Romney Accidentally Crashes Gay Vets Date

It's nothing to do with his beliefs. It's just that it was terribly gauche, and he didn't have the good sense to apologize.

Cole said:

Am rather skeptical that Romney walked up and plopped down at someone's table uninvited. Doesn't really pass the smell test. The article was a hit piece from a gay website and seemed to take some liberties. (at the end of the story is a link to that claim Romney is connected to the KKK slogans.)

Not sure if Romney was ambushed or just having bad luck/timing. At the bottom of the article they is a clip to the actual conversation at the restaurant table. Was pretty civil overall.....

Click to expand...

To be clear, my comments make the assumption he sat down uninvited. If it did not happen like that, then the situation changes. And I had not noticed the Romney connected to KKK thing, that certainly drastically reduces the likelyhood of the story being true.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Let us say, for the purposes of argument, that for whatever reason you were politically in favor of abolishing heterosexual marriage laws. Would you not feel bad-- and indeed, look like a major asshole-- if you invited yourself to sit down at a table with a man and a woman and ask them for their political support in abolishing their marriage? Because, regardless of whether you support gay marriage or not, that is exactly what Romney did to those two men. He should be embarrassed for himself, and perhaps look at his as an opportunity for learn from his mistakes and reconsider his position. He won't, but he should.

Won't stop me from voting for him, if he takes the nomination-- Hell, the President's position isn't any better-- but it is still a mark against him.

Click to expand...

It seems a matter of opinion whether going up to be people in such a setting is appropriate. I can certainly understand the thinking behind saying he shouldn't of approached anyone there, although I suppose it isn't their restaurant and if the owner wants it that might be another story. But aside from that I don't think it makes you much of a fool if this happens, unless you had good reason to think they were partners. Usually two men in a restaurant are not homosexual lovers, though I don't know how they were sitting or what sort of restaurant it was or anything else about the signals involved which might have suggested to a normally observant person that they were.

If the history of presidential elections says anything, it says that taking an opposing stance to gay marriage is a winner at the polls.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Let us say, for the purposes of argument, that for whatever reason you were politically in favor of abolishing heterosexual marriage laws. Would you not feel bad-- and indeed, look like a major asshole-- if you invited yourself to sit down at a table with a man and a woman and ask them for their political support in abolishing their marriage? Because, regardless of whether you support gay marriage or not, that is exactly what Romney did to those two men. He should be embarrassed for himself, and perhaps look at his as an opportunity for learn from his mistakes and reconsider his position. He won't, but he should.

Won't stop me from voting for him, if he takes the nomination-- Hell, the President's position isn't any better-- but it is still a mark against him.

Click to expand...

We the Independent voters are left with the lesser of two evils.
No matter who gets the nomination.

You say doesn't matter you would vote for him if he takes the nomination .
Would you be voting for Romney or would you be voting the Republican party line?eace

One has to wonder if this "crash" was anything of the sort.

Most people are so sick and tired of the gay marriage issue that this incident will likely boost Romney a few points in the long run.

Sig said:

If the history of presidential elections says anything, it says that taking an opposing stance to gay marriage is a winner at the polls.

Click to expand...

There is another thing to consider.

If one takes too many opposing stances , not only will the Republican party lose the gay vote which they oppose but others.
The Republican party supports the rich the protestors in the street do not.
Therefore it is only reason that the Republican party" opposes" the protestors .

The education sytem of America has suffered budget cuts offered by the Republican party
Sonme say they "oppose" money for education?
.
All Republican candidates have directly courted organized religion.
Is this to say they "oppose" atheist?

The Republicans have extended rich tax cuts, but not extended unemployment benifits.
Is this to say Republicans oppose the unemployed but support millionares and billionares

This is but a few of the things Republicans "oppose".eace

Not a big deal, he wasn't going to get their votes anyway.

Sig said:

One has to wonder if this "crash" was anything of the sort.

Most people are so sick and tired of the gay marriage issue that this incident will likely boost Romney a few points in the long run.

Click to expand...

Just a hunch, but I think that more people are sick and tired of unemployment for unskilled workers, less opportunities for new College grads, outsourceing jobs, rich tax cuts and a bad economy.

People on Main street are sick and tired of struggleing to live while the rich and wall street get a pass.
Average workers are definatly sick and tired of whatching the cost of living go up while wages remain stagnant.eace

presluc said:

There is another thing to consider.

If one takes too many opposing stances , not only will the Republican party lose the gay vote which they oppose but others.

Click to expand...

At least they are willing to take a stand against something, unlike the Democrats.

presluc said:

You say doesn't matter you would vote for him if he takes the nomination .
Would you be voting for Romney or would you be voting the Republican party line?eace

Click to expand...

Never voted a straight ticket in my life. And I already noted that some nominations could force me to vote Democrat.

It seems like (at least according to the story) the guy on the date is the one who brought gay marriage up, not Romney. I would think he could be given a little bit of a pass based on that.

Although just sitting down at someone's table uninvited while they're eating dinner with someone else, regardless of the circumstances, is pretty rude.

Tigger said:

At least they are willing to take a stand against something, unlike the Democrats.

Click to expand...

Actually, Obama and the Democrats have rather successfully taken a stance against those who provide the vast bulk of the country's tax revenues (a.k.a "the rich")

And from a strictly political strategy perspective, the Democrats probably have the advantage when the "60 second" commercial soundbite wars begin soon.....

Cole said:

Actually, Obama and the Democrats have rather successfully taken a stance against those who provide the vast bulk of the country's tax revenues (a.k.a "the rich")

Click to expand...

Yep. A firm stand against Right and in favor of Wrong. Great place to be.

Cole said:

And from a strictly political strategy perspective, the Democrats probably have the advantage when the "60 second" commercial soundbite wars begin soon.....

Click to expand...

Anyone who doesn't know who they're voting for the moment the list of candidates comes out; or whose viewpoint can be altered by commercials/ads doesn't deserve the right to vote to begin with.

Tigger said:

At least they are willing to take a stand against something, unlike the Democrats.

Click to expand...

Democrats take a stand for the freedom of individuals to make their own moral judgments.

misterman said:

Democrats take a stand for the freedom of individuals to make their own moral judgments.

Click to expand...

if only that were true....

Romney might change his view some day:

MR. RUSSERT: You, you raise the issue of color of skin. In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court, Brown vs. Board of Education, desegregated all our public schools. In 1964 civil rights laws giving full equality to black Americans. And yet it wasn't till 1978 that the Mormon church decided to allow blacks to participate fully. Here was the headlines in the papers in June of '78. "Mormon Church Dissolves Black Bias. Citing new revelation from God, the president of the Mormon Church decreed for the first time black males could fully participate in church rites." You were 31 years old, and your church was excluding blacks from full participation. Didn't you think, "What am I doing part of an organization that is viewed by many as a racist organization?"

GOV. ROMNEY: I'm very proud of my faith, and it's the faith of my fathers, and I certainly believe that it is a, a faith--well, it's true and I love my faith. And I'm not going to distance myself in any way from my faith. .... And so those are my fundamental core beliefs, and I was anxious to see a change in, in my church.

I can remember when, when I heard about the change being made. I was driving home from, I think, it was law school, but I was driving home, going through the Fresh Pond rotary in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I heard it on the radio, and I pulled over and, and literally wept. Even at this day it's emotional, and so it's very deep and fundamental in my, in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God. My faith has always told me that. My faith has also always told me that, in the eyes of God, every individual was, was merited the, the fullest degree of happiness in the hereafter, and I, and I had no question in my mind that African-Americans and, and blacks generally, would have every right and every benefit in the hereafter that anyone else had and that God is no respecter of persons.

MR. RUSSERT: But it was wrong for your faith to exclude it for as long as it did.

GOV. ROMNEY: I've told you exactly where I stand. My view is that there--there's, there's no discrimination in the eyes of God, and I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.

All gay rights folks need to do is get the Mormon church to accept gays in worship. Maybe "new" revelation from God can agree with what Romney's always secretly thought that "there's no discrimination in the eyes of God".

Viktyr Korimir said:

It's nothing to do with his beliefs. It's just that it was terribly gauche, and he didn't have the good sense to apologize.

Click to expand...

apologize for what? The article is misleading, did you watch the video? It sure doesn't look like Romney approached these two men to solicit their support for repealing the gay marriage law - the gay veteran specifically asks Romney what his stance is on gay marriage and Romney gave him his answer in a pretty civil way. All I see here is a sad, obvious attempt at spin. I mean, christ, unicorn booty dot com? Really?

Tigger said:

At least they are willing to take a stand against something, unlike the Democrats.

Click to expand...

If you are looking for a partisn debate you came to the wrong poster.

The Democrats are too weak to take a stand against big business, the rich they fear private organizations and big businessand the rich
The Republicans support private organizations and big business and the rich.

I do not fear big business, private organizations or the rich.
I do not support big business ,private organizations or the rich.

However there is a bigger discrepincy in the right wing issue than the left small but it is there.
Nobody has noticed,that tax revenue goes to big business, private organizations and the rich.
Yet the Relublicans who support these want a smaller government?
WHY???


Defence contracts goes to private organizations
Medicare, and medicade goes to insurance companies a private organization
Government housing gets subsidies from the government run by private Real Estate organizations
Big Agriculture inc private organizations get subsidies from the government
Oil companies gets reserch grants from the government a private organization for alternitive fuel while shouting drill baby drill.

That is quite a chunk of tax revenue going out to private organizations , but when it comes to public what do they get, budget cuts, less money, salary cuts and jobs going overseas.

Not much of an exchange if you ask me, and for the record I'm damn sick and tired of these poor little rich guys playing the pity card.eace

presluc, I'm not a Republican. I'm an Authoritarian and an Ultra-Conservative. In my mind BOTH parties are too Liberal in their spending of Government monies. I'd just rather see the money go to corporations who will do something with it than to worthless sacks of **** who spend it on cigarettes, booze, and the like.

Tigger said:

presluc, I'm not a Republican. I'm an Authoritarian and an Ultra-Conservative. In my mind BOTH parties are too Liberal in their spending of Government monies. I'd just rather see the money go to corporations who will do something with it than to worthless sacks of **** who spend it on cigarettes, booze, and the like.

Click to expand...

What has corporations done with money from the government?

Hire more Americans NO, they hire cheap foreign labor.
Pay more taxes the rich gets tax cuts, after that there are so many loopholes in the corporations taxes it looks like swiss cheese.
Are the American workers doing better? NO
Is education doing better? NO
Is the debt going down ? NO
Is the American government receiving more tax revenue?NO
Is the economjy better or worse? see previous questions.eace

presluc said:

What has corporations done with money from the government?

Click to expand...

Made a PROFIT. Which is more than most citizens do with their welfare checks.

If the government is stupid enough not to put restrictions on how that money must be used, that's a Governmental issue, not a Corporate issue.

I suspect this story was concocted by the Romney team as it is highly favorable to him among anti-gay Republican voters.

Otherwise it is a non-story, no different than if a Democrat were to while campaigning explain he/she will protect a woman's right to an abortion - not realizing he is speaking to a Southern Baptist minister.

The attempts in this election to make scandle out of nothing is really going to become quite sickening. All the Republican candidates now are anti-gay rights, so what's the point of the story other than that?

presluc said:

Just a hunch, but I think that more people are sick and tired of unemployment for unskilled workers, less opportunities for new College grads, outsourceing jobs, rich tax cuts and a bad economy.

People on Main street are sick and tired of struggleing to live while the rich and wall street get a pass.
Average workers are definatly sick and tired of whatching the cost of living go up while wages remain stagnant.eace

Click to expand...

That may all be true, but it is relevant only in the capacity that one might argue that dissing the gays is a means of garnering support from heteros who comprise 98% of the citizenry and, though they may indeed be pissed off about all of the above, are also irratated by the seemingly incessant whining of the gay community about gay marriage at a time in history when there are much more important matters which need attention.

Sig said:

That may all be true, but it is relevant only in the capacity that one might argue that dissing the gays is a means of garnering support from heteros who comprise 98% of the citizenry and, though they may indeed be pissed off about all of the above, are also irratated by the seemingly incessant whining of the gay community about gay marriage at a time in history when there are much more important matters which need attention.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they said that about blacks incessantly whining about civil rights too.