Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"The Mitt Romney Deception" IS the Deception
Alains Newsletter & MassResistance ^ | Dec 2006 | Brian Camenker

Posted on 12/10/2006 11:02:08 AM PST by Jeff Fuller

"Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he’s pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal – and that his new found conversion to conservatism very likely coincides with his candidacy for the presidency."

Please refer to comment #1 to see what a shoddy piece of work this is. If they are trying to convince people of something, they should at least get SOME of the facts right and not rely on the Boston Globe, Bay Windows, and The Boston Phoenix as their "authoritative sources".

(Excerpt) Read more at alainsnewsletter.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: conservatism; damagecontrol; electionpresident; mitt; potus; romney; romneytherino; spin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
"The Mitt Romney Deception"--is very aptly named, for the piece itself is the true deception. Trusting a source like this is akin to seeking information about the LDS church from "Ex-Mormons for Jesus". Listen, ain't nobody gonna be conservative enough for these folks (Don't believe me? Look at this piece where they write about how President Bush has "abandoned God, Family, and Country" . Wouldn't you say they have a "flare for the dramatic?" . . . and, just like the liberal media, would rather distort the truth to support their own agenda than do honest research).

The article is compiled by a group called "MassResistance" whose 14 members (TIC) come onto the Romney Blogs frequently to copy and paste their whole diatribe. Their thesis is:

Indeed, this report will demonstrate that Romney was probably the most pro-abortion and pro-gay rights Republican official in the nation for the last decade.
This statement is utterly laughable on many levels:
  1. He hasn't even been a "Republican official" for a decade. The only political office he's ever held where he has an actual record is as MA Gov 2003-2006
  2. Gay rights groups and the liberal media incessantly lambaste Romney for his conservative actions/statements as Governor.
  3. "The most pro-abortion and pro-gay rights Republican official?"--ever heard of Lincoln Chafee, Mark Foley, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Chuck Hagel, Michael Bloomberg, Olympia Snowe or the THOUSANDS of other Republican officials who ARE ACTUALLY pro-abortion and/or pro-gay rights? Romney IS pro-life and against same sex marriage AND civil unions.
Mass Resistance has perfected the science of running misleading headlines and quoting out of context. They've also compiled this list from quotes from such reliable (and "unbiased") sources as the Boston GLobe, Boston Herald, Bay Windows, and the Boston Phoenix . . . all media souces which have blatantly anti-Romney agendas and consistantly try to paint him as a hypocrite. They also don't link to the complete articles where "the rest of the story" can be evaluated en toto. This is the true deception.

Now for some clarification on the specific issues/accusations:

Mitt Romney is an interesting character. Although he is the outgoing governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts and was named as one of the Top 10 RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) less than a year ago in HUMAN EVENTS, he's not as liberal as he might appear at first glance. He opposed raising taxes in Massachusetts, balanced the budget, fought gay marriage (although unfortunately, he lost) and has flip flopped on abortion (He now has a pro-life stance). He's even publicly calling himself a " conservative Republican." On the other hand, according to recent polls, even if you set aside the debate about how conservative he is or isn't, the "Mormon issue" is starting to look like an insurmountable obstacle to his candidacy. According to Rasmussen Polling, 43% of Americans and 53% of Evangelicals say that they, "wouldn't consider voting for a Mormon candidate." For good or ill, that probably means that Romney is unelectable.
It must be recognized that Romney did have a few "unfortunate responses" during his 1994 campaign . . . especially during debates with Teddy Kennedy. Every politician has had a few of these in their careers . . . and they'll be brought up ad nauseum. What's more important is how Romney HAS GOVERNED . . . which has been consistantly as a conservative.
1 posted on 12/10/2006 11:02:11 AM PST by Jeff Fuller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain it and support it."-Mitt Willard Romney


2 posted on 12/10/2006 11:08:44 AM PST by Gipper08 (Mike Pence in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

They are working to elect Hillary.


3 posted on 12/10/2006 11:12:33 AM PST by kenavi (Save romance. Stop teen sex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gipper08

So no one can change their mind? I was pro-choice for a while, staunchly against it now.


4 posted on 12/10/2006 11:14:55 AM PST by To Hell With Poverty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: To Hell With Poverty

Congrats on seeing the truth...but your not Presidential material either.


5 posted on 12/10/2006 11:17:09 AM PST by Gipper08 (Mike Pence in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

They are really running scared, aren't they? The fact is that Romney is the ONLY Republican that the Dems are worried about. They have no fear of McCain or Rudy, as the media already knows how to take both of them down. McCain as "crazy", starting next spring, and Rudy as racist and scandalized next summer. They have NOTHING on Romney, so they are already reduced to trying to fool the public. Sadly, many FReepers are falling for it. But then, we ARE the stupid party, right?


6 posted on 12/10/2006 11:19:22 AM PST by Pukin Dog (I will vote for Hillary Clinton for President, before I will vote for John McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller
He hasn't even been a "Republican official" for a decade. The only political office he's ever held where he has an actual record is as MA Gov 2003-2006

I'd consider him part of the GOP establishment at least since he came close to taking Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in 1994.

7 posted on 12/10/2006 11:22:34 AM PST by aynrandfreak (Who would turn out better if we split into two separate countries based on the '04 Presidential Map?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller
Reagan even signed the California law that essentially allowed "aboriton on demand"

Is this true?! If so, I categorically rescind all my past praise or adoration of Ronald Reagan, for he shall surely...

just kidding

8 posted on 12/10/2006 11:22:45 AM PST by Swordfished
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

This is probably a cover group for the McCain campaign.


9 posted on 12/10/2006 11:23:48 AM PST by jubail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

Very thorough record and should be a must read for anyone considering Romney as a candidate. It is very factual that unless the GOP puts forth a candidate we can get behind, the conservative grass roots of the part will just bail out of politics, or go to some third party.


10 posted on 12/10/2006 11:23:58 AM PST by gidget7 (Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aynrandfreak

"since he came close to taking Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in 1994."


Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat, 1,266,011, 58.1%.
W. Mitt Romney, Republican, 894,005, 41.0%

Hoo-wee, that was a squeaker, all right. ;)


11 posted on 12/10/2006 11:28:46 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Um......"they" didn't write this article. This is written by a conservative organization who have been insiders in the whole hiistory of Mr. Romney. This isn't about the Dems at all.


12 posted on 12/10/2006 11:29:22 AM PST by gidget7 (Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

Face it, the GOP is NOT going to nominate a conservative next time. They are too afraid of the MSM. The media won the last election of their party. Now, to get the likes of Russert, Couric, and Gibson off their backs the Republicans will nominate Romeny, Rudy G., or McLame.

Count on it.


13 posted on 12/10/2006 11:33:26 AM PST by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

I'm waiting for word from the NRA and GOA, on how conservative Romney is.
Some folks around here are trying really hard to make RKBA a non-issue. If they think they can sweep it under the rug, and win, they've got another think a-comin!


14 posted on 12/10/2006 11:38:02 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (BUAIDH NO BAS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003

"that was a squeaker"
Not trying to rebut your argument, but, offhand, can you provide any other recent contests with Teddy that might have been closer? You or others may well have such info. At the moment, I am not otherwise pro or con on Romney.


15 posted on 12/10/2006 11:52:54 AM PST by gb63
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gb63

No, I can't; his seat is the definition of a safe seat. I merely looked up the stats because when the poster claimed that Romney "came close" to unseating Kennedy, that didn't square with my memory. And for once my memory was accurate.


16 posted on 12/10/2006 11:55:36 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gb63

If anything, the seat got even safer this year:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2006&fips=25&f=0&off=3&elect=0

I could do stats on earlier elections far more easily if I had my CQ access here at home.


17 posted on 12/10/2006 12:01:21 PM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kjo
We need a candidate who does not discombobulate in the face of hostile journalists or Dem party operatives (as George Allen did).

We need a President who has already held the reins of power, rather than selecting one on the basis of his mouthing all the positions we agree with.

I realize that opposition to abortion is for some the overriding cause upon which to support a candidate, and they will not tolerate anything less than their own absolute stance. The problem is that by not supporting anyone less fervent than themselves, they will help elect a President who is absolutely contrary to their position, and who will also endanger the security of us all.
18 posted on 12/10/2006 12:08:39 PM PST by kenavi (Save romance. Stop teen sex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kjo
We need a candidate who does not discombobulate in the face of hostile journalists or Dem party operatives (as George Allen did).

We need a President who has already held the reins of power, rather than selecting one on the basis of his mouthing all the positions we agree with.

I realize that opposition to abortion is for some the overriding cause upon which to support a candidate, and they will not tolerate anything less than their own absolute stance. The problem is that by not supporting anyone less fervent than themselves, they will help elect a President who is absolutely contrary to their position, and who will also endanger the security of us all.
19 posted on 12/10/2006 12:08:44 PM PST by kenavi (Save romance. Stop teen sex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

Wacko 100%er Conservatives are who I am talking about. The fact remains that many on our side are falling for this nonsense and doing the work of the Democrats at the same time.


20 posted on 12/10/2006 12:08:47 PM PST by Pukin Dog (I will vote for Hillary Clinton for President, before I will vote for John McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003

Thank you. It would be too much to expect Teddy to have a close call, I guess, although one could always hope...


21 posted on 12/10/2006 12:09:10 PM PST by gb63
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

Romney was rated B by the NRA, never said he was pro choice and was always against gay marriage. But for some reason the new york times and the boston globe want us to think otherwise. Now why would that be?


22 posted on 12/10/2006 12:10:41 PM PST by De Civitate Dei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

You can save your breath, because the wacko 100%ers are not listening. The facts dont mean anything in the face of what they want. They dont have a viable candidate, they never have had a viable candidate. These are the Buchananites trying to sneak back into the party after being booted for their nonsense. They will remain nothing but a nuisance right up to the election where they will endorse some nut like Tancredo as their representative.


23 posted on 12/10/2006 12:12:28 PM PST by Pukin Dog (I will vote for Hillary Clinton for President, before I will vote for John McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003

""since he came close to taking Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in 1994."


Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat, 1,266,011, 58.1%.
W. Mitt Romney, Republican, 894,005, 41.0%

Hoo-wee, that was a squeaker, all right. ;)"

Kennedy's next opponent lost by 60 points. His previous one (88') lost by 32. Kennedy has beaten his opponents by, on average, over 40 points. So yes, losing by 17 to Teddy Kennedy in Massachussetts (13% Republican Massachussetts) after Kennedy brought in every single big name Democrat in the country when October polls showed him losing, is a political miracle not to be replicated in my lifetime.


24 posted on 12/10/2006 12:15:28 PM PST by Obilisk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

I also have a link to this on my personal page. By the way, does anybody really know what has happened to Alain lately? He hasn't written for quite awhile.


25 posted on 12/10/2006 12:27:05 PM PST by johnthebaptistmoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obilisk18

Not to be replicated in your lifetime? Look at the bright side; maybe you'll outlive Ted and get to see another Senator from Massachusetts.


26 posted on 12/10/2006 12:30:59 PM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
To me, your tagline is contrary to that post. Romney is more liberal than McCain by a long shot. So why is it "100% conservatism" nonsense, when we tell people what it's like to be governed by someone who is the best MA could do for a Republican? Most here feel just that, and that we can do better for President. Anyone who has not lived under the oppression of liberal/socialist activism in governance has no idea what it is like!
27 posted on 12/10/2006 12:38:43 PM PST by gidget7 (Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller
Fuller, your propaganda machine stinks to high heaven.

Mitt Romney tacks left, right, wherever he thinks will win him an election and advance his career.

28 posted on 12/10/2006 12:48:25 PM PST by JohnnyZ ("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: De Civitate Dei
Romney was rated B by the NRA

He signed the permanent Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban and supported the federal AWB.

never said he was pro choice

BS BS BS, Mitt Romney publicly and repeatedly trumpeted his supported for legal abortion .... until he gave up on Massachusetts and started running for president. Look at what he told NARAL in his most recent election, seeking their endorsement:

"I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002


29 posted on 12/10/2006 12:52:18 PM PST by JohnnyZ ("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller
Gay Rights Issues: The MSM is on this "kick" now too . . .see this Boston Globe article and this New York Times piece in the last two days. Bottom line, he has NEVER been in favor of gay marriage or civil unions but he has also always been against discrimination of gays.

By "discrimination of gays", I assume you mean the multitude of gay rights issues that Mitt Romney supports, the special rights agenda which are the building blocks leading to gay marriage?

You sound just like a liberal, trumpeting your boss's commitment to gays in the Boy Scouts, gay adoptions, gay "non-discrimination", benefits for gay partners, etc etc etc.

30 posted on 12/10/2006 12:56:33 PM PST by JohnnyZ ("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
Some folks around here are trying really hard to make RKBA a non-issue.

George Bush opposed repeal of the Brady Bill . Is there a difference between Bush and Romney?

31 posted on 12/10/2006 1:16:57 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
Romney...supported the federal AWB.

So did Bush who you've supported, haven't you? Why does Bush get a pass, but for Romney this is an unforgiveable apostasy?

32 posted on 12/10/2006 1:25:52 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

I am absolutely astounded at the vigorous and underhanded effort to destroy anyone who might pose an actual threat to the "front runners." My goodness, who could be behind all of this? /s


33 posted on 12/10/2006 1:26:08 PM PST by Bahbah (Regev, Goldwasser and Shalit, we are praying for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
Why does Bush get a pass, but for Romney this is an unforgiveable apostasy?

So you're saying I should like Romney because he has all of Bush's flaws and none of his strengths?

Bush at least engineered it so the AWB died despite his promise to sign it "if it reached" his desk -- just as I predicted would happen, so he gets some mitigation there. Romney not only endorsed the concept of the federal ban but passed and signed his own permanent AWB in Massachusetts.

Of course being anti-gun is only one of Romney's many failings, the chief one being a finger-in-the-wind slimy phony two-faced John Edwards wannabe.

34 posted on 12/10/2006 1:40:03 PM PST by JohnnyZ ("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
Romney is not my boss and I'm no liberal.

There is no "propaganda machine"

I am a Vitreoretinal fellow at the University of Iowa and I decided to start a blogsite for Romney after studying the field several months ago. I do this in my spare time and by myself. Not the big "collusion" or machine that you have imagined up.

I guess the full-blown homo-phobes may conclude for his anti-discrimination stances that Romney is not their candidate . . . can't please everyone and can't get every vote.

You say: "commitment to gays in the Boy Scouts" . . . you must have a Master's degree in Hyperbole. Name what he has done to PROMOTE said "commitment" . . . Besides a RESPONSE to a question asked to him during his first debate with Kennedy in 1994 about the highly controversial gays in the BSA what else do ya got? I'm guessing NADA. Hardly the "commitment" you've imagined up and are dishonestly trying to convince others of.

What you and others always leave out of the said quote is that DID SAY THAT HE BELIEVED THE BOY SCOUTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION

Also, "Commitment to . . . gay adoption?" Boy, let me tell you that he's no "champion" of this but has long said that "every child deserves a mother and a father". He also went to bat for the Catholic charities adoption services when they were under pressure for not allowing their kids to be placed with homosexual couples.

Also, please name the legislation he proposed or signed that extended special rights homosexuals . . . See, all this stuff comes from his 1994 race against Teddy K. He DIDN'T make these assurances of "more effective leadership" to the gay community in his 2002 race for Gov and he is consistantly bashed by the gay community nationwide (the extremists on both ends have Romney in the crosshairs on these homosexual issues . . . that sounds about the right place to be.)
35 posted on 12/10/2006 1:40:52 PM PST by Jeff Fuller (http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller
There is no "propaganda machine"

Just what spews forth from your keyboard.

I guess the full-blown homo-phobes may conclude for his anti-discrimination stances that Romney is not their candidate

Liberal, liberal, liberal .... the name-calling (people who don't support "gay rights" are "homo-phobes" (sic)), trying to play "gay rights" as an issue of discrimination, please, you sicken me.

He also went to bat for the Catholic charities adoption services when they were under pressure for not allowing their kids to be placed with homosexual couples.

Oh please, no he didn't and you know it. Quit the lying, it's disgusting. He said he'd help, could have helped, but then did a 180 and did nothing. Flip, flop, let's play both sides.... Oh, right, he tried to win himself brownie points by supporting legislation that would never have a chance of passing, if it was ever even written up as a bill.

Also, please name the legislation he proposed or signed that extended special rights homosexuals . . .

he said he would support domestic partnership benefits, at one point saying they would become a "hallmark of my leadership as governor." ... Romney has broader goals in mind, and will use this opportunity to establish further rights for gay couples, Fehrnstrom said. "At the end of the day, same-sex couples will end up with more rights and benefits than they previously enjoyed," he said. http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,525039435,00.html

I'm sure you have more info on the gay rights legislation Romney has championed -- if you weren't so duplicitous and seeking to hide his pro-gay record you'd post it yourself.

36 posted on 12/10/2006 1:51:30 PM PST by JohnnyZ ("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
Bush at least engineered it so the AWB died despite his promise to sign it "if it reached" his desk...

Bush had no problems signing a restriction on the First Amendment when it "reached his desk", so too he likely would have done the same with the Second Amendment.

The MA State Senate is 35 Dems to 5 Republicans. The House is 135 to 21. Do you think that an AWB with a veto proof majority is likely to "reach the desk" of a Governor in that State?

Bush was Governor of fricking Texas. Why he couldn't bring himself to oppose the Brady Bill? Maybe he was Edwards-chameleon like looking to moderate his position for the the 2000 Presidential election?

37 posted on 12/10/2006 1:57:06 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: To Hell With Poverty
I was pro-choice for a while, staunchly against it now.

So does that mean you're in favor of passing Federal laws to prohibit abortion in all 50 states? Or would you instead see Roe vs. Wade overthrown and revert it to the states?

I favor the latter over the former -- I humbly consider myself a states-righter. So when I hear someone apply or take either label with regard to choice, it tells me little.

38 posted on 12/10/2006 2:10:58 PM PST by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, safety and success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Lincoln did not "save his breath" when our country was caught in a similar division over slavery. The Abolitionists had little use for his toleration of slavery in the slave states in order to save the Union. Today's Abolitionists against the wrong of abortion have many more ways to accomplish their goals within the political framework, essentially it starts with Supreme Court judges who are willing to let the states individually decide the issue for themselves. The rest should be left to citizens to reach out to their fellow citizens in a positive and loving manner to save unwanted children and encourage positive attitudes so that more mothers want their children.


39 posted on 12/10/2006 2:20:44 PM PST by kenavi (Save romance. Stop teen sex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003

In MA against Ted K that's about as close as anyone's gotten!

...Slick Willard...?


40 posted on 12/10/2006 2:27:35 PM PST by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

I love the " . . . " part of your quote of the 2003 Deseret News article.

You conveniently leave out that the "opportunity" mentioned was a bill being brainstormed that would PROHIBIT Gay Marriage in Massachussetts. THey were negotiating with the legislature and even temporarily entertained the idea of recognizing "civil unions" in order to ban "gay marriage". Negotiations broke down because of the gay lobby's strong influence over the legislature. So essentially, Romney was in the middle of negotiating a potential deal to ban gay marriage in MA (after the court had passed it) and considered "trading" a few benefits that heterosexual couples get for the opportunity to nix the marriage issue. I'm conflicted on that personally, but I realize that compromise is sometimes necessary in politics.

Here's the quote without the ". . ."



And, in last year's campaign, Romney took heat for serving on the board of the Boy Scouts, which excludes gay men from serving as Scout leaders and for having donated $1 million in 1998 to Brigham Young University, which bans homosexual conduct on its campus. Asked about that in the campaign, he said he would support domestic partnership benefits, at one point saying they would become a "hallmark of my leadership as governor."
Romney often bristles at suggestions that his personal religious beliefs have any bearing on his public policy positions. Yet whatever the root of his feelings, the governor views gay marriage as a "gut issue" that he cannot support in accordance with his own moral code, Gray said.
Because he believes the majority of Massachusetts residents agree with him on the issue, he wants to amend the state constitution to reflect that, Gray said. Romney has broader goals in mind, and will use this opportunity to establish further rights for gay couples, Fehrnstrom said.
"At the end of the day, same-sex couples will end up with more rights and benefits than they previously enjoyed," he said.



Also, the majority of the rest of the article provides some proper perspective . . . that Romney was really put in a pickle on this one.



Romney has already begun staking out a centrist position in a debate prone to be defined by extremes. Barely an hour after the court's opinion was made public Tuesday morning, he delivered a nuanced, carefully prepared response that included elements to satisfy both ends of the political spectrum.
The governor denounced the court ruling and came out strongly against gay marriage, promising to work to amend the state constitution to ban such unions. He quickly added that he'll work with the Legislature on a "parallel" track to establish some rights for same-sex couples.
Wednesday, he repeated his position to a far wider audience, on NBC's "Today Show" and ABC's "Good Morning America."
"I agree with 3,000 years of recorded human history, which frankly is a contradiction of what the majority of the Supreme Judicial Court said," Romney said on the "Today Show." "Of course, at the same time, we should (be) providing the necessary civil rights and certain appropriate benefits" to same-sex couples.
A few hours later, Romney seemed to modify his position, telling reporters that he believes the court would allow some version of civil unions to be approved instead of outright gay marriage. He has not given a full list of what rights and benefits he believes the civil unions should carry with them, but has said health coverage and hospital visitation rights should be included.
Romney's effort to frame the debate reflects a realization that there's nothing he can do to keep himself out it. The governor and his aides began discussing how they would respond to the ruling over the summer, as the state and the nation waited for a decision that everyone knew could be a bombshell.
"The governor is not a social crusader. He did not run for office to crusade for or against gay rights," said Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's communications director. "But sometimes issues are forced upon you, and they require a response. . . . The governor has taken a consistent, principled position."
Under the court's ruling, the Legislature has 180 days to craft a response, and Romney's post as governor will force him to take politically perilous stands during this period. The calendar injects another intriguing element into the discussions: Romney is up for re-election in 2006 — the same year that the Defense of Marriage Act would go to the voters, if the Legislature approves it now and again in the 2005-06 session.
Romney's promise to work on behalf of an amendment to ban gay marriage could muddle his message to voters in 2006, when he is likelier to try to stress his efforts to rein in government excess and keep taxes low. On the other hand, the amendment could draw more social conservatives to the polls — a likely boon for the governor.
His vocal support for the amendment could lead to gay marriage being banned after two-plus years where it was legal. It could make Romney a hero to the right but a demon to the left.
"He could damage us hugely, and it's neither necessary nor appropriate," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "He has every right to his own personal and religious beliefs, but it is not right to try to impose that on everyone else."
Rob Gray, a GOP consultant who has done work for Romney, said the governor's forthright approach to the issue stands in contrast with the Democratic Legislature. Last year, lawmakers used a procedural maneuver to avoid a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
"He's not going to hide from the issues that this debate will present, and that puts him in good stead with the voters," Gray said. "It gives Romney even more of a platform to criticize the Legislature as typical politicians who are out for themselves and not for the will of the people."
As Romney knows well, issues of gay rights and gay marriage can be politically explosive. Last year, his Democratic rival for the governor's office, Shannon P. O'Brien, saw her campaign battered after she surprisingly endorsed gay marriage a few weeks before the election, after months of saying she supported only civil unions.
In his 1994 U.S. Senate race, Romney found himself in a political firestorm after several people who attended a gathering of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said Romney described homosexuality as "perverse" and said he was "appalled" by gays in the congregation. Romney denied using the word "perverse," but said he advised against non-marital sex — both homosexual and heteresexual — in accordance with church teachings.


41 posted on 12/10/2006 2:54:13 PM PST by Jeff Fuller (http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch

If you wish to search out posts I made before the last presidential election, you will see that I was not pleased when W promised to sign the AWB. If the dems put it in front of him now, I reckon he'll sign off on it.
I've had enough of the wishy washy crap. There is less "republican" flavor in the GOP every day, it begins to smell like democrats. I am only here for The Constitution, when it goes, I go with it. Turn the Republican Party back around, or start calling yourselves something else.


42 posted on 12/10/2006 3:23:11 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (BUAIDH NO BAS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
My tagline is about the fact that John McCain is crazy.
43 posted on 12/10/2006 3:37:58 PM PST by Pukin Dog (I will vote for Hillary Clinton for President, before I will vote for John McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller
I love the " . . . " part of your quote of the 2003 Deseret News article. You conveniently leave out that the "opportunity" mentioned was a bill being brainstormed that would PROHIBIT Gay Marriage in Massachussetts. (FALSE) .... So essentially, Romney was in the middle of negotiating a potential deal to ban gay marriage in MA

Blatant lie.

Asked about that in the campaign, he said he would support domestic partnership benefits, at one point saying they would become a "hallmark of my leadership as governor."

Romney pledged his wholehearted support of domestic partnership benefits IN THE CAMPAIGN, NOT as you assert as some kind of compromise during the gay marriage debacle.

Also, the majority of the rest of the article provides some proper perspective . . . that Romney was really put in a pickle on this one.

ROFL, He was in a pickle BECAUSE HE WAS TRYING TO PLAY BOTH SIDES!!! LOL, you've really got some blinders on. Did you even read what you quoted???

"Romney has already begun staking out a centrist position in a debate prone to be defined by extremes. Barely an hour after the court's opinion was made public Tuesday morning, he delivered a nuanced, carefully prepared response that included elements to satisfy both ends of the political spectrum."

He's a two-faced phony, and he's going to pay the price for it.

44 posted on 12/10/2006 3:39:55 PM PST by JohnnyZ ("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller
Good work, but few will listen. Their prevailing views wont let them. Romney says he will follow the laws on both Gays and Abortion, yet 100%ers attack him as pro-abortion and pro-gay, because that is the only thing that makes sense to them. Supporting current law, when it goes against their views, does not. Fortunately, there are not enough of them to prevent Romney from winning. When McCain cracks, (and he WILL crack, trust me) Romney will win easily. Rudy has NO chance.
45 posted on 12/10/2006 3:42:12 PM PST by Pukin Dog (I will vote for Hillary Clinton for President, before I will vote for John McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003

Fair enough, but it seemed like it might be close for a while. :)


46 posted on 12/10/2006 4:18:17 PM PST by aynrandfreak (Who would turn out better if we split into two separate countries based on the '04 Presidential Map?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

You obviously live in a world of black and white (and Caps and Bold). Most of us who live and work in the real world realize that there are often "shades of gray." I think "the blinders" market is already cornered by you and yours.

I would like to see you be the Gov. of Massachusetts. Romney took on a hard job (but I'm glad it was him instead of Shannon O'Brien). I know he chose to do so, and that he's now choosing to run for POTUS, but everyone must realize how he has been willing to take on liberals on their own turf. That is why the National Review said of Romney: “Romney has done his best to defend the culture of life on what is probably the most inhospitable terrain in the country."

He has taken some centrist stands or been silent on some issues because of the MA political climate. How far do you think he would get by staking out a hard-line ultra-conservative view on every issue? Remember, he had/has to lead the state of MA.

On another issue . . . the "blatant lie" you assert.

Please quote my words that were a "lie."

I never asserted that he didn't say during his campaign that he would try to secure certain domestic benefits for gay couples (which, by the way, are things like "rights to survivorship", and being able to visit a partner in hospital ICUs, among other things). However, that doesn't exclude that it was under the setting of trying to get Gay Marriage banned that it came up again. Actually, it could have been that this was Romney's "master plan" the whole time since Gay Marriage was a hot issue during the campaign (and his opponent announcing that she was for it just weeks before the election helped clinch things for Mitt). His plan might have been to propose legislation or a ballot issue that banned gay marriage but granted some of these said "domestic benefits." Such a plan would have been short-circuited by the Court's action legalizing Gay Marriage. I don't know if this was his plan, but you don't know that it wasn't . . . so you need to tone down your rhetoric and statements where you seem to assume that you know what was in Romney's heart and mind when he's said or done the things he has. Fortuantely, ROmney is a gifted communicator and he will be able to address and answer these questions well.

PS . . . just so everybody who's reading this thread knows, I am a pro-Romney blogger (part-time and unpaid) and JohnnyZ is a true anti-Romneyite who has devoted his whole Freeper homepage ( http://www.freerepublic.com/~johnnyz/ --or just click on his name) to anti-Romney diatribe. I can understand being pro-someone or -something, but to be so devoted against an individual strikes me as questionable.

We've argued a lot in the past and he has really been "Johnny on the spot" whenever any pro- or anti-Romney articles articles are posted. I'll give him that at least.


47 posted on 12/10/2006 5:09:10 PM PST by Jeff Fuller (http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

"Some folks around here are trying really hard to make RKBA a non-issue. If they think they can sweep it under the rug, and win, they've got another think a-comin!"

Agreed 100%

RKBA is the one issue that can tell you everything you know about whether a candidate is pro or anti liberty.


48 posted on 12/10/2006 7:59:37 PM PST by GovernmentIsTheProblem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentIsTheProblem

Let them go, and try to get away with it, the only way they learn is the hard way. Maybe a few years of Hilary will wake them up, but, maybe it will be too late to change, by then.


49 posted on 12/10/2006 8:15:23 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (BUAIDH NO BAS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
>>>"Anyone who has not lived under a liberal socialist gov..........

But you said you will vote 3rd party and let president hillary govern you, that makes no sense.
50 posted on 12/11/2006 6:19:27 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson