Well, you know, if you ever look at the history of your father and running for president, they all say the same thing, it's all the "brainwashing" comment. Why would that have been the issue? I mean, why would he have been accused of saying something stupid about being brainwashed in Vietnam?

Background

Education

In you history, it includes Stanford for how long ?
You finished first in your class at Brigham Young University in Utah ?
Why did you go to Brigham Young?
How did you -- how were able to get an MBA and a law degree at the same time?
And clearly it would be why you did well and, as you know, you finished well enough to give the valedictory address -- the question I want to ask you though is why do you think you did well? Other than having a lot of brainpower, did you have an approach to education?

Religion

Mission

One place that I found that you almost died (His Mission)

Personality

What type of leader are you?

Personalities

Personal

Divorce

Is divorse something voters should take into account ?

Source

C-SPAN BRIAN LAMB

More on gay rights

This from Wikipedia:

Romney has strongly opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions. He has continually stressed the need to "protect the institution of marriage" while denouncing discrimination against gays and lesbians. "Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians," Romney said in 2004. (more)

On June 2, 2006, Romney sent a letter to each member of the U.S. Senate urging them to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment. In the letter, Romney stated that the debate over same-sex unions is not a discussion about "tolerance", but rather a "debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage". Romney wrote, "Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation."

I think Garrison Keillor has recently agreed with Romney. (more)

Back to Wikipedia.org...

Romney's letter was his second attempt to persuade the U.S. Senate to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment. On June 22, 2004 he testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, urging its members to protect the traditional definition of marriage. "Marriage is not an evolving paradigm," said Romney, "but is a fundamental and universal social institution that bears a real and substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of all of the people of Massachusetts."

Romney was heavily involved in attempts to block implementation of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that legalized same-sex marriage in 2003. Romney criticized the decision as harming the rights of children:

" They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults…Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother. (more) "

In 2004, the Massachusetts General Court attempted to address the issue of gay marriage before the implementation of the Goodridge decision. During a constitutional convention, the predominately Democratic legislature approved an amendment that would have banned gay marriage, but established civil unions. An initial amendment offered by House Speaker Thomas Finnernan that would have simply banned gay marriage without a provision for civil unions was narrowly defeated. The compromise amendment needed to be approved in a second constitutional convention to be held a year later before it would have appeared on a state election ballot. The amendment was voted down in the subsequent convention and never made it before the voters of Massachusetts.

Romney reluctantly backed the compromise amendment, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts. "If the question is, 'Do you support gay marriage or civil unions?' I'd say neither," Romney said of the amendment. "If they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I'd rather have civil unions than gay marriage. But I'd rather have neither." (more)

In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, saying that the amendment confused voters who oppose both gay marriage and civil unions. The amendment was defeated in the General Court in 2005 when both supporters of same-sex marriage and opponents of civil unions voted against it. In June 2005, Romney endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would ban gay marriage and make no provisions for civil unions. (more) Backed by the signatures of 170,000 massachusetts residents the new amendment was certified as a valid referendum on September 7, 2005 by Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly. The measure needs the approval of fifty legislators in two consecutive sessions of the Massachusetts General Court to be placed on the ballot. The Massachusetts legislature however declined to vote on the initiative in two consecutive sessions held on July 12, 2006 and November 9, 2006. Romney responded by joining former Boston Mayor Raymond Flynn and eight others to file a complaint with the state's Supreme Judicial Court to force the legislature to vote on the proposed amendment. The petition also asked the court to instruct the Massachusetts Secretary of State to place the referendum on the 2008 ballot if the legislature failed to vote on the amendment by January 2, 2007. (more)

On the first day that same-sex marriages were to be legal in Massachusetts, May 17, 2004, Romney instructed town clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples, except for those announcing their intention to relocate to the Commonwealth by referencing the "1913 law" (General Legislation, Part II, Title III, Chapter. 207 (Certain Marriages Prohibited), Sections 11, 12, & 13), which prohibits non-residents from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would be void in their home state...

The General Court in 1913 passed the three laws denying marriage rights to persons domiciled out-of-state who came to Massachusetts to circumvent their own states' anti-miscegenation marriage laws.

This is from the Wikipedia article. Does "The General Court" pass laws?

...Thus, Massachusetts was complicit in circumventing the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1) of the U.S. Constitution. Opponents of same-sex marriage similarly sought to circumvent the Full Faith and Credit Clause by passing the Defense of Marriage Act and by proposing a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Romney was criticized for reviving a Jim Crow era piece of legislation that had avoided being nullifed by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision due it not saying anything about race. However, Romney's actions were justified when, in March of 2006, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared the statute legal under the state's constitution. (more) Romney declared the "ruling is an important victory for traditional marriage". He also stated, "It would have been wrong for the Supreme Judicial Court to impose its mistaken view of marriage on the rest of the country. The continuing threat of the judicial redefinition of marriage, here and in several other states, is why I believe that the best and most reliable way to preserve the institution of marriage is to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution." (more)

Romney subsequently released a statement in support of a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution defining marriage as existing only between "one man and one woman" in order to overrule the court's decision. His statement said, "the people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage."

When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions. "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union," said Romney in an October 2002 gubernatorial debate. He also voiced support for basic domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. Romney won the endorsement of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, a Republican gay-rights group, who in 2005 accused him of reneging on his 2002 campaign commitment to support some benefits for gay couples.

WHICH ONES? LETS DEAL WITH FACTS PEOPLE!

He also opposed an amendment, then before the General Court, that would have banned same-sex marriage and outlawed all domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. When campaigning in 2002, Romney's stated position was that "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship."

During his 1994 campaign against Senator Edward Kennedy, Romney said that same-sex marriage "is not appropriate at this time" and pointed out that marriage was regulated under the jurisdiction of state laws. He also said his voice, as a Republican, would carry more weight on lesbian and gay issues than Kennedy's, even if they took the same position on issues like allowing gays and lesbians in the military...

This, is an oversimplification and a misrepresentation. The only quote from Romney on this issue, as far as I know, is that he believed that gays would eventually serve openly in the Military. He never to my knowledge advocated it, and I know he has never made it part of his campaign.

When seeking the campaign support of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, he said, "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern". He also supported federal legislation that would prohibit discrimination in the workplace against homosexuals.

Defending himself against "flip-flopping" in a telephone interview on Instapundit.com's "The Glenn & Helen Show", Romney asserted he had fought discrimination. In response to a question about his 1994 Senate race debate with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Romney dismissed his pro-choice stance and positioning of himself as a political moderate as a youthful indiscretion. At the end of the interview Romney stated, "And I'm proud that at the same time I've fought discrimination. I believe that each American deserves equal opportunity. Now that's my record and maybe that's why people on this side are dredging up 13-year old history and attacking me now".

I've seen all sorts of errors on the wikipedia article, but I find this portion pretty well written.

I don't like how this sentense, "When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions" shows up at the bottom of the page. This is one of the biggest miss-understandings about Romney there are out there. The MSM has repeated hundreds and hundreds of times, the lie that Romney has changed his position on Gay Marriage. This is not the truth. I am so tired of correcting the lie, but I can't get tired, until the MSM stops repeating the lie. Romney has not changed his gay rights stance. Romney has not changed his gay rights stance! Get it into your freaking heads! His only change, has been on Abortion.

~ Mike

Death by a thousand idiots...

Here is another example of the lie that the MSM keeps repeating about Romney.

"Critics have accused Romney of shifting his position on abortion, gun control and gay rights to suit a conservative national GOP electorate now that he's no longer governor of a liberal-leaning state."

Does it matter what critics say, if it is blatantly untrue? Should the Washington Post repeat criticisms that have no foundation in truth?

The Washington post will say, "it's not our fault, we are just repeating what others have accused Romney of." It's not our job to bring you the truth, we just report the news.

This is the problem with the media. Because they are so liberal, we can never trust them.

I just told my friend that Hillary Clinton picks her nose. If Hillary Clinton was the most conservative individual in the race, the Washington Post would say, "Critics say Hillary Clinton Picks here nose" without even looking into any evidence to support the accusation.

There is no evidence to support the belief that Romney has changed his position on gun control, and gay rights. Any reporter that quotes "critics" that accuse Romney of changing positions on these topics is wholly owned by the DNC.

~ Mike

1 comment • Edit

02:23:41 pm, Categories: 2008, 541 words

NPR

Yesterday on NPR I heard some smug, intellectually vapid, self-righteous, commentator reviewing, as the political expert, the chances of all the 2008 candidates. They were asking if any of the candidates had a "big idea". He claimed that Mitt Romney was "for abortion rights and gay rights before he was against them" and he actually laughed at what he thought was his joke, as though we haven't heard the same moronic drooling commentators repeating the same DNC slogan for how long now?

Every single person on the planet fits, on a continuum between the person who believes any birth control at all is evil, and the belief that murder of an 18 year old should be allowed. Mitt Romney went from being personally pro-life, but not imposing his view on the citizens of Massachusetts, and declaring a truce on the issue, to making a pro-life stance. This is a change in wording not policy. There are many pro-life people who believe, like Romney, that Abortion should be legal in Massachusetts.

But Romney is still for abortion rights! He believes that in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, abortions should be legal. Even this is a vast oversimplification. Romney believes states should have the right to set their own policy with regard to abortion. Romney is, like every person on the planet, also against some abortion rights. H, like every other sane person on the planet, would not through a party, and give someone a nice "congratulations… good job!" if they had a late term abortion on a 9-month old fetus/baby."

So this jerk, who made a joke out of Romney's belief is laughing at everyone on the planet including himself. I have a different belief on abortion every day you ask me, just like the American public.

But the reference to being "for abortion rights and gay rights before you were against them" compares Romney to John Kerry. Is this a good comparison? How many different positions could John Kerry take on giving the president the right to declare war on Iraq? There were two possibilities: Give President Bush the right to declare war, or don't give the president the right to declare war. So John Kerry was being a complete idiot when he said that ""I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

No John. There were only two options with regard to funding. However on Abortion there are as many different positions as there are people. And Ms. NPR commentator, Romney has not changed his position on Civil Unions, or Gay Marriage (see above). Romney has not even changed his policy on abortion. He has just changed what he is calling himself. He did not want to call himself pro-life. Now he does. He has always been for the right of mothers to have abortions, if they were raped, had incest, or the mother's life was in danger. These are specific positions. He has never changed his position. He has just changed what he calls himself. John Kerry tried explaining actually positions. He tried taking both side of a simple policy. Romney has changed the way he talks about himself on a single very complicated issue.

~ Mike

re: "The undoing of a Manchurian Mormon"

Gerald Owen, National Post (The Manchurian Canadian, Gowen@nationalpost.com),

I am responding to your "The undoing of a Manchurian Mormon" article published in the National Post on Friday, January 19, 2007.

I have questions as to what exactly you mean by "Manchurian Mormon". You must be confused. Mitt Romney was born in Michigan. Manchuria is region of northeast China comprising the modern-day provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning. Are you trying to say that Mitt Romney is Chinese?

The Manchurian Candidate is a 1959 thriller novel written by Richard Condon, later adapted into films in 1962 and 2004. The central concept of the book and the subsequent 1962 film is that the son of a prominent political family has been convinced into becoming an unwilling assassin for the Communist Party; in the 2004 version, the villain was instead a giant corporation called "Manchurian Global". Are you trying to say that Mitt Romney works for the Communist or "Manchurian Global"?

No you are trying to do something more sinister. You call him the "Manchurian Mormon." Much like Joseph McCarthy, you accuse Mitt Romney of something sinister, without participating in a forum where you present any evidence, or even invite people to respond with reasons to agree or disagree with your conclusion.

You never define what exactly a "Manchurian Mormon" is, because doing so would expose your bigotry. With a wink-wink you label him the "Manchurian Mormon" and let the reader's imagination run wild hysteria of all the possibilities.

Should any Mormon be allowed to participate in the work force? I work for an architecture and engineering firm as an electrical engineer. Should you inform you write my boss about the "Manchurian Mormon" electrical engineers union (MMEE)? We are a secrete organization trying to take over the field of electrical engineers. As Mormons only make up 3% of the US population, we have not done a very good job of taking over the field of electrical engineering. Those darn "Manchurian Jews" and "Manchurian African Americans" are keeping us "Manchurin Mormons" out of power (do you see how bigoted that sounds when you replace Mormons with other groups?)

re: "The Mormonism of Mitt Romney, one of the most plausible candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, has become an issue on church-and-state grounds."

How has this become an issue and with whom?

re: "This issue was raised notably in a New Republic article by Damon Linker, excerpted on these pages a week ago. A back-and-forth debate in that magazine followed."

Mr. Linker did not bring up any separation of "church-and-state issues". He forwarded the belief that Mitt Romney proves his incompetence because he is a Mormon. Mr. Linker did not assert that Mitt Romney would affect any "church-and-state" issues.

re: "The religious views of political candidates should be open to question; they are not merely private, inner matters."

You are very good at stating the conclusions that you have adopted as truth, but you are not very good at stating any REASONS to agree with your conclusion. So where do I began, when you don't even make a case for your beliefs?

Again, you state: "The religious views of political candidates should be open to question; they are not merely private, inner matters."

Mitt Romney has indicated that his beliefs cause him to love his country, love his family, and try to do right by his neighbor. Mitt Romney does not believe in lying, stealing, or killing. Mitt Romney thinks that when he dies he will be judged according to his actions and the intent of his heart with regard to the way that he treated his wife, kids, and those that he came in contact with. What does any of this have to do with politics?

Perhaps there is an overlap of religious and political issues with regard to questions of ethics in government, but you don't want to be bothered by the details and go into these, you would rather engage in insinuation name calling (the Manchurian Mormon).

The only obvious question of where politics and religion overlap would be abortion and gay rights. Mitt Romney, like many others, believes that Abortion should be decided on a state-by-state basis. Atheist and those from every religion agree and disagree with Romney. Romney's religion does not say when life begins, and so his religious views are not an issue when it comes to abortion.

Here is the LDS church's position on same sex marriage.

http://lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-202-4-202,00.html

To summarize, the LDS church does not say weather same-gender attraction is Nature, Nurture, a choice, or something someone is born with. The church teaches love, acceptance and tolerance of those with same-gender attraction.

Some high-lights: "The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn't have a position on."

But the church's teaches don't really matter. The official religion of the largest country on the planet is atheism (China). And in People's Republic of China, same-sex marriage is not allowed. Many ethical atheist believe children deserve both a mother and a father. So religion, really, is not the problem. The advocates of same sex marriage shouldn't change the subject to a person's religion, or practice politics of personal destruction by saying that someone from a particular religion should not be elected president. What they should do is stay on the subject and hand, and try to advance the argument that children advance just as well when they have two mothers or two fathers.

But people don't want to have a logical debate on the issues. Gerald Owen doesn't want to deal with the specific tenants of Romney's faith that he finds objectionable. He would rather operate on the level of name calling. Well two people can play that game. Gerald Owens, is a Bigot. Anyone who brings up Romney's religion as a disqualification for office, without specifically saying which beliefs are objectionable is a bigot. Romney's religion may be so stupid that it should disqualify him for president, but you are a bigot if all you do is say that he is a Mormon, mention some thing or other about "the Manchurian Mormon", and play on people's illogical fears.

Once again, I'm not saying EVERYONE who says Romney's religion disqualifies him from being president is a bigot. Only those who leave the world of logic, and go to the world of name calling and insinuation.

Regards,

Mike

David Brody of The Christian Broadcasting Network has the following report:

Let's talk about the war. Not the Iraq war. This war is between Mitt Romney and the anti-Romney grassroots groups in Massachusetts. I've never seen anything like this. My email inbox is scorching hot from the rhetoric flying from both sides.

But here's where it gets real interesting. Normally, groups like Mass Resistance, led by the leader Brian Camenker get minimal attention. But they have been pretty diligent in consistently pounding home this "Romney's a hypocrite" theme. They haven't received too much attention from the mainstream media but the Boston Globe has run with some of their research and the blogosphere is talking about it.

Let's do a reset here. Mitt Romney wants to be President. A Group called Mass Resistance thinks he's a phony. Romney calls himself a true conservative. This group thinks he's anything but citing what they say are his flip flops on gay rights, abortion and a host of other issues. They detail all of their claims in a 28 page report called "The Mitt Romney deception".

So what does the Romney's campaign do? Do they ignore the group? To the contrary. They have come out with an aggressive campaign to discredit Camenker and Mass Resistance. They are fighting fire with fire. Romney's press shop knows that they must stop this group now or risk having their charges gain steam. They are trying to cut this thing off right now. They actually put out a press release attacking this group and Camenker personally.

It seems to me Romney must be reading the book by Mark Halperin and John Harris called "The Way to Win. Because in that book, it talks about how it's vital for a Presidential candidate to keep control of his image. Don't let others define you. It seems his team is determined to define Romney on their terms, not others.

Romney is a conservative

These are beliefs that I have worked a little bit on (during my lunch break).

These are some beliefs that I am going to work on tonight after my kid goes to sleep.

Please help me find other issues that determine if someone is a "conservative" or not.

Mitt Romney: A Massachusetts Liberal for President?

Selwyn Duke (SD@SelwynDuke.com),

re: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/mitt_romney_a_massachusetts_li.html

Can you define someone is a "Liberal" with two issues issues? Is that how "American Thinkers" debate? Do you think you were accurate in your description of Romney? What did you add to the conversation that could not be found,

more accurately here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Abortion

and here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Same-sex_marriage

I have never seen a less accurate quote of someone in my life. You say, "Thus, it's no wonder that while campaigning against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney said that anti-marriage "is not appropriate at this time." My guess is that the time will be right when the electorate is left." What is anti-marriage? You represent the "American Thinker"? That is a sad comment on the state of thought in America.

Are you a liar or are you just stupid?

During his 1994 campaign against Senator Edward Kennedy, Romney said that same-sex marriage "is not appropriate at this time" and pointed out that marriage was regulated under the jurisdiction of state laws. He also said his voice, as a Republican, would carry more weight on lesbian and gay issues than Kennedy's, even if they took the same position on issues like allowing gays and lesbians in the military. When seeking the campaign support of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, he said, "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern". ^[47]^[48]^[49]^[50]

I think you are a liar. Why don't you allow track backs, and responses on your site? Is that how American thinkers carry on conversations, with their ears closed?

You accuse Mitt Romney of flip-flops. Please check out these site, and tell me what you think:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/flip-flop

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Romney%20changed%20his%20position%20on%20abortion

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Romney%20changed%20his%20position%20on%20gay%20marriage

Regards,

Mike

John R. Bohrer of the Huffington Post

For those who are just starting your observation of Mitt Romney, I would like to introduce you to one of the stupid accusations that you will hear (until 2008, when eventually you will want to bash your brains out).

John R. Bohrer of the Huffington Post is the latest zombie who repeats the following: "Romney is more readily identified with the Salt Lake City Olympics and making the state that elected him the butt of his jokes."

But no one ever gives you an example of the Jokes that Romney tells about Massachusetts, because there are none. Romney says that there are a lot of liberals there, but that is not a joke. It is an observation. And unlike observations from liberals, it is the truth. There are a lot of liberals in Massachusetts. Why does pointing this out hurt the poor feelings of the poor liberals of poor Massachusetts? Were they trying to keep their presence there a secret? Are they behind in child support payments, and think this information will help former wives or girls friends track them down? "Tanner was a liberal, maybe I should look for him in Massachusetts!"

Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? Is Romney a bully, and he would beat up Massachusetts students for their lunch money, and laugh at them, saying that they were liberals, who will probably live in Massachusetts the rest of their lives, because they are stupid Massachusetts liberals? Did he make people cry, when he points out that there are a lot of liberals in Massachusetts? Did he hurt their feelings?

What joy can John R. Bohrer have of repeating this stupid observation. Why do people have the desire to repeat over and over what the main stream media tells them? Is this all they got on Mitt Romney? Romney pointed out that a lot of liberals live in Massachusetts?

Then John R. Bohrer makes the fatal mistake of many liberal blogers when they try to debate. They don't. He asserted that Mitt Romney was a flip flopper with out giving any examples of times that he has flipped or flopped.

John R. Bohrer said; "And that's because Mitt Romney views his identity just like every policy position he's ever taken: temporary."

Here is some background. Romney advocated states rights when it comes to abortion, and he declared a truce on the issue in Massachusetts. He said he would not change the laws. Now that he is running for president of the United States, he is asserting the same thing: each state should have the right to choose their abortion laws. So he has kind of changed his position from advocating that Massachusetts be able to remain pro-choice, to Massachusetts should remain pro-choice and other states should also get to choose their abortion policy, as he seeks to represent those from more states than Massachusetts. If you want to call that a flip, sure, go ahead. But I get to call you an idiot, if you try and call Mitt Romney a flip flopper, because a "flip flop" implies that he changed his position, and then changed it back again. And Abortion is the only issue that you could try and say his vies have changed. But even this is stupid. Is John R. Bohrer saying that we should never vote for someone whose views have changed? Did he really write a senior paper on JFK, Martin Luther King, and Cesar Chavez? Does he want to see examples were they advocated different things in DIFFERENT situations?

And, John R. Bohrer, I also get to also call you an idiot if you say that all of Romney's positions have been "temporary" because of this one change.

I also get to call you a jerk for contributing to the stupidity of public discourse. You make an assertion (every position Romney has ever held has been temporary) without giving one example of times Romney has changed his position. No reasons to agree with you, just your attitude of self rightous disdain.

David asserts that he is able to read Mitt Romney's mind twice. This is something else that will become infuriating over the next couple of years.

David says:

"Mitt Romney must be feeling pretty good right about now" and "Mitt Romney views his identity just like every policy position he's ever taken: temporary".

David wrote his senior thesis on "Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Cesar Chavez in 1968". Was Robert also able to channel the personal feelings of these Cesar Chavez? People wonder what Cesar Chavez would have thought of the protest by illegal immigrants over the 2006 United States Congress immigration bill. Perhaps David can tell us what Chavez thinks, sense he is able to tell us with such clarity what Mitt Romney is thinking.

Mitt Romney said, "Being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention."

Does this the truth hurt the feelings of liberals? Romney is saying the truth. Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the union. Is this fact off limits for Romney to point out? Should Romney not be allowed to have a sense of humor? How dare he laugh at the fact that he is a Republican Governor of the most liberal state, or must he assume a somber attitude, and never dare make fun of the fact that Republicans are a minority is Massachusetts? That Romney is able to laugh is admirable. If I had to live with these self righteous little pukes, I would be crying all the time.

Romney is not making fun of every citizen in Massachusetts. He is pointing out the fact that there happen to be a lot of liberals in that state. Is this wrong? Did he say everyone is Massachusetts is dumb? Did he say they are ugly? Did he make fun of them? No. He did not criticize them, he just said there are a lot of liberals. Is he wrong?

Mitt Romney makes fun of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Michael S. Kukakis, and the main stream media tell the citizens of Massachusetts that Romney is making fun of them.

Lyndon Johnson separated himself from racist elements in Texas, and Ronald Reagan did the same with the hippie fringe in California. Grover Cleveland, who in 1884 used the slogan "Grover the Good" to separate himself from the political corruption in his home state of New York". Every president has had to separate themselves for the benefit of stupid people who think that every single person of a state, religion, or race is exactly the same.

Romney has said:

"There's no question I do love jokes. Indicating that there are very few conservative Republicans in Massachusetts, I do not think is a surprise to anyone inside or outside of Massachusetts and is in no way an indictment of the state. If anything, it's a recognition that I have to do a better job of recruiting Republicans." Governor Mitt Romney, Mighty Mitt Romney, By Shawn Macomber, The American Spectator, 04-21-2006

So, to be clear, did Romney -- who came here in 1975 to seek degrees from both Harvard Business and Law schools -- pursue the governorship out of some Machiavellian plan to attain higher office, or does he love the state he leads?

"We've lived here now 34 years, raised all five of our sons here, and paid a mountain of taxes here. You don't do that unless you enjoy the state and the economic, social, and cultural opportunities which it provides." Governor Mitt Romney, Mighty Mitt Romney, By Shawn Macomber, The American Spectator, 04-21-2006

~ Mike

John R. Bohrer of the Huffington Post

John R. Bohrer said; "And that's because Mitt Romney views his identity just like every policy position he's ever taken: temporary."

And, John R. Bohrer, I also get to also call you an idiot if you say that all of Romney's positions have been "temporary" because of this one change.

David asserts that he is able to read Mitt Romney's mind twice. This is something else that will become infuriating over the next couple of years.

David says:

"Mitt Romney must be feeling pretty good right about now" and "Mitt Romney views his identity just like every policy position he's ever taken: temporary".

Mitt Romney said, "Being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention."

Mitt Romney makes fun of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Michael S. Kukakis, and the main stream media tell the citizens of Massachusetts that Romney is making fun of them.

Romney has said:

~ Mike

Re: Governor Mitt Romney is a flip-floper?

Mitt Romney never changed his position on gay marriage. He has always been against it (in 1994 statements, in 2002, and now). If his own supporters keep repeating this MSM mantra (lie) then maybe we should just give up hope of combating it?

See below: http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

GAY MARRIAGE ISSUE CLARIFICATION:

A follow-up piece from today's Globe continued the deception:

The Times story follows a Globe story published yesterday that reported that Romney told a Boston-area gay newspaper in 1994 that legalizing gay marriage should be left up to individual states, contrasting with his more recent position that marriage should only occur between men and women and his support of a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

What Romney actually said:

On whether he supported the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples:

"I line up with Gov. Weld on that, and it's a state issue as you know — the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction. My understanding is that he has looked at the issue and concluded that certain benefits and privileges should be offered to gay couples. But he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position."

On whether he'd want more studies done on the marriage issue:

"That will occur at the state level. I'll let the governor in Massachusetts, and the governors of others states, as well, study it, evaluate it, discuss the alternatives with psychologists and social workers and health care specialist and so forth to gather information and consider it in a very reasoned way. I have confidence the governor will take the right action."

So, Romney made a statement of fact, that states DID AND DO decide marriage laws (the laws being proposed/ratified by the executive and/or legislative branches). Nowhere did he state his opinion on whether or not it SHOULD be a state's right's issue (as the Globe falsely stated). I believe that, down deep, Romney wishes this issue could have remained just a states issue . . . however, when activist judges started deciding to make up laws (instead of interpreting them) a new course of action was needed to protect the institution of marriage and the children it produces . . . Romney has picked up the gauntlet in this cause and been a stalwart in defending marriage and fighting against activist judges.

On 1/5/07, myclob <mike.laub@gmail.com> wrote:

Governor Mitt Romney is a flip-floper?

Reasons to agree

Romney changed his position on abortion .
Romney changed his position on gay marriage .

Reasons to disagree

It is not bad to change your position , or change it back. Being called a flip-floper emplies that a politician is lying. There is no evidence that Mitt Romney lies. In fact there is a lot of evidence that he tells the truth, and keeps his commitments.
You have to say what positions he has changed, in order to make that assertion. So see my responses (above) to the only two examples I have ever seen, as examples of his flip-floppery.
Governor Mitt Romney does not like flip-flopperyness, and has spoken against it.
A flip is changing your position. A flip-flop is changing your position, and changing it back. The only example I have ever heard of a Romney's flip-floping was his so-called change on Abortion. So changing your position once, would make Romney a fliper, not a flip-flopper.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "2008 Presidential Debate!" group.
To post to this group, send email to 2008_presidential_debate@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 2008_presidential_debate-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/2008_presidential_debate?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Governor Mitt Romney is a flip-floper?

Reasons to agree

Reasons to disagree

It is not bad to change your position , or change it back. Being called a flip-floper emplies that a politician is lying. There is no evidence that Mitt Romney lies. In fact there is a lot of evidence that he tells the truth, and keeps his commitments.
You have to say what positions he has changed, in order to make that assertion. So see my responses (above) to the only two examples I have ever seen, as examples of his flip-floppery.
Governor Mitt Romney does not like flip-flopperyness, and has spoken against it.
A flip is changing your position. A flip-flop is changing your position, and changing it back. The only example I have ever heard of a Romney's flip-floping was his so-called change on Abortion. So changing your position once, would make Romney a fliper, not a flip-flopper.

A little history for those who are just now meeting Mitt Romney...

Why I vetoed contraception bill

By Mitt Romney | July 26, 2005

YESTERDAY I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk.
Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to
contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not
involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes
would also terminate life after conception.

Signing such a measure into law would violate the promise I made to
the citizens of Massachusetts when I ran for governor. I pledged that
I would not change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to
facilitate it. What's more, this particular bill does not require
parental consent even for young teenagers. It disregards not only the
seriousness of abortion but the importance of parental involvement and
so would weaken a protection I am committed to uphold.

I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug
contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether
it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it
became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was
straightforward. I will honor the commitment I made during my
campaign: While I do not favor abortion, I will not change the state's
abortion laws.

I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the
minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is
the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life
of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws
of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so
divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the
democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not
have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the
state's democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my
own views on the prochoice majority.

For all the conflicting views on this issue, it speaks well of our
country that we recognize abortion as a problem. The law may call it a
right, but no one ever called it a good, and, in the quiet of
conscience people of both political parties know that more than a
million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of
America.

You can't be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without
understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on
both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face
terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with
all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time,
the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the
child waiting to be born.

In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during
my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and
embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead -- to
the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material
or a commodity to be exploited.

I have also observed the bitterness and fierce anger that still linger
32 years after Roe v. Wade. The majority in the US Supreme Court's
Casey opinion assured us this would pass away as Americans learned to
live with abortion on demand. But this has proved a false hope.

There is much in the abortion controversy that America's founders
would not recognize. Above all, those who wrote our Constitution would
wonder why the federal courts had peremptorily removed the matter from
the authority of the elected branches of government. The federal
system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different
states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus
avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all"
judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such
disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of
each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.

Except on matters of the starkest clarity like the issue of banning
partial-birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national
consensus on abortion. Some parts of the country have prolife
majorities, others have prochoice majorities. People of good faith on
both sides of the issue should be able to make and advance their case
in democratic forums -- with civility, mutual respect, and confidence
that democratic majorities will prevail. We will never have peace on
the abortion issue, much less a consensus of conscience, until
democracy is allowed to work its way.

Mitt Romney is governor of Massachusetts.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/26/why_i_vetoed_contraception_bill/

Governor Mitt Romney and President Ronald Reagan

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/06/images/reagan_1964.jpg

Quotes from Governor Mitt Romney about President Ronald Reagan

2004

"It is appropriate and fitting to set aside a day to honor the memory of Ronald Reagan, who inspired the nation with his optimism and belief in the greatness of the American people. He led the nation with vision, courage and humor and defended freedom and democracy around the world."

Governor Mitt Romney, 06-08-2004 Press Release

"And if you think that during the great national policy debate of the 1980's, Ronald Reagan was wrong and Ted Kennedy was right, then by all means send in John Kerry."

Governor Mitt Romney, 09-01-2004 2002 Republican Convention

2005

"I believe people who are in a position of visibility and leadership affect the character of young people and individuals who look to them as leaders. And in some respects just as important as their policies and positions is there character and their substance. What for me makes people like Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt and John Adams and George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan such extraordinary leaders is that they had integrity through and through. What they were on the inside and what they said on the outside was harmonious. There a lot of people like that. I think that if people try to live a very different personal life not consistent with the role they've assumed as a governor or senator or president, we lose something as a nation."

Governor Mitt Romney, The Atlantic (September 2005)

Ronald Reagan is one of my heroes," Romney said as he praised Reagan's strategy for winning the Cold War: We win; they lose."

Governor Mitt Romney, Source

"Ronald Reagan is also my hero and a friend of all of ours…I believe that our party's ascendancy began with Ronald Reagan's brand of visionary and courageous leadership."

Governor Mitt Romney, Speech in South Carolina (February 2005)

"And for all those people, for all those people like myself who yearn for world peace, don't forget that a strong America is peace's best ally. As Ronald Reagan said, he said, I saw four wars start in my lifetime and not one of them was started because America was too strong. We have a president who is committed to defending this land and to spreading liberty throughout the world and we are firmly behind him. We just had a--we recently just had a visit from Shimon Peres of Israel. He said America is unique in the world and plays a unique role. In the history of the world, he said, when wars are fought, they're fought over land and the victor takes land. But when America has been drawn into war and when millions of its sons and daughters' lives have been taken, it asks for nothing in return. No land did we take from Germany, no land did we take from Japan. In fact we invested in their countries to preserve their liberty, because we recognize their liberty and their freedom provides freedom for us and the entire world. This is a nation which is unusual in the history of the world, it is unique, and this is a nation which helps preserve the peace of the entire planet. And I'm proud and privileged to know that we have such great militrary and such great leadership carrying out and fulfilling that promise."

Governor Mitt Romney, 06-03-2005, NH Federation of Republican Women's Lilac Dinner

2006

"Well, I think people in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their governor, as their senator, as their president. I don't think most people care what brand of faith they have. And I don't believe that that's been an issue for me in my race for governor. It wasn't an issue, I believe, serious, for John Kennedy when he ran for president. People said oh, gosh, Ronald Reagan, he's been an actor who's been divorced, you can't elect him. Those things, I think, get swept away as people get to know the individual, understand their character, their vision, their values, and I think that's true regardless of a person's faith if they are a faithful person."

Governor Mitt Romney, 02-27-2006 Interview with CHRIS WALLACE on FNS

"When I was running for office for the first time in 1994, I was trying to define who I was, not who I wasn't. I was trying to define that I was an individual who had his own views and perspectives and I wasn't a carbon copy of someone else. I've said since, and continue to reiterate, that one of my heroes is Ronald Reagan. I've been asked time and again in interviews, who are your heroes? And I mention Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower among others as some of my favorite heroes, and I feel that deeply. But I am a different person than any other person and my interest is, of course, looking forward to defining who I am. Of course, now there's no need for me to try to define myself in reference to others. I've got a record. And people can look at my record and see, for instance, that when people were clamoring to raise taxes in Massachusetts, I said "no" and we held the line on taxes, and held the line and borrowing, and we balanced our budget. They can see that I vetoed literally hundreds of line items in budgets because I thought there was too much spending. They can see that I fought for better schools. They can see that I fought for a better environment. And they can recognize that a lot what Ronald Reagan was doing I'm also doing. So I'm pretty proud to follow in his legacy, if you will, recognizing, of course, that there's some differences. He's just a lot better than anyone else I know."

Governor Mitt Romney, Human Events, Robert B. Bluey, 12-28-2006, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18683

Now of course there's some big differences between Massachusetts and New Hampshire as well. There is this affection that some people in Massachusetts have for toll booths. I don't understand it. This Memorial Day weekend my wife and I waited in the toll booth line at the Hampton tolls for just about half an hour. And I have a message for your Democratic governor. Tear down that wall.

Governor Mitt Romney

"I believe people will see that as governor, when I had to examine and grapple with this difficult issue, I came down on the side of life. I know in the four years I have served as governor I have learned and grown from the exposure to the thousands of good-hearted people who are working to change the culture in our country. I'm committed to promoting the culture of life. Like Ronald Reagan, and Henry Hyde, and others who became pro-life, I had this issue wrong in the past."

Governor Mitt Romney, NRO Interview 12-14-2006

"Not really. Not at this stage. You know its possible that there will come some point were there is a question that galvanizes interest and there is an occasion to say something that cuts through the confusion that may develop but at this stage it is kind of hard to predict what will happen. I mean I remember in the race with Ronald Reagan, it was in his debate that he said, "I'm not going to let your youth and inexperience become an issue in this campaign". That sort of put aside his age issue. And there may well be something of that nature. I just don't think Americans will do something the constitution forbids. The constitution says that no religious test shall ever be required for qualification for office in these United States, and I don't think my party or the American people would ever do that."

Governor Mitt Romney, discussing his religion on the Charlie Rose Show. Was asked, "John Kennedy, we remember, looked for and found a venue where he could talk about his catholic faith. The Houston ministry is a very famous speech that he gave. Would you look for and are you looking for a place were you can make a statement like this and are you looking for the right place and time?"

Press Releases from Governor Mitt Romney about President Ronald Reagan

06-08-2004, ROMNEY DECLARES JUNE 11th DAY OF HONOR FOR PRESIDENT REAGAN

Comparisons Between Governor Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan

"Romney had a genuine conversion on the abortion issue," French acknowledged. "In that he is no different than Ronald Reagan." He might have added George H.W. Bush, who was embraced by pro-lifers in 1988 despite a pro-choice past. Source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10274

Mitt does not appear to have any skeletons in his closet. He is likely to remind many people of Ronald Reagan with his easy-going attitude. Sourece: http://thetemplarpundit.blogspot.com/2005/06/2008-profile-mitt-romney.html

Mr. Romney could be an attractive presidential candidate. His sunny disposition puts one in mind of Ronald Reagan--he laughs easily and smiles almost continuously. He is a governor, as four of the past five presidents were; but he can claim more international experience than most state executives. In addition to his work on the Olympics, he has served on the federal Homeland Security Advisory Council, chairing its working group on intelligence and information sharing. Source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007755

Actual questions asked from Mitt Romney Interviews , organized by subject. Click on the question for the answer.

Issues

Iraq

Iran

North Korea

Abortion

Gay Rights

Character

Guns

Healthcare

Taxes

Sports

Business

Politics

Massachusetts

Decision to Run for President

Father

Money

Brain Washing

Background

Education

Religion

Mission

Personality

Personalities

Personal

Divorce

Source

NPR

Governor Mitt Romney is a flip-floper?

Governor Mitt Romney is a flip-floper?

Quotes from Governor Mitt Romney about President Ronald Reagan

2004

2005

2006

Press Releases from Governor Mitt Romney about President Ronald Reagan

Comparisons Between Governor Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan

See Also: