As we are nearing only fifty days to go until the Iowa caucuses, and with the front runner of the race for the GOP nomination being Mitt Romney in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina it is to be expected that those who oppose the Governor would come out of the woodwork. My only wish is that they would do so with more transparency, much more honesty, and understand what's at stake if the clearest option to the Obama/Clinton ticket is not the nominee.
Brian Camenker of MassResistance.org is a person I've helped raise awareness for. Massachusetts based listeners to my radio show have expressed gratitude for the efforts to bring national attention to the unseemly agenda that the radical gay activists have waged against Massachusetts public school children. Sandy Rios is a broadcast colleague of AM 1160 WYLL in Chicago, but more than that she is someone I once worked for, someone I have deep respect for, and someone I consider a genuine friend. Gregg Jackson is an author who also hosts a Sunday evening talk show in Boston.
But my heart is heavy at the less than genuine approach each of them have chosen in their attempt to influence voters against Governor Mitt Romney.
The basis of much of their criticism against the former Governor has to do with his past record. Understandably we look at someone's past positions, qualifications, decisions made, and actions taken to attempt to determine a candidate's abilities and character. Certainly the Governor's record is fair game... but with one small caveat added.
If one is going to compare a present candidate's positions to a seemingly contradictory record - it is important and only fair for that candidate's explanation be heard as to the discrepancies.
The problem with all three of these Romney critics - who are focusing their message at the Values Voters of America - is that none have taken the time to publicly do so.
In refusing to do so they present the debate without context, particularly timely context of the present circumstance, and in doing so unveil a fairly one-sided discussion about Romney's detailed history based on news reports, press clippings, and of course their own opinions and impressions. (All of which they are entitled to.)
But it comes up short on journalistic integrity.
So what is the story on Mitt's positions on abortion and the redefining of marriage to include homosexual unions?
I'm glad someone finally asked.