Mitt, make the next Thanksgiving a Thanksgiving for all of us to remember. It's the way to win the presidency in the following November.
NOT Karl, the father of Communism.
Gary, the executive director of the Judicial Confirmation Network, a coalitions organizer for the Bush-Cheney 04 national campaign and president of Principium Consulting, a public policy and public affairs consulting firm.
More than a year ago, Gary wrote "5 Do's and Don'ts for Conservatives Between Now and '08," a "mission statement" drafted right after the "double setback of failing to produce a majority in support of a Marriage Protection Amendment and [coming] up short in an historic attempt to kill the 'death tax' once and for all" and amid "delays and obstruction from our own party on the confirmation of many of President Bush’s judicial nominees."
No. 5 on Gary's "do" list--"Do unite around one conservative nominee for President in 2008"--was not done, to the great benefit of Rudy Giuliani.
Gary's then realistic appraisal of the situation: "The question all conservatives must answer is: Who is the alternative who can stop media darling John McCain from becoming the GOP standard bearer? This candidate needs to have national appeal, likeability, and be willing to take Hillary Clinton on in two years. Obviously, the conservative effort would be helped a great deal if Rudy Giuliani or Condi Rice jumped into the race and thus fractured McCain’s base. Above all, conservatives need to find their contender for President and support them 100% rather than settling on minor or purist candidates who split the conservative base and deliver the nomination to McCain. Thus, we need to decide in the next nine to 12 months if it is Gov. Mitt Romney, Senators George Allen, Bill Frist, Sam Brownback or Rep. Mike Pence who can carry the flag for conservatives in 2008."
It is Mitt Romney, not former Senators Allen or Frist, Senator Brownback or Representative Pence.
Of those five, only two are campaigning and the beneficiary of Senator Brownback's campaign is...RUDY GIULIANI!
Say it ain't so, Sam!
In 2004 Bishop Rene Henry Gracida explained:
"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.
"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.
"The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry)."
Supporting Senator Brownback "will probably only help ensure the election of" the Republican Party's pro-abortion aspirant, Rudy Giuliani, and necessitate a third-party pro-life candidate who would save the Republican Party but not stop Hillary.
Mitt Romney is the viable alternative to Hillary.
Obviously.
What does Mitt need to do to win?
Mitt needs to campaign enthusiastically and unambiguously on Gary's first four Do's:
(1) "Do push full steam ahead to reverse the liberal activism that has taken hold of the American judiciary....When it comes to our priorities, conservatives must shout: Show me the judges!"
(2) "Do scale back federal spending, eliminate federal earmarks and attack wasteful spending abuses like the 'bridge to nowhere.”'Many fiscal conservatives feel discouraged by the spending priorities of Congress and the White House and it is vital that spending is brought under control. Conservatives should fight for the elimination of earmarks as a method of cleaning up corruption in Washington; the ease and availability of this budgeting loophole has indirectly led to some of the recent scandals facing representatives of both parties."
(3) "Do stand up for the heartland values that millions of Americans again endorsed in 2004 with the re-election of President Bush and ignore the editorial pages of the New York Times. Mainstream America does not support the liberal left’s social policies and conservatives should never be ashamed to fight for traditional values. This should be a constant drumbeat as it forces the left to show their true colors, from abortion on demand to gay marriage; as Rush Limbaugh says, 'When liberals are out of power that is when they really get entertaining.' Conservatives should force the left to be themselves and show the American people that conservative values are mainstream values."
(4) "Do secure the borders now! Do secure the borders now! Do secure the borders now! Conservatives need to be intelligent, however, in how we communicate this policy; it is, above all, a national security issue. Conservatives should avoid antagonizing the American Hispanics, a community that is overwhelmingly Catholic, pro-life and entrepreneurial. Conservatives should be for secure borders, period....Immigration is the single biggest issue with the conservative base today, and elected officials ignore it to their own peril. And while we are it ... why don’t we take some pork barrel spending projects and move those funds to border enforcement. Killing two birds with one stone is how conservatives should begin to think strategically."
The answer to the proposed abandonment of traditional American values is the reassertion of the importance of them, especially traditional marriage and traditional American acknowledgement of the blessings God has bestowed upon America and Americans.
As Gary put it in his article: "Don’t forget that traditional marriage is a winning issue that unites conservatives and most Americans while dividing the Democratic Party. Remember that marriage amendments at the state-level are a lot like abstinence and have worked every time they are tried. Even liberal Oregon passed a marriage amendment in 2004. Just because the U.S. Senate has not caught up with the American people and supported a federal marriage amendment doesn’t change the fact that conservatives can lead and win by boldly supporting the protection of marriage and by keeping it out of the reach of radical black-robed judges."
Exactly!
And just as Mitt has campaigned against an egregious example of judicial activism by Massachusetts' highest court (legalizing so-called same-sex marriage), Mitt should campaign directly against a monumental mistake by the United States Supreme Court in 1947, in Everson v. Board of Education, that has contaminated First Amendment jurisprudence and will culminate in "under God" being removed from "The Pledge of Allegiance" if judicial activists achieve a majority: the assertion that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government can.....pass laws which aid... all religions."
Even more so than traditional marriage, a return to the historical American view that there is a Creator who bestowed the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and government can and should support religion generally instead of giving a veto power to a tiny minority is a winning issue that unites conservatives and most Americans while dividing the Democratic Party.
Mitt, make the next Thanksgiving a Thanksgiving for all of us to remember. It's the way to win the presidency in the following November.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
