Romney Refuses To Pardon

[Dror]

Gov. Romney refuses to pardon.

Anybody care to defend his position (or explain how it is a "position" if he's just going to change it, should he be elected president?)?

Dror

[CrimsonKairos]

Who knows? What I don't understand is how this childhood "conviction" would prevent him from becoming a police officer. Was shooting a BB gun considered a felony? I don't get it.

[BenRaines]

It sounds more to me like this guys coming forward at this time is what is politically motivated. There is a new governor in Mass. get him to pardon.

And here I didn't think convictions as minors are even out there for misdemeanor crimes after turning adult. Maybe it was a more serious charge than a misdemeanor.

Ben Raines

[miztrniceguy]

i doubt i would pardon him either. what if he had shot the kid in the eye? i think it's a lack of judgement....even for a kid....and his parents should have taught him better.

not feeling sorry for the guy

[Gabelma]

Maybe its me a skeptical Brit but it sounds to me like he hasn't bothered to look at any of these cases - he can cut his workload, then boast about it and make it an election slogan

Bit like when our Chancellor of the Exchequer (guy in charge of the money) boasted he hadn't read the Mastrick Treaty because it was as fun as reading a mortgage document.

Charley

[Dror]

It's not just about the one guy, folks. Romney made it a point of pride not to pardon anyone at all as governor. He claimed it was because he didn't want to overrule the will of the jury in any given criminal case. But he says that should he be elected president, he may consider pardoning people. Why the change in position? Wouldn't he still be overruling the will of a jury, only as president instead of governor? I don't see how it has anything to do with principle, only politics.

The one guy was a juvenile when he committed his offense. He did not reoffend. He turned his life around. He honorably served his country in the military. A lot of pardons are controversial--this guy does not seem to be. He would have been a safe bet for Romney to pardon and not have negative feedback for his future political aspirations. But Romney would not pardon anybody as governor, but might as president. What gives? He's flip-flopping!

Dror

[CrimsonKairos]

Romney said he would pardon someone (overrule a jury) only if there was an obvious legal error in the trial or new evidence came to light.

I love this news story. It makes it look like Romney disrespects the troops since he's not "honoring" this guy's service in Iraq and his bronze star by refusing to pardon him. Gimme a break. If anything, the story is politically motivated, not Romney's position (which he's held for years and years, before considering running for President).

[BenRaines]

CK, I agree with you as stated earlier. This is politically motivated. Why pardon if there was no error in the legal process. Does it now become a one man jury, the Governor?

Sure the President has the ability to pardon just as a Governor does for their state. Only if an error in the process is detected should there be a pardon, sorry we made a mistake, not Oh I guess it wasn't so bad. A jury decided that.

Ben Raines

[pam]

I had to laugh. When I first looked at the board and saw this subject I thought it said:

Romney refuses to pardon Ben Raines. haha

[mountainrider]

It's not just about the one guy, folks. Romney made it a point of pride not to pardon anyone at all as governor. He claimed it was because he didn't want to overrule the will of the jury in any given criminal case. But he says that should he be elected president, he may consider pardoning people. Why the change in position? Wouldn't he still be overruling the will of a jury, only as president instead of governor? I don't see how it has anything to do with principle, only politics.

The one guy was a juvenile when he committed his offense. He did not reoffend. He turned his life around. He honorably served his country in the military. A lot of pardons are controversial--this guy does not seem to be. He would have been a safe bet for Romney to pardon and not have negative feedback for his future political aspirations. But Romney would not pardon anybody as governor, but might as president. What gives? He's flip-flopping!

Dror

He is not flip-flopping at all. He "considered" almost 200 pardons and governor and turned them all down. He says he will "consider" pardons as President. Seems pretty consistent to me. Now if he gets in office as President and pardons Rosie for being retarded, then maybe you can call him a flip-flopper. Just another political hit-job by the conservative-hating media.

[Dror]

Why pardon if there was no error in the legal process.

Uh, mercy for a person who's changed their life around? I just hope Jesus doesn't ask you "Why pardon if there was no error in the legal process?" when you get to the pearly gates.

I'm not saying governors or presidents have to pardon people (obviously), or that everyone with a criminal past should be pardoned, just that there are cases when it would seem appropriate and, well, a nice thing to do. And governors and presidents have the legal power to do it. And yes, he is flip-flopping, as he tends to do on other issues.

Dror

[CrimsonKairos]

Say you catch two fish and drop 'em on the deck of your fishing boat. What's the difference between a dead fish and a live fish?

A dead fish doesn't move.

A live fish flip-flops around the deck.

Mitt's mind and opinions are live, growing and changing and to me, that's evidence that his mind isn't closed off to new information. Just because he changes his mind about things doesn't mean he's somehow stupid or untrustworthy.

Geez, when a politician refuses to change their views (Bush on how to handle the war) they're called names and condemned for being inflexible and closed-minded. Then, when a politician realizes he was wrong and does change his mind, he's called a flip-flopper, untrustworthy and accused of moral ambiguity.

I guess you just can't win with some people.

p.s. the fish analogy was just for kicks, I wasn't seriously using that as a reason to support Mitt. B)

[FrankJL]

Flipping points of views, based on evolving personal views is one thing, flipping your point of view for political expediency is a whole different animal. Romney's problem is people see him as flipping on too many issues, convenient to him running for a national elected office, as opposed to just running in the liberal state of Massachusetts.

I have no idea what his motivations are for changing the issues, and yes I do know the standard line about "human cloning" changed his mind on somethings. However, that has really no relevance to abortion or other social issues he's flipped on. Also its not just social issues he's evolving on, he's also pushing a lot of economic, and domestic policy issues, that are the exact opposite of issues he pushed while Gov. of Mass, and in his campaign for Senator of Mass.

I do however, find it fascinating to watch the very same conservatives that belittled John Kerry for the very same thing only 3 years ago rush to defend Romney...seems a little hypocritical to me..

This all is a moot point though. If Thompson officially enters the race, Romney doesn't' stand a chance of winning the primary.

The best Romney can hope for then, is to take up residence at the US Naval Observatory.

[CrimsonKairos]

Thompson's over-hyped. Name-recognition isn't enough to finish the marathon to the White House.

Romney has Iowa and New Hampshire in the bag...and if he can snag South Carolina, well then... B)

[FrankJL]

Thompson's over-hyped. Name-recognition isn't enough to finish the marathon to the White House.

I don't see how he is over-hyped. He was tied last week in 2 separate polls (Rasmussen, and AP/IPSO) with Giuliani, and he's still not even formally in the race. A lot of conservatives want him to enter, because there is a lack of real conservatism in the top three candidates right now. He is by far more conservative then Giuliani, McCain, or Romney.

A lot of Romney's votes are coming from people that see him as the least of 3 evils, and see him as the closest thing to a conservative of the top 3. They don't like the liberal republican Giuliani, and think McCain is a traitor to the party. Romney will lose a lot of that support to Thompson, and the polls clearly reflect that, when you compare polls with Thompson in them, to ones without him.

Romney has Iowa and New Hampshire in the bag...and if he can snag South Carolina, well then...

Romney only has the Iowa straw poll and the NH primary in the bag, because McCain and Giuliani are not even competing there. They both know how unimportant they are, considering just a week later there will be simultaneous primaries in nearly 15 other states just a few days later.

They look at 2000 when McCain won both easily, only to get handily beaten by Bush in nearly every other state. McCain won't repeat that mistake again, and Giuliani is smart enough to read the tea leaves on them states.

The early primary states don't really mean much overall, its good fodder for people that like to get into the deep nuances of politics, but isn't really that important overall. Plus more and more states are moving their primary dates up, so the impact of Iowa Cacus and the NH Primary will be even less.

Though like I said before, I think Romney's best plan of action (assuming Thompson does enter), would be to cozy up to Giuliani. Even with Thompson in, I can still see Giuliani winning. Live for 8 years at the Naval Observatory, then work on moving to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...

[CrimsonKairos]

I think Romney's experiences, successes and philosophies would be the best thing for America right now. I don't care whether he's the most conservative candidate. I only care that he's conservative about what matters most, and I think he's nailed it with boiling it all down to economic strength, strong families, and a superior military.

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

I think Romney's experiences, successes and philosophies would be the best thing for America right now. I don't care whether he's the most conservative candidate. I only care that he's conservative about what matters most, and I think he's nailed it with boiling it all down to economic strength, strong families, and a superior military.

Hi CK,

I went to church with Mitt and his wife thirty years ago. He was very, very nice to me, where others often treated me as if I were invisible. This was because it was a student ward in Cambridge MA where everyone was either going to Harvard or MIT, except me. So, I was often treated like I was from the other side of the tracks, but not by Mitt. Anne . . . that's another story.

Obviously, as you've probably gathered by now, I am absolutely opposed to his politics and couldn't disagree with you more. But I'll always remember Mitt, the person, fondly.

Emma

[Dror]

Hi CK,

I went to church with Mitt and his wife thirty years ago. He was very, very nice to me, where others often treated me as if I were invisible. This was because it was a student ward in Cambridge MA where everyone was either going to Harvard or MIT, except me. So, I was often treated like I was from the other side of the tracks, but not by Mitt. Anne . . . that's another story.

Obviously, as you've probably gathered by now, I am absolutely opposed to his politics and couldn't disagree with you more. But I'll always remember Mitt, the person, fondly.

Emma

Emma,

Thanks for that. It's always important to remember there's a real person behind the political figure. I've heard that Ronald Reagan was a very kind person, though I strenuously oppose his politics. And I don't think anybody will deny the good that Jimmy Carter, the man, is currently doing (such as Habitat for Humanity), whatever they may think of his politics.

Thank you for the reminder. :)

Dror

[FrankJL]

I only care that he's conservative about what matters most

Explain what you mean here, this is kinda vague.... What issues specifically are you talking about, and what are his views, as opposed the views of the others that you like?

[CrimsonKairos]

I think I answered your question with the rest of the sentence you cut off in that quote.

Strong military, economy, family. He's the candidate pushing strong families the most, and frankly, that's really important what with today's epidemic of fatherless homes and teen violence/drug abuse, etc...

[Palerider]

my comment may not belong here in the Mitt thread....but I have noticed the Dem candidates are starting to sling some mud now.....now it might get interesting.....LOL!!!!