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.
Yep, it was all his plan earlier. Like you mention, Mitt is a moving target. He has changed things in order to manipulate opinion, and that’s dishonest. Sorry, if a guy has to mislead me to get my vote, he doesn’t deserve it.
Even to you, it must seem sorta like you’re asking for a lot here. Why should he be able to sell Romney here unchallenged?
Why should we have to focus on guns, then focus on other issues one by one?
As I said, if he didn’t want to defend a guy on a number of topics, he should have backed one that didn’t have problems on a number of topics.
Why do you think I am unreasonable, and he was reasonable? What he and you have suggested was reasonable, seems silly to me and I’m sure others as well.
U R STILL ON THE WEED
Couldn’t say it better than you did...
I’m writing you in for President in the general. Since my #1 dropped out, you’re it!
Why don’t you ask your buddy Mitt how he feels about machete permits? We have a mess of them around the yard, most likely can’t afford all those registration fees!
Hell, this issue is even dumber than gun control, something is wrong in Massachusetts! I don’t want it to be contagious!
A judge ruled homosexuals had the constitutional right to marry on Nov 18 2003 and gave the state 180 days to do something about it.
Romney told town clerks to start issuing licenses to homosexuals on May 17, 2004, about 180 days later.
In 2004 Massachusetts tried to enact a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which failed on the second legislative step.
A ballot initiative was started to have voters vote on the gay rights issue and necessary signatures were received. The Mass legislature postponed the vote in 2006, then on the day of the rescheduled vote, 2006, the Mass legislature voted to recess until January 2, 2007.
Romney won a court decision to have the vote brought up immediately on January 2, and the initiative passed. It lost on a second vote in 2007. Patrick was the Governor then.
The 2nd ballot initiative to have the Gay marriage issue on the ballot only needed 50 yeas (25% of legislature), but only got 45.
Romney had bankrolled conservative candidates in the 2004 mid-terms to get legislative help on the issue but re-pubs lost 3 seats. Other legislators changed their view on gay marriage after that election.
I'm not a Romney backer. I just decided to take a quick refresher course at Google U because I vaguely remember the BS the Mass legislature pulled at the time.
It seems to me Romney fought gay marriage assertively in Mass but was beaten by the tactics of the Mass legislature. The Mass legislature needs to be considered when the discussion involves Romney and gay marriage in Mass.
Tell me about machete permits some other time. That is why we con’t get to the bottom of an issue. Posters want to keep changing the subject.
con’t = can’t
The “subject” is keeping filthy Massachusetts, New York, et al, political philosophy from contaminating the entire nation.
There seems to be some reason that the Mitt folks don’t want to discuss machetes, Did Mitt approve that law, or didn’t he?
And before someone starts blathering that if people do that they give the presidency to the democrats, so what? It hardly matter if the anti-gun socialist in the white house has a D or an R after their name.
I meant to ping you on 152 also
That would be, and is, confusing enough.
However to be honest, Mitt comes from a very liberal Republican family, and he himself has been up until about two years ago.
So, throw that into the mix.
Even recently, Mitt has gone from supposedly channeling Reagan to a vague, anti-Washington type.
In their own way, all the others have been more true to their records, and their selves than Mitt. Rudy stands by his record with little prevarication, and says he will be conservative. So, he has been honest with his past all along. Ditto McCain and even Huck. And, of course Fred and Hunter.
Only Mitt, at age 56, and supposedly a businessman, has just now seen the light. Was he stupid? Was he lying before, or is now? Was he so politically dumb he didn’t know? Take your pick. Although, Mitt says he was sort of dumb struck in a Paul on the road to Damascus type way. Which begs the question, will he be ‘visioned’ again as President?
Everybody on FR works on Mitt from a ideological frame work. I rather think it is psychological with Mitt. This notion of mine is energetically whacked down by mittbotts because Mitt doesn’t have any psychological being, or so they imply. He’s just a pure, sort of machine type, I guess, droid.
Two telling fractures into Mitt were his hunting and MLK fictions. Why would he lie about something so pointless? Why was he so desperate to say those stupid, idiotic, patently untrue things? Very strange.
Even the recent dust up with the reporter about the lobbyists on Mitts staff and close about them. Everyone has them, it’s no big deal and Mitt has had them, and others around him all his life. And Mitt get’s bunched, about it.
Of course though he’s not led a knock around life. Exclusive prep schools, the rough and tumble of BYU and then the high testosterone of those brutes at Harvard is not a way to wear off some prickly prissiness. But to get back to Mitt the political animal. Liberal/moderate almost non-ideological opportunists. He already is, and if nominated will run towards the center, which as we know is yet more government. Will he be a good President? I don't expect much as a conservative. He didn't have much experience in Massachusetts and more or less his supporters say he was a victim, usually, of the mean old Democrats. Poor baby. I doubt he's going to be grabbing anybody by the scruff or twisting any arms in Washington. The Hastert/RNC lobbyist Republicans will be happy with him. Mitt is a very establishment, go along with the old guys, the old clubs, the old icons type. He had the power to nominate all his judges, but he couldn't handle it. He set up a politically correct committee. He had the old and ancient power to correct errors of jury's and out right refused to use his pardon ability. The only Governor I know that has ever done that in American history. I think he couldn't handle it. He was asked what he would do as President with a 9/11 and he said he would sit down with lawyers. Massachusetts gave the country Harvard graduate Michael Dukakis, and now presents Willard 'Mittens' Romney. Good luck America.
I have been screaming to the Republican party that they are screwing up something fierce. I have express the same thing in my correspondence to the White House. They just don’t get it. Even telling them they won’t get any support until the border is fixed, garnered a cancellation of the fence.
The party has basically said, “Screw you!” to me and to every person who thinks as I do about the border.
And they expect my vote for a RINO? Well, let’s just say I seem storm clouds on the horizon.
How nice of you, but I suggest Hunter or Thompson for a write-in. Take care.
“I’ve been reading this thread with growing disbelief that anyone would consistently whizz on everyone’s head (that would be mbraynard) and tell them it’s raining and expect not to get called on it. Reading Willard’s record shows he is not anything like a conservative, but don’t take my word for it, read what Vin Suprynowicz in the Las Vegas Review Journal has to say about him. And his lifelong hunter comment shows that he is not only a liar (like all politicians), but arrogant enough to think that he wouldn’t get caught in it. Of the three left wing main stream republicans running for president Willard is apparently the mos liberal followed by Julie Annie and then John (keating Five) McCain. Frankly if the coice is between these left wing Republican liberas and whatever left wing liberal the emocrats finally extrude out of their sphincters I’ll write in, vote third party or stay home.
And before someone starts blathering that if people do that they give the presidency to the democrats, so what? It hardly matter if the anti-gun socialist in the white house has a D or an R after their name.”
I agree. Thanks for posting this article
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/9380526.html
That’s right -
Go tell Daddy!
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.