Posted on 05/10/2012 6:33:32 AM PDT by xzins
Barack Obama has come out of the closet....at least about gay marriage. Until now he has kept Willie and Pete stuffed in a corner behind Moochelle's expensive sweaters and shoes. Tiring of hiding them, and with so much cash and positive media coverage at stake, he finally ushered them out into the limelight as his version of North Carolina smackdown. How dare those yokel Tarheels vote down gay marriage! Damn hillbillies!
Republicans have rallied to North Carolina's side!
Uhhh....wait a minute...last night's Fox News "Red Eye" spent most of the showing demeaning all things North Carolina decision as well. How dare they vote down everyone's God given right to poke holes in a cesspool. (See Romans 1&2 about same-sex relationships and inexcusable violations of nature.)
Now for Republicans, the bad news. (No, I actually mean conservatives who are supporting the GOP so far this year. If it ever did, Republican no longer equals conservative.)
Mitt Romney had gay marriage out of his closet years ago. So the only question is this. When responding to Obama's initiative is it best for a conservative: (1) To be silent (The “I need to avoid hypocrisy” response), or (2) To Say "Romney did it too." (The “I want some media adulation too” response), or (3) To say, "Romney did it best!" (The “proudly grab the initiative” response.)
Please spare me the arguments about Romney either converting or not really being able to help what he did. If he converts any more than he has in the past, Romney will get his own Transformer action figure.
And if we argue "He couldn't help it." maybe he should get his own bobblehead, 'cause the Good Lord knows, it's enough to make you laugh at a silly drifting with the wind character. And it will keep you from crying.
Apparently the GOP response is to shout down anyone who asks such questions.
Seems pretty cowardly to me.
Ping
You miss a huge factor: Obama’s supporters versus Romney’s supporters. We don’t have Kings who rule by edict. Obamas pro gay stances are far more dangerous than Mitts - simply because the majority of Obama’s supporters will gleefully push that agenda.
This is not to excuse Romney - that’s not the point. The point is how malignantly dangerous to our society the two sides are. One if far more malignant than the other, even if they are both equally un pure. Which they are.
FUBO X whateverthedeficitnumberis.
Did it ever?
Obviously Romney would only be slightly better than Urkel as President but our focus and energy would be better spent making sure as many Tea Partiers as possible get elected to Congress to minimize the harm a President Romney (gag!) or President Obama (puke!) can inflict on humanity.
So, does this finish his waffle?
What is the next ‘hot’ topic of discussion to keep the public distracted from the main issue facing us all, THE ECONOMY!
The RAT game plan is to ATTACK ROMNEY for anything that will stick, so it can help their socialist candidate.
The continuation of criticism against Romney is nothing more than promoting the RAT game plan.
On the other hand. Pressuring Romney to STICK TO CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES is another thing.
So, anytime I see continuing CRITICISM of Romney, I see it as nothing more than taking aim to shoot down our chances of defeating Obama. That is the work of the RATs! and I view that with great suspicion now.
On the other hand, promoting positive conservative positions for Romney to maintain is another!
Larry Kudlow was interviewed this morning on Chicago WLS radio and he said that this is just another diversion by Obama to flee questions about the economy and loss of millions of jobs which is what American are really concerned about.
Kudlow said that it is also a trap set by Obama for Romney to fall into by getting off message about the economy.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/lawrence-kudlow.html
http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2453166&spid=
Maybe for a few years when Reagan was in office, when they had to be dragged kicking and screaming.
Spot on.
Romney needs to put a big sign in his campaign office, “IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID.”
You are correct.....Mitt would never have the guts to put a flaming sodomite in charge of the educational system of our children like zero. Brainwashing, conditioning and sexualizing young children is blatantly happening with ignorant parents thinking it is “progressive”.
Marxists always go after the children—to change their worldview (with lies and sex education to destroy Christian morality and insert pagan/atheism).
The parents with the “old fashioned ideas of Judeo/Christian Ethics” will die off in a decade or so anyways.
Marxists have subverted public education since Dewey and got total control under Carter. Schools and media are forming the foundation of “Right and Wrong” in our children based on the Satanic religion and Alinsky. OWS are examples of what public school vomits out.....they are devoid of reason and Christian morality-—just useful idiots to be controlled and directed by Marxists.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Seems like Romney has already given his response.
-------------------------------------------------------
His record in liberal MA could have been a lot better but:
"Romney was a leading voice against gay marriage as Massachusetts governor. The courts legalized gay marriage in the state during his tenure, but he supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
After gay marriage became legal, Romney sought to enforce a statute banning state officials from marrying gay couples from other states. In a speech to conservatives last winter, Romney touted that move, saying he prevented Massachusetts from becoming the "Las Vegas of gay marriage."
----------------------------------------------------
Sure, he did a lot of bad things as well, but our choice is Romney or Obama. Which is it going to be?
Well, Kudlow is partly right. Then again, Kudlow was gushing in 08 and 09 about how brilliant Elizabeth Warren is. Larry stepem in heap big doo doo on that one.
But it’s not “the economy” versus the social issues. The “economy” issue is actually about liberty in all of life, and it just manifests itself by killing the economy. That’s another point limosuine Larry misses.
The answer is obvious. However, expect Obama supporters, disguising themselves as conservatives, to try to discourage us from voting against Obama and making absurd claims such as there is no difference between Obama and Romney.
Less than 2% if that many are queer. Why are we talking about this? Because Obama has nothing else.
Mark my words, Obama will not only lose but he will lose by huge numbers. Numbers so large that no amount of fraud will overcome it.
Mitt would never have the guts
You mean that? I would suggest he wouldn’t have the moral turpitude necessary to make such disgusting decisions.
But I could be wrong. He DID do healthcare...
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.