Constitutionalists, not Ideologues, for President

Conservative talk show hosts and pundits alike are arguing for a Republican presidential nominee who is committed to govern with a strong conservative ideological bent.  Listen to Rush Limbaugh any day of the week talking about his belief in the winning power of conservative ideas in elections in the USA, or read the recent article in American Thinker by Victor Volsky entitled "Why Romney Alarms Me" arguing that a conservative ideologue as president is needed to counterbalance four years of governance by our current President with his strong liberal/Marxist ideology.

William James (1842-1910) had it right: "All the higher, more penetrating ideals are revolutionary."  There is no doubt in my mind that Obama is trying to change America in a revolutionary way to align with his liberal/Marxist ideology.  Fortunately for us, in addition to being an ideologue, Obama is also inexperienced and incompetent.  One revolution per nation is enough, thank you, and we had ours in the last half of the 18th century.     

In fact, Obama is the poster child for why the last thing we Americans need as our president is an ideologue.  What America needs is a president who understands the Constitution, is dedicated and committed to abiding by the Constitution, and views his job as one of temporary stewardship of this great nation.  He must be committed to governing as president within the construct given us by our founding fathers in our Constitution.  In fact, is that not basically what is contained in the oath of office for president?   

One of the fundamental aspects of the Constitution is the concept of federalism, and any candidate promoting his belief in federalism will get my vote.  Obama may have lectured in constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school, but he either does not understand federalism or chooses to ignore it because it impedes his revolutionary agenda.  For proof, please examine exhibit A: ObamaCare.  My sympathies go out to any student who wasted tuition dollars listening to Obama lecturing on the Constitution at the University of Chicago.  Obama either does not understand what the founding fathers intended or does not feel that the Constitution applies to him as president.

A "constitutionalist" to me is someone who understands the power of our Constitution, and is committed to abide by it as our president.  He is neither right-wing nor left-wing in ideology.  During the Bork confirmation hearings, an incredibly gifted jurist was torn apart by a liberal cabal led by Senator Kennedy (of Chappaquiddick fame).  Bork's crime was that he had a strong belief in, a deep understanding of, and an abiding respect for the Constitution of the United States.  He therefore posed a threat to liberal ideologues like Kennedy.  In my opinion, Bork was not a conservative ideologue.  He was a constitutionalist.  In addition, I would argue that Reagan was not a conservative ideologue -- he was a constitutionalist. 

Of the candidates running for the Republican nomination for president, the only candidate whom I have heard promote the virtues of federalism is Mitt Romney.  Yet to Rush Limbaugh and Victor Volsky Mitt is unacceptable, even though he has been incredibly successful at everything he has attempted.  The reason he is unacceptable is that he is not a conservative ideologue based on their definition of conservatism.  Well I, for one, think that is a good thing.  Obama is proof positive of the perils of having an ideologue as president.  Give me a constitutionalist any day, particularly one with a proven track record of success and accomplishments, and let's move forward as a nation fulfilling the promise set forth by the genius of our founding fathers.

Conservative talk show hosts and pundits alike are arguing for a Republican presidential nominee who is committed to govern with a strong conservative ideological bent.  Listen to Rush Limbaugh any day of the week talking about his belief in the winning power of conservative ideas in elections in the USA, or read the recent article in American Thinker by Victor Volsky entitled "Why Romney Alarms Me" arguing that a conservative ideologue as president is needed to counterbalance four years of governance by our current President with his strong liberal/Marxist ideology.

William James (1842-1910) had it right: "All the higher, more penetrating ideals are revolutionary."  There is no doubt in my mind that Obama is trying to change America in a revolutionary way to align with his liberal/Marxist ideology.  Fortunately for us, in addition to being an ideologue, Obama is also inexperienced and incompetent.  One revolution per nation is enough, thank you, and we had ours in the last half of the 18th century.     

In fact, Obama is the poster child for why the last thing we Americans need as our president is an ideologue.  What America needs is a president who understands the Constitution, is dedicated and committed to abiding by the Constitution, and views his job as one of temporary stewardship of this great nation.  He must be committed to governing as president within the construct given us by our founding fathers in our Constitution.  In fact, is that not basically what is contained in the oath of office for president?   

One of the fundamental aspects of the Constitution is the concept of federalism, and any candidate promoting his belief in federalism will get my vote.  Obama may have lectured in constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school, but he either does not understand federalism or chooses to ignore it because it impedes his revolutionary agenda.  For proof, please examine exhibit A: ObamaCare.  My sympathies go out to any student who wasted tuition dollars listening to Obama lecturing on the Constitution at the University of Chicago.  Obama either does not understand what the founding fathers intended or does not feel that the Constitution applies to him as president.

A "constitutionalist" to me is someone who understands the power of our Constitution, and is committed to abide by it as our president.  He is neither right-wing nor left-wing in ideology.  During the Bork confirmation hearings, an incredibly gifted jurist was torn apart by a liberal cabal led by Senator Kennedy (of Chappaquiddick fame).  Bork's crime was that he had a strong belief in, a deep understanding of, and an abiding respect for the Constitution of the United States.  He therefore posed a threat to liberal ideologues like Kennedy.  In my opinion, Bork was not a conservative ideologue.  He was a constitutionalist.  In addition, I would argue that Reagan was not a conservative ideologue -- he was a constitutionalist. 

Of the candidates running for the Republican nomination for president, the only candidate whom I have heard promote the virtues of federalism is Mitt Romney.  Yet to Rush Limbaugh and Victor Volsky Mitt is unacceptable, even though he has been incredibly successful at everything he has attempted.  The reason he is unacceptable is that he is not a conservative ideologue based on their definition of conservatism.  Well I, for one, think that is a good thing.  Obama is proof positive of the perils of having an ideologue as president.  Give me a constitutionalist any day, particularly one with a proven track record of success and accomplishments, and let's move forward as a nation fulfilling the promise set forth by the genius of our founding fathers.