Mitt Romney: Ronald Reagan in Sacred Underwear?

Bleeding-heart types looking for a "minority cause” for which to advocate in the 2008 presidential elections are torn between the candidacies of a woman, two African- Americans, a Hispanic and a former mayor of Cleveland who is more of a communist than Vladimir Putin.

In the interest of fairness, however, the name of Mitt Romney should be added to the shopping list of those searching for an oppressed minority to support.

As a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Romney is aligned with one of the most persecuted and oppressed minorities in history. Even in these enlightened times, millions of Americans say they would not vote for the charismatic ex-governor of Massachusetts under any circumstances.

And, in an amazing demonstration of religious bigotry, a New Hampshire liberal rag, the Concord Monitor, used its Sunday editorial pages to tell readers why they should not vote for Mitt Romney.

Editors at the Concord Monitor even went so far as to warn readers that Romney must be stopped ". . . because he lacks the core philosophical beliefs to be a trustworthy president."

IHT: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/23/america/Romney-Anti-Endorsement.php

That particular bit of editorial malfeasance is a thinly-veiled assault on Romney's Mormon faith, pure and simple.

Fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney is the most conservative candidate running for the White House. He is also the most experienced and qualified, a fact attested to by his service as the governor of liberal-infested Massachusetts, and by his enormously successful personal finances.

Mitt Romney knows how to work with people from diverse political backgrounds, how to overcome discrimination and adversity, and he knows how to run a large organization. No other candidate comes close to matching his qualifications for taking over the Oval Office on Ja

The Right Man (A real conservative. Can Mitt Romney contort himself to become one?) NY Mag ^ | John Heilman

Willard Mitt Romney enters the press room at the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront, where a conclave of conservative GOP congressmen has gathered to plot its resurrection. Assuming his place before the cameras, the former Massachusetts governor checks the floor to find his mark: two strips of white tape forming a small X on the low-pile carpet beneath his feet. Romney plants his shoes squarely on the X and starts offering answers so tightly scripted and robotic that he brings to mind Max Headroom—then, all of a sudden, he’s distracted and off-kilter. “This white spot on the floor here, this marker, is stuck to my heel here,” he mutters, staring downward and doing a little jig, ignoring the question just put to him (on Iran) until the damn thing finally falls from his loafer.

The metaphor suggested by Romney’s performance is too perfect to resist. By all accounts, including his own, Romney has been for most of his life a middle-of-the-road Republican of moderate views on issues from abortion to gun control to taxes. But ever since he decided to run for president...he has labored to present himself as a rock-ribbed man of the right. He has hired a team of White Tape People to tell him where he needs to stand to win his party’s nomination. He has gamely hit his marks. And yet now, just as Romney seemed to be establishing a foothold, he finds himself increasingly tangled up in his own inconvenient record.

The conspicuous and occasionally ruinous flip-floppery of presidential candidates is nothing new, of course. (See Kerry, John, 2004.) Nor is avid pandering to the GOP’s extremist constituencies by previously non-wing-nut Republicans. (See McCain, John, 2008.) Romney’s offenses in both these categories are, no doubt, egregious. But the fact that, in spite of his current struggles, Romney is still taken seriously illustrates a number of the central dynamics driving the campaign on the Republican side.

At first glance, he has the appearance of an attractive standard-bearer. A successful businessman (he made a fortune as the CEO of Bain & Company and founder of Bain Capital) and organizer of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics before becoming the Bay State’s governor, in office he pushed for the passage of a health-care reform plan applauded on both the right and the left. He’s well spoken and great-looking, with blindingly white teeth and a head of hair that rivals Ronald Reagan’s in the annals of Republican follicular achievement.

At the moment, however, Romney’s religion is causing him fewer headaches than his policy gymnasticism. As a challenger to Ted Kennedy in 1994 and in his 2002 statehouse bid, Romney was unequivocally pro-choice (“I believe that abortion should be safe and legal”). Today, he is just as unequivocally pro-life. On gun control, Romney in 1994 supported the Brady bill and a ban on assault weapons, adding, “I don’t line up with the NRA.” Today, he declares, “I’m a member of the NRA.” On gay rights, in 1994 and 2002, Romney argued that he’d be a more aggressive advocate of domestic partnerships than his Democratic foes—and then did little, in the view of the right, to resist the legalization of gay marriage in his state. Today, Romney thunders against the latter concept and against civil unions too. Same story on stem-cell research.

Bad as all this reads on paper, it’s even worse on video. And here Romney has run smack up against one of the defining realities of the 2008 campaign: YouTube, where clips of the old Romney stating his liberalish social views with apparently firm conviction have been on display for weeks. “Words on a page have an intellectual impact,” says Californian Republican media strategist Dan Schnur, “but words captured on video have much more emotional impact.” A print gotcha, in other words, makes a candidate look inconsistent or craven. A YouTube gotcha makes him look as if his pants are a towering inferno.

Thus is Romney scrambling around the country, meeting with the hard-right brigades, offering deeply—deeply!—felt reassurances that he is really—really!—one of them. These reassurances take the form of a narrative, in which Romney, while grappling with the stem-cell question, meets with researchers and experiences a road-to-Damascus conversion. “I concluded that we should be wary of people who experiment with life, who experiment with our kids, and who toy with the building blocks of family and society,” he said in Baltimore. “On the issue of life, this fiscal conservative became a social conservative.”

How convincing is he about all this? To my mind, not very. God knows any half-sane columnist will defend to the death the right to change one’s mind. Yet the timing of Romney’s policy U-turns—at precisely the moment when he first got that I’m-a-gonna-run-for-president gleam in his eye—inevitably raises suspicions. What can you say about a guy who used to maintain that his role model was his father, former moderate Michigan governor George Romney, but now leaves his dad conspicuously off the list of his political heroes, instead citing Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhower?

A fair observer would point out that that parallel is by no means perfect. Romney has assembled an A-list campaign team with tons of national experience; Wilson didn’t. And, unlike Romney, Wilson refused to yield to, er, modify his pro-choice stance. Even so, the central similarity is undeniable—and so are its implications. The real problem for Romney, as it was for Wilson, is not that he’s a cultist or a contortionist but that he’s a hollow man. And there’s nothing that the White Tape People will be able to do about that.

Romney's record is a record of a pro-abortion... [xzins]

Since you are posting things that are not true, please go here to learn the facts... [TheLion]

Since you, theLion, are continually posting things that are not true, please see below to learn the facts:

Let's review Mitt's meandering case of 13 switchbacks on his general position on abortion, shall we?

(1): Romney comes from a heritage that is primarily pro-life. = He says flipped from a Mormon pro-life perspective when he sided with his mom when she ran as a pro-abortion senator in 1970.

(2): But then we learn he's supposedly been "pro-life" all along: "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review last year>, says the Concord Monitor in a previous article to the one that's being posted. (Source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/REPOSITORY/612100304/1217/NEWS98) = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"

(3): 1994 campaign in Massachusetts: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country." = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent

(4): Fast forward to 2001, when Romney needs to reassure Utah Mormons that...he's not really "pro-choice," after all: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)

(5): But by 2002, guess what? He was pro-abortion again! "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?

(6): In November of '04, he & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" where he links it to stem cell research = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert? )

(7): On May 27 '05, he affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!

(8): What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt NOW says his actions were ALL pro-life. So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were so pro-life decisions. ("As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.") = So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine

(9): April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access for poor women. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).

(10): On January 29, 2007 during a visit to South Carolina, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?

(11): Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering that "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!

(12) " I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"

(13): Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = That whatever he was from 1970 when his mom ran as a pro-abortion senator & he sided with her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion inlook or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?

Confused? Well don't be: This Harper's Magazine excerpt found at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1921487/posts includes this excerpt:

"Earlier this year, the Boston Globe obtained a copy of an internal campaign PowerPoint presentation that outlined Romney’s strengths and weaknesses as he embarked on his presidential bid. One page—entitled “Primal Code for Brand Romney”—explained that Romney should market himself as a foil to such Massachusetts liberals as Senators Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, and also run against such “enemies” as Hollywood, France, and “moral relativism.” Problems identified by the campaign included the perception that Romney would not make a tough wartime leader and the possibility that voters would be spooked by his Mormon religion. The presentation also acknowledged the problematic view that Romney is a “phony” and a “political opportunist”; but that view is due at least in part to the fact that by any reasonable standard it’s true."

The actual facts:

Rebut the Notion that Gov. Romney’s Inaction Allowed Same-Sex Marriage to Become Law in Massachusetts

http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#DOM
IssueSource.org is a website co-produced by MassINC and The State House News Service and is a project of MassINC’s Civic Renewal Initiative. It is a non-partisan, not-for-profit, free public service.
IssueSource.org has a remarkably detailed chronological journal of the legal actions and legislative events in Massachusetts regarding same-sex marriage following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health on Nov. 18, 2003 (Issue: Gay Marriage: Prior to May 17, 2004). The journal records in great detail the actions taken by people both for and against the same-sex marriage court ruling up to the date the ruling became law on May 17, 2004 making same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts.

The journal is a very long read with several examples where Governor Romney opposed the ruling and attempted to delay the implementation with statements and directives; actions that were openly defied by others at times. However, focus on the events after March 29, 2004 when the constitutional convention in Massachusetts approved an amendment to ban gay marriage. Note the legal action Gov. Romney initiated immediately after March 29, 2004 to prevent the SJC’s Goodridge ruling from becoming law on May 17, 2004. More importantly, note that Gov. Romney’s efforts were thwarted because the Democrat Attorney General Tom Reilly and Senate President Robert Travaglini refused to cooperate and blocked the required legislative action.

Excerpts from the journal of events are presented below:

“On Mar. 29, the Legislature, meeting in constitutional convention, approved the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions. The measure must still be approved a second time, during the 2005-06 session of the Legislature, in order to be placed on the November 2006 ballot for ratification by voters.

-—— snip -——
“Immediately after the vote, Romney called on AG Reilly to go before the SJC to halt the start of gay marriages on May 17, but Reilly quickly responded that he would not seek the delay, arguing that the SJC’s two rulings, in November and February, had made it clear that the court would tolerate nothing less than marriage for same-sex couples. A week earlier, on Mar. 22, Travaglini told the State House News Service that any attempt by Romney to halt the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses on the SJC’s ordered timetable would probably fail. “It is my understanding that no matter what legislative action we take, we cannot affect the issuance of licenses come the 17th of May. If the governor believes that he has the capacity or the authority to stop the issuance of licenses, then that’s a personal political decision that he can make; I don’t necessarily agree.”

-—— snip -——

Office of Gov. Mitt Romney, “Romney Files Emergency Bill to Seek Goodridge Decision Stay,” Press Release, 4/15/2004

“Romney announced April 15 that he would seek emergency legislation to allow him to appoint a special counsel to ask the Supreme Judicial Court for a 2 1/2 year delay of its gay marriage ruling set to take effect May 17. Romney’s plan was to bypass AG Reilly—who refused to name a special counsel in March—and name his own special counsel, retired SJC Justice Joseph Nolan. Romney said the legislation would allow him to “protect the integrity of the Constitutional process” and return the decision on gay marriage to voters. “We believe the people have the right to have their position heard and that as the governor, I should have right to have my position heard. Look, people that don’t have any income are entitled to representation. Everyone in the Commonwealth is entitled to representation. But somehow as governor of the Commonwealth, it’s deemed that I can’t represent my view before the courts—I think that’s a mistake,” said Romney.

“State House News Service reported April 22 that Romney’s special counsel bill was “languishing” on Beacon Hill. The main obstacle was the Senate, which failed to admit the bill in its last two sessions. Senate President Robert Travaglini dismissed the legislation when it was announced and said the governor was only trying to push his “political agenda.” If the bill was not admitted, then there would not be a joint committee public hearing on it.

“Romney said April 21 that he would not file a supportive brief or otherwise get involved in a petition brought by the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. The League was attempting to persuade the Supreme Judicial Court to delay the start of gay marriages until November 2006, when voters could vote on the issue. Romney said he preferred to make the case for delay himself. On April 23, Romney renewed his call for the Legislature to grant him the authority to appoint a special counsel so he could launch his own effort to persuade the court to delay gay marriages from taking effect May 17. “I call on both branches of the Legislature, particularly the Senate. . .to give me the opportunity to preserve the choice of the definition of marriage to the citizens and make sure that the hard work the Legislature went through to pass this amendment to allow the citizens to have a voice is worth something,” Romney told reporters at a press conference.

http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#DOM

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.