Romney: The Clintons Set Bad Example On Family Values
Mitt Romney has now gone after the Clintons not just on policy, but on their marriage. At a house party in New Hampshire, Romney was asked how he might promote family values if he were elected.
"One of the ways that you help instill, if you will, family values is by having a White House be a place that demonstrates family values," said Romney. "And, you know, I think during the last Clinton presidency, the White House did not demonstrate that in a way that was helpful to our nation's character."
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson was blunt in his response: "Hillary Clinton needs no lessons on character from a man who switches his positions on a daily basis."
Comments (13)
NCSteve wrote on October 25, 2007 3:52 PM:"What a shame that in a desparate attempt to restore his flagging candidacy Mitt Romney has abandoned the politics of ho . . . oops, wrong canned response."
Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 4:20 PM:Very funny, NCSteve. Does anyone think that the last Clinton presidency DID demonstrate "family values" in a way that was helpful to our nation's character?
JZ wrote on October 25, 2007 4:40 PM:The did manage to raise a non-freaky, non-binge-drinking child who appears to still love her parents. Compared to her competitors this year on the Republican side and the past 30 years of administrations, she looks pretty good on this issue. And it wasn't her who got the blowjob, was it?
Jeff wrote on October 25, 2007 4:53 PM:Their family persevered. It might not be my ideal family, or yours, or even theirs, but they managed to keep together. Perseverance is a pretty strong character trait.
Mike wrote on October 25, 2007 5:29 PM:Somewhat off topic, but what is with Romney and his use of the linguistic filler "if you will"? I've noticed that this little phrase keeps popping up in quotes attributed to him, here right before he says "family values".
Perhaps it's totally insignificant, but I do wonder what a linguistic analyst might have to say about it. It's also a somewhat affected kind of phrase. If this is the way he usually talks 'off the cuff', how is that going to play with the down home folks?
Just idly wondering... since we're still a good two-months-and-some-change out from the first primaries, and Lord knows the airwaves and blogways are already pretty crowded with idle musings. ;)
stemper wrote on October 25, 2007 5:44 PM:I like Bill Maher's comment on this issue last week. He noted how HRC actually followed Christian teaching here -- she forgave her husband. Imagine that! Maybe the GOP would like to amend the Bible to strike Jesus' forgiveness advice from future editions.
Of course, HRC's campaign showed discretion in not observing how convenient it is for the Mittster that his religion *allows* him to have multiple partners... "It's not a bug, it's a feature."
phil james wrote on October 25, 2007 5:56 PM:Is the implication that once Bill gets back into the White House, he will revert to cavorting with whatever toothsome intern looks his way and Hill will be forced to continue forgiving him? Or is Mitt saying that what's sauce for the goose will apply and Hillary will take her pleasure with some handsome male intern? Having more than one mate of course not being moral in any way, shape, or form according to the dictates of any established religion we know ....except....maybe.....Mormonism?
Bill wrote on October 25, 2007 6:00 PM:It's a parent's job to teach "family values" to their children. This can be done by a parent who spends time with, or works to support, his or her children while providing an environment that affords a child the nurturing necessary to learn and grow. A man once criticized me because I bought a sports jersey with the name of a player who wasn't considered to be a good role model. The man asked, "What kind of a role model is that for your kid?" I told the man that the athlete plays a game nothing more. I also told him that my kids have a great role model....me!
phil james wrote on October 25, 2007 6:05 PM:Bill
Are you saying that George Bush is NOT a role model?
Outside the Beltway wrote on October 25, 2007 6:54 PM:you "Democrats" are in for a big surprise if romney is the nominee and you find out independent American voters don't see adulterous sodomy as equivalent to changing your mind on a political issue.
I guess Hillary has nothing to say to respond to romney
phil james wrote on October 25, 2007 11:57 PM:OtB
...changing your mind on a political issue? Is that the way you would characterize the transparent scam being run by Mitt on the thug party...after running to the left of the liberals to win in Massachusetts? He is a testament to the collective lack of intelligence of thug party voters. He is a fraud just like your pals in the White House. Check out what independent American voters think of that criminal gang...
What's interesting about Romney comments is that there is no evidence that the American pubic in general, as opposed to Republicans in particular, are that concerned about what Bill Clinton did or didn't do. In a recent poll done by ABC News and the Washington Post the following question was asked of those polled:
"Thinking back to when Bill Clinton was in office, would you say you approve or disapprove of the way Clinton handled his job as president?"
66% approved
32% disapproved
2% were unsure.
Given those numbers, Romney's comments may play well with Republican voters, but he won't be pursuing that line of attack in the general election, unfortunately for Democrats.
Jan wrote on October 26, 2007 7:43 AM:re: "you "Democrats" are in for a big surprise if romney is the nominee and you find out independent American voters don't see adulterous sodomy as equivalent to changing your mind on a political issue."
Actually I think Republicans are in for a big surprise when they find out that no one in America obsesses about other people's sex lives the way the GOP does.
Clinton Haters always sound like a bunch of sixth grade boys in a circle jerk to me.
I bet the Outside the Beltway Republicant got a hard-on just typing in "adulterous sodomy."
