Skip to comments.John Bolton to endorse Mitt Romney
Posted on 01/11/2012 7:53:41 PM PST by Bigtigermike
(CNN) John Bolton, the former U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations, is set to endorse presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a source close to Romneys presidential campaign said Wednesday.
Bolton served in the administrations of former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush before former President George W. Bush appointed him the U.N. role.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
I am sure we agree, but if God sets before us the leaders we deserve, then surely he sets the field of candidates before us from which he must emerge. There WILL be a way, if we pray, but more and longer chastisement is not out of the question regardless, even IF our prayers are answered, even with the “perfect” nominee. The next president, even if he is “ours”, is no guarantee that by innauguration day our chastisement is over. God knows these candidates and what shall be, shall be. The field is set, and we are a democracy, a Republic, thanks be to God. God has his hand in this. Our man is there, if we deserve him. So, let’s find him and go forward with whom God allows. Be it for correction, or blessing.
I don’t advocate the no-vote; I said it wouldn’t work; it sends no message. With Perot we had something like 22%.
Hold the line, for sure. No point in doing much until after FL.
Paul can’t gain but a few points, mostly at Romney’s expense.
Perry and Gingrich as nouveau sons of the south can gain a little more; Santorum has some evangelical backing, though.
It’s kinda like grasshoppers eating each other’s face off, now.
Gingrich could surface with some momentum.
We’ll check back after Florida, FRiend. Respect your opinion and looking forward to comparing notes!
Yesss!! My thoughts exactly.
I have a new theory about this. I was just reading a Virginia conservative blog (Bearing Drift) which also just endorsed Romney. One of their points was the attacks on Romney for being a capitalist.
I know we have had a good argument over whether that is why he is being attacked, and whether those attacks are right or wrong.
But now I am seeing there was a different question — are the attacks GOOD or BAD for conservatives. And it appears to me that the attacks have backfired. Rather than sink Mitt as we want, they seem to have made people rally to him, or at least defend him, like Rush Limbaugh.
Maybe this would explain part of why Bolton went over to the dark side. I don’t know. I can’t figure out why so many people are turning against us.
Still hoping maybe Santorum can pull this one out.
” a lot of people once considered on our side, like Haley, Coulter, Bolton, and others, arent backing the conservative candidates. Why? “ <<<<
Yes, and how about the timing? Curious, huh? Panic maybe?
I believe it’s because they (the Establishment) are in a full blown panic and staring down the calendar to get us on their page. We conservatives are not *yet* cooperating, Ron Paul is gaining traction by running third party in OUR party, and three conservative candidates are holding 65% of the Republican support! Wouldn’t you panic? Wouldn’t you call in ALL your chips? This, to the powers that be, means all sorts of chips, the one’s on the table, and those
“under” the table. These endorsers need jobs. Preferably jobs with power, or at least with power titles. LOL.
Think about it a while it will eventually come to you. It's a point that was expressed by Newt, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and several others these last few days so it's not just something only I have thought up. It's common sense.
All you have to do is go back to 2008 and look into how we got McCain. It will come to you. I think.
” Rather than sink Mitt as we want, they seem to have made people rally to him, or at least defend him, like Rush Limbaugh. “ <<<
Desperately they flail. As if capitalism cannot ever be abused, or ever abuse, liberal speak rules. The self-righteous, trying to put lipstick on a pig, fling around smears as if capitalism can not be rigged in favor of the riggers. Starting against Newt, who knows a thing or two about defining plunder when he sees it has taken a beating again, for knowing too much. A ridiculous attack from the get-go. Capitalism is not GOD. It is a preference in a free nation but there are rules for all things out of balance. Newt explained what happened. The rest are spinning what happened.
Mittens promised Bolton god-hood. Bolton is just waiting for the t-shirt.
In a well-timed announcement, the Romney campaign on Wednesday rolled out an endorsement from Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach -- the co-author of illegal immigration laws in Arizona and elsewhere. Romney said he wants to work with Kobach to "support states like South Carolina and Arizona that are stepping forward to address this problem."
The campaign also released a statement from Kobach saying Romney would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with states like South Carolina in the illegal immigration fight. Kobach called Romney "the candidate who will finally secure the borders and put a stop to the magnets, like in-state tuition, that encourage illegal aliens to remain in our country unlawfully."
Wow - the father? You sure he’s not just the 3rd cousin of sodomite marriage? Typically the father of something has to invent it. I have a hard time picturing Romney sitting around with his family conceiving of gay partners get married.
Maybe Romney flip-flopped on this (as he seems to do) but a’ll I’ve ever seen him do is support civil unions (which may not be your cup of tea but is different).
We left Canada in '92, and love being Americans. I had to remind my 9-year-old tonight that despite Obama and Romney, we live in the best country on the planet, and the best planet in the galaxy. But tonight, I am disheartened.
So, who gets my vote for president ... Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, or John Galt? Right now, it doesn't matter.
Disappointing but not the end of the world.
“Romney is the father of sodomite marriage and Bolton supports it.”
Statements like that are what give FR a bad name.
“Is he really even that influential?”
He’d make a great Secretary of State.
“And it appears to me that the attacks have backfired.”
Ya think? Maybe it’s because those are the tactics of the loony left.
The fix is in. Once again, our candidate chosen by the puppetmasters. We are so screwed.
I WILL not vote for Mittens. It is a vote for Rove and the establishment. They can screw themselves.
U r 100% correct. This thing is rigged. We r nothing more than sheep. Sad
Why? It’s absolutely true.
No. He’s the father of it because he instituted it in Massachusetts. All by himself, on his own authority, contrary to the Constitution and the laws.
LOL, most likely? Of course Palin is not planning on entering the race. Sarah already said no. Not only no, but no with no regrets. No actually means no.
Well, yeah, obviously that was going to happen. When people like Perry and Newt attack Romney from the left in the same way the occutards would, naturally prominent conservative talkers like Rush, Hannity, and even Levin are going to be forced to defend him. The entire line of attack was idiotic and has entirely backfired.
Perry, Newt and anyone going along with these stupid Bain attacks are actually helping Romney the RINO. Not only do they force conservatives to defend Mitt and highlight Romney's stint as an actual capitalist (which is about the only thing he actually does have going for him) in a GOP primary, but by getting this line of attack out early it helps inoculate Romney from this stuff later (if nothing else it gives him a chance to practice defending himself against charges of "vulture capitalism"). Perry and Newt really blew it here. They are not hurting Romney, they are helping him lock up the nomination.
No doubt about it.
Illegal immigration killed Newt not negative adds. Newt just had to volunteer that he would give amnesty to the illegals and then he tanked. He handed the immigration issue to Romney on a silver plater, and unbelievably he did that after watching illegal immigration destroy the Perry campaign. I hope the remain candidates learn the lesson of Perry and Newt, no amnesty.
I agree. Newt’s stand on amnesty ruled him out for me. There is no way I will vote for another amnesty supporter.
I haven’t heard Rush say that Perry should drop out now. I didn’t read Sarah saying we needed to clear the field for one candidate — she did say we shouldn’t diss Ron Paul’s base, and she’s said nice things about Santorum, so it doesn’t sound like she wanted him out.
Newt may have said the others should drop out, but so did Ron Paul. Kind of self-serving.
Again, what’s the point of calling for people to drop out, or to change candidates? There’s no influence over the supporters, and they are already making their choices. Of Perry’s 5%, if that doesn’t change, I would bet that 50% of them just like Perry, and wouldn’t bother to show up to vote in a primary if he wasn’t there. OF the remaining 50%, lets say 25% want a governor, someone with executive experience. They are going to Romney, or Huntsman. Of hte 75%, lets say half are social conservatives, and half fiscal conservatives. 10% are going to Paul, that’s just how it works. 32% go to Santorum, 33% to Gingrich.
So Romney gets a 1% bump, And Santorum and Gingrich get 2% bump.
If Perry endorsed someone, that might make a difference, but he’s only commanding 5% of the vote, so it’s not like he has a large following waiting for his pronouncement.
If you really want to stop ROmney in South Carolina, either Gingrich or Santorum have to drop out. But how are you going to pull THAT off? Look at the candidates — they are polling close to even depending on what poll you believe in South Carolina.
Santorum beat Gingrich soundly in Iowa, and tied him in New Hampshire. Santorum has more delegates. Santorum has received more votes. So, Santorum should be the one to stay. But Gingrich polls better nationally, and is polling better in the remaining states. So GIngrich should stay. How do you convince EITHER of them to give up?
Here’s a thought — why don’t they both drop out and endorse Perry? Perry matches up best against Romney, because he has the executive experience. He’s debating much better now, and he still has money, and a proven network. But how would you get both Gingrich and Santorum to move aside for a guy polling 5%?
So again, what’s the point? I think we are just as well served by going with 3 guys into South Carolina, and letting that contest decide who might stay or go.
I do think we need to winnow the field before Florida, because Florida is winner-take-all.
That’s pretty far down the chain to be the ‘father’ of something - even if true. Let alone when you square it with the facts that the MA Supreme Court ordered gay marriage be implemented under the existing laws (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health). Maybe you’re suggesting that this was a choice for Romney (just as Obama believes it’s an executive’s choice to implement laws). Me, I’d rather live with a court’s bad decision and work to lawfully reverse it than arbitrarily implement law as one sees fit. I know a 5 min fact check exercise on FR is becoming less common and maybe even considered traitorous and rude - but what the hey - I’m ol’ fashioned.
And then Romney instituted gay marriage on his own dime, violating his oath of office in one of the most horrendous ways imaginable.
That's the truth.
Bolton is just sucking up to get into a position of power like in the Bush administration. Bolton probably wants Romney to ask Cheney to pick his VP and defense department chiefs.
I was stunned, dismayed when I heard Bolton on Greta show endorse Romney. I thought he would endorse Newt.
Yep. Complete with $50 co-pay taxpayer-funded abortions.
I may be misinformed - it’s happened but I’m not lying. Would like to see that documented - is there a part of the court’s opinion that speaks to enforcement? I always keep an open mind - eagerly awaiting facts and reference.
Simple. Anyone who thinks differently is a RINO.
Reading the article and appreciate the pointer. I’m still not finding a reference to the court decision where they state that they do not expect their decision to be enforced. It’s stated but not referenced - just hand waving as far as I can see. Can’t imagine the conservative howling if the SCOTUS finds ObamaCare unconstitutional and Obama keeps implementing it because the decision is not codified in law. Judges are generally pretty particular about seeing their rulings carried out.
Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney
from Pro-Family Leaders
December 22, 2006
The Honorable W. Mitt Romney
Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
The State House
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Governor Romney: You have a few weeks left in your term to take action on the issue of marriage.
Contrary to opinions offered up by liberal commentators, liberal legal authorities, and perhaps even your own staff, you have the authority as Governor to reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage. The signatories below urge you to declare immediately that homosexual “marriage” licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law. As is increasingly well known, the Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial Branch any role in marriage policy:
"All causes of marriage…shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision." (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)
In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts have admitted, on other occasions, that neither they nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized to violate the Constitution:
Nevertheless, after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no choice but to "execute the law." Oddly, you were not referring to a law, but to the judges’ opinion.
“[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.” (Town of Mount Washington v. Cook, 288 Mass. 67)
Your oath to uphold the Constitution requires treating an unconstitutional opinion as void (as President Thomas Jefferson did in Marbury v. Madison). You failed to do this. Nor did you treat it as an illegal ruling that affected only the specific plaintiffs (as Abraham Lincoln did, refusing to accept the Dred Scott ruling as law, pointing out that judges do not make law).
Instead, you asserted that the court’s opinion was a “law" and thus binding. Though the Legislature never revoked the actual law, you issued – with no legal authority -- the first “homosexual marriage” licenses in American history. The Massachusetts Constitution does not confirm either your statements or your actions:
"[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)
The Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges:
"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for." (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)
In light of both your actions and your explanations, it comes as a great surprise to many of us to learn that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts' system of government and is restated in multiple ways.
"The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)
We note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution itself was ratified cannot be suspended by judges:
"All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved … shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature…" (PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)
We note, Governor, that in all of your justifications to the nation, there was no mention of these parts of the Constitution which you swore to defend. Why? Even this same court is forced to admit: "The Constitution as framed is the only guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people alone." (Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 618)
We note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison's words in 1767: "laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go according to their Reason, that is, their Will" and "[T]he Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.'"
As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts "ought never to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries of express law, into the wide fields of discretion."
As for your claims about the authority of Goodridge and its illegal 180-day instruction to the Legislature, the same court had admitted in 1992 that they cannot issue an order to the legislature or the governor:
"The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)." "The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government." (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992)
We also note this ruling in 1969: "an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is “not only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.” (Commonwealth v. Leis) We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute: “Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: “We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”
Moreover, we note that nothing in the Goodridge ruling asked or pretended to authorize the governor to violate the statute in the event that the Legislature would not repeal it. We also note that the statute remains in the Massachusetts General Laws, and has never been stricken, suspended or nullified. The court itself has previously clarified your obligation:
"But the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches [of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor." (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916)
Nevertheless, with no legal authorizion, you ordered [changes in] the words on marriage licenses from "husband" and "wife," to "Partner A" and "Partner B." Stunningly, you later admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change birth certificates in a similar way.
We note that, despite the court's admission that the statute prohibits “homosexual marriage,” and the Constitution's statement that only the Legislature can suspend laws, you ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages and thus violate the statute (a crime under c. 207 §48) and the oath of office. Those who refused, you ordered to resign.
This emboldened other local officials, including the mayor of Boston, to boast publicly that they would break the law by "marrying" out-of-state homosexual couples – also a crime under c. 207 §48. In summary, while the four judges asserted that Chapter 207 is unconstitutional, they did not suspend the marriage statute and were powerless to do so. The legislature has not changed or repealed it.
1. The marriage statute is still in effect.
2. The statute continues to prohibit same-sex marriages.
We note that you swore no oath to execute court opinions, but rather laws and the Constitution. The same Massachusetts high court itself said in 1986: [The Executive branch] must "be faithful to the words of the statute ... as written, and an event or contingency for which no provision has been made does not justify judicial [or Executive Branch] legislation." (Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793)
You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against assault from the other two branches. You swore on a Holy Bible, and said, "So help me, God." Your oath itself declares that it is violated on penalty of perjury, a felony. Like much of America, many of us accepted as sincere your explanations of your role in this social and constitutional crisis that is fundamentally altering the moral fabric of our culture and eroding basic building block of human society.
We are now forced to look at your role, as constitutional sentry and a gatekeeper of our form of government, in a different light. We would be greatly disappointed if your principal contribution to history will be imposing homosexual marriage -- knowingly or unknowingly, willfully or negligently -- in violation of the state Constitution you swore to uphold.
¨ We urge you in the strongest possible way to fulfill the obligation imposed by the Constitution of Massachusetts upon the "Supreme Executive Magistrate" to uphold Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207 the marriage statute, by declaring immediately in a formal, written executive order that the Goodridge court cannot overrule the Constitution and that homosexual marriage therefore remains against the law.
¨ We urge you also to issue immediately a public memorandum from the Office of the Governor declaring members of the Legislature to be engaged in a conspiracy against the Constitution, to which the oath of office attaches the penalties of perjury -- a felony.
¨ We urge you to immediately notify the legislators who openly conspired against the Constitution in denying the first marriage amendment petition a vote in 2002 that:
· they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and
· as a citizens’ constitutional petition, that initiative remains pending until brought to one of the five final actions the Constitution requires and
· therefore their crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without statute of limitations
· unless they vote, you will call them into session on that original marriage petition and
· will order the state police to arrest them and bring them to the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a quorum). Under conditions of repeated and systematic constitutional abuse, these steps by a governor are the minimum required to defend constitutional democracy and our republican form of government.
It’s a good letter but again - I do not see a reference to where the SCoM ‘admitted’ that they were not empoered to enforce the judgement.
How does the system work when the Executive decides when the judiciary is acting outside of the constitution? Will you be happy when the opposing party makes such decisions?
I just don’t see how the system works.
It's not really very complicated.
-- George Washington
"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"
-- George Washington
Neither the quote nor the statement answers the core question. If the Executive is performing the function of the Judiciary - what is the Judiciary’s actual value/role? Secondly, when a Liberal is elected - will you be happy with their interpretation of constitutionality? Remember, they have a radically different view and despite all our wishes - Liberals do get elected.
When it comes to supporting the Constitution, the obligations of the Executive and the officers of the Judicial branch are identical. So, I don’t really know what you’re talking about.
In theory but do you believe that the MA Supreme Court thought they were acting unconstitutionally?
You are right - about it all. Thanks for clarifying it.
If things remain the same - we lose.
Re: “I do think we need to winnow the field before Florida, because Florida is winner-take-all.”
.....or ease the suffering of another 4 years by beefing-up the House and Senate and repealing ObamaCare...
The establishment is endorsing Romney like we all knew they would.
Bolton was always a cipher on domestic issues. Now we have a better idea of where he stands. I'm disappointed but not surprised. He probably wants to snag the Sec of State post.
Ah you’re right he’s for (or rather I would say “not against” gay marriage.)
If I heard that I had forgotten.
As far as I’m concerned civil unions are just about the same thing they just aren’t called “marriage”.
The debate isn’t merly about the use of the word “marriage”. I don’t see why someone would honestly be for civil unions and against gay marriage. It’s just a silly attempt at a compromise.
“...As far as Im concerned civil unions are...”
..NOT the relevant issue.
The ECONOMY is the relevant issue, and how badly Obama and his demomarxists f***ed up the economy, wrecked the housing market, and made people lose their jobs. 15 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt is the issue. Unelected Czars are the issue. Bloated faceless unelected and unaccountable bureaucracies are the issue.
At all of these debates, the GOP let themselves get sidetracked, misdirected, and led down this stupid path, and other paths - like that little weasel Stephanopoulos and his assinine contraception question.
The answer to these kinds of questions is: “That’s not the issue in this election. This election is about the incompetency of the current administration and his party going back to 2006 when they “seized control” of Congress, and how they wrecked peoples’ lives and prosperity, and are continuing to do so.”
THAT’s the correct and only answer to whenever the Mediots and their partisan moderators bring up that stupid issue.
Homos represent what, about 1-2% of the total population, and suddenly THIS is a pressing, national emergency issue? People are losing their jobs, their life savings, and their livelihoods because of the Dems and their f***ed up subversive Marxist economics.
The GOP better damn well learn how to answer these idiots back on the stage. This is sideshow crap, and does NOT put people back to work, nor does it enable the economy to jump start, nor does it do anything to bring back the housing market.
I’ll do something I NEVER do - I’ll paraphrase Slick Willy to the GOP: “It’s The ECONOMY, you jackasses”.
Your post is consists of layers of misunderstandings of what ails the country and the way we do politics. But I’m too tired tonight to bother with unpeeling them.
I think that calling same-sex couples “marriages” does a heck of a lot more damage to society than does calling them “civil unions.” At least the word “marriage” would still mean something.
Thqt being said, I can’t countenance “civil unions” for same-sex couples because it gives the special rights just because they do things in the bedroom that Judeo-Christian society has deemed immoral for millennia. And even if heterosexual couples could also apply for a civil-union license, it would still give society’s imprimatur to sodomites qua
sodomites and fornicators qua fornicators.
While I can empathize with someone with a loved one in the hospital whom he’s not allowed to visit, or who is unable to assign death benefits to a loved one, I think these problems can be solved through a simple power-of-attorney and a will. But if there are rights that cannot be provided contractually, I think that it would be fair if we created a legal status for two people who live under the same roof and wish to enter into a contractual arrangement that covered all these things. But here’s the most important part: in order not to give special rights to people just because they are involved in an immoral sexual relationship, I think that the “cohabitation partnerships” (or whatever we call them) should be available not just to two homosexuals who live together or to live-in heterosexual couples who don’t want to marry, but also to elderly sisters who live in the same home or a widower and his elderly mother or other non-sexual couples who wish to enter into these partnerships. That way, we wouldn’t be giving special rights to gays merely because of their immorality; we would be giving them the same rights afforded to other couples who live under the same roof irrespective of whether they have a sexual relationship.
If gays in favor of same-sex marriage really cared only about having the right to visit their lover at the hospital, etc., they would agree to this compromise that would give themmthe rights they seek without forcing the majority to sanction what they do in their bedrooms. But if what the gay lobby is after is the destruction of the institution of marriage and an iconoclastic rupture with Judeo-Christian teaching on morality, then they’ll run away from this like a vampire from a cross.