Centerfield

Boy, Romney leaves the country and all goes to hell. He's finally really pissed off a lot of people. Welcome to presidential politics. Howeeeever, I still think he has a shot to win the presidency. When stacked up against McCain he's still a better candidate. I like McCain and wouldn't mind him winning but Romney is simply better.

He will probably start to defend himself soon explaining that he wants equality but wants to maintain the traditional definition of marriage as well. Most people think that that is a contradictory statement but I don't believe so. Equal rights doesn't neccesarily mean because a heterosexual couple can marry, homosexual couples can also marry. We are talking about a definition of marriage first and then civil rights. Romney defends equal rights of all people in a variety of circumstances but doesn't favor changing the definition of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman and has been for centuries. If a homosexual couple would like to be together legally then I do favor a type of civil union but I don't believe we should redefine the 3000 year old definition of marriage.

So, what really is Romney's position? Actions speak louder than words. Look at his record as a governor and you will find someone who is consistantly vetoing and supporting a more conservative agenda than a moderate one even with a democrat-saturated legislature.

This political game of center-right-center is done by everyone in campaigning. I still believe Romney is smart enough to find a way out of this percieved deception and beat grandpa McCain.

As a longtime watcher and listener of Romney, (and not really a huge fan) I can say with full confidence that this characterization is not really true. He has always been VERY conservative socially. It's simply the case that he's never been a hateful zealot who wants to demonize and punish gay folks. He's a reliably churchgoing mormon with a big family who can speak with sincerity and understanding of the values of god and family.

In about a decade of Romney-watching from my perch here in Massachusetts, I NEVER NEVER EVER EVER EVER got the sense that he was pro-choice, although he was smart enough to speak carefully and leave people happy with the uncorrected illusion that he was. What he has said from the get-go was that as governor he was supportive of the laws of the state as written and the views of the people who elected him. It's been crystal clear to me for well over a decade from the way he's responded to questions about abortion that the guy is personally pro-life. And anyone who listened carefully to all of the things he has said has no reason to think otherwise.

Romney has in fact been supportive of preserving the vast majority of rights that the law gives to gay folks. The exception is gay marriage, and as we know, that's currently a matter of serious contention right now. My personal opinion is that the right to marry or to enjoy the same civil privileges as a united couple IS a civil rights issue. And I believe such rights ought to be forthrightly provided and guaranteed.

But I have the utmost respect for the opinions of folks who feel otherwise. Such folks have a very valid point that allowing gays to marry is a substantial change in what the traditional definition of marriage has always been understood to mean. Marriage really HAS always (99.99999%) referred to the union of a man and a woman, and the fact that such a definition has rarely been made explicit in various state laws is IMO good evidence that this was so widely understood that no one anticipated the need to mention it.

Romney's views put him smack in the middle of the mainstream of Republican thought if you ask me. Where you may have a point is that right now Romney is not really the darling of socons, fincons, bi_z_cons, or hawkcons. But with his financial background as a veture capitalist, he is going to speak convincingly and with knowledge and understanding to both budget hawks and those who just want pro-bus_iness policies. The hawkcon group is dwindling by the day. And who among the other currently viable names mentioned as frontrunners for the GOP nom is better poised to capture the socons? Not McCain. Not Guiliani.

Both parties have their "base alters" that candidates must pray at. And that act is always a set up for ridicule and retort "So you once said..." Maybe we should treat the road to the nomination a little like sausage-making.

Brian,

His viewpoints are different as black and white... When he ran for Senate they called him the next Bill Weld, not exactly a social moderate to conservative. He was arguing that he would be more of an advocate for gay rights then Ted 'frigging' Kennedy.

On gay marriage Romney said it was "a state issue ... the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction." Now he wants a Constitutional Amendment to ban it.

He said:

"People of integrity don't force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have. That's the great thing about this country: it was founded to allow people to follow beliefs of their own conscience. I will work and have worked to fight discrimination and to assure each American equal opportunity."

I would like to see him say the same thing now, running in the Republican primary, but am not holding my breath.

In his debate with Kennedy on abortion he said:

“Many years ago... I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time [that] my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter...

And you will not see me wavering on that.”

Was he not trying to imply with that statement that he was pro-choice? A far cry from the only in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother position he now claims he holds.

The hawkcon group is dwindling by the day. And who among the other currently viable names mentioned as frontrunners for the GOP nom is better poised to capture the socons? Not McCain.

I think it is possible that McCain never wins over social conservatives, but I can see him being the consesus choice since he is the most socially conservative of the three... Giuliani being a social liberal, and Romney being wherever the wind takes him. I think what is going to happen is that somebody like Mike Huckabee will take the anti-McCain or Giualiani, social conservative mantle from Romney, but I've been wrong before.

Matt,

In the quote you cite, it's not clear to me how you are interpreting " we can believe what we want, but...". What do you suppose the purpose of the word "but" is? I have always taken such statements by Romney to be deliberately phrased to present a caveat or qualifying statement to what follows. Otherwise, why preface your statement? Thus, I take it to mean that he's personally pro-life...and has always been so, being a religiously devout member of a pretty conservative flavor of American religion, a mormon. He's never, to my knowledge, called himself pro-choice. Now he has said more forthrightly that he is pro-life. The only part of this that has surprised me is how many folks profess to be surprised by such statements. Romney didn't surprise me at all. But the surprised responders amazed me.

You've picked several nice excerpts that taken on their own support your views nicely. But I've been reading this guy's quotes for over a decade, and It has been clear to me from very early on that Romney is pro-life. People who think otherwise have just not listened closely. If you look back, you will recall how I repeatedly counseled all the folks here that, contrary to the expressed worries of probnosticators on things socon that Romney was not conservative enough, he was in fact socially quite conservative, and had managed to dupe the liberals of Massachusetts. So, how do you like me now, now that I've been shown to have been 100% on the mark? I called this in advance.

Quite simply, Romnney hasn't flip-lopped. He was just cagey. The people who thought Romney was socially moderate were WAY too credulous, and foolishly heard what they wanted. Learn a lesson from such politcal burn marks. Listen more closely next time/

blockquote>On gay marriage Romney said it was "a state issue ... the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction." Now he wants a Constitutional Amendment to ban it.

IMO, Romney's position here is 100% well-founded. He's been aided and abetted by our pretty liberal state legislature. He made a straightforward and honest effort here in Massachusetts to allow our state's policy to be determined by the voters of our state. This was in response to a defensible yet also very debatable state supreme court decision. Our legislature has now twice chosen to deny the people of Massachusetts their right to heard by adjourning two successive state constitutional conventions without even having a vote about whether the question ought to be placed before voters. They held the conventions, and then adjourned without even dealing with the only real reason for having the convention. That's poilitical gamesmanship at its very worst, IMO.

Our courts set this policy, not the voters. Now the overwhelmingly democratic state legislaure has joined in the paternalism by keeping the decision amongst themselves. I had looked forward to having the opportunity to vote to support gay marriage, and it deeply offends me that neither I nor my fellow citizens will be afforded this opportunity. I'll get over it because the surviving policy accords with my views. Will other more conservative folks get over it with time? I doubt it, but they may die off...

Under these circumstances, it is unquestionably within reason for Romney to feel that the only remaining recourse is to go over the heads of our state legislature. It's the actions of our state legislature that give Romney the cover he needs to maintain that a federal amendment is necessary. Pat, if he is reading, is probably going to be shocked that I acknowledge the following point: when the courts set policy on controversial issues as a substitute for legislative action, it's quite possible or even likely that the people may view such policies as illegitimate. Partisans whether red or blue tend to perceive such illegitimacy only when it's their ox getting gored.

In a democracy, and especially on controversial issues, the people want to have the opportunity to speak directly to the matter. Now, as I have always maintained, it may indeed be the case that discretion is the better part of valor. In other words, maybe it makes sense for leaders to save the people from themselves as it were, to act paternally. But whenever a decider considers such actions, he or she better know a few important things:

1. Your personal judgement could well be wrong, so deliberate carefully and tread lightly

2. MANY people won't be pleased

3. If the percent of people unpleased is a motivated majority, you might be in BIG political trouble, and you may ultimately end up doing more harm than good

Giuliani at this point seems the best positioned to win over the libertarian vote, particularly libertarian Republicans who are Pro-Social Tolerance, Fiscal Conservative, and Pro-Defense.

Still, we libertarian Republicans are holding out hope that a more principled libertarian will run like Wayne Root, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Jesse Ventura, or even Dennis Miller.

If the GOP doesn't reach out to these voters, we're likely to lose them to the Libertarian Party in 2008.

Eric at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com