Boston Globe's Deception: Romney HAS NOT FLIPPED-FLOPPED on gay-rights issues.

Following up on Mike's response to the NYTimes piece on Romney's gay rights record, I thought I'd contribute my opinion in response to a similar piece published yesterday in the Boston Globe. They initially linked to the actual statments made by Romney in the said interview, but that link is gone . . . so here it is.

Bottom line . . . Romney has always been opposed to gay marriage and civil unions and he has always been against discrimination (and therefore "unequal or lesser rights") of gays and lesbians. Those are the facts, no matter how anyone else tries to paint them. These pieces take Romney's statements wildly out of context and try to get the reader to believe that there is no room for someone to be against sexual-orientateion discrimination and in favor of preserving the traditional family unit.

BOSTON --Gov. Mitt Romney's beliefs on gay issues are under scrutiny after the re-emergence of a letter he wrote during his 1994 run for U.S. Senate in which he promised a gay Republicans group he would be a stronger advocate for gays than Sen. Edward Kennedy.

One paragraph and one lie already . . . Romney never promised to be "a stronger advocate for gays" than Teddy . . . he promised to be a more effective leader and a more respectable voice against gay-discrimination. Romney IS an effective leader and he made some good points about Romney, as a Republican, could be a more effective voice among possible Senate colleagues than Teddy on these issues.

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.

SEE, IT'S ALL ABOUT ROMNEY BEING ANTI-DISCRIMINATION . . . NOT about him wanting to grant special rights and priviledges to gays.

Romney even ended his interview:

I believe that while I would further the efforts Ted Kennedy has led, I would also lead the country in new and far more positive ways in taxing and spending, welfare reform, criminal justice and education. That's why I believe many gay and lesbian individuals will support my candidacy and do support my candidacy.

Romney wasn't trying to be more "pro-gay" than Kennedy, and he realized that it was these other issues would draw some gay voters to him.

GAY MARRIAGE ISSUE CLARIFICATION:

A follow-up piece from today's Globe continued the deception:

The Times story follows a Globe story published yesterday that reported that Romney told a Boston-area gay newspaper in 1994 that legalizing gay marriage should be left up to individual states, contrasting with his more recent position that marriage should only occur between men and women and his support of a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

What Romney actually said:

On whether he supported the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples:

“I line up with Gov. Weld on that, and it’s a state issue as you know — the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction. My understanding is that he has looked at the issue and concluded that certain benefits and privileges should be offered to gay couples. But he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position.”

On whether he’d want more studies done on the marriage issue:

“That will occur at the state level. I’ll let the governor in Massachusetts, and the governors of others states, as well, study it, evaluate it, discuss the alternatives with psychologists and social workers and health care specialist and so forth to gather information and consider it in a very reasoned way. I have confidence the governor will take the right action.”

So, Romney made a statement of fact, that states DID AND DO decide marriage laws (the laws being proposed/ratified by the executive and/or legislative branches). Nowhere did he state his opinion on whether or not it SHOULD be a state's right's issue (as the Globe falsely stated). I believe that, down deep, Romney wishes this issue could have remained just a states issue . . . however, when activist judges started deciding to make up laws (instead of interpreting them) a new course of action was needed to protect the institution of marriage and the children it produces . . . Romney has picked up the gauntlet in this cause and been a stalwart in defending marriage and fighting against activist judges.

SELLING THEIR SOULS:

I got a kick out of this last paragraph in today's follow-up article:

In a recent posting titled "The Mitt Romney deception" that touches on Romney's gay rights positions, local conservative activist Brian Camenker wrote: "Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he's pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal."

The "Mitt Romney Deception" is really entertaining--a production of MassResistance . . . a group that has long called Romney "The Father of Gay Marriage." I've blogged on that pitiful piece here. It bases most of it's content on statements/headlines from liberal media sources (Boston Globe, Bay Windows, Boston Phoenix). I just think it's SCARY when MassResistance (ultra right wingers) and the Boston Globe (out in left field) our QUOTING EACHOTHER as authoritative sources. I guess when it comes to being "anti-Romney" they've both got it down pretty good.

Latest Liberal "Hit Piece" on Romney: "The Two Faces of Mitt Romney--In the New York Observer

Want to know what the rich and liberal elite of New York will be reading shortly? The New York Observer article, in true liberal fashion, is trying to paint Romney as just another hypocritical northeastern Republican (see this interesting and brief Wikipedia entry on the NYO)

I see this as a good sign. That the liberals and Democrats are already trying to smear Romney this early shows that they see him as a real threat. They should be worried.

Essentially, this piece brings up the same old issues and Romney's apparent "flip-flops" on abortion and gay-rights and brings up a less-discussed "Romney reversal" on the environment--RGGI.

From Romney's Wikipedia entry

Romney supports regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through voluntary measures[69] He issued a 72-point Climate Protection Plan. His staffers spent more than $500,000 negotiating the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI--pronounced "Reggie"), which Romney praised in November 2005, saying "I'm convinced it is good business."[53][54] As plan details were being worked out, Romney pushed for a cap on fees charged to businesses who exceed emission limits citing concerns of increased consumer energy costs. He stated: "New England has the highest energy rates in the country, and RGGI would cost us more." This ongoing disagreement eventually led Romney and Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri to pull out of the RGGI in December of 2005. [55]

The article's treatment of the gay-rights issues really bugs me. They take his '94 quote that he's for "equality for gay and lesbian citizens" and extrapolate that to mean "gay and lesbian couples". Romney's always been against gay marriage and civil unions, but he's always been for equality for all citizens (hey, aren't "all men created equal"?) I see ZERO hypocrisy or "flip-flop" on this one and it bugs me when people make this misleading accusation.

Romney win's Krusty Konservative's Online Poll (Again). New Poll up.

Romney won Krusty's Kaucus Poll again with over 2000 votes. Romney won the inaugural Kaucus Poll back in July as well. The new Kaucus Poll can be found here--go vote for Mitt!!!

Also, Romney still leads "The Cooler Line" over at Caucus Cooler (though McCain's recent staffing additions here in Iowa have moved him closer).

Don't forget to be ready to support our favorite candidate in the all-important Iowa Caucus. Keep Aug 11th, 2007 on your calendars to help Romney win the Ames Straw Poll (McCain staffers are already anonymously posting on all the Iowa Political blogs that if Romney doesn't "Win Big" @ Ames that it will be a big disappointment and a sign of his weakness---funny that they're "spinning" their loss this early!!).

Will Team Frist Hop on Romney Express?

Over at Human Events Online's Right Angle blog, Jon Gizzi's posted the latest "inside dish" about much of now-out-of-the-running Bill Frist's team to be migrating over to Romney.

No sooner had the word gone out yesterday that outgoing Sen. Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) would not seek the Republican nomination for president in ’08 than sources close to the physician-politician were telling me: “Watch where Team Frist goes.” And immediately after saying that, a source close to Frist said: “They’ll go to Romney.”

By “Team Frist,” people close to the senator usually mean Linus Catignani, who headed up Frist’s personal political action committee and is a partner in the Cat-Bond fund-raising company (along with Linda Bond, wife of Missouri Sen. Kit Bond), and Alex Vogel, past chief counsel to Frist and to the National Republican Senatorial Committee when the Tennessee senator was its chairman. In addition, Washington “superlobbyist” Jack Oliver -- former deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee and longtime finance director for George W. Bush’s presidential campaign -- had been considered a likely player in a Frist-for-President campaign. With Frist out of the ’08 sweepstakes, the Missourian President Bush dubbed “Ollie” is expected to throw his considerable fund-raising weight behind Romney.

Can Frist himself be far behind the “Romney Express” if his top campaign team is poised to hop on? According to the same source that tipped us on “Team Frist,””The Leader [what intimates call Frist] will back Mitt Romney, in part because he can’t stand John McCain.”

I find it pretty natural that Frist's team/backers would flow to Romney anyways. Frist's family runs the largest for-profit Hospital chain in the nation (HCA) which is the definition of "big business"--and a lot of Frist's supporters/backers are tied with that company/industry. Romney is obviously the "candidate of choice" of business-owners. He's a capitalist through and through.

Team Romney is looking GOOOOOOOOOD already, but could still grow by leaps and bounds!

"Mormon political clout grows"--USA Today

Interesting article in the USA today titled "Mormon political clout grows" and focuses on Harry Reid more than Mitt Romney . . . but thought readers here would be interested.

WASHINGTON — When Sen. Harry Reid becomes Senate majority leader next year, he will be the most powerful Mormon in Washington.

But that reign could be short-lived if Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney makes a bid for the presidency in 2008 and wins. Romney is considering a run in what is expected to be a wide-open field.

Reid is a Democrat from Nevada and Romney is a Republican. Though they have chosen different political stripes, they are bonded in a faith whose leaders encourage members to become active in public life.

Mormons are heeding the call. Typically conservative, they are more politically active than average Americans, according to a recent study. And the 15 Mormons in Congress is a slightly greater representation than the religious group's percentage of the general population.

Another interesting snippit:

Quin Monson, a political science professor at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, says Romney's faith would likely matter to only a minority of voters.

"If a Mormon can be elected as governor of Massachusetts and a Mormon can be Senate majority leader, certainly a Mormon can be president," he said.

A religious minority, Mormons represent less than 2% of the American population with 5.5 million members across the country. The church, which claims a total of 12 million members, is one of the fastest growing faiths in the world.

Roughly 80% of Americans consider themselves Christians, with Protestants making up about half of that group. About a quarter are Catholic.

Like Mormons, Jews and Episcopalians are also overrepresented in Congress. For example, Episcopalians make up less than 1% of the American population but 8% of Congress.

"Romney to Travel to Asia"---Romney's Not "Weak" on Foreign Policy

Romney's heading to Asia after his stint in Miami for the RGA conference.

Japan, Korea, and China are on the itinerary. Looks like a good mix of political, economic, and education-related events.

Part of the article is quoted below:

``This is an opportunity for Governor Romney to learn more about an important region of the world,'' said Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney. Fehrnstrom added that the governor, who will meet with Asia-based representatives of Massachusetts companies, was also hoping his trip will promote ``cultural, educational, and commercial exchanges'' with the state.

The trip is being paid for by Romney, not the commonwealth, Fehrnstrom said. Traveling with Romney will be Bob White, a close friend of the governor's from Bain Capital who's been instrumental in raising money for Romney's political career, and Mitchell B. Reiss, a former director of policy planning for the US State Department who is now a vice provost at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Va.

On Sunday, Romney will leave from Miami, where he has been leading the annual conference of the Republican Governors Association this week, and fly to Tokyo, where he will meet with government officials, a top Japanese journalist, the US ambassador, and members of the American Chamber of Commerce.

Then on Wednesday, Romney flies to Seoul and heads straight to the demilitarized zone upon his arrival. Romney will meet with soldiers from Massachusetts serving in the region, Fehrnstrom said. The governor will also meet with the US ambassador, South Korean officials, and representatives from American businesses.

Romney is scheduled to arrive in Beijing on Thursday night, and will spend Friday and part of Saturday meeting with students at a top university, meeting with business representatives, and sight-seeing. He arrives back in the United States later on Saturday, Fehrnstrom said, and plans to be back in Massachusetts the following Monday.

Of course, skeptics and detractors will see this only as a "feeble attempt" to bolster Romney's foreign policy resume (as the Globe writer managed to "fit in there" TWICE in his first three paragraphs).

Personally, I've never bought the argument that Romney is "weak on foreign policy" or even relatively unexperienced. First off, who among his competetion (on either side) has made any executive decisions in international affairs? Giuliani, as a MAYOR, I guess has made some. However, Romney's senatorial competition on both sides of the aisle only get to hear about a lot (breifings)--but they don't make any executive decisions. Some of my arguments on the Romney/foreign policy issue (from over 5 months ago) are detailed here.

Also, in a previous post I also surmised that this would be one of the major criticisms of Romney as things ramp up.

Fit #4: His Foreign Policy qualifications "Stop at the water's edge"
I think Romney will work through this better than some realize. He's showed he can be strong with the Khatami affair last month (denying state protection or VIP teatment.) More importantly, he has considerable experience "beyond the water's edge" prior to becoming governor. He lived outside of the USA for 2.5 straight years. He was CEO of a multi-billion dollar INTERNATIONAL company. Also, his experience running the Salt Lake Olympics in the post- 9/11 world was truly an international acheivment.

"The Mormon Issue" getting plenty of "pub"

"The Mormon Issue" seems to be the Romney topic de jour for the past few days. Time coverage here.

The Dallas Morning News published an abreviated version of Molly Worthen's New Republic essay (subscription required for entire essay).

Also, Slate has a piece that has this quippy but controversial paragraphy:

The best intellectual argument Romney could use isn't available to him, which is that all religions have their odd traditions and beliefs that look highly quirky under close examination. Romney could use my Catholic Church as an example, but in doing so, he'd risk alienating another key constituency. Imagine what fun he could have had with the Charismatics, some of whom speak in tongues or drink snake venom.

Hugh Hewitt's Advice to Evangelical Leaders and Theologians RE: Romney

Very interesting read here from the Associated Baptist Press. Hugh Hewitt gives us a preview that his book will be arguing that Evangelicals would be VERY unwise to oppose Romney on religious grouds as they would be shooting themselves in the foot (feet?)

After discussing the importance of blogging and the blogosphere for political influence/opinion driving the coverage turns to Romney:

Hewitt is currently writing a book about Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day-Saints and prominent potential contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Hewitt said he believes evangelicals have the potential to help or hurt themselves in how they react to the possibility of a Mormon in the White House.

As a result of Romney's potential, Hewitt noted, journalists will inevitably begin asking evangelical professors and pastors for their take on a potential Mormon in the White House.

He cautioned against disparaging or inappropriate comments about Romney's faith. Every theological or philosophical argument evangelicals use against a Mormon candidate or Mormon theology will eventually be used against evangelicals, he said.

"Many in this room in the next year to year-and-a-half will be asked by students and the media, 'What do you think about Mitt Romney?'" he said, adding that once "secular absolutists" get them to talk about theology, they open themselves to attack. "If we begin to ask Mitt Romney about which [Morman] practices and doctrines he subscribes to, it cannot be capped. It will not be stopped."

According to Hewitt, most people have three main objections to Romney's presence, should he win the election: that Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City will control the White House, that a Mormon president will energize Mormon missionaries around the globe, and that it's "irrational" to be a Mormon.

All three concerns, Hewitt said, are unfounded. And if people see evangelicals bashing Mormons for their unique beliefs, the thinking goes, secular leaders will turn their own argument against evangelicals seeking the presidency.

"They do not want us in politics and in the public square because they believe us widely to be irrational," he said. "It would be tragic to me that in the course of rushing off to do battle with Mormon theology, you attract our common opponent," the secular absolutists.

Liberals hate Romney and like McCain . . . Sounds OK to me!

The most annoying member of "The McLaughlin Group"--Eleanor Clift (a devoted and utterly predictable liberal), of Newsweek recently wrote a bash piece on Romney seen here. It's a piece bashing Romney's so-called "gay-bashing". She starts out by showing her communist stripes:

There ought to be a prohibition against opportunistic politicians messing around in state laws to further their presidential ambitions. With his days as governor of Massachusetts nearing an end, Mitt Romney is trying to reopen the issue of same-sex marriage in the only state where it is legal.

Romney's "trying to reopen the issue"???? What about the 170,000 Mass petition signers who are wanting the Legislature to get the issue on the ballot? Romney is speaking for them and supporting their "minority rights" because their elected legislators are ignoring the MA constitution and their oaths of office . . . No, Romney is being a leader when other so-called leaders are hiding under their desks.

She manages to turn her piece into a near "love-fest" with McCain. I'm convinced the liberal "mainstream" media will continue to push for McCain to be the GOP nominee since they realize he's not too far from them on most issue and wouldn't be "too bad" if they happen to lose the POTUS race in 2008.

Mark Your Calendars! Ames Straw Poll Set for Aug 11th, 2007

Link here from the Des Moines Register.

The Iowa Republican Party has selected Aug. 11, 2007, as the date for the Ames straw poll - a signature event for GOP presidential candidates running in the state's leadoff nominating caucuses.

. . . The straw poll is a nationally publicized event, noteworthy as the first measure of candidate strength in Iowa.

In August 1999, a record 25,000 Republicans turned out for the straw poll, which was won by George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas.

What the article doesn't say is that after the results of Bush's win in the 1999 straw poll 5 of his competitors dropped out of the race completely and 4 of them ended up endorsing Bush. I've heard many GOP activists here in Iowa stress that this is the day when presidential hopes are made or dashed. I forsee a strong showing for Romney!

Let every potential Romney supporter know that then need to mark their calendars and PLAN TO BE IN AMES, IOWA ON AUGUST 11th, 2007 TO HELP ROMNEY WIN THE STRAW POLL!

Here is the announcement from the Iowa GOP website (RPI).

McCain Will Not Bypass Iowa This Time . . . Fortunately, Iowans Have Long Memories

From Real Clear Politics (In the middle of the piece)

Sen. John McCain's political advisers say it is now certain that he will enter presidential caucuses in Iowa, the state he bypassed in 2000 on his way to nearly taking the Republican nomination from George W. Bush.

The sign that McCain is aiming for Iowa came when his political action committee hired Terry Nelson, political director for Bush's 2004 campaign. An Iowan, Nelson knows the state well. That points to an early showdown in Iowa between McCain and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has built a grass-roots organization there.

This McCain-Romney face-off may not be definitive. Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1988 each won the nomination after losing Iowa.

Good analysis of this by Thomas at Elect Romney in 2008

The political handicappers here in Iowa like Romney's chances to win the caucus better than McCain's (or anyone else's at this point for that matter). See the active Cooler Line at Caucus Cooler and The Krusty Konservative's "Six Pack" (from back in July).

I don't see McCain "catching on" here in Iowa. He's only suceeded in states with open primaries where cross-over Dems and Independants helped him out (Michigan and New Hampshire in 2000). Iowa's caucus system is heavily slanted to get the party base's choice to win . . . and I can tell you for sure that McCain is no favorite of the GOP base here in Iowa.

Washington Blogger Declares Support for Romney

A Washington state blogger, Eric Earling, has declared for Romney and details his reasons why in part 1 and part 2.

Great that yet another political activist has seen the merits of Mitt!

Newest: "Would you vote for a Mormon?" poll

Pollsters at "Rasmussen Reports" have just released the latest in the string of many "would you ever vote for a Mormon?" polls. This one puts the figure at 43% and the report plays up the apparent story with the headline "Election 2008: 43% Would Never Vote for Mormon Candidate".

Well, that number is just a tad higher than the 37% figure that was reported by the LA Times/Bloomberg poll a few months back. I blogged about that one here. In a nutshell, these figures in NO WAY translate into the picture (AKA "implied headline") that some people are trying to paint . . . that "43% Would Never Vote for Romney".

Why? Well, first off, this poll was of all likely voters (R's, D's, and I's). . . obviously liberals and those aware of and uncomfortable with the fact that nearly all Mormon's are strong social conservatives would never vote for one.

Also, some great signs for Romney are hidden in this poll:

Among the 41% with no opinion of Romney, just 27% say they would consider voting for a Mormon.

That shows that Romney has lots of room for improved name recognition. But even more to the point of this whole Mormon issue is that only about one quarter of the likely voters surveyed who don't know Romney would vote for a Mormon. That confirms the theory that people are just more uncomfortable with a "different" religion--espeicially when they cannot put a name/face with it.

How do I come to that? Well, since 38% of all respondants said they'd consider voting for a Mormon, if we subtract out the 41% who had no opinion of Romney (along with their 27% "consider voting for a Momron" figure)---that leaves us with 59% of folks who DO have an opinion of Romney (be it good or bad). My quick calculation of these figures shows that nearly 47% of people with ANY opinion of Romney would consider voting for a Mormon. Counting out those with unfavorable views of Romney (many/most of which will be liberals/Democrats who will not vote in the GOP primary) and the figure gets up to nearly 100%.

The article then helps confirm what I've been saying all along: That these polls about Mormonism are not directly translatable to Romney himself.

It is possible, of course, that these perceptions might change as Romney becomes better known and his faith is considered in the context of his campaign. Currently, just 19% of Likely Voters are able to identify Romney as the Mormon candidate from a list of six potential Presidential candidates.

This shows that Romney may have a pretty "open slate" to work with and I'm convinced he'll shine through and dispel any qualms about his religious affiliation.

However, should this following part be worrisome?

Half (53%) of all Evangelical Christians say that they would not consider voting for a Mormon candidate.

Again, I just think that this unmasks a lack of information/education of Mormonism by Evangelicals in general, and how that relates to Romney in specific.

On the brighter side, at least the American populus is more intolerant of some other religions than Mormonism . . .

The response to a theoretical Mormon candidate is far less negative than the response to a Muslim candidate or an atheist. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Likely Voters say they would never consider voting for a Muslim Presidential candidate. Sixty percent (60%) say the same about an atheist.

Romney Video on "The Big Show"--John Gibson

This video is a nice 5 minute conversation of Romney talking with John Gibson on Fox News' "The Big Show". He hits many of his talking points well and mentions that Condi Rice should be considered as a contender for the '08 POTUS race as well.

Job Search Semi-Hiatus

I apologize for neglecting this blog for the past while. I know that excuses only go so far, but it has been a VERY busy time for me with the Oral Boards, the elections, a professional meeting last week, and a recently sort-of-frantic job search (on top of my day-job).

The job search situation is a long story, but I have expanded the search and have been busy talking with potential future partners/practices. It's an exciting time and crucial decisions will be made over the next couple of months.

I will continue to try to post here as time allows . . .

Thanks to all of you who have inquired to make sure everything is OK. Everything is going well and Romney's Rise will continue to strengthen. He's positioned perfectly to take the GOP nomination and the presidency. The exciting times will continue!