Is Mitt Romney the Toothsome Carpetbagging Phoney He appears to be?
Very entertaining piece from the New Yorker on the ruinous flip floppery of Mitt Romney's Cult that includes Jim Bopp and the National Review Online.
Who would ever again go to National Review Online and believe they were getting the full story?
How long have we been duped by the crowd of hacks surrounding Mitt Romney, lying, covering up, deceiving the records of politicians they ask us to embrace?
How convincing is he about all this? To my mind, not very. God knows any half-sane columnist will defend to the death the right to change one’s mind. Yet the timing of Romney’s policy U-turns—at precisely the moment when he first got that I’m-a-gonna-run-for-president gleam in his eye—inevitably raises suspicions.
Needless to say, what matters isn’t what people like me might say but whether Republicans find Romney’s account of his switcheroos persuasive. And here the news is no less grim for Mitt. According to the latest Fox News poll, Romney’s support among Republicans nationally fell from 8 percent in December to just 3 percent at the end of January. To a large extent, Romney’s desultory numbers reflect low name recognition. But that they’re trending down instead of up should be, must be, freaking him out, even at this early stage.
Can Romney be the Willie Shoemaker of presidential politics? Maybe so—but the more likely outcome, it seems to me, is that he’ll be the Pete Wilson of 2008.
The real problem for Romney, as it was for Wilson, is not that he’s a cultist or a contortionist but that he’s a hollow man. And there’s nothing that the White Tape People will be able to do about that.
MARCOTTE HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN!
At a 9:30 Conference call with Bill Donohue this morning, Catholic leaders unified and committed to a full blown campaign against Edwards and his defiant anti-Catholicism.
We were barely off the phone when Bill sent another message saying that the Edwards-hired potty mouth bigot struck again.
"I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what’s right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics (I’m anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track).
Bill Donohue—anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics—has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog. "
Anti-Semite? She's going to be sorry she said that.
She goes on...
"In fact, he’s made no bones about the fact that his intent is to “silence” me, as if he—a perfect stranger—should have a right to curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I’m a woman? Because I’m pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems."
No. It's simply that the freedom to hate Catholics is against the law and there's a price to be paid. One down, one to go.
Marcotte drivels on about what a victory the attempt to make Catholic hating part of a Presidential campaign almost was...and then is mystified:
"Obviously, I’m scatterbrained right now. But I’ll be raring to go soon. In the meantime, I want to share this letter Evan got from Frances Kissling, the president of an organization I adore called Catholics for a Free Choice. She wrote a letter defending free discourse and her religion from being hijacked by the likes of Bill Donohue and other people who dress their reactionary politics up in faith’s clothing. She sent it to the NY Times, and for some reason they didn’t run it."
Could it be she's an apostate that's been excommunicated?
This was my favorite part:
"It’s come to my attention that Donohue’s attempts to separate the Edwards campaign from their employees that were chosen for our skills and talents may in fact be in violation of the tax laws.
Speaking out against a presidential candidate operating on an anti-Catholic agenda is
going to cause them to get litigious with Donohue?!!!
How utterly entertaining.
They have no idea the wave that is about to head their direction.
Bring it on!
Lots of luck having the prolife community on your head for attacking their hero!
Is Jim Bopp advising Romney to lie?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEWS RELEASE February 12, 2007
Contact: Bryan Sanders (785) 220-2615
Mitt Romney's Campaign Misleads Voters about Senator Brownback's Position on Abortion
"Mitt Romney's flip flops are enough to make John Kerry blush."
Alexandria, VA – Documentation surfaced over the weekend that the Romney for President Exploratory Committee is misleading voters. In an e-mail circulated to right-to-life leaders on February 8, 2007, a key Romney staffer wrote: "Just like Sam Brownback, Mitt was once pro-choice but changed his views upon being elected to office… When Brownback was elected to office, that is when he also had a conversion and voted with the pro-life movement."
Brownback for President National Campaign Committee Member Dr. Jack Willke, who was President of National Right to Life for ten years, responded: "Senator Brownback has always been pro-life, and has never made a statement or cast any vote to the contrary."
This false allegation by the Romney campaign comes in light of recent evidence that Romney has switched positions on abortion at least three times.
Below are direct quotes from Mitt Romney on the issue of abortion:
CHRONOLOGY OF MITT ROMNEY'S ABORTION POSITIONS (IN HIS OWN WORDS):
1994: Mitt Romney was pro-choice "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it." (Joan Vennochi, "Romney's Revolving World," The Boston Globe, 3/2/06)
2001: Mitt Romney was not pro-choice "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)
2002: Mitt Romney was again pro-choice "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." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05)
2007: Mitt Romney acknowledges he was "effectively pro-choice," but says he "was always for life."
January 2007: "Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07)
February 2007: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
"Mitt Romney's flip flops are enough to make John Kerry blush," Brownback for President Campaign Manager Rob Wasinger said. "It is absurd of Mitt Romney to compare himself to Senator Brownback on the right to life issue."
What a rude awakening.
Globe article here
In his campaign , Romney hasn't entirely avoided his support for embryonic stem cell research, mentioning it briefly, for example, in an address to a conference on conservatism put on by National Review magazine in Washington two weeks ago. But he doesn't dwell on it, either, instead tending to highlight his opposition to creating cloned embryos.
Alas - we have to read from the Boston Globe that Romney, did in fact, talk about stem cell support at the NRO Summit. Why did National Review Online hide this from prolifers?
Instead of supporting authentic prolife candidates, our own people cover up, lie, distort and deceive more than the Globe. This is why Congress and Legislature is loaded with politicians who vote against our agenda.
Look, I find it impossible to believe that Robbie George could embrace Mitt Romney's sound byte that he became prolife as a result of conversation about killing embryos for stem cell research, but Romney walked away from the conversation supporting the killing of embryos for stem cell research.
Putting aside that the Harvard scientist says the conversation with Romney never happened, the very fact that Romney can't instinctually recognize the absurdity of his own position that embryos should have the opportunity to be adopted before they are killed in sacrifice is all anyone needs to know about his prolife convictions. For prolifers, there is no distinction between children in orphanages and embryos in laboratories. Either you get it or you don't. Romney doesn't.
"Romney's views on stem cell research, which have drawn little public scrutiny"
"Romney, in an illustration of his delicate maneuvering on the issue, supports the principle at the heart of the bill -- that it's ethical to use excess embryos for research -
The fact that Romney is evasive and delicately maneuvering, only goes to prove that he is deliberately deceiving.
- but opposes the bill itself, in part because he objects to any expansion of taxpayer-funded human embryonic stem cell research.
Here's something you won't read in the Thornbirds Maggie Gallagher and K-Lo's Romney informercials: Romney and his crony rich Republican philanthropists and Jim Bopp, putting millions of dollars to get him elected, will privately fund Romney's stem cell agenda.
Romney does not believe the public should pay for research that is "ethically troublesome."
Romney knows it's ethically wrong to kill the embryos - just as he knew all this time that it was ethically wrong to support abortion. It's all in how you spin it to get elected.
Jim DeMint , who, in a letter to Republicans announcing his endorsement of Romney, assured conservatives Romney would keep "the ban on federal funding of research that involves the killing of human embryos."
Say just enough to make it appear as though he's against stem cell research and hope and pray that people don't do any digging to find out the real story.
"Any position that throws open the door to using the frozen embryos is going to be a position that Catholics and many other Christians will not be able to stand behind in any way," said the Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk , an ethicist with the National Catholic
Center in Philadelphia who has consulted with Romney's campaign.
Fr. Tad can not be bought. I would imagine he called the go to guy and told them their position was inconsistent with Catholic and Christian ethics.
Here's a glimpse of an interview that clearly demonstrates Romney's willful intention to deceive:
After hearing Esiason make his case, Wallace turned to Romney.
"Let's talk first of all about the fact that you support the idea of using these embryos that are left over in fertility clinics and that would otherwise simply be thrown away," Wallace said.
Romney didn't directly address the point, saying that he draws the ethical line "in a very similar place" to that of Bush.
Wallace tried again: "But if I may ask you, governor, specifically, you don't see, as I understand it, the use of these leftover embryos in fertility clinics as destroying life?"
"That's right," Romney responded, later adding that he feels "very much like Boomer Esiason does."
But, that is not at all where Bush is.
A few conservatives have questioned whether Romney and his supporters are trying to muddy his views.
"Mitt Romney's position on embryonic stem cell research is not pro-life, and no one should say that it is," the Republican National Coalition for Life, a group founded by conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, said in a weekly e-mail.
Schlafly cannot be bought.
"If his main competition turns out to be someone who is even more pro-life, then this is going to be really problematic," Land said. "If his main competition is [former New York mayor] Rudy Giuliani, it won't matter."
That's the point. At the end of the day, that's why it's imperative for every single prolife leader to get behind the right candidate at this stage of the game.
The Thornbirds have to stop deceiving prolifers with their support of Romney. When Robbie George is mischaracterized, he's got to say so. If Ralph Reed gets on board Romney's operation, then he can never be trusted again by prolifers. National Review Online has to be more forthright.
If we want a candidate whose actions are consistent with our ethics, then we have to support the right one at this stage of the game. Romney isn't it.
Romney has been Federlined in Massachusetts
From the McCain Camp:
The Hotline On Call reports that Massachusetts Republican Legislators and party employees are shunning Romney for......John McCain. The report cites that Romney's flip-flop on abortion and gay marriage appear disingenuous to some and others are turned off by his continual comedy routine of poking fun of Massachusetts to the South and Midwest.
MA GOP treasurer Brent Andersen claims that Romney was "totally unsuccessful" at party building, and adds that his "abrupt change in social philosophy" left State GOP Legislators feeling "betrayed and embarrassed."
Eyeon08 has yet another great post on the Romney Campaign
According to Bloomberg, Romney has been so butchered on his flip-flopping on social issues, that now he wants to talk about economic issues. There his strategy seems to be to just lie rather than flip-flop.
Mitt Romney said the other day:
McCain opposed President Bush’s tax cuts, Romney noted.
“I supported them,” the former governor said.
Like most things that Mitt Romney says now about his record as governor, it just isn’t true.
He is against killing embryos for stem cell harvesting, with one exception. He supports the killing embryos for stem cell harvesting. And, furthermore, was it ever a rude awakening that people are killing embryos to do it - that has got to stop immediately. However, killing embryos for stem cell harvesting is science he can fully support.
Romney says his moment of illumination about the immorality of abortion came two years ago during a meeting with an embryonic stem cell researcher.
"The comment was made that this really wasn't a moral issue, because the embryos were terminated or destroyed at 14 days," Romney said during a recent campaign stop in Mount Pleasant, S.C., in a reprise of other recent explanations of his thinking on abortion.
"And it struck me very powerfully at that point, that the Roe v. Wade approach has so cheapened the value of human life that someone could think it's not a moral issue to destroy embryos that have been created solely for the purpose of research, and I said to my chief of staff, and that's been 2 1/2 years ago, I said to her, 'I want to make it very clear that I'm pro-life.'"
The Harvard University researcher with whom Romney met, Douglas Melton, has disputed Romney's recollection of their Nov. 9, 2004, meeting in the governor's Statehouse office.
"Gov. Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn't discuss killing or anything related to it," Melton said in a December statement to The Boston Globe. "I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases."
"Pish Posh. Have you seen my facebook?"
I've been told by a Romney insider that after years of supporting Euthanasia, while preparing for the 2008 election,Romney had an epiphany while talking to Jack Kevorkian. As Kevorkian was explaining Euthanasia, a body bag went by.
"What's going on around this place", Romney said, "are people being killed by euthanasia??"
"And it struck me very powerfully at that point, that the euthanasia approach has so cheapened the value of human life that someone could think it's not a moral issue to kill sick and handicapped people, and I said to my chief of staff, and that's been 2 1/2 years ago, I said to her, 'I want to make it very clear that I'm pro-life. Call K-Lo and tell her that I'm completely against euthansia unless people are going to die anyway. "
Kevorkian has disputed Romney's recollection of the meeting with Romney.
"Gov. Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn't discuss killing or anything related to it," Kevorkian said. "I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases."
Eye on 08 has a good post on the misrepresentations of the Romney Cult on his stem cell position.
He notes that deliberately missing from the Romney Myths are Facts, is his position in favor of embryonic stem cell research:
"Governor Romney Supports Adult Stem Cell Research But Has Opposed Efforts To Advance Embryo Destructive Research In Massachusetts And He Has Not Supported Public Funding For Embryo Destructive Research."
Eyeon08 quotes Shaffley's "Mitt Romney Supports Killing Human Embryos for Research" - and cuts to the chase:
In other words, it seems, Romney was opposed to cloning, not embryonic stem cell research, as such. That doesn’t seem consistent with his statement that, "He Has Not Supported Public Funding For Embryo Destructive Research". Isn’t that just a clear contradiction?
Isn't there something sobering about the omissions and deliberate misrepresentations on National Review Online? They appear to be withholding the honest information on Romney in an attempt to veil his health care abortion additions in 2006, his embryonic stem cell position, his 2005 abortifacient directives unconstitutionally and illegally forced upon Catholic Hospitals, his flip flops and general cadaver status in the prolife network. That is, the ones who will not be bought off for any amount of money or inclusion in the good old boy network.