-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
The Spectacle Blog
This web site backs Rick Santorum’s criticism last night of Mitt Romney’s role in the Massachusetts marriage controversy. This timeline lays it out.
To me, it’s a bit of a red herring. Romney was in a bind either way. Some conservatives against homosexual “marriage” blame Romney, others say he had little choice. I might have been inclined not to take some of the proactive steps Romney took to implement his state Supreme Court’s decision. I think Santorum, on technical grounds, probably made a valid criticism, although I think he overstated the degree of Romney’s, uh, deviation from orthodoxy. But it’s not as if Romney was personally culpable for the new marriage regime. It seems like he legitimately tried to oppose it at various times. In short, this is the least of Romney’s flaws. It may be time for me to detail some of those other, worse, flaws in a column soon.
Rob| 12.16.11 @ 2:29PM
I respectfully dissent. I think this episode reveals Romney to have a character flaw when it comes to being a constitutional conservative. When push came to shove, his liberal leanings took priority over preserving the original intent of the state constitution, with the result that the Supreme Judicial Court in MA was effectively allowed to amend the state constitution without a constitutional amendment or even a state referendum or legislative vote, and in a manner contrary to the direct, on-point language of the constitution. He could have chosen to taken no action whatsoever, other than simply referring voters to the text of the state constitution, and then wait to see if the supreme judicial court wished to sanction the state legislature or else effectively create new legislation authorizing a change in state marriage licenses (something necessary for same-sex marriages to be legal).
Dan| 12.17.11 @ 5:51AM
Hillyer is going to bat for Romney, and in the process tying himself in intellectual knots.
It's not a pretty picture.
Dai Alanye | 12.18.11 @ 1:36PM
Whoever said Romney is a Constitutional Conservative? He's not, of course, nor ever has been. Which is why, in my opinion, if we nominate him as the least objectionable of the leaders, he must have a strongly conservative VP.
That VP would be the same Rick Santorum who raked him over the coals on homosexual "marriage."
JP| 12.16.11 @ 3:31PM
Mitt knew what he was getting himself into when he first ran for govenor of Mass. He could have vetoed the bill and took his lumps. Instead, he went with the flow. And what if polygamy was being pushed by 60% of the state? I suppose he would join the majority.
Dan| 12.17.11 @ 5:35AM
That's what he does, he tends to go with the flow. Not always of course, nor every issue.
But he doesn't SEEK out and engage. Romney isn't the kind of guy to go out on a search and destroy mission of the liberal agenda.
Interested Conservative| 12.16.11 @ 4:04PM
"In short, this is the least of Romney's flaws. It may be time for me to detail some of those other, worse, flaws in a column soon."
Getting kinda late for that, unless Newt can string it out beyond Florida. If Mitt does well in Iowa, wins NH, and places in SC and Fl., it's over.
Greta| 12.17.11 @ 12:24AM
I do not agree with this at all. If Santorum and Bachman drop out after NH or earlier, I see Gingrich getting a lot of that vote. If Paul continues to implode and drops out and does not do third party, Gingrich benefits. As this goes along, I don't see Romney improving as the race competition narrows.
Wayne| 12.16.11 @ 4:12PM
Romney kept making it a point about he can work with the Democrats. I have little doubt that as President he would team up with the RINO republicans and the democrats and work against the conservatives. Romney is Plan B.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 9:06PM
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The Same RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Dan| 12.17.11 @ 5:38AM
Yea, we're beings set up alright.
And Michelle Bachmann is doing the setting up.
She purged Pawlenty.
She went after Perry.
Detect a trend yet?
If not, that trend was confirmed when she went after Gingrich.
EVERY SINGLE threat to Romney has been targeted with falsehoods by Bachmann.
She's been a greater disaster in this race than was Cain.
And that's saying something, for Cain long delayed a genuine collision and confrontation between genuine contenders.
James| 12.16.11 @ 9:47PM
Seriously, what is wrong with you people?
Why can't you just admit that Santorum was doing what he does best - politics.
It's very interesting that Santorum gave Romney a "GLOWING" endorsement in 2008 and said that he was the MOST conservative candidate.
Where was the talk about gay marriage in 2008 Rick?
More hypocrisy coming from the extreme right.
Dan| 12.17.11 @ 5:39AM
You're forgetting context.
Santorum KNEW full well what a jerk McCain was.
And Santorum couldn't bring himself to support Giuliani, especially when Giuliani refused to flip flop on abortion.
Who was left, that slick snake oil peddler, Huckabee, and Romney.
Process of deduction.
Dai Alanye | 12.18.11 @ 1:59PM
A perceptive analysis by Dan.
Greta| 12.17.11 @ 12:27AM
And another thing on Ron Paul. I just realized how old Paul is. If elected, he would be three years older than Reagan was going into office for his second term and many argued he was not as sharp in the second term at this advanced age. Not sure how anyone can really support Paul. Now I see why he seems to stumble around when answering some of the key questions.
Rob| 12.17.11 @ 5:31AM
Here's what Santorum said: “Romney, when he was governor of Massachusetts, was faced with a Supreme Court decision that said that traditional marriage was unconstitutional. In that court decision, the court said that they did not have the power to change the law in Massachusetts and rule same-sex marriage legal. Why? Because in the Massachusetts Constitution it states specifically that only the governor and the legislature can change marriage laws. The court then gave the legislature a certain amount of time to change the law. They did not.”
“So Governor Romney was faced with a choice. Go along with the court or go along with the constitution and the statute. He chose the court and ordered people to issue gay marriage licenses. And went beyond that. He personally, as governor, issued gay marriage licenses. I don't think that is an accurate representation of his position of saying tolerance versus substantively changing the laws."
In response, Romney claimed that Santorum offered a “novel understanding” although Romney is surely well aware that the same objections made by Santorum were made by conservatives in Massachusetts while he was governor.
Constitutional conservatives should note Romney's surrender to whatever judicial liberals imagine might be found in his state's constitution: “The Supreme Court of Massachusetts determined that under our constitution same-sex marriage was required,” Romney said in his rebuttal. “And the idea that that somehow that was up to me to make a choice as to whether we had it or not was a little unusual.”
He considers it "a little unusual" to believe that the judicial branch from time to time should be checked by the executive and liberal branches when it strays beyond the plain meaning of the text of the constitution. This is a pre-emptive surrender to judicial tyranny not only in this specific case, but potentially in all future cases, and ill befits any candidate for public office.
Dan| 12.17.11 @ 5:49AM
Notice that during the many debates, two issues have religiously been avoided.
1} The manner in which Romney went along with this ruling, this judicial dictation; and
2} Romney's position on supposed global warming.
BOTH of those issues, if pursued even in a cursory manner, would shatter Romney's candidacy for the GOP nomination.
People don't have a clue the damage of a Cain, of a Bachmann, of a Huntsman, a Paul, who have stolen needed air time that might have been used to cover other issues.
The frivolous and the kooky have had a baleful impact on our selection process, and we let them.
Dan| 12.17.11 @ 5:44AM
NO COURT has the power or authority to DICTATE the specifics of legislation. Such an understanding of the power of the courts overturns settled understanding of separation of powers.
The legislature is coequal to the judiciary, not superior, nor inferior.
When Romney folded before the Mass. Supreme Court, he USED THEIR RULING as an excuse to do something that he was quite comfortable doing, which was advance an aspect of the liberal agenda.
Romney ALREADY then was intending to run for higher office, and many in the GOP see continued opposition to flamers flaunting their flamerism as nothing but a modern incarnation of Jim Crow. So for Romney, it was a perfect opportunity to highlight his supposed "moderation," in sharp contrast to guys like Santorum, who see same sex marriage not as a road to decadence, but as one of the end terminals therein.
This is but another tell of what a Romney administration would look like.
If you guys thought that the Bush fellas were bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.
martin j smith| 12.17.11 @ 8:30AM
This is the wrong issue to challenge Romney on. If I could ask Romney and all other candidates a question it would be this: How would your policies differ from Obama's if you were elected. And to be sure I get this in as a follow up it would be this: Do you believe the 2012 election is a referendum of the question: Capitalism versus Socialism ? Or not.
bill| 12.17.11 @ 11:30AM
Romney helped enact the same sex marriage law in MA. He is a pseudo-democrat and is not trustworthy. He will never get the GOP node, and let alone the POTUS.
Rob| 12.17.11 @ 5:21PM
Romney is a judicial supremacist, whereas some of his competitors for the GOP nomination are not. Gingrich has been quite outspoken re reigning in judges who substitute their own leftist ideas for genuine constitutional principles, and Bachmann (presumably also others) is of a similar sentiment. For Romney, it would be "novel" not be a judicial supremacist, even when (as in the case in MA) the court's notion of judicial interpreting was far more novel--that of effectively amending the state constitution by judicial fiat that the meaning of the word "marriage" could be redefined in a manner entirely unfounded in any public sources that would shed light on the word's meaning at the time the constitution was written. Romney could have followed the Republican heritage of predecessors who challenged pro-slavery judicial interpretations, rather than simply roll over as if the Supreme Judicial Court had the last word on the matter. If this is his response to the court ruling he knows best, then how can he be trusted to resist court rulings such as Roe v. Wade, etc.? He has already surrendered in his heart to whatever he thinks "reasonable" judges think best, no matter how contemptuous such judges may be of the intended meaning of the founders.
Oldefarte| 12.17.11 @ 5:26PM
The fact is that Romney was an elected Republican of a liberal Democratic partisaned state [just as is Scott Brown] and homosexual marriage is favored by that state's residents and supported legislatively by its state congress. If as his state's chief administrative officer, he is required by law to carry out the legislation enacted by its congressional representatives, is he supposed to break the law and not enforce/carry out same? The general overall problem with Romney is that being a former governor of a northern, liberal state, he is politically compromised from previous political historical associations. He's obviously very much intellually capable of being president, but is he so tainted by his history or being surrounded and possibly influenced by yankee liberals, can he now conservatively manage the country as president???????
Wayne| 12.18.11 @ 7:17PM
He hasn't showed the inclination. Instead he defends working with liberal Democrats.
teflon93| 12.18.11 @ 10:31AM
Romney supported gay marriage because Romney wants the support of liberals. He will support ANY liberal idea for this reason.
He is not a conservative and has never shown conservatives any respect whatsoever. He has more contempt for us and our movement than George W. Bush had.
Ned Flaherty| 12.18.11 @ 1:22PM
Romney and his fellow Republicans always claim they want small, efficient government, but they’re perfectly happy with big, wasteful government whenever it is oppressing LGBT people.
Romney and his fellow Republicans always claim they want freedom of religion, but they’re perfectly happy to abandon that principle just long enough to turn their religious sect beliefs into federal laws that criminalize people of other faiths.
By amending the U.S. Constitution to eliminate marriage rights for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders, Romney wants to insert government into their bedrooms for no legitimate purpose.
Romney admits he sees the value in special, expensive legal contracts (domestic partnerships) that grant LGBT people temporary visiting privileges so they can watch their partners die in hospitals, yet he refuses to grant them full marriage privileges to just live their lives the way everyone else gets to.
Log Cabin Republicans, are you listening? How can you vote for politicians who vow to oppress you forever? How can you?
Dai Alanye | 12.18.11 @ 2:53PM
Flaherty seems to be missing the point. We're supposed to be against Romney because he favors homosexual marriage, not because he proposes half-way measures.
In fact, Romney was never a conservative, and is now pretending to be one primarily because he recognizes which way the wind is blowing. Nothing new about that. To his credit, however, he seems to have had a sincere change of heart on the right to life, and it is conceivable this carries over into other questions.
By the same token Gingrich is pretending to be a disciplined politician, something he has never been whether in office or out, nor ever can be. In his case the flaw is genetic, whereas Romney only needs to overcome learned behavior.
What a choice we face! After initially favoring Gingrich I've come to the conclusion he is less trustworthy than Romney, who at least bends to pressure. With a strong conservative as VP and a Republican Congress Romney can, I believe, be kept in line.
Gingrich is liable to look into Ahmadinejad's eyes during a meeting, and decide the Iranians will behave responsibly with nukes. The guy is all over the place. Once in as President we can't be sure whether he'll play it as King of the Free World, or The Great Peacemaker whose mission is to re-mold the UN into a workable global government.
Take special note of his cuddling with Slick Willie, with Hillary, with Pelosi, and - worst of all - his dealing with Freddie Mac at $30,000/hour of the taxpayers' money. All deleterious to his proclaimed policies but gaining him temporary acclaim... or wealth. Who doubts that Newt would have held a friendly discussion with Obama himself had one been offered? All too often Gingrich's grandiosity leads him astray into politically perverse actions that weaken his own policies and dismay his supporters.
Therefore: Romney/Santorum. Or Santorum/Romney if someone can quickly teach Rick how to better present himself.
PattyMor| 12.18.11 @ 3:35PM
Look people, Romney was preferred over the hapless McLame in 2008. However, times and changed and we are now staring down the barrel of Trillion Dollar Deficits. Spending that NO ONE wants to PAY FOR. Whose the best electable conservative? No one is perfect and I've come back to Bachmann as the most electable conservative with the least amount of baggage. And she can hold her own in debates.
randy crawford| 12.18.11 @ 7:58PM
For years, Romney has been a front man for the covert homosexual power-grab manipulators. This is well know by the folks back home in Massachusetts at www.massresistance.org and www.massresistance.com
Manny2011| 1.14.12 @ 3:45PM
Documentation and expanded timeline on Romney's role in gay marriage (and his indisputable violation of the Mass. constitution) here:
New E-book: "How Gay Marriage Came to Massachusetts: Gov. Mitt Romney's Failure in a Constitutional Crisis." (amazon)