Romney Critics: NOT telling the whole story

Kevin McCullough

11/11/2007 12:00:45 AM - Kevin McCullough

As we are nearing only fifty days to go until the Iowa caucuses, and with the front runner of the race for the GOP nomination being Mitt Romney in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina it is to be expected that those who oppose the Governor would come out of the woodwork. My only wish is that they would do so with more transparency, much more honesty, and understand what's at stake if the clearest option to the Obama/Clinton ticket is not the nominee.

Brian Camenker of MassResistance.org is a person I've helped raise awareness for. Massachusetts based listeners to my radio show have expressed gratitude for the efforts to bring national attention to the unseemly agenda that the radical gay activists have waged against Massachusetts public school children. Sandy Rios is a broadcast colleague of AM 1160 WYLL in Chicago, but more than that she is someone I once worked for, someone I have deep respect for, and someone I consider a genuine friend. Gregg Jackson is an author who also hosts a Sunday evening talk show in Boston.

But my heart is heavy at the less than genuine approach each of them have chosen in their attempt to influence voters against Governor Mitt Romney.

The basis of much of their criticism against the former Governor has to do with his past record. Understandably we look at someone's past positions, qualifications, decisions made, and actions taken to attempt to determine a candidate's abilities and character. Certainly the Governor's record is fair game... but with one small caveat added.

If one is going to compare a present candidate's positions to a seemingly contradictory record - it is important and only fair for that candidate's explanation be heard as to the discrepancies.

The problem with all three of these Romney critics - who are focusing their message at the Values Voters of America - is that none have taken the time to publicly do so.

In refusing to do so they present the debate without context, particularly timely context of the present circumstance, and in doing so unveil a fairly one-sided discussion about Romney's detailed history based on news reports, press clippings, and of course their own opinions and impressions. (All of which they are entitled to.)

But it comes up short on journalistic integrity.

So what is the story on Mitt's positions on abortion and the redefining of marriage to include homosexual unions?

I'm glad someone finally asked.

No not me... the voters. The "Ask Mitt Anything" initiative put the former Governor before room after room of voters, any question they had, any curiosity they needed an answer to - he was asked. Traditional marriage and his pro-life policy conversion were two of the most asked questions the Governor dealt with on the tour. To say that his position in 2004 or 1994 contradicts his present day answers is a legitimate point to bring up.

But the key question is "why?"

There are some points of fact that the critics have also refused to consider.

For instance, if they wish to be "rule of law" conservatives - as is demonstrated by each of their beliefs that Roe v. Wade must be overturned, they cannot hold the expectation that the Governor would have assumed super-executive-branch powers and unconstitutionally instructed the Massachusetts legislature to ignore the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling. That's executive branch tyranny - attempting to override judicial branch activism. The proper recourse for the seventy percent of Massachusetts voters who disagree with the state's position to redefine marriage through judicial fiat - is to do so through the electoral process - something Romney encouraged and attempted to help lead the way in. It is also important to point out that neither Camenker, Rios, nor Jackson acknowledge Romney's strong consistent support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Nor did they acknowledge the Governor's definitive position in the issue of Senator Larry Craig, nor the fact that as the Governor revealed on my show that he would look for the input of those like Dr. James Dobson in his administration as further attacks against the family and child arise in our future.

The critics have also remained silent on the recently announced (at the Value Voters Summit in Washington D.C. - evidently skipped over by Romney critics) future First Lady Romney's initiative of working expressly on the issue of getting young people to marry - before giving birth to children. A goal even these critics would not disagree with.

They also seem to be short on actions of recourse for what their one-sided debate leaves Values Voters to do. In Rios' one-sided monologue on Romney, housed at Camenker's website - she goes so far as to imply that the aggressively pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-illegal alien, anti-gun, tax indifferent, sanctuary city defending, horrific judicial record, cross dressing former Mayor of New York would be a more ideal option - because he openly embraces those deficiencies.  Jackson and Camenker offered no real clues as to who they would likely support.

In the early stages of the campaign I read Hugh Hewitt's A Mormon in the White House, based upon intense hours of interviews with the former Governor. What it gave me was context to who the man is. What it clearly laid out for me was how his conversion on the issue of life took place in his public policy (quite similar in fact to Ronald Reagan). Even the fact that legendary conservative thinker Paul Weyrich - who had originally thrown in with the Camenker/Rios/Jackson clan - has reversed course demonstrates that there is more to these issues than has met the superficial eye/surface level investigation/and lopsided commentary of Romney's critics.

My encouragement to Romney's critics - is to follow their conscience and obviously vote their beliefs. Yet as your attempt to influence others in the process unfolds, my strong encouragement to each of you is to do so with integrity. Since all three are evangelical Christians we all know and understand that it is part of our duty to love one another in truth.

It is also our duty to speak truth.

And one who does not allow both sides of the story to be told is in essence only telling half the story, and half truths, are in fact not truth at all.