Some of us involved in politics -- especially we grassroots activist types -- deal with ISSUES and FACTS. The Romney campaign believes in PERSONAL attacks:
"A Republican candidate, former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, most recently moved to regain control of his image as a social conservative after being confronted with video clips from 1994 that showed him defending abortion rights and gay rights. As that video moved through the YouTube universe, Romney responded quickly, saying he had been wrong on some issues in 1994, a statement that was swiftly captured on YouTube as well.
" 'In previous campaigns you'd think or hope that the threat would just go away, but now it's imperative that you attack back quickly and personally, and with advanced technology,' said Kevin Madden, an adviser to Romney."
--"Downloading a new era in presidential politics," International Herald Tribune, 1-31-07.
Monday, February 5, 2007
National Republican Pro-Life Group Contests Romney's Claims
Mitt Romney is running for the Republican nomination for President. It doesn't appear he'll be able to fool the real pro-life Republicans much longer. Killing human embryos for research and aborting babies resulting from rape or incest are both anathema to the true pro-lifer. The Republican National Coalition for Life reminds us that "The Republican Party was founded on the principle that no human being should be considered the property of another." And that includes babies.
From their "FaxNotes" (2-3-07):
MITT ROMNEY SUPPORTS KILLING HUMAN EMBRYOS FOR RESEARCH
Despite his recent professed conversion to the pro-life side of the debate after more than thirty years of supporting Roe v. Wade and legal abortion, when it comes to respect for the sanctity of human life, Mitt Romney is on the wrong side.
Governor Romney’s claim that he is “pro-life” is belied by his position on the “use” of human embryos for research purposes. We know that every one of us started life as an embryo. An embryois a human organism. An embryo is a human being at the earliest stage ofdevelopment. As such, human embryos deserve respect and protection under the law. They are denied that respect and protection in the United States of America. That is because it is legal to kill them and use their stem cells for scientific experiments, as long as it is done with private money.
It is a practice that ought to be banned in this country, as it has been in others. Instead, all that has been done on their behalf is to deny the expenditure offederal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), except for the stem cell lines taken from embryos killed prior to August 9, 2001, a date chosen by President Bush in a Solomon-like compromise with the biotech industry which supports ESCR and those who warn of the ethical and moral implications of killing and using human beings in pursuit of some potential--but very likely unachievable--benefit to others.
Governor Romney, who has established an exploratory committee for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, says he is now “pro-life”after more than thirty years of staunch support for Roe v. Wade. How can he make that claim when, on the one hand he says he opposes creating human embryos for research purposes (cloning), yet, on the other hand he says he supports using human embryos created for another purpose, that of in vitro fertilization? It’s a distinction without a difference! He sanctions the killing of embryos “left over” from IVF treatments “provided that those embryos are obtained after a rigorous parental consent process that includesadoption as an alternative.”
Mitt Romney’s position on embryonic stem cell research is not pro-life, and no one should say that it is. The embryos engendered through IVF are the children of the couples involved. Even though they can only be seen under a microscope, should their parents be allowed to have them killed? The answer to that would be YES if your views have been molded by 34 years ofthe effects of Roe v. Wade.
In addition, Mitt Romney justifies abortion for babies conceived through rape or incest. That is not a pro-life position. It is a pro-abortion-choice position that is held by Senator John McCain, another 2008 hopeful who also supports ESCR. The third candidate listed by the media as a “top-tier” contender for the nomination is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a strong proponent of Roe and supporter of abortion on demand.
Pro-life voters should look elsewhere for a candidate to support. Never forget that you were once an embryo!
From their "FaxNotes" (2-3-07):
MITT ROMNEY SUPPORTS KILLING HUMAN EMBRYOS FOR RESEARCH
Despite his recent professed conversion to the pro-life side of the debate after more than thirty years of supporting Roe v. Wade and legal abortion, when it comes to respect for the sanctity of human life, Mitt Romney is on the wrong side.
Governor Romney’s claim that he is “pro-life” is belied by his position on the “use” of human embryos for research purposes. We know that every one of us started life as an embryo. An embryois a human organism. An embryo is a human being at the earliest stage ofdevelopment. As such, human embryos deserve respect and protection under the law. They are denied that respect and protection in the United States of America. That is because it is legal to kill them and use their stem cells for scientific experiments, as long as it is done with private money.
It is a practice that ought to be banned in this country, as it has been in others. Instead, all that has been done on their behalf is to deny the expenditure offederal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), except for the stem cell lines taken from embryos killed prior to August 9, 2001, a date chosen by President Bush in a Solomon-like compromise with the biotech industry which supports ESCR and those who warn of the ethical and moral implications of killing and using human beings in pursuit of some potential--but very likely unachievable--benefit to others.
Governor Romney, who has established an exploratory committee for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, says he is now “pro-life”after more than thirty years of staunch support for Roe v. Wade. How can he make that claim when, on the one hand he says he opposes creating human embryos for research purposes (cloning), yet, on the other hand he says he supports using human embryos created for another purpose, that of in vitro fertilization? It’s a distinction without a difference! He sanctions the killing of embryos “left over” from IVF treatments “provided that those embryos are obtained after a rigorous parental consent process that includesadoption as an alternative.”
Mitt Romney’s position on embryonic stem cell research is not pro-life, and no one should say that it is. The embryos engendered through IVF are the children of the couples involved. Even though they can only be seen under a microscope, should their parents be allowed to have them killed? The answer to that would be YES if your views have been molded by 34 years ofthe effects of Roe v. Wade.
In addition, Mitt Romney justifies abortion for babies conceived through rape or incest. That is not a pro-life position. It is a pro-abortion-choice position that is held by Senator John McCain, another 2008 hopeful who also supports ESCR. The third candidate listed by the media as a “top-tier” contender for the nomination is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a strong proponent of Roe and supporter of abortion on demand.
Pro-life voters should look elsewhere for a candidate to support. Never forget that you were once an embryo!
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Romney Polling Poorly in Michigan
Thanks to Gary Glenn, American Family Association in Michigan, for this tip:
Romney is polling poorly in Michigan. But why? Is it because voters are not yet "familiar with his positions on important issues"? Or is it because they are? If not, they certainly will be soon. At any rate, Romney doesn't appear to be a viable alternative to McCain in Michigan at this point. From the Detroit Free Press:
Romney's name doesn't help him in poll (2-4-07)
One surprise in the Free Press/Local 4 Michigan poll was the weak showing of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who finished a distant fourth among Republicans and lost by the largest margins in head-to-head match-ups against the top three Democrats.
The poll of Republican voters had a significant plus or minus 8 percentage points margin of error, but Rudy Giuliani and John McCain were both around 30%, far ahead of Romney's 8%. [Newt Gingrich ranked third.] The margin of error in the head-to-head races was plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.
Romney's father, the late George Romney, was Michigan's governor in the 1960s. Romney has been endorsed by at least 50 state legislators and several members of the state's GOP congressional delegation.
Romney spokeswoman Sarah Pompei said while people in Michigan may know his name, they're not yet familiar with his positions on important issues.
John Haskins comments:
Apparently, there are still plenty of people in the grass roots in places like Michigan who prefer facts and truth to the infallible guidance of the "conservative" nomenklatura, more and more of whom are selling their dubious seals of approval in return for cash, flattery, and promises from Slick Willard Romney.
Facts are very stubborn things, even when much of the "conservative" establishment insists the truth is either a lie or irrelevant. How terribly tragic that "conservatism" -- even the "pro-family" variety -- more and more often comes down to respectable collective denial of legal, constitutional, historical, sociological, psychological, theological and moral reality. Reality has terrible table manners and there's nothing establishment "conservatives" detest more than poor table manners. They'd rather just admit that they're really just liberals who don't like bumps in the road.
Establishment "conservatives" -- whatever that debauched word still means -- share the deathwish of the shriveling, wrinkled, contorted remains of Western Civilization. They just want the irritating doctor to go away. A slow couch-potato death, ameliorated by the narcotics of material wealth, is just plain easier than cutting the cancer out. As Joseph Farah (WorldNetDaily) points out, the fatal flaw in conservatism is that it is conservative where Christ, His apostles and prophets -- not to mention the Founding Fathers -- were radical.
Mitt Romney is an empty mannequin, a stage prop whose purpose is to maintain, for another brief moment in history, the illusion that social conservatism and its pathetic political bedmates are still vibrant and viable. On the contrary, social conservatism is being killed off by its own "leaders," lawyers and pundits, for whom the crusade to save American decency long ago became merely a career.
Thanks in part to true conservatives, like Gary Glenn in Michigan, lots of people in that state are not quite ready for their children's culture to die while they vegetate comfortably before their large-screen TV's.
Romney is polling poorly in Michigan. But why? Is it because voters are not yet "familiar with his positions on important issues"? Or is it because they are? If not, they certainly will be soon. At any rate, Romney doesn't appear to be a viable alternative to McCain in Michigan at this point. From the Detroit Free Press:
Romney's name doesn't help him in poll (2-4-07)
One surprise in the Free Press/Local 4 Michigan poll was the weak showing of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who finished a distant fourth among Republicans and lost by the largest margins in head-to-head match-ups against the top three Democrats.
The poll of Republican voters had a significant plus or minus 8 percentage points margin of error, but Rudy Giuliani and John McCain were both around 30%, far ahead of Romney's 8%. [Newt Gingrich ranked third.] The margin of error in the head-to-head races was plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.
Romney's father, the late George Romney, was Michigan's governor in the 1960s. Romney has been endorsed by at least 50 state legislators and several members of the state's GOP congressional delegation.
Romney spokeswoman Sarah Pompei said while people in Michigan may know his name, they're not yet familiar with his positions on important issues.
John Haskins comments:
Apparently, there are still plenty of people in the grass roots in places like Michigan who prefer facts and truth to the infallible guidance of the "conservative" nomenklatura, more and more of whom are selling their dubious seals of approval in return for cash, flattery, and promises from Slick Willard Romney.
Facts are very stubborn things, even when much of the "conservative" establishment insists the truth is either a lie or irrelevant. How terribly tragic that "conservatism" -- even the "pro-family" variety -- more and more often comes down to respectable collective denial of legal, constitutional, historical, sociological, psychological, theological and moral reality. Reality has terrible table manners and there's nothing establishment "conservatives" detest more than poor table manners. They'd rather just admit that they're really just liberals who don't like bumps in the road.
Establishment "conservatives" -- whatever that debauched word still means -- share the deathwish of the shriveling, wrinkled, contorted remains of Western Civilization. They just want the irritating doctor to go away. A slow couch-potato death, ameliorated by the narcotics of material wealth, is just plain easier than cutting the cancer out. As Joseph Farah (WorldNetDaily) points out, the fatal flaw in conservatism is that it is conservative where Christ, His apostles and prophets -- not to mention the Founding Fathers -- were radical.
Mitt Romney is an empty mannequin, a stage prop whose purpose is to maintain, for another brief moment in history, the illusion that social conservatism and its pathetic political bedmates are still vibrant and viable. On the contrary, social conservatism is being killed off by its own "leaders," lawyers and pundits, for whom the crusade to save American decency long ago became merely a career.
Thanks in part to true conservatives, like Gary Glenn in Michigan, lots of people in that state are not quite ready for their children's culture to die while they vegetate comfortably before their large-screen TV's.
Even Liberals Are Laughing at Mitt Romney
See commentary by John Haskins below on Ellen Goodman's op-ed in the Boston Globe a few days back. Here's an excerpt from Goodman's column, "Mitt's turnaround" (2-2-07):
... Bay State politicians -- from John Adams to Mike Dukakis -- have long suffered from Potomac Fever. But Steve Crosby, dean of the McCormack Graduate School at the UMass-Boston and a chief honcho for two previous Republican governors, says Romney suffers from "Potomac Ebola Virus." A particularly virulent strain has infected the man running from Massachusetts. Or should I say, running away from Massachusetts. Or against Massachusetts.
Our man Mitt is positioning himself to the right of every Republican candidate except Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. He has famously told audiences that "being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention." He's repeatedly described himself as a lonely figure fighting the values fight against "the Kennedy-apologist, knee-jerk Clinton supporters" and ... you get the idea.
Even "Evangelicals for Mitt" -- yes, there is such a website -- says that "He shares our values, and he's fought for those values in hostile territory."
The idea, the pitch, the shtick is that if Romney can make it as a conservative Republican here, he can make it anywhere. There's only one small problem: He didn't make it here as a conservative. Romney ran and won as the fourth in a direct line of moderate GOP governors....
... you can also regard Romney as the veritable model of the Venture Capitalist as Politician, doing and saying whatever it takes. Indeed, [Steve] Crosby ["dean of the McCormack Graduate School at the UMass-Boston and a chief honcho for two previous Republican governors"] describes Romney's governorship as like "a corporate takeover. . . . He took over the asset, stripped it of what it was worth to leverage him into another asset, the presidency. There's no way to think he has any core beliefs other than leveraging to the next acquisition." ...
John Haskins comments:
Yep. I'm fairly sure Mitt does share the values of "Evangelicals for Mitt." That's why he illegally imposed sodomy-based marriage and claimed the smirking judges "made him do it." Unfortunately for Mitt and the mercenary "lawyers" at "Evangelicals for Mitt," the same judges later admitted to the whole world that they had absolutely no legal power to compel Slick Willard to do anything.
Poor Mitt. Whom can he trust? He goes the extra mile to give "activist judges" more than they ever asked for, even proving that he was willing to violate a constitution, make liars and fools of the Founding Fathers and mock the solemn oath he took. Then what do those unprincipled liberal "activist judges" do? They turn around and stab him in the back by telling everyone that judges can't make governors (or legislators) impose homosexual "marriage."
That was supposed to be Romney's little secret! Even superlawyers "Jay-Jay the Jet Plane" Sekulow, Mr. Bopp and ADF's constitutional-surrender experts, Glen Lavy and David French, were with Mitt on that -- pretending the Court made him do it!
So with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court having humiliated Jay-Jay, Bopp, and the ADF by confirming the supposedly "amateurish and bizarre" (French's words) legal analysis on the Pro-Family Leaders' Letter to Romney, why does Slick Willard Romney still think he can pass himself off as a conservative? Well, because people like French and his wife apparently can continue to pass themselves off as conservatives, merely by calling others "liars" for publicizing the indisputable facts on Mitt.
The great Malcolm Muggeridge observed that we don't believe political lies because they are credible; we believe them because we want to. And that observation explains why the pro-family movement keeps hiring lawyers and decision-makers who shoot those who are "amateurish and bizarre" enough not to collaborate in the permanent surrender.
As for Romney's famous boast -- "being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention" -- well, Mitt, it's great to speculate. Now talk from experience: What's it like to be the Ivy League vegetarian trying to fake it as a cowboy on the big cattle drive? That would seem to be an impossible task, unless you've identified the moles among the cowboys: "pro-family constitutional attorneys" who spend their credibility ignoring or lying about constitutions.
As I've said all along: there are people who will either lose their jobs or they will continue to fake it as "pro-family constitutionalists" and who will continue to destroy the movement from within ... until there's nothing left to destroy.
John Haskins is a frequent contributor to the MassResistance blog.
... Bay State politicians -- from John Adams to Mike Dukakis -- have long suffered from Potomac Fever. But Steve Crosby, dean of the McCormack Graduate School at the UMass-Boston and a chief honcho for two previous Republican governors, says Romney suffers from "Potomac Ebola Virus." A particularly virulent strain has infected the man running from Massachusetts. Or should I say, running away from Massachusetts. Or against Massachusetts.
Our man Mitt is positioning himself to the right of every Republican candidate except Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. He has famously told audiences that "being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention." He's repeatedly described himself as a lonely figure fighting the values fight against "the Kennedy-apologist, knee-jerk Clinton supporters" and ... you get the idea.
Even "Evangelicals for Mitt" -- yes, there is such a website -- says that "He shares our values, and he's fought for those values in hostile territory."
The idea, the pitch, the shtick is that if Romney can make it as a conservative Republican here, he can make it anywhere. There's only one small problem: He didn't make it here as a conservative. Romney ran and won as the fourth in a direct line of moderate GOP governors....
... you can also regard Romney as the veritable model of the Venture Capitalist as Politician, doing and saying whatever it takes. Indeed, [Steve] Crosby ["dean of the McCormack Graduate School at the UMass-Boston and a chief honcho for two previous Republican governors"] describes Romney's governorship as like "a corporate takeover. . . . He took over the asset, stripped it of what it was worth to leverage him into another asset, the presidency. There's no way to think he has any core beliefs other than leveraging to the next acquisition." ...
John Haskins comments:
Yep. I'm fairly sure Mitt does share the values of "Evangelicals for Mitt." That's why he illegally imposed sodomy-based marriage and claimed the smirking judges "made him do it." Unfortunately for Mitt and the mercenary "lawyers" at "Evangelicals for Mitt," the same judges later admitted to the whole world that they had absolutely no legal power to compel Slick Willard to do anything.
Poor Mitt. Whom can he trust? He goes the extra mile to give "activist judges" more than they ever asked for, even proving that he was willing to violate a constitution, make liars and fools of the Founding Fathers and mock the solemn oath he took. Then what do those unprincipled liberal "activist judges" do? They turn around and stab him in the back by telling everyone that judges can't make governors (or legislators) impose homosexual "marriage."
That was supposed to be Romney's little secret! Even superlawyers "Jay-Jay the Jet Plane" Sekulow, Mr. Bopp and ADF's constitutional-surrender experts, Glen Lavy and David French, were with Mitt on that -- pretending the Court made him do it!
So with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court having humiliated Jay-Jay, Bopp, and the ADF by confirming the supposedly "amateurish and bizarre" (French's words) legal analysis on the Pro-Family Leaders' Letter to Romney, why does Slick Willard Romney still think he can pass himself off as a conservative? Well, because people like French and his wife apparently can continue to pass themselves off as conservatives, merely by calling others "liars" for publicizing the indisputable facts on Mitt.
The great Malcolm Muggeridge observed that we don't believe political lies because they are credible; we believe them because we want to. And that observation explains why the pro-family movement keeps hiring lawyers and decision-makers who shoot those who are "amateurish and bizarre" enough not to collaborate in the permanent surrender.
As for Romney's famous boast -- "being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention" -- well, Mitt, it's great to speculate. Now talk from experience: What's it like to be the Ivy League vegetarian trying to fake it as a cowboy on the big cattle drive? That would seem to be an impossible task, unless you've identified the moles among the cowboys: "pro-family constitutional attorneys" who spend their credibility ignoring or lying about constitutions.
As I've said all along: there are people who will either lose their jobs or they will continue to fake it as "pro-family constitutionalists" and who will continue to destroy the movement from within ... until there's nothing left to destroy.
John Haskins is a frequent contributor to the MassResistance blog.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Romney's New Idea: Blame Others for Failure
Flip-flopping on issues is getting old. Time to try denying responsbility for things gone wrong. The Boston Globe reports today that "Romney distances self from Mass. health plan."
Romney can't exactly flip-flop on socialistic government-mandated health care insurance plans, since he was a bragging prime mover behind the new law in Massachusetts. But now that there's a cancerous new bureaucracy growing (with over-compensated executives), higher than expected subscription "fees" (read: taxes), and new definitions of "adequate coverage" -- all this bad news sending shockwaves through the state -- Romney is now trying to wriggle out of his responsibility in creating this monster. Now, instead of bragging about his brilliant new plan, he's trying to blame the Legislature for anything that's going wrong.
But denying responsibility for crafting and signing a new law will be a lot harder than flip-flopping on an issue.
Romney secured the support of the "conservative" Heritage Foundation in helping design the plan (after giving them a hefty $25,000 donation.) And until recently he has been very proud of his revolutionary approach to controlling people's and businesses' decisions on health coverage. How odd, then, that he didn't refer to his health insurance law in his recent speech at the Heritage Foundation.
Is this man qualified to be President if he couldn't imagine how this legislation would play out? He's certainly no conservative if he thinks mandatory health insurance, creating a new bureaucracy in the most corrupt state in the country, and lots of undefined requirements in a law are good things. Even the Wall Street Journal slammed Romney's health plan in an editorial last week! (a "ballyhooed health care [reform that is apolicy blunder] that won't stand scrutiny in court, much less in the marketplace"). No wonder he's trying to blame any emerging problems on the Legislature! Is he really the genius businessman and visionary manager we've been told he is?
[From the Globe:]
The healthcare law requires all Massachusetts adults to obtain health coverage that meets minimum standards as of July 1 or pay a penalty, unless they prove they cannot afford it. Businesses with more than 10 employees but without "fair and reasonable" health insurance must pay an annual fee.
Romney introduced the idea in late 2004; after the Legislature made its own adjustments, Romney signed it into law last April. The plan was phased in during the summer and fall, and about 100,000 of the state's approximately 400,000 uninsured are covered so far....
Earlier this week, however, the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans estimated that more than 200,000 residents who already have health insurance will have to buy more to meet minimum standards. A state board, called the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, is still reviewing those standards, in part because of estimates that the average uninsured individual would have to pay some $380 a month [almost twice what Romney led us to believe] to obtain health coverage....
Romney has long said that the plan would suffer hiccups. But he now appears ready to blame Democrats for any of the plan's shortcomings, said state Senator Richard T. Moore, an Uxbridge Democrat and one of the plan's main architects.
"That's why he left [office] in a hurry," said Moore, the chairman of the Senate Health Care Financing Committee. "He's setting himself up so he can go either way. If it's a success, he'll take all the credit in the world. If it's a failure, he'll blame everybody else."
Moore said Romney can't hide the fact that he worked closely with Democrats to craft the law, and his administration was responsible for implementing its early stages. "If it doesn't work, it's going to be a shared responsibility," he said....
Meanwhile, from Romney's campaign web site:
Extending Health Insurance to All Americans:
The health of our nation can be improved by extending health insurance to all Americans, not through a government program or new taxes, but through market reforms.
Governor Romney: "We can't have as a nation 40 million people -- or, in my state, half a million -- saying, 'I don't have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay." (USA Today, July 5, 2005)
Governor Romney: "It's a conservative idea," says Romney, "insisting that individuals have responsibility for their own health care. I think it appeals to people on both sides of the aisle: insurance for everyone without a tax increase." (USA Today, July 5, 2005)
Romney can't exactly flip-flop on socialistic government-mandated health care insurance plans, since he was a bragging prime mover behind the new law in Massachusetts. But now that there's a cancerous new bureaucracy growing (with over-compensated executives), higher than expected subscription "fees" (read: taxes), and new definitions of "adequate coverage" -- all this bad news sending shockwaves through the state -- Romney is now trying to wriggle out of his responsibility in creating this monster. Now, instead of bragging about his brilliant new plan, he's trying to blame the Legislature for anything that's going wrong.
But denying responsibility for crafting and signing a new law will be a lot harder than flip-flopping on an issue.
Romney secured the support of the "conservative" Heritage Foundation in helping design the plan (after giving them a hefty $25,000 donation.) And until recently he has been very proud of his revolutionary approach to controlling people's and businesses' decisions on health coverage. How odd, then, that he didn't refer to his health insurance law in his recent speech at the Heritage Foundation.
Is this man qualified to be President if he couldn't imagine how this legislation would play out? He's certainly no conservative if he thinks mandatory health insurance, creating a new bureaucracy in the most corrupt state in the country, and lots of undefined requirements in a law are good things. Even the Wall Street Journal slammed Romney's health plan in an editorial last week! (a "ballyhooed health care [reform that is apolicy blunder] that won't stand scrutiny in court, much less in the marketplace"). No wonder he's trying to blame any emerging problems on the Legislature! Is he really the genius businessman and visionary manager we've been told he is?
[From the Globe:]
The healthcare law requires all Massachusetts adults to obtain health coverage that meets minimum standards as of July 1 or pay a penalty, unless they prove they cannot afford it. Businesses with more than 10 employees but without "fair and reasonable" health insurance must pay an annual fee.
Romney introduced the idea in late 2004; after the Legislature made its own adjustments, Romney signed it into law last April. The plan was phased in during the summer and fall, and about 100,000 of the state's approximately 400,000 uninsured are covered so far....
Earlier this week, however, the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans estimated that more than 200,000 residents who already have health insurance will have to buy more to meet minimum standards. A state board, called the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, is still reviewing those standards, in part because of estimates that the average uninsured individual would have to pay some $380 a month [almost twice what Romney led us to believe] to obtain health coverage....
Romney has long said that the plan would suffer hiccups. But he now appears ready to blame Democrats for any of the plan's shortcomings, said state Senator Richard T. Moore, an Uxbridge Democrat and one of the plan's main architects.
"That's why he left [office] in a hurry," said Moore, the chairman of the Senate Health Care Financing Committee. "He's setting himself up so he can go either way. If it's a success, he'll take all the credit in the world. If it's a failure, he'll blame everybody else."
Moore said Romney can't hide the fact that he worked closely with Democrats to craft the law, and his administration was responsible for implementing its early stages. "If it doesn't work, it's going to be a shared responsibility," he said....
Meanwhile, from Romney's campaign web site:
Extending Health Insurance to All Americans:
The health of our nation can be improved by extending health insurance to all Americans, not through a government program or new taxes, but through market reforms.
Governor Romney: "We can't have as a nation 40 million people -- or, in my state, half a million -- saying, 'I don't have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay." (USA Today, July 5, 2005)
Governor Romney: "It's a conservative idea," says Romney, "insisting that individuals have responsibility for their own health care. I think it appeals to people on both sides of the aisle: insurance for everyone without a tax increase." (USA Today, July 5, 2005)
Conservative Policy Analyst Doubts Romney
Mitt Romney's not playing well on an important conservative web news site. Check out this excellent article just posted by J. Matt Barber on WorldNetDaily. Mr. Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law.
"The Mitt split" (2-3-07)
by J. Matt Barber
Wearing his 2008 presidential aspirations on his sleeve and appearing the ever humble, yet iron-jawed and selflessly devoted, champion of the GOP's must-have conservative, pro-family base, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finds himself struggling to salvage his conservative credentials.... [S]erious concerns are beginning to mount relative to the sincerity of Romney's commitment to traditional values....
[On abortion:] OK, you might say, that's fine. Romney was "pro-choice." This is America – people can change their opinion, right? Well, that may be true. Only one question – on the issues most important to conservative voters, why do Romney's opinions appear malleable, shifting in the wind as political expediency would seem to dictate? In 2006, just four short years after he ran for governor and as his presidential ambitions were reaching a boiling point, Romney seemed to pull a 180....
[On homosexual "marriage":] Was Gov. Romney the 'Father of "gay" marriage'? While there's disagreement even within the pro-family legal community, there is a strong argument to be made that Romney, contrary to his pro-traditional marriage rhetoric, was chiefly responsible for unconstitutionally imposing "same-sex" marriage on Massachusetts and the rest of the country. Let's lay out the roadmap....
"The Mitt split" (2-3-07)
by J. Matt Barber
Wearing his 2008 presidential aspirations on his sleeve and appearing the ever humble, yet iron-jawed and selflessly devoted, champion of the GOP's must-have conservative, pro-family base, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finds himself struggling to salvage his conservative credentials.... [S]erious concerns are beginning to mount relative to the sincerity of Romney's commitment to traditional values....
[On abortion:] OK, you might say, that's fine. Romney was "pro-choice." This is America – people can change their opinion, right? Well, that may be true. Only one question – on the issues most important to conservative voters, why do Romney's opinions appear malleable, shifting in the wind as political expediency would seem to dictate? In 2006, just four short years after he ran for governor and as his presidential ambitions were reaching a boiling point, Romney seemed to pull a 180....
[On homosexual "marriage":] Was Gov. Romney the 'Father of "gay" marriage'? While there's disagreement even within the pro-family legal community, there is a strong argument to be made that Romney, contrary to his pro-traditional marriage rhetoric, was chiefly responsible for unconstitutionally imposing "same-sex" marriage on Massachusetts and the rest of the country. Let's lay out the roadmap....
Friday, February 2, 2007
Crazy People Happen, But BDSM Murderers Are Taught
This is news, rating a huge color photo on page one of the Globe's second section: A candlelight vigil by a bunch of young people for the one-year anniversary of a crazy man's rampage in a New Bedford bar? All this hypercoverage just because it was a homosexual bar? What was the point of the vigil? Are we going to quell the incidence of insane outbursts by lighting candles?
Why didn't the Globe cover the dangerous sadomasochistic practices -- including cozying up to death and sometimes achieving murder -- being taught at the Sheraton Hotel in Danvers last weekend? Learning about this sick bunch of people reminded us that also just about a year ago a "professional dominatrix" got off scot free in court, though she had a "client" die during a bondage session! (She chopped his body into little pieces and disposed of it in Maine.)
Why weren't there vigils outside the Quincy condo where this hate crime happened -- to protest the increasing practice and acceptance of torture? (And the adoption by the Boston Globe of their twisted terminology: "professional dominatrix" and "bondage session"?) And why did no one have a vigil outside the BDSM conference last weekend in Danvers, where such practices were taught? There just might be fewer deaths of this sort if the BDSM culture couldn't exist so openly, advertise its conferences, and take over "respectable" suburban hotels.
Here's the report from just one year ago (Jan. 31, 2006):
Professional dominatrix Barbara Asher was acquitted yesterday of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a New Hampshire man who prosecutors said suffered a fatal heart attack while strapped to a bondage rack in her Quincy condominium.
Prosecutors had argued that Asher, 56, did nothing to help Michael Lord, 53, of North Hampton as he died during the July 2000 session, out of fear that calling authorities would have jeopardized her dominatrix business. The prosecutors said she and a boyfriend chopped up Lord's 275-pound body and dumped the parts in a trash bin behind a Chinese restaurant in Augusta, Maine....
The prosecution's case -- and the narrative about the fatal bondage session presented in court -- rested on an alleged confession by Asher. Several police investigators testified that Asher had admitted to watching Lord die on the bondage rack without calling for medical help and then dismembering his body the next day...
Why didn't the Globe cover the dangerous sadomasochistic practices -- including cozying up to death and sometimes achieving murder -- being taught at the Sheraton Hotel in Danvers last weekend? Learning about this sick bunch of people reminded us that also just about a year ago a "professional dominatrix" got off scot free in court, though she had a "client" die during a bondage session! (She chopped his body into little pieces and disposed of it in Maine.)
Why weren't there vigils outside the Quincy condo where this hate crime happened -- to protest the increasing practice and acceptance of torture? (And the adoption by the Boston Globe of their twisted terminology: "professional dominatrix" and "bondage session"?) And why did no one have a vigil outside the BDSM conference last weekend in Danvers, where such practices were taught? There just might be fewer deaths of this sort if the BDSM culture couldn't exist so openly, advertise its conferences, and take over "respectable" suburban hotels.
Here's the report from just one year ago (Jan. 31, 2006):
Professional dominatrix Barbara Asher was acquitted yesterday of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a New Hampshire man who prosecutors said suffered a fatal heart attack while strapped to a bondage rack in her Quincy condominium.
Prosecutors had argued that Asher, 56, did nothing to help Michael Lord, 53, of North Hampton as he died during the July 2000 session, out of fear that calling authorities would have jeopardized her dominatrix business. The prosecutors said she and a boyfriend chopped up Lord's 275-pound body and dumped the parts in a trash bin behind a Chinese restaurant in Augusta, Maine....
The prosecution's case -- and the narrative about the fatal bondage session presented in court -- rested on an alleged confession by Asher. Several police investigators testified that Asher had admitted to watching Lord die on the bondage rack without calling for medical help and then dismembering his body the next day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)