Romney: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this. Russert: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level. Romney: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/6/ In case you missed it: Russert asked Romney if he still supported ENDA. Romney replied that he did support them at the state level. He said that implementing such laws “makes sense.” Russert: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy’s federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?
Thanks for that; I cut the cable cold turkey in 1990 and have never looked back. Talk radio, top-of-the-hour network radio news, and articles linked through this website are all but my only sources, anymore.
Seems Romney’s trying to invoke Federalism as a foil to save him from his pro-ENDA position syaing he’d NOT support Federal ENDA, but thinks it’d be a good thing for the 50 States to implement individually.
Well, that’s just a difference of methods, not a difference of substance. When you think 50 out of 50 States should implement XYZ, it isn’t much practical difference from having the FedGov implement XYZ; details might vary from State to State, but the overall result would be functionally the same.
Sorry, Mitt. The Skeleton is still there. FLUSH!!!