Meet Mitt, The 08 Flip Flopper

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,247
Location
Edge's beanie closet
must have been something in that SC water :hmm:

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=69748

Gov. Mitt Romney, speaking last night to conservative presidential primary voters in South Carolina, disavowed his own stance on gay marriage - saying he has opposed civil unions ``from day one.''

But the governor has for months backed a constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage while allowing Vermont-style civil unions.
The comments came in a 25-minute speech where the governor, seen in the Bay State and nationally as a moderate, called himself a "conservative Republican.''

To thunderous applause from the Spartanburg Republican audience, he said, "It's not right on paper. It's not right in fact. Every child has the right to have a mother and a father. "
Romney then cast himself as a defender of traditional marriage``From day one, I've opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions,'' Romney said.

They showed this speech on CSpan,maybe they have video on their web site

another article

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/02/22/romney_talks_right_on_social_issues_in_sc/
 
Last edited:
Mitt Romney can bite me.

I think Massachusetts thought he'd be another "New England Republican." They forgot he was from Utah.

Melon
 
i'd like to think that every kid has the right to good parents who love them. i know people who've grown up with a mother and a father, both of whom were generally horrible people and unfit to be parents.

what's so great about gay adoption is that, because it is so difficult to do and there are so many loopholes to jump through, you generally get 2 people who really, really want to be the best possible parent they could be. wouldn't you want two people like this as your parents, rather than 2 apathetic people who's birth control failed one evening?
 
I may be wrong, but, while I disagree with his politics on this issue......

He has always been opposed to it, but has looked at Civil Unions as a compromise on the topic. Something Mitt has done on many issues, is to seek political common ground.
 
Irvine511 said:
wouldn't you want two people like this as your parents, rather than 2 apathetic people who's birth control failed one evening?

Exactly. I love how he says "every child has the right to a mother and a father" .Yes, it's great to have both even if the Father is abusive and emotionally unavailable, for example. As long as it's a man and a woman, yippee! Does anything else matter? Love? Good parenting? To be fair, maybe he mentioned that in the speech, I haven't seen a transcript.

I happen to think Mitt compromised when it was politically expedient for him to do so, just as he did what would get him support in South Carolina.

If he runs in 08, be afraid, be very afraid..
 
Isn't that wall all GOOD politicians do? Compromise?

Sorry, but having spent quite a few hours studying Presidents.....

They ALL do it.....

Saint Kennedy included.
 
I never said Kennedy was a saint

I don't like the guy, I admit it. I don't like his policies and I knew he was just using the office as a stepping stone(which obviously countless others have done). He reminds me of W, in more ways than one-didn't he even have the politically connected Daddy?:wink:

If he's doing such a great job in MA, why are so many people leaving? I thought I read that recently
 
Last edited:
cause Mitt's destroying the ozone w/ all that hairspray? :wink:

Maybe because in spite of all of Mitt's fiscally amazing policies, it's too expensive to live in and there aren't enough jobs -that'd be my guess :shrug:

The weather sucks too
 
LOL....

I believe he is not even three years into his term. I also believe in general the State is in better shape than when he took office.

It is too flipping expensive to live here.
 
http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=69899

Who is the real Mitt Romney?

It's not what he says, but what he doesn't that is raising eyebrows back home as Gov. Mitt Romney hits the 2008 presidential campaign speaking circuit.

ON CIVIL UNIONS:
# In Massachusetts, the governor said for months he opposed Vermont-style civil unions but then cobbled together the Republicans needed to pass a constitutional amendment in the Legislature that bans gay marriage and creates civil unions. Romney says he did so only because it was either that or allowing gay marriage completely.

# On the ``Road to the White House,'' Romney doesn't mention the tacit support for civil unions - saying only that he has been opposed to civil unions ``from day one.''

ON ABORTION RIGHTS:

# During his 1994 and 2002 campaigns, Romney eschewed labels of ``pro-choice'' or ``pro-life,'' saying he is personally opposed to abortion but would keep all Bay State protections legal. His running mate in 2002, Kerry Healey, said there wasn't a ``dime of difference'' between Romney and Democrat Shannon P. O'Brien - who is pro-choice.

# On the ``Road to the White House,'' Romney is now calling himself ``personally pro-life.'' His position hasn't changed, but he is now touting the ``pro-life'' label.
 
I think it is a JOKE the way the press is portraying him. I think the fact that he was able to move beyond his "personal politics" shows that he is able to work with people of other views.


The "flip-flop" label was attempted on him before, and it did not fly with the voters.


Sorry, but here in "democratic" Massachusetts the man was elected. If he runs again, he will be re-elected.
 
Dreadsox said:
I think it is a JOKE the way the press is portraying him. I think the fact that he was able to move beyond his "personal politics" shows that he is able to work with people of other views.

The "flip-flop" label was attempted on him before, and it did not fly with the voters.

Sorry, but here in "democratic" Massachusetts the man was elected. If he runs again, he will be re-elected.
I'll try to be honest here. Kerry is not the only politician we know to "flip-flop." Howard Dean did it, and George W. Bush has done it. I don't know enough to say that we should get hung up over a politician that is reaching for centrist appeal.
 
Dreadsox said:
Sorry, but here in "democratic" Massachusetts the man was elected. If he runs again, he will be re-elected.

That's because Massachusetts is loathe to give the Democrats a literal dictatorship. They're more contented giving Democrats a de facto dictatorship, as they still have 3/4 of the Legislature and will regularly override his vetoes.

And all the gay marriage flack? The legislature, apparently, has gotten even more liberal since I lived there. I'm so glad Finneran is gone.

Melon
 
Massachusetts governor resigned to defeat on stem cell bill


BOSTON (AP) -- Gov. Mitt Romney said Friday he knows he can't stop a bill that would give scientists more freedom to conduct embryonic stem cell research, but he promised to "vote my conscience" and veto it anyway.

The bill passed the state House on a 117-37 vote Thursday night, a day after the Senate approved it 35-2 -- margins that would easily override any veto.

"I'll vote my conscience, but this is one that the story is complete," Romney said Friday.

"I'll vote my conscience, but this is one that the story is complete," Romney said Friday.


What the HELL does that mean?



Does he have a constituency of one?

Why does he not do what the people of his state want?
 
My mind is going into overload.

I am SO confused.

And Kerry was a "flip-flopper"?

I admit Dubya is the KING of flip-floppers but this one might give a him a run for his money.:huh:
 
deep said:
"I'll vote my conscience, but this is one that the story is complete," Romney said Friday.

What the HELL does that mean?

Does he have a constituency of one?

Why does he not do what the people of his state want?

In Massachusetts, the governor has essentially been reduced to a figurehead, because of the more than 3/4 of Democrats that populate both chambers of the Legislature. I believe it has become even more Democratic since I moved away too.

As such, Romney can play the role of the "martyr" all he wants. I think the only reason Massachusetts has even elected Republican governors since Dukakis was ousted is because they don't want to give the Democrats a literal dictatorship. They'd rather give them a de facto one.

Of course, now that the biggest and most arrogant asshole in Massachusetts politics is gone, former Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran, I tend to think people might be willing to consider electing a Democratic governor again, as long as he or she does not appear "entrenched" with the former party machine. That's what killed Shannon O'Brien when she lost to Romney in the last gubernatorial race. She was sickeningly entrenched.

Melon
 
Most politicians flip flop. That doesn't make it right. It really defeats the purpose of politics.

When I'm deciding who I'm going to vote for, for who I think is going to be the best leader, I really don't want to listen to the candidates BS their way through everything, say whatever they have to say get votes. I know that's the way it is, but I HATE it. It reeks of politicians caring more about their own wellbeing then about being a good leader, and that is just stupid. All I want is a politician that speaks his/her mind, says whatever he/she truely feels, regardless of whether it makes people love or hate him/her.

That said, I'd prefer it if the person speaking their mind was a flaming, heart-bleeding liberal democrat and that everybody loved them. Oh well. One can fantasize.

Politics is dirty business.
 
namkcuR said:
Most politicians flip flop. That doesn't make it right. It really defeats the purpose of politics.

When I'm deciding who I'm going to vote for, for who I think is going to be the best leader, I really don't want to listen to the candidates BS their way through everything, say whatever they have to say get votes. I know that's the way it is, but I HATE it. It reeks of politicians caring more about their own wellbeing then about being a good leader, and that is just stupid. All I want is a politician that speaks his/her mind, says whatever he/she truely feels, regardless of whether it makes people love or hate him/her.
I agree, a lot of times I feel that their stances don't always reflect what is in their heart, but rather, what will make them popular.
 
it took me a while to find this thread, but it's worth it to point out more flip-flopping :wink:



By Scott S. Greenberger, Boston Globe Staff | May 25, 2005

Governor Mitt Romney said this week in a nationally published interview that he is ''in a different place" on abortion than at the time of his first run for public office in Massachusetts, when he pledged to keep abortion ''safe and legal in this country."


His remarks were made during an interview with USA Today, which focused on Romney's unlikely success as a Republican in a Democratic state. But the comments were immediately seen by some close watchers of the abortion debate and presidential politics as a sign that Romney would shift rightward on the issue if he were to seek the GOP nomination for the White House in 2008.

''Understand, over time one's perspective changes somewhat," Romney told USA Today. ''I'm in a different place than I was probably in 1994, when I ran against Ted Kennedy, in my own views on that." The governor declined to elaborate.

Yesterday Julie Teer, the governor's spokeswoman, refused to explain how Romney's position has changed, saying only that it has ''evolved over time." Teer emphasized, however, that his ''commitment to the people of Massachusetts to maintain the status quo while he is governor has not changed."

Tacking to the right on abortion would make Romney more appealing to socially conservative voters in presidential primaries outside Massachusetts, but it would not play as well with the Bay State's liberal and moderate voters if he ran for governor again. Romney is expected to announce his intentions this fall.

When Romney was wooing Massachusetts voters in 2002, he said he supported Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, and promised not to change the state's abortion policies. He espoused the same position during his 1994 US Senate campaign against Kennedy.

''I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country," Romney said in an October 1994 debate against Kennedy. ''I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."

In recent months, however, Romney has played up his personal opposition to abortion in out-of-state speeches; removed a reference to Roe before signing an annual proclamation celebrating access to birth control; tried to promote the teaching of abstinence to students; and declined to publicly back a measure expanding access to emergency contraception, even though he said he supported that goal during the 2002 campaign. He has said he will examine the proposal if it reaches his desk.

Massachusetts Citizens for Life says it considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, and it is unimpressed with those moves. Romney spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, has repeatedly said that Romney's core positions -- personally anti-abortion, pro-parental consent, and in favor of a ban on what opponents call ''partial birth" abortion -- haven't changed.

But abortion-rights supporters detect a shift.

''Those of us who care for reproductive choice and freedom are concerned," said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. ''At a time when we need to be working together to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy, the status quo is not good enough."

Angus McQuilken, public affairs director for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said, ''It's just not credible to have one set of values when it comes to Massachusetts and another set of values when you decide you're going to present yourself to the voters nationally."

''We're very concerned with Governor Romney's shift to the right on reproductive health issues," McQuilken said. ''He made a number of commitments during his campaign for governor that he's frankly not keeping."

If Romney is preparing to change his abortion stance for a presidential run, he would be in good company: Ronald Reagan signed abortion-rights legislation as governor of California, and George H.W. Bush ran as a pro-abortion rights candidate in 1980. Both Reagan and Bush changed their minds and were solidly anti-abortion by the time they ran successfully for president in 1980 and 1988, respectively.

Some anti-abortion Republicans may give Romney some leeway, considering the political climate in Massachusetts. Before Romney went to Michigan to deliver a speech last March, a group in that state blasted him as a ''pro-abortion, pro-gay rights" liberal whose views were ''largely indistinguishable" from those of Kennedy and Senator John F. Kerry. However, the state legislators who attended the speech said they appreciated the political realities in Romney's home state.

But Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council said Romney will face a tough road if he runs for president in 2008. McClusky said that abortion is a more polarizing issue than it was in 1980 or 1988, and that Romney ''is going to have to do a lot more convincing" if he hopes to win the votes of social conservatives.

''For a lot of people, especially Christian conservatives, it's one of those black and white issues," McClusky said. ''You're either pro-life or not. That's the trouble with Governor Romney -- he's gray."
 
Back
Top Bottom