Posted on 05/22/2012 7:05:50 AM PDT by xzins
Listen to interview at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/a-goode-plan-to-save-american-jobs/?cat_orig=money
As President Obama and likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney remain locked in a virtual dead heat, is there any room for a third party to make a statement or even be competitive in 2012?
That’s the hope of the Constitution Party and its nominee, Virgil Goode.
Goode says Obama’s spending is completely out of control but Republican proposals are also not good enough because he says the budget needs to be balanced now and not in a few years or a couple of generations from now.
“I would submit a balanced budget if elected president, and it would be painful,” Goode told WND.
He expects a fierce fight with Congress about cutting spending, but his plan would not focus on entitlement reforms. Instead, Goode envisions big cuts in discretionary spending – both in the defense and domestic portions of the budget. When it comes to jobs, Goode’s top priorities are to end illegal immigration and nearly put a stop to legal immigration in order to prevent foreign workers from competing with Americans for the job opportunities that exist.
“We’ve got to focus on discretionary spending, social-services programs. For instance, I’ll make sure illegals and recent immigrants don’t get food stamps,” said Goode.
Goode says he would also seek to repeal Obama administration regulations that he says are stifling job creation. He would start with the Obama health care-laws which Goode considers the most repressive to job creators. The former congressman says he is not a spoiler in the race but is a much needed voice on fiscal responsibility, ending government programs for illegal immigrants and other issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Naming a group of hot button issues with zero context certainly comes as close to an emotional appeal as is possible while retaining plausible truthiness.
I wouldn’t call anything safe. Never has a sitting _resident received so much opprobrium.
Records have contexts; this presents none.
Word. Romney will NOT get my vote.
To which you replied: Because it's an adherence to conservative principle, and not tribal loyalty to the GOP.... This should be easy for you to understand bb.
Why are you imputing "tribal loyalty" to the GOP on my part, from which I resigned two years ago out of sheer disgust — because of the mounting equivocations of said party with regard to fundamental constitutional and conservative questions?
I am a registered voter in Massachusetts of "unenrolled" status. Meaning, I have no political party affiliation at all nowadays; I am politically an independent voter. Meaning: I do not carry water for the GOP; indeed, I have serious concerns about that party's evolution in recent times. (E.g., the "Big Tent" scenario, which requires the party to trash its own historical base.)
From my view as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, any characterization of Mitt Romney as "a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal" does not comport with my understanding and experience of his tenure as governor of my state. I am frankly puzzled that such a rumor ever got "legs" to walk around on to begin with, such that you believe it.
Judging from what I have seen, this guy is no "progressive liberal." Where folks outside the state may deem him as such (for whatever peculiar reasons of their own), such a representation evinces profound ignorance about the "preferred method" of conducting the "official" State's business — given that Massachusetts is a machine-run state, much like Illinois, and California....
And the machine is not just Democrat liberal: it is outright Left-Progressive these days, bordering on anarchy....
How I long for the days of Tip O'Neill! But they are long-gone: Tip was a democratic populist; as such, he could work with a, say, Ronald Reagan to "get things done" for the people. Nowadays in Massachusetts, the machine is run by ideologues out of Harvard, MIT, and the labor unions. And they not only have an ax to grind against the historical American polity; but they want to utterly transform it — into something more congenial to their totally unhinged utopian dreams, so to construct a world in their own image. Which, whatever shortcomings one might find in a Tip O'Neill, is a completely different scenario than played in his political philosophy.
And Obama is "their guy." He's in their camp. Which is why he MUST be removed from presidential office.
You speak of Romney's "constant lying." Then you present a "list" of examples of his supposed malfeasance to support your view. But unfortunately, your "list" routinely falsifies objective reality.
Let's go through your list:
"1. [Romney] Implemented Gay Marriage."Romney did no such thing. The Supreme Judicial Court — that is, the State Supreme Court — did that, and unilaterally.
The reason it played out that way: The gay lobbies had haunted the General Court (i.e., the Massachusetts legislature) and Senate to pass a gay marriage law literally for years. The elected legislative bodies in this state did not want to touch that issue with a ten-foot pole — no matter how sympathetic the various individuals composing those bodies might have been to "gay marriage." Reasons: (1) They did not want to risk their own reelections by casting a "yea" public vote on a matter that they knew in their heart of hearts was repugnant to a significant body of people living in their electoral districts (Massachusetts is heavily Catholic). (2) If they did cast such a vote, they risked facing a gubernatorial VETO — which would only prolong the public dispute, and put them on "the wrong side of the issue" as far as a majority of Massachusetts voters were concerned. Plus they would put themselves out of the protection of The Boston Globe, which would tirelessly lobby against any miscreant legislator or senator who would dare to cast a NAY vote against gay "marriage."
So the Massachusetts political class reverted to the "Massachusetts model": All public decisions, ideally, are not to be effected by elected, accountable bodies supposedly reflecting the public will. All important public decisions should be referred to the Courts.
In short, gay marriage in Massachusetts was not the act of the governor, or the legislature; it was a judicial decision — a decision of an unelected and unaccountable body "made law" by extra-constitutional means. (And I daresay without any serious reflection on the permissible mandates of the Massachusetts Constitution, which John Adams wrote.)
Romney could not veto an act of the state supreme court, not like he could veto an act of the state legislature. The governor's powers do not constitutionally reach that far.
The governor's powers in Massachusetts are actually quite weak (and deliberately so) as compared with the powers of the chief executive in most other states. For the simply reason that the "machine" here prefers to get the public business (especially if it's socially divisive) done through unelected and unaccountable judicial courts.
2. [Romney] Supported AbortionTo this point, all I ask is for a direct quote from Romney in substantiation of your claim that he actively supports abortion. One that goes to the merits of the argument, not a statement in which he attempts to differentiate himself from any other person's claim in the matter (e.g., Teddy Kennedy's —who is probably roasting in Hell right about now....)
3. [Romney] Nominated 27 out of 36 extreme left-wing Progressive Liberal judgesI've mentioned this in the past, a couple of times by now. But I'll go another round with you on this question (evidently you didn't credit my last two posts on this subject). That fact is, the political machine in Massachusetts knows that it conducts its business with far greater felicity under a weak executive. The fact is, the governor of Massachusetts cannot make any direct appointment to any court in the Commonwealth. That is, he cannot nominate his own choice of candidates. Nominees for all judicial vacancies are selected by an unelected "governor's council." The governor is restricted to the choices advanced by this (unelected and thus unaccountable) body. Which puts the governor — if he is at all politically "conservative" — in the position of selecting the least worst candidates for the bench.
4. [Romney] Implemented an “Assualt” Weapons ban.This is news to me. Of course, in Massachusetts, an "assault weapon" is any "scary looking" firearm, including child's toys. All firearms are "scary" to your average person living in Massachusetts — particularly among some of my dear women friends....
5. [Romney] Implemented Socialized Medicine with a $50 AbortionSo you are saying that Romney is the "Machiavelli" who engineered and single-handedly passed "Romneycare?" This does not compute. The legislature was agitating to "do something" BIG. Probably the only reason what they effected wasn't worse than it was, was because of fear of Romney's veto on points.
The fact is, Republican governors in Massachusetts in recent times — I'm including Bill Weld here — simply do not have the power to override the ideological supremacy and resources of Progressive Left ideology.
6. [Romney] Raised taxes/fees by $700 million.This is news to me. He cut marginal income tax rates. He raised certain fees — but the sort of fees that were optional for any citizen to bear. The income tax, of course, is never "optional."
7. [Romney] Implemented a Carbon Cap and Trade systemHe did??? WOW. That's really news to me. Kindly fill me in on these details, which I seem to have missed somehow.
Arggh. As for items 8 through 11 on your list: I do not know what planet such events may have occurred on. But I do not recall any of them having occurred here in Massachusetts, under Romney's tenure as governor.
But perhaps you can supply further details, to show me what I may have "missed," as a concerned (and conservative) citizen of this Commonwealth.
In short, I just get the feeling that "you guys" are making up "stuff" as you go along.
To reach the point you want to make, but won't confess to: You deplore Romney's theology, and just can't get passed that, no, not even to save your own life, and the lives of your progeny.... And that is the long and the short of the present question....
There is a word for that sort of exercise: VANITY.
Well, again: JMHO FWIW.
Which I imagine is perfect "DIDDLEY-SQUAT" to you. For you seem to be so SURE of yourselves....
Which brings up another word: unholy PRIDE....
Be carefull of how you judge this man; for the elements of your judgment will assuredly redound on you personally, on the Day to come....
We have our Lord's promise with respect to precisely this matter....
Thank you so much for writing.
I originally wrote something to the effect that those who are voting for someone whose positions they oppose, because they feel backed into a corner, are voting emotionally and not on their principles.
My memory does say that might not apply to you, Sister Betty, since you’ve been positive toward Romney throughout the primary season, although he might not have been your favorite. I’ve attributed that in a past discussion with you to your Massachusetts citizenship and the likelihood that you’d voted for him as governor and had overcome the cognitive dissonance years before the ABO’s here on FR.
So, while I don’t accept your apologetics for Romney that you listed for SoConPubbie — we’ve had that discussion before I won’t call your attention to hundreds of articles and posts that disagree with your facts (go to the RomneyTruthFile) — I will acknowledge that your support for Romney, given that it is long-standing, probably is not emotional on your part. You have had time to work through the dissonance and actually come down philosophically supportive of Romney.
I can’t agree with you, but it does appear you’ve decided that Romney truly is not a danger.
Do you consider Romney to be a conservative?
Just, dang.
I looked in my “Shorter Oxford” two volume set for “eloquent”. Your picture was there.
I would characterize Romney as right-of-center on the political spectrum. Thus he is NOT a man of the Left. Neither is he as conservative as I am, or you are. His preferred governing style is consensus-building as the most efficacious way to get things done. I believe he sees politics as the art of the possible, not as the art of constructing a doctrinally preferred "perfect world." (Which I suspect is what you and your group of like-minded Romney detractors is seeking.)
In short, he is a political realist, not any kind of ideologist.
Plus he is a man who extends genuine kindness and respect toward others, which you are absolutely blind to. I consider him to be a good man, a man of upright character. I don't think he is a serial liar; I think you take his statements out of context, thus to justify calling him a liar. I simply do not recognize the person you describe as the real Mitt Romney.
So of course I do not consider him "dangerous." What we have in the Oval Office now IS dangerous. Terribly, fearsomely dangerous. And I worry that, thanks to people like you, that man will be re-elected to a second term as President of the United States.
FWIW.
Thanks KC for your very kind words.
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.