January 10, 2008

Mitt Romney Calls Gregg Jackson ‘Delusional’; What Does That Make Romney?

Filed under: Economy,Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 1:49 pm

OVERVIEW: On a major Boston talk show just before Christmas, Mitt Romney called a leading conservative author “delusional.” You know what they say about people in glass houses.


Mass Resistance has posted the audio and transcript of a call that took place on the air during the Howie Carr show on the afternoon of December 21 on WRKO in Boston.

The caller was Gregg Jackson, who is co-host of Pundit Review Radio on Sunday evenings on WRKO and is co-proprietor at the Pundit Review blog. Howie Carr’s guest was Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney, who in the course of answering Jackson’s question, showed exactly why he is, indeed, objectively unfit.

Keep in mind that Gregg is the author of “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies,” a book that has earned rave reviews from the likes of Thomas Sowell (“political and media spin are shot to pieces by hard facts”) and David Limbaugh (“There is not a better one-stop-shop item to refute with evidence and examples the liberal lies.”).

The former Massachusetts governor, according to this debate footage (first 30 seconds of so at linked video), wants to: “….. bring together the same coalition that Ronald Reagan put together, conservatives fiscally, conservatives from a military standpoint, and conservatives socially,” and says that “….. I was a conservative Republican in a very Democrat state.”

Let’s see how Mr. Coalition-Building Conservative handled perfectly legitimate questions from (sorry Gregg, I’m going to make you blush) one of the rising stars of conservative punditry (bolds are mine; explanations of footnoted items are at the end of this post):

Gregg Jackson: ….. Mr. Romney, I’m just wondering, why is it that you have claimed that you were just following the MSJC’s Goodridge opinion by ordering the Department of Public Health to change the marriage certificates from “Husband and Wife” to “Partner A and Partner B” and also forcing the Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or resign when there was no specific order from the court for you to do so? I mean, I guess the question is, why did you violate your oath of office that you swore and, was it to fulfill a campaign promise to the Log Cabin Republicans not to oppose same-sex marriage? (i)

Howie Carr: Boy, they don’t like, the Log Cabin Republicans have been running ads on our radio station, Gregg, against Mitt. (ii) Go ahead, Mitt.

Mitt Romney: Gregg, I’m afraid, is slightly delusional. And let’s go through this one by one. First of all, we received a request to change our birth certificates to “Parent A and Parent B” and we refused to do so. (iii) So we insisted that they not change the birth certificates. So he’s got that wrong, number one. Number two, we did instruct our Justices of the Peace that they needed to understand that given the Supreme Court’s decision requiring them to marry people of the same people, of the same gender (iv), if so requested that they had no choice but to do so or, alternatively, they would be wise not to stay as a Justice of the Peace because they might get sued by somebody. So we were giving them the information they needed to avoid a legal condition. And finally, number three, the idea that I’m not an opponent of same-sex marriage is frankly laughable.

Howie Carr: Right.

Mitt Romney: Everybody in the entire nation knows that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made same-sex marriage legal and that I fought it in every single way I could. (v) I even went to Washington and testified in favor of an amendment to the federal Constitution. I helped collect signatures. I took cases to the court. I did everything in my power. And I continue to fight same-sex marriage. So it’s a little silly. By the way, I’m probably the most frequently protested person by many gay groups because of my opposition to gay marriage. So to have the folks on the right wing (vi) think that somehow I was trying to promote gay marriage is actually the height of silliness.


“Delusional,” eh?

Well, since the Mittster opened this can of worms, I hope you don’t mind if I examine the can’s contents.

So who is more “delusional,” Gregg Jackson or:

  • Someone who says he “saw” his dad march with Martin Luther King, but could not have — and then when it is proven he could not have, tries to play games with the meaning of “saw”?
  • Someone who, in justifying the validity of his supposed “epiphany” on abortion, claims that Ronald Reagan was “adamantly” pro-abortion, when there is NO historical evidence of that?
  • Someone who, for the same purpose, tries to claim that the late Henry Hyde was pro-abortion, again with no historical evidence?
  • Someone who, for the same purpose, mischaracterizes the abortion position held by his own mother in 1970?
  • Someone who, while voicing outrage over pension funds investing in companies that do business with Iran, is heavily invested, both in his family and with Bain Capital (where he is still an investor), in Russian and Communist Chinese oil companies with massive Iranian projects?
  • Someone who claims to have been a lifelong hunter, when he has hunted at most only a few times?

The only reason the list stops here is that six items are plenty. Those were just off the top of my head; there are plenty more where these came from.

Final question: Who’s more “delusional” — Gregg Jackson. or Romney supporters who know damn well that the things I’ve just recited and others I have posted about for the past 7 weeks are true, yet still support Objectively Unfit Mitt for president?


(i) – Proof that there was a 2002 promise to Log Cabin Republicans is here (original NY Times link).
(ii) – Carr is right, but doesn’t explain why. Log Cabin Republicans in reality are currently opposing Romney in their “MittFlops” opposition messages on a wide variety of matters, including inconsistent statements on on same-sex marriage. They cite as an inconsistency Romney’s opposition to a 2002 “preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits,” but then “flipping” in 2007 to support a Federal Marriage Amendment. It doesn’t change the fact that they supported him Romney in 2002, and that their support was based on a pledge to, in essence, violate Massachusetts’s constitution to protect a same-sex marriage ruling that everyone knew was coming.
(iii) Romney totally changed the subject from marriage certificates to birth certificates. There is no way he misunderstood the question, as the rest of his misguided answer shows. He just didn’t want to talk about these new marriage certificates. What horse manure — Carr should have corrected the governor and demanded an answer, or allowed Jackson to do so.
(iv) and (v) – For the umpteenth time, unrefuted by anyone, the MSJC did NOT require that the state marry people of the same sex; the MSJC simply does NOT have that power under the Bay State’s Constitution (briefly explained here; more detailed layout here). Mitt Romney did not fight same-sex marriage; he unilaterally, extra-constitutionally, and in violation of his oath of office, imposed it.
(vi) – If this isn’t revealing, I don’t know what is. Grasp the significance, folks: Mitt Romney is speaking of “the folks on the right wing” (note: not “some folks,” or a few folks; it’s ALL “the folks”) as if they are a group he is not a part of. I submit that this is because, when all his pretenses are shoved aside in unguarded moments like these, HE ISN’T.


UPDATE: From Gregg himself at Pundit Review — “Mitt Zombie Calls Me ‘Delusional’.” At the Mass Resistance blog – “Howie Carr Let Romney Off the Hook on ‘Gay Marriage’ Lies”



  1. Delusional is as delusional does. Reducing Mitt Romney’s answers to clips, stating your evidence of Mitt Romney’s stand as 6 items just off the top of your head. Not only are you delusional you are a flat out liar. Why is it that you find you are not required to be honest, but twist so many others words in an effort to make them sound dishonest. Are you frightened by a man of such success and integrity as Mitt Romney? You certainly come across that way.

    Comment by K Price — January 10, 2008 @ 4:43 pm

  2. On this specific point Mitt Romney is correct. Would I have liked to see him ignor the courts decision and continue to refrain from issuing same sex marriage licenses? Well part of me would, but honestly two wrongs don’t make a right. To me the judicial branch of Massachusetts overstepped their Consituitional bounds, however does it really help the situation for the Executive Branch to do the same? No. Mitt Romney obeyed his oath of office to the letter in this.

    Comment by Tim — January 10, 2008 @ 4:45 pm

  3. #1, please identify my lies or get off my site. Good luck.

    #2. Romney would NOT have been “wrong” to ignore Goodridge. He was duty-bound to ignore Goodridge. I didn’t even mention that the SJC didn’t even have the right to claim jurisdiction in the case under MA’s constitution, so I will now —

    The SJC didn’t even have the right to claim jurisdiction in the case under MA’s constitution.

    Romney was under the yoke of no order to the executive branch, but he imposed SSM anyway. That is not arguable.

    Comment by TBlumer — January 10, 2008 @ 4:50 pm

  4. Mitt Romney is a gentleman. The people posting this type of nonsense are at the bottom of the barrel of integrity and intelligence, although they probably have a degree from some school.

    Comment by Michael — January 10, 2008 @ 8:24 pm

  5. #4, I see the substantive comments just keep on comin’.

    Added at 9:05 p.m. — Here’s a 2+2=4 exercise:
    - Romney calls Jackson “delusional.”
    - He later characterizes Jackson’s argument as being one coming from “the folks on the right wing.”
    - Romney thus seems to be telling us that “the folks on the right wing” are “delusional.”

    What kind of “perfect gentleman” calls “the folks on the right wing,” aka “the philosophical and spiritual base of the Republican party,” delusional?

    Comment by TBlumer — January 10, 2008 @ 8:43 pm

  6. None of you can debunk Tom’s facts. So let me get this straight #4, if someone looks/acts like a gentleman, they get a free pass? We’re not to look at the comprehensive review of their “experience?”

    Waiter! If Mittwit gets the nomination, I’ll have what #4 is having!

    Jeeze, man. The msm will blow this wide open…probably around the last week of October.

    I’m surprised “the gentleman” from Massachusetts didn’t learn three very important words @ Harvard: Subject. Matter. Jurisdiction.

    The SJC illegally heard the case to begin with b/c the MA state consitution – one of our oldest and perhaps most clear on the separation of powers – states that the the judicial branch has no authority over matters of marriage. Ergo, their “opinion” was just that, and opinion…and you know what they say about opinions…of course you do, you’ve proved it with your comments.

    But you know all that and yet this post is scraping “the bottom of the barrel” b/c it points out the truth? Newsflash sparky, the truth will always be revealed, best to deal with it than to deny or try to buy your way out of it w/more fraudulent claims. Disclosure b/f exposure…Marketing 101. Suprised “the gentleman” from Massachusetts didn’t learn that @ Harvard either.

    That school must really suck…but I digress.

    If Romney were half the man he claims to be, he would have encouraged the impeachment of those judges and said “they’ve given their opinion…now let them enforce it.”

    Tom, your work here and in prior posts is simply incredible. I very much appreciate your meticulous attention to detail.

    Comment by Rose — January 10, 2008 @ 9:28 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.