Where's Mitt Romney? [Is Romney Finished?]

National Review ^ | November 03, 2009 | Kathryn Jean Lopez

[Jim Noble]

Where's Mitt Romney? [Is Romney Finished?]

He never started.

[broncobilly]

As I posted on another thread:

---

This poses an excellent question: Just where was Mitt and Huck?
I’ll tell you where they were! Taking a page from ‘Zero’ and voting present is where!

---

No, he wasn’t voting present. In just October, he was campaigning for other Republicans, making stops in California, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. He was raising money for DeMint and stumping with McDonnell.
When ever Romney goes public, many on FR say he should shut up and go away. When he doesn’t, the same types say he is showing cowardice and “voting present.” He is doing what he can to help.
Some Republicans or Conservatives eager to dump on fellow Republicans and Conservatives they don’t agree with sows dissension and I think is the greatest “Achilles Heel” for the conservatives in the next election. I think they should reach down in their soul and find a more positive, consistent way to express their feelings.

[Manic_Episode]

"Romney has never been pro-abortion."

===========================================

Are you a liar or just stupid?

Romneys own words on abortion

[SE Mom]

Is Mitt finished?

One can only hope..

[broncobilly]

I have watched it many times. I watched it again.
You try watching it and this time try not to make a knee jerk reaction.
Never once in that video did he say he was pro abortion.
He said he would not try to change the present pro-choice law. He would be pro choice as far as how he would govern MA.
Mormons have a dilemma. They are against abortion, but they also are for obeying and sustaining the law. Mormon are told to obey the law or change it, not break it. All Romney is saying is that he will not try to change the MA or federal law while he is governor. Nothing more. Nothing less.
That does not say that he likes abortion or thinks it is morally acceptable. Essentially, he is saying the issue is one that he will let the woman, her physician, and perhaps her minister decide.
If Romney had campaigned to try to change everything in MA that he didn't personally agree with, he would never had the chance to do anything for MA. He wanted his main focus to be on MA fiscal problems.

[Manic_Episode]

He says repeatedly "I am in favor of preserving and protecting a woman's right to choose".

I believe him.

[Diogenesis]

Romney breaks laws anytime he wants, like Obama.

Romney uses fake badges. Romney broke the Mass Constitution
to impose gay marriage.

---

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor/Dictator Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.

Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."

[Colofornian]

Romney has never been pro-abortion.

(That must have been a Romney clone, then, debating Teddy in 1994, eh?):
1994 campaign in Massachusetts "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)

Please note, all, that whenever a Mormon uses that word "sustain" -- it's a special word indicating the highest level of support. Lds use it to "sustain" their "prophets" at general conferences!

[Colofornian]

Romney has never been pro homosexual-behaviour

You can't separate the two...'cause you don't even know if someone is homosexual or not aside from the behavior. Romney told the MA Log Cabin Republicans,"If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern." (Oct. 6, 1994 letter)

Obviously, part of that "equality" gays & lesbians seek is "marriage equality." So, in your opinion, is homosexual "marriage" a "non-discriminatory" issue as you claim -- or is it a behavioral matter?

If Romney is on the board of directors of a company to represent financial issues, that does not make him pro pornography...

(That's like saying, "If Pimp Dude A represents various prostitutes' 'financial issues,' that does not make him pro-prostitution..."...Or don't you get it that the very reason Marriott has offered porn for X # of years is that it's a very profitable "financial issue?")

[broncobilly]

Obviously, part of that “equality” gays & lesbians seek is “marriage equality.” So, in your opinion, is homosexual “marriage” a “non-discriminatory” issue as you claim — or is it a behavioral matter?

---

Equality means, to me, that they can marry heterosexually if they want to.
To me, marriage is more than companionship and affection, it is a binding between a man and a woman to have children and raise them to become responsible members of society.
Children need a father and a mother for healthy psy hological growth. Homosexuals can’t do that. They can go ahead and have companionship and affection without the marriage.
Marriage is a special relationship that is the foundation of society. Homosexual marriage doesn’t do that.

Marriott is a chain. Individual hotels, owned by groups other than Mariott, set many of their own policiies. If something is legal, I don’t think Marriott or Marriott’s board can dictate on that. In the same way, you can refuse to shop at Safeway because they sell liquor, but since it is legal, there is not much you can do about it.

[broncobilly]

You don’t seem to realize that there are those who are adamantly opposed to abortion, but still want it to be the decision of a woman and her physician, hopefully influenced by prayer and her minister or rabbi, and not some government edict hanging over the head of the woman and her physician.
What if ultra sound told you your child would have two heads or some other horrible deformity. Would you want the government to tell you what to do, or would you rather it be between you, your physician, and God and let it be solved in complete privacy?

[Colofornian]

Marriott is a chain. Individual hotels, owned by groups other than Mariott, set many of their own policiies. If something is legal, I don’t think Marriott or Marriott’s board can dictate on that.

Sure it can. The Board of Directors is key leadership. Leadership, like leadership @ the Omni Hotel Chain, elected to cut out porn across the board. Besides, no one has "arm twisted" that Romney be directly linked to the porn industry, have they? (Or that he takes his "porn cut" from the $25,000 + stock he's earned from his Marriott association?)

In the same way, you can refuse to shop at Safeway because they sell liquor, but since it is legal, there is not much you can do about it.

Have you ever noticed, BB, that supermarkets don't sell hard-core porn? Have you ever wondered why something that is "legal" is sell isn't offered up @ supermarket chains? Could it be there's a certain shame, stigma, and reputation infection that comes with contracting with women to sell their bodies & then profiteering off of that?

Besides, are you disagreeing with me or with the Lds church on this issue -- which owns the Deseret News? Here's a July 10 2007 editorial run in the Deseret News:
TheNastyTaintOfPorn

Pornography taints everything it touches. Mitt Romney should have understood that. So should the Marriott Corp. and other hotel owners who offer hard-core movies in hotel rooms.

Romney caught a bit of flack last week because he spent nearly 10 years on the Marriott board and yet never tried to reverse the company's policy of providing pornography on demand, something J.W. "Bill" Marriott Jr., defended in a 2000 letter as being economically important. The corporation controls only a few of the hotels with its name on them.

For a presidential candidate who has railed against pornography, this is not entirely insignificant. Even if the subject never came up at a board meeting, one can argue that at least part of the $25,000 plus stock he was paid annually for his board membership came from the money some hotel guests paid for access to the films.

Make no mistake about pornography's influence on society. A recent report from the American Psychological Association drew strong ties between pornography's pervasive influence and the "sexualization" of girls and women. This, the report said, has resulted in greater societal sexism; "fewer girls pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics; increased rates of sexual harassment and sexual violence; and an increased demand for child pornography."

Romney seemed to understand this when he told graduates at the Christian-owned Regent University that pornography poisons "our music and movies and TV and video games."

SNIP

Interestingly, several hotel chains have decided to forego the extra money out of a sense of moral obligation. The Web site cleanhotels.com helps travelers locate these. The site includes what it calls, "The Clean Hotels Pledge." Among other things, this pledge recognizes, "the addictive nature of pornography" ... "that marriages, families and careers have been devastated because individuals have developed an addiction to pornography after being lured into viewing a pornographic movie in the privacy of their hotel room," and that children can accidentally be exposed to images that "can have a lasting negative effect."

That lasting negative effect can be like the stains you get from playing with a barrel of paint. Even if you don't like the color, it tells the tale of where you've been.

Source: Deseret News, July 10, 2007

[Colofornian]

Equality means, to me, that they can marry heterosexually if they want to.

Give me a break, BB! Romney wasn't writing to you for you to insert, 15 years later, what your best "spin" definition of "equality" is to try to make him look the best! He was writing to politically-oriented homosexuals in the first state that was to politically pass same-sex "marriage."

To me, marriage is more than companionship and affection, it is a binding between a man and a woman to have children and raise them to become responsible members of society. Children need a father and a mother for healthy psy hological growth. Homosexuals can’t do that. They can go ahead and have companionship and affection without the marriage.

So, are you saying that because "homosexuals can't 'socially marry' even if it's 'legal' or becomes legal across the country, that we shouldn't oppose it because of your feelings that 'homosexuals can't do that' -- they can't raise children responsibly?"

[lady lawyer]

Maybe the guys at the bottom of your list simply recognized that a third party coming from the right will always help the Democrat. Turns out, they were correct.

[Colofornian]

You don’t seem to realize that there are those who are adamantly opposed to abortion, but still want it to be the decision of a woman and her physician, hopefully influenced by prayer and her minister or rabbi, and not some government edict hanging over the head of the woman and her physician.

You don't seem to realize there are those who are adamantly opposed to killing a Jew themselves, but still want it to be the decision of Nazi sympathizers, hopefully NOT influenced by prayer and their so-called "ministers", despite government edicts like "thou shalt not murder" hanging over their heads.

You don't seem to realize that there are voters who are are adamantly opposed to committing physician-assisted suicide themselves, but still want it to be the decision of a person and her/his physician as to whether the physician should kill off that person, hopefully NOT influenced by prayer and her minister or rabbi, and hopefully not some government edict like in Oregon where it's "open season" on suicide-minded people -- an Oregon law hanging over their heads -- one that allows the so-called oath-bound "healing" profession to further join the ranks of the killing machine.

What if ultra sound told you your child would have two heads or some other horrible deformity.

So pre-born babies are "two-headed monsters" now -- not creatures created by God -- and we need to dismember them before they taint the air around us? And if they are "monsters" in the womb why not extend your philosophy toward them once born? (Sounds to me that the March of Dimes could curtail disabilities in our lifetime if you were in their lead -- why, you might advocate killing off disabilities by killing off the disabled!)

Would you want the government to tell you what to do, or would you rather it be between you, your physician, and God and let it be solved in complete privacy?

What you don't seem to realize is that 90% of abortions are done by full-time abortionists--not part-time OB-GYNs/part-time abortionists. And, no, full-time abortionists don't get in some "holy huddle" with their client and local minister and pray about how they are going to slice & dice the baby up.

As far as I'm concerned, either you are...
...pro-abortion...
...OR you've let pro-abortion arguments heavily influence you...
...OR you so far politically in bed with Romney that even if you've previously have had pro-life sentiments, you're having to dig deep into pro-abortion arguments in order to defend him.