I’ve not given up on Romney and still consider his vastly superior to McCain, but in light of the results of Super Tuesday and some thought I’ve given to other articles I’ve written recently, here’s my Mea Culpa:
In the article on winning the culture war I wrote:
A key fact in any war is that those fighting FOR something have a distinct advantage over those fighting AGAINST something. A positive goal inspires confidence and wins allies, while a negative goal works against the human spirit bringing discouragement and desperation.
This principle is equally applicable on a battlefield, in the ‘culture war’, and in elections.
There is something wrong with how I’ve presented my arguments for Mitt. In fact, there’s something wrong with how much of the conservative blogosphere and talk radio and the new media have argued for Mitt.
While I do believe, in a positive sense, that Mitt is a better candidate, and not just for pragmatic reasons. Issue for issue, he is more in line with true conservatism and my ideals of what America needs than any other candidate, Red or Blue.
I have framed my argument as a negative, and that is wrong and counter-productive.
Michael Medved, even though he supports McCain, has maintained decorum throughout this debate by maintaining that each of the Republicans are superior in many ways to the Democrat alternatives.
I do not agree with him completely in this, but I do agree that a better and stronger argument is made from a positive position, and his position has been unflinchingly positive.
Will I support the Republican nominee at all costs? I don’t know yet.
Is there a point at which conservatives need to take a serious look at where the party is headed and maybe allow a fall to occur in the hopes we’ll regain the moral high-ground and wrest control of the party? Maybe.
Would it be better to stick with the party and work in individual lives and hearts to bring about the sea change necessary to reclaim the party and then the entire culture? Yes.
That is why I blog.