WILL LARRY CRAIG BE ATTENDING ?

I'am not gay ! prove it !

Mitt Romney Flip Flopping again
Do you Really want  Scum Bag like this.

A photograph of GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney at a 1994 Planned Parenthood fund-raiser has surfaced, once again raising questions about the former Bay State’s governor’s abortion flip-flopping.

The picture, a copy of which was obtained by the Herald, shows Romney and his wife Ann at a house party fund-raiser in Scituate with Nicki Nichols Gamble, who was the president of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts at the time. Romney has already downplayed ties to Planned Parenthood after revelations that Ann Romney donated $150 to the group.

Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event. At the time, Romney was running as a pro-choice Republican against U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

“My recollection is that we talked about his senate candidacy and the fact that he was supporting Roe v. Wade and a choice agenda at the time,” Gamble told the Herald. “It was a Planned Parenthood event. We were there to discuss our programs and our advocacy.”

The event was held the same day Ann Romney wrote a check to the pro-choice group. Romney has previously said he had “no recollection” of his wife writing the check to Planned Parenthood.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom called the flap “a dog bites man story.”

“Governor Romney used to have a different position on abortion,” Fehrnstrom said. “He is now firmly pro-life and has made it clear that as President he will advocate for a culture that welcomes life and protects the sanctity of life. This is the same path that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush followed.”

Because of his abortion shift, Romney has been branded a flip-flopper by his GOP primary opponents, as well Democrats. Romney has stated he became pro-life in 2004 during the stem cell debate in Massachusetts.

Beyond attending the event, Romney filled out a 2002 questionnaire for the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund in which he said he supported Roe v. Wade, sex education in schools and increased access to emergency contraception.

“With Mitt Romney, this has been more than a flip-flop. This has been an extreme makeover,” said Planned Parenthood spokesman Angus McQuilken. “What voters need to know about Mitt Romney is this: where he stands on any issue is always a moving target.”

Romney reacts to photo:
+ Romney dismisses photo suggesting he attended Planned Parenthood event
dwedge@bostonherald.com

Mitt Romney had Larry Craig working on his presidntal campain rumors have it that there is more to this then most people knew about?

will any of the candidates say that's it's a state's right issue

The only thing a "christian" gives a damn about is the willingness to show their disdain towards homosexuals. If they only knew that healthy and happy homosexuals do not give a damn about what a "christian" thinks of them. What meaning will they have in their lives when gay marriage becomes legal? I am a taxpaying homosexual and I am god damn annoyed with their obsessive and irrational fears. Let's put their lives up for a constitutional amendment. Treat others as others will have done unto you!

Why was this post necessary.... America beware of distractions...... We have bigger concerns than who is getting married

Mitt Romney Flip Flopping on Abortion watch this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFMdK0TWtks&feature=related

Do you really want a scum bag like this.

I was born in New Hampshire, and have always have been proud to say I was from there. Not Any More!
The gay and lesbian people have crammed it down our
throats. Frankly, I can't believe that Americans have let the Devil walk right in, and take over. He never even fired a shot, (speaking of Live Free or Die!)

I am in favor of all the laws NH has passed which go into effect Jan 01.

hay king, larry craig isn't gay, he's republican. he's not interested in gay sex, he's interested in illicit sex. he'd have sex with a 4 year old, a stuff toy, your mother or your father, so long as it's illicit. it's the illicit aspect that he gets off on, kind of like bush watching the tapes of torture and cheney shooting caged birds.

Republicans should just ignore this play by democrats to toss the gays out in the line of fire AGAIN. None of the top 3 democrats support gay marriage, but the loyal liberal press will only make an issue out of it with Republicans. Call BS on the media, and move on.

RON PAUL Says the Gay Marriage thing is a states rights issue because he is the only constitutionalist!  He personally is against gay marriage, but also says the Fed should not infringe on states rights to declare marriage/civil unions legal or illegal.  Sounds reasonable to me.  These other guys pander to the left or right, rather than looking to the Constitution.

IM sure Hillary is for gay marriage since JENNIFER FLOWERS, Bill's lover for 12 years said that Hillary loved performing oral sex on women, and that she has had more women than him. HER LATEST IS HUMMA ABEDIN, ON HER STAFF.  THATS OK WITH ME, BILL WAS SUCH A SLEAZE.

IM sure Hillary is for gay marriage since JENNIFER FLOWERS, Bill's lover for 12 years said that Hillary loved performing oral sex on women, and that she has had more women than him. HER LATEST IS HUMMA ABEDIN, ON HER STAFF.  THATS OK WITH ME, BILL WAS SUCH A SLEAZE.

THANK GOD HUCKABEE IS NOT DOING WELL IN THE GAY PEDOFILE, STATE OF N. H.  IT WOULD SEND THE WRONG MESSAGE THAT HE IS WEAK ON MORALS.

LEON YOU SUCK, LMAO.

Why can't the republicans lay off the gay bashing.  I mean, Huck did that enough today on MTP.  Enough is enough, guys.  We've got much bigger issues as Americans that who gets to marry who.  And by the way, there is no legal justification for denying a group rights based on sexual orientation.  Only religious dogma.  And the government doesn't run on religous dogma.

If the Republicans ever dropped their medieval world view on gays and other social issues they would be impossible to beat in elections. Americans are uncomfortable with the government rooting around in their private lives but the GOP has made it an obsession and built a whole party on it. So basically if you dont hate gays, you think family planning should be left up to the family and you really dont want little Billy speaking in tongues at the local public school there is only one choice...hold your nose and vote for the Democrats.

It's disgusting and disgraceful that people will use ignorance and hatred to get votes (i.e. Romney). There is no good reason that gays should not be allowed to marry - they have families and children too. They are law-abiding, tax paying citizens who have every right to the same freedoms and rights as anyone else. Civil rights should not be dependent upon some people's personal tastes, but rather the law and fairness. Liberty and justice FOR ALL.

when you stop to think about it, it is really hard to believe that today--the last day of the year 2007--there is still such bigotry in this world.  It is a rotten shame Gay people still don't have 100% equal rights in this country.  even though they are expected to pay taxes etc. just like everybody else.  Hopefully things will change in '08 and many other states will join NH, Vermont, Mass., N.J, and Conn., and will give Gay people equal rights also.  IT IS WAY OVER DUE.

If the constitution was written for "equal protection" for all...how does one eliminate the right to marry for one segment of the population?  And if your own marriage is so weak that someone else getting married is a threat to it, you are very sad indeed.  

Susan, Albany NY - America didn't create marriage, it was around a LOT longer than this country has been around. Therefore it doesn't have the power to change the definition of what marriage is. Yet that is exactly what you are asking the courts to do. Therefore, the courts can't, and shouldn't, create a right where none exists. Does this make sense? I know that there are people in these relationships that truly love each other. But call it something else, but it's not marriage and never will be. Period.

A President with a national disapproval rating of 70-75%, whose regime approves of torture/a failed economy/a failed war/failure to protect our Nation as the events of 9/11/01 clearly illustrate...and the lacklustre GOP candiates pathetically attempt to out gay hate..one another.  Western Civilization as we know it...will not end if Gay persons are allowed to marry.  In fact one would surmise, the divorce rate amongst "evangelical christians" will continue to be 45% to 55%.  

Susan, to take your argument just a little farther. Procreation is the basis on which marriage was founded. Centuries ago men had multiple wives. If the union was not productive (pro creation) then the wives hand maiden servant etc. would be given to the husband and the child claimed by the wife. To accept gay marriage as equal one would have to eliminate pro creation as a factor for marriage. When this is done then it opens the door (slippery slope theory) for all types of variations. IE beastiality, insest etc. Any good attorney could argue the logic of this argument. Gay couples should have some type of protection, this should be left to the states. The Fed government however should act on some type of legislation or amendment to protect traditional one man one women marriage. I am not trying to piss anyone off just saying that it is not as simple as some would like you to believe...

Seldom on political issues do I call them to be a moral issue, but gay marriage is one.  Here is why.  The science demonstrates nature.  I cannot, in good faith, discriminate against a group of people who do not choose their sexual orientation.  Common sense also dictates homosexuality is not a choice; otherwise, people would grow out of 'the gay'.  It would be immoral to punish those for being born a certain way.

We speak of family values, but a loving relationship between two people and their children--that speaks family values.  So many families don't have one man and one woman, for whatever reason, but we don't disqualify that.  And what of the term marriage?  It is hardly a term that means anything sacred and forever anymore.  People get married in secular terms all the time (courthouse).  Why don't we rid the term marriage for them too?  I also don't realize the fear.  It's not like the government is going to for religious establishments to marry people, that is ridiculous.  So, good job NH, and I can't believe I have a policy position most closely aligned with D. Kucinich.

Well unlike every othe person who has commented so far, I am actually from New Hampshire and live in New Hampshire.  And guess what?  It's really not a big deal here at all.  We are simply living up to our state motto: Live Free Or Die.  Everyone is created equal and deserves equal rights.  Last time I checked the U.S. is NOT a theocracy!  This is NOT about "special rights" it's about EQUAL RIGHTS.  I refuse to discriminate against anybody.  Shame on you people.

If this blog is really being moderated how do you explain the comments of David Anders being allowed?

Jason, Jason, Jason....America didn't create slavery either, it was around a lot longer than this country existed, and it was the Federal govt. getting involved that finally ended it.  No, your point is facile.  Gay people pay their share of taxes to this country and should be afforded all the rights that this country offers to others. It is insulting to create second class citizens, and I thought we were better than that.

"Homosexual" is a clinical term. Using the word in any other context is considered a slur. The correct word usage in the first paragraph is "gay couples."

Just an update.  Dozens of couples got married yesterday, including many on the steps of the capitol building.  And there was ONE protester, and he was from out of state.  It's just not a big deal here.  Maybe you people should be asking yourselves why this bothers you so much.  I mean what are you afraid of?  They've had marriage equality in Massachusetts almost 4 years and the sky hasn't fallen.

Dear not always easy,  You say Pro creation is the basis for marriage.  And if the wife cannot produce the husband gets a maiden servent,  and then "the child gets claimed by the wife."  And then you say if you accept Gay Marriage you would have to eliminate pro creation as a factor for marriage, and that would open the door for Beastiality.  THEN YOU SAY any good lawyer could argue this argument?????  YA -- if the Lawyer was as INSANE as you are.  You know damn well Gay Marrigage is about one HUMAN BEING to marry another Human Being.  WHAT PART OF HUMAN BEING DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND??  MAYBE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE YOU ARE NEITHER HUMAN OR A BEING.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):