Squaring the Culture

I posted yesterday that I found Mitt Romney’s performance on Meet the Press convincing. Some very influential conservative bloggers did not. Here on the American Spectator, here on Free Republic, and Michelle Malkin ties it all together.

From where I stand, Romney’s explanation about his position on gun control was clear and believable. Simply put, he wants background checks to be part of the process, and he believes there should be controls on weapons that are a particular threat to law enforcement; but he is opposed to legislation that prevents law-abiding citizens from owning weapons.

The original Brady Bill, which Romney supported, called for a waiting period before a citizen could purchase a weapon. Romney explained that at the time, background checks could not be performed online (the internet was still experimental) and took time. Today, background checks can be performed in real time, and a waiting period is no longer necessary. Thus he no longer supports legislation with a waiting period; he recognizes that modern waiting period rules are designed to interfere with gun show purchases, and serve no other legitimate purpose. I find this explanation plausible.

There is room to disagree with candidate Romney on “unusually lethal weapons.” I do disagree with him, being more libertarian than he apparently is. But I think his position is at least consistent over time.

Regarding immigration, Phil Klein at the American Spectator blog cited earlier thought Romney’s explanation of his positive response to Bush’s and Cornyn’s proposals “Clintonian.” I thoroughly disagree. A live mic was shoved in Romney’s face unanounced, he was asked what he thought of such-and-so proposal he’d only just heard, and he said “It sounds reasonable, but I don’t have a proposal of my own yet.” I’m sorry, that is not an endorsement of the proposals. That’s a gut-level response without analysis. It was clear on the face of it that Romney intended to study the matter further.

I know “gotcha” politics is fun, but it’s not honest. There are analyses of Romney’s past acts that raise questions regarding his true positions, and we need to look at those. We also need to consider how little impact Presidents have on social policy; the more important question, to me, is what sort of judges we can expect the candidates to appoint, and whether they have a plan for roping in an out-of-control judiciary.

I remain a Fred Thompson voter for the primaries, but I could easily support Romney against any of the Democrat contenders in the national election.