Mitt Romney: The Real Truth

Evangelicals for Mitt ^ | 11 January 2007 | David French

[Spiff]

Mitt Romney: The Real Truth

David French

No American governor has faced more critical cultural issues than Mitt Romney, Massachusetts’ chief executive from 2003 to 2007. In the midst of Governor Romney’s efforts to rescue his state from a fiscal crisis and create lasting and innovative health care solutions, activist judges and a far-left legislature forced issues of same-sex “marriage,” abortion, religious liberty, stem cell research, and gay rights into the forefront. Each time he was challenged, the Governor not only made the conservative choice, but also did so with an optimistic, unifying message. In doing so, he became a national leader on these vital cultural issues without squandering his ability to govern the Commonwealth.

In four years, Governor Romney turned a deficit into a surplus without raising taxes, created a health coverage plan that is applauded by experts on both sides of the aisle and is designed to reduce costs while preserving personal choices, and effectively responded to the deadly collapse of one of the most expensive construction projects in American history. He did all these things in one of America’s most liberal states at the same time that he vetoed expansive stem cell legislation, vetoed the expansion of abortion rights in Massachusetts, defended the religious liberties of Catholic Charities from an assault by homosexual activists, and launched a multi-year (and multi-state) campaign to preserve traditional marriage after Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

In spite of this impressive conservative record, a group called “MassResistance” has been circulating a lengthy document called “The Mitt Romney Deception.” Combining old statements, half-truths, and some completely misreported stories, the document has gained some traction in the conservative community, with anti-Romney activists forwarding the document dozens of times (apparently without any independent verification of its facts). In much the way as urban legends gain traction through repeated e-mail “forwards,” the seriously-flawed MassResistance piece has led a few individuals to question the Governor’s commitment to conservative principles. MassResistance’s document, however, suffers from at least five fundamental errors. These errors are:

1. MassResistance fails to account for the Governor’s very real move to the prolife side of the abortion debate;

2. MassResistance indulges in an illogical reading of the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health same-sex marriage decision and thereby completely mischaracterizes the Governor’s response to the Massachusetts same-sex marriage crisis;

3. MassResistance fails to account for the Governor’s very real defense of religious liberty over the entitlement mentality of homosexual activists;

4. MassResistance falsely claims Governor Romney excluded the Boy Scouts from volunteering during the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics; and

5. MassResistance indulges in leftist-style identity politics by urging that Governor Romney (or any other Republican) participate in a search-and-destroy operation against any government-employed homosexuals.

The centerpiece of the MassResistance presentation is a series of quotes—taken primarily from Governor Romney’s 1994 Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy—and then the implication that these quotes (regarding abortion and “gay rights”) are indicative of his current political positions and his actions in office. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lot has happened since 1994, and as a result, the Governor has become firmly pro-life, opposes adding sexual orientation to federal employment nondiscrimination laws, and has been one of the nation’s foremost advocates for traditional marriage. To consider just a few events that led the Governor to change his mind: Nondiscrimination laws have been used to dramatically restrict fundamental First Amendment freedoms—including the ability of Christian student groups to meet on campus and religious adoption agencies to place disabled children with appropriate families; an activist state supreme court unilaterally redefined marriage; and the growth of embryonic stem cell research has led to the commodification of human life. Faced with these realities, the Governor has consistently made the right choices. MassResistance ignores these choices.

The following represents the real truth about Mitt Romney.

ABORTION

Mitt Romney is pro-life, and his actions in office were consistently pro-life. MassResistance is correct when it notes that Governor Romney made many statements in 1994 that were supportive of abortion rights, but the Governor, by his own admission, was wrong when he made those comments. In the December 14, 2006, edition of National Review Online, Governor Romney said the following to NRO editor Kathryn Jean Lopez:

I believe people will see that as governor, when I had to examine and grapple with this difficult issue, I came down on the side of life. I know in the four years I have served as governor I have learned and grown from the exposure to the thousands of good-hearted people who are working to change the culture in our country. I’m committed to promoting the culture of life. Like Ronald Reagan, and Henry Hyde, and others who became pro-life, I had this issue wrong in the past.

The Governor is correct that his actual record as governor is solidly pro-life. Governor Romney vetoed a bill that would have provided access to the so-called “morning after pill,” a “medication” that terminates living children after their conception. Moreover, the Governor vetoed expansive stem cell legislation—legislation that provided for the creation and destruction of human embryos at the whim of a researcher. In fact, it was this very debate that led to the Governor’s conversion on the life issue. As he told NRO’s Lopez:

My position has changed and I have acknowledged that. How that came about is that several years ago, in the course of the stem-cell-research debate I met with a pair of experts from Harvard. At one point the experts pointed out that embryonic-stem-cell research should not be a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. After the meeting I looked over at Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and we both had exactly the same reaction—it just hit us hard just how much the sanctity of life had been cheapened by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality.

As advocates for life, social conservatives should welcome changes like this, and we must recognize that some of the best advocates for life can be those—like Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde—who were wrong in the past. MassResistance does its readers no service by placing more emphasis on quotes more than a decade old than it does on the Governor’s actual record in office.

SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE”

From the moment the activist judges in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down their breathtakingly arrogant decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Governor took strong and consistent actions to defend marriage. He also took decisive action to make sure his state would not grant marriage licenses to outof- state couples, thereby guaranteeing that Massachusetts would not become the “Las Vegas of gay marriage” (as he called it) and trigger a constitutional crisis as couples returned to their home states with Massachusetts licenses. He also initiated and led an effort to amend the Massachusetts constitution by referendum and has gone so far as to file suit against the Commonwealth’s own legislature after it took action to prevent the people of Massachusetts from voting on that amendment—a suit that resulted in the legislature complying with its constitutional responsibilities and sending the marriage amendment on to the next stage of the ratification process.

Critically, he has become a leading national advocate for marriage, with his optimistic and uplifting message dominating the public debate. Rather than casting the debate as one over adult rights, the Governor has made the best possible case for marriage, noting what we all should know but too often forget (at great cultural cost): Marriage does not exist for the convenience and enjoyment of adults, but as the best possible way of raising and nurturing children. The credible defenders of marriage in Massachusetts all agree, and through their own statement they have recently and emphatically made their feelings clear: Mitt Romney has been an invaluable supporter and advocate.

Yet despite this record, MassResistance claims that Mitt Romney actually enabled gay marriage by not defying the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts—in other words, by not breaking the law. In a truly baffling bit of legal reasoning, MassResistance argues that the court ruling “simply advised the Legislature to pass legislation codifying its opinion on changing the marriage statutes” and that Governor Romney was therefore “not bound to enforce same-sex marriage prior to legislative action.”

This is simply an incorrect reading of the decision. Here is what the Supreme Judicial Court actually said: “We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.” In other words, the court itself changed the definition of marriage. The reference to legislative action in the opinion merely gave the legislature a chance to amend the law to state what the court already said it meant. This was not advising the legislature; it was changing the law. Any governor who defied this decision risked contempt of court. Rather than becoming what the media would undoubtedly call the “George Wallace of gay marriage” by standing in the courthouse door and barring couples from receiving marriage licenses, the Governor chose legal means to resist the court’s decision.

And his decision was correct. It is now clear that the Goodridge decision represented not the beginning of the end of traditional marriage but what may well be the high-water mark of the same-sex marriage movement. Since that decision, homosexual marriage activists have been on the defensive virtually everywhere, losing referenda and losing court decisions. Had Governor Romney not offered a principled and effective defense of marriage, the outcome may very well have been quite different.

“GAY RIGHTS”

The Governor believes all people should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, but that no additional legal protections for sexual orientation should be added. Since his race against Ted Kennedy in 1994, sexual orientation nondiscrimination laws have become commonplace across the country, and it is easy to see and understand their effects. Since 1994, these laws have been used as pretexts for ejecting Christian student groups from college campuses, for closing religious-based adoptive services, for silencing people of faith as they seek to debate issues of sexual morality, and for transforming marriage laws (see the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent decision). The Governor stated his position well on NRO:

Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today?

Gov. Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.

As for military policy and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same.

The Governor’s words are supported by solid and convincing actions. In 2006, he strongly defended the right of Catholic Charities to refuse to place adoptive children in homes with homosexual couples. In taking this stand, he opposed virtually the entire Massachusetts political establishment, but he was defending the fundamental freedom of people of faith to live out their values. Once again, Governor Romney made the right choice.

THE BOY SCOUTS

The Governor has long been a strong supporter of the Boy Scouts, even sitting on its national board of directors. He has never taken any action to limit their activities. Any statement to the contrary is false. Particularly hurtful has been MassResistance’s claim that Governor Romney prevented the Boy Scouts from serving in the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics because of their stand on homosexual scoutmasters. Leading conservative attorney Jay Sekulow has thoroughly and completely debunked this claim: Brian Camenker’s [of MassResistance] claim…that “Romney Barred Boy Scouts from public participation in the 2002 Olympics” is entirely false. There are several articles that directly contradict Camenker’s conclusion. NewsMax.com, Camenker’s source, did not even claim that Romney made the decision to bar the Scouts. In fact, Romney, at least at that time, sat on the Boy Scout’s executive board. The Boy Scouts said that the NewsMax article was false. Even NewsMax admitted that the Olympic Committee said that there was an age restriction of 18 years old and up to be a volunteer. There are also inconsistencies in the two NewsMax articles, only one of which is cited by Camenker.…Since no major media source ran anything about this story, and the local media directly contradicted it, it appears that Camenker’s claim is false.

LEFTIST IDENTITY POLITICS

Mitt Romney does not play the game of leftist identity politics—which means he hires people on the basis of their abilities and qualifications, not on the basis of their identity.

As a result, he has hired some well-qualified homosexual individuals to several positions in his administration. These people were hired because they were good at their jobs (and in the case of judges, tough on crime and faithful to the law as written), not because they identify as “gay.” It is the left that all too often hires and fires, includes and excludes on the basis of identity (for example, witness the profound disadvantages faced by whites and Asians in the college admissions process created by misguided racial quotas). Conservatives believe in hiring and firing on the basis of ability and qualifications.

MassResistance would lead conservatives to believe they should adopt leftist goals and tactics by excluding any self-described gay person from government—on the basis of self-described identity alone. Such a “search and destroy” effort is not only absurd and impractical, it is also immoral—and unsupported by any leading national conservative. Ironically, it is the very tactic of excluding on the basis of sexual orientation that would make the outcry for including sexual orientation in federal nondiscrimination laws irresistible.

Finally, MassResistance spends pages describing in lurid details the actions of low-level bureaucrats within the Romney administration (for example, citing support for certain “gay pride” parades and events by state education officials). Yet MassResistance fails to explain how the Governor condoned or even knew about these efforts. While a chief executive is responsible for the actions of its administration, in the real world, the chief executive of any state (much less a state with an entrenched liberal bureaucracy like Massachusetts) cannot and should not waste his time, effort, and limited political capital cleansing the expression and actions of minor state officials. Changes in bureaucracies occur only after time and only with legislative cooperation—two instruments the Governor did not have.

CONCLUSION

MassResistance would have conservatives believe that Mitt Romney’s words from twelve years ago are more relevant than his actions as Governor of Massachusetts. For the first time in many years, conservatives have a presidential candidate who not only shares their core political and moral values but can also communicate those values in a persuasive, compelling, and—yes—unifying way. We should not permit distortions, leftist-style scare tactics, and identity politics to obscure the truth about Mitt Romney—a man of principle who is and will be the best conservative standard-bearer in 2008.

David French is a co-founder of Evangelicals for Mitt (www.evangelicalsformitt.org), an independent website dedicated to spreading awareness about Governor Mitt Romney among Christian conservatives. David holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and is a leading constitutional attorney. He lives outside Nashville with his family and worships at Zion Presbyterian Church, a congregation of the Presbyterian Church in America. E-mail: david@evangelicalsformitt.org

[Edit35]

(Huckabee) is such an embarrassment to Christianity.

As an avid Romney supporter, my take on Mike Huckabee is much different.

I believe him to be absolutely sincere in his Christian faith, and I believe him to be an upstanding person.

In my mind, however, Huckabee is running for President in order to PROMOTE his Christian faith.... and the idea of improving America is an afterthought.

People like George W. Bush ran for office in order to improve and protect America ... yet remain very proud and respectful of their Christian faith.

There is a BIG difference between the two.

"Bible-thumping" Christians like myself are scared that Huckabee would create a Theocracy in the White House, which would antagonize secular Republicans, Democrats, and most of the free world.

There is a reason the founders put the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution... and Huckabee has already violated that clause in spirit several times already --

And he's not even President, and hopefully never will be.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Given the clear record, it’s a shame that we have to waste any time on debunking this stuff again and again.

Conservatives aren’t going to be elected to dogcatcher if we continue the habit of eating our own.

[squireofgothos]

I’m quite aware that Fred is out. And that is a real shame, because he seemed to be the most conservative of the bunch. Let’s go over my list shall we? We are left with—

Hillary— an evil communist who reminds me of Cruella DeVille from 101 Dalmations

Obama- A fascist black Muslim

McCain- An open-borders fellow with a lisp —He is “an odd man”

And Romney- anyone who knows ANYTHING about him, please get back to me. And he’s a Mormon, and now we’re supposed to love Mormonism. Hey isn’t that peachy! Let’s make him President.

And don’t worry about my previous post— it’s been deleted by the Mods, so it doesn’t have to offend you anymore! That bad old comment can’t scare you anymore! It’s gone! Thank goodness. Imagine what kind of world we’d have if people could speak their minds. I shudder to think. You’re okay now!

[fweingart]

He’s the only chance we have left.

[Secret Agent Man]

First, you better read posts better. I never said their underwear was “magical.”

Second, whether you want to believe it or not, there are many Mormons who believe the underwear gives them protection. I have seen interviews with ex-members who believed that, and current members who feel that way. You can put your head in the sand and believe what you want.

Third, I did not level criticism of Mitt for wearing them or say he believes he’s protected by them.

Try some decaf.

[Reno232]

Great point!

[EverOnward]

Saving this for reference —

[Edit35]

Putting your faith in ANY relic or icon to give you supernatural protection no matter what you are doing is testing the Lord...

Let's hear your diatribe against Catholics for their Rosary Beads, for having a statue of St. Mary on their dashboard to protect them from accidents.

Let's hear about Roman Catholic prayers to long-dead Saints who the Vatican says will help them ... find lost items.

How bout some hoo-rahs for those who must eat fish on Friday, because... well, I don't know why.

And how bout those virgin Priests taking confessions... where is that in the Bible?

And lest anyone think me crude (it wouldn't be the first time), I should state that I dearly LOVE MY CATHOLIC Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

They are salvation Christians better than or equal to any other denomination.

Heck, I married a Catholic and raised my kids as Catholics.

But let's get real here.

All religions do things which aren't found in the King James Version of the Holy Scriptures.

Even my own childhood raise denomination of Baptist, strict Baptist.

Mitt Romney is an upstanding moral man who should be judged on the content of his character, not the color of his Church.

[TexasCajun]

I’ll proudly hold my nose and vote for Mitt for President of the United States after we slap down Mr. MeCain from the Republican nomination and the “Maverick”, who in one last finger to Conservatives and Rush Limbaugh, formally joins the Democrat party as the Vice President selection of the Democrat challenger.

[Edit35]

Mitt/Huck..

I like Mitt/Santorum .... even IF Rick didn't get re-elected in Pennsylvania.

Dozens of good and decent Republicans got the boot in 2006 --- because of the Foley demoralization....

because of the Iraq violence demoralization.....

Because (this was my pet peeve) President GWB screwed the Republican Party with his suicidal AMNESTY proposal .....

Anyway, Santorum would be great ... and perhaps it would put Pennsylvania in the Republican camp.

[Saundra Duffy]

Would you discuss what kind of underwear the Pope wears? Of course not. For one thing, it’s none of your dang business. Have you no shame? You know, the Jews wear different clothing. Other faiths have certain customs and practices that seem odd to many people. But this is America for God’s sake! What you are doing when you make light of what some people consider sacred, you are showing your ignorance and meanness. Please knock it off. Grow up. Thank you.

[trisham]

I'm voting for Fred in the primary. :)

That being said, I could not care less that Mitt is a Mormon. He has a right to practice his religion, as I do mine.

[pogo101]

Nitpick: This “news” is 2 weeks old.

That having been said, I too am voting for Mitt, in Fred’s absence.

[mnehring]

Good post Sandra. What is up with some people’s obsession with underwear? Weird fetish I guess. Kind of like people who see gay people and symbols everywhere, makes you wonder what is in their closet.

[Edit35]

because he seemed to be the most conservative of the bunch.

When are people gonna admit that the MOST conservative person is not always the best candidate for the GOP.

If that were true, Pat Buchanan would have easily defeated Bush the father.

And Buchanan would have won over Bob Dole.

And Barry Goldwater would have defeated Lyndon Johnson.

It takes MUCH more than just being a hard-line conservative to win over the trust of the public.

Voters want to LIKE their candidate for President.

They want to believe that a candidate understands and empathizes with the vast portion of the population.

People want to trust their preferred candidate.

Duncan Hunter was certainly the strongest conservative, but his personality was just too dour and not-likable.

As for Fred, people didn't think he had enough energy and stamina to do the job of president.

That's another way of saying that people think (as did I) that Fred is past his prime, and would not be able to handle the rigors of the Presidency.

[etradervic]

Nice post. Mitt did well in last night’s debate.

[Rameumptom]

We should not permit distortions, leftist-style scare tactics, and identity politics to obscure the truth about Mitt Romney—a man of principle who is and will be the best conservative standard-bearer in 2008.

“I was a Social Liberal. I voted for John Anderson for president and Michael Dukakis for governor." Brian Camenker

Camenker can't even pass his own litmus test. He voted for gay loving, baby butcher politicians. His slander of Romney says more about him than it does Romney. It sounds like he hasn't fully given up his lefty ways.

Unfortunately, Camenker has done a lot of damage among conservatives in their opinion of Romney. He was helped along by the DNC who had his article front and center on their webpage for 6 months in late 2006 and early 2007 after Romney declared. It has been promoted on this site by individuals who are paid by other campaigns.

[EverOnward]

So, other than underwear, what criteria do you follow in choosing a candidate to vote for?

[Rameumptom]

Monday, December 11, 2006 SEKULOW ADDRESSES FALSE BOY SCOUT ALLEGATION

Here is the original article that points out specific places Camenker has lied.

[Spiff]

Would you discuss what kind of underwear the Pope wears? Of course not. For one thing, it’s none of your dang business. Have you no shame? You know, the Jews wear different clothing. Other faiths have certain customs and practices that seem odd to many people. But this is America for God’s sake! What you are doing when you make light of what some people consider sacred, you are showing your ignorance and meanness. Please knock it off. Grow up. Thank you.

I don't recall anyone beating on Lieberman about "magic" black leather head and arm boxes (Tefillin) or a "magic" box on his doorpost (Mezuzah) or whether he'd use these "magic" items in or on the Vice President's Mansion if he was elected. Leave it to the Republicans to bring up such things to shoot themselves in the foot and do damage to the best candidate they have right now.