The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Romney was introduced by Laura Ingraham, and has received a star's welcome here at CPAC. It's striking to see just how far he's come. When I saw him at CPAC last year, he seemed to merely be rehearsing his conservative tag lines. Now it seems like he's convinced by them. But I'm reluctant to say that he's a conservative, and would have been reliable in office as such. I know that Quin thinks an almost-conservative is better than McCain, so I'd expect him to disagree.

When you step into CPAC, however, you can't help but notice the platitudes offered to the audience regarding conservatism. I'm not saying it's bad to espouse conservative beliefs. But it's certainly bad to try to apply the label to everything (such as Frum and Gerson have attempted, as Jim Antle has been noting). This conference is the epicenter of that tension -- conspicuous conservatism vs. true believers.

Returning to Romney, many conservatives have lined up behind the man. But just as many haven't -- not in favor of McCain, but because they don't buy it. His conversion to the right could have been genuine. But it seemed conspicuous. And authenticity can't be bought -- adding to its value to voters.

So it's ironic that Romney's speech would seem more genuine, more emotional, more personal. Nothing seemed more conservative about Romney's campaign than his giving it up.

The audience, by the way, was riveted. Listening closely, fully-attentive. Many seemed heartfully disappointed -- to an extent, I'm surprised there was such an attachment.

topics:
Conservatism