To get the full scope of Mitt Romney’s hypocrisy, see our lede story in Bay Windows this week.
In 1994, when Romney was running for U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy, he engaged in a lengthy interview with Bay Windows during which he discussed his views on employment nondiscrimination legislation, the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy – and civil marriage rights for same-sex couples (see “Mitt’s secret gay history II,” page 10). The interview was published Aug. 25, 1994. His views on gay issues in 1994 are largely at odds with his stated views today.
…
In the interview, Romney emphasized that he would be an advocate for gay civil rights. And he offered some surprisingly thoughtful reasons for his positions – surprising only because of his demagoguing on gay rights today. He tied his willingness to advocate for the rights of gay people, for instance, to the Mormon concept of “free agency”: “When I speak of free agency, I don’t just mean that each person can do what they want to do, I mean that our society should allow people to make their own choices and live by their own beliefs,” said Romney. “People of integrity don’t force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have. That’s the great thing about this country: it was founded to allow people to follow beliefs of their own conscience. I will work and have worked to fight discrimination and to assure each American equal opportunity.”
…the utter and blatant hypocrisy of this man continues to amaze me.
<
p>
I also remember back four years ago when he was running against Shannon O’Brien, and his running mate said “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between O’Brien’s and Romney’s positions on abortion and choice.
<
p>
Romney is a complete fraud.
to see the ultra conservative uber-haters at MassResistance lambaste Willard. He’s getting negative love from those who should be his natural allies. priceless.
It’s hard to imagine gay-marriage, abortion or Mormon being important swing issues in 2008.
<
p>
Groups rabid on these gay-marriage or abortion will vote the Party. The Mormon thing will probably disappear–IMHO.
<
p>
On the economy and fiscal budget, Romney can point to Massachusetts and some pretty impressive numbers. His jokes about Massachusetts win him votes in 49 states. Big-Dig doesn’t hurt him much–Democratic boondogle you know. States rights. Good speaker and outgoing sorta guy.
<
p>
Smart-money puts him 2nd to McCain as probable candidate.
not an important issue in 2008? that is a really wild claim. it has been for decades, and its demise is a pet project of conservatives. you must have noticed this. opposition to marriage equality will still be used as a badge of “morality” in 2 years and i wager long thereafter, because that issue is far from settled. as for Mormonism – that’s a tough one. He handled it well 4 years ago in MA, but i think the broader community of Americaan fundamentalist christians will be silently wary of what they consider a bizarre cult. the MA fundies put up with it because they were despirate for a conservative republican anywhere they could find one. the national scene is much different – much more to choose from.
Abortion is an important issue, but I said not an important swing issue. The lines are already drawn: rabid choice votes Dem; rabid life votes Rep.
<
p>
The giant middle makes its decision elsewhere, on other issues.
The giant middle makes its decision elsewhere, on other issues.
<
p>
yes but only if the two candidates keep their position near enough the center — or alternatively, far enough from the extremes.
<
p>
Want to prevent all choice to female adults? Nope.
Want to help 14 year olds get their 3rd abortion? Nope.
<
p>
Generally speaking, I think the GOP walks a finer line on pissing off moderates about abortion than the Dems. But you’re right, its only a swing issue if the candidate makes it one by staking a position too far in the extreme. Otherwise, its a yawner.
as swing issues in the 2008 Presidential race, but Romney’s flip-flopping on both of them will be. I think your take on his chances of getting the nomination are overly optimistic, to say the least.
<
p>
No matter how you look at it, the tunnel collapse at the Big Dig happened on his watch…he was in office for 4 years, and the lack of safety inspections can be legitmately laid at his feet.
<
p>
I can’t wait ’til the opposition research folks start poring through the last four years of Romney’s “stewardship” in Massachusetts. I think he’ll get exactly what he deserves.
Massachusetts: Taxes flat, income up, spending up, employment up, umass nobel prize winner, unemployment lower than US, per capita higher than US.
<
p>
Pretty good numbers.
<
p>
But as to his chances, YMMV, MMMV.
I’m glad you dug that up. Hypocrisy is always just waiting to be exposed.