Romney On All Sides Of Pornography Issue

Mitt Romney has once again managed to place himself on every side of another political issue by first accepting a $2500 check and refusing to give back the political donation from the owner of PENTHOUSE Magazine and other adult media sites, and then pandering to both his LDS church pressures as well as other religious conservatives by promising “vigorous” prosecution of pornography as president. Such is yet another contradictory day in the campaign of candidate of Mitt Romney, pandering to all sides of an issue, simply to wring out votes, making himself into the “Joe Isuzu” of American politics, a sort of nervous liar who tells so many stories that he can’t even keep track of all his stories and promises to everyone.

No doubt, PENTHOUSE owner Daniel Stanton had some reason to believe that Romney might be more of moderate on prosecuting pornography than candidate Rick Santorum was. And many in the business community aren’t very happy about the very poor economy under President Obama and wish for some change that might be for the better. But, once again Romney has managed to undercut himself, appearing untrustworthy by first accepting campaign money from a major figure in the adult entertainment industry one day, and then also promising to prosecute that industry and shut them down the next day. It is just these sort of credibility problems for Romney that hurt him with many voter who might be willing to give him chance if only he didn’t act so shifty. Gallup Polls also illustrate some voter concerns about Romney on character issues as well, where he is viewed much less positive than President Obama, although the public is largely unsatisfied with the president’s performance on key issues like the economy.

Daniel Stanton who gave Romney the $2500 donation also donated $2300 to his failed 2008 campaign as well. Stanton owns a number of adult websites some of which feature hardcore sex action or even BDSM such as as well as dating sites, etc.

You have to wonder what Romney campaign donors like Stanton think when they give money to their candidate one day, and are threatened with possible prosecution and arrest the next. This type of back-stabbing and two-faced approach to politics is only likely to turn off many voters, who are already unhappy at some of the negative ad campaigns launched by both sides of the 2012 presidential campaigns, where both campaigns seem to be going all out for being disgeniune to the voters.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • Vagabond661

    Can you provide examples where President Obama flip-flopped on issues?

    • MunDane68

      Same Sex marriage
      Public financing for his 2008 presidential campaign
      Super PAC money
      Debt Ceiling Increases
      NASA funding cut
      Closing Gitmo
      Military Tribunals in New York
      Unilateral Military Actions
      Missile Defense
      Bush Tax Cuts
      Patriot Act
      Lobbyists on the Payroll

      Want any more?

      • Vagabond661

        excellent and since he brought up $2500 donors for Mitt which no doubt pushed his campaign over the top in contributions can we talk about Obama’s donors? Bill Maher?

  • Paul Hooson

    As I stated in the piece, “both campaigns seem to be going all out to be disgeniune to the voters”, which certainly includes the Obama campaign as well. However, this latest controversy with the Romney campaign involved a blunt refusal to give back the donation connected to the owner of PENTHOUSE and on one hand, while Romney proudly proclaimed support for “vigorous” censorship efforts meant to appease religious conservatives at the same time.
    It’s yet another example that we have a terrible choice between two bad campaigns willing to play the voters for fools.
    My personal opinion is that all adult obscenity laws are unconstitutional infringements on free expression, and that some politicians shouldn’t be allowed to jail persons for free speech crimes to appease some pressure groups of voters. In Russia, three young women who were part of a punk rock group who sang an anti-Putin song during a performance are being jailed for up to seven years. Our country is no better than Russia to jail; persons on political charges of pornography.

  • Grumpy

    Mittens sat on the board of Marriott corporation for a decade, and all the while (up until Mitt’s candidacy in the 2012 election) Marriott Corp. made an estimated $100+ million a year off the rental of in-room porno movies. They dropped those offerings jsut before Mitt began his 2012 run.

    Hypocrisy much, Mitt? He didn’t have a problem with a business making money off of porn, even a business he was associated with as a member of the Board of Directors, until he decided to run for the highest office.

    Oh Mitt, oh Mitt.

    Dollars to donuts Marriott goes back to making millions off of Porn as soon as Mitt loses the election.