Posted on 05/28/2007 3:38:23 PM PDT by Jeff Fuller
PING (anyone with a more complete Romney PING list is welcome to pass it along)
McQueeg is starting to look for the strawberries again. He thinks Mitt stole them this time.
LOL
((( MITT ROMNEY PING )))
• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
THanks for spreading the PING.
Abortion-rights group rips Romney
Boston Herald
By ANDREW MIGA
10 September 1994
The leading abortion-rights group in Massachusetts yesterday accused GOP Senate candidate W. Mitt Romney of exaggerating his pro-choice views.
"He is not pro-choice," said Joyce Cunha, executive director of Mass Choice. "He's trying to have it both ways. He's anti-choice at heart. Massachusetts voters deserve to know the truth."
The Romney camp sharply denied the charge.
"The fact is that Mitt does support a woman's right to choose, and we hope Joyce and other members of Mass Choice meet with Mitt and listen to what he has to say," said Romney spokeswoman Ann Murphy.
Cunha cited a recent mailing by Massachusetts Citizens for Life urging its members to vote for Romney, who accepted the group's informal endorsement.
"Mr. Romney cannot credibly call himself pro-choice while accepting the endorsement of the state's largest anti-choice lobby," Cunha said.
Romney has said he would support the Freedom of Choice Act with two qualifications: as long as it did not go beyond codifying Roe v. Wade and as long as it leaves it to states to decide on using federal funds for abortion.
Romney has been criticized for some for not taking a clearer stand on abortion. One of his former GOP rivals, Janet Jeghelian, yesterday assailed Romney for waffling on abortion rights.
"I feel as though he's been ambivalent, ambigious," said Jeghelian, who said abortion rights were a critical issue to her.
She charged that Romney was opposed to the Freedom of Choice Act earlier this summer before the state party's convention and that Romney also said he opposed federal funding for abortion.
"To hear he's moderated some of these positions bothers me," she said. "We have to find more clarity in his message. He will be pilloried by Ted Kennedy this fall if he doesn't."
Cunha said her group would work hard this fall to get Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) re-elected.
"We will be highlighting the importance of Ted Kennedy's leadership on abortion and work to get out as many anti-Romney voters as possible," Cunha said.
______
Here's another from 1994:
Anti-abortion group endorses Romney bid
Boston Herald
By Ed Hayward
08 September 1994
U.S. Senate candidate W. Mitt Romney has tried to mold himself in the image of a Republican abortion rights advocate, but that didn't stop a Massachusetts anti-abortion group from endorsing him as the "logical vote for those who value human life."
The September issue of Massachusetts Citizens For Life News calls incumbent U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy "perhaps the worst person in the U.S. Senate from a prolife point of view."
Spokesmen for John Lakian, Romney's GOP primary opponent, and Kennedy said the endorsement showed Romney has tried to work both sides of the abortion divide to win votes.
"Mitt Romney is not pro-choice," said Rick Gureghian, Kennedy's campaign spokesman. "The endorsement unequivocally proves that Mitt Romney doesn't support a woman's right to choose and never will support a woman's right to choose."
Romney's "said he's privately pro-life, but as far as a public pronouncements he's attempted to mouth the pro-choice stand," said Lakian campaign manager John Alvis. "I think . . . the women of Massachusetts will see through that," Alvis said.
The antiabortion group dismissed Lakian because of his recurring credibility problems.
Lakian "is neither electable nor, unfortunately, able to tell it like it is," the group said. "With respect to the abortion issue, he'll say whatever fits the moment."
Alvis denied his candidate had flip-flopped on the abortion issue and accused Romney of courting the anti-abortion vote at the Republican convention and privately opposing abortion.
MCFL's endorsement of Romney is hardly ringing.
"Mitt Romney is electable and the MCFL Federal PAC believes that he is light years better on the prolife issues than the incumbent, and although we would prefer a 100 percent prolife candidate, in the real world we don't have one."
But Romney's camp welcomed any endorsement in the weeks prior the Sept. 20 faceoff with Lakian, though a spokesman said Romney didn't meet with the MCFL's representatives.
"We're happy to have any group endorse Mitt, especialy when you look at what they have to say about his Republican opponent," said Charles Manning, a Romney adviser who added that Romney has been "pro-choice" since 1970.
However, the group got several of Romney's positions on abortion legislation wrong, Manning said.
As opposed to the endorsement, Romney supports a federal health care plan option that includes abortion services, would vote for a law codifying the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion and backs federal funding for abortions as long as states can decide if they want the money, Manning said.
_______
So, we have pro-abortion types saying that Mitt is not pro-choice and a pro-life organization (the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, who have endorsed him in 08) saying that he is acceptably pro-life.(And this was before his "conversion" in 2004.) So one has to wonder, if, as has been charged, Mitt Romney is a "far-left, judicial supremacist", why would the Boston Globe be so adamant about outing one of their own? And why would the MCFL have given Mitt their endorsement, not once but twice, if he were in fact a flaming liberal? If liberals thought, as do some that call themselves conservative here on this forum, that Romney will be the death of the Republican party, wouldn't they strive to keep their mouths shut rather than rip him at every opportunity? Something to think about for those who are willing to give Mitt a look.
And so, you remain firmly on the sidelines, content to “despise” and rail against any and all Republican contenders and their supporters because they don’t fit your definition of perfection. Show some real courage and find a candidate that does fit your standard of perfection and then tell us why he is the best choice. Put that talented mind of yours to work for someone. Until then, I can only regard you as a professional critic who can dish it out but doesn’t want to take it. Those who can’t do, criticize.
You're welcome.
Jeff, please see a recent FReep email to you for a message about ping lists.
BTW, Jeff, keep up the good work!
I don’t think — at least I hope — that Jeff Fuller doesn’t knowingly make false statements.
But since his ridiculously laughable claim that abortion is the only issue on which Romney has flipped his positions has been so thoroughly and documentably discredited over the last year, Jeff’s painting me toward the corner of havng to believe that he’s intentionally trying to mislead people.
Let’s see...just off the top of my head, Romney:
* Supported abortion on demand, now says he opposes it.
* Supported Roe v Wade, now says he opposes it.
* Endorsed gays in the military, now says he doesn’t favor it “right now”...”during a time of war”...”at this time.”
* Endorsed Kennedy’s federal “gay rights” legislation, now says it’s not necessary.
* Said Catholic hospitals shouldn’t have to offer the morning-after pill, then later in the same week said they should.
* In 2002, opposed a Marriage Protection Amendment to his state’s constitution. Now postures himself a champion of the same.
* Said defining marriage should be a state issue. Now says the federal Constitution should be amended to define marriage.
* Said his views don’t line up with the NRA. Now brags about being a “life member” of the NRA (since last August).
* Served on the board of directors of one of the nation’s largest white-collar distributors of pornographic videos (the Marriott Corporation). Now says pornography in movies helped motivate the Va Tech shootings.
* Dissed Ronald Reagan. Now claims to be Ronald Reagan.
I’m getting tired...
McCains amendment 1190 seems to be misleading. It says Not later than the date on which status is adjusted under this section, the alien establishes the payment of any applicable Federal tax liability by establishing that....
To me, this looks like more lipstick on a pig. They have to make an agreement for payment to pay back taxes only if they want to apply for a green card (status is adjusted). If they just want to stay and work here, payment not required. Watch for their talking points to include the claim that illegals have to pay back taxes.
SA 1190. Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BURR, and Mr. SPECTER) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 1150 proposed by Mr. REID (for Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. SPECTER)) to the bill S. 1348, to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes; as follows:
On page 292 redesignate paragraphs (3) as (4) and (4) as (5).
On page 292, between lines 33 and 34, insert the following:
``(3) PAYMENT OF INCOME TAXES.
``(A) IN GENERAL.Not later than the date on which status is adjusted under this section, the alien establishes the payment of any applicable Federal tax liability by establishing that
``(i) no such tax liability exists;
``(ii) all outstanding liabilities have been paid; or
``(iii) the alien has entered into an agreement for payment of all outstanding liabilities with the Internal Revenue Service.
``(B) APPLICABLE FEDERAL TAX LIABILITY.For purposes of clause (i), the term `applicable Federal tax liability means liability for Federal taxes, including penalties and interest, owed for any year during the period of employment required by subparagraph (D)(i) for which the statutory period for assessment of any deficiency for such taxes has not expired.
``(C) IRS COOPERATION.The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish rules and procedures under which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall provide documentation to an alien upon request to establish the payment of all taxes required by this subparagraph.
``(D) IN GENERAL.The alien may satisfy such requirement by establishing that
``(i) no such tax liability exists;
``(ii) all outstanding liabilities have been met; or
``(iii) the alien has entered into an agreement for payment of all outstanding liabilities with the Internal Revenue Service and with the department of revenue of each State to which taxes are owed.
“So, we have pro-abortion types saying that Mitt is not pro-choice” after he tried to tell them that he was. Yes, that’s our man Mitt!
I believe Romney when he says he’s changed his mind... But are we supposed to pretend that his positions haven’t changed? You don’t have to have a solution to recognize that something’s a problem. And you don’t have to have a right answer to recognize a wrong one.
Perhaps the right choice just hasn’t presented itself yet.
Wow. Are you in the second grade?
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.