Mitt Romney’s Valentine’s Day endorsement of former rival John McCain is so emblematic of his farcical, contrarian Presidential campaign, that although it comes as a bit of a surprise in terms of timing, it really shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who is familiar with who this opportunistic chameleon has proven himself to be.

Just weeks after nearly coming to fisticuffs with the former POW during the California debates over who was more of a “true conservative” (ANSWER: Neither of them), how long we are to stay in Iraq, who’s better suited to manage the economy, and who’s got a better plan for illegal immigration, Romney has now deemed that McCain is the man who should be leading this country. All this after spending months on the campaign trail running attack ads and condemning establishment Washington and its rogue’s gallery of usual suspects, “who’ve never held a job in the private sector” (a not-so veiled jab at one Senator McCain).

When you look at Mitt Romney’s candidacy from his policy positions alone, it was as ridiculous as Senator Fred Thompson’s. Take away the chiseled good looks, the endless coffers of cash, and his made-for-TV personality, and what emerges is a illusory man who has lived his political life endlessly telling voters what he thinks they want to hear. When it was a political necessity to be pro-choice in order to win the Governorship of Massachusetts, he was pro-choice. Likewise, when it was a political necessity to work with Democrats in the Commonwealth in order to reform health care, he did so, in a way that was strikingly similar to the mandated health care plan that liberal wacko Hilary Clinton is currently touting in her Presidential campaign.

So then, why did so many people support Romney, if his whole campaign was nothing more than a charade? My Monkey and I think it was because he simply “looked” like a President, straight from central casting, which was enough to enamor that cross-section of Republican voters who invariably cast their vote according to my Immutable Axiom of Presidential Voting Patterns, which states that at the end of the day, people vote for candidates they know and like.

Wait a second, did I just imply that Romney was likeable? Well, yes and no. To a certain type of Republican voter, Romney was appealing. He has the looks, which I believe is enough to capture the attention of the casual voter who flips through the cable news channels from time to time and doesn’t really study up on the issues. “Now there’s a guy who looks like he should be President,” they might say, as they catch a sound-bite or two, or happen to watch one or more of the thousands of television ads that $17 million or more of his personal fortune could buy. But just as hot girls with lame personalities are never marriage material, good-looking candidates who fit the part purely from an image standpoint always prove themselves to be also-rans when it comes winning the Presidency.

So why am I even talking about this guy, considering he is no longer in the race and this series is supposed to be a helpful primer from a Progressive, Constitutionalist, Independent standpoint on who the heck to vote for in the General Election?

The answer is simply this: perhaps there is a God-fearing, flag-waving, US of A-loving Republican out there who was a Romney supporter but now doesn’t know what to do. Do I cast my vote for “liberal in sheep’s clothing” John McCain, despite the instructions of my favorite radio talkshow host? Do I sit this one out in protest, to punish Senator McCain and his supporters for daring not to strictly tread the right-wing Party line? Or do I, God forbid, cast my vote for a, gasp, Democrat, to REALLY punish Senator McCain, swallowing a nasty pill in order to rise from the ashes in four years cast and out the heathens from the Oval Office?

(Don’t touch that browser button – Post Continues below)

I would respectfully ask any true Republican to ask themselves the following questions in order to divine the path ahead:

1) Am I a pro-business or am I a Corporatist? We all know that the Republican party is the pro-business party, which usually translates as anti-regulation, anti-corporate tax, and anti-union, to name a few. What has happened over the last several decades, however, is that these concepts have trumped any regard for the interests of the individual over the interests of the Corporation. Regulations, while annoying and often expensive to abide by, generally serve the purpose of protecting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which are the “unalienable rights” as described in the Declaration of Independence, pre-dating the rights spelled out for us in the Bill of Rights (which later codified that neither life, liberty, nor property could be “deprived” without due process of law). In other words, they trump everything and were the reason we went to war with the British for our freedom in the first place. Non-negotiable here. The very fabric of our collective American being. Are you in favor of unalienable rights, Republican voter, or are you against them?

Corporate taxes, while annoying and costly, especially to companies like Exxon, which might have to pay billions of dollars worth, are actually some of the only types of taxes that are specifically outlined in our Constitution and actually define what we call “income taxes,” which technically don’t relate to wages and tips, or what we commonly and erroneously associate as “income.” Without getting into the whole debate over the legality of income taxes, I will say this, there is no debate over the legality of corporate income taxes, and as individuals, even Republicans, this is something we should prefer over the taxing of our wages. But has happened over time is that just about everytime you hear Republicans talking about reducing taxes, they’re usually actually talking about reducing corporate taxes, because that’s where most wealthy people get their money from, not from a paycheck like the vast majority of us. So where are you going to stand, Republican voter, on the side of the big corporations, or on the side of people who work for a living?

And as far as unions go, they are annoying, for sure, and costly too. But some form of workers’ organization is what has brought this country forward from the grips of the virtual slavery of the industrial revolution to the reasonably humane American workplace of the 21st Century. Are they still needed today? I’m not entirely sure, but the legacy of these unions is that they in part served as the engine that helped ensure that individuals’ interests, especially their health and well being, were at least brought to the board room when companies sought to increase their profit margins.

What I’m saying here is being against these traditionally “lefty” concepts isn’t “being Republican.” Being against these concepts out of hand is being against the rights of the individual, which frankly, is un-American. Being pro-business is fine. Business is the engine of our economy. A free, capitalistic society, represents the opportunity of anyone, regardless of economic status or personal background, to achieve success, provided the rules are fair. A good Republican should be pro-business but should remember that at heart we are a nation of individuals, not corporations, and that we should never value a balance sheet over our own humanity.

2) Do I believe in supporting and defending our Constitution or am I simply a militarist? As the President and commissioned military officers take a solemn oath to “support and defend” the Constitution, this should be the purpose of military operations, not nation-building, imperialism, or pure militarism to the end of fattening the pockets of the military-industrial complex. Does our foreign and military policy, especially in Iraq, serve to support and defend our Constitution or the Constitution of another sovereign nation? The answer should be clear. Any true Republican should remember that historically theirs is not a Party of warmaking. The current Administration outright militarism and imperialism is anti-thetical to a truly Conservative ideaology. The actual definition of conservatism is: “the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.” In this way, by definition, we see that our current military policy of the current supposedly “Conservative” administration is nothing at all close to being conservative, as our nation’s tradition since our inception has been to refrain from nation-building and generally maintain an isolationist foreign policy unless necessary to preserve the fundamentals of our society or our Constitution.

What I’m getting at here, Republican voter, is that none of your candidates embody the truly American values that you hold dear…perhaps only one “issue” might prevent you from voting Democrat or third party…

3) As a Republican, you might say, “But Romney said he would preserve the institution of marriage, and even though he changed his mind when it was politically convenient, he claims to value the sancity of unborn life! I can’t vote for a Democrat, they might allow gays to marry, which would threaten my own marriage, and they will continue to provide women with THE CHOICE to decide what is best for their bodies when it comes to pregnancy!”

Well, I might not be able to change your mind on these points, nor would I want to…that woudn’t be very Progressive, Independent, and Constitutionalist of me, would it? See, as a Progressive, we empower people to make their own choices about their own lives. These issues, we argue, are not to be governed, like taxes, foreign policy, health care, nor the environment. If someone wants to marry a llama, how does that affect my life? If someone has to make a horrible and difficult decision regarding an unwanted pregnancy, is that really my business? On issues on which there is no definitive one right answer, like gay marriage (I’m sorry, the Bible isn’t the Constitution, so keep your chapters and verses to yourselves if you’re going to use them to justify discriminating against gays) and/or abortion (scientists and doctors really have no way of knowing when precisely what we call life begins or when, precisely a “soul” enters the body), can’t we just let individuals decide for themselves and keep government out?

Republicans want to keep government out of health care, keep government out of regulating business with respect to the environment, keep government out of managing pensions like Social Security, keep the government out of negotiating for better drug prices for our seniors, but they want THE GOVERNMENT IN YOUR BEDROOM! What is that all about? Is it so wrong to empower individuals to make their own choices without some wingnut telling them what their old book, written by some guy who didn’t even know the world was round, has to say on the subject?

So Republican voter, I hope this clears things up for you as you make your decision on who to vote for now that Mr. Romney is out of the race and is now backing McCain.

RELATED POSTS: Who Should I Vote For?, Part II: John McCain and Who Should I Vote For?, Part I