Frum, from National Post, "In the Republican race, it’s Romney, Huntsman or bust" (via Legal Insurrection).
So that leaves us with the two governors, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. Romney has the better record as an administrator. I still think that his Massachusetts health-care plan showed creative leadership on an important problem — even if he himself now declines to defend his own accomplishment.
Romney has spoken well and firmly about the need to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program. He has a keen understanding of the debt and financial problems of the U.S. and Europe.
Yet it’s also true that Romney has reversed so many of his positions so abruptly that voting for him is like taking a random walk. We can be sure that a Romney White House will be well-run. But what will it do? That’s anybody’s guess.
Huntsman, by contrast, has bravely challenged the Republican party’s strident, uncompromising radical style. I also like Huntsman’s willingness to re-examine the Afghanistan commitment and to focus more on the economic challenge from China. On the other hand, Huntsman’s economic platform is pure Wall Street Journal editorial page: Big tax cuts for the highest-income earners, radical cuts in retirement benefits for people now under 55. The more supple Romney has carefully avoided any such radical commitment.
The Washington, D.C., primary is set for April 3. I’ll probably cast a vote that day for Huntsman, if only to show support for a brave and independent-minded candidate — and in hope that a strong Huntsman showing will be interpreted as a call for a more modern and inclusive Republican party.
If Mitt Romney emerges as the ultimate nominee, I’ll place my hope that the Romney who enters the Oval Office will be the innovative, solutions-oriented Romney 1.0 — and not the placate-every-GOP-interest-group Romney 3.0 we’ve seen on the 2011 campaign trail.
Any other nominee would gravely test my commitment to the political party I’ve supported since I entered the United States as a college student in the fall of 1978.
Here, Frum shows why he's the liberal's favorite useful idiot. His ideal choice for the GOP nod is a guy who has flip-flopped more times than John Kerry. Note that Frum praises Romney's socialized medicine scheme, which was the basis for Obamacare. His preferred candidate, Huntsman, would have been the perfect Republican candidate...in 1940, with his isolationist views.
Never mind that Frum goes after all the rest of the GOP candidates who show any real conservatism in them (Rick Perry is "dim," Bachmann is a "firebrand," Santorum panders too much to the religious right, and Newt is a "flavor of the month." All the name calling from the "No Labels" Frum, who rushed out to attack Rush Limbaugh in early 2009 (he's also attacked Mark Levin, because Frum is a jealous little man) and was one of the professional "Conservative" pundits who participated in the Left's vicious attacks on Sarah Palin, because Frum is more of a self-promoter instead of promoting a winning movement. Frum instead wants to rebrand conservatism into a formula that cannot win, because it does not distinguish itself from modern liberalism.
Then there's Colin Powell, the one-time McCain supporter who abandoned him for Obama, because it was more important to cast that historic vote for Obama. Powell says any Tea Party candidate cannot win in 2012 (The Hill, via Gateway Pundit).
“The Tea Party point of view of ‘no compromise whatsoever’ is not a point of view that will eventually produce a presidential candidate who will win,” he said on ABC’s “This Week With Christiane Amanpour.”
Powell said taking the no-compromise position isn’t helping get things done in Washington, and called on members of Congress to “come back to the center to compromise” in order to see progress.
“Compromise is how this country was founded,” he said, offering as an example the issue of slavery. “Can you imagine more difficult compromises today?” he asked. “We have a Congress now that can’t even pass an appropriations bill.”
Powell slammed the tone on Capitol Hill, which he called “very tense.”
“Republicans and Democrats are focusing more and more on their extreme left and extreme right,” he said “Unless two people in disagreement with each other don’t find a way to reach out to one another and make compromises, you don’t get a consensus that allows you to move forward.”
Do you notice the one theme Frum, Powell, and their lot have in common? Conservatives are the ones who are supposed to "moderate" and essentially stand for nothing. You never hear them saying Democrats needing to become less extreme Left wing, quit supporting the Occupy Wall Street squatters, socialism, and have vitriolic bombthrowers like Barack Obama, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Nancy Pelosi, Alan Grayson, Chuck Schumer as the voice of their party.
I'll quote again from Ronald Reagan's 1975 CPAC speech, and direct it to Frum and Powell in particular:
"I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party” - when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, ? ... It is time to reassert our principles and raise them to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way."