April 12, 2006. Gov. Mitt Romney signs Massachusetts Universal Health Care law, as Sen. Ted Kennedy, standing behind him, gives his approval and support.
Posted on 01/21/2008 11:32:31 PM PST by maui_hawaii
I hear of the tag 'flip flop' being assigned to Mitt Romney by certain groups of people.
What I want to do is pick one (for this example) of where these people who make this charge are incorrect. In doing so, I will respond to that caller who called in to Rush yesterday and wanted Rush to tell her 'where is the record of Mitt's conservatism'.
I will answer her and all others in the process.
Now for facts. Mitt was running in a very liberal state that is friendly to gays and in fact is the hotbed of gay activism.
In the course of the several elections these gay activists were openly hostile to Republicans, and in particular a Mormon Republican.
For those who are unfamiliar with the background, the LDS Church, in one of the few times ever in history to do so, came out publicly and campaigned against gay marriage. In gay politics, Mormons are despised because they enrolled so many people and bankrolled and fought against the redefinition of family.
I remember even going door to door asking people to fight for traditional families.
Gay political extremists knew the LDS position on the matter and in their deluded kind of way tried to paint Mitt as a proactive gay hater. They did the same with the LDS church as a whole.
They got so extreme in their accusations that they were making claims that Mitt and Mormons advocated violence against gays and things like that.
So, what resulted was Mitt took a position that has never changed. He took a classy approach and did not lose his cool under fire.
What was that approach? Love the sinner but not the sin.
He said gays should not be persecuted, or have violence directed at them. He said gays had the right to live in peace. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.
If they are two consenting adults and they happen to be gay, a public position cannot be to advocate extreme behavior against them. That being said, Mitt also said, while they can be gay all they want in their own homes, they are not, and should not have special treatment as the gay lobby was hoping for. The gay group wanted to redefine marriage so they are 'equal'...
Mitt gave a classy, but firm answer. Live in peace and do your thing if you must, but we are not redefining marriage--- and you (meaning the gay lobby) cannot accuse him of being an extreme right wing gay hater. That position is simply not true.
Mitt's position in a nutshell was, "no we do not approve of your lifestyle, but we will not do two things. 1. Persecute IE advocate violence against gays (as was the accusations) 2. Give them special rights and redefine marriage.
Can you see where he drew the line? I can.
While all this was going on, court cases were in the works and the gay lobby had summarily been put on their collective butts by Mitt Romney. Basically he inferred in no unqualified terms that they should grow up and that their extreme politics don't work.
"You won't let us be gay and be married so that means you are going to send the troops to bash us all in the head like a bunch of baby seals!"....stuff like that... Mitt exposed that for what it was. Hysterical politics aimed squarely at conservative values.
This group then got a victory in that a court case was unilaterally decided to redefine marriage. The gay lobby could not win in the legislature and they definitely couldn't win with the governor... so they got a fiat win in court as to how marriage is defined.
In short order not only was Mitt fighting this group, but he was in fact a leader in the fight for a constitutional ammendment for traditional marriage.
Look at the record. He was testifying for such from the get go and even in front of the Senate.
Mitt tried to disarm a hostile lobbying group, and the result was they got more hostile. You want to know why the MSM hates Mitt? Because he smoothly told them to screw off with their BS extreme politics. Because Mitt was standing his ground, the gay lobby went around him---and everyone else--- to get to their desired outcome.
People here are trying to make the case that Mitt is pro gay--- not so. His position has been clear and consistent. He recognizes that gays are going to exist and that there should not be violence against them. At the same time, their lifestyle should not be enshrined in law. Alternative lifestyle it is, and alternative lifestyle it will remain.
Where is the flip? There is none. Problem is you have people wanting to cherry pick what they want to selectively hear.
Ping for your perusal.
So, that’s one subject.
Aren’t you forgetting abortion, second amendment and illegal alien issues? He’s been accused of changing his position or making contradictory claims on all three.
One at a time man. One at a time.
I am telling you though, there is a lot more to the story than what most people want you to hear.
Bumping. Would you like some Mittsters pinged?
The tag is wrong.
But none the less don't change the subject.
We are going to hash out the accusations one at a time.
I know nothing about this, but I know spin when I see it...
The Mitt supporters already know this... its everyone else who needs to read it.
“We are going to hash out the accusations one at a time.”
No, you’re going to dodge them one at a time. We’ll present them any way we like. You don’t make the rules.
Put it out there on the table. Tell us.
Monday, being Martin Luther King Day, I am surprised the Mitt did not release pictures of himself marching with MLK.
I wonder why that is?
Mitt said he marched with MLK but for some reason he will not release a picture of himself and MLK.
The Real Romney Truth File ping.
What is the excuse for his second amendment abuse?
If we’re going to get a Republican elected in 2008 instead of Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama, that Republican’s name is going to be Mitt Romney.
I’m no more happy about it than any other FReeper. But it is true. And if you want to live in some daggone delusion, just think what kind of crap you are going to put your country through.
I’d prefer Fred Thompson, or even better, Duncan Hunter. Bukt that isn’t going to happen. So we’d better get behind the only Republican who is even halfway conservative and can win in November.
We can get to those others at a later time.
Now please start digging for information on this issue.
I started the thread so please do not hijack it. There is time for the other things to be discussed.
Please stay on topic.
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.