Comments on: The NY Times’s Accidental Journalism Reveals the Full Scope of Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Deception, and His Unfitness to Be President

By: NixGuy.com » Why I’m not voting for Romney

NixGuy.com » Why I’m not voting for Romney — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 02:08:34 +0000

[…] BizzyBlog Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans.Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the stateâ€™s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courtsâ€™ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue. […]

By: TBlumer

TBlumer — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:28:23 +0000

#6, your first para is hysterical fantasy.

The Times mischaracterization, whether relayed or not, remains a mischaracterization of the constitutional reality. A knowledgeable reporter would have pointed that out.

By: Tony B.

Tony B. — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:57:44 +0000

That New York Times can be quite agenda-driven. I remember once when they decided we should wage war on Iraq, so they turned that Judith Miller loose on the story, and the next thing you know, facts or no, off to war we go.

By the way, how do you know that the â€œobey the courtsâ€ mischaracterization is attributable to the Times? The phrase may have originated with â€œseveral people present,â€ or with Mitt himself. Maybe the Times was just reporting so you could decide.

By: Rose

Rose — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:18:12 +0000

So what’s up with the conservative pundits? Hannity & Laura Ingraham made me puke today but I think that Rush understood that even he cannot make Romney’s issues go away (regardless of how he hides behind his religion).

By: TBlumer

TBlumer — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:32:34 +0000

#3, sorry Mark. Let’s be clear. It’s NOT a conspiracy.

Romney is NOW saying he’s against SSM after putting it into place in MA unconstitutionally. Of course LCR is going to oppose him now based on his stated position now.

So LCR’s opposition to him is based on his current “stated” belief that he is against SSM.

It remains that Romney has told gay groups in the past that he can do more for their cause as a Republican than any Democrat can do. And he has done just that.

The “misdirection” is Romney’s pretense to being against SSM when, as noted, he unilaterally and unconstitutionally imposed it in MA.

By: Mark_McNally

Mark_McNally — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:48:38 +0000

Ahh, it’s a false flag attack.

This is getting really conspiratorial.

By: TBlumer

TBlumer — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:07:50 +0000

#1, this is known as “misdirection.”

By: Mark_McNally

Mark_McNally — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:28:20 +0000

And yet the Log Cabin Republicans are running ads against Romney in NH. So apparently they would find this analysis arguable. Otherwise they’d save their money.