Ah, yes… you’d have to figure the NY Times would cough up this story.

Still… I object to Romney because of this story, because of reasons the Times cannot possibly understand, and if they did would certainly not admit to:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 — Gov. Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Republican who has built a presidential campaign on a broad appeal for conservative support, is drawing sharply increased criticism from conservative activists for his advocacy of gay rights in a 1994 letter.

Mr. Romney’s standing among conservatives is being hurt by a letter he sent to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts saying that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Senator Edward M. Kennedy, his opponent in a Senate race, in a position that stands in contrast to his current role as a champion of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” Mr. Romney wrote in a detailed plea for the support of the club, a gay Republican organization.

Here’s a case where Romney is clearly pandering to a vote block he seriously needed to overcome the Democrats in Massachusetts.

Look, gang… while I have very strong objections to his stated stand in 1994 on cultural ground, what I object to more strongly is something the Times and the hangers-on dare not mention… that Romney so easily shifts his stated principles in order to curry favor with one group or another.  As I said beack in 04’s presidential race, as regards John Kerry: I care less about what principles a person holds, than I do about them actually being HELD in the face of electoral reality.

This thing becomes a matter of trust… or rather… the lack of it.  Such a man cannot be trusted with high office… he clearly thinks holding that office of greater import than what he says are his bedrock principles. In short, he HAS no bedrock principles, rather gong after whatever will best satisfy his power lust.

I didn’t put up with that kind of nonsense from John Kerry, and I darn sure am not going to stand for it in a supposed Republican.

Update: in answer to some e-mail;

Yes I stipulate that it’s possible his position could have evolved since 1994.  This would be particularly true, given that in 1994 we were barely discussing the matter.  But if in fact his position on the matter has grown into what is now, he’s going to have to sell that.  I could be wrong here, but strictly as a matter of perception, I don’t think him capable of doing so.

Tags: ,