Skip to comments.Mitt Romney Comes Out in Support of Homosexual Boy Scout Leaders, Members
Posted on 08/07/2012 6:36:10 AM PDT by xzins
A spokesperson for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has advised that the former Massachusetts governor disagrees with the Boy Scouts current policy prohibiting open homosexuals from serving as members and leaders.
According to The Associated Press, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the news outlet in an email that Romney still stands by his beliefs that homosexual men should be able to serve in the organization. She specifically noted that Romney had outlined his views in 1994 during a political debate, and that his stance has not changed.
I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue, Romney stated during the debate. I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.
As previously reported, last month, the Boy Scouts of America issued a statement reaffirming its policy prohibiting open homosexuals from joining the organization.
The committees work and conclusion is that this policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSAs members, thereby allowing Scouting to remain focused on its mission and the work it is doing to serve more youth, the statement said. The review included forthright and candid conversation and extensive research and evaluations both from within Scouting and from outside of the organization.
The decision to reiterate and reaffirm the Scouts current policy followed two years of deliberations from an eleven-member committee comprised of Boy Scout executives and other volunteers who represented a diversity of perspectives and opinions.
When all was said and done, the committee concluded that the restriction served as the best policy for the Boy Scouts.
The current policy reads, While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.
Mitt Romney also recently reiterated his support for homosexual adoption. This past May, in an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News, he explained that while he is against the concept of homosexual marriage, he does believe that homosexual couples should be able to adopt children.
[I]f two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child, in my state, individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, thats something that people have a right to do, Romney outlined. But, to call that marriage is something that in my view is a departure from the real meaning of that word.
He had first outlined his position on the matter in 1996 while talking to CNNs Wolf Blitzer.
Well, they are able to adopt children, he said. Im not going to change that.
Prior to Saul serving as Romneys press secretary, Richard Grenell, an open homosexual, filled the position.
Drawing on literature for a model, Romney is pretty obviously a Faust.
Clinton is nothing like 0bama. No one comes near what 0bama is.
Hysteria my azz. I’m looking at reality.
If you can’t see it now, dream onjust like 0bama wants you to do.
The RINOs will not cooperate so readily with a President Obama.
Obviously it's time for Romney to gracefully step off the political stage, go away, and allow honest people to move on with taking our country back from the evil people presently running the Democrat party.
There's simply no alternative to that.
Thanks XZINS! Appreciate the feedback.
I’m voting for Romney because we cannot afford 4 more years of the socialist dictator. I’m not gambling with our country’s future by staying home
You speak the truth. What the ABOs can’t figure out is that if the GOPe can manipulate them into supporting this”lesser evil”, then at the end of this run there’s another comprimise they won’t have the moral courage to refuse. If they won’t stand now, they never will.
You can keep posting all the Romney apologist crap about how, gosh, he really tried to stop all this gay agenda stuff, but he just kept being overridden!!! ... but the reality is that he has advanced and supported the gay agenda at every turn. It's in the legislation he was responsible for, in his words, his speeches, and on his stationery, with his signature, and in press releases sent out by his people.
LOOK AT THE MAN'S RECORD. Actions speak louder than words. His actions from the start have been those of a liberal Democrat statist. Wishing this wasn't so doesn't change a thing. ABOers claim to live in "Realville," the truth is they live in "Wishville." Folks in Realville have faced the fact that Romney is a liberal Democrat registered as a Republican, and that voting for liberals, including Romney, guarantees a bad outcome. Therefore the smartest thing to do is to vote such as to weaken whichever liberal wins.
In Wishville, though, you can just wish it away -- today. If the bastard gets elected on a landlide, you in Wishville will be wishing you never heard of Romney, let alone voted for him, because HE WOULD BETRAY YOU.
Obama was "Hope and Change." Romney is "Hope he'll Change." We know how the first one worked out.
So do I.
I think we need a different candidate. End of story. The GOP-e delivers or we'll have to move on to Phase II.
They're not in it.
Romney is not a narcissist like Obama. I cannot risk having him win another term and have him suspend the Constitution and install a police state. If you don’t think that’s possible, I think you’re mistaken.
Really, folks, nobody can vote for a guy like that.
This is some some sort of clown show you've put on and in the end the clowns will rip off their clothes and become something else ~ what, nobody will admit.
Christie is not conservative.
So it's better for conservatism to just hand the presidency to the democrats, rather than elect a republican who would then be beholden to conservatives if he hopes to be re-elected? Sorry, but that logic escapes me.
Romney has an established record of advancing and promoting every single major liberal agenda, from state-run health care to activist judges to global warming regulation.
He was a figurehead governor, presiding over a legislature that was 80% democrat. And BTW, MA has Bill Weld to thank for advancing those special "gay" rights. Bill was admired by the dems at the state house because he was so liberal. Those same dems didn't like Romney very much.
Perhaps Romney might have ruled by executive order as Obama does, but that wouldn't have gone over very well in MA.
We know how the first one worked out.
Yes we do. We have an anti-American subversive in the White House, caught on an open mike whispering deals with the Russians. Everything else aside, at least Romney is a real American.
Look, if he was into borderline personality disorder that'd be something much more definable I guess ~ and far less destructive, but I see now signs of borderline.
These guys have no sense of what security is about or where you need it. No sense at all.
Seems to be a serious problem with both Obama and Romney.
Time to fight a straight candidate, or maybe two.
That is a false dichotomy. The answer never was Obama or Romney, it was and is; truth or lies, freedom or slavery. The GOPe set this up, and YOU and people like you are enabling it. NOT ONE conservative vote for Mitt the Lesser,and the problem of the GOPe force-feeding Conservative Americans this crap sandwich every four years solves itself. I won’t enable my opressors.
I know he isn't, L J.
That is why I posted "someone like Christie".
The primaries are over, and Obama and Romney are the only two left standing.
In regard to oppression:
Obama is oppressing the Catholic Church; Romney filed a bill to protect the rights of Catholic Charities.
Obama passed his healthcare monstrosity; Romney has pledged to repeal it.
Obama is a racist and Romney is not.
Obama is anti-American, and Romney is not.
Obama is an economy wrecker, while Romney possesses the economic expertise to repair the damage Obama has wrought.
Neither candidate would be my choice if I were king and could decide who to put on the ballot, but given the playing field we've been presented with, Obama fits my definition of an oppressor more than any other candidate who ran in the primaries or is presently left standing.
And BTW, I agree with you completely; voting against oppression is the most critical consideration at this juncture in our nation's history.
“Of course, Romney has strengths. How do you think he has succeeded in business, in politics, with the Olympics.”
In business he was a vulture capitalist...he was not the creator of anything. He doesn’t fit my definition of a good businessman.
In politics.....I can’t even believe this is being discussed, from a conservative viewpoint, he was a terrible governor. He was pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, a gun grabber, and a big government statist. Plus, he is the real architect of the OBAMACARE...and ROMNEYCARE has been a FAILURE in Mass. It is incredible that you would be so foolish to list his political record as a “strength.” Only a democrate would see what he did as a strength.
On the olympics....but whoop. Does that really matter? What does that have to do with running a country? NADA!
Also, you make the assinine comment:
“You are in serious denial, and in that posture, you not only hurt Romney—which is obviously part of your intention;—but hurt the ability of all of us to win over those who have bought into the Leftwing social dogma that is undermining America.”
ROMNEY IS PART OF THE LEFT-WING SOCIALIST AGENDA. You are in denial, not me. Having an (R) behind your name does not make you worthy to be POTUS...or to even be the candidate representing the GOP. He doesn’t represent 90% of the party, just the GOP East Coast Country Club Establishment. The reason he has the nomination. He doens’t remotely represent the values of the Party’s base...not remotely.
“Romney is not even 1/100th as bad as the Kenyan.”
Your calculator is broken. Romney, in his own ways, is just as bad as Obama. IF you think he is going to rescue this country’s economy....you are seriously deranged.
Get the moral/social issues right, and the economic issues will fall into place. Romney is wrong, wrong, wrong on moral/social issues, and to make matters worse, he pretends to be a moral/social conservative.
Really? So you're saying it's easy to understand why a man would support and pander to sodomites the way he always has and still does?
‘Mitt Romney’s Deception’ and the homosexual lobby
By Matt C. Abbott
I know, I know no politician is perfect. Heck, none of us is perfect, obviously. Far from it.
That said, the main thing that bothers me about GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney no, it’s not his affiliation with Mormonism, although you should take a look at RenewAmerica.com president and editor Stephen Stone’s new e-book A Mormon Story: Authoritarianism Knows No Bounds (click here) is his seemingly cozy relationship with the homosexual lobby, as evidenced in the book Mitt Romney’s Deception: His Stealth Promotion of ‘Gay Rights’ and ‘Gay Marriage’ in Massachusetts, authored by pro-family activist Amy Contrada.
Thanks to Ms. Contrada for allowing me to publish the following excerpts (sans endnotes) from her book. For more information about, and to order, Ms. Contrada’s book, click here.
Excerpts from Mitt Romney’s Deception
The Catholic Charities adoption fiasco is a prime example of Romney’s inaction (while he postured as acting for the good), and of his expertise in covering his tracks.
In 2005, the Boston Globe revealed that Catholic Charities of Boston had placed a small number of special-needs children with homosexual couples for adoption. The Archdiocese of Boston responded in early 2006, stating it would no longer place children with homosexual couples (as the Church considers homosexuality “gravely immoral”). A media storm quickly followed.
Responding to charges that it was illegally discriminating against homosexuals, the Archdiocese then asked the state to grant a religious exemption to Catholic Charities, but the Legislature balked. Existing Massachusetts non-discrimination laws referencing “sexual orientation” plus “legal gay marriage” would not allow the Church to follow its moral precepts, it was claimed.
Governor Romney said his hands were tied by the law, the Legislature’s refusal to act, and the Supreme Court ruling which had forced same-sex marriage on the state. All he could do was to file a bill to “protect religious freedom” in Massachusetts, specifically targeting the laws covering adoption, and hope for the best. The Legislature then killed his bill, and the Church had to end its adoption services in order not to violate its own tenets. But Romney had done all he could for religious freedom!
But that’s not exactly what happened. In fact, Romney erroneously blamed the Church’s predicament on non-existent law and could have rescinded the administrative regulations that would not let Catholic Charities deny placement of children with homosexual couples. Romney also failed to point out that religious freedom was already protected in both the state and federal constitutions. The Archdiocese could have fought this in court but did not perhaps out of fear of losing major donors with liberal views (who were well represented on Catholic Charities’ board). In the end, the homosexual activists and their allies got their way, and it was another public whipping for the Catholic Church all of which Romney could have prevented.
Romney falsely claimed the law required Catholic Charities to place children with homosexual couples
This story is significant because it lays bare Romney’s hypocrisy and self-contradiction. He simultaneously accepted homosexuality and laws or policies banning discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation,” yet blamed those very laws or policies for threatening “religious freedom.” If he understood that conflict in March 2006, how could he ever have supported laws banning discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation”? (It is unclear whether he still supports such laws; see Chapter II.) Did he (and does he) not see how they set up conflicts with basic constitutional rights?
Romney blamed Massachusetts law for the problem. But there is no overarching law in Massachusetts concerning “sexual orientation” discrimination. The phrase “sexual orientation” appears in only certain specific Massachusetts statutes (signed into law by Democrat Governor Michael Dukakis in 1989). In any case, these statutes do not trump freedom of religion, constitutionally protected both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution.
One could even question Romney’s motives. He had said in 2003 that he favored “adoptive parent rights” for same-sex couples, but on many other instances tried to sidestep that question. In a clear statement at the height of the Catholic Charities adoption story, he said that same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest” in adopting children...
C. J. Doyle, head of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts long-time insider and fearless truth-teller in the world of Massachusetts politics had a rich understanding of this complex story. He explained on the MassResistance radio show (WTTT Boston) on March 25, 2006:
‘Governor Romney is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to go around the country and tell evangelicals and Catholics and pro-lifers and pro-family people that he supports religious freedom without having any kind of actual political downside here for the Republican Party in Massachusetts. From everything we’ve been able to understand about this, this is not a statute, this is not a law, this anti-discrimination provision, it’s nothing but a CMR, a Commonwealth of Mass. Regulation.
‘And because of your excellent research, Brian [Camenker of MassResistance], we’ve confirmed that. This is a regulation that was promulgated, we believe, in September of 1997 that prohibits so-called sexual orientation from being used as any kind of a litmus test in adoptions. Apparently this was done by the Department of Early Education, which is the licensing agency for adoption agencies here in Massachusetts.
‘There is no statute, there is no act of the Legislature, there is no act in resolve of the General Court, it’s a regulation promulgated by a bureaucrat, by an executive agency. ‘And a regulation that is promulgated by an executive agency can be rescinded by executive order. And that’s precisely what the governor is not doing. He can simply rescind this by executive order. Instead, he’s proposing a new law. Now this, of course, this has somewhere between slim and no chance at all of getting through the Legislature at all given its current composition. The Massachusetts General Court, our Legislature, is dominated by special interests. And one of the most powerful special interest right now is the homosexual community.
‘And our legislators, a majority of them are nominally Catholic, are far more afraid of political reprisals from homosexuals than they are of political reprisals from the Catholic Church. Romney is saying we need a law, knowing full well that that law stands virtually no chance whatsoever of being passed, while he’s avoiding taking the obvious and logical and expedient step, which is to simply repeal it by executive order....
‘Our attorneys [Massachusetts Catholic Conference] have told us the same thing, if it’s promulgated by an executive agency; an executive order can repeal this. So we have the governor filing a bill which he knows has no chance whatsoever of being passed, and then going on about how he wants to support religious freedom, while avoiding taking the hard, necessary, controversial but obvious step in protecting religious freedom which is rescinding this by executive order....
‘And I’m afraid that the Bishops and the Catholic Charities really threw in the towel without a fight. This has been a serious defeat for religious freedom. They’ve withdrawn from the adoption business.... Everyone knew all along that Romney was not going to do anything by executive order. There were no votes in the Legislature. The only way to fight this was to litigate it. And frankly I think they stood a very good chance, not only under the free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution, but under Article 2 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution.... And they simply threw in the towel. And this talk about an exemption is entirely PR.
‘Now the rumor that we’re hearing is that Catholic Charities was very, very concerned that a prolonged legal battle a protracted legal conflict would adversely impact their major donor fundraising and would particularly adversely impact contributions from large corporations. Now many of these corporations, under pressure from homosexual activists, have signed a pledge not to contribute to any organization which ‘discriminates’ against homosexuals, like the Boy Scouts. So they were worried about losing major donor funds and corporate funds....
‘The opponents of religious freedom never start by assaulting the right to worship, frontally, to assault the right to worship on Sunday morning. They start by trying to marginalize the charitable, restrict the charitable and the educational and the social service activities of churches, and try to narrow the parameters of religious liberty. This is what we’re seeing here in Massachusetts....
‘In this case, it speaks to the insincerity of Catholic Charities in terms of seriously wanting to find an exemption. I think they were quite willing to allow the governor to be disingenuous with them because they really didn’t want to continue this fight....
‘It’s very important to point out that the jurisprudence of both the United States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has always understood that religious freedom consists in more than simply the liberty to worship. It consists in the right to act in accordance with one’s religiously formed conscience....
‘Imagine you’re handing over children to two effeminate men who sodomize one another. Isn’t there any issue of moral turpitude here? And they will drag the children to their gay rights rallies and use them as props in their propaganda plays on same-sex marriage and other things.
‘It should be pointed out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behavior is ‘grave depravity.’ The Catholic religion has always taught that homosexual relations are intrinsically immoral; they’re contrary to natural law. In Catholic tradition, the sin of impurity against nature comes right after willful murder as one of the sins that cries out the heaven for vengeance, so this is something the Catholic religion has always unequivocally condemned.’
Catholic Action League of Massachusetts
Americans for Truth
‘Distinctive Beliefs of the Mormon Church’
‘Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons’ (Vatican document)
© Matt C. Abbott
Meant to add the link. Info was also posted on Free Republic.
Xzins, take a look at what katie posted. Horrible.
That's a given. Meanwhile we have an election in a few weeks.
So, not vote at allHussein wins. Vote third partyHussein wins. GET 0BAMA OUT NOW AND get conservatives in the senate and house also.
I can respect what you’re saying in as far as we’ve been served this mess as a “choice” by those who would not stoop to socialize with us useless eaters. God the Creator is my only king, and I have sworn no fealty to them. My vows are to God, the constitution (as written and understood in plain lanuage) and those few I have undertaken to protect and defend. My question for you is: If the republican party is successful in getting Romney elected, with the help of ABO voters, what do you really expect to be served by your “betters” as a choice in 2020? Comprimise with immorality gives away that which cannot be replaced. “For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” Mark 8:36
That's it in a nutshell.
“So, not vote at allHussein wins. Vote third partyHussein wins. GET 0BAMA OUT NOW AND get conservatives in the senate and house also.”
NO, NO, NO....Romney is NO BETTER THAN OBAMA and MAY BE MORE DANGEROUS FOR CONSERVATISM IN THE LONG RUN. We must stop worrying about this election for POTUS...it is a no-win scenario. A strong conservative congress WILL keep Obama in check....however they won’t be able to keep Romney is check because of “party loyalty” when he moves left - which he WILL. Plus, Romney’s election will hurt us in congressional elections in 2014.
NO, the best course of action is to solely focus on getting conservatives elected to House and Senate this fall and in 2014. We should punt on this election for POTUS and NOT support Romney....our focus should be on 2016 NOW to ensure a real conservative gets elected. Voting for Romney is to vote for more of the same as him. Congress can and will keep Obama in check after the election...or they will impeach and convict him if he continues to urinate on the COTUS. Romney will also urinate on it, but WILL NOT BE OPPOSED BY THE GOP...which will be disasterous to conservatism and the country. Romney is a serious disaster.
Obama works to unite us...we just need the RIGHT candidate to run...Romney IS NOT THE RIGHT PERSON. It is a serious mistake to vote for him....even out of fear of Obama.
General Petraeus, sounds good to me.
I don't think so.
Are you two intentionally naive or what? Perez Hilton put the story together. He’s the original source for this story. That’s an objective fact and your own link, xzins, proves it.
Stop carrying water for Obama. Perez Hilton isn’t on our side. This is PSYOPS. The goal of which is to suppress support for Romney and insure an Obama victory.
Stop carrying water for Obama. Perez Hilton isn’t on our side. This is PSYOPS. The goal of which is to suppress support for Romney and insure an Obama victory.
I repeated myself to insure clarity. This is PSYOPS and you’re helping the enemy.
>> 100% of male pedophiles who prey on young boys are HOMOSEXUAL.
>> Romney is not the only choice that conservatives have.
Practically speaking, he is.
We all knew after losing 2008 we had to work hard for 2012. We #’d up.
Now THIS is a gaffe, if real.
The 10 grand donation really nails down his sentiments, I believe.
how you doing mate, was asking Vegas Ron if he had heard from you?
1010, Romney’s own words and the response of his spokesman is the original source.
So you’re saying do not vote period?
Let 0bama have it?
“So youre saying do not vote period? Let 0bama have it?”
No, I am saying you should vote third party. Obviously, Obama should never be voted for. However, Romney should not receive the vote of a conservative....to do so is to continue to empower the GOP establishment (East Coast Country Club Republicans that could care less about conservatism) to continue to foist “Romeny-like” candidates on us. If you support the GOP Establisment, and vote for Romney, then you will continue to get poor candidates like Romney to represent the GOP. You, if you are conservative, lose.
It isn’t about “letting Obama win.” It is about who is going to control the GOP. Will it continue to be a small group of elitists in smoke filled rooms, or will it be the base?
If we work hard to get conservative House and Senate members elected this fall and again in 2014 (ignoring the POTUS race). We will be in great shape for 2016 when we can get a real conservative candidate running for POTUS via the GOP. IF we support Romney now, we set back conservatism maybe forever.
You may get some temporary satisfaction by removing Obama, but the long term damage Romney will do to conservatism will harm the big picture of the country. No, do not vote for Romney...vote third party.
There is not enough people to make a third party vote even close, so why bother. 0bama gets it either way.
Something else we mainly agree on.
My question for you is: If the republican party is successful in getting Romney elected, with the help of ABO voters, what do you really expect to be served by your betters as a choice in 2020?
Politicians aren't our "betters"; they are only tools in the system that is supposed to govern our country. Some are clearly more destructive than others.
Only God knows what will be happening in 2020.
Comprimise with immorality gives away that which cannot be replaced. For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Mark 8:36
People who vote against a dictator wannabe such as Obama (in favor of an opponent who, no matter what his personal beliefs may be, respects the Rule of Law) with the motive of sparing their countrymen a worse fate, are performing an act of charity.
The Romney foundation also gave $10,000 to the New England Shelter for Homeless Veterans.
Both of these donations are a drop in the bucket relative to his total charitable donations.
Hard to imagine how anyone could think that Romney supports a “hedonistic homosexual lifestyle”. His Leave It To Beaver family is a testament to the exact opposite.
When you (xzins)/Peach15 posted this on Zimbio where did you get it?
Did you get it from Perezhilton.com?
If yes, then the original source for this story is Perez Hilton. What’s Perez’s angle in pushing this story? You’re carrying water for the Pink Mafia.
Yes it is Pysops (do you know what that even is?). Think about it.
I may agree with you on many of your litany of past Romney "sins," though I am not sure of his motives. My point goes to the fact that he has good analytic abilities, when he focuses on something. The point of the point is that we need to get him to focus on the actual social implications of some of the issues that are important to us--to appeal to his analytic ability, rather than keep insulting the man.
Look! The ideological landscape in America has been terribly distorted by the antics of a Leftist Academia & Leftist media for the past half century. Unless we persuade a lot of people, not just Romney, to rethink what has been pounded into their psychology by the endless Leftist rant on a wide variety of subjects, we are going to lose everything we value. We have to better hone our ability to persuade. Working on Romney's perspective--what he actually focuses on--politely, persistently, and persuasively, will, if nothing else, better train our techniques of persuasion.
Just what do we have to lose?
Take the Boy Scouts, for an example. Romney does not hate the Scouts for their stand--unlike the Leftists to whom you compare him. He merely reflects the contrived bias in favor of wider acceptance of homosexual behavior, in thinking them suitable as Scout Leaders. Of course, they are not! The reasons include the religious principles that are important to many further right than Romney; but they also include the whole implied purpose of the Boy Scouts--to train boys to be honorable men. How can you do that by giving them role models, who reject the normal honorable male role; both Biblical, but also societal in general, throughout Western History. (Boy Scouts Of America & Leftwing Agenda.)
Can Romney be persuaded? I do not know; but if all the people now damning him were to appeal to him as an honorable husband & father, on this basis, would he simply ignore the call to reconsider the idea that open homosexuals are suitable as Scout Masters--or as adoptive parents. Considering his Conservative approach to some economic issues--and his respect for State Rights, which some of his detractors now ignore; I do not believe that he would. But, again, we do not lose by trying.
As for Obama Care? How many times does he have to say that he will get it repealed!
sadly florida will turn on absentee ballot fraud.
you have a significant nursing home population that are zombie votes and do not know it.
You have those adjudicated incomptent who will vote anyways despite having a guardianship.
People need to differentiate between the committed Leftists, and normal, reasonably Conservative or Moderate Americans, who have simply never taken the trouble to really analyze the pseudo-intellectual garbage of ridiculous rationalizations, behind the whole litany of Leftist assaults on traditional American norms. I believe that the evidence is overwhelming that Romney has simply never been induced to analyze the social dynamics involved in much of this.
Let me be blunt. I have been fighting the Left in America for well over half a century. I have never--never--met anyone, who properly challenged, could actually defend the social disintegration that the Left has been accomplishing over the past two generations. Most people have never actually looked critically at any of it. Those who have--who actually feel the emotional identification with the Left--are completely hate driven & hiss insult & hatred when challenged. Romney exhibits no sign of that.
But see #395.
Nope. I found it first in the Houston Chronicle in an AP story by an AP guy named Crady. It is an AP story that had been prepared by Aug 3 to run on Aug 5. The Hilton story is dated Aug 5. The first FR post on the subject was at 1 am of Aug 5.
“I may agree with you on many of your litany of past Romney “sins,” though I am not sure of his motives. My point goes to the fact that he has good analytic abilities, when he focuses on something. The point of the point is that we need to get him to focus on the actual social implications of some of the issues that are important to us—to appeal to his analytic ability, rather than keep insulting the man.”
You are rationalizing, not being rational. What good are “analytic abilities” when not married to a solid moral grounding? They are good for nothing. Many an evil man has possessed “analytic abilities” and used them for ill purposes. Romney’s past actions indicates where his mind and heart really is. He will not change into something acceptable. It is irrational (and naive) to think he will.
I WILL continue to insult Romney because he deserves to be insulted and hounded by conservatives.
You have aptly stated the crux of the problem faced by Conservatives at this juncture.
Conservatives are well past the point when we can afford to blithely cede another inch of political ground to the leftist juggernaut in order to make a political statement. Quite simply, we are outnumbered by "committed Leftists, and normal, reasonably Conservative or Moderate Americans, who have simply never taken the trouble to really analyze the pseudo-intellectual garbage of ridiculous rationalizations, behind the whole litany of Leftist assaults on traditional American norms". If we allow the Marxist progression four more years to advance, Conservatism will become essentially irrelevant, and the God-given liberties we are slowly losing our grasp on under leftist rule will be permanently torn from us.
Part of Obama's campaign strategy is to suppress the conservative vote by painting Romney as some sort of anti-Christ, rather than allowing him to be perceived as he actually is; a liberal Republican who is running against a Marxist.
"Those who have--who actually feel the emotional identification with the Left--are completely hate driven & hiss insult & hatred when challenged. Romney exhibits no sign of that".
Excellent point. And Romney's respect for the Rule of Law is an important consideration (and would constitute a marked improvement over the contempt displayed toward the US Constitution and the Rule of Law by the current White House Occupier).
So the choices are to either hand Obama another four years without a fight, or to elect Romney and hold him to his campaign promises.
The Chik-fil-A Revolt is a strong indicator that the political winds are shifting, and will provide a timely conservative tailwind which should help us blow Romney further to the right.