Posted on 05/14/2012 10:53:24 AM PDT by xzins
The MA supreme court legalized Homo marriage which Romney was against.
The court gave the state 180 days to comply.
On the last possible day, after the legislature did not act, Romney made the move to obey the court order.
_____________________________________________
Well thats not true the way you described it...
But if it was...
This is the guy you claim will go against the Congress if he ever got int mthe White House ???
This is the guy you claim can have his feet easily held to the fire to the point where he will go the right way ???
Ya notice that in your version NOBODY FORCED Wee Willie to cave in..
It was his own liberal idea ...
A Conservative would have stood on principle..
What would have happened to him ???
Recall ???
Have to resign ???
It was not a jailable offence to disobey that so called SC order...
Ya notice the state legislature had not trouble IGNORING the SC...
You havent described the attributes of a leader with integrity...
You have described an appeaser with sniveling cowardice..
Dear Jeff, I've already written about this, here. It didn't seem to make any difference to people who have already made up their minds that Romney is an evil Left Progressive liberal and spawn of Hell.
But you cannot get blood out of a stone — the stone here being the Massachusetts political machine as fronted by a Legislature that is overwhelmingly and openly Marxist in its approach to all public questions.
I wouldn't characterize him as governing as a "liberal" here at all. He actually got tax cuts passed.... Which is a very big deal in Taxachusetts — tax cutting definitely goes against the normal grain hereabouts.
Plus as a holder of a Class A License to Carry (a high-capacity firearm "for all lawful purposes"), I was deeply impressed by the ease with which I was able to renew my license under his Administration, and the greater ease that first-time applicants for firearms licensing now enjoy as compared with past experience in this state.
FWIW.
Thanks ever so much for writing, dear Jeff!
Like you, I think his nomination is a much worse event in actual impact than would be his actual election measured against another term by Obama.
The GOP party machinery has had fifty years of doing this back stab to conservatism. In the YAF in the early sixties, I hung door-knob greetings for the Goldwater campaign to help get out the vote in suburban areas near where I lived. The GOP establishment was weak kneed at best.
From Dole to Romney, we have establishment Republicans playing the game and it is certainly no more than reasonable to have any conservative, Jim included, to take the position that this is ENOUGH and to hold that position to the great discomfort of the GOP as a whole. That is civil, that is non-revolutionary, that is reforming — in a word, Conservative.
We have a civil culture and heritage of resistance to ecclesiastical authority. Whether it is Catholic, Baptist, Adventist, or Episcopal, rigid controlling church authority have always run counter to the colonial and founding heritage. It is very convoluted because most of the separatist sects that promoted colonization were heavily controlling communities themselves — a real paradox. That tradition is part of what we are seeing voiced against the Mormons and Mitt is why it is front and center here in many discussions.
I think that we have to push for conservative principles in all our decisions and use conservative sensibilities to keep our internal significant disagreements civil until we see what the congressional and presidential results are as a whole at the end of the next 24 weeks.
Thank you betty, I know of your conservstive principles and dedication after these many years.
Your word is more than good enough for me, along with others (including family on my wife’s side) who lived there.
I will use the word “moderate” in the future by virtue of your recommendation.
I hope others are reasing and listening and will understand how dire it is to remove Obama from office, and that Romney will be orders of magnitude better than the horror of another 4 years of the Kenyan Marxist.
I hope so too, dear Jeff!
If I may return to an earlier point I raised, the ethos of firearms licensing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and how it all changed under Gov. Romney.
Formerly, the granting of firearms licenses was left up to the sole discretion of the local police chief. Now, my family lived in a town whose police chief couldn't think of a single legitimate reason to grant firearms licenses to any private citizen; and who tried to make the renewal of any already-issued license as difficult as possible.
My Father's experience testifies to this. To renew back in that day, Dad had to schedule a personal interview with the police chief, who would then ditch my Dad at the appointed time. The old "runaround game" here.
Dad used to joke, "So I learned to go down there, and bring a stack of books with me, and announce to the Chief's secretary that I was happy as a clam to sit and wait as long as it took for the next convenient time for the Chief to see me: 'I have a lot of catching up to do with my reading, you see. And I don't mind doing it in the Chief's office.'"
Sooner or later, the Chief would appear; and finding no legal reason to deny my Dad's application for renewal, he would grant it.
All this changed during the Romney Administration: Massachusetts is now on a "shall issue" basis — if you can pass the background check, the State "shall issue" a firearms license.
To me, that was a huge step forward in recognition of what the Second Amendment requires. That it happened in the socialist swamp of Massachusetts is a virtual miracle to me....
And it happened under Governor Romney.
My takeaway from all this: Obama wants to disarm private citizens (see the putative "endgame" of Operation Fast and Furious). Romney does not.
Why would anybody claim that there's not a dime's worth of difference between these two men? That both are equally "Left Progressive?"
Left Progressives don't want citizens exercising their RKBA. Period.
Evidently, Romney has no problem with it whatsoever, in principle.
The court gave the state 180 days to comply.
On the last possible day, after the legislature did not act, Romney made the move to obey the court order."
_____________________________________________
"Well thats not true the way you described it..."
The court did not legalize it? Who did then?
Romney was not against homosexual marriage? Please link to any statements he has EVER made supporting.
The court did not give the state 180 days to comply? Was it more or less?
Did Romney make his order prior to the 180 day deadline and not on the last possible day, after the legislature did not act?
Just want to be clear on what facts you are claiming I got wrong.
But if it was...
This is the guy you claim will go against the Congress if he ever got int mthe White House ???
Where did I claim he will go against the congress if elected? I'm hoping by electing more conservatives to congress we can stop any rino initiatives.
"This is the guy you claim can have his feet easily held to the fire to the point where he will go the right way ???"
Where did I claim his feet can easily be held to the fire? Its going to be a battle that will need more conservatives in congress.
"Ya notice that in your version NOBODY FORCED Wee Willie to cave in..
It was his own liberal idea" ...
Yep. In order to obey the court deadline, he made the decision...after trying to get a delay...and then led rallies to call on the legislature to allow people to vote to outlaw homosexual marriage.
"A Conservative would have stood on principle.."
Like Reagan did with abortion when he was governor? Or what Nixon did as president? What steps did they take to defy the court?
"What would have happened to him ???
Recall ???
Have to resign ???
It was not a jailable offence to disobey that so called SC order..."
Ya notice the state legislature had not trouble IGNORING the SC...
Not a lawyer so I don't know the answer.
You havent described the attributes of a leader with integrity... You have described an appeaser with sniveling cowardice..
So he is an appeaser with sniveling cowardice...but it won't be easy to hold his feet to the fire with more conservatives in congress. Got it.
I'll just have to go with what Newt said in my tagline...
The good Lord has His hand in things. he watches over the destiny of nations and uses all sorts of people to bring about His purposes. In my research I came to this conclusion:
Although Romney did not represent what my ideal for a conservative candidate would be...I honestly believe Mass was better off for him having been there (economically, as you say now with firearms, and even with their healthcare bill) than they would have been had a full boare Democrat been at the helm those years.
And now, his platform and stances on the issues he is currently running on...campaigning on, and has been for the last 6 years...are not that bad on their face and I must conclude that having him in office will, like in Mass, be in this case immeasurably better than the alternative we have in the Kenyan MArxist, Obama.
I hope people will eread thses things, particularly from you, betty, my sister in Christ, and rethink any abjecyt opposition to Romney so that we can get rid of Obama.
God's speed. BZ!
Dear Betty, the 2nd amendment is ANY threat, foreign OR domestic, to include government gone despotic.
from: http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm
Find common ground with pro-gun & anti-gun groups
Q: You signed the nation’s first ban on assault weapons in Massachusetts and steeply increased fees on gun owners by 400%. How can you convince gun owners that you will be an advocate for them?
ROMNEY: We had a piece of legislation that was crafted both by the pro-gun lobby and the anti-gun lobby. The pro-gun lobby said “this legislation allows us to cross roads with weapons when we’re hunting that had not been previously allowed.” And the day when we announced our signing, we had both the pro-gun owners and anti-gun folks all together on the stage because it worked. We worked together. We found common ground. My view is that we have the second amendment right to bear arms and my view is also that we should not add new legislation. I know that there are people that think we need new laws. I disagree with that. I believe we have in place all the laws we need. We should enforce those laws. I do not believe in new laws restricting gun ownership and gun use.
Source: Fox News debate on MLK Day in Myrtle Beach, SC , Jan 16, 2012
2002: I will not chip away at MA’s tough gun laws
In 1994 Romney had supported firearms-control measures opposed by the National Rifle Association: the so-called Brady Bill, which restricted the sale of handguns, and the assault weapons ban. During the 1994 senatorial campaign he had taunted: “That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA.” He reinforced his support for these measures when he ran for governor in 2002, when he promised not to chip away at the Commonwealth’s tough gun laws. Now as a presidential candidate, Romney presented himself disingenuously as a lifetime member of the NRA and a hunter of “varmints,” which prompted the acerbic Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi to write: “Leave it to Mitt Romney to shoot himself in the foot with a gun he doesn’t own.”
Source: An Inside Look, by R.B.Scott, p.144-145 , Nov 22, 2011
Did Romney make his order prior to the 180 day deadline and not on the last possible day, after the legislature did not act?
_________________________________________
Regardless of whether it was the next day or one day late or early...
Willie Mitty did NOT have to act without the state legislature...
He CHOSE to...
The SC had ordered the state legislature to act ???
Then why didnt Willie Mitty let them decide what they wanted to do ???
and if he had to interject himself into the picture why didnt he decide for decency since as you seem to imply it was all up to him...
The SC gave them 180 days...
Why didnt Willie Mitty decide for DOMA even if it was the last day ???
You said “Romney made the move to obey the court order.”
However it was not the law at that time...
and Willard Mitt Romney promised when he ran to “sustain the law” currently in place...
Which is it ???
Only the laws which fit his liberal-progressive ideology ???
Again a decent man would have said NO and let the chips fall where they might...
To "chip away" at "tough Massachusetts gun laws" would have been an exercise in futility. Since anything Romney could propose along those lines as governor of the state hadn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting past the Massachusetts General Court (i.e., our legislature) plus Senate.
These "laws" are still on the books in my state. And they are draconian: You can go to prison for years on grounds of insufficiently "safe" gun storage (as the "law" defines "safe," not to mention "storage") in a private home....
Romney knew he couldn't get anywhere thataway: Marxists detest the idea of firearms in private hands as a matter of principle. And he was sane enough to recognize that you don't easily disabuse Marxists of their favorite hobby horses....
What he did on this matter in the state was done by gubernatorial executive order — i.e., no more police chief decisions, but the "shall issue" precept.
Romney is a natural-born tax cutter. The most deplorable tax, to his way of thinking, is the income tax, which falls on all alike — even though the 16th Amendment proclaims it is a "voluntary tax." He is especially alive to the devastation that the income tax does to entrepreneurial activity, that is to say to the formation and sustainability of private business enterprises — the folks who create jobs and give hard-working Americans a chance to realize their own American dreams, unmolested by the federal government....
Equally I feel sure, he detests the individual income tax: The idea here being the revolting proposition that the federal government "owns" all the productivity of its citizens, and thus the essential problem for it is: How much of the fruits of American ingenuity, creativity, and sheer labor do we allow the people, who created all these social benefits, to keep for themselves and their families?
Romney dealt with this problem by shifting away from income taxes — which fall on all alike — by increasing fees for particular users of benefits, which are optional. I.e., increasing fees for such things as hunting and fishing licenses, firearms licenses, et al. One can always "opt out" of such fees in a way that an income-tax payer cannot by simply refraining from engaging in a "taxable activity." If you breathe, you pay income taxes. If you don't engage in hunting, fishing, etc., you don't have to pay a thing.
Dear brother in Christ, politics has been exceptionally well-defined as "the art of the possible," not the art of a perfect world — which will not come before the Second Coming of Christ anyway.
I applaud Mitt Romney for having made the RKBA accessible in Massachusetts. The fact that this act was not "made perfect" by the repeal of unreasonable gun laws is not a blame to charge at his doorstep.
I gather the "shall issue" precept was delivered by gubernatorial Executive Order, not by any act of the Massachusetts legislature.
If we had to depend on the latter, probably my last firearms license renewal would have been highly "problematic." Not that anything about me had changed; but that absent his intervention, that "progressives" would have extinguished my RKBA by now....
What Romney did as governor was to take the firearms licensure decision out of the hands of private men (i.e., local police chiefs), and put it into the form of just and equal laws.
I applaud him for that — to me, this reveals that his political instincts are right on the (constitutional) money....
First, I want to thank you, and other Freepers, for engaging in a good discussion on this issue. While we may disagree on certain things its nice to be able to debate it with you and learn more about what actually happened in regards to homosexual marriage in MA.
It seems we have learned 2 main things. ONE-Romney has consistently been against homosexual marriage, even to the point of leading rallies to push for a constitutional amendment on the issue. TWO- Romney could have made the decision to ignore the court rather than order the enforcement of the ruling on the 180 day deadline after the legislature failed to act.
#1 shows he is not really the “father” of homosexual marriage in the way some have claimed and this is one of the few areas where he really has been consistent in his beliefs. Some of his actions were not even known by those who thought (mistakenly) he had one time supported homosexual marriage.
#2 shows he does not have the guts to go 100% “all in” against something he thinks is wrong. Some legal experts linked to in this thread, think he could (and should) have ignored the court and fought it on jurisdiction or separation of powers.
Is Romney gutsy conservative-HA!No way!
Is Romney a flaming liberal along the lines of Obama in his beliefs on homosexual marriage?-Ha-Not even close.
Not my first, second, or third choice (or 4th, 5th....) but Romney is far better than Obama and I will reluctantly hold my nose to rid this nation of the marxist....then I will fight the new rino president.
The snarky caricatures made of Romney are both false and unbecoming of true conservatives who wish to take the message to Washington this fall, and to re-inject fundamental conservatism back into the mainstream of political thought.
Well done!
FReegards!
I'm scratching my head over this one. Formerly I paid $50 to renew my license for a four-year term. The last time I renewed, it was $100 for a six-year term. That's Romney's fee increase — from $12.50 per year to $16.67 per year.
That is not a 400% fee increase on gun owners.
What is objectionable about this statement?:
We found common ground. My view is that we have the second amendment right to bear arms and my view is also that we should not add new legislation. I know that there are people that think we need new laws. I disagree with that. I believe we have in place all the laws we need. We should enforce those laws. I do not believe in new laws restricting gun ownership and gun use.
That they implemented bans, waiting periods, and registrations, and THEN he said, “I’m ok with where we’re at.”
Went hunting this morning BB with my trusting Winchester 1300. The crows were already attacking my garden. (Those critters will even dig out the corn seed, they’ll pull out the small plants to get a piece of kernal off the end, and they’ll call all their brothers to the feast.)
They are known as America’s most intelligent bird. I had to wait in the trees at the break of dawn to get one...but only one.
They probably know I’m on the computer and are out there again hunting my maize.
Socialists are varmints too!
VEry well said, betty. And again, diirect testimony from a conservative (and well known and loved here on FR as such) citizen of Mass when this all went donw.
People can choose what they will believe, but knowing you all these years (and others with whom I have spoken in Mass) I choose to trust you and not the hyperbole...and to trust my own research into the matter which any one of us can do.
Here’s some more potential good news.
Arizona to Hawaii: Provide verification of Obama’s birth
http://www.jeffhead.com/verifybirth.htm
Planet Earth to Planet Kolob: Provide verification of Romney's claim to be "spirit born" on Kolob...
Doesn't that make Romney an alien "non-citizen" of this planet...sent to take over a human body here?
And Jeff, be honest with all the posters here: Don't you believe you're one of these "spirit birth" aliens, too?
I hope states mount an effort to get Romney to publicly confess what he already privately believes...that his origin was NOT as a U.S. Citizen nor even as an earthling!
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
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.