Skip to comments.For Romney's GOP, is Constitution a losing issue?
Posted on 07/19/2012 11:41:55 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
In 2010, Paul Gosar was elected to represent Arizonas 1st congressional district in the U.S. Congress. With the help of a much-publicized endorsement from Sarah Palin, he rode to victory on the wave of resentment against Washington that fueled what came to be called the tea-party movement. Given this background, I naturally paid attention when I ran across a YouTube video in which Gosar told a gathering of conservative activists, If all youre going to do is stand just for the Constitution and nothing less, you will lose. Because not everybody believes in the Constitution. (For a written report on his remarks, click here.)
In 2010, Gosar ran against an incumbent whose sins included support for Obamacare. Since then, of course, the view that key provisions of Obamacare are unconstitutional has become a focal point of opposition to the plan. In the recent U.S. Supreme Court action on the matter, Chief Justice John Roberts (a G.W. Bush appointee) expressed the opinion of a majority of the Court that this view is, in fact, correct. But the Court then proceeded to fabricate the irrational doctrine that an enforcement mechanism that is otherwise beyond the bounds of constitutionality can nonetheless be implemented as a tax, because Congress taxing power inherently escapes constitutional limitations. Since the power to tax is the power to destroy, this leaves the U.S. government free to destroy at will the livelihood of Americas inhabitants. In place of a constitutional regime based on the consent of the people, we are thrown back to the rule of fearsomely unlimited government power, implemented by way of taxes judicially morphed into unconstrained instruments of economic terrorism.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
No. Romney needs to sit back and let Obama strangle himself with his own words. That business line was great.
Keep up the good work and try not to make your self noticed.
Thanks for your contribution to the trivialization of our politics.
Oh don’t worry. It’s already done been trivialized.
We’re now in the openly mocking stage.
You may have surrendered, but I haven’t.
Any intelligent response to the substance of the article?
No surrendering here. I’ll be manning the polling stations on November 6th.
See ya there!
Will you be voting for a pro-choice democrat socialist with an R by his name, as the commonly-understood meaning of your tagline suggests?
If so, you have surrendered, even if you won’t admit it.
“Any intelligent response to the substance of the article?”
I’m sure I’m about to get blasted, but the thought that the constitution is even the issue in this election is ludicrous. It’s all just more self-pitying about Romney being the nominee.
The ISSUE in the election is do you want 4 more years of Barack Obama.
Not gay marriage, not taxes, hell not even the economy. This is a referendum on BHO.
Do you vote yay, nay, or abstain?
How nice for a Romney Republican to show up right out of the gate and so vividly prove the author's point.
There we go with generalizations.
I am not a “Romney Republican”.
If you can’t have a decent discussion without jumping to radical conclusions, then well... you’ll be like most anti-romneys around here.
It’s obvious you’re a Romney Republican. Why are you ashamed to admit it?
So if I vote for Romney, I am a Romney Republican?
I voted for McCain too. Am I a McCain Republican?
Yep. Nutritionally you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you support.
Especially in a nation founded as a representative self-government.
So just don’t vote, eh?
Truly free people, when presented only with evil choices, create other choices.
-- Daniel Webster
"Impress upon children the truth that the exercise of the elective franchise is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every elector is a trustee as well for others as himself and that every measure he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well as on his own. "
-- Daniel Webster
"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual--or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. "
-- Samuel Adams
4 more years of Hussein would be catastrophic.
This is why we need Romney.
So who would you support? I want to know what you eat.
If you’re supporting Romney, the catastrophe has already overtaken you.
I’ll be casting my vote for someone with a long record of Reagan conservatism.
Romney is not an “evil choice”.
He is a family man with lots of experience. Being CEO of Bain Capital, running the Olympics and as Governor of Massachusetts.
Sorry, that doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
But, I’ll quit laughing long enough to bite.
You don’t think Romney’s record as the most liberal governor in the history or the republic is evil?
Did you just sign up to post that Willardbot talking points crap ?
Ronald Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act on 14 June 1967.
The number of abortions in California skyrocketed to over 100,000 a year because of this.
Are you going to call Ronald Reagan the most liberal governor ever?
Hey, Moonie, or Moonbat, whichever, you’re a little late to the game. The propagandic and debunked trolling talking points began on here almost 7 years ago. Keep it up and JimRob will send you on a magic ZOT ride.
It's telling that Romney Republicans have to constantly try to tear down Ronald Reagan to their guy's level. A guy who vehemently disavowed any connection whatsoever to Reagan Republicanism.
[ I voted for McCain too. Am I a McCain Republican? ]
You’re most likely a Bush, McLame, Romney republican..
I voted for them too BUT hated each vote.. before, during, and after I did it..
The liberal republicans tricked the conservative republicans into running too many conservative candidates, watering down the vote of each.. so the liberal won..
Brilliant really.. but I am not too smart, I am a republican...
I will vote for Myth and any other republican (2012) BUT
I will become an Independant after 2012... the pubbies are fully corrupt..
Reagan said that was the worst mistake he ever made, and became a personhood pro-lifer.
Mitt Romney is, to this day, proud of his record of instituting $50 co-pay taxpayer-funded abortion as part of Romneycare.
And, he is, to this day, a judicial supremacist, which means his default position is in support of abortion on demand.
He thinks the supreme right, the right to life, is alienable by a majority vote.
In other words, by definition, he is a pro-choice democrat.
To me @"party over principle" means that a person is asked to abandon their core principles merely to ensure that a Party candidate is elected to office. Usually a person has several core principles that they feel strongly about. I'm sure that you have more than one yourself.
So, to me, the question becomes which of your core principles are you going to abandon solely for the sake of Party advancement? And then a person has to ask themselves if they're ready, and willing, to abandon some of their core principles for the sake of the Party, will they abandon all of their core principles for the sake of the Party. Because as soon as you give in and abandon those principles there is a push at the next election for you to abandon even more of your principles because you did so the last time and the Party knows this.
And eventually you have to look at yourself in the mirror and realize that you have no core principles any longer as you've abandoned them over time for nothing more than a short term political victory.
I simply can't sell my birthright (eventually all of my core principles) for a mess of pottage (short term political victory) else I damn my own soul.
Maybe we each just see evil as being two different things.
Typical Romney Republican Alinskyite nonsense.
My point is that:
I remember some conservatives in 1980 saying Ronald Reagan was a liberal.
They said he signed a very liberal abortion bill as Governor of California.
They said he was a Republican In Name Only(RINO).
The same thing is happening now with Romney.
History repeats itself.
Get lost, troll.
It’s funny that we are supposed to shout from the rooftops about Romney’s liberal record as Governor of Massachusetts while conveniently ignoring Reagan’s. Romney is accused of being pro-abortion. Reagan’s signature legalized abortion in California long before Roe v. Wade legalized it in the rest of the country. Romney is accused of being the father of gay marriage. Reagan signed into law the nation’s first “no-fault divorce” legislation, —a tool that has destroyed more families than gay marriage could ever hope to accomplish.
Yet Reagan went on to become as President the standard-bearer of conservatism.
This has got to be a retread troll.
Can you make a valid and coherent argument to refute mine?
Or are you going to stick with the one liners and ad hominems?
You can support whatever joke third party candidate you like but I will stick with a real candidate going up against Hussein.
I’m fed up with these retreads wasting JimRob’s bandwith to pimp and lie for Socialist frauds.
What was your prior screenname before you were ZOT’ted ?
I guess you could call Romney "real" if you're into supporting pro-choice democrat socialists.
But if you're a conservative? Nah?
“I will become an Independant after 2012... the pubbies are fully corrupt..”
You’re late. ;o)
I’ve been considered unaffiliated in my state since 2006. However, I’ve registered with one party or the other for the primaries. (Operation Chaos in 2008)
We have closed primaries is the only reason why I’ve registered with any party. They are, all, corrupt, and are concerned only with power.
We’ve been building a truly principled party for four years:
My party was founded in 1854 and has won 23 presidential elections.
How many presidential elections has your party won?
The Socialist Party was founded in 1854 ?
Hardly matters when you're now nominating pro-choice democrats.
How many presidential elections has your party won?
None as yet. But if the Whig-ification of the formerly grand old party continues, which appears likely, who knows.
We have been nominating pro-choice democrats for a long time.
Remember Ronald Reagan?