Friday, December 16, 2005


Romney Not Running for Re-election in Marxichusetts

Mitt Romney announced Wednesday that he would not seek re-election as the only major Republican elected official in Massachusetts, undoubtedly setting up his run for the White House in 2008.

I think that Right of Gray hits this one out of the park:

"There is no way this guy could run for president without the platform of elected office. Besides, he could never win the South. Just look at his stance on the issues of importance to Southerners: Endorsed legalization of RU-486, personally against abortion, but pro-choice as governor, supports benefits for gay partners, believes sexual orientation should not preclude being a Scout, and supported the assault weapons bill and Brady Bill. Romney is your typical Northeast Republican with no future in presidential politics."

Brett Arends believes (ala Bob Corker) that money alone makes Romney viable. Taking Romney out of the picture, I hope it never comes down to cash functioning as the kingmaker.

Cacciaguida thinks that we are too quick to dismiss Romney, and perhaps we are. However, for me, it comes down to better potential candidates (read: George Allen) with a sound ideology that could carry more than Utah and its 5 votes in the Electoral College.

Citizens raise your voices and be heard. We formed the Government and no President can ignore the limits we have placed on his power. A President who ignores the Constitution threatens to become a tyrant.

We are a nation of law. Our law is clear. The 4th Am. of the Constitution established:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The President does not have the authority to make a secret exception to the U.S. Constitution. Citizens must demand that the President respect the Constitution.

That so called libertarian bloggers like Instapundit have ignored this blatant abuse of power is bad enough, but the hardrights are ready to give up their American birthright to protection from arbitrary and limited government.

Powerline goes to far as to declare:

"It's absurd to expect the government to wait for a warrant when it has reason to believe that a phone call it needs to hear for vital security reasons will take place any minute. The only sensible approach in such a case is to monitor the call and then advise the special intelligence court of its action."

Who knew that true patriots would forfeit their liberty so easily.
Anonymous -

Uh, what?

Thanks for the random rant, but this doesn't seem to have anything to do with Mitt Romney, the 2008 elections, or even Marxichusetts.

As for ranting about the 4th Amendment, you aren't going to find many friends on the Right because 99.99% of the time, the 4th is the shield used by criminals to have evidence kicked so that they can be released. Last time I checked, there weren't many politicians campaigning on a "soft on crime," "anti-cop," or "pro-criminal" platform.

OK, maybe Marion Berry...


Pardon, I thought conservatives were for limited government, i.e. the constitutional protection of individual freedom. You know, like the 4th Amendment.

My mistake...
Anonymous -

Conservatives are for the rights of individuals to live in a free society - free from recidivist criminals who use technical legal maneuvering under the guise of the 4th Amendment to obtain safe passage through our streets until they prey on more innocent citizens.

As for your wire-tap rant, check out Clinton's use of "Carnivore" if you want to chirp about unreasonable searches. Bush was targeting certain terrorist suspects. Clinton was targeting EVERYBODY.


Is it your opinion that the government is incapable of violating the 4th Am rights of "innocent" people? If so, you need to protect the right of all whose rights are infringed, even those who are simpley "presumed innocent."

Your philosophy is riddled.
Anonymous (and why remain such?) -

You see the 4th Amendment as the shield. At one time, that was its purpose.

I see the 4th Amendment as the sword. It has been used as such by criminal defense lawyers. That may be one reason that the Rehnquist Court weakened the elements of the 4th (particularly the Exclusionary Rule).

In theory, your view once carried the day. In practice, it is my belief and experience that mine is correct now.


So your only a religious conservative then?

The enforcement of the 4th Am. (which began with the exclusionary rule) is the only thing that changed. It's still the same shield, deterring the unlawful action of government, but it somehow CHANGED when a remedy became available?

That's a silly way to look at rights. Shouldn't they be enforced?
Anonymous -

No, the Exclusionary Rule, as my professor, Tom Davies, declared after the Supreme Court ignored his testimony in the Lopez case, is dead.

If you are relying on that shield, you had better prepare for defeat.

Please do not relate conservatism - which, while for limited government, has always seen national and local defense as paramount - with the strain of libertarianism that treads closely to anarchy.


Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?