---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Governor Mitt Romney has been married for 36 years with five sons and nine grandchildren. Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998.
Reasons to agree:
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"
04-20-2006, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES AWARD OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONTRACT
05-31-2006, ROMNEY FILES BILL TO PROMOTE PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Family
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 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
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
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."
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.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Reasons to agree
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:
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
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.
