Redstate

By Brad Smith Posted in Archived — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

One thing I've tired of this political season is conservatives, caught up in the primary battle, trying to turn candidate strengths into weaknesses.

Let me give a couple examples. I've heard repeated complaints that McCain can't win except for the support of independents and Democrats. Now, I'm no McCain guy, but isn't it a strength of McCain that he has such crossover appeal? Shouldn't we wish all our nominees did? Read more.

Of course, if you are merely arguing that he may have more trouble in states with closed primaries, such as Florida, fine. But repeatedly the argument is made as if it were an argument against McCain.

Two other examples pertain to my favored candidate, Mitt Romney. We keep hearing Romney's wins dissed on the grounds that "no one else was competing." Isn't there a reason no one else is competing? Why do you think Rudy, McCain, and Thompson skipped the Iowa straw poll this summer? It's because they knew they would lose to Romney. Why did McCain and Rudy skip the Iowa caucuses? Because they knew they would lose. With Fred Thompson's campaign on the line, why didn't Thompson decide to challenge for Nevada, which had more delegates than South Carolina, and where he wouldn't have had to battle Huckabee's evangelical strength and McCain's core support of veterans? It's because he knew he would lose. If McCain had invested as much in Nevada as Romney did, would McCain have won Nevada? No. And he might not have won South Carolina had he so diverted his resources.

The point is not that Romney's wins in Nevada and Wyoming were largely uncontested - the point is to ask, "why were they uncontested?" After all, Nevada has more delegates than South Carolina. Wouldn't it have made sense for McCain - from the neighoring state! - to have competed there? The reason he did not, of course, is that he lacked the resources, and that Romney ran off the competition. This is a strength - not a weakness. The fact that Romney was also able to put substantial resources into South Carolina, and finish credibly there, demonstrates his strength.

Similarly, some conservatives seem to view it as a weakness that Romney has outspent his rivals. Isn't that a plus? The goal is not to get the most votes per dollar - it's to get the most votes (which Romney has done, whether you tally delegates or total votes in all GOP contests so far). It is a strength of Romney that he is well financed, both raising more money than the other GOP candidates and being able to use his own money when required. Don't we want a candidate who, in a tight race next October 26, can say easily - "well, let's write the check for the extra $10 million that gets us over the top."? Of course we do.

I have watched on RedState for a year as "conservatives" have spent time ripping each various candidates to shreds. Now we've even reached the point of criticing their strengths. I want a candidate who will draw independents and Democrats, such as McCain. I want a candidate who can compete everywhere, and who is so effective at locking up some states that his opponents don't even bother, such as Romney has done. I want a well funded candidate such as Romney.

I want to win.