comMITTed to Romney!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/74283a7e-1b97-11dd-9e58-0000779fd2ac,
Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms
%2Fs%2F0%2F74283a7e-1b97-11dd-9e58-0000779fd2ac.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_
referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereport.com%2F&nclick_check=1

If we can hold McCain’s feet to the fire on SCOTUS nominations, we will have won half the battle.

~~John Cronin~~

By Andrew Ward in Washington

Published: May 6 2008 20:53 | Last updated: May 6 2008 20:53

John McCain promised on Tuesday to nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court and for other judicial vacancies, seeking to quash doubts among some Republicans about his conservative credentials.

The Republican presidential candidate said he would use John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who were appointed to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush, as his “model” when choosing nominees.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Although I have never been a big fan of George W. Bush, in my mind one of the most important parts of his legacy is the nomination of both Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sam Alito. Once again these two outstanding jurists delivered a ruling that allows some sanity to prevail in our government.

You wouldn’t think that it was an undue burden on anyone to produce a government issued photo I.D. when asking for one of the most powerful documents in the world, an American ballot.

If you thought that, you would be wrong. Our friends on the Democratic side of the isle thought it was so burdensome that they took it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, where they just got swatted down by cooler heads, including Justice John Paul Stevens, a man not known for his conservative views.

I have followed this story for several months. Thank goodness the Court reaffirmed the Indiana law that requires the photo ID to help prevent voter fraud.

~~John Cronin~~

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_voter_id

By Mark Sherman Associated Press Writer

Supporters of the law say it’s all about preventing fraud.

Indiana has a “valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” said Justice John Paul Stevens in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Stevens said that Indiana’s desire to prevent fraud and to inspire voter confidence in the election system are important even though there have been no reports of the kind of fraud the law was designed to combat. Evidence of voters being inconvenienced by the law’s requirements also is scant. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver’s license serves as the identification.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Super Tuesday II has come and gone and Sen. McCain has clinched the Republican Presidential nomination. Clinton and Obama continue their internecine warfare for the Democratic nod and, thankfully, Pastor Huckabee is finally out of the race.

As we look at the political landscape, what policies do the remaining candidates offer and are we satisfied that conservatives will be represented in the administration of whoever the winner of the general election is? I think the obvious answer is no.

I will be the first to acknowledge that Sen. McCain is the most conservative of the three remaining candidates. He will prosecute the Iraq war successfully and for that I am grateful. I think he will remain a budget hawk as well. I remain skeptical about his commitment to immigration law enforcement and I am not convinced he will nominate another Roberts or Alito to the SCOTUS.

Both Senators Clinton and Obama are so far left that I honestly worry about the future of the country if either of them win. Clinton’s husband decimated the military during his tenure in office and Hillary will do the same in order to fund the “million ideas” she has for the country, all of them involving federal spending. Obama has already promised to cut “tens of billions of wasteful spending” from the armed forces’ budget. This is also the man who voted “present” 130 times while in the Illinois legislature, but did manage to vote “No” on a bill designed to require medical care be given to a baby born live after a botched abortion.

Those of us on this site remain Mitt Romney partisans, but MR isn’t in the race to represent our interests in this election cycle. That is why I titled this post “Participatory Democracy”. If many of our interests are to be represented this Fall, it will be because we, through our participation in the democratic process, see to it ourselves.

If Mitt was still in the race, I wouldn’t worry about the military. MR wasn’t talking about gutting their budget, he was talking about raising it back up to historical levels. If Mitt were still in the race, I wouldn’t worry about Supreme Court judges or the abortion issue. If Mitt were still in the race, I wouldn’t worry about illegal immigration……But, he’s not.

So, where do we go from here? To Congress. You always start at the top (the presidency) and if that fails, you go down one notch to the legislative branch. As conservatives, it is incumbent on us to remain more involved in the political process than ever. We will not automatically be represented on our hot button issues as we once might have been. Now it is our responsibility to do everything we can to promote conservative principles at the Congressional level, so that we can influence the policy initiatives and the spending levels of the next administration. If it is Clinton or Obama, we are going to have our hands full for the next four years. I say for the next four years and not for the next eight years, because I believe that either one of them will inspire massive buyer’s remorse and that the electorate, after suffering under their wrong headed policies for four years, will have the same reaction to them as it had to Jimmie Carter after his four feckless years in power.

If it is McCain, we will have to be ready to shut down any future amnesty proposals, just like we shut the last one down in the summer of 2007. We have to be sure we let our representatives in Congress know how we feel about the issues and that we are paying attention.

These politicians are very good at counting votes and they know that the body politic is split right down the middle. Any strong stance they take is automatically going to anger about half of their constituency, so they have to know that we have their backs or they will cave to the special interest groups.

Presidential politics, to me, is the most fun. Congressional politics is mostly just hard work, but if we disengage from the process, the liberals will be pleased to craft the legislation for us. You can just use your imagination to envision what they will come up with.

Let’s stay involved during the course of the next four years. Let’s continue to monitor the activities of the U.S. Congress so that we will have a vibrant, powerful, informed and united conservative wing of the Republican Party, ready to assume power in four years, with Mitt Romney as our standard bearer in 2012!

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

John Fund is spot-on with this assessment of McC-Amnesty.

JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL — Winging It

“… Then there is the issue of judicial nominations, a top priority with conservatives.

“Nothing would improve Mr. McCain’s standing with conservatives more than a forthright restatement of his previously stated view that ‘one of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench.’

“Mr. McCain bruised his standing with conservatives on the issue when in 2005 he became a key player in the so-called gang of 14, which derailed an effort to end Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees.

“More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

“But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because ‘he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.’

“Therein lies the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain.

“It is the nagging feeling that after all of his years of chummily bonding with liberal reporters and garnering favorable media coverage from them that the Arizona senator is embarrassed to be seen as too much of a conservative. …”

Don’t you just love this photograph of Mr. McC-Warming?
.

.
~ Vic

PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO MITT’S TSUNAMI TUESDAY FUND — No Contribution is Too Small!
Source Code = ECA064

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Tonight on Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity gave voice to something I have been thinking for over a week. That there seems to be some sort of collusion among the members of the MSM in their attempts to talk Mitt Romney into quitting a race that he is currently very competitive in.

The chorus line of talking heads who daily call for Mitt Romney to withdraw from the race seem to have a strange disconnect with reality. As we have pointed out here on several occasions, does it make any sense for the delegate leader who has one 1st place finish and two 2nd place finishes to withdraw after only 3 out of 50 elections have been completed?

Sean Hannity said that he thought there was a “conspiracy to suppress the vote” in connection with the Romney candidacy. I have most assuredly noticed the same dynamic in play. This tells me that the Left fears the prospect of Romney staying in the race long enough to get to a state that more accurately represents the mainstream of the American electorate. A state where voters don’t cast their ballots along the lines of “identity” politics. A state where large percentages of Independents don’t cross over to vote for the weakest Republican.

In other words, a state where real Republicans and real Democrats vote for candidates based on bread and butter issues like national defense, immigration, the legitimate role of government, taxes, the economy, Supreme Court Justices and strengthening the institutions of marriage and the family.

Let’s do everything we can to encourage members of our families and our friends and co-workers to get to the polls and to reassert the strength of the Regan coalition behind the man who best represents that great movement, Mitt Romney!

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

With Obama looking to suck a number of independents away from John McCain today, it’s of utmost important for Republicans to come out and vote for Mitt. With the leading Democratic candidate preaching change and unity, we need our own uniter, someone who inspires us to be better and to find solutions to problems. John McCain has been in the Senate for over two decades and has had his chance, but has proven to be more a divider than a uniter. With red states barely outnumbering blue states in 2000 and 2004, we’ll need the entire party to keep the White House.

McCain has a reputation as being difficult to get along with and, as was demonstrated in the debates, is sometimes downright nasty. He makes as many enemies as he does friends. He’s not a uniter, and that will become clear as the campaign progresses.

But today NH Republicans can take their party back from their Independent neighbors and pick Mitt as the candidate. Mitt’s conservative record on tax cuts, immigration, balancing the budget, family values and smaller government make Mitt the man who can unite the whole GOP. He’s been endorsed by Robert Bork because Mitt supports strict constructionist judges who’ll support the 2d amendment and avoid creating new legislation out of the Constitution. He’s been endorsed by the National Review because he’s the best overall candidate. I believe Mitt is also a contender to unite the country (just listen to the weekend’s debates–no one else kept their cool, stuck to issues or inspired like Mitt did), and the best counter-argument to Obama. Get out today and vote. And show the country the GOP’s approach with limited government and free market answers is still what the people want, and not Obama’s turn to the left.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Many say that we will have a Democrat President in 2009 simply because it is time; that over decades, whenever we have a President of a given party for two terms, the next President is of the other party. The one exception is when America wanted Reagan for a third term and elected GHW Bush. They say that will not happen this time because nobody wants Pres. Bush for a third term. In other words, history will continue the pattern and we will have a Democrat in 2009. I strongly disagree. Why?

What America wants this time in its President is change; big change. The Democrats are proposing change to simply end the war and they want change from anything related to President Bush. Clearly, Americans expect change and they will elect a person who will deliver change; of that, I have no doubt. But who is the best person to set a strategy for change and who is the person to execute against that strategy?

Here I examine the most viable candidates as to their track records as change agents and why they don’t measure up to Governor Romney’s record, talent, skills, and abilities in this regard. The order in which I placed these candidates is the order in which I think they are most likely to effectuate change, whether to the liberal or conservative.

Mitt Romney: If one had to assign a single, generic label to Mitt Romney that would typify his entire career since college, that label would likely be “change agent,” above all others. From his first days at Bain & Company in which he quickly succeeded as a gifted consultant to the days as a principal at Bain Capital, Romney has been directly instrumental in effectuating change in enterprises that were either failing outright or that had lackluster performance for years. Of the many dozens of examples of successful change he led, his taking the helm of the 2002 Winter Olympics and turning it around was nothing short of stunning. It was nearly $400 million in the red when dozens of naysayers told him that taking on that challenge was career-suicide; that the probability of failure was too high. That venture could easily have imploded at any time in his first 12 months as CEO. He not only ended with over a $50 million surplus, but received accolades that it was the most successful Olympics of its kind in history. His election as governor of Massachusetts, his first government service, is amazing as well for the changes he made; from eliminating a huge deficit (ending in a large surplus) to cutting duplicative government departments; all with the most liberal legislature in the country trying to trip him at every turn. The many dozens of ventures Mitt Romney has completely reinvented would literally require hundreds of pages to illustrate. I dare say, no other presidential candidate in our lifetime has had nearly the track record of successful change as Romney; certainly nobody among the current presidential candidates. Additionally, of all the Republican candidates, Romney has made the most sweeping course change proposals from the current administration.

Rudy Giuliani: A distant second choice is Giuliani. He has a record of change in his city, but at what cost? Based on how some Americans perceive the last seven years with Pres. Bush, do we need an autocratic authoritarian as President? Do we really want to entrust the next two to five Supreme Court appointments to a pro-choice candidate who makes us promises of conservative appointments (check his NYC record with judges)? What about his breaking the budget in NYC as spending went through the roof (excluding Sept 11th!)? Do we want to entrust change to a person whose perspective his entire career was that of atypical New York City alone? No, Rudy Giuliani would effectuate change, but unlike Romney, it would not be by disciplined analysis, but by mandate. His mandate, his way. I believe, though Giuliani would govern to the right of Clinton, he would not govern anywhere close to the strong conservative principles so desperately needed now. His experience and his track record as a change agent are mixed at best. He is a distant second choice.

Hillary Clinton: I chose her as third in line, not because of her record for change, but because I think if she were to be President, she would effectuate big change in many sectors across this nation. She has never been a true leader of any entity. Her record is thin as a change agent, but the one thing we have to review is her proposed health plan. Under her husband’s protecting wing, she was permitted to set out a detailed strategy to change the health care system forever. Fortunately, she was stopped by congress from implementing a disastrous strategy. So, I think it is fair to say that the changes she would oversee would include much bigger government spending, higher taxes, a gutting of the military (she hates them), myriad new government programs and entitlements, etc. To compare Clinton’s experience and skill to the talent of Romney as a change agent is like comparing a high school computer nerd to Steven Jobs.

John McCain: He is fourth in my book for no other reason than he is a long-time member of congress who has authored many important bills that have led to change or which proposed major change, including McCain-Feingold and the latest immigration bill. Few senators have the lengthy record of passing new legislation as he. Still, McCain is a senator; a bureaucrat. Though he knows how to work the inside-Washington system to make change the “Senate way,” it is still a legislature. “Change” is not a word that anyone thinks of when considering the work of congress or of any career politician in Washington, D.C. Except as an officer in the Navy, McCain has never led any real change as the executive of any enterprise. If by some miracle McCain were to become President, I believe we would see either no change to the status quo in American government, or change would be nominal.

Barak Obama: As a possible change agent, I place him fifth. The only reason he is fifth (as opposed to eighth) is because he has the most persistent and consistent message of change and he is a viable candidate. But his message of change is only rhetoric. He has virtually no experience at driving change or effectively challenging the status quo. He has no executive experience leading any entity of any kind. But of all the candidates talking of change, he is one of the most viable and it would not take a miracle for him to end up in the Democrat saddle.

John Edwards: He is sixth and ahead of Thompson and Huckabee based solely on his longer years as a senator, his influence in the national debate, and his current rhetoric for change. His candidacy is almost over, but his viability is still greater than that of Thompson and Huckabee. Edwards has no experience as a change agent to speak of and if somehow he were to become President, he would probably try to bring about change, but I believe he would be relatively ineffective at doing so. Edwards has no experience driving change as an executive maybe with the exception of directing his law firm as partner. I think it would be a disaster if Edwards were handed the reins of power as President.

Mike Huckabee: As a governor, he has executive experience and therefore has experience leading change. He is therefore placed as seventh in this line-up ahead of Thompson. Why not place Huckabee ahead of the senators above? Because Huckabee is not as viable. Sure, he is the flavor of the month but he has no depth or staying power. And what about the kinds of changes Huckabee has led as governor? His record is horrible on immigration all the way around. He supports benefits for illegal aliens. Huckabee’s record on keeping taxes unchanged is terrible. Government spending under Huckabee went up 50% and the number of government employees rose 20%. The next President will have to be strong against illegal aliens and tough on cutting taxes. Huckabee simply does not measure up in either of these important areas.

Fred Thompson: He is eighth among eight candidates. Thompson has led no change of any kind at any time in his life. Of the 100 or so bills he authored, it is maybe a handful he led into law. He has one of the most anemic records as a senator in driving any kind of change. It makes one wonder why he is now proposing new policy when he has virtually no experience at effectuating change in government. Thompson has never been a leader of any enterprise and therefore has no real idea how to implement change, let alone plan it. As well, he is almost not a viable candidate any longer. Yesterday on one of the talk shows, Mike Murray summed it up best in describing Thompson when he said, “Fred is like a bear trying to stand up on ice.” Also, on the Mike Wallace show after Thompson was criticized in two Fox clips by commentators, he lashed out in the most defensive replies I have seen of any candidate this whole year; it was as stunning to Mike Wallace as it was to me. Wallace asked Thompson to name any person today who is saying Thompson is running a good campaign and Thompson had no answer to that question.

Mitt Romney has more actual, real life experience in driving meaningful change in large enterprises than all of the candidates above combined.  The other candidates are novices by comparison.

~ Vic

[Because power corrupts] “Society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.”

— John Adams, American Founding Father and second U.S. president (1735-1826)

Please Help Mitt Get His Message Out —-> MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Many of you may remember when Judge Bork was raked over the coals by the Judiciary Committee in the Senate; I do. Please read this entire article; it is simply outstanding. Click here —–> The War for the Constitution

The anniversary of Robert Bork’s failed nomination reminds us what’s at stake in the coming election.

The issue that united the judge’s critics in their fiery, scorched-earth opposition was never his ability or reputation but rather his theory of judging. Mr. Bork’s belief was that judges and justices in their interpretations of the Constitution must be bound to the original intentions of its framers. In his sober constitutional jurisprudence there was no room for any airy talk about a general right of privacy, allegedly unwritten constitutions, vague notions of unenumerated rights, or what the progressive Justice Black once derided as “any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept.” For Mr. Bork, the framers said what they meant, and meant what they said.

And Judge Bork’s replacement as a nominee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, has insisted that the concept of liberty has both “spatial” and “transcendent dimensions,” the boundaries of which “are not susceptible of expression as a simple rule.” Thus constitutional meaning, even for some Republican appointees, is no longer a matter of the framers’ intention but only the judges’ intuition.

Recalling Mr. Bork’s experience serves to remind us of how precarious the judiciary’s balance is at any given time, and how today’s highly politicized process prevents even the most gifted and prominent jurists from expecting to be confirmed (or perhaps even desiring the chance to undergo the ordeal).

But more important, it is a reminder that presidents must be willing to undertake what they know will be a horrific fight in order to see the bench filled not with liberals or conservatives or partisans, but with constitutionalists.

In this sense, the Bork vote is not just a matter of quaint historical interest, but the first great battle in the contemporary war for the Constitution–a continuing war that must be won if true self-government is to prevail.

Time has shown that Mr. Bork’s theory of constitutional interpretation remains very much alive; he was defeated but his central idea was never discredited. That theory of interpretation and its implicit belief in restrained judging should continue to guide anyone who believes that the inherent arbitrariness of government by judiciary is not the same thing as the rule of law.

We will see a completely new America if Senator Clinton is elected and can nominate justices to the Supreme Court!

~ Vic

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

How important are the next two presidential terms? Consider this: Six of the current nine justices are today pushing 70 or are over 70 years old!   Not considering age, there are other factors that can cause a sitting justice to leave the Court such as accidents, premature death, dementia, Alzheimer’s, etc.  We could easily see four justices leave the Court in the next two presidential terms.   Think about a Hillary Clinton presidency!

It is highly probably that the very next President will be faced with nominating at least two of the current nine Supreme Court Justices based solely on age alone. Thomas Alan’s post below is another affirmation of the many statements Governor Romney has made that, if President, he will only nominate strict constructionist justices to the Supreme Court. Why is this important? Because many Republicans today are trying to figure out whom to support for President knowing full well that he will have to make these crtical decisions. Decisions that very well will determine the future of this great nation.

I realize I have written this many times in this forum, but Mitt Romney always delivers on his promises. He always executes to his strategic plan; nominating strict constructionist will be no exception! That has always been true in his business ventures, philanthropic service, and in government service. The other Republican candidates cannot say the same.

IN 2009 (when next President takes office):

Justice John Paul Stevens will be 89 (almost 90!)
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 76
Justice Anthony Kennedy will be 73
Justice Antonin Scalia will be 73
Justice Stephen Breyer will be 71
Justice David Souter will be 70

Of the three leading Republican presidential candidates (all attorneys), Governor Mitt Romney is the only one who has a proven record of always delivering against his promises and always executing to his plan. RG and FT are using the same words as Gov. Romney; they just don’t have the track record to guarantee delivery.

~ Vic

“The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

— Ronald Reagan

Share on Facebook

Share This

Gov. Romney took the time to mark the first day of the Supreme Court’s term.

The First Monday in October marks the beginning of the U.S. Supreme Court term. Cases in the upcoming term could dramatically impact the everyday lives of all Americans. The Court will face questions involving the death penalty, voter identification as a means of ensuring fair elections, efforts to stop child pornography, whether terrorists held as enemy combatants deserve special rights, and perhaps even our right to keep and bear arms. That is why it is important that we nominate justices in the strict constructionist mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.

Today reminds us that a judge’s most solemn obligation is to the ‘rule of law,’ a phraseology of which I am particularly fond since it comes from the original Massachusetts constitution of 1780. It reminds us that those appointed to the federal bench must leave behind their partisan passions and retain only one: the passion for ‘equal justice under law.’ Respect and fidelity to the rule of law and equal justice under law must guide the judicial mind and, in fact, they are required by the oath all federal judges must take.

Those holding themselves out for the Presidency have an equally solemn obligation: to find women and men for judicial service who respect the rule of law and who will be faithful to the law as enacted. As President, I intend to nominate judges who respect the separation of powers, are committed to judicial restraint, and have a genuine appreciation of the text, structure, and history of our Constitution. The judges I nominate will recognize, as I do, that as Justice Scalia once said, the Court ought not take the field as some kind of ‘junior-varsity Congress.’ That would wrongl

HT

~~~Thomas

Share on Facebook

Share This