How could poor Mitt have known that the web site that he launched a successful governors campaign in 2002 could come back to bite him in the arse. Everything was scrubbed? If you type www.romneyhealey.com in any address bar, you get a web hosting site. No link anywhere in the internets, yes? Well, no. There’s the Internet Archive, which has been archiving web pages since 1996. (I know, this could be an interesting page, I tried others, DiMasi? Very shrewed man, he leaves no trail, he’s like The Wolf in Pulp Fiction, couldn’t find anything)
The 2002 Romney/Healey archived web page has lots of good stuff, check out the Goodies and Newsletter links at the bottom of the page, I liked the Cheney visit. But the most striking page is the “Issues” link on the blue bar:
Here are the highlights:
On Taxes
Mitt Romney is in favor of low taxes and opposes repeal of the voter-approved tax rollback.
On Gay Rights
All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.
On Abortion Rights
As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government?s.
On Minimum Wage
The minimum wage is important to our economy and Mitt Romney supports minimum wage increases, at least in line with inflation.
On Gun Control
Mitt Romney supports the strict enforcement of gun laws. He is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban. Mitt also believes in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms.
Now this is only a few years ago in 2002, and were even his highlighted issues that he was running on for governor! By stark contrast, you have Mitt’s “Issues” page on his existing website called Issues Watch:
“It is fundamentally unfair to tax people retroactively. If we are to keep faith with the taxpayers of Massachusetts, we need to correct the constitutional error that occurred here.”
“Last year the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck a blow against the family, as I’m sure you know. The court forgot that marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. Its ruling meant that our society is supposed to be indifferent about whether children have a mother and a father.”
“I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.”
What no mention of guns Mitt?
08 as see today looks like a choice between Satan or a minion of Satan.
We have one candidate singing Bomb,bomb,bomb
We have another one imitating mafia characters
The Orwellian youtube on Hillary was brillantly appropriate.
No, I don’t worry too much about Mitt.
I worry more about another false flag like 911 and the current dictators declaring martial law.
Abortion stance – No appreciable change. “I will not change Massachusetts law”, and “States should make their own decisions regarding abortion” There is no difference in these statements.
<
p>
Gay Stance – “..I do not favor gay marriage” He was against it in 2002, and he’s against it now? Where’s the difference? I’m sure if you asked he’s still for domestic partnership benefits.
Compare
to
<
p>
Clearly a contradiction, a flip-flop if you will. The former is strictly pro-choice. The latter is pro-life should that state choose.
The man will change his position on a matter as fundamental as abortion rights depending on the audience.
Clearly a contradiction, a flip-flop if you will
<
p>
if you carefully parse the words used in both statements, you will discover that it there is not really a contradiction, but there is seemingly one if you don’t do the parsing.
<
p>
What he said in the first was that women should be able to decide. What he said in the second was that he personally (presumably, he’s not a woman) was anti-abortion, but that he recognized that there was insufficient political support for his position.
<
p>
Those really are not contradictory statements.
<
p>
Although I would hope that the USofA would view them as being contradictory enough to send his search for the nomination down the rathole.
<
p>
Agree with Bob, btw. BayWindows has an entire archive of Mitt’s flip-flops.
I congratulate John K’s impressive political detective work in unearthing Mitt’s archived gubernatorial political campaign Web pages from 2002. Mitt’s lightning repositioning of himself as a rabid, right-wing conservative in a five-year interval must would be laughable if were not for the fact the Republican primary polls suggest he may be succesful in pulling off his Harry Houdini act for his GOP primary audiences.
<
p>
I am still waiting for someone to do the Web-based and documentary research on Mitt’s time in the 1990’s as head of Bain Capital to illustrate the thousands of working-class jobs that were destroyed as a result of the Bain-sponsored corporate leveraged buy-outs (LBOs) that help make Mitt a millionaire many times over.
<
p>
Finally, I would be curious to learn whether Bain Capital, during Mitt’s tenure, provided health or economic benefits to domestic partners and to discover Mitt’s present opinion about companies and states that recognize domestic partnerships through the provision of health, pension, and other economic benefits. Shockingly, I cannot find the answer to this question on the the Affirming America’s Culture and Values Web page of the Mitt Romney Campaign Web site
I assume Mitt’s view of states and private companies recognizing the validity of domestic partnerships, including the provision of health and economic benefits to domestic partners, depends on whether Mitt happens to be campaigning in South Carolina or California that week.
…Finally, I would be curious to learn whether Bain Capital, during Mitt’s tenure, provided health or economic benefits to domestic partners…
<
p>
instead of just being a nudge and raising the question, you might call Bain and ask them what their policies were and are. Please do so and report back. But please, don’t smear by implication.
<
p>
BTW, a few years ago, there was Bain office here in Munich, with the corporate logo prominently displayed on the office building. It seems to have disappeared. I wonder why.