Romney gets blasted by wingers for past pro-gay positions
Tee hee. Prospective 2008 prez hopefuls Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas are probably licking their chops at the whipping Mitt Romney’s getting in the media since news of a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts showing his support for gay rights surfaced.
Mitt was battling Ted Kennedy for the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat back in ’94, and basically bleated away at how much more of an advocate he would be gays than Kennedy (see my earlier post, Mitt was for homos before he was against them — on the record), saying:
“For some voters, it might be enough to simply match my opponent’s record in this area,” he said. “But I believe we can and must do better. 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.”
Romney’s office doesn’t dispute the letter’s legitimacy, either.
The NYT continues the pile-on, and the fundies are now wailing that Mitt’s done them wrong. Too sweet! Some quotes from the NYT article.
“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
“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
“I’ve never seen anybody change like this. It really does concern me.”
— Rich Tafel, who was exec director of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts when Mitt sent that advocacy letter, on Romney’s craven shift to homobigot on the campaign trail these days
Rich, it’s all about Mitt.
Click for the jump — the Freepers smell blood…
To say the least, Romney is going to have problems with this letter. Whether it deep sixes his chances remains to be seen.
There is something about the water in Massachusetts. Politicians will tell the voters whatever they want to hear. He’s just like Kerry. He supported it before he opposed it.
The letter thakes him off my list of viable candidates.
NO MORE RINOS OR MODERATES – Get out, go away and move over to the DBM/dems if you want to represent your views! No more of electing the Rino’s just because they say they’re republicans. Either show me conservatism, values, and the fight that’s within you, or get out of our way!!
Earth to FReaking RINOS! We handed you your a$$ in your hat a few weeks ago for a reason!
Love, The Conservatives that stayed home
Media liberals are going to attack any serious McCain opponent for the repub. nomination. I am not going to let Russert, NY times, Katie Curic, etc. choose the nominee. If it is McCain versus any dem., they have won because the policies will be the same. Romney or Rudy will get my vote.
Exactly. If either McPain, Rino Rudy, or Mitt get the nomination the rats will win. Many social conservatives and Evangelicals are tired of the rinos and will bolt the party in 2008. Yes in a national election you need someone who appeals the the independents but you cannot win with out you base. And these 3 will get many in the base to stay home or go third party.
Could you please give us Reagan Republicans just one positive reason to vote for McCain–other than the fact that he’s not Hillary and that he has an “R” by his name?
I see the 100 per centers are out in force here today – good luck to you all 70% – 80% is better than 100 per cent of nothing.
I ma not a 100%’er but when you have liberal rino like Mitt, I can not support them. Because with him I would get a pro gay, pro abortion (funny he has only started speaking out about when he started going national), anti gun liberal rino.
That’s all fine and dandy but what about 30%? Would you settle for 30%? How about 20%? Or 10%? ould 10% good, 90% bad be fine with you? hould we prostitute our principles for 5% of what we believe in? Because that’s what we’d be getting with the Mittster.
Freepers should ask themselves, why is the New York Times is running this article? No such article for the real RINO’s Mc Cain and Giuliani. The NYT wouldn’t mind them as President. No such article for can’t win conservatives such as Duncan Hunter. The NYT hopes Republicans nominate someone so easy to defeat. But a Republican Governor of MA running as a conservative? Attractive, smart, articulate. Nothing to smear. Romney turns Democrats white with fright. So to turn gullible conservatives away from Romney, The New York Times uses its Jedi mind tricks. It slowly waves two fingers back and forth and intones: “Romney is not the conservative you are looking for”.
How is it a Jedi mind trick when Romney doesn’t even dispute that he wrote the letter? Seems like the Times is just having a chuckle at potentially sinking the chances of someone who claims to be a conservative, for sure, but would you rather Hillary was able to hold up that letter and say “Romney was for gay rights before he was against them. Who does that remind you of?”
I agree conservatives cannot trust the press in any way. Still, Romney has to address this and answer it to the satisfaction of the conservative base. That may or may not be fair but it’s a reality. I hope he can overcome the charges but the one thing he cannot do is allow it to be out there unanswered.
The LDS church most emphatically does NOT endorse gay marriage. Romney’s religious credentials are in serious doubt.
Romney is a conservative? Perhaps relative to the Bolsheviks infesting Massachusetts, but I see precious little in his background and record as governor to think that he’s the second coming of Reagan.
Sit at home or vote third party. Either way, between 2009 and 2017 there should be no bitching or complaining about President H.R. Clinton anywhere on Free Republic. The worst RINO (other than Lincoln Chaffee) would be a better president than Mr. and Mrs Clinton.
I am getting so fed up with Free Republic. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET A CANDIDATE WHO AGREES WITH 100% OF WHAT YOU AGREE WITH. My god. What kind of babies are you? You pick your top ONE maybe, two issues and you go from there. The only way you’re going to get a candidate who you agree with is to run yourself…if you’re not willing to do that, STFU.