Embracing Romney, flip-flops and all

While Herman Cain is searching his memory for instances of non-sexual gestures of an uncomfortable nature, the Mitt Romney apologists labor mightily, trying to justify a vote for a flip-flopping RINO with no record as a conservative. They don't have a lot to work with.

Jay Nordlinger, a hugely likable and interesting writer, makes a very weak case:

If you’re a conservative, perhaps you’ve had this same experience: In the past few weeks, several people have said to me, “Have you made your peace with Romney? Have you accepted him as the nominee? Are you resigned to him?” My answer is: I actually look forward to his nomination. And to his candidacy in the general. And to his presidency.

I think he’ll be quite good, if he gets a chance.

But why do you think that? Whoever beats Obama in 2012, God willing, is going to have to do some seriously unpopular things to right the ship. He'll need deeply-held principles and enormous courage to stick to them. How is Romney, "a perfectly lubricated weather vane," that guy?

Back to Mr. Nordlinger:

Obviously, there is a big sincerity question about Romney: Does he mean what he says? Does he intend to do what he pledges? I think so, yes. 

Again, why?

All candidates tell people what they think they want to hear, to some degree. Frankly, I imagine most people are guilty of this, whether they’re in politics or not.

But I think Romney is sufficiently firm. 

Firm? See weather vane quote, above.

Mr. Nordlinger believes Romney is the victim of a bias against his own success, smoothness, and Ken-doll appearance. Perhaps that's true for some, but it's not an argument for or against his politics.

And oh yeah, Romney's the only guy who can beat Obama. That seems to be the main point in his favor, even though it's pure speculation.

Mr. Nordlinger is as frustrated with non-Romney supporters as I am with him:

Barry Goldwater once hollered, “Grow up, conservatives!” I sometimes feel the same way. We who are conservative aren’t meant to be 100-percenters. That’s more a Bolshevik trait: “What, you favor a lower grain quota? Up against the wall!” Politics is not for the pure, and ideologues are a nuisance. The American electorate is bigger than National Review Online (unfortunately).

Ouch. But with Romney it's not a question of purity, of a few deviations from conservative principles. Look at his record. What part of it indicates he genuinely believes in limiting the scope of government and making drastic cuts in government spending? Or ignore his record of government expansion in Massachusetts and look at how he has handled the Medicare issue during this campaign. He attacked Perry from the left. That's where his instincts lie.

Then there's Michael Gerson, who thinks Romney's unprincipled chronic flip-flopping is, like, an asset:

Precisely because he has a history of ideological heresy, it would be difficult for him to abandon his current, more conservative iteration. He has committed himself on key conservative issues. Having flipped, he could not flop without risking a conservative revolt. As a result, conservatives would have considerable leverage over a Romney administration.

There's a campaign slogan for you: Having Flipped, He Cannot Flop! Romney 2012!

I've got an idea -- How about staging that conservative revolt right now, before the election?

***
A comment on the Nordlinger post:

Sorry Jay, Romney's a no-go. If I want a technocratic nanny statist in the Whitehouse, I'll stick with the current occupant. At least Obama limits his own damage with his incompetence.

***

Linked at MichelleMalkin.com -- thanks!
Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.