Replies

The appeal of Romney is pretty simple. There’s not a candidate in the field who is as pro-business, as pro-growth, and as right on the social issues and the border. Period. He’s produced results wherever he’s gone—from academics to private enterprise (over and over and over again), to running international events to runing a state. He exudes energy. He’s quick in an interview. He’s diplomatic. Positive. As bright as any candidate I’ve seen running. Mitt Romney is going to be our next President.

I don't think so, and it's foolish to make such a prediction now--though it speaks to your apparent belief in wishing and feeling over logic.

You know nothing about his time here in Massachusetts, where he was so "successful" he wasn't going to win re-electionm so he didn't run.

He certainly LOOKS good while he's giving interviews and such, which I suppose is the appeal for some. Your campaign read above is nice enough but light on facts. I LIKE Romney and know for a fact he's very smart, but so are a lot of folks. In what he was able to do in MA, as opposed to what he couldn't re; gay marriage, he denied local officials the ability to deny licenses for gay marriage, and also changed his mind about eliminating an office for "gay youth" in favor of one for all. It's not such a big deal for me, but it is for some:

http://robertpaine.blogspot.com/2006/06/governors-new-clothes-how-_115059438390558628.html He's had the same effectiveness as W in terms of working with a Democrat congress--zilch. I won't go into his ridiculous healthcare thing again.

>>>In what he was able to do in MA, as opposed to what he couldn’t re; gay marriage, he denied local officials the ability to deny licenses for gay marriage.<<<

I’ve addressed this in quite a bit of detail on another post, and I’ll do it again. But I have to run now.

That said, I have a simple question to ask:

How did gay couples get married in Iowa? Did the governor not need to authorize that? Or the legislature pass laws?

In a word, nope. It took the judiciary to put a stay on the ruling for the marriage lincenses to stop flowing.

There is some rather poor understanding of the way the judiciary interacts with the Constitution and the law. That makes sense, as it’s a complex subject.

But long story short, the Mass Supreme Court struck down the Mass DOMA law as unconstitutional, stating that gays had the right to marry under the Mass constitution of equal protections. That DOMA law was all that was keeping gay coulpes from marrying in Mass.

At that point, the only branch of government who could have reversed what the judiciary did was the legislature, and that only course of action was by passing a Constitutional Amendment.

All Romney would have done by refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay couples was to violate the Mass State Constitution as interpreted by the Mass Supreme Court (which in a common law system and under Marbury v. Madison, they have every right to do)—the very document he took a vow to uphold.

The right move and the move Romney made was to try to bring about an amendment. Your legislature in Mass wasn’t too keen on hearing what the people thought, though, was it?

You’re waaaaaay off base with your speculation.

Romney didn’t run for re-election because he NEVER planned on running for re-election. He planned on running for the office of the President of the United States......which he started as soon as he took the governor’s seat. Those who paid attention to his actions knew he was running for President when he was running for governor and have watched him campaign for the Presidency at least 3 years now.

This logic you speak of, it needs to be based in fact, not your baseless and unprovable speculation that “Romney didn’t run because he would’ve lost.”