I just continue to be amazed at the number of Republicans who are so easily conned, duped and hoodwinked by Willard Mitt Romney.
I’m not sure there are any facts I could offer that would dissuade his minions from supporting their messiah. It’s an emotional thing. They have found their political savior, and nothing he has ever said or done previously or in the future is likely to convince them they saddled the wrong pony.
Here’s the latest bulletin that will fall on deaf ears: The born-again pro-lifer, who swears he had a Damascus Road experience on the issue of abortion, currently owns stock in two companies involved in embryonic stem cell research.
It was just two years ago that Romney explained his sudden and late transformation on the issue of life: “In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or commodity.”
In other words, Romney claims to have awakened to the harsh realities of abortion by studying the issue of embryonic stem cell research.
First, from a logical standpoint, this makes no sense. If you can’t see why stabbing an unborn baby in the head with a pair of scissors is an overtly evil act, I don’t think any amount of study of embryonic stem cell research will awaken your sense of moral outrage. But that’s what Romney would like us to believe. After all, he’s got to explain why he discovered so late in his public life that people have an inherent right to life.
But now we’re supposed to believe that this gazillionaire, worth about $250 million, didn’t even bother to examine his own financial portfolio to see how he was actively supporting the killing of unborn babies with his own investments.
Or, are we supposed to believe this was just an oversight? If so – if this guy is so cavalier about his own investments – how are we supposed to trust him with the federal budget?
This list of flip-flops by Mitt Romney is legendary – enough to get him a regular role in Doonesbury. But let’s review a few of the classics:
Immigration: As late as last year, the candidate who now ridicules amnesty proposals said: “I don’t believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let’s have them registered, know who they are. Those who’ve been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn’t be here; those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.” Wasn’t that pretty much the Bush party line?
Gun control: He supported bans on so-called “assault weapons.” He supported the Brady bill. He spurned the National Rifle Association. As late as 2002, he was still defending Massachusetts’ confiscatory gun laws. But, last year, he joined the NRA and claimed to favor easing licensing requirements.
Minimum wage: In 1994, he opposed an increase, but offered as a compromise tying a hike to the rate of inflation. By 2002, he supported an increase. In 2006, he vetoed an increase. Like some other notable politicians of the recent past, he was against it before he was for it, before he was against it.
Same-sex marriage: In 1994, he opposed the federal marriage amendment and promised to help establish “full equality for America’s gays and lesbians.” In 2002, he provided legal recognition to same-sex couples in Massachusetts, even though he was not required to do so under a state Supreme Judicial Court ruling, as he has suggested. Yet, now, in 2007, he miraculously supports the federal marriage amendment.
Homosexuals in the military: In 1994, he supported “don’t ask, don’t tell,” saying it was a step toward “gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.” Today he claims he doesn’t want to change the policy to permit homosexuals from serving openly in the military.
Tax cutting: In 1994, he opposed a cut in the capital gains tax. In 2002, he refused to sign a “no new taxes” pledge. In 2007, he claims to support a cut in capital gains taxes. He has taken the “no new taxes” pledge. And he says he supports making President Bush’s tax cuts permanent.
I could go on. This list is virtually never-ending with this charlatan. But it won’t matter to the Romney faithful, who now accuse me of religious bigotry for pointing out the obvious flaws in this man’s worldview, his character and his political record. They say I am only doing this because I hate Mormons.
But I’ll keep sounding the alarm, just like John MacMillan, Republican town committee chairman in Billerica, Mass., who supported Romney when he first ran for office as the state’s governor in 2003.
“He’s as phony as a three-dollar bill,” said MacMillan. “When I started to look at his positions – gun control, pro-gay – I found out that he’s just as bad as (Teddy) Kennedy. I’ve been a Republican all my life, and leopards don’t change their spots. He’ll change his position, say anything, to get votes.”