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.
Maybe you should think about Aborting your inane thread .
Under Flip Romney’s plan , it would only cost $50 .....
I will have to come back to your post later as I must step away from the computer.
In the mean time I would like to see where your sources are for this information. If you have it handy please show me.
I want fair and balanced, not just accusations. I want both sides to present evidence not just rhetoric.
So he pandered to them in order to get elected.
Gee, that really recommends him....
But I'm still not sure why Mitt figured these gay activists would be appeased by government-mandated universal health coverage....
I don’t know how you can say that. The guy is still squishy on a number of issues as late as December 2007.
I can’t support this guy. I can’t see how anyone who calls himself a conservative could.
Does the BSA actually ask boys if they are gay before they can join? Honestly, I'd like to know. Is there a series of boxes to check on the application? [ ] Straight [ ] Gay [ ] Bi
Yadayadayada. Liberal is as liberal does.
(in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald, Romney had also claimed, “My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.”)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_the_stil_071226_romney_habitually_su.htm
Since Romeny and his daddy marched with Dr. King, I would think that Mitt would at least have one picture of he and his daddy marching with Dr. King.
Or, Willard simply has difficulty telling the truth.
More fodder .... Why won’t the Bots talk to Mitt about this issue and get him to come around and right his wrongs ?
http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm
LION: “No one has fought harder for traditional marriage than Mitt. ...McCain opposed it in congress and Thompson said he opposed the amendment. Just what have other candidates done about this issue?”
Does Romney’s fighting hard for marriage include opposing a state Marriage Protection Amendment when running for gov in 2002? Ordering local justices of the peace to either perform fraudulent homosexual “marriages” or resign? Ordering that marriage licenses be altered to read “party A” and “party B” instead of “husband” and “wife”?
After doing all the above, Romney decided in order to posture himself for a prez campaign he needed to reverse himself on the issue.
You’re correct in noting that Thompson and McCain (and Rudy) oppose a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Only one candidate has ALWAYS supported constitutionally protecting marriage. Gov. Mike Huckabee helped lead the successful campaign for a state marriage amendment and also supports a federal marriage amendment.
Romney supported neither until AFTER the Mass Supreme Court’s ruling in 2003.
If thats not possible please pull the thread.
Not telling anyone how to think. Not at all.
Just want an orderly discussion is all.
“I have conservative values.” Evidently there are a lot of people just like him over here on FR. Each are just about as conservative as Lyndon Johnson.
Maui, I’m also stepping away from the computer to go to bed...after 3 am here.
Suggest you simply search for the hundreds of Romney threads on this topic stretching back to 2005, multitudes of which included hyperlinks to the original source documents on each issue cited.
You provided no such citations in your post, for the obvious reason that you can’t “prove” something that’s not true.
There’s nothing in my factual post that’s not voluminously documented in multiple news reports over the last 14 years.
It’s about time to purge the RINO lovers and RINO propagandists ...
They are coming out of the woodwork around here ....
Take a look at his recent, last 18 months flip flop on NRA membership. Take a look at his claim that he owned guns, but they were actually his son’s. They exist in a western retreat, not at his usual residence.
He joined the NRA in August of 1996, only months before declaring intent to run for the Presidency. He still feels the need to state he doesn’t always agree with the NRA.
He’s sold on the assault weapons ban. He won’t answer if he still supports the Brady Bill, something he once did, deffering to the insta-check that has made it unnecessary.
This guy troubles me on the issue of marriage, guns, homosexual advocacy, and right to life.
I can’t back him. What are you guys trying to do to conservatism, destroy it?
Short answers:
Healthcare: The legislature could have passed cuba-care and overidden his veto. Somehow he leveraged them into accepting some market-based reforms in their socialist plan. His national plan is strictly market-based and, unlike in MA, has no 'mandate.'
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.
Illegal Immigration:
At one point he said that the McCain bill sounded reasonable. That's hardly high-praise and at the time he said it the bill still nearly done, and he was the first top-tier candidate to start criticizing it when he realised what it was doing. As governor, he voted drivers licenses for illegal immigrants - I think in his first year as governor before this was the highest pitched issue in the party. He opposed instate tuition and on his way out of the governorship ordered the state police to co-operate with ICE. He has been very consistent on the trail about how to solve the problem.
Gun rights: MA has pretty strict gun laws and he said as he was running for Governor that he wasn't going to change them. I'm going to cut him some slack on that because he was much more pro-gun when he ran for Senate and Kennedy beat him on that issue alone. He has said he supports the 2nd amendment and not just for hunting. Besides, I think that the gun issue, at least at the federal level, is dead and has been since 1994. It's really a state-level fight now.
Fees:I regret he hasn't articulated this better. When he came into office he used fee increases to close about 10% of the state's 3 billion dollar deficit. Increasing fees to be inline with the cost of services rendered is a good thing for tax payers - assuming that it results in a tax cut (as it did for Romney's constituency). One of the fees raised was for student's taking the bar exam. If the fee to take that bar exam is lower than the cost of administering the exam, that means the tax payer is subsidizing the cost. So if you forever oppose fees, and costs of things go up - inevitably - you are burdening the tax payer with more and more expenses. None of his fee changes were broad-based (like a gas tax). They were relatively specific and many hadn't been changed in decades.
He's a Mormon: Well, you got me there.
Unless they are overly propagandist and uncivil, I would like to have them around so that people who visit the forum can see their views rebutted by people who are capable of doing so.
We need a large page full of links on a number of topics, so when one of these folks start defending him, we can blow them out of the water.
IMO ideological purity defeats discovery more than I care to.
When folks come here, they should be able to see the occasional defense of Romney and enough information to make it clear they are incredibly off base.
That seems the best option IMO.
Others will undoubtedly see it different.
~”Maybe I should run a series of these on each issue.”~
If you do as good a job on those as you did on this, keep it up.
Clear, concise, to the point, and unashamed. Well done. Bookmarked for later quotation.
Not buying what you’re selling!
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.