Monday, July 02, 2012

Romney website: ‘Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts’

Stop for a moment of silence, ask God what He want you to do next. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

-Governor Romney's website holds John Roberts out as a model justice... will that change after yesterday's ruling?

-Awkward, right? Perceived betrayal always is, folks. Interestingly, Governor Romney’s response to the ruling was extensive but he had remarkably little to say about the Court itself, choosing instead to focus on the law from a policy perspective:

-Mitt Romney is only taking the anti-Obamacare position because it’s the only chance he has of getting elected.
"If Romney gets in, Obamacare(Romneycare) stays in place"

He loved this law when he himself made the move to implement it at the state level, and once approved of doing the same at the national level … even going so far as to say he did in the first edition of his book.

I hate to break it to everyone, but if Romney gets in, Obamacare (a.k.a. nationalized Romneycare) stays in place.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900670/posts

To: Uncle Slayton; All
Why would the website change? Mitt Romney will not change. Exactly.

We know Mitt is closer to "concrete" than "Gumby," right???

Or, try to follow Romney's meandering ways as he's weaved and bobbed on and off the campaign trail these past 18 years!

(1) Romney's on record saying his "pro-choice" opinions go back to when his mom ran for Senate (1970).
Assessment: [Pro-abortion, then, eh, Mitt?]

(2): "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review last year, says the Concord Monitor (Source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/REPOSITORY/612100304/1217/NEWS98)
= Assessment: So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"

(3) Romney now invokes in this thread's article a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice.

Well, what are the 1994 facts?

FACT a: Romney's wife gave a donation in 1994 to Planned Parenthood...
FACT b: On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attended a private Planned Parenthood event at the home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney.
"Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts
"Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts
"In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts
FACT c: 1994 campaign in Massachusetts "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
= Assessment: Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent

(4): Fast forward to 2001, when Romney needs to reassure Utah Mormons that...he's not really "pro-choice," after all: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)
= Assessment: So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)

(5) “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05)
= Assessment: Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?

(6): In November of '04, he & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" where he links it to stem cell research
= Assessment: (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)

(7): On May 27 '05, he affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.")
= Assessment: OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!

(8): What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were so pro-life decisions. ("As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.")
= Assessment: So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine

(9): April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. Assessment: (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).

(10): On January 29, 2007 during a visit to South Carolina, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07)
= Assessment: OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?

(11): Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering that "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
= Assessment: Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!

(12) "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007
= Assessment: OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"

(13): Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."
= Assessment: That whatever he was from 1970 when his mom ran as a pro-abortion senator & he sided with her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion inlook or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?

(14): By December of 2007, you'd think after THREE supposed FULL years of being "pro-life," he'd have his talking points down by then...But no: December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!"

(15): Now we come to the 2011-2012 campaign. The Romneys do an interesting Parade Magazine interview (Nov. 2011). Ann Romney is interviewed: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have NEVER CHANGED; we’ve ALWAYS BEEN PRO-LIFE: (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)

What? Did you Romneybots & would-be Romney voters not get the Romney campaign memo issued late in 2011: Per Ann Romney, the Romneys have "ALWAYS been pro-life..." They personally "NEVER CHANGED."

Which all means you can't trust a damn word Romney says. He has no personal integrity -- no core values.


37 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:03:18 PM by Colofornian (Saying Mitt would keep past political promises is like prophesying that Gumby won't bend anymore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

http://savejersey.com/2012/06/will-roberts-remain-on-romneys-website/

Will Roberts Remain on Romney’s Website?Written on June 29, 2012 by Matt Rooney in Election 2012, Mitt Romney, ObamaCare

Governor Romney's website holds John Roberts out as a model justice... will that change after yesterday's ruling?

Don’t take it personally, Mitt, but I couldn’t help but appreciate the irony here.

Governor Romney’s campaign policy page (like many Republican candidates’ websites over the past few years) reports his determination to ”nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.” They were thought to be conservatism’s constitutional firewall, Save Jerseyans.

Fairly or not, after yesterday’s grim ObamaCare ruling, most of Governor Romney’s base is no longer in the mood for judges “in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts.” We’ll still take a double order of the other three, thank you very much!

Awkward, right? Perceived betrayal always is, folks. Interestingly, Governor Romney’s response to the ruling was extensive but he had remarkably little to say about the Court itself, choosing instead to focus on the law from a policy perspective:

What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it’s good policy. Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.”

Bottom line?

I’ll be very curious to see if the Chief Justice’s name stays on Mitt’s website!


Phyllis
June 30, 2012 | 6:25 am

Mitt Romney is only taking the anti-Obamacare position because it’s the only chance he has of getting elected. He loved this law when he himself made the move to implement it at the state level, and once approved of doing the same at the national level … even going so far as to say he did in the first edition of his book. I hate to break it to everyone, but if Romney gets in, Obamacare (a.k.a. nationalized Romneycare) stays in place.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/15-reasons-why-the-obamacare-decision-is-a-mind-blowing-disaster-for-america

The following are 15 reasons why the Obamacare decision is a mind blowing disaster for America....

#1 According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government has the power to force you to buy private goods and services. Now that this door has been opened, what else will we be forced to buy in the future?

#2 Obamacare is another step away from individual liberty and another step toward a "nanny state" where the government dominates our lives from the cradle to the grave.

#3 The IRS is now going to be given the task of hunting down and penalizing millions of Americans that do not have any health insurance. In fact, the Obama administration has given the IRS 500 million extra dollars "outside the normal appropriations process" to help them enforce the provisions of Obamacare that they are in charge of overseeing.

#4 Obamacare imposes more than 20 new taxes on the American people. You can find a comprehensive list of Obamacare taxes right here. If you love paying higher taxes, then you are going to absolutely love Obamacare once it is fully implemented.

#5 In an attempt to "control costs" and "promote efficiency", Obamacare limits the treatment options that doctors and patients can consider. This is likely to result in a decrease in life expectancy in the United States.

#6 Obamacare is going to impose nightmarish paperwork burdens on doctors, hospitals and the rest of the healthcare system. This is going to significantly increase our healthcare costs as a nation.

#7 Obamacare is going to send health insurance premiums soaring. This is especially true for younger Americans.

#8 Many small businesses are going to be absolutely crushed by the provisions in Obamacare that require them to provide expensive health insurance coverage for their employees. This is going to make them even less competitive with companies in other countries where businesses are not required to provide healthcare for their workers. This is also going to make it even less attractive for businesses to hire new employees.

#9 Obamacare is going to make the emerging doctor shortage in America a lot worse. Surveys have found that we could potentially see hundreds of thousands of doctors leave the medical profession because of Obamacare.

#10 Obamacare has already forced the cancellation of dozens of doctor-owned hospitals.

#11 Obamacare is going to result in a much bigger federal government. In order to fully implement all of the provisions of Obamacare, hordes of new government bureaucrats will be required.

#12 Thanks to Obamacare, you are going to have to wait much longer to see a doctor. Just look at what happened once Romneycare was implemented in Massachusetts....

In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.

#13 Obamacare contains all kinds of insidious little provisions that most people don't even know about. The following is one example from the Alliance Defense Fund....

"Did you know that with ObamaCare you will have to pay for life-saving drugs, but life-ending drugs are free. One hundred percent free. If this plan were really about health care wouldn't it be the other way around?"

#14 As if the U.S. government was not facing enough of a crisis with entitlement spending, it is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls. You and I will be paying for all of this.

#15 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare will add more than a trillion dollars to government spending over the next decade. Considering the fact that the U.S. government is already drowning in debt, how in the world can we afford this?





_______________________________________________

No comments: