Mitt Romney, in an effort to gain voters in the South, admitted to liking grits and catfish, and being a life-long hunter, according to an article from Huffington Post.
And yet, “Mitt Romney, on the other hand, acknowledged he doesn’t need to win Alabama or Mississippi to stay in the nomination hunt even as he expressed confidence — backed by late polling — that evangelical and socially conservative voters in the South think he’s the one to win the White House back from President Obama,” said a report from Fox News.
The Fox News report does mention his meeting with Foxworthy, but instead focuses on campaigns the super PACs supporting the three Republican front-runners (Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum) have launched to gain support in the South. Evidently, Romney-supporting super PAC Restore our Future aired ads criticizing Santorum for funding Planned Parenthood and Gingrich for seeking clean energy to combat climate change.
None of this was mentioned in the Huffington Post article. If I hadn’t sought other sources, I would merely have found an article making Romney look like an idiot (because he lied about being a life-long hunter of “varmint”) and an amusing video posted by MSNBC where he discusses his love of grits.
If I had only looked at the Fox News article, I wouldn’t have seen the side of him attempting to woo the South with his adoption of their food. I would only have seen the campaigns his super PACs have launched without any of his actual rhetoric.
Now I’m really confused about Mitt Romney. Is he seeking support of evangelical Christians by abandoning his status as a wealthy man from the Northeast? How would people in the Northeast feel about this? Does America want a president who “pretends” to be southern just for a few extra votes he said he doesn’t even need?
The Fox News report didn’t mention Romney’s lack of hunting experience. The Huffington Post article didn’t mention the super PAC ads. Why?
As a side note, I’d like to add that both these articles were riddled with grammatical errors.