Posted on 01/09/2007 6:41:03 PM PST by Reagan Man
With the 2008 presidential campaign looming just on the horizon, speculation about political fortunes abounds. On the Democrat side, Lady Hillary is waiting in the wings, and the media's profilers have found their fair-haired boy in Barack Obama. On the Republican side, the picture is murkier. Often the Vice-president would be the logical choice to carry the incumbent party's torch, but Dick Cheney won't be running and, even if he did, he wouldn't win. Of course, Arizona Senator John McCain is still around, but he arouses suspicion among conservatives. Seeming worn, tired, erratic and untrustworthy, many think the old soldier should just fade away.
Enter Mitt Romney. Inching ever closer to a presidential run, the former CEO and outgoing Governor of Massachusetts is emerging as the Barack Obama of the GOP. And the analogy is apt. He has the resonant voice, the good looks, the statesman-like bearing and, going Obama two better, great hair and unobtrusive ears.
But Romney shares another commonality with Obama: He's a liberal in his party masquerading as something more palatable. Yes, sugar and spice and dealing the deck twice, that's what little politicians are made of.
As to this point, another politico he can be compared to is Al Gore. Like Gore, Romney has flip-flopped on abortion, only in the other direction. While he now claims to be pro-life, he supported legalization of the "morning-after" abortion pill, RU-486. Moreover, as recently as his 2002 run for governor his platform stated,
"The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."
Of course, Romney says that his views have "evolved." But I strongly suspect his adaptation relates more to the evolution of political ambitions than that of conscience. Call me cynical, but unless you've been cloistered in an ancient monastery for the duration, I'm very suspicious of deep personal growth occurring between ages 55 and 59.
According to Romney, unlike himself, the "paradigm" of marriage is not "evolving," and his high profile stand against anti-marriage has garnered him much publicity of late. But here, too, Romney has been about as consistent as March weather, with a track record that belies his newfound traditionalism.
In a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, Romney hailed Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a "step in the right direction" and "the first of a number of steps" toward homosexuals serving "openly" in the military.
Then, Brian Camenker points out the following in The Mitt Romney Deception:
- "Romney's campaign distributed pro-gay rights campaign literature during Boston's ‘Gay Pride' events," issuing pink fliers stating, "Mitt and Kerry [running mate Kerry Healey] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference."
- Romney advocated governmental recognition of homosexual adoption rights, domestic partnerships and homosexual civil unions.
- Romney opposed the Boy Scouts' policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters and prevented the organization from participating publicly in the 2002 Olympics.
- The Boston Globe wrote in 2005, "Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents - including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights."
- Romney promoted homosexual propaganda in Massachusetts schools through the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth," funding this bureaucracy of social engineering instead of eliminating it.
Thus, it's no wonder that while campaigning against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney said that anti-marriage "is not appropriate at this time." My guess is that the time will be right when the electorate is left.
Equally damning, though, is that in a very ominous way he can be compared to yet another infamous poseur, Hillary Clinton. On April 12, 2006, Romney signed a bill into law that creates a universal health system intrusive enough to be the envy of socialists everywhere. The plan mandates that every Ma. resident must obtain health insurance by July 1, 2007, or face a fine that could exceed 1,200 dollars a year. Of course, this scheme includes the creation of a new bureaucracy, one that will, using Big Brother's infinite wisdom, determine how much you can afford to pay. Wow, thanks for the help, Mitt. Or, is it "Vinny the Chin"? I mean, this sounds like an offer you just can't refuse.
To justify his socialist brainchild, Romney uses the argument that it is no different from requiring people to carry car insurance. Ah, speciousness, thy name is Romney. Mr. Governor, you can choose not to own a car.
Everyone must have a body.
But remember this when Romney touts his credentials as a fiscal conservative. While he may boast of his steadfast refusal to raise taxes, it rings hollow when he turns around and mandates citizen expenditures and levies fines. But liberals are adept at revenue-raising sleight-of-hand; when another tax increase would raise voter ire, they simply deem it a toll, fine, fee or, I love this one, a "surcharge." I prefer honest theft myself.
President Bush is often excoriated for betraying his conservative base, a perception that contributes to poll numbers lower than Ted Kennedy's jowls. What is forgotten, however, is that while campaigning for the presidency in 2000, Bush accused the Republican Congress of trying ". . . to balance the budget on the backs of the poor," a line that could have been culled from Democrat talking points. Folks, the president never cast himself as anything but exactly what he is. We just weren't listening.
Are we listening now?
Ah, those Massachusetts liberals: Studds, Frank, Kennedy and Willard Mitt Romney. It just seems to roll off the tongue.
Bernie Sanders for veep, anyone?
*Gag*
I agree homosexuals should have equal LEGAL rights (if that's what he was talking about), but that doesn't mean rights to marry or touch young boys as Scoutmasters.
Wrong.
California GOP Chairman Gaylord Parkinson created the 11th commandment in 1966. It served Reagan well, against his GOP primary opponent for Governor, liberal San Francisco Mayor George Christopher. By 1976 Reagan was attacking Pres Ford in the GOP primaries, and right up through the GOP convention.
IOW. The 11th commandment was/is a fallacy. Politics isn't for the faint of heat or the thin skinned. Reagan knew Ford was a weak leader. Too bad Ford didn't have the smarts to drop out and let Reagan run against the peanut farmer. Reagan would have won.
crap. heard it, stepped in it before. to each his own, i am for romney.
What about the homosexual adoption thing?
Really?
Very Interesting, thanks for the history behind that!
You're welcome.
No. What you are witnessing is the truth about Romney's actual record, as opposed to his oh-so-very conservative words now that he's running for president, finding its way out to the conservative movement.
The Boy Scout thing is a half-truth. Romney is NOT, nor was he ever opposed to the Scouts prohibiting Gays.
You're either grossly mistaken, or lying. The facts on this are clear, as anyone with Google and a web browser can find out for themselves.
He was against the controversy becoming an issue during the Olympics. The most successful Olympics in history, I might add.
Yeah, right. So, bigotry against the Scouts, in the pursuit of the enforcement of liberal pc is worth it as long as you 'succeed.'. Okey-dokey.
The article is written to confuse those who don't know the facts.
Looks to me like the author is trying to bring the facts to the confused.
"forcing people to have health insurance"
Wouldn't forcing people to get health insurance be better than the socialists ruining our health care system with a government take over?
Don't you see how that is one more STARK example of how this guy continually plays both sides?
Could it be that Romney favored the Scouts deciding to allow gays to participate, but the decision was up to them, not him, and should be? If so, the stand is not inconsistent, and in my opinion, quite sensible.
Romney took a pro-gay position on another hot-button issue during the Senate campaign: the ban on gay people participating in the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). During an Oct. 25 debate Romney was asked about the Scouts' policy. He answered, ""I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue," according to the Globe. He then added, ""I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
He took two polar opposite positions in one stinking breath.
I'm sorry, but you're not making sense.
Let me try again. Torie (and presumably Romney) thinks that gays should be allowed into the scouts, but in the end, irrespective of what I favor, or what he, Romney, favors, the scouts should make that call, not me, and should not be punished or coerced if they make a decision with which I disagree, because they are private organization, that does great work. Is that helpful to you?
I am not suggesting Romney agrees with me. I think he favors civil unions, not gay marriage. There is a difference, a practical as well as symbolic difference, mostly fiscal ones at the federal level, regarding the application of federal benefits, and burdens.
As usual you get right to the crux of the issue, Torie. Bravo.
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.