December 27, 2007

A Mitt flip goes flop

Posted by: Chris

Poor Mitt Romney just can't flip without flopping. In a cynical ploy to win over social conservatives, Romney has beat a well-documented retreat from a whole host of moderate positions, including a number of gay rights issues. But one mini-flip popped up in his recent appearance on "Meet the Press" and got little notice amidst all the giant policy reversals:

MR. RUSSERT:  You say you'd be a more effective leader on gay rights than Ted Kennedy.

GOV. ROMNEY:  And, and let me--let's, let's do them one by one.  OK, Tim? Let's just go through them one by one.  And, and here's my view.  I don't believe in discriminating against someone based upon their sexual orientation. And so I would be effective in trying to bring greater recognition of the, of the rights of people not, not to be discriminated against.  Let me...

MR. RUSSERT:  You said--you said that you would co-sponsor the...

GOV. ROMNEY:  Tim, Tim, Tim...

MR. RUSSERT:  Wait a minute.  Wait a minute.  This is important.

GOV. ROMNEY:  OK, fine.

MR. RUSSERT:  You said that you would sponsor the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.  Do you still support it?

GOV. ROMNEY:  At the state level.  I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.

MR. RUSSERT:  Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.

GOV. ROMNEY:  I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.  And let me describe why.

MR. RUSSERT:  So you did--you did change.

GOV. ROMNEY:  Oh, Tim, if you're looking for someone who's never changed any positions on any policies, then I'm not your guy.

Most civil rights regulation of the workplace is at the federal level, which makes this particular flip-flop particularly transparent. The primary practical difference is that regulating at the state level takes it out of the president's responsibilities, allowing Romney to promise (as surely he has to social conservatives) that he will not support any type of federal protection based on sexual orientation.

But it wasn't enough for at least one anti-gay leader, Peter Labarbera of Americans for Truth, since in punting the issue for Congress and the president Romney still sounds like he's supportive of state-level protections. LaBarbera has separately launched a group called Republicans for Family Values -- no doubt to preserve AFT's tax status -- on whose behalf he says this:

“Mitt Romney’s Christmas present to the homosexual lobby disqualifies him as a pro-family leader,” LaBarbera said. “Laws that treat homosexuality as a civil right are being used to promote homosexual ‘marriage,’ same-sex adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren. These same laws pose a direct threat to the freedom of faith-minded citizens and organizations to act on their religious belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.”

LaBarbera said it is “inconceivable after Massachusetts’ twin disasters involving homosexual ‘marriage’ and homosexual adoption that Romney now is recommending pro-homosexual ‘orientation’ laws –– long derided as “special rights” among social conservatives — to the rest of the nation.

That's the thing about transparently political flip flips; they are unlikely to satisfy anyone because they're not based on core principles. How ironic that a man who wears his faith -- albeit in generic Christian form -- on his sleeve turns out to be the biggest moral relativist in the race -- from either political party.

Tags: gay rights, Mitt Romney, Peter LaBarbera