« RONing In Memphis, Part II | Main | The Atlantic's Boldest, 4/4 »

McCain Veepstakes: Anti-Romney Movement Starts

04 Apr 2008 10:05 am

Influential conservative Republicans, some of them allies of ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee, have launched an online and print advertising campaign to convince John McCain to choose someone other than Mitt Romney for president.

The group has launched an iPetition -- http://www.nomittvp.com/ -- that calls on McCain to "reject any consideration of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as a Vice Presidential running mate."

It continues: "We further urge you to only consider for Vice President an individual with a strong and consistent record of support for both the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, and the amendment of the U.S. Constitution to establish marriage as only between one man and one woman."

McCain opposes such an amendment.

The sponsors of the petition include Paul Weyrich, who endorsed Romney's campaign earlier this year, Janet Folger, president of Faith2Action, Karen Testerman, an influential social policy activist in New Hampshire, Stephen Strang, a prominent conservative who was an early supporter of Mike Huckabee's, and Matt Barber, the policy director of Concerned Women for America.

The group is paying for full-page ads that will appear in newspapers in the cities where McCain is introducing his biography. (See here.)

The ads are designed to counter the popular notion that by picking Romney, McCain would mollify social conservatives.

Romney, the ad says, "would fatally harm your appeal to voters with deep constitutionalist and
social conservative commitments." The ads allege that he lied and flip-flopped about his social conservative instincts, that he sanctioned taxpayer funded abortions, and that he fulfilled a "back door" promise to the Log Cabin Republicans [editor's note: kind of immature, right?] in refusing to order justices of the peace in Massachusetts to not marry gay couples.

Read the full letter after the jump.

We are conservatives who believe strongly in the sanctity of human life and of marriage and we recognize that the issues at stake in this upcoming election are serious and profound. Indeed, we believe the very future of America’s security, against threats both foreign and domestic, will be determined by whom America elects as President in November. Because we have invested our lives in securing a prosperous America that honors life and liberty, we must state our grave concerns regarding your pending choice of a running mate. Securing and uniting the GOP Base It is widely understood that to be successful in November you must unite all elements of the Reagan coalition. Hence, your choice of a running mate must reassure the Party’s base that their voice and values will be respected, then ignite and excite the grassroots to work hard for your election in November. FOR US THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: The unvarnished facts of Mitt Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts make him utterly unacceptable as a Vice Presidential choice. Governor Romney got no traction during the primaries simply because his recent “conversion” to conservative and pro-life principles is not credible. To be clear, we all welcome anyone who has come around to the cause of life and family. However, Romney's actions as governor flatly contradict both the values widely associated with his faith as well as his pro-life and pro-traditional marriage campaign rhetoric. As late as December (before carefully selected audiences) he stated anti-life and anti-family positions inconsistent with his previous statements. His actions as governor betray well-timed conversions as mere political opportunism, and are offensive to those who demand “straight talk” from their leaders. Mitt Romney created $50 taxpayer-funded abortions The proof is clear. He claimed to be pro-life, but by establishing taxpayer-funded abortion on demand as a “healthcare benefit” Romney achieved what no pro-abortion Massachusetts Democrat ever had! He unconstitutionally established a permanent government role on the state-run health care board for an unelected representative of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. This was after his pro-life conversion. Is it any wonder we question his political integrity? Mitt Romney illegally ordered same-sex “marriage” Governor Romney also claimed loudly to support traditional marriage. But he went far beyond the notorious Goodridge court opinion that, in brazen defiance of a state constitution which blocks judges from even hearing challenges to marriage law and policy, urged the Legislature to legalize homosexual “marriage.” The Legislature never did…but Romney didn’t wait. Fulfilling a backdoor campaign promise to the pro-homosexual Log Cabin Republicans, he illegally ordered justices of the peace to perform same-sex “marriages” in direct violation of the Massachusetts Constitution and the Legislature’s constitutionally binding statute. Is it any wonder we question his political character? [see www.undergroundjournal.net/igroops/theunderground/adminpages/Letter- To-Romney-JAN-07] Mitt Romney is unfit to be a ‘heartbeat away’ This goes directly to the heart of our concerns over Romney’s fitness to be a ‘heartbeat away from the presidency.’ When a chief executive can violate multiple articles of the oldest functioning constitution in the world and disobey statutes he solemnly swore to defend and execute faithfully, then blame judges who never even asked him to intervene, he mocks the principle of limited government and the separation of powers. He robs Americans of their unalienable right to self-government, for which so many soldiers, sailors and airmen have died. These are just two issues (there are more) that absolutely disqualify Mitt Romney as a viable Vice Presidential option. He would fatally harm your appeal to voters with deep constitutionalist and social conservative commitments. The Base CAN help you win If Governor Romney is on your ticket, many social conservative voters will consider their values repudiated by the Republican Party and either stay away from the polls this November or only vote down the ticket. For the sake of your election, the health of your party, and the future of America you must not allow the obvious electoral consequences of that to occur. The Base WILL stand on principle As citizens, activists, and leaders with our feet on the solid ground of real world Republican and Independent voters, it is our duty to alert you that the grassroots is nearing a point of breaking with Republican Party leadership on many issues, not the least of which is the relentless whitewashing of Mitt Romney as a so-called "conservative." On this we cannot be silent. Senator McCain, despite the proclamations of your surrogates we hope you will act to earn the support of the conservative grassroots in November, unite the Republican Party, and lead it to victory. However, Willard Mitt Romney is a deal breaker.

Comments (122)


All it means if Romney is VP is the Office of the VP will be run like it is by Dick Cheney.

The only change is in order to get a job in the administration, you are going to have to be mormon.

No big deal at all.

Romney for VP all the way. If Huckabuck is chosen as VP republicans can kiss the west goodbye! Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and possibly Utah all go democrat in November. I know, I know you are thinking Utah goes to democrats in the election. Here is my reasoning; back in the late 90's Huckabee addressed Southern Baptists at a anti-mormon rally in Utah. Southern Baptists are probably the worst when it comes to Mormon hating.

Sarah Palin fixes all of these problems for McCain.

Boy, Huckabaee and his religious bigot supporters just can't let their hatred for Romney, because of his religion, go. Romney would by far be the best VP selection McCain could make because of his intelligence, poise and dignity. Romney has shown class from day one of his presidential bid while we have only seen backhanded tactics from Huckabee and his crowd. I think us Romney supporters need to be just has vocal in our praise of Romney to override these silly newspaper ads. Huckabee continues to show his true colors and they are pretty.
McCain/Romney in 2008!

Oops! I mean they are NOT pretty.

I feel somewhat comforted....maybe the Dems can pull back together after Clinton runs out of money, and the Republicans will be coming apart at the seams as the conservative wing flees.

The anti-Mormon wing of the party is very unattractive. (I think Romney is willing to adopt whatever position polls well for this month's contest--I thought McCain's disdain for him was clearly due to this and not religion. But most of Romney's die-hard opposition within the party didn't seem to come from this faction, but from the reilgious conservatives.)

Just noticed the ipetition. Has anything ever been accomplished by one of these? "I care enough to point and click" has never scared any sitting public official, as near as I can tell. With good reason.

The comments on Romney's social conservative record in MASS are twisted and wrong. In fact there are deliberate MISTRUTHS (lies) in the ad. This is an anti-mormon effort. If Romney is VP, they fear that it will further legitimize mormonism which competes for churchgoers. If they are convinced that a VP Romney would pick all mormons, they should rest easy. Mormons are at least as socially conservative as the evangelicals. It's not about about abortion or gay rights, it's about mormonism vs borg-again christianity.

The Religious Bigots are at it again. They misrepresent Mitt Romney's record. Mitt Romney was never pro abortion. He did not put the abortion component in the Health Care program. That was the Judges. He is not anti-family. Look at his family and how supportive they are. People can't find any skeletons in his closet so they make things up.

What happenned to the ECONOMY. Doesn't anybody care about that topic. Mitt Romney understands the economy. He knows how to get things done. We are facing a financial disaster in the US. Religious liberty depends on a strong America.

I would strongly urge McCain to ignore the efforts of this group and select Romney as his VP.

This nation is on the brink of financial collapse in my opinion. We have created for ourselves the perfect storm and we absolutely must get our financial house in order for America to remain a super-power.

While I am socially conservative, I am also wise enough to know the seriousness of the situation that we face and to realize that Romney is an extremely intelligent guy with a penchant for finances who, as VP, may represent our best hope for returning the Nation to financial solvency. We would be foolish to select an inept VP who meets all the social tests but doesn't have the intellect to help the President solve the grave problems facing our Nation.

The efforts to dissuade McCain from selecting Romney are very short-sighted and I would hope McCain has the good sense to see the utter foolishness of this group’s position.

Huckabye has been spending of sleepless nights thinking on how to topple Romney down...He thinks he's an angel and that McCain should choose him...Claiming to be social conservative but full of hate against the Mormons does not speak of a true Christian. He is so heart-broken that this is the only way he can bring Romney down by going this far, yet it does not affect the minds and hearts of the voters. Huck needs to have a change in heart instead and just come to acceptance. He is consumed of too much hate. Is this the way how a Baptist Minister should behave? Is this a good example for his congregation? It seems to me, he was so embarrassed that he kept campaigning to win but did not achieve anything, yet Romney who quit early to unite the party got the privilege by McCain to be the upcoming VP...cry, cry, cry....Huck is making a fool of himself...he's in a complete denial.

This is a genuine, non-snarky question: What makes Romney a great choice on the economy? He's good at making money with his consulting group, but I don't think that translates to the national economy--look at what he did to win Michigan, with spending promises at a level to make a Democrat blush.

I live in MA (and voted for Romney, or at least against that year's Democrat) and didn't notice any genius in managing the state's economy or the state budget. Fiscal conservatives who pay any attention to reality are going with Democrats in the White House--I may dislike 3 dozen things about Bill Clinton, but he was far better at balancing spending and taxes than the Republicans before or after him.

The more I think about this the more annoyed I am with Huckabee. The game is over. Even though he stayed in the primary weeks longer, he still couldn't best Romney. Huck can't stop his dishonest, negative personal attacks even when he's off the ballot. This is no way to campaign for the VP slot. Anti-mormonism IS NOT a worthy political goal. Huckabee and his following are all bigoted gomers. Meet the mormons on the field of faith and keep it out of this political race. Huckabee is not even close to being a potential VP. His gee-shucks idiocy won't help McCain win anywhere but Podunck, in Backwater County. If in the VP slot, with any serious assignments, his rampant big-government fiscal liberalism will further rip away at our faltering economy.

If McNeocon picks Romney, I might actually come home to the Republicans! Finally, a smart guy who's not a neocon ideologue without spitting distance of the White House! Yesssssssssssssssssssssss!

you guys dont know what your talking about. Huckabee would bring this country together unlike we've evar seen before. He's just like us, and know's the normal working man. we don't need some fancy pants mormon to tell us how to live our lives. he went to college, how do we know he's not just some crazy liberal in disguse. I mean, he was the govenor of Massachuets. You can't get any more liberal than that. Next thing you know it he'll want to be teaching Evolution in all the schools and forcing abortions on young girls. Once he's been the VP he can finally take the White House that he desrves and we can start our crusade against all the evil in the world

Oh, the bigot Hucabee and his Kellerman, Ankerburg crowd just can't give it up for anything good coming a Mormon's way. These bigots are exposing themselves for who they really are, something people out West have known for decades.

Hucabee had no problem meeting At Marriott Hotels (Mormons) dancing to Randy Bachman's "Taking care of Business" (another Mormon) and looking into the Television Camera, invented by yet another Mormon, Philo T Farnsworth.

This is why even Michael Medved, The Hucksters staunchest supporter, said that Hucabbee is not on anybody's list for V.P because the Republicans would never, ever, carry the West, with him on a National ticket.

You know, thankfully, most Americans are long past treating Mormons as the boogey men. Mormons serve with honor in Governmnet, Business, the Military, Communities and in every walk of life. Even Wal-Mart recruits BYU grads to it's Arkansas headquarters. For these clowns to paint Mitt Romney this way is just flat out dishonest.

This should surprise nobody, as The Huckster demonstrated, he is the craftiest liar this country has seen since another Arkansan, Bill Clinton. It must be in the water down there. Mitt did not authorize the $50 dollar co-pay for abortions. The courts did. He did not order the JoP's to do anything because it was unconstitutional. These are flat out lies!

Remember, Mitt won over Evangelicals in most States and even in the deep South it was split 1/3 for Mccain, Romney, and Huckster. Without McCain in the race, Romney carries even the South. While Mitt was in play in the South, Hucabee was never in play in 9 Western states.
Without even one of these faithful Western States, no Republican can ever win the White House.

Also remember, you paranoid freaks, that Ronald Reagan's cabinet was filled with Mormons, his Lt. Gov. in California, Gen. Schocroft, T.H Bell, Worthlin, his chief pollster, was a Mormon and the Architect to Reagan's winning election in 1980 was designed by yet, another Mormon.

Facts are stubborn things to Bigots, and these remnants of the KKK South thankfully have no clout anymore in Modern America.

But then again Donny and Marie are very frightful now, aren't they?

ajarizona

Marc, Romney isn't being criticized for "refusing to order justices of the peace in Massachusetts to not marry gay couples."

Did you write a sentence constructed with double negatives to be intentionally confusing?

The criticism is not about what Romney "didn't do."

It's about what he did do: he did issue an executive order ORDERING justices of the peace TO perform so-called homosexual "marriage" ceremonies, or resign.

No court ordered him to do so. No legislature authorized him to do so. He himself issued the executive order which made so-called homosexual "marriage" actually happen in Massachusetts. That's a matter of recorded fact.

Sounds like the same old twisting of Romney's record. This "influencial conservative group" can take out all the ads they want, but in the end it smacks of a questionable agenda.

I know it is convenient to believe that conservatives oppose him because they are "anti-Mormon bigots," but I can assure you that his faith has NOTHING to do why many conservatives, including myself why I would vote in Ronald Reagan if Romney is the VP nominee.

If you cannot see that he has zero intellectual underpinnings in the conservative movement, then I cannot help you understand that. I believe the GOP is on shaky ground as it is, and if we have a McCain/Romney ticket, then we deserve to lose.

Drek.

The Hickabees need to grow up and put their Jesus belongs-to-us-and-us-alone weapons away. Their nonsensical bias blocked Romney from the nomination, permitting the elevation of someone even further from their beliefs, John McCain, into the nomination. Now they're trying to thwart Romney from the VP, out of spite that McCain would easily pick Mitt over Huckabee, so that it's ensured that McCain won't win the Presidency, ensuring that the next President is even a step further from their beliefs than is John McCain.

It's a shame such stupid fools influence our party like this.

For all those who are simply unable to resist resorting to the religion card in response to any and all criticism of Romney's actions on public policy matters, please note the "No Mitt" ad's only reference to his religion casts his faith in a positive light (as juxtaposed against his public policy record on abortion and the homosexual issues):

"Romney's actions as governor flatly contradict both the VALUES WIDELY ASSOCIATED WITH HIS FAITH as well as his pro-life and pro-traditional marriage campaign rhetoric."

In other words, the signers of the ad make clear that they share and are DEFENDING the pro-family values widely associated with Mitt's church, since they're specifically criticizing him for actions that contradict those values.

Many members of Mitt's church have been elected to public office, including in the evangelical South: former U.S. Senator Paula Hawkins of Florida, Congress Istook of Oklahoma, a secretary of state or some such in North Carolina.

I guarantee you those candidates weren't successful because their supporters CONSTANTLY drew attention to their church affiliation each and every time they were criticized by opposing camps on some matter of public policy.

There'll be a Mormon president some day, but it won't be a candidate whose reactionary supporters' first and immediate response to any and all criticism is to accuse all critics of being religious bigots.

"Conservative Voter", check your facts. Do you believe William F. Buckley's "National Review" is intellectually weak? The strength of endorsements from the solid intellectual core of the conservative movement far overshadows the support from fiscally liberal, half-conservatives that prefer Huckabee.

There’s something deliciously ironic about these folks putting out ads about Romney that are essentially repeats of the Log Cabin ads from October.

I hope it’s something that future politicians and their National Review-type enablers keep in mind the next time they try to recreate a candidate to fit some preconceived notion of what they think can be sold to the stoopid American electorate.

Conservative Voter, so wait, you bow at the altar of Reagan? Is this correct?

If so, I do think all of us who do hold Reagan in the highest light possible for a man, need a reality check because Reagan was not some permaconservative ultrabeing. Reagan, if running today, would have more flip-flops and troublesome moments than many of these candidates, and certainly more than Romney.

Reagan used to be a Democrat, for starters. Reagan, as President did run a supply-sider, tax-cutting Administration, but he did raise some taxes. Reagan's appointments to the Supreme Court were a disaster, a sheer nightmare for any conservative. And of course, Reagan was the ultimate granter of amnesty to illegal aliens. With a record like that in today's GOP climate, there's no way he would've won the nomination even.

As Republicans it's not our duty to deify Ronald Reagan by virtue of loving the man and attributing that adoration to some image of him being a Conservative Lord who never did anything short of exercising conservatism. Do not get me wrong, if Reagan could be resurrected and put into Office, I'd be for it. But being conservatives we are supposed to be pragmatic and realistic, and that's not what we're being in this search for the heir of Reagan as evidenced by our current nominee and our current President.

I think above conservatism is pragmatism. I think pragmatism is conservatism. Pragmatism is the thinking person's solution to realistic problems. I thik Reagan was pragmatic ahead of conservative. I think few, maybe no, Democrats are pragmatic...all instead steeped in idealism and the quest for political power by way of increasing government, as we all can see.

Romney is clearly a pragmatist as proven time and again by any honest examination of his exemplary record in any and all of his many executive endeavors. While anyone can take whatever signal they please from anyone's record or persona and project that to predict some sort of potential unconservative act while in Office, it's important that Republicans and conservatives stay sane and realize that if they do so, as any President surely would dissatisfy some conservative somewhere at some point, then it doesn't mean they are unReagan since he had unconservative moments, and big ones, while in Office himself.

We need to shake off this Reaganitis. It's doing damage from within by enabling the populist likes of Huckabee and Charlie Crist and liberal Republicans like McCain to more prominent seats of power while hindering the easily more conservative and true pragmatists in the party like Mitt Romney.

To summarize, Reagan was a good presient, he was a conservative Republican who promoted peace and prosperity and achieved great success in both; he did have demerits on his record that shouldn't be forgotten when trying to measure present and future players in our Party, since doing so is a step towards the idealist's ways about the world instead of the realist's ways about the world, and that is not conservatism. Pragmatic solutions, principled operations. One guy aced both categories this time around and it's a shame to examine the reasons why.

The content of the anti-Romney ad only prints half-truths and non-truths. The true public record of the battles in MASS clearly show that Romney strongly and clearly opposed abortion and gay marriage. His actions mentioned in the ad are described out-of-context and without all the facts. Remember that leading pro-family groups in MASS acknowledged Romney's strong support and most even endorsed his candidacy.

Because the ad is misleading and dishonest, one has to ask, "What is the real reason?". It might just be love of Huckabee, but that rings hollow. None but the most Huck-Smitten folks beleive he has even a chance at the VP slot. So what other reasons are there for casting doubt on Romney? ALL primary candidates that drop out immediately cease-fire and quit the negative campaigning and mudslinging. So WHY does Huckabee continue? It certainly IS NOT about Romney's social conservative record. Even if they were right about it, and they are NOT, McCain is further from Huckabee's position and record than Romney. That alone reveals the real motives of Huckabee's PAC. Huckabee did speak at one of the largest, national anti-Mormon conventions held in Salt Lake City a few years ago. "Don't mormons believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers?" Get real.

Conservative Voter, so wait, you bow at the altar of Reagan? Is this correct?

If so, I do think all of us who do hold Reagan in the highest light possible for a man, need a reality check because Reagan was not some permaconservative ultrabeing. Reagan, if running today, would have more flip-flops and troublesome moments than many of these candidates, and certainly more than Romney.

Reagan used to be a Democrat, for starters. Reagan, as President did run a supply-sider, tax-cutting Administration, but he did raise some taxes. Reagan's appointments to the Supreme Court were a disaster, a sheer nightmare for any conservative. And of course, Reagan was the ultimate granter of amnesty to illegal aliens. With a record like that in today's GOP climate, there's no way he would've won the nomination even.

As Republicans it's not our duty to deify Ronald Reagan by virtue of loving the man and attributing that adoration to some image of him being a Conservative Lord who never did anything short of exercising conservatism. Do not get me wrong, if Reagan could be resurrected and put into Office, I'd be for it. But being conservatives we are supposed to be pragmatic and realistic, and that's not what we're being in this search for the heir of Reagan as evidenced by our current nominee and our current President.

I think above conservatism is pragmatism. I think pragmatism is conservatism. Pragmatism is the thinking person's solution to realistic problems. I thik Reagan was pragmatic ahead of conservative. I think few, maybe no, Democrats are pragmatic...all instead steeped in idealism and the quest for political power by way of increasing government, as we all can see.

Romney is clearly a pragmatist as proven time and again by any honest examination of his exemplary record in any and all of his many executive endeavors. While anyone can take whatever signal they please from anyone's record or persona and project that to predict some sort of potential unconservative act while in Office, it's important that Republicans and conservatives stay sane and realize that if they do so, as any President surely would dissatisfy some conservative somewhere at some point, then it doesn't mean they are unReagan since he had unconservative moments, and big ones, while in Office himself.

We need to shake off this Reaganitis. It's doing damage from within by enabling the populist likes of Huckabee and Charlie Crist and liberal Republicans like McCain to more prominent seats of power while hindering the easily more conservative and true pragmatists in the party like Mitt Romney.

To summarize, Reagan was a good presient, he was a conservative Republican who promoted peace and prosperity and achieved great success in both; he did have demerits on his record that shouldn't be forgotten when trying to measure present and future players in our Party, since doing so is a step towards the idealist's ways about the world instead of the realist's ways about the world, and that is not conservatism. Pragmatic solutions, principled operations. One guy aced both categories this time around and it's a shame to examine the reasons why.

Mitt Romney would be an outstanding choice for VP. The haters will always hate and that cannot be changed. Lets move past the hate and put a qualified individual on the ticket as VP. Romney has incredible financial qualifications to heal an ailing economy. Plus he is a good decent man. McCain/Romney 08 is a winning ticket and will be good for America.

This is Mike Huckabee and his league of antimormon evangelical bigots veiled under the guise of a political platform. They see it as legitimizing the mormon faith if he is selected VP and this would destroy their hate agenda. They have fabricated outright lies about Mitt Romney's record to push their agenda forward. Their agenda is one of hate and bigotry and lust for power and control! I used to respect the evangelicals until this election when their "true christian" colors have shown through. They are no less filled with hate and bigottry in their promotion of mormon religious bigotry than than KKK was in advancing their race agenda.

I've read thru all these posts. Many of you are right, the ad is misleading. However, the PAC that ran it is not really trying to convince McCain that Romney is anti-family. They don't even hope to convince any voters of that. What they hope to do is convince McCain that there are enough people that REALLY hate Romney that it might cost McCain some support if he chooses him. It doesn't matter what the reasons are for hating Romney. And, when push comes to shove, they will probably even admit that it is a heaving, virulent hatred of Mormonism that drives them. That in fact is the subtext for McCain's consumption. They want him to fear that there really is that much anti-mormonism that it will cause him to give in and not pick Mitt. Disgusting. I have never seen an ex-candidate continue the mudslinging like Huck is doing. One writer above is right, if it were about being pro-family, they wouldn't vote for McCain anyway - he's left of Romney. The goal here is to scare McCain on Romney. They don't care if McCain figures out the obvious reason - that's all the better. They hope his fear will count the evangelists that will stay away for religious reasons.

>>>>>>>>>>Mitt Romney was never pro abortion.

>>>>>>>>>The true public record of the battles in MASS clearly show that Romney strongly and clearly opposed abortion and gay marriage. His actions mentioned in the ad are described out-of-context and without all the facts.

There is video of

While running for governor in 2002, Gov. Romney stated on a NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts survey: "I respect and will protect a women's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the governments."

[Scott Helman, Romney's Journey to the Right, Boston Globe, December 17, 2006.]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/12/17/romneys_journey_to_the_right/


During an unsuccessful senatorial bid in 1994, Gov. Romney said: "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 since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."

[On Jobs and Wages; The Kennedy-Romney Debates/Debate Excerpts, Boston Globe, October 26, 1994]


Here is the video of that Kennedy-Romney Debate where Romney states that he believes abortion should be safe and legal - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

Please forgive the previous typo (There is video of...)

I didn't post Mitt Romney's flip-flops as some anti-Morman/anti-Romney thing. I could care less who McCain picks as VP since I am an Obama supporter. However, I think it's ridiculous when people continually try to rewrite history - especially in this YouTube age. Romney is on record and on video (and not just the 94 Kennedy-Romney debate) flip-flopping on abortion so saying that he "strongly and clearly opposed" abortion is a lie, plain and simple.

Kara,
Your post does reveal your motives. The video links you post ARE NOT from the legislative & legal battles in MASS. They are from BEFORE. Romney publicly changed his position. He admits it and dates it and gives the reasons for it. After that, he has been totally consistent. Go find newsclips and video from his time in office "during the MASS battles". Others mention above that even Reagan was on public record on the wrong side of these issues before he changed his position and battled on our side. Go to the actual record of Romney's fight in MASS and you will find the strongest ally for family values. Don't make a sad mistake here.

I'd vote for the successful businessman over the religious bigot anyday.

Go Romney!

GetReal writes: "The true public record of the battles in MASS clearly show that Romney strongly and clearly opposed abortion and gay marriage."

Ya gotta feel sorry for folks like getreal. They go out and make demonstrably false statements to defend their guy, and then their guy's own words prove them to either be (1) simply ignorant or (2) wilful liars.

So lets's compare:

GetReal says "Romney strongly and clearly opposed abortion."

But Romney himself says:

"I do not take the position of a pro-life candidate." VIDEO of 2002 gubernatorial debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

GetReal says "Romney strongly and clearly opposed...gay marriage."

But as a candidate for governor in 2002, Romney OPPOSED and said he would vote AGAINST the Marriage Protection Amendment proposed by pro-family groups (which his own wife and son had signed a petition to put on the ballot).

As Romney explained to Bay Windows, a homosexual activist newspaper in Boston, published Jan. 1, 2002:

Bay Windows: Do you support the Protection of Marriage Amendment?

Mitt Romney: No, because it would outlaw domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.

Bay Windows: Do you believe the Protection of Marriage Amendment initiative should be put before voters?

Mitt Romney: The people have a constitutional right to put questions before the voters. But, if it had been on the ballot, I would have voted no.

---

Obviously, GetReal needs to put down the Kool-Aid and...get real. As in, get in touch with reality.

Kara said:

"I think it's ridiculous when people continually try to rewrite history - especially in this YouTube age. Romney is on record and on video (and not just the 94 Kennedy-Romney debate) flip-flopping on abortion so saying that he "strongly and clearly opposed" abortion is a lie, plain and simple."

Did you live in a closet during the GOP primaries? Mitt Romney said many times that he admits he changed his position on abortion. NOBODY is denying this. You come in here (as an Obama supporter, the racist), act like you know something we don't, and want a gold medal for your BIG DISCOVERY!

NOBODY is re-writing history. Romney 'flipped' because of his feelings related to stem-cell research, and has made an honest change of heart (he has flopped again).

You want to talk about family values, how about Obama who said,"a baby is a punishment", when referring to his daughters making mistakes recently. Now there's a guy I want as a role-model for young children. "Hey kids, President Obama says you're a punishment to society!".

A flip flop is going from A to B and back to A again. Romney just went from A to B, just as any of us have had changes of opinions on a matter before. Few of us go from opinion A to opinion B, and then BACK to opinion A again. That is rare, and that was John Kerry.

The labelling of Romney as a flip-flopper (all based on one 1994 youtube video) represented the truth that his contenders had no other ammo against him (anti-mormon whisper campaign aside) and somehow it was pitched that this one issue meant he matched the ever-changing amoeba-like entity of John F Kerry.

While this can be concluded by some to have achieved it's goal in the primary, obviously the continued tomfoolery of the same exact nature is evidence it didn't stick or work on enough people, as Romney is the lead name most would like to see McCain select. I'm sure the Huck, as foolish as he looked with his detailless platitudes and shameless pandering and nonending campaign, still thinks he has a prayer to get the Veep slot, and so this is what we get from him. And on that matter, I'm sure he's equally bitter about Mitt as he was the leading candidate among actual Republicans, he has the natural inside track as the 2012 nominee should McCain lose this election.

EDIT:
(typo)
Change "(he has flopped again)" to "(he hasn't flopped again)"

G. Reread everything carefully. You still make the mistake Kara made. You are talking about stuff BEFORE Romney was governor. The gubernatorial race is BEFORE, duh. It is not rewriting history to ask you to actually look at dates, the public record of what Romney actually DID IN OFFICE, or his statements during and since governing that actually reveal what he will do. GET REAL.

Why do Romney supporters always equate dislike of Mitt Romney with religious bigotry? There are so many different reasons to dislike Mitt. I think the flip-flopping issue will dissipate over time but Mitt will still be a wooden person who can't relate to the common man. Watching him talk to us "regular folk" is just painful.

And that's the shame of the reality of journalism. Seamless fiber optic networks, satellites, 24/7 cable news outlets, longest primary season ever, and records aren't examined. Rather, just words from the 1990s. No examination of the record, the facts, the evidence, the results, just snippets of dialogue.

I guess this, though, is what fuelled the rise of Huckabee, and certainly the Obamaboom, which is the only campaign that is more platitude-laced than Mike's was. Only...Obama can declare when and what words it is that actually matter (Deval Patrick's that Obama tried to pass off as his own) and what words don't matter, meaning Rev. Wright's racist and anti-American hatespeak, lol.

Here's a revelation for some of you:

Many Huckabee supporters couldn't care less about Romney's Mormanism. It wouldn't have made a difference at all if Gov. Romney did not flip flop on some issues like he did. And yes, he did this to further his political ambitions and I'm glad it back-fired on him.

I hope McCain's choice is neither Huckabee or Romney because this bickering is ridiculous!!

Thomas, uh, by regular folk who do you mean? Does this mean you are of the preference you want another guy you can have a beer with sitting in the Oval Office? Or a guy running the nation who reminds you of a co-worker and not your boss?

I consider myself completely regular. I consider the office of the Presidency irregular and one that deserves to be occupied by a rare breed, not someone like myself, a regular person. I want someone better than me.

Thomas, uh, by regular folk who do you mean? Does this mean you are of the preference you want another guy you can have a beer with sitting in the Oval Office? Or a guy running the nation who reminds you of a co-worker and not your boss?

I consider myself completely regular. I consider the office of the Presidency irregular and one that deserves to be occupied by a rare breed, not someone like myself, a regular person. I want someone better than me.

Thomas, uh, by regular folk who do you mean? Does this mean you are of the preference you want another guy you can have a beer with sitting in the Oval Office? Or a guy running the nation who reminds you of a co-worker and not your boss?

I consider myself completely regular. I consider the office of the Presidency irregular and one that deserves to be occupied by a rare breed, not someone like myself, a regular person. I want someone better than me.

Thomas said-
"Watching him talk to us "regular folk" is just painful."

Yeah, we know, you guys want some slob up there for President. You call him, "one of us", but in reality he's another Clinton, or Spitzer - the type that sleeps around with other women or prostitutes, loves to have a good drinking party or can talk like a cowboy.

You could never have a President who graduated suma-cum laude or higher in school, someone who can speak other languages, and excelled in business. A guy who gets up early every morning to run a mile, eats low-fat food, and God-forbid, doesn't swear. How can we possibly have a guy who lives like that hold the highest office in the land! Oh no, never!

Yeah, we know what kind of guy you would like up there.

I think Romney would be an excellent VP selection. He is the most qualified person to run for office in memory. I agree with the comments that have said he is a practical politician. On the other hand, the faction that is launching this anti-Romney campaign is known for excusing the mistakes of "their own" while virulently attacking the mistakes of others. What more can you expect from them? Their form of relgion promises exaltation based on sworn allegiance to their creed (evangelicism) not based on their particular actions. (Listen to them go on and on about the importance of faith not works.) We should expect more of the same, as we continue. The only thing that will satisfy them is if a politician swears allegiance to their creed. They say it is about family and constitutional values, yet they have fought a vehement battle against someone (Romney) who desires to be a pro-family and pro-constitutional politician, and can articulate these causes quite well. I think to any objective observer, Romney would be their guy if he were a Southern Baptist. I guess the fear that is developing within me is when and what will be the political re-alignment. It seems clear that a large portion of Huckabee suporters would defect to the Democrat party if that party would abandon its support of Roe v. Wade and would support a ban against gay marriage. A skillfully politician will be able to pull together a coaltion of Huckabee type supporters, and northern/white factory workers, who want a pro-life, anti-gay, big government. If that re-alignment happens, then the other side will end up being the opposition, which will be small government, pro-abortion, and pro-gay. I guess the libertarian party (which I don't like.) So, where are we going? I don't know.

I think Romney would be an excellent VP selection. He is the most qualified person to run for office in memory. I agree with the comments that have said he is a practical politician. On the other hand, the faction that is launching this anti-Romney campaign is known for excusing the mistakes of "their own" while virulently attacking the mistakes of others. What more can you expect from them? Their form of relgion promises exaltation based on sworn allegiance to their creed (evangelicism) not based on their particular actions. (Listen to them go on and on about the importance of faith not works.) We should expect more of the same, as we continue. The only thing that will satisfy them is if a politician swears allegiance to their creed. They say it is about family and constitutional values, yet they have fought a vehement battle against someone (Romney) who desires to be a pro-family and pro-constitutional politician, and can articulate these causes quite well. I think to any objective observer, Romney would be their guy if he were a Southern Baptist. I guess the fear that is developing within me is when and what will be the political re-alignment. It seems clear that a large portion of Huckabee suporters would defect to the Democrat party if that party would abandon its support of Roe v. Wade and would support a ban against gay marriage. A skillfully politician will be able to pull together a coaltion of Huckabee type supporters, and northern/white factory workers, who want a pro-life, anti-gay, big government. If that re-alignment happens, then the other side will end up being the opposition, which will be small government, pro-abortion, and pro-gay. I guess the libertarian party (which I don't like.) So, where are we going? I don't know.

Pam, you come across as uninformed.

Do some due diligence--and reading the breadth of the comments here is actually a good start--on Romney's RECORD (which should speak louder than a 1994 youtube video clip).

And I'll reiterate that Romney did NOT fip-flop. A flip flop, again, is a change and then another change BACK. A flip-flop is NOT a mere change of opinion, period. If it were, then everyone who has lived is a flip-flopping jive turkey.

Another point I'll add now is along these lines, concerning abortion v. life. So bloody what if Romney were effectively pro-choice in the early 1990s. Many Republican officials were pro-choice at one point or another--yes, including President GHW Bush and Reagan. Many Republican voters are pro-choice. The entire POINT of the pro-Life movement is to WIN OVER converts. To get people who are pro-Abortion onto our side. Or to get people in the middle onto our side. So if there's a flaw in having a Presidential candidate who is a pro-Life convert, the flaw is among the logic possessed by those who have always been pro-Life discounting the validity of a converted pro-Lifer, ridiculously only further hurting their cause in the fight to perserve a culture of life by showing everyone they lack the ability to persuade and rather have it be a strict Us vs. Them never-ending battle.

The only way McCain is getting my vote is if Romney is on the ticket. Huckabee can't be taken seriously on any issue including his convenient social conservative status.

Scott R.,

Agreed.

Salim:

What a stupid comment. If that where true all of his ads, and campaign top people would be Mormon also. They aren't. And about VP being a Chaney. He only will be if McCain wants him to be. But I think he would be a great asset to McCain's presidency.

GetReal, if you'll note, the entire ad addresses stuff Romney did AS governor -- imposing the govt-mandated healthcare plan that includes a $50 co-pay for abortion on demand (which means taxpayers subsidize the rest of the cost of the abortion) and his executive order instructing justices of the peace to either conduct homosexual "marriage" ceremonies, or resign. As recently as Dec 2007 on Russert, Romney also reiterated his support of state-level "gay rights" laws while reversing his previous endorsement of Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation. (The very same laws that have been used to discriminate against and persecute the Boy Scouts, Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, and individual citizens in jurisdictions where they've been adopted -- Canada, Europe, Massachusetts, Philly, etc.) But whether all the stuff discussed happened before or after he was governor is irrelevant. The point is that his alleged "conversion" was so transparently timed as to posture himself to run for president. He's simply not trusted by a wide swath of voters. He spent more face time and more money many times over than any other candidate in Iowa, NH, and SC -- and lost all three. Outside his three "home" states -- MI, MA, and UT -- where they got to know him best, he lost.

Romney won "where they got to know him best". This is supposed to be a weakness, G?

Wake up, bro. Mitt lost the nomination simply because the conservative base was split for too long. They were split among himself, Huckabee, and Fred. That left McCain to scoop up all the libs, moderates, and non-Republicans in the process, and we had at all times at least 2 fighting for the conservative base.

G said:
"imposing the govt-mandated healthcare plan that includes a $50 co-pay for abortion on demand (which means taxpayers subsidize the rest of the cost of the abortion) and his executive order instructing justices of the peace to either conduct homosexual "marriage" ceremonies, or resign".

Again, it is well known that when Romney became Governer of Massachussettes, he promised two things:

1. He would not try to overturn fight against current Judicial laws on abortion/gay marriage.

2. He would veto any NEW laws that came to his desk during his term.

Yes, Governer Romney "enforced" the laws as he should have. But when a new one came to his desk he instantly vetoed it. Plain and simple.

Now as President he has promised to do what HE has always wanted to do, and that is design new laws to make abortion/gay marriage illegal.

The Huckabee kooks and other "So Called Evangelicals" are a bunch of chicken little petty religious bigots
No conservative has paid any attention to Paul Weyrich since,since,since, gee I can't remember when any conservative ever paid any attention to him.

A desperate attempt to say the least. Have they targeted any other people on McCain's list of VP's? GO MITT!!!!

Deborah,

That is because If you look at Romney's record on gay issues - you will find that he has always been pro same sex marrage, as pro as he could be from a way liberal state. Just look at his record. He did everything short of breaking the law by forcing justices not to perform same sex marriage. I can just imagine the fiasco that would have caused. It would be George Wallace all over again in the south... wait a minute, isn't that where most of the anti-Romney, or should I say anti-mormon hatred coming from the south? Hmm... sounds like there is a lot of bigotry in the south if you are not the same race or religion as you white baptist neighbor).

About abortion, He has explained his switch, and even if you look at his record you will see that he was pro life (the only reason his health plan was the way it is was because his liberal Democratic run state congress made it mandatory) he always leaned pro life. No if we switches back you got an issues (much like some of the baptists I know that sin one day, pray forgiveness and do it again the next day) Then I think there is an issue here.

The bottom line is this is nothing more than religious bigotry and hatred being wrapped in "Social Conservative" blankets, and we all know that lets just all be honest and call it what it is.

I applaud all the evangelicals that are wise enough to look past religion, race and a nice set of hair and teeth, and are able to truly look at the person's values (from a social conservative view) at Intelligence and abilities (from a fiscal conservative view) and values strong national security effort, and support the person they best feel is the right choice. If you do that and your man is Huckabee, then good for you. But if you are making that choice only because you don't like his religion or race, or age or hair color, well, I think Jesus will have a special place for you after all!

and we all know it, Is that but only a ah honest few are willing to admit to it

Billybob - did you mean pro traditional marriage? if you did, I totally agree with you!

:-)

It's hard to believe these Neanderthals still try and influence the Republican Party. I am 70 years old and have always voted Republican since Nixon. What are these NUTCASES about? What kind of a party buries the country in debt destroys the economy, bankrupts the party and then petitions a liberal like McCain to not choose a conservative who actually KNOWS SOMETHING?
I am sick of this Know Nothing ilk. Who do they like, Dr Dobson?
This year is either McCain -Romney , sit-on my hands, or, ugh, Obama -Richardson. It's up to McCain to decide, not these goof balls.

This looks like more mormon bashing to me.

This looks like more mormon bashing to me.

What everyone has glossed over, is that Mitt Romney has ALWAYS been pro-life personally. He has said repeatedly that he doesn't believe he should impose his beliefs on others; that any office he holds should be reflective of its constituency. Hence, Massachusetts. And he has never denied his support for "equal rights' for gays, health benefits, etc. as he doesn't believe in discrimination, period.

Mitt Romney believes the issue of abortion should be left to the states to decide, and acknowledges the fact that our country's majority is pro-choice - although he wishes it wasn't. Actually, if we were smart we'd take abortion out of the political arena and put it back where it belongs, a personal choice. I'm not for it, but it's simply not for me to decide what someone else does with their body. They'll have to pay the piper when their time comes.

The far religious right has shown their true colors during this political season, and it is has forced many to question their true motives. Take the country back for Christ? Sorry, my friends, but there's a reason we have separation of church and state. Put the evangelical recruitment and influence back in your churches, not forced on the political stage and the majority of voters. If not, get your own party.

Mitt Romney is by far the most qualified person to be President; fair-minded, incredibly intelligent, and gets the job done. VP? He's above it.

You can't be against Romney and not be anti-Mormon.

Bigots.

Immature, no, pure, flaking, nuts. The names on that list are that predictable group of Glenn, Wildmon and the rest. This has always been about $$$. I guarantee that had Mitt been a typical politician and cronied Carmenker up--he would have been the first person to endorse Mitt. Glenn, Wildmon and the rest are absolute JOKES! Now, can someone explain the Weyrich signature...lol...he endorsed Mitt. This brand of Republican activism is such a dishonest joke. Those people need to get real jobs.

And another thing, the fact that Romney joined his church when it was a racist church will mean nothing in the general election.

Obama had a racist pastor.

Romney joined his church when it was racist by not letting black men join the priesthood.

So they will be equal then, the religion issue can be put to bed!

Wow, Im sure Rushbo and the warnazi's would love to get a mccain Romney ticket. I wouldnt trust to economy to those stooges. Romney is the biggest liar of the bunch and I really don't care if mormons are offended. Hes lied to liberals and conservatives a like and hes untrustable. Mormons should be ashamed hes one of them.

Romney is too good a man, and too conservative to be tapper for VP by McCain. McCain's more likely to reach across the aisle and pick a flaming liberal-just to stick it to us one more time. McCain is a moron and was picked by cross over liberals and moderates as our candidate. I'd vote for McCain only if Romney was VP, but he won't be.
McCain isn't smart enough to pick the best man.
You can't fix dumb - and McCain is dumb.

Romney is too good a man, and too conservative to be tapper for VP by McCain. McCain's more likely to reach across the aisle and pick a flaming liberal-just to stick it to us one more time. McCain is a moron and was picked by cross over liberals and moderates as our candidate. I'd vote for McCain only if Romney was VP, but he won't be.
McCain isn't smart enough to pick the best man.
You can't fix dumb - and McCain is dumb.

Romney is too good a man, and too conservative to be tapper for VP by McCain. McCain's more likely to reach across the aisle and pick a flaming liberal-just to stick it to us one more time. McCain is a moron and was picked by cross over liberals and moderates as our candidate. I'd vote for McCain only if Romney was VP, but he won't be.
McCain isn't smart enough to pick the best man.
You can't fix dumb - and McCain is dumb.

Give me a break! This has NOTHING to do with Romney's choice of religion! But it has everything to do with the fact that Romney has consistency...consistency when it comes to the fact that he changes his position to suit what he wants to gain and from whom!!!! That is the very reason why those of who have looked beyond the plasticity of Mr. Romney's smile have discovered alot of substantiated facts and materials that have proven that he indeed has flip-flopped on the very issues that we conservatives embrace! But, all of you who are smitten with this guy will continue to yell and scream that it is about his being Morman. There is enough evidence about Romney's record/stance that his religion is a non-issue.

EuropeanTraveler,

Show me one instance where Mitt Romney flip-flopped. In other words, give me a quote/date when he believed one thing, then a quote/date when he changed his mind, then give me another quote/date when he reverted to the original position.

Give me just ONE example of this and you can call him a flip-flopper all you like.

I've said from the big PAC where they had all those evangelicals when Romney won the straw poll but Huckabee "won" among people that attended that it was going to be Huckabee's moment to come out and make that big bigot push that would really bring to life his campaign where it was still aneomic at best. Couple that with his Pastor network that he worked since the Ames straw poll and the media's happiness over someone other than the big three and evangelical to boot to come to the top so they could build up and hope they could make him nominee for the GOP to go against in November and knock off while marginalizing the religious right.

Bigot's from the right need to be vetted and brought to the top. They do nothing good for the conservative cause.

Huckabee and the inbreds are the part of the Republican party that's rotten. Kissing up to them is going to be the end of the GOP. I hope McCain sees that and picks the most qualified candidate without regard to the bigots. Heaven knows, after Bush, we need real competence more than pretend competence. Romney is clearly the competent choice.

Mitt recognizes John McCain is our nominee and is pushing to unify the party. Mike and this ad is trying to lobby like he did in the primaries why to not vote for Mitt. Which is acting with character and which is serving himself? Mitt isn't even going to be chosen by John, yet Mike needs to get back in the news and this is how. Unfortunately for him he will just keep alienating himself as the only people that like these tactices are a group of right wing evangelicals.

To "Get real",

Your response reveals your motives - and your ignorance (no surprise there).

I posted the videos because you lied and stated that "the true public record of the battles in MASS clearly show that Romney strongly and clearly opposed abortion and gay marriage."

The "true" public record showed he flip-flopped for political expediency.

To Casey,

For you to say "You come in here (as an Obama supporter, the racist)" is truly priceless since I don't hear you criticizing Mitt Romney and his family belonging to the Mormon Church which excluded black people until 1978. The same Mitt Romney that lied and stated that he "saw his father march with Dr. King."

I am not interested in any gold medals because I never claimed to make any "big discovery."

As far as Obama saying that "a baby is a punishment," a getting pregnant IS a sort of punishment for most teenage girls because it is a mistake for teenage girls to get pregnant. Aside from judgmental losers like you turning their noses up to them, the economic hardships and other problems have long been noted in American society.

Twisting Obama's words on that point only serves to make you look stupid.

*a teenage girl getting pregnant*