Romney for Pres

The depth of the Republican Presidential field puts into stark relief the lack of same in the Democratic Party. Not in recent memory have the front runners for a major Party’s presidential nomination been so singularly unaccomplished. Neither of these candidates would have gotten past the vanity candidacy stage were she not a woman and he not black, as rarely have two serious candidates boasted such thin resumes.

While "experience" tends to be somewhat overplayed in political races, between them these two candidates boast a total of roughly 1 year’s executive experience: Hillary’s term as President of her class at Wellesley. Neither candidate brings extensive political or business experience to the table, either (Hillary’s business dealings are things she’d rather people forget). Neither of these candidates boasts sufficient governmental seniority to warrant chairing a New Jersey Assembly committee, yet the Dems intend to nominate one of them for the nation’s highest office.

Wholly leaving aside their astonishing lack of actual governmental service, the politics of these two Democratic candidates should terrify rationale Americans, let alone anyone from New Jersey. Economically, each considers New Jersey residents seriously undertaxed, and vows to correct that problem as his/her first order of business. Give Hillary some points for (probably inadvertent) honesty; she expressly promises "to take things away" from "rich" taxpayers – that is, people who live in New Jersey – to spend on Big Government. Obama finesses the issue somewhat, but as NJ residents (should) understand, Democrats simply cannot be trusted on fiscal matters.

Both Democrats practice the destructive politics of identity and the idiotic politics of envy. To them, ancestry or sex matters; in their group-think mentality, that which comes before the hyphen trumps that which follows it. (Some Democratic sites actually debated whether Obama is actually "black", because his father was really an African, averring that only the descendants of west African slaves can properly lay claim to that descriptive) And each promises to redistribute the existing economic pie rather than making the slightest attempt to increase its size. New Jersey taxpayers should run screaming into the night before supporting either.

Indeed, the best qualified Democrat candidates – by far – were Bill Richardson and Joe Biden, but neither of them satisfied the loopy Moveon Left, which refuses to permit mere qualifications to enter into the discussion.

While the Democrats decide between two raw rookies, Republicans face truly difficult choices among candidates with vast experience, running on what they believe rather than on accidents of birth.

The MSM considers Ron Paul flaky, but his no-nonsense advocacy for small, limited, constitutional government resounds with many voters. While a tad too isolationist for my tastes, who can doubt that America would be freer and more prosperous with Ron Paul guarding the pursestrings and venerating the Constitution?

Mayor Giuliani offers a wealth of executive experience; he understands how to actually run a government. And while his statements on matters economic have been mostly exemplary, he continues to trouble many social conservatives – justifiably so. His vision for American liberty includes some aspects that many Americans find deeply problematic.

Ditto John McCain. Unquestionably the candidate with the best understanding of national security matters – and one who paid a huge personal price to defend America’s freedom – he deserves exemplary marks for his refusal to bow to the politically correct – and, apparently, popular – view on the Iraq war, even if that cost him his election. That kind of principle is rare in government, and completely absent from any top Democrat.

But while he’s come around somewhat lately, his economic instincts have been often wrong, and his willingness to restrict political speech is deeply troubling. Of even greater concern is his immigration policy, which places insufficient emphasis on showing those who break the law the exit door. And, of course, McCain lacks any executive experience.

That leaves Mitt Romney. Romney served as Governor of Massachusetts, a fairly substantial state, and, with caveats, served it well. His economic policies focus on growth, including tax reform, tax cuts, spending cuts and restraint, and regulatory reform. His energy plan unabashedly uses the word "nuclear" – essential for anyone who even wishes to think about energy independence (let alone anyone with a concern about global warming). He’s decent on immigration, and would reorient federal education policy toward kids and away from systems, promoting greater parental freedom. While his social views once mirrored those of his Massachusetts constituents, he seems to have sincerely matured over time (cf Bush pere, Ronald Reagan, etc.) and now advances views well within the conservative mainstream.

Romney also brings a wealth of real-world economic experience, having succeeded in business as well as in the not-for-profits sphere. Unlike either of th Democratic frontrunners, he understands how to run a government. He will appoint judges to read the constitution rather than make it up as they go along; NJ residents know all too well the baleful results of a judiciary run amok.

Put simply, Romney brings the best combination of philosophy and experience to the table. While any of the remaining Republican candidates stands head and shoulders above the socialist beginners the Democrats are considering, Romney represents the best of many good choices. He deserves to be the Republican nominee, and the next president.