Governor Mitt Romney On Fred Thompson Withdrawing His Candidacy

Bush never tried to ram the McCain-Feingold Bill down our throats.

McCain did that. How come you are not upset at McCain - but just Bush.

Interesting, I’m not a big Mitt fan, though I guess I’m in his camp now. But what don’t you like about his stimulus plan? That’s one of the things I think he got quite right: to focus on real, business-enhancing permanent tax cuts instead of short-term giveaways.

No! NO! No More Bush'es!

No more Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton. No more dynasties for now! Ever!

That's what the founders came over here to get away from.(among many, many other things)

Romney needs to get the most conservative veep he can find. Michael Steele. Tancredo. Santorum. George Allen. Duncan Hunter. Heck, even Fred would be pretty fantastic.

If Mitt wants to prove his conservatism, that's one of the easiest ways I can think of him doing it.

NOW, BY G$D YER TALKIN .....

THATS WHAT IM TALKIN ABOUT....

MIT/ANNIE IN ‘08

TRULY AN RX FOR THE US....

Stop bitching?

Dream on. Maybe you do not remember the hatred for Bush on our site all the last 8 years. I do.

I can’t remember how many times I read “if Bush does not ........, he will lose my support.” As if they ever once ever supported him. So much more fun to criticize from an armchair you know.

Well, the Bush days will be the “good ole’ days” as those were the last days of one who stood up for America against the dems, against the enemies. Those were the last days of protection for our country, good economics, and conservative judges. Those were the last days of trust in our leader.

And let us see YOU create that perfect conservatism instead of tearing it down as has been done for the last 8 years.

Come on - give us a candidate. Where is your perfect conservative that YOU will support.

Are you all hat and no cattle?

“Mighty Mouse”? Isn’t that what Rush used to call John Kerry?

What a dismal day for us. I just hope Fred doesn’t support any candidate - verbally, that is. I can’t imagine how much kiss a**ing must be going on.

Well, how about caving to liberals, how about being an eastern elitist, how about his religion, how about coming from the east.

Our best presidents never come from the east. They do not understand middle America.

I think it’s gonna be Jim DeMint. He’s pretty conservative and at least opposed shamnesty.

Mitt lived the first 20 years of his life in Michigan. He understands middle America.

Fine I read that, and as an example this:

Homosexual Rights
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#gayrights

Mitt Romney has always opposed same-sex marriage. He diligently lobbied Congress in favor of a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. Romney testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the Federal Marriage Amendment, and sent a letter to all 100 U.S. Senators on June 2, 2006 asking them to vote for the Amendment. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson oppose the FMA.
Institute For Marriage and Public Policy President Maggie Gallagher, writing for National Review Online, wrote that the Governor's testimony on the issue before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was "the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician."
^{(Maggie Gallagher, "In Defense Of The Family," National Review Online, 6/25/2004)}
Governor Romney: "Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary."
^{("The Importance of Protecting Marriage", Letter from Gov. Romney to U.S. Senators, 6/02/2006)}
Governor Romney: "A lot of people get confused that gay marriage is about treating gay people the same as treating heterosexual people, and that's not the issue involved here."
"This is about the development and nurturing of children. Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children, and children's development, I believe, is greatly enhanced by access to a mom and a dad."
"I think every child deserves a mom and a dad, and that's why I'm so consistent and vehement in my view that we should have a federal amendment which defines marriage in that way."
^{(George Stephanopoulos, "Mitt Romney: The Complete Interview," ABC News This Week, 2/18/2007) • (Mitt TV Clip)}

doesn't jive with this: Note links point to: http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/ and will not work from here.

How Gov. Mitt Romney started same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts - despite what he says now!

Same-sex "marriage" is still NOT legal in Massachusetts, and was NOT created by the Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge ruling.
Timeline documents Mitt Romney's role in creating same-sex "marriages."
In fact, it was Governor Mitt Romney who was ultimately responsible for same-sex "marriages" taking place. The Supreme Judicial Court only issued an opinion and advised the Legislature to act (which it never did). Even the Court acknowledged that it had no power to change the law.
Governor Romney created these "marriages" through an unconstitutional and illegal directive to his Department of Public Health (to print new "marriage" licenses), and through his legal counsel threatened to fire any Town Clerk or Justice of the Peace who failed to implement the (non-existent) "new law". He was not required by any constitutional mandate to do these things. On the contrary, his actions clearly violated his oath to uphold the laws of Massachusetts.

What did the Goodridge decision actually say?
To start with of all, the 2003 Goodridge SJC decision on same-sex "marriage", which reversed a lower court ruling, said 4 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. (And the logic they use for this is truly bizarre; you must read it in full sometime.)

"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."

What happened then?
The Legislature did nothing. It took no action. So after the 180 days Gov. Romney took action on his own!

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. (At least one Justice of the Peace, Linda Gray Kelley, was forced to resign for religious reasons.)

See Associated Press article, "Justices of the peace warned not to discriminate against same sex couples" April 25, 2004.
Romney's staff held training sessions for Town Clerks, warning them to "implement" the Court decision and "uphold the law" -- although the training document admits that the marriage statutes have not been changed.
Romney directed his Department of Public Health to change the state marriage license to read "Party A" and Party "B", replacing "Husband" and "Wife". None of this was required by any law passed by the legislature or even ordered by the court.

See Romney's Massachusetts Marriage license. Homosexual Rights http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#gayrights Mitt Romney has always opposed same-sex marriage. He diligently lobbied Congress in favor of a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. Romney testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the Federal Marriage Amendment, and sent a letter to all 100 U.S. Senators on June 2, 2006 asking them to vote for the Amendment. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson oppose the FMA. Institute For Marriage and Public Policy President Maggie Gallagher, writing for National Review Online, wrote that the Governor's testimony on the issue before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was "the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician." (Maggie Gallagher, "In Defense Of The Family," National Review Online, 6/25/2004) Governor Romney: "Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary." ("The Importance of Protecting Marriage", Letter from Gov. Romney to U.S. Senators, 6/02/2006) Governor Romney: "A lot of people get confused that gay marriage is about treating gay people the same as treating heterosexual people, and that's not the issue involved here." "This is about the development and nurturing of children. Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children, and children's development, I believe, is greatly enhanced by access to a mom and a dad." "I think every child deserves a mom and a dad, and that's why I'm so consistent and vehement in my view that we should have a federal amendment which defines marriage in that way." (George Stephanopoulos, "Mitt Romney: The Complete Interview," ABC News This Week, 2/18/2007) • (Mitt TV Clip)Homosexual Rights http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#gayrights Mitt Romney has always opposed same-sex marriage. He diligently lobbied Congress in favor of a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. Romney testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the Federal Marriage Amendment, and sent a letter to all 100 U.S. Senators on June 2, 2006 asking them to vote for the Amendment. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson oppose the FMA. Institute For Marriage and Public Policy President Maggie Gallagher, writing for National Review Online, wrote that the Governor's testimony on the issue before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was "the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician." (Maggie Gallagher, "In Defense Of The Family," National Review Online, 6/25/2004) Governor Romney: "Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary." ("The Importance of Protecting Marriage", Letter from Gov. Romney to U.S. Senators, 6/02/2006) Governor Romney: "A lot of people get confused that gay marriage is about treating gay people the same as treating heterosexual people, and that's not the issue involved here." "This is about the development and nurturing of children. Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children, and children's development, I believe, is greatly enhanced by access to a mom and a dad." "I think every child deserves a mom and a dad, and that's why I'm so consistent and vehement in my view that we should have a federal amendment which defines marriage in that way." (George Stephanopoulos, "Mitt Romney: The Complete Interview," ABC News This Week, 2/18/2007) • (Mitt TV Clip)

That was his theme song music for Lurch, yes.

don’t know how that big long link got in the bottom of that. sorry, was only meant to be one line.

You may not want another Bush. I would be thrilled. The Bushes have given us two good presidents.

I like the value system of the Bush family. They are not elitists, especially George W. and they have a strength and great respect for this country. And GW proved to have guts, a strong faith in God and determination to hold fast to the right way no matter the cost.

None of those were traits we were looking for - but God saw them and I believe that God helped pick GW for this time in our nation. And I thank God that He did.

Extremely dismal. I would be very disappointed if he endorses anyone. I am thinking he will not.

He dropped out today. FDT was the closest thing I have seen to a perfect candidate in quite some years.

Check my posting history - I was an FDT suppoerter during the draft Fred days - before he announced - and I never waiered.

Today for me is a sad day for conservatism and for the GOP. With McCain we sacrifice our souls, and with Romney we have been bought. No thank you to either. In my mind it is time to look ourselves in the morror long and hard, and start again fresh, from the ground up. I would rather sacrifice 4 years of a (D) in office than lose conservatism forever.

You must be joking!

Bush never tried to ram the McCain-Feingold Bill down our throats.

Well, when people like Sessions and DeMint tried to stop the amnesty bill they did not do it with the support of President Bush. So he acquiesced in McCain's attempts to ram it down our throats without border security first, I guess.

McCain did that. How come you are not upset at McCain - but just Bush.

Of course, I blame McCain the most for it. He is the King of Amnesty in my mind. However, the anti-Mitt person was regretting trusting President Bush and was alleging that Mitt would be the same or worse. I pointed out quickly, two ways (there are others) how Mitt would be better, including 1) Mitt doesn't mind using the veto pen (over 800 in Mass) and, 2) unlike President Bush, Mitt does not support the comprehensive immigration bill which McCain co-sponsored.

Well, that’s one good thing.

I agree the man is classy, likable and has talents in operational tasks. Don’t trust him as a conservative with true conservative values. He only changes to be able to win votes. Therefore, those kind of values do not hang true.

I agree with one writer who thought the perfect ticket would be Fred for president to have the wisdom, true conservative value system and the depth with Romney as the CEO making it all work. He said that Mitt loved handling the details and solving the problems. Sounded like a perfect combination to me.

But is not to be.