In this specific case, I think their headline is misleading. Mr. Romney has supported homosexuals for certain public offices, and the commentary gives no evidence to suggest that he was appointing them as homosexual figureheads as opposed to qualified people who happened to be homosexual. Spinning the story that way seems to be more of a tactic to turn conservatives against Mr. Romney than to report his actions and words accurately. The sub-headline talked about General Pace, but the commentary had only one or two of twelve paragraphs that addressed General Pace specifically. If they wanted to report on Mr. Romney's comments about General Pace, they should have explored the whole controversy in detail. In the article on the website, they give links to other commentaries about Governor Romney, but none of those links are specifically about what General Pace said.
I didn't look closely at what General Pace said or the context in which he spoke back then. I remember that there was controversy, and I generally felt that the controversy didn't do anything to advance the conservative agenda. I think one can criticize the context, timing, and tone of a statement without necessarily being against the idea that was expressed. I'm open to the possibility that Mr. Romney was trying to criticize these things only and that his criticism is being spun by this group.
I admit to being concerned about these kinds of statements from Mr. Romney. He's not my ideal candidate, and if I lived in New Hampshire, I doubt that I'd be voting for him in the primary. On the other hand, I wouldn't make insulting homosexuals a part of my campaign if I ran for office. Maybe some of these "life" people would interpret my stance as my being "pro-gay," so I remain willing to give Mr. Romney some benefit of doubt.
Bill
“Spinning the story that way seems to be more of a tactic to turn conservatives against Mr. Romney than to report his actions and words accurately.”
BINGO!