December 6, 2007

The NY Times’s Accidental Journalism Reveals the Full Scope of Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Deception, and His Unfitness to Be President

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 4:12 pm

UPDATE, 11PMThe Paragraph from “The Speech” That Should Sink Mitt Romney
REPEAT UPDATEThe Paragraph from “The Speech” That Should Sink Mitt Romney

________________________________________

The New York Times, primarily an agenda journalism newspaper, occasionally engages in actual journalism not by design, but by accident.

A prime example of this was its coverage of how seniors living alone but in less than full control of their faculties were being systematically ripped off by sweepstakes scam artists. The paper’s clear agenda was to portray seniors as helpless victims of ruthless capitalism (as opposed to being victims of people with no ethics).

Oops.

Yours truly noted that the lead information provider to the companies carrying out the senior-bilking scheme was none other that InfoUSA, owned by Vinod Gupta, a major FOB (Friend of Bill Clinton) for years. I further noted, after further research, that InfoUSA’s recently-acquired Opinion Research Corporation had become the official polling organization for CNN, effectively giving a company controlled by an FOB a megaphone to dish out Clinton-spun poll results at will during the rest of the presidential and other campaigns.

Yours truly, and others, connected the dots, but it was the Times that put the dots on the table.

That’s accidental journalism.

In early September, the Times, in what was supposed to be an article somewhat critical of Mitt Romney (“Romney’s Tone on Gay Rights Is Seen as Shift”) over how he has supposedly “fought same-sex marriage,” began its report with the following three paragraphs (bolds are mine):

Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans.

Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue.

“I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled.

The caption under the story’s picture reads:

Mitt Romney, who campaigned on Friday in Littleton, N.H., once promised he would not lead a fight against same-sex marriage.

Reporter Michael Luo likely thought that Romney’s current campaign stance against gay marriage and his support of a one-man, one-woman US constitutional amendment would merely advance the popular portrayal of him as a flip-flopper, and would otherwise be relatively harmless.

Oops.

With the dots on the table, others have done the connecting. What we now know is that Mitt Romney promised that he would violate his gubernatorial oath of office even before he took it, and that he carried out that promise.

As I said, accidental journalism.

You see, in Massachusetts, contrary to how Luo wrote it up, court rulings aren’t “obeyed,” because they aren’t orders.

This is not arguable.

In fact, under the Massachusetts Constitution, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) didn’t even have the jurisdiction to take the case, and violated THEIR oaths of office by doing so.

Again, this is not arguable.

Even the SJC, in its Goodridge ruling, acknowledged that it could only advise the state legislature to pass an enabling law within 180 days of its ruling.

The legislature didn’t pass a law, and has not done so to this day.

Enter Mitt “he promised to obey the court’s ruling” Romney.

Even though there was no “ruling” to obey, only a court opinion that the legislature had not enabled into law, Mitt Romney extra-constitutionally, and in direct violation of his oath of office, imposed same-sex marriage in the Bay State.

Please grasp the significance of this: It isn’t that Mitt Romney was weak and simply caved in to pressure, or was misled by “bad advice.” Instead, Romney consciously kept a 2002 campaign promise to the Log Cabin Republicans to (in typical Times mischaracterization) “obey the courts’ ultimate ruling,” and considered that promise more important than the oath he swore when inaugurated as governor to uphold and follow the Massachusetts Constitution.

This is not arguable.

Not that any answer he provides would be credible, but someone should ask Mitt Romney what presidential oath-breaking promises he has made to groups whose last interest is the rule of law.

Yet this is a man who has now been endorsed for president by some of the alleged leading lights of conservatism, even of social conservatism.

This is madness. It must be stopped.

I understand that Romney gave a speech today about his (insert name of his religion) faith.

Understand this. I don’t care that Mitt Romney is a (insert name of religion).

I don’t care about what Romney has said, in isolation. I do care about what Romney has done, in comparison to what he has said. What he has consciously, proactively, and cynically done to break the oath he swore to the people of Massachusetts, and before God, while pretending now to be a warrior against the very thing he put into place, makes him objectively unfit to serve as president.

Our country’s Founders would agree.

And that, folks, is also not arguable.

Share

8 Comments

  1. And yet the Log Cabin Republicans are running ads against Romney in NH. So apparently they would find this analysis arguable. Otherwise they’d save their money.

    Comment by Mark_McNally — December 6, 2007 @ 5:28 pm

  2. #1, this is known as “misdirection.”

    Comment by TBlumer — December 6, 2007 @ 7:07 pm

  3. Ahh, it’s a false flag attack.

    This is getting really conspiratorial.

    Comment by Mark_McNally — December 6, 2007 @ 8:48 pm

  4. #3, sorry Mark. Let’s be clear. It’s NOT a conspiracy.

    Romney is NOW saying he’s against SSM after putting it into place in MA unconstitutionally. Of course LCR is going to oppose him now based on his stated position now.

    So LCR’s opposition to him is based on his current “stated” belief that he is against SSM.

    It remains that Romney has told gay groups in the past that he can do more for their cause as a Republican than any Democrat can do. And he has done just that.

    The “misdirection” is Romney’s pretense to being against SSM when, as noted, he unilaterally and unconstitutionally imposed it in MA.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 6, 2007 @ 9:32 pm

  5. So what’s up with the conservative pundits? Hannity & Laura Ingraham made me puke today but I think that Rush understood that even he cannot make Romney’s issues go away (regardless of how he hides behind his religion).

    Comment by Rose — December 6, 2007 @ 10:18 pm

  6. That New York Times can be quite agenda-driven. I remember once when they decided we should wage war on Iraq, so they turned that Judith Miller loose on the story, and the next thing you know, facts or no, off to war we go.

    By the way, how do you know that the “obey the courts” mischaracterization is attributable to the Times? The phrase may have originated with “several people present,” or with Mitt himself. Maybe the Times was just reporting so you could decide.

    Comment by Tony B. — December 6, 2007 @ 10:57 pm

  7. #6, your first para is hysterical fantasy.

    The Times mischaracterization, whether relayed or not, remains a mischaracterization of the constitutional reality. A knowledgeable reporter would have pointed that out.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 6, 2007 @ 11:28 pm

  8. [...] BizzyBlog Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans.Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue. [...]

    Pingback by NixGuy.com » Why I’m not voting for Romney — December 7, 2007 @ 9:08 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.