CR Nation

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

There once was a presidential candidate from Massachusetts. He had enormous ambition, and had run for office several times in his home state. But in his campaigns, this candidate constantly flip-flopped on critical issues. He would say one thing, and then contradict himself by saying another. It seemed that he would say anything to win election.

You could call that candidate John Kerry. Or you could call him by his Republican pseudonym, Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is defined best by Mitt Romney. He attempts to present himself as the perfect candidate: perfect looks, perfect hair, perfect speeches, perfect conservative stances.

But it is that strive to be the perfect candidate that has exposed his greatest imperfection: a willingness to reverse core convictions to fit a desired mold. Running for office in Massachusetts? Must be a liberal. Pro-choice. Pro-gun control. Against Reagan and the “Contract with America.” Running for the Republican presidential nomination? Must be a conservative. Pro-life. Pro-gun rights. Hail Reagan and the issues espoused in the Republican Revolution.

Such dramatic changes cannot be explained away by education, revelation or evolution. Put simply, Mitt Romney was a liberal when running in a liberal-dominated state, and a conservative when running in conservative-dominated primaries. Will yet another course be charted, if Romney is given the nomination and faced with a divided electorate? Will he move to the middle, remaining conservative on some positions and returning to his liberal positions on others?

And so the question is raised: Will we ever know the real Mitt Romney? And yet we already do know him well. Mitt Romney is a man listing in the wind, a banner that flaps in the direction public opinion is blowing. The one goal is winning, and any value changes that must be made along the way are just necessary sacrifices. Personal victory comes at the price of a soul devoid of conviction.

The Republican Party worked many long hours to defeat a liberal from Massachusetts in 2004. We do not need to spend long hours working to elect a liberal from Massachusetts in 2008.

Mitt Romney would be the best Republican candidate and the best president, which is why he will receive my vote.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mitt Romney is the most conservative candidate in the race. Huckabee is liberal on taxes and immigration; so is McCain. Giuliani is liberal on, well, everything. Among the front-runners, that leaves Mitt Romney standing alone.

Critics like to attack Mitt Romney for various statements made long ago, but look at Romney’s record as governor. He defended traditional marriage in the state where it was most under attack. He fought to protect the unborn, opposing embryonic stem cell research in the process. On the critical issues of abortion and gay marriage, Mitt Romney governed conservatively, regardless of debate transcripts from the past.

Look at Mitt Romney’s immigration plan. He is prepared to get tough on illegal immigration, unlike other candidates and the current Washington leadership. That is why the immigration candidate, Tom Tancredo, endorsed Romney last week.

Look also at Mitt Romney’s foreign policy. Unlike Huckabee, Romney is not clueless when it comes to issues beyond the shores of the United States. Romney has spoken repeatedly on the danger of radical jihad. He has the toughest position on Iran, and will work to prevent that radical regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

When it comes to curbing wasteful spending, who could be better than a successful CEO? Mitt Romney turned around some of America’s largest companies. He cut spending and taxes in Massachusetts, and he could do the same for the federal government. Romney isn’t afraid to use the veto pen, either.

Though it is a minor issue with me, Mitt Romney does look and sound like a president. If Hollywood were designing a president from scratch, I can’t imagine them coming up with a better model than Mitt Romney.

All these great qualities considered, I was not fully persuaded to support Mitt Romney until his speech on faith a few weeks ago. It was by far the best speech that I have heard from any candidate, with beautiful prose. The speech touched on the religious influence of the Founding Fathers, and the need for such religious influences today. Romney proved to me that he is a man guided by his faith and by his convictions.

I believe that Mitt Romney will be a great conservative president, and I am excited to vote for him.

Long winded, folksy, and lacking excitement. You know, typical Fred Thompson.

47% of 18-24 year olds voted in 2004 – up nine percentage points from 2004.

In 2008, some predict that the youth turnout will hold steady or slightly increase. If these predictions hold true, this would mean that 18-24 year olds vote at percentage levels similar to demographics (roughly 50%) that have traditionally voted at levels much greater than the youth. In other words, in 2008 youth voters may get to the polls just as much as many other age groups.

As a result, presidential campaigns are reaching out to students on college campuses, trying to court votes from a voting demographic of emerging size and importance. Candidates go where votes can be found and as the youth demographic grows, so will the exposure of the candidates to the youth.

Getting to the purpose of this post, ABC World News featured Greg Boguslavsky, the state chairman of the College Republicans in New Hampshire, in a recent story concerning the growing importance of the youth vote and the corresponding increase of interaction between political student groups and presidential candidates.

In the video, Greg asks John McCain about his views on the differences between his generation and our own. To see McCain’s answer and the read the article, please click here.