Sunday, November 26, 2006

You Don't Need to Read Eleanor Clift to Know That Mitt Romney Is A Very Vile Scumbag

He is one of many politicians who pander to people's hatreds instead of leading. He has a history of pandering to anti-gay hatred. Anyone who picks on an oppressed minority to further his own ambitions is unfit for public office, period! The same goes for Trent Lott and the RNC (Who could forgive the "Call me Harold" ad?).

Let's see, our economy is in danger from huge deficits, we are in a war that is costing American and Iraqi deaths on a daily basis, Osama Bin Laden is still at large, Our President does not feel that the Constitution or international law applies to him, Global Warming threatens humankind and the Nuclear genie is ecaping from the bottle. And Mitt Romney is worried about people having sex with people of the same gender? Oy!

3 comments:

David W. Keelan said...

Oy, how shallow. Do you think that is all Mitt Romney is about? Do you even understand his position? Come on Steve. Can't you dig deeper? You are brighter than that. Aren't you? Show us you can do a little work and really understand these people.

Hilary may be vilified in GOP circles, but I don't buy all that bunk. She is not evil. She isn't stupid. Even I can find some things we agree about.

You just seem to back Republicans and offer not thoughtful insight of your own.

Pick one issue and bang at it until you think it is the only issue out there and you don't even understand the issue.

Pick up a book. Please.

David W. Keelan said...

That should read Bash not Back Republicans.

Even I can find a Democrat I like because I don't assume that all Democrats are bad just because I am a Republican.

People accuse ME of sticking to the party line. Oy.

David W. Keelan said...

BTW: None of this means I am supporting Romney.

I once wrote a letter to the editor of the Washington Times about a front page article they published about Sen. John Edwards. Something about him being late on his Real Estate taxes in the district. I told them I respected their paper, but thought that the article was beneath their normal standards. He could have been late for 100 reasons - none of which they attempted to examine. They just took the opportunity to bash him. It was a BS article and had no business in the paper let alone the huge front page headline it got.

A couple of days later I got an anonymous letter in the mail calling me a liberal hack who wanted to sleep with Bill and Hilary Clinton.

I didn't support John Edwards either.

My whole point is that I thought both the Times article and the Clift article were beneath their other wise fine journalistic credentials.