Michael Dukakis lost the 1988 presidential bid because of his liberal beliefs; he lost in a landslide because of a single reply to a question at one of the debates.
At the Dukakis-Bush debate the moderator, Bernard Shaw questioned Dukakis:
"If Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"
Dukakis replied with a cold no and reiterated his stance against the death penalty, ultimately portraying him as soft on crime thus marking the end of his candidacy.
I am explicitly not comparing Dukakis to Romney, though I am drawing a comparison of Dukakis’s reply and the effect of it to a reply Romney made at the debate last Thursday.
Romney, if and when defeated, will lose because of his support of many liberal issues and flip flops. The defining moment which may cause a landslide loss, may have already occurred. August 11th at the Iowa Republican debate, Romney responded to Pawlenty’s attack of Obamneycare, that Obamacare and Romneycare are equal, in the following manner:
ROMNEY:There are some similarities between what we did in Massachusetts and what President Obama did, but there are some big differences. And one is, I believe in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. And that says that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved by the states and the people.
We put together a plan that was right for Massachusetts. The president took the power of the people and the states away from them and put in place a one-size-fits-all plan. It’s bad law. It’s bad constitutional law. It’s bad medicine. And if I’m president of the United States, on my first day, I’ll direct the secretary of HHS to grant a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states.
WALLACE: But, Governor — and this is — this is your one-minute question. Do you think that government at any level has the right to make someone buy a good or service just because they are a U.S.mresident? Where do you find that authority, that mandating authority, government making an individual buy a good or service in the Constitution?
ROMNEY: And let — and let me tell you — where do I find it in the constitution? Are you familiar with the Massachusetts constitution? I am. And the Massachusetts constitution allows states, for instance, to say that our kids have to go to school. It has that power.
Oh. So Obamacare is bad because the federal government is imposing on all citizens of all fifty states to purchase health care. On the other hand, Romneycare is good because it imposed health care mandates only on all the districts and all the citizens of the single state of Massachusetts. And Obamacare is wrong because the tenth amendment in the federal constitution bans it while Romneycare is good because the state constitution allows it. Got it? So if he could only find some loophole to impose his will on all the people of the entire country, then he’d go for it without any doubts.
Yes, the constitution limits the control of the federal government. The reason the founding fathers have done so was not to limit their own power; they had no intention to expand the size of government. It was done as a measure of safeguarding the freedom of the people of future corrupt politicians.
At a time of too much government, do we need a president who wants to limit and shrink the size of government regardless of what’s written in the constitution, or do we need a politician who has expanded the size of government to the greatest degree permitted according to the state constitution?
And have you noticed his example of kids being forced to attend school? Firstly, isn’t homeschooling an option? (MA happens to be one of the only two states which require parents to obtain approval prior to homeschooling but parents still have the option.) Additionally, education is provided by the government at no cost to the recipients (tax-funded of course!) Most importantly, has Romney decided to extend the “kid” aspect onto all citizens with the government playing the role of the “parent” forcing its “kids” how to live their lives?
All voters should be infuriated to discover that Mitt Romney’s only reason for not snatching your freedom is because it’s forbidden according to the constitution. I am a young writer and will admit that I’m not familiar with the constitution of Massachusetts. But if a candidate runs as a conservative and the only issue he has of stripping citizens from their freedom is if it’s permitted according to the constitution, then how can such a candidate claim to serve in the interest of the people?
And although it’s difficult to believe that the constitution of Massachusetts explicitly allows the government to force its citizens to purchase something, with liberals in control anything may be possible.