I know millions of Americans out there have been waiting for me to make my official endorsement for President.  The wait is over.  In the current field, I believe Mitt Romney is the best candidate to be the next President of the United States.

A couple things on Presidential endorsements: first, I am under no illusions (like some pundits), this is merely my opinion, no omniscient declaration.  Second, an endorsement does not mean Mitt Romney is the absolute best person for the job.  Like most conservatives, I believe a number of higher quality men and women would’ve been better.  Unfortunately they opted not to lead.

I also do not think it is helpful to either endorse “none of the above”, or simply stay home on Election Day.  Boycotting elections or cynically declaring they are all crooks is the easy way out.  It is not empowering and certainly isn’t taken as a big middle finger to the “establishment.”  If anything you are telling them you can be ignored.  Politicians care more about voters than people.  So by all means vote and endorse!

In the general election we are forced to decide between only two candidates.  While third candidates like to run, none have won.  When there are only two left that leaves a great many people disappointed.  If you asked Americans who they would like to see as President, the list would be ridiculously long – from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Moore.  When the process narrows it down to only two, it is perfectly reasonable to be a little disappointed…or a lot.

I am among the vast majority who didn’t get my favorite.  Great governors Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush all opted not to run.

At the same time, the Washington establishment Republicans also did not have any top-notch candidates either.  High-profile personalities like John McCain, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, John Boehner, Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Mike Pence, and Mitch McConnell all decided not to run.  Had any of these men ran, the race would’ve been much different.

Among those that did decide to run for President, Mitt Romney is the best candidate for President of the United States.

In making my decision I used the following criterion.

First, the candidate had to support policies that promoted limited government, individual freedom, fiscal restraint, free markets, the rule of law, and strong national defense.  When it came to intangibles executive experience, leadership, effectiveness while in office, and the ability to persuade independents was essential.  Finally, the candidate had to have the organizational and fundraising ability to win.  After all, the objective is to defeat Barack Obama not become a martyr.

Romney’s economic plan strongly supports free markets, economic freedom, and a major drawback of government intervention.  His energy plan is also strong in terms of moving America toward energy independence and improving national security.  When it came to fiscal issues, unfortunately Romney does little to stand out.  He supports a balanced budget amendment (a big plus) and pledges reductions in spending but appears thin on entitlement reform.  On the rule of law, he has excellent advisors helping him with judicial nominations.  Finally, his positions on national security are in line with what is necessary to defend this country.  In all policy areas he is much better than Barack Obama.

When it comes to intangibles, Romney is a mixed bag.  On the positive side, he is the most talented politician on the stage.  In debate after debate, he has proven his ability to take tough questions, absorb attacks from opponents, and remain compelling.  Throughout the campaign his popular support in the polls has not declined.  His closet is void of any skeletons, his marriage is strong, and no one can question his moral values.  His Mormon faith does not bother me in the least.

During his time as governor of Massachusetts, Romney had to work with a legislature that was over 80 percent democrat, and a constituency far more liberal than the overall country.  I doubt anyone else in the field could get anything done when faced with such opposition.  Yet he still managed to effectively manage the budget, keep taxes where they were, and pass some reforms.

Romneycare is the blemish on his record.  However, he is under so much fire from conservatives, it is clear he will never consider such a program on the national level.  Even if he holds some attachment to the individual mandate, it is likely it will be struck down as unconstitutional next year.

It is disappointing that Romney is not a transformational figure.  Like Newt Gingrich said, he is a competent manager.  He takes situations as they are and makes the best of it.  The federal government is in need of major structural reforms and Romney is probably not the best man for such a task.

Romney is also a pure politician.  He parses words, adjusts positions when it is politically advantageous, and attacks opponents ruthlessly.  I do have doubts of whether Romney will hold to principle if his approval numbers plummet.  Fortunately, he will likely be working with a Republican Congress for the first two years.  It will be important for him to show results in time for the 2014 midterms.  Given his policy positions, temperament, and managerial skills I think he can accomplish that.

In terms of bold reform, it will have to be pushed by Congress, not the White House.  In order to keep Romney on the right path, the Tea Party must be vocal and influential in the other branch of government.  In both the House and Senate, they must keep the pressure on Romney to carry on.

Electability is important but not determinative.  The polls show clearly Romney has the best chance of defeating Obama.  He has consistently polled even or ahead of the President.  Other challengers have been unable to remain competitive for more than a week or two.  Overall none of the other candidates have been able to win over independents the way Romney has.

When the field became set, Rick Perry was my original favorite.  He was a proven executive, leading the most successful state in the union for eleven years.  He was a vocal constitutional federalist, advocate for the rule of law and free markets.  Perry had the record, experience, and the policy positions.  Unfortunately, he completely lacks any oratory skills.  His debate failures and on-camera gaffes have successfully painted him the idiot of the field.  Although this is unfair, the damage is done.  Perry’s numbers have plummeted and show no signs of rising.  I doubt independents would ever be able to take him seriously.

Perry also presents problems with some of his naïve positions on foreign policy.  A no-fly zone over Syria is not a good use of our military.  With foreign policy being one of the President’s primary responsibilities, Perry’s weakness is problematic.

Newt Gingrich is the new flavor of the month but presents a number of problems.  He carries more political baggage than any other person in the party.  His leadership in the House during the 90s was impressive at first but then he crashed and burned in 1997-1998.  Since his retirement, his positions on a number of important issues have shifted.  Gingrich’s ill-defined position on the individual mandate and the proper role of government are especially troublesome.  His recent attack on the role of the judiciary is also disturbing.

Ron Paul is a strong libertarian that deserves attention.  His positions on the Federal Reserve, economic freedom, civil liberties, and the rule of law are all impressive.  He is a principled man who predicted the housing bubble burst and the economic failings we are dealing with today.  His strong and loyal base proves his ideas resonate with a significant group of Republicans.

However, Ron Paul suffers from two major flaws: foreign policy ineptitude and lack of leadership experience.  His positions on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran are downright dangerous.  He is a pure isolationist with an almost irrational desire to pull America back behind its own borders and pretend the rest of the world isn’t really there.  Paul also has virtually no record of accomplishment in the House.  He has been an outsider his entire career.  How he expects to work with Congress as President is a mystery.

Rep. Bachmann is a smart woman and strong voice of the Tea Party.  In terms of policy she is right in line with RAL.  However, like Paul she has accomplished next to nil in Congress.  She often votes alone, failing to persuade any of her colleagues to follow her example.  Bachmann also has a tendency to stray from the facts and follow straight lines in debates.  She accepts the premise in every question, often taking the bait from biased moderators embarrassing herself and her opponents.  While principled and intelligent, she is unpersuasive.  In speeches and debates she appears shrill, robotic, even a little unhinged.

Rep. Bachmann is an important and influential member of the Tea Party, but not ready to be President.

The United States is in desperate need of a new direction.  Unfortunately the American people are still undecided as to which direction that should be.  As much as I agree on policy with candidates, they need to persuade a majority of Americans to support them in the general election.  A majority of Americans do not support the Tea Party (yet) and need to be convinced before they support such a dramatic change in direction.  A Presidential candidate must be able to persuade and lead the American people toward the transformational change necessary.  Unfortunately, that candidate is not in the current field.  Therefore, my choice falls to the one most capable of moving us in the right direction.  Mitt Romney will not get us in the end zone, but he can get us in the red zone.

With a national constituency, the President will naturally be more moderate and pragmatic than most would like.  To win, a candidate needs to win over moderates as well as his base.  A divisive nominee may compel voters to go with the devil they know than they scary radical they don’t.  It is the nature of the moderate, for better or worse.  I believe Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman could beat Obama.  Of those four, I believe Romney is the best.

Mitt Romney has the experience, the skills, and the temperament to be a good President.  He has flaws, but we cannot let be the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Romney would be a tremendous improvement over Obama.  It is my hope Republicans across the country agree and nominate Romney to be the Republican candidate in the general election.

Comments?  E-mail me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .