Letters to the Editor

A trial-lawyer twosome

The idea that medical malpractice reform would ever appear on the agenda of a Kerry/Edwards administration is as likely as hearing a yodeling concert at the Metropolitan Opera (“Malpractice maelstrom,” Editorial, Wednesday).

The Democratic Party, a wholly owned subsidiary of theAssociationofTrial Lawyers and the primary beneficiary of its political donations, will not bite the hand that pays it. The silver-tongued Mr. Edwards, a personal-injury lawyer who specialized in medical malpractice cases, earned his multiple millions in time-honored lawyerly fashion, by telling a slightly better story to the jury than opposing counsel.

As vice president, he will be well-situated to block tort-law reform, no matter the price to society as a whole.

PAUL BLOUSTEIN

Cincinnati, Ohio

The real Romney

It was with profound surprise that I read your glowing profile of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (“Romney seen as a star for future by party leaders,” Page 1, Tuesday). As the president of one the state’s largest pro-family groups, I can honestly say that the governor you profiled bears no resemblance to the one we actually have in Massachusetts.

While Mr. Romney is trying to boost his national image by pretending to be a champion of traditional marriage, those of us in the state who fought in the trenches know the truth: Mitt Romney did as little as he possibly could to prevent same-sex “marriage” from occurring. He was involved in the issue late, and despite numerous meetings and strategy sessions, he declined to support any of the numerous options presented to him to thwart the attempts by the pro-homosexual lobby to deny the people of Massachusetts a vote on this issue. Mr. Romney opposed the original marriage amendment cosponsored by me, in which more than 130,000 signed the initiative petition.

Mr. Romney’s double talk should not come as a surprise — he has done it before. As a candidate for governor in 1994, Mr. Romney claimed he had undergone a conversion and had become pro-abortion. When he returned to Utah, he claimed he was actually pro-life — in fact, he even sent a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune saying that he “does not wish to be labeled pro-choice.”

Yet when Mr. Romney returned to Massachusetts to run for Governor in 2002, he ran as ardently pro-abortion and in favor of embryonic stem-cell research. Mr. Romney even went so far as to announce his support for RU-486, the abortion pill.

Before The Washington Times and other media attempt to build up Mr. Romney’s credentials as a viable candidate for the future, conservatives should know the truth about his record.

Story Continues →