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.
“and I don’t want any document about obeying the courts SSM law”
the court ordered the legislature. Not the governor.
They didn’t even have the power to order the legislature, but Mitt complied.
” I want the one document where Mitt romney by himself drew up a document and made SSM a law!”
Clever - you asked for something you know didn’t happen - not what did happen.
Why are you using 20 point type?
Shouting only weakens your case - it can’t stand up in normal fonts. :)
Hillary doesn't "love" Mitt care. She's in love with her own socialized, universal health care plan.
As for Mass. liberals loving the plan, that just shows how good Romney was at selling a conservative health care plan the increases personal responsibility, private insurance choices, etc. across the aisle. Romney achieved a conservative victory with Commonwealth Care and made the liberals think they won something.
” 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?””
What id you don’t want health insurance? You’re penalized until you buy it. By whom? the government.
Do you really not see the difference between auto and health insurance?
Why should the government be able to force you to buy anything?
How much power does our government have to compel us to act?
“pretation 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 coup”
So why did Mitt have to act?
What would the consequences been to his person if he did not?
Nothing.
So, you're against mandatory auto insurance because it is enforced "at the point of a gun?" Speed limit laws? Jaywalking laws? Any laws at all? Because, they are all enforced "at the opint of a gun", aren't they?
If you can prove personal responsibility and enough dough to cover your own health care costs, you don't have to buy health insurance.
People said the same thing about welfare to work programs.
Forcing someone to pay for a service on the market, such as insurance, is not same thing as enforcing rules (such as speed limits) to prevent violation of people's rights. If I am young and choose not to buy health insurance, it is my own business. It's called the free market!!! Since you like forcing people to buy things, do you also think we should be forced to buy life insurance and pet insurance?
There are understandable reasons why Ted Kennedy and Hillary have praised MittCare. Like him, they don't trust the free market and individual choice. They know what Mitt is up to.
Yes, they do. That’s why government welfare should be abolished. Next question.
Its ok to kick people off the dole of welfare, but its not ok to kick them off another form of the dole?
I hate to break it to you, but the defacto healthcare system is nothing short of welfare---which people abuse.
Hence they need insurance and people that have it already don't need to worry.
More newspeak. How is exercising your free choice to not buy something an example of living off the “dole?” Again, a lot of people don’t purchase health insurance for perfectly valid reasons. Many of them, in effect, self-insurance...though, of course, friends of paternalism like Mitt never believe that free individuals can make the “right” choices.
ROFL! GOOD JOB ON THIS THREAD!
Clever - you asked for something you know didn’t happen - not what did happen.
You are the one who said he signed it into law. Nice to know that you now admit it didn't happen.
” You are the one who said he signed it into law. Nice to know that you now admit it didn’t happen.”
The court ordered the legislature - but it was Governor Mittens who acted. Gays married, It’s pretty simple.
Stop playing with words, it’s clintonian.
At the end of the 180 day stay, he was obligated as the executive of the state to implement the law as it was interpreted. The state had already tried to deny same-sex couples, and the court had ruled they could not.
Making people go back to court to enforce the court order they already won is never a good move. In this case, the legislature and the courts were together on same-sex marriage.
Your approach is workable if you have the fortitude to let people die on the street in front of the hospital of simple treatable illnesses simply because they can’t pay for the treatment.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/21/romney_never_saw_father_on_king_march/
Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."
The court didn’t order the legislature. They didn’t give ANY command to the legislature. They DID order the STATE to allow same-sex couples to marry. The STATE did so, when the 180-day stay was up, as they were ORDERED to do.
More liberal scare tactics. Believe it or not, before the rise of the New Deal and Great Society, private charities used to take care of these people. Also, doctors considered it an obligation to care for such people. That all ended when government (a la Mitt) stepped in to socialize things. Those who believe in socialistic alternatives, such as Mittcare, don't know much about American history.
Actually, in 1978 some reporter WROTE that Romney said both he and his father marched with King. When asked about the 1978 statement, the campaign said it wasn’t correct, that Romney never marched with his father with MLK.
Whether Romney actually said that in 1978, or whether the reporter in 1978 misunderstood, people will have to decide for themselves. Other reports from that time frame say his father marched with King, and now people question that.
I don’t really care what a candidate said 30 years ago about marching with King. The entire argument is absurd to begin with, and 30-year-old newspaper quotes are simply the icing on the absurdity cake.
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.