Some of Mitt Romney's critics have made irresponsible allegations with regard to Mitt's record. Many, including media, have failed to verify the factual basis for these claims and have continued to repeat them.

False Claims Corrected:

• Death Penalty

  
  -They falsely charge a "flip-flop" on the death penalty because, while Governor, Mitt Romney did not execute any criminals. The truth is, Massachusetts does not have the death penalty. Executions would have been illegal. Romney actively fought for a death penalty, filing before the state legislature on April 28, 2005, "An Act Reinstating Capital Punishment In The Commonwealth," however the legislature voted against the act, House Bill 3834.
  Back to top

• Abortion

  
  -Many false charges are circulating against Mitt Romney on the abortion issue. The following is one example. Read our special feature, Prolife Principles, for thorough information explaining why critcs are wrong.
  
  A common charge is that Mitt Romney allowed for inexpensive abortion co-pays in his healthcare plan. In truth, the co-pays were forced not by the bill but by court decisions which Romney disagrees with(1). The bill itself calls for privatized insurance(2). The court rulings require state programs to cover abortion.
  
  Some have claimed that the court decisions were not legally binding on Romney, since the decisions were not codified into law. However, this attempted criticism could be applied as easily to Roe v Wade itself, as many states have not codified it into law, yet adhere to it, understanding that even though it could be called a "declaratory opinion" it sets precedent under Stare Decisis. In other words, the actual "judgment" of Roe v Wade was technically only about one plaintiff and one defendant, but the "opinion" is understood to have sweeping ramifications in all similar cases. The argument against Romney, therefore, is mistaken.
  
  Another claim often made is that the term "medically necessary abortions" used in the court decisions only applies to abortions where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Again, this is incorrect. "Medically necessary" is widely interpreted to mean treatment provided for any non-cosmetic, non-recreational reason. It applies to pain, and therefore applies to any pregnant woman seeking an abortion, since women are naturally pained or expected to become pained physically or psychologically as a result of a pregnancy.
  Back to top

• "Morning After" Pills

  
  -Critics claim Romney forced private hospitals to provide rape victims "morning after" pills. The truth is, Romney vetoed the legislation(3). The legislature overrode Romney's veto(3), after which Romney tried to make an exemption for private hospitals by citing a conscience clause in state law which protects private hospitals.(4)
  
  There was one clear obstacle to Romney’s preferred exemption: the legislature has authority to supersede previous laws with new laws, and the clear intent of the legislature was for this bill to supersede any contradictory statutes or provisions rather than to work in harmony with the older statute. Thus, if Romney were to challenge the intended effect of the law, he would have had to argue disingenuously in court that the older provision and the new provision could be reconciled when that was likely not true. It is perhaps not surprising that Romney felt bound by the new law and it was in this context that Romney told the Department of Public Health they had to enforce the intent of the law even though he disagreed with it.
  Back to top

• Social Security

  
  -They accuse Romney of changing his position on social security because he is now considering reforms to social security yet in 1994 he said, "I don't think you go back and rewrite the contract the government has with people who've retired."(5) However, not only have circumstances changed since 1994, but Romney's positions are not contradictory. Guaranteeing promised benefits to retired seniors does not mean social security cannot be altered for those who are not retired, such as through personal accounts or changing the retirement age.
  
  Some have accused Romney of hypocrisy because Romney wants to save social security yet allegedly called social security a “criminal enterprise.” However, it was not Romney but Texas Governor Perry who used those words in mischaracterizing Romney’s statement. In reality, Romney was attacking Congress for hurting social security, and therefore was not attacking social security but defending it. Romney has consistently defended social security. What Romney actually said:
  
  “To put it in a nutshell, the American people have been effectively defrauded out of their social security. In 1982, the government raised social security taxes with the intention of creating a surplus that could be set aside in some fashion for the baby boomers when they retired. But for the last thirty years, the surplus has been spent, not on retirement security, but on regular budget items.
  
  “Let’s look at what would happen if someone in the private sector did a similar thing. Suppose two grandparents created a trust fund, appointed a bank as trustee, and instructed the bank to invest the proceeds of the trust fund so as to provide for their grandchildren’s education. Suppose further that the bank used the proceeds for it’s own purposes so that when the grandchildren turned 18, there was no money for them to go to college. What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money? They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to Congress every two years.” (No Apology, HC, p. 157-58)
  
  Romney’s position of trying to save social security echoes Ronald Reagan's conservative vision:
  
  “There is no more important domestic issue on which we have to have a national consensus than social security … I am determined that we put social security back on a sound financial footing and restore the confidence and peace of mind of the American public in its social security system … I believe in the social security system. I believe that it will survive and keep its promise to this generation of beneficiaries and those to come.” -Ronald Reagan, December 29, 1981
  Back to top

• Waiting Period for Guns

  
  -They accuse Romney of changing his position on waiting periods for guns. The fact is, it was a change in technology not position. Romney supports background checks to ensure we aren't selling guns to criminals, a position which stems from conservative "tough on crime" principles. Technology has changed so waiting periods are no longer required for conducting background checks. As Romney told George Stephanopoulos in a 2007 interview, "Today we don't have the Brady bill because we have instantaneous background checks. That's no longer a operative or needed measure."(6)
  
  Many additional misconceptions exist regarding Mitt Romney and guns. We highly suggest this page. There you will find a great deal of sourced information debunking myths, as well as extensive praise for Mitt Romney from the NRA and other pro-gun groups, including praise for his so-called “assault weapons ban” which was actually a conservative downgrade to the previous Massachusetts law.
  Back to top

• Tax Loopholes

  
  -Some have claimed that closing tax loopholes, as Romney did in Massachusetts, is the same as raising taxes. However, as Ronald Reagan has explained, lower tax rates are good but applying tax rates evenly – without loopholes – is also good.
  
  Reagan: “Tax loopholes have been closed, making the tax structure more equitable.” (Budget Proposal to Congress, January 31, 1983)
  
  Reagan: "Tax loopholes have been closed, improving the equity of the system." (Feb. 4, 1985)
  
  Reagan Q&A:
  
  Question: “But in addition to that, you’re also talking about loopholes, tax breaks, whatever you want to call it.
  
  Reagan's Answer: “I hesitate, I won’t answer that now, as to what all will be in the study. We are, as I said before, in our present proposal, we are changing some that we believe, while they were undoubtedly well-intentioned, they have led to some taking an, getting an advantage that is denied to others. Where that is true, then that should be corrected, whether you have a deficit or have a tax reform or not." (March 28, 1984)
  
  As Reagan understood, level competition ensures maximum value for the consumer. The laws as originally written did not intend for the tax “breaks” in question to be legal. They were oversights. So closing the loopholes does not have the effect of raising taxes but has the effect of applying tax rates evenly, which is a fundamental principle of conservative capitalism. If one business is paying less in taxes because of a loophole, the state is giving them an unfair advantage over their competitors. Because of this unfair advantage they do not need to offer as high of a quality of product or service in order to compete, which means the state is interfering in free market competition, and capitalism suffers. Romney repeatedly proposed tax cuts in MA, however the legislature wouldn’t go along with the larger ones.
  Back to top

• Tax Burden in Massachusetts

  
  -They claim the total tax burden in MA went up under Romney. This falsely implies that Romney raised taxes. In truth, Romney repeatedly proposed tax cuts, which were shot down by the Democratic MA legislature, starting as soon as he began to turn around the economy, prompting the liberal Boston Globe to complain after Romney's first year in office, "The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut."(10) Some communities in MA chose to raise property taxes at the local level which Romney had no control over (7).
  
  Some critics claim that Romney's cuts in state spending forced local communities to raise their taxes, but the fact is they were under no obligation to raise taxes. Romney also closed loopholes in existing tax law, allowing the state to collect taxes from those who had been using schemes to reduce income reported on state tax returns (8).
  
  Some critics falsely assert that Romney raised capital gains tax rates. In truth, the tax increase was enacted before Romney was elected governor but took effect during Romney's term after having been tied up in court for several years(9). Critics are unable to point to any tax increases from Romney, and Romney fought for tax cuts and did get some tax cuts enacted.
  Back to top

• Fees

  
  -Some people believe Romney’s increases in fees are identical to taxes. On the contrary, Romney saved millions of tax dollars by ending the taxpayer subsidizing of fees. A fee covers the cost for a special good or service provided to an individual by the government; when a fee is not high enough to cover the cost of the service provided, taxpayers end up subsidizing. Romney shifted the burden from the community onto the individual who benefits from the service provided.
  
  Every state raises fees to keep up with the cost of service. Texas Governor Rick Perry, for instance, has accurately stated that he has not raised taxes. He has however raised fees by several billion dollars. In MA, some fees had not been raised in a very long time.
  
  Ronald Reagan was an outspoken proponent of fees. For instance, here is one of Reagan's many statements: "The third component of the deficit reduction program involves user fees, or more appropriately, the recovery of costs borne by the taxpayers generally, but that predominantly benefit a limited group of businesses, communities or individuals ... it is simply inexcusable and intolerable that yacht owners escape without paying even a small part of the Coast Guard services; or that commercial and general aviation are not paying the cost of the air traffic control system that ensures their safety; or that ship and barge operators do not pay a fair share of the costs of waterways maintained by the Federal Government. Our user fee package corrects these and similar shortcomings in current budget policy and will contribute significantly toward reducing the deficit" (February 8, 1982).
  
  Some specific fee-related concerns people have expressed are addressed as follows:
  
  Fuel fee. Romney updated an already existing per-gallon gasoline fee to offset state costs in managing underground fuel storage leaks. At the time, Romney faced a backlog of cleanup claims for the underfunded state program. It is true that in the years since this increase, the fee has generated more revenue than Romney had anticipated. The initial costs, caused by the backlog of claims, were not representative of future costs, due to improved storage tank quality. So that was a mistake, however I think the important thing is that Romney did not spend the surplus but tried to return it to the people. Romney turned a 3 Billion dollar budget deficit crisis into a surplus. He put the surplus in a rainy day fund and tried to give back to the taxpayers most of the 240 million which he estimated had been raised by fees, starting as soon as he began to turn around the economy, prompting the liberal Boston Globe to complain after Romney’s first year in office, “The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut” (“Romney’s Real Agenda” The Boston Globe 11 May 2004).
  
  Parking fee at state parks. The taxpayer was paying for the parking space. One parking space costs over 20,000 dollars, not including upkeep, re-pavement, snow removal, security etc. Facing a budget crisis, Romney realized the state could no longer subsidize public leisure. To provide the service, the cost shifted from the taxpayer to the individual who chooses to use the service.
  
  Gun permits. First, when Romney did his update it only raised the fee to $75. The legislature later brought it to $100, which Romney partially compensated for by ordering that people not be charged for replacing of lost or stolen permits, and signing a law allowing permits to expire after 6 years instead of 3. The reason for the fee increase was the MA gun control act of 1998 which declared that the licensing authority is only allowed to keep half of the fee, and the rest goes into a new record-keeping fund. The act also institutes a number of other changes which raise overhead and impacted costs. The people are ultimately responsible for this new fund and all the new regulations and overhead, since they elected their representatives. Thus, the people collectively chose the cost of providing the service, before Romney was Governor. Inflation was also relevant, but unlike most of the fees Romney updated, inflation was only a secondary factor for the increased gun permit costs.
  Back to top

• Ronald Reagan

  
  -They claim Romney changed his views on Ronald Reagan, because Romney was an independent during the Reagan-Bush era and said in a 1994 debate that he was "not trying to return to Reagan-Bush," but later became a big fan of Reagan. However, Romney, who is not a career politician, was involved in the private sector and in raising his family during the Reagan era. Furthermore, Romney has stated that he voted for Ronald Reagan both times and that he was only registered as an Independent because in Massachusetts, Independents are allowed to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries, a common practice in Massachusetts, found useful in helping nominate more moderate Democrats.
  
  Romney's political involvement and focus on political issues came later, not unlike many Americans who do not have fully formulated political views. Ronald Reagan himself was a Democrat until the age of 50 when he switched to the Republican party. Like Romney, when Reagan was involved in the private sector he largely stayed out of politics. The more involved Reagan became in politics, the more conservative his views became. For example, Reagan changed from being prochoice to being prolife.
  Back to top

• Lifetime Membership in the NRA

  
  -Governor Romney purchased a life membership in the NRA. They point out that Romney has not been an NRA member his whole life and attempt to paint it as a lie. But "Life Membership" is the name of the membership. Romney never claimed to have been a member his whole life. They are perhaps confusing it with Romney's claim to have been a lifelong hunter - which is an accurate claim, although it mostly consisted of Romney hunting small game as a youth.
  
  Many additional misconceptions exist regarding Mitt Romney and guns. We highly suggest this page. There you will find a great deal of sourced information debunking myths, as well as extensive praise for Mitt Romney from the NRA and other pro-gun groups, including praise for his so-called “assault weapons ban” which was actually a conservative downgrade to the previous Massachusetts law.
  Back to top

• Amnesty

  
  -Critics falsely charge that Mitt Romney supported McCain-Kennedy in 2005 and as Governor instituted sanctuary cities. The reality: sanctuary status was instituted on a city level outside Romney's purview. With a liberal legislature, no bill outlawing sanctuary cities would have passed. Romney did not endorse McCain's bill in 2005; in an interview with the Boston Globe he explicitly refused to endorse it (11). Romney did say in the same interview that the bill was "reasonable," but the 2007 bill is very different from the 2005 bill; the provisions Romney most strongly objects to, like the z-visa (12), were not in the 2005 bill. Accordingly, his position did not change when he opposed the 2007 bill, but the bill itself had changed.
  Back to top

• Illegal Aliens

  
  -They claim Mitt Romney hired illegal aliens to work on his yard. The truth is, Romney hired a lawn care agency (13). Romney did not hire the illegal employees. Anyone who conducts business with any company runs the risk that some of that company's employees might be illegal. Most people who purchase produce at grocery stores have thereby often paid for services performed by illegal aliens, which is the same thing critics accuse Romney of doing.
  
  A few have faulted Romney for not reporting the agency when the illegal employees were brought to his attention. In truth, the media brought this information to Romney's attention and made it a major story.
  
  Some have expressed concern because Romney told the owner of the lawn care agency he can’t have illegals on his property since he was “running for office.” However, the illegals were already gone when Romney had that discussion with the owner. The context of the discussion was the owner asking for a second chance. Romney gave him that second chance, but explained the political reality that people would try to blame him if it happened again. It did happen again and Romney fired the agency. As he predicted, opponents have tried to use it against him politically.
  Back to top

• Illegal Immigrants

  
  -They claim Romney changed his position on illegal immigrants, since he once said that some illegal immigrants should begin a process toward application for citizenship.(14) However, Romney was not proposing that any illegal immigrants should receive a special pathway to citizenship which is not available to people waiting in line in their home countries.
  
  Instead, Romney was proposing that some illegal immigrants, because of criminal history or other circumstances, should be barred from applying for citizenship, while those who are paying taxes and not receiving any government benefits should be allowed to get in line along with people in their home countries. Romney clarified, "I am going to tell them to go home, but they start by beginning the process of applying for citizenship. But I do not believe -- or applying for permanent residency. They're not going to be barred from doing that, but they do not get any advantage by having come here illegally."(15)
  Back to top

• Vietnam

  
  -They accuse Romney of "flip-flopping" because he said in 2007 that in "many respects" he had longed to represent his country in Vietnam, but in 1994 stated that it had not been his desire to serve in Vietnam. However, each quote was made in reference to a different context. The 2007 statement was in reference to himself in the '60s as a single young man serving as a missionary; the 1994 statement was in reference to himself as a married man with a new child in the '70s.
  
  In the context of the 2007 statement, Romney was a single young man on a draft deferment for missionary service in France. In the other context, five years later, Romney was married with a new child; his deferment for mission and school had ended and Romney entered the draft lottery. When quoting Romney's statements, critics leave out the parts of the quotes which contain the context. What Romney actually said in 2007 is: "I really don't recall thinking about political positions when I was knocking at the door in France. I was supportive of my country. I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam."(16)
  
  In 1994, this is what Romney said, in context: "I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft. If drafted, I would have been happy to serve, and if I didn't get drafted I was happy to be with my wife and new child"(17)
  
  Note that when Romney said it had not been his desire to serve in Vietnam, he also explained, in the line critics leave out, that he would have still been "happy" to serve if drafted. In addition to the other context critics leave out, they also fail to mention that Romney's father publicly dropped his support for the Vietnam war while Mitt was on his mission. When Mitt left on his mission, his father was an avid supporter of Vietnam. When Mitt returned home, his father avidly opposed the war(18), thereby lessening Mitt's enthusiasm for serving. Of final note is that the reporter who quoted Mitt in 1994 blundered by asserting, falsely but forgivably, that Romney's statement about his wife and child was in reference to his "missionary days."
  Back to top

• State Troopers

  
  -Some have claimed Romney waited until his last weeks in office before authorizing state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws. However, the word “wait” is misleading, because Romney was waiting for the federal government to grant the permission he requested.
  
  In June of 2006, a number of illegals were found to be working for contractors hired by the government of Massachusetts. When Romney found out, he sent a request to the federal government for permission to deputize state agents for enforcing federal immigration laws, since the laws in Massachusetts were insufficient and the attorney general was not cooperative. Romney ended up waiting 6 months to hear back from the feds, which is why antagonists claim Romney didn’t tell state troopers to act until a few weeks before he left office – even though he had put in the request immediately after the crack-down exposed that illegal immigrants were being hired.
  Back to top

• Individual Mandates

  
  -Critics have characterized Mitt Romney's health care plan as an affront to liberty. However, the new-age version of liberty pushed by Romney’s critics contradicts the concept of liberty pioneered by the Founding Fathers. Romney's plan adheres to those principles of liberty upon which our nation was founded. In our extensive treatment of the topic, we discuss early precedent set by Founders, including Samuel Adams who instituted in Massachusetts what can be considered the first mandated insurance-type program in the United States. We also expose flaws in a number of common criticisms raised against Romney's health care plan.
  Read The Truth About Mandates Here
  Back to top

• Bank Bailouts

  
  -They claim Mitt Romney changed his position on the bank bailouts, because in Romney's Feb. 2009 speech at CPAC he said they were "necessary," but in a Value Voters Summit speech in September 2009 Romney said they were "reason to be alarmed." However, in context these statements are not contradictory even though they can be made to appear so.
  
  When Romney said they were necessary, he had seconds earlier set up the context for why they were necessary by explaining that Washington politicians had allowed the abuses at Fannie and Freddie which led to the financial crisis, and that "in some cases they encouraged those abuses for political gain." This is entirely consistent with his later statement that the bailouts were reason to be alarmed. Moreover, when Romney said the bailouts were "reason to be alarmed," he was listing them as part of a trend of government actions which show the government is not learning but continuing in the wrong direction. Romney has consistently held that the bank bailouts were unfortunate but necessary and the auto bailouts should never have happened and were an abuse of the TARP money.
  Back to top

• Minimum Wage

  
  -They accuse Romney of changing his position on the minimum wage. However, Romney's position has been consistent. At one time Romney said the minimum wage "ought to keep pace with inflation"(19) and at another time said that "raising the minimum wage excessively" should be avoided(20). These two statements are not contradictory even though they can be made to appear so.
  Back to top

• George Romney and Martin Luther King Jr.

  
  -They claim Romney fabricated seeing his father march with Martin Luther King, Jr. However, Mitt is not the only one with this impression. Others have taken it further, claiming Mitt's father, George Romney, and King marched side by side.
  
  Eyewitness Ashby Richardson says she was "only 15 or 20 feet from where both of them were."(21) Another eyewitness, Shirley Basore, recalls, "They were hand in hand." Wilma Wood Henrickson wrote in her 1991 book "Detroit Perspectives" that "Governor George Romney and Walter Reuther were among the prominent whites marching with Reverend King." David S. Broder wrote in his 1967 book, The Republican Establishment, that George Romney "has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit."
  
  Critics claim there are no official records of the two marching together in person. However, the question is not whether Romney actually marched with King but whether King and Romney left the impression they had marched together. Clearly, they did. In addition to Romney giving outspoken support for King, and King commenting favorably on the prospect of Romney becoming president (22), residents had reason to make a visual association between the two because Michigan television showed both leading marches, with stock footage montaged together. Thus people "saw" them marching together, consistent with the impression expressed by Romney, who was a young teenager during the 1963 March.
  Back to top

• Timetables

  
  -Critics claim that in early 2008 Mitt Romney proposed setting a date for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. However, the quote they take out of context specifically stated Romney's intention to work with the Iraqi Prime Minister in private negotiations, which is quite different from a public pronouncement of withdrawal:
  
  Romney said, “Well, there’s no question but that the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement. You don’t want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you’re going to be gone.”
  Back to top

• Gay Marriage

  
  -They claim Romney flipped on gay marriage. The fact is, Romney has consistently opposed gay marriage. When asked in 1994, Romney said: "I line up with Gov. Weld on that ... he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position"(23). When asked again in 2002 if he supported gay marriage, Romney still answered "no"(24).
  
  Critics also point to Romney's disagreement with a proposed constitutional amendment concerning gay marriage, House Bill 4840, which was both proposed and shot down prior to Romney becoming governor. However, Romney's disagreement with the amendment was not over its clause which banned gay marriage, but over a separate clause, which Romney feared "would outlaw domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples"(25). The problem with the amendment is that it falsely implied that Massachusetts law itemized "benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage," which the amendment prohibits in non-marital relationships. Without itemization in the law, the prohibition was without limit.
  
  When gay marriage came before the MA Supreme Court, Romney fought against the decision which made gay marriage a right. As governor he had to enforce the ruling, which some have faulted him for doing, but critics do not apply that standard to other issues, for instance faulting Pro-Life governors for enabling abortions in their states because of court decisions legalizing abortion.
  Back to top

• Civil Unions

  
  -They say Romney changed his position on civil unions. In truth, Romney said he opposed civil unions but "would look to protect already established rights and extend basic civil rights to domestic partnerships"(24). Critics who fail to distinguish legally between a "domestic partnership" and a "civil union" have falsely characterized Romney's statement as a support of civil unions while neglecting his answer about civil unions in that same questionnaire.
  
  The only instance in which Romney considered civil unions was as a possible downgrade from same-sex marriage as imposed by the state high court. At the time, Romney stated he would prefer to not have either one but felt it was a necessary compromise in order to prohibit gay marriage, which redefines family. In Romney's exact words, "If the question is: "Do you support gay marriage or civil unions?" I'd say neither; if they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I'd rather have civil unions than gay marriage."(25)
  Back to top

• Gay Rights

  
  -They claim Romney has changed his position on gay rights, citing a Romney 1994 statement supporting gay rights. However, the term "gay rights" had a different meaning in 1994 than it does today. Moreover, critics falsely paraphrase Romney's statement, based on headlines rather than the actual quote from Romney, as a claim that he would be further to the left on the issue than Ted Kennedy.
  
  In fact, what Romney actually said was that Kennedy would be less effective because he is viewed as too extreme: "when Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he's seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights, he's seen as a centrist and a moderate"(23). Critics also cite a letter Romney wrote to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, claiming that Romney said he would not only match but surpass Kennedy's "record" on gay rights, implying that Romney took the same positions as Kennedy and would take them even further.
  
  However, critics falsely paraphrase Romney, who in reality made his statement in reference to Kennedy's "considerable record in the area of civil rights," speaking of civil rights in general terms, not gay rights exclusively. Only then did Romney go on to argue that part of achieving civil rights goals is to "make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern," stating that he could do what Kennedy "cannot do," because "the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party." Romney said he could "be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts," which Kennedy clearly could not do.
  
  While Mitt Romney has been consistent in his gay rights position of 1994, the Republican party has moved to the position that Mitt has held all along. Mitt is the only one who has not flip-flopped on the issue.
  Back to top

• Gay and Lesbian Youth Groups

  
  -They accuse Romney of instituting a Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth which funded speakers and activities for high school children. In truth, Massachusetts had the Commission long before Romney took office. While Romney had power to dissolve the Commission, the people of the state overwhelmingly wanted the Commission; dissolving it would have been a violation of their trust and would have created gridlock.
  
  In the past, the Commission had funding as high as $1.6 million dollars, but Romney brought the funding down to $125,000, which the legislature doubled and Romney the next year settled on the $250,000.(26) Romney explained some of what he liked about the Commission, saying, "The work that they're doing to prevent suicide and prevent violence is important work, and we support the work which they're doing"(27)
  
  In May of 2006, MassResistance presented evidence to Governor Romney which showed that the Commission had been sponsoring inappropriate activities. Upon learning of this, Romney decided to dissolve the Commission, but after a few hours reached a compromise, saying that he would only dissolve it if they did not focus on their "original mission"(28). This prompted the state legislature to immediately craft a new Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth which the governor would have no power to dissolve, and inserted it into the state budget the following month. Romney vetoed that proposal, but the legislature overrode the veto.
  Back to top

• Same-Sex Adoptions

  
  -They accuse Romney of not allowing the Catholic Church to exclude gays and lesbians from adopting children through its adoption service. However, Romney disagreed with the decision which caused the imposition on Catholic Charities(29), particularly after the court legalized gay marriage. Romney had no authority to unilaterally protect the Catholic Church from anti-discrimination laws(30). Romney had his staff draft a bill to exempt Catholic Charities, but the bill did not pass.(31)
  
  Some have criticized Romney for not taking action against the state Department of Social Services when they named a same-sex couple as "parents of the year" in 2006(32). However, after the court legalized gay marriage, the same anti-discrimination laws(30) which prevented Romney from protecting Catholic Charities also prevented Romney from penalizing the employees who were involved in determining the "parents of the year," or from ordering them to only consider opposite-sex candidates.
  Back to top

• Boy Scouts of America

  
  -They claim Romney wanted to force the Boy Scouts of America to admit gay scouts. In fact, Romney actually said, "I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue," but added that he personally believed "all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."(26) Back to top

• Boy Scouts of America and 2002 Olympic Games

  
  -Critics claim that Romney banned the Boy Scouts from participating in the 2002 Winter Olympics because of their stance on homosexuals. In reality, Scouts were not banned, and according to a local paper, Boy Scouts received "a list of volunteer opportunities they are eligible to participate in," although they could not serve as regular volunteers due to "the minimum age requirement of 18 years."(33)
  Back to top

• Judicial Appointments

  
  -They claim Romney is not conservative because he did not have a Republican litmus test in his selection of judicial nominees. However, almost all of Romney's appointments, 30 out of 36, were to lower court positions where judges deal directly with criminals at the district and magistrate levels. Rather than political affiliation, Romney looked for effective prosecutorial experience and a record of being tough on crime. As Romney explained when asked about it, "people on both sides of the aisle want to put the bad guys away."
  
  Romney also explained that even though he had only a few chances to appoint judges to higher courts, and no chances to appoint anyone to the MA Supreme Judicial Court, in those cases the criteria changes to include "strict construction, judicial philosophy"(34), which he adhered to in those appointments. In all, only 12.5% of registered voters in Massachusetts are Republican(35) and Romney's 9 Republican nominees count for 25% of his total judicial appointments, representing Republicans twice as well as they are represented in the general voting public. But more important than political affiliation, Romney's appointments represent the relevant conservative qualifications.
  Back to top

• Bush Tax Cuts

  
  -They accuse Romney of opposing Bush's tax cuts. In fact, Romney never opposed the Bush tax cuts. In negotiations with a heavily Democratic legislature, Romney chose not to "weigh in on federal issues," including the cuts (36).
  
  The false claim was based on speculation in an article for the liberal Boston Globe which cited a quote from an anonymous "observer" at a private meeting but did not seek either a response or clarification from Romney with regards to that quote. Romney maintains that he has always supported the Bush tax cuts (37), a fact which does not contradict his decision to not distract from where his impact would be most effective, saying as governor: "I see my role as helping do a good job for the people of Massachusetts, and so I'm not going to be playing a political role outside of that."(38)
  
  Romney, who evidently was never asked by Bush to endorse the tax cuts, never said he would refuse to endorse the tax cuts. The word "refuse," used by the writer of the article, initially came from a political antagonist, liberal Democratic Representative Barney Frank from MA, whose statement, calculated to weaken Romney, is not an objective characterization.
  Back to top

• Paperback Changes

  
  -Critics cite differences between the paperback and hardcover editions of Romney's book, "No Apology," accusing Mitt Romney of subtly changing positions on Obama's policies to harden his stance for political reasons. However, critics falsely lead people to this conclusion by taking excerpts out of context. For instance, critics claim that Romney called Obama's stimulus plan "a failure" in the paperback but not in the hardcover. The truth however is that Romney wrote the hardcover during the initial phase of the stimulus and thus could not yet claim that it had "failed," or elaborate on the effectiveness of details which had not yet been implemented. But Romney specifically said on page 145 of the hardcover that Obama's stimulus had "already been far less than successful," and Romney predicted "it will impose a heavy burden on the economy in the intermediate and long term."
  
  Critics also fail to mention that on page 31 of the hardcover, Romney says "the record and achievement of modern free-market capitalism" is "now at risk because of the economic policies of President Obama." Romney goes on to say, "His effort to expand the size, reach and role of government is without precedent in our history. His plans would leave us with a crushing deficit and debt, far beyond anything we have ever experienced." Also on page 31, Romney writes that "at a time when Europe is moving away from socialism and its many failures, President Obama is moving toward that direction."
  
  Likewise, critics claim that in the hardcover Romney promoted Obama's stimulus on pages 144-145 as something that would "accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery." But in fact, Romney's statement was alluding to the limited tax cut portion of the stimulus, having put it in that context in the previous line which critics leave out, by stating that congressional Democrats fail to understand "the crucial role played by tax cuts." It is in this context that Romney said the stimulus would not help "as much as it could have had it included genuine tax- and job-generating incentives."
  
  In a similar criticism, critics accuse Romney of being soft on Obamacare in the hardcover because only the paperback states that it should be "repealed." The truth however is that Obamacare had not passed when Romney wrote the hardcover edition and its passing was widely believed to be doomed at the time because of the election of MA Senator Scott Brown. The Democratic tactics which led to the passage of Obamacare took place after Romney's book was written and in the process of being putlished. With no law to repeal, a call for repeal would have made no sense and therefore Romney had no pressing need to discuss Obama's health care ideas in more extended detail.
  
  Another false claim is that Romney stated in his hardcover that the health care plan he passed in Massachusetts should be applied at a federal level. This is a gross distortion of Romney's words. In fact, what Romney wrote on the page in question (Hardcover, p. 177) is this: “My own preference would be to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model if they choose, or they could develop plans of their own.” It was in this context that he went on to say a line about accomplishing something for the whole country, and he specifically was referring to “something people have been talking about for decades,” which obviously can’t be his own health care plan which had only been around a few years, not decades. He was talking about “portable, affordable health insurance,” and he was not saying his way was the only way to get there. Romney has always maintained this position, even before announcing his first Presidential bid. For instance, in 2006 Mitt Romney said this on Meet the Press: “There are certain aspects of it that I think would work across the country, perhaps better in some states than others. Of course the great thing about federalism is you let a state try it and see how it works before you spread it out.” Back to top

• Ohio Ballot Measures

  
  -Critics accuse Mitt Romney of flip-flopping on John Kasich's collective-bargaining law in Ohio, claiming Mitt refused to comment on a ballot referendum concerning the law but then expressed his support the following day. In reality, Romney did not refuse to comment on the ballot measure but in fact had been refusing to comment on the other two ballot measures. As he stated the following day, “What I was referring to is I know there are other ballot questions there in Ohio and I wasn’t taking a position on those.” He added that he supports Kasich “110%.” All of the evidence supports Romney's account and contradicts the claim of critics from the beginning.
  
  Initially, Mitt came under fire for telling reporters, “I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues.” However, Mitt did not say this in response to any question about the collective-bargaining measure. Rather, a group of reporters had gathered around Mitt and began asking multiple questions. Romney addressed his response to the entire group of reporters, not to any specific reporter.
  
  Romney's complete statement explicity says he's talking about only "the two" out of the three measures:
  
  “I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues. Those are up to the people of Ohio. But I certainly support the effort of the governor to reign in the scale of government. I am not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives. But I am certainly supportive of the Republican Party’s efforts here.”
  
  Moreover, his original statement offers explicit support for “the Republican Party’s efforts here,” and “the effort of the governor to reign in the scale of government,” evidently expressing support for the collective bargaining measure.
  
  Some of the details cited by critics attempting to paint Romney as flip-flopping actually support Romney's account. For instance, Politico pointed out that Mitt had expressed support for Kasich’s law in June, and Romney was visiting a phone bank where supporters of Kasich's reforms were making calls in support of the collective-bargaining measure, at the time of the "controversial" statement.
  Back to top

• Global Warming

  
  -Critics allege Mitt Romney flip-flopped on Global Warming because he stated that he believes man contributes something to warming, although he is quick to state he doesn't know how much, while on a recent occasion he stated that he does not know what is causing climate change, and expressed his opposition to cap-and-trade.
  
  This is not a flip-flop, for multiple reasons. First, Mitt Romney rejected a regional cap-and-trade initiative while governor, after looking into the issue, and has consistently opposed cap-and-trade.
  
  Second, Romney never said man is causing climate change. He said man is probably contributing "some" but not that man is the "cause." CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases cause warming. It's a matter of science. Romney accepts that fact without accepting the dramatic claims made by using climate models. The fact that CO2 causes some warming does not mean it causes enough warming to create the changes we observe. So there's no contradiction in what Romney said. We don't know what is causing climate change, because we don't know if man is contributing enough to cause the changes we observe. The two statements go hand in hand. No flip-flop. A car that is stuck in a traffic jam is contributing to the traffic jam even though it did not cause the traffic jam. The jam is caused by factors outside the car's control. But a car further up the road that got in an accident may have caused the traffic jam. Romney's position is that he doesn't know if the car is contributing because it is stuck in the traffic jam or if it caused the traffic jam.
  
  Essentially, the anti-Romney crowd accused him of having a position he never had in the first place, then accused him of flip-flopping when they found out more about the actual consistent position he has held.
  
  Third, Mitt Romney stated his full position in his book, No Apology, and his position contains an acknowledgement of the earth's temperature rising, as well as an acknowledgement that he doesn't know how much man is contributing, an acknowledgement of reasons to be skeptical of what climate scientists are saying, and an acknowledgement that cap-and-trade is a very bad idea. None of these things are contradictory. They are all part of his position, which is a "no regrets" policy of only doing things which reduce carbon if those things are also beneficial economically. He gives the examples of natural gas and nuclear power expansion, as well as efficiency in power plant technology and other actions to make us energy independent.
  
  Here’s a sample of what Romney said in his book (Hardcover, pages 227-230):

  “I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control. I do not support radical feel-good policies … Of course, there are also reasons for skepticism. The earth may be getting warmer, but there have been numerous times in the earth’s history when temperatures have been warmer than they are now … If developing nations won’t curb emissions, even extreme mitigation measures taken by the United States and other developed nations will have no appreciable effect on slowing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions.”

  Romney's position is consistent with a statement made by Texas Governor Rick Perry at the Reagan Library debate on September 7, 2011. Perry likewise implied that mankind has some impact but he does not know how much:

  “The fact of the matter is, the science is not settled on whether or not the climate change is being impacted by man to the point where we’re going to put America’s economics in jeopardy.”

  Mitt uses more “honey” than “vinegar” and looks for common ground in explaining his positions, but the substance of his claim that man is contributing "some" is undeniable. Even if we set aside the question of greenhouse gases, the mere act of burning fossil fuels generates heat which otherwise would not be released. This is a relatively tiny amount of heat, but enough to have "some" effect. Similarly, man's corresponding carbon emissions have "some" effect on warming, through the greenhouse effect. No one disputes that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas - not Glenn Beck, not Rush Limbaugh, not Mitt Romney. The dispute over global warming is not about whether man contributes to warming, but whether the amplification effect of that warming surpasses the earth's moderating forces. For instance, the warming caused by man's carbon emissions enables the atmosphere to hold slightly more water. Since water also acts as a greenhouse gas, this in turn creates slightly more warming which then allows even more water to be held in the atmosphere, which creates more warming and more water, in a repeating cycle. This is the amplifying effect which global warming enthusiasts, from Al Gore to Al Franken, believe is getting out of control. But climate has many moderating factors we do not understand. No one knows how much the earth will moderate the amplification cycle. And that goes both ways. The climate scientists don't know, the global warming enthusiasts don't know, and the climate change skeptics don't know. So, how can anyone criticize Mitt Romney's observation that man is contributing "some" to global warming while at the same time stating that he doesn't know if it is enough to cause the noticeable trend in warming? Until Romney's critics can answer "how much?" they have no grounds for criticizing him.
  
  Some have criticized a law Romney enacted as Governor, claiming it was primarily a global warming effort. However, the bill was entirely different from cap-and-trade or other economically hurtful policies.
  
  The only part critics have found to criticize was about capping excessive pollution from four power plants. Critics falsely paint this as similar to cap-and-trade.
  
  Romney cited an aging coal-fired plant spewing pollutants in the densely populated state of Massachusetts, as his flagship example. Carbon dioxide was only one of the substances regulated to ensure the plants were not excessively polluting.
  
  As for the impact on climate change, Romney stated at the time:

  "If climate change is largely caused by human action, this will really help. If we learn decades from now that climate change isn’t happening, these actions will still help our economy, our quality of life, and the quality of our environment."

  The problem wasn’t that the plants were producing too much energy, but that they were producing energy inefficiently and thus polluting excessively.
  
  Romney's actions with respect to the power plants are in tune with a position expressed by Texas Governor Rick Perry on his official State website:

  “The need for clean air is something we all can agree on … The federal Clean Air Act falls short of Texas standards. The federal system allows older plants to be “grandfathered” without requiring or encouraging upgrades to air quality equipment. That’s why aging, inefficient facilities in other parts of the country continue to chug along, spewing out pollution using environmental technology many decades old, mostly in areas now – ironically – considered “in full compliance” with the federal Clean Air Act.”

  Governor Romney's actions are also consistent with Ronald Reagan, who said:

  "More than 15 years ago, the State of California decided that we needed to take action to combat the smog that was choking the beautiful cities of my home State. Out of that concern was born the first serious program to require manufacturers to build cleaner cars and help control air pollution. The auto industry had to build two kinds of cars -- one that would be for sale in the other 49 States and one that would meet the stiff antipollution standards required in California ... I happened to have been Governor of California back when much of this was being done. Now, obviously, neither the problems in California nor those nationally have been solved, but I'm proud of having been one of the first to recognize that States and the Federal Government have a duty to protect our natural resources from the damaging effects of pollution that can accompany industrial development." (Radio Address to the Nation, July 14, 1984)

  
  Back to top

(1) "Moe v. Secretary of Administration & Finance." 382 Mass. 629 (8 Sept. 1980 - 18 Feb. 1981): 629-664. Print. and "Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General." 424 Mass. 586 (1997): 677 N.E.2d 101. Print.

(2) "An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care."Massachusetts General Court Ch. 58 of the Acts of 2006. http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060058.htm.

(3) "A Plan B Mistake." The Boston Globe 8 Dec. 2005: A18. Print.

(4) Heslam, Jessica and Maggie Mulvihill. "Gov May Let Catholic Hospitals Deny Morning-After Pill to Rape Victims." The Boston Herald 7 Dec. 2005: 007. Print.

(5) Howe, Peter J. "Romney Recasts His Minimum-Wage Plan; Election 94." The Boston Globe 17 Oct. 1994: 16. Print.

(6) Stephanopoulos, George. Interview. ABC News 18 Feb. 2007. Web. 29 Jan. 2011. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=77309.

(7) Viser, Matt. "Property Taxes Still on Rise in Mass.; State's Median Bill Will Top $3,000." The Boston Globe 18 Dec. 2005: A1. Print.

(8) Greenberger, Scott S. "Romney Rethinking New Powers for Tax Aide." The Boston Globe 2 Mar. 2005. Web. 29 Jan. 2011. http://www.mhtc.org/articles/news/council-detail-23427.asp.

(9) Peterson v. Commissioner of Revenue, 444 Mass. 128 (2005). ("Peterson II").

(10) Vennochi, Joan. "Romney's Real Agenda." The Boston Globe 11 May 2004: A11. Print.

(11) Helman, Scott. "Romney's Words Grow Hard on Immigration." The Boston Globe 16 Mar. 2007. Print.

(12) 2008 Republican debate at Reagan Library in Simi Valley. 30 Jan. 2008.

(13) "Mitt Romney Terminates Contract With Lawn Care Company for Hiring Illegal Immigrants." Fox News 5 Dec. 2007. Web. 29 Jan. 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315129,00.html.

(14) Lehman, Evan. "Romney supports immigration program, but not granting 'amnesty'." The Lowell Sun 30 Mar. 2006.

(15) "Republican Presidential Candidates Participate in a Debate Sponsored by Fox News." Political Transcript Wire 16 May 2007.

(16) Kranish, Michael. "Mormon church obtained Vietnam draft deferrals for Romney, other missionaries."
The Boston Globe 24 Jun. 2007. Web. 29 Jan. 2011. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/articles/part1_side_2/.

(17) Battenfeld, Joe. "GOP Senate hopeful Romney got draft deferment for Vietnam." The Boston Herald 2 May 1994: 1. Print.

(18) Nolan, Martin. "Ambition Dashed in a Sound Bite; In George Romney, a Life of Accomplishment Shadowed by a Media Gaffe." The Boston Globe 30 Jul. 1995: 22. Print.

(19) Brinkley, David. Interview. ABC News 16 Oct. 1994.

(20) Johnson, Glen. "Romney Says Keeping Minimum Wage Low Preserves Jobs for Poor." The Associated Press State & Local Wire 25 Jul. 2006.

(21) Allen, Mike. "Witnesses recall Romney-MLK march", Politico.com, 21 Dec. 2007. Web. 29 Jan. 2011. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7524.html.

(22) Garrow, David J. Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, New York: Random House, 1988, p. 575.

(23) "Romney: I'll be Better than Ted for Gay Rights" Bay Windows 25 Aug. 1994. Web. 29 Jan. 2011. http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc2=&sc3=&id=53688.

(24) "19 Questions for Mitt Romney" Bay Windows 1 Jan. 2002. Web. 29 Jan. 2011. http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc2=&sc3=&id=53686.

(25) LeBlanc, Steve. "Romney Says He's Always Been Opposed to Gay Marriage and Civil Unions.", The Associated Press State & Local Wire 23 Feb. 2005.

(26) "Mitt Romney's Secret Gay History!" Bay Windows 3 Mar. 2005.

(27) Greenberger, Scott S. "Governor's Vetoes Raise More Questions on National Run." The Boston Globe 1 Jul. 2005: B5. Print.

(28) Estes, Andrea. "Romney to Limit Gay Panel Activities." The Boston Globe 12 May 2006: A1. Print.

(29) "Goodridge v. Department of Public Health" 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003). Print.

(30) Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 151B.

(31) Roy, Jennifer. "Newton couple honored as 'Parents of the Year' by DSS" Daily News Tribune Newton 9 Aug. 2006. Print.

(32) Brooke, Donald. "Romney Files Religious Freedom' Bill On Church And Gay Adoption." The Associated Press 15 Mar. 2006.

(33) Arave, Lynn. "SLOC Denies Snubbing Scouts Over Gay Stance." Deseret News 19 Dec. 2006: B1. Print.

(34) Lewis, Raphael. "Romney Jurist Picks Not Tilted to GOP." The Boston Globe 25 Jul. 2005: A1. Print.

(35) "Enrollment Breakdown as of 10/18/2006." http://www.state.ma.us.

(36) Johnson, Glen. "Romney takes on McCain over taxes." USA Today 22 December 2007: n. pag. Web. 29 Jan. 2011. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-12-22-545696741_x.htm.

(37) Fox GOP Forum 6 Jan. 2008.

(38) Washington, Wayne and Glen Johnson. "Romney weighs in - carefully - on Bush Tax-Cut Plan Governor Won't Give His Endorsement." The Boston Globe 11 Apr. 2003: A3. Print.