Romney must be something to fear, or at least smear.
The Blogs are abuzz this Sunday with the AP’s accusation that Romney had a great-great-grandfather who was a polygamist:
Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.
Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.
The AP story goes on:
B. Carmon Hardy, a polygamy expert and retired history professor at California State University-Fullerton, said polygamy was “a very important part of Miles Park Romney’s family.”
Miles Park Romney? I thought we were talking about Willard Mitt Romney.
Beyond the mere stupidity of trying to tie Mitt with polygamy lays the inherent MSM smear of Romney. While the MSM spends a great deal of time brooding over Romney’s polygamist ancestry, I have yet to hear a word on Obama’s father who was a bigamist himself. I have also yet to hear a word on Guiliani’s marriage to his first wife he “realized” a few years later was his second cousin when it was time for a divorce.
If polygamy in your family lines would disqualify someone for the presidency than it clearly would disqualify Sen. Liebermann who descends from the polygamist House of Abraham, and even Jesus Christ himself who descends from the polygamist House of David. Last I checked most Christians and Jews revere King David and Abraham.
This isn’t the only perceived inequality laid on Romney’s doorstep by the MSM. We here on the blog-o-sphere are bombarded with “Mitt-flops” that supposedly line the road of his conservative conversion. It’s almost borderline propaganda. Yet Guiliani seems to be given a complete pass for claiming, “Most of (Bill) Clinton’s policies are very similar to most of mine.” (link) although he now claims Regan is his hero.
John McCain seems to be getting the pass also. One major flip-flop totally ignored are the McCain supporters who have twice publicly attacked Romney’s fitness for office based on his LDS faith. Yet McCain himself has no problem bringing strong Mormons like Governor Huntsman and Senator Smith along with his campaign.
McCain?himself possesses a whole litany of flips as outlined at this website.
I could ride on this theme some more, but I won’t.? My point comes down to this, (and it piggybacks on Gamecock’s fine post today): Every candidate has their problems, but Romney’s is the flavor of the day. We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that we can get rid of Romney and all of the sudden we will find a candidate beyond the reproof of the MSM and blog-o-critics. He/she/it doesn’t exist. Instead?we social conservatives?should be thankful for flips when they work in our favor- and not just Romney’s- and celebrate them for the victory they are.
February 25th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Romney’s religion should have an impact on the nomination. These personal attacks are pointless.
Romney’s real problem, has more to do with electability. In this tough political climate, he is going to have a difficult time convincing the majority of Republicans that a one term Governor can win.
Romney needs to demonstrate how he can win Blue states.
February 25th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Oops I meant,
Romney’s religion should NOT have an impact on the nomination.
February 25th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Ugh. The Real McCain is a despicable website, but I suppose it’s only fair since I quote EyeOn08. Heh.
But regarding the AP story, I saw it yesterday but I decided to stay far, far away from it. Even I thought that it was a particularly nasty smear on Romney (and that’s saying a lot
). I was going to write a long reply to the story, but lefty blogger Ezra Klein has probably the best post on it that I’ve seen so far.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
LJ,
Only used the realMcCain to show that there is room for smear on all the candidates. I actually gave it a little thought before including it. Ezra’s post is pretty good.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I did a bit of background checking on these two AP journalists.
Jennifer actually works out of their Salt Lake City office — obviously not happy by her LDS surroundings. If you look at her story history, she reports on polygamy all the time. If anyone wants to contact her and call her out on this shameful story, email her at jdobner@ap.org; or call her at (801) 322-3405.
Glen Johnson on the other hand reported from Boston, where they are looking for every possible way to smear their former governor. And he is always looking for ways to highlight the other candidates. Take a look at this glowing piece that Johnson did on Obama that doesn’t mention a negative thing in it, and of course doesn’t mention that Obama’s own father had multiple wives – http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/news/231641,3_1_EL27_A7OBAMA_S1.article.
The editors and publisher of the Associated Press should be ashamed.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Anyone who can read articles like this and contend that the MSM isn’t terrified of Romney becoming the Republican nominee has, I think, a light grasp on reality to say the least. I literally started laughing when the article started going on about how Romney’s great-great grandmother used to cry onto the sidewalk because her husband had multiple wives. I mean…what? Huh? A new low in journalism, which is difficult to contemplate. These writers ought to be fired, or given a skit on SNL for the pure comedy that is their writing.
February 25th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
What is funny about this is that Obama’s father is a polygamist, but I bet you haven’t heard anything about that from the AP. I wonder why the AP has written a bunch of articles on that? Actually, I don’t wonder because I know they are actively trying to get Democrats elected.
February 25th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Jason,
“Instead we social conservatives should be thankful for flips when they work in our favor- and not just Romney’s- and celebrate them for the victory they are.”
When a flip is a genuine conversion, I will celebrate with the best of’em. However, when
flips, and flops, and then flips again, are attempts to win my vote by telling me what I want
to hear, I cannot celebrate them. I have to see them for what they really are.
February 25th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
My great, great, great grandfather had way more wives than Mitt’s. Remind me never to run for POTUS.
February 25th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Does the AP even know how absurd this is? It really makes me smile. Anyone who has any family ties to the intermountain west during that time period (almost exclusively Mormon) will have polygamist ancestry. They are tacitly disqualifying a huge percentage of the population!
That would actually be interesting to know…what percentage of Americans has polygamist ancestry? I would wager it’s significant.
February 25th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
How is this article a smear job? Is any news article that covers Romney’s religion a smear job?
February 25th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Steve,
The tacit point behind this is that Romney is somehow unfit due to his ancestry. That Romney’s opinion of polygamy is somehow hypocritically at odds with his ancestry. While that may not be explicitly said, it was implied and I don’t think anyone here needs an education on the unbalanced insinuations of the MSM.
This also rides along with the many articles that have covered Romney religion “reporting” it will be a problem. It would be easier to believe this was just a story about his religion if th AP were penning stories that covered Brownback’s father’s own bigamy and his Muslim heritage, all of which is given a pass in the MSM. Actualy if they really wanted to be fair, they could have quoted the journals of the the other wives, who’s journal were probably not so down on the relationship.
February 25th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Aly off the AP. Not a smear, but it was lazy journalism from them. Romney’s past was waiting to be uncovered, but it’s really no surprise that the guy has polygamous ancestry. He is Mormon after all. And that remains his downfall.
political-buzz.com
February 25th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Lay off the AP. Not a smear, but it was lazy journalism from them. Romney’s past was waiting to be uncovered, but it’s really no surprise that the guy has polygamous ancestry. He is Mormon after all. And that remains his downfall.
http://www.political-buzz.com
February 25th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Good work Jason
February 25th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I think I should have titled this “The AP Smear Job: Do You Think It Will End With Romney?”
February 25th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
better title?
Death, taxes and ap smear jobs on republicans
February 25th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
LOL, that’s good.
February 25th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
“his being Mormon will be his downfall”
With the leadership in Mass and in turning around the Olympics, and a resume in business that is 2nd to nobody, I dont think his religion matters. It doesnt hurt that he is as charismatic as almost any candidate in 50 years or more either.
By the way, I did as Cory (post #6) suggested and emailed the reporter. Her response is next! Not sure that I believe it though…
February 25th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Jason,
Thanks for replying, however I still don’t agree with you that this is a “smear job” on Romney, or is even critical of him. In fact, I think it very honestly covers the interesting details about Romney’s history. I don’t think in any way it invokes that Romney is unfit for office because his great grandfather was a polygamist, rather that it may show a whole lot more about your own beliefs to automatically take an article that covers Romney’s history with Mormonism and proclaim it to be a smear job.
Is Romney’s mormonism something that he should be ashamed of? Should he be ashamed that his great grandfather for being a polygamist? Of course your counter may be that the media shouldn’t care whether or not Romney’s great grandfather was a polygamist, which is perfectly fine, but I don’t think that the AP covering this somewhat noteworthy fact is automatically smearing him.
Just my thoughts, and sorry that this is my welcoming to the R408 staff, I’m glad your a part of the team.
- Steve
February 25th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Geoff, on R42008 you continue to mischaracterize Romneys flip on abortion as disingenuious. Are you pro life? Do you find another candidate, of the big 3, that will be more pro life than Romney? Over 90%+ of Mormons are convservative, pro life Republicans, yet we are suppose to believe that Romney, a former Mormon Bishop, isnt really pro life today as he claims because he said he supported Roe in 2002? I personally think that he was always against abortion, counceled women against it as a Bishop, yet felt it wasnt his place to impose his views on others. As he seeks to be the leader of the free world, he has come on record as admitting he was wrong on the issue, and now wishes to be called pro life. Reagan, Bush 41, Gore, and many, many other politicians have flipped on abortion, on both sides. SO WHAT!
As a solid Romney supporter, I dont have a problem with it. You continue to shout from the rooftops that we are being mislead, and Romney will continue to tell his story (of his faith, his 38 year marriage, his changed abortion stand, his record in business, as governor, as CEO of the Olympics, etc) and we will see who believes what on Feb 5th.
February 25th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I dont think it did smear him, but make no mistake that it attempted to smear him and raise concerns to the masses. You mention Romney family/Mormon/Polygamy in an article, of course its meant to raise doubts to many. Romney isnt ashamed of his faith, but it shouldnt be an issue anyway and to mention it isnt relevant. What are McCain and Rudy faiths? Nobody knows or cares, but Romney cant be mentioned without mentioning he is a Mormon.
Will there be an article from AP tomorrow mentioning that Rudy’s or McCain’s great, great, great grandfather once owned slaves? Do people realize that Mormons havent been polygamy and slavery ended at nearly the same time?
February 25th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Steve,
I guess you could see it the way you did. But it’s all over the blog-o-sphere with the undertones of weirdness. I also think the reply from the reporter in #21 backs up my premise a little bit. Why would she argue against this?
These paragraphs from the original story clearly are meant to frame the polygamy concern around Romney’s neck:
Remeber Romney had had nothing to do with polygamy, nor any family members that he knew personally. If this is OK then it would follow to have a discussion on the Catholic inquisitions when discussing Guiliani. Or a history of the Northern Ireland protestant/catholic strife since McCain is of Irish ancestry. There are more relevant topics to discuss concerning other candidates marriages that haven’t seen the light of day.
When members of Romney’s own party are part of this attack it legitimizes the attack and provides further fodder against him and the other candidates.
Thanks for the welcome, already enjoying myself.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
STeve,
Sorry, forgot to say thanks for the welcome. Thanks, I am already enjoying it here
February 25th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
The connection to the HBO television series is unneccesary, I agree. However, I don’t see any problem with mentioning that other Mormons have ran for President in the past, and that there are still questions about the doctrines of Mormonism. If there weren’t still questions and uneasiness, we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now.
We all want to live in a world without these prejudices, especially someone who’s dedicated their life and work to writing stories about Mormonism and polygamy, but the truth is that this is the world we live in. This article, in my opinion, does a very fair job, which is much better than what they could have done.
And I disagree that this revelation isn’t newsworthy. Just look at the response its had, that’s proof enough. It’s much more relevant than the Inquisition because its simply too recent. But even so, for Giuliani’s catholicsm, just look back to JFK’s campaign for the presidency and you’ll find out that this nation already had that discussion, and off the top of my head, I can’t remember when we had that national discussion about someone’s Irish ancestry, but we’ve already had that discussion too. If we hadn’t already been through this, it absolutly would have been fair game, and if this is Mormonism’s time, then that’s a good thing.
I’m a Newt Gingrich enthusiast, so believe me when I say I know what bias and smear jobs are in the media (Newt says it best when he brings up when he was on the cover of TIME, stealing and then breaking Tiny Tim’s crutches), this, is not one.
- Steve
February 25th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Jason,
“I personally think that he was always against abortion, counseled women against it as a Bishop, yet felt it wasnt his place to impose his views on others. As he seeks to be the leader of the free world, he has come on record as admitting he was wrong on the issue, and now wishes to be called pro life. Reagan, Bush 41, Gore, and many, many other politicians have flipped on abortion, on both sides. SO WHAT! As a solid Romney supporter, I dont have a problem with it. You continue to shout from the rooftops that we are being mislead, and Romney will continue to tell his story (of his faith, his 38 year marriage, his changed abortion stand, his record in business, as governor, as CEO of the Olympics, etc) and we will see who believes what on Feb 5th.”
You know, I never will understand why Romney supporters believe that they know something everybody else doesn’t. Why do Romney supporters “just know” or “personally think”, if that’s what you think that is fine, and you will counter that Romney governed as a strict pro-lifer as governor of Massachusetts. In that there is no doubt.
However, Romney ran as an ardent pro-choice candidate. He said, in his Senate run and, even more importantly, in his run for governor, that he was firmly pro-choice and that there wasn’t a “papers width of difference between he and his opponent on abortion.”
So OF COURSE he had to govern as a pro-lifer, because the man knew he was running for president! The simple fact Romney says one thing while running for office (ex: pro-choice, supports stem cell research, and adamant supporter of gay rights) and then governs entirely contrary to those points while in office makes the man less-credible and untrustworthy, in my opinion. And I do not understand why Romney supporters, of whom I was apart until Dec/06 when I really looked at his record and past statements, cannot bring themselves to say, “You know, that bothers me he is willing to pander so blatantly like that.”
Romney’s credibility in the GOP primary boils down to one thing, which has been stated previously on this site before, do you believe his social conservative conversion, was genuine? I do not. And many others agree with me. But you asked, am I pro-life? Absolutely. Personally, I really like Gov. Huckabee. And I think he would be a great VP candidate for a man like Mayor Giuliani. Do I agree with Giuliani on social issues? Absolutely not. BUT, he is a leader. Leaders stand up and say what they think. Politicians, (see Romney) stand up and tell you what you want to hear. That is the main difference between the two “top tier” candidates and that is why Romney will not make headway with the conservatives in Iowa and South Carolina.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
geoff,
That was JasonH. I agree with him, but just to clarify. Too many Jasons!
February 25th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Jason,
Sorry my friend. Ya, too many Jasons.
February 25th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Geoff, 1st of all, a conservative is conservative based on a number of issues, and not just one like abortion. Romney has always been in favor of many conservative issues like the death penalty, tax cuts, a strong defense, less government, less govt spending, etc. I agree that on abortion he was wrong. I dont have a problem with him saying he had a conversion, as Reagan in 75, on abortion. If I saw him at church and he said he had a dream the night before, and realized he had been wrong, I would be okay with that. Its not a bad thing to admit you were wrong, and move forward as a conservative. If I saw Huckabee at church and said, I was wrong in life and want to be saved, would he say “stop pandering in church and leave! Go back to your sinful life.” NO! I welcome that he knew he was wrong.
About gays, he is against discrimination of gays, then and today. Thats a far leap to far leap to say he ever supported gay marriage.
Stem cell research, he supports it, but he doesnt support the cloning of, or farming for stem cells. There is a wide aray of stem cell research that one could support, that doesnt destroy life (tissue stem cells, etc). Not a flip flop.
Just for arguement sake, you suggest he is pandering. Are you suggesting that he was never pro choice as he claimed? Or do you think that he isnt pro life as he professes today? Either way, I dont think he panders but if he did as you suggest, he found himself electable enough to win in MASS as a republican. Didnt that allow him to lower taxes? Erase a 2 BILLION dollar deficit? Create a 500 MILLION dollar surplus? Give everyone health care? Veto the morning after pill? Create less government spending? Are you suggesting that pandering to the people of MASS allowed him to do all that? WOW!!!
February 25th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Huck raised taxes which is anything but conservative.
And are you telling me you would support a man like Rudy who doesnt support your social issues, like the right to life, over Romney. A man would has all but said to YOU and everyone “hey Geoff, you were right and I was wrong. Abortion IS wrong and I should have said what I said in 93 and 2002″, simply because you dont believe the guy today. HUH? I am conservative in the way I believe and carry myself. Romney to me is a man of faith, a good husband, father, leader, CEO, Governor, and the clearest conservative in the field. Because he and I USED TO DISAGREE on an important issue that we now agree on, I dont see that as a reason not to support him. I dont care how he came to realize it was wrong, so long as he understands it today and moving forward.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Jason H,
I see your points. There is no doubt that Romney is a fantastic father and husband, was a great
buisiness leader, turned around the Olympics, and did in fact erase Massachusetts budget deficit. However,
at least in my opinion, I personally feel that Romney’s past statements, his 1994 and 2002 debates, erase, or
at least marginalize all of that for me. On top of that, in all honesty, Mitt Romney is not anything special.
I.e. Mitt Romney is not a man that can unite the country behind his candidacy, and more importantly, cannot
defeat either a Clinton or an Obama. His message sounds, almost verbatum, to that of President Bush. The country
is tired of eight years of GWB, and want a new direction. Mitt Romney is not that new direction. A Romney candidacy,
at least in my opinion, would be one almost identical to that of Dole in 96. But it would be higher octane
with a better looking candidate. However, the results would be the same. I do not say this based upon resent
polls, but I say this because Romney does not offer the American people anything new. And on top of that,
Hillary Clinton would make Romney look like John Kerry to the 10th degree. If his flip flopper status sticks
this early on, (CLinton has already commented on it when they exchanged barbs over Iran), imagine what the
Clinton machine would do in a general. Romney, in the end, would make John Kerry look as firm and resolute as
Winston Churchill.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
The thing that bugs me about this all this “flip-flop” on abortion talk is that those opposing Mitt make it sound like he was a full-blown pro-choice person (i.e. he personally felt it was morally completely fine) and then after his “conversion” was full-blown pro-life (i.e. he detested the act). Everything I see has shown that his struggle was not whether he thought the act was good morally, but what role government should play in making laws about it. Geoff, do you think that Mitt has flipped on public policy regarding abortion, or do you really think that he has flipped on his personal moral beliefs about the practice? I don’t see any evidence supporting the latter. I think there is a very very big difference there and worth distinguishing.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Good point, Anthony. I don’t know why pro-Mitt people don’t hardly ever mention that.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Anthony W,
Personally, I really am not sure. All I can gather is that Romney was adamantly pro-choice,
from his own previous statements, on multiple occassions. And then, either in 2004, or as late as
2005, he became vehemently pro-life. Now, I’m not sure. And that is what disturbs me. I guess I
just dont understand why Romney supporters give him a free pass on his conversion time line?
February 26th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
All: I just sent the following email to Jennifer at the AP and I copied several other individuals including the editor in the SLC AP office, the politicial editor in DC, and also a couple of folks from the ON Faith site that Newsweek and The Washington Post runs.
_________________
Jennifer,
Have you followed the online stir that your recent article has caused among both the Romney supporters and the non-Romney supporters alike? I am completely astonished that a reputable media giant like the AP would be willing to stoop to this level and try to tie the actions of ancestors to the character of a man today. I know you’ve covered polygamy for some time — and done so quite well I might add, but this article, which I understand your political editors pushed on you, is wrong. It subtly tries to tarnish a man’s image by a character sketch of people from 100 years ago! The media should not be used for such propaganda and it is sick to me that the Associated Press is willing (and wanting to push) it out there.
I find it interesting that no other political candidate’s ancestry is discussed. Why? There is certainly murder, slavery, adultery, and every other sickening practice imaginable in EVERY candidates family tree. Yet that mysteriously remains undiscussed in this article.
I’m copying a few other editors to this email from AP. I’m also including Jon Meacham and Caryle Murphy who team together on the fantastic On Faith site from Newsweek and the Washington Post.
Jon, Caryle: I’d like to pose this as a topic for an upcoming question to your On Faith panelists. “Should the actions of a political candidates ancestry be discussed and considered by the media and general public during election times?”
Jennifer, I look forward to your explanations on this article — and perhaps that of your editor and political reporter colleagues who pushed this story on you.
Regards,
February 26th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Geoff,
When a flip is a genuine conversion, I will celebrate with the best of’em. However, when flips, and flops, and then flips again…
If you examine the record, you’ll find that there has never been a series of flip-flops on this issue. Do you have any citations to prove otherwise? All that I’ve heard from you or anyone else so far in this regard is a correct pointing to Romney’s pre-2004 support for Roe v Wade.
Now your post in #36 better characterizes the situation w/ Romney, but only with regards to his views on government intervention and public policy. His personal moral beliefs about the practice (as AnthonyW pointed out) have always been pro-life. And his conversion to pro-life public policy was a one time event in November 2004, the explanation for which he has never wavered on. Doesn’t this fit all the external indications of a true conversion?
Are you curious about why Romney supporters accept this as a genuine conversion? Try here for a great explanation from Nathan Burd (Director of Heartbeat International): http://www.americansformitt.com/prolife_perspective.html
February 26th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I second murphy’s sentiment. Where is the flop??? Mitt has flipped on this issue, but I have yet to see anyone produce evidence that a flop has occurred, an essential element if you call it a flip-FLOP. A flop means that he has yet again changed his mind on the issue after changing it the first time. I myself was disapointed to learn about Mitt’s previous soft views on abortion. You ask why I give a pass on the timing of his conversion? Because nothing on it looks like he is waffling back and forth on the issue. His flip-flop here is actually just a flip (a happy flip!)! So, my challenge to you Geoff is to produce something concrete that shows Mitt flopping, that is going back and changing his mind again on this issue. Don’t throw around baseless suspisions about his political motivations and timing (which, by the way, I think are worth at least considering before dismissing them). If you can produce that evidence, I will definitely think twice. If you can’t then you would have to honestly have to stop calling this a flip flop and instead calling it at worst a change in public policy that seems suspiciously timed.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Murphy, Anthony W,
“Don’t throw around baseless suspicions about his political motivations and timing”
First off, there is a genuine Flip and then a FLOP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
Sen. Kennedy criticizes Romney for being “Multiple-Choice”. Romney fires back and says he has been pro-choice ever since his dear family friend passed away. There’s your Flip. Now, I find nothing wrong with that Flip. I cannot speak for the closeness of his relationship and frankly, he has every right to flip on abortion after such traumatic events. However, now he claims to be ardently pro-life. There, you have your FLOP. And this flop, interestingly enough, came as late as 2004 or even into 2005, when Romney knew he was running for President and done in Massachusetts politics. Why Romney supporters give him a free pass on that I will never know. At least question his time line!
Also see his gubernatorial debate where he proudly proclaimed himself as a pro-choice candidate:
http://race42008.com/2007/02/20/bombshell-video-romney-on-abortion-in-2002/
On stem cell research, I think the jury is still out on the overall moral validity of such research, but there he has at least FLIPPED.
On gay rights:
http://race42008.com/2007/02/16/oscar-worthy-performance/
Romney distributes a flier proclaiming: “All Citizens Deserve Equal Rights. Regardless of their Sexual Preference.”
How can a man justify telling the gay community that, as late as 2002, and now tell gay people that they do not have the INALIENABLE RIGHT to marry?!! To me, this is his most obvious point of political pandering! However, I personally agree with him that there should be a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, however I do not appreciate the disingenuine way he approaches the issue. I find it to be intellectual dishonest and a brazen attempt at pure political pandering.
But, you both asked for specific examples, and I have given them without leaving the relative comfort of this site.
But if these flip-flops or “political moves”, to put it nicely, aren’t for pure timing, why else
would he “change his mind” on EVERY core social issue right before he runs for President?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Here here to James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal – http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009716
February 27th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Geoff,
Before we take a serious look at this, you should ask yourself something. Are you interested in telling the truth, or tearing down a candidate you don’t like by any means possible? It’s sounding to me like the latter, but we’ll see what you say when each of your attacks is shown to be false.
Romney fires back and says he has been pro-choice ever since his dear family friend passed away. There’s your Flip.
Wrong. Citing an event from Romney’s youth which formed his opinion on RvW? Come on Geoff, I don’t know by what standard of intellectual honesty you can call this a flip. By your standard, every single politician would have flipped when they first formed their opinion. Do yourself a little credit and don’t stoop to this.
As for your stem cell research, Romney did not flip. In his 2002 campaign we have plenty of quotes proving he supported generic stem cell research (as he still does). We also have plenty of quotes proving that he would not take a position on certain aspects of embryonic stem cell research. Romney vetoed the stem-cell bill in office on the basis that they extended funding to embryo-farming, embryo-cloning, and somatic cell nuclear transfer sections, after the legislature overrode his amendments to strip those provisions from the bill.
There is nothing intellectually dishonest about telling the gay community that he supports equal rights in the form of non-discrimination, visitation rights, equal pay, etc, while ALSO telling the gay community that he opposes gay marriage. Romney has not ever wavered on this distinction.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Murphy,
“Are you interested in telling the truth, or tearing down a candidate you don’t like by any means possible? It’s sounding to me like the latter, but we’ll see what you say when each of your attacks is shown to
be false.”
I’m interested in one thing, a candidate who means what he says. Past statements and past actions
prove that Mitt Romney is not that kind of candidate. How come the flip-flopper label has stuck with
Romney? Because I’m not the only one looking at his record. I believe you should also ask yourself
a question, Are you willing to throw your blind support behind a man who cannot keep his campaign
promises? Abortion? Stem Cells? Gay Rights? You can say what you want, but frankly his record speaks
for itself.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Geoff,
“All Citizens Deserve Equal Rights. Regardless of their Sexual Preference.”
Do you beleive in this statement?
“Marriage should be defined as the legal union of a man and a woman.”
Do you believe in this statement?
Were is the contradiciton or political pandering? Marriage is NOT an “INALIENABLE RIGHT”. If it was, that means that it belongs to any two people in this country and it does’t! Can I marry my sister? Can I marry my mother? Can I marry my daughter? Even if they are consenting adults? No, there are laws against that, and therefor not an inalienable right. There are laws because we deem some relationships as not beneficial to society and therefor don’t allow them. Before going on to another point, please address this one. I don’t think that these statements are mutually exclusive. My answer to both of them is yes, and I don’t see a problem with it.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Geoff,
Past statements and past actions prove that Mitt Romney is not that kind of candidate.
And yet you haven’t named a single action which proves such in this entire thread. How interesting.
Are you willing to throw your blind support behind a man who cannot keep his campaign promises?
Name a single campaign promise which Romney broke, and support your statement with facts from his record.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Anthony W,
You are missing my point entirely. I am not advocating gay marriage, I never have and I never will.
But you are blind if you cannot see the inherent contradiction in Romney distributing a flier telling people
that “All people deserve equal rights, regardless of sexual orientation” and then turning around, when running
for President, and telling those same people, “Because of your sexual orientation, you DO NOT HAVE these rights”
(I.e. Marriage). How can you not see that as 1. a contradiction 2. going back on his word to the gay community
and 3. pure political pandering to evangelical primary voters? Seriously, be honest with yourselves. Personally, I believe I have the right to tell gay couples they do not have the right to marry, because I believe homosexuality is a choice. Therefore, they aren’t allowed the same rights as other couples. Gov. Romney, when running for office in Massachusetts told gays their rights should be the same as heterosexuals and then stabbed them in the back by coming out, at the very END of his governorship, in support of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Murphy,
“And yet you haven’t named a single action which proves in this entire thread.”
Have you been paying attention to above postings or do you just glance over them because they are Romney’s
own words, proving he has flipped on some extremely important issues as of late, and flip-flopped on the most
important. Perhaps you should take an honest look at the man’s record instead of lending the man your blind faith.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Continuing,
All Romney supporters need to stop blaming the “Liberal MSM” for attacks on Romney’s record.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Paper_obtains_leaked_weakness_memo_for_0227.html
Even Romney’s own campaign is worried he will be seen as a Flip-Flopper and a Phony.
If Romney’s own advisors are worried, there must be something there. John Kerry Dos
February 27th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Have you been paying attention to above postings…
Now you’re being absurd. My #36 and #40 and AnthonyW’s #32, #37, #42 went point for point on every topic you brought up. You ducked, dodged, and then brought up the same red herrings again (see your most recent comments to AnthonyW). That’s not a discussion…it’s a monologue. I’m done.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Murphy,
“You ducked, dodged, and then brought up the same red herrings again (see your most recent comments to AnthonyW). That’s not a discussionit’s a monologue. I’m done.”
Romney supporters do not want a discussion, they merely want a validation that Romney is not a flip-flopper.
Time after time we go round and round and people come back and say, “Well Romney’s record this and that.”
Which is very true. Romney did in fact govern Massachusetts as a social conservative. But THE POINT is that he
did not run for office, either for his senate seat or his governorship, as a social conservative. And that, in itself,
is the largest contradiction I can point to. I’m not dodging, I’m not ducking, I’m looking honestly at an impressive
business man who will do and say anything to get a vote. That my friend is a discussion. Simply because one does
not like what they are hearing doesn’t change any of the facts.