Text of Romney's Speech at Liberty Sunday/FRC Event

Gov. Romney's Website ^ | 10/15/06 | Mitt Romney

[Jeff Fuller]

From the Governor's Website:

Remarks by Governor Mitt Romney Liberty Sunday: Defending Our First Freedom October 15, 2006

Welcome to this historic city. The authors of liberty recognized a Divine Creator who bequeathed to us certain inalienable rights. They affirmed freedom of religion and proscribed the establishment of any one religion. Today, there are some people would like to establish a single religion for America . . . the religion of secularism. They not only reject traditional religious values, but also the values of the founders. And they set aside the wisdom of the ages. Their allies are activist judges. Here in Massachusetts, activist judges struck a blow to the foundation of civilization, the family. They ruled that our constitution requires same sex marriage. I believe their error occurred because they focused on adult rights. If adult heterosexual couples can marry, they reasoned, then to have equal rights, adult homosexual couples must also be able to marry.

But marriage is not primarily about adults. Marriage is primarily about the nurturing and development of children. A child’s development is enhanced by the nurturing of both genders. Every child deserves a mother and a father. Of course, the principal burden of the Court’s ruling doesn’t fall on adults. It falls on children. We are asked to change the state birth certificate. To prevent “heterocentricity,” mother and father would become parent A and parent B. An elementary school teacher reads to her 2nd graders from a book titled “The King and King” about a prince who marries a prince. And a 2nd grader’s father is denied the right to have his child removed from class while that book is being read. Our state’s most difficult-to-place adoptive children may no longer be placed by Catholic charities because they favor homes where there’s a mother and a father.

The price of same sex marriage is paid by children. Our fight for marriage, then, should focus on the needs of children, not the rights of adults. In fact, as Americans, I believe that we should show an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people, regardless of their differences or their different choices. We must vigorously reject discrimination and bigotry. We are all God's children. He abhors none of us.

Massachusetts is the front line on marriage, but unless we adopt a federal amendment to protect marriage, what is happening here will unquestionably enter every other state. The spreading religion of secularism and its substitute values cannot be allowed to weaken the foundation of family or the faith of our fathers who more than life their freedom loved.

[Jeff Fuller]

Great stuff! That last sentence is masterful, IMO.

I watched the event and Romney was VERY well received by that religious crowd. He received multiple effusive and long-lasting standing ovations and was asked by FRC head Tony Perkins to give his speech a second time because the satellite feed/webcast went out early during his first speech. They didn't mind hearing him again one bit.

This is the kind of leadership we need by a POTUS if we're ever going to get a federal marriage protection amendment passed through.

[spikeytx86]

He ticked up another notch for me on my lift of potential primary favorites.

[Wallace T.]

Nothing but words. Romney was a liberal Republican while governor of Massachusetts. The only way he can seen as a moderate is when compared to the socialists and libertines who dominate the Democratic Party in that state, such as Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank. Other than rhetoric, there is no assurance that a President Romney would not be well to the left of President Bush.

The GOP leadership and the MSM are offering the conservative public a choice of three RINOs: McCain, Giuliani, and Romney as the Republican nominee in 2008. None are conservative: being a Vietnam War POW, standing on top of the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center, and pontificating about family values are meaningless from an ideological standpoint.

The conservative bench is as empty as at any point since 1968. Senator Allen in Virginia has some legitimate claim to conservative ideology, but he will probably only win his re-election campaign by a narrow margin, hardly a harbinger of a strong Presidential contender. Condoleeza Rice, whose ideology is largely unknown, has not budged from her Sherman-like position on the 2008 electoral campaign. Tom Tancredo, unquestionably conservative and patriotic, probably lacks the financial and political base to run successfully for the GOP nomination.

We may get a conservative champion in the upcoming months, but his identity, if he exists, is not known.

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

Governors are much better campaigners, speakers, and have a better Presidential mentality than Senators. That is where I think Mitt has a big advantage over George Allen and Hillary Clinton. Senators by nature are followers, not leaders.

[rhombus]

Romney was a liberal Republican while governor of Massachusetts.

What are a few of your "litmus test" items for Romney?

[Wallace T.]

Conservatism, in the American sense, is more than a litmus test. It is a series of ideas regarding governance of this nation rooted in the foundational principles of this republic and the Judeo-Christian moral underpinnings of the Founders. (I am aware that Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and some others were not orthodox Christians, but they adhered to and understood the utility, if not the divine inspiration, of traditional moral values.)

In the area of economics and the government role in the economy, American conservatism calls for the maximum protection of property rights, minimal interference with free markets, and restriction of Federal power to those areas permissible under the Constitution, such as coinage of money and establishment of a system of weights and measures. Minimal government will result in greatly lowered taxes, thus enabling the preservation of capital and the accumulation of savings. Balanced budgets are mandatory. On the state and local level, this means the devolution of many functions that were assumed since the late 19th Century, such as public education, social services, and transportation, to the private sector or to charities. In short, Big Brother must be replaced by caveat emptor.

With regard to law and justice, true conservatism recognizes that Federal authority is mainly limited to protecting our national borders and a few other areas, such as treason and monetary or postal fraud. A conservative approach to law and justice is to be focused on the states and localities. Recognizing the inherently sinful nature of mankind, conservatives favor the use of the criminal courts as a means of punishing wrongdoers and to provide restitution to the victims of crime. It is not a means of rehabilitation or reform. Protections of the sort outlined in the Constitution, such as habeas corpus, due process, protection against unauthorized searches and seizures, etc., to protect the rights of the accused, are fundamental to true justice.

All citizens must be protected equally, irrespective of race, age, sex, national origin, religion, or any other condition, including life in the womb or life with severe infirmities or handicaps. Hence, abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia must be prohibited by law. Additionally, the states should not legitimize or sanction behavior that both Scripture and cultural norms have enjoined: adultery, homosexuality, polygamy, incest, etc., through no fault divorce laws, "gay" civil unions, and the like.

Respective to foreign policy, conservative principles call for the protection of American interests and national sovereignty as paramount. We should not be engaged in alliances or organizations whose intent are contrary to those interests, notably the United Nations. Our military must be fully capable of protecting this nation from all foreign entities.

With respect to Romney, I am not familiar with the minutia of his governance of the state of Massachusetts. Obviously, he has no experience with regard to foreign policy, a situation he shares with the younger Bush and Clinton before they assumed the Presidency. However, from what I understand of his record in Massachusetts, he was an interventionist and not a free market supporter, a supporter of abortions in some circumstances, and an advocate of civil unions for sexual perverts.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Romney was a liberal Republican while governor of Massachusetts.

People change, OK?

Say what you want about him, about him playing politics, but he's firing on all the cylinders.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

BUMP

[Wallace T.]

Franklin Roosevelt ran his 1932 campaign on traditional Jeffersonian-Jacksonian Democratic principles, accusing incumbent President Hoover of wasteful expenditures and promising tax relief. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton ran as centrist Southern Democrats in their successful campaigns in 1976 and 1992, respectively. Let us not forget the elder Bush's "read my lips" pledge on holding the line on increased taxation. Nixon's Attorney General, John Mitchell, advised "me too" Republicans, the then popular term for RINOs, to watch what the Administration did, not what it said. For all of Vice President Agnew's hippie and liberal bashing, the Nixon Administration gave us then unprecedented price inflation, disastrous wage and price controls, expansion of Federal power, e.g., OSHA, diplomatic recognition of Maoist China, and three more years of a no-win war in Vietnam.

The actions of an administration should bear some resemblance to the rhetoric offered. Romney's past political positions are not promising if one adheres to traditional American conservatism.

[rhombus]

From what you wrote, I gather you don't live in Massachusetts. Should Republicans and/or Conservatives just cede the field there and not bother with "interventionists" as you put it?

[Wallace T.]

What may arguably be necessary in overwhelmingly liberal Massachusetts or the Northeast in general, support for less liberal candidates with the GOP label such as Romney, Snowe, Pataki, or Specter, is not necessary in the nation at large.

[Arizona Carolyn]

I keep liking him more and more..

I just heard Dick Morris on Cavuto saying Hillary will bring in ten million new voters because all the poor female waitresses in the country will vote for the first time to elect Hillary.

Somehow, I think given a choice between a very handsome Romney and the Hag from Arkansas... those waitresses are going to vote for Romney.

[Jeff Fuller]

You're right that you don't know "the minutia of his governance" . . . and don't seem to aware of the main points of his governance.

Just some of Romney's Conservative credentials:

1--Turned $3 billion deficit into a $400 million surplus within one year without raising taxes and by cutting pork projects and needless "feel good" social programs

2--Most articulate and outspoken supporter of traditional marriage (i.e. anti-gay marriage) in the nation.

3--He is pro-life ("But he used to be pro-choice" I hear people crying . . .)

4--Vetoed Stem Cell Research bill in Mass.

5--Vetoed bill seeking to lower age of parental consent for abortions.

6--Vetoed bill seeking to approve the "moring after pill"

7--Strong on Homeland Security and War on Terror (suggested wire-tapping Mosques that have been know to promote terroist activities)

8--Managed to get Abstinence Education in ultra-liberal Mass

9--Supports drilling in ANWR

10--Strongly supports charter schools and voucher programs.

11--Denied Former Iranian President Khatami the VIP treatment and State Security that is normally provided to former heads of state because of his

12--Sides with the president on the "Torture" issue.

13--Very strong against activist judges

"Obviously, he has no experience with regard to foreign policy," . . . glad it's so obvious to you . . . but he has Homeland Security ( http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/07/romney-on-homeland-security-part.html )and Immigration ( http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/6/25/21849/3884 ) nailed down right.

Also, he spent 2 years living overseas as a young man, ran the Olympics (a major international event through which he made several international visits to gain support), was CEO of Bain Captial (with offices in USA, Euorope, and Asia), and has visited Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanomo. He recently received a breifing on Iraq by Bremer. His position on the Homeland Security board has given him exposure and access to international security threats. Hardly "No experience" and you rashly judged.

[rhombus]

You say that what may be necessary (that is compromising with liberalism) in Massachusetts may not be necessary in the nation at large. But when I look at recent history I see only Reagan who was perhaps more Conservative than someone like Bush. I only say perhaps because Reagan too compromised. Although he WAS elected with huge majorities I also don't think we should ignore the fact that he was great front of the camera connecting with people in the media world of the '80s. And most importantly Reagan had the advantage of running during the disasterous economy and foreign policy of Jimmy Carter.

I'm not sure the "real" conservative you wish for exists or has stepped forward yet. In the reality of TODAY's political world it will be hard to win enough primaries in ANY party without money and organization already in place. I hope it works out for you.

[Wallace T.]

You must also remember that Reagan benefited not only from Carter's ineptitude, but from the effects of the disastrous Great Society policies of Johnson, Nixon's failure to overturn those policies plus some mistakes of his own, and a decade long decline in our military caused by the no-win war in Vietnam. In effect, Reagan was preceded by 15 years of inept administration. The younger Bush was a great relief after the sleaze and cowardice of the eight year Clinton Administration. If a Republican succeeds Bush, he will not have the advantage of following incompetency and sleaze. However, the media situation is far more friendly than it was in the days of the Great Communicator, as the MSM are possibly in a terminal decline. Talk radio and the Internet and declining circulation and readership of the MSM are strong factors that make a real conservative running for President possible. The clout that Walter Cronkite and the editorial board of The New York Times had are becoming distant memories. Conservatives now have a bully pulpit.

Why settle for meatloaf when you can have steak?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

This country will never return back to its original Constitutional roots.

Therefore, I'm voting for the candidate who closely represents it.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Don't forget that Romney blasted the Muslim speaker at Harvard.

Romney is looking good.

[rhombus]

Why settle for meatloaf when you can have steak?

Because if I waste too much time waiting for Godot steak, I'll probably end up with food poisoning instead. Good luck in the primaries but I expect it'll be meatloaf that'll feed the most.