Replies

OK, let's see the case made over these objections about Romney:

1) The GOP-E in 2010, by their continual efforts to backstab Tea Party candidates that defeated RINOs in the primary, showed that to them, party unity only applies when the RINO wins.

2) Romney used a scorched-earth approach against other candidates in the GOP primary that makes it exceedingly difficult to reconcile after the primaries have been concluded.

3) Romney is a very bad candidate to woo independents, as he takes Obamacare, bailouts and Wall Street cronyism largely off the table as election issues against Obama, and he is simply not an appealing candidate to them in the general.

4) Romney is an even worse candidate for rallying the base, given his past liberal positions and his well-documented propensity for changing his views to suit the next election. How can conservatives believe a thing he says now, especially after the Etch-A-Sketch comment by one of his key advisors?

5) Romney's only advantage in the GOP primary was money to pound the political life out of his opponents. He will not have that advantage in the general. And he has already provided the Obama campaign and the DNC with an autumn's worth of sound bites to use against him.

6) Romney simply is not a likeable candidate and the only reason he appears to be running is to feed his own ego.

7) A case can also be made, given the fact that G.W. Bush didn't veto a spending bill sent to him by a GOP Congress, that a GOP Congress would not stand up to Romney's liberalism the way they have with Obama's.

That's a lot of strikes. For those demanding that skeptical conservatives fall in line, realize that the temptation is very strong to tell the GOP-E to stuff their calls for party unity where it don't shine, given what happened in 2010. That Romney and the GOP-E are the ones who largely created the divide we see today, and I have seen no sign that they are aware of their own culpability, the first step to bridging that divide - to the contrary, they seem driven to rub conservative's noses in the fact that Romney won. And that there is a strong perception that Romney is doomed to failure, and that efforts should instead be put into electing more conservatives for Congress and state and local races.

So the usual calls for party unity after the RINO wins just ain't gonna cut it this time. Running against Obama won't be enough, either. You have a very hard sell with Romney. The usual sales pitches from previous campaigns just won't cut it.

"Unlike Romney, who merely has a propensity to sway with public opinion, Obama openly defies public opinion to enact his radical agenda – by any means. Obama has now abused and exceeded Constitutional executive powers by fiat – either by means of executive orders, agency decrees (rules), or machinations of the Justice Department via his radical co-conspirator, Eric Holder– to get what he wants. To leave him in power for four years as a lame duck President would not be merely foolish – it would be dangerous. Romney, in contrast, merely annoys me by his regular conciliation and apparent lack of core values. That said, I would rather live in annoyance of Romney than in constant terror and fear of Obama, and what he might do next, if given the opportunity. He must be denied such opportunity. So, yes, I will cast my vote for Romney, but I will not do anything to actively support him or the elites who foisted him upon me. I will, instead, punish the GOP-e while working to depose Obama by other means, and to keep a President Romney in check."

This is, by far, the most convincing rationale for examining "the People's" November choice.

What does it mean to be a "conservative"? Surely, that description should be applied to citizens who understand and wish to preserve (conserve) the principles and ideas stated in the Declaration of Independence and structured into a form of self-government in a written Constitution--a "People's" Constitution to restrain their government.

If, by reading the writings and speeches of the Founders and early Supreme Court Justices, we understand, as Justice Story wrote in his "Commentaries . . . ," that "the People" are the Constitution's "ONLY KEEPERS," then our primary weapon against approaching tyranny is "the People's" assertion of their role, as expounded by THE FEDERALIST and Justice Story, among others.

How does that relate to this discussion?

The first sentence of the above-quoted article states it clearly. The current President neither recognizes the supremacy of the Constitution nor "the People," who, acccording to the Founders, are its originators and ONLY KEEPERS. His "we can't wait" line ignores both the Constitution's division of powers, separations of powers, checks and balances, and its up-front Preamble assertion that it is "We, the People" who are in charge of the government's coercive power, including that of the Executive Branch.

Deliberation and debate, ordered public consideration of measures which may assert power over individuals was intended as a protection for "the People" against government power, notwithstanding potential crises and urgencies.

If a main concern of today's "conservatives" about the current candidate to run in Fall 2012 is that he is too subject to changes of opinion in response to "the People," then perhaps that might be turned to advantage by a well-informed, educated, citizenry who understand their Constitution and can/will hold that candidate to account for his actions whenever they tend to ignore, bypass, or deliberately flaunt their written limits on his Executive power.

Clearly, if Obama is allowed to be re-elected, either through preference, or by some form of "righteous indignation" that the opposing candidate is not "conservative" enough, then future generations may look back on this generation with scorn.

If our choice is between an arrogant candidate committed and determined to substitution of his own ideology and will over "the People's" Constitution and a candidate whose desire to be President makes him subject to changing his mind when "the People" speak, then which candidate presents the greater challenge for us to do our job of protecting liberty?

Just questions for consideration by thoughtful "KEEPERS" of the Constitution.

"§ 1907. If these Commentaries shall but inspire in the rising generation a more ardent love of their country, an unquenchable thirst for liberty, and a profound reverence for the constitution and the Union, then they will have accomplished all, that their author ought to desire. Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors; and capable, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of fife, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence. The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid; its compartments are beautiful, as well as useful; its arrangements are full of wisdom and order; and its defences are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality, if the work of man may justly aspire to such a title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, THE PEOPLE. Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them." - Justice Joseph Story, Concluding paragraph of "Commentaries on the Constitution . . . ."