Romney: Out of the Overflow of the Mouth
By Jerry Zandstra Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"In 1994, while running for Senate, Romney had sent a letter to the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans group, stating that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Sen. Kennedy. Conservative leaders viewed his earlier statements as troubling and called for an 'abject rejection' of his earlier stance. ...The combination of this and his abortion flip-flop could strangle his candidacy in its crib."
-Bob Novak,Evans-Novak Political Report, December 13,2006
OUT OF THE OVERFLOW OF THE HEART
A wise man—one who was honored by other wise men—once said that “Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.” What we say communicates to others who we are and, ultimately, what we believe. Because human beings lack the ability to look into the hearts of others and thus, cannot judge their true motives, we can only do the next best thing: examine their words as a window into their souls.
Mitt Romney, current governor of Massachusetts and likely presidential candidate has had a tough couple of weeks. It isn’t what others have said about him. Rather, his own words have caught up with him. What his words seem to indicate is someone whose positions on social issues important to conservatives either are wrong or have changed direction so many times as to render them meaningless.
Consider the December 8, 2006, New York Times article, “Romney’s Gay Rights Stance Draws Ire.” The article points out that Gov. Romney, who as a current presidential candidate has attempted to position himself as a strong defender of the traditional family, took quite a different position in his US Senate race against Ted Kennedy. Gov. Romney promised that he would be “a stronger advocate for gay rights than Senator Edward M. Kennedy” in his desire to “make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.”
Gov. Romney’s current campaign staff is quick to point out that, while he has not changed his mind, the governor has “not implemented new or special rights in this area” and is a “champion of traditional marriage.”
Words matter and his defenders cannot have it both ways. One cancels out the other. Is Gov. Romney a stronger advocate for gay rights than Ted Kennedy or is he a defender of traditional marriage? The distinction seems obvious to all sides interested in the issue, with the exception of Gov. Romney himself and his staff. What does this reveal about the heart and character of the governor in his run for the US presidency?
This is not the only important social issue on which Gov. Romney lacks clarity and consistency. In the same race against Sen. Kennedy, Gov. Romney declared that he “became committed to legalized abortion after a relative died during an abortion.” He said that, “regardless of one’s beliefs about choice that you would hope it would be safe and legal.” To counter those who might doubt his pro-abortion stance, he assured voters, “You will not see me wavering on that or be multiple choice.” Massachusetts voters were assured by his staff that “Mitt has always been consistent in his pro-choice position.”
When Gov. Romney was considering a run to be the governor of Utah, he wavered, claiming that he was now pro-life. His defenders claimed that what he said in Massachusetts was “a carefully crafted position intended to sound more firm than it was” because “he was running against Ted Kennedy in a state that was 80 percent pro-choice and to have any chance at all, he was waffling.”
Only a few years later, Romney was back in Massachusetts, running for his current position as their governor. When prodded by his pro-choice opponent in a debate, Gov. Romney said, “Let me make this very clear. I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose.” In that same election, he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, refused to take a position on human cloning, and endorsed Medicaid funding for abortions.
Fast forward to the present. Gov. Romney needs to court social conservatives to have a shot at winning the Republican nomination. His support and defense of pro-abortion laws and embryonic stem cell research has waned following what he describes as the evolution of his thinking on the issues.
Intellectual evolution is to be encouraged and applauded. Social conservatives certainly need to take seriously the possibility that Gov Romney has indeed matured in his thinking on life. But they also need to make sure that they understand the difference between intellectual maturation and political expediency.
Gov. Romney’s current supporters of his bid for the presidency want us to consider only his most recent statements on issues like gay rights, abortion, and stem cell research. They warn that when Gov. Romney’s words are used to question his social conservative principles, voters should consider the source. The problem is that the source is the governor himself.
History and words are not so easily brushed off. A political and intellectual record matters. Each new election does not mean the ability to push alt-control-delete on what was said and done in previous elections. If Mayor Guiliani, Sen. Rodham-Clinton, or Sen. Obama suddenly become advocates of the pro-life position or if Sen. Brownback, Gov. Huckabee, or Sen. McCain abruptly begin to promote a pro-choice, voters have cause to be skeptical.
We cannot judge Gov. Romney’s heart directly. We can only weigh the totality of his words and these reveal a pattern of political expediency. A candidate cannot claim to be a strong advocate for gay rights while, at the same time, attempt to shoulder the mantle of a defender of traditional marriage. Candidates cannot take ‘carefully crafted positions designed to sound more firm than they are’ and expect those with firm convictions to support them.
Words reveal heart. Republican primary voters must consider whether or not Gov. Romney has the heart of a conservative or is only attempting to portray himself as a conservative for his own political gain.
Jerry Zandstra
Actions matter more than words, but do you know what matters more than saying it and doing it? Living it.
Married to the same woman for 35 years.
Father of five.
Doesn't smoke.
Doesn't drink.
Attends church regularly.
Participates in and supports charities.
Has privately counseled women against having abortions.
That's what matters -- what a man does when no one's looking.
http://blog.4president.org/2008/2006/12/brownback_adds_.html
He's on Brownback's exploratory committee. You are ignorant. Try again.
My bad. But it doesn't change the fact that he is an agent of a Presidential campaign attacking another presidential candidate, and it should be taken with a grain of salt.
My apologies to Rev. Zandstra for aligning him with the wrong Romney opponent.
"Please. Show me a world where words matter more than actions."
ummm...look across the aisle.
Our friends on the left call it evolution of ideas or that they were lied to and didn't know all the facts they know now or they wouldn't have voted for it. They rarely ever take responsibility for their own words and actions.
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
I would hope our standards would be higher, and that our candidates would be judged on their records more than their words.
So much for your secret. I have joined the Brownback national steering committee. Just an FYI. Those who can't defend have no choice but to accuse.
In an effort of full disclosure you should probably put something in your signature about that, instead of pretending you represent an alarmed concerned citezen with no objective other than the truth- clearly not the case.
for any posting in general once involved with a candidacy. But particularly when attacking an opponent of your candidate, it should be placed there.
In the future, in the future. :)
You saw my apology above. If not, I apologize for aligning you with the wrong opponent.
"Those who can't defend have no choice but to accuse."
The defense came first. The accusation came after I noticed the author. Any response?
This quote is funny. I'm seeing a pattern here. Often, people are pulling phrases from Romney's runs in Massachusetts, where he sounds like a Democrat, and just leaving them at that.
Except, these words by themselves don't actually MEAN anything lefty. "Gay rights" is a perfectly harmless phrase by itself. Who in the Republican mainstream opposes equality for homosexuals? Noboyd, that's who.
"Gay rights" is only a problematic expression if it's taken as lefty code for redefining marriage, judge-given rights for *couples*, and things like that.
Is there any evidence that Mitt Romney isn't just saying the lefty platitudes but only meaning them literally?
I mean, I support a full and fair path to citizenship for illegal aliens in America. Does that mean I'm with President Bush on amnesty? Nope, because my path to citizneship starts with LEAVING THE COUNTRY and getting in the BACK OF THE LINE to get back in.
--
Run like Reagan!
Yes you expect people like Zandstra to understand that gay rights can mean anything else than gay marriage?
Romney has pointed this fact out countless times, but people like Zandstra are not just about protecting marriage, but probably something more sinister.
In 1994 "equal rights for gays" did not mean that you supported "gay marriage".
Doesn't anybody remember back when we used to think that gay marriage was just crazy.
Back when you would say "I support gay civil rights- but you're crazy if you think that means gay marriage"
While I am certainly willing to admitt that Romney needs to explain his switch in position on abortion, I don't think he needs to explain anything when it comes to his support of gay rights.
I think Romney truely saw his promotion of gay rights as simply meaning that gays wouldn't be discriminated against, or oppressed by the law- not that they would get to "marry" eachother
It is incredibly unfair to go back and apply today's meaning of the words "equality for gays" to words said in 1994. Romeny has been completely consistent in his opposition to gay marrigae. He has never moved on this issue. Not once.
Also, notice who's pushing this stuff- the Boston Globe? They hate Romney cause he's too conservative for them. They are purposely trying to manipulate the Republican primary, and we are letting them get away with it.
If you want to attack Romney for flipping on abortion you've got reasons. But we don't have any reason to doubt his devotion to protecting traditional marriage.
found this on NRO.
I think Romney is quite articulate, and he does understand why it is important to protect marriage. He explains this much better than I have ever heard any other elected official explain it.
Like the vast majority of Americans, I’ve opposed same-sex marriage, but I’ve also opposed unjust discrimination against anyone, for racial or religious reasons, or for sexual preference. Americans are a tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage and it is a debate about activist judges who make up the law rather than interpret the law.
I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman and I have been rock solid in my support of traditional marriage. Marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. It’s unfortunate that those who choose to defend the institution of marriage are often demonized.
"Who in the Republican mainstream opposes equality for homosexuals? Noboyd, that's who."
I'm starting to wonder if that is the case.
I am beginning to wonder myself. I oppose gay marriage, but I oppose discrimination of gays just as much.
Fundamentally, the question is whether people like Zandstra are really pro-traditional marriage or just anti-gay marriage. Personally, I do not know how Zandstra falls on this, but I have the feeling that some like him are probably homophobic and want to explicitly target homosexuals. Protecting fundamental institutions is not their concern, but instead they want to discriminate against homosexuals.
Maybe Zandstra should clarify his position on this issue? Without it, we just do not know how he feels about discriminating against homosexuals.
I posted a challenge to Gary Glenn (who has been commenting on my site), Zandstra and MassResistance to respond to questions about there stances on Homosexuals.
I gave them 3 questions, if you have anything you would add let me know. they do check my site.
Here is the posting:
http://www.mymanmitt.com/mittblog/index.php?id=175
I think your questions are up tot he task. We need to know what these people really think about homosexuals and the discrimination of them.
Because I think it asks some important questions about Mitt Romney the man and the candidate, none of which I've shirked in my support of his candidacy. I've never attempted to ask people to begin their evaluation of Romney by disregarding his past statements, nor do I think that some of his past statements deserve to be swept aside. Quite the contrary: I realize that Romney has an uphill battle ahead of him.
And that's why I am asking for people to give his candidacy a chance, and to let him explain himself, rather than preemptively torpedoing his candidacy. Instead, I encourage skeptics to "give him their worst" in terms of their doubts, listen to his responses, and then make up their minds.
As I've pointed out before, Massachusetts may be the most liberal state in the Union outside of, perhaps, Vermont. For Romney to be a successful Republican governor here, he needed as a matter of practical politics to be able to compromise with a legislature and an electorate that would have never worked with him otherwise. But I would make the humble request that at least until Romney has had the chance to fully present himself as a candidate that people suspend their judgment. And I hold open the possibility that his positions on these issues have genuinely changed, and that he will articulate that more fully in the coming months. Nobody is asking you to donate to his campaign right now, or lock in your vote.
I find it ironic that the Liberals in Massachusetts were more willing to compromise with a Republican governor than some Conservatives seem to be, before his candidacy has even gotten started.
I have been a Romney defender and continue to be for a lot of reasons, including the desire to disprove the stereotypes of the MSM-Libs-Dems and some in the GOP that Evangelicals will reject Mitt out of hand due to his Mormon faith. But I also defend him because of his record of accomplishments in business, the Olympics and in Massachusetts in a hostile environment. I also believe he is sincere in his conversion on the Life issue and, in any event, no GOP nominee that campaigns on a promise to advance the life issue would dare renege on that promise since they would lose all power doing so. I also believe that Mitt is sincere in his opposition to gay marriage. I have no problem with his being for non-discrimination generally against gays and while I disagree with some of his specifics in his prior statements, I am confident that he would not try and advance federal legislation for specific gay rights that I would oppose. Mitt also understands the economy, education and health care issues better than any save maybe Newt and Mitt is strong on the war.
Having said all that, I do find myself becoming more and more comfortable and even gung ho about Rudy, the more I learn.
I am actually beginning to conclude that the GOP field is pretty strong!
www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com
I would just like to say, after to Mitt, Rudy is my first choice. I would just want an assurance that he could nominate conservative judges.
I think we're getting there in terms of having a strong, well-differentiated and principled field of people to present to the American people. We're going to need all of them, in my view. The time for knocking them down individually is not now.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
You should be happy, or at least not chagrined. At least people are passionate, and they're not being too abusive or directly promotional, and they're typing in full sentences, not ALL CAPS, either. ;) That's a credit to RedState and the forum you and the Directors have worked so hard to build over the past 2 1/2 years.
All three contenders are able, talented men. All have records that contain problems for social conservatives. Each will try to reach out without appearing to pander. It's going to be a tough challenge, but the candidate who succeeds will have a united party behind him.
Honestly, Romney's seeming flip flops have me questioning my current support for him, and wondering about his character. However, in my mind the fact that he has been married for so long to the same woman says a lot about his character and makes me less likely to think he is just a power-hungry politican who will say anything to get elected. If he had a couple affairs and divorces in his past I would be very leery.
Also, even if he was pandering to some degree in the past, I think it is much more likely that he is conservative at heart, and I have very little fear of him going liberal once elected.
He's the son of a wildly popular 3-term Michigan governor. He could have had a political career just by breathing if he'd wanted one. And there's almost no better state for a Republican to launch a presidential bid from then Michigan. Lite-blue and surrounded by other light-blue states. Not so blue that it automatically makes Republicans distrustful of him. Instead, he moves to Massachusetts, the most ridiculously blue state on the map (quite blue even in the 70's when he moved there), and does absolutely nothing remotely political until he's 47. These aren't exactly the steps of a calculating mad genius. And whatever else Romney might be, he's clearly extraoridarily intelligent. While I'll grant that it's possible that a guy who left Standford to be with his girlfriend at BYU, has since been married to her for 40 years, and raised 5 successful sons, with nary a word anywhere along the way, until now, of anything resembling character flaws, might have a late-life character disappearance, it strikes me as extremely unlikely.
In case you missed it:
Zandtstra never responded but his cohorts from MassResistance and Gsary Glenn did. They have a great way (shall I say clinton-esque?) of evading questions.
There are several posts at www.mymanmitt.com
"Republican primary voters must consider whether or not Gov. Romney has the heart of a conservative or is only attempting to portray himself as a conservative for his own political gain."
Or, they could look at his 100% pro-life record as an elected official. They could look at him standing up for Catholic Charities when they didn't want to place adopted children with gays and lesbians. They could look at him vetoing a bill authorizing the morning-after pill. They could look at the fact that he has ALWAYS opposed gay marriage, when it would have been politically expedient to have done so.
Please. Show me a world where words matter more than actions.
What also matters is that it's no big secret that Jerry Zandstra is in the McCain camp, whether it be official or not, and the McCain camp is clearly worried about Romney's meteoric rise. Take this screed with a grain of salt, if that.