Redirect

Page loading...

Page Redirection If you are not redirected automatically, please visit our Facebook page

Friday, August 7, 2009

(Discussion Thread) Romney's 1994 Debate With Ted Kennedy: Is Romney a 'Real Conservative?'




Someone sent this video to me as a means to saying Romney isn't a "real conservative." I'm curious to see if any of you agree with this analysis, and why. Please post your thoughts below.

I will add my comments in a later post...

2 comments:

Dacia Nichol said...

ABORTION

Romney has become more conservative on this issue as the science has become stronger towards the pro-life side. He came to his stance in 1994 based upon his personal family experiences, and has since been exposed to more of the realities involved in abortion. His main points in this debate were 1) not wanting to impose his ideals on others; and 2) abiding by the laws of the country - cornerstones of our Republic. We are a nation of laws (a republic, not a democracy) and, regardless of how you feel, they must be obeyed and respected. Legislation can change them if need be, but until that occurs, they must be followed.

GAY RIGHTS

Gay rights in the 90s wasn't so much about gay marriage like it is today (of which Romney does not support). It was a fight for equality as human beings - a civil rights issue, and one that he was able to identify with early on. Someone's sexuality does not affect their worth as a person, and that's what he was supporting. There wasn't any conflict between supporting the Boy Scouts and supporting gay rights because he defers to one of the same cornerstones as mentioned in his abortion response - the non-imposition of his views on others. The boy scouts are not any different as far as their membership requirements than most churches - he states his personal beliefs on the issues (inclusion of all regardless of sexual orientation), but defers to the Boy Scouts for making their own decisions in their operations without government involvement. He states that he will fight for gay rights, which once has commenced, would carry over into the Boy Scouts. Until there is a legal obligation for the Boy Scouts to change their policy, Romney defers to the law and respects their decision that they've made for their organization.

REAGAN

I have to review the rest of the debate. I've seen it before, and his Reagan comment didn't raise any red flags for me then so...I think there's some editing wizardry in action here. The evidence for that would be Romney's comment, "This is not a political issue", which tells me that Kennedy was trying to pit a social issue on an economic policy that Romney was supporting. Reagan was a wild card in 1980 - not everyone who is on board with his policies now was on board during his campaign. Over time, we've seen the good that came out of it, and as his accomplishments have been whittled away by bureacracy over the years....many politicians are standing firmer behind Reaganism...Romney included. I think that Romney will go beyond what Reagan did economically - again, I'd have to see the rest of the debate to fully comment on why he seems to have thrown Reagan under the bus here.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

I don't even know why this was referred to as cause for concern - he's promoting TRANSPARENCY. He's not requiring quotas...he wants businesses to deal with public pressure if they choose to discriminate. Firms that make this information public already do so for the same reasons - reputation and social acceptance...which means more clients and better employment pools. The firm I work at is one of the top firms in the country for diversity, and it was founded by a former Reagan cabinet member. Makes Romney sound more Reagan-standard, not less, to me....

And that's my $.02. =)

swamp_yankee said...

Mostly agree that it has been a transformation.

For the record, he may be my third chice right now for 2012 behind Palin and Pawlenty. I was a captain in his gubernatorial campaign. I supported him in 2008.

Its a little ridiculous to hold someone accountable to statements they made 15 years ago.

There is a difference between gay rights as it was presented in the 1990s and the more militant gay rights movement now.

From someone in the center of it all, Romney wasa stalwart aainst gay marriage. Anything you read to the contrary is slanderous.

He may have been a little more opportunistic on abortion. But I fel his pain a little. There are many conservatives in Blue states that either have to bite their tongues a little or compromise.

At worst, Romney is a typical poltician. They all run to the base during the primaries and then tack to the center for the general. There is nothing unusual about his opportunism.

I dont worry about his values or intelligence. I just worry about his ability to connect the blue collar voters in fly over country. He isa little too stiff, a bit of a stepford politician

Conservative Brawler's Archive

Brawler's Search