Michael Gaynor
Mitt Romney: faith, family, and constitutional fidelity candidate
By Michael Gaynor
Proponents of faith and family values need a President who will appoint judges and justices who will follow the law instead of political agendas. Mrs. Long cares about the Constitution and the courts AND faith and values and Mr. Romney appreciates the interrelationship. Mrs. Long says Mr. Romney is the best hope in the fight. I think she's right.
________________________________________
LifeNews.com Editor Steven Ertelt's July 27, 2007 article — "Mitt Romney: Only Pro-Life Republican Can Win 2008 Presidential Race" — not only told it like it is, but explained why.
It's no surprise that the Democrats will nominate a pro-abortion presidential candidate. When it comes to claiming a constitutional right for a mother to terminate a pregnancy, for any reason or no reason, right up to delivery, by the partial-birth abortion procedure or otherwise, Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama and John Edwards agree, tragically.
There are pro-life Democrats, of course, but the pro-abortion Democrats are in control of the Democrat Party and Congress. In 2006, Pennsylvanians chose a pro-life Democrat. Bob Casey Jr., over incumbent Rick Santorum. It was especially unfortunate, not because now rookie Senator Casey isn't preferable to the dominant pro-abortion Democrats, but because he gave the Democrats control of the United States Senate and that made Harry Reid the Majority Leader and Pat Leahy the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Bad news for those who want judges and justices who are faithful to the Constitution instead of the pro-abortion/secular extremist/extreme political correctness agenda.
Mr. Ertelt:
"Mitt Romney is building strong polling numbers in early primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire in part because he is accentuating his newfound pro-life views on abortion. Yesterday, he said he would only appoint strict constructionist judges and said that only a pro-life Republican would help the party win next year.
"In an interview, the Associated Press asked the former Massachusetts governor what he thought about pro-abortion ex-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
"Romney said Giuliani was the wrong kind of potential GOP nominee to rally the party in next year's presidential election.
"'I think we can't win the presidency without a pro-life, pro-family Republican,' he said."
That's true. When the Democrats nominated presidential candidates who had been baptized Catholic in 1928 and 1960, each of them got about four out of every five Catholic votes. But when the Democrats nominated an apostate who posed as a faithful Catholic while supporting abortion as a right, his pro-life Protestant opponent won the Catholic vote and the election.
Pro-abortion Giuliani will not take control of America's major pro-life party (because pro-lifers are divided among many pro-life presidential hopefuls)and remake the party to the liking of his Planned Parenthood admirers and would not win if nominated.
Mr. Romney: "I expect that evangelical Christians who believe in life and family values are going to vote for someone who shares their views and has a real prospect of being nominated by our party and becoming president."
Mr. Romney is the viable pro-life alternative and Catholics, Protestants, Jews and others who believe in life and family will support him.
Americans will be voting for a President, not their favorite faith, of course.
They want a candidate of faith whose personal life demonstrates a sincere commitment to strong family values, particularly marriage.
Mr. Romney is such a candidate, but not Mr. Giuliani. Twice divorced and thrice married, Mr. Giuliani does not inspire the respect and trust that a President should inspire. If he were nominated, Hillary would make the case that she is the better parent and spouse and garner sympathy as victim of adultery and make sure that Mr. Giuliani's alleged adultery would be put in the spotlight. (Having followed the collapse of Mr. Giuliani's second marriage, I don't feel a need for it to be re-examined in a presidential election. Suffice to say, Mr. Giuliani's behavior does not pass inspection.)
Rudy and Judy, no.
Mitt and Ann, yes.
Better a President whose personal life is admirable instead of a mess.
Mr. Ertelt:
"Romney's point on the Republican Party needing a pro-life nominee to have the best chance to win in November 2008 is backed up by polling data showing abortion is a winning issue for GOP presidential candidates who are pro-life.
"Post-election polling after the 2004 presidential elections found that President Bush's pro-life stance gave him an edge over pro-abortion Sen. John Kerry.
"A 2004 Wirthlin Worldwide post-election poll found that 42 percent of voters said abortion affected the way they voted for president. Twenty-four percent of voters cast their ballots for President Bush while 15% voted for Kerry, giving Bush a 9 percent advantage on the issue of abortion.
"Eight percent of voters in the Wirthlin poll indicated abortion was the 'most important' issue affecting their votes and Bush won among those voters by a six to two percent margin, leading Kerry by four percentage points among the most intense abortion voters."
Mr. Giuliani will not win pro-lifers by supporting the ban on partial-birth abortion and cannot be trusted to appoint judges and justices who will be more faithful to the Constitution than he was to his marital vows, no matter how many fine people he appoints to his advisory committee.
Mr. Ertelt:
"...while campaigning in New Hampshire, Romney talked about the issue of appointing judges to the Supreme Court — a key concern for pro-life advocates.
"He said President Bush's appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have been 'superb' and would appoint justices with their judicial temperament if he becomes president.
"'I will appoint justices like Roberts and Alito and Scalia . . . and Thomas,' Romney said."
That is critical if the states' constitutional right to regulate abortion is to be full restored and the judicial embrace of secular extremism is to end.
Recently, Mr. Romney announced that Wendy Long will be joining his Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts. This is particularly noteworthy because Mrs. Long also is a Vice-Chair of Mr. Romney's National Faith and Values Steering Committee as well as Chief Counsel of the Judicial Confirmation Network.
The announcement further stated: "Wendy Long will be an important voice in advising Governor Romney on judicial matters, separation of powers and federalism issues.
Mrs. Long commented: "Our country faces a new generation of challenges, which has presented our courts with a new generation of legal issues. As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney witnessed firsthand the impact our courts can have when facing these new challenges. I believe that he, better than any other candidate for President, understands the need for our courts to respect democracy and the will of the people. I believe that he, better than any other candidate for President, would nominate judges and justices of the highest caliber, who would be faithful to the text, history, and principles of our Constitution. I look forward to working with the Governor."
It is especially important that Mr. Romney's advisers on the Constitution and the courts appreciate the proper relationship between the Constitution and the courts and faith and values.
As the following bench memo posted at nationalreviewonline.com shows, Mrs. Long understands perfectly what faithful judges and justices are supposed to do (and Democrat Senator Whip Dick Durbin doesn't have a clue).
"Durbin, Southwick, and the Judicial Role
"Ed [Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center] has done a great service in unmasking the lies and smears about Judge Southwick that Dick Durbin in particular, and other Senators, are spewing upon command from their handlers in the liberal extremist groups.
"I just want to mention another typically misleading claim by Durbin, because it goes to the fundamental problem here: that he and his liberal cronies who want judicial activists on the bench insist on perverting the judicial role under the Constitution, and then vilifying others like Judge Southwick who refuse to assent to that perversion.
"Durbin said on the Senate floor: 'At Judge Southwick's nomination hearing, I wanted to be fair to him and I asked him maybe one of the easiest questions you could ask of a nominee. I asked him to name a single time in his career or in his life when he took an unpopular point of view on behalf of the voiceless or powerless. Mr. President, he couldn't name a single instance. And I thought perhaps that wasn't fair. The judge should be allowed to reflect on that question. I will send it to him in writing, ask him, was there a time in your life when you sided, for example, with a civil rights plaintiff when your court was split? He couldn't name a single case in his judicial career.' (emphasis added)
"The reason, I submit, that Judge Southwick 'could not name a single instance' is that 'siding' with anyone is so foreign to his (correct) conception of judging that he naturally has not done so. A judge's job is not to 'side' with anyone. It is not even to side with the 'voiceless' or the 'powerless.' (Senator Durbin: is there anyone more 'voiceless' or 'powerless' than an unborn child? What if Judge Southwick had said he 'sided' with such a voiceless, powerless person? Would that have satisfied you?)
"Good judges do not side with anyone. They rule impartially and blindly based upon the law. And they don't keep mental tallies of how many times their rulings have benefited plaintiffs, defendants, civil rights claimants, unborn children, the poor, the murderous, or anyone else. Senator Durbin, can you recall a single instance in your career when you have ever understood this truth about impartial judges in our constitutional system?"
Like America's Founders, The Judicial Confirmation Network "believe[s] that the proper role of a judge or justice is to interpret the law and the Constitution — not make up the law and deprive the people of the right to govern ourselves" and "not [to] use the power of the court to impose his or her personal or political agenda on the people.
Proponents of faith and family values need a President who will appoint judges and justices who will follow the law instead of political agendas. Mrs. Long cares about the Constitution and the courts AND faith and values and Mr. Romney appreciates the interrelationship. Mrs. Long says Mr. Romney is the best hope in the fight. I think she's right.
© Michael Gaynor
Proponents of faith and family values need a President who will appoint judges and justices who will follow the law instead of political agendas. Mrs. Long cares about the Constitution and the courts AND faith and values and Mr. Romney appreciates the interrelationship. Mrs. Long says Mr. Romney is the best hope in the fight. I think she's right.
________________________________________
LifeNews.com Editor Steven Ertelt's July 27, 2007 article — "Mitt Romney: Only Pro-Life Republican Can Win 2008 Presidential Race" — not only told it like it is, but explained why.
It's no surprise that the Democrats will nominate a pro-abortion presidential candidate. When it comes to claiming a constitutional right for a mother to terminate a pregnancy, for any reason or no reason, right up to delivery, by the partial-birth abortion procedure or otherwise, Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama and John Edwards agree, tragically.
There are pro-life Democrats, of course, but the pro-abortion Democrats are in control of the Democrat Party and Congress. In 2006, Pennsylvanians chose a pro-life Democrat. Bob Casey Jr., over incumbent Rick Santorum. It was especially unfortunate, not because now rookie Senator Casey isn't preferable to the dominant pro-abortion Democrats, but because he gave the Democrats control of the United States Senate and that made Harry Reid the Majority Leader and Pat Leahy the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Bad news for those who want judges and justices who are faithful to the Constitution instead of the pro-abortion/secular extremist/extreme political correctness agenda.
Mr. Ertelt:
"Mitt Romney is building strong polling numbers in early primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire in part because he is accentuating his newfound pro-life views on abortion. Yesterday, he said he would only appoint strict constructionist judges and said that only a pro-life Republican would help the party win next year.
"In an interview, the Associated Press asked the former Massachusetts governor what he thought about pro-abortion ex-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
"Romney said Giuliani was the wrong kind of potential GOP nominee to rally the party in next year's presidential election.
"'I think we can't win the presidency without a pro-life, pro-family Republican,' he said."
That's true. When the Democrats nominated presidential candidates who had been baptized Catholic in 1928 and 1960, each of them got about four out of every five Catholic votes. But when the Democrats nominated an apostate who posed as a faithful Catholic while supporting abortion as a right, his pro-life Protestant opponent won the Catholic vote and the election.
Pro-abortion Giuliani will not take control of America's major pro-life party (because pro-lifers are divided among many pro-life presidential hopefuls)and remake the party to the liking of his Planned Parenthood admirers and would not win if nominated.
Mr. Romney: "I expect that evangelical Christians who believe in life and family values are going to vote for someone who shares their views and has a real prospect of being nominated by our party and becoming president."
Mr. Romney is the viable pro-life alternative and Catholics, Protestants, Jews and others who believe in life and family will support him.
Americans will be voting for a President, not their favorite faith, of course.
They want a candidate of faith whose personal life demonstrates a sincere commitment to strong family values, particularly marriage.
Mr. Romney is such a candidate, but not Mr. Giuliani. Twice divorced and thrice married, Mr. Giuliani does not inspire the respect and trust that a President should inspire. If he were nominated, Hillary would make the case that she is the better parent and spouse and garner sympathy as victim of adultery and make sure that Mr. Giuliani's alleged adultery would be put in the spotlight. (Having followed the collapse of Mr. Giuliani's second marriage, I don't feel a need for it to be re-examined in a presidential election. Suffice to say, Mr. Giuliani's behavior does not pass inspection.)
Rudy and Judy, no.
Mitt and Ann, yes.
Better a President whose personal life is admirable instead of a mess.
Mr. Ertelt:
"Romney's point on the Republican Party needing a pro-life nominee to have the best chance to win in November 2008 is backed up by polling data showing abortion is a winning issue for GOP presidential candidates who are pro-life.
"Post-election polling after the 2004 presidential elections found that President Bush's pro-life stance gave him an edge over pro-abortion Sen. John Kerry.
"A 2004 Wirthlin Worldwide post-election poll found that 42 percent of voters said abortion affected the way they voted for president. Twenty-four percent of voters cast their ballots for President Bush while 15% voted for Kerry, giving Bush a 9 percent advantage on the issue of abortion.
"Eight percent of voters in the Wirthlin poll indicated abortion was the 'most important' issue affecting their votes and Bush won among those voters by a six to two percent margin, leading Kerry by four percentage points among the most intense abortion voters."
Mr. Giuliani will not win pro-lifers by supporting the ban on partial-birth abortion and cannot be trusted to appoint judges and justices who will be more faithful to the Constitution than he was to his marital vows, no matter how many fine people he appoints to his advisory committee.
Mr. Ertelt:
"...while campaigning in New Hampshire, Romney talked about the issue of appointing judges to the Supreme Court — a key concern for pro-life advocates.
"He said President Bush's appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have been 'superb' and would appoint justices with their judicial temperament if he becomes president.
"'I will appoint justices like Roberts and Alito and Scalia . . . and Thomas,' Romney said."
That is critical if the states' constitutional right to regulate abortion is to be full restored and the judicial embrace of secular extremism is to end.
Recently, Mr. Romney announced that Wendy Long will be joining his Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts. This is particularly noteworthy because Mrs. Long also is a Vice-Chair of Mr. Romney's National Faith and Values Steering Committee as well as Chief Counsel of the Judicial Confirmation Network.
The announcement further stated: "Wendy Long will be an important voice in advising Governor Romney on judicial matters, separation of powers and federalism issues.
Mrs. Long commented: "Our country faces a new generation of challenges, which has presented our courts with a new generation of legal issues. As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney witnessed firsthand the impact our courts can have when facing these new challenges. I believe that he, better than any other candidate for President, understands the need for our courts to respect democracy and the will of the people. I believe that he, better than any other candidate for President, would nominate judges and justices of the highest caliber, who would be faithful to the text, history, and principles of our Constitution. I look forward to working with the Governor."
It is especially important that Mr. Romney's advisers on the Constitution and the courts appreciate the proper relationship between the Constitution and the courts and faith and values.
As the following bench memo posted at nationalreviewonline.com shows, Mrs. Long understands perfectly what faithful judges and justices are supposed to do (and Democrat Senator Whip Dick Durbin doesn't have a clue).
"Durbin, Southwick, and the Judicial Role
"Ed [Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center] has done a great service in unmasking the lies and smears about Judge Southwick that Dick Durbin in particular, and other Senators, are spewing upon command from their handlers in the liberal extremist groups.
"I just want to mention another typically misleading claim by Durbin, because it goes to the fundamental problem here: that he and his liberal cronies who want judicial activists on the bench insist on perverting the judicial role under the Constitution, and then vilifying others like Judge Southwick who refuse to assent to that perversion.
"Durbin said on the Senate floor: 'At Judge Southwick's nomination hearing, I wanted to be fair to him and I asked him maybe one of the easiest questions you could ask of a nominee. I asked him to name a single time in his career or in his life when he took an unpopular point of view on behalf of the voiceless or powerless. Mr. President, he couldn't name a single instance. And I thought perhaps that wasn't fair. The judge should be allowed to reflect on that question. I will send it to him in writing, ask him, was there a time in your life when you sided, for example, with a civil rights plaintiff when your court was split? He couldn't name a single case in his judicial career.' (emphasis added)
"The reason, I submit, that Judge Southwick 'could not name a single instance' is that 'siding' with anyone is so foreign to his (correct) conception of judging that he naturally has not done so. A judge's job is not to 'side' with anyone. It is not even to side with the 'voiceless' or the 'powerless.' (Senator Durbin: is there anyone more 'voiceless' or 'powerless' than an unborn child? What if Judge Southwick had said he 'sided' with such a voiceless, powerless person? Would that have satisfied you?)
"Good judges do not side with anyone. They rule impartially and blindly based upon the law. And they don't keep mental tallies of how many times their rulings have benefited plaintiffs, defendants, civil rights claimants, unborn children, the poor, the murderous, or anyone else. Senator Durbin, can you recall a single instance in your career when you have ever understood this truth about impartial judges in our constitutional system?"
Like America's Founders, The Judicial Confirmation Network "believe[s] that the proper role of a judge or justice is to interpret the law and the Constitution — not make up the law and deprive the people of the right to govern ourselves" and "not [to] use the power of the court to impose his or her personal or political agenda on the people.
Proponents of faith and family values need a President who will appoint judges and justices who will follow the law instead of political agendas. Mrs. Long cares about the Constitution and the courts AND faith and values and Mr. Romney appreciates the interrelationship. Mrs. Long says Mr. Romney is the best hope in the fight. I think she's right.
© 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.)
