Patters

The Nation is left-leaning, and is respected by many intellectuals. It's been around a long time. In fact, it was founded by abolitionists.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/blumenthal

With onetime Republican presidential frontrunner Senator John McCain in meltdown, Mitt Romney, suddenly finds himself under fire from some of the Christian right's most influential activists. Romney's evangelical critics claim the former Massachusetts governor and devout Mormon was complicit in the Marriott hotel chain's sale of pay-per-view porn on its in-room television sets when he served on the corporation's board of directors from 1992 to 2001. Two Christian-right operatives involved in orchestrating the charges have enlisted as Internet organizers for former Senator Fred Thompson, who is preparing to enter the race formally. The tactics of these religious-right players, targeted below the radar against Romney, are calculated to alter decisively the outcome of the Republican primary contest.

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.

This carefully sequenced attack on Romney over hotel porn is just the opening volley in what appears to be a concerted effort to doom his candidacy. Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association's Michigan chapter, told me, "This is just part of a broader pattern of concern over Mitt Romney's record of aggressively promoting abortion on demand, the homosexual agenda and birth control. We are judging Romney by his record." Glenn is a leading Christian-right operative in the home state of Romney's late father, former Republican Governor George Romney, one of Romney's bases within the Republican Party. Glenn is also a member of the DC Group, a conference of fifteen antiporn activists that meets four times a year to plot political strategy. The DC Group devised its plan to undermine Romney at its most recent gathering, Glenn revealed to me.

PonyExpress

Not one thing the Swift Boat Veterans claimed against Kerry has been proved to be untrue. They were never sued for libel or slander. IMO the Swift Boaters came together one last time to do an honorable service for their country and expose a profound liar. The continual use of the term "Swift Boater" to suggest a false political attack is unjustified. It should be called a "Rather" or a "Mapes". As for the substance of the article, I agree that Romney is suffering volleys from some politically active evangelical groups due mainly to his Mormon faith and inconsistent stand on abortion. I like Romney, believe he has led a moral life, and would make a good President. These attacks against Romney are unfortunate, because if nominated I believe he will win the Presidency in a landslide.

Patters

Actually, many of things they said were untrue. Factcheck, a site often linked to by conservatives as well as liberals, has this:

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

sdaniels7114

The phoney swift-boaters said Kerry shot an unarmed, 14 yr old wearing nothing but a miniskirt. The actual swift-boaters, ie the members of Kerry's crew who were present at the time, said he shot an adult VC soldier who was dressed in the normal fashion and armed with a rocket launcher.

On topic:I really can't think of anything less important to me than any candidate's stance on the Marriot making pay per view pornos available.

PonyExpress

Actually, I have read that article and find it to be tendentious and stand by my original statement. Nothing they said has been proved to be untrue. A great many veterans from the same unit came together against Kerry. Only 2 supported him. (1) One officer, Rood, who was not on his boat, and did not think the man Kerry chased and shot [in the back according to the report of some Swifties] was wounded or a teenager, but allowed for the fact that others did, by saying "Recollections of those who go through that frequently differ."

The other fellow to speak on Kerry's behalf was Rassman, the man whom Kerry "rescued" from the water. Rassman had made a career of appearing at Kerry events and it was to his advantage and self-interest to contradict his fellow swifties.

As far as "citations" go, I have written up many myself, and most of the language is formulaic generic *********. So to use those citations as "historical evidence" above the recollections of multiple eye witnesses is laughable. It's exactly the kind of public ignorance re: military documentation that Kerry was counting on to cover his @$$ later on.

Some of our heroes turn out to be ghosts. Kerry was one of them. The Swifties who exposed him risked everything, did not break ranks under the most intense scrutiny and emerged victorious. IMO our citizens, Dems and Repubs, owe a debt to them twice over- or at least those citizens who have more than a farcical relationship to the truth.

PonyExpress

I see. The phony swift boaters are the ones opposed to Kerry. The real ones are the ones who support him. Typical. Keep making excuses for this congenital liar. Say it enough, and idiots will believe you. But then again, idiots are the voters your party most relies upon, especially the "useful" ones.

Patters

PonyExpress, you're factually misinformed, and might want to look here at the well documented Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_B...of_allegations

Can you provide a purportedly objective source to support what you're saying? I do not think so.

At any rate, your advocacy for the Swift Boat Veterans certainly tells me that your faith in Romney's morality has little to do with morality, and much to do with politics.

Harry Boy

Gore/Kerry:
The people knew what Jerks they were, thats why you have GW Bush as your President.

Bill Cosby Makes Sense So They Trash Him

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

PonyExpress

"Factcheck" and "Wikipedia" are not reliable source materials, and should not be presented as such. If one reads the book about Kerry written by the Swift Boat vets, one will find source materials there. It is painful to be betrayed by a candidate; to believe passionately in the causes he represents, only to discover the man is a fraud. I understand that. But we shouldn't perform magic tricks to make us feel better, altering reality to soothe our wounds. As adults we face the facts that politicians are often imperfect, vain, pathologically ambitious congenital liars. Kerry was one such man, whose ambition for the Presidency overwhelmed his moral compass. This flaw was revealed at the worst time for his party, and all his causes were betrayed by the ghosts of his past. However, just because Kerry was lousy doesn't demean the cuases he represented, however much i disagree with them.

Patters

Neither one supports what you are saying, therefore they are poor, and the only source you provide to show the Swift Vets are telling the truth is the Swift Boat Vets themselves? LOL. Why not provide the RNC and Karl Rove as sources?

You understand that because you perhaps supported Bush, whose failures have forced righties to distance themselves from him. And now you support Romney who is conveniently changing his stand on abortion, gay rights, and stem cell research. Perhaps you understand betrayal because you find that attractive in a conservative candidate?

Other candidates have less ambition and speak the truth? Please. All the candidates are intensely ambitious people. You don't run for president without that, and it's almost funny that you, as a supporter of Romney, would call Kerry vain.

Kerry was a poor candidate who ran a poor campaign but a decent enough man with a consistent record (which is the best objective measure). Bush was a good candidate, but a lousy human being who lacks a moral compass or the intelligence to be president, let alone CiC. Bush's rabid right-wing supporters have done great harm to our nation and the thousands of families who have lost loved ones for no good reason.