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.
There's never a "right way" to bear false witness, either, brother.
You accused me of putting words in your mouth, but that is exactly what you are doing with Gingrich.
Here's the full quote: "I think at least they’re doing it the right way, which is going through voters, giving them a chance to vote and not having a handful of judges arbitrarily impose their will. I don’t agree with it, I would vote, ‘no,’ if it were on a referendum where I was but at least they’re doing it the right way"
I'll repeat myself again:
His comment was not an approval (Or legitimization) of gay marriage... he says very clearly that he is not for it and that he would vote “no”.
His comment was a condemnation of pushing an agenda by judicial activism.
It amazes me that people are either so lacking in reading comprehension, or so dishonest, that they can completely mischaracterize a solid conservative position as liberal one.
Not every aspect of your and my definition of evil are enshrined in the Constitution. There IS a right way as defined by the Constitution to make law in this country. Following that path is the only legitimate way to resolve disagreements with our countrymen over what our laws should be. It’d be nice if everyone agreed with you about same-sex marriage, but they don’t, so you have to deal with it in the right way. Getting the courts to declare that something is in the Constitution when it’s not is the wrong way, just as shooting everyone who disagrees with you would be the wrong way. Electing legislators and an executive that agree with you and having a referendum are the right way.
Of course judicial power is derived from the people, but it’s not an ABSOLUTE power. It’s also not a legislative power. They can interpret the law but cannot make laws up.
People of unimpeachable conservative credentials like Todd Palin, Rick Perry, Michael Reagan, Fred Thompson, Herman Cain, J.C. Watts, and Chuck Norris have endorsed Newt, with a partial endorsement from Sarah Palin. We can play the endorsement game all day long if you want to. As I recall, Rush and Levin endorsed Romney in 2008, as did Santorum, and I didn’t agree with them then either.
You can play guessing games with the election and momentum all you want, but nobody has been able to predict the twists and turns in this one yet. My feeling is that either Newt or Rick dropping out now would ensure Romney’s victory, because Romney could train all his negative fire on just one guy. At least right now, if he destroys one guy, the other one may rise up to replace him like Whack-A-Mole. Oh, and you aren’t SERIOUSLY telling us the National Review is “conservative” and not totally in the tank for Romney? We are not STUPID.
Then you reveal yourself to be just another SPINNER OF A WEB OF DECEIT in quoting smears against Newt that have been so thoroughly debunked repeatedly on this forum that you can’t possibly still be that ignorant to believe there’s any truth to them. You reveal that you had an agenda all along on this very thread to create a new lie and smear about Newt.
It’s been said repeatedly that there is NO NEW SPENDING proposed for Newt’s moon exploration. It’s all out of the existing NASA budget and private investment. STOP SPREADING THE LIE! Here are other answers...
http://www.newt.org/answers/#ryan-medicare-plan
Paul Ryan (and the House GOP’s) Medicare Plan
Like Ryan and the House GOP, Newt supports a premium support model for Medicare. However, he wants seniors to have the choice to opt into the new system or to stay in traditional Medicare.
Newt agrees wholeheartedly with Rep. Ryan that we must give our seniors more choices than the current one-size-fits-all Medicare model. Both concur that creating the opportunity for seniors to buy private insurance is the key to both improving care and lowering costs.
The one key difference is that under Newt’s plan, as outlined in his 21st Century Contract with America, seniors will also have the choice to stay in the current Medicare system or choose a private insurance plan with support from the government to pay the premiums. The other difference is that Newt believes that seniors should have this option starting next year, not in ten years.
Q: So why did Newt use the term “right wing social engineering” on Meet the Press when discussing these proposed changes to Medicare?
Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter.
In response to the host’s hypothetical question of whether Republicans should change Medicare even if there is public opposition, Gingrich’s response was no you should not. One of Newt’s basic governing philosophies is that government should offer a better alternative to existing entitlement programs that seniors can freely choose. Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter. Newt regards Paul Ryan as one of the biggest innovators in Washington, D.C. and he deeply admires the seriousness and boldness of his historic Path to Prosperity budget.
http://www.newt.org/answers/#relationship-with-freddie-mac
Relationship with Freddie Mac
Recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
After leaving public office, Newt Gingrich founded a number of very successful small businesses. One of these small businesses, a consulting firm called The Gingrich Group, offered strategic advice on a wide variety of topics to a very wide range of clients. One of these clients was Freddie Mac. At no time did Gingrich lobby for Freddie Mac, or for any client, and neither did anyone in Gingrich’s firm. This prohibition against lobbying was made clear to all Gingrich Group clients. Nor did Gingrich ever advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac, as some articles have incorrectly alleged. In fact, recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
Furthermore, as the New York Times documents, Newt urged House Republicans to vote against the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. View Newt’s Freddie Mac consulting contract here.
Newt is in favor of efforts to increase home ownership in America but as a conservative believes they must be within a context of learning how to budget and save in a responsible way, the opposite of the lending practices that led to the financial crisis. You can watch a video from March 2008 of Newt warning about the danger of politicized decision making in the housing crisis here.
As part of Newt’s Jobs and Prosperity Plan, Newt advocates breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and moving their smaller successors off of government guarantees and into the free market.