Posted on 06/21/2010 6:22:51 PM PDT by TitansAFC
Ann Coulter Hang-Ups shows Coulter repeatedly punting and ending interviews instead of answering valid questions about her defense of Romney who instituted 'gay' marriage & funded elective abortions. She can take it from the left, those soft-ball criticisms, but Ann Coulter refuses to substantively answer accusations from Bob Enyart, Bill Keller, Steve Deace and Gregg Jackson about her defense of aggressively pro-abortion, anti-marriage politicians.
So what.
Here's the deal, when Mitt was Governor of Massachusetts we had a Republican Governor in Massachusetts.
That's probably as good as it gets in that particular People's Republic, and when they finally vote in a Conservative in a statewide office I'm sure that person will demand a recount!
Some states and legislative districts are so encumbered with useless parasites that sometimes you just have to run a RINO to win ~ and when that happens we may gain control of a legislative body and set the legislative agenda.
Fur Shur, if a Democrat wins and they take control it's going to be all that tacky and "ignant" union and school teacher stuff all the way down to the big turtle at the bottom of the sea.
I'd take a Romney over any Democrat any time.
And what happened to that Court decision?
The video actually addresses this. Mitt was instrumental in getting the first gay “marriages” done.
The state Supreme Court ordered the legislature to enact a law allowing homosexual "marriage".
The Massachusetts Supreme Court and the pervert(s) who filed suit in the first place were responsible.
I know.I was there.
I agree with that. In 2008 (allot has changed) he would have been the strongest candidate against Obama. It remains to be seen how things will work out in the end. Obama will have inflicted lasting damage on the country. However, he has created an opportunity for a real conservative tidal wave. Certainly the country as a whole will be ready to vote for someone far to the right of Romney in 2012. In 2008 however, I don't think so.
So what is the claim? That she endorsed Romney, then Hunter, then Romney again? I suppose that’s possible.
How is that a first choice of Hunter?
In your own linked threads it even mentions that she had already endorsed Mitt Romney, not to mention that the actual endorsement itself she gave months earlier at CPAC that is available online.
Was she pissed-off about the smackdown from Schmidt? I wonder why she went back to Mitt, then?
Ugh. Ann with the Mitt fetish.........
Well, seems to me you shouldn’t be basing your opinions of Ann on her endorsements anyway. You keep telling me not to base my opinion of Palin on McCain, Carly, and Slick Perry endorsements. Which I don’t, BTW.
Interesting video but it seems to be erroneous in parts regarding gay marriage. At least if this time line is correct:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/timeline.html
There was in fact a court ruling that same-sex marriage is protected in the Mass. Constitution. It appears Romney did resist complying although he does seem to be OK with civil unions. Right or wrong, there are many conservatives that support that view. Even Limbaugh is open to that option. Either way, it doesn’t make Romney a liberal.
As for his views on abortion, his position is probably not relevant. Even presidents that claim the pro-life banner don’t do much about it. The main factor that would effect that would be nominating Conservative originalists to the court which Romney would do more then likely. The country is moving towards a more pro-life position so there has been major progress on that battle.
Romney was the fourth Republican Governor in a row, in a state that most often elects Republican governors, he wasn't exactly unique.
Only 25% of Governor Romney's appointed judges were republicans.
She’s pushing Obama’s hero and the inventor of “Romney Care,” that fiscal disaster afflicting the productive residents of Massachusetts.
I can't imagine supporting any Mass politician for national office. If he's liberal enough to be elected there, he's too liberal for me.
Romney destroyed a Constitution before Obama. Romney IS the preObama (which is why he attacked Gov. Palin through surrogates)
"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."
But what happened in that law case where the judges directed the state legislature to marry off the homosexuals? Now if I were Governor I would have had the State Police pick them up for INSURRECTION. Some of the "old families" there like the Patriarca's would know how to keep that covered up for a long time of course, and with some adjustments in the legislature, no one would miss them.
Mitt's not like that however.
Republican governors are common in Massachusetts, it is too bad that Romney finished his term with 34% approval and lost the seat to a democrat after initially desiring reelection until his own polling showed him that futility.
So, the question is, are Republican Governors “common” in Massachusetts. That’s addressed by going to the list. There you will observe that Democrats are equally “common”, and that in recent times several Republican governors served partial terms thereby leading people to believe they were being overrun by Republicans. BTW, William Weld technically counts as a “Republican” in Mass, but he’s actually a RINO. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Massachusetts
It wasn’t a question, it is a fact.
Republican Governors are common in Massachusetts, in fact most of them have been republican, including since 1950.
Romney was the fourth one in a row, he is not unique or unusual.
Standing up to the auto industry ? More of a giveaway to his union buds. What's Mitt smoking? Comments like that won't play well come next presidential season.
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.