Michael Gaynor
Mitt Romney in 2012?
By Michael Gaynor
Obama is the worst president ever on life issues, so pro-lifers will prefer him to Obama, even though they wish he had converted sooner, but if Mitt maintains that a federal individual mandate IS constitutional, then he is NOT the constitutionalist America needs in the White House.
In 2008 I supported Mitt Romney as the best viable alternative to Obama. John McCain won the Republican nomination and then conducted a campaign that proved that he was not a viable alternative to Obama. He foolishly treated Obama as a fine young man with whom he had some policies disputes instead of determining and demonstrating that Obama posed a grave threat to traditional American values. Neither The New York Times nor ACORN ever was going to support McCain for President of the United States over Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. and McCain should have realized it.
As President, Obama has proved himself to be the stealth socialist threat I (and many others) had perceived him to be. He pushed Obamacare and bad economic and energy policies. Many of his appointments, particularly his appointments to the United States Supreme Court, showed that he really was interested in "fundamentally transforming" America, not governing a center-right country from the center.
Should Mitt be nominated in 2012?
In October 2007 evangelical, pro-life activist and attorney James Bopp Jr. sent a letter to social conservatives urging them to unite behind Mitt.
Bopp wrote:
"While several of the other candidates are certainly fine social conservatives, none has established his viability as a serious presidential contender... So it does come down to two things.
"One, the viability of the candidate, which only Mitt Romney has demonstrated among the socially conservative candidates, and two, whether social conservatives will have the courage to rally around the only viable conservative alternative...."
Despite Bopp's (and many others') best efforts, not enough people rallied behind Romney for him to win the Republican nomination in 2008.
A pro-Mitt website (http://aboutmittromney.com/lawyers.htm) is still posting pro-Mitt comment from attorneys, including these comments of mine from an article titled "The case for Mitt Romney: economy, judges" posted on January 23, 2008 (www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/080123):
"When it comes to the economy and judges, Mitt's the One!
"Bad economic news highlights the need for a President with the credentials of Mitt Romney... Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor... Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life...
"No wonder Mitt shares the late President Reagan's optimism ...
"Then there is the matter of judges and the need to undo the great damage done by judicial activists who disregarded the law, including the Constitution, and did what they wanted to do instead of what a judge is supposed to do...
"In his sensational 'Faith in America' speech, Mitt emphasized the importance of judges who share basic American values: '... Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from "the God who gave us liberty."'
"The principals of the Judicial Confirmation Network are supporting Mitt."
In 2012 the need for a candidate who is right on the economy and judges will be greater than ever, but who is the best viable choice?
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and businessman Donald Trump have declared that they will not run for the nomination.
The best viable candidate is not someone waiting to be drafted at the 2012 Republican Convention.
Newt Gingrich is running, but his "Meet the Press" interview last Sunday eliminated whatever chance he had of being nominated (and he did not strike me as viable in the 2012 presidential election). We expect Obama, Reid and Pelosi to condemn the budget passed in the House of Representatives with near unanimous Republican support as "radical" "right-wing social engineering." Gingrich's pathetic attempt to appeal to centrists by equating House Republicans and Far Left radicals as dangers to the Republic was as mind-boggingly foolish as it was bogus. Gingrich may continue to run, but his chance of winning is nil.
The preferred candidate of the Republican establishment seems to be Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Perhaps he's father of the year material, but who things his wife deserves to be First Lady of the United States?
Among Callista Gingrich, Cheri Daniels and Ann Romney, Mrs. Romney is the obvious choice for First Lady, not an embarrassment.
But...is Mitt the best viable alternative to Obama?
Texas Congressman Ron Paul is a man of principle, but he's older than John McCain and being president is a job for a younger person.
Former Utah Governor John Huntsman happily joined the Obama Administration and gushed about Obama as wonderful.
The best viable alternative needs better judgment. Obama needs ro be scrutinized, not flattered.
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was a good governor. He's solid on the issues and smartly admitted his mistake on Cap and Trade. But he's not charismatic and he hasn't done well in the polls. He could be the last person standing.
Herman Cain is a successful business man, solid of the issues and charismatic. But his political experience is with the Federal Reserve, he has never won an election and in 2006 he was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer in both his colon and his liver. He reportedly is cancer-free now, but the late Senator Paul Tsongas's cancer returned after he ran for president in 1992 and he didn't even win his party's nomination.
Former Wasilla Mayor, Alaska Governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann are solid on the issues and charismatic. They have significant political experience and energy, but have the liberal media establishment's continuous efforts to discredit them as unpresidential (and worse) made it impossible for them to win the Presidency? Or do they have what it takes to win — the willingness to run against the liberal media establishment AND Obama and tell the truth about both of them?
The 2012 Republican presidential nomination seems to be Mitt's nomination to lose, but his views on health care may cost him the nomination and his recent speech on the subject did not help him.
Romneycare became the law in liberal Massachusetts, where then Governor Romney had to work with a Democrat Legislature. It has not worked out well, but it IS constitutional and it was compromise legislation.
Obamacare is NOT constitutional, because the individual mandate which is an integral part of it is not constitutional.
Unfortunately for him, Mitt previously supported the idea of an individual mandate in a federal health care law.
Mitt's a Harvard Law School-trained lawyer, like Obama.
Mitt's not apologizing for Romneycare, which Team Obama cleverly praises as the template for Obamacare.
His presidential campaign may survive that, but only if Mitt admits that he was wrong to support an individual mandate at the federal level, because it is unconstitutional.
The United States Supreme Court eventually will rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare, and Mitt cannot reasonably expect to win the 2012 Republican presidential nomination if he supports the constitutionality of a federal individual mandate.
Some suggest that Mitt, having become pro-life, cannot afford politically to switch positions on the individual mandate.
That's false. He can't afford not to do so. Mitt can't win unless he demonstrates that he is the constitutionalist he seemed to be during the 2008 presidential campaign and that constitutionalist appreciates that the Commerce Clause is not a limitless authorization for federal action.
Obama is the worst president ever on life issues, so pro-lifers will prefer him to Obama, even though they wish he had converted sooner, but if Mitt maintains that a federal individual mandate IS constitutional, then he is NOT the constitutionalist America needs in the White House.
Then Judicial Confirmation Network chief counsel Wendy E. Long supported Mitt in 2007. She joined his campaign as a senior legal advisor and vice chair of his National Faith and Values Steering Committee and identified Romney as "the constitutionalist" in the race, meaning he best understands and supports concepts of federalism and the commitment to originalism in interpreting the Constitution. See Jennifer Rubin, "Judging Mitt" (http://spectator.org/archives/2007/07/30/judging-mitt).
The 2012 Republican presidential nominee will be a constitutionalist.
To win, Mitt must be that constitutionalist.
© Michael Gaynor
May 19, 2011
Obama is the worst president ever on life issues, so pro-lifers will prefer him to Obama, even though they wish he had converted sooner, but if Mitt maintains that a federal individual mandate IS constitutional, then he is NOT the constitutionalist America needs in the White House.
In 2008 I supported Mitt Romney as the best viable alternative to Obama. John McCain won the Republican nomination and then conducted a campaign that proved that he was not a viable alternative to Obama. He foolishly treated Obama as a fine young man with whom he had some policies disputes instead of determining and demonstrating that Obama posed a grave threat to traditional American values. Neither The New York Times nor ACORN ever was going to support McCain for President of the United States over Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. and McCain should have realized it.
As President, Obama has proved himself to be the stealth socialist threat I (and many others) had perceived him to be. He pushed Obamacare and bad economic and energy policies. Many of his appointments, particularly his appointments to the United States Supreme Court, showed that he really was interested in "fundamentally transforming" America, not governing a center-right country from the center.
Should Mitt be nominated in 2012?
In October 2007 evangelical, pro-life activist and attorney James Bopp Jr. sent a letter to social conservatives urging them to unite behind Mitt.
Bopp wrote:
"While several of the other candidates are certainly fine social conservatives, none has established his viability as a serious presidential contender... So it does come down to two things.
"One, the viability of the candidate, which only Mitt Romney has demonstrated among the socially conservative candidates, and two, whether social conservatives will have the courage to rally around the only viable conservative alternative...."
Despite Bopp's (and many others') best efforts, not enough people rallied behind Romney for him to win the Republican nomination in 2008.
A pro-Mitt website (http://aboutmittromney.com/lawyers.htm) is still posting pro-Mitt comment from attorneys, including these comments of mine from an article titled "The case for Mitt Romney: economy, judges" posted on January 23, 2008 (www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/080123):
"When it comes to the economy and judges, Mitt's the One!
"Bad economic news highlights the need for a President with the credentials of Mitt Romney... Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor... Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life...
"No wonder Mitt shares the late President Reagan's optimism ...
"Then there is the matter of judges and the need to undo the great damage done by judicial activists who disregarded the law, including the Constitution, and did what they wanted to do instead of what a judge is supposed to do...
"In his sensational 'Faith in America' speech, Mitt emphasized the importance of judges who share basic American values: '... Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from "the God who gave us liberty."'
"The principals of the Judicial Confirmation Network are supporting Mitt."
In 2012 the need for a candidate who is right on the economy and judges will be greater than ever, but who is the best viable choice?
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and businessman Donald Trump have declared that they will not run for the nomination.
The best viable candidate is not someone waiting to be drafted at the 2012 Republican Convention.
Newt Gingrich is running, but his "Meet the Press" interview last Sunday eliminated whatever chance he had of being nominated (and he did not strike me as viable in the 2012 presidential election). We expect Obama, Reid and Pelosi to condemn the budget passed in the House of Representatives with near unanimous Republican support as "radical" "right-wing social engineering." Gingrich's pathetic attempt to appeal to centrists by equating House Republicans and Far Left radicals as dangers to the Republic was as mind-boggingly foolish as it was bogus. Gingrich may continue to run, but his chance of winning is nil.
The preferred candidate of the Republican establishment seems to be Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Perhaps he's father of the year material, but who things his wife deserves to be First Lady of the United States?
Among Callista Gingrich, Cheri Daniels and Ann Romney, Mrs. Romney is the obvious choice for First Lady, not an embarrassment.
But...is Mitt the best viable alternative to Obama?
Texas Congressman Ron Paul is a man of principle, but he's older than John McCain and being president is a job for a younger person.
Former Utah Governor John Huntsman happily joined the Obama Administration and gushed about Obama as wonderful.
The best viable alternative needs better judgment. Obama needs ro be scrutinized, not flattered.
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was a good governor. He's solid on the issues and smartly admitted his mistake on Cap and Trade. But he's not charismatic and he hasn't done well in the polls. He could be the last person standing.
Herman Cain is a successful business man, solid of the issues and charismatic. But his political experience is with the Federal Reserve, he has never won an election and in 2006 he was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer in both his colon and his liver. He reportedly is cancer-free now, but the late Senator Paul Tsongas's cancer returned after he ran for president in 1992 and he didn't even win his party's nomination.
Former Wasilla Mayor, Alaska Governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann are solid on the issues and charismatic. They have significant political experience and energy, but have the liberal media establishment's continuous efforts to discredit them as unpresidential (and worse) made it impossible for them to win the Presidency? Or do they have what it takes to win — the willingness to run against the liberal media establishment AND Obama and tell the truth about both of them?
The 2012 Republican presidential nomination seems to be Mitt's nomination to lose, but his views on health care may cost him the nomination and his recent speech on the subject did not help him.
Romneycare became the law in liberal Massachusetts, where then Governor Romney had to work with a Democrat Legislature. It has not worked out well, but it IS constitutional and it was compromise legislation.
Obamacare is NOT constitutional, because the individual mandate which is an integral part of it is not constitutional.
Unfortunately for him, Mitt previously supported the idea of an individual mandate in a federal health care law.
Mitt's a Harvard Law School-trained lawyer, like Obama.
Mitt's not apologizing for Romneycare, which Team Obama cleverly praises as the template for Obamacare.
His presidential campaign may survive that, but only if Mitt admits that he was wrong to support an individual mandate at the federal level, because it is unconstitutional.
The United States Supreme Court eventually will rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare, and Mitt cannot reasonably expect to win the 2012 Republican presidential nomination if he supports the constitutionality of a federal individual mandate.
Some suggest that Mitt, having become pro-life, cannot afford politically to switch positions on the individual mandate.
That's false. He can't afford not to do so. Mitt can't win unless he demonstrates that he is the constitutionalist he seemed to be during the 2008 presidential campaign and that constitutionalist appreciates that the Commerce Clause is not a limitless authorization for federal action.
Obama is the worst president ever on life issues, so pro-lifers will prefer him to Obama, even though they wish he had converted sooner, but if Mitt maintains that a federal individual mandate IS constitutional, then he is NOT the constitutionalist America needs in the White House.
Then Judicial Confirmation Network chief counsel Wendy E. Long supported Mitt in 2007. She joined his campaign as a senior legal advisor and vice chair of his National Faith and Values Steering Committee and identified Romney as "the constitutionalist" in the race, meaning he best understands and supports concepts of federalism and the commitment to originalism in interpreting the Constitution. See Jennifer Rubin, "Judging Mitt" (http://spectator.org/archives/2007/07/30/judging-mitt).
The 2012 Republican presidential nominee will be a constitutionalist.
To win, Mitt must be that constitutionalist.
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
