Charles, I was glad to see your post and glad to see that you agree with our “relentless logic.” In fact, if I were to select a theme to our efforts to (a) get the Governor to run in 2012 and (b) persuade fellow Republicans to support him for the nomination, that theme would be “relentless logic.”
What did 2008 teach us? A few things. First, that the quest for the “Conservative Messiah” is not only deeply divisive, it’s also fundamentally not conservative. Leave the search for the Great Political Leader to those Americans who believe that the government provides the answer to all the great questions in life.
Next, we learned that style can only take a movement so far. Great speeches undeniably provide great moments, but there’s the little business of the day-in, day-out grind of a campaign, or of running a government. A good president (or candidate) can’t just content himself with hitting the high points.
Third, the right substance is necessary to respond to changing conditions. When the primary national debate shifted from the war to the economy, John McCain was done. He had one area of expertise — the rest of his campaign seemed to shift depending on which crowd he was trying to please.
This is where relentless logic comes into play. Simply put, the case for Mitt grows stronger with each jobless report, with each deficit update, and with each leftist Obama appointment (where the bureaucracy is being remade while our eyes are focused on stock tickers). We said it before, and we’ll say it again — the times demand a “full-spectrum” conservative, a person who can respond to all of our challenges.
As I read critiques of Mitt during the campaign, so much boiled down to style-based personal preferences (“He’s too slick and smooth!”) Look at your 401(k) statement, then think again . . . is that a problem that will be fixed by a good dash of folksy charm, or do we need more than a little substance?