Redstate

Not to spoil your pro-McCain posturing, but could I get a source on your statement that "there are still people on the ground in New England who are hearing from his camp that despite his pro-life posturing, he's still basically pro-choice"?

Also, which issues do you mean specifically when you say that "he went out of his way to claim he was a liberal Republican-- and his actions and statements backed that up 100%"?  If this is back to the abortion issue, I don't understand how you can say this because:

1. McCain's actions are pro-life, but he also has plenty of embarrasing pro-abortion statements out there
   
   
2. Romney's actions on abortion have been on the side of pro-life...thanks to his tenure in office, MA law is more conservative than it would have been without him

Or are you saying that Romney is a liberal Republican on the other big social issue of gay marriage, even though McCain's position lines him right up with John Kerry and the other democrats?

I'm basically surprised to hear these sorts of criticisms coming from a McCain supporter.

Marriage was defined by the people in many eras of human existence to be, for example, between only whites (overturned by Loving v Virginia) or to be an institution for the subjugation of women (they only got the right to vote, for Heaven's sake, in 1920, after the initial vote in the Senate failed in 1918!), correct?

Unrevealed, top-secret sources close to Romney's camp? . . . I'm guessing that if you did hear this, it was fabricated political slander that seems to be surfacing now that Romney is looking stronger and stronger.  

Why do I think this?

Recently, one of his political advisors (Wisecup? or was it Murphy?) was "let go" partly because he said that Romney was "a pro-life Mormon who had been "faking it" as a pro-choice Mass. political candidate".  That kind of statement is obviously politically unwise . . . but I do feel that it confirms that Romney has always been personally pro-life and would welcome a political landscape (i.e. not Massachusetts) where his personal views on abortion could come out.

What's more important though . . . I HAVE MET MITT ROMNEY AND LOOKED HIM IN THE EYE WHEN HE SAY'S THAT HE'S PRO-LIFE.  I KNOW THAT HE'S "FIRMLY PRO-LIFE" LIKE HE SAYS.

I have also noticed that, and considered withholding my recommendation for that reason.  However, both of his diaries promoting Romney set forward substantial and important positions taken by Romney on issues that matter to conservatives.  While they obviously favor Romney, theyare also rather straightforward, so I decided to recommend on the grounds that regardlesss of motive the content should be considered.

issue on which Romney's record has been mushy. The epithet "liberal" might be a bit harsh, but he's not a conservative.

On a different note, I tend to think the author of this diary has joined Redstate for the explicit purpose of touting Romney. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but people should keep it in mind when they interpret diaries like these.

Romney is slick and calculating and changes positions, er, make that "evolves" his positions, as frequently and as effortlessly as Seventy Avenue changes hem lengths. His late stage M.O. has been:

1. Run for governor as a liberal Republican (and there is absoultely NO other adjective to use considering his language on the abortion issue in the 2002 campaign; I would've thought his speeches were being faxed to him by Planned Parenthood).
   
2. Begin tacking right about half-way through his first term.
   
3. Announce he's not going to face the good liberal voters of the Commonwealth again in 2006.
   
4. Begin tacking right much harder following step "3".
   
5. Use the results from step "4" as a means to begin currying favor with conservative Republicans.

I mean, politics is politics 'n all, but, this guy is a veritable weathervane. Still, I almost admire him for his sheer shamelessness.

the URL signature. Listen, I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with stumping for a particular Republican candidate on this website. It is a Republican website, after all. I just said that that fact should be taken into consideration when people read your diaries.

of the letter you linked to. Thank you, that adds important information.

Even so, I wouldn't exactly call him the "most prominent leader" on this issue. I think several other, including Bush, Dobson, Santorum, etc. have been much more visible. However, it does seem that Romney's opposition to gay marriage has been more consistent than I had previously thought.

In #1, you claim that there is NO other way but 'liberal' to describe Romney in 2002.

If that claim can be refuted, then your whole story falls apart.

I wrote these Diaries to promote Romney. If you look at comments made in other threads you will notice my signature is is the URL for the Romney website. Also the top of this diary notes its originally a post from the afore mentioned website.

But, I have commented on other items, and I hope to write a diary in the next month concerning the Republican political situation in Illinois.

Plus, it is something that is hard to attack.  How can anybody oppose letting the people speak on how marriage is to be defined?

The onus is now on them to explain why the people should be shut out of the decision-making process.

The recent flag burning amendment will show you the course to follow.  The opponents of the referendum will simply change the terms of the debate.

The FBA says that Congress will have the power to prohibit flag desecration.  It does not itself institute any pohibition or sanction.  But every Senator against it, in his/her statement on the issue painted the vote in favor as one that was "anti-freedom."  To them the choice wasn't about giving the states a chance to speak, or giving Congress back a Court-usurped power, but about stepping on freedom.

Likewise, opponents of this effort in Massachusetts will completely disregard the fact that they are not voting on a definition of marriage.  They will ignore the fact that their vote simply empowers the people to speak.  They will act as if a vote in favor of the referendum is itself a vote to prohibit gay marriage and will argue that it is "anti-equality."  They will inherently imply that the result of the referendum is predetermined (in favor of traditional marriage) and that only they, the wise legislators, can "protect" the people from making their own decisions - decisions which, in the mind of the liberal (as it will be the liberals trying to stop this) are unjust or unfair.  Because we all know that "government knows best" and that liberals are out to protect people from the evil majority of people who are bigoted and ignorant.

So, I doubt you will see any opponent explain why the people shouldn't get a say.  You will hear them justify their "no" votes on the ground that we should treat people equally, that this is an issue of fairness, that we can't take away rights that have been given to people.  They won't mention that their votes will do no such thing; that they will only give to the rightful holders of power - the people - the ability to make the decision.

It will be on the proponents of a referendum, especially Gov. Romney, to constantly remind the people that this is about giving them a voice and not about the definition of marriage.  It will be on supporters to remind the people, their fellow citizens, that those who vote "no" are scoffing at the people and declaring them unfit to make their own decisions.  I only hope they do that at every opportunity and then hold those opponents' feet to the fire when they run for re-election to represent the people they consider unfit to make a decision.

Does that mean you believe there is some soon-to-be-discovered 'right' to gay marriage in the US Constitution, despite the fact that no provision of that document was ever conceived of, or intended as, or given consent to with the idea that it protects such a 'right', and if we rubes refuse to see it, then its up to our judicial overlords to impose it upon society?  

Leverkuhn: "But it seems to me that all Romney has done is to take an unexceptional stand in favor of allowing the democratic process to run its course"

Just to be fair, this diary is only about Romney's most recent volly against gay marriage.  If this were the ONLY thing Romney had done on the issue, I would be as unimpressed as you are.

If I rattle off a few of his other vollies against gay marriage:

1. campaigned for governor saying he was against gay unions
   
   
2. after the MA court made its decision, Romney dug up an old 1913 law to prevent MA from becoming the gay marriage certificate distribution center
   
   
3. his continual support for the FMA, including his recent letter to all the senators in Congress

Though Romney is not the only one against gay marriage, he is certainly the most prominent leader on the issue over the last 4 years.  This most recent push is just one of many vollies.

One could disagree with my statement about "liberal" Republican being the "only" way to describe Romney -- and yet this would not alter the logic of the scenario I outline if one instead prefered such other descriptions for 2002's Romney as:

"Pro-choice" Republican

"Abortion rights" Republican

"Reproductive freedom" Republican

"NARAL-friendly" Republican...

...etc.  

One could substitute any of the terms above for "liberal" without my "whole story" falling apart.

It's plan what your intent was when you said he ran as a liberal.  Changing the word doesn't change that.

political posturing.

When he ran for Governor, he went out of his way to claim he was a liberal Republican-- and his actions and statements backed that up 100%.  Now, he's tacking to the right on social issues because-- surprise, surprise-- a liberal Republican cannot win a GOP presidential nomination.  And according to consultants and pundits, this is especially the case when that liberal Republican is also Mormon, and is therefore (totally wrongly, in my view, as someone with Mormon family) viewed with extreme suspicion and downright hostility by evangelical Christians, who form a significant part of the so-called conservative "base."

I also admire his guts and sheer "I don't care what people think" attitude as regards his totally transparent efforts at transforming himself into a supposed "conservative", but I don't buy it for a second.  His healthcare plan smacked of big government intervention to a ridiculous length, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy are quick to laud him for his efforts, and allegedly, there are still people on the ground in New England who are hearing from his camp that despite his pro-life posturing, he's still basically pro-choice.

I don't trust someone who changes his position on so many important issues so wildly, and with such convenient political timing.  Especially when I hear that he's happy to reassure political insiders who may have supported him a few years back because of his liberal political views, but who won't pony up the cash for a 2008 run to someone as conservative as he now claims to be, that his fundamental views haven't really changed since they last paid out or knocked on doors for him.

As I've mentioned in other posts, I also find it disconcerting that his groundswell of support seems to be predicated on him paying people to support him, rather than attracting genuine, committed grassroots supporters like other potential 2008 candidates-- supporters who are prepared to go out and advocate for their preferred candidate at events like the Southern Republican Leadership Conference without having to receive from the candidate a check to cover their expenses plus a generous gratuity for their trouble.

you got to this point:

This is why we need a man like Romney to lead this nation.

I know I'm not from Massachusetts, so maybe I have a different understanding of what constitutes political courage. But it seems to me that all Romney has done is to take an unexceptional stand in favor of allowing the democratic process to run its course.

Now, if he'd spoken out against gay marriage in a state where the homosexual lobby has considerable influence, that might be counted as courage. But even in Massachusetts I suspect a ban on gay marriage would pass if it were put to the people, and surely a politician takes no grave risk in that state simply by asking for a vote.

Liberty and equality are symbiotic, yet also are inherently at odds with each other.  For a long time Americans where able to maintain a balanced tension between the two- with the priority given to liberty.

Lately however, equality has been exhalted above liberty.  If this is not reversed, liberty will die-  and when liberty dies, equality will die too.

Come on, do we have to read every press release Romney sends out in the Recommended Diaries section...especially coming from Romney hacks out there.  

I think at this point we all know Romney is against same sex marriage.

...are chosen by our readers, not us.

The people to whom I refer are actually personal contacts of mine.  I'm not listing their names on a public site.  They are staunchly pro-choice and say that the Romney camp have privately talked down his newfound pro-life views quite a bit, to the extent that they feel comfortable that he remains a pro-choice, cuddly liberal Republican-- which would certainly be backed up by his health care plan.  

In apparent clarification of what Romney considers "pro-life", his own adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom said last year that Romney is personally opposed to abortion, and supports parental consent laws and a ban on partial birth abortion.  I know a lot of pro-choice Democrats who would be happy with that!  And re: Romney's own statements painting himself as pro-choice, pre-2006, he said things like:

- abortion should remain "safe and legal" (1994)

- "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one." (2002)

- "Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (2002)

- "I personally do not favor abortion. But as governor of Massachusetts, I will keep the laws as they exist." (July 2005) (note: is he only in favor of abortion being legal in Massachusetts?  Or if he were President, would his position as a political leader also be pro-choice, even if he was personally pro-life?  That's apparently what he/some of his people have intimated in private discussions with pro-choice, New England Republicans).

Romney also promised the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans to "provide more effective leadership" than Ted Kennedy "as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens." (1994).  And don't forget, he urged the Massachusetts legislature to legalize same-sex unions (ostensibly to stop actual gay marriage, which seems a poor argument from where I'm sitting).

As recently as summer 2005, Massachusetts Citizens for Life said of Romney on abortion "We honestly don't know where he stands on this issue."  Now, I will grant you that he has since taken some actions that make him look pro-life.  However, I question the timing.  Why is it that as soon as he's looking to run for President, 10 years of public statements on the issue are reversed?  I concede that McCain has made some statements that do seem out of step with his pro-life stance.  I'm not even going to argue that point because you are 100% correct.  But you have to admit that his public position has always been the same, so at least he doesn't give the impression of flip-flopping on this issue at the last minute to curry favor with an overwhelmingly pro-life Republican Party.

I agree that MA law is more conservative post-Romney than pre.  But in a state where people fly the UN flag instead of the US flag, this can't come as much of a surprise...

I should point out that as someone who supports legalized abortion with limitations on terminations after the first 3 months, and partial birth abortions, as well as someone who has no problem with civil unions and does not think passing a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is in the least bit important, I could be very happy with Romney's stance on social issues.  However, I don't think most conservatives accept pro-choicers who push for legalized civil unions as truly conservative.  

My main objection to Romney is over his health care plan, which smacks to me of a liberal, big government initiative if ever I saw one.

One final point--re: gay marriage, McCain's position actually lines him up with John Sununu.  Are you claiming that a guy with an 80% plus current rating from ACU is a "Democrat"?

The pro-Romney accounts and the anti-Romney accounts tend to cancel each other out, I think.

I just hope the Directors have a plan for when the election gets closer, and we start getting people paid to create accounts for and against EVERY candidate.

The people to whom I referred, who have been given private pro-choice assurances by people in the Romney camp, are  friends of mine.  Their knowledge of Mitt Romney, and his views on a wide array of matters, is not restricted to having met the guy once and having "looked into his eyes".  They are both political insiders, who have worked in New England politics/for New England politicians, and I don't mean as kids doing some low-level campaign work.

I have no reason to think that this is being fabricated.  One of these friends is still considering assisting with Romney's presidential bid (so I don't think he's interested in fabricating things to slander the guy).  The other is just a patently honest guy-- to a ridiculous length, actually.  More importantly, however, my friends received these assurances in January, as I recall (that is, in any event, when I heard of them) and I've been telling people about all of this for months-- mainly because I was excited at the prospect of having two pro-choice GOP candidates in 2008.  So your contention that people might be "slandering" Romney now because he's looking stronger and stronger is totally absurd.  No one even considered Romney to be in with a chance before he appeared at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference this year (and I note that that was in  March).