"The [my] only connection [to the Republican Party]is I'm registered as a Republican"--Mitt RRRRRomney
Posted on 07/13/2011 9:46:12 AM PDT by delacoert
Mitt Romney did the right thing by rejecting a social conservative group’s repulsive “marriage pledge.” Will he explain his reasoning?
As Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum bent over backward to endorse a right wing document pledging allegiance to conservative values, the Romney campaign says that while their candidate supports “traditional marriage,” he finds some of the pledge’s “references and provisions [to be] undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign.”
The pledge, put out last week by right wing activist Bob Vander Plaats and his group, The Family Leader, reads like a hit list on American freedoms.
One of the document’s many demands prohibits all forms of pornography, which, according to the Family Leader, leads to “stolen innocence.” Elsewhere, candidates must vow to fight “Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control,” and to support “robust childbearing.”
Yet another bullet point demands that candidates “[fiercely defend] the First Amendment’s rights of religious liberty and freedom of speech, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.”
Anyone who fights for LGBT rights, then, becomes an automatic enemy of the state.
Romney’s disavowal of the marriage pledge shows that he’s moving away from social conservatives — a group that wouldn’t support a Mormon candidate, anyway — and focusing on economics.
That’s clearly a wise choice: the governor has a long, long record of flip-flopping on social issues.
For instance, in 1994, while running for governor, Romney claimed that he would be an advocate for gay rights. “We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” he wrote to the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group.
When it came time to run for president in 2008, however, Romney changed his tune to appease the Republican Party’s conservative base. Now he’s moving away from such rabid right wing politics, and clearly hopes to rise above the homophobic drama that is currently complicating Bachmann’s White House run.
That’s good, right? Yes, it is: congrats to Romney for rejecting hateful politics.
But his campaign’s explanation still leaves many questions, like what parts of the document does Romney find “undignified”? Is it the vow to be loyal to his wife? Is it the disgracefully un-American attack on Muslim people? Is it the questionable claim that married people have better sex?
If Romney truly wants to take the moral high ground on the Family Leader’s pledge, he’ll actually spell out why he finds the marriage pledge “inappropriate” and set his opponents straight on what qualifies as dignified and what does not.
But, alas, that’s probably asking too much from a millionaire business man who once tried to court voters by saying, “I’m also unemployed.” Because for Romney, everything is a calculation, and he rarely shows his work.
She is finished.
And another unfortunate example the democrats can use against Conservatives.
That’s clearly a wise choice: the governor has a long, long record of flip-flopping on social issues.
*********************************************************
It is a wise move for Romney to make. He cannot get hurt by doing this.
And he is a fiscal conservative, something we desperately need at this time.. I would prefer another candidate for sure but if we grabs the nomination I’m for him all the way.
Yeah well, let's see ... the section regarding slavery that was originally included the Iowa Marrage Pledge (it has been removed by the way) reads:
Just look at what he did with Massachusetts, no one wants that, which is why he left office with 34% approval and they replaced him with a democrat.
This needs a BARF ALERT.
Uh, maybe because Romney is in favor of fake homo marriage. It passed under his admin in Mass, and he enforced it.
Here’s something else she needs to be prepared for - several networks have picked up on it, and Anderson Cooper made it his lead story last night:
Last I heard, she doesn’t want to talk about it, and her husband’s tried refuting the media’s slant, but....good luck on that one.
Supposedly he has signed a pledge by Natl. Org for Marriage though
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/08/04/287909/romney-signs-anti-gay-groups-campaign-pledge/
Politico:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0811/Romney_signs_marriage_pledge.html
>>Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has joined Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Sen. Pennsylvania Rick Santorum in signing a pledge to oppose same-sex marriage on a number of specific fronts.
The three candidates signed the pledge advanced by the National Organization for Marriage, which has led national and state campaigns to limit marriage to a man and a woman. The signature of the front-runner, Romney, is a bit of a coup for the group, as he’s been careful about committing to other pledges, including a broad promise to a socially conservative Iowa group that caused trouble for other candidates.
Romney, Bachmann and Santorum signed on to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, to appoint federal judges who don’t see a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and to back the Defense of Marriage Act.
"The [my] only connection [to the Republican Party]is I'm registered as a Republican"--Mitt RRRRRomney
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.