- ‹ previous
- 4449 of 8807
- next ›
Romney Makes His Pitch for the Values Voters: Family! Family! Family!
It's Romney Time! The former Massachusetts governor takes the stage to a standing ovation here at the Washington Briefing. Let's go with a quasi-liveblog, shall we?
He starts hammering the family values message right from the beginning. With little prelude, he says, "I think those that know me would say that I am pro-family on every level, from the personal to the political." He then mentions his 45 children and 8,000 grandkids. Wait, it's more like five and 11. But it's high.
Romney is Mike Huckabee's top competitor for the free-floating Brownback votes. His gameplan for winning them: family, family, family. He's been speaking for fifteen minutes already, and it's been nothing but extolling the virtues of family. Apparently, the strength of America's families will determine our place in the "family of nations." (I could have sworn that had something to do with the military-industrial complex. But what do I know? I don't have 45 kids.) Also, "it really is time to make out-of-wedlock birth out of fashion again." So don't buy illegitimate kids for your fall wardrobe.
I will say this about Romney—though he doesn't seem concerned with anything but families, he is speaking in concretes. He wants to revise the tax code to encourage marriage. He'll use the bully pulpit to lower the number of out-of-wedlock births (presumably by raising the stigma with being a single mother or father). He isn't going to find time to mention health care or Iraq, but at least he's not just BSing his way through this speech.
Okay, more specifics. He's slamming the Massachusetts court decision that "got the ball rolling" on gay marriage. Now he's attacking stem cell research. Now he's promising to raise adoption rates. Now he's confirming the "culture of life" and condemning abortion. Now he's promising to "fight the modern plague, internet pornography." Now he's promising not to give child molesters who use the internet to prey on kids more than one chance. Do we do that currently?
School choice! Charter schools! Homeschooling! Reform the tax code! Affirm the place of faith in our public discourse!
Oh, wait, he might be confronting the religious right's discomfort with his Mormon faith. "I understand that some people believe they couldn't support someone of my faith," he says. "I'm so happy so many people of faith have come to endorse my campaign."
Oops, now we're off again. He's not going to get into the Mormon thing. He mentions the three-legged stool of Ronald Reagan—I think we've got a culprit on the anonymous flier.
And we're back full circle. More on the family, and how it's necessary to strengthen America. The crowd loves it. Romney gets a standing ovation on the way out, just like he did on the way in. Hey Rudy, you are so screwed.
That's a great picture of Mitt. His wives are pretty. Who are all the guys?
Miller, this is a bigoted statement. Shame on you. There is no room for hate.
Sweetheart, what does hate have to do with my comment? Quit trolling. That historically Mormons were polygamists is not a 'stereotype' but a fact. The idea that all those women were his wives is just funny because it isn't true yet resembles an acknowledged truth about his faith's history. This is called irony.
what was it George Carlin said about politicians lining up their family and presenting them as a reason he should get your vote?
"oh great, his d!ck works!! i'm voting for HIM!"
I hear you, Jet. I was scratching my head trying to figure out why this matters so much. When I work with people, hire someone to help me with something or anything else where credentials matter, I never even think what their family situation is. So I don't get what it's supposed to tell me - now I do - the plumbing is in working order.
Family Values is a winning strategy for Romney. People often think he is fake, but the family is not, it is his difinitive advantage over the other candidates.
I linked to this article at http://www.mittreport.com
Mr. Miller, I am willing to bet that each of the functional people you hire are the product of a family that cared enough to bear, feed, cloth, nurture, and support the child that grew into an adult for around two decades. Without the family you would have nobody to hire. Indeed, without the family we would be extinct as a species within 100 years. Your condescending attitude toward the family betrays a remarkable ignorance of society.
Define family for me, Chucky. Because I bet you thinks it's mommy, daddy and two kiddies when in fact family is diverse and always has been. Romney is a religious bigot who doesn't respect family diversity so he deserves a little poke. At least.
And another thing, Chucky. Of course we all come from families, but do you grill everyone who does work for you to make sure their family fits some standard you have about what that should be? Or do you trust your instincts and observational skills enough to figure out the person's values without that info? Don't forget, the debate in my eyes is why we put such a value on the family parade part of the campaign.
Chucky, Paul could be a troll, sure smells like one. Don't feed him.
My point is that functional people come from functional families. If you think that all a father has to do is make love to a women and that twenty years later a functional adult will emerge you are sadly mistaken. Mr. Romney has demonstrated a commitment to family, if for no other reason that he did what it took to help his wife raise five functional adults. Your joking about it being simply a matter of virility is insulting to every father in the world who has made a commitment to be a good father. And I, for one, resent it.
ChuckP, don't get upset with Miller, he is gay. Give him a break, please. We each have our own life's experience. You are straight and you have yours.
All the more reason for me to be upset. He of all people should know the value of a family that will stand behind him and love him. For him to make cheap jokes about it is as demeaning to his family as it is to anyone else's. And if he is a product of a dysfunctional family, it is all the more reason to understand the importance of family. Bottom line, there is no excuse for his cheap, tawdry jokes.
Chuck, why does this upset you so much? Obviously I validated your point that family is important. I just don't think people should have to fill out questions about their family on a job application. Do you think they should have to?
Stop making stupid jokes Paul, you sound like a Troll.
Thank you for your last response, although I don't understand where the question of answering questions about family on a job applicaton came from. Job applications should focus on specific qualifications for a job, not on personal data. I am unaware of anyone's position to the contrary.
No one said that specifically, Chuck. You are right. However, I feel that the suggestion is that family status = 'hirability' in a candidate. I think that hypothetically an unmarried, childless person could be as effective a president as a father or mother. I respect family but I don't share the mainstream bias against people who are single or without kids. The parade of family members to my mind validates this idea that we put familial status high on our list of criteria for a leader. I know that many people do, but I do not. That's where I have been coming from. The reaction to my first, jocular comment really surprised me - I didn't realize that people [not necessaily targeting you here, Chuck] were so thin-skinned, I guess because one of the values in my own wonderful family is humor and iconoclasm.
jet said, "
what was it George Carlin said about politicians lining up their family and presenting them as a reason he should get your vote?
"oh great, his d!ck works!! i'm voting for HIM!"
"
Actually, that was Gallagher. Still, the point is made that showing off one's children as a credential is somewhere between irrelevant and sleazy. If we are going to talk about children as qualifications for office, who has the nicest children who are now adults:
George H.W. Bush?
James Earl Carter?
William Jefferson Clinton?
George W. Bush?
Hmmmm . . . .