McCain/Romney?

My friend Ben Blowers left a comment on this subject on a previous post, and I have wanted to discuss this anyhow.

The whisper campaign has been building for at least a couple of weeks now regarding the possibility that McCain may pick Romney as his running mate. Bob Novak (the best reporter in the world; the man is a supersleuth) reported in a Saturday newsletter that Karl Rove is trying to push the McCain folks in this direction.

So what would McCain stand to gain from the choice? The most obvious answer is Romney's personal fortune. I have done 0 research on this, but from everything I hear, Mitt's net wealth is around a billion dollars. (Yes, even in this age of affluence, I still have trouble wrapping my mind around that many zeros with a dollar sign in the front. Do any of you?) McCain is low on funds, and thanks to his monstrosity of a piece of legislation, he is likely to stay there. There may be sufficient loopholes in the law, though, to allow Mitt to contribute indefinitely to the campaign were he the VP. I'm sure there would be an endless parade of self-righteous Washington Post editorials ranting on about how horrible this is for a candidate to be "buying the White House." Bring it on.

By this point, Romney also has name ID that he did not possess a year ago or even 6 months ago. I have to credit Michael Medved's latest column (I think it's his latest) for this thought. When people hear the name "Mitt Romney", the followup question won't be "Mitt Who?" Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota or Terry Sanford of South Carolina will have to clear this type of hurdle if they are the choice for veep. In case you're interested in Medved's column, here is the link:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/03/12/mitts_weakness_for_the_top_spot_could_help_him_as_veep

(I haven't yet learned how to do this maneuver: Michael Medved's column is here, highlighting the word "here", so all you have to do is click on it and you arrive at the column. Some of you more web-savvy people will get a good chuckle out of that...go ahead and snicker. I will figure it out.)

Mitt has also gained a lot of ground in a very short time, winning over the affections of hardcore conservatives. His constant good cheer, his articulate abilities and his integrity became very clear to those of us who closely observed his campaign (versus those, with all due respect, who tuned in for the last 2 months or so of the period Mitt was still in the race). I was privileged to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC for the first time this year. The attendees there are the grassroots of the conservative movement across the country, and trust me....Mitt was the CLEAR favorite there. He even won the CPAC straw poll for President after dropping out of the race! (McCain came in second, and he had already virtually clinched the nomination.) McCain needs all the help he can get as he continues to try to reach out to conservatives (and yes, I do believe he is trying). In short, a Mitt Romney pick would not win plaudits from the New York Times or the Indianapolis Star editorial page (to choose a lesser offender that is closer to home for me), but it would endear McCain to those of us who really care about him winning in November.

Some of you may have seen Romney's interview with Sean Hannity this last Tuesday night. Let's just say that when Hannity asked Romney if he would take the VP slot, if asked, Mitt all but declared that he would love to be considered. Yes, he couched his answer in the eloquent deferral that you would expect from him...but it's clear that he's willing.

I really enjoyed watching different ones here and there among my friends begin to really like Mitt Romney over the course of his candidacy. I became a supporter around April or May of last year. This was when the "Fred Thompson as White Knight" movement had been gaining steam for a couple of months, but Fred wasn't doing anything to capitalize on the buzz. I thought Thompson had real potential, and liked what I saw in many ways....but finally, I reached a point where I realized that it was time for Fred to either fish or cut bait. He didn't, so I chose to support Mitt and never regretted it.

I knew a number of people that worried about the Mormon factor. That never bothered me. We have had a Freemason, a Unitarian and a Deist in the White House, among other variances, and I'll lay any odds on you that if we could bring George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson through the time tunnel, back to a Presidential race today, they'd win roughly 97% of the evangelical vote. Mitt Romney, as a Mormon, certainly would advance the values that I treasure, to a far greater extent than the Methodist Hillary Clinton or the UCC Barack Obama, or for that matter, Baptist John McCain (he was raised Episcopalian, but is a member of North Phoenix Baptist Church today).

I felt far more cautious about the "flip-flop" accusations. Yet, even a cursory examination showed only one flip of any significance, namely, the abortion issue, and Mitt clearly moved in my direction to a strong pro-life position. Does anyone seriously believe he would change his mind again? Especially after being supported by the pro-life community? I can't claim to know the man's heart, but I believe his position change was heartfelt. He explained it all in an op-ed (in the Boston Globe, I think) at the time back in 2005...I'm not going into it here. But, let's say, just for giggles, that it was all done for political expediency. Practically speaking, would it matter? Would Mitt, the alleged political chameleon, really be so stupid as to immediately become pro-choice again once he was given the key to the White House? Let's be real.

Ronald Reagan, (whom I'm proud to say was my hero before loving Reagan became the cool thing for everybody to do, including many Democrats) signed the first pro-abortion piece of legislation in California history. He later referred to this as a "terrible mistake", which it was. But we forgave him, didn't we? Mitt governed almost 100% as a pro-lifer, even before he formally changed his position. So what gives?

Mark my word; Mitt is here to stay, whether he gets the VP nod or not. He will only be 68 in 2016, and he'll look 10 years younger!