Boston Herald article:
The Boston Herald
October 27, 1994 Thursday SECOND EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 038
HEADLINE: Conservative group yanks its support for Mitt
BY: Joe Battenfeld
A national conservative group yesterday attacked Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mitt Romney for espousing a “left-wing agenda” and urged its followers not to support his candidacy.
The group said Romney’s nationally televised debate performance against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy showed he is “anti-family” and running away from conservative Republican themes.
“It makes no difference who wins (the Senate race),” said L. Brent Bozell, executive director of the Conservative Victory Committee, a fiercely conservative fund-raising group.
“Romney is not going to be a fighter for a conservative agenda.”
The group’s attack is not likely to hurt Romney in Massachusetts, where he is trying to appeal to the critical voting group of moderate independents.
Romney adviser Charles Manning last night dismissed Bozell’s group as a right-wing organization that has not been involved in Romney’s campaign.
“This is the type of gimmick that groups like this use to try to get publicity and it’s really silly,” Manning said. “There isn’t anyone, anywhere who could ever say that Mitt Romney is anti-family.”
Manning said Bozell’s group has not contributed to Romney because he does not accept political action committee money.
Bozell said in an interview that he helped collect more than $ 3,500 in individual donations for Romney over the last few weeks.
He said he now regrets asking his group members to contribute to Romney because the debate “demonstrated very clearly that (Romney) has more in common with liberal Democrats than he does with conservatives.”
Bozell’s group is one of the most conservative in the country, and has been a constant critic of Kennedy’s record in the Senate.
“I’m sorry we ever raised a penny for his campaign,” Bozell said in a statement.
Other conservative leaders in Washington also were reportedly upset with Romney for voicing support on Tuesday night for gay rights, abortion rights and forcing employers to release information on their hiring record of women and minorities.
“Any man who runs on quotas for women is not one of us,” Bozell said.
Kennedy attempted to link Romney several times during the debate to conservatives such as Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and accused him of trying to return the country to the policies of the Reagan-Bush administrations.
Romney objected to the characterizations, saying: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
Romney has sought throughout the campaign to portray himself as a “Bill Weld Republican” who is is liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal matters.
One conservative strategist, however, said a Romney victory would hurt Republicans who are attempting to appeal to conservatives in the 1996 election.
“In their minds, if Romney is elected, that’s a disaster to the future of the Republican Party,” the strategist said.
Washington Times article:
October 6, 1994, Thursday, Final Edition
SECTION: Part A; NATION; INSIDE POLITICS; Pg. A5
BYLINE: Alan McConagha
In Massachusetts, Republican Mitt Romney, who is opposing Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, distanced himself from a GOP leadership move to rally candidates behind a ” Contract with America.”
The Boston Globe reports that the 10-point manifesto is already a hot issue in two state congressional races in which freshman Republicans Rep. Peter G. Torkildsen and Peter I. Blute are defending the document.
Romney aides, hoping to keep their candidate out of the controversy generated by the proposal and as far from Washington politics as possible, said he has not read it and has no plans to support it, the Globe says.
Lowell Sun 2004:
“Romney said illegal immigrants should have a chance to obtain citizenship. “I don’t believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country,” Romney said. “With these 11 million people, let’s have them registered, know who they are. Those who’ve been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn’t be here; those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.”
Thought he would have self-combusted by now, like matter meeting anti-matter. Even the governor of Utah, a Mormon Republican, has loudly proclaimed his support for…McCain. Willard’s prezzy aspirations are toast. buttered on both sides.
His real home state doesn’t even endorse him. Nice.
MICHIGAN, you could make a case for, as his dad was Governor there – but that’s like saying somebody is a true Alaskan for spending 3 years at Adak!
called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is based in UT. UT is hugely Mormon. Romney is a Mormon Bishop, and recently brought, to the dismay of the LDS uppy-ups, national scrutiny upon the LDS church for his use or agreements to use their members lists for compaign fundraising. Google it. Then you’ll see and can allow yourself to understand.
That Senator Kennedy’s home state is Rome, right?
will one day reclaim its rightful place as sovereign over the Eternal City and all of the Papal States, no?
IF Kennedy was a prince of his church (he isn’t but Romney is), and
IF Kennedy negotiated with the Archbishop and lesser minions for access to the church registry for political purposes (Kennedy hasn’t, to anyone’s knowledge, but Romney has admitted to doing it),
THEN you might have a point.
BUT you don’t.
Although a better comparison may be the things said about Senator Kennedy’s elder brother as he was running for President: So, will you be taking orders from the Pope?
<
p>
Likewise, you insinuated that Romney is secretly beholden to a religious isntitution that is msyterious and fearsome, to the point where the headquarters of that religion is his “home” state even though he doesn’t live there, and has never l;ived there, except for a temporary residence for a short-term job.
<
p>
I am no fan of Romney, as I have repeatedly made clear on this site. But attacks such as this, based on nothing other than the man’s religion, must be called out for what it is: an unfair, indeed a bigoted, personal attack.
Just how did I insinuate that Romney is beholden to LDS? He is an active and important member of LDS and was trying to use it for his policial asperations. There is no “beholden” there.
<
p>
“Mysterious and fearsome”? Those words came from your own imagination, not my post.
<
p>
UT is the home state for LDS. I never said it was Romney’s home state. I dont really know where Romney’s home state is. Do you? Does that even matter?
<
p>
You claim that my post is a bigoted attack. However it was you who read all sorts of “mysterious and fearsome” nonsense into my post. It appears that you are a religious person (see your post above – the one wishing the Vatican well in overtaking the other “Papal States”). I would think that as such, you would welcome an honest examination of a politician’s unsavory misuse of religous connections.
Sorry I don’t know how to make the grey quote boxes.
<
p>
Someone noted that the Utah governor endorsed McCain, prompting a reply that “He couldn’t even win his home state!” which, in turn prompted the reply that Utah is not, i fact, his home state.
<
p>
You, in reply to that last one, stated that “You don’t understand the Utah connection.” Utah has Mormons. Romney is Mormon– and a bishop at that! Thus, his real home is Utah. Then, you mention that he is reaching out to other Motrmons, as if this were sinsiter.
<
p>
I don’t find this line of attack any different than a comment that Barney Frank’s real “home” district is Brooklyn, because we know who lives there.
<
p>
I find attacks on purely sectarian grounds to be truly ugly. There is plenty of material with which to smear Governor Romney. His religion simply isn’t one of them.
“You, in reply to that last one, stated that “You don’t understand the Utah connection.” Utah has Mormons. Romney is Mormon– and a bishop at that! Thus, his real home is Utah. Then, you mention that he is reaching out to other Motrmons, as if this were sinsiter.” (i dont know how to make the gray boxes either.)
<
p>
CentralMassDad, it would bother me if Romney went to ANY registered non-profit to get their members list to use for his campaign. Even if he went to the Humane Society. Why? Because it is ILLEGAL for non-profits to endorse candidates. So you must see that I’m not calling UT his home because the Mormons are based there, I’m saying he TRIED, illegally, to make it a power base for his campaign because he happens to belong to that non-profit institution called LDS and pulls some sway there with some of it’s paper pushers.
<
p>
Why are you, a person who cares about the integrity of religious institutions, not concerned that an effort was made to abuse a really big one, the LDS, by a politician? You know, his actions have turned the IRS’s eyes towards Salt Lake City. I’ve never met a religious institution that appreciates scrutiny of their books.
<
p>
You should be fuming at Romney for his harebrained, self-serving and illegal actions, not attributing your own demons to me. Your insistence on inserting words like ‘sinister’ into my legalistic approach really tips me off to your own insecurities. I think it’s called projecting.
At least Gore was a Baptist, though.
Did Clinton/Gore get the membership lists from churches and use them for political campaign fundraising?
….this is why the IRS is looking at this! And remember Gore and the Bhuddist temple fundraiser in CA?
<
p>
Laurel – you need to seperate, in your mind, the alumni association of Brigham Young University – which is no more sinister than that of UMass or Brown, which makes their lists available to alumni running for office – and the Mormon church per se, which has NOT been acused of doing so.
Also, according to the Globe and to LDS officials, actual upper LDS officials knew about Romney’s illegal fundraising discussion with BYUAA. Not all of the of course, but some did. LDS is also a 501(c)3.
<
p>
Are you and CentralMassDad the same person? You both keep saying that anything Mormon is sinister. WHat’s up with that?
He is a lifelong Democrat, and I am a lifelong Republican. He is a lawyer, according to his bio, and ID #1,070. I am decidedly NOT a lawyer, and am ID #410 – so we would have had to have been planning this effort to confuse you for a long time….
I am not Peter Porcupine. As he is a Republican; I am an Independent, perhaps better described as a centrist Democrat with libertarian envy. I simply cannot stand the Republican right, whereas I am merely frustrated by the liberal left, with which I disagree more on strategy than goals. Oh, and, as an attorney, I am a legal conservative, because the politicization of law tends to produce crappy judges, which then screw up the 99.99% of their job that is apolitical. On this site, that makes me a right winger I suppose.
<
p>
And I get miffed by what I believe to be an inappropriate broad brush when it comes to the religion of a candidate, and this little spat about the Mormons is a case in point. It frustrates me that, on the left, everyone is respected except those with religious views, unless those views are UUC. On the Larry Cigwhatever his name is thread, Ernie Boch got zeroed all over the place for making an un-PC joke about the victim of the assault, but the Catholics as pedophiles jokes fly free.
<
p>
So this is something I have a bit of a hair across my @$$ about; hence my strong reaction.
<
p>
I am no fan of Romney; as a result I voted Democrat for governor for the first time ever. But I think the Mormon angle is atrociously unfair when it comes from the evangelical right, and I expect more from the left.
whoever is doing the legwork to reveal some of Mitt’s…ah..”positions”. He’s going to need to hire his own Tony Snow or at least Baghdad Bob to spin/lie his way out of these quotes.
<
p>
And as important as Gay marriage is, or the Contract On America, I’m also anxious to hear Mitt’s plan on resolving the Bush Civil War in Iraq. More troops Mitt? A draft maybe Mitt? Anyone of your toothy clan signing up Mitt?
<
p>
When he comes back from (doing the Commonwealths business!) China, he needs to step up to the plate and enlighten us.
may have been due to the big amnesty Reagan oversaw for illegal aliens. According to Mormons Against Romney (a juicy pot o delight!), Willard’s dad, George, was actually born in Mexico. Accordingly, Willard is considered by Mexican law to be a Mexican citizen. MAR raises the intereting note that George Romney was not qulified to run for Prez, not being born in the US. So I guess this whole thing about putting on the face (nationality) you think today’s crowd wants to see started with dear old dad?
…ever ran or intended to run for president. Like it or not the son taking up the father’s lost cause makes for good color commentary.
You COULDN’T be so racist as to assume that Mr. Patrick or Mr. Obama had no interest in politics because they wre black men…
is not the same as running for president. duh. Or are you trying to say that you are running in ’08? You’ll have a problem though, since ‘Peter Porcupine’ has all the name recognition, yet does not exist. How will you overcome the obstacle of being known as the hand in the sock?
Deval Patrick’s father is Pat Patrick, a saxophone player for Sun Ra; he also played with John Coltrane.
<
p>
As for Obama,
<
p>
I am just annoyed about Mitt’s GRANDFATHER being a sinister part of his political ambitions. If you want to talk about sinister FATHERS, let’s talk about Joe Kennedy, bootlegger extraordinaire.
<
p>
What would you have said if I had insinuated that Deval’s father must have been involved with heroin because his dad was a sideman for a noted addict? Or HOW MANY WIVES did Obama’s dad have at the same time if he left THREE behind? You’d have a fit! Yet the same kind of ‘ooohhh, scary!’ crap is being floated about a man’s religion and ancestry. I have to assume it’s because nobody can find a flaw in the man HIMSELF, and is forced to look at his relatives for scandal?
<
p>
It’s like saying I’m a Brit because I’m a Methodist! Or that GWB and I agree on all issues because we’re BOTH part of that sinister Wesley circuit rider conspiracy!
<
p>
Disagree with what MITT said – and that is done elsewhere on this thread – but his grandfather? How silly is that?
He apparently has copies of them where Whitey, being an enterprising lad, changed the ‘D’ to a ‘B’ and all the minus to a plus with the stroke of a pen.
<
p>
The hyperventilation over these twelve year old ‘revelations’ stikes me in a similar light – is THAT the best you got? For an election SIXTEEN years later? Geez, why aren’t you running about screaming that McCain was one of the Keating Five?
<
p>
Tell me – what were Obama’s stances 16 years ago? Or better still, HILLARY’S?
do not negate or discount those of any other. The Flip Flopper Mittster included. You can’t win the arguement by changing the subject, although you sure can try.
So that I don’t have to talk about Romney … yeah, yeah, what about this person or that person.
<
p>
Well you know what? What about Romney. His position on “values” are four years old (2002). Do you hear about people changing their minds often of these issues. We’re you pro-life then the next day decide to be against it a couple of year later, then changed your mind again. Gay rights issues? Do you go back and forth all the time on those issues?
<
p>
IT DOESN’T HAPPEN!!!!
<
p>
If I was quoting from the from the 50’s or early 60’s then I would say you had an argument based upon Roe v. Wade and the “health of the mother” clause happened afterwards.
<
p>
But his position on Reagan? He finished serving office 5 years before Mitt even ran for Senate! Reagan didn’t do anything else that would change someone’s mind. Nothing has changed about Reagan. Then the entire Republican party backed the Contract With America (well almost) Mitt didn’t he broke ranks with the party on that one. You cannot say that it was because he was running in MA, all the Reps running in MA that year backed it. This is Mitt and solely Mitt. Then you add Immigration from two years ago (2004) when he said that we should give amnesty and you start to see a trend. What about other people crap doesn’t fly.
<
p>
The question here is about Romney, it’s a pattern. He’ll tell you anything you want to hear except the truth.
I think we all know his political background Daily Dish
Romney will be the Howard Dean for 2008. DOA. What Peter P. doesn’t understand is that the likes of McCain and Giuliani have been around a lot longer than the Mittster. The forgiveness factor is higher for those two, than a one term Ma Guv with no record to point to.
<
p>
Oh let’s go after Billy Bulger. Who does Mitt think won that one in the end. The list of black eyes is endless both in public and behind the scenes within his own admin.
<
p>
Mitts whole crowd are just legends in their own minds.
<
p>
Lot of Mass R’s won’t be supporting him in the primary. Not that it really matters. But we will be going up to NH for Giuliani.
<
p>
President…..give me a break.
Ever read the Sports Guy (Bill Simmons)on ESPN? He was the Boston Sports Guy on a local page in town about 5 years ago. He has a term called the Peyton Manning Face, it’s a look of bewilderment on a player’s face that they lost a game or bad play etc.
<
p>
I give to you The Mitt Romney Face.
<
p>
<
p>
Um, I was pro-choice?