GraniteGrok

The Boston Herald is playing on emotional strings and pulling our caricatures. Let's talk about facts. FACT: Gov. Romney opposes expulsion and amnesty. He has not changed his record. Here are the OTHER facts the Herald does not cite: In December 2006, then Governor Romney signed a memorandum of agreement with the Federal Government to allow state troopers to enforece immigration laws Gov. Romney vetoed in-state tuition for illegal immigrants Gov. Romney fought efforts to weaken Mass. English immersion law Gov. Romney opposed efforts to give driver's liceses to illegal immigrants Governor Romney is the only sensible Republican in the party right now calling for enforcement without biggotry

Aye aye, See, the funny thing about words is that they can be easily manipulated, as we see everyday in the media. We choose to ignore the spin when it matches our preconcieved notions--this is what the social-sciences call the "confirmation bias". We are all susceptible to it, some more than others. It seems to me that if we take a real close look at the record of Gov. Romney (and not just his easily manipulated words), we can start to paint a picture of a pragmatic, dedicated, rational leader (notice I did not use the word politician), who tried to tackle complex issues with intelligence, maturity, and with the common good as his priority (qualities so many politicians today lack). You see, he is not an ideologue politician. He can be persuaded. He does not get hung up one one or two BIG issues. He understands the broad role of an executive (he ought to, he has, hands down, the most executive experience of any of the current candidates, dem or repub). All things must be considered, wieghed, and a final decision must be made thoughtfully. When you do this, you will find your stances greatly influenced by the people you represent (in mass. the people happen to be mostly democrat). You see, we decry his past stances on social issues, forgeting one of the basic tenents of democracy...that we elect our leaders and hold them accountable for their actions as they represent us. He answered to the people of mass. while governor. This meant that while he may have believed one thing personally, he had reverence for the mantle placed upon him by the people, and used his position to lead, not push his ideology. He has always been pro-life (as the vast majority of mormons are), always been for second ammendment rights (let's not forget that while making the controversial statements about not making any friends in the NRA, he still recieved a B grade from them), always been against gay marriage (contrary to popular misconception). But as the leader of a majority liberal state, he had to make certain concesions. He promised to uphold the "law of the land" (imagine that, some politicians these days, really) by not changing abortion laws (which he did BTW, including vetoeing measures to expand abortion rights). He promised to advocate for the defense of equality and non-descrimination for gays and lesbians, which he tried to do until he realized it was going too far (remember the catholic charities adoption fiasco), where he had to draw a few practical lines. He supported restrictions on assault weapons for civilians, yes, but supported the second ammendment in most other ways. These all went against his personal beliefs (how he chose to live his life), but as governor, we cannot expect him to impose all of his personal veiws onto his constituancy (if he had, there would have been laws before the legislature to ban the use of coffee, tea, tabacco and alcohol. is that what we want to see?) Keep in mind also that this was his first time in public office. He started out with an idea of how he wanted to govern, only to learn (as people do) that certain aspects of his plan were not practical. The abortion issue is case and point...he started out wanting to be fair to the people by promising not to change their laws, only to learn later from a new (gubernatorial) perspective that aspects of these laws (and the culture they created) were destroying an essential foundational principle in our society--that life should be respected above all else. This he knew already in his personal life, but now he knew it in his life as governor. Do you see the distinction? We need to get away from the "if you are a conservative republican, you must fall ABSOLUTELY on the side of the conservative majority on every nuance of every issue--If not, you are not conservative" type of rhetoric. It is damaging to our nation as it more severely polarizes us as a people, and more seriously cripples our elected officials ability to work towards the common good. A politician who is held by his base to an impossibly high standard of governing, to the point of making it impossible to get anything done in this (in case you forgot) two party system, is, well, just a politician. I don't know about you, but I for one want a leader. I and have found him. Won't you join us?