Careful, or the Official Seal of the Democratic Party will be taken over by your side:
Posted on 08/09/2007 8:09:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
MITT ROMNEY is determined to prove he's pro-life. How about proving he's pro-truth?
Every time Romney tries to explain his evolution from supporter to opponent of abortion rights, his honesty comes into question. That's because his explanations over the years don't add up.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Get out your crystal ball, and tell me what the political “lay of the land” is next year, or the year after, and I’ll tell you what Romney’s positions will be then, too. ;-)
I find it especially humorous from people like you, DB, who tell us to ignore Fred's words and look only at his voting record. At least EV gives neither one of them a break (of course, that will only get us Rudy or Hillary).
Romney's actual record in the pro-life arena is middlin' at best, as EV has documented.
I find it especially humorous from people like you, DB, who tell us to ignore Fred's words and look only at his voting record.
Fred never came out as a die-hard supporter of Roe or abortion rights the way Mitt did. And Fred's voting record on abortion issues is quite solid.
At least EV gives neither one of them a break (of course, that will only get us Rudy or Hillary).
I think EV would say that Fred is more pro-life than Mitt. Not as pro-life as EV would like, but the pro-life distinction between the two men is clear. Mitt in 1994 and 2002 ran hard left on abortion. Fred was ambivilent, but steadily became more pro-life over the years.
The Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS), run by the Romney administration, honored a homosexual "married" couple (two men) as their adoptive "Parents of the Year" for 2006. The DSS has gained a reputation for being aggressively pro-homosexual over recent years. This incident sparked outrage across the country, but to our knowledge no policies or personnel at DSS were changed as a result.
- Waltham Daily News Tribune, 8/4/2006
He sure did.
And JUST LAST YEAR he signed his SOCIALIZED MEDICINE scheme into law, COMPLETE WITH TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTIONS.
In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as “too extreme” the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.
- Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004
“Mitt Romney’s wife, son, and daughter-in-law signed a petition in support of a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban both gay marriage and domestic-partner benefits in Massachusetts - an amendment that Romney himself condemned as too extreme after being told of his family’s support for it. … Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney campaign spokesman, said Romney opposes gay marriage but also opposes the amendment, since he sees no reason to change the current laws, which allow for domestic-partner benefits to public employees.… ‘Mitt did not know they signed it, and Mitt does not support it,’ he said. ‘As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it’s unnecessary.’ “
- Boston Globe 3/22/2002
“Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the “Protection of Marriage” amendment. “He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the ‘defense of marriage’ amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept.”
- Bay Windows 3/28/02
I suppose you have never changed your mind?
His voting record clearly shows that he is
pro life. It’s the voting record that counts
ALL POLOTICIANS say what you want to hear
It’s what they DO that counts. DOH!
How sad to spend so much time smearing someone on our side on this issue rather that fighting the true abortionists like Hillary, Obama and Edwards. For the life of me, I don't see the sense in that.
Voting record? Governors don't vote. They sign or veto stuff. And Mitt signed some stuff that it anethema to social conservatives.
Translation: All I have is Fred making ambivalent pro-choice statements, as compared to Mitt saying he had always been in favor of abortion rights and strongly supports Roe. So I better not go there.
ffice it to say, that I welcome them both as full-fledged members of the pro-life movement. As should we all.
It's one thing to welcome them to the pro-life movement. It's another to evaluate whether they are suitable to be the standard-bearer for the party. Given the wide range of shifts in Mitt's positions, from abortion to immigration, it is quite rational to try and determine if Mitt is being honest or expedient here.
How sad to spend so much time smearing someone on our side on this issue
Since when is the truth a smear? You sound like Hillary.
Oh please, give me a break. You sound like Ron Paul, or Mike Gravel. Neener neener. You’re it. Let’s not be childish.
Timeline Documents Romney’s Role in Creating Same-Sex “Marriages”
I. Mitt Romney demonstrates his commitment to homosexual “rights” before becoming Governor of Massachusetts in January 2003:
1994 Campaign vs. Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate: Romney pledged he “will provide more effective leadership” than Kennedy on homosexual rights; endorsed by Log Cabin Republicans.
2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating.
2001 Called first citizens’ petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions.
2002 Campaign for Governor: Romney makes promises to GLBT community, according to leading Boston homosexual newspaper; endorsed by homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans.
II. Nov. 18, 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rules that same-sex marriage is protected in the Mass. Constitution, and gives the Legislature 180 days to act (“Goodridge” ruling).
Nov. 18, 2003 Romney responds to SJC ruling with four-sentence statement implicitly recognizing SJC’s authority, says only remedy will be a constitutional amendment: “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman.”
Nov.-Dec. 2003 Romney reportedly working with Legislators promoting “civil unions”.
Jan. 2004 Romney silent on proposal to remove four SJC justices through Bill of Address (put forward by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance).
Feb. 4, 2004 SJC tells Legislature that civil unions for same-sex couples will not satisfy its interpretation of the Mass. Constitution; only full-fledged marriage will do.
Feb. 5, 2004 Romney publishes editorial in Wall Street Journal laying all blame on the SJC for problem in Massachusetts. Suggests other states strengthen marriage statutes and pass constitutional amendments. Says don’t “attack … gays, singles or non-traditional couples.”
Feb. 2004 Justices of the Peace are told by their professional association they will be able to claim “conscientious objector” status and refuse to perform same-sex marriages — though this was never agreed to by Romney administration.
Feb.-May 2004 Pro-family leaders and columnists urge Romney to defy court, and issue Executive Order to block same-sex marriage; no public comment from Romney.
March 12, 2004 As Legislature postures on constitutional amendments, Romney continues to say amendment to Mass. Constitution is solution.
March 26, 2004 Word leaks out that Romney’s Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and attorneys are planning training sessions for Town Clerks and preparing same-sex marriage licenses.
March 29, 2004 Romney tells Republicans in Mass. legislature to vote for Travaglini-Lees “compromise amendment” which would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions (and would not go to voters before Nov. 2006). Republican legislators had earlier opposed this amendment because of the civil unions clause, and it passed only due to their changed votes.
March 29-31, 2004 Romney seeks stay of SJC ruling until constitutional amendment issue is settled, but Atty. General Reilly refuses to take Governor’s case before SJC. [Did Romney believe that same court that issued Goodridge ruling would seriously consider his request for a stay?]
March 30, 2004 Romney says he’ll “abide by the law of the land as it exists on May 17” and says he would not order town clerks to defy court edict. Romney says he’d not explored the Constitution section giving him power over “causes of marriage” and whether it gives him any legal power to stop same-sex marriage (according to spokesman).
April 12, 2004 Romney spokesman says training sessions for town clerks will begin “with plenty of room to spare before May 17.” Ron Crews of Mass. Coalition for Marriage states hope for an Executive Order to halt the marriages.
April 15, 2004 Romney files emergency bill in Legislature to seek stay of SJC ruling, and is rebuffed and reprimanded by Senate President Travaglini.
April 15, 2004 Romney’s DPH Registrar of Vital Records informs town clerks by letter of training sessions before SJC ruling becomes effective.
April 16, 2004 Romney announces his administration is scheduling training sessions for May 5-12 with licenses changed from “husband/wife” to “Party A/Party B”.
April 17, 2004 Mass. Dept. of Revenue (under Romney) declares SJC ruling the new “law”.
April 22, 2004 Romney does not comment on Rep. Goguen’s filing of Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove the 4 SJC judges, or Article 8’s revelation of Chief Justice Marshall’s violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Marshall had appeared as keynote speaker at homosexual advocacy group dinner in 1999 advocated extension of “rights” for homosexuals, and failed to recuse herself from ruling on same-sex marriage though she had publicly expressed her bias.)
April 26, 2004 Romney’s chief Legal Counsel, Daniel Winslow, issues directive to Justices of the Peace to resign (or be fired, fined, or sued) if they are unwilling to perform same-sex marriages (exact date not given on document).
April 29, 2004 Romney writes to 49 other Governors to inform them he’ll uphold section of Mass. marriage statutes banning same-sex marriages for out-of-state couples.
May 5-12, 2004 Town clerk training sessions held. [GLAD – Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders — is only source on content of sessions; perhaps they were responsible for content?]
May 15, 2004 Romney issues proclamation: May 15 is “Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day”. Romney’s “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” events include parade, GLBT activism (with prominent transsexual radical activists), and a GLBT prom – two days before same-sex marriages are to begin.
May 17, 2004 Same-sex marriages begin across Massachusetts. Romney issues brief statement: “All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.” [What law? Original marriage statutes clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman were –and are — still on the books, unchanged by the Legislature. So Romney is not enforcing the actual law—just a court opinion.]
May 18, 2004 Romney begins enforcement of section of marriage statute banning out-of-state couples marrying in Mass. if that marriage would be illegal in their home state, while other intact sections of the marriage statute (“man” and “woman”) are ignored.
June 22, 2004 Romney testifies before US Senate Judiciary Committee for federal marriage amendment and blames Court for situation in Massachusetts.
Oct. 29, 2004 Romney signs new law eliminating blood test for STDs as requirement for marriage license (Ch. 388 of Acts of 2004). [Note: this is the only part of marriage statutes changed to satisfy demands of same-sex marriage]
Dec. 2004 Romney has no comment on bills filed by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance for 2005-6 session: to remove four SJC judges; strengthen definition of marriage in statute; and declare same-sex marriages since May 17, 2004 null/void and without statutory basis.
Feb. 21, 2005 Romney makes speech before South Carolina Republicans, then is accused of “flip-flopping” on civil unions by homosexual lobby. Romney also negatively refers to demands by the homosexual activists that birth certificates be changed to read “Parent A/Parent B” (instead of “father/mother”), arguing he had no authority to make such a change [though he had no such qualms about changing the marriage license].
June 16, 2005 Romney joins VoteOnMarriage (VOM) amendment effort, which would recognize same-sex marriages prior to amendment taking effect, and not ban civil unions. (Romney says VOM is superior to the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment.) Romney also announces support of VOM’s proposed bill promoting partnership benefits for any couple wanting them (see “Benefits Fairness Act” filed Jan. 2006). Romney says he’s opposed to removing the four SJC judges. Calls for a “high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.”
July 22, 2005 Romney says only Legislature can change birth certificates from “father/mother” to “Parent A/Parent B”.
Sept. 14, 2005 Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment defeated in Legislature.
Nov. 2005 Romney tells Federalist Society that judiciary must be grounded in Constitution and law and precedents, and only the Legislature and people can change that base.
Jan. 2, 2006 Boston Globe reports Romney issued special Governor’s ceremonial marriage licenses to 189 same-sex couples in 2005 (including to homosexual activist state senator), claiming he did not refuse because he was evenly applying the “statute”. [Note: There is no new statute establishing same-sex marriage.]
Jan. 11, 2006 Romney files “Benefits Fairness Act” with VoteOnMarriage, which is roundly criticized by GLBT lobby, and shelved in Committee as late-filed bill.
March 10-14, 2006 Romney says laws require Catholic Charities not to discriminate against same-sex parents in its adoption placements [but there’s only an administrative regulation]. He says same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest” in adopting children.
June 2, 2006 Romney sends letter to US Congress arguing for federal marriage amendment.
June 28, 2006 Romney urges Legislature to vote on VOM amendment, and addresses importance of following Constitution.
Sept. 30, 2006 Romney says he has to “follow the law,” and accept Mass. Superior Court ruling stating Rhode Island lesbian couple can marry in Massachusetts (following an earlier SJC ruling addressing Rhode Island’s lack of prohibition of same-sex marriage).
Oct. 15, 2006 Romney addresses nationally broadcast “Liberty Sunday” (Family Research Council) event in Boston. Blames SJC for Mass. problems, says we need an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people regardless of different choices they make, and as a nation we must reject discrimination and bigotry. Calls for support of federal marriage amendment.
Nov. 19, 2006 Romney holds rally on State House steps announcing he’s delivering a copy of the Constitution to every Legislator who voted to recess the Constitutional Convention (to avoid the vote on the VOM amendment required by state Constitution). Romney also announces he’s appealing to the courts. [But he says nothing about the SJC precedent of Dec. 20, 2002, ruling that the Legislature must vote in this situation, which already affirms that he should call Legislators back.]
http://massresistance.org//docs/marriage/romney/timeline.html
Baloney.
It’s the voting record that counts ALL POLOTICIANS say what you want to hear It’s what they DO that counts. DOH!
Just last year, Romney signed his socialized medicine scheme into law, complete with taxpayer-funded abortions. That FACT definitely outweighs anything he could say now, that's for sure.
Oh, and by the way, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, and James Carville thought it was AWESOME.
Careful, or the Official Seal of the Democratic Party will be taken over by your side:
Let me know when you need more proof from “other sources.”
OK, this has gone from bad to boring with the rehashing. Ciao for now, EV.
Sad, I thought we were on the same side. Some people lose sight of what is truly at stake here.
During the four years of Romney's tenure, the number of registered Republicans in Massachusetts fell by 31,000. During that same period, the Massachusetts Democratic Party gained 30,000.
- Boston Globe 11/2/2006
In the 2006 elections, most offices were not even challenged by Republican candidates. In the November general election for the six statewide Massachusetts constitutional offices there were more Green-Rainbow Party candidates on the ballot than Republicans!
The party's slide has been so precipitous that Republicans yesterday did not contest 130 of 200 legislative seats, fielded a challenger in only three of 10 congressional districts, and put up fewer candidates for statewide office (three) than the Green-Rainbow Party (four).
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006
In 2006, while Romney was chairman of the National Republican Governors Association - a group dedicated to electing more Republican governors - his own hand-picked Republican successor as governor lost badly to the Democrat, despite the fact that Republicans have held the governorship in Massachusetts since 1990. Romney largely ignored the Massachusetts elections and spent most of the time during the campaign out of state building his presidential campaign. He came back and publicly campaigned for the Republican candidate the day before the general election!
"Locally, this is a rebuke to Mitt Romney and checking out within six months after being elected and having accomplished almost nothing," said [Jim] Rappaport [former chairman of the state Republican Party].
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006
"Romney arrived on the scene with great promise, but is leaving the Republican Party here in shambles. Not only are the Republicans yielding the governor's office for the first time in 16 years, but registered Republicans have fallen by 31,000 since Romney took office, and their legislative presence is at historic lows. But it worked out fine for him: He is now chasing the prize he really covets, the presidency."
- Boston Globe 11/8/2006
"The Massachusetts Republican Party died last Tuesday. The cause of death: failed leadership. The party is survived by a few leftover legislators and a handful of county officials and grassroots activists who have been ignored for years. Services will be public and a mass exodus of taxpayers will follow. In lieu of flowers, send messages to New Hampshire Republican voters warning them about a certain presidential candidate named Romney."
- Boston Herald, 11/12/2006
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.