The Boston Globe posted the full text of Mitt Romney’s letter to the Log Cabin Republicans in 1994 while running against Kennedy. The Globe also posted the actual letter(pdf). Gasp, Romney’s Senate Campaign letterhead has a Cambridge address!
“As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent,” Romney wrote, referring to US Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.
“If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will”
chron blogger had the following thought…
There are few things as unappealing as a candidate who can change views – particularly on issues of values – as easily as changing suit jackets.
NewsMax compiled some quotes from the assorted nuts of with right wing.
“This is quite disturbing,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “This type of information is going to create a lot of problems for Governor Romney. He is going to have a hard time overcoming this.”
Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation, tells the Times that Romney may be cornered.
“Unless he comes out with an abject repudiation of this, I think it makes him out to be a hypocrite,”
Which Romney is running for President is the question. The GOP is starting to wonder what we knew already, Mitt is really an empty suit with pollsters.
UPDATE (by David): As Kos notes, the NY Times has picked up the story.
…to a nicer guy. See ya, Mitt.
And I’m sorry – saying you want to end housing discrimination and approving of gay marriage are not equivalent positions. The cries and doubts are coming from people already associated with Brownback and Tancrredo.
but, PP, you’d acknowledge that there’s a bit of a difference in tone between Mitt version 1994 and Mitt version 2006. Wouldn’t you?
Come on PP, you know as well as I do that this letter went far beyond “wanting to end housing discrimination”. Romney also seems to endorse gays serving openly in the armed forces, and explictly states that he wants to make “equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.”
<
p>
Sure, Romney can certainly argue that this letter doesn’t approve of gay marriage — but if wants to claim that this letter was really just about ending housing discrimination (as you seem to think) then that’s not going to fly with the religious right wing. And of those people are “already assocated with Brownback and Tancredo”, then how does Romney expect to win the GOP nomination?
So if this letter is any indication, suicide prevention programs for gay/lesbian youth are supported by the mainstream in the Republican party, right Mme. Porcupine?
<
p>
Can’t wait to see how this gay flip-flopping flies in South Carolina!
Romney:
<
p>
Then Romney detailed a few items that he was currently supporting, such as, housing discrimination, teen suicides and open gays in the military.
<
p>
The crux of the letter was not housing discrimination, but rather “establish full equality for America’s gays and lesbian citizens”. Again, the major point here is Romney’s pandering to whomever his audience happens to be at the time. If he’s running for MA Senate in 1994, then he’s a Weld Republican since that strategy worked. If he’s running for president then he’s a Dubaya Republican since that just worked in the last election. I really think he doesn’t care one way or another on these values issues, he just wants the votes and he will say anything to get to the target audience that he believes he needs to win an election.
“running against the gays” posturing into perspective. The so called ‘Liberty Sunday” event, (simulcast from Tremont Temple Baptist Church, where Romney claimed that gay marriage is threatening religous liberty nationwide), comes to mind.
<
p>
Talk about leading with your chin….
Proposition: That equal rights may mean a gay man is allowed to marry a woman and enjoy the same rights and protections as a married straight man is anathema in the minority of these United States.
<
p>
Corollary: the majority of the States elect the president.
<
p>
Corollary to that: the gay marriage issue in the U.S. is so ’02
<
p>
And corollary to that: Massachusetts isn’t a bellwether state.
If this indeed becomes an issue for Romney it won’t be, as you suggest, from those in the minority of these United States who support equal rights for gay people, it will be from those who vehemently oppose it. His same party opponents are likely to rip him apart with this stuff in pursuit of the nomination. For Romney in ’08 MA will be a bellwether state.
…that it won’t become an issue.
<
p>
Mass a bellwether state…snicker. Good one.
this data lifted from Pam’s House Blend:
<
p>
“This is quite disturbing. This type of information is going to create a lot of problems for Governor Romney. He is going to have a hard time overcoming this.”
— Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who had praised Mr. Romney as a champion of traditional values at the Values Voters conference in September
<
p>
“Unless he comes out with an abject repudiation of this, I think it makes him out to be a hypocrite. And if he totally repudiates this, you have to ask, on what grounds?”
— Conservative icon Paul Weyrich
…is that it will not become an issue because the majority doesn’t support gay marriage. I am simply pointing out that you logic seems flawed to me. What presidential hopeful is not going to exploit political ammunition during a primary campaign? And snicker all you want but whatever Romney faces should he run will all trend out of MA because this is where he was governor and this is where people will look for answers. Didn’t hear much out of Arkansas before or after Clinton first ran, but the country sure seemed to care about what Arkansas thought when Clinton first arrived on the national scene.
My snicker was directed at the thoughts of Mass as a bellwether…”as goes Massachusetts so goes…” er…nobody. Massachusetts is …
quirkyenlightened. That’s why Romney will continue with the Mass jokes. They work.<
p>
Second, a perfectly defensible argument is that, in fact, Romney does support equal rights for gay, hetero, black, white… A gay man is free to marry a woman just like any man is allowed to marry a woman. That position may or may not fly in Mass, but it flies pretty much everywhere else. (back to that bellwether thing).
<
p>
Third, gay marriage may be contentious, but it’s just not that important in priorities: 1) defense 2) economy … 101) gay marriage.
<
p>
And last re: the Clinton/arkansas thing. Yes, people looked to Arkansas opinion. They’ll look at his Mass record. At the end of the day, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything wrong with the Romney Massachusetts economy: jobs up; unemployment down; better numbers than the U.S. averages; wealthier; moderated tax rate. Romney’s opposition to gay marriage is a plus for him pretty much anywhere else.
“That’s why Romney will continue with the Mass jokes. They work.”
Romney running against his own state, where he was a one term-couldn’t win re-election Governor, is weak. Yeah, maybe the “broken glass” GOP types will like it, but many key areas are trending Blue after the midterms, and in some key primary states, say NH, Romney will get buried with that strategy.
<
p>
“A gay man is free to marry a woman just like any man is allowed to marry a woman. That position may or may not fly in Mass, but it flies pretty much everywhere else.”
<
p>
I haven’t followed closely enough to say that I’ve heard this line of argument nationally by Romney, but please give an example if you have it.
<
p>
“They’ll look at his Mass record. At the end of the day, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything wrong with the Romney Massachusetts economy: jobs up; unemployment down; better numbers than the U.S. averages; wealthier; moderated tax rate.”
<
p>
Anything, except all the jobs that Mitt “Bain Capital” promised when he came into office. He sold the Commonwealth a bill of goods and didn’t deliver, and his jobs creation record is tepid at best. He claimed that he would use the existing business base in bio-tech, financial services & medical research to attract new jobs, but spent more time running around the country carrying Bush’s water than working for us. Now that Bush is political poison, that doesn’t look so smart.
<
p>
The fact that Romney couldn’t get re-elected here says it all.
Well, anywazzz…my guess on the future is that gay marriage is a tempest in a teapot…reckon we’ll see.
<
p>
But Romney’s economic record?
<
p>
<
p>
Mass outperformed the US in practically every stat. What’s your charge? Romney promised us super super duper and only gave us super duper? Wah..he lied?
<
p>
Fact that romney didn’t get re-elected doesn’t say it all; it just says he didn’t run.
Here’s a link to state by state uneployment #s. As of 10/2006 MA is tied for 32nd at 4.6%, while the National average is 4.4%, so we are below the National average.
http://money.cnn.com…
<
p>
Look, maybe those kinds of numbers are “super duper” in Romneyland, but they’re low to middle of the pack, and don’t outperform anything. Tepid.
<
p>
“Fact that romney didn’t get re-elected doesn’t say it all; it just says he didn’t run.”
<
p>
Funny stuff. Mitt Romney put his finger to the wind, knew he would get his ass handed to him if he ran for re-election, and decided it was better to jump than get pushed. Brave soul that Mitt. He hitched his wagon to Bush but he was two years too late. The Rove strategy of running to the wingnut base is done. It worked in 2004, but people are waking up. Gay marriage? I agree it’s mostly a non-issue, but Mitt seems to want to have his image beamed around the world as some kind of martyr & crusader against the heathens in MA, so bring it on.
<
p>
Trotting out the, Mitt’s “super duper” economic record isn’t going to fool anyone. At least, not anyone living in Massachusetts.
Yeah, ya got me. Mass unemployment is 4.6. National is 4.4. Let’s make a note of that for comparison as the Patrick term progresses.
<
p>
Opponents may be able to attack Mitt on many things, but the Mass economy isn’t one of them. There’s pretty good thinking that for Mass, 4.2 – 4.6 is as good as it gets.
<
p>
I can hear the attack ads now:
<
p>
“And can you believe it, Mass unemployment is 4.6 while Arizona’s is 3.9%. How can you trust Mitt Romney.”
<
p>
That ad will get the elusive actuary vote.
<
p>
As I pointed out to you in the prior link , MA didn’t “outperform” much of anything under Romney, and his job creation numbers have been lower middle of the pack. The numbers don’t support your claim, and Romney hasn’t delivered.
<
p>
To now say that Romney can run for POTUS on his job creation record in MA, and that it might be better than Patrick’s (future) record, is pretty funny. There’s your ad.
<
p>
The closer we get to ’08, the better we’ll hear that Romney was.
His actual record in MA has been mediocre at best, and if he’s going to run on that, I’m afraid he’s not going to get very far.
<
p>
The simple reality on Mitt: He’s been all smoke and mirrors.
Is not something to aspire to ….
Unlike Mike Dukakis, he decided not to spend two years running for President while being Governor. Do you seriously think he woldn’t have been nominated? And he would have beaten Deval handily. So count your blessings.
I really must disagree. The guy is just about the most unpopular political figure in Massachusetts. I can’t imagine that he will even carry the state if he is nominated for President.
<
p>
Would this be before he “modified” his positions or after? ‘Cause now he’s woefully unpopular here in the Commonwealth. I suppose you are suggesting that he would have successfully pulled the wool over everybody’s eyes a second time?
<
p>
I’m not so sure about that.
is not the political ammunition. It was his supposed support of gay rights in general that appears now to have been feigned that his republican opponents have already started to use against him.
<
p>
My bellwether comment was specific to course coverage of Romney’s campaign will take and I stand by it. It has already started and will continue.
<
p>
And, finally, as MA goes so goes the rest of the country…eventually. Gay marriage will be no different. Should take about 20 or 30 years but patience is a virtue. Who wants to be a bellwether when you can be a vanguard.
if mormonsagainstromney.blogspot.com is to be taken at face value, his coreligionists are not all lock-step with his campaign either. well, he did bring embarrasment to the LDS recently for conducting there political activity of dubious legality.
Before you write Romney’s political obituary, consider that he has always held the position of supporting domestic partnership rights in as an alternative to gay marriage and always has opposed gay marriage. “Equal rights” for gays, at least in Republicanspeak, doesn’t necessarily translate to gay marriage if the substantive rights of domestic partnership are protected. I’m not saying that’s my personal position (he is quick to insert in anticipation of the massive flaming this post will draw) but it is a fair reading of Romney’s past positions. A similar juxtaposition between Romney 1994 and Romney now occurred with his position on abortion and people were quick to point to more evidence of hypocrisy, but Romney was flamed by NARAL for being ANTI-choice in 1994. So is it Romney who waffles his positions or simply his critics who waffle on which purported reason they oppose him?
then during his pagaent in front of the State House he would have balanced his anti-marriage tirade with a tough call for civil unions nationwide. Gosh, I guess in all the excitement/hatemongering he forgot how pro-equal rights he is/was/said he was.
but doesn’t he favor the now-being-killed amendment to the MA constitution, which bans any form of recognition of same-sex unions?
<
p>
And while it’s true that most hard-line pro-choice people did not believe he was pro-choice in 1994, he went to a lot of trouble to convince a lot of voters that he was.
<
p>
My view of the Mittster is somewhat colored by the fact that he has several times vetoed funding for faculty contracts that his own administration has negotiated. I personally wouldn’t trust him to repay a one dollar loan…
backed civil unions, if by that you mean full marriage rights under a different name. He has in the past backed recognizing certain limited rights for gay couples, the contours of which I’m not certain.
You’re forgetting his 2002 encounter with the Log Cabin Republicans. Romney used LCR as a beard, then kicked them to the curb. It led to an almost complete turnover in LCR leadership.
<
p>
http://online.logcab…
<
p>
Rogers, who was president of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts when Romney was a gubernatorial candidate in 2002, said that while Romney made clear he was opposed to gay marriage, he said that he would fight any form of discrimination and left the impression he wouldn’t crusade against gay rights. 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.
<
p>
“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.<
p>
In part based on the responses Romney gave at the meeting, the group decided to endorse him in the general-election campaign against Democrat Shannon P. O’Brien. The Romney campaign wielded that endorsement as a shield when O’Brien accused Romney of trying to “mask a very conservative set of belief systems” on gay rights and other social issues.
<
p>
Romney’s press secretary, Shawn Feddeman, said the governor has been consistent on issues of gay rights. He opposes gay marriage and civil unions, but favors extending some rights, including health and survivor benefits, to gay couples.
…when you willfully engage in wishful hearing.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
Whe he made it clear he was against gay marriage, did you ask him why?
<
p>
And as far as the 2002 SuperDOMA goes, many conservatives opposed it as overreaching. It is not the same question that is before the Legislature today, which had been pared down. The 2002 SuperDOMA, in addition to defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, would ALSO have not reecognized any other relationship. In addition to deep-sixing civil unions, it would also ahve eliminated heterosexual domestic partern benefits. MANY people did not support that.
….enlighten me as to all the times that Romney has traveled around the coutry speaking to conservative organizations trashing MA and supporting constitutional bans on gay marriage but then espousing the philosophy of real tolerance and securing for gay people all of the other rights he feels they deserve but are not currently enjoying including, but not limited to, the right to serve freely in the armed services. I don’t think you can because he hasn’t,and that is what he promised to the Log Cabin Republicans and the people of MA when he ran for Senator and Governor. Did he lie and pretend to be tolerant to get some votes then or is he now lying and pretending to be ultra-conservative to get votes? Either way his posture has changed and if the flip-flop fits……
…or are you just extrapolating what you THINK he says?
<
p>
The only long term clip I’ve seen of him is on CNN at some sort of Iowa Pumpkin Fair, in a plaid shirt of all things (!), as the camera followed him around the room and he talkied with the picalilly relish winner. Charmingly, I might add.
…every time I have gotten wind of Romney giving a speach anywhere (which as you can imagine is often) I have made a concerted effort to do as much research as possible as to the content of his speaches by reading local papers online, visiting blogs, reading the national coverage of his efforts, etc. I cannot say that I know everyting that he has ever said in detail but I feel confident that I know the tenor of much of what he has said and in fact substantial or complete transcripts or video of many of his speeches are now or have been available online. Not once have I come across any tolerance for gay people that even comes close to what he promised when he was stumping in MA. Nothing about job protection or military service or being sensitive to the needs of gay people in society. Generally its lots of “america’s traditional values are under attack, godless secularists are trying to corrupt your children and we need to protect the kids from their gay parents by making sure their parents don’t get married, we need a federal amendment” (clearly I am paraphrasing but in no way distorting his message) Then there is generally one sentence of we need to be tolerant, but of course no specifics or alternatives just a toss off after implying that children need to be protected from their godless gay parents.
<
p>
There is no doubt that Romney, as you say, is charming. So are a lot of opportunists. You can easily find the transcript of Romney’s 2004 RNC speech where he blasts Kerry for flip-flopping. Guess we can add hypochrite to Romney’s bag of tricks, too.
First of all, I was quoting an article about the Log Cabin Republicans. That’s why it’s in italics with an URL in front of it.
<
p>
Second of all, the article makes clear that not only did Romney actively seek LCR’s endorsement, they were suspicious and only gave it after extensive discussions with him.
<
p>
Calling that “wishful hearing” is just further proof that the truth and you don’t live in the same house.
<
p>
Or are you saying it’s their fault for being taken in?
It is by being Argus-eyed that we attain victory!
One might say that the Log Cabin Republicans have made a career out of, what Peter Porcupine describes as, wishful hearing.
<
p>
On the other hand, encouraging wishful hearers, e.g., by conflating the virulently anti-Wahhabi, Baathist regime of Saddam Husein with the virulently anti-Baathist, Wahhabi organization that is Al Qaeda, George Bush has turned the creation of wishful hearers into an art form.
Romney on the right is having a problem similar to what happens to Kerry when Kerry has discussed abortion or gay rights.
<
p>
Romney’s position does not seem to derive from his values at all. That’s the problem.
<
p>
From the perspective of conservative values, we gay people are just a bad example to the rest of the world. The quieter, the less visible, the less encouraged, the better. If everyone pretended to be straight, social conservatives would be so much happier. Social conservatives still cling tenaciously to the disappearing position that homosexuality is a “lifestyle” or a choice, rather than something genetic or from-the-womb-hormonal. They have “faith”. The emerging science doesn’t matter.
<
p>
Donning my hazmat suit and visiting the toxic Power Line blog to get their “insights” on this subject, I learn that
To what other delusions a large majority of conservatives cling, one can only imagine, but that is the slender thread on which they try to “reason” their “principled” opposition to gay marriage.
<
p>
It’s so awkward that one probably can only oppose marriage equality and sound authentic about it by also sounding a bit bigoted. Hence Romney’s problem: by being friendly to a gay group, he doesn’t sound authentic. So he is forced to discuss Danish sociology.
<
p>
That’s not among his strengths.
Well, this presents yet another opportunity for Romney to explain exactly what rights he thinks same-sex couples should have. Does he think that people should have, in principle, the same right to conceive with people of their same sex that they have with people of the other sex? Answering this would certainly clear up his position. Conceiving with people of the same sex requires genetic engineering and necessarily involves random experimentation to see what genes need to be altered to create a viable embryo. It can be done, but there is enormous risk and cost.
<
p>
Romney needs to explain his views on this, as well as genetic engineering in general. Is he a “Mormon Transhumanist“? Does he believe that a “transfiguration” is immenent, and that he should help bring it about?
That sounds like a real mainstream political winner to me! Then again, I still think you have been sent from the future to prevent an impending genetic apocalypse. Any stock tips for me today?
Yeah, I think Romney feels as you do, that it isn’t a mainstream political winner. But if, and it is a big “if”, he is not Mormon Transhumanist, then he could easily turn the table, and make the other side see how big a “winning issue” their advocacy of genetic engineering and same-sex conception is. Or, he might be a transhumanist and want to keep the issue out of the news and off the blogs, while he puts himself in position to be the only person who could stand up to transhumanism, so that he will stand aside and usher genetic engineering and same-sex conception in.
<
p>
I’m not from the future. You might want to ask this guy for stock tips, since he seems to think he is from the future. You people all seem to confuse me with the crazy people that are actually doing this stuff.
how people who devote such a huge amount of attention to gay issues would blast Romney for saying positive things in that direction. You guys really hate him don’t you?
Actually, Romney is the one who has devoted such a huge amount of his attention to gay issues…all bent on trying to stomp on the rights of gay people.
<
p>
The only time he said anything positive about gays is when he was trying to get elected.
<
p>
I can only speak for myself, but I don’t hate anyone…I just enjoy seeing him get back what he has given out.
sorry just to be clear: which rights that gay people currently enjoy is Romney trying to do away with? I’m not up on this issue..
the right to get married, for starters.
Brian Camenker, John Haskins, and Amy Contrada have compiled page upon page of Romney “crimes” (including favoring the assault weapons ban).
<
p>
Interestingly, one of their beefs is his support for civil unions.
<
p>
http://massresistanc…
<
p>
Within days of the Goodridge ruling, Romney announced that he supported homosexual civil unions:
<
p>
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said yesterday he was ready to work with lawmakers to craft a “civil union”-style law to give some marriage rights to homosexual couples, even though he also supports a constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage . . . Mr. Romney yesterday told TV news stations that he would support a Vermont-style civil union law in Massachusetts, but reiterated his support for a constitutional amendment that would clarify that “marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.”
– Washington Times, 11/20/2003
<
p>
The site goes on and on and on…
It’s not the nice things that he said, it’s that he has not stayed true to his word. Not only has he not spent one minute as governor trying to live up to his campaign promises, he has actually spent an inordinate amount of time to do the exact opposite of what he promised. This is not going to come down to only Gay Marriage. Romney will be pressed about ENDA and Gays in the military and there is no way he can give a good answer on those. If he supports those issues, he is too liberal for Republican primary voters and if he backpedals, he looks like a flip-floper and voters will not trust him on any issue.
<
p>
To Recap:
<
p>
Romney doesn’t mean what he says and doesn’t follow through on what he promises.
<
p>
it’s the credibility.
<
p>
and don’t conservatives want that too?
You got a problem with that?
‘Nuff said.
It just goes to show you that Romney will say anything to pander to the audience of the moment, never mind any principles he may have, if any.
Threads like these have a quality of “Welcome, Republicans. Here’s your opportunity to bait us!”
<
p>
Thus, we get the usual assemblage of “you guys are going to lose”, “no one agrees with liberals”, “you forgot this accomplishment”, and other assorted one liners that take 10 lines to refute.
<
p>
I suppose it’s good exercise.
I sure hope we ( http://mormonsagains… ) will be taken at face value. One of the issues we have is that the constant discussion of Romney’s faith and the way he handles it, is really giving lds a bad name. The LDS Church is a dynamic, multi-cultural organization, and it would really suck if people saw all of us as little Mitt-clones. I mean, we also get to claim Harry Reid as a member. Sociological studies of Mormon converts in Europe show that with conversion to mormonism there generally also comes a significant political shift to the left, even in places like Belgium and the Netherlands. There is a sizable left-leaning LDS population in the US as well (one of our highest leaders currently was a Democratic state senator, and we even had a socialist Canadian MP as our #2 guy not that long ago).
<
p>
I think that it can be argued the Romney is too far right for most LDS…it is in no way insignificant that the Governor of Utah, who was a prominent member of the Church from one of the most prominet families prior to his election, openly supports McCain at this early date. That is a direct attack on Romney’s potential presidential run. Romney’s dad carried Utah and the state he was governor in in the Republican nomination process…right now it looks Romney could claim neither.
<
p>
Well, this got much longer than I intended. I don’t mean this to be a pitch for the LDS church either, just that I would like to say that there are a large number of leftist LDS out there, and to say that I hope people will link to our blog or at least read it from time to time.