I have a question for the MittHeads...do you believe this reflected his sincere views at the time? For the record, I do not.
....In an interview with Bay Windows Aug. 18th, Romney said one reason he's a better candidate for the Senate than opponent Sen, Edward Kennedy is because his voice would carry more weight on lesbian and gay issues than does Kennedy's....
33 comments:
Here's a better question for you: Was gay marriage an issue back in 1994? I think not.
So I don't have a problem that Romney wanted gays/lesbians to have protection to not be discriminated against in the workplace and with housing.
NICE TRY!
Firecracker
Firecracker,
He was trying to give the appearance that he was to the left of Kennedy on this issue. I don't truly believe he was to the left of Ted on anything, but his extreme pandering in this instance is a prime example of why many GOP voters don't trust him.
Leave it to RW to bring up issues before Mitt Romney was even governor. Hmm back then Perry was a democrat, Newt was living case of adultery while asking Clinton to step down, and Mitt Romney hadn't served as governor. Go ahead, make my case what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Evaluating Mitt before his service as governor means you are struggling to find something to talk about.
FROM WHYROMNEY.COM:
They claim Romney has changed his position on gay rights, citing a Romney 1994 statement supporting gay rights. However, the term "gay rights" had a different meaning in 1994 than it does today. Moreover, critics falsely paraphrase Romney's statement, based on headlines rather than the actual quote from Romney, as a claim that he would be further to the left on the issue than Ted Kennedy.
In fact, what Romney actually said was that Kennedy would be less effective because he is viewed as too extreme: "when Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he's seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights, he's seen as a centrist and a moderate"(23). Critics also cite a letter Romney wrote to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, claiming that Romney said he would not only match but surpass Kennedy's "record" on gay rights, implying that Romney took the same positions as Kennedy and would take them even further.
However, critics falsely paraphrase Romney, who in reality made his statement in reference to Kennedy's "considerable record in the area of civil rights," speaking of civil rights in general terms, not gay rights exclusively. Only then did Romney go on to argue that part of achieving civil rights goals is to "make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern," stating that he could do what Kennedy "cannot do," because "the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party." Romney said he could "be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts," which Kennedy clearly could not do.
While Mitt Romney has been consistent in his gay rights position of 1994, the Republican party has moved to the position that Mitt has held all along. Mitt is the only one who has not flip-flopped on the issue.
-MARTHA
I agree with Firecracker and Martha.
Gay marriage was not a burning issue in the early 90's. The discussion was about employment, housing, and other rights.
Romney supports protections against discrimination against gays, but he doesn't agree that they have a right to marry. The accusation of 'extreme pandering' on this issue is misplaced.
Romney's position on gay rights has always been right. I don't understand the hateful rhetoric that some people on the right employ when it comes to gay people. I'm talking about the nutjobs at the AFA and their ilk. They do a great disservice to our side.
-Martha
Here is a link to the full text of Romney's letter to Log Cabin Republicans in Mass. I challenge anyone to disagree with the content. It has been misrepresented, as all things Romney are.
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/romneyletterbaywindows.pdf
-Martha
Martha, your link didn't work for me.
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/romneyletterbaywindows
I think the reason I get so hot under the collar during this election cycle is due to the out right distortions and lies that are all directed at one candidate, Romney from the ABR and Democrats. I believe they must share the same talking points. The ABR group probably has conference calls with Axelrod to share anti-Romney attack rhetoric. The media doesn't even bother to correct the record.
Gingrich is the king of flip floppers and is a Big Government Progressive who is a career politician and Washington insider who has made his money from Big government and he seems to get a pass for everything including his multiple wives and extramarital affairs.
I also think if the GOP and media are attacking Cain for his alleged infidelities then they should go after Gingrich.
RW, it works for me, but thank you for the link. As you can see, Romney's has been misrepresented.
-Martha
This is why I love whyromney.
Martha, I see a lot of pandering to the left in that letter, but it's up to each individual to make up their own mind.
One thing is for certain...he wouldn't write that letter today.
"I believe they must share the same talking points." This is the height of irony coming from a camp that has done nothing, but use DNC talking points to destroy one GOP candidate after another. Many of us are no longer interested in hearing crying and complaining from the Nobody But Romney crowd.
RWN, glad to see that Mitt supported your rights as a closeted gay man. That has to be one of your issues, and when your 'wife' finds out... there will be cain sized hell to pay.
You can not take every single thing out of context of the time!
Gay rights meant the right not to lose your job. It meant getting seated at resturants.
It meant not getting beat up and killed.
I am for all those things.
Gay rights did not mean Gay marriage.
What is your problem? Why do you keep promoting a lie?
The only way to beat Romney is with flat out lies!!!
But guess what? The lies are working. Good for you.
Bad for America.
Anon, I see no need for your comment.
RW, Pandering, schmandering. It's only pandering if you do not believe what you wrote, and are only saying it to get votes.
I believe wholeheartedly in the things he said in the letter, and I believe he did too. It was not pandering to say Republicans need to make sure we secure civil rights for everyone.
-Martha
I meant the anon comment about RW being gay. The last anon I agree with.
-Martha
RW--
We already know there are things he did back then that he wouldn't do today. It's established that he's moved more to the right in the past 17 years.
Again you try to destroy his reputation. No one is for discriminating against someone do to their sexual orientation, but Romney has always spoken against civil unions and gay marriage and told that to a gay newspapers reporter in a one on one interview. Here is Romney's consistent stance on gay rights: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/projects/nov/gay/gay_forum.html
Fast facts,
Nowhere in my post, or in the comments have I mentioned gay marriage or civil unions. That's a discussion for another day. All I did was post a couple sentences that came out his mouth, and suggested that he was shamelessly pandering to the left to compete with Kennedy. If you're OK with that, fine....but don't put words in my mouth.
Gay rights should mean equal rights not special rights for a few that no one else has.
Equal rights, civil rights, rights to equal access, non-discrimination in the workplace, housing etc. I think we can agree that is the right thing to do.
But same sex marriage is not an equal right. Leave aside that so-called same sex marriage is not equal to traditional marriage. To allow same sex marriage would be to institute a special right no one else has.
Special rights for special interest groups are wrong and unconstitutional. Any government official should be able to defend the constitution and protect the civil rights of all. I don't see a problem that Romney promised to do this.
Lori*
Right Wing Nut:
Who the hell cares?
I mean come on, if values voters can vote for Gingrich they don't really care about values anyway..so who the hell cares?
Dick Cheney was more liberal on gay issues than Bush was...does that mean that Cheney is not a conservative?
Right Wing Nut...you are doing the same kind of thing to Romney that people like you complained that Palin's critics did to her. I guess that means you are no better than they are...you should become a Democratic operative..you would fit right in over there.
And btw, speaking out against discrimination against gay people {or any other group of people} is not pandering..it should be the kind of thing that any principled conservative would do..
In response to the last few comments...then why doesn't Mitt say this today???
Why doesn't he say he would be better for gay rights than Obama?
Because today, the gay rights issue has shifted to gay marriage, which he has never supported. Why would he write such a letter when ENDA already passed years ago?
"Right Wing Nut...you are doing the same kind of thing to Romney that people like you complained that Palin's critics did to her." Yeah, but with the exception of AZ, Hamaca Get Real and a few others you guys were OK with Mrs. Palin being falsely accussed of all kinds of dirty stuff. So I for one have little sympathy. You guys made your bed, but now you do not want to sleep in it. Oh well.
Ohio Joe...why complain about Palin being falsely accused of you are going to do the same thing to someone else?
First of all, I did not did not make false accusations about Mr. Romney. I never question that he fathered his own children. I never accused his children of sabotaging school buses. I never accused Mr. Romney of being responsible for shooting and murder. I never insulted Mr. Romney's Spouse. Your friends on the other hand........
Well, OJ, I guess you might have to ask yourself which type of person you would rather be like, Hamaca or Ellie. From what I have seen of you, I am sure you have better standards than to counter foolishness with more foolishness.
Once again, misleading and dishonest, RW. For you and the rest of the ABR gang, it's not what is true that matters, but what can you get away with saying or covering up. Mitt was never for gay marriage, which is what matters. Everyone agrees that gays deserve the same rights as afforded all Americans. Romney has been consistent in saying that that does not include marriage, being defined as between one woman and one man. There is no excuse for confusion over Romney's defense of marriage. You are trying to hard to smear an honest conservative.
Once again, I haven't brought up gay marriage in the post, or in the comments. You guys keep bringing it up. Worry much?
Gay rights might have meant something different in '94 than now - but how different was it during Romney's gubernatorial term?
http://www.goodasyou.org/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/17/romneyprideflier550x721_2.jpg
Post a Comment