With Romney’s win in New Hampshire, the pressure is on in South Carolina. It is definitely the last hope for any challenger candidate. As such, the campaigns are now doing their worst. SuperPACs (not affiliated with the campaigns and certainly not in coordination with the campaigns) are funneling money like crazy in negative ads, and everyone is hoping for a Romney gaffe so that this thing can drag on into the spring.
Professional opposition researchers and national news media have now had over 6 years to do serious opposition research and skeleton digging with Romney, but they have met their match. Recent smear attempts show that the worse they could do was:
#1. Romney, as a volunteer ecclesiastical leader, once counseled a single-parent to give her child up for adoption. The woman alleges that Mitt threatened her with Church disciplinary action, but Mitt has denied that allegation. Keeping a child conceived out of wedlock is not grounds for church discipline in the LDS Church anyways, so clearly there is a disconnect in the story. It’s possible that Mitt informed her that continued sexual promiscuity on her part would lead to church discipline, as adultery and fornication are not especially encouraged (but are grounds for a church disciplinary council).
At any rate, take a step back – he is being attacked for — wait for it — encouraging an adoption. Whoa. The horror! Imagine that, an ecclesiastical leader trying to encourage people to raise their kids in homes with both mothers and fathers.
If you think about it, this isn’t even a smart attack for the left. President Obama himself has campaigned on and been outspoken about the need for both mothers and fathers in the home, and the importance of having both parents engaged. He himself is a model of this, insisting to his scheduling staff that he be with his young family for dinner every night possible, only allowing missing up to two dinners a week.
#2. Romney, as leader of Bain Capital, laid people off. Now Romney says over and over that he actually hired more people and saved more jobs than he laid off, but what baffles me is that his fellow republicans – the type of folks known for doing practically anything to make a buck (inside and outside the law, regardless of ethics or morality) – would be pounding him on that. I doubt that many republican business owners struggled to lay a few people off in the name of saving their own business or increasing their profitability. You can’t be the part that touts free-enterprise and unregulated economies on one hand and then punish your own for adhering to those principles.
So… that’s it. That’s all they could find. No mistresses. No love children. Just those two things and an odd religion.
Compare that to the recent competition between Herman Cain and Dr. Ron Paul (the obstetrician) to see who had more exposure in their lifetime to female genitalia… If your decision for a presidential candidate is based largely on character or morals — not only spoken of but also lived by — I think you might have your man.
Good job WE….yup…I also wonder why they don’t talk more about what Mitt did for the Olympic back in 2002. I am a resident of Utah and will always be one to thank Mitt for coming and rescuing the games. We tax payers would have really been on the hook as the games were headed for a sure failure. Mitt came and as a result, did in fact make quite a nice profit for the State. And yes, he did clean house and layed a bunch of freeloader off. I think he can do the same for America.,,,yup..
With the talk of a candidate’s morals and character, I don’t see people examining anyone’s political agenda from a moral perspective. Is anyone talking about poverty, war, hunger, responsible stewardship of the earth….? I would love to see your views on that topic, Sam. It seems that the only use of the moral compass in politics is to judge other people’s sexual morals.