The Best Man for the Job
I'd like to take a moment to explain how I ended up so strongly in support of Gov. Romney and why, exactly, I'm doing this.
As with most journeys, the first step was on the wrong path. I'm a pretty restless guy. After taking a short break after the 2004 elections, I was started looking forward to the next election even if my interest was only mild. When President Bush began to disappoint, I started looking more seriously. Early on I came to what was a critical conclusion:
Don't underestimate the importance of that truism, for it frees us in the Republican Party to ignore who would necessarily be the candidate most likely to win (the undeserving Sen. McCain) and instead focus on the candidate that will make the best president.
So the search was on for the best our party has to offer. Most of the candidates I looked at had their good points and their bad points. Sen. Frist has a first-class mind and a pretty good personal story, but his performance as Majority Leader was unexceptional at best. Gov. Huckabee seems conservative enough and probably wouldn't scare too many people, but his biggest platform seemed to be based on his weight loss. Newt Gingrich is the party's greatest idea factory, but he's almost as polorizing as Sen. Clinton. I respect Rudy Giuliani very much, but he's just too liberal on social issues and is probably not suited for the presidency anyway. Sen. Allen seems like a good guy, but he just doesn't excite me and his football stories got old quick.
I was pretty much prepared to back Sen. Allen and hope he could break through against Sen. McCain. Honestly, I wasn't sure he could, and I can assure you I wasn't motivated enough to start a blog on the subject. You see, I hate voting against somebody. I can't say that I've never held my nose and voted for somebody (not that I would have needed to in order to vote for Sen. Allen), but I much prefer to actively want my candidate to win. None of the other candidates gave me that feeling. Then I gave Gov. Romney a second look.
I hadn't ignored Gov. Romney, I just didn't know much about him. Truthfully, I was more than a little annoyed with him at the time because it was becoming clear he wouldn't be running for a second term as governor (the GOP was already looking at a bad year for holding governorships). But, for the time being, he was a governor which is always a plus when looking for a presidential candidate. So I gave him a chance and caught a speech of his on one of the Road to the White House episodes on C-Span one weekend and I immediately pegged him as a speaker at least on par with Giuliani and well above anyone else in the field.
Still not giving him his due attention, I didn't pay too close attention to the content of what I assume was a variation of the standard speech I've become used to over the past few months. Certainly I found nothing disqualifying. It was enough to gain a bit of my interest.
A few weeks later I was pondering 2008 again. I did some google searching on the various candidates again. His health care solution was very impressive. I was very suspicious of the idea of socializing the whole medical industry, but thought that eventually something had to get done. Gov. Romney set out and actually found a solid balance between a system that wasn't working, and one that wouldn't work (and would bankrupt the state/country to boot).
Successfully tackling the most difficult domestic problem was more than enough to get me digging for more. And the more I dug, the more I liked. His strong response to the Gay Marriage ruling assured me that he was strong on my most important social issue, the judiciary. Being highly disappointed in the GOP's spending binge, his ability to balance his state's budget (yes, without raising taxes) was critical. An excellent politician, he would be elected easily and would probably expand the GOP majority while he's at it. Good businessman. Unlikely to have any skeletons in the closet.
I watched him in action on a few more television appearances and I just got to liking the guy more and more at a simple gut level. Not only is this the best man for the job, but he's someone worth getting excited about to boot. I had my candidate I wanted to go out and campaign for.
Eighteen months to primary season. I don't know how I'll feel then, but right now I'm exactly where I want to be.
As with most journeys, the first step was on the wrong path. I'm a pretty restless guy. After taking a short break after the 2004 elections, I was started looking forward to the next election even if my interest was only mild. When President Bush began to disappoint, I started looking more seriously. Early on I came to what was a critical conclusion:
Sen. Clinton will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee and is such a polorizing figure and horrendous speaker that she is sure to go down to defeat as long as the GOP puts forth a strong candidate.
Don't underestimate the importance of that truism, for it frees us in the Republican Party to ignore who would necessarily be the candidate most likely to win (the undeserving Sen. McCain) and instead focus on the candidate that will make the best president.
So the search was on for the best our party has to offer. Most of the candidates I looked at had their good points and their bad points. Sen. Frist has a first-class mind and a pretty good personal story, but his performance as Majority Leader was unexceptional at best. Gov. Huckabee seems conservative enough and probably wouldn't scare too many people, but his biggest platform seemed to be based on his weight loss. Newt Gingrich is the party's greatest idea factory, but he's almost as polorizing as Sen. Clinton. I respect Rudy Giuliani very much, but he's just too liberal on social issues and is probably not suited for the presidency anyway. Sen. Allen seems like a good guy, but he just doesn't excite me and his football stories got old quick.
I was pretty much prepared to back Sen. Allen and hope he could break through against Sen. McCain. Honestly, I wasn't sure he could, and I can assure you I wasn't motivated enough to start a blog on the subject. You see, I hate voting against somebody. I can't say that I've never held my nose and voted for somebody (not that I would have needed to in order to vote for Sen. Allen), but I much prefer to actively want my candidate to win. None of the other candidates gave me that feeling. Then I gave Gov. Romney a second look.
I hadn't ignored Gov. Romney, I just didn't know much about him. Truthfully, I was more than a little annoyed with him at the time because it was becoming clear he wouldn't be running for a second term as governor (the GOP was already looking at a bad year for holding governorships). But, for the time being, he was a governor which is always a plus when looking for a presidential candidate. So I gave him a chance and caught a speech of his on one of the Road to the White House episodes on C-Span one weekend and I immediately pegged him as a speaker at least on par with Giuliani and well above anyone else in the field.
Still not giving him his due attention, I didn't pay too close attention to the content of what I assume was a variation of the standard speech I've become used to over the past few months. Certainly I found nothing disqualifying. It was enough to gain a bit of my interest.
A few weeks later I was pondering 2008 again. I did some google searching on the various candidates again. His health care solution was very impressive. I was very suspicious of the idea of socializing the whole medical industry, but thought that eventually something had to get done. Gov. Romney set out and actually found a solid balance between a system that wasn't working, and one that wouldn't work (and would bankrupt the state/country to boot).
Successfully tackling the most difficult domestic problem was more than enough to get me digging for more. And the more I dug, the more I liked. His strong response to the Gay Marriage ruling assured me that he was strong on my most important social issue, the judiciary. Being highly disappointed in the GOP's spending binge, his ability to balance his state's budget (yes, without raising taxes) was critical. An excellent politician, he would be elected easily and would probably expand the GOP majority while he's at it. Good businessman. Unlikely to have any skeletons in the closet.
I watched him in action on a few more television appearances and I just got to liking the guy more and more at a simple gut level. Not only is this the best man for the job, but he's someone worth getting excited about to boot. I had my candidate I wanted to go out and campaign for.
Eighteen months to primary season. I don't know how I'll feel then, but right now I'm exactly where I want to be.
posted by Thomas Alan | 1:50 AM
7 Comments:
Thomas
You said: "His strong response to the Gay Marriage ruling assured me that he was strong on my most important social issue, the judiciary." How would you know that he is strong against gay marriage? You in an earlier post admit that you are not strongly opposed to gay rights. You said: Domestically, I'm a mixed bag. I'm very strongly pro-life and do not believe in an exception for rape or incest (I find it reprehensible to punish the child for the sins of the father), do not like the idea of doctor assisted suicide, and am very much against legalization of narcotics. However, I am sympathetic to gay rights. So I seriously question your ability to assess Mitt Romney's strength in this area. Nonetheless, I believe you appear to be an honest person. So with that in mind, I hope you take an honest look at the following.
If as you say, Mitt Romney is strongly against same-sex marriage, then you might be able to explain how he is able to run around the country claiming to be against gay marriage when he is actually the person RESPONSIBLE FOR GAY MARRIAGE coming to America; and not (as he would like everyone to think) our imperialist judges. If you are interested because as you say this is your most important social issue, you should research the following.
Did the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reformulate not just the definition of marriage but also the definition of separation of powers? Is Mitt Romney, not one of the three "co-EQUAL" branches of Government? Does he not have the legal/constitutional duty to uphold current Massachusetts law? What then is the current state of Massachusetts law?
Either the Massachusetts Court rewrote the marriage statute, which is clearly unconstitutional, or they did not. If they did not, Romney had no legal duty to order the issuance of marriage licenses. If they did, Romney had a legal obligation to ignore their unconstitutional legislative act (because the Massachusetts Constitution states that only the legislature may create laws). That limitation against legislating (by the way) applies to Mitt Romney as well. He as the chief executive (the executive branch) has no legal authority to enforce laws that DO NOT EXIST. If there is a law in Massachusetts that permits same-sex marriage, please I would like Mr. Romney to point it out.
Contrary to a popular misconception (except for certain lawyers and judges who are very much aware of this), gay marriage currently is not legal in Massachusetts. The SJC interpreted the marriage statute to NOT PERMIT same sex marriage. The SJC declared the marriage statute “unconstitutional” BUT they did not strike that law (read the Goodridge case). It remains a statute on the books as it was originally written and intended. The Massachusetts Constitution clearly states that a law that remains on the books is the law until it is repealed by the Legislature. The SJC simply changed the “common law” meaning of the term marriage but because that term already exists in the statute and in the Constitution, the SJC’s “common law” declaration of a new meaning did not and could not change the statute nor the words of the Constitution because common law is subordinate to statutory and constitutional law. The SJC acknowledged this in the Goodridge case saying that they could not legislate and therefore gave the legislature 180 days to act. The legislature neither repealed the “unconstitutional” marriage law nor changed the law by way of a change to the statute nor by allowing the Constitutional Amendment to go through in 2005. Therefore the “law,” the marriage statute, that forbids same-sex marriage, continues to forbid it.
The only reason why same-sex marriage licenses are being handed out in Massachusetts (and as a result are coming to the rest of America) is because Mitt Romney ORDERED them into existence . . . but he did that without legal authority under any statute. This is confirmed by the fact that the Massachusetts Legislature currently has two opposing bills pending before it; one that promotes same-sex “marriage” (H977/S967) and the other that defines marriage as the union of one man to one woman (H654). If same-sex marriage” was currently legal, there would be no reason to have either of these opposing bills pending before the Massachusetts Legislature.
Mitt Romney could END GAY MARRIAGE simply by revoking his illegal order (ordering town clerks and justices of the peace to violate Massachusetts law by handing out marriage certificates to same-sex couples when Massachusetts law does not permit them from being issued -- and against the moral conscience of decent public servants [TC's and JP's]). He should be ashamed at claiming to "stand up" against judicial tyranny as a political “position.” If he were an honest man, he would end gay marriage today and actually stand up against judicial tyranny, even though it might cost him a little politically. I believe, however, if he would have the moral character and courage to do what is right, he would easily sail into the White House. Indeed, he is looking a gift horse in the mouth by not taking full advantage of his opportunity that would distinguish him from all of his other opponents. But every day that passes is a day he has failed to meet his constitutional and sworn duty to uphold the laws of Massachusetts. It is shameful and I thought you should at least be aware of it, since you are putting your own credibility on the line for a man who is not who you claim him to be.
So you believe that Gov. Romney should take President Jackson's advice and tell the judiciary to enforce their own ruling? Very well, you've convinced me.
However, before withdrawing my support for Gov. Romney, I would like to ask you which potential Republican candidate will make such a stand.
Thomas,
Thank you for your comments.
While it had not crossed my mind, now that you mention it, if I were you I would seriously reconsider supporting Romney. Truth is, I wouldn't mind seeing him as President because I am from Massachusetts. My concern is this. Either he has had some terrible advice from his lawyers and handlers in how to address same-sex "marriage" or he actually is in favor of it.
Understanding Romney starts by understanding the difference between his public statements on where he stands on "conservative issues" and his actions. For example most people don't realize that he was (is?) in favor of gay Boy Scout scoutmasters and of his exclusion of the Boy Scouts from the Olympics because of their policy excluding gays.
Those positions undermine his public statements claiming to be in favor of protecting marriage (one man one woman).
He is by far the only potential presidential candidate who could easily sail into the white house . . . but he, for some reason, doesn't know or doesn't want to capitalize on his fortunate situation.
He is the only one of the potential candidates who is right now in a position (as he runs for president) who could end same-sex marriage. By revoking his illegal order he would be protecting democracy, traditional marriage, separation of powers, and the entire nation would respect such a courageous and honest decision. Instead this unique opportunity is being squandered. So no other candidate is as lucky as he, but it appears he doesn't get it or doesn't want to get it. Either way, puts him out of being "the best man for the job."
Whether or not the other candidates given an opportunity would have the courage to make the right decision, doubtful. But as Justice Learned Hand once said: "Common prudence is not reasonable prudence." i.e., who cares what the others would do . . . not to mention that they are not in the position to do anything so monumental.
Gay marriage would not exist in America but for Romney's illegal order. This was not even requested by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court nevermind required of Romney. So why would he take it upon himself to order the certification of unlawful marriages? Don't you think every one of his upcoming opponents will use this to slaughter him?
The gay agenda is now rapidly moving into our Massachusetts school system and has caused Catholic Charities of Boston to get out of the adoption business (started over 100 years ago ). This is all BECAUSE of his illegal order ordering town clerks to act against the law and against their conscience. He agrees with me on this. He just would rather blame judges for these things. But it was NOT the judges who let this happen. Romney took an active role, which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not even ask him to do. He is the father of gay marriage. Don't you think his opponents will pound him over this?
After a while the "The judges made me do it becomes a lame excuse and the truth will come out." It probably will come out only at the most inopportune time for Romney. Why he would not divert it is beyond me. Romney is the only one who has had the opportunity to make such a monumental decision in favor of democracy and he has failed. There is still time for him to do the right thing. His failure to do so will in my opinion, ruin his chance to become the next President. His courage to do so would gaurantee him the next presidency.
Ain't life a _itch.
Thomas,
FWIW, Robert Paine and John Haskins from MassResistance have been scanning the "for Romney" blogging community and pasting in their misguided opinions for some months now. They seem to want to convince everyone that "Romney is the father of gay marriage" . . . seemingly trying to imply that he devised a plan to secretly get his life-long desire of helping same-sex couples unite while appearing to be against it the whole time (he's a gifted politician to be sure . . . but nobody could orchestrate that one!)
Taking a step back from their convoluted claims and looking at the "big picture" it all doesn't make any sense, espeically highlighted by four points:
1) If Romney could have found a way to legally stop Gay Marriage in MA (and believe me, he tried and tried and tried again) he absolutely would have as he would be every social conservative's "darling" and a "shoe in" for the GOP nomination (which he has been eyeing for some time).
2) The homosexual community hates Romney. I scan articles and blogs about Romney and HAVE NOT FOUND ONE from a homosexual source that speaks highly of Gov. Romney.
3) The entire Anti-gay marriage community (except for this tiny faction) lauds Romney as one of the strongest and the most articulate supporters of traditional marriage. See quote below from the most prominent activist supporting traditional marriage:
“Mitt Romney is a brave man. While the GOP glitterocracy attended the first gay wedding of one of their own, Gov. Romney was in Washington, D.C., making the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician. (Maggie Gallager -- President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy)
4) See for yourself how the whole gay marriage issue played out in the Boston news. Go to http://cbs4boston.com/video/ and there is a blue "Search" tab by all of the video clip thumbnails. Click on that and then type in "Romney Gay Marriage." 12 video clips will pop up in reverse chronology. Scanning the headlines chronologically will tell you that Romney kept coming up with new attempts to legally thwart gay marriages from happening in Massachusetts. Watch all of the video clips (most are just a couple of minutes long) and tell me if you are not 100%, completely, and totally convinced that Romney did everything in his power (legally) to prevent gay marriages from occurring. Tell me if the gays and/or liberals quoted seem happy with Romney (some even calling him "a Religious Zealot" for his opinions/actions).
I'm going to play their game and paste in this reply where ever I see them pasting in their missives. If they respond, though, I probably will not waste any time trying to convince them of their errors (they've obviously made up their minds and are "crusading" against Romney). Just wanted to get this information here for anyone that may be confused on the issues. Any reader with half a brain will realize whose side of the argument holds water and whose does not.
Jeff,
1) If Romney could have found a way . . . Jeff I have explained the way. It was simple. Do his job.
2) Good, because I don't hate him, I just believe that the fact that he violated the law and could and should do something about it right now is an important part of this discussion about his presidency. He has a constitutional duty (and moral duty) to do something about the illegal licenses that are being handed out right on a daily basis.
3) I am no faction, but rather a person who lives in Massachusetts and who has been directly affected by SSM. It is going to get worse and Romney should have stopped it (and he still should). I am not a member of Mass Resistance, yet their work is outstanding and respected throughout the country.
4a) See for yourself how the whole gay marriage issue played out in the Boston news. . . .
Do these videos address the legal issues I have raised? If not, then tell me why you choose not to discuss the legal issues I have raised. If you are going to be looking at web-sites to reveal the truth. Read this information and tell me if Romney and his lawyers knew that they were not doing everything in their power to prevent same-sex marriage. Yes, it is on the Mass. Resistance web site (oh no): http://www.article8.org/hobbib_letter.htm.
4b)Jeff said:
I'm going to play their game . . .
This is no game. This is serious.
Jeff, why not just answer the questions and let the readers decide. What is the answer? Did Mitt Romney have legal authority to order the town clerks to issue marriage certificates or did he not? If he did not, why did he do it? If he did, where is the legal authority? This is quite simple. My opinion is that he did not. My opinion is based on a reading of Massachusetts law and the Massachusetts Constitution. My words are not slanderous, in any way. They are based in fact and logic.
Last reply.
I am no lawyer, but I know that Romney is a "cum laude" Harvard Law Grad and that he retains an excellent staff of legal counsel. I am inclined to side with the man I know and trust more than a group of coordinated anti-Romney crusaders. Sources and intent are very important factors to evaluate when reading arguments. I do not trust your intent and am not convinced by your arguments.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the logic. Indeed, it might be even harder for lawyers (and I mean that honestly). Why not discuss (and refute if possible) the logic? Because you have done nothing other than ridicule me. Not once have you attempted to discuss the substantive issues.
What is the purpose of your blog? To tell each other what great supporters of Romney you each are? This is a serious issue. One on which you are touting Romney's successes.
What if you have not been fully informed? What if Romney, who went to Harvard Law, outright ignored the legal counsel of a former SJC judge on these points? What if his legal background makes his misconduct even more egregious?
What I was hoping from you was an explanation of why my logic is faulty. You say you are not convinced, so I am wide open to understanding your position that Mitt Romney is not responsible for same-sex marriage. If you cannot, then I would prefer you not disparage me anymore.
You said you don't trust me and you are not convinced by my arguments without even attempting to refute them. What if I am trustworthy? What if my argument is correct? What if I am trying to help Mitt Romney become President? He could walk away with the presidency tomorrow - hands down. It is that simple. How can you not recognize my intent?
Will nothing I tell you will convince you? That of course does not make me wrong. If I told you that I VOTED for Romney and also that I tried to prevent him from making this mistake before he made it, would that help?
I previously offered to provide you overwhelming amounts of Massachusetts Case law that supports my statements here and you have ignored that offer.
There is an obvious and gaping lack of authority that makes same-sex “marriage” licenses in Massachusetts null and void. In the end, whether you believe Romney is responsible for same-sex "marriage" coming to America or not, what really matters is whether the conservative voters he is courting finally come to realize that he was never required to issue even one same-sex marriage license. He simply chose to. This will probably be focused on by one or all of his political opponents. And thus, it is Romney who is responsible for this national tragedy and it is he who could end it.
Post a Comment
<< Home