Skip to comments.Romney Steps on a Duck in NAACP Speech (Romney Puts Sexual Orientation on Par with Race, Creed)
Posted on 07/12/2012 7:10:54 AM PDT by xzins
It seems every time presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney gets conservatives looking his way, he does something to turn them off and remind them that one of the greatest concerns they had about him during the primary season was his soft record on the conservative social agenda.
Romneys speech to the NAACP was an otherwise unremarkable repetition of his standard campaign pitch until he got to this line, ... I hope to represent all Americans, of every race, creed and sexual orientation. From the poorest to the richest and everyone in between."
Of course, the President represents all Americans, but by including sexual orientation along with race and creed, Governor Romney undid a lot of the goodwill ...
Governor Romney and his inexperienced establishment Republican staff apparently failed to notice that by putting sexual orientation on the same plane as race and religion, Romney just undercut the rational and philosophical basis for opposition to same sex marriage. It also played right into the hands of supporters of the radical homosexual agenda.
Since Governor Romney and his speechwriters apparently havent figured this out, we will clarify it for them: social conservatives do not believe sexual orientation creates the same kind of constitutional rights that forbid discrimination based on race or religion.
Thats why we support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), for example, and why social conservatives lead support for marriage amendments ...
By pandering to those who want to give sexual orientation the same status under the Constitution as race and religion enjoy, Mitt Romney put many social conservatives back on the sidelines of the presidential campaign, wondering whether what he said at Liberty University is what he really believes -- or if he was just pandering to us, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativehq.com ...
I’m not surprised: Just weeks ago, Romney came out in favor of Gay Couples, and believe it or not said that at the state level Gays should be allowed to adopt children.
Just another reason not to vote for Mittens.
I noticed that in his speech also.
Once again, Mitten’s persistent drive to say anything to please everyone overcomes what otherwise was an excellent speech.
Yup, he’s still a vapid dork.
But...a vapid dork is better than the opposition...a sleezy, lying, unachieving, undocumented vapid dork.
Every sexual orientation covers a lot of territory. Try to be more careful Mitt.
I noticed that too and I don’t like it at all. However, I will still vote for him to get rid of Obama.
The House and Senate (hopefully) can restore and strengthen DOMA.
When Obama came out favoring gay marriage, Romney gut reaction was “I want to say nice things about gays, too...let’s see...I know...let them adopt kids.”
He doesn’t have a clue!
That’s one of the biggest reasons to not allow them to marry. Gee...what do you think’ll happen to these boys adopted by these gay men?
I guess he felt it was important enough to say what he did...besides, if you want Obama out, he’s the only chance.
Neither one of them are worth spit.
Both want to turn our kids over to the gay agenda.
And he wonders why he has troubles with conservatives...
Here’s a clue, Mitt: We think YOU ARE A RADICAL LIBERAL!
Black pastors to protest NAACP support for gay marriage:
It was totally unnecessary.
Won’t gain ANY votes.
WILL lose votes.
It was the only part of the speech that was pandering!
Plus blacks are generally not pro-gay, not the crowd to bring up the issue.
How in the name of all that’s holy could we, in this once great country, come down to a choice between a flaming Marxist and this? Makes me want to puke.
Another Obama supporter on FR.
“Fair and Balanced”.....
Sexual perversion is a BEHAVIOR, an unnatural one at that, NOT an ancestry or religious faith.
And a mercenary.
Better a vapid mercenary than a vapid, crazed idealogue.
“Romney just undercut the rational and philosophical basis for opposition to same sex marriage. It also played right into the hands of supporters of the radical homosexual agenda.”
His statements could also have been the cause of the reaction of the crowd(booing). Remember most Blacks are not supportive of homosexual rights, and in no way view the issue as a rights issue.
You have someone else in mind that could beat Obama?
This is a good example of how the Romney apologists are more concerned about getting Conservatives to vote for him than Romney is himself. He couldn’t care less if we vote for him, otherwise he wouldn’t be saying stuff like this.
Someone else? You think that Romney will actually beat Obama?
Yep, I was thinking the same thing.
Why would he even bring it up. It was dumb. On the plus side he didn't try to talk "black".
So, does that mean YOU support “sexual orientation” being viewed the same as ones race? I doubt it seriously.
Why can’t a conservative speak truth, G Larry?
Why do I have to pretend that Romney isn’t saying these things? I’m just not pretending with these guys anymore. They foist a freakin’ liberal on us, and I’m going to call it every time he says something from the radical liberal core that is him.
Not for one minute do I believe they would send Romney to the NAACP with a speech that hadn’t been gone over with a fine-toothed comb: parsed and re-parsed, strategized and re-strategized.
In short, they knew EXACTLY what they were saying, and they did so to send a “between the lines” message to their gay constituency. Any conservative who thinks otherwise is not being honest with himself. That’s the way these guys work.
This is NOT what you believe, G Larry. Join us. WE are the rebellion. WE are the resistance!
The homos have been trying to push “Gay is the new Black” for a long time,
and from what I’ve heard, blacks hate it.
You know, Romney went there and confronted the NAACP, told them Obama sucks, and got booed.
Then you have conservatives take one friggin sentence and come up with a whole article about how that one phrase yad yada yada....
It’s a bit ridiculous.
But for the life of me, I don't get this guy. He is so .... lifeless .... bland ... he makes me feel as if I ought to run up to him and hold a mirror under his nose before I call the Emergency Squad.
His lame ripostes to Team Obama's skillful lies are so namby-pamby "I am NOT, You are!" seem to be the limit of his commo skills.
I have no idea. I like to think he will.
Can we apply an ounce of logic? Saying you will represent all people does NOT say you support their agenda.
Romney does not support teh NAACP agenda, he got booed, but he still told them he will represent “all races.”
Saying he will represent gay people doesn’t equal support for gay marriage,etc. Any more than he is on the NAACP’s side on Obamacare or voter ID laws.
And neither do his supporters.
That is, one who actively (and politically) supports the radical homosexual-rights movement.
On the cultural front, radical homosexualism and Christian principle & morality are incompatible. They cannot co-exist.
Romney has made his bed; his position on this issue is clear.
He is my enemy.
Read my post #12 and quit your whining!
Why do you pretend the most important task in front of us isn’t getting rid of Obama?
This is a strange presidential race. Obama is campaigning for his extreme base to the exclusion of everyone else. Romney is campaigning for the undecided, to the exclusion of his base. Romney can’t win with this strategy. Perhaps, like McCain, he doesn’t really want to win.
I promise to cut taxes for the rich, and use the poor as a cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel.
I think Mitt will do a fine job of representing homosexuals.
You would have a really good point if this current statement were the first one, but added on top of years of political support of the homosexual agenda, you don’t.
Romney is a supporter of the gay agenda, G Larry. You either support that or you don’t.
If you Romney supporters don’t slam him on this, then you’re allowing it unchecked.
As for those of us not supporting the guy, we will slam his sorry butt every time he says or does something outside conservatism...which is just about daily.
So, do your work, man. Quit being a wimp.
I saw that. I said to the wife - “Now THAT’s the wrong thing to mention THERE! Obama’s love affair with the fags is turning off his black base, and Romney says this to them! What a dumbass!”
“Another Obama supporter on FR.”
Oh look, another asshat who calls people names if they don’t march in lockstep with the GOP.
Do the also wonder about the Pope's religious affiliation or where bears defecate?
Yeah, cause we all know we'd be WAY better off with OBAMA, huh?
“You would have a really good point if ...”
No, I just have a really fine point. The article is ridiculous.
IF Romney put race and gay rights on the same level (which he didn’t, the mere list in a sentence doesn’t turn apples into oranges) then the level he put them on is that on both race and sexual orientation he OPPOSES the agenda of the left. Period.
How can the author miss the fact that he was in front of a left wing race group, which BOOED him. They didn’t get on their chairs and cheer.
I thought he was referring to man or (war on) woman. Silly me. I’m not deep enough. LOL!
Are you voting for Obama in 2012? Or abstain from voting in 2012, which helps Obama by not neutering one of his vote?
Or may be you have some other person in mind who will defeat Obama in 2012?
Read the above lines again. They're from the article. They are eminently sensible. It's like saying "self-defense, family in danger, and personal whim confront us when we decide to pull the trigger."
You have put on the level of acceptability an item that shouldn't be there.
Oh, so there is some other person from other party than GOP who will defeat the radical socialist from Chicago in 2012?
Yes, you must be right. As soon as the GOPe chooses its RINO candidate, we should all fall in line.
So, so you can defeat a different radical liberal, you believe we shouldn’t speak the truth about the Republican candidate?
Are you among those who endlessly argue “my guy won the debate” when you know it was a lackluster performance?
Truth, entropy. Just speak the truth, and everything will fall into place.
I’m not lying or hiding anything for Mitt Romney. He gets both barrels just like a conservative will get when he steps out into never-never land.
Lying for these lightweights is part of what has brought us to this point.
O, good another stupid and moronic statement.
If one does not support Romney, is no way the same as supporting BHO, to assume they are they are the same is as I said above - stupid and moronic.
It would be really nice if RomneyBL would get a new refrain, you grow boring.
I think one can "represent" another without enabling them. Of course it doesn't hurt to let them think you might....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.