The Presidential Election and Connecticut’s Social Conservatives
November 28th, 2007 by Peter
No–for those of you who have been asking–FIC will not be making an endorsement in the presidential election. Our flagship organization does not make endorsements and our PAC only endorses in state, not federal, elections. As for me personally, I have been approached by two campaigns, but I am not yet supporting any candidate.
“Fine,” I’m hearing, “but what about our fellow FIC members? Where are they?” We haven’t polled them, but I can offer some anecdotal evidence.
The first thing to jump out at me are those of you supporting Ron Paul. Perhaps this should not surprise me, since we discovered during the 2006 primary a number of Ned Lamont voters who oppose both the Iraq War and same-sex “marriage.” Connecticut’s Ron Paul voters are thinking along the lines of a blog I posted last March:
It would be too much to say that because the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 Connecticut legalized same-sex unions in 2005. But there is no denying that an anti-Iraq War backlash played a powerful role at Connecticut polls in both 2004 and 2006–leading eventually to the defeat of two veteran Republican congressmen and the election of Democrat supermajorities in both houses of our legislature. Yes, Republican Rell and pro-war Lieberman are obvious exceptions to the wave that hit nearly everyone else, but the question remains: How different might our legislature be today if we had not invaded Iraq–or, rather, if the war had gone better? And how much further along would the pro-life and pro-family causes be–both in Connecticut and nationally?
But even the mainstream media now reports that a successful “surge” has led to improved possibilities for both Iraq and the political future of conservatism. And regardless of whether this remains the case, most of our members do not plan to vote for Ron Paul.
What about Rudy Guiliani? I know one FIC supporter who admires his toughness and trusts that he would keep his promise to appoint strict constructionist judges to the courts. Indeed, in many ways, Guiliani is one of the most impressive political figures to emerge on the American scene in the last twenty-five years. Nevertheless, most of you shared my negative reaction to the news that Connecticut’s top GOP lawmakers are supporting their party’s only pro-abortion presidential candidate.
I have not heard a single word from any of you about John McCain. I also have not heard anything–or anything positive, anyway–about any of the Democratic candidates. Ditto for Hunter, Keyes and Tancredo. On Fred Thompson, many of you were initially enthusiastic but the excitement seems to have dropped off.
That leaves Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney and most of you seem to be supporting one or the other. Romney supporters are telling me that their man is the only across-the-board Reaganesque conservative and that Huckaby is an economic liberal. Huckabee supporters tell me Romney’s a flip-flopper who could have done more against same-sex “marriage” and that his Mormon faith will cause the loss of crucial votes in the South.
On Romney and same-sex “marriage,” it’s worth noting that our peer organization in his home state, the Massachusetts Family Institute, holds him in high regard. And on Huckabee, it is worth noting a nice-guy authenticity to the man that could play well in Connecticut. It even earned him a favorable mention from liberal columnist Colin McEnroe:
I like Mike [Huckabee] even though I don’t agree with him about many things. He seems so nice! He opposes the right to abortion, gay marriage, civil unions and gun control in the nicest possible way. He seems to lean creationist, although his current position is that he can’t imagine why anybody needs to know — in order to vote for him — whether he believes humans evolved from monkeys. He appears decent, as opposed to Rudy Giuliani, who believes what I believe on every single one of the above issues but is obviously a fraudulent creep.
Of course, Colin also says that Huckabee has no organization in Connecticut and that a Huckabee victory here would be “crazy.” But he goes on to note that crazy primary results are a Connecticut tradition.
Romney, meanwhile, does have a state organization that will now be co-chaired by Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton.
Connecticut’s primary will be held on February 5th.
I find it hard to believe that anyone, conservative or not, can be fooled by Romney, he has “evolved” his opinions on so many issues. If he told me it was raining out I would go check. Considering how the issue of flip-flopping was beaten to death in the last Presidential election it would be a bit ironic to turn around and support Romney. I think that Huckaby’s supporters are correct that Romney’s Mormonism will negatively impact some voters, and not just in the south. I believe there is a strong distrust of the Mormon religion in this country among both conservatives and liberals. Probably it will be the strict literalists in the conservative churches who will be the most vocal about it but like racism, bias against other religions or denominations is there even if no one is bragging about it. Since he’s really not looking for support among the liberals it doesn’t really matter what we think but he definitely needs to please both the center and the right of the Republican party if he wants a chance at winning. I’m no fan of Giuliani’s since I lived in NYC during his reign. Not that he didn’t do good things but the people got stomped on at times, not something I find endearing about a candidate for higher office. I bet if you watch closely as the race runs on that his liberal side will be hidden more and more and he will court the right as sweetly and convincingly has he can.
I feel bad (it’s true!) for true social conservatives there really is no candidate who represents you. Then again, there’s never been one who represents me and any vote I have cast for President has simple been a lesser of two evils decision. Actually, no, the first time I voted was for a President who believed much as I do. His time in office was short
So, not that you were looking for the opinion of an unaffiliated voter who can count on one hand the number of times he voted Republican, but there it is.
Peter,
Sigh! So many thoughts…so little time!
My guy is unequivocally Duncan Hunter, A.K.A.: “WHO????” I’m a realist. Hunter surviving Iowa and New Hampshire will b a miracle. He will most likely be long gone, come our primary, in which case, I will vote for Mike Huckabee. Chronilogically down the list from there for me is Tancredo, Keyes, Cox and Paul, in that order. As in 2000, I like all or most of the “second tier” guys and none of th first tier. I wouldn’t give a plug nickel for Rudy, Mitt, McCain or (ZZZZZ!!!), Fred. Psst..hey Fred…wake up…yo, Fred….!
With respect to both brevity and the focus of this blog, I will shy away from elaborating further on specific secular issues from the candidates, with the exception that practtically none of the candidates are discussing the North American Union, and that is a real threat to our sovreignty, economy, Constitution, liberties, courts and security. The NAU is being pushed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Thompson, McCain, Dodd and Clinton are all CFR members, and Giuliani’s law firm is currently reprsenting CINTRA, a Spanish company that has a 50 year contract to build the NAFTA Super Highway, beginning in Texas, and I consider that a conflict of interest, even though Giuliani is not a CFR member. As far as I am concerned, that entire organization are traitors, and I trust no one (including Bush 41 & 43) who belongs to it. Party affiliations are fine, but I am an American first.
I am a little disappointed that FIC is not endorsing a candidate, but I understand and respect your position. Endorsements are more fun and controversial that truly significant anway. I was far more grossly disappointed that the National Right To Life endorsed Thompson over Huckabe, but with like with the Christian Colaition in 2000 with Bush over several “second tier” candidates who were far stronger on life/family issues, , the real issue seems to be more of electability than principle, a defeincy I have found in several groups on both sides of the partisan aisle.
The Iraq war is probably the only issue on which I disagree with Ron Paul. I beleive his Constitutional argument is mostly sound, but pulling out suddenly now would be utterly reckless, both to the security of Iraq and the US. As John McCain said in tonight’s debate, unlike Viet Nam, according to the writings of many of the people we are fighting, their plan is very much to follow us here. I support this war for a host of reasons, but it isn’t a perfect situation, either. While I respect the opinion of those who view this very contentious isue differently, how we got into this situation is now far less of an issue than how it will be concluded.
Speaking of McCain, I disagree with him on several issues, but again, in keeping in focus to this blog, one of those issues specificaly is his approval of embrionic stem cell research. McCain claims to be pro-life, but I guess his stance has an age limit, and embryos just don’t cut the mustard. That just doesn’t fly with me.
As I once pointed out to another blogger on this site, Giuliani appointed liberal judges to the city courts when he was Mayor of New York. Actions go farther with me than words. I just do not beleive that he will appoint “strict constructionist” judges, as he pledges. I also beleive Giulian’s far left social ideology will all but destroy the conservative movement, and vry possibly, significantly weaken the GOP, if that’s even further possible. That all said, thus far, (this current week’s shocking new polls aside), Rudy is the only candidate who has shown the ability to beat Hillary in at least some polls, and in most cases, by only roughly 3%, which is pretty much the margin of error anyway. Lots can still happen, but love him or hate him, so far, he is the GOP’s only chance, and a slim one at that.
David and I seem to have found some comon ground on several fronts of this issue. Furthermore, he was much nicer to Romney than I would have been. Many people are calling Romney a “flip-flopper” because of his coin-flip changes on so many issues. Romney is not a flip-flopper: he’s a liar! I’ll take right over wrong instead of right over left any day. Romney is bereft of core principles. I couldn’t care less if he agreees with me or not. The man is an abysmal disgrace. As far for his Mormonism, it is not an issue for me, but I agree again with David that the Mormon issue will hurt Romney even more is time goes on. Romney neds to get a head of it, like John Kennedy did. The American people are an opn minded people, but open minds are not effected unless they are engaged. Communication is the key, and Romney is dropping that ball. It will hurt him as the lack of communication with the American people has hurt Bush.
Now you have hard it from both sides; David is libral and unaffiliatd, and I am conservative and affiliated, and both of us also agree that too often, we, the electorate are stuck with forcing to vote for who we deem to be the lesser of two evils. I again cite my comparison to the Republican candidates in the 2000 and 2008 elections; the second tier canddiates are the best and soon self-destruct, leaving us a first tier of several lessers of two evils, one of which will be coronated, but not nominated. The media, big money and an apathetic, unfocussed, and grossly uninformed electorate top the short list of reasons for that insidious and unnecessary dysfunction. In that regard, the Republicans and Democrats are probably equally guilty. The two titan parties have each morphed into being sekers of power instead of conduits of principle, and the American voters on both sides of the partisan aisle have been cavalierly abandoned in the process, to our gross national detriment.
I have very high regard for Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, but given his record on being tough on illegal immigration, his investment of time into “Flip” Romney’s campaign is astonishing and ill-advised. (No it’s not…yes it is…no it’s not…yes it is….no it’s not….yes it is……” ) When it comes to candidates who are strong in illegal immigration, who’s Tom Tancredo…. chopped liver??? There is yet another example of individuals and/or groups choosing the ‘electable” over the “agreeable.” This cunnunndrum is kind of like the college grad who can’t find work because he or she has no experience, yet nobody will hire that grad to give him or her the expereince. How will back tier canddiates ever become front tir candidates until we start supporting those canddiates with whom we want, vs. the ones we think will win. Otherwise, we’re back to, as David cited, “voting for the lesser of two evils,” and for that reason, deservedly so. In short, we reap what we sow.
Doug
Mr. Wolfgang,
I just wanted to add to comments earlier about Duncan Hunter. All the candidates keeps talking about “their conservative records” but in reality, only Hunter and Tancredo have complete conservative, value-based records. With over 20 years as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Hunter has a 100% rating from Eagle Forum, Right to Life, NRA, and multiple other conservative organizations, with an overall rating from the American Conservative Union of 92%. He is also a Marine who served in Vietnam, and the father of a son who has served 2 tours in Iraq, and 1 in Afghanistan. He is a strong Christian, staunch supporter of marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and believes that life begins at conception. He is also a creationist, and believes that we have a right to learn about all types of science, not just state imposed evolutionism (Direct quote, “an atheist is a man who can look at a stone arrowhead and say ‘no one made this,’ then look at a mountain made out of the same rock and say, ‘no one made this.’ “). Please check him out at www.gohunter08.com.
If anyone wants to learn more about our efforts in CT, please email me @ stephenmlyon@gmail.com - and I’ll give updates on the CT Duncan Hunter for president campaign.
In response to some of the earlier written comments about a “lesser evil,” I’m copying a blog entry that I wrote the week after attending the Washington Briefing: Value Voters Summit in Washington D.C. I will yield that it is bold (I had someone accuse me of being a conservative Howard Dean.), but sometimes we have to be bold if we want our voice to be heard.
——-
“Lesser Evil” by Stephen M. Lyon
——-
What’s the problem with “choosing the lesser of 2 evils”? Answer: IT’S STILL EVIL!!!
I’m sick of conservatives and republicans forsaking their values and considering this election an anti-hillary campaign, and not a pro-values campaign. What’s with everyone writing off a true conservative, value driven candidate for president?! I for one, even I’m the only one, refuse to accept this falsehood.
I attended the “Washington Briefing” this weekend in Washington DC. At this “Value Voter Summit”, I heard from every candidate, and I see 4 candidates who are qualified to be our nation’s president: Representative Duncan Hunter, Representative Tom Tancredo, Former Governor Mitt Romney, and Former Governor Mike Huckabee.
I cannot support a candidate that condone’s the killing of innocent babies, be it under the guise of “woman’s rights” or “scientific research.” Secondly, we need a candidate ready to promote and sign the Federal Marriage Amendment, defining marriage in the United States Constitution as the union of one man and one woman.
Former Mayor Giulliani stated today that it was better to have a candidate who stuck to his beliefs than to conform for votes. I have a better solution - pick a candidate who doesn’t have to change his beliefs! Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, in particular, have stuck to their values no matter what the consequences have been and will be. The media, because of these beliefs, has refused to give them any media attention whatsoever. Both have incredible records in the United States Congress on all conservative issues, including: immigration, abortion, stem cell research, border control, national defense, Iraq, marriage, and tax reform. In fact, they are the only 2 that can honestly state that their records haven’t faltered on these issues through out their political careers.
“A house divided on itself cannot stand!” We, the conservatives and Christians and Jews and citizens of faith, need to unite as one and say “WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE!!!” How long is it going to take us to realize that the main stream media is NOT telling us the truth??!! The only hope for the GOP and Conservatives is NOT Rudy Giulliani! It is NOT Fred Thompson! THE HOPE OF OUR NATION RESIDES IN THE MINDS AND HEARTS AND SPIRITS OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! We are “One Nation Under God” NOT one nation under politicians! Mike Huckabee eloquently stated that GOD is more important than GOP.
So, I’m not going to vote for Rudy or Thompson just to keep Hillary or Obama from becoming president for the reason I stated earlier: “the lesser of 2 evils IS STILL EVIL!”. Evil under NO circumstances is an acceptable alternative. Just because a candidate believes “personally” that abortion is wrong, doesn’t mean anything - its only political rhetoric. The same damage will be done by a candidate who “personally believes” or doesn’t “personally believe”, because THEY WILL STILL SIGN THE BILL! THEY WILL STILL APPOINT PRO-CHOICE JUDGES! THEY WILL STILL VETO CONSERVATIVE PROPOSITIONS!
WE CANNOT COMPROMISE!!! We tell children, in regards to drugs, under ALL circumstances to, “JUST SAY NO!” What kind of an example are we being to our future if we tell them to stand up for what’s right, but we’re aren’t willing to “SAY NO” to what’s wrong?! It’s time for the citizens of the United States of America to take off their diapers and start acting like adults! Its time for us to take responsibility for our actions! The future is now! It’s in OUR hands, not the media’s! It’s in OUR hands, not the politicians’! It’s in OUR hands, not the parties!
The time for people with convictions to unite under one standard - a standard which shouts to our states, our nation, and our world - “WE SHALL NOT COMPROMISE!” Join me in this battle - and this is exactly what it is - a battle. We have to fight or be trampled. Are you willing to join me? If so, please comment and tell others. We’ll do whatever we have to. Through the internet (blogs, facebook, myspace, etc) and through other grassroots efforts, we will let our voice be heard from the our house, to the school house, to the courthouse, and to the white house!!! WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER!!!
Remember, together we can, and will, make a difference! Together, WE WILL EMERGE VICTORIOUS!!!
Guys, it’s Huckabee - not Huckaby.
Thanks. I’ve fixed the post.
You see it in these comments and I’ve seen it in my in-box since I posted this blog. There’s a Duncan Hunter contingent in the Constitution State…something I didn’t know until this week. You guys have been less vocal than the Ron Paul crowd, but you’re definitely out there.
Overall, though, and my spelling issues aside, most of our folks still seem to want either Huckabee or Romney to be the nominee. Which, come to think of it, are probably the two contenders that state GOP leaders would least like to see nominated.
I am still very passionate about Duncan Hunter as a candidate, as slim as his chances are. Mr. Lyon succinctly summed my reasons as well. I will also add one more: China. China is the big, ugly, menacing elephant in the middle of the room that nobody wants to discuss, not just on economic and trade issues, but on military defense issues as well. I have read very much on China, and beleive me, Taiwan is only the tip of the iceberg, while also gas on the fire. That showdown is coming sooner rather than later, and it will make these rag-tag toungue-twirling, eye-rolling, head-chopping chanting fanatics look like the Avon Lady on a bad day without elecetrolisis and in Salvation Army attire. Our $200 + billion trade defecit with China has allowed her too double her military budget each year for the past 15 years. China has already shot out one of our satelites, and secretly traild one of our aircraft carriers undetected. Now the Chinese are building underwater cavs to serve as secret bases for their nuclear sub,arines. And there doesn’t even have to be a war. China could practically close us down now by our debt, the ongoing and unchecked unfair trade practices that we have created and allowed, and the buying and possible dumping of US dollars. China is now doing to us what we did to Russia to win the Cold War. I may have heard a couple of the other canddiates remark in passing on China, but not to the extent of Duncan Hunter, the only one who truly seems to know what is really going on and isn’t afraid to discuss it openly. Most of the others have various eupahimisms for our relationship with China. Hunter is a true Amercian, a real statesman, a staright arrow and a genuinely good man (Which are probably all or most of the reasons why he is losing so badly!) . For those who speak much more softly, if at all, about China, follow the money, and I mean even beyond the Clintons and the Democrats. I know we try to stick to family and life matters on this blog, but China is a real threat, and make no mistake about it, a danger to our lives. Much like with the North American Union, the same members of the Council on Forign Relations, which is comprised much of big name government and press and media officals, don’t want us to hear about China too much, hence all the droning on with incessantly mind-numbing drivel about such relavent and significant news items like Britney Spears, etc..
Hey, I was probably Bob Smith’s only campaign worker in CT in 1999/2000, and in my town, only 12 others besides me voted for Alan Keyes (after Smith dropped out) in the Republican Presedential primary. I don’t ignore polls, but I don’t let them sway my ideals either. “Duty is ours; results are God’s.” (John Quincy Adams).
But alas, the polls don’t even list Duncan Hunter. It is as likely that his name will be on our state primary ballott on Feb. 5th as it is that mine will appear there. So, assuming the status quo continues (a big “if” in politics), I will most likely be voting for Huckabee in Hunter’s absence.
A friend of mine is as equally conservative as I am. He often first checks the movie reviews before even considering shelling out coin to see a flick. If the dysfunctional, degenerate and subversive Hollywood gurus are sweating, stammering, salivating and getting hot over a film, he knows to stay clear away. Likewise, if they give it the kiss of death, he’ll be first in line at the box office. As the sage adage reminds us, “Consider the source.”
Likewise, if the “Connecticut Democrat Auxiallary” (AKA: Connecticut Republicans) so bristle at Mike Huckabee, I gotta know I’m on the right track! Although, I must admit that their equal distain for “Flip” Romney puzzles me a bit. (No it doesn’t….yes it does….no it doesn’t….yes it does….no it doesn’t….yes it does….)
Doug
Doug,
I enjoy reading (other than the typos and misspellings) your comments and agree with most of them–other than your views on Mitt Romney. I glean much information from your posts, but wonder why you have been so quick to accept the msm’s characterization of Romney as a “flip-flopper.”
I hope that you will listen to his speech that he is to give this Thursday. I’m sure that if you do you will hear for yourself some of his true character and stands on many of the issues important to you as an American, a religious person, and one concerned with moral values in this nation.
Of this speech that he is to give in Texas, Romney said:
“I want to make sure that we maintain our religious heritage in this country, not of a particular faith, if you will, not of a particular sect or denomination, but rather the great moral heritage that we have that’s so critical to the future of this country,” Romney said. “So, I’ll be talking about faith in America–not my own faith in America–and of course I’ll answer the obligatory questions, as he did.” (The “he” referred to being JFK.)
I look forward to a response from you, Doug. I wonder why you referred to Romney as a “liar” (”Romney is not a flip-flopper: he’s a liar!”) in your post number 2 on this thread. Such an appellation is neither deserved by Mitt Romney nor very “Christian” coming from you, imo.
Hi, Tricia.
Thank you very much for the kind kudos. You also made me chuckle! You’ve got me dead to rights on the typos and misspellings! Usually, it is from lack of time, and/or sometimes being tired, but I do try to check back and correct them when I can, but even then, I know I sometimes miss some. You might notice that some of my posts are better or worse in that regard. Also, I have a new keyboard which has a very finicky letter “e,” for some reason, and thus often misses that letter. I really do much better with spell check, but admittedly, that is no excuse, and your point is, much to my chagrin, well taken.
Respectfully, I disagree with you on the Christianity of choosing the word “liar” over “flip-flopper.” To me, they both mean the same. I also beleive that Christians should seek truth, and distinguish good from bad. That is not to say that Romney is a persisiant liar, but one who tells a lie is thus, at least at that time, a “liar.” I unabashedly bristle at euphamisms. We have far too much double speak and political correctness in our society today. People now waste more time talking, only to now say less. I know I tend to hammer points a little hard now and again, and maybe sometimes even to a fault, but that’s me. I’m a straight shooter. You might not like what I always say, but you’ll never have to guess about the validity of my beliefs, either. I recently read a quote from somebody, I forget whom, possibly Hillary, who retorted, “I don’t even know what that word means…what is a flip-flopper?” OK, if it was Hillary, we know her motives, but neverthelesss, the point is well taken. Liar, as ugly as it may appear, is pretty definitive. Take the frosting off the cake, and you usually know what flavor it is underneath.
I have no beef with Mitt being a Mormon. In fact, I think far too much hey has been made of it. Nowadays, I am grateful to see anyone of faith, whatever that faith may be, and espescially in public service. I have heard some people disect the Mormon relaigion and call it a cult. I freely admit to you that I know little of Mormonism, but to at least some degre, they seem to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, and they love their neighbor. Doctrinal issues aside, that’s a pretty good foundation in my eyes. I don’t question his religion, other than I am befuddled as to how he can have (or allegedly had) some of his political views regarding abortion, so-called “gay rights,” etc.. By the way, I haven’t seen or heard his speech, but I think I will check it out. From a tactical political position, I think he waited too long to give it, but nevertheless, he was right to give it. Ditto with JFK. (And how sad is that?)
I do beleive Mitt is a liar. People can have changes of mind and even ideology on issues, but at his age, to have so many epiphanies on so many issues, and all within roughly the same time frame, and so soon before a Presedentail campaign? Liar! Tricia, I am not ruling out my own personal cyniscism here, either. I am sick and tired of being lied to by politicians, both individually, and collectively via their parties. Given the circumstances of these various changes of mind, juxtaposed against what I have seen and heard from politicians before him, I just can’t buy what Mitt is selling. There are just way too many coincidences that he wants us to believe.
There was a Christian/conservative Internet web site/newsletter called Alain’s Newsletter, which unfortunately and apparently went belly up about October/November last year. There was an extensive and well written piece in the final issue that laid out Mitt’s history on these issue changes. Also, check out Ontheissues.org, and click onto Mitt. Then scroll down on statements and bills from him that are very contradictory on several issues. There is also an excellent Boston Globe piece that I have saved by Joan Vennocci from November 26, 2006 (last year), entitled, “Romney’s Dance to the Right.” You should check that out as well. I have also read countless other sources, most of which I cannot recall over quite some time now that all pretty much lead to the same disturbing trail.
On abortion, gay rights, immigration and second amendment, he has contradicted himself, and/or suddenly had a change of mind on these several issuses within a short period of time. I just don’t trust the guy. As the saying goes, “Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice, shame on me.”
I am also privvy to what a couple pundits and columnists have noted, that Ronald Reagan was pro-abortion, but then later genuinely changed his mind to bcome pro-life. True enough, but actions speak louder than words. If you like Romney, I respect your opinion, and it is certainly your right to vote for him if you so choose. In my heart and mind, I must rely more on record than rhetoric. I am just not that trusting with politicians. I don’t like being that way, but that’s the hand that ahs been dealt to me, and when it comes to my country, I am as protective as a mother hen over her freshly hatched chicks. I would much rather risk misjudging a man than compromising or endangering my country of millions of men, women and children.
On The Issues also blatantly shows “Fact Checks” that reverse some of Romny’s claims on immigration. I have heard him say in the debates that he upgraded the Mass. State Police in forensics and in immigration investigation, but that site denies that the MSP followed up on immigration investigaations pending that upgrade. It also cites that Romney ignored four existing sanctuary cities. (However, in all honesty, that site also denies in the Romney section that New York, I presume addressing Mitt’s debate with Rudy, never called itself a sanctuary city. OK, maybe not, but let’s face it, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,….) I won’t fall into the political trap of the personal attack on him by Rudy, saying that he employed illegal immigrants at his house. Those immigrants worked for a contractor. Was Romney guilty? Maybe, but it’s weak, and I think, even trite. He hired the contractor. In all fairness, it was the contractor who should have ascertained that his employees were legal, not Romney, the customer. As Romney said to Rudy in the debate, you can’t question people just bcause they have a foreign accent. The only thing to the right of me on the illegal immigration issue is the wall, but on that matter, I tend to agree with Romney. Plenty of legal, naturalized US citizens speak English with a foreign accent. That accusation was simply a cheap political attack.
Romney also boasts being an NRA (National Rifle Association) member, yet it was recently disclosed in the news that he just recently (like within the past several months, I think) joined the NRA. To me, this guy just continually exudes rank opportunism.
Romney might otherwise be a very decent and religious man, and let’s face it, all the polygamy jokes aside, Romney has been faithfully married longer and to the same woman than many of his opponents can claim in their own personal lives, but I view politicains with a scale and while there may be some legitimate weight on one side, he clearly has some warts on the other side that concern me. Hypothetically, if he was to become President and demonstrate that he means what he says and says what he means, then I would accept his epiphanies and honestly consider voting for him in a second term, but as far as a first term, he has simply lost me as a voter.
Now, I just know that ten seconds after I send this post, I will inevitably think of a couple other items that I forgot to mention to you, but that aside, I think you get the gist of my stance on Romney. Romney might well be a very good man, Tricia, but there are several other good men running on the GOP side as well, but with them, I don’t have to guess what their true stand is, so why should I have to do so with Romney? Again, Romney might very well genuinely be a good man, but if one adage warns us to “Go with the devil you know,” then why not with the “angel” you know, such as Hunter, Keyes, Cox, Tancredo, Paul, Huckabee, etc..? (And yes, belive it or not, Alan Keyes is running again. The press and medai now seem to completly ignore him, as they do John Cox. I think at least part of the problem is that Keyes announced in September, and thus was overshadowed by the grand entrance of Fred Thompson that same month.)
I’ll watch for your response if you choose to send one. I hope I have clarified my points. Thanks for writing, Tricia. I wish you well.
Doug
I’m still undecided. But, for whatever it’s worth, I take Romney’s pro-life stance to be genuine. I don’t think he’s a liar, but even if he is, I suspect the deception (or self-deception) is not his current stand but the pro-choice one he took when he was running for office in MA. Quick, how many pro-abortion Mormons do you know? Exactly.
Speaking of his faith, like Doug, it’s a non-issue in my decision. A candidate need not share my belief in the Nicene Creed to get my vote for President.
I'’m looking forward to his speech today.
Peter,
Your point is well taken, and I am even willing to accept at face value that Romney is true to his religious faith.
But respectfully, given that premise, he sold out his principles, in effect, to procure a job (Governor).
On the issues, maybe we are now seeing the true (conservative) Mitt Romney, but meanwhile, when it came to standing firm and facing the fire for very crucial issues like the sanctity of life, and traditional marriage for starters, he capitualted, or he sold out.
If his core principles, assuming he has any, can be so easily subdued or abandoned by simple electoral pressure from voters, how will he stand up when the heat is really ratcheted up by powerful, fanatical bloodthirsty evil thugs like Putin, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Osama bin Laden, etc… ? I have heard people cite both Romney and Huckabee as being weak during time of war in foreign policy, because both were governors, yet Huckabee (OK, given, Huckabee came from a more conservative state, although Arkansas is highly Democrat) at least stood up and maintained his stance on the same issues that Romney waffled (or lied) on. Maybe they are both too inexperienced in foreign policy, but facing off manno to manno against the likes of Putin or Ahmadinejad, I’ll sleep better with Huckabee in the Oval Office than Romney.
Every citizen is entitled to his or her opinion and vote, and I respect that right, but for me, I say it again, I think as a true leader, this man is an abysmal disgrace. No voter should ever be forced to guess where a candidate stands. Such an ideal separates the politicians from the statesmen. If I have to guess, my vote is already decided. In general, he might very well be an otherwise decent man, and I am not ruling that out, but in my opinion, he is a lousy presedential prospect.
I think the way the country is scrutinizing Romney for his Mormonism (and Liebrman for his Judaism and JFK for his Catholicism) is a sordid and humiliating national stain. But given Romney’s previous (and fairly recent) record against life and family issues, frankly, I think he owes more of an explanation to his Church than to his country if he is indeed as faithful as he claims. (And yes….ditto for Lieberman, too.)
Doug
Doug,
Happy Friday to you. Before I get into the meat of my post here–perhaps you could use the rule I learned in grade school in Oregon:
“i” before “e,” except after “c” (Thus, “believe,” not “beleive.”) I’m lucky, I guess, that I’m usually a pretty good speller, but I still often type into our “textedit” program that marks misspellings, and then copy into the blog frame.
Anyway, on to my response to your last two comments here. I sincerely hope that you have watched, or at least read the text of, Mitt Romney’s speech “Faith in America” given yesterday. I believe that anyone who views (listens to, or even reads) it with an open mind and heart observes some of “his core principles,” his leadership abilities, his courage, and (I will now be so bold as to state) Romney’s ‘presidential’ demeanor. You may disagree, Doug, with my characterizations.
However, the response to Romney’s speech, from almost *every quarter* has been overwhelmingly positive–in many cases effusively so. These praises have come from as diverse observers as the Boston Globe (hey–how many times have they “flip-flopped” on Mitt Romney?), Pat Buchanan, Chuck Colson, James Dobson, Sean Hannity, Mike Huckabee, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, and–in Rush Limbaugh’s first hour today–a 21 yr. old self-described “conservative atheist.”
Yes!! Believe it or not, she (an atheist) called in and effusively praised Romney’s speech of yesterday. She was “moved and inspired” by Romney’s speech, and commented at length on his courage and convictions etc.–and was “not at all offended by” the fact that he did not mention or include atheists in his speech. (Maybe the reason she could be so objective as an atheist has to do with the fact that she admires her Catholic mother and Islamic father.)
And hey–the above sources are just from the first half of the alphabet! Below are two of the comments:
PAT BUCHANAN: TERRIFIC SPEECH FROM EVERY STANDPOINT
“I thought it was just a terrific speech from every standpoint, I mean if he wins this election, he wins iowa, I think it will be because of this speech. this was one of the most this was one of the most formidable addresses I’ve seen any candidate deliver this year. ”
– Buchanan on MSNBC
Chuck Colson press release (posted at evangelicalsformitt.org):
“While I never endorse candidates, believing it is wrong for religious leaders to do so, I do commend Governor Romney for today’s remarks. This is a balanced statement which shows a real appreciation for religious freedom and religious influence in public life. Ironically, Romney managed the balancing act more skillfully than did John Kennedy in a similar circumstance in 1960.”
Of course, you and many others may not agree with the positive assessments in every respect. And yes, I know that the praise for Romney’s “Faith in America” speech is not universal (I’ve read or heard some of the criticism, such as on Charlie Rose last night), so don’t bother citing opposing views for me to read, Doug.
If you have not by now seen or read Mitt Romney’s speech “Faith in America” from yesterday, you can watch and listen to it at www.evangelicalsformitt.og, under Dec. 6 entry titled “Today’s the Day”–there is a link marked “watch the speech here.”
This is already getting longer than I wanted it to be–so I’m going to do a separate post to help clarify for you the so-called “flip-flops” Mitt Romney has made. But Doug, my friend (if I may be so bold as to call you such), fellow Christian, and fellow fighter to protect life, faith, and family in this state and nation–you have been misled and in some cases “lied” to about Mitt Romney.
The msm, and other sources you have cited, SPECIALIZE in distortions, and taking statements out of context. Also, their agenda is NOT that of faithful, true freedom loving people such as you and me and the other supporters of The Family Institute.
Keep in mind, also, Doug, that Mitt Romney has NOT BEEN a professional “politician” before the last 5 years (yes I know about the brief run for Senate in 1994), when in 2002 he was elected as Governor of Massachusetts. He has been poorly advised in some cases; and no one’s beliefs and views can be adequately explained/elucidated in 30-sec. sound bytes. Life issues, as well as many others, have extensive ramifications. (ie, are you for forcing a rape victim to carry a pregnancy to term?)
I will state, now and categorically, that Mitt Romney was NEVER in favor of “gay marriage.”!!!! He is and was against discrimination towards any in employment, housing—so-called “civil rights.” Some in the gay community and the media erroneously INTERPRETED that as meaning Romney was in favor of ssm–but ***nothing could be further from the FACTS.**** No one but Governor Romney has been so severely tried in the crucible of **actual** ssm, and thus is so well-prepared and motivated to prevent its further enactment in this nation.
Indeed, Mitt Romney did everything he legally could as governor to give the citizens of MA the chance to reverse the SSM dumped on them by unelected judges. No politician that I can think of has said and done more to stand for the rights of children to have both a mother and a father who are MARRIED TO EACH OTHER, no matter what the damage to his own political aspirations. (see his latest 30-sec. ad and other documentation at www.evangelicalsformitt.org)
I have been following Mitt Romney longer than you have Doug, and have read much on the evangelicalsformitt.org site, which I recommend to you for a more balanced and accurate view of Romney’s record. They have no axe to grind other than as they say:
“Evangelicals for Mitt exists because we want a president who shares our political and moral values and priorities, can win in 2008, and can govern effectively thereafter. We believe that the leader of the free world should not only understand, but also articulate why, a values-based governing strategy will result in a more humane, just, and compassionate society. We believe we have found just such a person in Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. He’s not just a candidate evangelicals can support—he is the best choice for people of faith. It’s not even close.”
I agree with them, and I’m not an evangelical. (You also probably know that some evangelicals are very vocal in their anti-Mormon, anti-Romney stance.) Even though you have posted some very unkind and insulting* (and in my view undeserved) remarks about Romney, I appreciate that you “have no beef with Mitt being a Mormon.” (*One of the insults is that you said, at least twice–”this man is an abysmal disgrace.”)
But, more importantly, Doug–even though I would gladly vote for Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee if one of them gets the Republican nomination–many smarter than I am are recognizing that Mitt Romney is by far the most electable of the Values Conservative candidates we have to choose among. (He IS also a true conservative fiscally, on defense, immigration, constitutionally, etc. and is for self-reliance & independence in general.)
If Huckabee survives the current scandal (over the released rapist-murderer who went on to murder another young woman in Missouri) to get the Republican nomination–he would be massacred by the national media, and has NO CHANCE in the big “blue” states such as California, Michigan, the northeast states, etc.
Sincerely,
Tricia
Trish,
Romney gave one of the most remarkable speeches in our recent political history. Very impressive.
Tricia,
Believe it or not, at one time, I actually was a good speller.
But onto Mitt.
All sources and their posible agenda aside, Romney’s actions ar a matter of record, and he himself as said that he has supposedly changed his mind on several issues.
I read the speech, and then I viewed it via a You Tube link. Unquestionably, it was excellent, and I am willing to bet it will some day be historically revered by scholars and historians.
But I think we’re talking apples and oranges here.
His speech, as good, and as sadly necessary as it was, was irrelevant to me because as I have stated several times before, I really could not care less what faith my President has, as long as it is a peaceful, loving faith, and he or she actually practices it. Romney’s speech was primarily directed at the bigots who have a beef with Mormons. I’m not in that group.
If you are hanging your hat on the fact that his speech somehow proves his faith and shows how he will lead on social issues, then perhaps you should review the line in which he said that as Governor he did not let his faith interfere with his governing (as we have already seen) and as President, he would govern with the same mindset. I couldn’t care less what his faith is, if he doesn’t observe its tenets. Again, I don’t profess to know much, if at all about the Mormon faith, but I don’t beleive it sanctions abortion and civil unions/gay marriage.
And you said it….expereinced “politician.” And that is what I have been saying about him all along. he strikes me as aquintisentail politician in a sleazy kind of way. He’s a weathervane, a hack, a vote counter, and his faith hardly seems to have much influence on him in that regard. I don’t mind having a Mormom president….so long as he is truly a practicing Mormon president.
Wethr it’s a change of mind, or bad advice (from advisors he picked), a man of his age tends not to have so many changes of opinion on so many isues and at such a coincidental time. I say again, if he can’t stand up to the votrs, how can he stand up to global tyrants who wish us harm? And why don’t some of the other candidats, Huckabe, Tancredo, Hunter, paul, Cox, Keyes, etc…have this problem? So then why should I vote for Romney? That question is not rhetoricla, Tricia, I really would lik to know, given all this we have discussed, why should I vot for Romney?
As Peter said, how many Mormons are pro-gay/pro-abortion? So if Romney’s faith is supposedly so important to him, why the (OK, I’l be nice…) “flip-flops”? I think the real truth is closer to what Romney himself said, his faith is (supposedly) important to him, but he won’t let it interfere with his governing. Let’s take religion out of the equation all togther. Just for moral reasons, he should still oppose those issues.
As far as bad advice and poorly being handled, that’s passing the buck, and I won’t accept that for an excuse, and it is an excuse, not a reason. I’m looking for a leader with core principles and the guts to carry thm out, not Zogby, testing the winds, and taking a poll. we have far too many of that example in office today already. I’m looking for true change.
I’m sorry, Tricia. You are entitled to your own opinion and vote, but this guy just doesn’t do it for me, and to the limited extent his recent speech even had on his ‘flip-flopping” reputation and motives, if anything, it only solidified my opinion. The guy is a windbag who doesn’t mean what he says and doesn’t say what he means, and blaming anyone else in his inner circle will not convince me otherwise.
Our country has had far too many “politicians,” hence, many of our current problems. I’,m looking for a leader and a statesman. I do not see that in MItt Romney.
Furthermore, our own electorate and the 4th estate are deserving of some blame, too. Romney’s faith should not at all even be an issue, but his issues, and the ambiguity he has created surrounding those issues should be the focal point of our national discussion regarding his candidacy.
Last but not least, who is the real Mitt…the old one or the new one, and why are there 2 of them, and how do we know which one is the real one, and for that matter, for how long?
And by the way, ditto with Kerry, Hillary, and all other so-called “flip-floppers,” and like candidates of any and all parties and ideologies, past, present, and dare I say….future.
Take care.
Doug
Tricia,
Quick post script to my previous post, you inferred that that the sources I cited were liberal.
Alain’s Newsletter was very conservative, and Christian.
On The Issues seems nonpartisan and fairly objective.
The Boston Globe, well…..
I also wanted to mention to you about Project Vote Smart, but I couldn’t recall the name before. (Or what I had for lunch yesterday!!!) That site also seems fairly non partisan and objective, and Romney refused to even send them his issue stances. Now, in all fairness, some other candidates have also refused, by they aren’t being called a “flip-flopper.”
Furthermore, trust me, I listen/read/view actually very little of the farce called “main stream media” because that is about all I can tolerate from them.
But the flip-flopper label has been lodged at him from both directions, and it seems to me, mostly from the right, which is where I do get most of my news from. plus, as I mentiond before he has already admitted to supposedly changing his mind on some issues.
It is what it is.
Let’s assume for a minute that Romney is genuinely conservative. He certainly hasn’t been honest. The only question then is when he lied about his issues stances….before or now. Again, (the electability issue aside) why should I vote for him, when I (at least, so far) have several other equally, if not even more conservative candidates to choose from, who don’t flip-flop and are confident in their core principles?
If I’m looking to buy a car (and price is no obstacle) , and I’m hot for Chevies, why should I settle for the car at the Chevrolet dealership that has a dented fender, when there are hundreds more on the lot in mint condition?
See my point?
I am tired of having to tolerate double-talking liars in the Oval Office (from both parties). If they happen to agree with my ideology, that is of little comfort to me.
As a nation, we cannot realisitically expect higher standards from our leaders if we tolerate the same bar that they have lowered.
Doug
My apologies to all who have had to strain their eyes in trying to navigate through my various misspellings and typos. With my longer posts, it has been tougher to get a handle on it, even despite my checking back for mistakes, and complicated by a new and finicky keyboard, which I am already regretting. I recently did a little experimenting and discovered that I can copy and paste my posts onto this blog, which also allows me a spell check (apparently better than my own “spell checking”). Hopefully, this will resolve the problem.
Doug
“I am tired of having to tolerate double-talking liars in the Oval Office (from both parties). If they happen to agree with my ideology, that is of little comfort to me.
As a nation, we cannot realisitically expect higher standards from our leaders if we tolerate the same bar that they have lowered. ”
Excellent statement! While without a doubt we completely disagree how a candidate should stand on some issues, I can totally support this statement. When Clinton ran again, I don’t think I went so far as to vote Republican
but he sure didn’t get my vote. And I felt sick to my stomach as I pulled the lever for the creep the Dems ran for president in 2004 but I had to register my vote against Bush. I think the whole 2008 race is populated with people that don’t belong in higher office, but that is what we’ve allowed to happen, starting at the local level. I live in Hartford, so you know what my local gov’t is like.
What I’m about to say next would get me in hot water in certain circles (to say the least) but I respect Huckabee for not backing down on statements about HIV/AIDS that he made in the past. What he said then disgusts me and I would be mortified if he were actually elected president, but he explained what he meant, put his statements in perspective but did not try to distance himself from them. The possiblity is that it would cost him some votes but he had the backbone to take that risk. That is integrity and would love to see that in a candidate I could support!
David,
I agree with some of what you posted yesterday, but wish that Huckabee would have “the backbone to take” responsibility for his role in pardoning Wayne DuMond, who had raped 17 year-old Ashley Stevens.
Brian Ross’ investigative report for ABC (shown on both GMA and nightly news with Charlie Gibson–I believe on Dec. 5) revealed that DuMond, who was released from Arkansas custody in 1999, was specifically instructed that **he had to leave the state.** (I am both appalled and incensed at a state ‘unleashing’ convicted rapists and criminals into *other states!!*)
Huckabee made a personal appeal to the parole board on DuMond’s behalf, after “a group of ministers” had appealed for his help for DuMond. A former member of the Arkansas parole board, who served at the time, was interviewed by BR and said that “if it was so important to the governor,” they decided to grant his request on DuMond’s behalf.
DuMond went on to rape and murder at least one other young woman, Carol Shields (a mother) in Missouri in 2000. He was “also a suspect in the death of Sara Andrasek, also of the Kansas City area.”
Huckabee has practically denied ever meeting Ashley Stevens (the Arkansas rape victim), who met with Governor Huckabee in person, in his office, to plead that DuMond not be released.
Trying to distance himself from her now–and any connection with this incident and the subsequent murders–may be politically *expedient,* but is not evidence of “integrity” on his part, imo.
If you have not heard or read, also–it is now revealed that Huckabee pardoned/commuted sentences of 1003 convicted Arkansas prisoners.
The DuMond case, in particular, after “a group of ministers” had appealed for his help–is an example, in my view, of too much “religious influence” in how one fulfills elected responsibilities. That gives me serious concerns about Huckabee as a President, even though I agree with and admire his *moral values,* in general.
No matter what legitimate criticisms of Mitt Romney can be lodged–as governor of Massachusetts, all of his *actions* were on the side of protecting LIFE. Also, Romney *never imposed* his personal religious beliefs in his governance–although some Log Cabin Republicans and other gay activists are not happy with him for his strong defense of marriage being only “between a man and a woman.”
In contrast, Huckabee seems to show evidence of wanting to impose his own religious beliefs upon the governed–with such ideas as making smoking illegal nationwide. I admire his goals, but sometimes his means seem less than Constitutional.
Hey Doug,
Glad you liked my suggestion of “typ[ing] into [a] “textedit” program that marks misspellings, and then copy into the blog frame.”
I wish, however, that you were willing to have an open mind to a little more of what I had to say about Romney in my post # 13, in which I suggested that you read some of what www.evangelicalsformitt.org have to say about him. (David French and the others there are *genuine conservatives* who just happen to be “evangelical Christians.”)
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about some things, Doug. But are you willing to at least take a second look at Romney, now that National Review has endorsed Romney?
And, what do you think about the fact (on Drudge report, etc.) that for some time now, since Huckabee has been rising in the polls, the Democrats have issued NO statements on Huckabee? I believe the statement made in the article is that Huckabee “has a glass jaw,”–that he is perceived by the Democratic party as the weakest of the Republicans going for the Presidential nomination.
I believe that the Democrats DO want Huckabee for their opponent, because he has *no practical chance,* with the electoral college, etc., of taking enough big states such as California, and the big northern, and especially the northeastern states of gaining the White House for Conservatives.
I want the chance to be able to vote in November 2008 for a Republican nominee who has a realistic chance of putting true conservative principles into the White House–conservative Constitutionally as well as morally.
To me and to countless others, including at National Review, Mitt Romney is that candidate.
Tricia,
Are you sure you’re not letting your own religious bias mislead you about the candidates? While good ole Mitt was presiding over his state, homosexuals won the right to marry. And yet while Huckabee was governor in Arkansas, they passed a constitutional amendment that firmly defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
Romney strikes me as the typical “slick politician” who will say whatever it takes to sway voters, rather than holding firm to his principles.
Just watch him in this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI – to see what he once had to say about a number of issues that are critically important to social conservatives.
Romney has said “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in the country”, and by his own admission held that view consistently for over 30 years.
This was hardly a momentary lapse of judgment on his part. It was a deliberate course of action. And it’s not as though he was merely neutral on the question. He was actively, vigorously promoting his support of a woman’s “right to choose”.
During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney vowed to remain “pro-choice” (or as we like to call it “anti-life”) and uphold a woman’s so-called “right” to kill her child in-utero.
In his 1994 campaign, Romney promised “to do more to promote gay rights than Senator Kennedy”. Judging by the ultimate result in Massachusetts with the legalization of SSM, I guess we finally got what he promised after all.
His ability to flip-flop seems boundless. In that same video clip cited above, we see him say (on the question of the Boy Scouts of America having the right to exclude gays from membership in the group) “I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue” and then just a few seconds later says “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” Well, which one is it? This is the kind of evasiveness one would expect of Hillary Clinton (e.g. her discussion of the NY state plan to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens) or perhaps John Kerry (“I voted for it, before I voted against it”). It’s not what we expect to hear from a Republican candidate for the presidency.
Earlier you wrote about Romney that “as governor of Massachusetts, all of his actions were on the side protecting LIFE”. Clearly you must see now, based on the record, this is patently false.
Folks may like or dislike where Huckabee stands upon the issues, but at least they know where actually stands. With Romney, you can’t tell what he truly believes or what he will do in the future.
And, to be fair, since you brought up “Evangelicals for Mitt”, fair is fair … you should also check out the “Mormons Against Romney” site at http://mormonsagainstromney.blogspot.com/
In particular, I found their tag line to be enlightening:
Nicely said. A bit more elaborately expressed than Doug’s reference to a “double-talking liar”, but the net effect is the same. To me and countless others, Mitt Romney is just that, a deceitful man who is driven by his own personal ambition and lust for power, and who cannot be trusted.
I guess any of us with a strong commitment to a particular faith could be said to have a “religious bias” in its favor, but I would be slow to read political support for a co-religionist as a manifestation of it. In the case of Romney, he has friends and foes all over the map. This thread has mentioned both evangelicals for Romney and Mormons against him. There are also some heavy-hitting Catholic and Jewish intellectuals–Mary Ann Glendon and Hadley Arkes come immediately to mind–who have lined up behind Romney.
On Romney and abortion, I think Tricia and Dave are both right. Romney unmistakeably ran pro-abortion campaigns in Massachusetts. But once in office he did nothing to advance that agenda and eventually announced a change of mind. The most charitable interpretation I can make of it is that he convinced himself he was “pro-choice” but once in office his conscience got the better of him and he couldn’t bear to further the pro-abortion cause.
The same-sex “marriage” stuff is thornier and I welcome Tricia’s (and other Romney folks’) thoughts on the matter.
Hi, Tricia.
Thank you, I did use your suggestion, sort of. I thought you had some special program/software. I started playing around with Windows and found I could copy and paste onto a blog, which I didn’t even know was possible. (I continue to learn more about this cyber stuff every day!)
Dave stole much of my thunder with some very good points. I am also glad to see he and I agree on Romney’s persona. I said “sleazy,” Dave said “slick,” jut the gist is still the same. You mentioned before that Romney appears “presidential.” Yes, he does….and that’s the problem!
I did look at Evangelicals for Mitt. They claim that the LDS have no official position on abortion, but the June 6th, 2005 Weekly Standard piece, “In 2008, will it be Mormon in America,” says the Church makes exceptions for incest and rape. Which one of those sources is wrong?
In the same piece, Romney’s advisor, Mike Murphy, called Romney a pro-life Mormon, “faking it” as a pro-choice politician. The Boston Globe, NewsMax and National Review during the summer of 2005 also quoted Murphy, yet Romney says he changed his mind. Which is it?
I say again, why should I have to bother myself with a compass, a map, a weathervane and a GPS device to determine what a candidate’s stance is? I know you, Peter and Dave disagree with my admittedly harsh (but I believe, accurate) verbiage about Romney being a liar, and that is fine, but I am sticking to description. When you boil down “flip-flopping,” it’s lying without the frills. Too often nowadays, we sugarcoat what needs to be said. If someone pickpockets me for my wallet, I won’t say he conducted an unauthorized transfer of property, I will say the thief stole from me. Ditto with Romney. Given his alleged self-made reputation of morality, I find the man repugnant, reprehensible, and yes, “an abysmal disgrace” as a presidential candidate, or for that matter, any person to be awarded any charge of notable trust. However, when he says he won’t allow his religious beliefs to interfere in his governing, this I do believe. The same could be said of John Kerry, and despite being a fellow Catholic, I didn’t vote for him, either.
I don’t care if National Review endorsed Romney. Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani. National Right To Life endorsed Fred Thompson. Neville Chamberlain also thought Adolph Hitler was a pussycat. Endorsements are worth about as much as a Confederate one-dollar bill in 1866. I am not easily swooned by other people’s opinions and endorsements. Along that same line, could the Dems view Mike Huckabee as their 2008 media darling (as they did with John McCain in 2000)? Sure, that’s possible, and your hypothesis about their devious motivations might well be warranted, but I think the Dems are acting on already refuted allegations by the Club For Growth on Huck’s fiscal policies and because he has a softer approach on social issues than Rudy, the bulldog. But I don’t let what the Dems say (or don’t say) sway me either. If I were so easily swayed, I would believe Dubya that Harriet Miers was qualified, the Dubai Ports deal was good for the US, and the North American Union is fictitious, and that Bill Clinton did not have sex with “that woman, “ Miss Lewinsky, despite his Oscar-worthy act of angry grimacing and finger wagging. Talk is cheap. One of the proudest votes I ever cast was in the 2000 GOP primary. Only 12 other people in my town voted for Alan Keys besides me. I had no illusions about his chances, but like my bluntly calling Romney a “liar,” I make no apologies for that decision, either. Opinions aren’t necessarily meant to be contestants in a popularity contest.
As for Huck not having a chance, he has an increasingly better chance every day, and nationally he is now # 2 behind Rudy, and Romney is down to about 12%, while McCain’s campaign remains on life support and his fellow one-world-order enthusiast and CFR member, “Not Quite Ready Freddy” Thompson, is taking a nap, but as I stated before, my guy is Duncan Hunter, and then Huck only after Hunter presumably gets knocked out of the race soon, and no, electability is not a factor in my vote. If Hunter is still on the ballot in February, I am voting for him. Issues and integrity are what count in my vote. Romney’s out, and no, I will not reconsider. How would he persuade me now? More backpedaling? He’s damaged goods in my eyes.
By the way, Huckabee may have pardoned 1,003 inmates but he also executed 16 of them.
No candidate is perfect, but Duncan Hunter comes closest for me, and with he and Huckabee, I don’t have to guess what their issues are (this week), and why should I? We can play the “tit for tat” game on issues, but Romney has a credibility problem that many of the other GOP candidates don’t have, so why should I even bother considering him?
If I was an employer, I would not hire Romney, given what I know if him. The American electorate are employers, and for one of the most important jobs in the world, and we need to end the excuses, euphemisms and tolerance for dishonesty, even if it is for somebody we like.
Sorry, Tricia, but again, you are certainly entitled to your vote, but you’re flogging a dead horse in trying to get me to vote for Romney. I am sure you and I agree on many issues, but clearly, not this candidate. In my lifetime, I have already had a bellyful of elected chameleons. I don’t want another one.
Take care.
Doug
Tricia,
Just one more thought, I particularly resent how Romney (and various other past and present candidates) apparently view and treat the most prevalent issue of the sanctity of life as a self-serving political calculation.
Doug
Doug (and others who are casting *personal* aspersions on Romney),
First, let me apologize up front, for anything I have written in my posts, which was, or may seem to be, of a confrontational, negative and divisive nature–concerning Mike Huckabee’s character or motivations. As I have stated before, I believe he is a fine Christian and I like many things about him, including his moral and pro-life values which I share.
I will have more to say (in a separate post) about *the facts* concerning Mitt Romney’s *actual record,* both in past campaigns and as the Governor of Massachusetts.
But for now, Doug, IMO, you are unfairly characterizing his *motives,* of which you can have NO KNOWLEDGE, as no one but God can know another person’s heart.
I just wish that people would stop making *personal* aspersions, as to someone else’s *motives.* IMO, to do so about Romney, or anyone else, is contrary to our better *spirits,* and unproductive toward electing a Conservative Republican who is guided by our common moral values.
As your *spiritual sister* and fellow child of God, I just wish to invite you and others attacking Romney personally– to consider that angry personal attacks are very unbecoming and NOT representative of what we (I include myself, here) should be doing as Christians.
By “Christians” I mean *genuine followers* of Jesus’ teachings and example (regardless of denominational labels). I don’t mean to imply that if we exhibit the normal human failings and sins we can’t be *genuine followers* of Christ. I have all too many of my own shortcomings, and I’m sure Mitt Romney has some–although not nearly as many as you claim, Doug.
But back to my defense of Mitt Romney–much of the information which you have read and heard, Doug, was deceptive by design. Appearances–ESPECIALLY with how *the media* treat prominent people–can be deceiving.
Because the liberal media (and even other non-”liberal” sources) have incessantly repeated distorted reports, and out of context past statements of Romney’s, I guess it is not surprising for people to be led down their primrose path of questioning Romney’s integrity. They incite these doubts and misperceptions of Romney because their agenda is secular, belittling ALL people of faith; and they want a liberal like Hillary in the WH. And they rightly perceive that Romney–with NO *personal baggage,* a ‘presidential’ bearing, a lovely family, and a stellar resume of qualified executive experience–is a grave threat to their agenda.
But I KNOW that Romney would NEVER “treat the most prevalent issue of the sanctity of life as a self-serving political calculation,” as you have asserted in your post # 25, Doug. (The only thing I liked about it was your brevity,
.)
How can I say that with any knowledge, you might ask? Well, first, I have extensively *searched for* ANY statement made *by Romney in favor* of abortion or same-sex ‘marriage.’ (Yes, he did support leaving laws allowing abortion in place when he ran for governor of MA, but that was against an opponent and general population who wanted to *further liberalize* the existing abortion laws–which a governor cannot overturn, anyway.)
More to the heart of the matter is that Romney is an adherent to the pro-family, pro-life *essential* doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as am I.
These doctrines are clearly and best-summarized in my following post in which I will quote over half of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” which was released by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, over 12 years ago. I am quoting it because it is the simplest, most accurate way of conveying to you some of Mitt Romney’s *core and driving* values and beliefs concerning Life and Marriage.
You may also be interested to read that in the introductory sentences of the entire “Proclamation,” is the statement:
“Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”
As mentioned in my just prior post–these are some of Mitt Romney’s core and driving beliefs, as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This quote is over half of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” which was released by “the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” in 1995.
The entire text can be found at www.lds.org, by clicking on the link of the picture of a family on the left side of the home page.
“We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. ****Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.****
We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Any person who believes these things, as does Mitt Romney, and as do I, would NEVER be a proponent of abortion or SSM.
(Please just keep this in mind, and ’suspend your disbelief’ regarding apparent inconsistencies of Mitt Romney’s past statements–until I address some of these in my next post.)
Tricia,
There isn’t much more I can say regarding this topic that I haven’t already said before, so I guess I will just repeat myself again for the most part.
By what I have heard, saw and read, from liberals, from conservatives, and already in many instances, recent and past, by Romney himself, he is a quintessential “flip-flopper,” to coin the more popular parlance.
You said that I cannot know what is in his mind regarding his motives. True, and fair enough.
Thus, I can only judge him by his behavior and actions, and they do not at all impress me.
His performance on “Meet The Press” this morning only further solidified my opinion of him, which has been pretty solid all along.
“Aspersions”? While some of my characterizations of Romney may be interpreted as aspersions, they are also observations…of him.
Many people in the kingdom of the popular children’s fairy tale also feared that it was “an aspersion” to say that the Emperor was wearing no clothes. Like I said before, sometimes, like it or not, it just is what it is. If your vision of so clearly seeing and so freely citing my errors was as unclouded and unrestrained as seeing and citing Mitt’s flaws, perhaps you might recognize that fact. “Christianity,” Tricia, has as much to do with truth as it does tact.
And for all his backpedaling, I still have some disagreements with him on immigration, guns, embryonic stem cell research, gay issues, abortion, etc.. , even when he does keep his stances for more than five minutes at a time.
You’re right Tricia; I cannot read his mind. I can only base my judgments based on what I have seen, and little if anything I have seen of this man at all impresses me. Even Tim Russert (and granted, no conservative by any stretch) quipped to Romney this morning what I have already posted and otherwise said about him numerous times, for a man of his age, to have had so many “epiphanies” (my words), or an “evolution” (Russert’s words) on so many issues, and within such a short and seemingly convenient amount of time has at least the appearance of a pretty foul stench to it, all potentially expressed aspersions aside. Romney’s reply was droning on about learning from experiences, keeping an open mind, etc.. Some issues are more right than wrong than right and left, and that extent of being “open-minded” is beyond being open minded. It gives the appearance, be it right or wrong, of a weathervane, with a constant finger in the wind, or an inept leader with no vision or moral compass.
If that is all coincidental, and I am wrong about Romney, then so be it, but again, as I said before, I would much rather be wrong about him (in my opinion) than be wrong (in my vote) for my country’s leader, mind you, I say again, “leader.”
I see little, if anything in this man that demonstrates much semblance of either true conservatism or true morality with any real and unquestionable consistency. And again, thus far, I am offered too many other far qualified candidates who are more conservative, are more moral and with whom I don’t have to try to guess what they really say or mean, whether by sheer coincidence, poor communication, or intentional deception.
Respectfully, Tricia, on at last two occasions thus far, you have promised to elaborate more and solidify your argument about Mitt later in future posts, but you have thus far provided little substance in that regard. And why is it such further elaboration and evidence is promised in future posts?
And again, as I said before, if per chance (and it is looking less likely every day) Romney becomes President, if he truly reforms in action (more so than in words) then I will keep an open mind to voting for him in a second term, but for a first term, or in the primary, he has pretty much no chance whatsoever of me voting for him now.
With regard to your allegation that the Democrats don’t want to seem bothered to mention or go after Huckabee because they view him as not much of a threat, Romney is now going after Huckabee, so I think he’s seeing the tealeaves for what they are now, too. And do know what? He deserves it! As my mother always said when I was a kid, “You make your bed…you sleep in it!” In politics, anything can change, but thus far, Romney appears to be going down, and he is already almost relegated to “back tier” status among the current candidates. And make no mistake about it, he brought it on himself, for “wanting his cake and eat it too” on the issues. And in the end, I think the issue of his membership in the Mormon Church will have little to do with it. Nobody can be everything to everybody, something “politicians,” by your own correct wording (not true statesmen) never learn. Call it an aspersion or whatever you like, but a sage and surly adage reminds us, “The only things found in ‘the middle of the road’ are dead skunks and long, yellow streaks.”
And, once again, matters like ideology, strength, leadership, morality, integrity, ability, etc.. will all play into formulating my vote, but electability, or lack thereof will play no part in that recipe whatsoever.
You are right. I can’t read Mitt’s mind. So I don’t know for sure if he is a liar, or if he simply has no real, solid core beliefs, but what I do know is that in either case, he is unfit to be my President, so it’s a moot issue, and thus, I will vote accordingly.
And with respect to “brevity,” as well as having already repeatedly flogged this dead horse now, I believe, more than enough, this is my final post on this topic.
I wish you well.
Doug
Anyone hear the news that CT’s own Joe Lieberman is about to endorse McCain? Brownback, a staunch pro-lifer, endorsed him too after dropping out of the race. But I’m not aware of McCain having changed his position on embryo destruction…
Tricia,
One final postscript.
Romney already stated that he will not allow his faith to influence his governing, so your given history of the doctrines of the Mormon faith, while interesting, are a moot point.
As for Romney upholding Mormon principles of the sanctity of life, by his own words, which I heard with my own ears, he previously championed abortion, a stance that Jesus unquestionably did not. And Romney certainly did little to stop abortion. Any principle worth having (assuming he has any) is one worth defending. He dropped the ball, period. So much for his alleged devout practice of the Mormon faith.
Furthermore, we are electing a President of our country, not an elder of your Church. From what I have seen of this guy, he is a snake oil-selling hypocrite and worthy of neither position of honor.
As for his abandoning his alleged moral and conservative principles, as well as those of the Mormon Church, and especially on the abortion issue, your continual excuses of Romney contending with liberal opponents, liberal demographics, and poor advisors (I say again, picked by him) are all flatly lame, and given your own professed morality, you should be ashamed for even trying to forward them.
And in that regard, forgive me, Tricia, but I can’t help but wonder, seeing that you so often bring up Romney’s Mormon faith when it is either unrelated to his issues, or abandoned by him by his deeds, as well as by his words, if your passionate and unshakable defense of this double-talking farce (to himself, his faith, and to his prospective constituents) would be as strong if he were a Catholic or a Jew. I pose that question to you solely in a rhetorical fashion, but I hope it inspires some reflection on your part. I genuinely believe that you sincerely mean well, but I am also coming to believe that your opinion of Romney is blindly biased, even if subconsciously so.
Romney also said in his speech that he does not necessarily expect support because of his faith, either. Make no mistake about it, despite being a Catholic, I have never voted for Chris Dodd, John Kerry, or any other Catholic of such immorality and opposing ideology, nor would I ever.
As the polls now well indicate, it (so far) appears that your boy is going down, and I believe, not because he is a Mormon, which I don’t believe most Americans (including me) mind, but because he is a chameleon, which I do believe, most Americans (including me) are well fed up with.
OK, now I’m (really) done on this topic.
Given your previously claimed, although yet oddly undemonstrated fondness for “brevity,” from here on, I will leave that to you.
Doug
Peter,
I did hear that Brownback endorsed McCain, much to my chagrin, although this is the first I have heard about Lieberman endorsing McCain.
When I heard of Brownback’s endorsement, I had the same thought, because yes, McCain does embrace embryonic stem cell research, although he has given some often convoluted caveats to it, as related to cloning.
Given McCain’s position, Brownback’s endorsement shocked me. I really don’t know what he is thinking.
I hate to say this, but I suspect it may be the perceived “electability” issue, as Huckabee had not yet moved up into the so-called “first tier” when Brownback made that announcement. Let’s face it, Brownback is directly opposed to Rudy on the life issue, Thompson also has some baggage relative to abortion, and Romney, well…let’s not go down that road again.
Lieberman and McCain, I believe are personal friends and they have also co-sponsored several bills together. McCain, like Lieberman, is also a centrist and I don’t see much love between Lieberman and the Democrat Party any more. I think from Lieberman’s perspective, he now feels somewhat liberated from the Democrats, and now feels he has little to lose, which he doesn’t. The Dems want nothing more to do with him, and he still avows to never join the GOP, and independents can only climb so far up the electoral career ladder. Politically speaking, I think he is pretty much dead after this term, barring a state or federal cabinet appointment by either party……maybe.
That all said, as Lieberman is a moderate Democrat and an Orthodox Jew, I really wish he would publicly now lean more in favor of life/family issues, which I believe he feels in his heart, but suppresses for political reasons. But sadly and realistically, I don’t see that happening either.
Last but not least, all three men are Senators. That so-called “upper chamber” of the Congress tends to be a pretty cliquey club, so from that perspective, I guess these endorsements are to be, at least somewhat, expected.
Doug
Tricia,
Thank you for pointing out that we should strive to find common ground in our support for traditional family values. Despite the theological differences that exist between Mormons and Evangelicals, between Catholics and Protestants, or between Christians and Jews, we do all share a common heritage that guides us in understanding morality.
You are correct in saying only God can know what is in a person’s heart, and to the extent I may have come across as unduly harsh I want to apologize. But we cannot avoid passing judgment altogether, since ultimately we will have to choose for whom we will cast our vote. And since we cannot truly know what someone feels and thinks inwardly, it seems we must thoughtfully consider their past words and actions in the public square as a harbinger of their future approach to governance.
It is for this reason I continue to have doubts about Mitt Romney. We know he claims to oppose SSM. But he alone chose to implement SSM in Massachusetts, even though he was under no constitutional requirement to do so. Yes, there was a judicial ruling. But the response to that ruling ought rightfully to have been crafted by the legislature. Romney did not need to act in a manner that was effectively complicit with this fraudulent redefinition of marriage. Take a look at http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/
Did you know Romney banned the Boy Scouts from helping in the 2002 Olympics because of their ban on homosexual leaders?
Did you know that in 2002, a year before the Goodridge ruling, Romney refused to sign a petition in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman? And that his reasoning was that such a position seems “too extreme”?
Is this the track record of someone acting in accord with the pro-family proclamation that you cited? I don’t know how you can reconcile these actions with what a faithful pro-family leader ought to do … which is to recognize that “the family is ordained of God” and “marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan”.
I hope you’ll understand that for many of us, the reason we can’t support Romney has nothing to do with his religious denomination. It has everything to do with our ability to believe that he will uphold his promises. His record just speaks so loudly that it seems he can’t be trusted to stand up for socially conservative values, and hold firm to them even under pressure. I prefer to support someone who has the courage of their convictions.
Doug,
I guess you will still read this, despite your declaration over 2 weeks ago that “this is my final post on this topic.” (In your post of 12/16 # 28.)
At the beginning of your post # 30 on the same day, you stated:
“One final postscript.” and then, after several paragraphs–
“OK, now I’m (really) done on this topic.
Given your previously claimed, although yet oddly undemonstrated fondness for “brevity,” from here on, I will leave that to you.”
LOL, Doug– but that could be called “flip-flopping” or, dare I say it, even “lying” by you!
I, on the other hand, have been *silent* on this blog for over 2 weeks.
Is that “brief” enough for you, Doug?
Despite any disagreements over politics–I hope all had a joyous, peaceful and holy Christmas. And Happy 2008!
Doug and Dave,
What are your feelings on Huckabee’s latest tactic of pulling a negative ad (anti-Romney) to *take the high road* and showing it to the press—who then show it all over Iowa without Huckabee having to pay for the ad showing?
Tune in to the discussion today on Sean Hannity if you are interested. It is on now on AM 770 (Romney will be his guest later), and delayed later I believe on AM 760 if you can get either of these stations.
Oops! On two counts I was wrong in my last post.
AM 760 runs Sean Hannity’s radio program at the same time (3 to 6 p.m. EST) that AM 770 does.
Also, the reference to Romney being his guest later was apparently to his FOX News cable program at 9 p.m. tonight.
I am going to NHampshire to campaign for McCain on FRIday-Saturday.
-Thompson has zero campaign in NH.
-Huckabee has an incompetent office up there and is focused on Iowa. Ron Paul …
It is a two-man race up there and my sense is that the folks who don’t trust Romney are correct not to. So McCain it is.
A bizarre choice for social conservatives? Not really.
On principal, some people refuse to ever support anyone who is ‘Pro-Choice’. Along the same lines, I refuse to support anyone who has buffoons running his campaign, or anyone who has no campaign at all. On principal.
I guess you could say that I am pro-life, anti-buffoon, and anti-fringe. And I am now also anti-Romney, in a polite kinda way.
Mitt Romney has spent more on advertising than any of the other Republican presidential candidates, and he’s orchestrated a virtually incessant bombardment of negative attack ads that have been airing for weeks. And yet, as the song says, “Money can’t buy me love”. Ultimately the candidate who prevails will need to win the hearts and minds of prospective voters. Isn’t it quite a surprise that the biggest impression is often made by simple one-liners and anecdotes that get retold freely in the press and directly from person to person! For example,
“You know you’re over the target if you are getting some flak.” (Huckabee)
“Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty - and the pig likes it.” (McCain)
“We’ve had a Congress that’s spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.” (Huckabee)
In response to Hillary Clinton’s attempt to spend 1 million of our tax dollars on the Woodstock concert museum, “Now my friends, I wasn’t there. I’m sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was … tied up at the time.” (McCain) Yeah, tied up as in being a Vietnam P.O.W.
Of course, we have good ole Mitt with the memorable “I saw my father walk with Martin Luther King” … and then later when caught in the apparent misrepresentation, saying “If you look at the dictionary, the term ‘saw’ includes ‘being aware of’”, and rationalizing it by saying “When we say I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn’t necessarily mean you were there.” Umm, yeah. Talk about embarrassing. Besides it being reminiscent of Bill Clinton and “the meaning of ‘is’”, did anyone happen to notice that Mr. Moneybags doesn’t know the difference between the football and baseball teams in his own home state? That’s a good sign of how disconnected he is from the average American.
In the end, this is what Romney lacks … a sense of genuineness and believability. No amount of money can compensate for this flaw in his candidacy.
Dave,
About your “doubts about Mitt Romney,” please read the following *facts* about his ACTUAL RECORD of governing in Massachusetts. These come from David French, an esteemed and acknowledged *Conservative* attorney who is one of the co-founders of EvangelicalsforMitt.org. I don’t know how much of this I can post here–but you can look up the entire document at:
www.evangelicalsformitt.org/massresistance/therealtruth.pdf
Mitt Romney: The Real Truth
David French1
***No American governor has faced more critical cultural issues than Mitt Romney,
Massachusetts’ chief executive from 2003 to 2007. In the midst of Governor Romney’s
efforts to rescue his state from a fiscal crisis and create lasting and innovative health
care solutions, activist judges and a far-left legislature forced issues of same-sex
“marriage,” abortion, religious liberty, stem cell research, and gay rights into the
forefront. Each time he was challenged, the Governor not only made the conservative
choice, but also did so with an optimistic, unifying message. In doing so, he became a
national leader on these vital cultural issues without squandering his ability to govern
the Commonwealth.
In four years, Governor Romney turned a deficit into a surplus without raising taxes,
created a health coverage plan that is applauded by experts on both sides of the aisle and
is designed to reduce costs while preserving personal choices, and effectively responded
to the deadly collapse of one of the most expensive construction projects in American
history. He did all these things in one of America’s most liberal states at the same time
that he vetoed expansive stem cell legislation, vetoed the expansion of abortion rights in
Massachusetts, defended the religious liberties of Catholic Charities from an assault by
homosexual activists, and launched a multi-year (and multi-state) campaign to preserve
traditional marriage after Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court’s decision to legalize
same-sex marriage.****
In spite of this impressive conservative record, a group called “MassResistance” has
been circulating a lengthy document called “The Mitt Romney Deception.” Combining
old statements, half-truths, and some completely misreported stories, the document has
gained some traction in the conservative community, with anti-Romney activists
forwarding the document dozens of times (apparently without any independent
verification of its facts). In much the way as urban legends gain traction through repeated e-mail “forwards,”
(1 Editor’s note: David French is a co-founder of Evangelicals for Mitt (www.evangelicalsformitt.org), an
independent website dedicated to spreading awareness about Governor Mitt Romney among Christian
conservatives. David holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and is a leading constitutional attorney. He
lives outside Nashville with his family and worships at Zion Presbyterian Church, a congregation of the
Presbyterian Church in America. E-mail: david@evangelicalsformitt.org)
****the seriously-flawed MassResistance piece has led a few individuals to question the Governor’s commitment to conservative principles.
MassResistance’s document, however, suffers from at least five fundamental errors.
These errors are:
1. MassResistance fails to account for the Governor’s very real move to the pro-life side of the abortion debate;
2. MassResistance indulges in an illogical reading of the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health same-sex marriage decision and thereby completely mischaracterizes the Governor’s response to the Massachusetts same-sex
marriage crisis;
3. MassResistance fails to account for the Governor’s very real defense of religious liberty over the entitlement mentality of homosexual activists;
4. MassResistance falsely claims Governor Romney excluded the Boy Scouts from volunteering during the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics; and
5. MassResistance indulges in leftist-style identity politics by urging that Governor Romney (or any other Republican) participate in a search-and-destroy operation against any government-employed homosexuals. *****
The centerpiece of the MassResistance presentation is a series of quotes—taken primarily from Governor Romney’s 1994 Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy—and
then the implication that these quotes (regarding abortion and “gay rights”) are indicative of his current political positions and his actions in office. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lot has happened since 1994, and as a result, the Governor has become firmly pro-life, opposes adding sexual orientation to federal employment nondiscrimination laws, and has been one of the nation’s foremost advocates for traditional marriage.
To consider just a few events that led the Governor to change his mind: Nondiscrimination laws have been used to dramatically restrict fundamental First Amendment freedoms—including the ability of Christian student groups to meet on
campus and religious adoption agencies to place disabled children with appropriate families; an activist state supreme court unilaterally redefined marriage; and the growth
of embryonic stem cell research has led to the commodification of human life.
Faced with these realities, the Governor has consistently made the right choices.
MassResistance ignores these choices.
EFM *facts* about Romney Pt. II
SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE”
From the moment the activist judges in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
handed down their breathtakingly arrogant decision in Goodridge v. Department of
Public Health, the Governor took strong and consistent actions to defend marriage. He
also took decisive action to make sure his state would not grant marriage licenses to out-
of-state couples, thereby guaranteeing that Massachusetts would not become the “Las
Vegas of gay marriage” (as he called it) and trigger a constitutional crisis as couples
returned to their home states with Massachusetts licenses. He also initiated and led an
effort to amend the Massachusetts constitution by referendum and has gone so far as to
file suit against the Commonwealth’s own legislature after it took action to prevent the
people of Massachusetts from voting on that amendment—a suit that resulted in the
legislature complying with its constitutional responsibilities and sending the marriage
amendment on to the next stage of the ratification process.
Critically, he has become a leading national advocate for marriage, with his optimistic
and uplifting message dominating the public debate. Rather than casting the debate as
one over adult rights, the Governor has made the best possible case for marriage, noting
what we all should know but too often forget (at great cultural cost): Marriage does not
exist for the convenience and enjoyment of adults, but as the best possible way of raising
and nurturing children. The credible defenders of marriage in Massachusetts all agree,
and through their own statement they have recently and emphatically made their
feelings clear: Mitt Romney has been an invaluable supporter and advocate.
Yet despite this record, *****MassResistance claims that Mitt Romney actually enabled gay
marriage by not defying the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts—in other words,
by not breaking the law. In a truly baffling bit of legal reasoning, MassResistance argues
that the court ruling “simply advised the Legislature to pass legislation codifying its
opinion on changing the marriage statutes” and that Governor Romney was therefore
“not bound to enforce same-sex marriage prior to legislative action.”
This is simply an incorrect reading of the decision. Here is what the Supreme Judicial
Court actually said: “We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two
persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.” In other words, the court itself
changed the definition of marriage. The reference to legislative action in the opinion
merely gave the legislature a chance to amend the law to state what the court already
said it meant. This was not advising the legislature; it was changing the law. Any
governor who defied this decision risked contempt of court. Rather than becoming what
the media would undoubtedly call the “George Wallace of gay marriage” by standing in
the courthouse door and barring couples from receiving marriage licenses, the Governor
chose legal means to resist the court’s decision.*****
And his decision was correct. It is now clear that the Goodridge decision represented
not the beginning of the end of traditional marriage but what may well be the high-water
mark of the same-sex marriage movement. Since that decision, homosexual marriage
activists have been on the defensive virtually everywhere, losing referenda and losing
court decisions. Had Governor Romney not offered a principled and effective defense of
marriage, the outcome may very well have been quite different.
Connecticut is winner take all on Feb 5. Much will happen between now and then. I would not try to predict the results. I haven’t even a good guess.
The whole GOP race could turn into a long dragged out delegate battle.
Leaving at 7 a.m. Friday for Keene, NH. For McCain. Not Romney.
(Sadly, Fred Thompson has nowhere to campaign at this point. Might as well take the weekend off!)
“Combining old statements, half-truths, and some completely misreported stories” That’s all MassResistance has ever done. It becomes a problem now that it’s vomit is aimed at a fellow conservative? Interesting. And all this talk of same sex marriage makes me wonder what platform candidates from the right will run on when it becomes a non-issue. I suppose I don’t have to worry about it since it won’t happen in my lifetime. I’m sure you’ll find some else to blame all societies ills on. In the meantime, if it comes down to the choices being Romney or Huckabee who are both flawed in the eyes of different sets of conservatives, who do you think the evangelical vote would go for? I think y’all will really need a united front to go up against whoever the Dems pick unless the pull some harebrained stunt like 2004 and run a candidate nobody wants to vote for. And what impact do you think Bloomberg would have if he throws his hat in. I imagine he could pull the votes of the moderates in the GOP but does he have a chance of getting any of the conservative vote? And what about the Ron Paul factor? Funny but I pay more attention to the battle on the Republican side than I do on the other. I guess that’s because I can trust the Democrats to pick the most unwinnable of all their candidates
Tricia,
For clarification, I have not “declared war,” as you erroneously and presumptively claimed, on anybody.
I meant what I said. I believe that we/I have flogged this dead horse of a topic more than enough. This discussion has now grown as tedious to me as your numerous and poorly veiled snide remarks.
That all aside, belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you as well.
Doug
Pete,
Currently, and as this race continues to evolve, I think the best real guess or prediction any of us can now make is probably that (for at least the Republican side of the race), the nominee might well not be known until the convention in the summer.
Wow….a convention with real and significant meaning besides just hype and hoopla! (Like they used to be!) Won’t that be a new and refreshing twist!
Admittedly, I’m not much of a McCain fan, but I nevertheless envy your jaunt to New Hampshire during this very exciting and historical time. Whatever the turnout, enjoy the experience… and try to keep warm up there, in this frigid seasonal climate of what the locals there refer to as “Mooselandia”!
Happy New Year.
Doug
Dave,
You mentioned in your post 21 a youtube video of Romney.
I’m hoping that you will copy the following link in your browser and watch this one (from over a year ago) of Governor Romney defending the rights of Catholic Charities–and religious freedom. (Unfortunately Romney could not overrule “the law” and the adoption situation in Massachusetts did not end up the way we all would have hoped.)
The point of watching this old video is the evidence that Mitt Romney’s devotion to conservative social issues is both firm and heartfelt. (The first part is Hannity quizzing him on a Pres. campaign, but after that comes Alan Colmes repeatedly grilling Romney and attempting to get him to recognize the “rights of gay couples to adopt” over the religious freedom rights of Catholic Charities.)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDPifOZ6j1Y
I will also say again that every ACTION that Romney took as Governor was on the pro-life, pro traditional family side. He has admitted that his *statements* in the past were “effectively pro-choice.” As Reagan changed to the pro-life position, so has Romney. No one referred to Reagan as a “flip-flopper” for having changed that position once. Neither should anyone label Romney a “flip-flopper” for changing to the active pro-life camp.
On Marriage, on Sept. 14, 2007:
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “Do you support a national constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage?”
Governor Romney: “Boy, I sure do. You know, that’s a topic that’s really, I think, very important to the country because marriage is not just about adults. Marriage is about the development and nurturing of kids, and in my view, the development of a child is enhanced by having a mom and dad. And so, I think it’s very important that we have a national standard because marriage is a status. You get married in one place and then you move to another, you’re still married at least in the eyes of the community and the children and the benefits may not follow you, but ultimately we’re going to have one standard of marriage in this country and that standard ought to be one man and one woman.”
Scarborough: “Any other major Republican candidates support the marriage amendment?”
Governor Romney: “You know, I don’t think that Rudy or Fred or John McCain support the marriage amendment and I think they’re in error on that