Kevin, your points are the most comprehensive and thoughtful comments I have received yet. Better than the hackneyed “bigot” and “liar” comments on Townhall and from the other Romney radio talk show “conservative” cheerleaders (aka the Romniacs who claim that religion shouldn’t be an issue and then go write books called “A Mormon is the White House?” and talk non-stop about whether bigoted Evangelicals will “vote for a Mormon.” Thanks for taking the time and effort. It is refreshing to finally read something other than puerile and insipid angry fits.

Having said that I believe your main assertion is that I have “unfairly portrayed Romney.” I don’t believe I have.

In that regard, please allow me to try to answer some of the points you have raised.

You say:

“Mitt is not a liberal. He’s just not an evangelical’s idea of a conservative.”

Perhaps you and I have a different definition of “conservative.” But my definition of a conservative is NOT somebody who:
1. is pro-abortion
2. Facilitated gay marriage behind the scenes while making token appearances “opposing it” which I will further clarify below
3. Left Massachusetts with a government mandated “universal” (i.e. socialist) healthcare plan that has significantly increased costs and premiums and included abortion as a healthcare benefit-A HC plan that Ted Kennedy endorsed as well as Hillary Clinton.
4. Claimed to be pro-life and yet signed a healthcare bill that included tax payer funded abortion as a healthcare benefit
5. Bragged about having some of the toughest gun control laws in the country including the tow most opposed by the NRA.
6. Called a Massachusetts Constitutional Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman “too extreme.”
7. Met with key leaders of the Log Cabin Republicans and promised not to oppose gay marriage in Massachusetts (as reported in the NY Times)
8. Opposed a ban on homosexual scout masters.
9. Forced Catholic Charities to adopt to same sex couples or go out of business even though he didn’t have to by Massachusetts’ law. (which even Mike Dukakis stated was not necessary)
10. Romney’s commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth used tax payer funded money to promote homosexuality in public schools. (Romney could have dissolved the commission but actually increased funding for it.)
11. Romney’s Commission organized Youth Gay Pride Events and Transgender Proms and issued a proclamation celebrating Youth Gay Pride Day.
12. Romney Opposed legislation in 1994 that would have stopped public schools from promoting homosexuality.

You say about my claim that Mitt facilitated gay marriage:

This statement is both unfair and inaccurate. Everyone knows that gay marriage was imposed on the citizens by the Mass. Supreme Court. Any attempt to place blame on Romney for this is misleading and dishonest.

Again, as I have said in numerous articles, I have asserted that Romney facilitated gay marriage behind the scenes. It is not “unfair” or “dishonest” to state that he could have done any number of things to stop the illegal same sex marriages in Massachusetts from taking place. He could have utilized a “bill of address” to remove the judicial autocrats and he chose not to even though Chief Justice Margaret Marshall had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by advocating expanding homosexual rights at a fundraiser in 1999 at a Mass Gay and Lesbian Fundraiser in 1999 even though it was illegal to do so. Romney chose not to pursue removing her. He also could have halted the illegal “marriages” via Executive Order. In fact pro-family leaders/conservatives Pat Buchannan, Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst College, and Matt Staver Esq of the Liberty Council all publically urged Romney to defy the court’s unconstitutional ruling and halt the marriages. Romney chose to do nothing. Romney also could have enforced article 5 of the Massachusetts Constitution written by John Adams that gives only the governor and council authority to determine all causes of marriage. Yet as chief executive officer Romney chose not to enforce that provision even though there was a clear case of judicial usurpation by the MSJC. Romney also could have enforced article 10 of the Constitution that declares: “The people of this Commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given consent.” And since the Mass legislature never consented to gay marriage, Romney could have simply rejected the decision outright. Yet he chose to do nothing.

You say:

One more item from the unfair and inaccurate file,
“now transforming the Cradle of Liberty into an amalgam of the Soviet Union, Sodom and Las Vegas.”
Come on Gregg. Hardly a reasonable or accurate statement.

I disagree. Romney’s socialist HC plan has many similar components as the former Soviet style command control system and many of the Socialist HC “single payer” systems in Europe and Canada. His behind the scenes facilitation of the gay agenda and gay marriage has turned Massachusetts into a modern day Sodom in many regards. And the fact that Mass is now debating state wide slot machines it is fair to say could give Massachusetts that Las Vegas type of flavor. I wasn’t speaking in the literal sense but the metaphorical.
You say:

“Socialist government health care”? Hardly. I find it amazing that an admirer of Newt Gingrich would not see the obvious conservative qualities of the Romney healthcare plan. This is the type of innovative government thinking that energized the conservative rise to power

Kevin, you quote the Heritage Foundation to under-gird you assertion that Romneycare was successful. Do you think that is fair given the fact that Romney’s charitable foundation actually donated $25,000 to Heritage? Were you aware that Heritage actually helped Romney research and write his healthcare plan?
Romney’s healthcare plan as I and others have detailed is eerily similar to Hillary’s recently unveiled “Healthy Choices” universal HC plan. As I have noted Romneycare significantly increased government regulation by mandating that every citizen purchase insurance or be fined- the first time ever that a state has mandated that citizens be forced to purchase a state defined product. The Congressional Budget Office noted that this level of government intervention was “unprecedented.”
And while citizens did “sign up.” Almost all how did signed up for the “free government subsidized healthcare.” (56,000 more citizens now have Medicaid cards and 101,000 have the zero premium plans. Only 26,000 have signed up for the subsidized plans that require premiums. This is driving up costs significantly. (premiums have almost doubled and the plan is costing as I noted $150 million more than the public had been told.)
Is this the type of “innovative” market based healthcare plan you would want to see on the national level? Why is Romney now distancing himself from it?

You say:

No denying his flip-flop on this issue. He is hardly alone to have switched for reasons political and otherwise. Reagan’s went from a labor leader and New Deal Democrat to conservative icon. As a governor, “Reagan signed a bill liberalizing abortion laws and, when faced with intractable budget shortfalls, raised taxes heavily.”
Romney did neither thing. In fact, when it came up during his time as governor, he made what you would consider the right decisions,
Vetoed emergency contraception for rape victims. (Jul 2005)
Vetoed stem cell research bill. (May 2005)

Here is the crucial difference. While Reagan had an authentic pro-life conversion, Romney has flip flopped back and forth depending on the year and the office he was running for as I detailed in my last three articles. While he did issue a few token “pro-life” vetoes, you ignore vital context. My question is why a governor who had an authentic pro-life conversion would sign a healthcare bill that included tax payer funded abortions? Romney signed the bill even though he could have struck the provision as he struck others from the legislation. As I also noted Romney mandated that a Planned Parenthood (nation’s largest abortion provider) appointee sit on his healthcare commission. So no Kevin. I disagree. As a “pro-life” governor Romney could have fought the tax payer funded abortion provision in his own healthcare bill. That is why I and many other “Romney Critics” doubt the authenticity of his purported “conversion.” His bill allowed for tax payer funded abortions (with a $50 co-pay of course).

You say:

Terribly unfair statement to Romney who has been a vocal opponent of gay marriage. He is a good, decent man and your language is unfair at best. Words matter and what you say about him is not just unfair, its demonstrably wrong.

While Romney has made a few token appearances opposing “gay marriage,” as I have pointed out numerous time, Romney has worked behind the scenes to facilitate gay marriage forcing Justices of the Peace to perform same sex marriages even when he was not legally obligated to do so and changing the actual marriage certificates when he was under no legal obligation to do so. So he was not just “following the law” or “enforcing the law” since the legislature never passed legislation legalizing “gay marriage.” Words do matter Kevin. And my claims are not “wrong.” They can be substantiated by the facts and the facts are that Romney facilitated gay marriage behind the scenes. And if you think that somebody who takes multiple sides of multiple issues for political expediency is a “good and decent man” than I guess we have different standards by which we measure a person’t character. I find him to be a duplicitous person based on his record. Like I have said before (although I don’t support him) at least Rudy is honest about his liberal values and beliefs. There is virtually no difference between Mitt and Rudy. Mitt is dishonestly trying to portray himself to be somebody he is not just to become president and using his Mormon faith to divert people’s attention from his liberal record.

You say:

Isn’t the rule of law important to conservatives? Directing state departments to follow new law hardly seems scandalous, even if he didn’t have to.
Again, wildly unfair. Romney fought against gay marriage all the way. Unlike abortion, where his conversion is a point of legitimate contention, to say that Mitt is part of pushing the gay agenda is ridiculous.

Yes, I would concur with you. Rule of law is vital to us conservatives. The problem that many had with Romney directing Justices of the Peace to perform same sex wedding ceremonies is that there WAS NO GAY MARRIAGE LAW THAT WAS PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE. As I said numerous times, Romney was under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to order justices of the peace to perform same sex marriage ceremonies or be fired. He was UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to order his Dept of Health to change the marriage certificates form “husband” and “wife” to “partner A” and “partner B.” And as I noted John Haskins, one of Massachusetts leading pro family advocates said that “If Romney had not given those orders to the town clerks and justices of the peace to perform gay marriages or get fired there would be no gay marriage in Massachusetts today.”
So, as I have demonstrated, Romney went out of his way to facilitate gay marriage behind the scenes. That is what the record clearly shows. Call it “ridiculous” but that is what his actions demonstrate.

You say in regard to my claim that Mitt is not a fiscal conservative:

Again, wildly unfair. One thing you never address is the environment Romney had to operate in as governor. MA is dominated by liberals.

Wildly unfair? Again you fail to provide context. To balance the $2 billion budget deficit Romney cut some spending but mostly increased taxes by about $500 million the largest component of the budget (he called the taxes “fees”).
Romney also left Massachusetts with a socialist healthcare plan that again is already proving to be an abysmal failure- costing tax payers $150 million more than they were originally told and double the cost of premiums (almost $400 when Romney promised $200 average monthly premiums).
Socialist universal government mandated healthcare plans are not “conservative” are they?
You say:

Who running for president doesn’t spend a fortune on media? All of a sudden the liberal media we rip every week is in the bag for a Mormon Republican. Please. A few high profile conservative talk hosts support Romney, so what? Is it against the law?

My point was that the argument is often advanced that Mitt is the “pragmatic” choice for the GOP. My only point was that based on his standing in the national polls (currently 4th at 12%) and liberal record(thoroughly documented) voter distrust (Mitt is the least trusted of the four leading candidates in 4 recent national polls) and historical evidence (RINOs lose national elections) that Romney is actually THE MOST UN-PRAGMATIC CHOICE FOR THE GOP. And with all this information about Romney’s very extensive liberal record I and others are wondering why so many “conservative” radio hosts are evangelizing this guy such as Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, and Bill Benett to name a few prominent ones and even the real Kool Aid Drinking Romniacs who seem to be affiliated with Romney’s campaign in some capacity such as Kevin McCullough. I have only attempted to expose his real record to refute the very misleading and specious notion perpetuated by his advocates that he is a “reliable conservative” when the truth is just the opposite. The voters deserve to know the candidate’s true record. But perhaps candidate Romney will come on our show and clear all this up.
With regard to Romney’s contention that he’d appoint strict constructionists, the question I raised in my most recent Townhall article is why voters should trust that he would given the fact that many Massachusetts pro family activists such as John Haskins have claimed that Romney violated the Massachusetts Constitution by issuing the orders to town clerks and justices of the peace to perform the same sex marriages even though he was not obligated to do so under the law.

You say with regard to my claim that Romney has been effectively pro-gun control:

You are basically accusing Mitt of practicing politics. Many people who consider themselves pro second amendment also see the necessity in certain prohibitions around gun firepower and gun ownership.

No I am merely pointing out that voters should know that Romney has not been a friend to gun owners. The NRA vigorously opposed the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban which Romney has supported. He joined the NRA 120 days prior to his presidential campaign. I think that voters should know that although he says now that he is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment that people should balance that claim with his actions. He bragged about having the most stringent gun control laws in the nation and has been a long time gun control advocate. My point is that is what his record shows and that voters should be wary of his recent “pro-gun conversion” especially given the fact that he lied when he said he hunted his entire life when it came out a few days later he had actually only hunted twice in his life. Voters were right to be wary of Kerry when he asked “where can I get me a huntin’ licence?” and they should be similarly wary of Romney’s claim of being pro-second amendment. Given his past pro-gun control positions and penchant for embellishing on the truth, reminding voters exactly what his record was as governor can only help them evaluate his authenticity on this issue.