"The Mitt Romney Deception" IS the Deception

Alains Newsletter & MassResistance ^ | Dec 2006 | Brian Camenker

[Jeff Fuller]

"The Mitt Romney Deception"--is very aptly named, for the piece itself is the true deception. Trusting a source like this is akin to seeking information about the LDS church from "Ex-Mormons for Jesus". Listen, ain't nobody gonna be conservative enough for these folks (Don't believe me? Look at this piece where they write about how President Bush has "abandoned God, Family, and Country" . Wouldn't you say they have a "flare for the dramatic?" . . . and, just like the liberal media, would rather distort the truth to support their own agenda than do honest research).

The article is compiled by a group called "MassResistance" whose 14 members (TIC) come onto the Romney Blogs frequently to copy and paste their whole diatribe. Their thesis is:

Indeed, this report will demonstrate that Romney was probably the most pro-abortion and pro-gay rights Republican official in the nation for the last decade.

This statement is utterly laughable on many levels:

1. He hasn't even been a "Republican official" for a decade. The only political office he's ever held where he has an actual record is as MA Gov 2003-2006
2. Gay rights groups and the liberal media incessantly lambaste Romney for his conservative actions/statements as Governor.
3. "The most pro-abortion and pro-gay rights Republican official?"--ever heard of Lincoln Chafee, Mark Foley, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Chuck Hagel, Michael Bloomberg, Olympia Snowe or the THOUSANDS of other Republican officials who ARE ACTUALLY pro-abortion and/or pro-gay rights? Romney IS pro-life and against same sex marriage AND civil unions.

Mass Resistance has perfected the science of running misleading headlines and quoting out of context. They've also compiled this list from quotes from such reliable (and "unbiased") sources as the Boston GLobe, Boston Herald, Bay Windows, and the Boston Phoenix . . . all media souces which have blatantly anti-Romney agendas and consistantly try to paint him as a hypocrite. They also don't link to the complete articles where "the rest of the story" can be evaluated en toto. This is the true deception.

Now for some clarification on the specific issues/accusations:

• Top 10 RINO? . . . Human Events Online has more recently semi-recanted for including Romney in this list and now their main objection to his potential success seems to be "The Mormon Issue". See link here (an article in which they seem to say everybody is an unacceptable or unelectable candidate):

Mitt Romney is an interesting character. Although he is the outgoing governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts and was named as one of the Top 10 RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) less than a year ago in HUMAN EVENTS, he's not as liberal as he might appear at first glance. He opposed raising taxes in Massachusetts, balanced the budget, fought gay marriage (although unfortunately, he lost) and has flip flopped on abortion (He now has a pro-life stance). He's even publicly calling himself a " conservative Republican." On the other hand, according to recent polls, even if you set aside the debate about how conservative he is or isn't, the "Mormon issue" is starting to look like an insurmountable obstacle to his candidacy. According to Rasmussen Polling, 43% of Americans and 53% of Evangelicals say that they, "wouldn't consider voting for a Mormon candidate." For good or ill, that probably means that Romney is unelectable.

• Speaking of "The Mormon Issue" . . . "But all the polls say people won't vote for a Mormon as their President!" . . . I wrote this piece several months ago explaining how flawed such polling is, espeicially if they are trying to suggest that people won't want to vote for Romney because he's LDS.

• On the abortion issue, I strongly recommend reading this article: "A Pro-Life Perspective on a Mitt Romney Candidacy". (Also, keep in mind that both George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan were "pro-choice" prior to running for president (Reagan even signed the California law that essentially allowed "aboriton on demand", yet became a strong "pro-life" champion as president.)

• Gay Rights Issues: The MSM is on this "kick" now too . . .see this Boston Globe article and this New York Times piece in the last two days. Bottom line, he has NEVER been in favor of gay marriage or civil unions but he has also always been against discrimination of gays. See a more complete explanation here.

It must be recognized that Romney did have a few "unfortunate responses" during his 1994 campaign . . . especially during debates with Teddy Kennedy. Every politician has had a few of these in their careers . . . and they'll be brought up ad nauseum. What's more important is how Romney HAS GOVERNED . . . which has been consistantly as a conservative.

[Gipper08]

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain it and support it."-Mitt Willard Romney

[kenavi]

They are working to elect Hillary.

[To Hell With Poverty]

So no one can change their mind? I was pro-choice for a while, staunchly against it now.

[Gipper08]

Congrats on seeing the truth...but your not Presidential material either.

[Pukin Dog]

They are really running scared, aren't they? The fact is that Romney is the ONLY Republican that the Dems are worried about. They have no fear of McCain or Rudy, as the media already knows how to take both of them down. McCain as "crazy", starting next spring, and Rudy as racist and scandalized next summer. They have NOTHING on Romney, so they are already reduced to trying to fool the public. Sadly, many FReepers are falling for it. But then, we ARE the stupid party, right?

[aynrandfreak]

He hasn't even been a "Republican official" for a decade. The only political office he's ever held where he has an actual record is as MA Gov 2003-2006

I'd consider him part of the GOP establishment at least since he came close to taking Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in 1994.

[Swordfished]

Reagan even signed the California law that essentially allowed "aboriton on demand"

Is this true?! If so, I categorically rescind all my past praise or adoration of Ronald Reagan, for he shall surely...

just kidding

[jubail]

This is probably a cover group for the McCain campaign.

[gidget7]

Very thorough record and should be a must read for anyone considering Romney as a candidate. It is very factual that unless the GOP puts forth a candidate we can get behind, the conservative grass roots of the part will just bail out of politics, or go to some third party.

[linda_22003]

"since he came close to taking Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in 1994."


Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat, 1,266,011, 58.1%.
W. Mitt Romney, Republican, 894,005, 41.0%

Hoo-wee, that was a squeaker, all right. ;)

[gidget7]

Um......"they" didn't write this article. This is written by a conservative organization who have been insiders in the whole hiistory of Mr. Romney. This isn't about the Dems at all.

[kjo]

Face it, the GOP is NOT going to nominate a conservative next time. They are too afraid of the MSM. The media won the last election of their party. Now, to get the likes of Russert, Couric, and Gibson off their backs the Republicans will nominate Romeny, Rudy G., or McLame.

Count on it.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

I'm waiting for word from the NRA and GOA, on how conservative Romney is.
Some folks around here are trying really hard to make RKBA a non-issue. If they think they can sweep it under the rug, and win, they've got another think a-comin!

[gb63]

"that was a squeaker"
Not trying to rebut your argument, but, offhand, can you provide any other recent contests with Teddy that might have been closer? You or others may well have such info. At the moment, I am not otherwise pro or con on Romney.

[linda_22003]

No, I can't; his seat is the definition of a safe seat. I merely looked up the stats because when the poster claimed that Romney "came close" to unseating Kennedy, that didn't square with my memory. And for once my memory was accurate.

[linda_22003]

If anything, the seat got even safer this year:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2006&fips=25&f=0&off=3&elect=0

I could do stats on earlier elections far more easily if I had my CQ access here at home.

[kenavi]

We need a candidate who does not discombobulate in the face of hostile journalists or Dem party operatives (as George Allen did).

We need a President who has already held the reins of power, rather than selecting one on the basis of his mouthing all the positions we agree with.

I realize that opposition to abortion is for some the overriding cause upon which to support a candidate, and they will not tolerate anything less than their own absolute stance. The problem is that by not supporting anyone less fervent than themselves, they will help elect a President who is absolutely contrary to their position, and who will also endanger the security of us all.

[kenavi]

We need a candidate who does not discombobulate in the face of hostile journalists or Dem party operatives (as George Allen did).

We need a President who has already held the reins of power, rather than selecting one on the basis of his mouthing all the positions we agree with.

I realize that opposition to abortion is for some the overriding cause upon which to support a candidate, and they will not tolerate anything less than their own absolute stance. The problem is that by not supporting anyone less fervent than themselves, they will help elect a President who is absolutely contrary to their position, and who will also endanger the security of us all.

[Pukin Dog]

Wacko 100%er Conservatives are who I am talking about. The fact remains that many on our side are falling for this nonsense and doing the work of the Democrats at the same time.