Can you please cite a source where he's against state level anti-discrimination laws? My understanding is that he's consistently favored them.
He took three positions on embryonic stem cell research
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.
He was pro-civil unions in 2002-2005...
Not true. He always opposed civil unions. I defy you to find a single instance where he supports them.
especially when he was trying to broker a late-ditch alternative to same-sex marriage...then he was anti-civil unions after that.
No, he always opposed civil unions. He tried to push an amendment through the legislature defining marriage as between a man and a woman after the SJC forced gay marraige on the commonwealth. Unfortunately, the legislature refused to adopt the amendment unless it included a civil unions provision. Romney opposed the provision, but he supported the amendment after it came out of the legislature because it was better than no amendment at all.
That's called pragmatism.
He first came to the side the Catholic adoption program re: being forced to adopt out kids to same-sex couples; then he backed away and told them he couldn't help them.
He backed away when he realized the law was against him. A governor cannot defy a the law.
In back to back sentences in 1994 October debate with Ted Kennedy, he backed the right of the Boy Scouts of America to make their own policies, but then said they shouldn't discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation."
There's nothing inconsistent here. He believes the boy scouts have a right to exclude gay scoutmasters, but he doesn't think they should. Just because you think some organization should be allowed to do something doesn't mean you think they should actually do it. Why is this so hard for Romney haters to grasp?
His abortion weaves were even worse: Pro-abortion in 1994; didn't wish to be labeled "pro-choice" in 2001;
This is semantics. He didn't like lables. So what? The substance of his position was pro-choice prior 2002, and it was made abundantly clear in his statements, if you bother to read them in their entirety rather than just a few soundbites ripped out of context.
back to his heftiest pro-abortion actions & rhetoric in 2002;
No change in substance from 2001. Maybe a change in word choice. Big deal.
pro-life actions in Winter/spring 2005; pro-abortion commitment re-stated on May 27, 2005 sandwiched between pro-life actions;
What pro-abortion committment?
back to aiding & abetting Planned Parenthood & taxpayer subsidized abortions in Spring of 2006.
That's just false.
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).
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.
By 2007, he was saying he was "never pro-choice" 'cause he never allowed to call himself "pro-choice."
See above. He was never pro-choice in the sense that he approved of abortion, and he didn't like to be called pro-choice for this reason. However, he did not want to make abortion illegal prior to 2005.
If you would stop ripping words out of context and read the full context of his statements, you would see that his position on abortion, the change in it, and his reasons for it, are crystal clear. Yes, there was a flip here. One discrete change in 2005. One change in position and nothing more.
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!
You: Not true. He always opposed civil unions. I defy you to find a single instance where he supports them.
In either 2001 or 2002, Romney opposed a pre-emptive Marriage Protection Amendment that would have prohibited both same-sex marriage and civil unions. By October 2002, he said he didn't support or prefer either same-sex marriage or civil unions. Still, he said if he had to choose, he said he would "favor" civil unions. By the Fall of 2003, he was working with the state legislature to promote civil unions. By the Spring of 2004, he was recommending to 22 state Republicans to support the Travaglini-Lees "compromise amendment" which would have implemented civil unions. 15 of the 22 listened to him allowing the measure to pass by 5 votes. It wasn't til half-way through 2005 (June) that he backed off of civil unions.
2001-2002 CNN says it was 2001; the Boston Phoenix says it was 2002...these sources don't agree which year it was, but they both agree Romney made "too extreme" comment: Called first citizens' petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions. (Source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/20/gay.marriage.ap/ Nov. 20, 2003 [Link no longer active]) 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. (Source: Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004)
October, 2002: A review of Romney's remarks shows that at an October 2002 campaign debate, he said: "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union." Then, after the SJC decision legalizing same-sex marriage, he told WCVB on Dec. 17, 2003, that if he had to choose, he would favor civil unions over full-fledged gay marriage. However, he added: "But that is not my preference overall. My preference overall would be neither civil union or marriage." (Source: Boston Globe, Feb. 25, 2005)
Nov.-Dec. 2003 Romney reportedly working with Legislators promoting “civil unions”: In headline "Massachussetts Governor Urges Civil Unions, not Marriage," ... Romney said Wednesday he believes the state could adopt civil unions similar to those allowed in Vermont -- then continue working toward a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.... "I believe their [the Court's] decision indicates that a provision which provides that benefits, obligations, rights and responsibilities which are consistent with marriage but perhaps could be called by a different name would be in conformity with their decision," Romney said. "Under that opinion, I believe a civil-union type provision would be sufficient." (Source: AP, Nov. 20, 2003)
March 29, 2004 Romney tells MA Republican legislators to vote for Travaglini-Lees “compromise amendment” which would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions (...wouldn't 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. "In crucial shift, governor sways 15 in GOP to support measure" Through all the twists and shifts during the gay-marriage debate this year, there was one constant: 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed every measure that would grant gay couples civil unions in the constitution. That all changed yesterday, however, when 15 of that 22-member bloc broke away at the urging of Governor Mitt Romney and voted in favor of a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage but create Vermont-style civil unions. Those 15 members provided the margin of victory, observers from both camps said yesterday after the measure passed by just five votes.... it was clear that the Republican governor had a major effect on the fracturing of the 22-member bloc.... (Source: Boston Globe, March 30, 2004)
Feb, 2005: "Romney's stance on civil unions draws fire; Activists accuse governor of 'flip-flopping' on issue" -- ... Yesterday the Log Cabin Republicans sharply rebuked the Massachusetts governor, saying his remarks indicate he is backsliding on his 2002 campaign commitment to support some benefits for gay couples. He had also urged GOP lawmakers to vote for a proposed constitutional amendment last spring that would ban same-sex marriage but allow gay couples to enter into civil unions....Last March, Romney's staff told House Republicans he supported the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions.... (Source: Boston Globe, Feb. 25, 2005)
June 2005: Governor Mitt Romney yesterday endorsed a grass-roots effort to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2008, abandoning his support for what he called a ''muddied" compromise measure that would also ban gay marriages but allow gays to enter into civil unions...Reflecting the uneasiness among politicians over same-sex marriage, last spring the Legislature passed the Travaglini-Lees amendment to ban gay marriage but allow civil unions. It cleared by just five votes. At the time, Romney urged Republicans to back the measure because it was the only one put forth by lawmakers that had a chance of passing.<./b> (Source: Boston Globe, June 17, 2005)
So if the above references are not at times supporting civil unions, what is?
He [Romney] always opposed civil unions.
Then in post #270, we're supposed to believe that he was he showing his "always opposed" stalwart position by trying to pass civil unions' legislation in 2003 and 2004.
Curiosity concedes that in 2003: He was working to pass the only marriage amendment he could get through the legislature.
Question: Would this have legalized civil unions? Answer: Yes
He further concedes that in 2004: Romney was right that civil unions is a lesser evil than full-fledged gay marriage... Romney settled for a compromise amendment with civil unions only because he could not get his preferred amendment without civil unions through the legislature.
So, now Curiosity, who was defiant in post #190 ("I defy you to find a single instance where he supports them.") shifts gears. He no longer argues from an absolute platform ("He ALWAYS opposed civil unions."). He no longer issues a defiant challenge. Instead, we get "Oh, he HAD to SUPPORT civil unions in more than a SINGLE instance because it was the lesser of two evils."
Curiosity. Fine. If you want to stand your political ground & argue a lesser-of-two-evils political expediency, I can respect you on that ground. What I can't respect is your shift-gears weasel tactics where you start off with absolute claims in a defiant challenge tone and then when you realize you were wrong, you fall back to a more defendable political expediency. And we're supposed believe what you have to say when you categorically tell us that Romney "ALWAYS opposed civil unions" and when corrected, you don't say, "I stand corrected?" (You just move off to another place to take your stand)
A truly mature person will admit he stands corrected when an overstatement is made. (I'm still waiting for you to say that re: post #190).