• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Do you have any pictures from where he bought flyer's for the gay weekend get together?
Are a copy of the letter of his NRA endorsement when he ran for governor? :^)
From Factcheck.com and Huckabee supporter
Romney on Huckabee
December 13, 2007
His ad strains to create black-and-white contrasts from blurry shades of gray.
Summary
An ad by Romney strains the facts in attempting to portray a stark contrast between him and Huckabee.
The ad says both Romney and Huckabee are “pro-life,” which is true now but glosses over Romney’s recent conversion.
The ad says “the difference” between the two is that Romney “vetoed in-state tuition for illegal immigrants” while Huckabee supported it. But Romney’s immigrant-bashing stance is also recent. In 2004 he said, “I hate the idea” of making college unaffordable for children of illegal immigrants.
Analysis
The ad began airing throughout Iowa this week. In form it is a straightforward “comparative” ad, focusing on the two candidates’ stands on the issues. But the picture it presents is the result of some political Photoshopping. The result: an ad whose contrasts are far sharper than we see in real life.
In it, an announcer lauds former Massachusetts Gov. Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee as “two good family men” who are “both pro-life” and oppose same-sex marriage. It says “the difference” between the two is on immigration, reminding voters that Huckabee supported in-state tuition rates for children of undocumented immigrants, and stating that Romney vetoed a similar bill in Massachusetts.
Choice: The Record
Mitt Romney: I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this message.
Announcer: Two former governors…two good family men…Both pro-life…both support a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage…
The difference?
Mitt Romney stood up, and vetoed in-state tuition for illegal aliens…opposed driver’s licenses for illegals.
Mike Huckabee? Supported in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants. Huckabee even supported taxpayer-funded scholarships for illegal aliens.
On immigration, the choice matters.
The Minister and the Convert
The ad presents a too-sharp focus at the start when it implies that Romney and Huckabee have identical records on abortion.
Announcer: Two former governors … two good family men … Both pro-life.
It’s true that both Huckabee and Romney oppose abortion – now. But Huckabee was pro-life while he was governor. Romney, not so much. Don’t take our word for it. Here’s Romney at a September debate in Iowa:
Romney: I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. I’ve said that time and time again. I’ve changed my position.
We don’t begrudge Romney the right to change his mind, and he’s been open about the fact that his position has changed. But many Iowa voters may still be unaware of that, and this ad implies that there’s no difference between these two candidates on abortion. That’s a stretch.
Let Them Pick Lettuce
The second half of the ad contrasts the positions of the two on immigration:
Announcer: Mitt Romney stood up, and vetoed in-state tuition for illegal aliens … opposed driver’s licenses for illegals. Mike Huckabee? Supported in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants. Huckabee even supported taxpayer-funded scholarships for illegal aliens.
It’s true, as we pointed out previously, that a plan Huckabee supported would have granted in-state tuition rates and eligibility for scholarships to any student who had attended an Arkansas public high school for at least three years, regardless of immigration status. It’s also true that Romney vetoed a similar bill in 2004. But Romney’s illegal immigrant bashing is of fairly recent vintage.
In 2004, the Boston Globe reported that Romney was reluctant to veto the tuition proposal – and not at all the certain, sure-footed decision maker portrayed in the ad. At the time, Romney said:
Romney (June 2004): I hate the idea of in any way making it more difficult for kids, even those who are illegal aliens, to afford college in our state. But equally, perhaps a little more than equally, I do not want to create an incentive to do something which is illegal.
Romney wasn’t a hardliner on immigration until late in his tenure as governor. As we have written, he took no action to punish the “sanctuary cities” that he now rails against. And while he boasts that he authorized state troopers to enforce federal immigration law, that order came at the end of his term, never went into effect and was overturned by his successor.
None of the specifics presented here are false, but the ad presents a black-and-white contrast that doesn’t exist in reality.
– by Joe Miller
Sources
Arkansas 85th General Assembly, Session 1. “HB1525: Access to PostSecondary Education Act of 2005.”
“Chapter 149 of the Acts of 2004.” 25 June 2004. The 185th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 11 December 2007.
Greenberger, Scott S. and Raphael Lewis. “Romney vetoes $108.5m in budget.” Boston Globe 26 June 2004.
This guy is making me dizzy. At least he has moved far enough that it is time to explain that "arms" includes more than just "firearms". As fast as he is moving, he will probably be recognizing this around Wednesday morning.
Apparently, though, Romney would sign a law banning machine guns. He doesn't explicitly state it, but one can only presume that he would allow confiscation of those that are in circulation, since he favors further limitations on a weapon that now is illegal to manufacture.
Thank you Spiff good report!:)
What’s really funny is that I’ve spent the last week carefully answering fellow 2nd amendment supporters. Whenever they complain that Romney supports a ban on “weapons of unusual lethality”, I’ve asked them whether their candidate is pushing to lift the ban on such weapons.
Not ONE Of them have answered the question. Some seem oblivious to the thought that there are weapons that are banned that could be permitted.
But they insist it’s why they won’t vote for Romney.
So far as I can tell, there is NO candidate for president who is pledging to lift the ban on weapons like machine guns. I’d like to see someone bring it up and discuss it, but our “solidly pro-2nd-amendment” candidates aren’t doing it.
Romney’s strong statement in this regard should help him. I hadn’t even thought about the fact that when Bush promised to sign an extension of AWB, he was simply pledging to maintain existing law.
And now Romney pledges to do the same, which means that if there is no NEW AWB ban passed before he takes office, the 2nd amendment folks have NOTHING to worry about.
Sometimes Romney is actually TOO honest. If he had said he didn’t support any ban on weapons, I doubt too many people would have said he was lying because he wasn’t ending the existing ban on machine guns.
But he couldn’t say he didn’t support any ban, because he does support the existing ban on hand grenades and such.
It’s one of the things I like about Romney. When he could have done the easy thing, vetoed the Ma. AWB ban, built up his “credibility”, but left the gun owners in his state much worse off, he chose instead to work with the NRA to pass a BETTER bill. The gun owners won, but he left himself open to the false attacks that he’s a “gun-grabber”.
Mitt Romney, with no constitutional or legal authority or compulsion to do so, instituted gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Mitt Romney signed a permanent assault weapons ban, saying, "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
Mitt Romney appointed far more non-Republicans than Republicans (of any stripe) to the judicial bench, including radical gay activists.
Mitt Romney's administration brought about the near-total homosexualization of state government and the public schools.
Mitt Romney signed socialized medicine into law, complete with taxpayer-funded abortions.
Mitt Romney sacrificed the state GOP on the altar of his own presidential ambition, leaving it in an utter shambles, with more Green Party candidates on the statewide ballot than Republicans.
LOL!!
I see a lot of stuff on the 2nd that makes it pretty obvious Romney thinks the 2nd amendment applies to hunting and sporting purposes.
It also doesn’t mention that Governor Romney signed one of the most restrictive State gun legislations in the Nation.
Spin it but no matter where the bottle lands Romney is not a supporter of the real 2nd amendment...the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
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.". 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?,/b> 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!
This is a kind of war where I am hoping both sides end up losing. Though of all the liberal GOP candidates, I guess I like Romney the best but he’s nothing to be excited about.
For a record of slithering Romney's marks in the sand, see post #11 of: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945874/posts
BTTT
Mitt Romney, the next POTUS!
That's where I write off Romney.
Sorry, but that "very liberal state" elected Mitt Romney. That same "very liberal state" that constantly re-elects Ted Kennedy, John F'n Kerry, Barney Frank, Edward Markey, and Bill Delahunt, and hasn't sent a Republican to Washington DC in over a decade, elected Mitt Romney. Of 40 Massachusetts state senators, 5 are Republicans. Of 160 members of the state House, 19 are Republicans. But Massachusetts elected Mitt Romney?
If those idiots wanted him, I don't.
TAGLINE CHANGE
COPY LINK TO ROMNEY TRUTH FILES http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946615/posts WooHoo!
Setting the record straight:
$50 abortions in MA thanks to Joe Isusu Romney.
The record is set straight.