Street Prophets

Romney Criticized For Hotel Pornography

Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:40:46 AM PDT

Okay, so it's not what you think. ABC News reprints an article from AP's Glen Johnson:

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, who rails against the "cesspool" of pornography, is being criticized by social conservatives who argue that he should have tried to halt hardcore hotel movie offerings during his near-decade on the Marriott board.

Two anti-pornography crusaders, as well as two conservative activists of the type Romney is courting, say the distribution of such graphic adult movies runs counter to the family image cultivated by Romney, the Marriotts and their shared Mormon faith.

"Marriott is a major pornographer. And even though he may have fought it, everyone on that board is a hypocrite for presenting themselves as family values when their hotels offer 70 different types of hardcore pornography," said Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, an anti-pornography group based on Ohio.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading conservative group in Washington, said: "They have to assume some responsibility. It's their hotels, it's their television sets."

More below the fold.

  • ::

This story is like a cornucopia of factoids and angles. For example, did you know that the reason your local Super 8 carries "Cheerleader Fantasies 55.2" is that the skin flicks subsidize the rest of the cable television in your room? Thank Ron Jeremy the next time you're watching the local weather on the Ohio Turnpike.

Almost as fascinating: Mitt Romney - Willard Mitt Romney - is named after J. Willard Marriott, the hotel chain's founder.

And oh, yeah: Romney blames porn for the VTech shootings:

"Pornography and violence poison our music and movies and TV and video games," Romney said May 5 during a commencement address at Regent University, the evangelical Christian school run by Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson.

"The Virginia Tech shooter, like the Columbine shooters before him, had drunk from this cesspool."

Show me a young man who hasn't drunk from that cesspool, and I'll show you a...well, never mind.

As for the angles: the obvious one is that the Religious Right has decided to stick a shiv in Romney's campaign. People like Phil Burress and Tony Perkins don't have a spontaneous bone in their bodies. Somebody chose to do him dirt.

Why is a bit murkier. They might be afraid of Romney's cash and good looks, or they might distrust his Mormonism or his born-again conservatism. It might be even simpler than that. It could be that that they're plumping for another candidate, or that they're using this as a convenient lever to push the anti-porn campaign. (See here for dark speculation that this is part of a coordinated campaign to dump Mitt in favor of Fred Thompson. If Dobson apologizes for questioning Fred's Christianity, we'll know the theory's a winner.)

Whatever the cause, it's remarkable that the AP's Johnson gives the criticism so much ink. I actually had to stop at the end of the article and remind myself that this wasn't a press release from Focus on the Family. Except it was - pieces of it, anyway. Other portions seem to be a rewrite of a post by David Brody.

IT'S a bit of a mystery why this story is coming out now, as it's been floating around since June or so. I suppose back in June, the only Thompson in the race was a Catholic dogged by rumors of infidelity. Now that we might have a fake prosecutor join the real (cross-dressing) one, it might be time for Dobson and his pals to make their move.

It's a bigger mystery why Johnson would choose to carry this kind of water for these people. It's one thing to round up the scuttlebutt for reader's consideration. It's quite another to pass it on without a shred of analysis. What's his angle?

Assuming that this is the Religious Right sticking it to Mitt, it signals the possibility of trouble down the road in the Republican coalition. Romney is nothing if not a representative of corporate conservatism, and let's face it, porn means millions. If they're really intent on pressing this line of attack, they're signaling their willingness to put principles above profits.

Ordinarily, that would be a commendable stand. In this case, it's bound to be a source of friction within the Republican party. If I didn't know better, I'd say this was a bit of payback for all the times the corporate wing sold out the religious wing over the years.

You see what I mean about this being a cornucopia? I do believe it's a horn of plenty, and filled with nothing but popcorn. Pass the butter, please - unless it's been used in a Marriott movie...

Pee Ess: as if all this weren't bad enough for Willard Mitt, check out this poll from NBC: 65% of registered voters say they'd go for a Mormon candidate from their own party. But only 35% say that America is ready to elect a Mormon. Translation: unless the landscape shifts dramatically in the next six months (think about Romney's rivals being discovered in bed with a dead girl or a live boy), you can pretty much stick a weenie fork in his campaign. Between the mullahs' opposition and the grassroots uneasiness, Romney has a heck of an incline before him.


Tags: Mitt Romney, Religious Right (all tags)

Permalink | 23 comments

  • Cookie jar (12+ / 0-)

    I suppose you could call this story a pornucopia, but that would be just wrong. And bad.

  • Why is it always some vast decision? (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wiscmass, Thirst

    couldn't someone who has "known this since June" (isnt that only right around a month) just got tired of listening to Romney wax poetic on the subject of pornography while condoning it in his hotels.

    Kinda like that male prostitute in Denver who got tired of Haggard talking about homosexuality.

    Or, the wisdom of the ages: people in live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

    SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

    by JCHFleetguy on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:42:22 AM PDT

    • Like I said: (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      wiscmass, JCHFleetguy, Mahanoy, Thirst

      these guys don't do anything spontaneously. David Brody may have just come across the story, but it's highly unlikely that Tony Perkins - a media hound's media hound - decided to sit on his criticism without a good reason.

      • I dont doubt that (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        wiscmass, Thirst

        but it would take me a while to open up the guns on a major presidental candidate if I were Perkins. I certainly think of FRC as being a "mullah" when it comes to pornography, rather than following the orders of someone else.

        There is also an implicit (or was it explicit - will have to read again) contention that this issue isnt in and of itself a reason to question Romney - that it must be a cover for some other agenda.

        Certainly, it is enough of an issue for me - but this is my "world"

        SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

        by JCHFleetguy on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 09:05:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Look, (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          JCHFleetguy, Thirst

          I don't necessarily think the delay reflects some huge agenda. I'd just think that they'd move on it a little more quickly. And you'll notice that I specifically noted that they might be doing it for no better reason than the issue itself. Given the ramifications, I sort of doubt it, but I could be wrong on that.

      • No Conspiracy Necessary (0 / 0)

        Dan, you're letting your conspiracy-theory mindset get the best of you. I can tell you exactly what happened because I saw the whole thing play out. Here's what happened:

        1. The AP called the media office asking for Tony to comment on hotel pornography (an issue that we have been talking about for years).
        1. The media department sent Tony an email (that I'm CC'ed on) that gives the name of the reporter, the media outlet, and the topic that they are writing about. The topic: hotel pornography.
        1. Tony returns the reporters call and finds out that it is about Mitt Romney, and not really about hotel porn at all. But he sticks with quoting FRC's position and gives them a quote to that effect.

        Now, take that all into consideration and look at Tony's quote again:

        "They [Marriott] have to assume some responsibility. It's their hotels, it's their television sets."

        Notice what is left out? Anything about Mitt Romney? No, which sort of puts a dent in your rather naive analysis.

        Let me assure you from someone who has an insider's view. There is no vast-right wing conspiracy. There are just people advocating for their positions. Sometimes they win, sometimes they don't. We (FRC) do not control the media. Mainly we just wait for them to ask our opinion. Sometimes we tell them what we think but a lot of the time (more than you'd think) we refuse to say anything.

        I respect the Christian Left, even when I disagree with them. But if you guys start falling into the same conspiratorial mindset that affects the other Kos kids you'll make yourselves irrelevant.

        • Spare me the lecture. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Delia

          Joe - since we're apparently on a first-name basis now - I'm happy to be proven wrong on Tony's role in this story. But I find it a little odd that the same criticism of Romney has cycled through at least three media iterations with no reference to previous reporting. That might not indicate a conspiracy, but the alternative is that the Christian Right is so ingrown or conformist that it has trouble thinking critically about what's been reported to them. I'm not sure that's where you'd like to go with that.

          I've also never known the FRC to sit passively when you thought you had a story to push. Half the press releases I see from you all are about obscure controversies nobody's ever heard of. Since Romney's connection to the Marriotts has been known for some time, it seems logical to assume that his connection to the porn in their hotels would have been known as well, and thus that the critique would have been made by this point.

          That's backed up by the fact that Romney addressed Regent University at the beginning of May. If you didn't pick up on the story at that point - or haven't talked to Phil Burress in the meantime - then what the hell have you been doing?

          Don't tell me Burress operates without coordination - he led the effort to push hotels to drop porn channels last year - an effort that included the FRC. If your boss didn't know that his partner in activism had issued a major-league slam of Romney, he should have. And if he didn't want to pile on, he should have specifically mentioned that he wasn't being critical of Romney in particular.

          So either you missed the story and are now getting caught with your pants down, or you've known the story and held back on making the criticism of Marriott until an opportune time.

          And last, I can't help pointing out that you're one of the founders of Blogs for Fred, so you're hardly a neutral observer in this situation. Or is it just naive of me to notice that, too?

          • Hark! (0 / 0)

            < crickets! >

            (Bets?)

            The light is at home in the darkness. -- Parmenides

            by ogre on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 11:23:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          • What's the Point of This Post? (0 / 0)

            To be honest, Dan, I'm still unclear about the point of your rambling post. Are you a Romney fan and are peeved because Religious Right leaders are not supporting him?
            Do you own stock in Marriott? Or is it just that you have a knee-jerk reaction that causes you to criticize conservative Christians for anything they do?

            You say we've either "missed the story and are now getting caught with your pants down or you've known the story and held back on making the criticism of Marriott until an opportune time." What story? FRC has targeted OnCommand and LodgeNet, the providers of the porn to hotels. But as Tony notes--after he is asked to comment--the hotels themselves are not blameless.

            You also have pick a side. You can't criticize us for both ignoring the story and making a big deal of it. Your arguments is getting downright silly.

            And as far as my position, yes, I support Fred Thompson. So what? Does that mean I've "decided to stick a shiv in Romney's campaign"? No. It means I support Fred Thompson.

            Also, if Tony wanted to go after Romney he'd do it head-on, as he has done with Giuliani. Why would he do is subtly, not even mentioning his name?

            Seriously, leave the conspiracy stuff to the real nutcases over on Kos' main page. It is unbecoming of a Christian.

            • I don't know about conspiracies, but . . . (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              brillig

              . . . as an ex-Mormon, I participated on the ex-mo online boards a number of years back, and believe me, the connection between the Marriott and pornography is well-known there, and the exquisite hypocrisy of being able to find your Book of Mormon in the nightstand drawer and and dial up a porn flick at the same time draws no end of derision in those parts.

              I've lost the need to go to those sites, and, not being from Massachusetts, I had no need to know of the Romney connection.  But the same thing applies to Mitt as applies to all these other very public political Christians.  When you break down the wall between Church and state, you run the risk of a fatal case of hypocrisy.

              "Power and greed and corruptible seed seem to be all that there is" -- Bob Dylan

              by Delia on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 03:21:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            • What is Fred Thompson's view on (4+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              brillig, vansterdam, Thirst, Sarea

              hotel pornography?  Does he have a position?

              Ad hominem references to so-called "real nutcases" on another blog is a) not in aid of anything b) lazy, ineffective advocacy and c) rude.

  • outrageous! (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Thirst, bluetownship, Delia

    this calls for kitty porn:

    http://kittyporn.org/index.php

    (link is SFW)
    (unless you are a dog)
    (or have an irrational fear of kittens)

  • Uncle Fred Thompson has his own problems today (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Rain, Asbury Park, Thirst, Sarea

    on abortion.  Appears that he did did some lobbying for a pro-choice group during the first Bush administration.  Ain't there anyone "pure" out there for the religious right?  Oh yeah, there's Brownback and Huckabee -- but they can't win, Perkins and Dobson et al. have decided, so they don't count...

  • I've stayed in Jersey shore motels (0 / 0)

    where we wished the basic cable service offered something a little  juicier than the Weather Channel & Turner Classic Movies.  

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx http://wfmu.org/playlists/RX

    by Asbury Park on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 02:43:04 PM PDT

  • Business is business (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Asbury Park

    The Marriott family is Mormon but at the end of the day it all boils down to... vox populi.

    If the people want porn - and many business travellers apparently do, then...

    Porn, while not something I want to promote is not  the cause of all the evil in the world.

    Good Lord, that honor may have to go to Dick Cheney or something!

    Festina Lente - make haste slowly

    by Festina Lente on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:21:21 PM PDT

  • The Pub candidates offer a smorgasborg (0 / 0)

    of hypocrisy.

  • It's been known since at least the 90s (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    vansterdam

    that the big hotel chains have had their hands in pr0n--at least in Utah.

    There was a guy who ran three video stores in Utah county (Provo, UT). He rented "hard R" movies out of the back room of one of the shops. He was raided by the county and put on trial. The first trial ended in a hung jury when a citizen juror declared that he could not determine what the community standard was for Provo, UT. (Brave guy, that.)

    The DA wasn't satisfied, so put him on trial again. This time, Mr. Former Video Store Owner had to rely on an appointed attorney, a straitlaced Mormon guy. This attorney was very smart and defended his client, a man reviled in the county, to the utmost. What the attorney did was subpoena from the big chain hotels located in Provo what they showed on their in house movie request systems. Hoo boy! It was very hard R! He presented that evidence to the jury and his client was acquitted.

    So, yeah, I could see Romney looking the other way as the Provo Marriott served up "Debbie Does American Fork". Because it's business more than anything else.

    However, I think the animosity towards Mitt Romney is not due to the porn, but because he's Mormon. There's an extraordinary amount of hostility towards Mormons by other Christians, and it's not just the usual suspects. When the Catholics and the PCUSA (among others) get into the act and are basically drawing lines all over the place on who is "orthodox" and who isn't, it generates an amazing amount of bad feeling all around. It strikes me as profoundly un-Jesus-like, but I'm not a theologian trying to set out the boundaries of who's "christian" and who isn't.

    I think this is the issue that really should be addressed, which is how the Christian Right dishonors the Constitution (Art. VI, Section 3) by insisting on a religious test for office. The bigotry needs to be exposed. Nobody wants to talk about it, they want to sweep it under the rug. I'm certainly no Romney supporter, but maybe the best thing that could happen with a Romney candidacy is that Americans have to finally discuss how some religions are given preference over others.

  • Finally (0 / 0)

    I'm glad the religous right is finally listening. Cracking down on porn is the first step towards a pro-life agenda.

    27 and 42 = 69, six and nine equal 15 which subtracted from 42 = 27 42(27)=1134 1+1=2, and 3+4=7, taking us back to 27

    by Kozzmo on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:12:18 PM PDT

Permalink | 23 comments