Romney demonstrates cognitive dissonance more than any politician I've ever seen. He is known as, not middle of the road, but "cover the road," for very good reasons.
Here's my favorite example:
"I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." -- Mitt Romney, Boston Globe Oct 27, 1994
Now, think about that quote, if you would. Can you see that the man took BOTH sides of an important issue in ONE BREATH?
And here's the worst part: If you really look at his record, it is easy to see that while he is always careful to pay lip service to a modicum of conservative ideals, while at the same time paying proper homage to liberalism as well, his POLICIES tend to fall almost exclusively on the liberal side.
Are you aware that Romney appointed more Democrats than Republicans to the bench during his term as Governor?
Already asked and answered many times, but it appears EV is paid by the word to write the same stuff over and over.
Mitt Romney nominated judges who were tough on crime for the 36 district court and clerk magistrate positions he filled in criminal courts. They were not in courts that ruled on matters of constitutional law. Furthermore, all the nominees had to be approved by an elected, eight-member board dominated by liberal Democrats in Massachusetts.
David French, a Harvard-educated lawyer who works for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) which is James Dobson’s organization fighting the ACLU, has written about Romney's record of judicial appointments in liberal Massachusetts. An excerpt is provided below from a post on the Evangelicals for Mitt blog which French co-founded. Emphasis is added for the critical facts.
_______________________________
"Regarding judges, here I think Steve blurs the difference between federal and state court judges and the federal and state (in this case, Massachusetts) systems of judicial nominations and approvals. First, when we talk about the Governor's allegedly "liberal" judicial appointments, we are talking about judges who deal primarily with criminal matters--not the constitutional issues that can dominate the federal judicial debate. Given this reality, Governor Romney did not nominate judges who were "liberal" or "leftist" within their job description. The Governor wanted individuals who were tough on crime. As he said, "With regard to those at the district court and clerk magistrate level, their political views aren't really going to come into play unless their views indicate they will be soft on crime." So the reality is that the Governor nominated judges who were tough on crime to fill spots that dealt primarily with crime. State court judges at this level have absolutely no say over abortion rights. None. Abortion is primarily a matter of federal--not state--constitutional law."
"Second, every one of Governor Romney's judicial nominees has to be approved by the "Governor's Council", a popularly-elected, eight member board that is dominated by Democrats (as is most of Massachusetts state government). Imagine a situation where the President of the United States had to run all of his judicial nominees by a Senate that contained 85% Democrats--most of them of the radical sort. That would change the picture a bit, wouldn't it? I think the best way to think of Governor Romney's track record in nominating judges is that he did the best that he could have done.
Are you aware that he shafted the Boy Scouts while he served as CEO of the olympics, bowing to pressure from NBC homosexuals and their corporate brethren and activist sympathizers?
Romney is a backstabbing bastard, tried and true. I'll eat ground glass before I vote for the SOB.