Lies About Mitt's Record (vanity)

[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.

[tantiboh]

~”What is “acceptable” to you?”~

Acceptable to me is when the NRA sees fit to award the man a ‘B’ for his record on the issue.

You see, my consideration of the candidate is not parochial. Give it a shot. You might find it to be an interesting way of looking at things.

[tantiboh]

Well, my insomnia is finally whipped. Maybe tomorrow I’ll be in a better mood!

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“Is this picture meant to make us think Mitt Romney is some kind of pro kennedy stooge?”

No, it’s to remind people that he is one. ;)

[DoughtyOne]

I am not trying to sell you anything.

LOL, bud you're dilusional.

I am just pointing out that a lot of hysteria and distortions will never convince me that what you are selling is believable.

I've recited what I read on the subject this morning, and I linked that material earlier on this thread.  If you wish to use those links and read articles that back up what I've been saying fine.  Otherwise you can continue to waltz across this thread screaming hysteria until you're blue in the face and we'll just continue to laugh at your ignorance.

This thread shows me that the anti-Romney crowd is steeped in mass hysteria.

Didn't you just say that already?  Oh yes... you did.  It was just as comicly inaccurate the first time you said it as it is now.

Until you and your crowd can calmly take one subject at a time and go through it methodically and calmly, I am not buying.

I don't care if you buy it with cash, a credit card, by barter or not at all.  I'm here to tell you that your simply lying about Romney's record in order to pass him off as a conservative.  He is a misleading charliton on a number of issues.  I listed what those issues were and I have linked the reasons for my saying so.  You can look up the information for yourself at the linked sites, or you can continue to try to mislead people here and we'll continue to call what you are doing by the proper name, lying and misleading folks.

Hunter is out. Thompson seems to be going out. So if I have to choose between Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee and McCain, the choice seems rather easy. And the hysteria makes it even easier

Bud, you can vote for Rosie O'Donnel for all I care.  You'll have about as much luck selling her as a conservative too.  So go for it if you like.

As for hysteria, your reaction to folks addressing what Romney truly is, sounds rather hysterical to me.

[Route66]

“Romney had to contend with charges of being a political carpetbagger who had spent the past several years in Utah and a businessman more concerned about the bottom line than the workers who lost their jobs at businesses owned by his firm.”

..........................
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2002-11-06-romney_x.htm

..................................

And there was talk of a possible run in Utah. He did not have to run in liberal MA if the political climate was anathema to him.

[paudio]

There must be a better way to oppose gay marriage than to sign it into law.

Did Romney sign any law regarding gay marriage?

[paudio]

Mitt Romney: So opposed to gay marriage, he signed it into law!

Did he sign any law on gay marriage?

[broncobilly]

Romney was a resident of MA when he was asked to come and help save the Olympics in Utah. He temporarily commuted to Utah for that temporary assignment. He has been a long time resident of MA. If he had run for anything in Utah, then he would have been a carpet bagger in Utah.

[broncobilly]

The original poster begged people to take one topic and discuss it. I thought it was a good idea. Instead of responding as requested, the anti-Romney crown fire-hosed him with every topic they could think of.

That to me is hysteria and is a turn-off.

And you joined in with the multi-topic barrage.

[Route66]

He lived in Utah for several years prior to his time as Governor of MA. He went back there to run.

The bottom line is that he could have chosen to run in a conservative state. Many in Utah wanted him to run there. He had a choice and he chose to make his political fortune in liberal MA.

[abigailsmybaby]

California and Massachusetts are the same when it comes to this.

Homosexuals got caught circumventing the notification rules in a Rocklin, CA elementary school. It wasn’t long after that the 9th Circuit Court ruled that parental rights stop at the schoolhouse doors. As far as I’m concerned war was declared.

Same thing in MA.

Parents should be filing sexual harassment suits against the homosexual organizations and the school employees, teachers unions, school boards, etc that aid and abet them.

[broncobilly]

HIs home is in MA. HIs vacation home is a short drive away. His friends are in MA. He never left MA residency. His family is in MA. He ran for the senate in MA. Why would you expect him to move across the country from where his home and work and career have been?
Don’t answer. I have made my point.

[Leisler]

...His son owned two guns, not Mitt. Those guns are stored in their western family retreat,

Help me with Mittens logic. If my son went to medical school, then I am a Doctor, right?

Maybe it is a Mormon thing. They're so close that if one has something, then they all have it.

Or Mittens is just whacked. "I and dad, marched in the streets of Detroit" There's no proof either of them ever where in the same room as MLK. "Life long hunter" Big Bwana lie.

I guess Mittens is a victim on forcing MittCare. Although he was taking full credit for it. But now the Mittbots say he was victim, and the legislature was doing it, so Mittens was taking credit for the work the legislature was doing. I suppose that is a form of political thieving where you take credit for the work of others. (It's kind of hard dealing with Mittens and the mittbots, again, as now the group chant is that Mittens was forced, even though just at the beginning of the Mittens for Presidency dance, it was all Mittens and Mittens was the hero.)

[broncobilly]

I’m concerned war was declared.

---

I think you are right, and it is just a matter of time before . . .

[Route66]

And I made my point. You made him out to be victim of MA politics. He chose those politics.

[DoughtyOne]

I’m not going to sit here and defend Romney on his faults. He has some. I’d have far preferred Hunter or Tancredo. Thompson was a close second choice for me.

You know what, I don't consider it my job to frame Romney for the forum.  What I do consider it my job to do, is address folks who claim that he is conservative.  He simply IS NOT.  I'm not going to watch that type of effort without responding to it.  If you'd rather have Hunter, Tancredo or Thompson, then we share that view.  I appreciate that you have mentioned it.

But the real world is messy. Just because you stamp your foot that you aren’t getting every little thing you want doesn’t make it happen.

The world is indeed messy.  And the issues confronting our nation over the next four years are going to be particularly messy.  What I object to is you reducing this to one of me stomping my foot and effectively taking my ball and going home because things didn't go my way.  This is slightly more important than that.  There are some topics and decisions that I simply will not sign on to.  With regard to Romney, he concerns me on at least four issues that I know about, and that means there are more that I don't know about.  I can't support this guy.  That's just the long and the short of it.

I also reject the premise that Romney is a tenth as bad as some people try to paint him.

So vote for him.  I'm not going to tell you not to.  I'm also not going to allow folks to trot across the forum acting as if he is a conservative when he isn't even close.

-Would influential Evangelicals all around the nation be endorsing him if he were pro-choice? Or if they thought his conversion was not genuine? Did he snooker Limbaugh?

I have seen folks say that Rush has endorsed him.  Rush has not endorsed him.  I can only assume that other endorsements must carry the same weight.  No Romney hasn't snookered Limbaugh.  Yesterday Limbaugh stated he may not vote for the Republican standard bearer this year for the first time in his life.

-Would the NRA have given him a B for his record as governor if he were the gun-grabbing socialist people are trying to make him out as?

I don't care if the NRA gives him the golden fickeled finger of fate award.  I have read up on Romney, and his second amendment stance is very shakey.  I don't know how solid you are on the issue, but when people start looking for 'reasoned categories' of weapons to ban, that tells me something.  And this is precisely what Romney does.  Not only that, he tried to mislead people on his NRA membership and gun ownership.  He's a liar on the subject and that really tells me a lot. That it doesn't you troubles me, but hey, do what you want.  Just don't try to pass this guy off as a gun rights advocate.  He isn't.

Just because he doesn’t own a gun doesn’t make him an enemy of freedom.

He lied about owning guns.  He said he owned weapons when he didn't.  I didn't go out and make him lie just to fit my vison of him.  I found out he lied and that bothers me.

I don’t own a gun, either.

Did you lie about it?  Are you running for president?

Does that make me a gun-grabber?

Have you specificly stated that assault weapons and some other weapons are reasonable to ban?  Have you refused to state whether you support the Brady Bill any longer?

 I do grant you the point of his pandering by joining the NRA. That is one habit of his that irks me.

Well, it raised questions for me.  If the guy lied about this and gun ownership, it indicates to me that he feels guility about his stances on this issue, and feels the need to compensate to ease fears on the topic.  That spells guilt to me.  He feels guilty on the topic.  That conveys to me that he's probably right to feel that way.  And I'm probably right to recognize it.

-Would he be hated and loathed by gay activists everywhere had he been pro-gay marriage?  If he were as beneficent to their goals as you say, why aren’t we seeing gay pride parades in his honor and support?

I'm not sure why you ask this question since that was his signature on that check posted on the forum.  The guy does have some problems in this area, regardless of what homosexuals think about him.  Remember, Republicans are a target for homosexuals whether they have been favorable toward them or not.  Mitt seems to have been favorable to their causes.  I can't help it, that just seems to be the case.

I could go on, but you’ll ignore anyway.

What do you expect me to do?  You can go out and spend fifteen minutes and find interviews and problematic things with regard to Romney.  Then you come back here and folks say you're hysterical and unfair to believe what you have read.  Yikes, bud, am I being unfair for reading what Romney has said and believing that's his bonified opinion on the subject?

You are so obsessed with tearing him down, for what reason I cannot tell, that you are completely blinded to what is actually good about the man as a conservative candidate.

Oh my goodness.  I am now obsessed because I went out and looked him up, read his interviews and descriptions of what he has done since 1994.  Isn't that what I should be doing, if I'm trying to evaluate the man as a conservative candidate?  Tell me otherwise if that's your take.  I'd be interested to know what you think I should do when I come across information that eliminates him as a viable conservative in my eyes.  Obsessed?  Wow.  Blinded to his conservatism... well, you do have me there.  I do not see it.  I've read up on him and I don't by the idea he's a conservative at all.

You know what? He’s 90% there.

This man isn't 20% of the way there IMO.  I do not agree with his stance on guns.  I do not agree with his views on homosexual activism.  I am troubled by some things I read about embrionic research.  I do not buy into the state run healthcare effort of his.  90% of the way there... which direction.  I said 20%, but if you want to say he's only 10% I might be able to be convinced.

That’s about as good as we’re going to get. Thompson isn’t any better of a conservative. Hunter and Tancredo dropped out. Deal with the reality and get over your childish zealotry.

Okay, please tell me what Romney's statement was regarding Newt's declaration that Reaganism was dead.  If you don't do anything else with regard to this post, please respond to this one question..

The fact is, Romney has a better-than-even-money shot at being the nominee.  What that happens, you’ll either have to get behind him or shut up while the adults do the work of preventing liberal dominance.

Would that be the adults that are convinced a liberal is a conservative?  I'll just have to settle for letting those adults back this guy, because I never will.

Better think about getting ready for that, because no viable alternative you can offer at this point is any better.

I don't support liberal(D)s and I don't support liberal(R)s. I just don't support liberalism.

You’re essentially fighting against the man when you have no better ideas.

Sorry bud, but I think it's a much better idea not to play if the guy is going to go against my wishes for four or eight years.  He can do that with your help, but I won't be a part of it, no matter how you try to denigrate me for not doing so.

That drains you of all credibility.

If it drains me of all credibility in the eyes of a person who can't tell the difference between a conservative and a liberal.  I can live with that.

It’s McCain, Romney, or Giuliani. Sorry, that’s all the choices you’ve got, short of butting out or casting some wasted symbolism vote. Better pick wisely.

No, it's not all the choices I have.  I will not vote for a liberal.  That is my choice.  And friend, IMO that's more wise than voting for someone who will move this nation further left.

Given that choice, I’ll take Romney any day of the week.

You can take him any day of the month or year for all I care.  I'm not going to help a liberal get elected.

[DoughtyOne]

I sure did because there multi-topics out there that he has problems with. I’m not going to appologize for addressing them. Why should I?

This is a public forum. One poster doesn’t get to demand everyone address his candidate in just the manner he would like. If he doesn’t like folks addressing multiple issues, then he should pick a candidate that doesn’t have them.

[broncobilly]

Yes. He chose to go into public service (politics) in his home state. He could have uprooted his famoly and gone to somewhere he didn’t want to live and try it somewhere else, and be accused of being a carpet bagger. If he failed to get elected, he would be stuck where he didn’t want to live.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with regard to Ma. and Ca. They’re both very problematic. I refused to back my luke warm Pete Wilson when he wanted to run for President. Now I’m supposed to vote for the Ma. version. No way. If I wouldn’t do it for my homie, why would I do it for a guy in Ted’s state?

As for the homosexual agenda, that’s the number one reason why I would crush the Department of Education and take other measures to get schools back on the right track.

[broncobilly]

He started the thread. If you and the others wanted to hyjack the thread, why didn’t you start your own?