Jump to content

Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Untitled

Please put new topics at bottom of the page.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act

I'm removing the section on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because it is uncited. Yellowdesk, why did you revert my changes? The section on Employment and Non-Discrimination is unconfirmed and has been for a while. Also, the section on Gay rights is choppy and poorly written. Please don't revert the changes again unless you say why you are doing so on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.16.183 (talk • contribs) 07:43, March 14, 2007

Well, 169.237.16.183,
I suggest you have the correct facts before complaining. According to this edit, another editor, Chris 73 reverted your several edits, for which you failed to provide any edit summaries explaining your activity, as shown by this history. You complain of actions that you do yourself. Neither you nor the other editor have edit summary explanations visible on the issue in question.
-- Yellowdesk 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hey guys, I was just wondering...does anyone else feel that this article seems to have a not so subtle anti-Romney undertone? Jwuthe2 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • If you have a critique of the article or some aspect of it, it is best to put forward in some detail your suggested improvements or point out its particular failings, so there's something to talk about. You might guess that there might not be alot of agreement among various partisan editors about a number of topics on this page. It's good practice not to assume that merely putting the POV or NPOV or "Neutrality" tags on an article are sufficient to promote an effective conversation about improving some aspect of the article.
  • Also, please, when you discover a broken link, mark it with a comment, and/or bring it up on the talk page so that it can be rectified by another editor, if you're not willing to do the research to see what happened to the link/source. The "subject to removal" comments at the top of the article don't mean things need to be instantly removed upon discovery of faulty links (unless libelous or defamatory). The original source for the campaign finance text and footnote you deleted was alive and well, if you were willing to look for it, and has been restored to the article. I haven't checked to see if that source, and all of the sources for this article truly support the text. Getting all of the links transformed into footnotes would help that process for any reviewing editor. -- Yellowdesk 23:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, in the tag at the top of the page, it says "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." This seems to suggest that even if something that is unsourced is not libelous, it still must be removed promptly. However, I do apologize for not citing my change on the discussion page. Jwuthe2 21:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How long should this page be?

myclob 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as it needs to be, to say what should be said. If some section is too much, it can be shifted into its own page, or edited down. -- Yellowdesk 02:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we add this as an external link? It has direct quotes on Romney's political views, organized alphabetica by topic.

  1. http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Issues

If people think it is pro-romney, I just have this to say... They are all direct quotes, and they are all sourced. If you want to help me offer an anti-romney contrary view, I can give you the password so you can add quotes that Romney might regret... myclob 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a real resource, but a real challenge to trace back to some published source or press release--hence suffering from its own kind of verifiabiity challenge. How would an editor, reporter or scholar know when and where the statements were made and how they made it into the media? Any chance you have the ability to cite sources for most of the hundreds of quotations you've assembled? -- Yellowdesk 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That is a good point... All I could do is copy and paste the raw text... I wanted to back them up in a better format...Before they went away, I started copying and pasting some of them into this blog... it shows the origianl formating better, and looks a little more formal, in the format, but the blog might actully make it less formal in other ways...But I guess transparency is good... if people disagree with the content of the press release they could respond...

http://reason4romney.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html

ABSTINENCE EDUCATION

What do you guys think?

Romney supported abstinence education programs. He said, "In my service as Governor, I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventive health practice. Abstinence education gives young people the support they need in making the decision to postpone sexual activity until they are mature enough to handle the emotional, moral and financial responsibilities of parenthood. This is more than teaching kids to say no – it will help them preserve self-esteem and build character.” [1]

I don't think this is pro or anti-romney... those that agree with him will like it, those who disagree won't... it tells a lot about romney that he would say this... right now this political views section is just a lot of repeated stuff from the other sections... i think we should add more stuff like this that is not just a duplicate of the other info, and that give an insight into what type of stuff he advocates... I am starting with the "a's" and going through the alphabete... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myclob (talk • contribs) 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Are the original press releases still on line, or has the state of Massachusetts taken them down? It would be great to cite an official source. -- Yellowdesk 02:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
They are gone. I am glad that I backed them up... I would like to get the official press releases from his 2002 winter olympics... Romney referenced them in his book, but I have no inside contacts, and I don't know if they are online... myclob 12:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I found the original that I copied and pasted into my blog... do you think this one is better? http://reason4romney.blogspot.com/2006/08/romney-announces-award-of-abstinence.html Got to get to work

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was MOVE the page, per discussion below (page moved by User: DennyColt via this edit on 07:05, March 24, 2007).


Proposed move to Political positions of Mitt Romney from Political views of Mitt Romney
Here is why I propose this move:

  • Speeches and statements are not enough, and an action constitutes a position.
  • Romney, among other things, proposed dead-letter bills to the legislature that he never actually lobbied for, had some vetos unanimously overidden, and some executive policies immediately overturned by his successor in office. Context and information like that gives better understanding. An historical and critical analysis, relying on cited sources making such analysis is desirable for any "political positions" article.
  • "Views" tends to imply that there is no history, and tends to imply that the article is in agreement with the current campaign platform. Which it is not and never will be.
  • As for consistency with other "political views" articles, my belief is that they are mis-named. "Views" implies speech only, and many political positions can be seen in the actions of the subject individuals that are contrary to their words. "Views" neglects this aspect of political life, that "positions" does not. Hence being "consistent" carries little weight with me.

Comments and criticism invited. -- Yellowdesk 04:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Add your comments in the appropriate section

Discussion

A brief history:
The article started as a section called Political positions in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 article, following a discussion at Talk:Mitt_Romney#This page lacks personal political beliefs in January 2007. It became a stand-alone article, Political views of Mitt Romney in mid-March. -- Yellowdesk 00:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Following a suggestion by Theflyer, In the interests of pulling comments in from related Political views of ..... editors, I posted notices about the discussion here about the title of Political views of Mitt Romney article on

  • And, a day later, I put a notice on all of the other "Political views of ...." talk pages, which are:

Political views of Barack Obama
Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Political views of Joe Lieberman
Political views of John Edwards
Political views of John McCain
Political views of Lyndon LaRouche
Political views of Mike Gravel
Political views of Mitt Romney
Political views of Pat Buchanan on global affairs
Political views of Rabindranath Tagore
Political views of Republican candidates, 2008
Political views of Ron Paul
Political views of Rudy Giuliani

-- Yellowdesk 06:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, as the proposer. -- Yellowdesk 05:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Views seems like we are trying to read his mind. No one can know what someone else really thinks, but in politics you put out position statements as deals with your voters... I will support this if you elect me... Positions seems more formal and precise... I like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by myclob (talk • contribs) 20 March 2007
  3. Weak support. The only reason I'm not giving a full support is because of other similar articles, See Category:Political views by candidate. You said "Hence being "consistent" carries little weight with me. I understand where you are coming from, but consistency makes things easier to find and categorize. I do like "Political positions" better than "Political views", and if we could change the other "views" articles to "positions", that would be great. Chupper 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Weak support. I'm still skeptical that the unfiltered "Political views of Politician X" articles belong in an encyclopedia at all; seems to me that voter education is better left to the League of Women Voters. Historical and analytical descriptions of Politician X's positions, votes, speeches, etc. does seem more suitable. I don't fancy the NPOV disputes that will come from trying to do this, however. The consistency objection raised above is one that I've held to in the past also ... but realistically, it would carry more weight if there was any consistency in politicians' articles otherwise, but there isn't; I once surveyed about 1/3 of the U.S. Senators articles to see what was included in their intros, and found every variation imaginable. Such is Wikipedia. Wasted Time R 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Weak support. I was on the Project Vote Smart website and they use "Issue Positions". I prefer that title because political views at their core are really about policy and issue debates. - PoliticalJunkie 20:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. I too think the word "position" is more accurate than views in this context as it better reflects the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia and reinforces the idea that entries should document positions taken by the politician in their many different roles (casting votes, proposing legislation, public statements, etc). PoliticalJunkie makes an interesting point and think I could agree with his proposal of substituting Political with Issue so it would become "Issue positions of XXXXX", which strikes me as being even more neutral than "Political positions of XXXXX" though it doesn't roll off the tongue quite as nicely. However, we also all seem to agree that consistency is a good ideal. I suggest finding an appropriate place to engage the discussion more broadly as there seems to be a fair bit of activity on the related pages and this could be an opportunity to get a reasonable number of interested editors from different POV to provide their thoughts and insights. I did a quick search of the Wikipedia namespace but didn't find a page or guideline that seems directly relevant. There might be benefit, therefore, in establishing a "politician" guideline and beginning to flesh it out from this discussion and and any others that can be found. It could even help address Wasted Time R's findings described above. I did find Wikipedia:WikiProject United States politicians, but it appears to be pretty stagnant. Theflyer 02:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support I kind of hate to say this, but to me, and I have a tendency to take words literally, a person's "views" take place inside his or her head. We can not talk about them at all on WP. On the other hand we can talk about positions taken, as well as words written and spoken, votes recorded, organizations joined, money given to causes, etc. Steve Dufour 02:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. The proposed title seems ambiguous; "political position" could be interpreted as referring to a role served in government (e.g. governor) as well as the intended meaning. Dekimasuよ! 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think political office is the standard term that you'll find in most cases. -- Yellowdesk 00:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Abortion Section

As organized right now, I think this section is pretty confusing - the chronology makes it so. It seems to be in a "reverse order" of Romney's positions on the issue. to make it much clearer, I would like to re-order the paragraphs so that it flows logically from his past pro-choice statements, his change of opinion in 2004, and his current pro-life statements. What does everyone think?--AaronM 16:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State

I'd like to see someone add a section on Romney's position regarding the Constitutional separation of Church and State. If no one else with more experience or interest will do it, I'll give it a shot. Bricology 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC). Here are a bunch of questions that interviewers asked Romney... if you click on the question, you can see Romney's responce... http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Religion%20Questions

Here is some data: Quotes from Governor Mitt Romney on Religion

"Oh, I think initially. Some people would say, Gosh, I don't know much about your faith, tell me about it. And I'd probably outline the fundamentals. I'm a religious person. I believe that Jesus Christ is my Savior. But then as you get into the details of doctrines I'd probably say look time out, let's focus on the values that we share. And fundamentally the values of my faith are very much like the values of other Judeo-Christian tradition values. And I think Americans want to have a leader who is a person of faith, but their not going to get terribly involved in the differences of doctrine, as long as the values we share are common." Governor Mitt Romney on the Charlie Rose Show, June 5, 2006 When asked, "Religion really played a role sense JFK, do you think it would play a role if you ran?" http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=mitt+romney, this exchange takes place at about 12:20 into the video at this location:


"Not really. Not at this stage. You know its possible that there will come some point were there is a question that galvanizes interest and there is an occasion to say something that cuts through the confusion that may develop but at this stage it is kind of hard to predict what will happen. I mean I remember in the race with Ronald Reagan, it was in his debate that he said, "I'm not going to let your youth and inexperience become an issue in this campaign". That sort of put aside his age issue. And there may well be something of that nature. I just don't think Americans will do something the constitution forbids. The constitution says that no religious test shall ever be required for qualification for office in these United States, and I don't think my party or the American people would ever do that." Governor Mitt Romney on the Charlie Rose Show, June 5, 2006 Guest host Judy Woodruff: John Kennedy, we remember, looked for and found a venue where he could talk about his catholic faith. The Houston ministry is a very famous speech that he gave. Would you look for and are you looking for a place were you can make a statement like this and are you looking for the right place and time? http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=mitt+romney, this exchange takes place at about 12:20 into the video at this location:


"There is a leap of faith associated with every religion. You haven't exactly got those doctrines right, but if you have doctrines you want to talk about go talk to the church, because that's not my job. But the most unusual thing in my church is that we believe there was once a flood upon the earth and that a man took a boat and put two of each animal inside the boat and saved humanity by doing that." Governor Mitt Romney on the Charlie Rose Show, June 5, 2006 Guest host Judy Woodruff: But there are some aspects of Mormonism that many Americans might not understand… are these legitimate issues for people to ask you about? http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=mitt+romney, this exchange takes place at about 12:20 into the video at this location:


"There are unusual beliefs associated with each faith and I'm proud of my faith and happy to talk to people about it but fundamentally my race for governor, my race for senator before that, and if I run for nationally its going to be about the values that I have, and the values that I think should be emphasized in this country and answers to the kind of challenges that we face, because I believe that America is at a critical time, and I believe those are the types of issues that people will focus on." Governor Mitt Romney on the Charlie Rose Show, June 5, 2006 http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=mitt+romney, this exchange takes place at about 12:20 into the video at this location:


“This is a sad day for neglected and abandoned children. In this case, it’s a mistake for our laws to put the rights of adults over the needs of children. While I respect the board’s decision to stay true to their principles, I find the current state of the law deeply disturbing and a threat to religious freedom.” Governor Mitt Romney, 03-10-2006 Press Release


“I ask the Legislature to work with me on a bill that I will file to ensure that religious institutions are able to participate in the important work of adoption in a way that always respects and never forces them to compromise their firmly held beliefs.” Governor Mitt Romney, 03-10-2006 Press Release

Governor Mitt Romney and Religion Press Releases 2006 03-10-2006, DEFENDING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, ROMNEY TO FILE BILL EXEMPTING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS FROM GAY ADOPTION REQUIREMENT

2005 06-28-2005, ROMNEY VOICES SUPPORT FOR FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS

2004 08-10- 2004 , ROMNEY, MENINO CELEBRATE INTERFAITH APARTMENTS OPENING —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myclob (talk • contribs) 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Environment

The first sentence in the Environment section is somewhat contradictory: "Romney supports regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through voluntary measures". Regulation and voluntary measures are two very different approaches. Especially when the topic is greenhouse emissions, those two approaches are basically the two opposite sides of the debate. If Romney primarily supports voluntary measures (as stated), he is therefore generally against regulation. I would make this change but I don't know enough about the subject to be sure which half of the sentence is correct. I suspect he is anti-regulation, since this is the most common position within his political party. Could someone who knows for sure make the change? --spiralhighway 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's actually true as written. As governor, he participated in the negotiation of a New England states compact to reduce carbon dioxide; he caused Massachusetts to not participate in the compact upon discovering there would be a cost to implementing it. See Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Environment. -- Yellowdesk 06:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reorganize contents?

Almost all of the other "Political Positions of ..." articles are organized as:

  1. Economic Policy
    1. subsections in alphabetical order
  2. Foreign Policy
    1. subsections in alphabetical order
  3. Social Policy
    1. subsections in alphabetical order

For the sake of consistency, I recommend that Political positions of Mitt Romney be reorganized in the above manner. Sbowers3 15:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Gay Rights

I changed the first part of the gay rights section to reflect his more recent stance opposing domestic partnership benefits-- that is, rescinding his prior support of them. If you have any questions/comments/concerns, please voice them. --koder 09:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! └Jared┘┌t┐  12:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In order to prevent subjectivity from creeping into this article, I removed the word 'supposed' from the following sentence: "Conservative activists such as Paul Weyrich have gone on the record as being disturbed at Romney's supposed inconsistency." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.85.198 (talk • contribs) June 9, 2007

Torture - Guantanamo Bay connection

I am wondering why GBay is under the header "Civil Rights." This seems to be only one small part of one's civil rights beliefs or agenda, yet it is the only item that appears. If this is it, the header should be "Guantanamo Bay" or something. Otherwise, issues of race, gay rights, legal standards of due process, etc., should go here, too.


I am wondering why the sentence "He also advocated that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility should be doubled." appears in the section on torture. The source provided is the South Carolina debate transcript. I agree that the sentence is true, but it should not be in a section about torture. This implies some connection between Guantanamo Bay and torture. I know that there are allegations of torture occurring at Guantanamo, but the way the article is written seems to indicate that Mitt Romney's position on the size or scope of the detention facility is an endorsement of torture. Besides, there is no new information in this sentence and its content is discussed better in the earlier section on Civil Rights.

My suggestion is to remove the sentence from this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadare (talk • contribs) 01:57, June 12, 2007

It's a tough call, because I watched the debate and he did integrate it into his speech supposed to be directed on torture. It was certainly, though, a side-bar off of the real topic. Even then, though, I would probably advocate for its removal just because it has nothing to do with torture, and we don't want to suggest a link. I would hate to see such a good quote go, however. Is there another section that would better suit it? Could we integrate it into the Iraq War section, or maybe the civil rights section? (As a matter of fact, it is already in the civil rights section.) └Jared┘┌t┐  19:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the section to include more specific information regarding Romney's statement about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. My change removed the sentence I questioned, but added that Romney's statement was made in reference to Guantanamo Bay. This is my first change on Wikipedia, so I apologize if I have not followed protocol. Before my edit, the section said: "During the second Presidential debate, Romney recommended the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in handling suspects. He also advocated that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility should be doubled.[40]" Now the section reads: "During the second Presidential debate, Romney supported the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in handling suspects at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, saying, '...enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used -- not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.'" I changed the word recommended (to supported) because the question was a hypothetical and the answer as it regarded interrogation was not in the form of a recommendation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadare (talk • contribs) 13:27, June 12, 2007

That was good. And thank you for coming to the talk page to suggest that edit. Most of the time, it's not imperative, but I see how this could have been a potentially divisive edit. And by the way, in order to make a signature, like the one that will be at the end of this comment, you type ~~~~ . This automatically creates a signature with timestamp. The unsigned template is just for people who have not signed their name to a post. └Jared┘┌t┐  21:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Take off the improve tag

I've expanded the article a good bit. Time to take off the improve article tag? Antley 22:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Good job. └Jared┘┌t┐  22:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

If someone could find images that would suit this article and the sections within, please go ahead. Any personal photos of Mitt that represent something on this page would be helpful! └Jared┘┌t┐  15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

France

Is the France section really a political position? Joseph Antley 19:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, a position on the appropriate attitude towards a foreign country is a political position. Saying that as president he will "re-engage" France is a political position suggesting potential changes from current foreign policy. Calling Sarzkozy a "blood brother" is also a political position expressing support for a particular foreign leader. Expressing love or hatred of a particular foreign country is also a political position, as is criticism or praise of a country's social policy. -Fagles 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Also, does anyone else think Romney's mention of France in his concession speech worthy of mention? I found it a calculated attempt to appeal to a specific conservative viewpoint. This is especially odd in light of his otherwise positive remarks re: France elsewhere.222.2.98.43 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Rawkcuf.

Technology

The Technology section of this article currently states:

During his 2007 Iowa Republican Straw Poll speech, Romney advocated installing government software to control every computer sold in the US in the name of combating pornography.[70]

What Romney actually said (approx. 10:20 into the C-Span source quoted) was:

"...I want to clean up the dirty water in which a lot of our kids are swimming, and by that I'm not just talking about pollution, I'm talking about moral pollution. I'm talking about what they see on TV and on the Internet. I'm concerned about the drug cluture, I'm concerned about the pornography, the violence, the sex, the perversions that they see day in and day out. I want to make sure that every computer that goes into a home in the future, has a button there, or a place for the citizen, the parent, to be able to block all of that pornography from their kids Internet screen."

I don't see anything in the above to substantiate 'installing government software to control..'John Howell 19:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Gun control

The article states that Romney is opposed to semi-automatic weapons. The sources sited make no mention of semi-automatic weapons, but rather "assault weapons." These are not interchangeable terms. The subjects actual position should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanpg (talk • contribs) 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I made changes to the article reflecting the sited source to more accurately reflect the subjects position and actions.

Ryanpg 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Talks with "hostile" nations

I felt that the reference made to his position on U.S.-Venezuela relations contained P.O.V. since it implied that the Venezuelan government is led by an authoritarian tyrant. This despite the fact that Venezuela has a largely privately owned media, has very regular elections that have been deemed free and fair by international observers and absolutely no capital punishment. Also aside from the United States most democratic governments around the world do not seem to consider Venezuela to be governed by a dictatorship.

The statement above implies POV, rather than the text of the article. Romney's comments don't need contextualization in this case; wikipedia ought not to be a forum for contextual analysis, but the reporting of fact. Fact is, Romney said those things. Whether or not his assertions are accurate ought to be left up to the individual. The above comments belong in an article about Venezuelan current affairs and politics, or in the one on Hugo Chavez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.255.132 (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Guns

I think this information should be added to the "Guns" section

"During Romney’s term he signed several pieces of firearms regulation. A look at that regulation does not reveal an anti-gun Romney. Those bills are characterized as “net gains” for gun owners in a state where opinioned is weighed against them.

During his tenure, Gov. Romney was credited with several improvements to state laws, including protections for shooting clubs, restoration of the Inland Fish and Game Fund, and requirements that all new hunters pass a hunter safety course. He is also credited with relaxing manufacturing testing for some models of pistols.

In 2004, Gov. Romney signed a firearms reform bill that made permanent the ban on assault weapons as well as clarified and insured other rights and responsibilities for gun owners. It was a hard-fought compromise between interest groups on both sides of the issue. The NRA Gun Owners’ Action League, law enforcement, and Massachusetts gun owners endorsed the bill."

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.15.86 (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney/Archive_1&oldid=1137091162"