Mitt Romney: Posing with Guns

I am becoming more and more convinced that Mitt Romney’s support for gun control will be his third strike.  To many Republican base voters, especially in rural areas, strong support for the Second Amendment is even more of a cultural/political signal than being pro-life.


Now comes word that in addition to espousing pro-gun control positions while running for the US Senate, Mitt Romney is suspiciously late to the National Rifle Association cause, from the Globe.

Mitt Romney, who has touted his support of gun owners since launching his presidential campaign, yesterday acknowledged he did not become a member of the National Rifle Association until last August, campaign officials said.

A former advocate of gun control, Romney during his 1994 run for the US Senate backed measures the gun-rights group opposed, such as a five-day waiting period on gun sales and a ban on certain assault weapons.

When challenged on his sincerity of his recent membership his spokesman, Kevin Madden dodged:

Asked why Romney joined only a few months before declaring his candidacy, Madden said: “I would argue not many Americans care when you join, but why you join, and I think I’ve made that clear.”

There Romney and his campaign are wrong, a fifty-something man joining the NRA as he begins his Presidential campaign is an obvious political sop. It makes Romney look like a calculating effete poseur, which is what he is.  And that’s not going to play well with the real gun advocates. 

P.S.- I wonder what happened to Eric Fernstrom, Romney’s former spokesman, I miss his slash and lie style.  I know he isn’t too busy with the Brookline Housing Authority.

Cross posted at Mass Eyes & Ears

This post was originally published with Soapblox and contains additional formatting and metadata.
View archived version of this post
.



Discuss

54 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. Mitt, $quot;I don't line up with the NRA$quot;

    This is the same person who said "I don't line up with the NRA" and described is position in favoring the Brady Bill and assult rifle ban as "That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA".

    Yup, Multiple Choice Mitt (MCM) strikes again!

  2. Mitt is merely doing what they all do

    Mitt is "adjusting' his positions to maximize his appeal to the most posssible voters...pretty smart politics. Liberals didn't seem to have any problems watching John Kerry flopping all around like a tunafish on an almost hourly basis but God forbid when a conservative does it. The ole liberal "double standard" is showing here yet again. If I were Romney I wouldn't give a damn about what the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts thought about me anyway..who cares? This totally socialist state doesn't vote for conservatives so he's appealing to those that do. If you want to bash "floppers" why don't you give us a little dissertation on "Billary Clinton's" Iraq floppery?

    • list his flip flops for me...

      • well let's not hijack this one..

        Since it's off topic.  But please make a post a lists "all" of his flip flops.  I'd be interested in reading and an commenting.  I'm guessing that you are not going to find many.

      • Kerry Flip Flops

        In 2004, CBS News did a list of Kerry's "Top Ten Flip Flops" (those right-wingers!). 

        They also did a Top Ten list of Bush's flip flops when Rather wasn't looking. 

        • Quiet all of a sudden $quot;JohK$quot; ???

          Way to go Goldstein!

        • GGW: Please don't enable the trolls...

          • JK is a troll?

            why? 

            • the $quot;troll$quot; thing

              1. I believe Romney "flip flops" are certainly relevant -- and each new revelation hurts him.  But I disagree with the BMG meme that "he's toast" in the Republican primary. 

              "Flip flop" does not equal the slam dunk "no chance to win" that many here seem to suggest...and Giuliani (who I'd like to see win the R primary) and McCain (who seems to have a flat tire on Straight Talk Express) will have their own issues. 

              2. I also don't understand why a very basic political defense used both by D's and R's -- "your side does it, too", whether it's perks, pork, flops -- is "trolling." 

              I generally don't find "you too" convincing, more of a tacit concession of the point being discussed (i.e., can't refute it), but it's not an unreasonable point to make. 

            • Well if I read the string write...

              ...you gave wacko...er, Ronco the ammo against JohnK...sorry if I misread the thread...

        • Brilliant

          Ah,the, "John did it too," defense.  Apparently you learned everything you needed to know in Middle School.  It is interesting how no one actually seems to defend Mitt Romney, perhaps because his calculations and trimming is so bald and indefensible.

          • Ummm, not exactly

            It is interesting how no one actually seems to defend Mitt Romney

            Most of us "right of center" types who come here, do so for honest give and take.

            To respond to every disparagement would be a full-time enterprise.

            As for myself, I just let most of them slide, especially the flaky ones. I mean, it is, afterall, a left wing site, what would be the point?

            • Still

              That's still not a defense of Mr Romney and his various positions on gun control, gay rights, abortion, taxes, etc....

              You chose to explain your lack of defending rather than defend him, interesting.

            • So basically

              You can't defend him ...

              • No, basically

                I'll comment when & where it pleases me. If you wan't to read more into it than that, knock yourself out.

                Sometimes I prefer to watch someone throw out the bait, and then let 'em go hungry.

                • I don't think so...

                  Since there has never been a real defense of Romney by you or anyone else, I'll let that speak for itself.

              • You can't expect

                the small percentage of conservative folks around here to spend all their time defending their fellow minded politicians.  It's not really fair, it's probably not feasible, and it'd certainly be no fun for them.

                Take it easy on the "you can't prove his innocence, so he must be guilty" tack.

                • Here's the point ..

                  I have not come across a defense/explanation of Mitt's flip flops on any posting that I have encountered.  So the question, is there any defense?  Or is it just finger pointing to not answer the question.  I think that's reasonable question.

                  You could tone down a bit on your comments as well, it might be a benefit.

        • Yes, that's an article that everyone knows about ...

          But Strategic Oil Reserves is not what I'm talking about.  We all understand Kerry's response to the Iraq war and explaining his votes.  He should have met the questions head on and not wafer in the decision he made.  Look at Feingold.  No child left behind, do you think it was funded adequately?  How the F is a flip flop?  Listen, if you want to discuss Kerry fine, do it.  Write up a post.  I am more than will to participate, but if that's the sole response to Romney, that's a problem.  I don't want to hear this Kerry flip flop crap, answer the question directly and defend the man, don't run away and point fingers at everyone else.  We're talking about someone running for POTUS.  Address it directly.

    • Unless I'm mistaken...

      ...John Kerry isn't going to be running for president in 2008.

      One thing that I never cease being amazed at is that Republican apparatchiks, like yourself, tend to appear to divert attention on web threads.  I first noticed that in the 2000 presidential election, when it was clear that the Republican party had hired someone to troll over the NYTimes gay rights board.  It's amazing that political parties have so much interest in trolling rather obscure boards.  Just how much are you being paid to do this?

      • After John Kerry committed

        political suicide I was hoping he was going back to his old job as a Moie statue on Easter Island but no such luck. Getting rid of this egotistical loser is harder than curing cancer. This guy has been in the Seante over 20 years and has yet to author, sponsor and get passed a SINGLE bill...Wow what an impressive record! What a great job for the Peoples republic of Massachusetts! What a clown

  3. pro gun control?

    really?

    I'm not denying it but if Romney is really pro gun control I'd be interested in seeing some links and sources;  as a pro 2nd ammendment L/R it would be a factor in my potential support for him.  So if you've got it, link it.

    If you don't - well - I'll reserve judgement. 

    BTW are you pro gun control or pro 2nd amendment? 

    • Really

      The link above in the comments gives a good run down from the Globe a couple of months ago.  I don't have a orginal source material from 1994 or 2002, but Romney campaign certainly never denied it.

      As for me on gun control, I am agnostic.  I don't think it is a generally effective crime fighting tool. Though in some high crime cities there may be uses for some restictions.  So I can't line up with the "Cold Dead Fingers," crowd. That doesn't make a good bumper sticker I know, but...

      • decent stuff

        Well, I have to be suspicious of the globe but a quote is a quote right?  There are some not-great ones in there but somehow I wonder if they tell the whole story.  For example, (from same article):

        In 2002, even as he was pledging to uphold the state's strong gun laws, Romney still garnered a "B" grade from the NRA.

        ... if he was so bad back then why was the NRA behind him?  IN my experience I haven't found the NRA to be blindly partisan like other such organizations (like NOW or sometimes ACLU for example) so there must be some mitigating stuff. 

        Anyone who is until very recently seriously pro gun control doesnt get a B from the NRA in 2002.

        It does raise an interesting point though:  flip flops aside, what should we take from a switching position?  That as president he would support gun control, or gun rights?  The most recent position, or the most expedient at the time?  Or that he really doesn't care much?

        In some sense the only thing that matters on these things is what position he will hold while in office, know what I mean?

        Not that that excuses flip flopping like crazy but to some extent people do change their minds, and to some extent there is an element of political necessity in getting the R nomination that you just can't ignore.

    • Your handle notwithstanding...

      ...(you're more of a pop gun than a cannon), you really should read the 2d amendment.  Including, you know, the part about the "well-regulated militia."  That's one part that you "2d amendment types" seem to want to ignore.

      This really isn't worth spending a lot of time arguing about.  The US Supreme Court hasn't issued a 2d amendment decision since 1937 (US vs. Miller), and the current court, the most conservative supreme court in recent memory has refused to grant cert in several cases that I would have found meritorious.

      • Defensive denials

        My guess is that, even though Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito could vote to grant any 2nd amdt case they wanted, they can't win it without Kennedy, and he's just not reliable on the hardcore social conservative stuff.  And they'll never vote to grant unless they're sure they can win.

        • Where are the Strict Constructionalist when you need them?

          IF the big 4 were really strict interpreters of the constitution, they would heed to those words "well regulated milta".  Maybe they'd even admit that corporations aren't people and can not be treated as such.  Ahh...we can only dream...conservatives believe in convenient constructionalist...kinda like compassionate conservatives. 

          • WAAA...WAAA...WAAA

            geo999 thought my comment worthless and demolisher wanted to delete my comment.

            Is that because the shear hypocrisy of so-called "strict constructionalist" is mute on the words "well regulated milta" does not mean individuals can own RPGs, or no where in the constitution does it say a corporation has the same rights of speech as a person.

            They only way one could argue those points, is by INTERPETING the constitution.

            WAAA...WAAA...WAAA  WAAA...WAAA...WAAA  WAAA...WAAA...WAAA  WAAA...WAAA...WAAA  WAAA...WAAA...WAAA  WAAA...WAAA...WAAA 

      • I believe you are wrong

        ... but I find your tone too gratuitously nasty to really want to debate you on it.

        Maybe I'll write up a 2nd amendment post sometime in the near future.

    • Links

      I wrote up the Romney/guns issue a couple of months ago.

  4. This is funny as heck...

    ...Mitt Romney: Posing with Guns

    If he's actually posing with guns, he's out-doing Carla "Annie Get Your Gun" Howell.  Maybe he should be tagged as "Andy Get Your Gun."

    How absolutely stupid can a glorified accountant such as Romney be?

  5. Hey fundies - Willard says SSM worse sin than abortion.

    BostonBud over at MassResistanceWatch has this interesting report on Willard's teevee spot Sunday.

    Ex-Massachusetts Governor Willard Romney was on ABC's This Week. From his appearance this morning we learn from him that same sex couples marrying is worse than abortion.

    In another effort to pander to the religious right (although I can't see how these issues help him with the stance he has) he believes that the issue of abortion (which he would not define as murder) which he says is the "taking of a life" should be left up to the states. He says he doesn't want to impose his beliefs on the country.

    Then in the next breath he says he believes in a federal amendment to ban equal marriage, screw states rights on this issue.

    So Mitt, why won't you come out and explain why same sex couples marrying is so important is requires a federal constitutional amendment yet something you believe is the "taking of a life" is OK if a state allows it?

    • Truth be known

      a Federal Constitutional ammendment is really not needed to outlaw SSM. Many of the other States already have such laws and SSM would be clearly  also  easily be defeated here in this State ( the only one in America that allows it) if the people's RIGHT to vote on it was not being illegally usurped by gay lobbyist beholdened, corrupt politicians. It was four liberal "judges in black cloth bags" that "created" a so called mythical "right" that never existed before  against the will of the vast majority of the people of Massachusetts. It is cryrtal clear that the majority of Americans do not support nor want Gay Marriage. The gays know this, hence their  despicable tactic of denying the people their right to vote on the matter.

    • That's not what he said

      So Mitt, why won't you come out and explain why same sex couples marrying is so important is requires a federal constitutional amendment yet something you believe is the "taking of a life" is OK if a state allows it?

      I think that if BostonBud were to look beyond his own personal stake in this debate, and try to grasp the difference between state and federal issues, then he wouldn't have needed to ask the question in the first place.

      Putting aside the usual "slippery slope" arguments, and going right to the possible legal issues, the federal government must have a position on the marriage issue, because it involves (or potentially involves) issues of tax, social security, pensions, and Full Faith and Credit, just to name a few.

      If the federal government took a laissez faire approach to the matter, if it just ended DOMA, then there would be a Gordian knot of litigation.

      On the abortion issue, however, the federal government is not directly affected by the killing of the unborn. Article IV isn't involved, and the states could regulate it as they see fit. One state's laws having no effect on another's.

      • Where to start?

        the federal government must have a position on the marriage issue, because it involves (or potentially involves) issues of tax, social security, pensions, and Full Faith and Credit, just to name a few.

        Can you believe those homosexuals?  They actually have the nerve to want to protect their families.  Social security!  They should just pay in and not expect their families to be protected.  Satire aside, why didn't the federal government get into the business of marriage when a black woman wasn't allowed to marry a black man or when a 15 year old in Georgia can get married but only if she is pregnant?

        If the federal government took a laissez faire approach to the matter, if it just ended DOMA, then there would be a Gordian knot of litigation.

        Again, if we give the gays equal rights, then everyone will want them. Same sex couples have been getting married in this state for almost 3 years.  Where are the lawsuits?  Where is all the litigation since according to the Full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution each state is supposed to honor other state's laws?

        On the abortion issue, however, the federal government is not directly affected by the killing of the unborn. Article IV isn't involved, and the states could regulate it as they see fit. One state's laws having no effect on another's.

        Interesting that you say the federal government is not directly affected by the killing of the unborn since they give to ban equal marriage is because of the childrenm, who are supposed to be brought up by a Mom and a Dad.  Better off dead than being brought up by a gay couple?

        Romney wants to dance around the abortion issue because if he says it's murder he will have to agree to a punishment for murder and who will get punished, which he would never do (see Portugual)  He wants to have it both ways, again, multiple choice Mitt. His argument for banning same sex couples from marriage has everything to do with his "morals" and nothing to do with administrative benefits/perks you speak of. 

        • Your $quot;argument$quot; is the same old

          flawed "gay logic".

          You say give Gays "equal rights"

          They already HAVE "equal rights". just like everyone else.

          They can marry anyone they damn well please as long as its someone of the opposite sex..just like everybody else has been doing for thousands of years.

          What you are advocating is that gays should have "MORE equal rights "than the rest of us.

          As far as all the legal issues you claim your being denied? Rubbish. It's all addressed in what many many States are more than accomodating in granting. Its called a "Civil Union" which provides all the legal benefits of "marriage".

          Perhaps, what those against gay marriage find so disagreeable is that for some reason gays want to "push the issue"  in the face of hetros for what appears to be no other reason than to flaunt their "gayness". The legal ramifications of "gay marriage are also disturbing as it opens a "Pandoras box" of all sorts of potential perverted "marriages", polygamy, beastiality, incest to name a few. Be assured that if Gay marriage stands, eventually someone will contest their "right" to marry their mother, brother or another wife... count on it. For eons, society has maintained "marriage" as being uniquely between a man and woman for good reasons. It is unaceptable that four liberal "judges" have usurpted the will of the people and trashed a pillar of society.

          • So...

            You are in favor of Civil Unions?

          • Yes absolutely no problem

            • Well then we're making progress

              A few years ago CU's were still considered "liberal", so I am happy to see progress is being made.

          • Well let's see...

            ....

            flawed gay logic

            There are a lot of heterosexuals who support marriage equality, so you are exhibiting flawed logic, period.

            They already HAVE "equal rights". just like everyone else.  They can marry anyone they damn well please as long as its someone of the opposite sex..just like everybody else has been doing for thousands of years.

            What you are advocating is that gays should have "MORE equal rights "than the rest of us.

            How exactly does marriage equality give gay people more rights than anyone else?  Do you live in MA?  If so you are more than welcome to marry someone of the same sex.  You might not appreciate your new found right but to suggest that gay people were granted a right that you were not is specious and facially incorrect.

            Its called a "Civil Union" which provides all the legal benefits of "marriage".

            No, it does not.  If it did then all people who had formed Civil Unions would be recognized by the Federal Govt. and other State Govts. and afforded protections and rights equal to married people.

            Perhaps, what those against gay marriage find so disagreeable is that for some reason gays want to "push the issue"  in the face of hetros for what appears to be no other reason than to flaunt their "gayness".

            And here is where you reveal yourself to be homophobic.  Heterosexuals flaunt their "straightness" all the time.  It is called being a human being with no reason to hide who they are for the benefit of the comfort level of bigots.  Your statement is patently ridiculous and the reason why, ultimately, marriage equality will prevail.  Prejudice can only resist for so long before the defense is no longer viable.  The clock is ticking.

            The legal ramifications of "gay marriage are also disturbing as it opens a "Pandoras box" of all sorts of potential perverted "marriages"

            Same slipperly slope that desegregation, inter-racial marriage, women's suffrage, gay adoption etc. were supposed to lead us down.  Thing is, it wasn't true then and it isn't true now.  I think rather than worrying about whether marriage equality will lead to "perversion" we should refocus our attention on those who seem to be so fixated on the issue, i.e. people like you who insist on this course of argument.  Why are you so concerned about "perversion"?  Maybe I should be worried about you. 

            • If you are so

              concerned with "rights" then why do you seek to remove the very "old" Right" of the people to decide what the rules of THEIR society will be? If you believe in the merits of your "NEW found Right" that was "created" and "imposed" by fiat by 4 "judges" on millions of people then why do you try to subvert the ballot process with your "paid off" politicians? If your position has merit then subjecting it to the vote of the people would be no problem ..correct?

              Then I see the "homophobic" chant invoked. My God how trite and booring. When in doubt, call someone a "name". Yes, by all means, an indefensible position is easily defended with a "label" or a  name call...how intelligent!

              Also , your "perversion" personal attack is not appreciated. I have three children. How many do you have?

              In conclusion , your "marriage" isn't recognized by the Fed or any other one of the remaining 49 States. NJ just passed a domestic partner bill wherin it DOES recognize domestic partnerships from other States. This sounds like a better situation for same sex couples to me.

              • Let's see....

                If you are so concerned with "rights" then why do you seek to remove the very "old" Right" of the people to decide what the rules of THEIR society will be?

                I suggest you read the Federalist Papers and the writings of the founding fathers.  Most agreed that people should not have the right you are referring to, which is why they chose a 3 branch, representative, common law government.

                Then I see the "homophobic" chant invoked

                No chanting, you are a bigot, your "flaunting it" argument made that abundantly clear.  As far as my position being indefensible is concerned, well that is just hogwash.  Gay marriage is legal in MA, Canada, The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Israel and civil unions that grant full marriage rights on all levels exist is several other countries and civil unions exist now in three other states.  My position is well defended and soon to be the consensus of the Western World.  There is no issue with my intelligence.  I will not comment on yours.

                Also , your "perversion" personal attack is not appreciated. I have three children. How many do you have?

                Whether I have children is irrelevant.  It is also irrelevant that you have children.  Lots of people with kids are perverts.  As far as you not appreciating the inference, you're the one who brought up perversion in the first place.  You opened the door and the question/inference was just was legitimate for me if it was for you.  If you don't like getting hit with stones, stop throwing them.

                 

                • The founding fathers

                  would have been absolutely horrified by the thought of same sex marriage. These were people that believed in God ,family and country and had no idea that secular progressives in the future would seek to undermine and destroy the fabric of the society that they fought and died for to protect. So please, spare us the "founding fathers" rubbish in your pitiful attempt to tell us  "which is why they chose a 3 branch, representative, common law government".  To what? so that people of the same sex could "marry" each other?? Do you actual think that these people in the 18th century could actually comprehend such a blasphemy let alone write laws to protect it?? You must be joking. .

                  "Most agreed that people should not have the right".. you say? Who might that be? the gays? certainly not the majority of people.

                  You insist on your perversion attack. Perhaps you view hetros that have children and a hetrosexual relationship as perverts. Then similarly it is my perogative to view people who practice sodomy as perverts as well.

                  • It is not...

                    ...the 18th century and plenty of other things that could not have been imagined by the founding fathers have come to fruition.  Your rebuttal is fatally flawed. (and for the record some of the founding fathers were secular progressives)

                    "Most agreed that people should not have the right".. you say? Who might that be? the gays? certainly not the majority of people.

                    I have no idea what you are talking about here.

                    You insist on your perversion attack. Perhaps you view hetros that have children and a hetrosexual relationship as perverts. Then similarly it is my perogative to view people who practice sodomy as perverts as well.

                    I never said I thought that heterosexuals with children were perverts, just that people who seem unneccessarily fixated on perversion might be protesting "too much".  You on the other hand have made your views of homosexuals perfectly clear.  I congratulate you on having the courage to show your true self in this regard and stop hiding behind a smoke screen of reasoned deception.  As this debate advances in society it will become increasingly difficult for those like you to hide their true motivation and in this country plain bigotry will never be allowed to rule.  In your own small way you have helped bring all of us one step closer to marriage equality across the nation!!  Thanks for that.

                     

        • Look at what I wrote, not what you think I meant.

          Whether purposefully or not, you have misinterpereted the meaning of my reply.

          I was responding to a post which claimed that Mitt Romney said that same-sex-marriage was a worse sin than abortion. The only source for this claim being a quote from a blogger, who had employed some rather tortured reasoning to link Romney's veiws on the two disparate subjects. The post was off-topic, not well stated, and I admit that I should not have replied to it.

          However, having done so, I'll clarify for you that which should have been obvious, had you not been reading my reply for intent rather than for content.

          Though I don't dispute that many who oppose same sex marriage and abortion do so from a moral perspective, my  point was merely that the Federal Government must be involved in the marriage debate because of the legal issues involved. And that it need not necessarily be involved in abortion, because that is a moral concern.

          I am not going hijack this thread to argue about marriage or abortion. And it was not the intention of my reply to do so.

          • the source is not a claim from a blogger

            It is from a Stephanopoulos interview with Romney.  I provided the link embedded into the box.  Here it is again.  Go to page 2 of the interview for the abortion & mariage discussions.

            • Thank you, Laurel, for pointing out the embedded link, which I had missed.

              I saw no statements by Mitt, however, to indicate that he considered same sex marriage to be a "greater sin" than abortion. Perhaps you could find the quote for me.

              I'll reserve comment on my opinion of George Stephanopoulos for a more appropriate thread.

  6. I read somewhere that Romney joined the NRA back in...

    ...August 2006.  I don't know how true that is.  But, if true...2006?

    Heck, I'd join the NRA, too, if they hadn't developed into being such political jackasses.  It's my understanding that they run pretty good gun safety courses.  That's what they should be doing, not running around suggesting that everyone should be able to have a blunderbus.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Wed 24 Sep 12:24 AM