The argument is often advanced, that as governor, Mitt Romney in ordering Justices of the Peace to perform “same sex marriages” or be fired and ordering his Department of Health to change the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “partner A” and “partner B,” was merely “enforcing the law†and doing what “law and order†conservatives are supposed to do.
Unfortunately this argument is bogus. And here is why. Only the legislature has the constitutional authority to make law. The judiciary has the power to interpret the laws on an individual case basis but has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE LAWS. Here is what the Massachusetts Constitution says:
“All causes of marriage…shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.” (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)
When then Governor Romney declared after the Goodridge ruling (that was inaccurately said to “legalize same sex marriageâ€) that he had “no other choice but to enforce the law,” Romney violated his sworn oath to uphold the Massachusetts Constitution authored by John Adams by claiming that the court’s opinion was “law” and was “binding.”
As the following “Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders” which was hand-delivered to the Governor’s staff on Dec. 20, 2006 shows, by issuing “homosexual marriage” licenses, Romney violated his sworn oath to enforce the state laws of the Commonwealth. The original marriage statute (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207) never allowed for “same sex marriage” as even the court acknowledged in their majority opinion in Goodridge. And I quote from the Joint Letter to Romney from the Pro-Family leaders:
We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute:
“Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.”
In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: “We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.â€
Thus, the only way that “gay marriage” could have become “legal” would have been if the Massachusetts legislature actually repealed or amended the existing marriage statute 207. They were “ordered” to do so within 180 days (which in and of itself was unconstitutional) but took no action. Therefore, the existing marriage statute 207 which never allowed for “same sex marriage” remained in effect (and still does to this day).
As governor, Romney had the constitutional obligation to enforce the current laws of the state. And the current law didn’t (and still doesn’t) allow for “same sex marriages.”
But Romney had already made promises to the Log Cabin Republicans when running for Governor in 2002 that, as reported recently by the NY Times, that he would not lead a campaign against gay marriage.
Calling Mr. Romney a flip-flopper on gay rights would be overly simplistic, Mr. Spampinato said. But he conceded that his old boss had promised the Log Cabin members that he would not champion a fight against same-sex marriage.
So, instead of enforcing the current laws as was his sworn constitutional duty as chief executive, Romney actually subverted the law and violated his oath by forcing Justices of the Peace and other public officials to marry same sex couples or be fired even though doing so was a clear violation of current Massachusetts law. He then went even further and ordered his Department of Health to change the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “partner A” and “partner B” even though there was no law requiring him to do so.
Candidate Romney is running around the country campaigning as the “family values” candidate and talks about how he favors a “federal marriage amendment” to protect the sanctity of marriage. The truth is that as governor, Romney not only called a similar state marriage amendment that would have defined marriage as between “one man and one woman,” and I quote, “too extreme” but he went out of his way to actually facilitate same sex marriage behind the scenes by abdicating his constitutionally sworn duty to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Since the legislature never amended any marriage law to allow for same sex marriage, Mitt Romney engaged in executive tyranny by usurping the legislative authority and by his own actions imposing homosexual marriage on the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney made a few public appearances proclaiming his support for traditional marriage as he was leaving office to campaign for president, but the truth is that if Mitt Romney had not forced the Justices of the Peace to perform those same sex marriage ceremonies there would be no “same sex marriage†in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney was not just “enforcing the laws†as he and the other Romniacs claim. Romney was breaking them and the voters who he is daily deceiving (with the aid of his obsequious “conservative†cheerleaders in the media -Hannity, Hewitt, Seculow et al) deserve to know the truth.
Great editorial today in Investor’s Business Daily, which included this line,
Michael Yon, who deserves to be the first blogger to win a Pulitzer Prize
Yes, he does deserve it.
Progress, Progress And More Progress
Winning: News from Iraq gets better by the day, but the media have done their best to downplay the turnaround and congressional Democrats have basically pulled the covers over their heads and pretended it doesn’t exist.
The positive news has become simply overwhelming.
Which makes it all the more curious why major newspapers and network TV news programs can lead with a barrage of news out of Iraq when things there go bad, but can’t seem to find the space or time when things turn good. As the bad news dries up, their interest in the good remains nil.
It takes people like Yon, whose online webzine can be found at http://michaelyon-online.com, to tell us what’s going on — not the highly paid prima donnas whose past reporting has made them so invested in defeat that they can no longer afford to tell us the truth.
Support Michael’s work here,
Michael Yon
P O Box 5553
Winter Haven, FL 33880-5553
One of our favorite business bloggers, Tom Blumer of BizzyBlog, joined us for a discussion of the Top Five Economic Myths in America today.
In this first segment, we finished off a vigorous discussion Gregg and I were having before the break about the merits, or not, of Romney’s healthcare plan in Massachusetts. Gregg and I had jousted in a few posts (here, here and here) on the topic this week, and Tom added his perspective, along with a couple of interesting callers.
We really dig into Tom’s list in this segment. Many of these topics will be main themes of the general election, so it is good to study them so we will recognize spin when we see it.
All of our interviews are also available for download at iTunes and Podcast Alley via the Pundit Review Radio Podcast.
What is Pundit Review Radio?
Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Called “groundbreaking†by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 7-10 pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.
What a great pleasure and honor to welcome former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. John Bolton, to Pundit Review Radio. Ambassador Bolton joined us for wide ranging, thirty minute interview in which we covered a ton of ground. I have broken the interview into two segments. His excellent new book, Surrender is Not an Option, was the basis for our discussion
This first segment runs about 18 minutes and we cover the sorry state of the U.N., the situation with Iran and North Korea, as well as the inter-agency friction between State, Defense and Justice. We also talked about the problems within the State Department as well as the relationships between the principals at the top of these agencies, people such as Rumsfled, Armitage, Powell and Rice. It was very interesting to talk to him about the role of interpersonal relationships and how it can influence public policy.
Segment two is about 12 minutes long and we covered the sorry state of the Ivy League (Bolton has some great stories in the book about his experience as a conservative at Yale); the Israeli bombing of Syria, which Bolton thinks should be talked about more publicly and the rise of China’s military while the world focuses its attention on Islamic fanatics.
All of our interviews are also available for download at iTunes and Podcast Alley via the Pundit Review Radio Podcast.
What is Pundit Review Radio?
Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Called “groundbreaking†by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 7-10 pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.
Bruce McQuain from QandO joined us for another edition of Someone You Should Know. Bruce has a great Veterans Day tribute, reminding us that everyone who serves is a hero. The Someone You Should Know radio collaboration began as an extension of Matt Burden’s series at Blackfive. Thanks to Matt, Bruce is now on board and we are lucky to have him as part of the show.
Tonight, Bruce told us about Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Joshua Chiarini,
“He reacted the way he did for one simple reason: to take care of the Marine at his right and the Marine to his left,” said Brig. Gen. David Berger, 2nd Marine Division’s assistant division commander, who presented the Silver Star to Chiarini. “He would not let his fellow warriors down. He used himself to protect his comrades. We can not ask anything more.”
All of our interviews are also available for download at iTunes and Podcast Alley via the Pundit Review Radio Podcast.
What is Pundit Review Radio?
Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Called “groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 7-10 pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
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 “feesâ€).
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.
Gregg, here is a response to your recent column against Mitt Romney. I found the column unfair, innaccurate and misleading. I am no “Romniac”, not even a Romney supporter, but I took your challenge to rebut the main thrust of your attack against Romney.
1. Mitt is a liberal. How do you think he got elected to the most left wing state in America? He was as pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda, pro-gun control as Ted Kennedy when elected governor. He was pro-choice when he was elected and pro-abortion when he left the governor’s office. When he was elected governor, the Baked Bean State did not have gay marriage. When he left, it did. When he was elected, Massachusetts had a Republican governor for nearly two decades. When he left, it didn’t. What it had was a Hillary disciple who is now transforming the Cradle of Liberty into an amalgam of the Soviet Union, Sodom and Las Vegas. Imagine what Mitt could do as president.
Mitt is not a liberal. He’s just not an evangelical’s idea of a conservative.
“When he was elected governor, the Baked Bean State did not have gay marriage. When he left, it did.â€
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.
As for the “Hillary disciple†as you call Deval, he’s actually supporting Barack Obama. Some disciple.
One more item from the unfair and innaccurate file,
“now transforming the Cradle of Liberty into an amalgam of the Soviet Union, Sodom and Las Vegas.â€
Come on Gregg. Hardly a reasonable or accurate statement.
2. He’s that liberal?! He gave Massachusetts a socialist government health care plan entitled “Commonwealth Care” that some call Hillarycare as he was walking out the door. And, apparently he didn’t know it included abortion as a health benefit. Because by then, he had discovered abortion was “wrong.”
“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. These days, the purity of the candidate and their ability to win the seal of approval from the right wing is more important than truly conservative positions on a whole host of issues, especially healthcare. The fact is if Republicans don’t lead in this area, the Dems will and it will be far worse. Here’s a nice reminder from Mitt,
“It’s a conservative idea,” says Romney, “insisting that individuals have responsibility for their own health care. I think it appeals to people on both sides of the aisle: insurance for everyone without a tax increase.”
– Governor Romney, USA Today, July 5, 2005
This isn’t socialist government healthcare, this is what people, conservative people, want from the government,
Number of Mass. uninsured continues to decline
“As of Nov. 1, nearly 133,000 people out of 160,000 eligible were enrolled in Commonwealth Care, a program created by Massachusetts’ 2006 health care reform law in which the state subsidizes—in most cases completely—the health insurance premiums of low-income state residents.â€
Edmund Haislmaier is a research fellow in the Center for Health Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation and an advisor to Romney when he put this plan together. He hits on a key point with regard to the conservative principles wihin Romney’s plan,
Finally, there is the element of Romney’s proposal that gives Pipes’s and many other conservatives the most trouble — the “personal responsibility” provisions, or what could be called an individual mandate to buy health insurance. Romney’s argument is that mandating coverage in the currently fragmented and overly expensive insurance market would be wrong and counterproductive. But, if the market is reorganized to make coverage universally available and portable, deregulated at least enough to make it affordable for the middle class, and subsidized enough to make it affordable for the low-income, then there are no more reasonable excuses for anyone not buying health insurance.
Furthermore, to allow people to go without health insurance, and then when they do fall ill expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney proposes to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: Either buy insurance or pay for your own care. Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.
Haislmaier and Sally Pipes, who you quoted in your article, had opposing op-ed’s published on NRO. I’ll leave it to the readers to decide who got the better of the arguement. Haislmaier’s pro-Romney take is here and Pipes anti-Romney piece is here.
And speaking of health, Mitt presided over the opening of the most corrupt and most expensive public works project in U.S. history – The Big Dig tunnel-bridge system. This project killed nearly a dozen people in the 48 months since it opened. When an immigrant woman was crushed to death by a cement-ceiling panel that fell on her as she traveled through one of the new tunnels, Mitt went on TV and said he would get to the bottom of this dangerous, deadly project. But he didn’t. Here was a public safety issue a conservative could have made a presidential-run-reputation on, exposing the Democrat corruption and fixing the problems. But he ignored it, preserving the public health menace for future victims. Instead, he took campaign contributions from international Big Dig contractors.
Another terribly unfair and innacurate statement. Sure, he “presided†over the opening of the most corrupt and expensive public works project in US History.†You conveniently leave out the fifteen year history of the project and the gross mismanagement of his Republican governors before him. The honest explanation is that Romney inhereted a disaster not of his making. It was in motion long before he rescused the Winter Olympics, let alone ran for governor. From a City Journal article blogged about at Pundit Review,
“Conceived in the 1970s and finished, more or less, in 2005, the Big Dig is modern America’s most ambitious urban-infrastructure project, spanning six presidents and seven governorsâ€.”
“This project killed nearly a dozen people in the 48 months since it opened.â€
No it didn’t. It killed one member of the public and an incredibly low number of three construction fatalities. If you are lumping in construction deaths, that is unfair to Romney, again. Even with those construction deaths included, the number is four,
“And though insurance tables had predicted 40 serious accidents during the project, the Big Dig suffered only a quarter of that total, and three construction deaths—showing how much things had changed since, say, the 1870s, when raising the Brooklyn Bridge took 27 lives.†–City Journal
You continue,
“Here was a public safety issue a conservative could have made a presidential-run-reputation on, exposing the Democrat corruption and fixing the problems. But he ignored it, preserving the public health menace for future victims.”
Actually the opposite of this statement is what happened. Mitt did more to change Turnpike Authority than any governor. After the accident, he took action and fired the chair and took the agency over. He didn’t ignore it. He was trying to change this long before the collapse. He was aggressive before and after the 2006 accident happened.
New England Republican remind us, “Romney has also been trying to merge the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority with the State Highway Department since he took office but the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature has refused to go along.â€
I’d call that leadership, not just jumping in after a tragedy. He was there first, trying to break a corrupt, entrenched public works system, just like you said he should have been.
3. I thought he was pro-life? Romney’s Massachusetts health care plan says “no.” The plan covers abortion. What kind of Pro-lifer thinks abortion should be part of his health care plan? Romney signed this bill into law after he claims he had a discussion with an anonymous Harvard doctor wherein he discovered abortion was morally wrong.
Would it be too cynical to suggest the Harvard doctor was a PHD at the Kennedy School of Government who gave him a lot of computer printouts on Republican voters showing they don’t like abortion? Was it then he “discovered” abortion was wrong ( i.e. the wrong position for a conservative presidential candidate)?
Unlike Reagan who had a true turnaround on abortion, Romney has ping-ponged back and forth on this issue for years. As a 1994 U.S. Senate candidate, he said he had believed for nearly a quarter century that abortion should be “safe and legal.” Yet by 2001, the Salt Lake City Tribune quoted him as saying, “I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice.”
A year later, running for governor in Massachusetts, Romney was definitely Pro-choice and promised he would not touch any abortion law. During a candidate’s debate, he was so firmly Pro-choice, he renounced an endorsement from Massachusetts’ Citizens for Life.
But last year in South Carolina, a modern day miracle occurred. Romney declared, “I am firmly Pro-life…I was always for life.”
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.â€
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)
He legitimately deserves criticism on this issue and you are right to be skeptical. All I’m saying is that many before him have taken similar journey’s and when the life bills hit his desk, he acted as a pro-life politician should.
4. But he does stand for family values, right? If you think two guys getting married constitutes a family, then yes, he’s into family values.
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.
Publicly, he was as normal and upstanding a family values guy as you’ll see. But privately, he seemed to be working for the gay agenda. When the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court imposed gay marriage on the citizens of the Commonwealth, Romney could have exercised a “bill of address” to impeach the activist judges. But he didn’t.
This “bill of address†that you hold up as the holy grail for overturning a Supreme Court decision is a last minute haymaker from your go-to-guy for Romney dirt, Brian Canamaker. He got exactly one legislator to sponsor this “bill of addressâ€,
“The lone sponsor of the measure — Representative Emile J. Goguen, Democrat of Fitchburg — said he sees the “bill of address” as a tool to pressure members of the court to reconsider their landmark 4-3 decision or risk losing their judgeships. “I’m going to be in tomorrow to file the bill,” said Goguen, 70, who strongly opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions. “I’m going solo for now, but I will circulate it to all the legislators.”
It is ridiculous to give this dubious strategy any credibility.
He signed something he didn’t have to directing town clerks to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples or be fired. One Justice of the Peace Linda Gray Kelley did lose her job because of her religious views against gay marriage.
She lost her job alright, because she resigned. You infer that she lost her job because of Romney. Here’s her resignation letter, first paragraph,
“It is with my deepest regrets that I must submit my resignation as Justice of the Peace for the Commonwealth. You made it crystal clear Sunday at the JP conference that we are to follow the law, without waffling and avoidance of couples seeking same-sex marriages. In good conscience, I cannot agree to follow that directive. I am bound by the laws of God and the Catholic church.”
She resigned because her conscience and beliefs would not allow her to follow the law. Good for her. She’s a woman of integrity. To infer this is anything to do with Romney is again, unfair. He didn’t make the law. He fought it every step of the way.
Romney went even further however and directed his Department of Health to change the state marriage licenses to read “Party A” and “Party B” replacing “Husband” and “Wife.”Romney was under no legal obligation to do either of these things. Would a true family values governor do this?
He now claims to support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. Yet in 2002 then governor Romney called a similar attempt to amend the Massachusetts’ Constitution “too extreme.”
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.
5. But he’s a fiscal conservative, right? When it comes to spending money, he is more liberal than Ted K.
Again, wildly unfair. One thing you never address is the environment Romney had to operate in as governor. MA is dominated by liberals.
He’s spent the gross national product of small nations on media, which accounts for all the good press he’s gotten. Ninety percent of voters may not want him, but 99 percent of the media loves him – even conservative talk radio show hosts.
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? Are social conservatives the only real republicans? Sometimes I think conservatives would be happier with a smaller party.
Big spenders Hillary and Ted K praised the health care law signed by Romney. Coincidentally, it is quite similar to a plan unveiled by Hillary dubbed, “Healthy Choices.” Romney Care increases government mandates, regulations, costs and bureaucracy with less choice for consumers. The Congressional Budget Office noted that this level of government intervention and regulation was “unprecedented.”
Unprecedented – as in – even the out-of-control socialist Democrats hadn’t gone this far. Sally Pipes, of the Pacific Research Institute who reviewed Romney Care in a recent Wall St. Journal article said the governor’s plan was in “intensive care” right after birth. Only months after going into effect, the plan was costing Bay Staters $150 million more than the public was first told.
Premiums are nearly double what Romney promised. Keep in mind, Massachusetts already has the highest health care costs in the world. And Mitt increased them. Let’s connect the dots.
RomneyCare will take “Taxachusetts” into the 75 percent tax rate. That’s his fiscal legacy to the place American Democracy began. Imagine what Mitt could do as president.
You picked the 75% tax hike out of thin air, yes? Here’s the conservative Club for Growth’s assessment of Romney’s economic record,
“Governor Romney’s economic record contains a mixture of pro-growth accomplishments and some troublesome positions that beg to be explained,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “While his record on taxes, spending, and entitlement reform is flawed, it is, on balance, encouraging, especially given the liberal Massachusetts Legislature.”
The fiscal legacy he left was actually pretty good. Far better than it would have been if a real “liberal†was in office.
Club For Growth: Governor Romney “Imposed Much-Needed Fiscal Discipline On A Very Liberal Massachusetts Legislature.”
“Governor Romney’s economic record contains a mixture of pro-growth accomplishments and some troublesome positions that beg to be explained,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “While his record on taxes, spending, and entitlement reform is flawed, it is, on balance, encouraging, especially given the liberal Massachusetts Legislature.
Governor Romney Beat Back “Big-Tax Proposals” And Chose Instead “To Erase Deficits By Hacking Away At Spending.” “What attracted many of these economists to the Romney team was the former governor’s success, in a liberal state, of beating back big-tax proposals and instead choosing to erase deficits by hacking away at spending.” (Kimberley A. Strassel, Op-Ed, “Tax Talk,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/30/07)
In The Four Budgets He Signed, Governor Romney Used The Line-Item Veto Or Program Reduction Power In An Attempt To Cut Spending By Nearly $1 Billion.
Show me someone who has ever said these things about Ted Kennedy.
6. But he’ll elect conservative judges, right? Romney loves to preach passionate sermons against “judicial activism.” He promised to nominate strict conservative constructionists to the federal bench. The problem is, his record disagrees. The Boston Globe reports that as governor, Romney “passed over GOP lawyers for three quarters of the 36 judicial court vacancies he faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or Independents including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights.”
Romney’s Record on judges,
“As governor, Romney replaced regional judicial nominating committees criticized as politically motivated with a central commission that reviewed resumes without knowing the applicants’ names. Romney’s pick from the commission’s short list had to pass muster with a nine-member council dominated by Democrats.
Romney said last week that in Mass. he chose ”strict constructionist” lawyers who abide by the letter of the law. ”It wasn’t a matter of Democrat or Republican,” Romney said after the speech at Nova Southeastern University. “It was a matter of strict constructionist versus liberal.””
That seems like a reasonable answer to me. In Mass. a “Democrat” can mean many different things, from Reagan Democrat to McGovern Democrat.
History shows that even the best intention of apponting a certain judicial philosphy can backfire on a candiate. The question is what type of jurist are they looking for. Romney says strict constructionists. That’s more then you would ever get from a real liberal. In fact, that is exactly what conservatives say they want.
7. Are you saying he can’t be trusted? Ted K called him John Kerry. The term he used was “Multiple Choice Mitt,” i.e. Mitt takes numerous positions on issues. He’s for it, against it and – oh what the heck – he’s such a nice guy he agrees with both sides. When it comes to issues Ted is right, Mitt looks like John Kerry. The good thing is voters seem to understand Romney better than the media. A recent Pew Center Poll found only 12 percent of respondents thought of Mitt Romney when the word “honest” was presented to them-the lowest percentage of the four major Republican candidates.
For all you Iowa-New Hampshire-South Carolina gun owners, keep this in mind. Mitt is for and against the 2nd amendment. While campaigning in New Hampshire last April, he said to a man wearing an NRA hat that he was a “life long hunter.” Romney’s campaign quickly issued a retraction, admitting he’d only hunted twice in his life. He declared his love for Massachusetts’ fascistic gun laws and favors the Brady Law, which the NRA opposes. Perhaps the time will come when he “discovers” the second amendment is a good thing. But it can only happen during an election campaign.
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.
8. Well then, what’s all this about Mitt being the “pragmatic” Republican choice? Ah yes. Keep in mind, pragmatic means “what works.” Mitt has a voter approval rating down around that of the Pelosi congress, in spite of all the media’s acting as his press agent. Voters don’t trust him. The idea that he is the Hillary-slayer is at odds with his record, which…uh… has much in common with Hillary, in particular the gay-friendly, socialist health care stuff.
If pragmatic means “what works,” then what is it about Mitt that works? When most Americans wouldn’t vote for Mitt in spite of all the money he’s thrown out and all the media glorification, doesn’t that seem to be the opposite of pragmatism? Contrary to conservative talk radio common wisdom, Mitt is the un-pragmatic choice. If Mitt does to America what he did to the “Birthplace of American Democracy,” America will be in a nose-dive by 2012.
As I said at the top, I’m not supporting Mitt. I’m sure that somebody who is could do a better job that I have defending him. The point I’m trying to make with this exercise is that Mitt is not who you, unfailrly, portray him to be.