An Open Letter to Rush and America: Why no Rush to Judgment on Mitt Romney?
By Nedd Kareiva
I have been holding off writing this article for some time. But after this piece today, along with a portion of the transcript of Rush’s show today (audio link at the end of the article above), I must speak out. I do not totally concur with the writer’s thoughts. In fact, I have many issues with Carol’s comments. But since she has brought her points of discontent with the wise Maha Rushnishi, so must I.Rush, I hope you’re reading this piece as well. I wish I could sit down with you and go over my concerns here. Absent that, this is my forum to do so.I disagree that Rush took a potshot at Newt Gingrich. I listened to the interview and Rush was right to be concerned about the Newtralizer, particularly with his shocking support, if only subtly so, that global warming exists today and a Republican president should address that.I also disagree that any Republican candidate would be a better commander-in-chief than any of the Democrats. While I firmly agree that any Democrat president would lead America into chaos, I do not necessarily see leadership qualities on the Republican side in this regard. I saw it in Congressman Duncan Hunter but with him out of the running, I’m hard pressed to find any other. Perhaps in the strictest sense of the word “better“, maybe the Republican candidate would be preferable. However, I would apply the adjective “fair” in terms of leadership on the GOP side and “poor” on the Democrat side. Obviously, “fair” is better than “poor” but I hardly consider “fair” as one to pump me up.
I further take issue that Carol rejects Rush’s contention that John McCain or Mike Huckabee, would likely put the GOP permanently on the fritz. She rightly points out how the current occupant in the oval office has essentially dismantled conservatism. And after listening to Mr. Bush on his state of the union address yesterday - calling for more fuel efficient cars, addressing “climate change” (read: global warming), asking for Congress to dole billions more $$ foreign nations for the “AIDS” crisis (and other so-called monetary needs overseas) and pushing lawmakers to grant citizenship to certain illegal folks already in our country (read: amnesty) – it’s a no-brainer – President Bush is anything but a conservative (except on taxes, judges and abortion).
So will McCain destroy the Republican Party? The smart money says YES. What about McCain/Feingold, the Arizona Republican’s signature issue, which has served to stifle free speech and the 1st Amendment? What about his stubborn support for amnesty for illegal aliens, despite his state’s citizens as well as sizable numbers of Americans rejecting it? What about his opposition to President Bush’s tax cuts? What about his support for embryonic stem cell research? What about his interference in the private sector, like calling for a national smoking ban and demanding sports athletes and officials come to Washington to testify on drug use or face sanctions for not doing so – as if this has any constitutional authority? What about his opposition to waterboarding as a form of “torture” on terrorists detained here in the U.S.?
Will the Huckster decimate the Republican Party? If the Republican Party was strictly social issues, most definitely not. He’s definitely the most pro-life of the lot and supports traditional marriage of one man and woman. But beyond that, what is there positive about Huckabee? He opposes school choice and probably for that as well as other reasons, he has the endorsement of the liberal National Education Association. That’s a dubious distinction, considering the NEA virtually always backs Democrats. He raised taxes on the citizenry he served, breaking a promise when he took office in Arkansas. And like Sen. McCain, he champions illegal immigration, perhaps even more so than the candidate from Arizona. One news source quoted Huckabee as saying he opposed a 2005 raid at the Tyson chicken plant in his state, despite calls “about 1000-1” against his stance. Need more evidence. Go here and look them both up. Matter of fact, look them all up.How can you be a respectable commander-in-chief if not only you don’t support our immigration laws but work to oppose them? The presidential oath is to defend our Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. Any president candidate who refuses to defend our immigration laws is completely unqualified to be in the Oval Office.If Bush is dismantling the Republican Party by rejecting strong border security, a fence or wall and deporting illegals, positions unpopular with huge numbers of Americans of all political stripes, why do you think the party won’t be kaput with one of these two presidential wannabes essentially continuing the course? Anyone recall the flack the ultra liberal governor of New York took for wanting to grant drivers’ licenses to illegals?Bottom line, lawbreakers don’t make good candidates, no matter which party they’re with.However, I must concur, if only grudgingly so, that Rush is manipulating the electorate. But it’s not because of what he’s saying. It’s because what he’s not.
Enter stage right. Enter Mitt Romney.
Rush has more than adequately exposed the records of the former Arkansas governor and the current Arizona senator. He has not said too much about Rudy Giuiani but he hasn’t had to as the voting public largely knows his positions on abortion, including partial birth abortion and the homosexual agenda, including his pre-mayoral days of cross-dressing. They know that despite his stalwart leadership in the face of 9/11, he has a paper trail of liberal social activism that alienates conservatives in the Republican Party. It may have garnered the surprising support of Pat Robertson but not too many others. He’s likely finished in the coming days, despite initial predictions he would be the GOP nominee.
Rush has modestly covered the positions of Ron Paul, my current selection for the White House, though unenthusiastically. Though his numbers continue to be at the end of the pack, he’s still wildly popular in many circles and may possibly be a 3rd party candidate.
That leaves Romney. And may I ask you, the All-Knowing, All-Concerned, Controlled by no Man, Maha Rushnishi, why your silence is deafening on the Mittster? You’ve done a fabulous job on McCain. You have extensively covered the troubling record of the Arkansas governor. I agree, both could wipe out the Republican conservative movement. And I cannot support either of them as well.
But why have you not done the same with former Massachusetts governor? Why have you not delved into his background and record, the way you did the other candidates? Am I missing something? I’m a pretty reliable listener of your show, day in and day out, as I work on my web site and other items connected to my cause. I hear you praise him for things he has said that are statesmanlike. And if those things backed up his record as governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation, I would praise him as well.And although you did say you may be in the position of not backing any GOP candidate (which I somewhat concur, despite my current backing of the Texas Congressman), I can’t help but get the impression that you may vote for the Mittster. Had you covered his time as governor the way you did Huckabee and McCain, I would tend to believe that. But despite your consistent claims that you are currently endorsing no one, the effusing praise you’ve heaped upon Romney for things he’s said is disconcerting.Rush and my fellow readers, take a long look at the Romney record. Pay special attention to the Romney Deception Report. Note the many links and references to the former Massachusetts governor’s support of abortion and especially the furthering of the homosexual agenda. Facts are stubborn things, so they say. These facts are not only stubborn; they do not yield under any pressure whatsoever. They are what they are.What is even more damning to the Romney campaign but is largely hidden from public purview is that contrary to then popular opinion, the Massachusetts Supreme Court was NOT responsible for same sex marriage in the state. It was Mitt Romney.I know. Some of you just went into shock having read this. You may recall the outrage that took place against the court after the ruling. You probably remember the calls to impeach and remove then Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and three of the other six justices who voted in favor of homosexual marriage in the landmark November 2003 ruling. Anger spread across conservative and pro-family websites as claims of judicial activism from the bench abounded.
But there was one problem, little known to most observers. And that was this – the Supreme Court never commanded for same sex marriage to take place.
Don’t believe me? OK, follow this link. And for more details, follow this one. And then note these comments from Ms. Marshall and company (taken from the above link):“The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”…… “Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.”…… “We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.”…… “We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.”OK, so the news reports went out at the time that the court was forcing homosexual marriage as the law in Massachusetts and within 6 months (180 days), ceremonies could begin. But why wait for 6 months? Why not sooner? Perhaps you might think that certain state documents have to be revised to conform to the ruling. OK, if so, then why not January 1st? Most laws when passed and signed into law usually become active either at the start of the New Year or the second half of the year (July). Surely the state could have marshaled forces (no pun intended) to upgrade every state document in time for same sex “ceremonies” could start in time for the start of the year.
But that was not the issue. The ruling from the court was strictly an opinion, an unconstitutional one, but nonetheless an opinion. The court told the legislature to act as they saw fit in light of the opinion. And with the Democrats in control of approximately 90% of the seats in the legislature, a good many of them liberals, they could have easily taken action and perhaps had a majority vote for same sex marriage.
But there was one problem again. The legislature took no action for 6 months and on May 17th 2004, same sex couples filed into city halls and among justices of the peace in Massachusetts courthouses and were pledging to each other their commitments to faux marriage. Why did that occur if the state legislature did nothing in favor of same sex marriage? Shouldn’t the governor have issued a declaration to all public officials in every courthouse, every city hall that state law forbids same sex couples from wedding?
The dirty little secret is that Mitt Romney took it upon himself to enforce a law that was never a law but a court opinion – see here for the details. And if you want a detailed legal opinion with massive evidence that Romney is responsible for same sex marriage in Massachusetts and not the legislature or courts, click here.Rush, if you didn’t know this before, you do now. If you want more info as Romney’s dereliction of duty, read this letter signed by 44 prominent conservative leaders prior to his leaving office. Read this piece signed by 22 conservative leaders, including yours truly. And read this very recent piece signed by 23 such leaders, also by yours truly.At the bottom of Carol’s piece is the link to an audio clip of today’s show as noted earlier. Now in your commentary, you called the 51 second audio you played (also linked here) “a dirty little trick” (or something like that) with regard to Romney’s record on abortion. Unfortunately, in addition to a near exhaustive record in support (if only subtly) on the homosexual agenda, Mass Resistance has documented his record on abortion as well and truthfully, the McCain ad isn’t really telling a lie. And we’re not talking prior to his taking office in January 2003. We fully understand that some folks do go thru a legitimate turn from pro-abortion to pro-life. We do not hold him accountable to his statements and actions prior to November 2002 when he won the gubernatorial election. But we do hold his feet to the fire for his record during his 4 years as governor, even more as he proceeded towards the end of his term. And that record belies his statements.The truth is that in 2006, Mitt Romney signed a state version of Hillary Care into law, a bill that no conservative of any salt or stripe would support. The fact is under its health care law, abortion is covered with a copay as low as $50. Some individuals have claimed that the court forced this coverage and that Romney had no say so but to enforce it. Well, in light of his actions regarding same sex marriage in the state, it’s clear that either he supports abortion on demand with no noticeable change from his earlier positions or he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions to stand up for what is right. Or both.See Romney’s most recent pro-life “conversion” here. Be sure to read each of the difficulties we have with his supposed 2004 pro-life “epiphany“.The fact of the matter is that Romney could have vetoed the health care bill for the above reason alone, let alone the fact that Planned Parenthood was given a seat at the table on the state’s advisory board – the proof of it is
here (go to section 16M). No court in the state of Massachusetts could have forced him to sign this bill. As bad as a state run health care bill is for any conservative or pro-family, pro-life supporter, no true pro-life governor could have in good conscience signed such legislation with such provisions. No doubt the Massachusetts legislature could have easily overridden his veto but a veto says that “I oppose abortion in any health care bill and I will not sign any bill containing such a provision nor will I sign any bill giving any abortion providers a voice in our health plan.” But there was no such words coming from the Mittster’s mouth or pen.And gee, if you’re a tried and true conservative, would you not be at least a bit suspicious of Ted Kennedy standing behind you at the health care bill signing? We already know he helped write President Bush’s education bill in his first term. True, Chappaquiddick Ted may not have had a hand in writing a state piece of legislation but given the liberal lion’s support for national health care, one has to only conclude that he approved of Mass Care. Otherwise, why is a hard care Democrat standing with a supposed true conservative? Given these facts, despite my disgust with McCain and his campaign, the details as laid out in the ad, contrary to Rush’s opinion, are quite true.Facts are stubborn things, as I noted earlier. They don’t buckle under pressure. Only people do. And Romney will buckle sooner or later.
So as you can see, the Romney record on social issues (and other items) is one Old Ted and John Kerry can be proud of. It’s no different, at best, than that of any previous governor or that of Deval Patrick, the current governor.
If you knew nothing else, would you not at the very least be just a tad questioning of any Republican governor who wants to win the White House, knowing that he came from one of the most liberal states in the country and one with roughly 90% of its legislative delegation residing in the Democratic Party?
Rush and other readers, can you not agree that the Romney record is a wholesale sellout? It’s not an isolated item or two. It’s an entire agenda. It’s largely under the media radar except primarily by those in the Bay State.
And if that isn’t enough, let me name a few names of people following Romney like lemmings, particularly those with a proven pro-life, pro-family track record exactly the opposite of the former Massachusetts governor. Most of these names I have no pleasure in naming. But the public needs to know this information and act upon it accordingly.
Note: most of these are individuals working on Romney’s campaign in some capacity or if not, giving at least tacit support for his candidacy.
Well, today is Wednesday and I didn’t get this out in time for publication yesterday but perhaps it’s just as well. With McCain now in the lead in terms of delegates after winning Florida’s primary and possibly in the driver’s seat for the Republican nomination, especially with Rudy Giuliani bowing out, perhaps we can take a brief breather on Mitt Romney. The horserace now seems to be between McCain, Romney and Huckabee, although habitual distant finisher Ron Paul shows no sign of exiting any time soon, leading speculation that he may go 3rd party, despite his personal hesitancy to do so.Make no mistake. I don’t want either McCain or Huckabee as president. They are persona non grata with me. I’m sticking it out with Ron Paul unless there is another acceptable 3rd party candidate in play, should the Texas Congressman indeed follow through on his reluctance to go this route.
But at least I’ll say this much between McCain and Romney. The public seems to grasp what they’re getting with McCain than with Romney, if only nominally. The Internet crowd, particularly those of us on the right, largely knows what we are getting with McCain’s record. Shockingly, only a scant crowd does so on Romney. If McCain gets the nod, that will put a lot of our side in a terrible dilemma and as such, I once again agree with the 98.8% right Rush that a McCain nomination will certainly devastate the conservative movement.
But at least we will not get a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual governor in office as we would get in the Mittster. A governor who refused to stem the tide of the homosexual movement in Massachusetts will likely continue course as president of the United States, if not outright foist it on an unwilling public. A governor who allowed abortion coverage on his state run health care plan will no doubt push a national health care plan, ala Hillary, on America with abortion coverage. Though John McCain doesn’t have the best track record on these issues, his past voting record indicates a less likelihood of a social engineering overhaul that we might well get with Romney.
There’s a saying “what you don’t know can hurt you“. That does not mean that “what you do know won’t“. But it does mean that we are better off electing someone we know than we don’t know. Again, this is anything but an endorsement for McCain or for that matter, anyone else on either party’s ticket. His open borders policy would likely ruin America, if written into law. His campaign finance reform law has already wrought havoc on political campaigns and so much more. And if he is the GOP nominee, you’ll likely see it take a foothold in the election.
Our Constitution may permanently wrecked under a McCain Administration as well as our distinct American identity with an open borders’ policy. But we may be able to save traditional marriage and more unborn lives. It’s not a pretty picture, no matter how you try to doctor it. The alternative, however, with Romney, or for that matter, Obama or Hillary, is unthinkable.
So Rush and everyone, what will you do with the facts before you? Our last authentic conservative president, Ronald Reagan, used to say “trust but verify“. Perhaps we could modify that to say here “rush to verify“. The info is laid bare before you. Will you do so?
After all, what did our nation’s third president say - “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance“?
Your very life and the United States Constitution may well depend on what you do with it
