Romney’s ‘Energy’ Hits the Airwaves in Florida

NYT ^ | September 12, 2007, | By Michael Luo

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Mitt Romney is going to be our next President."

Better put these on, it's gonna be chin deep pretty soon.

[fieldmarshaldj]

And as an aside, I fail to see the appeal of Romney outside of his hair and his uh, hair.

[AppyPappy]

The Romney supporters have to spin up Romney as conservative. It comes down to “Ignore what he did and listen to what he says now”.

[Darkwolf377]

And as an aside, I fail to see the appeal of Thompson outside of his voice and his mannerisms. You claim you know Romney being in Mass. I voted for Thompson and was represented by him as a Tennesseean. Not voting for him in the Primary. A difference of opinions, I guess.

Interesting how you keep qualifying or disqualifying people based on voice and mannerisms. Who cares? I care about facts and votes and actions. I couldn't care less how Thompson looks or acts--I care about his positions, which he hasn't changed repeatedly as Romney has.

Romney was for gay civil unions--not sure where he stands on them now--and against Don't Ask Don't Tell--now he's for DADT.

He used to be pro-choice. Now he's pro-life.

He was for gun control. Now he's an NRA life member.

He was for stem-cell research (because of his grandchild and wife's illnesses). Now he's against it.

He's against illegal immigration. He hires illegals to take care of his lawn.

And if one wants to bring up Fred Thompson's flip-flop on McCain-Feingold, then how about Romney's flip-flop on McCain-Kennedy?

I fail to see the appeal of Romney outside of his smile and his admittedly ingratiating personality, which seems to demolish rational behavior in some folks. He's a smart man. I just don't see why he should be president.

[CheyennePress]

>>>In what he was able to do in MA, as opposed to what he couldn’t re; gay marriage, he denied local officials the ability to deny licenses for gay marriage.<<<

I’ve addressed this in quite a bit of detail on another post, and I’ll do it again. But I have to run now.

That said, I have a simple question to ask:

How did gay couples get married in Iowa? Did the governor not need to authorize that? Or the legislature pass laws?

In a word, nope. It took the judiciary to put a stay on the ruling for the marriage lincenses to stop flowing.

There is some rather poor understanding of the way the judiciary interacts with the Constitution and the law. That makes sense, as it’s a complex subject.

But long story short, the Mass Supreme Court struck down the Mass DOMA law as unconstitutional, stating that gays had the right to marry under the Mass constitution of equal protections. That DOMA law was all that was keeping gay coulpes from marrying in Mass.

At that point, the only branch of government who could have reversed what the judiciary did was the legislature, and that only course of action was by passing a Constitutional Amendment.

All Romney would have done by refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay couples was to violate the Mass State Constitution as interpreted by the Mass Supreme Court (which in a common law system and under Marbury v. Madison, they have every right to do)—the very document he took a vow to uphold.

The right move and the move Romney made was to try to bring about an amendment. Your legislature in Mass wasn’t too keen on hearing what the people thought, though, was it?

[Darkwolf377]

I guess so. It’s just kind of depressing at how a couple of years ago he was pro-choice, pro-gay civil unions etc., pro-gun control, pro-stem cell research...and everyone’s buying this sudden change in all of these positions.

[CheyennePress]

Romney never supported McCain-Kennedy. Go back and read the transcript. He specifically says he like ASPECTS of bills by McCain and Senator Cornyn (a bill, fyi, I think most conservatives could have accepted) and proposals by Bush.

But he also said in that interview that he was still mulling over the immigration issue and that he did not endorse any one bill.

[dennisw]

I’m not a Romney supporter (though I will of course if he’s the nominee) but he DOES have a very positive campaign theme, something the Democrats simply can’t bring themselves to attempt. For them it’s always midnight, and it’s raining, and the mule just died, and the baby is crying, and grandma’s in bed with an infection, and the cupboard’s bare, and

Mitt Romney has a track record --- Bain & Co. , Utah Olympics, Massachusetts governor
Rudy Gulianni has a track record --- Manhattan US Attorney and 8 years mayor of New York

Hillary Clinton has no track record. What has she ever done? What has she ever accomplished? Who is stupid enough to bet on a horse that has never done anything on the horse track?

[Darkwolf377]

>>>In what he was able to do in MA, as opposed to what he couldn’t re; gay marriage, he denied local officials the ability to deny licenses for gay marriage.<<< I’ve addressed this in quite a bit of detail on another post, and I’ll do it again. But I have to run now. That said, I have a simple question to ask: How did gay couples get married in Iowa? Did the governor not need to authorize that? Or the legislature pass laws? In a word, nope. It took the judiciary to put a stay on the ruling for the marriage lincenses to stop flowing. There is some rather poor understanding of the way the judiciary interacts with the Constitution and the law. That makes sense, as it’s a complex subject. But long story short, the Mass Supreme Court struck down the Mass DOMA law as unconstitutional, stating that gays had the right to marry under the Mass constitution of equal protections. That DOMA law was all that was keeping gay coulpes from marrying in Mass. At that point, the only branch of government who could have reversed what the judiciary did was the legislature, and that only course of action was by passing a Constitutional Amendment. All Romney would have done by refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay couples was to violate the Mass State Constitution as interpreted by the Mass Supreme Court (which in a common law system and under Marbury v. Madison, they have every right to do)—the very document he took a vow to uphold. The right move and the move Romney made was to try to bring about an amendment. Your legislature in Mass wasn’t too keen on hearing what the people thought, though, was it?

You keep tossing all of this rhetoric into the debate as before, yet you never answer the simple questions (just as you kept dodging the ones about the STATE paying for those making 300% of poverty-level): Why didn't Romney do what he was constitutionally capable of doing on this issue re: local officials and the ability to deny licenses?

You go on, and on, and on, but other than your silly attempt to claim superior understanding of Massachusetts law (inspired no doubt by those Romney talking points you seem to have handy at all times) you don't address the ISSUE.

Maybe you should keep this handy for reference:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/timeline.html

Timeline Documents Romney's Role in Creating Same-Sex "Marriages"

Some highlights...(including an answer to your retort that he had no ability to influence the situation I brought up which you are obviously unaware of):

* 1994 Campaign vs. Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate: Romney pledged he “will provide more effective leadership” than Kennedy on homosexual rights; endorsed by Log Cabin Republicans.

* 2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating.

* 2001 Called first citizens' petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions.

* 2002 Campaign for Governor: Romney makes promises to GLBT community, according to leading Boston homosexual newspaper; endorsed by homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans.

* Feb. 2004 Justices of the Peace are told by their professional association they will be able to claim “conscientious objector” status and refuse to perform same-sex marriages -- though this was never agreed to by Romney administration.

* Feb.-May 2004 Pro-family leaders and columnists urge Romney to defy court, and issue Executive Order to block same-sex marriage; no public comment from Romney.

* March 26, 2004 Word leaks out that Romney’s Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and attorneys are planning training sessions for Town Clerks and preparing same-sex marriage licenses.

* March 29-31, 2004 Romney seeks stay of SJC ruling until constitutional amendment issue is settled, but Atty. General Reilly refuses to take Governor’s case before SJC. [Did Romney believe that same court that issued Goodridge ruling would seriously consider his request for a stay?]

* March 30, 2004 Romney says he’ll “abide by the law of the land as it exists on May 17” and says he would not order town clerks to defy court edict. Romney says he’d not explored the Constitution section giving him power over “causes of marriage” and whether it gives him any legal power to stop same-sex marriage (according to spokesman).

* April 12, 2004 Romney spokesman says training sessions for town clerks will begin “with plenty of room to spare before May 17.” Ron Crews of Mass. Coalition for Marriage states hope for an Executive Order to halt the marriages.

* April 15, 2004 Romney’s DPH Registrar of Vital Records informs town clerks by letter of training sessions before SJC ruling becomes effective.

* April 22, 2004 Romney does not comment on Rep. Goguen's filing of Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove the 4 SJC judges, or Article 8’s revelation of Chief Justice Marshall’s violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Marshall had appeared as keynote speaker at homosexual advocacy group dinner in 1999 advocated extension of “rights” for homosexuals, and failed to recuse herself from ruling on same-sex marriage though she had publicly expressed her bias.)

....

I thought we were supposed to like Romney for his energy and smarts and all that. Looks like he didn't exactly show much political courage here, and there were definite opportunities for such.

[Darkwolf377]

Romney never supported McCain-Kennedy. Go back and read the transcript. He specifically says he like ASPECTS of bills by McCain and Senator Cornyn

Nice try, but I didn't say he supported McCain-Kennedy. Go back and read my post. I'm saying he's flip-flopped, which was on his support of those ASPECTS of bills by McCain and Senator Cornyn.

I'm assuming that means you agree with the rest of that post. How one can do so and still support Romney baffles me.

[Darkwolf377]

I'm not getting into Romney, who I've gone on about at length. I'll just say I live in MA and know some of his staffers.

As for HRC, she's the ultimate feminist, talking independence and getting where she is through who she sleeps with (or slept with).

[EternalVigilance]

The appeal of Romney is pretty simple. There’s not a candidate in the field who is as pro-business, as pro-growth, and as right on the social issues and the border. Period.

Mitt Romney is going to be our next President.

Thanks. Nothing like a good laugh early in the am.

Pro-business? Pro-growth? He's saddled Massachusetts businesses with his socialized medicine scheme which is going to put them out of business. Buying votes with other people's money.

He's the worst liar I've ever seen on social issues. And even then he can't get it right. Liars never can, you know.

Not that long ago, he was somewhere in McCain territory on the borders. Anyone who says he's some kind of a border hawk now is either naive or lying.

It is not possible for Mitt Romney to win the presidency. He can never pull together the Reagan coalition, any more than his fellow liberal Rudy Giuliani can.

[restornu]

Some times I think the feeling of love of family and country people can give that impression but it is not from man.

Sadly for some the unfamilar spirit of joy and graditude comes across to people like that.

[EternalVigilance]

Romney never supported McCain-Kennedy. Go back and read the transcript.

Hmmm...I went and read this one:

In the November 2005 interview, "Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as 'quite different' from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship. 'That's very different than amnesty, where you literally say, 'OK, everybody here gets to stay,'" Romney said in the interview. 'It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine.'" [Boston Globe, 3/16/07]

[dennisw]

But what has Hillary ever done? What is her track record?

[restornu]

I think it is sad you can take good things that is given to man(us)and you want to renounce it!

I am thankful where ever the Lord chooses to bless me even from the beggar on the street.

Feeling of joy when good things happen or accomplished in the earth should not be trampled upon.

When someone like Pavarotti sings and it touches your soul it really comes from God Pavarotti is the instrument it comes through Pavarotti was no angel and neither is Mitt he is just an instrument, so are you, and the rest of us.

I will never understand those who want to tear down good it is beyond my understanding.

I am only thankful I can appreciate it no matter where it comes from!

People who speak of doom and gloom and faults never up lift a nation so the individual can rise to their full potential!

Some here thinks it is cute to demean with naughty words what does that being your neighbor but soiled dreams!

[restornu]

You gone weak in the knees...

jello!

[restornu]

amazing they don’t want us on their Fred Thread and look the other way at any question able traits etc.

I am very respectful when I do visit but they know nothing of the golden rule!

I refuse to get down with them and the rest of us should focus on what promotes good in life, and let the gainsayers be!

[restornu]

In all the post you have made over the months how may have been about the spirit of joy and good things for mankind?

[Clintonfatigued]

It’s a pretty good ad. Kind of routine, but well-done.