Mitt Romney has reason to be concerned

Rick’s a good guy, but he’s not the guy to take on and beat Obama. No way. His last election–not very long ago–he was badly beaten…in a swing state! He would need swing states to beat Obama. Also, Romney’s the one with money & organization, which would be desperately needed to beat Obama.
Romney is a conservative. Perfect? No! But Santorum isn’t either; he’s cast lots of very un-conservative votes as PA Senator, & he endorsed Arlen Specter (who is way to the left of Romney) over Pat Toomey in the other PA Senate primary race.
We need to choose a conservative who can beat Obama, rather than make some kind of statement that’s not worth a hill of beans.

itsnotaboutme on February 8, 2012 at 7:49 AM

Here’s the problem with your argument. Everything you say is probably true, except when you claim Romney is a conservative.

My guess is that if Romney and his supporters were more honest, and admitted the guy is not and never was a conservative, but instead is a right-of-center moderate republican, he would gain more traction. In my mind, it is the galling dishonesty that turns me off. And makes me not trust him to stay even remotely true to his few conservative campaign promises. If he said were honest and said I was a moderate, but I realize that the Country needs conservative ideas and leadership and I pledge “x” or “y”, maybe people would trust him and believe that he’ll govern the way he vaguely claims he will.

But to tell me that he IS a conservative and always was a conservative just is not true, is not supported by the facts (a rich history of liberal/moderate stances and quotes, followed by a mixed bag as governor plus Romneycare), and makes me think he and his team and supporters believes we are all idiots – that he thinks of us the same way liberals do, that we are just sheep to be lied to and led w/o us thinking. Which makes me not trust him whatsoever.

So, if the argument is that he can win against Romney (an argument I am not actually sold on. The guy is a terrible campaigner, has no charm, is not liked by his own party’s base, has exactly the wrong personal history and demeanor for this specific point in time, and comes across as being pretty much exactly like Obama) – make the argument that he can beat Obama and we can make do with a moderate republican President. Don’t feed me cow manure and tell me it’s escargot, that will not win any arguments.

Every time someone says “Romney is a conservative”, another angel loses its wings. Say – he’s attempting (not well) to run as a conservative. Say he is right-of-center on most issues. that he is a lifelong republican. that he did some conservative things as governor. But don’t claim he is a “conservative” as that term is understood at sites like HotAir.

Monkeytoe on February 8, 2012 at 8:04 AM

“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.”.

Hmm, “secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects..”, yeah, totally not privacy there (Engrish fail much)?
The First amendment gives you the right to practice any religion you want without interference from the government along with the right to assemble in groups.

Also the 14th gave a right to privacy starting in Griswold, not Roe v Wade.

Zaggs on February 8, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Does it say “privacy’ or are you reading into it? Privacy has a different meaning than “secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects.” Sure, you derive some privacy from being secure in those things, but that doesn’t mean they are equal.

Your reading the word “privacy” into it and whatever meaning you decide to give the word “privacy” is exactly the same as someone reading “abortion” into the constitution based on this same amendment. Neither word is there. Sorry, but do you read English? My english says that if a word is not in a sentence, then it is not in the sentence. It appears that your version includes words in a sentence that don’t appear in a sentence.

Again, define what you mean by “privacy”. Does it mean “abortion”? what then?

Monkeytoe on February 8, 2012 at 9:20 AM

And, the 14th and “reverse incorporation” is just as much hokum as the idea that the constitution protects “privacy”. Is the word “privacy” included in the 14th amendment?

The constitution limits when the gov’t can inspect your house, personal property, papers, etc. It does not protect some vague idea of “privacy”, which can literally mean anything a judge wants it to mean.

Some conservatives are just as ignorant of what the constitution actually says and just as willing to read into the constitution as liberals are. You are correct that the SCOTUS use of “privacy” began before Roe v. Wade – I did misspeak there. It does not in any way refute my point, however. Santorum is 100% correct that “privacy” is not something defined nor included in the constitution. Yes, the fact that the gov’t cannot inspect your stuff without a warrant affords some privacy, but that is a big difference than saying that “privacy” in and of itself is protected by the Constitution.

“privacy” has no real meaning. It only means what a judge says it means. Privacy is a concept – not a right. Your “right” is not to have the gov’t look at your papers, go into and inspect your home, etc., w/o a warrant. That is all. The constitution is silent on the vague concept of “privacy”.

Monkeytoe on February 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM