Saturday, 18 August 2007

SPLIT MITT - TWO SIDES OF EVERY ISSUE

Ken Berwitz

Joseph Farah of www.worldnetdaily.com has written a highly illuminating piece on the mega-transformation of Mitt Romney into a national candidate.

Unfortunately, by mega-transformation I don't mean that he has broadened or deepened his repertoire of issues.  I mean he has changed his POSITIONS on the issues to make himself more salable politically.

See for yourself below:.

The many faces of Mitt Romney

Posted: August 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

I'm astounded.

I don't know how else to say it.

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.

Amazing.

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."  .

The purpose of posting this is not to hit on any one of the specific issues detailed in Farah's commentary.  It is to point out that Romney has a sorry history of changing one major position after another to endear himself to whichever voters he needs to attract.

How is this any different than John Kerry, who either condemned Vietnam or wanted to be seen as a war hero in Vietnam depending on which group he was talking to?  Kerry had a number of other such mega-transformations too, and looked like a ridiculous phony because of them.

Well, the sword cuts as both ways -- just as much for Republicans as Democrats.  Behold Mitt Romney.


GLOBAL MARKETS AND OUR SAFETY

Ken Berwitz.

Fri Aug 17, 7:27 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Retailer Toys "R" Us said on Friday it removed all Hamco Inc.'s vinyl baby bibs, which were made in China, from its shelves as a precaution after an independent tester found samples of bibs containing excessive amounts of lead.

Toys "R" Us said in a statement that the bibs were marketed under the Koala Baby, Especially for Baby and Disney Baby labels. Media reports earlier in the week said the inexpensive bibs were made in China and imported for Toys R Us by Hamco Baby Products. .
 
My wife and I have a 7 month old grandchild.  Does this worry us?  You're damn right it does.  What ISN'T made overseas, usually in Asia, by nameless, faceless people whose only interest is in making enough to survive to the next day?  And let's not forget that they are controlled by their governmental masters who, other than its effect on the money THEY make, seem not to care about the safety of these products for end users in the USA.
 
Food.  Toys.  Bibs.  What else?  What next?  Does anyone in his/her right mind have any doubt there are other products involved? 
 
The USA forfeited its manufacturing base years ago, by making it dramatically easier and more profitable for products to be made in destitute places where the choice is to work and earn next to nothing or to not work and earn nothing at all.
Some reasons for this disparity are very good ones - a living wage, for example.  Reasonable safety standards.  Reasonable regulations that don't suffocate production.  Reasonable critieria for legal redress without greedy amoral lawyers making millions and millions on BS class action suits.  
 
If we have the fortitude and guts to fix what's wrong with the insane over-regulation, lawsuits gone wild, etc., we can retrieve at least some of our manufacturing base, give more jobs to our own people and feel a hell of a lot safer about the products we use.  That's like hitting for the trifecta.
 
Do we have the guts and fortitude to do this?  I'm highly skeptical but the answer, however much of a long shot it may be, is maybe.
 
We can only hope someone comes along whose personal guts and fortitude enable him/her to do something about this before things get even worse than they are now.


GLOBAL MARKETS AND OUR SAFETY

Ken Berwitz.

Fri Aug 17, 7:27 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Retailer Toys "R" Us said on Friday it removed all Hamco Inc.'s vinyl baby bibs, which were made in China, from its shelves as a precaution after an independent tester found samples of bibs containing excessive amounts of lead.

Toys "R" Us said in a statement that the bibs were marketed under the Koala Baby, Especially for Baby and Disney Baby labels. Media reports earlier in the week said the inexpensive bibs were made in China and imported for Toys R Us by Hamco Baby Products. .
 
My wife and I have a 7 month old grandchild.  Does this worry us?  You're damn right it does.  What ISN'T made overseas, usually in Asia, by nameless, faceless people whose only interest is in making enough to survive to the next day?  And let's not forget that they are controlled by their governmental masters who, other than its effect on the money THEY make, seem not to care about the safety of these products for end users in the USA.
 
Food.  Toys.  Bibs.  What else?  What next?  Does anyone in his/her right mind have any doubt there are other products involved? 
 
The USA forfeited its manufacturing base years ago, by making it dramatically easier and more profitable for products to be made in destitute places where the choice is to work and earn next to nothing or to not work and earn nothing at all.
Some reasons for this disparity are very good ones - a living wage, for example.  Reasonable safety standards.  Reasonable regulations that don't suffocate production.  Reasonable critieria for legal redress without greedy amoral lawyers making millions and millions on BS class action suits.  
 
If we have the fortitude and guts to fix what's wrong with the insane over-regulation, lawsuits gone wild, etc., we can retrieve at least some of our manufacturing base, give more jobs to our own people and feel a hell of a lot safer about the products we use.  That's like hitting for the trifecta.
 
Do we have the guts and fortitude to do this?  I'm highly skeptical but the answer, however much of a long shot it may be, is maybe.
 
We can only hope someone comes along whose personal guts and fortitude enable him/her to do something about this before things get even worse than they are now.


SPLIT MITT - TWO SIDES OF EVERY ISSUE

Ken Berwitz

Joseph Farah of www.worldnetdaily.com has written a highly illuminating piece on the mega-transformation of Mitt Romney into a national candidate.

Unfortunately, by mega-transformation I don't mean that he has broadened or deepened his repertoire of issues.  I mean he has changed his POSITIONS on the issues to make himself more salable politically.

See for yourself below:.

The many faces of Mitt Romney

Posted: August 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

I'm astounded.

I don't know how else to say it.

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.

Amazing.

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."  .

The purpose of posting this is not to hit on any one of the specific issues detailed in Farah's commentary.  It is to point out that Romney has a sorry history of changing one major position after another to endear himself to whichever voters he needs to attract.

How is this any different than John Kerry, who either condemned Vietnam or wanted to be seen as a war hero in Vietnam depending on which group he was talking to?  Kerry had a number of other such mega-transformations too, and looked like a ridiculous phony because of them.

Well, the sword cuts as both ways -- just as much for Republicans as Democrats.  Behold Mitt Romney.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!