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