Romney in Seven Words

By Mark I Posted in | | | | | | Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

On Wednesday, after his loss in the New Hampshire primary, Gov. Mitt Romney returned to Boston to lick his wounds and conduct a telephone fundraiser before heading off to his next must win state of Michigan. ABC Radio microphones were there and they featured an audio quote from Romney in their top of the hour news broadcasts. Romney was encouraging his phone bank volunteers with a little pep talk when he unintentionally summed up his entire campaign; ironically hitting upon the reason why he has failed to gain any traction with conservatives despite spending the most money of any Republican. ABC News Radio was contacted by telephone and confirmed the following quote from their report.

Hit the phones today make all the promises you have to, and…make sure that we get the funds that we need to keep on propelling this campaign forward with power and energy.

“Make all the promises you have to.”

That’s Romney in a nutshell. Of all the Republicans running, he alone has sought to clarify, cover, and indeed change past positions in an attempt to curry favor with conservatives. In the process, Romney has developed a reputation not as a principled conservative, but as a politician who will say almost anything and take almost any position to win votes.

This was underscored by the shift in his messaging following the Iowa caucuses, which Romney also lost. All of a sudden, after fashioning himself as the candidate of traditional conservative values, Romney became the agent of change. It was a poor attempt to model himself after a liberal Democrat, Barack Obama, and the "change" message that had carried him to victory in Iowa. Romney hoped to capture New Hampshire Republicans by emulating a liberal Illinois Democrat. “Make all the promises you have to.”

Romney has pulled out of South Carolina in order to focus on Michigan. He has pulled his television ads from the state and won’t be spending any time there until after January 15th, if at all. But Romney’s South Carolina supporters have no reason to worry. There is a principled conservative campaigning in the state all this week and next.

Sen. Fred Thompson’s campaign is surging in South Carolina, helped on by his commanding performance in last night’s Republican debate. Thompson’s brand of common sense conservatism is well suited to South Carolina voters, arguably the most conservative Republicans to vote this January. Thompson knows that the way to win conservative votes is not by making promises or masking past positions. Their votes have to be earned. Thompson is doing so by issuing detailed positions rooted in conservative principles on issues South Carolinians care about; like illegal immigration, taxes, social security, and the war on terror.

Many of Romney’s supporters who are perplexed by his many positions or who feel abandoned by their candidate’s focusing on Michigan will feel right at home in Sen. Thompson’s campaign. After last night’s debate, South Carolina conservatives are taking a second look at Thompson, and many like what they see and hear. Romney’s supporters in the state should heed their candidate’s own message-of-the-week and change their allegiance to Thompson. Romney has gone home to Michigan. There is still plenty of time before the primary for South Carolina Republicans to come home to the one principled conservative candidate running.

it's clear he's referring to winning Michigan. People won't want to give $$ if they don't think he stands a chance to win there.

There's nothing wrong with making the right promises is there?

HTML Help for Red Staters

Romney's positions are all in line with the Reagan base. He gets good reviews from the Club for Growth. Conservative Senators, and the conservative National Review, have all vouched for him. He can be excused for what was basically Massachusetts politics, and he has confronted all of the flips that he's made or has been condemned as having made. You can try to get people to support Fred, but don't presume to think that you can smear Romney for more Fred support. Fred has had his opportunities to make his case from the beginning. Good Luck.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

No matter how much lip stick you put on a pig, it's still a pig. Romney is the most left wing candidate of all. The voters know this. Regardless of the purchased endorsements from the pseudo conservative organizations like NRO and shills like Sekulow, Bopp, French, and the rest that are bought and paid for.

1. Romney claims to be "pro-life" but established abortion as a "healthcare benefit" in his own government run healthcare plan (after his purported "pro-life conversion.")The same plan that was endorsed by Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton that has been an abysmal failure as all socialist healthcare plans end up being. Proof Source http://www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf Of note, Romney also placed a Planned Parenthood representative on the health care board but no pro-life representatives.

2. Romney claims to oppose "gay marriage" and "did everything he could to oppose it as governor." Yet, his record shows that he was advised to ignore the Goodridge opinion by various constitutional lawyers (including Hugh Hewitt- proof source http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/12/hugh-hewitt-told-romney-to-de...) and chose not to even though the court had no constitutional jurisdictional authority to even hear the case in the first place. When the legislature never amended or suspended the current marriage statute (Ch. 207) to accommodate "gay marriage" that should have been the end of it. But Romney had privately promised the Log Cabin GOPs not to oppose gay marriage if elected governor in 2002( proof source http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/us/politics/08romney.html?_r=3&hp=&ore... ) and so he chose to ignore the constitution he swore to uphold to fulfill the campaign promise to the Log Cabin GOPs and ordered his own Dept of Health to illegally change the marriage certificates from "husband" and "wife" to "partner A" and "partner B" and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to perform same sex marriage ceremonies or resign even though it was against the law to do so.

3. The bottom line is that Mitt Romney is the most liberal candidate in the race from either party. He accomplished what neither Hillary nor any other Democrat has been able to. Mitt gave Massachusetts a government run healthcare plan that included abortion as a “healthcare benefit.” (unprecedented) And Mitt gave Massachusetts “gay marriage” to fulfill a campaign promise in 2002 to the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans. That is the real story that the media including about 99% of the so-called "conservative media" (Hewitt, Bennett, Hannity, Sekulow, etc…) have conveniently ignored and suppressed. The real story that the media has buried is that Romney violated his sworn oath to protect and defend the oldest functioning constitution in the world (authored by John Adams) and knowingly violated it for his own political gain. And the real question that Romney and the media talkers who daily shill for him should have to answer is: Why should Americans trust that Romney would protect and defend the US Constitution when he flagrantly violated his own as governor?

To see specifically how Romney shredded the Massachusetts Constitution by instituting “gay marriage” read this “Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders.” It is devastating. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf

You should also check this out. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59509

Romney is done. Put a fork in him.

and you post a LONGGGGGG hit piece on Romney that MUST have taken you much more than five minutes to compose. Hmmmm! Ya think you have any cred at all? Guess again.

IF, and I do mean IF, you have managed to survive a month, maybe we will look at your posts with something more than cynicism.

David, whether I am a "member" 5 minutes or 5 years, you still failed to rebut the substance of my post.

Give me a break about not having enough "cred" for you to take the time to respond. The fact of the matter is that you can't rebut the substance of my post. End of story. You have no "cred" David just looking at your lame and puerile post.

Like I said, put a fork in Mitt Zombie. He's done. And so are you. Now lay off the dam Romney Kool Aid ya Romniac.

Very nice. Posting off of MassResistance pretty much labels you as a cut and paste buffoon, but you run with that. It's a bit like citing Kos.

I'm sorry, those who argue that Romney had any recourse in Goodwrench are frankly lacking in matters of Constitutional law and civil procedure.

You can't just defy court rulings on a whim. (Well, I guess you can, but that's how we ended up in the Civil War and with the Trail of Tears, as well.) And Roy Moore, of course. But you saw where that got him.

Okay, you want to make your case? First off, tell me why the Supreme Court of Massachusetts had no right to take on this case. An individual felt their rights had been violated by the Massachusetts Defense of Marriage statute and held that it was unconstitutional. Who, by the decision of Marbury v. Madision, and centuries of common law tradition (English common law, Hamiltion's Federalist papers...) had the right to determine the veracity of such a claim? The answer is the Massachusetts courts.

Second, under Marbury it is the court's role to interpret the Constitution. That's the way our legal sytem has worked for centuries. The Massachusetts Supreme Court heard the case, applied (what I consider) squirrely logic, and struck down the Massachusetts DOMA as unconstitutional, declaring that gays had the right to marry under equal protection.

Now, you claim that Romney chose "to illegally change the marriage certificates from "husband" and "wife" to "partner A" and "partner B" and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to perform same sex marriage ceremonies or resign even though it was against the law to do so."

First of all, cite me the statute that says that gays can't marry in Massachusetts and defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Oh wait, that was struck down by the Mass Supreme Court as unconstitutional, which determined gays had the right to marriage under the Mass Constitution. Okay, show me the statute that must be changed for these marriages to be performed.

Here's the link. Go to it!

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-207-toc.htm

I think you're going to be more than a bit frustrated in your search, though.

And you said that Romney illegally changed the verbage of the state's marriage certificates. Cite me the marriage statute showing the illegality of his actions, or drop your case. Again, the statutes regarding marriage certificates are to be found in section 207.

I grant you, I think the courts overstepped their boundaries and stretched the laws incoherently in this case. But what recourse does the executive branch have against such an action? Well, not much. But Romney took the charge and lead the case to bring forth a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. When the legislature refused to act on a petition brought forth by the people, Romney took them to court...and won. One vote passsed. The next failed.

You could argue that Romney should just ignore the court's interpretation of the law. You could say that the courts had no power over him. So what could happen?

1) Impeachment hearings could be brought against Romney.

2) The state of Massachusetts would be faced with a class action lawsuit and would inevitably lose and continue to lose until the legislature or executive branch acted.

There is no place for anarchy in governance. The two are anathema. What Massachusetts shows us and what Governor Romney has advocated is that our country needs a Federal Marriage Amendment. It's one thing that really miffs me about the myopic proponents of federalism in dealing with marriage: one federal court ruling sends all their constitutions and DOMA laws toppling to the ground. Constitutionally define marriage, and your problems are solved. Play the other route, and the problem is five black robes away.

And you call the Massachusetts healthcare plan a "miserable failure" when it hasn't even been in effect for how long? Do you honestly expect anyone to take that seriously? Not someone with any interest in objectivity. I say that especially given that several of the provisions of the plan are just coming into effect.

So what is "socialist" about Mass' healthcare plan (that's not already true of the pre-existing Medicare and Medicaid programs). The vast majority are insured by private companies. The hospital workers remain employees of their respecitve hospitals--not of the state. Healthcare policies are set within the healthcare industry--not by the state. I'm sorry, you tell a Canadian who moves to Massachusetts that he has socialized healthcare there, and he's going to laugh at you.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

the Goodridge decision was merely a declaratory opinion. The Mass Judicial Court never had jurisdiction to hear the court in the first place and can't "order" any of the other branches to "do" anything. Romney should have ignored the courts' unconstitutional opinion as the legilature did. But he had to fulfill his campaign promise not to oppose same sex marriage that he made in 2002 to the homosexual Log Cabin GOP.

So your whole argument breaks down I am afraid since there was no "court order."

If you are interested in learning the truth about how Romney illegally instituted "gay marriage" check this out http://www.robertpaine.blogspot.com/

~snip~ "This was underscored by the shift in his messaging following the Iowa caucuses. . .after fashioning himself as the candidate of traditional conservative values, Romney became the agent of change. It was a poor attempt to model himself after a liberal Democrat, Barack Obama, and the "change" message that had carried him to victory in Iowa." ~snip~

This is really just blatently false. Governor Romney has had the message of changing Washington since he first started running. In fact this is one of the reasons why I am supporting him. He said this in his announcement speech (Feb. 13, 2007):

"It's time for innovation and transformation in Washington. It's what our country needs. It's what our people deserve.

"I don't believe Washington can be transformed from within by lifetime politicians. There have been too many deals, too many favors, too many entanglements...and too little real world experience managing, guiding and leading.

"I don't believe Washington can be transformed by someone who has never tried doing such a thing before, in any setting, by someone who has never even run a corner store, let alone the largest enterprise in the world.

"Throughout my life, I have pursued innovation and transformation. It has taught me the vital lessons that come only from experience, from failures and from successes, from public, private and voluntary sectors, from small and large enterprises, from leading a state, from actually being in the arena, not just talking about it. Talk is easy, talk is cheap. It's the doing that's hard. And it's only in the doing that hopes and dreams can come to life...How will this new American dream be built? Our hopes and dreams will inspire us, for Americans are an optimistic people. But hope alone is just crossing fingers, when what we need is industrious hands. It is time for hope and action. It is time to do, as well as to dream!"

He also had several commercials that he ran in IOWA that talk about this theme.

Business World
Change Begins with Us

I think it's fair to say that all politicians do this. Every single one is guilty. But when in comes to governing (or voting on legislation, in a senator's case) what do their actions show? By and large we will find that everything that he has actually took action on, has been pro-right/pro-life.

Can anyone name 5 things that he's flipped-flopped on?

I can name two that he simply flipped on, that is, abortion (said he was pro, but governed anti) and gay rights. That would technically be a flip. It would be a flip flop to say that he was pro abortion, anti-abortion, and then pro abortion again.

--
Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but also as a determination to live decently.

go here.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

He was probably referring to promises relative to what would happen to the general election dollars if he didn't win the primary.
__________________________________________
First State Politics

"Of all the Republicans running, he alone has sought to clarify, cover, and indeed change past positions in an attempt to curry favor with conservatives."

To be accurate that should read, "he, along with all the other Republican candidates, has sought to clarify, cover, and indeed change past positions in an attempt to curry favor with conservatives."

Romney's main problem (and I'm not anti-Romney or close to it) is that he comes across as a phony, patrician (John Kerryesque) politician who will say whatever it takes to get elected. He's a lot more believable than Kerry, but, it comes down to being a credibility problem. I generally believe Romney when he announces his conservative positions, but the fact that he came so late to many of those positions, raises questions about whether he'll keep those positions once elected.

If Romney faces in Hillary in the GE, then he'll have problems attacking her on the grounds that she's not credible as a candidate due to her scripted, focus-group based existence.
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.

notatool.com

Finally somebody goes after Mitt's record. Thing with Huck and MCain is that they have liberal streaks but with them you know where they are coming from. Neither of them really hide it. Romney does and that scares me. The thing about Libs that upsets me the most is that they don't have core beliefs that they use polls and focus groups to make decisions.

If Huck is Clitonesque, then Romney is Kerryesque.

Just be fair all i ask. Not one mention of Romney care on Rush, Hannity, Glenn(who i love!) or Laura(who i also love) The later two hosts have been somewhat fair or at least restrained but Rush and Sean are clearly in the tank for Mitt.

[I promise to follow the rules here from now on, or else I will be booted.]

Did I miss something?


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

Whooooooo!

Documenting your sources with a link does not make you a "cut and paste buffoon" but a responsible person who backs up their statements with facts, something the name-callers cannot do. By the way I am new on Redstate and have gotten the same "cordial" treatment when I have politely posted my opinions. Welcome to the Daily Kos of the right.

There are some thoughtful and polite people on here; you are exempt from my comments.

you must be a very blissful person. Welcome to the Daily Kos of the right. If you had ever spent more than two minutes there, you would know that RS bears not resemblance whatsoever to that foul cesspool of filth and scum.

The fact that RS would like to keep this site from EVER resembling that, or any other leftist hate site, speaks well of our own community. That you don't feel YOU fit in suggests flaws in your own character, not in ours.

Please aren't there more important things to deal with than this!

What is wrong with making a promise that if elected Romney pledges to follow the Constitution, cut taxes and spending, on and on.

How is this any different from promises made by other politicians? Do you think McCain's people aren't doing this or were when they were low on funds? Give me a break.

The moderators have been warned about you. In fact I sent them email. You might not want to keep pushing it.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I actually happened to be watching a webcast on his campaign website and saw that quote uttered live. In actuality, those words were said tongue in cheek -- Romney chuckled and paused while everyone else chuckled -- and were not meant seriously.

Mark looses ALL credibility in his first paragraph of this post. He obviously isn't paying attention to reality and certainly hasn't seeen this...
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=639

Go Mitt!

A lot of Michigan voters are desperate for some hope. It's kind of disgusting the levels Romney is stooping to and this pep talk quote does seem to be summing up his Michigan campaign... false promises.

It's about the only thing that can explain his standings in the polls being as high as they are in spite nearly every pundit and expert saying he's "Full of Mitt" on the jobs promises.

The local Michigan media isn't giving him a free pass though... in the Detroit News today:

"Experts back up McCain's jobs claim: Michigan economists predict a bleak future for manufacturing, workers in the state.

Economists say there's little debate on the dust-up over Michigan's economic woes that has two leading presidential candidates arguing over one of the state's prime kitchen table issues: Are the state's manufacturing jobs ever coming back?

"The relentless trend in Michigan and the United States is that manufacturing jobs will continue to decline," said Dana Johnson, chief economist for Comerica Bank. "Nothing is going to stop that trend.""

I'd rather see a Fred surge than a Romney victory. I may be rooting for McCain, but if it isn't McCain, I'm all for Fred... I could live with Rudy... I guess. But Romney's pandering is so blatant I can't see how anyone puts up with it. No matter how many millions he puts behind it.

Mark I, you take yourself too seriously. You are obviously intelligent enough to realize that statements are best understood when placed in the proper context. I was among the 500 or so from around the nation who came to Boston to raise money for Mitt. Like many there, I have known him well for many years. It was absolutely clear that Mitt was joking. A lot of his success in building and running successful organizations is his ability to use his sense of humor (often self-deprecating). What he said was both intended and understood by those present as a comment made in jest.

Nice try, Mark I. Look to understand the context next time.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service