a new low in the attacks on Romney

[Frank Ryan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

His dad is/was, from what I understand.

if that matters, your point is still valid all the same

[BarbaraGordon]

The funny thing about attacking Romney based on his faith is that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to question him. Like his uncanny ability to redefine his politics for every election.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://newsbusters.org/node/10898

Someone should have asked Lierbermann if he would renounce the notion of a Jewish temple being rebuilt.

And someone should ask Obama what the penalty in Islam is for someone who leaves the faith.

And someone should ask Hillary if she is a Christian and believes in the second coming.

Rather than mock Georgie - which he deserves - Mitt could use this to his advantage and turn it against Nancy Pelosi and the really big airplane.

If she wanted an airplane that wouldn't have to stop to refuel in St. Louis on the way to the Bay Area, Romney could ask: If Missouri is good enough for Jesus, why isn't it good enough for Nancy?"

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

The funny thing about attacking Romney based on his faith is that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to question him. Like his uncanny ability to redefine his politics for every election.

Besides abortion do you have any other examples you could share?

[MikeWaters]

gays and stem cells.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

gays and stem cells.

yes. gun legislation. certain taxes.

[il Padrino Ute]

If, as it's been said, that there is a gay gene; and if it could be recognized in a fetus within the first trimester; would folks be more inclined to support Romney if as President he mandated that only fetuses with the gay gene could be aborted and the stem cells could then be used for researching cures for Michael J. Fox.

After all, the homosexual community would be vindicated in that it would be proven that homosexuality is not a choice; abortions would continue which would make the NOW crowd happy; and stem cell research would happen.

[BarbaraGordon]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2826.html

I ran into this article which is a nice, brief summary of the image challenges each of the frontrunning candidates is facing. I've never heard of the publication before, but the author at least looks legitimate.

[YOhio]

Okay. Besides abortion, gays, guns, and certain taxes, where has he changed?

Abortion. Few politicians spend their entire careers with consistent views on abortion. Al Gore was once pro-life, as was John Forbes Kerry. Okay, John Kerry is a bad example.

I don't think there is a Democratic politician in the country who hasn't changed positions on gays (no pun intended) in the last five years, specifically gay marriage. Once gay marriage became a cause celebre among the cultural elite, the Dems flocked to it. But now that I think about it, Romney has been consistent on gay marriage. He opposed it in his 2002 campaign (as did Shannon O'Brien). How did he flip flop on gays?

Guns. Yeah, that's probably posturing.

Certain taxes. I'm not sure what you mean by this one. I'll have to take your word for it.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

If, as it's been said, that there is a gay gene; and if it could be recognized in a fetus within the first trimester; would folks be more inclined to support Romney if as President he mandated that only fetuses with the gay gene could be aborted and the stem cells could then be used for researching cures for Michael J. Fox.

After all, the homosexual community would be vindicated in that it would be proven that homosexuality is not a choice; abortions would continue which would make the NOW crowd happy; and stem cell research would happen.

Every day I'm awed by your brilliance.

Seriously though, that's pretty messed up. Did you think of that yourself?