Mitt Romney, Always a Conservative

I thought this article by Jeff Fuller at iowansforromney.blogspot.com was absolutely superb. It is titled “Romney Never a Liberal … No, not even close.” The article features Romney’s 1994 campaign flyer. Compare for yourself how he lined up against Kennedy.

Click here for the front side and here for the back side of the flyer.

As Romney’s 1994 campaign flyer illustrates, he has never been a “liberal” or a “flip flopper.” No, the record shows that he’s been a strong conservative on many issues for many years. Click here for Romney’s response to his critics.

Here are some other links that show Romney’s conservative record:

1. Letter from those who worked with Mitt personally – click here.
2. Romney’s response to the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court’s decision to prohibit bans on gay-marriage – click here.

To contribute to Mitt’s Campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Part 2 – Romney is the ONLY candidate that will fight to protect the FAMILY.

As a follow up to posting entitled “Mitt Romney is the ONLY Top-Tier Candidate that Will Fight to Protect the Family” and to the posting entitled “Look at the Record”, I’m entering this post to illustrate what others, who have personally worked with Mitt Romney, are saying about his sincerity and commitment to defending the family.

The following is a letter sent by various community and religious leaders in Massachusetts:

An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney

January 11, 2007

Dear conservative friends:

We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003. Since that time, we have worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.

Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts:

• Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the 2003 court decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”

• Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with considerable progress to date. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.

• Provided active support for a successful citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

• Rallied thousands of citizens to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment.

• Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Governor’s suit asked the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing pressure on the legislators to vote. The vote ultimately was taken on January 2, 2007 and won legislative support – clearing a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.

• Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”

• Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the so called “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”

• Stood for religious freedom. Last year, Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.

• Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.

All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has written that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”

We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.

Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.

For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us.

It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.

For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.

Sincerely,

Rita Covelle
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts

Richard Guerriero
Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus

Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Kristian Mineau
President, Massachusetts Family Institute

Dr. Roberto Miranda
President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England

James Morgan
President, Institute for Family Development

Joseph Reilly
President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Thomas A. Shields
Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Look at the Record

Thanks to a fellow Mitt supporter, Charles Mitchell, at www.evangelicalsformitt.org for the following:

“McCain has been all over the board on issues. Yes, it is true that Romney’s political policy on abortion has changed. However, as Grover Norquistthe, head of Americans for Tax Reform, writes, ‘Romney has a one-way, one-time migration on abortion to explain. … Senator McCain, meanwhile, was a Reaganite on taxes and then drifted for six years and now wants to come back. Same on guns. Same on judges. He was a two-way migration on several issues, and a lot of conservatives will have a hard time with that.’

Mitt, on the other hand, “has undertaken a wealth of pro-life actions in public life, including supporting abstinence education and vetoing bills to expand access to abortifacient pills and to publicly funded stem cell research.”

It seems clear that, when looking at the record, Mitt has been an advocate for life.

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Mitt Romney is the Only Top-Tier Candidate That Will Fight to Protect the Family

On November 18, 2003, four of the seven justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court made it unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage. Since that day, Mitt Romney has consistently fought to preserve the institution of marriage.

In an article to the Wall Street Journal entitle One Man, One Woman: A citizen’s guide to protecting marriage, Mitt wrote:

No matter how you feel about gay marriage, we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage. There are lessons from my state’s experience that may help other states preserve the rightful participation of their legislatures and citizens, and avoid the confusion now facing Massachusetts.

In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts detected a previously unrecognized right in our 200-year-old state constitution that permits same-sex couples to wed. I believe that 4-3 decision was wrongly decided and is deeply mistaken. Contrary to the court’s opinion, marriage is not “an evolving paradigm.” It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.

Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.

Because of marriage’s pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation.

It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on gays, on singles or on nontraditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in the manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships.
So, what to do?

• Act now to protect marriage in your state. Thirty-seven states–38 with recent actions by Ohio–have a Defense of Marriage Act. Twelve states, including Massachusetts, do not. I urge my fellow governors and all state legislators to review and, if necessary, strengthen the laws concerning marriage. Look to carefully delineate in the acts themselves the underlying, compelling state purposes. Explore, as well, amendments to the state constitution. In Massachusetts, gay rights advocates in years past successfully thwarted attempts to call a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This cannot happen again. It is imperative that we proceed with the legitimate process of amending our state constitution.

• Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature’s job to pass laws. As governor, it is my job to carry out the laws. The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution. This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers: One branch is not to do the work of the other. It is not the job of judges to make laws, the job of legislators to command the National Guard, or my job to resolve litigation between citizens. If the powers were not separated this way, an official could make the laws, enforce them, and stop court challenges to them. No one branch or person should have that kind of power. It is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power to control their government.

With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That’s wrong.

• Act at the federal level. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage. Sometimes we forget that the ultimate power in our democracy is not in the Supreme Court but rather in the voice of the people. And the people have the exclusive right to protect their nation and constitution from judicial overreaching.

People of differing views must remember that real lives and real people are deeply affected by this issue: traditional couples, gay couples and children. We should conduct our discourse with decency and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is not a matter of semantics; it will have lasting impact on society however it is ultimately resolved. This issue was seized by a one-vote majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect.

Furthermore, on June 22, 2004, Mitt testified before the US Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the sanctity of marriage. He wrote, “With the inauguration of same-sex marriages, a plethora of legal and regulatory issues are now arising.” For example, “[t]hese issues will not be confined to Massachusetts alone. Our state’s borders are porous. Citizens of our state will travel and may face sickness and injury in other states. In those cases, their spousal relationship may not be recognized, and it would be likely that litigation would result. Massachusetts residents will move to other states, and thus issues related to property rights, employer benefits, inheritance, and many others will arise.”

“It is not possible for the issue to remain solely a Massachusetts issue; it must now be confronted on a national basis. We need an amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, blocks judges from changing that definition and then, consistent with the principles of federalism, leaves other policy issues regarding marriage to state legislatures. The real threat to the states is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage in order to impose their will on the states, and on the whole nation.” Click here to read the entire speech.

On June 2, 2006, Mitt wrote to every US Senator requesting that each of them vote to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. He wrote, “Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.” Click here to read the entire letter.

Mitt has also urged his own state legislatures to allow the people to vote on a marriage amendment. In fact, he got 170,000 residents of Massachusetts to sign a referendum that would put the marriage amendment on the ballot. The ballot initiative would’ve allowed the state’s citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. The legislature refused to address the issue and thus violate the Massachusetts Constitution. Here is Mitt’s reaction:

On November 19, 2006, Mitt addressed a rally at the Massachusetts State House and called on the legislature to vote on a marriage amendment. Here is his speech:

Overall, I agree with Maggie Gallagher who hailed Mitt Romney as “a brave man.” America needs a President who is willing to protect and defend the traditional family. America needs Mitt Romney.

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

The 34th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, March For Life

Mitt Romney released a statement on January 22, 2007 regarding the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and the March for Life.

“Across this nation, thousands of Americans are gathering in their local communities and in our nation’s capital to reaffirm their dedication to protecting the sanctity of life. We must create a culture of life where the weakest and most innocent among us are protected.”

“While there are well-meaning people on both sides of this debate, no one can deny that when hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed every year, it should be a major concern for a nation as great as ours. If we commit ourselves to promoting a culture of life, I believe that one day our nation’s laws may reflect what is in our hearts.” See https://www.mittromney.com.

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to find more news on current events and information on Mitt Romney’s stance on important issues, please visit his official website at www.mittromney.com.

Mitt Romney and His Son Tagg are in Iowa

2008 candidates are pounding the pavement hard this weekend. Here’s a few of the candidates’ stops:

Rudy Giuliani spoke to local businesses at a dinner in New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton made several stops in Iowa. Pataki visited Georgetown University to deliver a speech titled “A Way Forward in Iraq.” See CNN for more details on other 2008 candidates.

Romney hit the campaign trail too. This weekend he and his son Tagg headed “to Iowa Friday to attend a luncheon with GOP activists in Waterloo, before he tours a renewable energy plant in Fairbank. The Massachusetts Republican heads to Washington, DC Saturday to deliver a keynote address at the National Review Institute’s Conservative Summit.” Click here for pictures of his visit.

By the way, did you know that Tagg Romney is going to be the L.A. Dodgers’ new marketing officer? Click here and here for more information.

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to find more news on current events and information on Mitt Romney’s stance on important issues, please visit his official website at www.mittromney.com.

Mitt Romney’s Father Grew up in Idaho

According to deseretnews and www.utahnsformitt.com Jon Huntsman said “his late father-in-law, Elder David B. Haight, who was a member of the LDS Church’s Quorum of the Twelve, grew up in Idaho (Oakley) with Romney’s late father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney.”

“Romney’s father and mother were family friends for half a century, Huntsman said. ‘They were almost like my own parents,’ he said, adding he was one of the earliest supporters of George Romney’s brief presidential bid in 1972.’”

For more information on George Romney click here wikipedia.

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to find more news on current events and information on Mitt Romney’s stance on important issues, please visit his official website at www.mittromney.com.

Thanks, http://www.utahnsformitt.com/h/huntsman_Romney.html for the heads-up.

Ann Romney, The Ideal First Lady

Like many of the First Ladies in the past, Ann Romney has a certain modest yet noble character that I believe resonates with Americans.

Ann Davies Romney was born on 1949, married Mitt in 1969, and has had five sons. As the First Lady of Massachusetts, she has volunteered to work with the New England Chapter of the MS Society, a disease she was diagnosed with in 1998. While Mitt was Governor, Ann served as a co-chair of the Faith and Action Committee, a committee aimed to bring churches together to help serve young people. She has also served on other boards that focus on education, athletics, women’s cancer, community service, and improving the lives of our nation’s youth (just to mention a few). Above all, she is a woman of faith, a mother of love, and a wife of unfailing support.

Click here for more information wikipedia.org

What do you think, is Ann Mitt’s secret weapon?

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to find more news on current events and information on Mitt Romney’s stance on important issues, please visit his official website at www.mittromney.com.

Massachusett’s Legisature Advances Gay Marriage Ban

Governor Romney has championed the nation’s movement to ban gay marriage. After getting over 150,000 signatures and a Massachusetts’ Supreme Court order, Massachusetts Legislatures are finally moving the proposal to ban gay marriage forward. In order to get it placed on the 2008 ballot, 50 members of the old and 50 members of the new Legislature will need to approve of it. Do you think it will actually pass?