To me the Editors have done a great job of summing up where the campaign needs to be headed. The first paragraph is not one that I agree with though,

Skeptics see more naked ambition than sincere conversion in Romney’s shifts on multiple issues, including abortion, gun control, gay rights, and taxes. His campaign should make no mistake: His introduction to the public has gone badly, and a few early TV ads isn’t going to fix it.

There are points here I will make. Romney has not really been introduced to the public. He has been introduced to the blogosphere, which aside from some of the attacks has gone remarkably well. He is still largely unknown. Second, see Rope a Dope.

The editors make some great points:

Conservatives should hope Romney’s campaign does not fizzle. For three decades, candidates who have moved to the right in Republican presidential primaries have been rewarded rather than punished. Conservative openness to converts has made it possible for moderate Republicans who found themselves moving rightward to prosper, and given ideologically malleable Republicans an incentive to adopt conservative positions. In both cases, the effect was to facilitate the country’s rightward move.

Conservatives should want to keep it that way. Thus, the gleeful pounding away at Romney’s changes from some on the right is counterproductive. Do any of these critics really wish that Romney had remained pro-choice?

All I can say is, no kidding. Do these skeptics really wish he was a pro-choice guy? Another good point:

It is natural that he might say he is personally pro-life, but would not try to change laws in Massachusetts; that he would oppose same-sex marriage, but otherwise promote gay rights; even that he would duck the Reaganite label. In any case, Romney is a career businessman who spent far more time thinking about management and government reform than social issues and political philosophy.

Finally, what I think is the best advice (and one that I am positive the campaign is working on)

His difficulty is obviously in transitioning from Massachusetts to the national stage. Part of what Romney needs is simply time, and even though the campaign season is already super-charged and the news cycles relentless, he will get it. It is still ten months before anyone votes, and conservatives will get a chance to evaluate Romney's sincerity and honesty over those months. But his conservatism will likely continue to sound tinny until he gives it an overarching theme of his own.

George W. Bush moved right in preparation for his presidential run in 2000, but also thought through a new brand of conservatism that he figured would be attractive in the post-Gingrich, post-impeachment era. We have never been particular fans of “compassionate conservatism,” but Romney would be well advised, in a similar fashion, to figure out a distinctive way to apply his conservatism to the challenges of our time. (Alliteration is not necessary and probably should be avoided.) This individuation could help deepen and authenticate that conservatism, and make it sufficiently compelling to prevail in the general election. At the moment, Romney is running on a businessman's typical theme of competitiveness along with a paint-by-the-numbers collection of conservative positions that seem to have no deeper rationale than getting to the right.

This is really a great point of advice. Romney needs to brand his thoughts to create a movement. Obviously "Compassionate Conservatism" is used and a little worn out. Perhaps something that denotes strength and tough talk. I am not a strategist, just a lowly blogger, but Romney has a golden opportunity to redefine Conservatism and it's goals. The movement is hungry for it.

Labels: conservative, flip-flop, flipping, national review

This was originally posted at www.Redstate.com, but I thought I would put it up here.

Anti-Romneyites were absolutely elated to hear this quote by Romney advisor James Bopp Jr. reported in Politico:

And about his candidate?

"I don’t know yet about Romney," Bopp admits. "I’m not really sure where [abortion] will ultimately fit in his agenda. He's still on a journey."

I had just posted a defense of Romney, and this made no sense. Why would a respected pro-lifer and Romney supporter write a strong article supporting Romney the same day he decides to rebuke him? It made no sense. Why would the politico only give us snippets of the interview and not the whole interview on such a controversial topic?

Read on . . .

Bopp responded on this in the comments section at www.Race42008.com:

The last four paragraphs of Johathan Martin’s blog combines answers to several questions to me creating the erroneous impression that I am uncertain about Romney’s pro-life position. I am not. To the question: “will any of these candidates really advocate an end to abortion or were they just paying lip service to an important issue,” my view is that “Romney is sincere about advocating an end to abortion — he is not paying lip service to it.” If I had been asked further about this, I would have said that he will promote and sign pro-life legislation, oppose and veto pro-choice legislation (as he had done as Governor) and appoint strict constructionist judges. My statement about Romney in the last sentence of the Martin’s blog (which is correctly viewed by commentators here as “strange,” “odd,” and “bizarre,” if made to the question “is he paying lip service” to it) was about where does the abortion issue fit in his agenda, in other words what priority would he give it, and I think that it is important now and is growing in importance to him (that is the “journey” I was referring to).

It's funny about Bopp. When he joined up with Mitt all the Anti-Romneyites cried that Romney needed someone like Bopp to legitimize him. When Bopp’s statements are misconstrued in the Politico all the cynics knock Romney for not being Pro-life enough for Bopp. I hope today these cynics will follow suit and admit Bopp believes in Romney, and admit that just as a damning statement from Bopp carries weight, so does a strong statement of endorsement.

For me it's very interesting and humorous how overtly cynical some have become. Bopp works as an unpaid advisor, consultant and endorser for Romney, and for one reason only- Romney is worth what ever perceived risks presented by the Anti-Romneyites.

As Bopp purports, Romney will make the best Pro-life, Pro-Family Social Conservative candidate. Pro-choice Pro-Gay Guiliani will not change. Well get tough talk on war, but no veto's on pro-gay laws and loosening of abortion restrictions from congress. For McCain issues of Life and Marriage will be at best backburner topics, maybe delegated to the deep fryer.

Labels: abortion, Bopp, flip-flop, flipping

First, I ask you to sign the pledge! Hosted by NZ Bear at TTLB, the pledge indicates that you will ban your contributions to any Republican who signs a resolution against the President's decision. You can click here to sign the pledge.
Second, there's been a lot of talk today about Brownback's attack on Mitt. Matt Lewis at Townhall makes some cogent remarks about Brownback's own "lifelong" dedication to the Pro-life movement. To their credit, CBN news interviewed Brownback with some poignant questions.

Third, if you haven't had a chance yet... be sure to make your vote known on the Pajamas Media poll. (see below)

Fourth, Erik at RedState is not enthused with the current slate of candidates. In my mind, Look, no one can come away from this address by Mitt Romney on Iran and not be a little enthused about he guy.

Finally. the charge of flipping. Listen, if we can offer support and redemption to those who actually had abortions, why can't we offer support and redemption to those who now agree with us?

For your convenience, here's the poll:

Labels: flipping, mitt, poll, pro-life