Posted on 12/29/2007 10:02:01 PM PST by sevenbak
I like the way you think!
Agreed.
The problem is that the rats are DYING for the chance to paint somebody as a flip-flopper the way Republicans effectively painted Kerry in 2004. And man, does Mitt ever fit the bill as a flip-flopper. The guy is a regular waffling weasel. Wasn't he against gay marriage before he was for it? Or am I thinking of his forcing Catholic hospitals to hand out abortion drugs?
Sure, and they’ll try, but they can’t paint him as a flip flopper, only a flipper. He doesn’t go back and forth like Kerry did. Just forth.
Romney strongly defended marriage between a man and woman and lobbied congress to pass a nation bill defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
I know you don’t want the facts but someone else should go here to learn the truth.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#DOM
And in this election, every single candidate has changed positions on one thing or another. It will get to the point that it too becomes a tired issue.
Romney vetoed the bill that would provide the morning-after pill. When the veto was overridden, he implemented a policy that exempted hospitals even though the legislature has specifically removed that provision from their bill, under a novel theory that since the bill didn’t specifically say it was overturning the previous law, the previous law’s provision still applied.
However, his legal counsel told him that position was untenable, and he had to follow the law. The case is still in litigation, so eventually we will know whether his legal counsel was correct or not — but given the case has gone for 2 years, it is clear that at least there was a considerable weight to that position.
In any case, it is crystal clear that Romney OPPOSED the measure, and took steps to STOP it. The evidence shows he did NOT support making hospitals dispense the drug, and did not want to implement the law.
Same is true with gay marriage. He fought the change, he tried to get an amendment passed, and he even found a quirk in the mass. marriage law so that he could deny same-sex marriage to out-of-staters. Hardly the action of someone who supported gay marriage.
The problem with the attacks on Romney isn’t just that they are not supported by the facts, but that in many cases the facts specifically point to the OPPOSING view.
Mitt = victory.
Surprise endorsement my a$$.
Someone should check the church books to see if there were any recent large donations, a new church organ or possibly a vehicle suitable for someone in Reverend Hurd’s position.
The Dems want nothing to do with Mitt, which is why he gets the most Dem attack press releases, and the most negative MSM coverage.
They pine for Huck, and could stand Giulini or McCain. But Romney they don't have an answer for.
Quite simple, tax exempt (under that code) organizations lose their status if they endorse a candidate. It is why the Minutemen have had so much trouble undoing the endorsement from the former, disgraced head of their organization. It wouldn’t matter which Republican he endorsed, he broke the law. The funny thing is, if Governor Romney were running in the party where his true views on issues belong, there would be no trouble.
ROMNEY: THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD CONNECTION 1994 THRU 2006
FACT: April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence: As governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).
FACT: Romney's wife gave a donation in 1994 to Planned Parenthood and on June 12, 1994, Romney himself attended a private Planned Parenthood event at the home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney.
What were the basic facts of Romney @ this event?
"Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts
"Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts
"In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts
Despite putting Planned Parenthood into the concrete of RomneyCare, Romney maintains: "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life."
Every action?
Mitt appointed Liberal Judges, one released, or did not hold a convicted killer, and he killed X 2 again.
Mitt established is phony state trooper security force, caught in NH.
I does Mitt drink ice tea with Teddy Kennedy?
Now call me a liar, and all the adjectives you Mitt lovers defend the used car salesman with.
For the Liberals
“Mitt = victory.”
For the Pubs.
I also did not mention Romney filling out the following Planned Parenthood questionnaire in 2002:
In the spring of 2002 Romney completed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Signed by Romney and dated April 9, 2002, it contained these responses: Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES
Source: WeeklyStandard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp?pg=1
If he had truly "shedded" Planned Parenthood with his later "pro-life conversion," why was he still beholden to Planned Parenthood's place in RomneyCare in 2006?
Not for Conservatives, only RINOs
Seven, you need to look honestly at these next 3 posts:
(1) Mitt takes 3 positions on ENDA (forcing businesses to hire those with alternative sexualities)--2 of which are not pro-family...his 1st & 3rd positions [see below for details on that];
(2) Mitt takes 3 positions on embryonic stem cell experimentation--2 of which are not pro-life...his 1st & 3rd positions [see next post for details];
(3) Mitt takes over a dozen positions on general pro-life stances all over the map...I mean he even starts waffling away from wanting to be called "pro-choice" in 2001 before coming out as hardline pro-abortion as possible in 2002; only to undergo a pro-life "conversion" in late '04 & still make pro-abortion statements in 2005 & pro-abortion actions in 2006; and then muddle where he stood all throughout 2007. [See 2nd post ahead for details]
The only thing that's truly "tiring" is trying to keep up with his latest Gumby position.
THE FLiP SIDE OF MITT
Multiple Choice Mitt not only "changes" his positions, but he does so multiple times, waffling back & forth. On the position of whether business owners should be forced to hire alternative sexual preference employees, what do you think the chances are of a given candidate having three (count 'em, 3) pre-Christmas positions over the past 14 Christmases? (Well, Mitt has managed to do that...and his latest position is have the states do the dirty work of pro-homosexual activists.)
Pre-Christmas 1994 (October): “We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden…” Oct. 6, 1994 Romney for U.S. Senate letter to Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts
Pre-Christmas 2006 Interview (mid-December): Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today? Gov. Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges. Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY1MTQyMTk0Yjk2ZDNmZmVmNmNkNjY4ODExMGM5NWE=
Pre-Christmas 2007 Interview (mid-December): December 16, 2007: The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview December 16 with Tim Russert: MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it? GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this. MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level. GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/6/
THE FLoP SIDE OF MITT
Has Mitt really converted, pro-life wise? Let's first just examine, in two summary statements, a comparison of what he has said in 2007.
Mitt on the 2007 campaign trail:
(Summary Statements: Example A)
Jan 28, 2007 in South Carolina: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Source cited in ensuing "FLiP & FLoP post). A little over 6 months later: Aug. 12, 2007 in Fox interview: "I never called myself pro-choice...I wasn't pro-choice..."
(Summary Statements: Example B)
June 15, 2007 (National Review article he wrote): "Some advocates told me that only the creation of human embryos for purposes of experimentation, otherwise known as cloning, could help them better understand and perhaps someday treat a series of dreaded diseases. But they ignored the importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life. Almost 6 months later: December 5, 2007 Romney is interviewed by CBS' Katie Couric: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law."
A vocal pro-life nurse named Jill Stanek, up until this last quote from Romney, "was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt." Stanek's assessment of Romney's conclusion? "No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation. Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just need to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation...I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself...Turns out he's not completely converted." Source: http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/12/mitt_romney_just.html
As Deal W. Hudson has said in his blog, Romney has a "lingering problem" in being only opposed to creating clones for stem cell research--not opposed to using "discarded" or "donated" frozen embryos: "...frozen embryos have been the primary source of embryonic tissue for stem cell research. How can you declare yourself opposed to this research when you are not opposed to the way it is actually carried out?...My question is this: How can you consider a frozen embryo a moral entity capable of being adopted, while at the same time support the scientist who wants to cut the embryonic being into pieces? Even more, if Romney's conversion was about the 'cheapened value of human life,' how can he abide the thought of a parent donating 'one of those embryos' to be destroyed?" Source: http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/12/the-problem-wit.html
So, just on embryonic research, we go from a...
...Mid-2002 Romney singing the praises of embryonic research: June 13, 2002, where he: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning. Source: weekly standard http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp?pg=1
...To a...
...Late-2004 Romney undergoing his pro-life "conversion" due to this very issue: Nov. 9, 2004: Romney meet with Dr. Douglas Melton from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619536-2,00.html
...To a...
...Late-2007 Romney who doesn't mind frozen embryonic life being "cheapened" or doesn't mind if they are excluded from his so-called "importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life"...well that is, with this caveat: As long as Mom & Pop say it's OK for them to be sacrificed in such an experimental research manner!
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.