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.
You need to drop the MLK criticism. His father DID march with MLK.
The whole Romney family was way in front during the civil rights movement. There’s no reason to demonize Romney over what he believed the facts to be (and what his brother confirmed had been told had happened among the family).
It wouldn’t be the first time that the years go by and the facts get cloudy. Doesn’t change the fact of the position on civil rights.
Or do we want to start demonizing George Washington for “lies”?
Silly.
They do have an ideology, I suppose, they believe in everything, but nothing in particular.
You still haven't discussed registering machetes! did Mitt have anything to do with it?
He said he saw his father march with MLK.
Yes he did..........
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."
Romney never saw father on King march
Whether he saw it on TV or from the sidelines of the parade I don't know.
Neither, because Mitt went back on what he said and now says he "saw it happen figuratively". And beyond that it never happened anyway. His father and King did march for civil rights but never together.
Hmmm. You say the Executive of MA has the obligation to ignore the SC of MA whenever he disagrees with a ruling, but it is Romney who doesn't understand the proper roles of divided government?
Perhaps you could point me to the provision of the Constitution of Massachusetts that obligates, or even allows, the Governor the Power to override both the Legislature and the Judiciary at will.
First, it was 4 fools.
Second, when the legislature passes a law, the executive can’t ignore it just because they think it’s a stupid law. I hope we can agree on that.
Third, the court ruled that the law on the books required same-sex marriage. That was the LAW, as passed by the legislature.
And to seal the deal, the court gave the legislature 180 days to fix the problem if they wanted to. In other words, six months to show the court they really meant to ban same-sex marriage.
The legislature did nothing. That validates the court ruling, and gives it the force of the legislature, not that this was necessary because our jurispudence DOES put the courts in charge.
If Romney had blocked marriage after the court ruled in favor of gays, the gays would have sued. They would have won injuntive releif. They would have won monetary damages. The state has no more ability to avoid paying in a civil case than you or I do. Eventually, Romney would be gone (he wasn’t going to win re-election), the democrats would take over, and have him thrown in jail for contempt of court.
Every day pro-life judges rule against pro-life principles, simply because they are following the rules of the Supreme Court. They actually have a RIGHT to rule differently, although if they do it and get overturned enough, eventually someone will probably recall them through impeachment like was done to Roy Moore.
That’s because they understand jurispudence.
If the legislature had acted to claim a ban on gay marriage, and the court had then ruled they hadn’t shown a compelling interest, maybe it would make sense for Romney to defy an order, although that is virtually unheard of.
But the legislature let stand the ruling that the Mass marriage law covered same-sex couples. That’s why nobody is winning any lawsuits fighting what some erroneously claim was an obviously illegal action by Romney.
Mr. Washington: George, did you chop down the cherry tree?George Washington admitted what he did. He did not try to spin it.George: Yes, Father. I cannot tell a lie. I did chop down the cherry tree.
For shame, attacking the Father of Our Country!
Right. And people asked Romney if he supported a woman’s right to choose in the past. Romney admitted that he did and explained why.
But SOME so-called conservatives won’t allow Romney to change his mind. And they start calling him a liar because they don’t agree with Romney’s viewpoints.
Whether or not Washington’s cloak was pierced by bullets does not make Washington a liar.
I already know about a court order...but you distort this.
I am posting this info DIRECTLY from the ACLU website...court-ordered partial public funding for abortion, JUST LIKE MASSACHUSETTS.
What? Did you miss that one word in your own posting: partial
If you don't want to read it, that's on you.
I'm already familiar with it...apparently you aren't...look again at the language from the ACLU website (here, I'll make it easy for your brain to digest...I'll highlight it for you): "Currently seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women..."
Now, I've just twice happened to catch two TV debates where Romney was discussing RomneyCare. In the first of the two, he pinpointed exactly what % of Massachusetts was covered by RomneyCare: He said 7% were uninsured.
In the other debate, he then specifically said what % of that uninsured made $75,000 in income. He said it was one-fourth (1/4 of the 7% = almost 2% of the female population).
Then, taking other averages of income levels of medicaid eligibility, uninsured income levels, it basically comes to about 2.75% of the Bay State that was both uninsured AND medicaid eligible. IOW, RomneyCare didn't necessarily effect abortion coverage for these women.
That leaves over 4% of the female population of the Bay state whose income was too high to be effected by the court order. About 40% of this group earns $75,000 or more; the others earn the window in between Medicaid eligibility & $75,000.
Therefore, RomneyCare does subsidize abortion for middle-income and high-income women--in fact, about 1 out of two dozen such women in the state. (And in an economic downturn, this will grow!!) If you've got a journalist's heart for truth, then may I suggest you repent of the false information you've given out on this.
I think that by his own vanity posts is what he means.
I also think that it might be a good idea to stay on one subject at a time concerning the issues so many have concerning this candidate.
Romney has taken many hits on this subject (with documentation always conveniently provided by some) that I believe to be largely worthless.
In 1973 Roe v. Wade was made legal and so then it was Nixon/Ford's fault would be analogous to blaming Romney for this gay marriage so called Law that was rammed down our collective throats (no pun intended) here in Massachusetts.
OK, you need to read again what he answered "yes" to in the 2002 PP Questionnaire: Planned Parenthood directly asked him: In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?
What was his response? YES
Yes, he supported efforts to increase access to "emergency contraception." That was April, 2002. Come July 2005, he vetoed "Plan B" or morning-after contraception.
Now do you want to explain to all how that is "keeping his word?"
(What? Are you trying to win the award for "Most Obvious Obfuscation of the Year?" I mean we're not even talking here about generalities such as abortion or a specific decision like Roe...we have a specific sub-topic...deal with it)
Please understand, in no way was I trying to tear down Reagan. That perception lies only with those too shallow to see past a picture.
Thanks
The policy is clear regardless of whether it appears on a volunteer form.
If an individual openly identifies himself as — or is discovered to be — involved in the homosexual lifestyle, the policy is activated and applicable.
No, they are just calling him on his "changing his mind." Voters like consistencies in their candidates. Oh and since we are editorializing, those "so-called" conservatives are more conservative than Romney
And they start calling him a liar because they don’t agree with Romney’s viewpoints.
No, they call him a liar because they have researched his statements over the years.
Your strawmen need to go back to OZ.
Even if Romney said he marched with MLK and saw his father march with him too when he really didn't doesn't make him a liar.
I'm not going to critique Mitt for his statement on this.
Sorry but Broder’s book doesn’t trump newspaper accounts of the time.
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.