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.
‘other candidates talk a little talk but avoid the issue for the most part.”
I agree with you, and it is so easy to say it is not the responsibility of the state. What a cop out! Not only did Romney talk alot about it, but he actually did something about it and stood his ground.
If you actually tried to talk about THAT issue, they’d just move to some other issue.
They don’t want to talk ABOUT issues, they want to BRING UP CHARGES and then move on.
If the morons who throw around the term 'flip-flopper' actually knew what it meant, they'd think twice about using that term.
“Abortion: Ran as pro-abort and later changed his mind, explained how he changed his mind and why, and admits he was wrong. He governed strongly as a pro-life governor, vetoing embryonic stem cell research, prevevnting sidewalk counseling outside abortion clinics from becoming law, and fought and suceeded in getting abstinence curriculim into the schools. Unlike Fred Thompson, he supports a human life amendment and says that were the legislature of MA to send him the same abortion ban that was passed in SD, he would have signed it. There are some other little lies floating around on this issue, but I’ll let you bring them up.”
The doctor he mentions in his story denies this meeting took place. Sounds like another MLK story.
Also, I find it curious he changed his mind via the issue of stem cell research, not the image of babies chopped up like meat and sucked in a vacuum. How old was this guy when he made up his mind in this issue?
The more credible explanation is that he decided to run for president, and knew he had to change his position in order to be viable.
You tell me which version is more credible.
“A large part of this might be attributed to intellectual laziness. But it goes much deeper. And unless we take this monster head on, we will have Goodridge rulings as far as the eye can see.”
I am not a lawyer :) but check this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907376/posts
esp post #9
The court ordered the LEGISLATURE to do something. They didn’t order the Governor to do anything.
I don’t see how the court can order a coequal branch to do anything though.
Mitt was under no obligation to do anything - but he did.
It’s pretty simple when you look at it that way.
Either way this sin’t an issue of critical importance to me.
His 2nd amendment position(s) are.
Actually, most Americans do.
Certainly, with Romney PONTIFICATING, and RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, he should have.
And with Romney already caught once by the Boston Globe, he should have checked, if he was serious.
It is quite possible that that is the case. We don’t know, because very few of us really know what he believes. He says he was personally against abortion, as a Mormon you could guess he should have been pro-life at some moment.
Then he tells a story of a family member that died in an illegal abortion. Now he was pro-choice.
Then in a meeting the doctor in question denies happened, he was converted to pro-life due to stem cell research. See the image of mutilated babies didn’t do it for him, it was stem cells that changed his mind. Yeah right!
So yeah, he could have changed positions more than 2 times, very likely. Shows a pattern with Romney too.
” Commonwealth Care was NOT “Universal Health Care”. It was heralded and supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation as a conservative health care solution.”
Heritage was wrong.
It’s mandatory. You must get it, or you pay a penalty.
So much for liberty.
Actually, all I need to know is that Ann Coulter has all but endorsed him.
Rush’s Angst yestereday was entirely directed at John McCain.
Rush has no angst against Romney, who he considers one of the three true conservatives left in the race.
Wow. That was a great defense of traditional marriage.
The idea that he is actually for gay marriage is absurd. That’s why people are moving on.
I imagine that the future installments will end the same — people are good at charges, but there’s no substance to them.
I tend to oppose “these laws”, but I don’t think that all those who support them do so because they want special rights for protected classes, but because they simply perceive the problem as requiring a solution of this magnitude.
I accept that candidates and legislators will sometimes use the correct principles to come to the wrong conclusions.
Reagan fought Kennedy.
Mitt courted him.
What makes you think he's changed?...Didn't he say almost a year ago: "I am firmly pro-life…I was always for life"? (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
Didn't you know he was "always" for life?
Doncha know Romney was never "pro-choice" because he "never called" himself "pro-choice," "didn't feel" he was "pro-choice" and therefore "wasn't pro-choice?" Romney (Aug. 12, 2007) on Fox interview with Chris Wallace: "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..."
So, he was "always pro-life"; told Mormon readers he didn't want to be labeled "pro-choice" in a 2001 letter to the editor of a Salt Lake paper; never "called himself" pro-"choice"; didn't "feel" he was pro-"choice"; and "wasn't pro-choice." I don't know what the h**k "conversion" you're talking about. Romney says he's personally the same guy he "always" was!
Romney says he changed his mind in November 2004, when he met with a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. Romney claimed in a June 2006 interview that the researcher had told him: "'Look, you don't have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days.'" Romney went on to say that both he and his chief of staff had an epiphany, recognizing that embryonic stem cell research cheapened respect for human life. However, the scientist with whom Romney had met, Dr. Douglas Melton, disputed Romney's story. A spokesman for the institute confirmed Dr. Melton's account, saying, "The words 'kill' and 'killing' are not in Dr. Melton's professional vocabulary, a vocabulary used to discuss finding cures for diseases in order to save lives."THe argument was over whether Romney correctly characterized the conversation. The Weekly Standard felt the doctor was right, but it was a hit piece on Romney they were writing after all. Still, if the doctor said they destroyed the embryos after 14 days, we would all agree that the doctor said he killed them, even though the doctor probably doesn't believe they are alive and therefore wouldn't use the term "kill".
If however you want to fault Romney for correctly recognizing that terminating the embryo's existance is KILLING, I won't stop you.
The court did not order the legislature to do anything. The court gave the legislature 180 days to make any corrections to the law they felt appropriate.
It is a misinterpretation of the ruling to suggest the court was saying the legislature was supposed to change the law to match the ruling. The law already matched the ruling, because the ruling told the state how the law’s words were to be interpreted.
The court, realising that the effect of the ruling was to change long-standing practice, gave the legislature 180 days to do something about it if they really wanted to restrict same-sex couples.
The legislature did not.
I can’t wait for the 2nd-amendment thread. Romney is very strong on that one, notwithstanding his stupid comments about “life-long hunter’, and owning a gun.
At least those comments showed he WANTED to be associated with gun owners, and not against them. Fortunately, his actions as Governor, and his position papers and speeches, prove he’s on the side of gun owners.
You must get what, exactly? You must purchase health insurance from a private health insurance company. Just like you must purchase auto insurance. Do you call mandatory auto insurance "universal auto care" and complain that it is a huge loss of "liberty?"
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.