Topic category:  Election Fraud

Laura Ingraham is an ardent conservative and a fierce fighter. Unfortunately, she's apparently in denial when she tells her national radio show that she is not supporting anyone in the race for the Republican presidential race and cuts off callers who dare to say otherwise.

Diogenes famously searched for an honest man.

This year Ingraham has been searching for someone other than Mitt Romney to take on President Obama and has been supporting (while not endorsing) a series of potential alternatives (none of whom is as likely to beat Obama as Romney).

Ingraham's latest post--"Does Rick stick? Boxing Gloves or Mitt-ens?"--evidences Ingraham's search for someone other than Romney, especially after Romney took KOed Newt Gingrich (Ingraham's favorite at the time) in the last debate of the Republican presidential candidates.

Ingraham's silly play on Romney's name is obvious, but somewhat amusing. Her ludicrous suggestion that Romney can't take it to Obama (like he took it to Gingrich) is unhelpful and unfunny.

Ingraham wrote:

"A few thoughts about the Santorum trifecta win in Minnesota, Missouri & Colorado: GOP voters think you should earn it.

"Since Iowa, Rick Santorum has worked tirelessly to demonstrate his connection to the conservative core of the GOP electorate. He brushed past questions (including from me) about his staying power, about how he could compete against Mitt Romney's money and establishment cred. He watched in Iowa as Newt declared that he would be the GOP nominee, and went on to win there. With little money but indefatigable focus on first principles, he did local appearances and national interviews with the good cheer and substantive solutions. Better than anyone, he made the case that Romneycare=Obamacare.

"Primary voters love a fighter of a man on a mission. The voters in our great Midwest recoil from candidates who act like they are entitled to the nomination. His message to the frontrunner out of Florida and Nevada: money can buy you attack ads, but it can't always buy you conservative love. If the Romney camp--which can be oddly prickly when asked reasonable questions--thinks the Santorum wins are an aberration, they will be sorely mistaken. And what if they use against Santorum the slash and burn job used against Newt in Florida? They may just see the scorched earth they leave behind has burned not just the opposition, but the goodwill and passion of base voters it needs in November. And what if Rick wins."

First, in raising a strawman, Ingraham encouraged the canard that Romney is an elitist who considers himself entitled to be Presidency.

That's bunkum that the Left pedddles (but is delighted to have Ingraham try to sell too).

Romney has been working assiduously to become President for years and in 2008 he did so with the enthusiastic support of both Ingraham and Santorum, each of whom assured everyone that Romney is a trustworthy conservative.

In 2008 Ingraham seemed smitten with Romney (at least as a presidential candidate). She enthusiastically endorsed him as a true conservative who had learned over time and even described him as the "the conservative's conservative" and "a class act" when she introduced him at CPAC 2008. Her praise of Romney was unstinting. She not only assured all that Romney was proud to be a conservative, but that he "embodies conservative ideals." She lauded him as a national security conservative, a social conservative and a fiscal conservative and for "selflessness" and "exhibit[ing] on a daily basis sacrificial concerns."

Ingraham was right then and Romney is no less conservative now than he was in 2008. His conversion to conservatism was real.

Likewise, Santorum was all for Romney and celebrating instead of questioning Romney's conservatism.

On February 1, 2008, Santorum publicly declared:

"In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party’s nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built. Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear.

"Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate that can go into the general election with a united Republican party."

Santorum was not railing against Romneycare then.

Sadly, personal ambition seems to be the explanation for Santorum's decision to throw Massachusetts' right as a state to adopt its own health care plan under the bus and refusal to admit that there are fundamental differences between Obamacare, an unconstitutional national plan, and Romneycare, a legitimate state plan that the people wanted when it was enacted and overwhelmingly approve.

President Obama really should be grateful to Ingraham, Santorum and Gingrich for enhancing his re-election prospects and they should know better.

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.