Mitt Romney: Your Family Values Candidate? - Political Forum

That Darn Republican · #1 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 07:19 PM

Apparently so if the social moderates get their way. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are the 'not-as-offensive' choices seen by the RNC as fence baiter's on the democrat side of the fence. During Romney's 1994 run for senate against stagnant old timer, and resident nutter Ted Kennedy [Sen. Mass]. Romney is hailed as a conservative consolidate.

I don't know any Conservatives myself that have him any whee in radar range but apparently the secular right are dead set on Giuliani with his staunch pro-abortion and pro gay stance, along with his strongest running mate former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Both have blatantly kowtowed to the leftist vote for support of so-called swing vote liberals on that social issue. The former New York city mayor is up front about his nuttiness [which is to be commended... wrong or right] However, his competitor has more waffled more that IHop on the matter. This is footage of a debate with senator Ted Kennedy on several issues, including homosexual lobby support - you be the judge, but if you have followed the Romney campaign it has been fraught with having to back track and explain positions of his known to be liberal on, but have to explain it to family and values voters.

It is also no secret that the MSM has climbed on supporting Romney and Giuliani because the appeal to fence-sitters. All I can say is he is as bad as Hillary on flip-flopping, I don't know what to expect from the RNC playing goal tender with candidates too liberal for most of the republican base. With Thompson gaining in every poll each week since his entry -- one thing remains to be true. The ever resort to using the same footage of Thompson on his first debate seemingly stammering, but he was quite on line with all his responses but [curious] that footage is the only footage people see, go figure? One thing for sure.... the left is extremely afraid of Thompson winning the nomination, but oddly enough they don't have the same fear Romney nearly as much, Hmmmmm.. I wonder why?

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #2 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 07:46 PM

You make the so-called "MSM" sound like the Illuminati. This is a conspiracy theory, in the same league as the 9/11 conspiracy theory, the Illuminati and Area 51.

The MSM have a plot to influence the 2008 election. Every news anchor on every news station is a partisan Democrat and they all got together one night in a lodge behind a fake wall and took an oath to promote conservatives who are social moderates.

No different than an Illuminati theory actually.

That Darn Republican · #3 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 07:56 PM

Well, I just mentioned what can bee seen without calling anyone out, and that is bad enough. These rabid liberals are fuming about their loss in 04' and have been nesting their eggs and such... you seem to have the mind that they will actively engage in a subversive engagement... curious.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #4 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Darn Republican

Well, I just mentioned what can bee seen without calling anyone out, and that is bad enough. These rabid liberals are fuming about their loss in 04' and have been nesting their eggs and such... you seem to have the mind that they will actively engage in a subversive engagement... curious.

No, I was just stating what you were saying, I guess I should have used italics.

The MSM have a plot to influence the 2008 election. Every news anchor on every news station is a partisan Democrat and they all got together one night in a lodge behind a fake wall and took an oath to promote conservatives who are social moderates.

I was mocking you. Sorry.

WEB

That Darn Republican · #5 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 08:48 PM

I got the mocking part... lol!

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #6 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 09:05 PM

So who are the mainstream media anyway? Why is it that networks who present things with a mild liberal stance (from your point of view) corrupt, but networks who present things from your point of view are not corrupt? What makes Fox so special that they are not part of the cabal?

That Darn Republican · #7 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 09:27 PM

Look,

Fox is no savior trust me, but at least they allow both sides to represent their arguments without varnish. CNN, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, NBC -- and the worst of them all NPR., all biased openly. Remember growing up in school getting civics lessons and hearing about "yellow press" ? Won't hear about it today. That study have been revised right out of the school books... they press is so yellow today. The question is not that their yellow, it's what shade, obviously jaundiced.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #8 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Darn Republican

Look,

Fox is no savior trust me, but at least they allow both sides to represent their arguments without varnish. CNN, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, NBC -- and the worst of them all NPR., all biased openly. Remember growing up in school getting civics lessons and hearing about "yellow press" ? Won't hear about it today. That study have been revised right out of the school books... they press is so yellow today. The question is not that their yellow, it's what shade, obviously jaundiced.

Joe Scarborough - on 3 hours a day - former Republican congressman
Tucker Carlson - on one hour a day - conservative commentator
Dan Abrams - on one hour a day - conservative commentator

That's MSNBC not allowing both sides to represent their arguments without varnish?

That Darn Republican · #9 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 09:36 PM

Dubois, c'mon now... I watch those shows. The talking points are scripted and liberal pundits have their way because of the slant in the directions of the questioning.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #10 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Darn Republican

Dubois, c'mon now... I watch those shows. The talking points are scripted and liberal pundits have their way because of the slant in the directions of the questioning.

So you are saying that for the three conservatives I mentioned, you think their scripts are written by activist liberals and those conservatives are either too stupid to notice it or that they have no integrity at all and allow themselves to be pawns of activist liberals?