Posted on 07/16/2008 3:29:43 PM PDT by Plutarch
On Monday night, at a fund-raiser in New Mexico, John McCain said this about his former mortal enemy, Mitt Romney: “I’m appreciative every time I see Mitt on television on my behalf. He does a better job for me than he did for himself as a matter of fact.” This may not have been a joke.
Yesterday, Romney sat down for an interview with CBS News. It is a striking interview, in part because Romney seems to be making the McCain argument better than McCain, or McCain's campaign. There is a clarity to the soundbites that McCain has mostly lacked, a clear line of attack against Obama's experience and McCain's plans. Add to that whatever fundraising burst Romney could provide as a VP candidate, as well as Romney's strength in key swing states like Michigan and Nevada, and it's not hard to see why McCain may end up with a running mate whose hand he didn't shake in the primaries.
[See video at link]
EXCEPT: Mitt says in the interview that McCain distinguishes himself from Obama on drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. This is wrong, according to the latest McCain statements. Both McCain and Obama oppose drilling in ANWR.
(Excerpt) Read more at time-blog.com ...
Agreed. Their defeat will be total and complete. Unless McCain picks someone other than a white male, the race is, for all intents and purposes, over.
The above comment is self-serving by YOU. Romney didn't wirte the article, the author was DAVID FRENCH.
Here's some of what DAVID FRENCH and the Massachusettes Legislature had to say:
"You can read the entire opinion at the Massachusetts court website, but for those who lack the time--or stomach--to read the whole thing, please pay attention to this paragraph:
We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage.
"What does this mean? It means that the court interpreted (that's another word for "construed") Massachusetts law to mean that two people of the same sex could marry--and that any interpretation contrary to the court's would violate the rights of homosexuals. In other words, the court did not order the legislature to do anything. Instead, it did what the constitution allows it to do--it interpreted the law. It did so in an improper, activist way that abandoned the obvious original intent of the Massachusetts constitution and the Massachusetts marriage laws, but it interpreted the law nonetheless."
"Now, take a look at the next paragraph:
In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. 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.
Read it again. And again. Do you see any order directed against the legislature? No? Well, that's for a good reason. The court did not order the legislature to do anything--it merely stayed its judgement for 180 days for the legislature to take action that it deemed "appropriate." However, since the marriage laws had already been interpreted (construed) to include same-sex marriage, the legislature did not have to take any action at all for same-sex marriage to become legal. It was already legal because of the court's decision.
Frankly, it is sad that so many could be misled by something so simple--and simply wrong. When the Governor confronted the Massachusetts Supreme Court, he had two choices: (1) He could fight the decision using legal means; or (2) he could risk contempt citations and impeachment in an ineffectual, grandstanding attempt to block same-sex marriages. Rather than becoming the what the media would undoubtedly call the "George Wallace of gay marriage" and hand homosexual activists a propaganda victory to go along with their court victory, Governor Romney fought using the law and using his enormous gifts of persuasion. As a result, the same-sex marriage movement has lost public momentum, has lost court cases, and has lost at the ballot box. And we have Governor Romney and his principled, courageous, and compassionate defense of traditional marriage to thank for much of that success.
Mitt Romney did not "choose" gay marriage. At a critical moment in our nation's history, Mitt Romney did make a choice, and he chose to defend marriage in a way that can and should make all conservatives proud.
P.S. If you doubt my qualifications to read a court case, please read my bio.
What’s a “Conservaties” ? I don’t know any real Conservatives supporting lying liberal frauds like *omney.
It's about time we had a real conservative back in the race. It is a shame that he will VP for somebody like McPain, but McPain is getting old and the chances are better than average that Romney will have the opportunity to enter the Oval Office sooner than 2012 if he is McPain's VP.
For the same reason Dubya picked a running mate from Wyoming. It's not about geography, it's about COMPETENCE. A real Conservative and excellent Chief Executive with DC experience like Mark Sanford can't be beat.
"Is there a group of swing voters that Sanford appeals to more so than McCain?"
Yes. The Conservative Republican base, a base for which McCain DOES NOT have locked up.
"Thanks for setting me straight"
Always happy to set those that are misinformed straight. :-)
Did Romney wait 180 days? Or did he Order the clerks to obey the illegal order
or 'face personal liability' or be fired"?
What Romney did was comply with his previous promise to be to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy.
And then Romney would play 'victim' (his greatest role).
We get it. You want a 100% liberal ticket. We’re just here to let all the folks out there know you’re so ga-ga for RINO liberal flim-flam con artists like Slick Willard and badmouthing accomplished Conservative Republican Governors like Mark Sanford.
Too bad, so sad. We’re not letting you liberals get away with posting your pro-*omney propaganda unchallenged.
Exactly. That's why we need Mark Sanford as the VP nominee for the GOP. Just say NO to sleazy, GOP killing liberal con artists like Slick Willard *omney !
Having no big animus against Romney, I think he is absolutely the wrong choice for VP, the wrong choice beside McCain for the general election. To conservative Democrats and Independents he will be a manicured McCain and will not add any new dimension to a McCain presidency from their perspective. McCain needs to tap Bobby Jindahl. His age, his background, his defeat of the Dims IN LOUISIANA for the governorship offers many media-excitable modes with which to activate a new “surge” for McCain.
Woebetide friend McCain when Romney doesnt get the VP nod..
Romney will work against him like his father, george Romney did to Barry goldwater...
The Romneys are vindictive and sore losers...
And dont exactly love conservatives or Republicans....
Methinks you are correct, and that Romney and his BOTs
will work against the GOP behind the scenes, as they
did to wound other candidates during the primaries.
Indeed, the BOTs have already threatened that they will
support BHO, ‘bambi’ as they call him, if the GOP
dares not succumb to their demands.
Working against Republicans is *omney’s basic M.O. He has zero use for them unless they’re helping HIM, otherwise he’ll throw ‘em under the bus like a certain rodent Presidential candidate.
When you dont have the facts, argue the law.
When you dont have the law, throw those ad hominem.
Isn’t Obama laden with a ‘formal education in constitutional law’, too?
The best predictor of the future, is the past, is it not?
“The Massachusetts Republican Party died last Tuesday.
The cause of death: failed leadership.
The party is survived by a few leftover legislators
and a handful of county officials and grassroots activists
who have been ignored for years.
Services will be public and a mass exodus of taxpayers will follow.
In lieu of flowers, send messages to New Hampshire Republican voters
warning them about a certain presidential candidate named Romney.”
- Boston Herald, 11/12/2006
"In 2006, while Romney was chairman of the National Republican
Governors Association - a group dedicated to electing more
Republican governors - his own hand-picked Republican successor
as governor lost badly to the Democrat, despite the fact that Republicans
have held the governorship in Massachusetts since 1990. Romney largely
ignored the Massachusetts elections and spent most of the time
during the campaign out of state building his presidential campaign.
He came back and publicly campaigned for the Republican candidate
the day before the general election!
“Locally, this is a rebuke to Mitt Romney and checking out within six months
after being elected and having accomplished almost nothing,”
[Jim] Rappaport [former chairman of the state Republican Party]."
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006
McCain should come out and say soon that Mitt Romney is his VP pick. If McCain does that, McCain wins.
He is articulate, telegenic, and his most recent flip-flops have been in the right direction. Perhaps the latter is faint praise, but I don't require ideological purity in politicians. It is nice, but not necessary.
Mitt can pick a televised fight with the MSM and win, which I LOVE to see. I am tired of belonging to a political party without articulate leadership.
The Bob Dole Redux Campaign needs a lot more energy and focus, and Mitt could provide them.
Of course, the majority of members of the MA Supreme Judicial Court who made that ludicrous decision have apparently no formal education in Constitutional law. *omney could’ve told them what they could do with their “ruling”, but he was too busy helping them carry it out like a good little liberal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.