Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Mitt's Many Metaphors

Former Gov. Mitt Romney's (R-Mass.) new ad portrays America's children as adrift in an ocean of vulgarity, pornography and drugs and alcohol (view the ad at our Channel '08 blog).

"I'm deeply troubled about the culture that surrounds our kids today," Romney says in the ad. "I'd like to see us clean up the water in which our kids are swimming."

The ad's "ocean" metaphor is the latest in a string of such rhetorical devices designed to convince social conservative voters that Romney is their best choice in the 2008 field.

Late last week, Romney penned an editorial for Townhall.com, a conservative Web site, touting the "four walls of the American home."

"The most important work being done to strengthen America's future is the work being done within the four walls of American homes," wrote Romney. "Children need the guiding hand of responsible parents."

And then, of course, there is the "three-legged stool" of strong defense, strong economy and strong family values that is the essential element of Romney's stump speech.

Amid the myriad metaphors, there is a message.

Romney's decision to go up in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina with his most direct appeal yet to social conservatives coincides with the stumbles of one-time adversary Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain and Romney had spent much of the campaign battling for both leading social conservative activists and for the affections of social conservative voters.

But, with McCain eliminated -- if not forever, certainly for now -- Romney's strategy seems aimed at consolidating his support among social conservatives before former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) officially jumps into the race. In the early days of his non-candidacy candidacy, Thompson has painted himself as the lone "true" conservative and his win strategy seems to be to run to the ideological right of everyone currently in the race.

If Thompson can effectively get to Romney's right, it puts the former governor in the middle of an ideological spectrum that has Thompson on one end and Giuliani on the other. That's a position quite similar to the one McCain found himself in for much of 2007, trapped between Romney on his right and Giuliani on his left.

Romney's campaign is no doubt aware of the danger of drifting into that no man's land and this ad sends a strong signal that he isn't planning to give any ground when it comes to his conservative bona fides.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 16, 2007; 3:37 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: More Departures From McCain '08
Next: Cleveland Bound ... for a Date With Edwards

Comments

i am amazed at what i see here. i am so sick of seeing government ruin our nation due to lack of vision and carelessness for what this country stands for. Bush sr., clinton, and bush jr., have run us into the ground. We now have the chance to vote for a leader who has a proven record of change and ability to make things better and all we can do is pick apart his vision to make America a better place to live? Shame on you who can't see the fall of America taking place and then act like it's not our responsibility as a people to chose leaders who desire to change and leave this nation in better shape for our children than our recent fathers have left it for us. Mitt is a man a moral value and you can't deny that by saying he didn't get ride of porn at marriott, thats just idiotic and it shouldn't be hard to realize why. I have sat at dinner with the marriotts and they are an amazing family with great family values.
I am sure we all could find things about everyone of us that we could all pick apart and make it look like what we value is nothing more than a sham to further our lives, but it wouldn't be true.
Bill Clinton was a careless man who shamed his country openly, George W. Bush has done some stupid things because of not seeing the big picture same as his father, none of them were near the man Mitt Romney is. Lets be responsible for once and put a man in office that can follow through with his promises, who emulates our previous presidents that have caused the greatest improvements, and carries with him the stature of the men that laid the foundations of this great nation, you should study this man before you chose to put him down and not make a decision based on what party you are, or what you heard, make the decision based on truth and the whole picture, not on his job at marriott. thank you

Posted by: staticrug | July 22, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Has it ever occurred to the media folks that most people don't give a rat's ass about who is raising what money from where ever??? It's a lot like the way movies are rated these days. When I was young, we had reviewers who actually went to the show and actually provided a lucid account of what the show was about. Today...all we get are box office figures. As I said before, who gives a rat's ass??? I certainly don't.

Posted by: AJP | July 22, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Has it ever occurred to the media folks that most people don't give a rat's ass about who is raising what money from where ever??? It's a lot like the way movies are rated these days. When I was young, we had reviewers who actually went to the show and actually provided a lucid account of what the show was about. Today...all we get are box office figures. As I said before, who gives a rat's ass??? I certainly don't.

Posted by: AJP | July 22, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Mr Romney, moral preacher? What about him trying to provide "high cover" for pedophiles and child molesters by distorting Obama's support for age approporiate sex education.

Criticizing teaching five year olds that inappropriate touching of their bodies is wrong is a real perversion Mr. Romney.

Posted by: RiverRed | July 21, 2007 8:00 AM | Report abuse

In the state of Utah, basically run by Mormon Republicans, the liquor stores are owned by the state. The state is the only entity that can sell liquor and wine. The Mormon religion does not allow the drinking of alcoholic beverages, but the Mormon-run government benefits from the sale of these alcoholic beverages. Ca anyone say "hypocrisy" and can anyone explain why individual companies cannot sell alcoholic beverages to consumers? This is a monopoly!!!

Posted by: Utahreb | July 18, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

At last a morally clean Republican is running for President. Mitt Romney is the only man in power that is so like a father figure to people who have a weird fixation on father figures. I would gladly let him indoctrinate my kids and my estate into the Church of LDS when I die. He is the best of the worst slate of Republicans ever presented to this country. All others seem to have immoral, debasing behavior (like being a Democrat) and languages (they know a few words of Spanish). I will vote for Mitt Romney and I hope he wins the primary and then gets crushed in the general!

Posted by: KKKaroline | July 18, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

At last a morally clean American is running for President. Mitt Romney is the only man in power that is so like a father figure to us. I would gladly let him take care of my kids when I die. He is the best for this country. All others seem to have immoral, debasing behavior and languages. I will vote for Mitt Romney and I hope he wins!

Posted by: Caroline | July 18, 2007 3:11 AM | Report abuse

At last a morally clean American is running for President. Mitt Romney is the only man in power that is so like a father figure to us. I would gladly let him take care of my kids when I die. He is the best for this country. All others seem to have immoral, debasing behavior and languages. I will vote for Mitt Romney and I hope he wins!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 3:11 AM | Report abuse

I sincerely think that Mr. Romney has the best platform and vision for this country. I couldn't care less about this Marriott porn thing, I'm sure he would censor every tv in the hotel if he could, pornography should be banned everywhere. If children arae watching porn with parents that's the saddest if not the meanest form of child abuse apart form doing what they are watching. It seems like Mike is so professional and got tired of the ignoramus that post languages that came from Mars. So uneducated and unprofessional.

Posted by: Caroline | July 18, 2007 3:05 AM | Report abuse

To smallcage,

You wrote: Any discussion of Romney needs to begin with a FULL reading of the book 'Under the Banner of Heaven' by Jon Krakauer. The questions to Romney should not be what his role was in porn in the Marriott, but rather how many fundamentalist (polygamist) Mormons he knows, how many of them indulged in underage marriage (statutory rape) and incest, and his role in making sure they were prosecuted. I would be surprised (shocked) if there is any Mormon who does not know some of these people in the fundamentalist movement

I am a Mormon and I can asure that I do not know nor have ever met anyone in the so-called fundamentalist movement. There are literally millions of Mormons who have never met any of those wackos. As for your attacking Mitt Romney on not prosecuting them I have to ask, Has Romney ever been a prosecutor in any state? Has he ever held public office in Utah? The answer is no, so your attack makes absolutely no sense. John Krakauer's Book is also a stupid reference. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Mormon religion, properly called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most so-called fundamentalists have never been members of the church and live in isolated little communities in Utah where they control everything. Mitt Romney has absolutely no power to stop them, that is up to the Utah State Police. Get a brain and vote for a man who shows more character and integrity than any other man to have run in memory.

Posted by: navghost | July 17, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

When it comes to literacy on this blog we are all children in Lake Wobegon: well above average. Unless we get linked to by Drudge, that is.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 17, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

True, I triggered the hahaha-dork red flag there. Oh, well! We've all done worse in our time.

Re referencing you, Judge -- For what it's worth, I was just trying to think of someone who often garners compliments on nice wording. I didn't mean to suggest that you are big on scatological humor.

Personally, I have a soft spot for scatological humor... especially when it involves the word "stool" and when a politician practically asks for it. "Ha ha ha" as they say.

Posted by: Golgi | July 17, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting that this is NOT a D-originated issue. See below from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/blumenthal (forgive me for reading anything from The Nation but you can't accuse me of not being open-minded)

"The assault was launched on July 5 with an opening shot in the form of a breathless press release issued through the mega-ministry Focus on the Family. In it, veteran antiporn crusader Phil Burress called Romney's failure to take action against pay-per-view hotel porn during his tenure on Marriott's board "extremely disturbing." That same day, a Focus on the Family spokesman took to the radio airwaves to ask whether Romney would "turn a blind eye" to pornography if elected President. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which functions as Focus's Washington lobbying arm, immediately joined the pile-on. He briefed the Associated Press on the record, explaining that Romney must "take some responsibility" for his supposed connection to Marriott's porn profiteering. The AP report on the accusation against Romney was subsequently reprinted in the pages of major outlets from the Boston Globe to the Washington Post. It only took a full six years after Romney resigned from Marriott's board for the Christian right's leading lights to profess their outrage--and only hours for the press to echo it."

Heck hath no fury like your own party turning on you.

And Golgi, as the apparent gold standard of 'funny' around here I thought that Proud's comment was chuckle-inducing. Not a side-splitter, or side-s*itter (mining the same vein of humor), but amusing. Unfortunately, typing an appreciative "ha-ha-ha" doesn't constitute a significant intellectual contribution to this blog.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 17, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I see these newly found views of Romney as another example of flip flopping. While Romney was on the Marriot board, he checked off on hotel porn in order to align his pockets with cash. He knew many married men would travel on business and order such garbage, and was fine with it b/c it profited him. Now that he's running for the Republican nomination, he again looks after himself by promoting a conservative cultural agenda. What a hypocrit. instead of a 3 legged stool approach, his campaign slogan should be "What's in it for Mitt?" This is all Romney truly cares about.

As a Christian Conservative I do agree that the decay of moral fibers in this nation, as well as peace loving hippies attempting to wussify America, are major issues. Bush has stood firm in support of social conservative values, and aligned the courts with judges who will uphold these values in years to come. I'm thankful for this, but I'll say that Romney is not the person we need. He's a flip flopper interested only in his self promotions.

Posted by: reason | July 17, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

It has just been disclosed that the Mass. State Crime Lab has not analyzed more than 16,000 pieces of evidence including more rape kits. If Romney is such a good manager, how come he never found out about this in his four years in office. He obviously wasn't riding herd on the Big Dig project which collapsed killing a woman driving through a poorly designed and poorly inspected tunnel in his fourth year in office. Is he a great political leader? His party lost seats in the Mass. General Court after his campaign to pick up seats. He couldn't sustain a veto on a party line vote, but it didn't matter because on hundreds of those vetoes that he loves so much, virtually every member of the General Court voted to override him.

Posted by: Afraid of Crime | July 17, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm not going to trust a man that spends 300 dollars on makeup and a makeover to tell me what's morally right for my kids. Thank you, no. He should go back to Massachussetts.

Posted by: Will | July 17, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

'This Saturday, Fox News's Cashin' In did a segment asking whether a bipartisan Senate plan to raise taxes on tobacco products to fund an expansion of the successful Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is "moral."

Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig called the proposal "discrimination," analogizing it to "all blacks" or "all Christians" having "to pay a surcharge for kids health care." He also argued that smoking "harms nobody but the smoker," proceeding to light up a cigarette on-air to prove his point. '

scraping the bottom of the ethics barrel... wh*res.

Posted by: fox shills for tobacco | July 17, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Anonymous 9:17 makes a good point. (More accurately, the person plagiarized in the anonymous 9:17 post makes a good point.)

I've seen several prominent conservatives say that the war in Iraq is now going well because of our great new strategy. They say that the old strategy was a failure, but the new one will succeed. But there's no way they would have criticized the president's war strategy a few years ago, even though they now say it was flawed.

Think back to 2004. Kerry said that we'd made many mistakes in Iraq, and he wanted to change our strategy and do something different. Bush, and the conservative establishment, said we needed to stay the course. Now a few years later, we change our strategy entirely, and the new strategy is better. (According to the conservative pundits, at least.) Doesn't that mean that staying the course was wrong in 2004? Doesn't that mean that John Kerry was right?

Of course it doesn't! Because he was criticizing the present strategy. And as we all know, it's wrong to criticize what the president does. It's only acceptable to criticize in retrospect. I wouldn't be surprised to see William Kristoll write a column in a few years about how the surge was a stupid idea, but some new general has a strategy that will lead us to victory!

Posted by: Blarg | July 17, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Hey Golgi, I thought proud's comment was hilarious -- and right on. If I were Romney, i would never utter the word 'stool' again...

Posted by: drndl | July 17, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

President Bush says that he should be trusted on military issues because he listens to his commanders. But he has a tendency to celebrate his generals when they're providing him political cover -- then stick a knife in their backs when they're no longer of any use to him.

Last week, Bush rejected any blame for the chaos that ensued in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. So whose fault was it? Bush pointed the finger at Gen. Tommy Franks, the Central Command chief at the time. "My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes," Bush said.

That's the same Tommy Franks to whom Bush awarded a Medal of Freedom in 2004.

And when virtually all of Bush military line of command, including the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, opposed his "surge" proposal late last year, Bush responded not by listening, but by removing the top two commanders responsible for Iraq and replacing them with more amenable leaders, including Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Oh these GOP "family values" guys running for president, who insist that letting gays marry will threaten marriage, but who, when the going got tough, cheated on their wives and wound up divorced (both activities seriously threaten marriage, I've been told). Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich; it's a Mount Rushmore of adultery.

To me, Rudy Giuliani is the worst of them, a Catholic who pulled strings to get his first marriage "annulled" -- that's divorce but without the sin, only available to well-connected, usually wealthy Catholics -- over his first wife's objections, to marry Donna Hanover, whom he later divorced -- for another woman.

Of course, many of these same people supported the impeachment of President Clinton over a consensual affair with a young adult. Impeachment-backing state Rep. David Vitter, by the way, wrote this in the Times-Picayune: "Some meaningful action must be taken against the president. If none is, his leadership will only further drain any sense of values left to our political culture." Vitter has yet to state what meaningful action should be taken against him for patronizing a prostitute.

Posted by: hypocrites | July 17, 2007 9:13 AM | Report abuse

From proudtobeGOP:

CC writes "And then, of course, there is the "three-legged stool" of strong defense, strong economy and strong family values that is the essential element of Romney's stump speech"

And then, of course, there is the "brown- runny stool" of canine origin, that is the essential anecdote for understanding Romney's whatever-it-takes attitude toward life and politics.

--

Ha ha ha! C'mon, Dem-leaning Independents, this is funny. If Judge C. had posted this you would be all over it. How rare and precious is the moment when poo jokes are apropos. (apropoo)

Posted by: Golgi | July 17, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Any discussion of Romney needs to begin with a FULL reading of the book 'Under the Banner of Heaven' by Jon Krakauer. The questions to Romney should not be what his role was in porn in the Marriott, but rather how many fundamentalist (polygamist) Mormons he knows, how many of them indulged in underage marriage (statutory rape) and incest, and his role in making sure they were prosecuted. I would be surprised (shocked) if there is any Mormon who does not know some of these people in the fundamentalist movement, and I would expect Romney to dance around the entire issue. A good question would be what he intends to do about the fundamentalists if he is elected. He talks about protecting our kids - what has he done about protecting Mormon kids in the past ? Should we expect that any new position he has taken on child protection will wipe out his past inaction on Mormon kids ? These are questions that need to be asked of him on a continuing public basis until there are real answers that he can be held accountable for. I believe Romney will be found just another hypocrite - except that protection of kids certainly should trump visiting the local prostitute.

Posted by: smallcage | July 17, 2007 8:58 AM | Report abuse

I know it's a pretty high bar, but Bill Kristol, the founder of the Project for a New American Century that spawned the Iraq war, the man whose editorials often seem to be inserted directly into the president's speeches, and who once boasted that "Dick Cheney does send over someone to pick up 30 copies of [The Weekly Standard] every Monday," has now just written the single most deceptive piece of the entire war.

The charitable view is that he's lost his mind. The less charitable view is that he's now officially surpassed Dick Cheney as the most intellectually dishonest member of the neocon establishment (the highest of all high bars). The truth-shattering piece appeared yesterday on the front page of the Washington Post Outlook section. It is entitled "Why Bush Will Be A Winner."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2007 8:57 AM | Report abuse

"wavering" in his support of George Bush and the Iraq War -- has just given some very interesting quotes to CNN. For instance, he strongly suggested to the network that more GOP defections are coming on Iraq:

Voinovich added that other Republicans are close to speaking out against the President's current strategy.

"I won't mention anyone's name. But I have every reason to believe that the fur is going to start to fly, perhaps sooner than what they may have wanted."

In private, Voinovich is more blunt, using a profanity to describe the White House's handling of Iraq by charging the administration "f--ed up" the war.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2007 8:54 AM | Report abuse


'The U.S. military's top general said Monday that the Joint Chiefs of Staff is weighing a range of possible new directions in Iraq, including, if President Bush deems it necessary, an even bigger troop buildup.'

Since the military generals say we can't maintain the current strength past next March, and recruitment goals are not being met, how do you think thiswill be accomplished?

Draft?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2007 8:51 AM | Report abuse

The rise and fall of MZM opened a window into the world of classified Pentagon spending and how Congress monitors it - or can't. Each year, billions of dollars are spent on classified projects that have little, if any, public oversight.

Classified Pentagon spending has increased by nearly 48% to about $27 billion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Some of that money went to companies such as MZM, which provides computer systems and analysts for intelligence programs.

But the clandestine nature of this work and the budget that pays for it obscures wrongdoing from public oversight, says Marvin Ott, who specializes in congressional intelligence issues at the National War College.

"For anybody who wanted to exploit a weakness in the system, it's easy," Ott says. "Rotten apples are showing up in this process, and it's a serious problem because there is so much potential fo ongoingr large-scale abuse."

Posted by: fyi | July 17, 2007 8:26 AM | Report abuse

He talked about making porn, sex, and drugs less available to our KIDS. As a parent this is EXACTLY what I want to hear and Romney's got my vote!''

You are a moron. How exactly is a president supposed to 'make porn, sex, and drugs less available' to your kids? Come to your house and teach your kids values and self-respect? Sorry, that's YOUR job.

Republicans apparently can't take responsibility for ANYTHING.

Posted by: Cassandra | July 17, 2007 8:17 AM | Report abuse

While we're trapped in Iraq, the people who attacked us on 9/11 have been busily preparting to do it again:

(CNN) -- A series of bombings in recent days in northwestern Pakistan is spreading fears in the region and the West.

Paramilitary troops take positions in northwest Pakistan. Dozens of people died in weekend attacks in the region.

Militants linked to the Taliban in the area near the Afghan border say a truce reached with the Pakistani government last September is off.

That deal has been blamed for an increase in attacks on U.S. troops over the border in Afghanistan, as Taliban fighters were able to prepare, train, and reconstitute weapons supplies without interference from the Pakistani government.

But Pakistani and U.S. intelligence officials worry about what happens if the cease-fire isn't salvaged. They fear the militants could spread their attacks to Pakistani cities, potentially developing a wider home base in Pakistan, a country that has nuclear weapons.

The Pakistani government has sent tribal elders to meet with militant leaders in the area in hopes of reviving the peace deal.

The Taliban are the former Afghan regime that sheltered al Qaeda until the U.S.-led war following the September 11, 2001, attacks. Now, U.S. intelligence officials say al Qaeda has established a "safe haven" in Waziristan, just over the border into Pakistan, and that Osama bin Laden is believed to be in the area.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2007 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Wait...It's not a pro-environment/clean-the-oceans ad? Ohhhh.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: paul | July 17, 2007 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton funded by Playboy! Hugh Hefner is a major donor to Hillary Clinton's campaign. I guess this tells us where she stands on the porn issue! Don't believe me? Check this: http://mittrocks.blogspot.com/2007/04/who-donated-to-whom.html

Posted by: Cyberdyne | July 17, 2007 6:44 AM | Report abuse

Nowhere in the ad did Romney talk about eliminating pornography for adults, so the Marriott thing is just a cheap shot. He talked about making porn, sex, and drugs less available to our KIDS. As a parent this is EXACTLY what I want to hear and Romney's got my vote!

Posted by: Rocko | July 17, 2007 6:40 AM | Report abuse

1) The ad is lame. Full of platitudes and the usual cliches. Pathetic.

2) Marriott profits from selling porn in their hotel rooms. Romney was compensated by Marriott for his service on their board of directors. Romney is funding his presidential campaign party with his personal fortune. Therefore, one can only conclude that the porn industry is technically funding Romney's campaign. Interesting.

Posted by: Iowa caucusgoer | July 17, 2007 1:33 AM | Report abuse

There's no way Romney didn't know about motel room smut at Marriott. Was it his job to stop it? Probably not. But he knowingly profited from his association with a company that provides porn. If he was truly offended by porn then he should have refused any association with Marriott.

Apparently his idealism stops at his wallet.

Hence, the charges of hypocrisy.

Posted by: Hillman | July 17, 2007 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Slightly different version of new Romney ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RFY3GYDEbg

:)

Posted by: Jas | July 17, 2007 1:15 AM | Report abuse

This whole thing with Romney and the constant flip-flopping is really quite embarrassing.

How can you trust someone who just three years ago says he is pro-gun control, pro-abortion, and pro-gay rights, and now on all those things he is the opposite. And it's just a coincidence that he has this epiphany right around the time he is running for President.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. I don't like the thing about allowing porn in the hotel rooms and now screaming about how terrible it is.

Posted by: Stan T. | July 17, 2007 1:12 AM | Report abuse

you nailed it, roo. except you forgot the quotes around 'management' -- as 'republican management' is one of those hilarious oxymorons.

Posted by: kanga | July 16, 2007 11:17 PM | Report abuse

You know, guys, I have to agree with Mike on this one. Accusing Mitt of hypocrisy is just stupid.

I mean, it is practically the definition of Republican management to get paid five figures to go sit in some boardroom once a month without the faintest clue what the company is doing.

Posted by: roo | July 16, 2007 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon -

I do not support Romney and I hope he is not the R nominee, for reasons I disclosed throughout the day.

I included the quote in the interest of full disclosure.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 16, 2007 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Thompson's candidacy is progressing exactly the way it needs to for him to be able to mount a challenge. He knows that he can't raise enough money to compete as a declared candidate right now, so he's taking advantage of free media and Law & Order re-runs to keep his name out there. When he officially declares his candidacy, those re-runs will be pulled off the air. Same thing happened with Ronald Reagan movies in 1980.

Don't look for Thompson to declare until the end of this year, November or December. Just in time to make a big splash and have enough money to saturation bomb IA, NH, SC, and FL with ads.

Posted by: JamesCH | July 16, 2007 8:49 PM | Report abuse

I have news for you folks. Bush is 'The Leaker'.

In the Name of Brutus

Dames and Gents,

In times unprecedented and tinged with despair, it is appropriate to reflect on the founding of our great nation. It was not with George Washington, but with Brutus, and not the one who killed Caeser. There was another who rebelled against the tyrant monarchy of Rome, The Tarquins. He wrote the Roman Constitution that would stand for 500 years. His sons sided with the monarchy. The monarchy lost. So to punish his sons and found a perfect union, he immolated his own sons.
Machiavelli speaks fluently and voluminoulsy and voiciferously on this subject, in 'The Discourses', and yet is proved wrong on several counts by the miracle of America. He says that a nation founded in servitude, as America was a colony, will never win its freedom. He also says that a nation founded on fertile soil that is easily defended, will in time loose all of its freedoms because it will become, eventually, inevitably, sloth and sated, and will forget to protect them.
As regards 'The DC Madam', I am personally involved. You can view my involvement at http://www.maytheygetwhattheydeserve.com/KAT.html
Sometimes a mouse will lead you to a kat, and a kat can lead you to a rat and a rat, ironically, can lead you to the truth. And the truth, as they say, and as it is written, will set you free.
May all those who sincerely and patiently wait for freedom be free and may all those who desire to steal those freedoms find instead the dire consequences that accompany contempt for a great man like Brutus.

As regards Machiavelli,
eram sapiens tamen nefas
And again,
vox vocis publicus est vox vocis deus

May The Republic stand forever and bring the Glory Of The World, with Dignity, into Its Treasury.

Purple

Virtue

Posted by: Virtue Lord Purple | July 16, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Mitt's running a smart campaign. He needs to choke off Thompson while FDT (for some reason) delays.

Spending big to shut an opponent down seems a small price to pay.

Posted by: JayPe | July 16, 2007 8:32 PM | Report abuse

McCain's implosion shows that voters prefer a recent convert to their views, over a man of principle.

Is this a lesson from the Bush years? Stubbornness is to be avoided, a POTUS must respond to situations following the peoples will.

Posted by: JayPe | July 16, 2007 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Glad to know the insulting, badgering, 'Mike' person is gone -- they never stop with the insults and misleading/false info -- and proudtobegop, I agree with you about Mitty. He is a phenomenal hypocrite and flipflopper. And I have to say, I also sympathize about John McCain. I too, thought he was a decent man, and I never understood why he would not fight back against Bush in 2000 and defend his family. He was attacked with the most vile sort of smear against himself, his wife, and his child.

Posted by: drindl | July 16, 2007 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin, if Mitt really said "I do vehemently oppose practices or business procedures that will allow kids to be exposed to obscenity" - how is he going to police each guest's hotel room? As far as I know, "parental controls" are offered on EVERYONE'S cable, and mandated on no one's. It therefore follows that even if Mitt were to ensure that parental controls were activated on every TV in the building, all Mitt is preventing is having kids watch by themselves, and as almost no hotel guests are unaccompanied children anyway, this is meaningless moral posturing. Otherwise, the only way kids would be able to watch porn would be WITH THEIR PARENTS... and if parents are willing to watch with their kids, it is doubtful that the enabling of parental controls on their TV sets will do any good.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 16, 2007 7:43 PM | Report abuse

newageblues, Good point. The Romney rhetoric "children need the guiding hand of responsible parents" rings hollow.

How about the example he set for his children when he strapped the family dog on top of the car on a long trip, and then hosed him down when the dog lost it from fright....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 16, 2007 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Mitt and porn... "an active, hands-on director."

"Hands on." Hee hee hee...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin and Spartan, Thanks for the info. Personally, I think his military experience and level head would sell very nicely.

I also understand Clark isn't a fan of "Bomb Iran" Joe Lieberman. Wow, Clark sounds better and better! Wonder if Connecticut is sorry yet....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 16, 2007 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Romney says "The most important work being done to strengthen America's future is the work being done within the four walls of American homes," wrote Romney. "Children need the guiding hand of responsible parents." Fine, but the question is how to help children not blessed with a good home environment, and when the Republicans hate government except for the cops and prisons and military, and the opportunity to use it to promote Christianity,it's hard to help kids.

Posted by: newageblues | July 16, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Mark In Austin - To quote from the Lancaster article on this: "...When Romney left to take over the 2002 Winter Olympics, a Marriott statement described him as an "active, hands-on director."
Marriott refused to say if its contract with On Command was ever discussed or voted upon by the board, saying the directors' votes and meeting minutes are proprietary..."

Sounds to me (and others looking at this) like Romney did handle this. But, there is more information. The adult cable television and hotel pornography industries "vote" with their campaign contributions. The single largest contribution went to the Republican Party and the majority of their contributions went to Republican candidates (members.cruzio.com/~celticfolkmusic/RepublicansSwallow.html). You might also check to see just how much moiney Romney has received from Adelphi, the first and now largest cable televison distributor of porn (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=478984&page=1).

Posted by: MikeB | July 16, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon-thank you for spelling Hypocrite, god this blog needs a spell check.

truth hunter-nope, just rumors but it add the general in the mix, and it would make the dem line up even stronger. my only problem is clark waited too long to jump in.(or too early? check back in say october/november)

loundon voter-no prob. seems mike has left. i guess he just wanted to pimp his new blog. maybe you should pay him a visit sometime?

Posted by: spartan | July 16, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Truth, I receive twice-weekly solicitations for funds for blue dog Ds from Clark because I gave him money in 2003-4. Sometimes I respond as asked. He sends occasional policy statements that I tend to appreciate. But Clark has not hinted at jumping in, although I may be days behind on the non-business mail. I'll look.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 16, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

In the story MikeB cited, the following also appears.

'I am not pursuing an effort to try and stop adults from being able to acquire or see things that I find objectionable; that's their right. But I do vehemently oppose practices or business procedures that will allow kids to be exposed to obscenity,' the former Massachusetts governor said.


Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 16, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

I think we're straying from the meat of the matter here.

Mitt uses metaphors. And it's awesome. I love apt metaphors! He also uses similes; remember the time when he stated that Bill Clinton gave out pardons "like lollipops" at the end of his second presidential term? And the null set incident? (Sure, he inaccurately said "a null set," but the math reference was appreciated by those in the know.)

All facetiousness aside, I don't think it's trivial that Romney has more sophisticated rhetoric than the other GOP candidates. At the point when the candidates actually have quite similar positions on most matters, it's always handy to be able to say it the best. When we see Thompson and Romney side by side in a debate (if old Fred ever deigns to officially enter), it will be interesting to see how their styles play off one another, and who comes off looking better.

Posted by: Antigone | July 16, 2007 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Back to Romney.... when someone can't think on their feet, or their handlers don't trust them to think on their feet, they sloganeer and use "rhetorical devices." Bush's "stay the course" comes to mind.

Please, we've had enough of this kind of shallow governance... no "cleaning up the water where our kids swim," or,"three-legged stools."

I want to hear some intellect.... Iraq disengagement policy, border and port security policy, and, how are we going to get our financial house, and the falling dollar, healthy again.

I read somewhere that Gen. Wesley Clark may jump into the race.... anyone know if this has any validity?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 16, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -

I am someone who thinks that consenting private adults paying for porn in their hotel rooms is no business of the government and that only the social conservatives, who want to dictate to all of us, could possibly have any interest in this particular connection to Romney. As I mentioned earlier, his public personna since becoming a candidate is so aimed at enticing the evangelicals that he has lost my interest - never mind the dog story and his desire to expand detentions in Gitmo.

But sometimes you tend to overstate your source material. I looked at the AP story you cited and it actually says

"Marriott had a contract with On Command Corp. for its television and movie services during Romney's board tenure. Conner said the contract was signed in 1991 -- the year before Romney joined the board."

It does not intimate in any way that Romney negotiated the contract.

Don't do this. You are a smart guy who can make an argument without making up facts.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 16, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

that being the amount of time necessary to understand the probable direction of the plot and the arc of character development. Why? What did you think I meant?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun, I'm sure Mike understands. Hell, he probably only has to watch for four or five minutes....

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Mike B: Good post. For someone so "knowledgeable" about corporations and hotels, Mike doesn't seem to understand how much profit there is in renting movies for $7.95 that are watched for -- yes, there have been studies on this -- around 12 minutes.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 16, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

JimD: Don't be fooled by Mike's "audit committee" misdirection play. The audit committee is just a subset of the board. A director is a director.

Spartan: you're welcome.

Mark: I find Wal-Mart to be a generally loathsome company and Hillary to be a generally loathsome individual, but I'd still vote for her over the likes of this fake, shallow, hypocrite Romney.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 16, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Mike, in re: "So you are still claiming that Mitt is a hypocrit, even after I had to explain to you what the board of directors is, and what the audit committee does?"

First of all, my Republican friend, it's spelled "h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-E." "Hypocrite."

Secondly - yes. I am from Massachusetts, and remember what he said to get himself elected governor in re: reproductive choice and homosexuality. I also remember - almost exactly at the same time the idea of his running for president first came up - how quickly, and how brazenly, he insisted we were all mistaken, and he had ALWAYS been a moralizing busybody. And I remember his statements nationwide, in which he mocked the state which had bought his BS and elected him governor.
There is nothing you can say that would convince me that Mitt is actually a genuine, moral man whose priority is anything other than the glorification of Mitt Romney... but I dare you to try.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 16, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Mike - "...Porn is not a primary money-making strategy for the Mariot hotel chain...". WRONG! Not just wrong, but so ignorantly wrong, it defies compreension. Under Romney, the Mariot chain contracted with On Command. At that time, this was the largest provider of progographic movies to the hotel industry. Romney reportedly handled the contract with On Command personally. (ap.lancasteronline.com/4/romney_pornography
As for profit, the single largest revenue source for the hotel/motel industry is inroom pornographic movies (www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/business/mainstream.html). It reportedly accounts for 10% OF THE PROFITS (not gross receipts, so don't play that game with us) for Mariot.

Posted by: MikeB | July 16, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Mark - oops, brain fart

spartan - Mike is probably right that Romney was not really aware of the in room porn when he served on the board. The audit committee would deal with the accounting firm that audited the company's books and produced the financial statements that the company must release for the perusal of investors. I am sure that Marriott's financial statments do not contain a revenue line for porn. Unless the religious right groups were making it an issue then, it probably did not come to the board's attention. Of course, it does add to Romney's image as insincere and hypocritical in his social conservatism.
Personally, I do not give a rat's a@# if consenting adults watch pay-for-view porn in Marriott hotels. I have no use for these right wing religious groups that advocate getting government off our backs and into our bedrooms.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 16, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Actually, HRC has not served on the Wal-Mart board since her Rose law firm days.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 16, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Mike, in re: "It's funny how you libs hate big evil corporations, but dont' even understand how they function."

Its' funny how you neocon's hate stupid liberal grammar, but dont' even understand how contraction's function.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I guess if you take the porn out of the Marriot (ooh the sheets) we will just have to go back to the Church basements

I could not believe how long it took for someone to point out the obvious on the Marriot issue - good job JimDFl - you know if I am an a Board which I believe is making money immorally I quit - that simple -

I grow soooooooo soooooooooo tired- of just because Hillary was on the Walmart Board - does not make Mitt's hypocracy okay - this game of distraction - is so old and pathetic - will honesty and frank discussion ever win over distraction - when the post comes up about Hillary talk about Walmart all you want - including the fact they brought low cost presciption drugs to America - oh how low cost prescription drugs must have injured senior citizens - the agony of it all

Biden, Lugar, Warner Solution to Iraq

http://balancingtheissues.com/iraq_solution.htm

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | July 16, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun -

One should be able to retrieve the minutes of Walmart's Board meetings while HRC served. Perhaps CC should take the lead and find each of HRC's votes and post them. As an employer's attorney, I was interested when Walmart singlehandedly got the Bush Administration to reverse its own FTC's recommendation regarding China, in 2005.

Was HRC on the Board then?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 16, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

loundon voter-thank you. its like talking to a brick wall with him.

Posted by: spartan | July 16, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Mike: you're really missing the point here in your incessant need to demonstrate your knowledge of corporate governance.

Romney opened this can of worms with his latest idiotic comments.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 16, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I don't know many kids that can get a reservation at a Mariot, pay for it, and then buy a porn.
-strawman argument. you can see alot worse on say mtv or any of the other networks.
you dont even have to pay for a hotel room. so your little set up fails badly.

Posted by: spartan | July 16, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

To a director on the board, yes it is.

Do I agree with you personally? Yes. I think porn is a big decision.

But once again, to a director, no. He probably wouldn't even know one way or the other.

Do you know what the board of directors does? (see above)

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"a detail that minute in relation to the massive size of the organization."

whether or not to offer in-room porn is hardly a minute detail.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 16, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Colin -- sorry, I misread your post.

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm pretty shocked to find out about Hillary sitting on the Wal-Mart board. She makes it easy for people to hate her.

Jeez, Mitty vs. Hillary? I'll still hold my nose (tightly) and vote for Clinton.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 16, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun Voter -- this really isn't about whether or not Mariot benefits from the porn they show.

There are 2 facts that I would like someone to reasonably dispute:

1.) Porn is not a primary money-making strategy for the Mariot hotel chain. Motel 6? Maybe. But if anyone thinks porn is even a fraction of the revenue from room reservations or room service, I would like to hear your delusions.

2.) As a member of the Audit committee, Mitt Romney was in NO position to influence, one way or the other, a detail that minute in relation to the massive size of the organization. I would love to hear someone dispute this, since I spent some time as an auditor.


http://conservativestandards.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Colin,

Do you think the Clintons should benefit from taking advantage of the elderly?

Do you think Hillary should benefit from a company that exploits its workers (Wal Mart)?

Why is it that these never come to light, when they are both much more obvious and hurtful examples of derrangement?

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Mike: If you don't think Marriott gets a cut of the $$$$ from in-room porn rentals, you're dumber than you look.

At least the Marriott family doesn't play Mickey the Dunce when it comes to this issue. They made a business decision and never looked back.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 16, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Mike -- I think it is rather hypocritical for Mitt to have served as a director for a company who benefited from what he's now denouncing. But with Mitt, this would fall so far down my list of hypocritical actions that it's almost not worth commenting on. Oh, and obviously his actual position had NOTHING to do with whether the company continued offering porno. On that point, I agree completely.

As an aside, I ALSO think Hillary Clinton is something of a hypocrit for finding religion on "fair trade" and workers rights after she sat on the board of WalMart for a decade+. And I suspect she will get dinged for that as the primaries roll along.

Posted by: Colin | July 16, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Spartan -- he was talking specifically about children, and I don't know many kids that can get a reservation at a Mariot, pay for it, and then buy a porn. Did you read the article above?

I do know lots of people who work at Wal-Mart...


SteelWheel -- There is no such line item on an income statement as "porn revenue".

Moreover, porn was not a material component of their revenue. Why don't you look at their income statement?

Let's put on our thinking caps. How does a hotel make money - by charging guests to use their rooms, or for the xx% that happen to purchase movies? Oh wait, doesn't SHOWTIME make that money?

I am impressed that you actually know what an income statement is, but unfortunately you don't know what's on it, or even what a hotel does, so you're as ignorant as the rest.

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

This pitch by Romney typifies the R approach to the '00, '04 and '08 elections. "R's are strong on morality/D's are weak." My question is, will the voters buy it? Even in the primaries it seems like a weak message given that Bush used it so recently. And they don't have Mr. Clinton and his pecadilloes (hey, I spelled it right!) to beat up on, at least not directly. And RG's message sort of pre-empts it what with his flag waving "President of 9/11" emphasis.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 16, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Washington - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has threatened to keep the Senate awake all night Tuesday to protest GOP blocking tactics on moves to compel U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. Senate Republican leaders, alerted to Reid's plans on Monday, said they have the votes to keep the president's surge policy in place, at least for now, and called Reid's up-all-night gambit a stunt that wouldn't change any minds.

Looks like reid is running on fumes. What a bozo.

Posted by: head clown | July 16, 2007 05:13 PM


ok folks whats wrong with this post right here?

umm its off topic
right, also this forces all repubican gop senators to defend a deeply unpopular war, basically saying the gop does not support the troops.
yes and also the the poster is somesort of clown, the way he signed it head clown makes the reader think that he is charge of clowns.
gee you think?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Vote rudy - the lion who entered the Liberal heartland and tamed it.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Mike,
so what the HELL did Romney do then! You mean to tell me this man didn't know how the Marriott was making its money? And for the record YOU ARE NOT QUITE RIGHT about what a board member's responsibilities are.

A big part of board members responsibilities is to to ensure that the strategy the CEO has chosen is indeed making money for the company. In order to know this board members need to know the company's balance sheet, which includes the income statement. A business genius like yourself should know that an income statement itemizes where a company gets its money from.

So, there is now way for Romney NOT to know that Marriott was in the pornography business and still consider himself a "Hands on Board Member".

Mike, you really need to do your homework next time! You are NOT as business savvy as you think you are!

Posted by: SteelWheel | July 16, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

JimD-good post. but my problem is he's going around talking about how america is going into moral decay when he's working for a company that shows porn. thats being a hypocrit. if anything your problem should be with social conservatives also.

now everyone take a deep breath now.

Posted by: spartan | July 16, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

JimD -

Marriot is showing porn in the restaurants now?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 16, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Mark. I'll do the same. I'm really concerned that he has no money left...what the heck?? Those Bush cronies were leading him down the garden path on a number of issues, and spending like drunken sailors in the process. Shameful, truly shameful.

Now, if we can just prevent Romney from getting nominated, I will consider this election cycle a success.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 16, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

JimD -- you're right on all accounts.

I wasn't just defending Mitt from the libs, but also the conservatives that are equally ignorant.

And, if Mitt were on the board today, perhaps they may examine that issue.

Thanks for bringing sanity to this.

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Good response! Instead of being a man and admitting that you decided to post something without knowing ANYTHING about it, you instead attack me.

-ok only because you started in with a stupid stawman set up.

And it wasn't even a good argument
-and yours is? i mean do you even work in a buisness? why are you even defending them? im sure they have pr firms to deflect any flack that comes their way.

Even if I worked for Mitt Romney, I wouldn't be any less right, and you wouldn't be any less wrong. So let's just grow up.
-ok fine, ill just ignore you from now on and you up your meds.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

So you are still claiming that Mitt is a hypocrit, even after I had to explain to you what the board of directors is, and what the audit committee does?

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Washington - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has threatened to keep the Senate awake all night Tuesday to protest GOP blocking tactics on moves to compel U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. Senate Republican leaders, alerted to Reid's plans on Monday, said they have the votes to keep the president's surge policy in place, at least for now, and called Reid's up-all-night gambit a stunt that wouldn't change any minds.

Looks like reid is running on fumes. What a bozo.

Posted by: head clown | July 16, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Mike

The people who are really making an issue of Romney's tenure on Marriott's board are the social CONSERVATIVES. Some liberals are trying to use this to accuse Romney of hypocrisy.

I agree that the range of in-room movies offered in Marriott's restaurants would not normally be a matter for the board. However, once an issue like that becomes a matter of public controversy, the board may take it up.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 16, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

ok, but when's the last time you walked into a walmart and brought a copy of hustler? besides were addressing mitt's hyprocacy not hillary. was anyone saying corporations were bad. nope, i pointed out that some on the right though he was a hypocrit for allowing that. but yet you launched into a LIBS HATE BIG BUISSNESS rant. now do yourself a favor and up your meds ok.

Posted by: spartan | July 16, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Spartan --

Good response! Instead of being a man and admitting that you decided to post something without knowing ANYTHING about it, you instead attack me.

And it wasn't even a good argument. Even if I worked for Mitt Romney, I wouldn't be any less right, and you wouldn't be any less wrong. So let's just grow up.

http://conservativestandards.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

After a mass appearance at an NAACP event, according to CBS.com & the Washington Post:

Edwards walked over to Clinton and told her they "should try to have a more serious and a smaller group" for a fall debate. Clinton agrees: "We've got to cut the number, because they are just being trivialized." She agrees with Edwards again when he, presumably referring to some of the lower-tier candidates, says "they're not serious."

Clinton then mentions to Edwards that she thought that their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates but the effort got "detoured" and "we've got to get back to it."

Ok. Front runners hate to give non-entities like Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel air time during debates which is often the only notice they ever get. But that's not the interesting part of this story.

The interesting part of the story is after Kucinich found out about the whispering campaign he went public with his distress which required a response by both Clinton and Edwards.

Result? They both lied.

According to the WashPost:

Clinton, in New Hampshire, seemed to lay responsibility on squarely on Edwards. "I think he has some ideas about what he'd like to do," she said, adding that she liked participating in the forums.

And in Iowa, Edwards said "that he wasn't in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings. Rather, he said he wanted to see them separated into two groups of four candidates each, chosen randomly."

It was typical Hillary to immediately blame someone else. It wasn't her at all, don't you see? She loves having Mike Gravel and Chris Dodd clogging up the arteries of debates.

It is Mr. $400-a-haircut Edwards who wants to cut out the little people - even though his entire campaign is centered around his abiding adoration of the Bill Richardsons and Joe Bidens of the national economic debate.

The mikes were open and their words had been recorded. Hillary, unguarded, is still Hillary: Demanding, self-centered, willing to throw anyone over the side to further her career. Edwards, as he has done throughout his public career, re-cast his position into something which had no bearing on what he had previously said.

Posted by: leopard's spots | July 16, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

proud - I did not forget the shaggy dog story, but you referenced it so well that it did not bear repeating.

bsimon and proud - I sent the letter to McCain's finance address, with a small check,
and suggested in a ps that others may do the same as I did not know your given names...

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 16, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

For all you Wal-Mart haters out there...

I don't see any of you libs in an uproar over the fact that, in the SIX YEARS her heiness Hillary Clinton sat on the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of WAL-MART, she never did a thing to fix their poor labor and healthcare practices.

http://conservativestandards.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

ok mike, so what your saying that romney made no decisions on what was being shown on hotel tv's. ok but your trying to convince a bunch of posters on a wapo blog. go tell that to tony perkins and the other anti porn crusaders. besides your defending him a tad too much. i mean your gonna make people think you work for the romney campagin(wait too late)

Posted by: spartan | July 16, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Spartan -- and everyone else who writes without thinking.

An audit is an independent opinion about whether or not a company's financial statements are misstated.

The board of directors has 2 large functions - hire and fire the company's management (CEO), and hire and fire the auditors - those guys that look at accounting data.

Neither of those jobs involve running the company, to any degree.

The shareholders elect the directors. The directors hire and fire the management.

Thus, the board is the shareholder's check on management. The board is there to ensure that the company is taken in the direction that shareholders want it to go.

The board does not make strategic decisions. They're not the "idea men". That would be the CEO and his team.

The board does not make sales calls.

The board does not sell anything, buy anything, or market anything.

The board does not conduct any sort of business transactions.

Is this simple enough for you to understand?

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

oh ok, just wondering mark, its a rare day that i agree with someone like proudtobegop on the fact that romney is a shameless pandering/flip flopper.

but hey im just some lib who posts on here most of the time

Posted by: spartan | July 16, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

spartan - that was indeed sarcasm - my point was that Romney could unite a wide variety of folks as represented on "The Fix", against him.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 16, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

mark in austin, thanks for the kind words but i have to disagree with you on romney.
im not sure that was sarcasm or not, but every time i hear the man speak, he's usally railing on everything from democrats to the french.

and to the poster that thinks that mitt had no power in decison making, ok say if you did a audit of the hotel chain and saw that your presenting "2 in the pink, one in the stink" this month on the pay channels. what would you say.

a) no harm no foul, they have to pay for it, and its for consenting adults.

or

b) OH NOES!!!111 p0rn on my teevee!!! get rid of it!

guess which one that mitt chose?

Posted by: spartan | July 16, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Daniel: So should we expect yet another flip-flop if Mitty gets the nomination?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 16, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Daniel - four months ago I had not ruled out anyone but Kucinich, Gravel, Hunter, and Tancredo. I favored McCain, Biden, and Richardson. I was an ideal swing voter who could have registered in either primary.

Romney opened his mouth, disavowed any moderate position he ever had taken, spoke in favor of more detentions at Gitmo, and told me, a father of four [who have all become productive adults] how our kids are doomed by smut. Insulting, anti-libertarian stuff loses swing voters and may not appeal to most evangelicals, either. Bad primary strategy - Desperate to don social conservative garb and become

A SHEEP IN WOLF'S CLOTHING!

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 16, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Once again, you are an ignoramous.

The board of directors are a completely separate entity from the corporate officers.

It's funny how you libs hate big evil corporations, but dont' even understand how they function.

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Directors do NOT RUN THE COMPANY. The job of running the company on a day-by-day basis falls on the shoulders of management.

Mike-so your disputing that romney is not apart of management?

During a recent Associated Press interview, Romney said he did not recall pornography coming up for discussion while he was on the Marriott board from 1992 to 2001. Despite being CHAIRMAN of the board's AUDIT COMMITTEE

so which means he was upper management and part of day to day decisions, but hey why let facts get in the way of a political point eh mike?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I think you're all missing the point of the article. What Chris is explaining is a strategic "primary" campaign move designed to solidify his conservative credentials. This is not intended as as general election messgage.

Posted by: Daniel | July 16, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

spartan, drindl, and Blarg speak with a relatively liberal voice. I reacted just as Blarg did, although I am neither godless nor liberal. I suspect that a libertarian like JD - very conservative on economic policy but
wary of Big Brother - would react just as all of us have. Romney is a uniter, not a divider.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 16, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"Former Gov. Mitt Romney's (R-Mass.) new ad portrays America's children as adrift in an ocean of vulgarity, pornography and drugs and alcohol"

Wasn't a study released last week claiming that certain 'immoral' behaviors among teens are declining? Is Gov Romney pandering to a voting bloc based on fallacious beliefs?

Posted by: bsimon | July 16, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

The five legged cow of freedom.

http://www.phillipfivel.com/trip/india9.jpg

Posted by: S | July 16, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

CC writes "And then, of course, there is the "three-legged stool" of strong defense, strong economy and strong family values that is the essential element of Romney's stump speech"

And then, of course, there is the "brown- runny stool" of canine origin, that is the essential anecdote for understanding Romney's whatever-it-takes attitude toward life and politics.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 16, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

People I know in my community who are democrats spend far, far more time with their kids than repubican parents I know -- this whole argument is just more republican drivel.

Posted by: Karen | July 16, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Chris writes, of Mitt:
"The most important work being done to strengthen America's future is the work being done within the four walls of American homes," wrote Romney. "Children need the guiding hand of responsible parents."

So, would-be-President Romney, what are you going to do about it?

Posted by: bsimon | July 16, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Lets add some depth to this conversation before we get ahead of ourselves.

The job of the board of directors is to represent shareholders (owners) of a company - primarily in their oversight of company management (aka, CEO, CFO, COO, etc.)

Directors meet about once every 6 months, for less than half a day, on average.

Directors do NOT RUN THE COMPANY. The job of running the company on a day-by-day basis falls on the shoulders of management.

If any of you libs out there are really upset over this, you should be asking why the CEO didn't do something about it, not Mitt Romney.

The audit committee chair is responsible for communicating with, and hiring, the independent auditors. That is so far removed from company policy it's rediculous.

Anyone who is using this as a so-called example of Mitt Romney's hypocracy is ignorant of corporate structure.

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

lame message, what can the president do about this. it is all market demand driven. id love to see it improve but how can a presidential candidate magically expect to do that from the oval office.

that is something that will change of itself as the pendulum swings back. young kids these days are actually more conservative than my ilk in Gen X. it's not the presidents doing, it's just that the pendulum swings back and forth over time

mitt's stress on this is just so he can take false credit for it, or hand credit to the repubs, when people start quantifying the backswing of the pendulum. lame lame lame lame stinks like giuliani taking credit for things that were happening already.

Posted by: xbak | July 16, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

oops sorry what i ment to say is people in your own party.

Posted by: spartan | July 16, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Could this guy be any be any bigger hypocrite? I don't have a problem with consenting adults and porn, though I thnk it's childish and depressing, but for people that do, this Marriot thing is an issue -- or should be. He was on the board for 10 years, after all.

Posted by: drindl | July 16, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

your serious right mitt? so what do you have to say when folks in your home state blast you on this?

BOSTON -- Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, who rails against the "cesspool" of pornography, is being criticized by social conservatives who argue that he should have tried to halt hardcore hotel movie offerings during his near-decade on the Marriott board.

Two anti-pornography crusaders, as well as two conservative activists of the type Romney is courting, say the distribution of such graphic adult movies runs counter to the family image cultivated by Romney, the Marriotts and their shared Mormon faith.

"Marriott is a major pornographer. And even though he may have fought it, everyone on that board is a hypocrite for presenting themselves as family values when their hotels offer 70 different types of hardcore pornography," said Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, an anti-pornography group based on Ohio.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading conservative group in Washington, said: "They have to assume some responsibility. It's their hotels, it's their television sets."

During a recent Associated Press interview, Romney said he did not recall pornography coming up for discussion while he was on the Marriott board from 1992 to 2001. Despite being chairman of the board's audit committee, he also said he was unaware of how much revenue pornography may have generated for the hotel chain.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288253,00.html
(yup fox news,first link on google no less)

honestly have you even heard of the first amendment? this is making me wonder if the gop is handing the white house and 2008 election to the dems.

Posted by: spartan | July 16, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Is there anyone who believes the president's job is to keep vulgarity and pornography away from children?

I know that the candidates can't talk about the big issues all the time. And maybe I'm just a godless liberal who doesn't care about "moral issues". But considering what's going on in the world and in the country, teen alcohol abuse shouldn't be the president's top priority. And it worries me that there are people who really will vote for the candidate who's toughest on vulgarity, ignoring all of the real issues.

Posted by: Blarg | July 16, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company