And I'll drink more booze than him too!
Governor Romney got blasted by the East Coast establishment media this weekend on his statements regarding gay marriage. The timing of these articles is largely due to Romney's support for adding a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage to Massachusettes law. Romney's vociferous support for this legislation in the waning days of his Governorship has raised questions amongst members of the Gang of 500 mostly due to its rather convenient timing. The amendment would be on the ballot November, 2008.
First the Boston Globe-Worker takes aim at the Guvnah on Friday morning with this article. The Globe-Worker references an interview Romney did with the gay newspaper Bay Windows in 1994. In the article Romney says, "People of integrity don't force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have." The article then points to comments made recently by Romney in South Carolina that attacks gay couples that want to have children.
The article does fairly point out that Romney never voiced support for gay marriage in the 1994 interview even though his tone is markedly different. You can read the orginal interview for yourself here.
The New Moscow Times then weighed in yesterday. The Times has dug up a letter from Romney to the Log Cabin Republicans asking for their endorsement in his 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy. In the letter Romney is quoted as saying:
“For some voters, it might be enough to simply match my opponent’s record in this area, but I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.”
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council also gives his two cents calling the revelations, "disturbing."
For Governor Romney it's important that he addresses these issues in December 2006, not December 2007. Because wanting to outdo Ted Kennedy on gay rights certainly is something he will want to avoid in the days leading up to the Iowa Caucus.
Update: Here's the Globe's follow-up on the log-cabin letter.
First the Boston Globe-Worker takes aim at the Guvnah on Friday morning with this article. The Globe-Worker references an interview Romney did with the gay newspaper Bay Windows in 1994. In the article Romney says, "People of integrity don't force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have." The article then points to comments made recently by Romney in South Carolina that attacks gay couples that want to have children.
The article does fairly point out that Romney never voiced support for gay marriage in the 1994 interview even though his tone is markedly different. You can read the orginal interview for yourself here.
The New Moscow Times then weighed in yesterday. The Times has dug up a letter from Romney to the Log Cabin Republicans asking for their endorsement in his 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy. In the letter Romney is quoted as saying:
“For some voters, it might be enough to simply match my opponent’s record in this area, but I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.”
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council also gives his two cents calling the revelations, "disturbing."
For Governor Romney it's important that he addresses these issues in December 2006, not December 2007. Because wanting to outdo Ted Kennedy on gay rights certainly is something he will want to avoid in the days leading up to the Iowa Caucus.
Update: Here's the Globe's follow-up on the log-cabin letter.
posted by Caucus Cooler at 12/10/2006
30 Comments:
win in '08:
your "facts" are not correct. Romney has not changed a single bit on issues related to gays. He has not changed his position on stem cell. He has not changed his position on immigration.
John McCain hasn't changed his position on those either. Let's recap what they are:
Gays - opposes a federal ban
Immigration - pro-amnesty
Stem cell - same position essentially as romney
Abortion - opposes repeal of Roe v. Wade
And his marquis legislation, McCain Feingold, passed with support of every liberal in congress, and has done more the decimate state parties than any other piece of legislation in history, while preserving the advantages held by labor unions.
McCain is a disgrace.
The Caucus Cooler should do something on the support Brownback is getting in Michigan because of blocking liberal Judge Neff. Neff attended, and some say presided over, a gay wedding in Mass a couple of years ago.
Brownback is surging as the truth begins to catch up with Slick Willard.
Win in '08:
In an August 19 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, McCain said: "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even-the long-term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
Seems pretty clear to me that McCain does not support the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
These Mitt Romney hacks crack me up. It is like going back in time and watching the Clintonistas defend his every trianglation to stay re-elected. It is obvious that Mitt will say or do anything to get elected. Not a very good trait.
When you try to be everything to everybody, you end up standing for nothing. This guy is just a suit. I am still looking for someone to inspire me in this field, but nothing grabs me yet.
Don't believe what the MSM (liberal media) is trying to paint on this one: that Romney "flip-flopped" on "gay-rights" issues.
I'm suprised that many conservatives (at least the anti-Romney ones) all of the sudden have respect for The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and Bay Windows.
In short . . . Romney has always been against Gay Marriage and Civil Unions (1994, 2002, and now) and he has always been against discrimination of homosexuals (1994, 2002, and now). He has never been "a crusader" for gay rights . . . in fact, he is routinely villified by the gay community for his strong stance against gay marriage. He's getting it from both extremes of the political spectrum on this issue--and that usually means that he's in the right place on these issues.
I've covered these issues in these two blog entries I wrote this weekend:
"The Boston Globe Deception: Romney HAS NOT FLIPPED-FLOPPED on gay-rights issues"
and
"The Mitt Romney Deception--It's all in the name
Anyways, "ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS" and Romney's actions as Gov. have been those which conservatives should be proud of.
Fortunately, Romney is a great communicator and will address these issues effectively and honestly--IMO.
Also, check out this piece "Mister PowerPoint Goes to Washington".
That's why people will vote for Romney . . . because he's a raving success in everything he undertakes. And that's why he'll be a successful POTUS . . . he know's how to lead and communicate effectively.
Fortunately, the percentage of people that will withold voting for Romney because of his real or apparent policy stance changes will be neglibible since he is on the right side of the issues presently. Remember that Reagan and Bush 41 were pro-choice politicians before running for POTUS (Reagan even signed the bill that essentially allowed "abortion on demand" in California . . . but ended up being a great "pro-life" champion--those writing off Romney for the abortion change--the only REAL policy stance change--may be denying their next hero without knowing it.)
OK ... so a guy who has put his political life on the line to defend marriage ... but also thinks we shouldn't allow gays to be targeted for violence and discrimination ... is not good enough ???
He has a record that is unmatched by anyone in this country on defending marriage, and frankly, he has personally and politically sacrificed more than anyone in defense of marriage.
I wonder if Ronald Reagan would even have a chance if there were blogs back then.
Same as Mitt, I've always been anti-gay-marriage . . . but also for equal rights for gay people in the workplace . . . they shouldn't be at a disadvantage in the world because of the choices they make I don't agree with. Marriage is NOT an equal rights issue -- no matter how much they'd like to make it.
I had a big discussion with friends last weekend (we were actually playing the game Scruples). I was posed a question on whether I would petition the school if I found out my child's gym teacher was homosexual. I said, "No. I wouldn't. What, they can't even be teachers now? Homosexuality may not be right, but it doesn't make them child predators." None of my friends could believe it. They would have all tried to get the person fired. That is discrimination in the workplace, and it happens and it shouldn't.
You guys seriously don't believe that his position hasn't changed?
If so, I guess he still believes that he can do more than Ted Kennedy to promote the gay agenda.
Also for someone who opposes gay marriage so stringently, he sure didn't have much trouble signing those 1 day homosexual marriage certificates.
At least jeff will admit now that he has conveniently flipflopped on abortion. And thanks for citing Reagan and Bush 41 on that, because if they had never appointed Kennedy and Souter to the bench Roe would already be overturned.
8:15,
Advancing the GOP principles of individual responsibility, free enterprise and limited governemnt ARE in fact things that do more for all Americans including the gay community than anything John Mc err Ted Kennedy have done or can do.
Now don't let me confuse you with the facts anymore, go ahead and attempt to distort Mitt's record some more. Sheesh...
So by "distort" you mean make sure everyone realizes that their anti-gay crusader held completely different positions every other time he ran for office.
Or I guess Mitt would still oppose a bill that restricts funds for public schools that advance the homosexual agenda...like he said he would when he was trying to out gay Ted Kennedy.
This wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't part of a pattern of deception by Mitt on social issues.
Deception describes it perfectly.
What? No line change McCainiacs?
Oh that's right, you are playing the expectations game for Larson and Nelson.
The funny thing about the Romney people is that they have 20 different excuses for why Mitt has changed his position on a given issue - most of which conflict with each other.
He was always pro life, but had an epipheny, but was pro-choice because a personal issue with a relative, but was faking pro-choice, while he was going to be better for gay than Ted Kennedy, but always was against gay marriage, as gay marriage became basically legal in Mass, etc.
Give us a break. Just admit the guy changed his positions and move on.
Romneyites, you really shouldn't use the "Actions speak louder than words" line. That pretty much means to most people that no matter what the person campaigns on, it doesn't matter beacuse they'll do what they want.
So no matter what Romney says over the next year, it's irrelevant because his opinion could change with the wind.
if Romney keeps this up, he's going to be out in no time at all.
My favorite Romneyite theory is that a blog with a readership of somewhere between 200-500 people a day has an agenda of lowering expectations for McCain.
I'm sure that some blog called the "Caucus Cooler" which mostly regurgitates hotline stories is going to set the expectations for the strawpoll. Sorry guys but that is ridiculous.
12:12 forgets that cooler readers can vote, too.
all 10 of them.
2;25 funny, you bash a blog and talk about it's readership, but you read it yourself, even long enough to respond to a comment.
you must be a romneyite
The Hotline's Blogometer called CC a Romney fan today. All part of the Coolers grand scheme to lower expectations for McCain.
Blogometer.nationaljournal.com
romneyisaliberal.com
Somebody here must be having debates with themselves. Btw, Romney IS a liberal.
If the NYT and the Globe call him a liberal, then it MUST be TRUE! They NEVER have an agenda.
Liberals NEVER support gay rights. That means Romney MUST be a conservative.
Sounds like old man mccain is pretty nervous about romney to smear him with a letter from '94.
If the old man is the GOP nominee, grit your teeth and vote democratic at the top of the ticket and then vote straight republican the rest of the way down.
I think Romney is pretty nervous now that the word is out about what a flip-flopper he is. By the way, who cares how old McCain is? The media tried to do the same thing with Reagan and look what happened to him.
First, McCain is no Reagan.
Second, Romney's liberal history will sink him with conservatives. That's Fact. Not opinion. His act is wearing very thin.
Yes if the truth be known, in some moments I can reveal that I jibe consent to with you, but you may be considering other options.
to the article there is even now a question as you did in the fall efflux of this solicitation www.google.com/ie?as_q=magic audio converter 8.5.6 ?
I noticed the utter you have in the offing not used. Or you profit by the pitch-dark methods of development of the resource. I possess a week and do necheg
Post a Comment
<< Home