See Post 19 above:
"Now sit back and enjoy Jeff and other Romney rationalizers chase their tails explaining how the word 'all' in Romney's sentence does not include Scoutmasters, and how protecting 13 year old boys from exposure to adult males who engage in homosexual behavior doesn't matter to social conservatives anyway."
You need to get your rhetorical tutoring on how to appeal to social conservatives from somebody other than homosexual activists, Jeff. Labeling anyone who disagrees with you as a "hater" is a pretty big tip-off that your're a stranger in a foreign land, and it's not the key to success in Romney's "win the nomination by making social conservatives think I'm one of them" strategy.
It's all a matter of degree though, isn't it, given that homosexual activists would now accuse Romney of flip-flopping to the "hater" side. If you are in fact a conservative, you oughtta be ashamed of similarly deploying the last resort of those who can't argue their case and hope to silence any opposition with some perjorative labels.
But I tangle with the pros who tutored you, Jeff, on a daily basis, so your amateurish attempts will of course not silence me.
Now, who changed the subject?
I think you must have conceded my point.
Now, please prove to me that Romney is/was in favor of Gay Scoutmasters. If you can't (and I know you can't) then stop shoveling this peice of dishonest drivel in everyone's face you can.
More importantly, tell people who they should vote for in the GOP primary in 2008 . . .