Redstate

correctly, the speaker has in the past implied that if a candidate comes along whose platform and priorites sufficiently resembled his own, he would not run.

The two have one big thing in common: they're willing to talk nuts and bolts about medical care reform.

That may be why Gingrich would stay out: because Romney would have that pet issue of his covered.

I think Newt was praising Romney, insinuating that Mitt most represents his idea of what a candidate should be.  

And I had always wondered whether or not Romney would be that candidate considering that on most issues, he is a blank slate, and would be able to adopt some of Newt's issues without really changing documented opinions.

Would love to have Gingrich and crew supporting Romney!

about the idea of a Gingrich/Romney ticket in the past, but if Newt says he and Romney are close enough intellectually  that he (Newt) will not run, I am inclined to trust the Speaker and support Romney.

is that the Speaker and the Governor agree not only on medical care issues but also on the other important stuff (patriotism, immigration, entitlements, immigration, defense, taxes, litigation, etc.) Gingrich laid out in his book.

Several here at Redstate have wondered why some have started to group Newt and Mitt together, whent talking about 2008.  To me, they seem to fit eachother nicely.

Both have exceptional communication skills.  To me, if we are going to be serious about winning, we must have a nominee who can communicate conservative ideas to the public at large.  Dubya has been a failure in that regard.  

Newt has the ideas and the motivational ability to do just that.  Romney certainly knows how to woo a crowd.  So far, from what I can observe, he seems to be on track with where the conservative movement needs to go.

I think they naturally go together, when talking about 08.  Romney seems the closest match to Newt, but without the character issues.  So, I believe Newt was saying that if Mitt jumps in, he won't have to, because Mitt is pretty darn close to where he is at philisophically.  

I also think Newt sees Mitt as not only a conservative, but a doer, a man of accomplishment.

First, remember that it is not a direct Newt quote.   We do not have the whole statement, nor its context.

That being said, I would say that about the only thing that we can derive from Newt's comment is that he thinks Romney is conservative enough for him to support.  He knows that if he runs, Romney and he would split the Conservative vote, and McCain would breeze to the Nomination.

I have always thought that Gingrich was more likely to have a Kingmaker role than to actually succesfully run for the nomination.

I think you are right.  He can accomplish far more at this time in a supporting role than trying to run for President.

Romney is no blank slate.

His transparent presidential campaign posturing to the right aside, he cannot escape his publicly documentable record:

He supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's "right to choose" to terminate the life of her prenatal child.  Endorsed by pro-abort Republican Majority for Choice PAC.

Twice endorsed by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans.  Appointed two homosexual activists to the bench who favor so-called homosexual "marriage."  Publicly criticized by the Boy Scouts for his support of openly homosexual Scoutmasters.  Endorsed Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation.  Favors taxpayer-financed spousal benefits for homosexual "partners" of state employees.  In the course of three years, he first opposed a marriage amendment to his state constitution before running for president, then supported one that mandated establishment of homosexual "civil unions," now (as presidential candidate) supports one that bans all the above.

Favors the Brady bill, the assault weapons ban, and "strict enforcement of all gun laws."

Romney's campaign will shatter on the rocks of Fort Sumter and Super Tuesday, assuming he's not chewed up in the cornfields of Iowa.  His pro-abort, pro-homosexual record might do him well in the neighboring New Hampshire primary, of course, but then his presidential campaign posturing as having "evolved" (his word) into a pro-life and pro-family candidate may mitigate even that.

GOP primary voters, especially in the South, are not going to trust the appointment powers to the Supreme Court to a governor from Massachusetts who put two homosexual activists on the bench, including a board member of the state Lesbian & Gay Bar Association.

Wow you better call up Gingrich and tell him he was wrong on Romney, since you know more about his character than he does.

Romney did say in 94 he supported the right of women to choose based upon a relative who died in a back alley abortion. As time goes on, Romney has been able to define his stance and show that he is in favor of  states rights and not RVW. It seems though you are not interested in politicians who become more converted to the conservative cause as time goes by. I guess you like division, even if it shoots you in the foot.

This is strange to me since your signon name is that of AFAmichigan. Isn't the purpose of AFA to bring people to there cause? Or is your group only interested in recruiting those who thought the same way as you have since birth.

Also, last I checked voters in the South consider following the law a family value. Something the AFA has not been able to do by breaking copy rights and political donation laws. While I think the AFA is generally a promoter of good values and concepts, it too has skeletons. Make sure your clean before you accuse others of wrongdoing. If not you come off as hypocritical and dishonest.

I Believe Romney has stated he is pro-life, and as governor has vetoed the aborion pill and come out in favor of states rights. Of course you are free to warp his opinion by citing only the facts that fit your agenda, but in the end most people will see your posting as just that: warped.

As far as gay marrrieage is concerned his recent efforts in support of the amendment, his recent articulate arguments on several interviews, his attempt to shut down the governors advisory commitee on Gay and lesbian youth will show that the portrait you have attempted to paint is false.

You selectively use facts to down Romney, but you fail to look at the whole picture. This leaves your arguments looking like you have an agenda beyond putting the best candidate in office.

Romney has been on the front lines of Conservative causes for the last 4 years. He helped the Catholic Church when they wanted to keep gays from adopting through Catholic Charities. He has been a strong voice for choice in education. While people like McCain, Allen and Gingrich talk about it, Romney, as an executive, has to do it, and in hostile territory.

The agenda is simply to tell the truth about Romney's record.

It's not my obligation to quote his spin or the latest stage of the ongoing "evolution" of his core political values at the young impressionable age of 59.

Romney was endorsed by the pro-abort Republican Majority for Choice, and twice by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans.  Such groups don't endorse a candidate unless they're convinced he's philosophically committed to their cause.

Kinda hard to spin your way out of the facts.  Which no doubt is why you chose the Clinton tactic of personally attacking the messenger.

I don't trust a politician who's pro-abort and pro-homosexual agenda throughout his political career, then is suddenly "converted" to conservative views upon announcing for president. I won't trust the judicial appointment powers of the presidency to a governor from Massachusetts with a record of appointing homosexual activists to the court.

In my opinion, there'll be lots of other conservative GOP primary voters who agree.

Appointing a board member of the Lesbian & Gay Bar Association who favors so-called homosexual "marriage" to the bench is deafening.

And you're also right that since announcing he wouldn't run again for governor while touring all the presidential primary states, Romney has "evolved" into the very model of a conservative pro-life, pro-family presidential candidate...

After ten years of supporting Roe v. Wade and a woman's "right to choose" and being endorsed by the Majority for Choice PAC.

And being endorsed twice by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans...why?

You may trust a guy who flip-flops on core values depending on what he's running for.  I don't.

Actually the Log Cabin Republicans do not supprt Romney currently. They did at one time, as they did for GWBush. If you dont believe me read here:

http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/articles/news_03112004.html

It is interesting to note that they supprted Bush in 2000 and I believe he won that election despite any repercusions for their support. Did you oppose Bush in 2000 for the same reasons? If so you obviously were unsuccessful. And I would be willing to bet most here on this site voted for Bush in 2000, despite Log Cabin Republicans.

As far as attacking the messenger, give me a break. If you don't like being attacked than don't attack others it's pretty simple. I was pointing out that your organization has problems just like you claim Romney does. This is important so people can see the picture isn't quite how you painted it. Although I do think in general the AFA has some good things to it.

Generally, telling the truth means not warping it and only telling the parts that fit your current needs- unless your Bill Clinton.

If Newt were to not run for President because Romney is, then I would instantly become a Romney supporter.

However, until then, I know that Newt is the best candidate in the field and I will support him up until he drops out.

On a sidenote, Newt has recently said he will run for President only if there is no frontrunner.  Having that in mind, I think he may have changed his mind on the "won't run if Romney will" idea.

Romney says "let states decide" on abortion . . . a federalist view.  Since he's been in an openly pro-abortion state has he therefore been consistent on this issue?  The questions now are not about what he wants to get done in Mass . . . but what he would get done as president.  Federalism on abortion would save millions of babies over the next few years/decades.  You should want someone in office who thinks this way.

AFA,

You've been repeating the same basic pro-homosexual and pro-abortion accusations against Romney for quite some time.  True, your quotes are correct, but you've been completely defiant against the many valid counter-arguments and counter-quotes put forward.  In fact you sweep on completely undeterred, and each time you start the cry again it sounds as good as new.

Obviously you're intelligent, as proven by your exceptional copy-paste skills and referencing skills.  But I really have to question you about your agenda "for the truth".  If you were simply concerned with the truth, you'd be considering all the evidence available on the issues.  You're clearly not doing that, as all I ever hear from you is the same mantra of several liberal sounding quotes or actions from Romney.  You ignore the majority of his quotes, policies, etc because they don't fit your conclusions.

So WHY exactly do you want to paint Romney as a liberal?  I thought of a few reasons, tell me if I'm getting warm.

1. You have in mind a candidate you REALLY want to see win the GOP primary, a competitor of Romney's.  Who is it please?  Do you apply the same rigorous background check to this person?  I'd really love to know.
   
2. You don't want a mormon president because you're a baptist.  Is it the religous issue?  If it were, you'd obviously have to find grounds to oppose him that were legitimate, hence the "Romney's a closet liberal" crusade.
   
3. You've already made up your mind that any northeast republican is just another Lincoln Chafee.  Is it a geographical test?  Is POTUS just too risky a job for anyone but a good old boy?

"On a sidenote, Newt has recently said he will run for President only if there is no frontrunner.  Having that in mind, I think he may have changed his mind on the "won't run if Romney will" idea."

Do you have quote dates for Newt saying Romney would keep him out of the race vs. Newt saying he will run for President if there is no frontrunner?  

The chronology of the two statements would be interesting.  However, are they necessarilly mutually exclusive?  

"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."

Then in 2002, he did not argue the federalism, he argued that Roe v. Wade was correct, and that he would not change the abortion laws.  Supporting Roe is the antithesis of federalism.

Remember that McCain said pretty much the same thing about Roe in 2000. All that's not all that important, IMO. All that matters is the kind of justices they appoint to SCOTUS. I think Romney would appoint very good justices. He has had first hand experience dealing with an out-of-control Supreme Court in Mass. He isn't going to appoint the same kind of overlords who make it up as they go along to SCOTUS.

However, I wouldn't look towards the kind of judges Romney (himself) appointed in Massachusetts if you want to be optimistic about who he'd appoint if President.

I think he's more conservative than that, but just don't look at his record in Massachusetts for examples.

I don't know if I've ever even seen a good state judicial appointment. If Federal courts are the major leagues, state courts aren't even the minor leagues, they're a pick up game of tee ball. Having the right connections seems to be about the only important attribute for any candidate. Judicial philosophy never seems to enter into it.

As to Romney's record of judicial appointments, Associated Press reported in 2005:

"(Romney) has leaned more left when filling judicial vacancies. According to a review in the Boston Globe, of the 36 people Romney has named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made contributions to Democratic politicians, are who have voted in Democratic primaries. Overall, Romney has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters and 14 registered Democrats, including two gay lawyers who have supported expanding same-sex rights."

Once informed, GOP primary voters will not trust Supreme Court appointments to a guy from Massachusetts who appoints homosexual activists to the bench.

Log Cabin's current feelings about Romney only validate my point.  After a decade of supporting homosexual activists' agenda, Romney reversed course in preparation for a presidential candidacy.  Same thing on abortion.  After a decade of supporting Roe v. Wade and a woman's "right to choose," now suddenly he wants us to believe he's pro-life.

Point is, he changes his core values based on the political opportunity before him.  Which is why he's not trustworthy: since he's proven he'll diametrically reverse his positions on core issues for politlcal purposes, why would we trust him -- once elected -- not to reverse again?  

Log Cabin endorsed Bush in 2000 to augment their own credibility.  I don't recall any pro-homosexual policy position taken by Bush as governor that would have warranted the endorsement.  In Romney's case, his policy positions were supportive of homosexual activsits' agenda, even including his gratuitous statement in support of homosexual Scoutmasters, for which he was criticized by BSA's national spokesman.

You write: "As far as attacking the messenger, give me a break. If you don't like being attacked than don't attack others."

I couldn't care less if you attack me.  I was simply pointing out for the benefit of other readers that in response to my critique of Romney's documentable public policy record, you responded by attacking me personally (a sure sign of inability to effectively debate the substance).

And my username notwithstanding, I write as an individual.  Your undocumented allegations about any organization are irrelevant to the question of whether Romney has a documentable record of supporting Roe v. Wade, "safe and legal" abortion, homosexual Scoutmasters, taxpayer-financed same-sex benefits, and appointing homosexual activists to the bench.

Answer: he does, and your attempt to discredit some group in response to a critique of his documented record merely illustrates your own weakness.

The fact that you can now produce an ever-growing volume of presidential campaign statements that sound conservative and pro-life and pro-family does not detract from the reality and the truth of Romney's insistent decade-long pro-abort, pro-homosexual record before posturing to run for president.

And that's why we don't believe him.

And that he would appoint strict-constructionalist judges.  However, that is a great piece of ammunition that can and will be used against Romney during the primaries.

In the general, he'd probably have to explain why he appointed those justices and why he wouldn't appoint them to the supreme court.  The federalism argument works, but still, all of this can be used against him in campaign ads talking about how much he's "flipped" (regardless of how he really hasn't.)

Murphy..

(Michael? I'm flattered.)

I ignore all the "new and improved and evolved" Romney quotes because they're obviously your attempt to create a new presidential Romney that can be sold to conservative GOP primary voters.

You know you can't sell the old "sustain and support" Roe v Wade, "safe and legal abortion" Romney who was endorsed by the pro-abort Majority for Choice PAC.

And you know you can't sell the pro-homosexual Scoutmaster, pro-Kennedy "gay rights" bill, pro-taxpayer funded same-sex benefits for government employees Romney who appointed homosexual activists to the bench and got the homosexual Log Cabin endorsement (twice) by telling them (they say) that he was open to dropping his opposition to so-called homosexual "marriage" when public opinion also "evolved."

Point is, even if your campaign produces a greater volume of "new and improved" Romney statements over the next two years, it doesn't diminish the facts of his past record.  You can't unfire a gun.  And Romney can't unappoint a board member of the Lesbian & Gay Bar Association to the state judiciary.

I appreciate your acknowledging that all my posts have been accurate, intelligent, and exceptionally well documented and referenced. You're right, because I don't write anything I can't document with original source documents.

As to your speculations above:

1.  I do not have a particular candidate in mind, and in fact hope that candidates other than those now being considered will emerge. Name any particular candidate, if you wish to engage further in your guessing game, and I can probably list their flaws as well.  Giuliani and Pataki, for example, have records that are even more liberal than Romney's, but at least they seem motivated by sincere conviction.  They aren't trying to suddenly paint themselves as pro-life pro-family values conservatives in order to run for president, asking us to believe (as Romney asks) that they've "evolved" and suddenly discovered their real core values at the young impressionable still developing age of 59.
   
2. Unless you yourself are LDS, Murphy, I've probably managed or consulted more Mormon candidates for public office then you've ever even met. I am a Baptist, and last month, I sang at an LDS funeral for one of the dozens of LDS candidates I've managed or consulted. In fact, I would support an LDS candidate for president who had a solid public policy record consistent with the pro-family, pro-life values of the LDS Church.

In Romney's case, it's just the opposite.  The Church is pro-life.  He said we should "sustain and support" Roe v. Wade, and his 2002 gubernatorial website said under "Abortion Rights" that he believes "women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."  To illustrate how insistent he was that supporting abortion on demand was a core gut issue for him, he publicly told the heartfelt story of a girl engaged to a member of his family who died after having an illegal abortion, presumably pre-Roe v. Wade.  That you think you can sell this guy as a trustworthy pro-life conservative in the GOP primary -- even to faithful Mormons -- is testimony to your hubris.

Ditto on the homosexual issue.  He was rebuked by the BSA for saying he supports homosexual Scoutmasters. Endorsed Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation. Supported tax-funded same-sex benefits for the homosexual partners of govt employees. Sent out campaign flyers celebrating Gay Pride Month. Opposed a marriage amendment to his state constitution, then supported one that created homosexual civil unions, and now as presidential candidate supports the very kind of amendment he earlier opposed and called "too extreme." Appointed two homosexual activists to the bench. And you think when they learn about that record, GOP primary voters are gonna trust this guy to make appointments to the Supreme Court? More hubris.

The Mormons I know have all been initially excited about an LDS candidate for president...until they learn about his record.  After learning, they're doubly disgusted that a Mormon would compile such a record.

Social conservatives won't get around to voting against Romney because of his faith.  Social conservatives -- including, and perhaps especially, his fellow Mormons -- will vote against him because of his documentable and consistently pro-abort, pro-homosexual record before posturing himself to run for president.

3.  As to your geographical question, I think conservatives -- not surprisingly -- should be distrustful of most Massachusetts politicians, including this one.  To illustrate the point, let me cite part of a question put to Romney by a Boston University student during his U.S. Senate campaign debate with Ted Kennedy:

"Mr. Romney, you say you're a moderate on social issues. One who will defend abortion rights, equal rights for women, for blacks, and for gays. In fact you say you will do more to promote gay rights than Senator Kennedy."

Notably, in response, Romney did not dispute any of the above characterization, since it was in fact an accurate recitation of how he was posturing himself politically. After the lead-in, the questioner asked Romney to explain his views on the Boy Scouts' leadership policies.  To which Romney replied that he thought the Scouts should be free to make their own decisions, but that personally, "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

Whether such stands represent New England values or just political opportunism, they clearly don't represent the social views of Romney's own faith nor the values of most Republican presidential primary voters.

And if one guy on a few blogs telling the truth about Romney's record is a nuisance, how in the world are you gonna handle it when the other presidential candidates with millions of dollars to spend start exposing his pro-abort, pro-homosexual record in Iowa and South Carolina and on Super Tuesday?  My prediction is, you aren't.

I read through your past post, no biggie I am sure you know they are easily available.

I couldn't help but notice that you are only taking on Romney, with all 27 comments posted. I would think someone that would be so interested in making sure a social conservative is in office would spend more time taking on others who have plenty of baggage and are seen by others just as likely to win the ticket.

1. McCain
   
   
2. Guliani
   
   
3. Frist (he did support Stem Cell Research.)
   
   
4. Cheney (not a candidate but does support gay right- did you critisize him in past elections?)

I am sorry, but I can't help but wonder why you are taking on only Mitt.

You are drawing illogical conclusion out of context, AFAMichigan, by saying Romney is pro-choice, pro-gay politician and would govern that way as President.  I don't know any reasonable person who would agree with you.  You point to liberal leaning groups like RMC and Log Cabin to validate your judgment, but both groups do NOT support Romney now.  I actually like the fact that these groups are so impressed by Romney, and Romney speaks in so logically, that these groups initially tenatively favored him.

Does Romney (or any other major Republican politician for that matter) think homosexuals should live freely among us, and have the same opportunities as everyone else?  I'm sure he and 98% of Americans do. Does he believe in changing marriage based on sexual choices?  Of course not and he's one of the most articulate speakers on family issues in the whole country.  He's savvy enough to artuclate the distinctions in a clear, Michael Medved way.  Does he believe in Roe, that the Supreme Court should dictate national abortion policy?  Of course not.

Romney was always known as a pro-life governor candidate.  That is precisely why he compromised and agreed to put a moratorium on changing abortion laws in office BECAUSE everyone knew he was pro-life.  What's wrong with that given the alternative would have been a pro-abortion Democrat governor? He speaks about it in depth here:

http://www.radioblogger.com/archives/july.html#000858

Presidential nominations isn't a game of selecting the most infallible, life-long conservative.  It's who will govern in the most conservative manner and can win the general election, and as President can pursuade and convince Americans (and thus Congress) to get his agenda and policies through.  In my opinion, Romney is the leader by far with the right personality, speaking skills, creative outside-the-beltway thinking, and conservative convictions to command respect and attention.  I think Romney can get passed more conservative policies in 4 years through pursuasion that any candidate.  Keep in mind the role and their ability (or lack thereof) to influence legislation, as Bush has found out.

So, you think if Rommey was President he'd promote an agenda and ask Congress to pass laws to force same-sex marriage, userp a state's ability to regulate abortion, and appoint pro-gay marriage judges to the Supreme Court?

Being a governor in MA means you are often at the mercy of the legislature, councils, etc and you have to sometimes being willing to make deals, negotiate and compromise, or you will get virutally NO conservative things done.

You mean like EVERY candidate who's EVER run for President?

People have always refined their stances based on the office they're running for and where they are running.

Because Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts, the age of consent wasn't lowered and laws weren't passed to make it easier to get an abortion. So that's a victory.

Pro-family? Is he not the epitome of pro-family? Is he not the only candidate who's still with and devoted to his first wife? That's a lifetime of being pro-family.

Why all the emphasis on social issues anyway? What effect does a President have on abortion and gay marriage outside of judges, anyway?

GWB used social issues as a smokescreen to get elected and re-elected, and now it'll take years to undo the growth in government that he inflicted us with.

Any candidate can claim they'll appoint the right judges, but who knows how those judges will act once they are on the bench?

It's easy to sit on a high horse in Michigan or in Washington and spout forth about a candidate's imperfections. It's a lot harder actually having to govern. Governing is all about compromise, leadership and managing your options. The job that Romney did in one term in Massachusetts, especially in terms of the budget, is exemplary.

The guy is the Governor of Massachusetts, where 129% of the people are Democrats. This affects how you govern. This would not be the case in Washington.

any and all judicial appointments in Massachusetts have to get past these folks.

Care to guess what their party affiliation is?  Here's a hint - they are all Democrats.

I mean, you could have looked that up - AltaVista is your friend and all.

But I suppose it's just easier to throw a stinky strawman at Romney and his backers?

You just need to get out more.

Was quoted in the LA Times a month or so back smacking McCain for his vote against the Marriage Protection Amendment.  Put out two news releases this past week doing the same.

Quoted in the Australian version of USA Today a month back smacking Giuliani, but was able to work in a reference to Mitt.  I said something like, "compared to Romney, Giuliani doesn't even bother to try to flip-flop."

The article itself nailed Romney: "Boiled down this means gays and abortion, issues that have produced spectacular backflips from other Republican contenders. In Massachusetts, Governor Mitt Romney shamelessly disavowed his previous support for abortion rights."

See, they're already catching on...all the way over in Australia.

Bottom line, Giuliani and Pataki et al don't need exposing.  Everybody nationwide knows they're committed liberals on the social issues.

Mitt, on the other hand, runs around the country claiming to be a conservative.  Given his record, I find it offensive that he thinks conservatives are such dupes that he can actually sell that.  We'll see.  By Illinois standards, he probably is "conservative."

But after New Hampshire, he's gonna have a hard time selling a history of appointing homosexual activists to the bench.  

This whole "nominating gays to the bench" issue is addressed well here.

My summary:

Romney's judicial nominations all have to get by a Democratic panel to be approved. So he has to compromise with them on what they want to see to get any judges at all. If the US Senate was 5-1 Democrat, do you think we'd have a Justice Alito or a Justice Roberts?

Governing is not the black-and-white world you'd like it to be.

Keep up your campaign against Romney, though. Your creating convert after convert for him with your attacks.

Let me just say this:

Anyone who makes the sweeping statement that "Gays don't belong on the bench," or implicitly makes that statement by criticizing the appointment of a homosexual to a judgeship, is no better than an evilcon and I wish he would leave.

Even mainstream Christianity tells you to love the people even if you hate what they do, so this true anti-homosexual bigotry has no place in the Republican community.

Your sensibilities are sensitive, Neil.

He didn't say that. Homosexual activists is what he said, and in case you didn't notice, homosexual activism IS a big issue for most conservatives.

Turning that into some kind of irrational hatred of gays is tantamount to saying disparaging Jesse Jackson means you hate black people.

Look at comment #13.  He implies that being a member of a Lesbian and Gay Bar Association is enough to disqualify a candidate.

He also claims that a "pro-homosexual record" is enough to disqualify Romney as a candidate.  Not a "pro-redefinition of marriage record," nor a "pro-special privileges for gays record," but just a pro-homosexual record.  As though Real Republicans Hate Fags or some such nonsense.

If it were up to me I'd blam him.

Jeff-

I'm no gambler...but I just don't think Newt will be a candidate in '08. He has too many negatives & baggage. He has a good job at Fox & can help shape the national debate.

As for other '08 candidates, I'm still not convinced that Rudy will run either. That scenario could help Mitt in New Hampshire.

On the liberal side of the aisle, ...After today's DM Register poll our esteemed governor

is probably taking a hard look at how badly he wants to get embarassed in his "favorite son" state of Iowa.

I think that's got a leg to stand on. There are homosexuals, and then there is homosexual politics. I'd venture to say most conservatives are concerned only with the latter. If the person in question is referring to that political stripe, and it seems to me he is, then he's got a valid point. A pro-homosexual politics record will certainly count against a candidate among large numbers of conservative voters. Especially where it crosses paths with judicial activism.

But it's not up to me, I know, to determine what is and is not hateful talk. (I don't say hate-speech, because I reject the concept of hate-speech as defined by liberals.)

Was quoted in the LA Times a month or so back smacking McCain for his vote against the Marriage Protection Amendment.  

Not here you haven't. In fact you have never posted a single comment that isn't bashing Romney. Makes a guy wonder what your motivation is, exactly.

I know such an accusation from a liberal is meaningless, since they'll call just voting Republican a racist, woman-hating, homosexual-hating thing to do.

The difference here is that they call you bad if you disagree with them on policy.  I'm calling AFAMichigan bad beecause he's focused on the people instead of the issues.

But I think anyone who gets focused on homosexuals themselves, rather than the politics, is showing a personal prejudice on the matter.  All homosexuals are not Democrats, nor are they all leftists, nor are they all in favor of judicial redefinition of marriage.

Some of them support non-activist modes of judicial interpretation, first amendment freedom of association, leaving marriage alone, and apple pie, too.

But he keeps using homosexual as a modifier on people, as though it were equivalent to Democratic or Marxist or something else political.  And that's why I think he's bad for the site.

Look around, there MUST be some other candidate and/or republican/Democrat you can hate! Give it a rest on Romney....attack someone else, just so we know you really DON'T have a hidden agenda!

And I AM very sensitive to language, because I think the way we speak affects the way we think, and vice-versa.

It's something I learned in part from reading Rush Limbaugh in high school: "Words Mean Things."

... from the poster's many comments that there is an underlying hostility, though I wouldn't call this a certainty since most of his posting has been in relation to a single topic.

The activist agenda is the problem, for the billion and one reasons that have been posted at this website over and over.

Since we seem to agree that opposing appointments of judges who use the bench to pursue a homosexual activist agenda isn't the same thing as gay-bashing (regardless of whether the person in question did either of those things), then really I've nothing else to contribute to this thread.

I prefer to be aware of language. I pursue exactitude and precision where possible, and I think specificity is a blogger's greatest tool.

But I am sensitive, maybe too sensitive, to sensitivity to language. Certainly that is due to the unending assault on the right by the left's PC police.

When it has reached the point that wearing a Reagan shirt is accepted as a sufficient indication of being a racist, then it has reached the point where me must stop simply disagreeing and start a counter-attack.

Getting 10% of likely Democratic causcus goers in your home state is not a good sign . . . he might as well pack it in now!

Here's the link if anyone's wondering what we're talking about.

http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060611/NEWS09/606110
338/1001&lead=1

Edwards is liked more than Clinton here . . . interesting.

I agree, man.  Mitt should have nominated Roy Moore and Robert Bork to the Massachusetts Supreme Court.  I'm sure the MA legislature would have basically just rubber stamped that.

Your anti-Mitt comments have become comedy at this point.  You've rolled into town with a talkingpoint-o-matic, cutting and pasting the same remarks into every thread you come across, and another volley in response to the rational "he's in MA" responses.

Fortunately, you've probably figured your work here is done and will be moving on, right?

Whatever my "agenda" is beyond telling the truth about Romney's record, it doesn't detract from the truth of his record.

Wail away all you want on my suspect "agenda."

All that means is you've thrown in the towel on the substance, his pro-abort, pro-homosexual agenda record.

"In fact you have never posted a single comment that isn't bashing Romney. Makes a guy wonder what your motivation is, exactly."

I encourage all Romney defenders to keep spending their time attacking me and raising speculation about my "motivation."

Standard tactic of those who cannot defend the substance of the issue.  Attack the messenger.  No surer signal that you're incapable of diputing the following facts:

Romney took a clear, insistent, and until recently consistent pro-abortion on demand stance as a Mass politician, leading a major pro-abortion PAC to endorse him.

PPLM/NARAL NEWS RELEASE: "When asked by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts if he supported 'the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade,' Romney answered 'yes.' When he was asked if he supported 'state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women,' he answered 'yes.' When he was asked if he supported 'efforts to increase access to emergency contraception,' Governor Romney also answered 'yes.' In a similar questionnaire submitted to NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, Romney ended his responses by saying 'I respect and will protect a woman'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 government's. The truth is no candidate in the Governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights.'"

(But no, the Romney chorus sings, ignore those facts. Ignore his words. He's really pro-life. Ignore the fact that if he really is pro-life, then it's his honesty that comes into question. Oh, and be sure to attack the "motivations" and the hidden "agenda" of anyone who forces us to confront these embarrassing facts.)

Romney has also taken a clear, consistent stand in favor of homsexual activists' political agenda...except on the issue of a Marriage Protection Amendment, on which he has taken about every stand possible as he transitioned from Mass politician to running for president.

Endorsed twice by the Log Cabin Republicans, who've only withdrawn their support now that he's flip-flopped on their one big issue -- marriage -- to facilitate running for president.  And in withdrawing their support, they say that he earlier misled them by leading them to believe he might drop his opposition to so-called homosexual "marriage" as public opinion evolved.

BOSTON PHOENIX (homosexual newsmagazine): "At an October 2002 endorsement meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans of Massachusetts, a 300-member organization of GOP gays, Romney led attendees to believe that his anti-gay-marriage stance stemmed from political considerations. According to David Rogers, who served as the group's president at the time, 'Candidate Romney said he wasn't for gay marriage because it wasn't popular yet. But he didn't seem to care one way or the other.' In fact, when reporters broke the news that Romney's wife and son had signed a citizen's petition to put a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and domestic-partnership benefits on the November 2002 ballot, the governor condemned such bans as 'too extreme.'"

BOSTON GLOBE: "Accusing Romney of misleading them two years ago to win their support, leaders of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts (said) ... Romney's meeting with Log Cabin Club members in October of that year, less than a month before the gubernatorial election, led members to believe he was not morally opposed to gay marriage.  'He said, "Right now, it's not popular, and it would cost money," 'he said. 'He didn't say, when we met with him, "I'm sorry, folks; I'm against gay marriage because it's morally wrong." He didn't say that.'  Romney told them he did not support a constitutional amendment, then before the Legislature, that would have banned gay marriage and outlaw domestic partnership benefits for gay couples, Rogers said."

Give it up, guys. You can't explain away the facts, and your attacks on anybody who dares discuss the facts are transparently thin.

When this stuff comes out more broadly than just a few posts on a blog, he'll be toast among pro-family conservatives in the GOP primary.

Help me out here, so I understand exactly what you're asking us to believe.

You're claiming that Romney was compelled by the Council to appoint homosexual activists to the judiciary?

Do they dictate his nominations, or like the U.S. Senate, have to approve them after the fact?

Again, out of all possible candidates that even an all-Democrat Council would approve, Romney chooses two homosexual activists who favor legalization of so-called homosexual "marriage"?

And you want everybody to believe he bears no responsibility for his own nominees?  Is that what you're asking us to believe?

innovation called the Judicial Council.  It is comprised of representatives of the State Bar and a few non-attorney citizens.  Most of the appointees have terms rather than serve at the pleasure, so a first-term governor has to deal with appointees from his predecessor with the obvious implication.

If there is a judicial vacancy, the Council sends its recommendations, and the governor only gets to pick one of them or, if he can stand the heat, leave it open.  

This "progressive innovation" is in many state's constitutions if they bought the New Jersey model constitution, a think tank product from the mid-fifties.  We tried to fight them by rejecting their candidates early in Murkowski's term, and when we turned them down, they just sent even more left wing nominees.  We lost that one, BTW.

As far as intentions go, it's very important. When you only attack one candidate for something that could equally be called on others most rational people will rule you out- get used to it. I think it would make any sensible person wonder if you are including the whole picture.

Romney has stated he is pro-life and pro-marriage, despite what he may have said in the past. Could he have redefined a stance on an issue? Aparantly. Does it bother me or most others? Not really. In the end, most people are not hung up on single issues like you are. Overall he is strong dynamic candidate.

I think a man as smart as Romney and as well funded has already considered there will be people like yourself to deal with. It would be naive not to. But in the end your voice is pretty small as so is mine. But fortunately Romney is a convincing man who knows politics and how to get things done with intense opposition- something that cannot be said for many other politicians.

Romney will protect marriage and appoint judges who are stict in their interpretation of the constitution. He is a strong family man in his ownlife, who has put his family over his career continually. He is pro-states rights, very talented buisness man, extremely clean in his private life, and aparantly really bugs you. I am sure you have all your quotes about what he said to NPR in 1998 or whatever. Romney's speeches and policies in MA and his past performance will far outweigh your complainings about some vague comment concerning Gays and the BSA and who makes small claims rulings in Salem, MA.

Despite what you may like to report, Romney has never been Pro-abortion or Pro-gay. He has had different ideas in the past on how goverment should best deal with these problems. In the end his views are probably not too different from the majority of conservatives.

I wish your movement well but on this one, you are way off. I would tell you to try some other cadidates but I know you would never want to flip flop on your tactics.

First, watch the flipping tone.  You are not the arbiter in all that is good and proper here.

Second, it's rather clear, based on your rather spectacular ignorance of how judges get appointed in Massachusetts, that you have precisely zero idea what you're talking about.  Just saying.

Third, and in the spirit of educating you, no judge gets to the Massachusetts bench without going through the GC.  That means, quite simply, if you are a Republican governor and you are confronted by a GC that has 8 out of 8 democrats (and at least 6 are hard left liberals), in order to get ANY of your folks on the bench you have to do some, dare I say, negotiating.

So no, they do not directly dictate to the governor who to appoint - but if any republican wants to get a republican appointed by an all democrat GC, as it is now, then guess what genius, it costs him two liberals.

That's life in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

If you find that a disqualifying feature for Romney I am not going to try to do anything to fix your narrow-mindedness.  Politics and governing is about mastering the art of the possible and Romney has done better than any of his predecessors with a unanimous GC and democrats in control of 6-of-7 seats in the legislature.

That you dismiss him out of hand is your loss, not ours.

That is what I'm asking you to believe.

Toodles.

I'm not the guy you're talking to, but your point about the GC is something I wasn't aware of.  I appreciate you pointing it out, and it makes my opinion on Romney more informed and open to further consideration.

Happy to be of service.

Funny, Romney's not even my guy (though he is presently my Governor and could end up my guy for 2008).  It's therefore strange that I felt the need to jump into this discussion.

FWIW, there are plenty of reasons to oppose Romney - I just happen to think that many of those raised by our Talking-Point-O-Matic™ from AFAM are dumb.

I think Romney is in the same position his faith is.

There is an awful lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about them both.  The stuff that remains is reason enough to look elswhere though.

Romney is in the same position as his faith:

Stong orginizational and financial base, that's rapicly growing. Promotes a positive agenda whos impact can easliy be recognized.

For the record, I "heart" Newt.  His book (recent, more-or-less) on healthcare was fantastic and there is frankly no one else out there, anywhere, who can articulate the republican message.

I would vote for him in a heartbeat.  I just happen to think he's a bit damaged because of how his tenure as Speaker ended.

That said, I would absolutely LOVE to see him back in the Speaker's chair right now.  Sadly, tis not to be.  (Newt, Armey - man, have we gone downhill!)

Romney's faith is an honest to goodness problem with many people, sad to say.  It gives people an easy reason to not vote for him.  It's wrong, but it's life.

Cheers.

AFA, a few things.

You say Romney's pro-abortion.  It's one thing for you to say he hasn't been strong enough on the life issue.  It's quite another for you to say he's pro-abortion.  He's pledged to support MA law while governor, equivalent with his federalist stance.  And, true to his campaign promises, he's stopped the parental notification age requirement from being reduced.  He's also vetoed the abortion pill legislation.  Is this pro-abortion?

You say Romney's pro-homosexual.  He has never said he is in favor of gay marriage or civil unions.  He told the LCR quite directly that he was for equal rights and against gay unions.  This is not pro-homosexual.  When you point to the LCR endorsing him, this is not proof that there must have been secret backroom deals going on.

By the way, about the two homosexual activist court appointees which you have mentioned A LOT, have you seen this post yet, or are you going to just roll on by it?

These pro-abortion and pro-homosexual categorizations of Romney are complete exagerations.  

A big problem with your posts in general is you group things Romney does two ways: "liberal stuff" and "pandering to the 2008 GOP stuff".  Given these two categories, there is nothing the guy can do that you won't find a way to bash.  

This is not just being a "messenger".  You do have an anti-Romney agenda.  What I want to know is who you support for 2008.

Looks like Edwards multiple trips to Iowa is paying off. I believe he's made about a half dozen visits to Iowa this year. He's running on the "far left."

Vilsack must be shell-shocked after the Iowa Poll. In '92 Harkin ran in Iowa Caucus as the "favorite son", garnered over 70% of the vote & kept most of his competition out of the Hawkeye State. He was out after New Hampshire. I don't believe that Vilsack's numbers are going to scare other dems away from competing in the Iowa Caucus.

I would expect to see Mitt back in the state campaigning for the respective US Congressional candidates & Nussle over the coming months.

I think that if Mitt Romney were able to win the GOP primary, he'd steamroll whoever the Democratic opposition was - which is why I'm really hoping that he'll prove to be a bona fide fiscal and social conservative as the campaign unfolds. It's just that when people think of a president, they think of someone who looks and sounds like Mitt Romney.

That Newt seems to be basically endorsing him is a very good sign to the effect that he would be a visionary leader guided by firm conservative principles - which would be awesome. If Newt didn't run, that would definitely leave Romney as the unquestionable front-runner in my book of the candidates with their hats in the ring at this point. Of course, if Mike Pence threw his hat in the ring that would throw things back into flux - but I don't think he's going to do that.

I say that I'm cautiously optimistic because I feel like I got burned badly with Bush on everything except two very important areas - foreign policy and the judiciary. Granted, Bush tried to burn me on the judiciary, but luckily the movement stopped that attempt dead in its tracks. And, as a fellow Texan, I am very sad to say that I've been so disappointed in Bush's tenure.

If Romney does win the nomination, I'd like to see Ken Blackwell be his running mate - whether Blackwell wins the Ohio Governorship this year or not. Because if Romney ends up serving 8 years, I want to see a phenomenal candidate like Ken Blackwell be the heir apparent. Ken Blackwell could also go a long way in sewing up the social conservative base as well as augment the GOP's vote-count with African-Americans - and probably keep Ohio firmly in the GOP column even if he loses the governorship (which I sincerely hope he wins).

Can you imagine the Supreme Court after 16 years of Romney and Blackwell? Ginsberg, Stevens, and Kennedy can't live forever! lol. Although, sadly, neither can Scalia. Sigh...gotta take the bad with the good.

You write: "When you only attack one candidate for something that could equally be called on others, most rational people will rule you out -- get used to it."

O.K., I'll get used to it.

While I'm getting used to it, please identify all the other potential GOP presidential candidates who have (1) insistently in public statements supported maintaining abortion on demand and supported homosexual activists' political agenda, winning the endorsements of both pro-abortion and homosexual activist PACs, who (2) have flip-flopped on these issues in the last eighteen months and are now trying to sell themselves as trustworthy pro-life, pro-family conservatives.

(Cue that Alex Trebeck music while we wait...and we're gonna be waiting a long time...for the answer.)

Giuliani and Pataki, for example, are just as bad on the issues, probably worse, but we have to give them credit for apparently having been motivated by actual convictions on such issues and thus not trying to recast themselves now as something they're not.  They admit to their pro-abort and pro-homosexual agenda records without apology.  I won't be supporting them either.

I'm sure you're also right that Romney anticipates having to deal with critics of his record -- since he himself (or at least his own research staff) is more familiar than anyone with what he has to worry about being criticized for.

So far, his tactic has been to (1) flatly deny the record and/or (2) attack the messenger, so you've got the drill down pretty well. I'm sure he also knows it's not little guys like me he has to worry about.

Murphy: "You say Romney's pro-abortion."

No, Romney says that he's pro-abortion as a matter of public policy, using the same pro-"choice" rhetoric that anyone familar with the issue -- especially pro-lifers -- recognizes.

Romney 2002 gubernatorial campaign website:

"On Abortion Rights. As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current PRO-CHOICE status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be FREE TO CHOOSE based on their own beliefs, not the government's."

Romney 2002 NARAL/Planned Parenthood candidate survey response: "I respect and will protect a woman'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 government's. The truth is no candidate in the Governor's race in either party would deny women ABORTION RIGHTS."

Romney 1994 U.S. Senate debate: "I believe that abortion should be SAFE AND LEGAL in this country. I have since the time when 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 that we should SUSTAIN AND SUPPORT it, and I sustain and support that law and the RIGHT of a woman to make that CHOICE."

----

Murphy: "You say Romney's pro-homosexual.  He has never said he is in favor of gay marriage or civil unions."

And I've never claimed that he did, even though he did support a state constitutional amendment that would have created homosexual "civil unions."

What I have said, because it's true, is that with the exception of the marriage issue -- on which he's taken at least three different positions in the last three years -- he has long supported homosexual activists' political agenda: taxpayer-financed same-sex benefits for govt employees, Ted Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation (the state-level version of which forced Catholic Charities to process homosexual adoptions in violation of its doctrinal convictions), allowing homosexual Scoutmasters (for which he was rebuked by the BSA), and the appointment of at least two homosexual activists to the bench.

Have already responded to the post about the Executive Council, and stand by that response. He was not compelled to appoint homosexual activists to the bench, and it will be a stinging point of his record for GOP primary voters who arguably focus more on Supreme Court appointments these days than anything else.

I'm more than happy to leave it to the judgment of the individual reader (and in 2008, voter) to decide whether characterizing Romney's public record as being pro-abortion and pro-homosexual agenda are exaggerations, or fact.

Murphy: "A big problem with your posts in general is you group things Romney does two ways: 'liberal stuff' and 'pandering to the 2008 GOP stuff.'

I think that's a fair characterization of my posts, and an accurate characterization of Romney's dilemma.

His public statements until posturing to run for president have clearly been supportive of a woman's "right to choose," i.e., legal abortion on demand.

So he's either fairly characterized as taking the same position as Hillary and Teddy and other pro-aborts, or if he's really "pro-life," then he was obviously trying to deceive the public (either then or now).  That is a dilemma, and one of his own making.

As Romney's media consultant Michael Murphy -- who, for all I know, is you -- recently told National Review:

"He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly" governor.

If that's true, Murphy, then it's his character and honesty that come into question.

Murphy: "You do have an anti-Romney agenda."

Well, I would hope I've made that clear, Murph.  But I don't know the guy from Adam.  Never met him.  What I'm "anti" is Romney's pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda public record, and his attempt now to cover up and obfuscate that record in order to try to sell himself as a candidate that pro-life, pro-family voters could trust as president.

Murphy: "What I want to know is who you support for 2008."

Nobody yet.  Though on the values issues, Brownback and Huckabee have records that -- unless someone can enlighten me otherwise -- seem to indicate a consistent principled commitment to traditional family values.  But they have problems on other issues, such as immigration.  And in Huckabee's case, fiscal policy.

Allen less so.  Mixed messages on abortion, though not as blatant as Romney, plus a clear flip-flop on a major issue of great concern to social conservatives, i.e. whether to add so-called "sexual orientation" to federal hate crimes legislation (since such laws have been used in a growing number of jurisdictions to threaten criminal prosecution of Christians and others who publicly oppose the homosexual agenda, even from the pulpit).

There is no perfect candidate, and clearly there are outright unapologetic liberals such as Pataki and Giuliani.  I reject their philosophy but at least respect their the consistency of their apparent conviction.

Romney is the most offensive, the kind of RINO politician who legitimizes opposition to our values throughout his entire career, then thinks social conservatives are such dupes that they'll be swayed by some new talking points exactly opposite what he's insistently said throughout his career.

It's the obvious arrogance of that assumption that sets Romney apart.  You don't see Rudy or Pataki running around the country suddenly claiming to be pro-life, pro-family values conservatives, thinking conservative activists are stupid enough to buy it.

Romney's record, at best, assuming that he was in fact "faking" all that pro-abort, pro-homosexual agenda rhetoric, is that he will yield to politically correct or media pressure and cannot be trusted to take a principled stand to which he will stick.

Since you keep insisting we should not trust the plain English of his earlier statements, please explain on what basis we should trust his current statements.

How do we know, Murphy, when he's telling the truth and when he's "faking" it?

As to who I'll support, I'm still hoping other candidates emerge in the next two years.

If you were disappointed by Bush, the record suggests it would only get worse with Romney:

http://afamichigan.redstate.com/story/2005/9/26/13561/9450

I hope that conservatives are not taking these guys as serious candidates to further the conservative cause. We all know Newt's baggage along with his leadership past (read Breach of Trust by Tom Coburn). And we all know that Romney is really weak on social and fiscal issues. He's part of the 5% of Mormons who aren't conservative. I don't think even Mormons would vote for this guy.

These guys can talk a great game but we can't trust these guys to govern as conservatives because they have not once proved that they can or will. We are still waiting for a leader to emerge from the pack who we can whole-heartedly support and not just say, "well, this guy would be better than Gulliani or McCain."

It looks to me that AFA Michigan has done some great research on the subject of Romney and you can't argue with the facts. If AFA speaks for a good percentage of Michigan (which he could if he is really plugged in with AFA) then it looks like Romney is gone since he will try to make MI his home state to get rid of the "Northeastern Republican" stereotype.

If Romney can't win MI then there is no way he could even come close to winning a southern state. To Romney I say, "good luck" and to AFA I say, "Keep up the good fight."

AFA, I'm going to break up my reply to this by issue.

As has been said before, Romney shelved his pro-life agenda in 2002 so that he could accomplish the rest of his conservative goals.  This shows that Romney is a pragmatist who gets a job done as well as it can be, as opposed to a political martyr, who does not.  

Let's define what a flip-flop is.  It is when a politician changes his views on an issue when the circumstances surrounding that issue have not changed.  Electability to office does not count as the "circumstances surrounding that issue".  There is no flip-flop between Romney's public policy for MA and his vision for national public policy.  Simply put, MA and the USA are apples and oranges.  Here's why there is no flip-flop.

If Romney were running for governor of a different state in 2002, a state where he could concievably win on his pro-life views, he would have run a pro-life campaign.  On the other hand, if the political climate of our country were so liberal that it were impossible for pro-life presidents to win elections, he would shelve the abortion issue just like he did in MA.

Romney's pro-life agenda is consistent.  If a pro-life agenda can be passed, he will pass it.  If it cannot be passed, he will shelve it and instead work on other conservative ideals.  This is common sense pragmatism.  Perhaps some people would prefer an utter lack of negotiations or compromise, only to see their entire basket of public policy go down all at once.

You ask how we can know if Romney is telling the truth.  Point me to a single campaign promise Romney has made which he has not atleast tried to accomplish.  If you don't mind, I'd like the campaign promise referenced, and the proof that he didn't try to do it.  

When Romney makes a campaign promise, that is what he intends to do during his time in office.  Period.

What matters here is Romney's public policy on homosexuals, not his personal beliefs.

For example, I couldn't care less if he said 12 years ago that gays should be allowed to participate in scouts.  Presidents don't appoint scout-masters.  As long as he respects the right of BSA to govern its own affairs (which he does), this point of yours is irrelevant.

What he supports is equal rights for homosexual individuals.  This is not to be confused with gay adoption rights or gay marriage or any sort of homosexual unions intent to mimic the traditional family unit.

Now as far as activist judges (be they gay or straight), that IS something relevant about a candidate.  

AFA: "Have already responded to the post about the Executive Council, and stand by that response."

As far as I know, you have not yet replied to the post by docj.  That is what I was referencing.  Here's the important part:

"Third, and in the spirit of educating you, no judge gets to the Massachusetts bench without going through the GC.  That means, quite simply, if you are a Republican governor and you are confronted by a GC that has 8 out of 8 democrats (and at least 6 are hard left liberals), in order to get ANY of your folks on the bench you have to do some, dare I say, negotiating.

So no, they do not directly dictate to the governor who to appoint - but if any republican wants to get a republican appointed by an all democrat GC, as it is now, then guess what genius, it costs him two liberals."

If you're sticking by your statement previous to docj's,

AFA: "He was not compelled to appoint homosexual activists to the bench,..."

It's true that nobody literally forced his hand in appointing those two gay judges you keep harping on.  But what is your argument here?  Are you saying that you would prefer heterosexual activist judges who push a homosexual agenda, as opposed to homosexual activist judges who push a homosexual agenda?  This is a very important point, as it comes down to discrimination against a person vs. discrimination against a policy.

AFA: "...and it will be a stinging point of his record for GOP primary voters who arguably focus more on Supreme Court appointments these days than anything else."

It will be a stinging point for people who don't understand how appointing judges in MA works.  That can be cleared up fairly easily once people realize the process is about negotiating the least damaging candidates in a 100% democratic field.

What will make this a real stinging point is people like you who say that Romney would appoint activist SCOTUS judges.  You clearly have no evidence for this, as MA and the USA are a case of apples and oranges.  Romney's position is consistent.  He appoints conservative judges when possible, otherwise he takes the least damaging option.

If he says he'll appoint SCOTUS judges like Scalia, etc, that's what he will aim to do.  His word is gold.  

"I don't think even Mormons would vote for this guy" . . . do you know many Mormons?  Name one that you know that has gone on the record that will definitely not vote for Romney.  I've ran into 2 or 3 who are "extremist" mormons who are against him while I literally know of hundreds of Mormons who are excited about him and have Romney as their frontrunner now.  He could lose our support if he goes too centrist however.

Also, the fact that you're defending AFAMichigan shows that there may be a missing link or two in your thought processes.

He only led the third wave of post-WWII conservative politics.  He only commited political suicide in his attempts to enact the conservative ideals he championed in the election that brought him to power.

So of course- Newt isn't a true conservative.  Out of curiosity, exactly what political hersey has Newt committed to cause you to expell him from the conservative fold.

Romney didn't "shelve" the pro-life position.

He argued flatly and insistently and consistently AGAINST the pro-life position and in favor of the pro-abortion on demand position.  And to convince everybody that his commitment to a woman's "right to choose" was a gut-level issue for him, he referenced his mother and the death of a woman engaged to one of his family members.

Shelving your views on a politically unwinnable issue means you just keep quiet about it and focus on other issues that are winnable.

It doesn't mean betraying the views you allegedly hold.

His word is "gold"?  My, how the gold standard has fallen.

He said we should "sustain and support" Roe v. Wade, told NARAL and PP he supported "the substance" of that ruling, and now running for president, his golden word has reversed itself.

He said he supports a woman's "right to choose," and now he postures himself as pro-life.

His word, as voluminously documented, is whatever you and the rest of the braintrust think is politically saleable at the time.

Remember what his campaign consultant Michael Murply boasted: "He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly" governor.

If he's faking it, Murphy, his word is not gold.

And you really think you're gonna be able to "explain" to millions of GOP primary voters that he's not responsible for appointing homosexual activists to the court?  Good luck with that TV spot.

Cause you know Allen or somebody's gonna spend a few million on the spot that tells people about it.

What he supported, even to the point of attacking Democratic legislators who didn't, is forcing taxpayers to pay to provide spousal benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees.

What he supports is letting men who engage in homosexual behavior take 12 year old Boy Scouts on overnight camping trips.

What he supports is Ted Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation, the state version of which in Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities to either (1) process homosexual adoptions in violation of their religious convictions or (2) abandon adoption services altogether, and which has resulted in discrimination against the Scouts, the Salvation Army, and others who oppose homosexual activists' political agenda.

Whether he appoints Scoutmasters or not, the president does serve as honorary chairman of the Boy Scouts of America -- my Eagle Scout certificate has Richard Nixon's signature on it.

The point is, Romney's views and record on this issue are anathema to GOP primary voters and all the more certainly to conservative and pro-family activists.

Sell it to somebody else, Murphy.  We ain't buying here.

Alright, I've stayed out of this fray for a long time, but I've gotta throw in my two cents here as it winds down (at least on this diary... who knows how many more there will be on this topic?).

If you want to see some research, check out this diary that I wrote to clear up the common misconceptions regarding Romney's positions on abortion and homosexual rights.

In short, Wikipedia says "Romney has been a strong opponent of gay marriage and civil unions." The Boston Globe reports that "Romney opposes gay marriage and civil unions. NRO has called Romney "a very brave man, indeed" for fighting against gay marriage and civil unions. He has backed a petition for an amendment that would not only ban gay marriage but also provide nothing for "civil unions." He is one of the most conservative politicians in the country in regards to this issue. AFAMichigan's repeated cut and paste posts have been nothing but slanderous talking points.

The Log Cabin Republicans did endorse Romney twice: once in 1994 in his Senate race and once in 2002 in the race for governor. So what??? They also endorsed Bush in 2000. They endorsed Romney after hearing from him very plainly that he did not support same-sex marriage but would fight against discrimination toward homosexuals. That's a position I can be proud of. Ever since their endorsement of him in 2002, they have been fighting against him and even pulled their endorsement, just like they did with President Bush in 2004. Sounds to me like the problem isn't with Romney (or Bush), but with the LCR's.

On the whole Boy Scouts kerfluffle, again the AFA pulls stuff from 12 years ago. Romney made it very clear that he supported "the right of the Boy Scouts to decide what it wants to do on this issue," and that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts. Again, sounds good to me.

There is a difference, which has been lined out here fully, between discriminating against a position and discriminating against a person. The first happens all the time in politics. The second has no place in any public discourse.

On abortion, it is very clear from my diary what Romney's stance is. In 1994, 12 years ago, he was responding to a question regarding a family member who had died from a back-alley abortion. In 2002, he clearly and publicly stated that his stance as governor would be to table the issue of abortion during his term - even though he was pro-life himself, he stated, as he has several times throughout his political career, that each state should have the right to choose abortion policy for itself. Knowing that he would never get any abortion legislation through the 85% democratic legislature anyway, this was a perfectly acceptable stance, at least to me. And then, over the past 4 years, he has stated - again, publicly and clearly, that his position has evolved and changed because of the stem cell research debate. He has always been personally pro-life, but now sees the need to pursue that in public policy.

No, this is no "good fight" and does not represent any sort of good quality research. This represents cutting and pasting from the AFA's website over and over and over and over again, and not listening or caring about anybody's response to it. Nobody is taking AFAMichigan seriously anymore, and for good reason.

And then, over the past 4 years, he has stated - again, publicly and clearly, that his position has evolved and changed because of the stem cell research debate. He has always been personally pro-life, but now sees the need to pursue that in public policy.

That this miraculous change of heart just happened to occur about the time he determined that he wouldn't run again for Governor of Massachusetts, but would run for the Republican nomination for President?

I'm all for changes of heart, but I know pandering when I see it, and if you believe Romney's was genuine, I've got some herbal supplements to sell you that will cure male pattern baldness.

Your entire post is basically nonsense.  Newt not conservative?  Romney weak on fiscal issues?  He turned a 3 billion dollar defecit in MA into a 700 million dollar surplus without raising taxes.  

I think there's something in the water in this diary, there are some real kooks coming out.

Of Pete DuPont but he is too long in the tooth for politics these days, I guess.  He still does write a regular column that I read.  America doesn't know what they missed with that guy.  He turned Delaware around much like Romney turned Mass around.  Pete got bad press because he was from a rich family, though.

Column, if you subscribe to WSJ's Opinion Journal (free signup)

Don't Be Very Worried

The truth about "global warming" is much less dire than Al Gore wants you to think.

buying it here.

Most polls have romneyat the top even on this site. But good spin.

long ago to you in a past post. There are other republicans who are pro-choice that are just as much front runners or familiar faces in the republican. From reading your website I thought you were concerned with the whole political process, not just one man, but your posts suggest otherwise.

The fact is, you are only concerned with Romney, I have no idea why. To say it's only because he flip-flopped doesn't really hold alot of water in most minds.

Are you convincing people? Maybe a few, but in the end most people see beyond the two issues that you have raised and then will contrast that to a very successful individual and politician who has done alot to better Massachusetts and will do the same for the US.

Romney will be convincing to others as he comes up with potential agendas on important national issues. He is a problem solver. Also he will be able to tout his whole and complete record not just the two issues you have raised. Most will not see Romney as a threat to the family as you have proposed because he isn't, he is an ideal choice for the family.

As to attacking you, most people like to know the complete picture of accuser- it lends alot of credibility to his/her arguments. Just like any endorsement of candidate hinges on who the endorser is, the reverse is true of a detractor. Most people wonder if the accusers remarks aren't shaded by a personal conflict, etc. To be so focused on only Romney, and be a resident of Michigan already raises some red flags that might or might not be warranted. It's always important to consider the source.

Please keep posting your anti-Romney attacks, in the end you will come of more like a rabid dog than someone who can bring unique coherent points to the table. The same reason most Republicans love Pelosi and Dean.

Good luck.

Bonham: "I did name people long ago to you in a past post. There are other republicans who are pro-choice that are just as much front runners or familiar faces in the republican."

I appreciate your finally acknowledging Romney's "pro-choice" record by observing that "there are OTHER Republicans who are pro-choice."

However, you conveniently ignored the second part of my request.  I asked you to identify other Republicans with clearly pro-abortion on demand records who are now trying to sell themselves to the electorate as pro-life.

And again, we'll be waiting quite a while for that list.  Are Pataki and Giuliani now claiming they're pro-life conservatives?  No.

Bonham: "From reading your website I thought you were concerned with the whole political process, not just one man, but your posts suggest otherwise."

Whatever web site you're reading has nothing to do with my personal posts here.

Bonham: "You are only concerned with Romney, I have no idea why. To say it's only because he flip-flopped doesn't really hold alot of water in most minds."

Your subjective opinion of what does or does not hold water in most minds is noted.  My recitation of the facts re: Romney's clearly pro-abortion rhetoric (until posturing for a Prez run) is unaffected by your opinion.

Bonham: "Most will not see Romney as a threat to the family as you have proposed..."

I've never said any such thing. What I have said, because it's true, is that his public record has been clearly pro-abortion on demand and with the exception of marriage, on which he's taken at least three different political stands in the last three years, pro-homosexual agenda.

That record is far from "an ideal choice for the family," or at least for GOP primary voters motivated by traditional family values.

Bonham: "As to attacking you, most people like to know the complete picture of accuser -- it lends alot of credibility to his/her arguments."

Any interest in me will pass soon enough. And the facts of Romney's clearly pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda record will remain. Except in two years, it'll be some other guy (Allen, Brownback, who knows?) with millions of dollars to spend informing GOP primary voters about the same.

Bonham: "To be so focused on only Romney, and be a resident of Michigan already raises some red flags that might or might not be warranted."

Actually, I'm an equal opportunity offender. Have publicly smacked McCain and Giuliani on the same issues several times this past month. (Yes, I know, not "here" at RedState.com, the boundaries of which for some apparently encompass all of the known universe.) But you're right on one point. Among a group of allied conservative, pro-life, pro-family activists across the country, I've taken responsibility for exposing Romney's record specifically because I am located in Michigan. (I've noted there are other activists in Massachusetts and elsewhere who are also familiar with Romney's record and are posting about it, as I am.) Another guy is responsible for Allen. We all watch McCain collectively.  

Bonham: "Please keep posting your anti-Romney attacks, in the end you will come off more like a rabid dog..."

Thanks for your encouragement.  Though it's apparently of some importance to you...for obvious reasons...how I "come off" is irrelevant (not only to me, but) to Romney's documentable pro-abortion on demand, pro-homosexual agenda record.

Either way, I shall take your encouragement that I continue to recite that record to heart.

Others will in time raise other issues, such as his support for gun control laws.  That too will go over big among GOP primary voters.

Human Events, the conservative national weekly magazine that Ronald Reagan called his favorite publication, ranks Romney #8 on its Top Ten List of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), with the following descriptive:

"Has said, 'I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.' Supports (homosexual) civil unions and stringent gun laws. After visiting Houston, he criticized the city's aesthetics, saying, 'This is what happens when you don't have zoning.'"

Good luck keeping all this stuff hidden from GOP activists and primary voters for the next two years.

It'll take more than luck.  It will require Divine Intervention -- which, given Mitt's insistent rhetorical defense of a woman's "freedom to choose" to pay an abortionist to terminate the life of her prenatal child, I don't think he should be counting on any time soon.

AFA, this post of yours does not address my points.

When you said "his golden word has reversed itself", you either didn't grasp what I was saying or you are trying to spin my words into something I clearly didn't mean.

I said "His word is gold" and "When Romney makes a campaign promise, that is what he intends to do during his time in office".  I did not say that his word in the 2002 governor's campaign applied to what he would do as president in 2008.  He clearly wasn't talking about that.  He was talking about his public policy during the 2002-2006 term.

Romney promised that during his tenure in office as MA governor, no abortion law would change.  That's what he did, and guess what?  In the process of fulfilling this pledge he vetoed bills aimed towards lowering abortion consent age and legalizing the abortion pill.

I'll repeat the earlier point.  Romney's pro-life agenda is the same today as it was in 2002.  If a pro-life agenda can be passed, he will pass it.  If it cannot be passed, he will shelve it and instead work on other conservative ideals.  This is common sense pragmatism.  Perhaps some people would prefer an utter lack of negotiations or compromise, only to see their entire basket of public policy go down all at once.

So when Romney speaks about a pro-life agenda for national office in 2008, there's no reason to doubt him.  He fulfills campaign promises.

AFA: "What he supports is Ted Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation, the state version of which in Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities to either (1) process homosexual adoptions in violation of their religious convictions or (2) abandon adoption services altogether"

Although he supported Kennedy's legislation for the most part with respect to homosexual individuals, he did not support it with respect to any kind of gay union aimed at mimicing the family unit.  In fact, he specifically stepped in to allow Catholic Charities to NOT process homosexual adoptions.

AFA: "the president does serve as honorary chairman of the Boy Scouts of America"

This is so far out in the weeds of not mattering.  Is President Nixon's signature on your eagle scout diploma a national issue?  Romney supports BSA's choice to regulate its own affairs.  That's what matters.

I'm guessing that we've settled the judges issue, as you're not addressing this anymore.  Agreed?  MA judges are no indication of SCOTUS judges?

Murphy: "Although (Romney) supported Kennedy's legislation for the most part..."

Thank you for confirming the accuracy of my recitation of this point of his record. Pro-family activists don't need you to explain the implications of Kennedy's ENDA bill.  They understand it better than you do.  All they need to know is that Romney endorsed it.

Murphy:  "Is President Nixon's signature on your eagle scout diploma a national issue?  Romney supports BSA's choice to regulate its own affairs.  That's what matters."

It's just an observation that the presidency is symbolically connected to the Scouts, and did in fact become a national news item when homosexual activists urged Clinton to resign as honorary BSA chairman.  What will matter to pro-family activists and values voters is knowing that Romney believes adult males who engage in homosexual behavior should be allowed to take 12 year old Boy Scouts camping in the woods.  That'll be enough for them to know he doesn't share their worldview.

Murphy: "I'm guessing that we've settled the judges issue, as you're not addressing this anymore. Agreed?"

Surely you jest.

All your rationalizations from now til 2008 won't negate Romney's responsibility for appointing homosexual activists to the bench, or the certainty that he'll be held accountable for it in Iowa, S.C. and the Super Tuesday states. You'll have as much success explaining that away as you do his insistent and repeated defense of a woman's "right to choose" to terminate the life of her prenatal child.

And not just in Michigan:

http://www.idahovaluesalliance.com/papers.asp?id=50