An Unexpected Gift

11:05 am EST November 21st, 2006 | News | 12 Comments

I was expecting some mudslinging, but not this soon. Mitt Romney is now officially on the attack.

In an interview with The Examiner, Romney described himself as more conservative than Republican rivals McCain, R-Ariz., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on a variety of issues. “We’re in a different place on immigration; we’re in a different place on campaign reform; we’re in a different place on same–sex marriage; we’re in a different place on the president’s policy on interrogation of detainees,” Romney said.

“I’m a conservative Republican, there’s no question about that,” he said. “I’m at a different place than the other two.”

–

Romney was less charitable to McCain, who on Sunday told ABC News:
“I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the
states.” McCain also said, “I believe that gay marriage should not be
legal.”

Romney seized on the remarks.

“That’s his position,
and in my opinion, it’s disingenuous,” he said. “Look, if somebody says
they’re in favor of gay marriage, I respect that view. If someone says
— like I do — that I oppose same–sex marriage, I respect that view. But
those who try and pretend to have it both ways, I find it to be
disingenuous.”

The lesson the GOP "learned" from the 2006 election is that the voters wanted a "conservative" party, when in fact the people want moderation. The GOP candidates seem ready to all out-winger each other ("I don’t support gay marriage", "Well I support killing gays!"), which will set up a great comparison with the center-left mainstream Democratic candidate.

ALSO: While it may not be fair, increased visibility for polygamists has got to be the last thing Mitt Romney wants to see in the press right now.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

12 Responses to “An Unexpected Gift”

  1. JWG says:
    November 21, 2006 at 11:27 am

    Even the “blue” states have a majority of their populations voting against gay marriage when it is on the ballot. By what measure do you think this issue will hurt a Republican?

  2. Oliver Willis says:
    November 21, 2006 at 11:44 am

    It’s one thing to be against gay marriage – that’s a position clearly in the mainstream (sadly) what is extreme is the coming Republican fight over who can be the most hostile to gays. It’s a hate-off where the winner is the Democrats.

  3. BD says:
    November 21, 2006 at 11:52 am

    Romney’s in a different place than McCain on the gay marriage thing–he’s in the state that first decided bans against gay marriage were unconstitutional. His is an uphill battle against those insidious gays, whose desire to destroy all traditional marriages are probably why Britney and K-Fed broke up.

  4. JWG says:
    November 21, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    probably why Britney and K-Fed broke up

    This isn’t considered a good thing?

  5. JWG says:
    November 21, 2006 at 12:18 pm

    what is extreme is the coming Republican fight over who can be the most hostile to gays

    I’m missing what part of the article indicates any hostility.

  6. michael says:
    November 21, 2006 at 12:55 pm

    I’m missing what part of the campaigning strategy of “I’m going to make sure that these people aren’t granted these rights” doesn’t come off as hostile.

  7. BD says:
    November 21, 2006 at 1:10 pm

    Touche. Perhaps if there’d been gay marriage a long time ago Ike and Tina would have split up long before he decided to start hitting her.

  8. JWG says:
    November 21, 2006 at 1:26 pm

    While I’m not opposed to gay marriage, I don’t see how opposing that “right” is necessarily “hostile.”

    If you oppose a right to polygamous marriage, does that make you “hostile”?

    If you oppose the right to use whatever drug someone wishes to ingest, does that make you “hostile”?

  9. michael says:
    November 21, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    While I’m not opposed to gay marriage, I don’t see how opposing that “right” is necessarily “hostile.”

    Two reasons: No one is clamoring to write anti-drug and anti-polygamy laws into my state’s Constitution.

    Also, it’s not hostile to hold a belief, but to make it a central part of a campaign strategy? To say “I’m the best candidate because I’ll be the best at banning gay marriage” sure seems hostile to me.

  10. WhiteWhale says:
    November 21, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    Oliver’s theory:
    They are trying to out-wing each other and be the most anti-gay.

    Proof:
    Enter a possible Sam Brownback to the list of presidential hopefulls for the Republicans.

    Seems pretty obvious what the right wing is doing and I kinda agree with Oliver’s theory.

  11. Rounds77 says:
    November 21, 2006 at 9:57 pm

    “Even the “blue” states have a majority of their populations voting against gay marriage when it is on the ballot. By what measure do you think this issue will hurt a Republican?” — JWG

    There was on time in our history where we could have amended state’s constitutions to forever ban African Americans their rights. It probably would’ve passed. Who cares if it’s a winning or losing strategy — it’s just wrong.

  12. Adam Herman says:
    November 24, 2006 at 9:19 am

    So Romney favors a FEDERAL ban on gay marriage?

    A lot of conservatives are going to see that and notice that Romney is coming out against federalism. Not smart.