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.
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.