Quote of the Day: Gregg Jackson on Mitt Romney (with Index, Links, and Cliff’s Notes for ‘Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions’ Posts)

In today’s Washington Times, the author of “Conservative Comeback to Liberal Lies,” co-host of Pundit Review Radio, co-blogger at Pundit Review, and consultant to yours truly on Romney matters (not necessarily in that order :–>), nails it (”Romney’s bigotry crusade”; column co-authored by Paul Dinger):

When we published an expose on Mr. Romney on Townhall.com showing his governor’s record reveals him to be nearly as liberal as Ted Kennedy, Romniacs descended in droves clutching a large suitcase of evidence showing we were completely wrong. Just kidding. They called us “bigots.”

Though it’s probably on the way, I’ve managed to avoid the b-word epithet thus far, presumably because my arguments against Romney have nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with his performance, actions, and utterances relating to government-subsidized abortion services and same-sex marriage during his tenure as Massachusetts governor.

I am otherwise in the same position as Gregg, waiting for the “large suitcase of evidence” proving me completely wrong. So far, nothing. That is because I believe that Romniacs have nothing — except hopes that either we’ll go away or we won’t be heard.

Well, we’re not going away, and I suspect we’re already being heard. Rasmussen reported the following yesterday (link probably good for a few days at most):

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Iowa caucus finds former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee with 28% of the vote, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with 25% support, and everyone else far behind.

Y’all would be well-advised to belly up with some kind of defense, if you have any. Otherwise I’ll assume you don’t.

UPDATE: Life News adds this:

Compared to the last survey, Huckabee’s 28% support represents a twelve point increase from a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted earlier in the month. Romney is down four points while Giuliani and Thompson are each down three points from the previous survey.

______________________________________________

Here’s the complete index to the “Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions” series:

- Nov. 21 — Part 1: Abortion Coverage in RomneyCare
- Nov. 21 — Part 2: Mitt Romney and Same-Sex Marriage
- Nov. 23 — Part 3: Various Excerpts, Statements, and Comments
- Nov. 24 — Part 4: What’s Beck Got to Do with It?
- Nov. 25 — Part 5: The Next President and the Courts

For those who insist on the Cliff’s Notes versions of the above posts, here they are (Part 3 is excluded because it “only” has excerpts and quotes from elsewhere):

• (Part 1) Mitt Romney did nothing to stop or restrict state-subsidized abortion in Massachusetts, and with the institution of RomneyCare, definitely expanded its scope, and may even have enshrined it into Massachusetts law for the first time. Also see Part 1 for links to the underlying columns, blog posts, and background info from Gregg Jackson, Kevin Whelan, and John Haskins.
• (Part 2) The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage in the Goodridge case was legally absurd and in and of itself against Massachusetts’ law and constitution. Even setting aside that point, an SJC ruling in Massachusetts requires that either legislation or a constitutional amendment be enacted for implementation to legally take place. No legislation or constitutional amendment was ever enacted, yet Mitt Romney implemented Goodridge anyway. He had no legislative direction, so he in fact did not have the authorization to go ahead with implementation. By doing so, he violated his own oath of office to uphold the Bay State’s constitution.
• (Part 4) A 1988 US Supreme Court ruling in a labor-law and free-speech case shows that rulings by the Supremes are often not automatic without enabling legislation. Only a few states have implemented the ruling involved (Communications Workers of America v. Beck). Congress has passed no legislation, meaning not only that our president can refuse to carry out the ruling, in point of fact he must refuse.
• (Part 5) The next president may have to defy Supreme Court rulings that unconstitutionally rely on foreign law or that are clearly and obviously in violation of the clear meaning of the Constitution itself. I believe that any of the Democrat nominees would, if elected president, handle such situations opportunistically, opting to enforce the ones they like (in violation of their oath of office), and refusing to enforce the ones they don’t. I hold hope ranging from a little to a lot that four of the five major contenders for the GOP presidential nomination might take up this likely crucial challenge. Based on his record in Massachusetts as described above and in the detail of these posts, I hold out no such hope for Mitt Romney.

I have brought back a BizzyBlog term from previous elections, namely the BizzyBlog Dealbreaker. A Dealbreaker is “something that completely justifies a person not voting for you, regardless of your party or your current stands on the issues.” Romney’s handling of the subsidized abortion and same-sex marriage issues are each Dealbreakers. As such, absent satisfactory explanations, I believe that he is unfit to be president.