The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Has Mitt’s Inevitability Arrived?

By on 4.4.12 @ 4:23PM

With Mitt Romney going 3 for 3 last night in Wisconsin, Maryland and D.C. has his long stalled inevitability finally arrived? The folks at FNC, as noted this morning by Stacy McCain, seem to think so and were pretty much in consensus in calling for Rick Santorum to step aside lest he face a humiliation in Pennsylvania later this month.

The argument was that Romney will just fill Pennsylvania’s airwaves (especially the TV market in Philadelphia)with negative ads about Santorum as he has done in other states. But it’s not like people in the Keystone state don’t know Santorum. Whatever Romney’s ads about Santorum, it’s not like they haven’t heard it before and too much of it could backfire against Romney.

But Santorum is damned if he does win Pennsylvania and damned if he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, calls for him to exit will reach a fever pitch. But if he does win then I suspect the analysts at FNC will say he ‘was supposed to win his home state.’ There are also primary contests in New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island that night and Romney is heavily favored to win all of those states. Unless Santorum scores an upset in one of these other states (preferably New York), there will still be calls for him to exit the race even if he does win in Pennsylvania.

Hugh Hewitt argues this race ended in Florida. I don’t buy that argument. I think if Santorum had beat Romney in Michigan (its primary a full four weeks after Florida) I think the complexion of the race would be different. I’m not saying Romney wouldn’t still have an advantage but I don’t think anyone would be talking about Mitt’s inevitability the way it is being discussed now.

With that said, unless Romney is caught with both a dead girl and a live boy, Santorum’s chances of winning the nomination is about as slim as Angelina Jolie. And even if Romney were caught with both a dead girl and a live boy, I’d still say his chances were about 50-50. I’m not saying Santorum should drop out but the math is against him.

Look I’m not sold on Romney. Every time I see his key supporters (i.e. Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie) I ask myself, “Why aren’t they running?” I am certain that I am far from alone in thinking this way and that does not bode well for Romney.

But let’s say that Romney is, in fact, inevitable. Well, he faces an opponent who can not only outspend him but is prepared to “kill” him. Throw in a sympathetic, if not a sycophantic media and President Obama will be a far more formidable foe than either Santorum or Newt Gingrich.

Complicating matters is a significant portion of the conservative electorate part of which doesn’t trust him and part of which is grudgingly beginning to embrace him. The only way Romney fully wins over this crowd is if he bloodies President Obama in the debates. But given that he won’t call Obama a socialist this isn’t likely.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think President Obama is intelligent enough to be in the same room with Mitt Romney much less qualified to be an entry level employee in one of his companies. But yet that might not matter.

View all comments (61) |

Connection, Not Compromise| 4.4.12 @ 5:43PM

This notion of inevitability or “my turn” politics in the GOP is killing us. In the national race, unlike the GOP primary world, candidates win or lose because they have a message that captures the hearts and minds of the American people. Deceptive and cheap (or better yet destructive and direct) as it was, Obama had a message in 2008 (Hope and Change), and he won. John McCain did not have a message. He lost.

We played this inevitability game last time. Quite frankly, in 2008, Romney (compared to the other GOP primary candidates) actually had a message that was relevant to that time: “I have experience in the private sector, and I know how to create jobs”. By November of 2008, banks were failing, the economy was spiraling, and Congress had just passed TARP. As a Washington outsider, Mitt’s message may well have resounded with a concerned American public and proved a credible challenge to Obama’s Hope and Change. But, Mitt wasn’t on the ballot. Instead of fighting through to the end of the primaries, he bowed out early to pave the way for the candidate next in line, receiving the promise that next time around, he would be the one next in line. His gain; our loss.

This time, turning the economy around is not the issue at the forefront of the hearts and minds of the American people—freedom, the defense of our Constitution, and the national debt are. And, for those who may have warmed to Mitt’s message of private sector, economic turnaround in 2008, four years of Government handouts have lulled them into a stupor. This time around, only 2 GOP candidates (occasionally 3) have a clue that there is even the possibility of a threat to our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and resulting freedoms: Ron Paul and Rick Santorum (with Gingrich occasionally chiming in).

Let’s let these candidates slog it out until June. In the meantime, maybe Mitt will pick up on their message of freedom because unless Obama and his minions decide to cede this election without a fight, “I have experience in the private sector, and I know how to create jobs” isn’t going to be on message this time. After 4 years of Obama, many will take the handout because they don't realize that with it they are losing their freedoms.

Simon Templar| 4.4.12 @ 5:52PM

Excellent comment.

WL| 4.4.12 @ 6:44PM

Tis True...however, I am starting to see a few things from Romney that I kinda like here of late. It seems that he might not end up being so bad after all.

I am not at all against your thoughts on letting them fight it out...but I sincerely think that we may have to wait until next time around to get a better candidate...

We are getting awfully close to that invisible and debatable line of when primary campaigns that can't be won start to blunt the capability of a general election campaign.

Vern Crisler| 4.4.12 @ 6:48PM

I disagree that Obama won because he had a message. That's Karl Rove's nonsensical analysis. Obama won because he was liberal and black and Oprah-approved. His message was as vapid as Romney's; plus Obama had no real competition. Once the media destroyed Sarah Palin with constant negative reporting, McCain had to run on his own ideas. Alas, he had none. Republicans annointed him, as you intimate, because it was "his turn." We are just repeating history, and Republicans prefer to be the Stupid Party every four years.

Stay tuned to four more years of Obama.

Dai Alanye | 4.5.12 @ 11:33AM

Obama won in 2008 for two main reasons: many voters are wishful thinkers who believe if they hope strongly enough their dreams will come true, so Hope and Change became a magical slogan for them. Republican intellectuals, of course, were more sophisticated, falling for Obama's record high IQ (yes, even after his dependence on the telepromter was revealed) and the crease of his trousers.

The second reason had to do with McCain's gross mishandling of the campaign. His failure to properly use Sarah Palin was part of that, followed by the premature surrender which began with writing off Michigan. And TARP, of course.

peajayach| 4.5.12 @ 4:11PM

While I judge Reagan a RELATIVELY competent President, he in fact used a teleprompter, as did most all recent POTUS.
Perhaps someone can let us all know why it’s acceptable for a Republican to use a teleprompter and not O.K. for Obama…it makes no sense, plain illogical and bogus.
The following appeared in several major newspapers during the Reagan presidency.
Teleprompter Snafu Brings Reagan Pause
May 09, 1985|United Press International
WASHINGTON — President Reagan, often spoken of as "the great communicator" for his eloquent and persuasive style, was noticeably at a loss for words when his teleprompter broke down during a major
speech before the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France Wednesday.
White House press secretary Larry Speakes said, Reagan`s teleprompter cut out three times causing
the president to lose his place. Nonetheless, "It`s our opinion the president spoke eloquently", he said.

Jack in Wi.| 4.4.12 @ 7:33PM

It looks more and more inevitable that the Republicans are going to lose. In order to beat someone you have to put up someone better not a clone like Romney. Why vote for a clone and not the original?

Anommynous| 4.4.12 @ 5:50PM

How noble of the Rombots striving to save Rick Santorum from humiliation.

Simon Templar| 4.4.12 @ 5:52PM

The answer is no.
It would be nice if the guy earned it, and perhaps by something other than negative ads and outspending your opponents. At this point, it may be inevitable. Others have also done the 'math' and determined that he will not have the required votes as well, but will be the one with the most votes.

What also seems to not be graspable for many is not whether Santorum should stay in, drop out, or who is voting for him but rather if Romney, who will likely be the nominee, is capable of beating Obama.

In fact, it may serve him if the others stay in both in keeping Obama from having a target and also to provide Romney with some competition, and challenge to sharpen him. He will need to get very sharp, focused, and have a definitive strategy for winning, which he seems to lack right now given his staff are split on how he should present and handle himself on a variety of issues.

The guy that you made inevitable needs to be vetted; it would be better to focus on him rather than Santorum at this point, if you care about actually winning.

Why has no one been interested in how Romney is performing in his campaign efforts to confront Obama? Well, he certainly is good at raising funds and creating a barrage of negative commercials against his fellow Republicans. Is this the strategy for Obama. Is that all he has?

Just how will he perform in the great debates with Obama. Is he up for it? So, as so many are in a rush to wrap this up and get Mr. Inevitable nominated, why not get in a rush to get this guy prepared, have a well thought out strategy of attack, and have him work on his image as it is being severely damaged already and he is not even nominated yet.

If we are honest with ourselves, his performance is not too inspiring nor is he able to draw and inspire the intensity, excitement, and energy that is going to be required.

What is it going to take to light a fire under this guy and get him tough, inspiring, and aggressive?
People are mad as hell, starving for leadership, a fighter, and someone with passion and a willingness to not play the same old game or follow the same old conventions.

In order to beat Obama, that man will have to loom large enough to make Obama look like the Chicago punk he really is...

rightasrain| 4.4.12 @ 6:08PM

As between Santorum and Romney, I much prefer Romney. Like Aaron, though, I thought we'd have a better candidate. I bet Pawlenty is kicking himself for exiting so early as is Christie (Romney with attitude) for not seizing the moment. But fatigue is starting to set in. In any other cycle I'd say slog it out until June, but we need to coalesce around one leader and shift our attention to Obama. His machine is too formidable and his tactics so dirty that now is the time to get behind our candidate and start making our case. With each passing day, the generic Republican is polling worse and worse against Obama. Time to stanch the bleeding caused by this primary and unite.

Clint| 4.4.12 @ 6:11PM

" Romney had expressed support for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), signed by President George W. Bush in October 2008, which allowed the Treasury Department to buy or insure troubled assets, including bank holdings.

Asked whether he still supported it, Romney said: “TARP was the right thing to do. TARP was designed to keep our financial system from collapsing.

“You have to have a financial system for an economy to run and TARP was designed to keep our financial system from crumbling.”

It was pointed out that TARP had bailed out banks so they could lend money, but instead had largely kept the money or used it to buy other banks."

" Mitt Romney said three years ago that he was “pleased” with the appointment of Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary — even after it came to light that Geithner had not paid the taxes he owed."

Romney Is McCain Redux.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To An Open Convention.

Tom| 4.4.12 @ 6:15PM

If someone were to take each and every negative stereotype ever uttered against establishment Republicans, add then together and roll them up, and put them in a nice, neat little package, there would be Mitt Romney.

I don't care what Rick Santorum or anybody else does; I will NEVER support Mitt Romney; not now, not in November, NEVER!!!

rightasrain| 4.4.12 @ 6:20PM

Then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Tom| 4.4.12 @ 6:54PM

Yes, Idiot, I hope that myself, and millions of TRUE conservatives just like me become a very big problem for the worthless GOP Establishment and Romneyite hacks like you this fall.

The message to the Republican Party is quite clear: You abandon our principles; we desert your candidates.

If Mitt Romney is what the Republican Party represents, then the GOP can, and WILL, go straight to hell!

If it means four more years of Barack Hussein Obama, then so be it!

Mark in LA| 4.4.12 @ 7:19PM

How do these people ever expect the GOP to change if all they ever do is "hold their nose" and vote for whatever clown the Republican establishment sharts out.

I won't vote Romney either.

You know what is really funny about the Republican establishment. Had they "held their noses" and voted for Sharron Angle, she would have beaten Harry Reid. It was the Republican in-siders who kept Harry in office. Now those same people tell me to hold my nose or the Obamaman might get me.

rightasrain| 4.4.12 @ 7:33PM

So you'll never vote for a moderate and they'll never vote for a conservative. The Dems have it made.

Tom| 4.4.12 @ 8:28PM

No, I will NEVER knowingly vote for a "moderate" Republican. A "moderate" is little more than a liberal who lacks the integrity to admit what they truly are.

Tom| 4.4.12 @ 8:45PM

Oh, and let me add that if only about 5 percent of people in about a dozen key races who would normally vote Republican think as I do, and intend to stay completely away from the voting booth this November, the 2012 election will be a total disaster for the GOP.

And the Republican Party will deserve every last thing it gets.

spike59| 4.5.12 @ 7:19AM

ObaMao is most appreciative of your assistance, you dolt

Tom| 4.5.12 @ 7:37AM

The best friends that the Democrats have are "moderate" Republicans and the idiots like you who support them.

Tom| 4.4.12 @ 8:38PM

Yep, that is totally correct.

Liberal.....er, "moderate"Republicans only call the GOP unity when it is THEIR candidate on ballot. But the rules change when it is a conservative on the ballot; as evidenced in the 2010 election when conservatives won primaires fair and square in two Senate races (Alaska, Delaware); yet the losing liberals STILL ran third party against them.

rightasrain| 4.4.12 @ 7:38PM

This is why we are called the stupid party.

Tom| 4.4.12 @ 8:31PM

The Republican Party is the Stupid Party because they continue to toss out "moderate" pieces of garbage like Ford, Dole, McCain, and (probably, unfortunately) Romney who get their sorry hides nailed to the wall.

Bob| 4.5.12 @ 1:38AM

Do you really care what Democrats call you?

peajayach| 4.5.12 @ 4:14PM

Apparently, you believe your opinions are facts…get your facts straight before distorting them to support your opinionated views

Tom| 4.5.12 @ 5:25PM

If you are addressing me, then specify what you believe my errors to be before go shooting off your big fat mouth.

Clint| 4.4.12 @ 6:23PM

Romney's The Problem.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To An Open Convention.

spike59| 4.5.12 @ 7:18AM

no, you moron, ObaMao's the problem-Romney is, simply, the only chance we have of getting RID of said problem

Clint| 4.5.12 @ 7:25AM

No Faux Conservative RINO-CINO Israel Forster Smear Bund Bibibot, Spicey, Romney's The Stupid Party's McCain Redux.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To An Open Convention.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.4.12 @ 6:26PM

The Republicans have never had a conservative candidate except for Ronald Reagan who then went on to raise taxes 11 times and not do away with the Department of Education and the Department of Energy as promised. So, in essence, the Republicans now need a conservative candidate when they have never really had a conservative.

That's a real ridiculous concept.

Mark in LA| 4.4.12 @ 9:28PM

No the game of believing what the party says is over after 30 years of giving them the benefit of the doubt. The people always wanted real conservatism but always accepted the excuse for why they couldn't have it now they are starting to wise up.

Gloria Palmer| 4.4.12 @ 6:38PM

I agree with Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, that "Romney is the best candidate for President that the US has had in his life time". He will fix Washington the same way he fixed the Olympics-----cancel the "free lunch" and charge a dollar a slice for the pizza.

Drek| 4.4.12 @ 7:21PM

Jack is indulging in wild hyperbole.

Romney doesn't have near the nerve for what the job entails.

Which is why the establishment is comfortable with him, and which is why that same establishment was rabid about the prospects of a Gingrich Presidency.

Romney won't expose Obama, as would a Gingrich campaign, and that too is important for them for they too urged us all to buy into the notion about Obama's intellectual superiority.

Mark in LA| 4.4.12 @ 7:21PM

Wasn't he famous for sending jobs overseas? So yes, Welch and Bain Saw Romney are like two peas in a pod.

Mender| 4.4.12 @ 10:38PM

I have to say, I suspect the Romney plan for America is to sell the loss-making parts off. Expect Kansas and New Mexico to be sold to China and North Dakota to be sold to Alberta.

Bob| 4.5.12 @ 1:37AM

The Canadians can't even afford pennies. North Dakota is way out of their price range.

Dai Alanye | 4.5.12 @ 11:43AM

If we allow men like Jack Welch and Donald Trump to pick our candidates this nation is in worse trouble than anyone realizes. Governing is not the same thing as deal-making.

Clint| 4.4.12 @ 7:16PM

" But the story of Romney's supposed Olympic triumph isn't as simple as he wants you to believe. Rather, his success as president of the 2002 winter games was due to the unprecedented amount of federal money he procured to organize the most expensive Olympics in American history. And coming from a candidate who's spent his campaign railing against federal spending and earmarks, it's another breathtaking example of Romney's hypocrisy.

The Salt Lake games got more taxpayer dollars than all of the previous U.S.-hosted Olympics combined: a whopping $1.3 billion. For comparison, the 1984 games in L.A. received $75 million and the 1996 games in Atlanta received $609 million.
Romney's campaign is already pushing back by saying that the extra money was necessary for security. But our money went to much more than security, including $30 million for parking lots, $2 million for sewer systems, and $33,000 for an Olympic horse adoption program."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To An Open Convention.

Drek| 4.4.12 @ 7:19PM

Aaron,

you might find yourself resigned to Romney as our candidate, for all other options have failed or are unlikely, but never "sold" on Romney.

"Sold" implies purchasing in, buying what he's selling.

You're too bright for that.....

Bill| 4.4.12 @ 8:56PM

I hope Romney win PA and seals the deal, and then takes on the devil, Obama. We know what happened in 1976, and the fact is that Santorum ain't no Reagan, he's just another "Big-Labor" republican.

PCP Smoker| 4.4.12 @ 10:27PM

Like you are bother by liberal repubicans. You are supporting a Liberal {Mormon} for the Elders' sakes. Moron.

Bill| 4.5.12 @ 12:09AM

You got any better idea!

Dai Alanye | 4.5.12 @ 11:45AM

Give Bill some credit -- he knows how to pick losers.

PCP Smoker| 4.4.12 @ 10:25PM

Well, we tried. Some much for the intelligence of the Tea Party. Having said that, with the energy of Obama is putting into getting rid of the SCOTUS, an orange tree would be better than him. And have no doubt, that scumbag Romney is no better than an orange tree.

Pete| 4.4.12 @ 11:03PM

Who cares about the CALLS? We have the right to vote, and I condemn any Republican making CALLS so I cant.

The American Hitman| 4.4.12 @ 11:14PM

FNC, the official channel of the Romney Campaign, says Romney has it all wrapped up?
I had to check the date on your blog post. They have been saying that since January.

Bob| 4.5.12 @ 1:33AM

Mittens is bringing a knife to a gun fight if he won't rip into Obama.

Bill| 4.5.12 @ 1:59AM

'cause Obama don't like guns.

spike59| 4.5.12 @ 7:16AM

that's what Mittens HAS BEEN doing-while (self)Righteous Ricky, Hair-trigger Newtie, and the Tinfoil Hat Tinhorn have all been focusing their ire at the inevitable from their own party, and handing ObaMao free talking points for the fall campaign

Drek| 4.5.12 @ 8:06AM

Spike,

those talking points were always going to be contrived about Romney, so let's not delude ourselves that obama and his minions wouldn't have anything to say about Romney, but for conservative criticism of Romney.

Romney has done more than enough on his own to provide material for all the talking points the Democrats might ever need.

spike59| 4.5.12 @ 7:14AM

the fat lady has gotten into costume, the orchestra has tuned up, and the ushers are escorting the audience into their seats...but if (self)Righteous Ricky wants to keep running, then so be it-it's not as if he has even a ghost of a chance to change the outcome, so let him ramble about; if it keeps him from wandering into traffic, then it's all good-

besides, without him, there would only be one 'straight man' left in the race with 2 comedians-we need the balance

It's A Cunning Plan, Actually| 4.5.12 @ 7:35AM

No. Only one further thing needs to be said. You can't fix stupid. The Stupid Party certainly earned their name.

Drek| 4.5.12 @ 8:03AM

Well, Santorum was begging for his one v. one against Romney.

And he keeps losing them, and whining after the fact. The guy still hasn't put together a decent speech throughout this lengthy campaign season.

There are so many people who would have made a better candidate than either of these two tremendously flawed men.

Nothing so indicates the mood of the rank and file about Romney than the sad fact that so many of them, in utter desperation, would even vote for Santorum to avoid having Romney as their candidate!

THAT'S how bad it is, that people would vote for a pathetic Santorum before voting for a Romney.

AVCurmudgeon| 4.5.12 @ 11:45AM

So Ann Coulter is on Red Eye last night and adamantly insists that Romney is a conservative. He is not a conservative. He is a squishy centrist who wants to sit behind the Resolute Desk. And yet, he has outlasted anyone and everyone who stood up with any real claim to being conservative. And here we are.

So Romney will run against Obama. While I do not think Romney has any particular chops when it comes to speaking or debating, I do not share Goldstein's dismay at the prospect. I think Obama is in a place he is not accustomed to, having to run on and defend his actual record. We have seen how brittle his temperament actually is; we have ample evidence of his hubris. He has spent his life in a bubble where nobody ever challenges him. In the sense that he is facing an actual challenge to his own record, it is really his first campaign. Yes, he will have ample opportunity to prance and parade his usual rhetorical tricks, but with any luck at all the RNC will figure out how to confront him with difficult questions in situations where he cannot get away with bloviating. If so, we could watch him self-immolate.

My other point is that Obama is shopworn. Simply put, he cannot stop talking or expressing himself on anything and everything. The bloom is off the rose for the simple reason that there is no majesty or impact to his presence because he is everywhere, all the time. Add to that the fact that much of what he says is either misinformed or dishonest, and he has become his own worst enemy. I can only hope (against all hope?) that Romney has the stones to take advantage.

peajayach| 4.5.12 @ 4:44PM

Correction, Ann Coulter was on Red Herring Radio last night… Eric Harley and Gary McNamara frequently present themselves as unprepared and clumsy.

Windy City Commentary| 4.5.12 @ 1:00PM

"And even if Romney were caught with both a dead girl and a live boy, I'd still say his chances were about 50-50."

No, Romney would be forced to drop out if that was the case.

Oldefarte| 4.5.12 @ 1:41PM

THIS is going on in Wisconsin, and these dumbarses are worried about whether Romney is a moderate or a conservative. OMG, Forrest nailed it!:
'....Wis. Gov. Walker: Opponents Attacking My Family Thursday, April 5, 2012 10:49 AM
By: Henry J. ReskeWisconsin’s bitter recall battle has become so bad that Gov. Scott Walker’s family members have been targeted by his opponents. Walker, in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, said his children and his mother were yelled at while out shopping and his children targeted on Facebook.“I have thousands of people bussed in to my home in Wauwatosa where I've got two high school sons living, and I've got parents in their 70s,” he said in an interview on The Brody File. “Last year, my 16-year-old and my mother in her 70s were at a grocery store and got yelled at. I've had my kids targeted on Facebook; we've had all those sorts of things.”The Republican governor, who along with a number of state officials faces a recall election in June, sparked the controversy when he pushed through a law that limited collective bargaining rights for many public employees. Opponents gathered 1 million signatures to force the recall.
Walker noted that the amount of support he receives from well-wishers far exceeds the negative comments.“ Now, thankfully for every one of them, there's tenfold people that come up to me at a factory or a farm or small business and say, hey Governor, me and my family are praying for you,” he said during the interview. “That never makes the news.”.....'

Oldefarte| 4.5.12 @ 1:53PM

Youser, stays homes and don't votes, thats beez the ticket alright [and keeps that RINO-CINO Romney from winnings]. What a bunch of GD idiots:
'.....Breitbart.com A ‘Constitutional Scholar’ Who Doesn’t Understand the Constitution by Frank Salvato 2 hours ago 12post a comment In a stunningly arrogant move, President Obama, the leader of one of the co-equal branches of the United States Government, intimated that should the United States Supreme Court rule the individual mandate included in the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act is unconstitutional, they would be executing an act of “judicial activism. A more inappropriate and coercive comment has not been uttered in recent history by the President of the United States. Mr. Obama’s politically and ideologically motivated comments stand as testimony to not only his lack of constitutional literacy, it stands as a demented tribute to his audacity.During a Rose Garden press conference, Mr. Obama, egregiously applied the notion of judicial activism to any decision that would invalidate any portion of the health insurance law commonly referred to as “Obamacare,” questioning how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress. “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said. At the time of passage, it should be noted, Progressive Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in numbers that did not require a bi-partisan effort. In fact, not one Republican voted for the final legislation.Mr. Obama continued, “I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” describing the law as “constitutional.”There is only one thing wrong with everything that the President said during this press conference regarding Obamacare and the United States Supreme Court: The President of the United States does not have the authority to declare legislation constitutional or unconstitutional. That power is exclusively the domain of the United States Supreme Court and, therefore, the decisions handed down by that body are legitimate simply because they exist. Of course, a real constitutional scholar would know this. Therefore, Mr. Obama is either trying to strong-arm the United State Supreme Court in the court of public opinion; he is pathetically devoid of any real constitutional knowledge; or both.Mr. Obama often plays fast and loose with the truth when the truth inhibits the potency of his statements, his recent statements that the United States has only two percent of the world’s oil supply is a perfect example. Investor’s Business Daily points out, in no uncertain terms:
“When you look at the whole picture, it turns out that there are vast supplies of oil in the US, according to various government reports. Among them: At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, according to the government's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to Energy Information Administration; Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska's North Slope, says the US Geological Survey; Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS; As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands, according to the Bureau of Land Management...”The column goes on and on proving the President either grossly in error on his statistics or willfully misleading in an effort to win a political argument with egregious “facts.”
Where the issue of Mr. Obama being a constitutional law professor is concerned, we see a bit of a stretch as well. The University of Chicago Law School bestowed the official title of “senior lecturer” to Mr. Obama. Whereas the school uses “senior lecturers” to teach classes, they are not officially professors. Perhaps this is why Mr. Obama doesn’t recognize the three branches of the United States of America as co-equal. Maybe this is why he routinely side-steps the authority of the Legislative Branch in legislating through regulatory control or deeming Congress “not in session” in his use of the recess appointment. Maybe this is why he believes he can declare his signature legislation, the one achievement he holds above all else from his tenure as President of the United States – Obamacare, constitutional in his usurpation of the exclusive authority of the United States Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of legislation brought before them.
Or maybe it is something quite different. Maybe it is a Progressive arrogance, a political Progressive arrogance, an audacity, as it were, that leads him to believe that his empirical presidency has the power to disregard the United States Constitution, the American system of government and the fact that there are three branches of government in the United States and that we have a government of laws, not of men, as John Adams said so potently in the run up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
A true constitutional scholar would understand the constitutional reality of the Separation of Powers and the constitutional concept of “checks and balances” that maintains the balance among the three co-equal branches of government.
So, We the People really should be incredibly alarmed at Mr. Obama’s statement that a striking of the individual mandate included in Obamacare would equate to “judicial activism.” The statement is not only uneducated and absurd; it is either a warning sign that we have a constitutionally illiterate President or a Progressive activist who would just assume spit on the Constitution than try to understand it. We the People should be alarmed that we have a President who would place his ideology and agenda above the people he is supposed to serve....'

randyinrocklin| 4.5.12 @ 1:56PM

Romney will LOSE! 4 mo years of Obambi. What a mess!

SusyQue| 4.6.12 @ 11:39AM

Obama is a maxist through and through!

tresor paris jewellery | 4.6.12 @ 1:36PM

tresor paris bracelets

More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/04/04/has-mitts-inevitability-arrive

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|135 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|75 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|29 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.