Mitt Romney: A Massachusetts Liberal for President

American Thinker ^ | January.9, 2007 | Selwyn Duke

[UWconservative]

*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.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>I believe you are sinning my friend, 11th Commandment correct?

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.

[Pukin Dog]

What you are witnessing is desperation on the part of the anti-Romney folks. The Boy Scout thing is a half-truth. Romney is NOT, nor was he ever opposed to the Scouts prohibiting Gays. He was against the controversy becoming an issue during the Olympics. The most successful Olympics in history, I might add. The article is written to confuse those who don't know the facts.

[libbylu]

crap. heard it, stepped in it before. to each his own, i am for romney.

[UWconservative]

What about the homosexual adoption thing?

[EternalVigilance]

For those who care to know the rest of the facts about Romney's liberal record, as referenced in this article.

[Pukin Dog]

I honestly don't know about the adoption thing, but if the writer is willing to lie so blatantly about one thing, it should cast doubt on the whole thing. I will find out, and let you know.

[EternalVigilance]

Romney is NOT, nor was he ever opposed to the Scouts prohibiting Gays.

Really?

Mitt Romney: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

[MassachusettsGOP]

Very Interesting, thanks for the history behind that!

[Reagan Man]

You're welcome.

[EternalVigilance]

What you are witnessing is desperation on the part of the anti-Romney folks.

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.

[garjog]

"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?

[Plutarch]

During an Oct. 25 [1994] 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.

[EternalVigilance]

Yeah. He said both things IN THE SAME QUOTE.

Don't you see how that is one more STARK example of how this guy continually plays both sides?

[Torie]

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.

[EternalVigilance]

Romney has, rightly, been called not just a middle of the road politician but a "cover the road" politician. For very good reasons. The quote we are discussing is a CLASSIC example. In one quote, to one newspaper, he tells both sides exactly what they want to hear. I don't know about you, but it disgusts me.

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.

[EternalVigilance]

I'm sorry, but you're not making sense.

[Torie]

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?

[Torie]

By the way, there is a theme here, in my ideas. For example, I favor legalized gay marriage. Do I think that should be done by judicial fiat? Hell, no! Get the drift?

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.

[torchthemummy]

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.

As usual you get right to the crux of the issue, Torie. Bravo.