Friday, March 24, 2006
Romney maybe not so hot
I was really warming up to a Romney campaign, especially with his great showing at the SRLC, but this site has thrown some water on that. We've of course heard that Romney's been soft on social issues. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he was simply spinning his actually conservative thoughts for Massachusetts, acceptable since as governor of a state he couldn't really do anything about abortion anyway with Roe in the way. But when we look at the ontheissues profile, we see several tidbits. The ones from his 1994 campaign against Ted Kennedy are more often the more egregious.
* Endorsed legalization of RU-486. (Mar 2002)
* Personally against abortion, but pro-choice as governor. (Mar 2002)
* For safe, legal abortion since relative's death from illegal. (Oct 1994)
I do of course feel sympathy regarding his relative's death. I have never had a close relative die, so I don't know how it feels. However, I've always thought the "safe and legal" line of reasoning was flawed. You don't permit people to do a bad thing just because they're going to do it anyway and you should make sure they don't die doing it - you instead convince them not to do it. Encourage adoption, etc. RU-486 is pretty bad too - no better way to encourage abortion on demand than to reduce it to a pill.
Moving on, we see good stuff about the budget, and then...
"Civil Rights" -
* Every child deserves a mother and a father. (Sep 2004)
* Supports benefits for gay partners, but not gay marriage. (Sep 2002)
* Sexual orientation should not preclude being a Scout. (Oct 1994)
First one is part of his stump speech, seen by pundits as what got him his good showing at SRLC. Second one came about after the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, amounted to damage control, was ok. Last one, from the '94 campaign, not so good. The Church would withdraw its support from Boy Scouts if they reneged on that policy.
Proceeding, more solid stuff on crime and education, I don't mind responsible environmentalism so that's ok, line-item veto, good good OH WAIT A SECOND!
Gun Control -
* Will support assault weapons bill and Brady Bill. (Aug 1994)
That's not good at all. The "assault" weapons "ban" was a poorly concieved, bad implementation of a stupid position. This was '94, when it was being debated. If the bill hadn't been so awful, maybe I would give Romney a pass (he was, after all, running against Ted), but it really was awful and its a good thing it's dead.
The rest however, is clear of wrong. But these 3 things cast doubt on my previous assesment he was meerly conceeding lost causes in Massachussetts. Will have to keep watching.
Posted by Unknown at 5:49 PM :