The gay Republican activist group "Log Cabin Republicans" has unveiled a new television spot attacking Mitt Romney's record . . . on social conservative issues. Jim Kuhnhenn reports for the Associated Press:
A Republican organization that advocates gay rights is targeting GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney in an ad campaign, seeking to undercut his support among social conservatives by highlighting his past statements in support of abortion rights.Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, has spent months courting social conservatives in key primary states, trying to erase doubts about his previous moderate stands.
But in a 30-second television ad that will air in Iowa and on national cable, the Log Cabin Republicans use clips from a debate during Romney's unsuccessful 1994 campaign for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts to portray him as an enemy of religious conservatives.
"For years he's fought conservatives and religious extremists," an announcer declares.
Read the rest at the link above. Interestingly, the ad doesn't mention Romney's record on "gay rights" - or the fact he is currently running ads highlighting his support for a Constitutional Amendment banning "same-sex marriage."
The Log Cabin group isn't endorsing any candidate in the primaries, and isn't known to be particularly sympathetic to "social conservative" issues generally, so it appears the real reason for the attack on Romney is the "gay marriage" issue. And, since the obvious intent of the ad is to damage his chances with social conservatives in the Republican primaries, that's why they don't mention the marriage issue at all.
Naturally, they have every right to do it and I in fact support more leeway for them and other groups to run political ads than current law allows, it does seem worthy of remark that the first ad of the cycle by a "gay rights" group omits any mention of the issue.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Campaign Ads, Primaries, Republican, Romney
Tags: campaign ad, Iowa, Log Cabin Republicans, presidential campaign, Republicans, Romney
Comments (10)
So, are they pro-choice abo... (Below threshold)1. Posted by kim | October 4, 2007 8:37 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So, are they pro-choice about sexuality, too?
=================================
1. Posted by kim | October 4, 2007 8:37 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 4, 2007 20:37
2. Posted by David Blastoy | October 4, 2007 11:58 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I can see why this group targets Romney over other social conservatives. He is one of the only candidates to go beyond opposing same-sex marriage and opposes same sex civil-unions and basically all rights for same-sex couples. You can verify his separation from the other candidates on this issue at http://tinyurl.com/2xhwpl.
2. Posted by David Blastoy | October 4, 2007 11:58 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 4, 2007 23:58
3. Posted by minivera | October 5, 2007 8:58 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
so that's how they spend their 30 pieces of silver, with which they've betrayed the rest of us...
3. Posted by minivera | October 5, 2007 8:58 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 5, 2007 08:58
4. Posted by P. Bunyan | October 5, 2007 11:13 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Kim, I love you and your peculiar comments, but sometimes they are so enigmatic they go beyond my comprehension. This is such an occasion.
And Minivera, I don't get your point either. Are you prehaps a fan of Romney? Do you realize he's simply a more attractive, and slighly more consevative version of John Kerry?
4. Posted by P. Bunyan | October 5, 2007 11:13 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 5, 2007 11:13
5. Posted by kim | October 5, 2007 12:01 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I can sympathize, PB, love the player, hate the game.
Well, yes, my favorite are the enigmatic ones I can't explain, but follow me here. Gay people generally do not consider their sexuality to have been a choice. Neither is the existence of a fetus, from the point of view of the fetus.
==================================
5. Posted by kim | October 5, 2007 12:01 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 5, 2007 12:01
6. Posted by P. Bunyan | October 5, 2007 12:29 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ah! I get it Kim, thanks. And interesting point too.
I've often been tempted to use a modified "chickenhawk" argument on the pro-abortionists.
e.g.: How dare you support abortion when you yourself have never been aborted? We must find a way to communicate with fetuses and let them choose whether or not they should be killed.
6. Posted by P. Bunyan | October 5, 2007 12:29 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 5, 2007 12:29
7. Posted by kim | October 6, 2007 2:52 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yes, a similar strain of thought. I'm trying to find the invalidity of your modification just as the original is invalid and can't find it easily.
It's all about the abrogation of becoming. Well, that and the enigma of being. Nice, huh?
================================
7. Posted by kim | October 6, 2007 2:52 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 6, 2007 14:52
8. Posted by kim | October 6, 2007 2:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I maintain an underlying theme that gaiety is exuberant and luxurious. This is illustrated by the readiness to trot as stalking horse. Expendible, you see. Ask Craig and Foley.
=====================================
8. Posted by kim | October 6, 2007 2:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 6, 2007 14:57
9. Posted by bryanD | October 6, 2007 6:09 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
"I maintain an underlying theme that gaiety is exuberant and luxurious.=kim"
Except for the poop-eating part!
9. Posted by bryanD | October 6, 2007 6:09 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 6, 2007 18:09
10. Posted by kim | October 6, 2007 9:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
One man's exuberance is another man's protuberance. There is no accounting for taste. Or smell.
=================
10. Posted by kim | October 6, 2007 9:42 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 6, 2007 21:42