If we do, I believe he will have to keep these commitments which are altogether different than what he did in Mass where the liberal State Legisalture had a hammer lock majority on every decsion and appointment he made.
Dear Jeff, I wholly agree.
First I was for Perry; then Newt; then Santorum. But it appears that Romney is the last man standing.
Virgil Goode has absolutely zero chance to be elected president. He has zero name recognition. There are only six months to go....
Just because he is a thoroughly good man, and the Constitution Party has the best platform out there (IMHO), doesn't mean that he can possibly be elected president, regardless of what we do in the next six months. (Short of direct divine intervention, of course.)
Romney is very largely being judged on his record as governor of Massachusetts, which is probably the most dysfunctional state in the Union, ideologically speaking. His critics probably forget — if they knew it in the first place — that in four years in office, he delivered over 200 vetoes of acts of the Massachusetts legislature. I do not recall a single one of them that was not subsequently overridden, thus to become what passes for “law” here.
The fact is the Office of the Executive in Massachusetts is “weak” — and made deliberately so over time — as compared with the governors of other states. The folks who run the political machine in Massachusetts prefer to do all their business through the Legislature and the Courts. A powerful executive only gets in the way; and so the long-term trend here has been to weaken the powers of the governor.
Case in point: the governor of Massachusetts cannot select judicial nominees, or make appointments to our Supreme Judicial Court. An unelected “Governor’s Council” does this. In short, the governor cannot have his own picks, but may only pick from a slate of candidates prepared for him by an unelected body.
To even be elected as a Republican in Massachusetts requires a good deal of “temporizing.” We see the same phenomenon with Senator Scott Brown, who faces the thorough-going Progressivist ideologue Elizabeth Warren on November 6th. Yet another choice of the “lesser of two evils” I suppose....
My home state is so gloriously beautiful — yet SOOOOOOO politically corrupt. So much so that Romney really didn’t ever have a chance to set matters aright. No one man could do that in four years anyway, it seems to me — the ideological rot goes so very, very deep here.
JMHO FWIW
Thank you so very much for your well-reasoned, valuable insights, Jeff!
Just because he is a thoroughly good man, and the Constitution Party has the best platform out there (IMHO), doesn't mean that he can possibly be elected president, regardless of what we do in the next six months. (Short of direct divine intervention, of course.)
Let's face it - this thread is about surrender. Plain and simple.
If conservatives were really as worthy as we like to thump our chest and point to ourselves as being, we'd get out and work for a real conservative - six months or no - instead of rolling over and pulling the Rom-knee pads out of the drawer.
If the real conservatives would jump the ship called GOP, and actually WORK for a party that supports our views, we would have a chance.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter if Goode wins or not, I will vote my conscience and support a CONSERVATIVE. I AM VOTING AGAINST BOTH Obama and Romney - they are two sides of the same coin.
The smart thing would be for all of us to leave the GOP over this and let them go the way of the Whigs while we build up a party that represents us.
No one would be an acceptable VP enough to get me to vote for Romney. It would be hypocritical of me to ever vote for Romney.
I’m out of the GOP over this. I will no longer be played the fool.