Flip Willard! Wooo!
Posted on 12/26/2007 10:12:23 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
CHICAGO, December 26, /Christian Newswire/ -- Peter LaBarbera, longtime pro-family advocate and founder of the Republicans For Family Values website, is calling on pro-family leaders who have endorsed Mitt Romney to withdraw their support for his candidacy in light of his recent comments on NBC's "Meet the Press" supporting pro-homosexual "sexual orientation" state laws.
"Mitt Romney's Christmas present to the homosexual lobby disqualifies him as a pro-family leader," LaBarbera said. "Laws that treat homosexuality as a civil right are being used to promote homosexual 'marriage,' same-sex adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren. These same laws pose a direct threat to the freedom of faith-minded citizens and organizations to act on their religious belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.
"Romney may have had a late conversion on abortion, but it appears his ninth-inning flip-flop on homosexuality is falling short due to his strong commitment to 'gay rights,'" LaBarbera said. (See the 'Mitt Romney Deception' report) "Now some pro-family leaders –– who have raised millions of dollars over the years opposing 'gay' activism –– will need to explain how they can go on supporting an openly pro-homosexual-agenda candidate."
LaBarbera said it is "inconceivable after Massachusetts' twin disasters involving homosexual 'marriage' and homosexual adoption that Romney now is recommending pro-homosexual 'orientation' laws –– long derided as "special rights" among social conservatives — to the rest of the nation.
"In Romney's own state of Massachusetts, the state 'sexual orientation' nondiscrimination law laid the groundwork for homosexual activists' campaign to legalize 'same-sex marriage' –– which then-Gov. Romney brought to fruition with his unnecessary and illegal directive granting marriage licenses to homosexual partners," LaBarbera said. "The same pro-gay state law also forced Boston's Catholic Charities to shut down its century-old adoption agency because it would not pledge to place children in homosexual-led households against Catholic teaching.
"Given Romney's extensive pro-homosexual record and willingness now to depart from principle on this crucial issue, should we trust a 'President Romney' not to reverse course again on federal pro-homosexual laws such as 'Hate Crimes' and ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act)?" LaBarbera said.
The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview December 16 with Tim Russert:
MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?
GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.
GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.
Look. If this is what Romney believes, I’d have far more respect for him if he’d just say so. There is a more moderate/liberal wing of the Republican party which will appreciate this position even though most of here will not. Romney seems to have no conviction on any important issue. It’s his lukewarm taste that has alienated both conservatives and moderates. Neither side feels they can trust him.
Look at how Romney avoided the question in the debate, he refused to answer the actual question and instead lied about his 1994 position on don’t ask don’t tell.
Look at these: “I laughed”
2007 Debate: “Yes, I didn’t think it would work. I didn’t think “don’t ask/don’t tell” would work. That was my — I didn’t think that would work. I thought that was a policy, when I heard about it, I laughed. I said that doesn’t make any sense to me.”
The 1994 Truth: ““One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.”
I agree with Charles.
Romney HAS flip-flopped on “gays in the military,” sort of.
But note the Clintonesque Romney-speak:
He wouldn’t change the current policy...
“...at this time.”
“...during a time of war.”
“...right now.”
So at another time, when we’re not at war, right then is when he’d flip back to his initial philosophical support for individuals who engage in homosexual behavior “openly and honestly serv(ing) in the military.”
As a former Army guardsman, somebody answer me this simple question: where do male soldiers who openly identify themselves as being sexually attracted to other men take a shower?
With the normal guys?
With female soldiers?
In a designated homosexual shower?
Who do they share a two-man pup tent with?
Or does the U.S. military, in order to engage in this social experimentation, have to spend millions of our tax dollars refitting all barracks with private, one-stall showers?
Mitt, in the National Review interview (Dec 2006) in which he for the first time announced that he no longer supported Ted Kennedy’s federal “gay rights” bill:
“My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.”
Good for you, Mitt, though you’re a slow learner. A good example of his experience was watching Catholic Charities be forced to abandon its adoption services rather than be compelled by Massachusetts’ state “sexual orientation” law to place children with homosexual couples in violation of Vatican policy.
So simple logic question for Mitt:
If it was your experience with a state-level “sexual orientation” law that enlightened you to the fact that granting special “protected class” status based on homosexual behavior would “open a litigation floodgate,” then why in the world would you ENDORSE such state-level laws during Meet the Press?
As you said, referring to Kennedy’s federal legislation: “I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.”
Folks, cut through Romney’s latest mealy-mouthed obfuscations and what he’s saying in principle is this:
“I think discrimination based on race (or religion or sex) should be prohibited by state law, but I oppose discrimination based on race (or religion or sex) being prohibited by federal law.”
Of course, he would say he supports discrimination based on race (or religion or sex) being prohibited by both state and federal law.
But cutely tries to play it both ways on homosexual behavior as a basis for “protected class” status.
Charles: “The Log Cabin Republicans have rejected Romney because of his strong stance against issues they hold dear, and have even run ads against him for being against them.”
This would be after ENDORSING him in both of his previous campaigns for public office, in recognition of his ENDORSEMENT of homosexual activists’ political agenda.
Romney letter to Log Cabin Repubs soliciting their endorsement:
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/romneyletterbaywindows.pdf
Romney 2002 meeting with Log Cabin Republicans, after which they unanimously endorsed him:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/us/politics/08romney.html?hp
Talk about fish in a barrel...
“Of course, nobody thinks that a person should be denied employment because of their private sex life.”
Got any evidence that anyone is denied employment under current law?
Problem is, these federal or state or even city-level mandates extend far beyond those employers who don’t care and are more than happy to offer employment.
They extend to employers who do care, and compel behavior nonetheless.
For example, should a Christian bookstore be compelled by law — state or federal — to hire an individual who openly identifies himself as being involved in homosexual behavior?
Should Focus on the Family (or anyone else) be compelled to hire a man who insists on wearing a pink skirt to work and using the women’s restroom, locker room, and shower?
Flip Willard! Wooo!
This is like the millionth time this has happened, but FYI, you’re quoting someone I was replying to. Thus the reason I quoted it.
No biggy, but just pay attention to that.
Actually, it wasn’t an insult. I was thanking you for not making up a childish name for him, but rather using his actual name.
Oddly, that seems to call for recognition these days around here.
In 1994, Romney didn’t think don’t ask, don’t tell would work, and so we would move forward to a more open policy, which he had no problem with.
When asked if he still wanted to make the military have an open-gay policy, he not only answered the question (NO, he said), but explained about his 1994 position and why he would change his position now.
I happen to like that Romney doesn’t just answer a question, but explains his reasoning. Like when Fred wouldn’t answer yes or no, but wanted to explain his answer.
Those who care about this issue should go to the original debate transcript and read the entire thing. Most quotes of it around here are partial quotes skipping his answer, and cutting out the surrounding context.
But I would like to see a link to his original comments on Russert’s show if someone has them.
There’s alot of stuff flying around about many of the candidates right now..
About the only candidate we have who hasn’t changed positions on at least two significant issues in a serious way is Duncan Hunter.
With Thompson, one of those issues is CFR, although he hasn’t come forward nearly as forcefully about his change in support for that legislation as Romney has about his pro-life position.
But it is true that with Romney, you have to have a degree of trust in his positions. Fortunately, the issues he needed to change the most on are the simplest to change and to understand.
And I understand that some don’t want the risk, and support other candidates. That’s no reason of course to attack candidates or lie about their positions or pretend quotes are from recently when they are 12-year-old quotes (as some sometimes do), but it is a rational reason not to support him in the primary.
For those who think he is a risk, I hope that their candidiate wins the nomination. If not, I hope Romney does, and that they will realise that risk is safer than a sure bad thing like a democrat.
Latest video: Crunch Time In Iowa
http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2007/video-crunch-time-in-iowa/
And from NumbersUSA as of December 21:
“Now that Rep. Tom Tancredo has dropped out of the race, only two candidates (THOMPSON & HUNTER) are left who have vigorous and thorough enough opposition to amnesty to warrant an EXCELLENT rating.”
Thompson/Hunter in 2008!
“In 1994, Romney didn’t think don’t ask, don’t tell would work, and so we would move forward to a more open policy, which he had no problem with.”
“When asked if he still wanted to make the military have an open-gay policy, he not only answered the question (NO, he said), but explained about his 1994 position and why he would change his position now.”
Both of your statements are lies and were proven so in posts 39 and 42.
Your method of simply lying to support your unique inner point of view doesn’t work.
Romney did not write that he thought that DADT would not work in 1994 and he never answered Anderson Coopers question.
I’ll never vote for this guy. Either in the primaries or the generals. He’s a closet liberal and a disaster for the Republican party.
His handlers ought to be careful when they let him speak for himself without a clear set of notes confirming his position. He can’t keep his own flip flops straight. He makes John Kerry look good in that department.
Your post 42 is a partial quote from the transcript.
The full transcript has been posted.
We are talking about what Romney said in the debate in 2007. In the 2007 debate, he explained that he thought in 1994 that DADT wouldn't work.
The fact that you can find a 1-sentence quote from Romney that does NOT mention that reason for his position is completely meaningless, as nobody includes the reasons for their positions EVERY time they state their positions, and without context we can't even know if he mentioned his reasons at another point in that same conversation.
You are once again being quite liberal with your use of the term lie, which in this case is a false claim.
Here is the transcript, the COMPLETE transcript, of that section of the debate.
CNN/Youtube Debate Transcript:
Cooper: Governor Romney, you said in 1994 that you looked forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve, and I quote, "openly and honestly in our nation's military." Do you stand by that?As you can see from the text, Romney, asked about his 1994 statement that he wanted gays openly in the military, said he didn't, and when asked if that was a change in his position, he said YES. He said the REASON he wanted open gays in 1994 was because he didn't think DADT would work, but now he sees it is working and doesn't think we need to have open gay service.
Romney: This isn't that time. This is not that time. We're in the middle of a war. The people who have...
Cooper: Do you look forward to that time, though, one day?
Romney: I'm going to listen to the people who run the military to see what the circumstances are like. And my view is that, at this stage, this is not the time for us to make that kind of...
Cooper: Is that a change in your position...
Romney: Yes, I didn't think it would work. I didn't think "don't ask/don't tell" would work. That was my -- I didn't think that would work. I thought that was a policy, when I heard about it, I laughed. I said that doesn't make any sense to me.
And you know what? It's been there now for, what, 15 years? It seems to have worked.
Cooper: So, just so I'm clear, at this point, do you still look forward to a day when gays can serve openly in the military or no longer?
Romney: I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say.
He also said he would defer to the military on the issue.
So everything I said was absolutely the truth. I accurately quoted and summarized what he said at the debate, and your claim that I lied about it was a false personal uncalled-for attack on my integrity.
I won't even try to dissuade you from your opinion that Romney was lying about what is view of DADT was in 1994. But your quote from 1994 doesn't shed any light on that issue.
Meanwhile, I have no problem with Romney's position on gays in the military. And if the military says it's OK for gays to serve openly, I don't have a problem with that. My position on this issue as regards Romney is in tune with John Hindraker's over at Powerline, who said when this story broke over a YEAR AGO:
Or me either. I suspect that much mainstream news analysis is filtered through the false assumption that conservatives generally hate homosexuals. Thus, if a Republican politician is friendly toward gays, appoints gays to office, speaks of protecting their civil rights, etc., this is viewed as somehow at odds with, say, opposition to gay marriage. It isn't. I think a large majority of conservatives have no ill will toward homosexuals, while at the same time believing that gay marriage would be an unwise social policy. I know that some accuse Romney of flip-flopping on gay marriage, and I haven't investigated to figure out whether that charge is true or not. In general, though, his attitude toward homosexuals sounds like it is in tune with what I described as the majority conservative view.I hope this doesn't make John Hindraker a liberal sellout.
Oddly, in 2002, when they endorsed him, he was already stating for the record that he was against BOTH gay marriage and civil unions. And he never said he was FOR either of those in 1994, and in fact when Weld came out for them Romney didn't follow his lead.
Anyway, Romney represents the mainstream of conservative thought on gays and lesbians.
Here is what John Hindraker and the folks at Powerline had to say about this issue when it came up in 2006:
I suspect that much mainstream news analysis is filtered through the false assumption that conservatives generally hate homosexuals. Thus, if a Republican politician is friendly toward gays, appoints gays to office, speaks of protecting their civil rights, etc., this is viewed as somehow at odds with, say, opposition to gay marriage. It isn't. I think a large majority of conservatives have no ill will toward homosexuals, while at the same time believing that gay marriage would be an unwise social policy. I know that some accuse Romney of flip-flopping on gay marriage, and I haven't investigated to figure out whether that charge is true or not. In general, though, his attitude toward homosexuals sounds like it is in tune with what I described as the majority conservative view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.