• Text smaller
  • Text bigger



Mitt Romney

I have a feeling there’s been a secret meeting to which I have not been invited.

Many of my friends must have attended, because they’re all thinking alike.

Suddenly, because Mitt Romney narrowly won one primary in his birth state – the state formerly presided over by his governor father and a primary he was expected to win all along – he has been crowned, by these friends of mine, as the heir apparent to the GOP presidential nomination.

I’m not buying it.

I’m not drinking that Kool-Aid. Not now, not ever.

In fact, I truly hope Mitt Romney stumbles and bumbles as he did in Iowa and New Hampshire – two other states he was supposed to have won.

The reason I hope he loses again and again is because I can never vote for him – no matter whom he might run against as the Republican nominee.

Ann Coulter might think of me as a “liberal” for writing this, but she’s wrong when she claims her new darling has only flip-flopped on one issue – abortion.

Not so. I’ll get to other issues he’s flipped and flopped on, but maybe Ann doesn’t understand Romney’s position on abortion is still not clear. In fact, you could make the case his position on abortion is still unclear.

Romney claims he had something of a Damascus Road conversion on abortion during his governorship as he studied the issue of embryonic stem cell research. As the legend has it, he decided in a moment of wrestling with his morality that both were wrong.

Left out of that official version of events, however, is this little tidbit: Romney still – to this day – owns stock in two companies involved in embryonic stem cell research.

Now, keep in mind, it was less than three years ago that Romney “saw the light” 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,” he said.

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 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?


Now let’s move on to the flipperoos that escaped Ann Coulter’s attention:

  • 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. As governor, he even threatened to fire officials who would not issue same-sex marriage licenses and perform civil ceremonies. 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.

Nevertheless, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and countless other friends of mine – people who are right far more often than they are wrong – have somehow fallen under the spell of Mitt Romney.

I look at the man, and I see the face of disingenuousness. They look at it and see the face of sincerity.

I swear I didn’t drink the Kool-Aid.

Can they make the same vow?


  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.