Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Who Kidnapped and Brainwashed Jim Bopp?; Conservative Activist Endorses Pretend Conservative Mitt Romney

American Spectator has a story asking what happened to Ann Coulter, the conservative firebrand who from the beginning has been a fervent supporter of Massachusetts liberal turned moderated turned pretend conservative Mitt Romney.  Here is a paragraph from that column:
Terre Haute Attorney Jame Bopp

"But something has happened to Coulter. I don't have firsthand knowledge that she was kidnapped by RINO Team Six and taken to an offshore medical facility where she was forced to undergo a gruesome surgical procedure, but many of her recent columns suggest that something of the sort must have occurred. What else could explain her endorsement of Mitt Romney? Once immutable where her core convictions were concerned, she has executed a vertigo-inducing volte-face in order to promote a brazen opportunist whose positions on the big issues were the opposite of hers before he began running for President. She relentlessly trashes Republican "moderates" like McCain, yet now supports a candidate who makes the Arizona Senator look like Barry Goldwater by comparison."

I had the exact same thoughts when I read the email yesterday from Terre Haute attorney and conservative activist James Bopp in which he endorses Mitt Romney as the conservative choice.

I first met Jim in 1995 when we both worked on the Rex Early for Governor race.  Jim is a very personable guy, a person who has consistently stood for conservative causes, including being a strong supporter of the pro-life movement.  I've watched Jim's legal career develop after that.  Jim heads the James Madison Center for Free Speech, an outfit based in Terre Haute that takes on political free speech cases all over the country, a cause which is near and dear to my heart.   One of the cases Jim took on involved representing me a decade ago in the Southern District in a successful effort to invalidate a statute prohibiting candidates from passing out literature with more than one candidate's name mentioned, unless that literature was previously filed with the county election board. 

I should also mentioned that Jim actively supports anti-SLAPP legislation.   SLAPP lawsuits that are those filed against private citizens to try to keep them from speaking out about public issues.  The purpose of the lawsuit is not to win, but rather to drive up the legal costs for the private citizen so much so that he or she will give up and agree to not speak out anymore in settlement of the lawsuit.  The tactic, often employed by well-funded corporations with deep pockets, is repugnant to Free Speech.

Jim recently received headlines for being on the winning side of the Citizen's United case.  I'll have to disagree with Jim on that one.  After reading that opinion, I thought it nothing more than an activist opinion that, based on a creative interpretation of the Constitution, inappropriately usurped legislative power substituting instead what the court thought the best policy was, the exact sort of thing we conservatives have for decades criticized liberal judges for doing...the same sort of judicial B.S. that led to Roe v. Wade.  Nine times out of 10 though, Jim is on the right side on political free speech issues. 

Back to the Bopp endorsement.  This is from the email that went out to conservatives:

My Fellow Conservatives,

Like all conservative Republicans, and most Americans, I believe that the future of our country, and the preservation of our way of life, depends on the defeat of President Barack Obama and his replacement with a president who supports free enterprise, limited government, traditional family values, and a strong national defense, based upon the principles of our United States Constitution.

Because of my obligations with the Republican National Committee and my belief that any of the major Republican presidential candidates would advance our conservative principles, I have stayed neutral, hoping that one candidate would emerge with the demonstrated ability and support to take on and defeat President Obama. That candidate has now emerged and, as a result, it is time to put aside our minor intra-family differences, to end the increasingly divisive primary fight, and to unite to focus on achieving our shared goal of defeating President Obama.

That candidate is Governor Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is a true conservative. One does not have to guess what Mitt Romney would do in office.  He served for four years as Governor of Massachusetts and has a record that conservatives should be proud of.

As Governor, Romney fought for social conservative values. He vetoed bills that would have authorized state funding of embryonic cloning, would have changed the definition of human life from fertilization to implantation and would have given young women the morning-after abortion pill without a prescription. He promoted abstinence education in public schools. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, he left no stone unturned to set aside that ruling. And in contrast to the Obama Administration’s war on the Catholic Church by mandating their institutions to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans, Governor Romney vetoed a bill that would have required Catholic hospitals to offer abortion-inducing drugs to potential rape victims.

Of course, it is true that Romney had a conversion to the pro-life cause, not unlike other Republicans such as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. We should not only embrace him as a result of this conversion, but also recognize that he is a success story. But the best test of the sincerity of a conversion is deeds, and Mitt Romney was “consistently pro-life” as Governor, according to the President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

On the issues currently deemed the most important by the American people, the economy and federal taxes and spending, Romney also has a remarkable record. As a private investor in struggling businesses, Romney was very successful in turning them around. As governor, he issued more than 800 vetoes and cut taxes 19 times. The result, in a state with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature, is that he closed a 3 billion dollar budget gap and turned it into a 2 billion dollar rainy-day fund.

Mitt Romney’s success in the first five primary states, including wins in New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada, have revealed an emerging consensus among Republican voters that he is the most electable – the most likely Republican candidate to defeat Obama. Romney has the broadest support among all elements of the Republican party electorate, has the most appeal to independents and swing voters, and is, therefore, the most electable of all. It is time, therefore, to celebrate the result and concentrate all our energy on achieving a general election victory.

Et tu, Jim?  Say it ain't so.


Nicolas Martin said...

Under no circumstances does any legislature have the legitimate power to regulate speech of any sort. if you are a constitutionalist (which I am not), try to locate that authority in the document.

Paul K. Ogden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul K. Ogden said...


The constitution is not a blank screen upon which courts can project any policy that they deem the best policy. When the document is not clear on its face as to issues, the courts are to defer to the will of the people, as expressed by the legislature. That's what constitutionalism means. It does not mean giving unfettered power to unelected federal judges.

Gary R. Welsh said...

Why are you surprised, Paul? Bopp was backing Romney four years ago when he ran.

MyHarpoon said...

The GOP is truly in a sad state of affairs when they so-called leaders purport to support a candidate for the sole purpose of defeating a candidate of another party. The Republican Party has truly become the party of nothing.

Nicolas Martin said...

If you think the First Amendment is "not clear," I dare not guess what you think of the Second.

It isn't that the constitution isn't clear, it is that people don't want it to mean what it says.

In reality the constitution is worthless. It prevents government from doing nothing that the mob and its elected weasels want done.