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

Live from My Man Mitt

Click Here for More

Romney's new Sr. Advisor making some news...

You can see hear:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Governor Mitt Romney Announces Two New Senior Advisers

01/05/2007

Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Colorado Governor Bill Owens (R-CO) and U.S. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) will serve as senior advisers to the Romney for President Exploratory Committee, Inc.

View Article »

That Mitt Romney's new senior advisor is making some news...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Is Colorado's Governor Calling PETA "A Bunch Of Losers"?
And Why Don't Snowbound Cattle Deserve "Animal Rights"?

Last Wednesday, on Denver radio station KRFX, Colorado Governor Bill Owens leveled words like "losers" and "frauds" at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) , an organization that's no stranger to controversy. Owens told listeners: "What a bunch of losers. Don't give your money to PETA."

Why did the elected leader of the 8th-largest U.S. state unleash his feelings about the animal rights group? As many as 340,000 cows and steers were stranded by southeastern Colorado's latest snowstorm. National Guard units have been mounting a frantic bid to save the freezing animals. Faced with 15-foot snowdrifts, rescuers airlifted bales of hay and hoped for the best.

And when local media asked PETA for help … well … let's just say the wealthy activist group wasn't enthusiastic about "saving" future T-bones and rib roasts. On the air, a PETA spokeswoman sniffed: "I don't know that it's really the most noble cause."

PETA, famous for lobbing rhetorical grenades at hunters, had no sympathy for Colorado's wildlife either. Asked if her group would intervene to save deer, elk, and other wild animals, the PETA spokeswoman snapped that "there's really nothing to be done."

Does PETA care more about hurting ranchers and crippling the beef industry than about "saving" flesh and blood animals? Did Governor Owens finally say out loud what most Coloradans are thinking?

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) keeps tabs on the lunacy of today's animal rights movement. On the CCF website, you can listen to interviews with PETA's spokeswoman, and hear Governor Owens in his own words.

And at PetaKillsAnimals.com, you can also learn about two PETA employees who will face felony Animal Cruelty charges later this month (yes—you read that right) in North Carolina . They allegedly killed dozens of healthy, adoptable animals in the back of a PETA-owned van, and tossed the bodies into a rural trash dumpster. According to government records, PETA killed more than 14,000 dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens between 1998 and 2005.

The Center for Consumer Freedom covers the animal rights movement, nutrition enforcers, meddlesome food regulators, and environmental do-gooders who want control over what you eat and feed your family. Subscribe today to CCF's Daily Headline service (it's free!), and consider making a New Year's resolution to support their important work.

Governor Mitt Romney and the Family

Quotes from Governor Mitt Romney on the Family

Welcome to the site! Please help me maintain a comprehensive list of quotes and actions from Governor Mitt Romney regarding the family. Just ask me for the password, and I'll give it to you.

• "America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home."
• Governor Mitt Romney

• ""Experience shows that kids have a far better chance of succeeding if they have a mother and a father at home. Of course, divorce or death means that there will always be many, many single parents; these single parents often make huge sacrifices and their kids can indeed succeed. But let's do everything we can to encourage our kids to have their kids after they've married, not while they're single and in school. We have sex education in our schools. Let's also have abstinence education in our schools. Marriage and two parent families are fundamental to the development of children and to our success as a culture. We cannot afford to shrink from the timeless, priceless principles of human experience."
• Governor Mitt Romney

• "We can praise the virtues of parental involvement all day, but until we actually get parents to follow through we are simply singing to an empty music hall. Voluntary programs will not get the job done. It is essential that mandatory training be put in place."
• Governor Mitt Romney 01-21-2004 Press Release (click on the link to read the whole press release)

• Today, you are witnessing democracy in action. On issues of fundamental importance affecting all of the people, it is ultimately up to the people to decide. That is what this Constitutional Convention is all about. It serves as an important reminder that no one person and no branch of government is above the voice of the people. This is as it should be. Amending the constitution is a serious matter and any changes to the document itself should be finely and narrowly drawn. I recognize that the Senate President and the Senate Minority Leader are trying to find a compromise that will satisfy people on both sides of this issue, but their proposed amendment goes too far. The Constitution should not be used to legislate new social policy. A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not a new proposal but rather a codification of longstanding policy and tradition. Civil union language is best left to the legislative process. My hope is the Constitutional Convention will approve an amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. If we do that, we will have taken an important step toward restoring the people's voice in their own government.
• Governor Mitt Romney 02-11-2004 Press Release

• I agree with the President on the need for a federal marriage amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As I've said before, amending the U.S. Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states and to guard against overreaching by the judicial branch. Acts of lawlessness in San Francisco bring into even sharper focus the need to proceed with the process of amending the Constitution. I don't think anyone ever imagined that we would have courts and local officials defining marriage in a way that has no historical precedent whatsoever, and claiming it's been in the Constitution all along. Of course, we must conduct this debate with decency, tolerance and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is so fundamental to society that it should not be decided by one court in Massachusetts or by one mayor in San Francisco. In America, the people should decide. In America, the people are fair and tolerant. Let the people decide."
• Governor Mitt Romney, 02-24-2004 Press Release

March 12, 2004

STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Good afternoon.

Our elected representatives met yesterday and took the first steps toward passing an amendment to the state Constitution that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

I applaud Senate President Travaglini, Speaker Finneran and all the members of the Legislature for conducting a respectful and thoughtful debate. As we saw, some people feel that the amendment changes the Constitution; I, and many others, feel that it preserves the Constitution.

This amendment process began after the state Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage, setting aside thousands of years of recorded history and legal precedent.

The Court directed the Legislature to take action as it deemed appropriate. That's just what the Legislature did yesterday.

The Legislature is now on a track to put this issue before the voters. Ultimately, this is as it should be: the people of our state will decide.

I know there are deeply held personal convictions around this issue. There are real people and real lives that are affected. On a matter of such significance and with such tender sentiment involved, I would ask that we continue to show respect and consideration for those of differing views.

For all of us, the rule of law is bedrock. We've seen the lawlessness that has erupted in other states and how it undermines the higher purposes we all seek to preserve.

I know there's been a lot of speculation about what action I will take as Governor of the Commonwealth. Until the Legislature completes its work at the end of this month, I will have no comment on the options before me.

But let me state clearly that whatever I do will be within the bounds of the law. Just as the Legislature is working within the constitutional and legal structure of our state, I will do the same.

The Legislature has taken the first step. As the process continues, let us hope the final step will be taken by the people.

Thank you.

• Governor Mitt Romney, 03-12-2004 Press Release

June 22, 2004

"Preserving Traditional Marriage: A View from the States"

Testimony of Governor Mitt Romney Before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee

Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy, distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for asking me to join you today.

First, I ask that my written remarks be inserted into the record of this hearing.

You have asked for my perspectives on the recent inauguration of same sex marriage in my state. This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intolerance and prejudice. This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. 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.

Given the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Congress and Americanow face important questions regarding the institution of marriage. Should we abandon marriage as we know it and as it was known by the framers of our constitution?

Has America been wrong about marriage for 200 plus years?

Were generations that spanned thousands of years from all the civilizations of the world wrong about marriage?

Are the philosophies and teachings of all the world's major religions simply wrong?

Or is it more likely that four people among the seven that sat in a court in Massachusetts have erred? I believe that is the case.

And I believe their error was the product of seeing only a part, and not the entirety. 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. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights.

But marriage is not solely 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.

Of course, even today, circumstances can take a parent from the home, but the child still has a mother and a father. If the parents are divorced, the child can visit each of them. If a mother or father is deceased, the child can learn about the qualities of the departed. His or her psychological development can still be influenced by the contrasting features of both genders.

Are we ready to usher in a society indifferent about having fathers and mothers? Will our children be indifferent about having a mother and a father?

My Department of Public Health has asked whether we must re-write our state birth certificates to conform to our Court's same-sex marriage ruling. Must we remove "father" and "mother" and replace them with "parent A" and "parent B?"

What should be the ideal for raising a child: not a village, not "parent A" and "parent B," but a mother and a father.

Marriage is about even more than children and adults. The family unit is the structural underpinning of all successful societies. And, it is the single-most powerful force that preserves society across generations, through centuries.

Scientific studies of children raised by same sex couples are almost non-existent. And the societal implications and effects on these children are not likely to be observed for at least a generation, probably several generations. Same sex marriage doesn't hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years.

Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing. One person may choose to live as a single, even to have and raise her own child. Others may choose to live in same sex partnerships or civil arrangements. There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding.

But there is a difference between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights, but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all.

Some have asked why so much importance is attached to the word "marriage." It is because changing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same sex practice. It is inconceivable that promoting absolute indifference between heterosexual and homosexual unions would not significantly effect child development, family dynamics, and societal structures.

Among the structures that would be affected would be religious and certain charitable institutions. Those with scriptural or other immutable founding principles will be castigated. Ultimately, some may founder. We need more from these institutions, not less, and particularly so to support and strengthen those in greatest need. Society can ill afford further erosion of charitable and virtuous institutions.

For these reasons, I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment. Some retreat from the concept of amendment, per se. While they say they agree with the traditional definition of marriage, they hesitate to amend. But amendment is a vital and necessary aspect of our constitutional democracy, not an aberration.

The constitution's framers recognized that any one of the three branches of government might overstep its separated powers. If Congress oversteps, the Court can intervene. If the Executive overreaches, Congress may impeach. And if the Court launches beyond the constitution, the legislative branch may amend.

The four Massachusetts justices launched beyond our constitution. That is why the Massachusetts legislature has begun the lengthy amendment process.

There is further cause for amendment. Our framers debated nothing more fully than they debated the reach and boundaries of what we call federalism. States retained certain powers upon which the federal government could not infringe. By the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, our state has begun to assert power over all the other states. It is a state infringing on the powers of other states.

In Massachusetts, we have a law that attempts to restrain this infringement on other states by restricting marriages of out-of-state couples to those where no impediment to marry exists in their home state. Even with this law, valid same sex marriages will migrate to other states. For each state to preserve its own power in relation to marriage, within the principle of Federalism, a federal amendment to define marriage is necessary.

This is not a mere political issue. It is more than a matter of adult rights. It is a societal issue. It encompasses the preservation of a structure that has formed the basis of all known successful civilizations.

With a matter as vital to society as marriage, I am troubled when I see an intolerant few wrap the marriage debate with their bias and prejudice.

I am also troubled by those on the other side of the issue who equate respect for traditional marriage with intolerance. The majority of Americans believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but they are also firmly committed to respect, and even fight for civil rights, individual freedoms and tolerance. Saying otherwise is wrong, demeaning and offensive. As a society, we must be able to recognize the salutary effect, for children, of having a mother and a father while at the same time respecting the civil rights and equality of all citizens.

Thank you.

• "In my service as Governor, I've never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventive health practice," said Romney. " Abstinence education gives young people the support they need in making the decision to postpone sexual activity until they are mature enough to handle the emotional, moral and financial responsibilities of parenthood," he said. "This is more than teaching kids to say no – it will help them preserve self-esteem and build character."
• Governor Mitt Romney, 05-31-2006 Press Release

Governor Mitt Romney's Family

Governor Mitt Romney has been married for 36 years with five sons and nine grandchildren. Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998.

Mitt Romney and Family Debate

Mitt Romney is a strong supporter of the family.

Mitt Romney has a great Family.

Reasons to agree:

1. His wife, Ann Romney, is great.
2. His dad, George Romney, was great.

Others on Governor Mitt Romney and the Family

• "I don't see such moral clarity anywhere else in the political spectrum, even on the conservative side among some very good people. Mitt sees into the core of things and confronts moral obfuscation by redirecting the focus back to fundamental truths. No punditry, no ambition for power, no licking of the finger to feel which way the wind is blowing".
• George Schultz, 2006

Press Releases from Governor Mitt Romney on the Family.

2003

01-21-2004, ROMNEY DETAILS MANDATORY PARENTAL PREP PLAN
02-11-2004, ROMNEY STATEMENT REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
02-24-2004, STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR ROMNEY ON THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
03-12-2004, STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
06-22-2004, "Preserving Traditional Marriage: A View from the States"

2006

04-20-2006, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES AWARD OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONTRACT
05-31-2006, ROMNEY FILES BILL TO PROMOTE PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

• The Children of Divorce 11-13-05

Links

• http://myclob-family.blogspot.com/

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Family

Also see:

1. Children
2. Fathers
3. Gender
4. Mothers

For More Click Here:

Family on Elect Romney in 2008

Videos

From Mitt's Site

Key Appearances:

• Now Playing: What Republicans are About
• Now Playing: The Most Critical Period in American History

In the News:

• Now Playing: 03 Jan 07 \"Situation Room\"; Schechner
• Now Playing: 02 Jan 07 MSNBC \"Hardball\": Gergen, Mitchell
• Now Playing: 02 Jan 07 Fox News \"The Big Story\": Vandehei
• Now Playing: 31 Dec 06 NBC \"Meet The Press\": Kate O'Beirne
• Now Playing: 14 Nov 06 Fox News \"The Big Story\": Nina Easton
• Now Playing: 14 Nov 06 Fox News \"Special Report\": Panel

Fun

• Now Playing: Imus takes on Mitt...or vice versa!
• Now Playing: The Wisdom of Aunt Connie and Aunt Ruth
• Now Playing: Good humor...or good sport?

Google Video

• Charlie Rose - Gov. Mitt Romney

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

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

 

WoldNetDaily . . . get the word out that they're hypocritical and anti-Romney

Maybe I went a little far in my responses to the journalist below.  However, it looks like WorldNetDaily is goint to be pretty blatantly anti-Romney.

Look at the links to the two stories they ran on Jan 2nd.  What a juxtaposition and it solidifies their anti-Romney bias.


http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53598
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53615


Some other stuff they've had up:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53373
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53239

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52244
"Sexual fascism is alive and well in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, thanks to liberal Republicans. And don't look to Gov. Mitt Romney for help on this. He has yet to take a strong position that affirms traditional marriage or protects our kids against homosexuality." (dated Oct 2006) . . . she must have been living in a hole!!!!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeff Fuller <jfuller@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 3, 2007 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: Mitt ROmney Gay Marriage piece.
To: runruh@wnd.com

In addition . . .

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53615

That there is no reference to Romney (the lead plantiff in the law suit) and his leadership in this effort to get the issue on the ballot just reaks of an anti-Romney agenda.  I'll make sure to bookmark these two stroies on the same day as a clear sign of dishonest "reporting" of the news.  I'll make sure to alert my blogger friends to help spread the word that your site is not to be a trusted source of honest news . . . unless I'm missing something (I'll wait to hear your response).

Jeff

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53598

On 1/3/07, Jeff Fuller <jfuller@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Unruh,

I'm saddened and sickened that you ran that "hate piece" against Romney, the politician who has fought the best fight possible against gay Marriage in Massachusetts.  Haskins arguements are hollow and illogical.  To blame gay marriage in MA on Romney is absurd and you're jeapordizing your credibility by running stuff like this. 

Romney has always been against gay marriage (in '94 & '02 campaigns, and throughout his tenure as Gov).  He is a Harvard trained JD and has great legal counsel.  He got the 1913 law to stand to prevent other state couples from coming to MA.  He looked for any remedy and/or loophole possible and has led the fight to get the issue on the ballot.  To attack the man who has been "fighting the good fight" on the most inhospitable territory cries of "I've got something against Romney" and many of us know what the "hidden agenda" is.

Jeff Fuller

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

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

Reasons to disagree

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Governor Mitt Romney does not like flip-flopperyness, and has spoken against it.
4. 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?

Governor Mitt Romney is a flip-floper?

Reasons to agree

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

Reasons to disagree

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Governor Mitt Romney does not like flip-flopperyness, and has spoken against it.
4. 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.

We have a problem in America...

We have a problem in America...

Republicans only talk to republicans and Democrats only talk to Democrats. We don't want Romney Supporters to only talk to Romney supporters.

Go to this site:

http://blogsearch.google.com/

Type "Mitt Romney" and correct one lie about Romney a day. Tell me what you find. You will find some good stuff, and some stupid stuff. I want to hear about it all.

~ Mike

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/

You have got to watch this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

I did not know someone could comb their hair for that long!

Moore Thoughts

Nathan Moore is a highly respected conservative blogger from Tennessee. He posted this a couple of weeks ago, but I am only reading it now for the first time. Sorry I'm a little late. If you have emotional trauma you might want to get the trial-lawyer, John Edwards, to sue me.

Here is the link.

http://moorethoughts.com/2006/12/18/massachusetts-governor-in-tennessee/

~Mike

Governor Mitt Romney and President Ronald Reagan

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

See Also:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Ronald-Reagan

I received the following feedback on one of my posts:

"Romney is a liar and an idiot. How dare he try to amend the Massachusetts Constitution! How do voters feel? It's obvious! Did Romney's Right-wing wish-list Republica win in the 2006 election for governor? OR was it PRO-Gay Marriage and PRO-Equality candidate Deval Patrick? The answer is clear."

"Just a few more days and Romney will be looking for another job. This guy is a loser and nothing but. Spends all his time on gay marriage, can't even run the state...that's why the Democrats now have it! Good Riddance Romney!!"

This is my response:

Why is Romney a "liar" and an "idiot"? If Romney is a "liar" what lie did he tell? If he is an idiot what idiotic thing has he done? Your post tells more about you than it does Romney.

He is not trying to amend the Massachusetts constitution, it is the voters... Do you know anything about this issue? Or do you only read the Boston Globe?

You might want to read this:

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

and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts

before you say anything else stupid.

re: "Did Romney's Right-wing wish-list Republica win in the 2006 election for governor? OR was it PRO-Gay Marriage and PRO-Equality candidate Deval Patrick? The answer is clear."

Yes that was one of the issues in the race for Governor. I guess you think the voters have already spoken, but you know there are these things called ballet initiatives that voters can vote on. They get to choose the outcome of one issue at a time. Look into it, it is kind of cool. There were many issues that went into a vote for Governor. Why don't you want to let the people vote? Are you afraid you might loose? I thought you believed in Democracy? Why shouldn't the people be able to vote? When the courts decide and when should the people decide? When ever you don't like the outcome, the process must have been wrong?

Re: "This guy is a loser and nothing but."

Did you see Little Miss Sunshine? You are the loser, man. People who use the word loser are the only losers. We all win and we all loose some times. Those that loose more often than win need our help, not ridicule. Romney is not one of these people.

Alright, you only have two more accusation, and you offer zero reasons to agree with these accusations. I find this typical of Romney detractors. A lot of accusation, and name calling, but no reason, or logic. No reasons to agree with their conclusions that they repeat over and over again. That is why I want to create a forum where people brain storm " Reasons to agree" or disagree with conclusions, and try to put the best reasons to agree with a conclusion at the top of the list. This will force us to have some sort of rational discussion. But I digress. Here are the last two accusations:

1. Romney spends all his time on gay marriage,
2. Romney can't even run the state...

I assume that he means that Romney spends too much time on gay marriage, instead of "all his time". I do not know how much time Romney has spent on Gay Marriage. One way to figure out the relative amount of time he spends on something would be to count the press releases. I count 4 press releases having to do with gay marriage. I see 28 press releases on education, 19 press releases that deal with housing, 15 press releases that have to do with homelessness, 8 press releases that have to do with terrorism, in fact I can't find one issue that has fewer press releases than gay marriage. I'm sure there are. I've been clicking on them from my site, but I'm tired of looking, that is all I can find for now.

Another way to figure this out would be to count the number of words coming out of the office, or his speeches, and figure out the percentage of time devoted to the issue. But I assume you are not interested in really finding the truth.

The last accusation is this. "Romney can't even run the state". Oh, my, gosh. What does someone say to something like this. How are we supposed to have any sort of rational debate when this is the kind of stuff you have on the internet? This is what 90% of the people on the internet are like. No joking. Their nuts! I am going to pretend that this world is sane, and I am going to try to deal with the stupidity that I am surrounded with. OK. How do we measure weather someone can or can not "run the state"? Does a Governor or do the people "run the state"? One part of "running the state" might have something to do with the budget, and taxes. Why don't you look into how well Romney has done on those issues, before we continue this intelligent debate?

~Mike

Mitt Romney on John Edwards

The Boston Globe has another attack add/article, wait, this is a democrat, it is a glowing report...

"PORTSMOUTH, N.H. -- The day after formally announcing his presidential campaign, former North Carolina senator John Edwards came to New Hampshire, where he faced an overflow crowd and growing excitement..."

Mitt Romney on John Edwards:

ROMNEY: If you think trial lawyers need more money, our economy needs more law suits, and malpractice costs should go even higher, then send in John Edwards with him.

AUDIENCE: Boo.

ROMNEY: And Senator Edwards, if you don't like hearing that, sue me.

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Convention

Court can't force gay marriage vote

The Supreme Judicial Court said lawmakers are defying their constitutional duties by not voting, but said it has no authority to force them to act.

Golden business touch would give Romney added lustre

By Rebecca Knight

Published: December 29 2006 02:00 | Last updated: December 29 2006 02:00

Before he was elected governor of Massachusetts, and even before he rescued the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games, Mitt Romney was known in business circles as the venture capitalist with the golden touch.

During his 14 years at the helm of Bain Capital, the Boston-based private equity firm, Mr Romney earned a reputation for an owlish knack for appraising opportunities - spotting start-ups with lucrative potential and taking troubled, undervalued companies and retooling their business models.

Mr Romney, who worked as a consultant for Bain & Co before he founded the spin-off venture capital firm with $37m, helped launch some 180 companies including Staples, The Sports Authority, and Domino's Pizza. He also he made his investors a lot of money: during his reign at Bain the firm's annual rate of return on realised investments exceeded 100 per cent.

As Mr Romney eyes a possible bid for the 2008 Republican nomination, some observers note that his limited experience in public office would be a big liability in the greater Republican party contest. He has only one term as governor under his belt and he managed to court controversy during that tenure - for instance, opposing gay marriage. However, even Mr Romney's detractors concede that his successful record in the private sector has left mostly a string of admirers.

Described by former colleagues as "tough-minded", "analytical" and bearing "Reagan-like leadership" qualities, Mr Romney - who holds degrees from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School - became well known in the world of venture capital for his ability to parse a lot of information in a short time, his sharp attention to detail and his penchant for poring through facts and figures.

Tom Stemberg was hawking around his business plan to start a chain of office supply stores when he first met Mr Romney in 1985. "It was a long business plan and the only group that had thoughtfully read it and taken it apart was Mitt and his team," he recalls. "There was one firm that laughed and said, 'Who in the world cares about how much they spend on pencils and erasers?' But Mitt paid a tremendous amount of attention to details like that."

Mr Stemberg remembers that, at one point, Mr Romney questioned his calculation that the amount that small businesses spent annually on office supplies was more than $1,000 per employee. Mr Romney said that he had surveyed businesses in Boston and they claimed to spend only about $250 a head. "So I told him that one of the big problems is that companies don't know what they spend. You have to look at the invoices," says Mr Stemberg.

That is exactly what Mr Romney and his Bain colleagues did - a tedious task. Mr Romney discovered that Mr Stemberg's figures were correct and Bain Capital made an initial investment of about $600,000 to start a little company called Staples. Today it has 69,000 employees and a market capitalisation of about $19.5bn (€14.5bn, £9.9bn).

During Mr Romney's career as a buyout specialist he sometimes had to make unpopular decisions - including trimming costs and slashing jobs - and not all of Bain's companies were resounding winners. But that was part of the job. "He is a decision maker and the buck stops with him," said one former colleague.

Bob White, a partner at Bain Capital and a friend of the out-going governor, says that Mr Romney's strength lies in his ability to surround himself with smart, passionate people - and, crucially, people with divergent views. "He believes it's very important to have people that don't all see everything the same way."

Mr White says that one of Mr Romney's finest hours in business came in the late 1980s. Bain & Co had embarked on an employee stock ownership plan by borrowing money to pay founders for shares that the company would then sell to new partners. But the estimated worth of the company was too much and Bain could not meet its debts.

In 1990 the partners asked Mr Romney to return from Bain Capital to oversee a restructuring of the company that entailed complicated negotiations with banks, as well as the company's former partners, to get significant portions of the debts forgiven.

Mr Romney managed to convince all but one of the top partners in the Boston office to go along with him, according to Mr White. "It was exactly the right thing to do," he says.

"The company was potentially weeks away from financial ruin, but he was able to turn it around and today it has done extraordinarily well." The company is today worth about $36bn.

Then came the Olympics. When Mr Romney arrived as its chief executive officer in 1999, the Salt Lake City Winter Games had a $379m fiscal shortfall and had been hit by bribery allegations. "In walks Mitt and the place brightened immediately," recalls Frazier Bullock, who was chief operating officer of the games and also worked with Mr Romney at Bain.

"He understood the big picture right from the beginning and had a road map for how to rebuild."

Mr Romney reworked the organisation's policies, cut budgets and increased fundraising. The games ended in surplus and Mr Romney won national praise for turning them into a resounding commercial success. "Not only is he drop dead smart," says Mr Bullock, who now works at Sorenson Capital, "but he has a leadership quality that you can see and feel."