"The Mitt Romney Deception" IS the Deception

Alains Newsletter & MassResistance ^ | Dec 2006 | Brian Camenker

[Jeff Fuller]

"Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he’s pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal – and that his new found conversion to conservatism very likely coincides with his candidacy for the presidency."

Please refer to comment #1 to see what a shoddy piece of work this is. If they are trying to convince people of something, they should at least get SOME of the facts right and not rely on the Boston Globe, Bay Windows, and The Boston Phoenix as their "authoritative sources".

[Jeff Fuller]

I love the " . . . " part of your quote of the 2003 Deseret News article.

You conveniently leave out that the "opportunity" mentioned was a bill being brainstormed that would PROHIBIT Gay Marriage in Massachussetts. THey were negotiating with the legislature and even temporarily entertained the idea of recognizing "civil unions" in order to ban "gay marriage". Negotiations broke down because of the gay lobby's strong influence over the legislature. So essentially, Romney was in the middle of negotiating a potential deal to ban gay marriage in MA (after the court had passed it) and considered "trading" a few benefits that heterosexual couples get for the opportunity to nix the marriage issue. I'm conflicted on that personally, but I realize that compromise is sometimes necessary in politics.

Here's the quote without the ". . ."

---

And, in last year's campaign, Romney took heat for serving on the board of the Boy Scouts, which excludes gay men from serving as Scout leaders and for having donated $1 million in 1998 to Brigham Young University, which bans homosexual conduct on its campus. Asked about that in the campaign, he said he would support domestic partnership benefits, at one point saying they would become a "hallmark of my leadership as governor."
Romney often bristles at suggestions that his personal religious beliefs have any bearing on his public policy positions. Yet whatever the root of his feelings, the governor views gay marriage as a "gut issue" that he cannot support in accordance with his own moral code, Gray said.
Because he believes the majority of Massachusetts residents agree with him on the issue, he wants to amend the state constitution to reflect that, Gray said. Romney has broader goals in mind, and will use this opportunity to establish further rights for gay couples, Fehrnstrom said.
"At the end of the day, same-sex couples will end up with more rights and benefits than they previously enjoyed," he said.

---

Also, the majority of the rest of the article provides some proper perspective . . . that Romney was really put in a pickle on this one.

---

Romney has already begun staking out a centrist position in a debate prone to be defined by extremes. Barely an hour after the court's opinion was made public Tuesday morning, he delivered a nuanced, carefully prepared response that included elements to satisfy both ends of the political spectrum.
The governor denounced the court ruling and came out strongly against gay marriage, promising to work to amend the state constitution to ban such unions. He quickly added that he'll work with the Legislature on a "parallel" track to establish some rights for same-sex couples.
Wednesday, he repeated his position to a far wider audience, on NBC's "Today Show" and ABC's "Good Morning America."
"I agree with 3,000 years of recorded human history, which frankly is a contradiction of what the majority of the Supreme Judicial Court said," Romney said on the "Today Show." "Of course, at the same time, we should (be) providing the necessary civil rights and certain appropriate benefits" to same-sex couples.
A few hours later, Romney seemed to modify his position, telling reporters that he believes the court would allow some version of civil unions to be approved instead of outright gay marriage. He has not given a full list of what rights and benefits he believes the civil unions should carry with them, but has said health coverage and hospital visitation rights should be included.
Romney's effort to frame the debate reflects a realization that there's nothing he can do to keep himself out it. The governor and his aides began discussing how they would respond to the ruling over the summer, as the state and the nation waited for a decision that everyone knew could be a bombshell.
"The governor is not a social crusader. He did not run for office to crusade for or against gay rights," said Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's communications director. "But sometimes issues are forced upon you, and they require a response. . . . The governor has taken a consistent, principled position."
Under the court's ruling, the Legislature has 180 days to craft a response, and Romney's post as governor will force him to take politically perilous stands during this period. The calendar injects another intriguing element into the discussions: Romney is up for re-election in 2006 — the same year that the Defense of Marriage Act would go to the voters, if the Legislature approves it now and again in the 2005-06 session.
Romney's promise to work on behalf of an amendment to ban gay marriage could muddle his message to voters in 2006, when he is likelier to try to stress his efforts to rein in government excess and keep taxes low. On the other hand, the amendment could draw more social conservatives to the polls — a likely boon for the governor.
His vocal support for the amendment could lead to gay marriage being banned after two-plus years where it was legal. It could make Romney a hero to the right but a demon to the left.
"He could damage us hugely, and it's neither necessary nor appropriate," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "He has every right to his own personal and religious beliefs, but it is not right to try to impose that on everyone else."
Rob Gray, a GOP consultant who has done work for Romney, said the governor's forthright approach to the issue stands in contrast with the Democratic Legislature. Last year, lawmakers used a procedural maneuver to avoid a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
"He's not going to hide from the issues that this debate will present, and that puts him in good stead with the voters," Gray said. "It gives Romney even more of a platform to criticize the Legislature as typical politicians who are out for themselves and not for the will of the people."
As Romney knows well, issues of gay rights and gay marriage can be politically explosive. Last year, his Democratic rival for the governor's office, Shannon P. O'Brien, saw her campaign battered after she surprisingly endorsed gay marriage a few weeks before the election, after months of saying she supported only civil unions.
In his 1994 U.S. Senate race, Romney found himself in a political firestorm after several people who attended a gathering of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said Romney described homosexuality as "perverse" and said he was "appalled" by gays in the congregation. Romney denied using the word "perverse," but said he advised against non-marital sex — both homosexual and heteresexual — in accordance with church teachings.

---

[SWAMPSNIPER]

If you wish to search out posts I made before the last presidential election, you will see that I was not pleased when W promised to sign the AWB. If the dems put it in front of him now, I reckon he'll sign off on it.
I've had enough of the wishy washy crap. There is less "republican" flavor in the GOP every day, it begins to smell like democrats. I am only here for The Constitution, when it goes, I go with it. Turn the Republican Party back around, or start calling yourselves something else.

[Pukin Dog]

My tagline is about the fact that John McCain is crazy.

[JohnnyZ]

I love the " . . . " part of your quote of the 2003 Deseret News article. You conveniently leave out that the "opportunity" mentioned was a bill being brainstormed that would PROHIBIT Gay Marriage in Massachussetts. (FALSE) .... So essentially, Romney was in the middle of negotiating a potential deal to ban gay marriage in MA

Blatant lie.

Asked about that in the campaign, he said he would support domestic partnership benefits, at one point saying they would become a "hallmark of my leadership as governor."

Romney pledged his wholehearted support of domestic partnership benefits IN THE CAMPAIGN, NOT as you assert as some kind of compromise during the gay marriage debacle.

Also, the majority of the rest of the article provides some proper perspective . . . that Romney was really put in a pickle on this one.

ROFL, He was in a pickle BECAUSE HE WAS TRYING TO PLAY BOTH SIDES!!! LOL, you've really got some blinders on. Did you even read what you quoted???

"Romney has already begun staking out a centrist position in a debate prone to be defined by extremes. Barely an hour after the court's opinion was made public Tuesday morning, he delivered a nuanced, carefully prepared response that included elements to satisfy both ends of the political spectrum."

He's a two-faced phony, and he's going to pay the price for it.

[Pukin Dog]

Good work, but few will listen. Their prevailing views wont let them. Romney says he will follow the laws on both Gays and Abortion, yet 100%ers attack him as pro-abortion and pro-gay, because that is the only thing that makes sense to them. Supporting current law, when it goes against their views, does not. Fortunately, there are not enough of them to prevent Romney from winning. When McCain cracks, (and he WILL crack, trust me) Romney will win easily. Rudy has NO chance.

[aynrandfreak]

Fair enough, but it seemed like it might be close for a while. :)

[Jeff Fuller]

You obviously live in a world of black and white (and Caps and Bold). Most of us who live and work in the real world realize that there are often "shades of gray." I think "the blinders" market is already cornered by you and yours.

I would like to see you be the Gov. of Massachusetts. Romney took on a hard job (but I'm glad it was him instead of Shannon O'Brien). I know he chose to do so, and that he's now choosing to run for POTUS, but everyone must realize how he has been willing to take on liberals on their own turf. That is why the National Review said of Romney: “Romney has done his best to defend the culture of life on what is probably the most inhospitable terrain in the country."

He has taken some centrist stands or been silent on some issues because of the MA political climate. How far do you think he would get by staking out a hard-line ultra-conservative view on every issue? Remember, he had/has to lead the state of MA.

On another issue . . . the "blatant lie" you assert.

Please quote my words that were a "lie."

I never asserted that he didn't say during his campaign that he would try to secure certain domestic benefits for gay couples (which, by the way, are things like "rights to survivorship", and being able to visit a partner in hospital ICUs, among other things). However, that doesn't exclude that it was under the setting of trying to get Gay Marriage banned that it came up again. Actually, it could have been that this was Romney's "master plan" the whole time since Gay Marriage was a hot issue during the campaign (and his opponent announcing that she was for it just weeks before the election helped clinch things for Mitt). His plan might have been to propose legislation or a ballot issue that banned gay marriage but granted some of these said "domestic benefits." Such a plan would have been short-circuited by the Court's action legalizing Gay Marriage. I don't know if this was his plan, but you don't know that it wasn't . . . so you need to tone down your rhetoric and statements where you seem to assume that you know what was in Romney's heart and mind when he's said or done the things he has. Fortuantely, ROmney is a gifted communicator and he will be able to address and answer these questions well.

PS . . . just so everybody who's reading this thread knows, I am a pro-Romney blogger (part-time and unpaid) and JohnnyZ is a true anti-Romneyite who has devoted his whole Freeper homepage ( http://www.freerepublic.com/~johnnyz/ --or just click on his name) to anti-Romney diatribe. I can understand being pro-someone or -something, but to be so devoted against an individual strikes me as questionable.

We've argued a lot in the past and he has really been "Johnny on the spot" whenever any pro- or anti-Romney articles articles are posted. I'll give him that at least.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

"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!"

Agreed 100%

RKBA is the one issue that can tell you everything you know about whether a candidate is pro or anti liberty.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Let them go, and try to get away with it, the only way they learn is the hard way. Maybe a few years of Hilary will wake them up, but, maybe it will be too late to change, by then.

[Ditter]

>>>"Anyone who has not lived under a liberal socialist gov..........

But you said you will vote 3rd party and let president hillary govern you, that makes no sense.

[gidget7]

I never said I would vote 3rd party.........I said some would hold their nose and vote R or vote third party. Personally I don't feel a third party has emerged enough at this point in time, or is strong/large enough to win an election.

[Colofornian]

Trusting a source like this is akin to seeking information about the LDS church from "Ex-Mormons for Jesus".

Yeah, we all know we shouldn't trust information about priests from ex-Catholic altar boys.

[Colofornian]

Romney often bristles at suggestions that his personal religious beliefs have any bearing on his public policy positions.

You mean like the LDS bishop's manual that allows bishops to "okay" abortions of their stake members for reasons of "health?" Anybody that's in-the-know on abortion knows that "health of the mother" is so broad it can mean almost anything.

[Colofornian]

"We must make equality for gays & lesbians a mainstream concern."--Mitt Romney, Letter to Log Cabin, 1994

OK, if you don't understand this by now, "equality" for gays & lesbians is an ongoing moving target.

While Romney supposedly said this a dozen years ago, and may have meant a more limited universe than what he thought the Log Cabin readers would interpret it as being, the problem is that "mainstream" gay & lesbian activists interpret "equality" to mean exactly that...equality across the board...anything and everything. Hiring Quota? Yes. Supplier Quota? Yes. Exec Quota? Yes. 'Marriage' equality? Yes. Benefits equality? Yes. Access equality (to anything & everything you can think of)? Yes.

[Ditter]

Sorry, I must have misread.