Posted on 08/13/2006 7:11:07 PM PDT by bitt
Mitt Romney CHOSE radical gay marriage activist homosexual liberal Democrats to submit to the Governor's Council.
How is that not his fault?
What was his thought process there? "Well, most of my judicial nominations will be liberal Democrats, because this is a state of liberal Democrats, and the Governor's Council will be happy with liberal Democrats. But how can I add a little bit of conservative flare to the courts? Hey, I know, I can choose some gay marriage activist liberal Democrats to make the rest of my liberal Democrat selections look conservative by comparison!
As Massachusetts Governor, I was faced with a liberal Governor's Council that wouldn't be happy unless most of my judicial selections were liberal Democrats.
So I gave them what they wanted.
Now I'm in a Republican primary and I'm hearing that you want strong originalist conservative jurists on the Federal bench.
I'm prepared to tell you whatever you want to hear.
* MR managed 2002 Olympics.
* MR is scripter
* Some people like MR's hair
Impressions:
* He is indeed articulate.
* He seems to be a flip-flopper: pro-choice->pro-life
* He appears to make decisions for political gain.
* He is too polished - the "airbrushed guy" from the article.
I am wary of this man but, given a choice between him and Rudy (whom I respect) he would be my guy. Still, is this the best we can do?
The popular saying is "you can't beat something with nothing" and YOU HAVE NOTHING. Who is your candidate ? You don't have one. Pence went rino on immigration, tancredo is unelectable, YOU DON'T HAVE A CANDIDATE.
Romney's a RINO. What's not to love?
The rap on Mitt is that he's squishy on abortion. With the fate of the SC in the balance, he gets a thumbs down.
You need to take a look at what Romney knew about these judges at the time he appointed them, because gay marraige didn't become a big, front-page issue until last year. This could be more a case of Romney and his staff not anticipating where the liberal judiciary was going in Mass, rather than appointing known supporters of gay marraige. Mass is a very difficult state for a Republican governor and I'm sure that at this time Romney is constantly working to anticipate the crazy, far-left legislative proposals that are getting thrown at him by the Dems. But he's got some work to do to explain what he knew about these judges when he appointed them.
They were KNOWN FOR being pro-gay marriage activists/lobbyists before being appointed.
This could be more a case of Romney and his staff not anticipating where the liberal judiciary was going in Mass, rather than appointing known supporters of gay marraige.
He appointed pro-gay marriage activists/lobbyists who were personally homosexual and by the way were liberal Democrats.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1449896/posts
Romney, despite his opposition to same-sex marriage, in May selected for a district court judgeship Stephen S. Abany, a former board member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association who organized the group's opposition to a 1999 bill to outlaw same-sex marriage. Just two days before the nomination, Romney was lamenting the liberal tilt of the state's bench, telling Fox News that ''our courts have a record here in Massachusetts, don't they, of being a little blue and being Kerry-like."
If you can read my mind to tell that I don't have a candidate, why even ask?
You could just type my posts for me from now on. Eh ... maybe not.
Oh, please remember to take you chill pill every morning, thanks so much.
That latest judicial appointment is a strange decision for somebody considering a presidential campaign. Doesn't he know how much that appointment is going to hurt him in conservative states? I'm surpised that he made such a clumsy political move. It would be better to appoint somebody more conservative and then fight it out with the Governor's Council. Romney had better start moving to the right on key social issues or he can forget about winning the GOP primaries.
He's been trying to move to the right. Somewhat. Problem for him is he STILL won't stand up and announce whatever new beliefs he has selected, and his trail of public statements over the past 10 years leaves him wide open to charges of flip flopping. I can't see primary audiences being receptive to that a few short years after John Kerry. They're much more likely to ignore Rudy's social stands and vote for the "hero" (ugh!) than opt for the two-bit windsurfer.
"...the best I can say is that he appears to me to be a Mormon liberal -- that or just a weak politician, not guided by deep principles."
LDS myself, he and Harry Reid have too much in common for me to be comfortable with him as a presidential candidate. I sure hope we get some better choices in the primaries. I guess he'd be better than a Kerry or Gore clone, but not enough better.
I just post 'em, I am nobody's apologist...
Personally, I like Mitt.
Bush went to harvard busuiness school yet they still leveled the charge that he was stupid. Don't forget, both of bush's opponents had worse GPA's than he did. It doesnt' matter who we throw up, there always an idiot. Ever since ike. The only republican who wasn't an idiot was Nixon, but thats b/c the democrats couldn't accuse nixon of being 'tricky dick' and a moron at the same time.
Newt and Allen are also anti amnesty, just to let you know.
Don't forget he was pro gay rights, pro affirmitive action as well, not to mention took shots at the contract with america as well as presidents reagan and bush. Praised bill clinton too.
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.