Skip to comments.Is Mitt Romney Conservative? (Gov Romney Supported Abortion & Gay Agenda with Judges & Boy Scouts)
Posted on 01/07/2008 6:18:49 AM PST by xzins
Is Mitt Romney Conservative?
by Gary Glenn Chairman, Campaign for Michigan Families
The Washington, D.C. conservative weekly Human Events last year listed Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in its Top Ten list of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), ranking him at number 8 in the nation with the following entry:
"Has said, I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. Supports (homosexual) civil unions and stringent gun laws. After visiting Houston, he criticized the citys aesthetics, saying, This is what happens when you dont have zoning." (Human Events)
Romney should have ranked even higher on the list of RINOs. He famously likes to tell conservative audiences in Iowa and South Carolina that being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention.
I attended last falls GOP conference in Michigan, where Romney continued his masquerade as a "conservative," even daring to tell the assembled activists: "I am pro-life" -- knowing full well that he does not mean by that term what those listening would think he meant.
Romneys ten-year political career has occurred from his late 40s to his late 50s, yet he asks pro-family conservatives to naively believe that hes just now figuring out his core beliefs.
During that decade, he has insistently supported legal abortion-on-demand. In a televised 1994 campaign debate, Romney said: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. ...Since that time, my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see my wavering on that." (Boston Globe)
His 2002 gubernatorial campaign web site stated: "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the governments." (Archive)
Romneys response to the National Abortion Rights Action Leagues 2002 candidate survery: I respect and will protect a womans right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the governments. The truth is, no candidate in the governors race in either party would deny women abortion rights." (Notably, Romney refused to answer Massachusetts Citizens for Lifes candidate questionnaire.) (Boston Globe)
Not surprisingly, Romneys clearly stated support for Roe and "a womans right to choose" -- i.e., abortion on demand -- earned him the endorsement of the pro-abortion Republican Majority for Choice PAC.
He was also endorsed, twice, by the homosexual "Log Cabin Republicans," the same group that in 2004 spent $1 million attacking President Bush for his support of a Marriage Protection Amendment.
Romney believes the Boy Scouts should allow openly homosexual Scoutmasters: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." (Web today)
He endorses Ted Kennedys federal "gay rights" legislation. He endorses taxpayer-financed same-sex benefits for the homosexual partners of state employees, and even attacked some Democratic legislators for not supporting such government benefits.
According to the Associated Press, he has appointed at least two openly homosexual lawyers to state judgeships, one a board member of the Lesbian & Gay Bar Association. Imagine how that will fly in Republican presidential primaries in the South, the prospect of a president with a record of appointing homosexual activists to the bench. (See copy of gubernatorial news release below.)
In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized so-called homosexual "marriage," Romney denounced a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual "marriage," civil unions, or same-sex public employee benefits as "too extreme," even after being advised by the media that his own wife and son had just signed a petition to place it on the ballot. (Boston Phoenix)
Now, as he postures to run for president, Romney travels to Iowa and Michigan and South Carolina to claim hes "pro-life" and brag about fighting homosexual "marriage," saying that at age 59, his position on such issues has "evolved."
(No flip-flop so far, however, on his stated support for homosexual Scoutmasters, forcing taxpayers to fund spousal benefits for the "partners" of state employees involved in homosexual relationships, or Kennedys federal "gay rights" legislation.)
Regardless, most pro-family voters dont believe in the theory of evolution -- including as it applies to politicians, and especially when the alleged "evolution" seems so conveniently timed to produce political benefit.
Gov. Romney can tell all the cattle-rancher-at-a-vegetarian-convention jokes he wants about Massachusetts. But theyre going to fall flat when social conservatives learn -- and they will -- that his long-term record on abortion and elements of homosexual activists political agenda has been that of Vegetarian in Chief.
I think I'm gonna have a bumper sticker made that reads, "Stuck with Huck!"
You should have seen the database I used to maintain. :-) It had over 5,000 articles and studies categorized by subject but it became too much to maintain. A couple of years ago I tried to limit my time to science, ex-gays and what’s going on in the schools. Unfortunately, I no longer have the time or interest in the subject as I used to.
Spam? These are Mitt’s words, not mine or some attack machine’s. In other posts on the thread you and BufordP seemed to plead for ‘sensible’ or ‘intelligent’ dialogue? Not so?
The title is exactly as it was on the web page.
If you’ll look around FR, you’ll notice that parenthetical info is common and permitted.
Romney & Giuliani are liberals. It’s that simple. There’s no disgrace in vehemently opposing them.
ALL of the other Republican candidates are more conservative than those two.
Given those I do not endorse I would not/will not participate in smearing them in the event they become our candidate. Obviously, same goes for Romney since I place him third on my list.
I think the rash of Romney smear threads on FR are greatly counter productive. A lot of the stuff is patently stupid. At least freepers can debate his state healthcare program and his stance on gun control. At least that stuff is legit.
His record as governor proves to me he's sincere about the sanctity of life and gay marriage, etc.
P.S. I go off-line in afew minutes.
If Mitt comes to see the light on an issue, it is not genuine and he will be flogged with his former position in perpetuity.
An issue? I suggest that this "spam" at #143 refutes your statement at #134.
But then he took the action of signing a health care plan which provided $50 abortions, even when he vetoed other parts of the bill. Doesn't sound very pro life to me.
Yes it was. Thank you.
Just another reason I'll be voting for Fred in the Illinois primary.
Man, it sucks to be a politician in a world with Youtube!
The Mormon church is very positively involved and supportive of Boy Scouts, with people like J.W. Marriot providing a lot of money and other support.
I recognize that, and I'm wondering where you got the idea that I think Mitt Romney is Mormonism.
It is impressive, isn’t it?
Scripter has saved me alot of searching. I haven’t always used it competently, but I try.
I did say sensible and intelligent conservatives that is different from “pragmatic”.
I consider that intelligence/wisdom is the quality required for a true strong positive conservatism when it has to face the complex and various reallity fearless while maintaining some permanent truth working as an order principle....
Conservatism has something to do with truth which founds ethic and a real freedom.
On the opposite the relativist liberalism goes on repeating always the same abstract and fantasmatic principles fleeing away from a reallity it can’t understand and opening the way to servitude.
Then conservatives have to explain their points in order to convince as liberals try to captivate people with soft words and promisses ...
That is such an old, old lie.
It wasn't part of any plan. It was a mandate from the state supreme court ruled the state constitution required abortion subsidies as part of Medicare going back to 1983. Romney's plan changed the way that medicare was structured, and also introduced a plan for those who were not on medicare but otherwise uncovered. However, he was powerless to change this.
So either I clearified something for you or you know better and are just trying to sabotage Mitt with falshoods. I'll presume the former.
Thompson voted in favor of S.1664, the biggest immigration enforcement bill that came up during his tenure in the Senate. It included provisions for hiring hundreds more investigators in the Labor Dept. to put a stop to employers hiring illegals.
As for conservatism, Hunter is more conservative than Thompson in some areas. Thompson is considerably more conservative than Hunter in others. They’re both good candidates — it just depends on how we each rank our priorities.
I do agree that it was wrong to exclude Hunter, Paul and Keyes from the debate.
The main reason that many "conservatives" and pundits don't consider Hunter conservative on "some issues" is that they don't deaire to hamper any imports/exports on China - free trade but not fair trade.
Hunter also objects to our tax laws as they now exist and many argue over best way to handle it - some like the income tax with all it's various exemptions, while others would scrap it entirely with a "consumption tax" which many don't think as fair (and certainly not some wealthier individuals, as they would pay more as their consumption is greater and with no exemptions, those would evaporate.)
Certainly arguments can be made on both sides and well worth a complete, honest and open airing.
You may be thinking of Thompson’s vote in committee, where he voted against a system that would require all citizens (not just immigrants) to get the federal government’s permission before they can work. He also voted in committee against applying civil forfeiture penalties against employers who hire illegals. I agree with this vote because it would have vastly expanded a law enforcement practice that is trampling on fourth and fifth amendment protections, since under “civil forfeiture” government claims it has no responsibility to convict anyone of a crime — they just seize the property and force the former owner to prove he deserves it back.
However, Thompson voted for many other tough enforcement measures in committee, and also during deliberation on the bill. He also voted for the final tough enforcement bill.
I hope that wasn’t too long-winded — I just wanted to clarify.
I do agree with Hunter’s point about China’s military build-up. I’m just not sure that his proposals would ultimately help the situation. If we have a big trade deficit with them, then we at least have some leverage. If we didn’t trade as much with them, I fear that they would simply make up the trade elsewhere — leaving them with the same amount of money for arms, but leaving us with no chits to play.
I’ve looked at Hunter’s record, and I’m not concerned about his record on taxes. As far as I’ve seen, he’s very solid on cutting taxes.
However, in my view he’s not as good on the spending side — specifically, on entitlement spending. In my view that’s by far the most dangerous kind of spending, because it’s almost impossible to cut — ugh, look at the flak Thompson gets just for proposing to cut benefit growth. But entitlement growth leaves too much of our money in foreign/enemy hands, and will eventually limit the amount we have to spend on vital military efforts. It’s a massive national security problem IMO, and it’s an area where Thompson is head and shoulders above most other candidates.
I have a couple of other concerns with Hunter, but the latter is the biggest one. On the other hand, I think that in the many areas where Hunter’s right, he’s very right — I’d have no trouble voting for him if he were our candidate.
I greatly appreciate your thoughtful post!
Come on now. Religion isn’t the same as politics.
In a religion, you welcome converts.
In politics, aren’t we supposed to hate and shun people who didn’t agree with us in the last millennium? Isn’t that the policy that best grows political movements and parties?
I did object to the vote by Thompson on penalizing companies for hiring illegals, regardless of "how much power it would give......"I'm sick of pressing #1 for English, etc. and very sick and tired of seeing everything in my local grocery, drug and home improvement store advertised in Spanish.
I'm also sick and tired of government lies about the trans national highway system being built with U.S. dollars to speed Mexican trucks to Canada.
This thread scares me, but I think you may be right. Well, I hope you are right, anyway. If Fred drops out, Romney is gonna be the only viable choice left for me. He seriously impressed me in the debates. In fact, he made me feel better about Fred not doing so well by giving me a conservative to fall back on if it happens.
“Always gotta go back to ‘94.”
Romney didn’t publicly flip-flop on abortion til July 2005.
Didn’t flip-flop on Kennedy’s federal “gay rights” bill or gays in the military til Dec 2006.
Federal LAW prohibits homosexuals from serving in the military.
Which is why homosexuals, when discovered, are discharged.
The “don’t ask” construct was a Clinton administrative policy maintained by Bush.
Despite what Mitt SAID when he was running for Governor in Mass., he governed as a prolifer.
Charles, this is the worst example I’ve seen yet of what I can only conclude is intentional lying by omission.
Romney saying he supports the Scouts’ right to decide their own policy is like saying I support Romney’s right to run for president, a far cry from saying I support Romney for president.
Romney clearly expressed his own opinion: that he thought “all people” should be free to participate in Scouting “regardless of their sexual orientation” — the word “all” including adults as well as boys, unless you have a different dictionary than the rest of us.
Following that ‘94 debate, the national spokesman for the Scouts publicly rebuked Romney in the Boston Globe.
This is a rare issue on which Romney has not flip-flopped.
He still opposes the BSA’s national policy, saying he thinks each local Scout council should decide the issue. Which would allow homosexual activists in liberal cities to persecute, harrass, and pick off one council at a time.
And the president of the U.S. serves as the honorary nat’l chair of the Boy Scouts. If Romney becomes president, homosexual activists will start quoting him to put further pressure on the Scouts to drop their policy and allow young boys to be exposed in Scouting to adults and boys involved in homosexual activity.
How we each rank our priorities?
That’s indeed a great question! But does any candidate or supporters here explain how and why they rank their priorities?
In my mind the main isue which should be considered for itself is the CIVILISATIONAL/CULTURAL issue.
What civilisation values do we want for us and the next generation?What civilisation would we defend and eventually fight for?What is our legacy if we have some legacy?
All other issues depend on this one...
The Brody File is the first to receive a press release that will go out later today from the Brownback campaign.
It is a frontal assault on Mitt Romney.
Basically, the Brownback campaign is blasting Romney for his past comments about the Boy Scouts. You can read the press release below.
The title is as follows:
Romney Hostile to Boy Scout Leadership and Principles: Supports Gay Scout Leaders, was Cold to Scout Participation in Olympics.
Here’s the entire press release:
In his 1994 Senate race in Massachusetts and later as CEO of the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Mitt Romney opposed Boy Scout officials who wished to prevent gay men from becoming troop leaders and was hostile to Scout participation in the 2002 Olympics.
In a 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney offered his support for gay scout leaders:
“I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
The comments from Romney, who holds a law degree, came six years before the June 2000 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Boy Scouts to bar troop leaders based on sexual orientation. The ruling cited the constitutional rights of freedom of association and speech.
Later in 2000, facing pressure from gay rights activists, Romney was cold toward overtures from Scout leaders who wished to participate in Olympic activities.
“At a recent training event for Scout leaders, Marty Latimer, chief Scout executive for the council, revealed that the Scouts are no longer welcome. ‘We don’t understand what’s wrong. They just don’t want us and won’t talk to us,’ said Latimer. He told NewsMax.com that Mitt Romney, president and CEO of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee, has not returned phone calls from a number of Scout officials who have tried to obtain clarification.”
Romney’s openness to gay scout leaders conflicts with the Scout Oath, which requires Scouts to be “morally straight.”
“What part of morally straight doesn’t Mitt Romney understand?” said Larry Cirigiano, a Catholic activist in Massahusetts. “Boy Scout ‘leaders’ are supposed to be role models. Open homosexuals should not be leading young Boy Scouts anywhere.”
Senator Brownback has always supported the right of the Boy Scouts of America to determine the best leaders for young scouts.
The Brownback campaign then directs people to a YouTube clip of a 1994 U.S. Senate debate where Romney talks about this. You can watch it here.
Let me say a few things.
First of all, this Boy Scout story has been talked about at the grassroots level before but this is the first time that a rival campaign has brought it up and made it an issue. It makes sense that the Brownback campaign would do this.
The operatives within the campaign do not like Romney.
They feel he is disingenuous on nearly every issue. Brownback needs to do well in the upcoming Iowa Straw Poll to begin to break out of the second tier. You can bet that the campaign will be spreading this Boy Scout information to the conservative Iowa voters where family values are important.
We will try and get a response from the Romney campaign today. In the past, The Brody File inquired about the Governor’s position on this issue but never got a response.
Is this a big deal to you? The Brownback campaign thinks it’s important but what say you?
"Every piece of legislation which came to my desk [as] governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life."
--Mitt Romney, NBC "Meet the Press", December 16, 2007.
It is becoming difficult for Mitt Romney to keep track of his twists and turns on the abortion issue. The photograph above shows Romney back in June 1994 during his first big political campaign, running against Sen. Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. It was taken at a fund-raiser for the pro-abortion rights group, Planned Parenthood, in Cohasset, Mass. The woman with her back to Romney is Nicki Nichols Gamble, former president of the Massachusetts branch of Planned Parenthood, which accepted a $150 contribution from Romney's wife Ann (in a white jacket to Romney's right.)
The "pro-choice" candidate for senator, and later governor, of Massachusetts is now the "pro-life" candidate for president of the United States. His record as governor is controversial, however. Interviewed by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Romney claimed that he took a "pro-life" position on "every piece of legislation" that came before him. But that is untrue, at least by his present definition of what constitutes "life."
Romney announced his conversion to "pro-life" views in an editorial in the Boston Globe on July 25, 2005, the day after vetoing a bill expanding access to the so-called "morning after" pill, which required that it be made available to rape victims. See my detailed and updated chronology here. Abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood expressed shock at the governor's change of heart, after he had personally signed a pledge to support increased access to the "morning after" pill. "Pro-Life" groups hailed the decision.
That was not the end of the story, however. The controversy over "emergency contraception" continued to haunt Romney. In October 2005, another bill came to his desk, seeking a federal waiver to expand the number of Massachusetts citizens eligible for family planning services, including the "morning after" pill. Romney signed that bill over the objections of his new anti-abortion allies. On this occasion, he was applauded by "pro-choice" advocates.
The issue came up yet again in December 2005. After weeks of agonizing, Romney instructed all hospitals in the state to comply with the terms of the emergency contraception law, and make the morning-after pill available to rape victims. He acted on the advice of his legal counsel, over the objections of half a dozen Catholic hospitals, which had previously refused to provide emergency contraception on the grounds that it conflicted with their religious views.
"Flip,flop,flip," editorialized the Boston Herald, on December 9, 2005. "Yes, Gov. Mitt Romney has now executed an Olympic-caliber double flip-flop with a gold medal-performance twist-and-a-half on the issue of emergency contraception."
Views on the acceptability of the "morning after" pill vary greatly, depending on exactly how you define "life." Many "pro-life" advocates, including Romney, take the view that life begins at the moment when a female egg is fertilized by the male sperm. They are opposed to the "morning after" pill, because it can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. "Pro-choice" groups argue that life begins much later.
Romney's gyrations on abortion have upset both sides. "For Mitt Romney, this has been not just a flip-flop, but an extreme makeover," said Angus McQuilken, vice president for public affairs with the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts. "Where he stands on any issue is always a moving target."
"I don't see how he can sign bills like that and say with a straight face that he is taking a pro-life position," said Joseph M. Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League, which is opposed to all forms of abortion. "There's no way we can accept that.".
UPDATE THURSDAY 11:30 A.M.: I just spoke with Nichols Gamble, the Planned Parenthood official who accepted the $150 cheque from the Romneys in June 1994. She says she had no reason to believe at the time that Romney was "not 100 percent behind the pro-choice public policy position." She now thinks that Romney "tried to have it both ways and every way to Sunday" on abortion, depending on what political office he was seeking.
Romney has changed his position so often on abortion that he lacks much credibility on this one. The Romney campaign did not respond to a e-mailed request to clarify the governor's position, so he loses the argument by default on this occasion. Three Pinocchios.
The link is great. Used for a Ron Paul training manual?
LCR were in an alliance with Stonewall. Stonewall was in a parade that NAMBLA joined. Romney was endorsed by LCR years back (but they hate him now). Therefore, Romney supports NAMBLA.
Did you not study logic? Or, are you part of the conspiracy?
I’m not part of the conspiracy because I wear a tin foil hat for protection.
>I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation
That is interesting. IF that was Romney’s view, he opposed the legal position taken by his Church in supporting the BSA. Anything to back the quote up?
Yes. There are earlier posts this thread that give links.
That’s my biggest problem on Romney - never know where he REALLY stands on things. He SAYS that he now believes in certain things (and admits that he has changed), but HAS HE?
Nonetheless, he is a good family man with no skeletons, and he has a solid record of fiscal discipline.
No personal behavior skeletons....he has plenty of policy position skeletons and his crew is trying like crazy to get them buried again.
But that won’t work.
There’s no way that I want a guy who believes in abortion, gun control, the gay agenda, gays in our military, and illegal amnesty to be in charge of the country.
I simply won’t ever vote for him. Period.
>Theres no way that I want a guy who believes in abortion, gun control, the gay agenda, gays in our military, and illegal amnesty to be in charge of the country
Well, first Romney does not have a track record of favoring the illegal alien situation. So knock that off the list. And Romney’s personal beliefs are opposed to abortion (always have been), as well as disfavoring homosexual activities. What is at issue is whether he believes it legal to discriminate against gays.
Romney has never broken a campaign promise. So he seems like he’s a man who can be trusted. If he had a track record of saying one thing and doing another, I would share your concern.
He has supported amnesty. He has supported the gay agenda (and still does.) He has a huge history of support for abortion. (And I don’t believe a politician who says, “Well...personally, I don’t like it BUT...”)
Romney is a radical social liberal. I have all the cites to prove it to a reasonable conservative.
But keep foolishly attacking Romney so we're stuck with Rudy who is running on a pro-choice platform, or McCain or Huck, or Hillary and Obama. That would be far better for conservatives.
I now inform you that you are too far from reality.
The above statement is an outragous lie. No radical social Liberal runs on a Reagan pro-life conservative platform. Keep it up and conservatives will be stuck with true radical social Liberals, like Hillary or Obama.
Go to the link at the top of your page entitled “RomneyTruthFile.”
In it you will find Romney’s record on social issues. He is pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda, pro-gays in the military, anti-gun, pro-amnesty....
The data there. Read it for yourself.
Just because he said at the start of this campaign: “Er...excuse me..but...uhhmmm...I don’t like my life long political positions anymore” — that doesn’t mean I should suddenly consider him a died-in-the-wool conservative.
He’s a radical social liberal. His record proves it.
Only a moron could believe Romney is pro life.
When the Mexican Revolution broke out in late 1910, Romney's family went to Oakley, Idaho, and finally ending up in Salt Lake City, Utah. (Some would later ask questions about Romney being eligible for the presidency as a "natural-born citizen" when he was born in Mexico.)
I will be surprised if you get any reply.............
THere were Romney’s in Mexico, being from a Romney from Ill. Is there fact to this accusation or is this an other hit and run ?
You need to 'splain Lucy....
George Romney’s Father was Gaskill Romney born in St George, Utah. His Mother Anna Pratt was born in Salt Lake City.
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”[
There is currently debate concerning the definition of “natural born citizen.” The main focus of this debate is whether or not children born to Americans overseas should be considered eligible for the Presidency. Several main candidates have sought the office who were born outside the United States (e.g., George Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. parents, Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory, and John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents). Barry Goldwater’s case among these three is unique in that although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully incorporated territory of the United States (unlike Panama and overseas territories which were/are unincorporated), making it debatable whether or not he was born “outside” the United States; it is also unique in that Arizona was later admitted as a state. None of these candidates was elected, so the issue was never fully addressed. However, McCain is currently seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President.
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.