Paul Weyrich Talks About Why He Endorsed Romney - And Not the Others

National Review Online ^ | 6 November 2007 | Jim Geraghty

[Romneyfor President2008]

I don’t see 30piecesofsilver in the keywords. Fredheads must be asleep. :-)

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"Paul Weyrich just told the next generation of young people that being a Christian is one of those “it depends on what the definition of is is”."

So in order to be a good Christian I can't just vote Republican, I have to vote for a very specific Republican.

Can you forward me the email you got from God where he informed you of this?

[Jim Robinson]

No thank you. His record is that of a liberal abortionist socialist. I don’t believe his convenient presidential bid conversion. End of story.

[curiosity]

Add his refusal to endorse the marriage amendment

I'm a solid Romney supporter, but I must say, this fuss over marriage amendment puzzles me a little.

Yes, I support the amendment too. But I don't see why it's all that important for the president to support it.

Are people forgetting the fact that the president is in no way involved in the amendment process? To pass, an amendment must be approved by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and then be approved by 3/4 of all state legislatures. The president has literally no say in the matter.

Hence I really don't understand why everyone is focusing so much on what a presidential candidate thinks about this or that proposed Constitutional amendment. It's completely irrelevant to the office.

[calcowgirl]

Thompson may as well be the phony candidate. Here we have Rudy the frontrunner and Thompson bashes Romney but doesnt lay a glove on Rudy. Why is that? Thompson's real chances are in SC and FL, yet he leaves FL open for Rudy. And is suspiciously low-key and running a campaign that is suspiciously inept at taking enough advantage of openings to win ...just enough to get Rudy nominated.

Interesting observation.

[JRochelle]

Your ridiculous tagline makes me want a new tagline.

[BarnacleCenturion]

“Yes, I support the amendment too. But I don’t see why it’s all that important for the president to support it.”

The president has to offer moral leadership. If he isn’t for it then he is against it. And if he is against it then he is siding with the left wing pinkos, gay rights activists and other assorted fringe groups. Not a very good place to be.

Weyrich and Dobson are right. And many candidates in their eagerness to please everyone end up pleasing no one. Others take a stand and ally themselves with the right people. We’ll see which approach works out best in the end.

[Neu Pragmatist]

What do you consider key states ? I spoke the truth and nothing but the truth . Mitt consistently polls in the low double digits ... get used to it , because if that’s all he has after pumping massive resources into certain states , he’s done .

I absolutely read the endorsement and came to the conclusion that Weyrich knows that he is going to have to convince / sell / con people into coming to the Romney camp . Pathetic ...

[La Enchiladita]

Mitt Romney and the Supreme Court

Excerpts follow:

Douglas W. Kmiec is a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University. He served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He serves now as a co-chair of the Romney for President Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts...

Grasping the significance of the rule of law is one of the most understated aspects of the current presidential campaign. While virtually every Republican candidate has said something adequate about avoiding judicial activism, legislating from the bench, or a la Richard Nixon, being a strict constructionist, only one, Mitt Romney, truly has demonstrated by his state executive experience as Governor that he is capable of sustaining, without the distractions of politics or friendship, an historically-informed appreciation for what John Locke meant by the rule of law in his Treatise on Government: general enactments, prospectively applied, that are enforced evenhandedly and interpreted by a disinterested and capable judge. Maybe Romney is inspired by the knowledge that the historic phraseology "rule of law" comes from the original Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which noted that the powers of government shall be kept separate, and specifically, that "the judicial power shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." Or perhaps its simply Romney's unalloyed belief that the rule of law must never be allowed to be distorted as partisan or contradicting of such fundamental values as life or marriage between a man and a woman. But whatever the source of the inspiration, my conversations with Governor Romney and study of his past state judicial appointments convince me that a President Romney will make nominations in the tradition of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, and before all else, will insist that the women and men to be appointed have a demonstrated record of valuing the rule of law in the fuller sense discussed here...

Finally, likely headed to the Court's docket is the invalidation by a lower court of the District of Columbia's handgun ban. Here again because this is another issue that divides many people, we need to be able to count on the integrity of the justices to resolve matters. As Governor Romney has said about this case, "I hope the Roberts court takes the Parker case and upholds the Bill of Rights . . . ." Governor Romney recognizes that the best way to respect the Second Amendment - like other protections in the Bill of Rights - results when, but only when, the justices are fairly guided by the original meaning of the constitutional text.

[Neu Pragmatist]

Thompson never said the he couldn’t win and you know it.

It’s already been cleared up as another out of context smear , but I guess you missed it .

[BarnacleCenturion]

Intrade Political 'Securities'	Percentage	US$ Traded
Rudy Giuliani to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008	40.4%	$1.2M
Fred Thompson to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008	6.0%	$919K
John McCain to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008	7.1%	$1.5M
Mitt Romney to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008	29.7%	$999K
Mike Huckabee to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008	6.2%	$607K
Newt Gingrich to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008	0.3%	$590K

[JRochelle]

Is Intrade more reliable that a poll?

[Shelayne]

Fred hasn’t left Rudy alone. He took him head-on in the last debate.

I don’t think he is secretly (subliminally) shilling for Rudy.

[Paulus Invictus]

Fred has no chance now. He really doesn’t want it and said as much.

[johnthebaptistmoore]

Politics is a very strange entity where the truly better candidates too often don’t win.

[BarnacleCenturion]

yes, it factors in all the polls but also incorporates the trends, whereas a single isolated poll is only a snapshot of the moment.

[Shelayne]

Weyrich is trying to wake you folks up to the disaster that is bearing down on us. Meanwhile, everyone sits in his corner bashing everyone but his own pet candidate.

I am not bashing anyone. I simply stated my reservations about Mitt Romney. I don't happen to believe his "pet candidate" is the one who can rally the troops, either. His negatives are too high. That is a problem.

The endorsement was a letdown to read. That is how I saw it. I was expecting-oh, I don’t know- a little more fire. A little more passion. He wasn’t very convincing for someone making an endorsement that is all I meant.

[ansel12]

""As Governor Romney has said about this case, "I hope the Roberts court takes the Parker case and upholds the Bill of Rights . . . ." Governor Romney recognizes that the best way to respect the Second Amendment - like other protections in the Bill of Rights - "" “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them," he said. "I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety." ============================================================ NATIONAL REVIEW; "Waiting on Fred" Aug 27 2007 The Supreme Court, and judicial issues in general, are Thompson's strong suit. Not only does he have the background-the Watergate investigation, the Senate Judiciary Committee, private practice, and the job of guiding John Roberts through his confirmation hearings-he also knows the conservative legal stars who would likely be candidates for the Court in coming years. But he won't name names, beyond the men already there, "I like Roberts and Alito and Scalia and Thomas" he tells me. "We're in a heck of a lot better shape because of Roberts and Alito, and one more gain would put us in even better shape." Should he become president, Thompson would undoubtedly try to nominate that elusive fifth conservative. ============================================================

[ejonesie22]

You are right. The have staked their bank accounts and the money was not lite by any stretch.

Mitt’s donations were very welcome.

[Neu Pragmatist]

Nonsense .