For 2012, the choice for all Republicans, including Libertarian Republicans is now Mitt Romney

by Eric Dondero

Perhaps Sarah Palin will come up with some knock-out explanation for her dropping out yesterday, which would change my mind on things. But I doubt it. As one of her earliest supporters, and as one of the three original "Draft Sarah Palin for VP" people from 2007 (along with Stephen Maloney and Adam Brickly), I gotta say I was truly baffled and dejected by the whole press conference yesterday.

I take her by her word: The pressure on her family was just way too much, and the kids wanted her to step down, most especially after the renewed attacks on their little brother Trig.

In case you haven't heard about this yet, incredibly, there's a headline story on Huffington Post, that has since been taken down, but still cached, attacking Palin for supporting a "Mental Retardation agenda" a clear reference to her baby boy.

Even so, I've got the feeling this morning that she's let her supporters down. Those of us who've stood by her through thick and thin, got only a vague promise of "more to come," and a Twitter in a few days explaining her reasons. Sorry Sarah, but that's not enough. Too late. The balloon is deflated, and unless you come up with some spectacular explanation, this is one staunch supporter of yours who'll be moving on.

To Mitt Romney, that is.

Just yesterday I was writing in LR comments how Romney would be the natural choice now for all Republicans. How ironic a Wall Street Journal editorial this morning completely echoing my sentiments. From Gerald Seib at the WSJ:

For this unsuccessful 2008 Republican presidential contender, it is hard to imagine how events could be moving more decisively in his favor in 2009. One can almost hear him wondering: Why didn't things break this way last year?

Let us count the ways that the world has conspired to help Mr. Romney. At a time when the Republican Party is straining to find new leaders, other prominent party members who aspire to that role -- Govs. Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford, and Sen. John Ensign -- have stumbled or, in the case of Gov. Sanford, flamed out in spectacular fashion. Mitt Romney now looks by comparison like the serious adult in the room.

Beyond that, the national agenda is squarely focused on the economy -- which plays to Mr. Romney's strength as a successful businessman -- rather than on national security, which benefited Sen. John McCain in last year's primaries, or on the social issues where Mr. Romney's tendency to shift about has caused him so much trouble.

The editorial goes on to cite Michigan and the problems of the auto industry as playing right into Romney's strong points. Seib then goes on to write:

Republicans are looking for a voice to speak for the party in exile, and Mr. Romney is starting to fill the role quite nicely.

My sentiments precisely.

Is Mitt Romney a "libertarian Republican" like Sarah Palin or Mark Sanford? No. But he is a libertarian-leaning Republican, and that's certainly good enough for me. He may be best described as a "Western Conservative," despite his ties to New England, and the upper Mid-West. Recall, Romney kicked ass in just about every primary and caucus West of the Mississippi in 2008, from Montana to Alaska to Nevada to the Dakotas. That's prime libertarian country.

I'm just fine with a Reagan-style Western Conservative as our Party's nominee for 2012, and I'm going to start planning for that inevitability.