09 December 2006


IS ROMNEY A FLIP-FLOPPER ?
Flip-flopper. The juvenille term was turned against John Kerry and into a political gold mine for the GOP in 2004.

But now one Republican presidential candidate may be facing questions of flip-floppery if his GOP opponents take that low-brow approach in the primaries in 2008.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, leading the efforts against gay marriage in his state, may have to justify his past stance on the issue with right-wing primary voters.

Bay Windows, a newspaper for the New England gay and lesbian community, ran an editorial Thursday calling Romney a "Big Fat Liar" for his recent crusading against same-sex marriage.

The paper cites an interview with Romney that appeared on its own pages in 1994 when Romney was running against Ted Kennedy for Kennedy's senate seat.

At the time Romney said he was not in favor of same-sex marriage but that it was an issue best decided by the states. Today he is in favor of a federal ban.
In addition, Bay Windows argues that Romney's 1994 position on same-sex marriage is akin to the present-day stance of Romney rival Arizona Sen. John McCain, a position Romney recently criticized as "disingenuous."

Romney, in the 1994 interview gave the impression he would be an advocate for gay civil rights.

"I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican party and I would be a voice in the Republican party to foster anti-discrimination efforts," he told Bay Windows in 1994.


The paper charged that Romney has since abandoned the gay community on a number of issues.
"His views on gay issues in 1994 are largely at odds with his stated views today," Bay Windows said in the editorial on Thursday.

But, a political analysts quoted in the Bay WIndows column said Romney is essentialy just acting like a politician.

Charlie Cook, the the non-partisan Cook Political Report, told the paper Romney needs to place himself to the right of McCain to have a place in the race.

“Clearly he’s moving to the right very aggressively and he has to. He’s got to move over to John McCain’s right using what issues he can,” said cook in Bay Windows article.

The paper said Cook theorized Romney also had to move far right to counter concerns in the evangelical community about his Mormon faith.

"That’s what politicians do, whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, a Romney or anybody else. That’s what they do and that’s what he’s doing," Cook told Bay Windows.


3 comments:

myclob said...

The stupidity has gone way to far...

* “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.”
o Governor Mitt Romney, 06-22-2004 Press Release

* “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. “
o Governor Mitt Romney, 06-22-2004 Press Release

The following is my response to this article in the New York Times about Mitt Romney.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/politics/09romney.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Governor Mitt Romney and Evangelicals are together on this. They have never tried to advance families with both mothers and fathers by discriminating against gays.

Evangelicals teach that you need to love the sinner, but hate the sin. Evangelicals agree with Romney: you don't advance families with a mother and a father, by allowing gays to be discriminated against in the work place. They are two separate issues. Romney and the majority of conservatives agree that you need to stop bigotry towards gays, and preserve the right for catholic charities to provide houses for needy children, even though they do not give children to gay couples. We should all be able to agree on this.

However the New York Times and Bay Windows don’t want to discuss the gay marriage issue with Mitt Romney, a sophisticated urbanite, with high levels of education, who speaks two languages, has been the head of a multi-national corporation, and worked well with gay rights groups. They don’t want to debate him, because they know that he is in the Majority. They know that he represents the majority of Americans who don’t hate gay people, but that believe that catholic charities aught to be allowed to continue placing children in homes with both a mother and a father. Even the majority of the citizens of Massachusetts think that Catholic Charities and Catholic adoption services should be allowed to operate in Massachusetts.

Bay Windows and the New York Times don’t want to discuss the issue with Romney, because they know the majority of Americans agree with him. They would rather have this be a debate between them, and homophobic-red-neck-gay hating bigots.

They don’t want this to be an issue over what is in the best interest of the children. They want this to be an issue of hate and acceptance, and they want to silence anyone who does not hate, but is still on the side of children’s rights to have both a mother and a father.

They know that if they can make this about hate and acceptance, they will win because they are in the majority. But if they could just get red of Romney, by calling him a hypocrite, and making everyone think he is a hypocritical-panderer, they will win.

They New York Times is not interested in the truth. They are interested in their side winning. They will stoop to character assassination in order to win, but they don’t have a leg to stand on.

David and Adam say the following, “But his emphasis has shifted in the last two years. As he moves into this new phase of his career, Mr. Romney rarely talks about the need to protect gay men and lesbians from bias, instead presenting himself as a conservative stalwart in the fight against same-sex marriage, arguing that legally recognizing same-sex unions endangers the cultural support for heterosexual families.”

This is the biggest load of garbage I have ever heard. Less than two Months ago, in the Biggest Speech of Romney’s life regarding this subject, on October the 16th 2006, Romney said the following:

“In fact, as Americans, I believe that we should show an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people. I believe God loves all of his children, that no one is abhorred -- that regardless of the differences and different choices, we should show that same respect. As Americans, we must vigorously reject discrimination and bigotry.”

This took me 30 seconds to find. Is that how bad things are there at the New York Times? They are too busy to do 30 seconds of research before they write an article. How humiliating. What an embarrassment. They say Romney doesn’t say anything nice about Gays any more. Do you think that David and Adam will apologize for their character assassination of Governor Romney? No. They just make up stuff, chary out their character assassination, and go on. All that matters is that their side wins. And with all battles, the truth is the first casualty. Well congratulations David and Adam. You must be glad you have a much larger readership than me. You must be glad that hardly anyone knows what liars you are. Do you need more examples of nice things Romney has said about gays in the past two years? How many quotes do you need, until you apologize for saying that his town has changed as he ran for president? How many quotes will it take? I can produce 6 quotes in less than half an hour that show that Romney has been consistent on this issue. Brian and Adam, does the truth matter, or have you already written your play book? The New York Times will eliminate Romney by calling him a hypocrite. We, at the New York Times will repeat this over and over until everyone knows Romney Flip Flopped. Is that the game plan?

ADAM NAGOURNEY and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK of the New York use "Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who had praised Mr. Romney as a champion of traditional values at the group’s conference in late September. “This type of information is going to create a lot of problems for Governor Romney. He is going to have a hard time overcoming this.”

Actually it is Tony Perkins who has some explaining to do. What in Romney’s statements does he disagree with? Does he think that it is alright to discriminate against gays in the workplace? Does Tony Perkins think that it is good for gay people to be hazed, ridiculed and mocked? Tony Perkins is the one who has some explaining to do. What exactly did Mitt Romney say that Tony disagrees with. Tony. You might want to be careful if you want republicans to ever become a majority again, because the majority of people agree with Mitt. We need to not discriminate against gays, but Catholic charities should still be in the business of putting children up for adoption.

Is this quote from Adam or David taken out of context, because WHAT EXACTLY is Mitt Romney going to have to overcome? The belief that people should be treated with respect? Does the New York Times think that this will become an issue with southern voters? The New York times keeps saying that it is Southern Evangelical voters that will not vote for a Mormon, but it is Liberal Democrats, who, according to actual surveys, would never vote for someone who attends a Mormon church on Sunday. The New York Times keeps implying that southern evangelicals who think children deserve both a mother and a father hate gay people. It is liberal people at the New York Times that hate and demonize those that disagree with them.

Paul Weyrich, a founder of the modern conservative movement, said: “Unless he comes out with an abject repudiation of this, I think it makes him out to be a hypocrite. And if he totally repudiates this, you have to ask, on what grounds?”

People keep accusing Mitt Romney of Hypocrisy because he dares asserts that we should be nice to gay people but he does not define niceness by putting their rights to have children over the rights of children to have a mother and a father.

“But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.”

What is so wrong with this? It is the truth. Romney's dad always said that it hurts to be right too early, but this will not hurt Romney. It is not too early. Everyone knows that southern republicans will not want to listen to Ted Kennedy (the man who has killed more people with his car, than my gun) preach to us about how we need to show gay people respect. But southern republicans will listen to someone who stood up for the right of catholic charities to participate in the adoption process. Southern republicans will listen to a man who thinks the rights of children are more important than the rights of adults, say to them that they need to show respect to gays. We can make this not just be an issue between the parties.

Joseph McCarthy said that communism should not be made an issue between republicans and democrats. He said, and I think this is one of the times he was right, that if we made it a contest between our two great parties, that we will see one of the parties disappear of the face of the earth, and that would be bad for America. The New York Times is trying to make this an issue BETWEEN the parties. They are trying to make it look like everyone in the Republican Party hates gays. This is not the truth. Republicans don't hate gays. Republicans just think the rights of children are more important than the rights of adults.

Most gay people will tell you that they love both their mother and father, and they will tell you that they are glad they had parents representing the two great genders: Women and Men. Let’s not make this an issue between the parties, were one party is assumed to hate gays. If we don’t want the Republican party go away, lets not make this an issue between the parties. We need republicans to stand up with Mitt Romney against bigotry, and for children’s rights.

There is nothing in Romney's statements that a red blooded American who is comfortable with his or her own sexuality has to be embarrassed of. Romney said that both parties should be nice to gays, show them respect, and hire them in the work place.

When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions. "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union," said Romney in an October 2002 gubernatorial debate. He also voiced support for basic domestic partnership benefits for gay couples.

These people at the New York Times are some of the stupidest people I have ever read. They say stupid stuff, like Romney is a hypocrite without giving any example of hypocrisy, and they say that he doesn’t talk about equality any more, when it took me 30 seconds to find a great quote that shows how consistent Romney has been.

Once again let me provide the quote from less than 2 months ago. On October the 16th 2006, Romney said the following:

“In fact, as Americans, I believe that we should show an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people. I believe God loves all of his children, that no one is abhorred -- that regardless of the differences and different choices, we should show that same respect. As Americans, we must vigorously reject discrimination and bigotry.”

Ron Vallo said...

Myclob:

Thanks for your thoughts. Sorry it took so long to post them as I was out for the evening.

I agree with you that Romney, the person, seems to have no personal animosity toward gay people and that he favors that their civil rights, short of marriage or civil unions, be protected and extended.

But Romney is not running to be someone's next door neighbor. He aspires to be president of all the people of United States, even those who are gay. So to say his personal feelings toward gays are friendly is not enough, at leat in my book. He'll be setting policy and attempting to guide it through the legislative process. He should not be advocating policy that is detrimental to an one group.

I don't know that your opinion, stated as fact, that "the majority" of Americans want civil rights for gays but not marriage or civil unions, is necessarily true. What is that "fact" based on? I will admit in the suburban area where live that is probably the way most people feel, but that's just a gut feeling. I have no research to back it up and neither do you.

While I agree with you that the whole flip-flopper thing is low-brow politics, you are forgetting that it is the Republicans who used such horseshit tactics to great advantage last time around.
Should the Democrats choose to turn the tables this time, I say more power to them.

Also, you say we shouldn't make this a "party" issues. Again I remind you of 2004, when the GOP placed gay marriage ammendments on the ballot in about nine states, not because they thought the ammendments would ever survive the legislative process and judicial review but because they needed a wedge issue to turn out more members of their base in places where the election was expected to be tight.

I hate the way the politics is played. Never any intelligent discussion. But I also think that was is good for the goose is, indeed, good for the gander. So let's not lecture the Democrats on partisan politics and wedge issues, the GOP is the master at that game.

Sam said...

I would challenge "myclob" to find any politican, Democrat or Republican, who would go on record as saying "the rights of children are more important than the rights of adults." The rights of all people - regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or age - should be the same in a free society. Once you place one groups' interests above another's, you're asking for trouble.

I'd also point you to the American Psychological Association study (referenced here: () that says that children in same-sex households do not fare any worse than those in different-sex households.

The only reason to deny equal treatment to gays and lesbians where marriage or children are concerned is one of bigotry.