“So now you blame the messenger?”
Well, you chose to post it, surely knowing it was misleading, with your own little condescending addition, in violation of FR practice, and also without the fairly obligatory “Barf Alert”, so, yeah, I’m blaming you. You can do better than this.
You see there is never a “right way’ to legitimize an evil. To think, that you could find shelter in the democratic process suffers from a serious philosophical misunderstanding of natural law that goes back to the debates on slavery. In the states, judges too are part of the electoral process where judges are periodically subject to voter approval. To say that there are rogues judges is something we all know.
But the liberals and socialists will tell you that matters of interpretation, even when they are absurd, are part of constitutive government. Thus, when by 5/4, the SC struck down a GA statute and decreed that adult homosexuality cannot be criminalized and is in the nature of constitutional right of privacy, it was an outlandish decision. But the courts are entrusted with the “power” to do just that and this includes a wrong interpretation of statutes.
The fact that one stems from judicial power and the other from people power assumes that judicial power is not derived form the people. This is a wrong assumption. Neither judicial power or legislative power can ever, at least in the moral sense, legitimate an evil simply because one or other of the processes were used.
Perhaps Gingrich misspoke or he stated his belief in somewhat less than elegant terms but that is why he needs to clarify and correct this (mis)impression. To come down with fire-breathing rhetoric on the bearer of news printed in a reputable national publication undercuts your stand. Calling names like agent provocateur, and lashing out with invective simply confirms an underlying weakness in your posts.
People of unimpeachable conservative credentials like Rush and Mark Levin have said that Santorum is the “last true conservative standing.” This is not to sideline Gingrich but rather to admit the reality. Had it not been for Santorum’s Trifecta (OH,MN, MO), Romney would have had an unstoppable momentum. If Santorum fails to dislodge MI form Romney where he is the prohibitive favorite, Romney regains his momentum. Yet some of the ardent fans of Gingrich appear to have a morbid sense of delight that Santorum lost last Tuesday’s debate to Romney.
This election is not a cult of the personality. If Gingrich was in Santorum’s position, rest assured that many of us wolud have demanded Santorum to quit. But we cannot continue to bury our head in the sands. It’s no small coincidence that several conservative writers in National Review, the American Spectator, and The Weekly Standard have asked Gingrich to withdraw. These folks are not malicious individuals nor are they rooting for Romney.
My previous posts were not to “bash” Gingrich but news articles explaining that his $1.6m FreddieMac was an albatross he finds difficult to shake off or calling Paul Ryan’s seminal entitlement reform plan as “right wing social engineering.” Gingrich has a way of feeding into the narrative than he is “unstable” and “explosive” like his ideas for permanent moon-based colonies at a time of $16T national debt. Romney exploited all this so well that in FL, Gingrich got thrashed in every key demographic -single female whites, among all women, Tea Partiers, Cuban-Americans, Hispanics, 18-29 year old, and white males.
When Santorum flounders like in a debate performance, we hear gleeful hallelujahs from the Gingrich crowd but any threads exposing the dim prospects of Gingrich capturing the nomination at this stage of the game, or revealing his morally implausible comments like what was said about gay marriage in WA is somehow cause for shaking a hornets nest.
So feel free to argue, debate, and rebut but keep things in perspective and next Tuesday we’ll have more to say and so would Gingrich and Santorum.