(I posted this yesterday at www.race42008.com, as a rebuttal to NRO editor Deroy Murdock, who posted a piece on Race42008 full of factual misrepresentations concerning Romney. It should be noted Deroy is an ardent fan of Giuliani and a less ardent fan of the truth.)

Deroy, after reading your post, I decided I wanted to address some of the inaccurate facts you present.

Needless to say as an unabashed Mitt supporter I see numerous problems in a Mitt-Hitt piece written by an unabashed Rudy supporter. (Not to mention that your piece is just a regurgitation -- really a "cut and paste" -- of an old piece we've seen in other places.)

Here is where you go wrong (hope this post isn’t too long):

1. Regarding Bopp: You said:

“I don’t know yet about Romney,” Bopp admitted to Politico.com’s Jonathan Martin on February 21. “I’m not really sure where [abortion] will ultimately fit in his agenda. He’s still on a journey.”

Whoops! Maybe you missed the comments Bopp left here at our very own www.race42008.com

The last four paragraphs of Johathan Martin’s blog combines answers to several questions to me creating the erroneous impression that I am uncertain about Romney’s pro-life position. I am not. To the question: “will any of these candidates really advocate an end to abortion or were they just paying lip service to an important issue,” my view is that “Romney is sincere about advocating an end to abortion — he is not paying lip service to it.” If I had been asked further about this, I would have said that he will promote and sign pro-life legislation, oppose and veto pro-choice legislation (as he had done as Governor) and appoint strict constructionist judges. My statement about Romney in the last sentence of the Martin’s blog (which is correctly viewed by commentators here as “strange,” “odd,” and “bizarre,” if made to the question “is he paying lip service” to it) was about where does the abortion issue fit in his agenda, in other words what priority would he give it, and I think that it is important now and is growing in importance to him (that is the “journey” I was referring to).

I believe your original article appeared on March 6th. Don’t you think if you were going to use the quote again - the honest thing would have been to included this update, instead of presenting it as fact, cut-and-paste?

2. Campaign Finance: What do your points have to do with anything McCain-Feingold oriented? For the Myth vs. Fact on Romney’s CFR stance see here.

3. Guns: You wrote:

Governor Romney signed the first statewide assault-weapons ban in 2004. He also bragged that his support for such gun-ownership restrictions as the Brady Bill and the federal assault-weapons ban was “not going to make me the hero of the NRA.”

Really, at some point you should just write in your blog you only post half-truths. No mention of Romney’s “B’ rating from the NRA while a governor. No mention of your candidates gun-grabbing tendencies. No mention of this or this.

It would have also been nice had you explained that the Massachuset’s Assault Weapons ban also had some great pro-gun measures in it:

The new law also makes a number of improvements to the current gun licensing system, including:

* Extending the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years;
* Granting a 90-day grace period for holders of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry who have applied for renewal; and
* Creating a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied.

“This is truly a great day for Massachusetts’ sportsmen and women,” said Senator Stephen M. Brewer. “These reforms correct some serious mistakes that were made during the gun debate in 1998, when many of our state’s gun owners were stripped of their long-standing rights to own firearms. I applaud Senate President Travaglini for allowing the Senate to undertake this necessary legislation.”

It also would have been nice had you noted that Romney still stands behind Assault Weapons ban. Nothing has changed.

4. Gay marriage:

Romney calls himself a “vehement” foe of gay marriage. “From Day One, I have opposed the move for same-sex marriage, and its equivalent, civil unions,” Romney told South Carolina Republicans on February 21, 2005.

But just two days later, he told the Boston Globe’s Frank Phillips: “I am only supporting civil unions if gay marriage is the alternative.”

Did you even think about what you just wrote? Romney just stated he chose civil unions only because it was that or gay marriage -- not because he supports civil unions. A comment posted on this site might be instructive for your next hit piece:

An initial bill came through the legislature, attempting to ban both gay marriage and civil unions, but was unable to get serious support. So people proposed a bill which allowed civil unions, which Mitt initially opposed. Finally he agreed to support the effort saying, that he only supported civil unions if the only alternative was gay marriage. When it quickly became apparent that the legislature was nowhere near eager to begin to amendent process, even for that minor change, Mitt revoked his support of the bill and circumvented the legislature with a citizen ballot initiative banning both gay marriage and civil unions. -- Matt from R42008

Did you miss the part about Romney instituting old laws to keep out of state gay marriages, suing the state legislature and effectively forcing them to vote on the petition? Did you miss the fact your candidate has done literally nothing to stop gay marriage? Did Guiliani testify to congress in support of the FMA? What has Rudy done in regards to gay marriage? To quote a friend of mine, “Given Rudy's stance against doing anything at all in defense of traditional marriage, and doing quite a lot to further the gay-union agenda, Rudy could perhaps even be summed up as "functionally" pro-gay-marriage…or pro-gay-union if you prefer.”

If you are going to bash Romney for not being anti-gay marriage enough you need two things:

• Proof


• A candidate of your own who has stranger track record.

I am not trying to knock on Giuliani as much as I am trying to point out your inconsistencies.

5. Democratic Campaign contributions:

Do you really care that Romney gave a little money to friends of his who ran for congress as democrats? I mean does it really mean anything at all? Will it somehow make him unable to fight in Iraq or work out difficult issues with congress? I mean Deroy, you are in love with Rudy! A guy who wants to be middle, left, and right!

BTW, can’t wait to see your post on Giuliani endorsing Cuomo. That will be a good one.

Final points:

• People can love Rudy or whomever, but to produce a piece like this which is filled a multitude of flagrant factual violations is something else.


• The tone of your piece suggests that you think these are problems for Mitt, although most of what you state is manipulations of fact, and the guy you endorse is worse in all categories.


• The timing of your re-post is questionable


• If you like your candidate and want to support him that’s fine, but don’t sit on some high horse with more Achilles Heals than you have heals.


• Be fresh! Think new! We love new ideas, new challenges, new questions. Otherwise things get stale around here.