More on Mitt Romney

I have some friends and favorite radio personalities who are supporting Romney. I know some less favorite radio personalities that support him. One is obviously Hugh Hewitt, who despite insisting his book was not an endorsement of the candidate, has obviously been defending Romeny's bid for the presidency. One reason I don't like Hugh Hewitt is that he is such a lawyer. He seems to like loopholes and case law/precedents. His positions are usually arrogant, accompanied by ad hominem attacks on any who do not share them.

But I'm talking about Romney here. Romney also has a law degree. In yesterday's Repbulican Presidential Debate Romney said that when faced with the decision whether to attack Iran, he would first consult his attorneys, then maybe the Congress, and maybe the world. Even Hugh Hewitt recognized the unproductive nature of such stands: "ROMNEY – The thing about calling the lawyers wasn’t his best moment."

His exact words, as far as I could find, were, "CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?” ROMNEY: “You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...” MATTHEWS: “Did he need it?” ROMNEY: “You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do. But, certainly, what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people — leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available.” (Mitt Romney, Republican Presidential Candidate’s Debate, Dearborn, MI, 10/9/07)

I'm not anti-lawyer, not really. I like lawyers, especially the ones who understand the Constitution and abide by it. But I don't like the manipulators, and I don't like the people who think lawyers solve everything. A lot of our founding fathers in America were lawyers, and that is why we have such a strong constitutional republic. Those men were statesmen, though. They were in government to serve the people, because they believed in causes. Most who run for office today are politicians, and such men and women usually rely more on lawyers and polls than on principle and reason. For a legislator, that is more acceptable (still not ideal). An executive has to be able to make wise decisions on his own. Lawyers and judges run this country enough as it is.

In summary, I already disliked Mitt Romney for president. Challenged recently to give many reasons why, I have been trying to put my finger on what makes me distrust him. I think I've found it. He is a politician. Thus I expect him to manipulate laws and money and people for his own ends. He might change his positions on things if the old position is found to be less expedient.

In contrast, there are a few candidates (and more commentators) who can be eloquent and consistent on the issues because rather than following a publicity-driven script, they are expressing what they really believe at the core of their being. I've even noticed that my own blog posts are more eloquent when I write about things I firmly believe.

To God be all glory.