Redstate

Somehow once this guy starts ranting about scoutmasters, I don't see how he'll influence many people.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I think that people like Gary (and I don't know him personally) are the number one problem with the GOP today. It's not social conservatism that is the problem, it's socon hatchet men whose only gift is tearing people down that are the problem. What good comes of it? Promote the virtue of your preferred candidate, for crying out loud!

It's hilarious that the head of the American Family Association in Michigan is going after the candidate in the top tier with the best history as a family man. Never been divorced, doesn't drink or smoke or cuss, devout man of his religion. Plus, he has the best record of conservative governing as an executive of the top candidates. You would think that he would be the socon's golden boy. There's clearly something more to Gary's attack. Hmmmm, wonder what that could be?

While I think the fact that Romney is trying on this "Really, I'm a social con" lark speaks very badly of his dedication to principle and suggests a worrying willingness to say whatever opinion polls indicate he needs to in order to gain and retain support/power-- and this is one of two reasons why I cannot imagine ever voting for the guy

Seems like you can apply that to McCain as well. How many things has he gone back and forth on depending on which way the political wind seems to be blowing? The contrasts between 2000 and 2006 are striking. In 2000 he was ripping on Falwell, now they are great friends. In 1999 he didn't think Roe should be overturned... 5 months later, he thought it should be overturned. In 2000 the flag that SC flew over its capitol was none of his business. Now that position is his greatest regret and admitted act of cowardice.

I don't see how you reconcile the two different attitudes you have about the same kind of behavior. As far as I know, Romney only flipped once on abortion, which puts him ahead of McCain.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

What's wrong with appointing judges who happen to be gay if they also happen to have a jurisprudence akin to Scalia? I'm not saying that they did, but...what makes them homosexual activists judges other than their sexual preference?

I think we should all just settle on Mike Pence, be done with it, and get on with the business of slaying Hillary Clinton in the 2008 general election. :-)

GG (Mitt must have run over his dog) and Liz A Mair (the A. stands for "anyone against someone against McCain is fine by me") would do well to consider this prolife perspective by http://www.americansformitt.com/prolife_perspective.html Nathan, who is the Director of International Program and Public Policy of Heartbeat International -- the largest group of pro-life pregnancy centers in the world.

This was also picked up by some folks from thehttp://www.evangelicalsformitt evangelical which Glenn claims to have a clue about.

Mccain is inevitable, you damn conservatives need to just shutup and vote for him since after all he's the only one who can beat hillary. Stop dragging our party to the right by those crazy religous folks.

/sarcasm

Save the planet, Kill yourself

Not that the facts matter to anyone anymore, but here they are for those who care:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Family

Governor Mitt Romney and the Family

Mitt Romney's Family

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

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 is a strong supporter of 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

If anyone comes along who can do all that better than Mitt, I'll vote for him...and I'm sure he would too!

Quotes from Mitt Romney about Family

“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,” said Romney. “Voluntary programs will not get the job done. It is essential that mandatory training be put in place.” - Source: 01-21-2004 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. - Source: 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. - Taken from a 02-24-2004 Press Release
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. - Source: 03-12-2004 Press Release
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 marriagein 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 America now 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. - Taken from a 06-22-2004 Press Release
“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.” From a 05-31-2006 Press Release

2003

2004
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

People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest. Hermann Hesse (1877 - 1962)

I'm a full fledged Romney supporter.

Liz crossposted this at "GOP Progress"--AKA "McCain for President".
GGMich (Glen) actions are more than expected. His buddy, Brian Fischer (a Protestant pastor in Mormon-heavy Idaho)did the same thing before the Idaho state convention, calling into question Romney's conservative stances.

They seem to have a hatred of Romney that goes beyond policy disagreements. I'm not sure what it is. I've got a few ideas but speculation is usually not a good idea.

To see more into their organized (and not forthright and honest) attacks on Romney see http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2006/06/18/ggmichigan-romney-of-ma-a...

Liz, teaming up with these guys is definitely "selling your soul." Can't McCain beat out Romney on merits alone? Obviously, no.

Attacks from these types may solidify support for Romney. Keep them coming.

Glad everyone is now acknowledging Romney's meteoric rise of late . . . especially the opposition.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
Click on my user profile to see the "full disclaimer."

It's been a while since I have posted here. While eating dinner tonight it dawned on me, AFAMichigan is shooting himself in the foot and here is why:

Grassroots issues-oriented organizations -as opposed to candidate-oriented like mine www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com -are more effective when they seek to influence a possible candidate, not bring him down. GG is really setting AFA up for a situation that could be unfortunate for an otherwise upstanding organization. If Romney wins the election AFA will no longer be in a position to directly influence him or his staff, because Romney now knows he can govern without their support.

If GG and AFA decided instead to pressure Romney to come out in the positions they support rather than get rid of him, they would accomplish two things

1) AFA would have more candidates on their side working for AFA's goals because they would see AFA as a positive force, not the conservative mafia adversarial relationship GG has put himself in.

2) Romney would give AFA more input ability in his adminstrations policy making decisions, where as with their current tactics, AFA will be locked out of the White House and stepped over by orginizations that can work smarter and more effectively towards the same goals.

I am sure Glen will argue he is strong arming Romney. But his way only works (at least in his mind) if Romney loses. If Romney wins, AFA and Glenn are out of luck for the next 4-8 years since there orginization will be locked out.

Personally, I think Gary Glenn realizes the tactic I outlined is the most effective but I have a feeling there is something beyond influecing public policy in Glenn's quest to down Romney.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

and a media whore, right-wing version. He doesn't call many shots in Michigan (I can't recall ever hearing his name when I lived there) and if Ronald Reagan were running again, he'd probably be whining about him being too gay friendly as well. In short this is one of the few people, rather like Fred Phelps, for whom the word "homophobe" is entirely fitting.

Can you honestly say with a straight face that you take GG's anti-Romney screeds at face value?

Oh well. I do think, based on my (admittedly second-hand) knowledge of Michigan politics that Gary is a pest who can do harm to candidates in Michigan-- it's certainly the impression I have from those involved in the party hierarchy out there. Irrespective, he doesn't seem interested in backing up his claims or in proving his power here at present.

So, in the meantime, I wanted to respond to a few points that were made to me personally.

1) I am for McCain. But I would also happily vote for Giuliani, Hagel or Newt. Everyone who reads my site knows this. There's actually been a lot more pro-Rudy and pro-Hagel comment posted of late than anything pro-McCain. I do like McCain though-- and a lot. And I don't bother disguising that. But my site is not any of these things: a faux McCain Presidential site (McCain came joint THIRD in our poll asking which moderate/libertarian-leaner readers would most like to see as President, which is telling); a Rockefeller Republican site (I think we have one person who occasionally posts and takes that perspective-- some of us sigh and shake our heads when he comes online, but we're glad to have him); or a moderate site exclusively (again, we have a couple of moderates, but the most active posters and commenters tend to be libertarian-leaning... and very).

2) On Romney's flipping-- I think it is worse than McCain's, and the reason for it being so is that while McCain did make his pro-Roe comment during the 2000 campaign, he has a public record that, overall, pre-2000 and post-2000 consistently backs up that he is pro-life. Romney does not. OK, yes, the pro-choice bit was before his "conversion". I get it. But his timing is suspect, and as much as I concur that it sucks for me to agree with Gary Glenn about this, Romney becoming pro-life was timed way too conveniently.

The simple fact is, despite the pro-Roe comment, McCain hasn't had a "conversion" on abortion at all-- his line, overall, has been the same for years. Go look at all his public statements on abortion-- the 2000 campaign one is a serious oddity.

As I say, this isn't something that draws me to McCain-- I am pro-choice (although not anything like on the scale of Romney, "pre-conversion"-- I have never favored public funding, and I don't think we should allow abortions past 3 months except to save the mother's life or prevent serious harm to her health; I don't think we should allow partial birth abortion ever).

Finally, re: Jerry Falwell, McCain "flipped" on that because Falwell called him up and asked to reconcile. Perhaps all the anti-McCainers here would have preferred for him to scream some expletives down the phone and hang up? Personally, I think it's good that McCain agreed to sit down with the guy and make his peace. Call it flip-flopping if you like. I call it politeness-- something McCain is not known for, but something I think he should give a go every once and awhile (who knows, it might take a greater hold on him one of these days).

3) I agree with those who say that attacks from the likes of Gary Glenn could aid Romney. OK, I think they'll aid him among the more socially liberal of my readers (check out my page to see how that's already happening). Good, fine, I say. I still won't vote for Romney because of health care, but it will make me happy, as someone who likes the big tent and who is a pro-choice Republican, to see someone beyond Rudy (and possibly Condi) who is -- or appears to be-- pro-choice in the field. It might help put to bed all the cr*p that Dems spew about how Republicans only care about banning abortions, etc., etc. I won't vote for Romney, but with him in the field, and stronger among moderates (if not conservatives) at least we, as a country, can have a decent debate about the issues that I think matter most to conservatives, and the rest of the population when you get right down to it: fiscal discipline, the environment (on which Romney is really good-- kudos there, seriously), and, yes, though I grit my teeth while writing this, health care.

You guys are right to pin me as pro-McCain and anti-Romney, but don't just pin me as nothing but pro-McCain and anti-Romney-- there's a lot of stuff that has nada to do with McCain, and that isn't right in step with McCain ideas and policies, on my site! Come visit some time!

Liz Mair is the editor of WWW.GOPPROGRESS.COM, a RedState-style blog for libertarian, mainstream and moderate Republicans

What's Mitt done for the babies? He has legitimized their abortion speeches and as governor.

Now he wants you to believe he's pro-life, and he hasn't even apologized for all the times he gave aid and comfort to abortionists.

Why should we believe him?

I have no reason to think it's not just self-serving political ambition

Governor Sherry Kerry Healey said in 2002, "There isn't a dime of difference between Mitt Romney's position on choice and Shannon O'Brien (his opponent, who had been endorsed by NARAL)." (source: Associated Press, 10/3/2002)

'he[Mitt] became committed to legalized abortion after a relative died during an illegal abortion, and that the abortion made him see "that regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal." (source: Boston Herald, 10/26/1994)

"On a personal basis, I don't favor abortion," he said. "However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman's right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That's the same position I've had for many years."

Source: Erik Arvidson, Lowell Sun Mar 20, 2002

Boston Globe reporter Sally Jacobs: "Mr. Romney, you personally oppose abortion and as a church leader have advised women not to have an abortion. Given that, how could you in good conscience support a law that enables women to have an abortion, and even lets the government pay for it? If abortion is morally wrong, aren't you responsible for discouraging it?"

Romney: "One of the great things about our nation, Sally, is that we're each entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want, and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country; I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate.

"I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. And my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign."

-Senate campaign debate with Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Pledged to Maintain 'Pro-Choice Status Quo'

"As governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."

-Romney campaign statement.

I'm not familiar with either Bush's, or Reagans conversion, so I can't comment.

But why should we believe that Romney's conversion is legitimate, when it seems to be timed to be self-serving?

a decade ago he was pro-choice, last time he ran for office he was pro-choice, and two years ago he flip-flopped. Why should I believe him?

Considering Romney is Mormon and my own personal experience with Mormons, Mitt probably angered a lot of his family/women, by being pro-choice in the first place.

It does jive with his religious beliefs, but that doesn't explain why Mitt was pro-choice initially, despite his faith. What changed?

If Mitt ever took a pro-life position as Governor his career would be over. Romneys' flip-flop looks like it very well could be a political calculation.

So when the poll shifts the other way, does that mean Mitt's newfound belief will too?

If his conversion is legitimate, I think Mitt owes conservatives an apology for helping pro-aborts for over a decade.