is possible that McCain will still have some viability but even at this point, the importance of the war in Iraq is beginning to pale next to the economy. If the war is going well, you don't need McCain because the focus switches to other matters on which he is weak as a candidate. Either way, he can't win on this issue even though it is important to many Republicans. One of the biggest weaknesses we often have as a party is that we think the rest of the country thinks like us. I have lived in 6 states now. They don't.

Why Romney has a General Election Advantage...

The great advantage of Mitt Romney as a candidate is that he can still run as a Washington outsider no matter what the status of the war in Iraq is in November. If it is a big issue because it is going bad, Romney can't be pegged as part of the crowd who got us into the mess (Even if it is harder for Clinton to yell at a Republican for authorizing the war than it is for Obama). If it is going well and attention shifts to other issues, Romney can run strong in those areas while still being stronger on national security than his opponents.

For the McCain Lovers...

I realize there are some folks out there who love the maverick McCain. The guy who likes to be the deal broker in the middle, flirting with the Liberals and taunting the Conservatives. The Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Senate, if you will.

To those of you who enjoy McCain's antics I give you this proposition: Why elect McCain President, when you can have both Romney and McCain? Elect Romney for President. You will always have McCain. He will continue being the rebel Senator from AZ (assuming the voters back home don't make him pay for his "comprehensive immigration reform" bill). He can continue to challenge Romney and the Republican party at every turn. You can have the best of both worlds. Romney as President. McCain as renegade Senator.

Summary...

Singing about bombing Iran is not levity, it can get you killed. Having a President who will be a good statesman is important. Romney would fare better against the democrats than McCain on Iraq and the economy. If you vote for Romney, you still get McCain.