Posted on 01/01/2008 2:30:26 AM PST by tiger-one
Mitt's flips: Why they matter
5 hours, 6 minutes ago
HAS Gov. Mitt Romney become more conservative in the past few years or has he shrewdly tacked to the right to get the Republican presidential nomination?
We don't know. What we do know is that Romney's record involves more than just switching from a few liberal positions to a few conservative ones. It represents wholesale conversions on issue after issue, sometimes back and forth, and with some false biographical statements thrown in.
Any candidate for office is allowed to change his mind. People learn new facts or have personal experiences that bring them to new understandings. Not every switch is an opportunistic flip-flop.
The reason Mitt Romney has drawn our scrutiny on this issue, and we are not alone, is not because he is the only candidate who has changed positions. He is not. It is because the totality of his record gives the distinct impression that most of his positions are subject to change when politically expedient.
Whenever Mitt Romney has run for office, his public positions on the issues of the day have been in general agreement with the voter base whose approval he was seeking.
In Massachusetts he was pro-choice, then pro-life, then pro-choice, then pro-life again. He was even more pro-gay rights than Ted Kennedy, for strict gun-control laws, for affirmative action, against the Boy Scouts' policy on homosexual scoutmasters, for what he now calls "amnesty" for illegal immigrants, and against the Bush tax cuts.
How can he have changed his mind on all of those issues and others so soon after deciding to run for the Republican presidential nomination?
In addition to his rightward shift, Gov. Romney's record includes some personal statements that make him appear less than completely candid about who he is and what he believes.
He claimed to have been a lifelong hunter. He wasn't. He claimed to have had the NRA's endorsement. He didn't. He claimed to have marched with Martin Luther King Jr. He didn't. These cannot be explained away as conversions.
We have found Romney's enthusiasm for conservative princples to be situational at best. And we are not alone. We have listened carefully to Republicans who knew Gov. Romney during his political rise in Massachusetts. They do not believe he is a far-left liberal. But they don't believe he's as conservative as he now claims, either.
At the end of the day, Republicans have to pick one candidate for President. Some judge Mitt Romney to be truly conservative. We do not. We think his record shows that while he is a Republican, he is not as conservative as Sen. John McCain.
Those who know him have told us that at his core, Gov. Romney is a decent man. We believe that. We just don't believe he is a man of solid political conviction. That is what most Republicans want, in a President. And that is why we picked John McCain over Mitt Romney.
Much of what you say is untrue:
An Open Letter from Pro-Life & Pro-Family Leaders Regarding Governor Mitt Romney
January 11, 2007
Dear conservative friends:
We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003.
Since that time, we have worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda. Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts:
• Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the 2003 court decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”
• Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with considerable progress to date. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.
• Provided active support for a successful citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
• Rallied thousands of citizens to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment.
• Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Governor’s suit asked the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing pressure on the legislators to vote. The vote ultimately was taken on January 2, 2007 and won legislative support – clearing a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.
• Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”
• Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the socalled “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”
• Stood for religious freedom. Last year, Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.
• Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.
All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has written that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”
We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.
Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.
For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us. It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.
For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.
Sincerely,
Rita Covelle President, Morality in Media Massachusetts
Richard Guerriero Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus
Mary Ann Glendon Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Kristian Mineau President, Massachusetts Family Institute
Dr. Roberto Miranda President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England
James Morgan President, Institute for Family Development
Joseph Reilly President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Thomas A. Shields Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage
Mitt Romney learned a lot while governor as he faced the daily battles with the judicial activists while fighting a liberal agenda in his state. From that, he is undoubtedly a changed man — and mostly likely the best prepared to fight the battles against the dems and their liberal agenda in Washington.
Romney have a right to change his mind. I just can’t get over his “I’m not trying to return to Reagan/Bush” comment. He did fairly well for a conservative in the most liberal state in the union Massachusetts but why are we looking for a Massachusetts politician who seems to only recently discovered his conservatism to lead our country?
Is it because he is rich and has the support of the wealthy LDS church? 95% of all donations from Utah are flowing right to Romney. Not that I’m against Utah but I find that puzzling since he is hardly the most conservative candidate on the slate. That leaves me to think that the primary reason is his religious affiliation. So if his affiliation is being used to raise money I figure he can at least talk about it honesty and openly so we know exactly who is buying the Presidency of the United States of Utah.
Isn’t it true that not one, single Willard Romney male ever served in the US Military since, oh, before the civil war?
Who knew that Massachuetts was so open and amenable to a good solid dose of common sense and pragmatic wisdom?
Wouldn’t have guessed it, but for the fact that Mitt Romney has walked through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, and emerged on the other side. Just being Governor there, in the face of some extremely hostile attitudes, and fulfilling the duties of the office while deflecting a number of scurrilous attacks on every aspect of his personal and public life, is sure to change a man. When the man can then change the very nature of the pathway along which he has walked, then that speaks something.
Both Massachuetts and Mitt are just a little different from what either had been just a few years ago.
Could it be that it was George and Lenore Romney (a real leftist) who marched with MLK?
So I guess if he wins, we’ll just have to hold our breath for 4-8 years and hope he doesn’t change his mind again.
I doubt we will have to hold it very long, look what he did in 4 years, and recently.
I love you Liberal Mitt fans. Can you read? I did not say this, it was written in a newspaper, not by me.
Ted is not the real Romney, but Romney does belong to the Ted Kennedy wing of the Republican party.
“I did not say this, it was written in a newspaper, not by me.”
Yes but you posted it, didn’t you, and you believe it. Same difference. Just another smear attempt by the Mitt haters. In this case, you. Nice try.
Typical Mitt defense, I smear, I am a Mitt hater. You spent too much time socializing with Nurse Ratchet.
“Isn’t it true that not one, single Willard Romney male ever served in the US Military since, oh, before the civil war?”
Neither has Fred Thompson’s sons. This is what they do:
Tony Thompson said he lobbied mainly in Nashville and registered for only one Washington client, Lockheed Martin. He said he never lobbied the Senate or discussed clients with his father.
Daniel Thompson was registered as a lobbyist only at the state level, where he worked as executive director of a statewide business group, the Tennessee Business Roundtable. He was later also a paid consultant to his father’s political action committee. Daniel, too, declined to comment.
Nor has Guiliani’s son served. Only McCain and Duncan Hunter’s sons have been in the service and Hunter can’t make it out of the 2nd tier. So, if you believe that only a man or woman (Chelsea hasn’t been in the service either) and Edwards, Clinton and Obama have not served either, are capable of being President, then that means you vote for McCain, even though he has shafted his conservative base over and over again. Go to it. Vote for John McLame.
“Typical Mitt defense, I smear, I am a Mitt hater.”
If the shoe fits....
From your "about page"and can't imagine life without this website. It maintains my sanity in a sometimes insane world.
By your attacking me, sounds like this site is no longer "maintaining your sanity". Call your shrink now.
It’s always fun to present a Mittbot with facts. They shriek and paste like crazy ....
s 
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.