Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Michael J. Gaynor
Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
Date:  December 1, 2011
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Government/Politics

Conservatives Should Not Give Obama What He Wants!

Give Obama a fit: Make it Mitt.

The upcoming presidential election is much too important to let President Obama effectively pick his Republican opponent.

Herman Cain's explanation of why it became news that a couple of women had received confidential settlements after charging him with sexual harassment and another women came forward to claim an improper relationship with him over thirteen years is fascinating: They want to help Obama be re-elected, he wants to run against Newt Gingrich and torpedoing Cain's campaign will boost Gingrich's chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee.

At the least, Cain is right about Obama wanting to run against Newt Gingrich instead of Mitt Romney.

On the December 1st's "Laura Ingraham Show," Bill O'Reilly not only opined that President Obama would rather face Gingrich than Romney, but also reported that his opinion is supported by inside sources he will not identify.

Ingraham disagreed. She said that Obama would rather face Romney and opined that Obama supporters are being deceptive.

Dick Morris reported that Obama's campaign organization "has targeted Mitt Romney for negative ads" and, since there aren't any such ads targeting Gingrich, concluded that as "a sure sign that he would rather run against Newt than against Mitt."

While acknowledging that Obama's political judgment is "flawed," Morris wrote that Obama "likely sees the race in ideological terms -- as he sees the world -- and would rather run against a strong conservative like Newt than someone with moderate credentials like Romney."

Let's be real: Obama surely wants to win re-election in order to claim approval of and to continue his agenda. He is not too arrogant to think that his re-election is certain, so he wants the weaker opponent and thinks that it is Newt.

Morris: "How do we know? Obama is now running ads, through the Democratic Party, in Virginia, North Carolina, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin attacking Romney for changing his position on abortion. The ad begins with an announcer saying, in ominous tones, that he is about to describe the drama of 'two men inhabiting one body.' No, he is not talking about Sybil, the multiple personality disorder. He is attacking Romney for once having been pro choice and now being pro life."

Morris: "It is unprecedented for a Democratic candidate to take sides in a Republican presidential primary. But Obama is doing it. He is scared to death of Romney. All of the things which make his nomination more problematic among conservatives, strengthen his credentials to defeat Obama in November. His former pro choice posture, his embrace of gay civil unions (but not marriage), and his sponsorship of Romneycare in Massachusetts -- despite its obvious differences from Obama's program -- make him more acceptable to independents. So Obama is determined to vote in the Republican Primary for Newt."

Morris added that it's not only Obama who is trying to affect the Republican presidential nomination: "Bill Clinton, doubtless following the same instincts, says positive things about Gingrich. The Democrats want to defeat Romney."

That's the plain truth. Romney is targeted because he is the greatest threat to Obama's re-election and simplistically called a flip flopper because he actually studies and has become more conservative over time.

The pro-abortion forces relish describing Romney as a flip flopper, because he became pro-life.

Morris noted "that Mitt -- like Reagan, Nixon, and Bush-41 before him,...abandoned...pro choice...as they came to know more about the issue and embraced a pro life posture."

Leftists are to be expected to call Romney a flip flopper, but pro-lifers who call Romney a flip flopper need to realize that (1) flip flopping is simply a term for changing positions, (2) becoming more conservative is a good thing to be encouraged, not discouraged, and (3) people who never change any position need to be more thoughtful and open to learning things they did not know when they took their positions.

Kathleen Parker (www.sacbee.com/2011/12/01/4091384/kathleen-parker-romney-abortion.html#ixzz1fJlRXvj1) just reported why Romney is no longer pro-choice, like his own mother was, and that explanation is cause for joy, not jibes.

Parker:

"Romney's own change of heart evolved from a purposeful course of study. I know the man who instructed him in 2005 on the basics of embryonic life during the stem cell research debate then taking place in Massachusetts. As governor at the time, Romney was under intense pressure to help flip a state law that protected embryos from stem cell research. Some of that pressure came from Harvard University, Romney's alma mater, where scientists hoped to assume a leading role in stem cell research.

"Romney took a thoughtful approach and sought to educate himself before staking out a position. Enter William Hurlbut, a physician and professor of biomedical ethics at Stanford University Medical School. For several hours, Hurlbut and Romney met in the governor's office and went through the dynamics of conception, embryonic development and the repercussions of research that targets nascent human life.

"The result of that conversation and others was a pro-life Romney, who, though he kept his campaign promise to honor the state's democratically asserted preference for abortion choice, began a new personal path that happened to serve him well, at least theoretically, among social conservatives. Was his conversion sincere? Hurlbut is convinced that it was.

"'First, he clearly recognized the significance of the issue, not just as a current controversy, but as a matter that would define the character of our culture way into the future,' Hurlbut told me.

"'Second, it was obvious that he had put in a real effort to understand both the scientific prospects and the broader social implications. Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. ... He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life."

That's the kind of approach a President of the United States should take!

Morris concluded: "Whether Obama and his strategists are right or wrong to root for Newt to win the Republican primary, we conservatives must deny them a vote in our contest. We should note their position and take it into account in our own votes. But don't let Obama tell us who to nominate."

We should not let Obama "tell us who to nominate," but Obama IS telling us who he doesn't want us to nominate and we should not give him what he wants.

Give Obama a fit: Make it Mitt.

Michael J. Gaynor

Send email feedback to Michael J. Gaynor


Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

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.

Gaynor's email address is gaynormike@aol.com.


Read other commentaries by Michael J. Gaynor.

Copyright 2011 by Michael J. Gaynor
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2017 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved