December 6, 2007

The Paragraph from ‘The Speech’ That Should Sink Mitt Romney

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:23 pm

I think ‘someone’ is rattled. He — no, they — should be.

Here is the last multi-sentence paragraph from my post this afternoon (bold was in original; italics added now):

I don’t care about what Romney has said, in isolation. I do care about what Romney has done, in comparison to what he has said. What he has consciously, proactively, and cynically done to break the oath he swore to the people of Massachusetts, and before God, while pretending now to be a warrior against the very thing he put into place, makes him objectively unfit to serve as president.

Here is Mitt Romney’s biggest cheerleader (original design by Weapons of Mass Discussion):

Mitt WMD

Here is part of what Mitt Romney’s biggest cheerleader posted a mere three hours later (HT Allah at Hot Air):

Romney’s –Objectively– Great, Great Day

Mitt Romney threw a long ball today and scored. There can be no objective argument against that conclusion.

….. Here are seven of the most influential conservative commentators in the U.S., and their opinions on the Romney success are all aligned with mine. Thus, objectively, the speech cannot be judged as other than an extraordinary success for Romney.

Coincidences?

There’s only one problem. My “objectively unfit” reference relates to Mitt Romney’s objectively inarguable violation of his state’s constitution — the one he swore to uphold before the people of Massachusetts and before God.

Mitt Romney’s biggest cheerleader’s “objective” references, however, are subjective judgments on the success of what many believe was a well-delivered oration.

Perhaps “The Speech” was well-delivered (full transcript here). I’m not going to judge that.

But it was also damning — perhaps fatally so.

This paragraph from “The Speech,” if and when the enormity of what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts is ever fully understood, should — no, must — end his candidacy (bold, obviously, is mine):

“As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political 
religion’ – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the 
Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of 
office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate
 to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no
 one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common 
cause of the people of the United States.”

Strong stuff.

But Mitt Romney swore this oath on January 2, 2003 when he assumed the governorship of the state known as The Cradle of Liberty:

“I, (Mitt Romney), do solemnly swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.”

Mitt Romney objectively violated that oath by ignoring the John Adams-authored constraints of the state’s constitution when he extra-constitutionally and unilaterally imposed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. In doing so, now in his own words, he failed to “defend the rule of law and the 
Constitution,” and violated his “highest promise to God.”

As noted in this afternoon’s post, this is not arguable.

The extra-constitutional handling of the same-sex marriage ruling is part of a much deeper pattern. There are at least several other examples, some of which are referred to in the Sandy Rios-John Haskins interview excerpts here, of Mitt Romney’s blatant disregard for the rule of law and the constitution he swore to uphold. Others can be found at MassResistance.org’s “The Mitt Romney Deception” collection. I wouldn’t mind elaborating on these other examples further if necessary. But what is covered here and in this afternoon’s post is more than enough for any person with an understanding of the rule of law, the Massachusetts constitution, and the actual facts and circumstances, to conclude that Mitt Romney is objectively unfit to serve as president.

I want to thank Mitt Romney for reminding America today of his solemn obligations. All that remains is for America to know how he failed to keep them.

This would explain why Mitt Romney’s biggest cheerleader, who once would have likely stated his agreement as to Romney’s violation of his oath (not that his agreement or disagreement objectively matters), appears to be quite rattled.

He should be.

And so should his favored candidate.

Share

9 Comments

  1. This is the most incoherent blog post I’ve ever read. Sorry, Romney’s still the best person to run for president in a long time.

    Comment by Chris — December 7, 2007 @ 12:17 am

  2. #1, your substance-free, personally insulting, pitiful comment is, unfortunately, the best anyone supporting Romney has come up with yet.

    Come back when you have a substantive criticism.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 7, 2007 @ 12:39 am

  3. Waste of space!

    Comment by Brian — December 7, 2007 @ 4:28 am

  4. #3, you must think constitutions are a waste of time. I beg to differ.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 7, 2007 @ 5:22 am

  5. Tom, I’m not quite sure why, but Romney and his supporters refuse to address any concerns/issues with substance. As I stated b/f, whenever I ask for clarification on Goodridge, fiscal irresponsibility re: subsidized abortions in romney’s healthcare, I’m simply called a bigot. Funny, I don’t mention his religion, they just automatically assume that if Romney isn’t my guy, it’s b/c I’m a bigot.

    Getting pretty tired of that…

    Why must we water-down the definition of conservative? Mitt is not a conservative. Why not tell the truth? We’re not mind-numb robots, we can handle it (well, obviously he thinks we can’t b/c well, of course we’re all just bigots).

    Just like liberals w/o substantive debate material, they either bait-n-switch or attack the truth-bearer. Shame.

    These valid/documentable issues will “come out” (pardon the pun) and it will be “Hello Madame President” if this “slick” gets the nomination.

    Thank you for your diligence and thoroughness on this.

    Comment by Rose — December 7, 2007 @ 7:01 am

  6. Let’s see…The guy unilaterally implemented same-sex marriage, first he was pro-life then turned pro-abortion then turned pro-life then what’s next????, and he implemented universal health care that isn’t doing too well in the commonwealth. And all I heard yesterday afternoon was how great the speech was and this is followed by two comments here in support of the “Mitt”?????

    Sorry, but I listened to the guys speech. Frankly, I couldn’t care less about his Mormonism. I do care about his arrogance in basically stating that the Constitution says I don’t have a right to vote against him just because he is Mormon. There are too many good reasons to vote against him, but now, at the top of his list IS his arrogance.

    This guy is a hypocrite of the first degree. I will not vote for him and I will encourage every one of my conservative colleagues to not vote for him.

    Comment by Gary — December 7, 2007 @ 7:11 am

  7. I had to check that I hadn’t actually accidentally entered Talkleft’s URL. The blatantly rhetorical nature of your post is uncharacteristic. Romney didn’t of course “unilaterally” institute gay marriage in MA, and saying so is egregious spin at best, lying at worst.

    Your better than this.

    Comment by Mick Stockinger — December 7, 2007 @ 10:40 am

  8. #7, Read yesterday afternoon’s post and, if necessary, those that preceded it.

    Yes, Romney DID unilaterally institute SSM in MA. I did not reach that conclusion lightly, nor do I relish reaching it. But within MA’s constitutional constraints, it is impossible NOT to conclude that.

    Specific contradictory arguments are more than welcome.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 7, 2007 @ 10:45 am

  9. Bizzyblog: Don’t ph33r teh Romney!…

    I either left a comment or sent a trackback to Bizzyblog re: the previous post Why Almost Every Rightblog is Missing the Point on Why Hugh Hewitt is Full of Sh*t on Romney, so the bizzyman took issue and deleted that, and sent me a nice little note to…

    Trackback by docweaselblog — December 7, 2007 @ 12:12 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.