Newsday referred to Romney as "the family values candidate"
In an October 23 article noting criticisms of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) made by Republican presidential candidates during an October 21 debate, Newsday's Tom Brune described former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) as "the family values candidate," suggesting that other candidates -- Democratic or Republican -- are not "the family values candidate." Brune wrote: "Romney, the family values candidate, jabbed at her with phrasing that evoked the liaison that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had with intern Monica Lewinsky." While Brune did not explain what specific policies Romney embraced that make him "the family values candidate," Media Matters for America has noted numerous instances of media figures equating "conservative" positions with "family values" or "pro-family" positions.
As Media Matters noted, on the June 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, while discussing Romney, CNN anchor John Roberts said to host Wolf Blitzer: "[A]s the Reverend Jerry Falwell said before his death, 'As long as a candidate is pro-life and pro-family, he's all right with me.' We do definitely know that Mitt Romney is pro-family." Roberts added: "The jury is still out among some conservatives as to whether or not he is in fact pro-life or remains, as he was as governor of Massachusetts, quote, 'effectively pro-choice.' "
On the January 20 edition of ABC's World News Saturday, while discussing Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-KS) January 20 announcement that he would run for president, ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos asserted that "there is a bit of an opening for [Brownback] on the Republican side" to "try to carve out his place as a true conservative, true social conservative, the man most committed to pro-life, pro-family values." On the February 5 edition of MSNBC Live, during a discussion of an executive order signed by Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) mandating that, beginning in September 2008, all sixth-grade girls receive Gardasil -- a vaccine for the human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease that can lead to cervical cancer -- host Chris Jansing introduced one of her guests, Andy Schlafly, as "a counsel for Eagle Forum, a conservative, pro-family organization." Additionally, on the October 3, 2006, edition of The Situation Room, CNN chief national correspondent John King twice equated "pro-family voters" with "conservatives."
Media Matters for America has also documented several instances of the media characterizing conservative or Republican voters or candidates as representing "values" or as campaigning on "Christian values." Most recently, in an October 20 article, Washington Post staff writer Michael D. Shear wrote that Brownback's departure from the Republican presidential race "was a disappointment to many" at the Family Research Council-organized "Values Voter Summit," adding, "Brownback had spent much of his campaign talking about Christian values and stressing his stance against abortion." Shear did not explain what the term "Christian values" meant or how it related to Brownback's campaign.
From the October 23 Newsday article:
Romney, the family values candidate, jabbed at her with phrasing that evoked the liaison that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had with intern Monica Lewinsky.
"She has never run anything," he said. "The idea that she could learn to be president, you know, as an internship, just doesn't make any sense."
A Romney aide dismissed the notion that was innuendo.
Giuliani, who campaigns on his ability to defeat Clinton, rejected polls in the battleground states of Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio showing him behind.
"Almost every one of them is within the statistical margin of error," he said. "If those polls are correct, then the president of the United States right now is John Kerry."
Mike Huckabee, a rising favorite of social conservatives, joked, then turned somber.
Noting the reaction at the mention of her name, he said, "I like to be funny ... There's nothing funny about Hillary Clinton being president," predicting higher taxes, government-run health care, a low-morale military and sagging U.S. resolve.
Thompson, portraying himself as the GOP's true conservative, called Clinton "a good applause line," but said Republicans should get back to "the basics," adding, "Let's don't get diverted onto some single individual, whoever their nominee is."















When watching Romney speak, I get the distinct impression that he's not much smarter than Bush. He recently referred to Osama Bin Ladin as Barack Obama. That's all we need in the White House...another dim-bulb.
Wow, what a gaffe! Or is it the MA air/water? Didn't Ted Kennedy make a similar gaffe sometime back (with the same names)?
Nerzog,
I'm not being flippant here -but so I can understand where you are comming from please enlighten me on your educational, business, and ploitical experience. In several posts I have heard you refer to the president as, numbnuds, dumb, and several other allusions that he's stupid. Now you believe Romney is not much brighter.
I'm just curious if you have some education and experience in the areas that it takes to run a government ?
I'm just curious if you have some education and experience in the areas that it takes to run a government ?
I have three mixed-breed dogs in my back yard. Each of them knows more about running a government that George W. Bush OR Mitt Romney.
Now, there's a novel approach. First, we couldn't criticize the Moron in Chief because it would "demoralize" the troops. Then, we couldn't point out his stupidity because it would "embolden" the turrists. Running out of defenses for the indefensible, WD40? Now you're reduced to "Oh, Yeah?...Well...you ain't no smarter!" Maybe I'm not...does that make me as big a hypocrite as all those Republican adulterers who wanted to crucify Clinton for his philandering?
What's next..."So's yer momma"?
I also notice that you aren't arguing Bush's brilliance...nor Romney's for that matter. Thanks for playing.
As I said - I wasn't being flippant - just wondering?
Let's see...
Hillary's Credentials: one term in Senate; Bill's wife
Romney's Credentials: successful former governor of Massachusetts; former CEO of Bain & Company and 2002 Olympic Winter Games.
And he wears magic underwear...and believes that the American Indians have dark skin because God punished them for being evil.
Makes me want to vote for him.
So I suppose that if you (NERZOG) live in Nevada, you won't be voting for Harry Reid?
Reid doesn't impress me much. But, if it came down to a choice between him and a Jingofascist Regurgicon, I'd vote for Reid, magic underwear and all. Politics is all about compromise, you know.
Running a successful company makes one fit for President? Romney claims that he understands economy because he ran a successful company. So if Bill Gates entered public domain we can support him? Whatever happened to Ross Perot then?
And we definitely need a person in office who changes his position every time the wind blows in a different direction. It will be exciting to have him in office though. You never know what's going to happen tomorrow?
His low IQ level is evident from the fact that he will ask his "lawyers" before going to war. Yes that's what we need. Lawyers running the country to make sure you grant yourself immunity for all your bad/wrong decisions just like this administration supported by an immoral GOP.
"Running a successful company makes one fit for President?"
He also was the governor of Mass. AND government should be run like a business. "Income > Expendatures" seems to be a idea that politicians seem to be unaware of.
"His low IQ level is evident from the fact that he will ask his "lawyers" before going to war."
Point taken. It's reminiscent of the "Global lithmus test" of 2004.
Running a business is much less complicated than running a country...businesses are, essentially, dictatorships. I know that's what Puddinhead George was pushing for, but we seem to have dodged that bullet...at least for now.
"He also was the governor of Mass. AND government should be run like a business."
---
Yes, lets start measuring qualities of people based on their profit-making ability so that we can take out the human factor completely. Then Romney can continue with Dubya's pro-rich policies because like a business the top bracket are supposed to get all the perks and the bottom half are supposed to work harder and get paid lesser.
He and most Rep candidates should be disqualified by the people for proposing they will double the size of Gitmo instead of putting an end to that illegal facility. That just shows the ignorance and lack of respect for civil and human rights within the right-wing of this country.
WWAAHHHH I am going to go tell the teacher that after I was insulting you insulted me, WWWAAHHH, only us wingnuts get to be insulting WWWAAHHHHH.
Hey, run with it! Romney is practically a gaurantee that Republicans will lose big. No right wing christian will ever vote for a religion that allowed multiple wives, I mean, they prefer a religion that lets you profess your sins for sleeping with your friend's wife!
Firstly, the Church of Mormon in no way, shape manner, or form supports polygamy, as of years before you were born.
Secondly, the only people who seem to have a problem with him being Mormon are Tom Vilsack and everyone in the Democratic Party who think that God is just dog spelled backwards.
I think you're wrong about the number of people with questions about his religion. A sizable number are concerned about electing someone who believes in something as butt-stupid as mormonism. Have you read about what John Smith was peddling with that crap? He was a snake-oil salesman who wasn't even smart enough to come up with even half-decent tales about his new religion. It is one step above Scientology in my book.
What does an agnostic dyslexic insomniac do?
Sits up all night and wonders if there's a dog.
"the only people who seem to have a problem with him being Mormon are Tom Vilsack and everyone in the Democratic Party..."
You must not know many Southern Evangelicals. Trust me, it's a problem for them. They may still vote for him over the Great Satan, Hillary, but they'll hold their noses doing it.
Actually that is a meme that only ignorant rightwing morons like to trot out with no connection to reality. I have no problem with Mitt being Mormon or Mormons in general. I am a religious liberal and you are an IGNORANT MORON.
Jeez, MMFHRC!!! What a load of crap this story is. Slow news day? Rush didn't say anything you could spin into a Senate hearing? Barf. We can clearly see your TRUE agenda by examining the first few words of this story:
In an October 23 article noting criticisms of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
Oh, no! Don't DARE criticize Hillary! We can't have that! MMFHRC, you've become sniveling cry-babies. I suppose soon you'll be insinuating that if Ron Paul is the Anti-war candidate, then all the others are Pro-war? Please.
When will the spineless journalists in this country bring up Hillary's "not-so-squeaky-clean" past? Hmmmm? When will they do it? Or are they afraid of "premature arrival at room temperature"?
Jeez, Bushie, calm down. What's wrong...did Rush take the day off?
You're assuming that I listen to Rush. You are wrong.
Dude, do you actually watch the news? Or read the paper? Are you really expecting me to buy that there's any stone yet left untruned when it comes to HRC?
Personally, I don't like here and I never really cared for Bill. (I'm an Obama man myself, if you want to knwo my "bias") But the heaping piles of ridiculous BS that the media, and the "vast right-wing conspircay" have been drudging up on both Bill and Hillary since 1994 has been truly absurd. And compared to the actual misdeeds of the current administration, even the worst allegations of (both) Clinton(s) wrongdoings are petty and insignificant.
You don't have to like her (I don't) but to say there's been a lack of scrutiny is indefensible. (Well... it's just plain stupid actually.)
Hannities on the case, that's not good enough? Not to worry, your hounds will be bellowing some enough. Sheesh, no patience at all. Timing is very important here. You should have plenty of time to come up with some original and clever anti Hillary chants. Even if the effort should fail. That merely means that your "brain trust" can keep your brain pan swimming in endorphines caused by the rage. You have to ask yourself though. Can my physiology take four to eight years of that kind of abuse?
Romney the family values guy?
Well, I hear he is descended from a very large family. ;>)
Yep, he had two parents, four grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great great grandparents, etc. Just like the rest of us.
chuckle.
Except Mitt probably has about 1200 cousins. ;>)
That could be, but if you got to researching, you would be surprised at the number of cousins you have through the ages. No polygamous marriages in my family tree and yet I can find close to that many cousins in the last five generations.
Keep going... at some point it's going to increase by more than a factor of 2. (You probably quit just shy of that point.)
He may have more 1/2 cousins than I, but then again there were a lot of our ancestors that had several marriages (in succession, not plural). Child bearing was risky 150 years ago along with accidents, illnesses, etc. But in the way or direct ancestors, he would have very few different than any of the rest of us.
"Newsday referred to Romney as "the family values candidate""
Is a dog considered to be part of the family?
This is interesting. According to Zogby 42% say they would never vote for Romney - 50% would never vote for Clinton. We could actually have an election where the president ends up being the least dispised person on the ballot.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSydENa0Li7gbqzyhsNLwa_rpJWg
Isn't that what all the elections are these days? As far as the poll goes, I think it is flawed, as it does not adjust for name recognition disparity.
I am not a Hillary fan, but I would be comfortable with the Hillary/Mitt matchup. As more people see his sliminess and learn who he is and what he stands for, he would go down in flames in the general election against any of the dems.
That seems to be the problem with all of the repub. candidates. I can't see any of them winning the general election against any opponant.
Oh man. I've been voting that way for years. (And haven't voted for a winner yet!) :)
I just wrote about Bob Jones III's endorsement of Romney, which he was apparently pleased to get. Why? Does he endorse the BJU cult and their tactics? Why is no one putting him on the spot for THAT? Family values, my ass, more like FASCIST values.
So I suppose if you're an environmentalist, you also support eco-terrorists? Maybe Gore supports people who blow up bio-tech companies? Why is no one putting him on the spot for THAT?