Fredheads, It's Time to Support Mitt

The Jawa Report ^ | January 22, 2008 05:18 PM | Dr. Rusty Shackleford

[Checkers]

Dear fellow Fredheads,

It's time to support Mitt Romney. Can Mitt win in a general election? I don't know. Certainly he has always had a better chance than Fred. And if the opposition is Hillary Clinton, then maybe.

McCain can beat Hillary. But McCain is, well, McCain.

To be honest, I'm not as down on McCain as most of my fellow Jawas and you, the readers. But that's just because I've been a one-issue guy since right around, oh, let me see, I think the date was 9/11/2001.

But still, McCain doesn't get that the border is tied in with our national security.

Mitt does. And he seems to get the war on political Islam.

Sure, Rudy also seems to get both, but it's probably too little too late for him.

I'm hearing some oddball theory that a lot of Fredheads are natural Huckabee supporters. That's insane. Like, certifiably insane.

It's built on the presumption that the evangelical supporters of Thompson are in the same boat as the evangelical supporters of Huckabee. I got news for Tom Edsell: they aint the same animal. Sure, they may have the same funny accent, and so I'm guessing that to an outsider like Edsell the presumption is that they must be the same species. But they're not.

[AFreeBird]

Well, I won't post it here as it is a quite lengthy rebuttal of basically what you just posted. Email from Glen Lavy, and rebuttal

And no, I'm not a lawyer, and while we may be a nation of laws; I'm of the opinion that lawyers are not part of the solution but part of the problem.

According to the MA Constitution; the legislature only is allowed to enact law. Hence the "opinion" of the court was to allow the legislature time to act upon their opinion. They did not. Romney did. And even if they had violated their own Constitution and created new law, it is also not without president that a Chief Executive can disregard, or otherwise overrule the court. Lincoln and Dredd Scott for example. Also, you brought up the fact of the common law terms of Man and Woman, but according to MA law, those common law terms in use when statutory laws were created are legal statutory definitions unless changed by the legislature.

So either Romney had no clue about MA law, was manipulated by those who did, or was willing to play along, and then play dumb later, or whatever. Romney's a RINO.

[Checkers]

Thanks for your post.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I think Romney accepts them. I don’t expect people to accept them. I do expect that the government will be blind regarding their sexual preference.

[Westlander]

Not identical, but similar situation of my own. The two surgeries and rad therapy was around 120K. I was not humiliated because I considered the implications of leaving a mess for my wife.

[gbunch]

Let's just say Romney may get my vote come February 5th. But I will not campaign for nor support him. Fred was my candidate. No one else in the race has his credentials. No one!

Well stated.

If Romney's the nominee, I'll hold my nose and vote for the guy, as I don't think he'd be as bad as whatever hellspawn the Dims end up running. If he's the nominee, I will pray I am wrong about him, and that he is sincere in the newfound conservatism he claims. At this point, I have severe doubts, and consider him merely the least offensive of the remaining GOP candidates which all fall woefully short of Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Until we have the transcript, it’s all we can do. When they post the transcript, we can show what was said.

I don’t think most people deliberately or purposely misrepresent things. I think people hear what they want to hear, like when people heard Rush endorse Fred last week, or say that he would sit out the election if Mitt was our candidate this week.

[Stars&StripesNE]

Hey -- you're free to vote for whoever you wish. You think McLame the Rhino is better, go for it.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Glen levy was right. THe rebuttal makes the laughable claim that NO lawyer has reviewed the case or the constitution, and THAT is why none have discovered how wrong Romney was.

Sorry. Legal scholars have poured over the court decision, trying to find ways to keep from having to accept gay marriage. MassResistance wants to attack Mitt Romney, and seems to care less about the actual issue of gay marriage.

While Mitt was fighting to get an amendment on the ballot, MassResistance was fighting not to HELP him do so, but to hurt him.

[Waryone]

That was President Reagan’s low point. He said he wasn’t proud of it, but he was never pro-abortion. He went from being no abortion unless the mother’s health was involved to being no abortion unless mother’s life was involved. He went from a pro-life to an even stronger pro-life position.

Mitt, on the other hand was absolutely and completely pro-abortion. He did not see why govt. should get involved with saving the child, he believed so strongly in a woman’s “right” to murder her child for whatever reason. Now, he changes his mind. The same mind he said was made up due to his mother’s pro-abortion position from the 1970’s. This great change of heart happens just before he decides to run for president.

How convenient. How fortuitous. How disingenuous.

You top that off with him wanting to put sodomites in the military and supporting Barney Frank’s ENDA legislation and you have ample enough reason to call this candidate a lib through and through.

I don’t vote for libs whether they have a (d) or an (r) next to their names.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Hell, I may do that as well, depending on what comes up in the next few weeks about Mitt-wit.

[WOSG]

Sure, he's a Mormon, and I think that there are just enough bigots out there that won't ever vote for a Mormon. A fair number of those are Huckabee supporters. But since the race may come down to the choice between a Mormon, a black guy, or a woman, I think we can safely assume that the morons will just stay home and not affect the outcome of the election.

Priceless!

[hiredhand]

We've all got our own personal stories of suffering and loss. For you to tell yours here and expect us to trust another lying, pandering politician just proves nothing. I simply fail to see your point. It seems you have a great pension for telling us how terrible we are for taking jabs at Romney, and not much more.

Don't start us with stories of death and dying. I'm one of a large number of U.S. Veterans here. If you want personal recounts of death and dying, we can supply you with plenty. Let me remind you that a lot of "us" died so you could have the right to vote for a lying politician. We died with no hope other than knowing we did what was right. We often times never had the option of even begging as your husband did. The option was to simply die, and a doctor or corpsman with some good pain killers was the best we could hope for. Don't insult us with your story about "begging" Medi-Cal.

We returned from places you'll never see...some you'll never even know about...bearing physical and mental scars that can't be repaired. But even if we did recount our stories, we'd never support the goobermint offering to wipe our asses and take "care" of us, any more than we were promised by virtue of the laws at the times during our tenure of service. We know better than anybody how they make good on these claims via the good ole V.A. Yet, for you to wish for the same thing baffles the mind. Go visit a V.A. hospital sometime. Or talk to a doctor or a nurse who works at one. You'll change your mind if you can get them to be honest about the situation. But that's what you'll have to look forward to with government run healthcare, because that is what the V.A. IS

In a way, it angers me to know that I served while you grew up with the attitude that you have. But we swore an oath, and carried it out faithfully, so you can stump for a leftist. Pretty good system we have here eh?

Just do us a favor and cut the emotionalism and the "family man" crap about Romney. I'm sure the same can be said for George Soros.

I'm glad your husband is better and in spite of disagreeing with you, wish you no ill will. However, you need to know that you're walking a "fine line" here. Please bear that in mind.

[Elsie]

Romney is not in favor of mandating health insurance at the Federal level.

But he does want to FORCE everyone to have it at SOME level!

[WOSG]

http://www.freerepublic.com/~UnmarkedPackage/#guns

Governor Romney has always supported the individual right to keep and bear arms. The firearms bills that Governor Romney signed into law (see below) were all endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and/or the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL), which bills itself as “The Official Firearms Association of Massachusetts.”

The NRA gave Mitt Romney a rating of ‘B’ in the 2002 election race for Governor of Massachusetts.
(Scott Helman, “Romney retreats on gun control,” The Boston Globe, 1/14/2007)

Craig Sandler, former Director of General Operations of the National Rifle Association and former Nashua Police Chief, endorses Governor Mitt Romney for President.

In endorsing Governor Romney, Craig Sandler said, “Throughout his career in both the public and private sectors, Mitt Romney has demonstrated exceptional leadership ability, integrity, and commitment to principle. As a New Hampshire resident, former law enforcement officer, and avid sportsman, I am supporting Governor Romney because he is the candidate who will protect our Constitutional rights and strengthen our nation.”

Governor Romney On Parker v. District of Columbia:

Governor Romney: “It is my hope that the Supreme Court will reaffirm the individual right to keep and bear arms as enshrined in the Bill of Rights and protect law abiding gun owners everywhere. To further guard this fundamental liberty, as President, I will take care to appoint judges who will not legislate from the bench but will instead strictly interpret the Constitution.”
(Romney for President, “Governor Romney On The U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision To Review Second Amendment Case,” Press Release, 11/21/2007)

Question for Romney from Human Events editor Jed Babbin: Do you view the second amendment as vesting an individual right to keep and bear arms? I know the Supreme Court is about to consider the Parker v. District of Columbia case. Aside from the legalities: as you personally look at the Second Amendment, do you think that’s the right of the state or is that the right of the individual gun owner?

Governor Romney: “It’s the right of the individual. I believe that our Constitution vests in the citizens of the United States the right to bear arms, to have weapons for their personal protection, for hunting and for any legal and lawful purpose. I’d like to see our gun laws enforced, to see people who use guns in the committing of crimes in jail for a long time, but I believe that individuals have the right to bear arms, and any incursion on that right, I would find in violation of the constitution.”
(Editors of Human Events, “Romney’s Four Wedge Issues,” Human Events, 11/21/2007)

[Elsie]

Mitt does not support DC mandates for Heath Insurance.

Okay...

[Elsie]

I think we can safely assume that the morons will just stay home and not affect the outcome of the election I wish that were true, but they will come out and vote 'Rat.

There will be a LOT of folks voting that don't work, because they'll be electing people who will STEAL more from those who DO work!

[Elsie]

I’d much rather ask God to keep a man faithful to his promise, than ask God to make a man break his vows.

Just exactly what VOWS are you talking about??

[Young Scholar]

The legal analysis in the "rebuttal" in your link is terrible.

First, they rely multiple times on this quote from the opinion: "We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

What they fail to note is that the court follows with this sentence: "The larger question is whether, as the department claims, government action that bars same-sex couples from civil marriage constitutes a legitimate exercise of the State's authority to regulate conduct, or whether, as the plaintiffs claim, this categorical marriage exclusion violates the Massachusetts Constitution."

So the courts follows, after much discussion, with this: "The department has had more than ample opportunity to articulate a constitutionally adequate justification for limiting civil marriage to opposite-sex unions. It has failed to do so."

And with this: "We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."

And concludes with this: "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion. See, e.g., Michaud v. Sheriff of Essex County, 390 Mass. 523, 535-536, 458 N.E.2d 702 (1983). So ordered."

Clearly, the court did not leave the legislature open to ignore the ruling and thus prevent same-sex marriage. Rather, it gave the legislature the option of altering the marriage statute so that it would conform with the opinion, letting the opinion take effect in 180 days regardless of what the legislature chose to do. The lower courts were obligated then to comply with the opinion.

Finally, the "rebuttal" includes the argument that the opinion itself is unconstitutional. Sure, it may be unconstitutional, but the court, not Messers Haskins and Paine, are the ultimate arbiters of that and if they rule one way, the Governor must obey that, whether or not he believes it is correct.

It's easy to twist even a court's opinion to make it appear to say whatever you want it to say if you use only select phrases (the same technique is used by activist judges to make the Constitution appear to say what they wish it to). But doing so is undeniably bad legal analysis, and it is abundantly clear what this opinion required.

[Elsie]

The loss of the last conservative in the race is a bitter pill and we will suffer the cost in the years to come.

Voting Repuiblican these days is a lot like the fellow who just couldn't bear the thought of the pain his Doberman would go thorough by having his tail docked; so he only took off one link every 3 months!

We may as well elect Hillary and get the pain over with so the rebuilding can begin 4 years later!

[Checkers]

You believe in a “Free lunch”.

I don’t.

We agree to disagree.