Posted on 02/14/2008 9:12:59 AM PST by JRochelle
Snip Let us not forget that Romney snapped his fingers before the election and decided to become a conservative by switching his positions on a litany of key issues, even though his past record was moderate. There were endless gaffes throughout the campaign in which he reinforced the well-earned perception that he would say anything to get elected--from describing himself as a lifelong hunter even though he had hunted only twice, for saying he watched his father march with MLK, for claiming an endorsement of the NRA he never received, etc.
He also failed to emotionally connect with voters. I would go to Romney speeches all year, and talk to audience members after who would tell me they agreed with what he said, but he was "too slick" and "too packaged." It never ceased to amaze me how emotionally tone deaf he was as a candidate, most notable was when he said his sons were serving their country by working to get him elected. I went to a townhall meeting just days before the New Hampshire primary in which a woman said her 26-year old cousin had been paralyzed in a rugby accident, and she asked Romney for his position on stem cell research. Romney responded, "Great, thank you for the question" and he went on with a textbook answer about pluripotent cells without offering any sympathy. Romney's checklist conservatism appealed to desperate conservatives on a cerebral level, but he never reached people emotionally as Huckabee and McCain did. If you want to know why McCain beat Romney, look no further than the final debate between them at the Reagan Library. When they were asked why Reagan would endorse them, Romney recited a laundry list of issues on which Reagan would have agreed with him, while McCain
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The Mormon church doesn't take a position on whether abortion should be legal. It just takes the position that it is immoral and no member of the Church should have one. Hence one can be a good Mormon and still be pro-abortion as a matter of policy so long as one is "personally" opposed to the practice, and counsels people not to have abortions.
I think it is an absurd position, but it is what it is.
I did. There's no evidence, not a shred, in the article that Romney opposed the tax cuts. But maybe I'm blind. Kindly point out the passage that you think proves he opposed them.
Heck; even UTAH ain't the BoM belt!
hardly ANYTHING they do or believe comes out of it; but from OTHER things like the Doctrines & Covenants,
the Pearl of Great Price,
their creed: The Articles of Faith,
and various doctrines of men.
You even said, "BYE"
And yet, here you are posting to him AGAIN!
If you really think that this is political and contempt you are expressing and has nothing to do with what you are implying!
DelphiUser!
Compartmentalizing...
Queen is right!
(oops did I say that outloud?)
For the love of God, please, please stop posting hit pieces about Mitt Romney. Give it a rest, already!
Mitt Romney stepped aside, “for the good of the party, for the good of the country . . . during a time of war.” Mitt Romney has proved that he is a good fine family man who puts the country ahead of his own personal desires, unlike Huckabee.
Please stop trashing this good man and his religion. Enough, already!!
Class warfare BS.
Explain to me how that whole "buying votes" thing works? I think that's a weak excuse for the popularity of a candidate. Yes, a candidate needs to spend money, and they all do. But most of them spend money from special interest groups who then "own" the candidate. How is that better than spending your own money?
You write as if Romney was the only candidate spending money on his campaign.
As Will Rogers so appropriately stated:
Politics has got so expensive that it takes lots of money to get beat.
: )
For the love of God, please, please stop posting hit praise and worship pieces about Mitt Romney. Give it a rest, already!
Actually, neither the author of the article or the poster attacked Mormonism. This issue is Romney's poorly run campaign, inability to connect with the electorate, and prodigious flip-flop output.
That last post was intended for Saundra.
Exactly. There's already one too many "Praise to the Man!" hymns in the Mormon hymnal (and, no, non-Mormons, that man is not Jesus Christ...as they were killing Jesus, He wasn't trying to stop him by firing back with a weapon like this shoot-out martyr did).
We don't need a sequel "Praise to the Man II" hymn.
“In 13 years ago, he said he did not think the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy would work. After seeing that it did work, he changed his mind. Big deal.”
When did he change his position?
In 1994 he thought it worked fine, he just wanted more, in the recent debate he totally ignored the question that Anderson Cooper asked him about his goal of open homosexuality in the military by openly lying, first pretending that Cooper was asking about don’t ask don’t tell, and then to eat up time he claimed that in 1994 that he laughed at DADT and thought it wouldn’t work.
The problem is that he clearly did believe that it worked in 1994. “I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.”
When did he change his mind about DADT or more importantly, removing all restrictions on homosexuality in our armed forces? You keep saying that he changed his mind, when?
You: What pro-abortion committment?
Romney, May 27, 2005 press conference: "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice."
That "committed...PROMISE"
Me: Then a year full of 2007 where he would alternately tell us that he was "effectively pro-choice...the last multiple years" but that he was "always pro-life" (11 days apart).
You: This isn't hard. Prior to 2005, he was personally pro-life in that he thought abortion was immoral, but he did not want to make it illegal. That's why he didn't like the pro-choice label, because to some people in means that you approve of abortion as well as want keep it legal. Prior to 2005, he didnt' approve of abortion, but he still wanted to keep it legal. He has explicitly said this. You're taking a few of his poorly worded sentences and ignoring his very clear explanations of the substance of his positions.
Supposedly “personally pro-life...didn't approve of abortion" candidates don't...
(1) ...show up @ racist child-killing organizational rallies like Planned Parenthood events to promote that organization like he did in 1994...
(2) ...have their wives give $150 donations to racist child-killing organizations like Planned Parenthood like Ann Romney did in 1994...
(3) ...try to "cement" endorsements from child-killing orgs like NARAL by meeting with three NARAL execs if a questionnaire would suffice to show his shared "legal" live & let die mentality as he did in 2002. (See http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp
(4) ...tell NARAL execs what Romney told them in 2002: According to the Weekly Standard: He also tried to pique the executives' interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, "You need someone like me in Washington." [Source: Weekly Standard] ...
(5) ...go out of their way, after already netting two pro-abortion endorsements, personally telephoning organizations like Majority for Choice as did Romney in the Spring of 2002. Again, from The Weekly Standard: That spring, Romney also personally telephoned the group Republican Majority for Choice and asked for its endorsement. Completing a questionnaire similar to those of other pro-choice groups, Romney got what he wanted from the pro-choice Republicans. His campaign trumpeted the endorsement with a press release.
(6) ...go around using the strongest possible language for a Mormon to state their support for Roe vs. Wade.
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
What? (Are you next going to try to explain away how the word "sustain" means almost nothing to a Mormon?)
”In the LDS context 'sustain' has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: 'Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand.' At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says 'any opposed may manifest it', and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand. To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run. We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down....Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining. ...Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said: “The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected” -Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said: “To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective” -Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28 When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in 'sustaining'. When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of 'sustaining' can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he 'sustains' a law... Source: http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2006/12/mormons-against-romney-analyze-romneys.html
Me: back to aiding & abetting Planned Parenthood & taxpayer subsidized abortions in Spring of 2006.
You: That's just false.
April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby not only expanding abortion access for wealthier Bay State women, but expanding Planned Parenthood's reach into GuvCare. As governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).
Romney said 7% of Bay State residents were covered by RomneyCare (previously uninsured). He also said 1/4th of them--almost 2% of his state--earned $75,000 or more. (So it can't be written off that the taxpayer-subsidized $50 abortions were only for poor women according to a court order. As it is less than 40% of the 7% covered by RomneyCare are Medicaid eligible individuals.
THE FLiP SIDE OF MITT
Multiple Choice Mitt not only "changes" his positions, but he does so multiple times, waffling back & forth. On the position of whether business owners should be forced to hire alternative sexual preference employees, what do you think the chances are of a given candidate having three (count 'em, 3) pre-Christmas positions over the past 14 Christmases? (Well, Mitt has managed to do that...and his latest position is have the states do the dirty work of pro-homosexual activists.
Pre-Christmas 1994 (October): “We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden…” Oct. 6, 1994 Romney for U.S. Senate letter to Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts
Pre-Christmas 2006 Interview (mid-December): Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today? Gov. Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges. Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY1MTQyMTk0Yjk2ZDNmZmVmNmNkNjY4ODExMGM5NWE=
Pre-Christmas 2007 Interview (mid-December): December 16, 2007: The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview December 16 with Tim Russert: MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it? GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this. MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level. GOV. 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. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/6/
THE FLoP SIDE OF MITT
Me: He took three positions on embryonic stem cell research
You: Not true. On this issue, he's only had one. He's always opposed embryo farming, i.e. cloning embryos for research, and that is what sparked his conversion on abortion. However, he's always supported giving parents the choice donate "surplus" embryos for research. I wish he would flip on this, but he hasn't.
June 15, 2007 (National Review article he wrote): "Some advocates told me that only the creation of human embryos for purposes of experimentation, otherwise known as cloning, could help them better understand and perhaps someday treat a series of dreaded diseases. But they ignored the importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life. Almost 6 months later: December 5, 2007 Romney is interviewed by CBS' Katie Couric: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law."
A vocal pro-life nurse named Jill Stanek, up until this last quote from Romney, "was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt." Stanek's assessment of Romney's conclusion? "No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation. Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just need to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation...I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself...Turns out he's not completely converted." Source: http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/12/mitt_romney_just.html
As Deal W. Hudson has said in his blog, Romney has a "lingering problem" in being only opposed to creating clones for stem cell research--not opposed to using "discarded" or "donated" frozen embryos: "...frozen embryos have been the primary source of embryonic tissue for stem cell research. How can you declare yourself opposed to this research when you are not opposed to the way it is actually carried out?...My question is this: How can you consider a frozen embryo a moral entity capable of being adopted, while at the same time support the scientist who wants to cut the embryonic being into pieces? Even more, if Romney's conversion was about the 'cheapened value of human life,' how can he abide the thought of a parent donating 'one of those embryos' to be destroyed?" Source: http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/12/the-problem-wit.html
So, just on embryonic research, we go from a...
...Mid-2002 Romney singing the praises of embryonic research: June 13, 2002, where he: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning. Source: weekly standard http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp?pg=1
...To a...
...Late-2004 Romney undergoing his pro-life "conversion" due to this very issue: Nov. 9, 2004: Romney meet with Dr. Douglas Melton from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619536-2,00.html
...To a...
...Late-2007 Romney who doesn't mind frozen embryonic life being "cheapened" or doesn't mind if they are excluded from his so-called "importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life"...well that is, with this caveat: As long as Mom & Pop say it's OK for them to be sacrificed in such an experimental research manner!
“Hence one can be a good Mormon and still be pro-abortion as a matter of policy so long as one is “personally” opposed to the practice,”
What does that mean?
That they can be proabortion as long as they say ‘but in a secret place inside of me that never interferes with my public self I am anti abortion, therefore I am not actually proabortion, but in reality prolife’.
I cannot see the left accepting a pro-gun politician that as a politician is a strong defender of gun rights, as long as he says that internally he is personally anti gun, the phrase is nonsense.
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.