Jerry's Jonesin' for a fight
The Pro-Life Federation of Michigan sent out this biting email about Gov. Romney. If it's getting this intense, this early- you can only imagine what's to come... Paging Burton Rider for the response on this one...
Pertinent Excerpts Below. You can email us if you want to see the whole letter.
September 5, 2006
To: State Representatives on Commonwealth Steering Committee
From: Dr. Jerry Zandstra, Chairman Pro-Life Federation of Michigan
Dear State Representative,
We formed the Pro-Life Federation of Michigan to support pro-life candidates across the state of Michigan and to certify their pro-life status.
As you know, candidates can apply for certification and are officially certified pro-life if they correctly answer just a few questions and pass a basic analysis of their past statements.
I recently read the press release from Mitt Romney’s Commonwealth PAC indicating that you have signed on to his Political Action Committee as a member of his Steering Committee.
The Washington political newsletter Hotline reported on August 23rd that:
In theory, these new members of Romney's Commonwealth PAC affiliate in Michigan are fully and completely dedicated to helping elect Republicans in Michigan in 2006. But the reality is, of course, that they're fully fledged members of Romney's presidential campaign, which, although it has yet to officially begin... has... well... pretty much officially begun.
The Pro-Life Federation of Michigan does not view Mitt Romney as a suitable Republican nominee for President of the United States because of his pro-choice position on abortion:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate...
Romney's response to the National Abortion Rights Action League's 2002 candidate survery: ''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is, no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights." (Notably, Romney refused to answer Massachusetts Citizens for Life's candidate questionnaire.)
Given these comments, the Pro-Life Federation of Michigan requests that you consider removing your name from the Commonwealth PAC Steering Committee.
Governor Mitt Romney is clearly not a suitable nominee for pro-life elected officials to support for President of the United States.
I know that social conservative leaders in Michigan like President of the American Family Association of Michigan Gary Glenn, Judy Zabik, Judy Climer of Black Americans for Life and other pro-life activists share my concerns.
I respectfully ask you to reconsider your support for Governor Romney in his bid for the White House. If you would like to discuss my concerns, please don’t hesitate to email me at jerry@jerryzandstra.com
Dr. Jerry Zandstra
Chairman
Pro-Life Federation of Michigan
Pertinent Excerpts Below. You can email us if you want to see the whole letter.
September 5, 2006
To: State Representatives on Commonwealth Steering Committee
From: Dr. Jerry Zandstra, Chairman Pro-Life Federation of Michigan
Dear State Representative,
We formed the Pro-Life Federation of Michigan to support pro-life candidates across the state of Michigan and to certify their pro-life status.
As you know, candidates can apply for certification and are officially certified pro-life if they correctly answer just a few questions and pass a basic analysis of their past statements.
I recently read the press release from Mitt Romney’s Commonwealth PAC indicating that you have signed on to his Political Action Committee as a member of his Steering Committee.
The Washington political newsletter Hotline reported on August 23rd that:
In theory, these new members of Romney's Commonwealth PAC affiliate in Michigan are fully and completely dedicated to helping elect Republicans in Michigan in 2006. But the reality is, of course, that they're fully fledged members of Romney's presidential campaign, which, although it has yet to officially begin... has... well... pretty much officially begun.
The Pro-Life Federation of Michigan does not view Mitt Romney as a suitable Republican nominee for President of the United States because of his pro-choice position on abortion:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate...
Romney's response to the National Abortion Rights Action League's 2002 candidate survery: ''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is, no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights." (Notably, Romney refused to answer Massachusetts Citizens for Life's candidate questionnaire.)
Given these comments, the Pro-Life Federation of Michigan requests that you consider removing your name from the Commonwealth PAC Steering Committee.
Governor Mitt Romney is clearly not a suitable nominee for pro-life elected officials to support for President of the United States.
I know that social conservative leaders in Michigan like President of the American Family Association of Michigan Gary Glenn, Judy Zabik, Judy Climer of Black Americans for Life and other pro-life activists share my concerns.
I respectfully ask you to reconsider your support for Governor Romney in his bid for the White House. If you would like to discuss my concerns, please don’t hesitate to email me at jerry@jerryzandstra.com
Dr. Jerry Zandstra
Chairman
Pro-Life Federation of Michigan
posted by Caucus Cooler at 9/05/2006
95 Comments:
So McCain has a paid hack out trashing Governor Romney on abortion. What's the big deal? Nothing new about that. They're getting desperate already. Doesn't it seem a little early for that?
Mitt Romney is 100% pro-life, as he has told many members of the board of the Iowa Christian Alliance, and hundreds of other activists in Iowa, face-to-face and look-em-in-the-eye. If you don't believe me, ask him next time he's in Iowa (end of September, I believe). So his position has strengthened from being personally pro-life to being publicly pro-life. Are we going to devalue that? Is that really good for the cause?
Most importantly, he'll appoint conservative judges, while McCain and his "gang of 14" moderates would try and block so-called "extreme" candidates of either party.
He's also led the fight nationally against gay marriage (unlike McCain who is more liberal), would overturn Roe v. Wade (unlike McCain who is more liberal), opposed expanding stem cell research (unlike McCain who is more liberal) and is tougher on illegal immigration (unlike McCain who is more liberal and supports amnesty).
That enough?
Weak Burton. Cute to compare Romney on Life to McCain on Life but that's not saying much. What aobut vs. Hucakabee, Frist, Gingrich or Brownback. None of them ever said they are pro-choice because their mom said it was the right thing to do.
Well, the attacks are coming from McCain so I call them as I see them.
As for the others, they are all great guys, but I like Governor Romney's chances better.
As a Second Amendment supporter I want to know where did his Mom stand on guns?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hmmm... Smartchick2008 is one smart chick. Dare I say, a Jedi chick?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cancer Man-
Let's try an avoid the personal attacks against staff members.
Thanks.
To BR's point: this is clearly an orchestrated attack; our point in highlighting it was to show how vicious the campaign is going to get.
Would've done the same thing if it was an attack on our good friend David Kochel (who has kindly offered us a free ticket to the upcoming Sonny Humbucker concert) or Doug Gross.
Feel free to comment away regarding Jerry's email since he has opened himself to criticism or complement depending on your perspective.
According to a top NRA official I spoke with about ten days ago, Gov. Romney would grade an F- due to his past support for both the Brady Bill and the federal Assault Weapons Ban. (Of course, the governor may have a sincere life-changing awakening on that issue too.)
Does Burton have inside info the rest of us don't re: Rev. Zandstra's criticism of Romney?
Knowing Jerry, I'd be shocked at any chance he'd be supportive of McCain, given that McCain voted against the federal Marriage Protection Amendment.
And for the record, I've been publicly critical not only of Romney, but of McCain, Giuliani, and Pataki.
In fact, as reported by the LA Times, I criticized McCain and refused to meet with him unless and until he reversed himself on the marriage amendment vote. Nobody in my sphere of activity, to my knowledge, is supporting McCain.
As to Romney, I remain skeptical about his purported flip-flop on abortion at age 58. However, I welcome his flip-flops on abortion and the need for a state Marriage Protection Amendment regardless of the motivation, sincere conviction or political calculation. Problem is, if it's the latter, he could just as easily reverse himself under different political circumstances in the future.
And I remain concerned about the issues Romney hasn't flip-flopped on: his opposition to the Boy Scouts policy prohibiting individuals who engage in homosexual behavior from participating in Scouting, his support for so-called "domestic partner" benefits based on homosexual relationships (including tax-financed benefits for the homosexual partners of state employees), and his endorsement of Ted Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation, the state version of which forced Catholic Charities in Boston to process homosexual adoption (or abandon adoption services altogether).
Romney's appointment of openly homosexual activists to his transition team, his cabinet, and to the judiciary, one a former member of the Lesbian & Gay Bar Association, is also less than confidence-inspiring.
Finally, a pox on whoever's prejudicial speculation that my concerns with Romney's admittedly pro-abortion on demand record and support for major elements of the homosexual agenda have anything to do with Romney's religious faith. I've managed or consulted dozens of Mormon candidates for public office. Last spring, sang at the LDS funeral of the first candidate whose race I ever ran. To the contrary, it is much of Romney's public policy record that is at odds with the values typically associated with the LDS Church.
Gary Glenn
But how did Romney govern? When it came time to make decisions as an elected executive, were those decisions pro-life or pro-choice?
Answer me that, hatchet men.
Thanks for your post Gary, welcome to the Cooler.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Boys and girls, I get home from Northern Iowa and find a civil war a brewin' right here in peaceful Iowa.
Any hardline right to lifer has a right to support any of our many very impressive candidates for President. That's how we pick our nominees and that's how we should.
But no one should think for a minute that any, any of our nominees would not move the pro-life agenda far farther down the road than any D nominee.
At the same time, every Democrat will fund Planned Parenthood and the international abortion and fetus trading markets, and appoint justices and judges who will reaffirm the broadest possible abortion rights, minimize parental rights and make it harder for states to regulate any aspect of abortion.
However you stand on the issue, please don't become convinced that any of our possible nominees cannot be supported. Remember-we aren't all ever going to agree on every issue, we all need to respect each other's reasons for supporting the candidates that we ultimately support, and we all need to remember the consequences of our failure to compromise, President Bill Clinton, Sen. Tom Harkin and Justices Ginsberg and Breyer.
REALITY MATTERS-VOTE REPUBLICAN
gotta love the real sporer.
Here are some facts: Gary Glenn, you're amazing. How can you break the 9th commandment so many times in one post.
Fact: I spoke with a top NRA official recently (Kayne Robinson - doesn't get any more TOP than that), and he says Mitt Romney has a very good record on guns, and your attack is a total fabrication. Any Iowan can call him and ask him. No, he hasn't endorsed Governor Romney or anyone else, but he also wouldn't let the F- crap stand. Tell me who your purported NRA source is, and we'll see what they say.
Another fact: Gary Glenn is close to John Yob, who is a $5,000 per month paid gun for John McCain. The two of them teamed up on a sham effort in Michigan to push for the gay marriage ban in 2004, but they raised no money and had little impact on the issue in Michigan. Occaisionally, Glenn lightly takes on McCain and others to establish his credibility, but relishes in attacking Governor Romney every time he comes to Michigan. So how can you say you have no one in your sphere of influence who supports John McCain? Don't think you can come on an Iowa blog and find only people who've never been outside of Iowa, buddy. I have your number.
Still another fact: your pal John Yob ran the Zandstra's US Senate campaign right into the ground, failing to qualify him for the ballot because they couldn't get the signatures. This is the McCain team in Michigan.
They are now relentlessly attacking Mitt Romney because they are behind and don't have any better ideas.
Gary/Jerry, talk about weak. Why don't you talk about your candidate's immigration, abortion, gay marriage, McCain-Feingold, gang of 14, stem-cell positions. He'll need your help since he's to the left of almost everyone in the Republican field, and especially Mitt Romney.
Take your crap somewhere else, you know nothing you've written is true. I can back up every single thing I've written.
Now I'm pissed.
Shit burton... Somebody is fired up...
Nobody can accuse us of not having interesting discussions at the Cooler.
The McCainiacs are losing it. They are getting out organized in Michigan, which is why they sent Jerry Zandstra out to attack Romney. Romney recently rolled out an advisory committee in Michigan that had 37 state representatives on it. 37! The list also had 6 Bush Rangers/Pioneers. Romney has basically locked up the state house caucus and all the Bush money men in Michigan. McCain and his Yob family political team are getting their heads handed to them in Michigan. To date, McCain has signed up 4 legislators and 2 Rangers/Pioneers. Important to note that McCain has been to Michigan more than he's been in Iowa and he's had John Yob, the son of controversial National Committeeman Chuck Yob on his Straight Talk payroll since early 2005. No wonder they are marching out the defeated Jerry Zandstra to take a whack at Romney. Going negative in September 2006 (actually the McCainiacs started their negative smears against Romney in March 2005) is not the sign of a strong national frontrunner. Also keep in mind that Michigan is every bit as pro-life on the GOP side as Iowa. Romney's early organizing success in the Wolverine state shows that dredging up old quotes is a dog that won't hunt when this thing gets real.
Mr Burton Rider:
You better check your facts.
I happen to be from Michigan and John Yob left the Zandstra campaign long before it ran out of signatures.
At the time, months before signatures were due, he want back to work for the incumbent Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land. This was very well publicized.
He ran her campaign in 2002 when she won with a larger margin than any open seat in recent memory in Michigan. She was opposed at the convention by Lorin Bennett who had the support of the GOP establishment.
He was also involved in the Mike Cox campaign who won by 5000 votes to be the first Republican AG in 50 years. He was opposed at the convention by Dan Degrow who had the support of the GOP establishment.
He was also involved in the convention campaign when Smietanka defeated Scott Romney (Mitt Romney's brother) for the AG nomination.
I would think twice before you downplay their machine in Michigan.
Contrast this with Katy Packer who is running Romney in Michigan. She ran Dole 1996 in Michigan - lost. She ran Abraham 2000 in Michigan - lost. She ran Postumus 2002 in Michigan - lost.
She has worked for zero current statewide elected officials in Michigan and he has worked for both of the top elected officials in Michigan.
I am not sure about Gary Glenn working with John Yob on the marriage issue. it might be accurate but I don't remember seeing anything on that.
You guys have your heads in the sand on Michigan.
The biggest Michigan GOP money people are gong with McCain. The Michigan GOP Finance Chair Ambassador Ron Wiser supports McCain publicly. He was the Bush 2000 Finance Chair in Michigan.
Jim Nicholson was announced as McCain Michigan Finance Chairman today - and he was a Bush 2000 Pionner and Bush 2004 Ranger.
Romney does have a base of support in Oakland County because that is where his family is from. However, that base of support did not help his brother Scott Romney when he lost the AG nomination in 1998, or Ronna Romney when she lost the U.S. Senate nomination in 1994, or when she lost the general election in 1996, or for that matter his mother in 1970 U.S. Senate race. They are 0-4 at best.
Romney indeed seems to have a lead among state house members because he has Speaker Deroche. It will be interesting to see where State Senators, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and local GOP officials go. It will also be interesting to see if McCain is holding cards back or if he has none to play.
Boy this is getting started early.
Well, now I'm scared. Burton is "pissed."
And as is always the case with Romneyites, anyone who dares expose and talk about the fullness of Romney's record of support for abortion on demand and major elements of the homosexual agenda is falsely accused of bearing false witness.
But tiresome as it is to spoonfeed stuff to you, Burton, when you could Google it for yourself:
FACT: Romney said in 1994 that he favored the Brady Bill and the federal Assault Weapons Ban. On his 2002 gubernatorial campaign website, he repeated his support for the AWB. (Both of these "total fabrications," as Burton calls them, are still available online.) Further, having no idea what Romney's record might be beyond that, I called the NRA to inquire how they viewed him and was told his support for the BB and AWB would grade him out at F-.
FACT: Just about anybody in Michigan, particularly Yob himself, would laugh at the notion that I am "close to John Yob," as Burt alleges.
In fact, I was the individual who made the first public call for a marriage amendment in Michigan and co-authored the amendment approved by voters in 2004. (Try your Google finger on that one too, Burt.) I do recall Yob put up a website supporting that proposal. My organization put one up too. So did a lot of other groups. By Burt's reasoning, that makes me "close to" all those who supported the marriage amendment...and I'm proud of it.
Burt says that "occasionally, Glenn lightly takes on McCain and others to establish his credibility, but relishes in attacking Governor Romney every time he comes to Michigan."
Here are some of my "light" comments on Sen. John (and the senior Yob while I was at it)...but in Burt's mind, these are all just setups so I can more credibly criticize Romney's record...whatever you say, Burt:
HUMAN EVENTS: http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?id=15499&title=trouble_brewing_for_mccain_in_michigan
HUMAN EVENTS: http://www.humanevents.com/blog-detail.php?id=12651
AGAPE PRESS: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/122006b.asp
LA TIMES: http://www.afamichigan.org/2006/03/26/los-angeles-times-right-is-might-for-gops-aspirants/
---
Burt warns me: "Don't think you can come on an Iowa blog and find only people who've never been outside of Iowa, buddy. I have your number."
And feel free to call it, Burt. I didn't even know this was an "Iowa blog," and certainly don't care, given that the Truth crosses state lines without being any less true.
Burt again: "Gary/Jerry...why don't you talk about your candidate's immigration, abortion, gay marriage, McCain-Feingold, gang of 14, stem-cell positions."
If Sen. Tom Coburn announces his candidacy for president, I'll be happy to discuss "my candidate's" views on any of the above.
But if you're referring to John McCain, what you listed are all the reasons I will most assuredly NOT be supporting him...
...any more than I'll be supporting the governor from Massachusetts who spent a decade giving aid and comfort to the abortion lobby, endorsed by the Majority for Choice PAC, endorsed twice by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans, who appointed homosexual activists to the Mass. bench, who was publicly rebuked by the Boy Scouts for opposing their ban on homosexuals, who supports forcing taxpayers to subsidize spousal benefits for the homosexual partners of government employees, who endorsed Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation...etc., etc., etc.
Burt says: "I can back up every single thing I've written."
Back atcha, Burt.
Gary Glenn
Am I really being lectured about who's a true pro-life conservative by a former Schwarzenegger groupie?
Say it ain't so, Joe...I mean, Burton.
It was your own guy Murph who said Romney is "a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly" governor.
That's what social conservatives in Iowa want, I'm sure, a candidate who "fakes" his core convictions.
And appointing homosexual activists to the Massachusetts bench...that'll go over big in the Presidential caucuses.
GG
I'll have more later, I have Republicans in Iowa to elect this morning.
However, I'm glad you're "out" supporting Tom Coburn for President and nobody else. Makes you SO useful in our debate, since it will NEVER happen. You're like my friend stuckonbrilliant who only criticizes and can't come up with anything better than Pence for President.
And you can dig up all your 1994 stuff again and again. Nobody cares. What's relevant is how Romney has governed (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro 2nd amendment).
See you in August.
Gee, GG has made Burton look more like Bert of Bert and Ernie. Time to bring in the big gun. Where's Dr. Yoda when we need him.
anon 7:59:
GG might as well be blogging on used toilet paper in a windowless shack in the U.P. for all the impact he has in MI.
Coburn for President!!
Organized anti-Romney effort all stems from Gary Glenn (still waiting to hear who he supports).
Glenn recently layed out the anti-Romney letter prior to the MI GOP state convention a couple of weeks ago. His buddy, Brian Fischer (a Protestant pastor in Mormon-heavy Idaho) did the same thingbefore the Idaho state convention, calling into question Romney's conservative stances. See this link to get a little detail on their organized (and not forthright and honest) attacks on Romney.
They seem to have a hatred of Romney that goes beyond policy disagreements. Makes one wonder . . .
I'll try and ask Kayne Robinson about the "F-" comment at the ICA's big event this coming Saturday.
Where do they get this stuff?!?!?!?
Also, for anyone confused about Romney's history on abortion read
http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/7/14/12544/1705
This was written by Pro-Life Activist, Evangelical Christian, and Romney supporter, Nathan Burd.
Hmmmm... Somebody must have pissed in Glenn's cheerios to get him all fired up like that.
Hmmm... Perhaps he's just crying like a little girl with a skinned knee because he knows Mitt Romney is the GOP's best hope in 2008.
Either way, I am amazed at the level of slash and burn rhetoric coming from the McCain camp in Sept. of '06!!!. Seriously, as a guy with more photos of John McCain in my home then my own family, I can tell you that I was very much a McCain supporter in 2000. However, the references I hear from so many about the endless similarities between McCain now and Dole in '96 is difficult not to agree with. McCain's time has come and gone. Oh and don't even get me started on his amnesty for illegal aliens stance or his convenient flip flop on ethanol or his blowing off the Iowa caucuses in 2000 etc.
WAR Michigan someday coming to Iowa to play a real football team in Ames.
Thanks Smartchick:
A few facts, since Glenn didn't come clean about this statement "Nobody in my sphere of activity, to my knowledge, is supporting McCain."
FEC reports don't lie, and neither do the other public sourcings this is drawn from:
Gary Glenn was on the advisory board of John Yob's Marriage
Defense.Org. This PAC was designed to make Yob money, but only raised
a small amount of money and ran no major voter contact efforts during
the ballot campaign.
The major ballot committee in support of the gay marriage ban was
Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, which raised real money and
ran TV ads in support of the ban. Katie Packer's firm, Sterling
Corporation, ran the ballot campaign for this group.
According to FEC documents, John Yob was a paid consultant to new
Romney attacker Zandstra's Senate campaign thru May, which is when
Zandstra got bumped out of the race for not qualifying enough petition
signatures.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Glenn attacks Romney at Michigan
Convention. Now Zandstra chimes in with letter to Romney Commonwealth
PAC advisory committee. Both have social conservative fronts, both are
doing the same bidding.
When Gary Glenn and Jerry Zandstra begin to obsessively attack McCain
like they do Romney, they can gain some credibility for being
independent in the race. Until then, it's pretty obvious that they are
singing from McCain's anti-Romney songsheet.
Now go beat up some Democrats - that's how I'm spending the rest of my day. Do some good for your party.
Recent revelations about Jim Nussle, show why Romney has been helping him so much. They are both pro-choice.
BWAHAHAHAHA
From the posts above it is easy to see that Gary Glenn has attacked McCain about as much as he has Romney - at least he is equal opportunity attacker.
Zandstra's position on McCain is yet unclear from public statements - but the organization he signed the letter from was a pro-life organization.
It makes good sense that a pro-life organization would have a problem with Mitt Romney's past pro-choice statements but would not complain about McCain because he has a fairly solid pro-life history that is backed up by a 24-year voting record.
Yes, Romney is able to switch - and we gladly take converts - but one must consider his reason for switching. Was it just to get elected President? He made pro-life statements when he was considering running for Governor of Utah and then made pro-choice statements when he was running for Governor of Mass. It seems that Matinee Mitt is willing to say whatever is best for the next election.
Ditto everything the "big gun" Yoda said about McCain.
As to Jeff Fuller's question -- "Where do they get this stuff" re: Romney's support for gun control?"
Two quick sources:
Boston Herald, 1994, as reported by "On the Issues": http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm
Romney's 2002 gubernatorial website: http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/
Plus my phone call to a top NRA operative two weeks ago.
And perhaps Jeff can explain what in the Idaho link he provided indicates anything "not forthright and honest" about criticism of Gov. Romney's documented record.
Finally, has Jeff been rhetorically tutored by the left-wing PC crowd, homosexual activists in particular? They're the ones who always whine that if someone dares disagree with them, they must be motivated by "hate."
Gov. Romney -- despite a decade of giving rhetorical aid and comfort on public policy to the abortion lobby and homosexual activists -- may be a fine individual personally.
But I understand Jeff's need to demonize the messenger.
As to Sen. Coburn, well aware he's not running. Romney's record is what it is, regardless of any other candidate's entry into the race.
Sadly, I may or may not support any candidate for prez in 08, at least until I step into the booth in November and am forced to choose (or vote none of the above).
My motivation -- using McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Pataki, etc., as object lessons -- is to teach other aspiring politicians that there's a price to pay for giving aid and comfort and legitimacy to the abortion lobby and homosexual activists...and that claiming a last-minute "evolution" on such issues won't save you from accountability.
That applies to all of 'em, not just Mitt.
GG
Burt states:
"A few facts, since Glenn didn't come clean about this statement 'Nobody in my sphere of activity, to my knowledge, is supporting McCain.' ...Gary Glenn was on the advisory board of John Yob's Marriage Defense.Org."
Burt may well be correct. I vaguely remember agreeing to be listed on Yob's website in 2004. As the first and loudest advocate for, and the co-author of, Michigan's voter-approved Marriage Protection Amendment, I lent my name to all the groups supporting the amendment.
And for the record, I publicly supported Bishop Keith Butler in the recent GOP U.S. Senate primary, not Rev. Zandstra (who is, nonetheless, also a great guy individually and on the issues).
I don't consider John Yob to be in "my sphere of activity." He sent me an e-mail months ago inviting me to meet with McCain, and I refused -- as reported by the LA Times -- based on McCain's vote against the federal Marriage Protection Amendment (and his appearing on the Log Cabin Republican's website as a "hero" for doing so).
Anyone who is influenced or guided by my opinions will not be supporting McCain. McCain's arrogance in insisting that he's smarter than the entire pro-family movement on the need for a marriage amendment is matched only by Romney's arrogance in thinking that he can evade accountability for his decade-long record in support of Roe and abortion on demand and major elements of homosexual activists' political agenda.
GG
Hmmm.... Glen, question for you I have...
Born pro-life were you? Or did you weigh the issues on both sides and come to correct decision to be pro-life?
I have always been pro-life for myself and my family, but leaned toward the libertarian side with regard to telling others what they can do with their bodies. It wasn't until I saw the very first ultrasound of my son that it become readily apparent to me that ALL life is precious and became pro-life with regard to others.
Are you any better than I am? Better than Ronald Reagan (who I named my son after BTW) are you?
Still no answer to my question from GG or any of the other anti-Romney hatchet men.
HOW DID ROMNEY GOVERN? Did he govern pro-life or pro-choice? Everything else is just words.
Answer the question...
I really don't care how he governed. All I care about is his complete sell out to his party, constituency, and his religion by running as a pro-choice individual. If he's willing to be a political whore to get elected (aka a poll-politician like Clinton was) then I'd rather he not get elected. And now he's trying to cover his ass. Pathetic.
A real football team in Iowa, eh Yoda. You know a lot about football, when did you play? Go back to band camp now.
WAR the "real" football team in Iowa, our beloved Hawkeyes.
Hawkeyes 35 wins vs. ISU 18 wins
Hawkeyes 4 straight January bowl appearances and three top ten finishes. ISU = Houston bowl, Independence (shreveport), Humanitarian, Insight.com (wow?).
All you care about it how he governed? Do you not care whether your political leaders have credibility with what they say?
All they are is words?
That is a very scarey way to look at politics.
Your argument for Mitt as faking his position (ala Murph) gives new meaning to the already mentioned Matinee Mitt. Faker for President - NOT!
Hmmmm--yoda not aware of life being precious until after he saw unltra sound? small brain he has--must have pictures to show proof of life value.
hmmmm--yoda and burton rider angry people. dark side of force they are.
hmmmm-gg give them hell and hold their feet to the fire he does.
Is it really a personal conversion when it's politically convenient?
agreeing with anon 12:12...
Boy it's early for this...
Folks, we've got SIXTEEN MONTHS until your Caucus, New Hampshire, and then our primary here in SC. That's an eternity in politics (questions: just ask Gary Hart).
If we're at each other's throats this early, somebody's going to have an aneurysm before this is over... I just hope we can vent this frustration in the direction of those who actually deserve it most... (both in this upcoming election and in '08)
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!!!
It doesn' take Karl Rove to figure out that Romney's conversion was politically convenient.
However, was it really a conversion? He and his supporters are all over the map on this.
He has said his position evolved. He has said he was always pro-life. He has said he was pro-choice - he uses the term choice rather than abortion - and his consultant sais he was a 'pro-life Mormon faking pro-choice'.
What he is....is unclear.
What is seems.....is that he is whatever is convenient.
Guys, it's apparent we're all on the same side (I think) philosophically. I'm just not convinced by the sincerity of Romney's supposed "evolution" at the ripe old age of 58, especially when it's timed with such precise convenience to provide political benefit.
Reagan in '66 hesitantly signed a bill allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life or health of the mother. Compared to the previous ban, this was liberalization. And his fear that "health" would be broadly interpreted occurred, and within one year of signing it, he said it was a mistake. Ten years later, he ran for president, and again in 80, having had the sincerity of his conversion tested for over a decade. So to apply the Reagan test fairly, let Mitt come back to us in 2016 and run on his decade-old pro-life record, not his one-year pro-life record after a decade in public office of giving aid and comfort to the abortion lobby.
(By the way, Yoda, my 12 year old daughter is also named Reagan. Took her to the funeral in D.C. a couple of years back. Got the money shot with the caisson passing by just over her shoulder. And I took all of our kids to see the ultra-sounds of their siblings to come, and instructed them that they have a moral obligation regardless of their profession to stand against that abortion on demand remaining legal.)
I never gave a thought to abortion until getting involved in politics at age 20, and quickly figured out what the "conservative," and more importantly, morally correct position was. Romney asks us to believe he's just now figured out his core beliefs in his late 50's, after growing up in a political family and having been a candidate for elective office since 1994...not a credible claim, frankly.
Don't remember who asked how Romney "governed."
As Ronnie and Rush both pointed out, "words have meaning."
Romney's words were part of his governing, and all that rhetoric about "choice" and "freedom to choose" and "abortion rights" gave aid and comfort to the abortion industry, and did far more to legitimize it among impressionable Repubs and conservatives than Kennedy and Hillary and all the Dems combined.
Even after his supposed "evolution," Romney is quoted as saying that Roe should be overturned so that states that want to outlaw abortion can do so, but states like Mass can continue to allow abortion on demand. Yet here in Michigan a week ago, he told a legislator he'd support a Human Life Amendment banning abortion everywhere.
Sounds far too much like he adjust his stand to tell whoever his listeners are what they want to hear.
And I don't trust him in the context of his broader record: opposing a state marriage amendment before the state supreme court legalized so-called homosexual "marriage." And all that other pro-homosexual stuff on which he hasn't flip-flopped.
BTW, I intimately witnessed a true conversion on the abortion issue. A political adversary, leading pro-abort consultant in the state, separated from his wife only to find out afterwards that she was pregnant. He begged her not to abort HIS child. She read him back campaign brochures he'd written. She did it. He attempted suicide. Woke up believing God had spared him to undo what he'd worked his whole political life doing. Announced he was now pro-life. Lost his $90k a year job. Ostracized by his liberal friends. Party-type Repubs he'd beat up for a decade wouldn't embrace him. Moved into a cabin in the woods, grew a long beard, drank, arrested for assaulting a woman (not sexually), jailed for failure to pay child support for previous daughter. In other words, his pro-life conversion was to his great "detriment" from a worldly sense. But now, some 15 years later, he heads the most aggressive pro-life lobby in the state, his passion fueled by the memory of his own aborted son.
Maybe I'm prejudiced as a result, but a politician claiming he's seen the light at age 58, at the perfect time to let him claim to social conservatives that he's one of us after a decade of undermining the pro-life cause, looks pretty specious by comparison.
GG
Forget the abortion issue. Let's talk about the underwear issue. I can't ever see the man without thinking of his wearing those ridiculous garments. Reminds me of the crap that Islamic women have to wear.
Skirting the line on appropriateness, Mr. Bonds....
I find it interesting how many of the comments that attack Romney are "Anonymous". Are you/they affraid to have your name attached to those anti-Romney comments?
and "Kevin" is a really unanonymous way to post.
Although I strong disagree with Murphy on whether social conservatives should support Romney - or any candidate who is bipolar enough to have different classifications for their political positions and their person positions - I do agree that it is a fair assessment of Mitt Romney.
It is also a fair assessment to say that - based on Murphy's statement - the man is willing to change political positions regardless of his personal opinions.
Thus he is willing to say whatever it takes to get elected. That is not a quality that is fit of President of the United States.
Hi Murph,
Long time no see...
Just so we'll all know how impressed we should be that Romney says he's always been PERSONALLY pro-life, please identify any politician -- anywhere, any time, either party -- who's ever said they were personally in FAVOR of abortion itself.
Answer is, not much.
The guy's alleged personal views, like those of "personally opposed to abortion" Hillary, Kennedy, Cuomo, and Pelosi, are irrelevant.
His public policy views were insistently in favor of abortion on demand for a decade, and according to his own words (which are also part of his record), all the way back at least til 1970...
...that is, pro-abortion on demand public policy-wise for a quarter-century, conveniently flip-flopping on the issue a year ago right before publicly saying he'd decided not to run for governor again.
(And please note that while I'm using the more effortless "anonymous" option, I'm signing my name or initials to each of my posts.)
GG
Murph,
I assure you that it is my firm intention to have a Republican nominee whose word and record can be trusted without question in defense of prenatal life and traditional family values.
However, I must make an embarassing confession.
While you and the Red State folks have never laid a glove on me, I was only here at the Cooler one day before Burt discovered my true motivations and "outed" me.
As you know, Murph, I have occasionally but only lightly taken on Romney.
But as Burt has now embarassingly revealed, it has only been to establish some credibility for independence...so I can more credibly criticize McCain.
The shame.
How come you guys at Red State never hit me with such withering fire?
GG
Oh great . . . another "ordained minister", this time Zandstra, has problems with Romney . . . and Gary Glenn is in the middle of it.
Glenn tried to make a career of political activism in Mormon-heavy Idaho back in the 80s and 90s before taking up residence in Michigan . . . He's still got ties up there and endorsed Bill Sali for Congress ( http://www.billsali.com/news.asp?id=21 ) in Idaho District 1--the non-Mormon district--although one of Sali's cheif rivals was a Mormon
Although not a minister, Glenn has a strong religous background (And it ain't Mormonism) http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Gary%5EGlenn
Glenn sure seems to have something against Romney . . . see below:
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/08/post_58.html
Glenn's buddy, Brian Fischer (a Protestant pastor in Mormon-heavy Idaho) pulled a Glenn
before the Idaho state convention, calling into question Romney's conservative stances.
http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2006/06/18/ggmichigan-romney-of-ma-and-idaho/
The above link gives a little detail on their organized (and not forthright and honest) attacks on Romney.
They seem to have a hatred of Romney that goes beyond policy disagreements. Makes one wonder . . .
Now, I'm not accusing Glenn, Fischer, or Zandstra of Anti-Mormonism. However, I will say that opposition to Romney because of his religion will not be head on attacks, but will take the guise of opposing Romney on his suppossed moral misgivings. Attacking Romney on religious grounds will be taboo and any public figure doing so will lose respect quickly . . . therefore the attacks will be directed along other paths, but the root cause of their actions should always be questioned.
Since Glenn, Fischer, and Zandstra are calling for Romney to sign statements and fill out surveys about his views on Abortion, I think the anti-Romney trio should likewise be willing to sign statements and fill out surveys about their views of Mormonism.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060618/NEWS010702/606180334/1024/NEWS01
Found a link where the plot deepens . . .
*****
Then Sali went back to lunch in the farthest corner of the convention hall. His dining partner was Bryan Fischer, the former pastor who caused the convention's other dissonant moment by condemning Sullivan for inviting Massachusetts GOP Gov. Mitt Romney to the convention. Fischer said Romney "has staked out some fairly radical positions on abortion and homosexual rights."
Romney, a Mormon, opposes abortion, same-sex marriage and civil unions. His sins are that in his 2002 campaign he backed domestic partnerships "in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship" and said women, not government, should make choices about abortion.
For Fischer and Sali, purity comes first.
******
Organized attack I'd call this evolving web.
Anonymous,
At least Kevin is my real name!
Can you say the same about your name, Anonymous?
cooler -- how is that skirting the lines? We talk about the dress those Islamic women wear. Why can't we talk about the "holy" clothes mormons wear? I think it is because it is so odd that most people would rather not think about how different mormons really are.
Anon 11:50
Murphy's right. There are a lot of religions who have articles of clothing to wear (or something that may seem strange to an outsider) to remind them of their God and their covenants. Don't tell me you've never seen Fiddler on the Roof?
Kristine
Jeff- coming pretty close to calling GG a bigot on that post... Not sure that is fair...
hmm... Jeff may be on to something, fair or not.
Guess it shouldn't surprise anyone that Romney defender Jeff Fuller would cite one of the most virulently left-wing newspaper columnists in Idaho to come to Romney's defense on abortion and "gay rights." (Linked story above in which Jeff says the plot thickens.)
Also no surprise that Jeff feels he must shoot the messengers, i.e., apparently anyone of conservative religious faith who objects to Romney's insistent decade-long defense of abortion on demand and homosexual activists' political agenda.
As I recently told Romney's campaign director in Michigan, Jeff et al will waste a lot of time trying to figure out my "real" motivations, when I'm very clear and transparent about them, i.e., hold Romney and McCain and Rudy and anybody else accountable for their history of opposition to major elements of the pro-family agenda.
Funny, when I attack McCain for opposing the marriage amendment and Giuliani for his pro-"gay rights," pro-abortion ideology across the board, nobody's ever asked me to fill out a survey about whatever church McCain and Giuliani attend (if any).
Fuller resorts, however, to demonizing anyone who criticizes Romney's public policy (not "temple recommend") record as being motivated by "hate" or religious bigotry.
Jeff has obviously been playing very close attention to the tactics of the PC left such as the so-called Log Cabin Republicans, the homosexual activist group that spent $1 million in 2004 attacking President Bush but twice endorsed Romney for public office.
Homosexual activists say: If you're critical of homosexual activists' political agenda (much of it endorsed by Romney), then you're obviously a religious bigot motivated by "hate."
Jeff Fuller says: If you don't agree with Mitt Romney's endorsement of major elements of the homosexual agenda (or his decade-long defense of abortion on demand), then you're obviously a religious bigot motivated by "hate."
And if you don't believe Jeff, just read what that left-wing columnist for the Idaho Statesman has to say about it.
Finally, Jeff, at risk of dating myself, Boise magazine way back in 1990 reported that I had "probably helped elect more people to the (Idaho) Legislature than anyone else." (And since being a conservative Republican and a Mormon are almost synonymous in Idaho, most of them were members of the same church Mitt Romney attends.)
My Mormon friends and family out West are among those most disgusted when they read Romney's views over the years.
And they're the LEAST forgiving, since to them, it's simply inconceivable that a faithful adult (in his 50's) politically-aware member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could EVER, at any time, have argued in favor of Roe v. Wade or "abortion rights" or a woman's "right to choose"...
...or opposed the Boy Scouts' ban on individuals involved in homosexual activity, or endorsed Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation, or spousal benefits for the homosexual partners of government employees, or opposed passage of a state marriage amendment proposed before Mass. legalized homosexual "marriage."
Jeff, should members of the LDS Church who object to Romney's decade-long promotion of abortion on demand...as sincerely as you trumpet his newly-enlightened one-year pro-life PR campaign...be asked to fill out a questionnaire on their views of Mormonism?
Actually, shouldn't it be Gov. Romney who's required to fill out a questionnaire -- explaining the disparity between the traditional values associated with his church vs. his decade-long record of promoting legal abortion on demand and "gay rights"?
GG
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I f you are still living in 1994, and think that Mitt Romney is pro-choice,well then let me bring you back to 2006!
Murph,
I hope I've made clear that I couldn't care less if you and others wonder about my motives, and after being demonized for the causes I've championed by one group or another for the past 30 years -- AFL-CIO officials, environmentalists, homosexual activists, pornographers, HMOs, the ACLU, Democrats in general -- I'm more than happy to have you throw all the haymakers you're up to in my direction.
"Don't throw me into that briar patch," Br'er Rabbit said.
And yes, I am not just suggesting...I'm flatly stating that there is a disconnect between Mitt Romney's public policy record and the traditional family values typically associated with the LDS Church.
Have no reason to believe there's any disconnect between the man and his church, personally or spiritually.
But clearly supporting Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand, opposing the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexuals, etc., etc., etc., are not value positions the general public -- and certainly not most church members -- would associate with the LDS Church.
Yet all of those are true of Mitt "faking it" Romney.
That was your characterization, right?
GG
Kevin Jr.,
I would only have to be living in June 2005, one month before Romney announced that his position on abortion had "evolved."
He had reaffirmed his support for abortion on demand on his 2002 gubernatorial campaign website:
"On Abortion Rights. As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/
And in his response to NARAL/Planned Parenthood's 2002 candidate survey:
"I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is no candidate in the Governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights." http://www.pplm.org/Facts/rf_fact/pr_2005_07_14.htm
Notably, Romney refused to answer Michigan Citizens for Life's 2002 candidate survey.
GG
Was hoping the 2nd wind would take this thread over 100. You can do it Romney bloggers
Still not one answer on how he governed. Obviously, it's because he was a pro-life governor.
It's simple people. What he says during a political campaign doesn't affect the lives of the people. What he does in office affects their lives profoundly.
Show me how he governed in a pro-choice manner and there will be legitimacy to your criticisms. Fail to do so, and those criticisms fail to deliver here in the wonderful place we call reality.
Apparently "Anonymous" doesn't bother to read the thread before posting. There've been several responses above to the "governed" question.
I'll reprint just mine below, which can also be found way up above:
---
Don't remember who asked how Romney "governed."
As Ronnie and Rush both pointed out, "words have meaning."
Romney's words were part of his governing, and all that rhetoric about "choice" and "freedom to choose" and "abortion rights" gave aid and comfort to the abortion industry, and did far more to legitimize it among impressionable Repubs and conservatives than Kennedy and Hillary and all the Dems combined.
Even after his supposed "evolution," Romney is quoted as saying that Roe should be overturned so that states that want to outlaw abortion can do so, but states like Mass can continue to allow abortion on demand. Yet here in Michigan a week ago, he told a legislator he'd support a Human Life Amendment banning abortion everywhere.
Sounds far too much like he adjust his stand to tell whoever his listeners are what they want to hear.
And I don't trust him in the context of his broader record: opposing a state marriage amendment before the state supreme court legalized so-called homosexual "marriage." And all that other pro-homosexual stuff on which he hasn't flip-flopped.
GG
You still haven't told me how he governed. When bills crossed his desk that dealt with abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage and other social issues, what did he do? Did he sign or veto?
Or is it just that you know and don't want to say?
Romney's words were part of his governing, and all that rhetoric about "choice" and "freedom to choose" and "abortion rights" gave aid and comfort to the abortion industry, and did far more to legitimize it among impressionable Repubs and conservatives than Kennedy and Hillary and all the Dems combined.
He wasn't governor when he said those things.
Hey real Anonymous,
Let me be sure I understand you...
You think it's to Romney's credit that some (not all) of his actions as governor are the opposite of what he said while running for the office?
You're saying we should give him points for "faking" his convictions to get elected, then doing something different once in office?
And you're saying that his track record of saying one thing while running and doing something different (sometimes) after being elected is the basis on which we should trust what he's saying now (when he's in the demonstrably unreliable "running for" phase)?
Is that what you're telling us?
GG
No. I'm asking you a simple question. I've asked it three (four?) times, to no avail.
Were Governor Mitt Romney's policy decisions pro-life or pro-choice?
Here's what Romney ran on:
2002 gubernatorial campaign website:
"On Abortion Rights. As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."
Response to NARAL/Planned Parenthood's 2002 candidate survey:
"I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is no candidate in the Governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights."
Anybody who can read English (and doesn't suspend reality for Mitt's sake) can clearly say that he said a lot more than just that he wouldn't change Mass. abortion laws.
He expressly spoke in SUPPORT of "choice," a woman's "freedom to choose" and "right to choose" (to have her prenatal child's life terminated), and the defense of "abortion rights."
Just as he had running for office in 1994, when he pledged to "sustain and support" Roe v. Wade and promised we wouldn't see him changing that position.
GG
You're really not going to answer the question, are you?
Wherever you go with your weak Romney attack, I'll be there to ask the same question.
Here endeth the lesson.
What's the lesson, that you aren't willing to post your name? If my concerns are so "weak," brave but nameless one, why would you need to follow me around to rebut them?
Weak as I may be, happy to answer your question.
And the answer is "sometimes."
Romney as governor has taken some actions (I'll leave it to you to catalogue them) that would appropriately be characterized as pro-life, for which -- whether motivated by sincere conviction or political calculation or both -- he deserves credit. And in so doing, he clearly contradicted his insistently pro-Roe, pro-"choice," pro-abortion on demand rhetoric as a candidate.
(Murph can save his breath, or fingers, on the ridiculous "he only said he wouldn't change the status quo" pablum...any pro-lifer who can read knows that his "sustain and support" Roe and woman's right to choose" and "abortion rights" rhetoric and endorsement of RU-486 clearly defended and legitimized abortion on demand itself.)
He has also flip-flopped as governor on the issue, such as when he said Catholic hospitals wouldn't have to provide the morning after pill, the development of which (RU-486) Romney had publicly endorsed BE ("before evolution"). Then flipped within the week and ordered his Dept of Public Health to force Catholic hospitals to do so.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/12/09/romney_says_no_hospitals_are_exempt_from_pill_law/
So while his record remains mixed in word and deed, I welcome and applaud Romney's recent rhetorical flip-flops on abortion and the need for a state marriage amendment (on the assumption, of course, that he won't flip back).
My problem all along has been the guy's apparent lack of core convictions at the tender impressionable age of 58. He said one thing as a mature adult candidate in his late 40's and 50's, and has on occasion said or done the opposite after being elected.
Forced to choose between a "pro-life" candidate who governs "pro-abort," vs. a "pro-abort" candidate who (sometimes) governs "pro-life," I'd obviously take the latter every time, for the prenatal children's sake.
And I don't fall into the category of those who believe Mitt should be given a gold star for being so clever as to get himself elected by "faking it" a la Michael Murphy -- i.e., as Murphy suggests, knowingly misleading voters by saying one thing while purportedly believing another.
Instead, I prefer -- and there's nothing difficult to understand about this, is there? -- a "pro-life" candidate who says so and then governs that way too. Someone for whom, as a matter of character, words and deeds are one in the same.
Given the totality of Mitt's record -- his WORDS and his deeds -- it defies credibility to attack his critics as if they have no basis whatsoever for being concerned about the obvious disparity between his words and his words, and his words and his deeds, over the course of his political career.
His endorsements by the Majority for Choice PAC and the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans -- and his both actively seeking and accepting those endorsements -- is irrefutable proof that Mitt Romney had no interest in appealing to social conservatives before deciding to run for president.
And his recent flip-flops on abortion and protecting marriage aside, he still hasn't flip-flopped on:
* Opposing the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexuals
* Endorsing homosexual domestic partner benefits, including tax-paid spousal benefits for the homosexual partners of state employees
* Endorsing Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation, the state version of which forced Catholic Charities in Boston to either process homosexual adoptions in violation of Church doctrine, or abandon such services altogether.
Perhaps you hearty defenders can persuade him that if he wants to succeed in persuading social conservatives that he's truly abandoning the dark side (salute to Yoda), better to be criticized for flip-flopping to the right side on all the issues rather than be criticized for flip-flopping on some but failing to flip-flop on others.
Only a suggestion. And thus endeth NOT the lesson.
GG
We can make it to 100. come back and bring it full circle Burton!
I just wanted to take a quick minute to respond to GG following assertion, “I'm flatly stating that there is a disconnect between Mitt Romney's public policy record and the traditional family values typically associated with the LDS Church."
If you are suggesting that Romney’s record is at odds with the Church, I would prefer you compare official positions of the Church, seen here as opposed to “values associated”. (Also included in that link are stances the Church has taken on political neutrality, same-gender attraction issues, stem-cell research, etc.).
(Abortion) You probably already know this, but the LDS stance is usually deemed "moderate" because it allows for exceptions for rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Now, as an active member of the LDS church (volunteer at least 4 hours per week outside of church) I would agree with this stance. I, as a member of good standing, see no problem with a red politician trying to be elected in a blue state to say "You know what, I'm never going to win on this issue with 98% of y'all against me. I will not expand abortion rights, but I know if I fight to overturn it I'll lose." I think that was his intent during his gov'ship.
I believe his earlier statements while campaigning will be clarified in the future by HIM, not YOU. I bet he’ll just come out and explain the situation that occurred within his family, his mother's beliefs and how they affected his own, and the circumstances that brought about his change of heart. With enough spinners like you out there trying to take him down he won’t have a choice but to restate it all – and I’m rather inclined to believe him. I don’t think the guy is a liar.
(Traditional Marriage) The LDS members I know keeping themselves involved in the debate, I’d say at least 90% of them view Romney pro-family guy. Just out of my large extended family, we recently came to the conclusion that we think Romney has done more in the defense of marriage than any other American (on the same page as Maggie Gallagher). Personally I think that in a legal sense, we’ve already lost the gay marriage fight. I say give it ten years and I bet the courts will have it here to stay. His support of domestic partnership benefits I see as (1) a compromise to try to prevent that, and (2) a stab at fairness without giving up what we hold dear. Let’s not forget that without his administration being genius enough to bring up the 1913 law, gay marriage would probably exist in you dear state of Michigan today.
Nice to make your acquaintance, Kristine.
(Did you live at Carriage House?)
You opined: "I believe (Romney's) earlier statements while campaigning will be clarified in the future by HIM, not YOU."
Mitt's earlier statements were clear, definitive, and require no clarification. He said he would defend a woman's "right to choose" to terminate her prenatal child's life...for any reason, without limitation. (See 9:52 post above for exact quotes, in which he clearly expressed support for the whole "choice" mantra, not just a policy of maintaining the status quo in Mass.)
No doubt 90% or more of LDS folks are understandably excited about Romney's candidacy. All of my LDS friends and family were...until they learned about his record, which they found both distressing and disgusting.
They can't imagine any faithful mature adult member of the Church EVER having defended Roe, abortion on demand, opposing the Scouts' ban on homosexuals, etc., etc., etc.
But hey, a unanimous vote isn't required to win the nomination. Like any other candidate, he'll have his die-hard supporters, who'll defend him regardless of his record.
I'll wait for one whose record and views on protecting prenatal children's lives also require no "clarification" -- except, as opposed to Romney, because his or her views are and have been as clearly and consistently pro-life as Romney's were pro-abortion on demand up til July 2005.
Meanwhile, Go Vikings! (To be honest, I'm more enthusiastic about "Go Broncos." My wife started at Ricks, finished at Boise State.)
GG
GG,
I do find it interesting that ALL of your LDS friends and family were disgusted . . . since all of my family and friends also know his record and are not disgusted. Are they also disgusted with James E Faust, member of the First Presidency and a public Democrat; and Sheri Dew, a past member of the presidency of the four million membered LDS women's organization and open about her democratic voting record? I find it hard that members don't have problem with these openly-democratic leaders of my church but somehow do with Romney.
I know he's made statements regarding "choice." When he runs in the primary these will be brought up again and I'm sure he'll eloquently explain his position, past and present, much better than you.
Hi again Kristine.
Curious why you assume someone would be disgusted with Church leaders who happen to be Democrats.
What's that got to do with the price of tea in East Asia?
Have Faust and Dew said they believe we should "sustain and support" Roe v. Wade? Have they publicly opposed the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexuals? Have they promised to defend women's "freedom to choose" to terminate their prenatal children's lives? (Here's my guess: No. But maybe you can advise otherwise.)
It's not Romney's party affiliation (or religion) that's at issue. It's his endorsement of abortion on demand for a decade before his conveniently timed evolution, publicly announced 13 months ago. It's his endorsement of major elements of homosexual activists' political agenda. And it's his endorsement in return by the Majority for Choice PAC and the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans.
But for all I know, my friends and family may have problems with Faust and Dew. (Pretty sure they do have problems with Harry Reid, a far better known example of a stridently partisan LDS Democrat.)
One of my wife's history professors at Ricks was former Democratic Minority Leader Mel Hammond, D-Rexburg, with whom I had the pleasure of working closely on the 1982 reapportionment plan in Idaho. Now a member of the Quorum of the 70.
Yes, Mel was a Democrat, but he was (and I'm sure, still is) solidly, hardcore, never-any-question pro-life (as opposed to Mitt).
Though her parents were and are unquestionably conservative Repubs, my wife's great-uncle Joe was the longest elected statewide Democrat in Idaho history. None of this "Romney Republican" pro-abortion on demand rhetoric for him either.
So explain to me what party has to do with it.
In the meantime, you seem insistent that Romney's past statements were unclear or need explanation or clarification.
They were clearly and unmistakably in support of abortion on demand.
His past statements need no explanation. What he'll have to explain is why he insistently defended abortion on demand for a decade, then suddenly announced (July 2005) that he had "seen the light" -- just before making clear he was running for president. And why we should believe him.
And why he hasn't similarly flip-flopped on his opposition to the Scouts' position on those involved with homosexual behavior, or his support for so-called domestic partner benefits legislation based on homosexual relationships, or his endorsement of Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation.
I'll do my best to help give him as many opportunities as possible to explain all the above.
And in the meantime, hope for a candidate who doesn't have to explain why he's only recently flip-flopped to the right side on some such issues, while not flip-flopping on his certainly-not-socially conservative stand on others.
GG
Excerpts from today's San Francisco Examiner:
http://www.examiner.com/a-277076~Meet_the_next_president__Mitt_Romney.html
----
Romney may not be considered tough enough on the issue that is of paramount importance to many conservatives: abortion.
When he ran for governor in 2002, he proclaimed: “I believe women should have the right to make their own choice.” But now that he’s considering a run for president, Romney insists: “I’m firmly pro-life.”
“My position has changed,” he acknowledged to The Examiner.
...Stuart Rothenberg, publisher of the Rothenberg Political Report, says Romney’s evolving stance on abortion dates back to at least 199(4), when he sought to become a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts.
“He was pro-choice when he ran against Ted Kennedy in the Senate race,” Rothenberg says. “Then he was pro-life, but he wouldn’t do anything, when he ran for governor. And now he’s unapologetically, consistently, unalterably pro-life.”
He adds: “That certainly starts out as a problem.”
---------
Since I know Stu, I've enlightened him today about Romney's still clearly pro-abortion on demand stance in the 2002 campaign, simply by providing him Romney's own words from his campaign website and his NARAL response.
GG
"Curious why you assume someone would be disgusted with Church leaders who happen to be Democrats. What's that got to do with the price of tea in East Asia?"
You were the one that said, "I'm flatly stating that there is a disconnect between Mitt Romney's public policy record and the traditional family values typically associated with the LDS Church."
Well the typical values associated with LDS are typically Republican. The Democratic platform is pro-choice. If one votes democrat, not only are they supporting the politician, but also the party and the platform.
So whether a leader publicly supports democrats, or a republican LDS politician has made public statements that seem at odds with our values . . . it suggests (in your own words) a "disconnect between ... public policy record (or voting record) and the traditional family values typically associated with the LDS Church"
That's what it has to do with the price of rice in China. Both seem in disconnect with "values associated", why the different treatment?
_____________________________
I'm not saying his past statements need clarification -- I'm just saying people need to make the decision about where to stand on him after hearing it from the horse's mouth -- not from you, me, etc. His stance is an evolution of policy that needs to be viewed as a whole -- from start to finish, not in soundbites perfect for spinning.
p.s. to everyone else I apologize for seeming stuck on the "at odd with the LDS church" thing. If I had his email I would have just battled it out with him there.
We've hit 100 posts. We'd like to thank the Acadamy, our families, our agent, the producers, and everyone who made this post possible.
Thank you.
Cancer,
That's not a nice thing to write about a good BBQ-eatin' boy born and raised less than an hour west of you.
(Remember, you don't have to read this if it's too long for you.)
However, I understand that it'll be very convenient, instinctive (and to some, irresistible) to effortlessly accuse anyone who dares critize Romney's public policy record of being "anti-Mormon."
(Remember, you don't have to read any further if this is too long for you.)
Does lead to a curious question: how come only Romney defenders play the church card?
(Remember, you don't have to read any further.)
How come when I attack McCain for voting against the marriage amendment, McCain supporters don't reflexively accuse me of bias against whatever church (if any) he attends. Same with Rudy or Pataki.
(Remember, you don't have to read this if it's too long.)
Should Romney be exempt from scrutiny of his public policy record simply because he's LDS?
Of course not.
But I understand. When you have to play the religion card, I know you got nothing left.
GG
Murph, I've always been very open about my objectives, right? I'll be equally open in response to these points you raise.
"Your attacks on Romney constitute the HUGE majority of your attacks, even though he is the only one of those you listed who advocates the overturning of Roe vs Wade (a cause you supposedly support)."
First, his advocacy of overturning Roe is a very recent evolutionary event.
Second, Romney more than any of them has a credibility challenge. Of all the candidates, there is the greatest disparity between what Romeny claims he is and believes now, vs. the reality and totality of his record over the last decade. Giuliani and Pataki don't claim to be social conservatives. They're open and honest about being social liberals. Romney's rhetoric over the years is identical to theirs, yet he claims to be exactly the opposite.
"On Redstate and here they were in the 95% range if you just count posts."
I don't dispute your estimate, Murph. But it's simply because of several factors:
My comments about Romney get traction here in Michigan, best I can surmise, because he's from Michigan and I'm in Michigan.
When I put out news releases on McCain, they get coverage far less often, though I was pleased to snag him on the fed Marriage Amendment, re: the state GOP chair's criticizing Dems on it but not McCain.
As to the blogs, that's the most obvious one. My comments on Romney are the ones on which I've been engaged by his defenders, and you know as well as anybody that the bulk of my posts are part of the merry-go-round exchanges I've had with you and a multiplicity of Romney defenders. So the multiplicity of my Romney posts is a tribute to you and other MR defenders. If you didn't engage, there'd be far fewer responses posted from me.
"What obvious reasons could you have for such singular focus?"
See above.
"Maybe you and your minister friends want to take down a mormon."
I say with all sincerity, Murph, that I hope you guys continue with this line of attack: "If you criticize Romney and don't swallow the miraculous evolution theory whole cloth, then you're obviously an anti-Mormon bigot."
It's my opinion, and that of other social conservative activists, that the more you do that, the more damage you do to your candidate by drawing attention to his religious affiliation.
I encourage you to refrain from it as a matter of principle. His religious faith isn't an issue with me, though it obviously will be for some. But if you insist, that's your prerogative. Not gonna deter me in the slightest.
"Personally, I'm thinking that you're such a rigid purist that you can't stand the thought of having to welcome converts to the pro-life cause."
And you know how concerned I am about what you think, right?
"Better to slash and burn all the GOP nominees than pick the 'best' one, right?"
You offer a false choice, Murph. You believe MR is the "best" choice. I don't. Time will tell.
GG
Can't resist making a telling analogy to all the Romney defenders' kneejerk (they can't help themselves) or calculated (they do it on purpose) playing of the religious "victim" card.
Murph, Fuller et al: "What? You dare object to Mitt Romney's decade-long promotion of abortion on demand and so-called 'gay rights'? You're obviously a religious bigot who 'want(s) to take down a Mormon.'"
Some politicians in Detroit: "What? You dare object to illegal teacher strikes and corruption in city government? You're obviously a racist who 'want(s) to take down African-Americans.'"
Now imagine, by comparison, how ridiculous (and pitiful) it would sound if McCain supporters said: "What? You object to John McCain's vote against the Marriage Protection Amendment? You're obviously a religious bigot who 'want(s) to take down an Episcopalian.'"
"What? You object to George Allen's vote to add 'sexual orientation' to federal 'hate crime' laws? You're obviously a religious bigot who 'want(s) to take down a Presbyterian.'"
Does this help you guys understand how ridiculous you sound?
GG
GG,
You are wasting your time. We know that you hate Mitt Romney more than Republicans to the left of Romney (i.e. Rudy Giuliani, John McCain).
Hi Kevin,
Guess it's my time to waste. And what you "know" is of little relevance to the process, and certainly not to me.
But I see you've joined Jeff in taking your talking point cues from the PC left, particularly the standard can-no-longer-argue-on-the-merits "hate" rhetoric patented by homosexual activists.
"What? You dare disagree with my political agenda? You're obviously motivated by hate!"
Actually, met the good Gov a couple of weeks ago and at the request of his MI staff, expressed my willingness to calmly, rationally, and civilly discuss with him, if he ever wishes, my concerns with his record. Not holding my breath, but he certainly seemed like a nice guy.
Still wrong on the issues, at least those he hasn't flip-flopped on in the last couple of years.
For example, Kevin, I see from your profile that you're an Eagle Scout. (Me too, as well as two of my sons so far, both of them in a troop sponsored by...well, not to throw all your prejudicial stereotypes into a tailspin...the same church that Mitt attends.)
And you're also still in your teens or early 20's.
So, fellow Eagle, do you agree with Mitt Romney's stated position: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."?
http://www.888webtoday.com/bresnahan6.html
A statement on which Romney was publicly rebuked in the media by Richard Walker, then national spokesman of the Boy Scouts of America?
Thinking the Boy Scouts are wrong to protect young teens from exposure to individuals who engage or are inclined to engage in homosexual behavior is, obviously, not the way to win the confidence or the hearts of social conservatives. (We think the Boy Scouts are right.)
But whaddayou think?
GG
Eagle Class of 72
GG,
I don't agree with the statement you quoted that was made by Mitt Romney on in your 2:07 post. I do believe in repentance. In the last few years Mitt Romney has:
1. Supported the FMA and wrote a letter encouriging the Senate to support the FMA.
2. Mitt Romney's Commonwealth PAC made a donation to help pass a gay marriage ban in SC.
3. Mitt Romney found a law that prevented other states from having to recognize the gay marriages that happend in MA.
4. And the list goes on.
Actually, Cancer, I live in Michigan.
And my Mama lives about an hour west of you.
But I do like Pop Tarts. Grape, particularly. Your psychic powers are amazing.
And the merry-go-round continues, at least three more turns tonight.
GG
Kevin, I too believe in repentance.
To his credit, MR has in fact flip-flopped lately on his earlier support for abortion on demand and opposition to a state marriage amendment. And he's passed the IQ test, at least, being smart enough to realize (duh) that running in support of an issue that's been approved in 20 states so far by an avg of 71 percent is a smart thing to do.
But...
Can you cite me any statement from MR in which he actually expresses "repentance" or regret about having given rhetorical aid and comfort and legitimacy to the abortion industry for a decade?
I pay fairly close attention, and I haven't seen it. But as I've told some of his staff here, I think some acknowledgement that his previous stands were not only wrong but damaging, and that he regrets and repents of them, would be more persuasive than asking us to believe in the Romney theory of "evolution."
(BTW, Cancer, I'm breathing just fine. How about you?)
GG
And once again, Murph cites Mitt's irrelevant observation that the Scouts should be free to set their own policy. Mighty big of him.
The far more telling point is that Mitt himself opposes the Scouts' policy, or at least he did, and to my knowledge hasn't flip-flopped on this issue yet. Hopefully, he will.
The fact that the Scouts' national spokesman publicly rebuked MR for publicly disagreeing with the Scout policy is also telling.
Murph obviously doesn't "get it," i.e., that this issue is in fact a strong and important indicator to social conservatives that MR doesn't, or at least didn't, share our values. You can bet he'll hear about it in S.C. and on Super Tuesday in the south.
Even MR fan Kevin doesn't agree with him on it (see above), but will support him anyway. All well and good, but that won't be the case with many others, especially as more voters learn about the totality of his rhetoric and record.
(Cancer, I missed whatever Matlock re-run was on. What happened? Now admit it, a good Tarheel boy like you can't help but like ole Andy, right?)
GG
Even though ole Andy is a leftist Dem, which was a great cultural shock when I first found out.
GG
Gary, Gary, Gary . . .
you think we all sound crazy? although I don't believe in the rhetoric of just trying to write you off as an anti-mormon . . . i'm seeing you much more as just a right-winger that can't get over himself. happens alot with you extremists.
FACT: you will never find a candidate you 100% agree with everything he has done and said (unless you are hoping you are elected)
FACT: you've got to look at the race right now and decide who would best "govern" the US and put your support behind them
FACT: all of us romney-bloggers are going crazy because we can't understand the logical disconnect you show in attacking somone so vigorously that has so much potential to do so much good.
FACT: you are so narrow in your focus without acknowledging all the good things Romney has said and done that are pro-family that it doesn't make sense
FACT: there will be crazy conservatives just like you who will get thiemselves all riled up about romney -- I think the fact that you guys are being so vocal about it now is that you know we can win without you . . . and I think that scares y'all
FACT: Romney has never said that he is the "perfect" conservative. He is trying to position himself as a more conservative option than McCain and Guiliani -- does anyone see a problem with that?? -- because guess what, he is more conservative than those two. So I don't understand your mumbo-jumbo about Romney trying to pass himself off as something he's not.
Kristine
Kristine,
The thing I don't understand is why you or anyone else cares "what" I am.
One guy who blogs once in a while is no threat to MR's candidacy; I can only assume that what you do consider threatening is the truth of MR's record, as more and more social conservatives learn about it.
Interesting, however, that on the one hand, you characterize my views as "extremist," while at the same time insist that Romney really shares my views.
So which is it?
Which of my views do you consider "extremist," and on which ones does Mitt AE (After Evolution) agree with me:
1. Marriage is only between one man and one woman, and it should be constitutionally protected.
2. The lives of prenatal children should be protected.
3. The Boy Scouts are right to protect teenage boys from exposure to individuals who engage in homosexual behavior.
4. Taxpayers should not be compelled to provide spousal benefits to the homosexual partners of state employees.
5. The terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" should not be added to federal civil rights laws.
6. Homosexual activists committed to advancing the homosexual agenda via the judiciary should not be appointed to the bench.
Or is it not my views you're characterizing as "extremist," but me, because I refuse to swallow whole cloth the Romney Theory of Evolution and still take exception to those offensive elements of his record on which he hasn't flip-flopped?
My prediction: come 2008, our choices will not be limited to Rudy, John, and Mitt, so you can save the lectures about how social conservatives have no choice but to either pick Mitt or one of those other two.
I'll concede that the new Romney AE is currently packaging himself as more conservative than Rudy or John. (Question is, can we trust the marketing as sincere? You think so. I'm unconvinced.)
Romney BE was comparable to Rudy and MORE liberal than John.
GG
My computer broke so i wanted to use my boyfriends to get some music..so im asking if thats a bad thing for the iphone or no big deal..thanks a lot!
________________
[url=http://unlockiphone22.com]unlock iphone[/url]
Post a Comment
<< Home