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.
We are not going to have a thread if I can help it with 15 different issues that are subverting from the original post.
Its not dodging... it is very very direct.
What’s a gun owner to do ? Anti-gun Flip Romney , why won’t he come around on this issue ? ....
http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm
“I started the thread so please do not hijack it. There is time for the other things to be discussed.”
The thread is about Flipp Mitt.
Don’t try to artificially limit the topic.
We are tackling this one at a time.
Not avoiding your question, but rather trying to stay on topic, as we will when it comes to 2nd Ammendment when that one comes up.
SENATE, No. 1384 By Mr. Shannon, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1384) of Charles E. Shannon, Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., David P. Linsky and Paul J. Donato for legislation relative to the possession of a machete. Public Safety and Homeland Security The Commonwealth of Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the Year Two Thousand and Five. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE POSSESSION OF A MACHETE Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: SECTION 1. Subsection (b) of section 10 of chapter 269 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition is hereby amended by inserting after the word “inches”, in line 67, the following word:- , machete. SECTION 2. Said subsection (b) of said section 10 of said chapter 269, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by adding the following paragraph:- For purposes of this section, “machete” means “a heavy knife at least 18 inches in length and having a blade at least 1.5 inches wide at its broadest measurement. This subsection shall not apply to carrying a machete on one’s person or in a vehicle if the machete is carried for the purpose of cutting vegetation or if the machete is being transported for the purpose of cutting vegetation. In a prosecution of a violation of this subsection, there shall be a permissible inference that such carrying of a machete is not for the purposes of cutting vegetation. Such presumption may be rebutted. Any individual who requires a machete for the purposes of cutting vegetation shall register the machete with the local police department on an annual basis and, upon payment of an appropriate annual registration fee as determined by the local granting authority, shall be issued a permit authorizing him to possess the machete solely for the purposes of cutting vegetation.
I like Mitt and will vote for either him or Thompson if he’s still in it by California time. But I really don’t think that demanding under pain of penalty that all citizens have health insurance is right though. I aggree with alot of his proposals and think that alot more alternative natural therapies should be covered by health insurance which would drop the cost alot. I read his health care platform from his site and wasn’t clear about wherther he wants mandated health care or not?
“Put it out there on the table. Tell us.”
There must be a better way to oppose gay marriage than to sign it into law...
Mitt ping!
WE WILL DISCUSS MITT AND GUNS IN DEPTH AT LENGTH.
IT WILL BE GIVEN FULL COURT PRESS.
PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC.
BTW... Are you gay?
Post about other topics are not welcome on this thread, however they will have their due day.
I do not want a thread that runs from topic to topic and ends up only talking in generalities and sound bytes.
There is nothing artificial about it.
Tell us more details. Explain. Get your version of the truth out there.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.... (hehehehehehe)
No but maybe your mom is.
In retrospect, Romney bashers should have spent more time supporting their candidate and not attacking Mitt. It has backfired on them big time.
The more I read details of what actually went on in Mass, the more I like this guy. He has courage to go along with his values. He is not afraid to go after an issue head on, while other candidates talk a little talk but avoid the issue for the most part.
You don’t like it , tough .....
It’s about Mitt and his flip flop record .
Cheers !
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.