Could Game-bashing Mitt Romney Be McCain’s VP Choice?

Although they were bitter enemies during the primaries, recent reports – like this one from Reuters – have Republican presidential candidate John McCain and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney getting rather chummy.

And that could be bad news for gamers.

Among possible Republican VP choices, Romney has been far and away the most outspoken on video game content issues. GamePolitics readers may recall Romney making comments like this on the campaign trail:

It’s time to clean up the water in which our kids are swimming. I’ve proposed that we enforce our obscenity laws again and that we get serious against those retailers that sell adult video games that are filled with violence, that we go after those retailers.

Romney also released a campaign video which played to this theme.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. Father Time says:

    Obama pretty much never mentioned his stance until those guys asked him about it. Hillary and Romney have been vocal about their stances (Hillary moreso) regarding video games and I guaratnee that if Obama picked Hillary as VP or proposed legislation that censors video games the chorus here would not spare him (and that includes me).

  2. T5 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    So Obama is just pandering and Romney was bashing?  Given their records and comments the two have remarkably similiar stances. 

    Of course Romney is a republican so that is already two strikes around here. 

  3. face777 says:

    I for one could not care less how the world ends up for the kiddie-bastards who will inherit it – my partner and I are planning on never having any, and want to enjoy the world as much as we can.  I say vote for the best means of life NOW, not POSSIBLY for the future.  Sod them, we are the ones alive right now.


    Also, Romney seems like a dick.  YES the videogame debate IS important, as the underlying motives, censorship, could have the largest amount of sinister undertones than any other political stance.  Who controls what you can see…? read…? say…? even think…?  That is the way it *will* develop.  Look at Britain and Australia…

  4. Father Time says:

    He was just pandering, his proposals are either all ready in place or very very light. Although the only two people running for president that gamepolitics has described as game bashing (that I remember) are Clinton and Romney

  5. Father Time says:

    Mccain noted fairly recently that the media is giving a disproportionate amount of attention to Obama (and I have to agree).

    Well Mccain if you really want some of the attention back announce Ron Paul as your VP. All the fights and arguments you two will get in will make the media flourish to you. And if you can keep the debate to a private level (and I have no doubt that you can) the media will still flock to you hoping that the (real or imagined) tension between you two will snap while their cameras are rolling. And if not then they’ll still flock to see you two since Ron Paul has changes in mind far more drastic than anything Obama has planned.

    Don’t worry though if he’s vice president he can’t get us out of Iraq.

    Think about it Senator.

  6. Father Time says:


    Wake me up when the candidates actually decide who thier VP is going to be or when the candidates make an official statement concerning their coice.

    Until then we can speculate who will be their VP forever and not make a difference.

  7. Mr. Blond ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    The name I’ve been hearing lately is Tim Pawlenty, who signed Minnesota’s game bill into law, though to be fair, I don’t know how much he actually had to do with the bill other than providing his John Hancock.

    If it’s Obama/Hillary vs. McCain/anybody, I’m going with Bob Barr/Wayne Root. Libertarians 2008!

  8. GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    Oh, and if it comes down to it, I will easily take Obama and Hillary over McCain and Romney.


    -Entertainment isn’t the reason the world sucks. It’s the reason we know the world sucks. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard researchers Larry Kutner&Cheryl Olson

  9. GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    No way. If he does pick Romney, HE IS FUCKED. Romney is a religious zealot and downright scares people with his attempts to force his lifestyle and "morals" on others. Remember, adding Romney is like a death sentence when it comes to the votes of the moderates.


    -Entertainment isn’t the reason the world sucks. It’s the reason we know the world sucks. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard researchers Larry Kutner&Cheryl Olson

  10. Anonymous says:

    Mitt Romney?

    The man founded Bain Capital, which owns CRC, which owns Aspen Educational Group, an organization devoted to MAKING MONEY TORTURING CHILDREN.

    His anti-game bullshit is only the very TIP of this man’s corruption. Remember "Double Guantanamo"?

    And last I checked, McCain seriously hates him anyway.

    There’s NO WAY he’s going to be VP.

  11. Oz says:

    Romney would enforce something that would be along the lines of the Mormon equivilent of Sharia law if he had his way. The Republican party has too much hatred towards them after their reputation has been that of being hijacked by the evnagelicals and the religious right.

    Despite the majoriy of the US are religious, most are moderates that like their personal freedoms. Romney has been against personal freedom from day 1 and has not even tried to hide it

  12. Anonymous says:

    I doubt he’d pick Huckabee. He doesn’t want to lose his grip on independent voters. Plus Huckabee and McCain are not at all alike – Huckabee is very conservative, McCain – despite what he’d have you believe – is quite liberal. Not as much as Romney, perhaps, but he also has a history of showing a great deal of contempt for conservatives.

    Not that it’ll stop him from campaigning to conservatives.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I have a hard time getting stirred up about the videogame issue when it comes to Mitt "I’d double the size of Guantanamo" Romney.  Wonder why?

    Lieberman’s not going to happen.  Too much of the "base" knows him as the second half of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.


  14. Mary says:

    Oh come on, is gaming really the driving issue in American politics today? With energy, the economy and the war on terror, do you really think that some tighter views on gaming make someone ineligible to be VP? I’m sorry, but that is downright silly. As for the misconception that Romney is unpopular with evangelicals, THIS very conservative evangelical woman has absolutely no problem with Mitt Romney. Neither do most of my Christian friends and most leaders in the Christian community–especially when you look at the possibility of an Obama presidency and this out-of-control liberal Congress and Senate majority. A few anti-Mormon bigots aren’t going to sway things one way or the other. For Pete’s sake, the upper midwest is electing Muslims and Nation of Islam devotees to office!! Dr. Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Jay Seculow, and countless others have expressed support for Romney because he is socially, morally and economically conservative enough to serve well in executive office. Let’s keep things in perspective–there are a lot of extremely important issues facing America, and that will come home to roost on my children and grandchildren if we don’t deal with them seriously NOW. I hardly think anyone’s really worried about fiddling with the gaming industry much at this point. I truly don’t mean to disrespect anyone here at this forum, and I hope you’ll offer me the same courtesy, but this seems like one heckuva tangent to me.

  15. maneater says:

    If mitt romney is chosen VP he’s giong to be PRESIDENT.Look at McCain the guys 71 and recently got a growth removed from his temple,he’s going to die in office.So if McCain is president I’m going to be looking at the VP.So if McCain chooses Romney,Romney is going to be president which is bad for us.

  16. Christian says:

    This will never happen. Mc Cain hates Romney .You can tell through out ever debate they had that McCain will most likely pick Liberman. Right now Liberman is his wing man. If it is not these two he will pick some one more right winged that would be Huckabee. Charlie Crist the governor of Florida would be a better choice for running not for games. A lot of right wing web sites say there is no way in hell McCain would pick him. OF all the people who could be his running mate I would say as an Indepenant it would be Jim DeMint. He is what the Rebulicans are looking for in McCain’s running mate but he has very little to say on video games.

  17. jadedcritic says:

    That’s just an old stereotype.  A surprising percentage of the rich in this nation are first-generation rich.  People think you get there by being a trust fund baby or a lottery millionaire or something.  Problem is the trust fund babies and lottery millionaires frequently don’t stay rich because they don’t respect the money.  Point is, I wouldn’t let it bother you.  There’s a connection in the public mindset because republicans typically represent the wealthy.  It’s not a coincidence republicans typically try to keep taxes down.  They’re trying to keep more of their own money for themselves (those bastards ), that’s a big part of how they got wealthy in the first place.  Maximizing their incomes.

    Frankly,  that’s more or less the problem I have with the current party as well; like I said, "Republican" doesn’t really mean "conservative" anymore. Neither Obama nor McCain seems to have any idea how to fix problems except to throw money we don’t have at it.

  18. Dark Sovereign says:

    I don’t really like how Bush is doing things now either, but I also don’t think allowing a socialist into the presidency is the answer. Worse, we’d have a rubber stamp situation like what happened when Bush was elected.

    And yes, calling me a rich, spoiled, trust funded brat did piss me off three ways to Sunday.

  19. jadedcritic says:

    Youch, did I touch off a brushfire?

    Believe me, I don’t want to support Obama, I just don’t feel like I have much of a choice. Voting for McCain, even though I know he likely won’t get squat done for a long time, amounts to a tacit acknowledgement of the status quo – and I despise the (lately) republican tendency to pretend that the status quo is OK,  everything’s peachy!  Oh yeah, Iraq’s been going on longer then our own civil war, but of course it’s still good!  Oh yeah, the economy’s solid;  Bush is handing over the single biggest deficit since Reagan.  (sarcasm) Oh yeah, everything’s peachy (end sarcasm)

    My problem is that somewhere along the line "Republican" stopped meaning "conservative", and started meaning "rich, christian, oil tycoon."  Bush was not a fiscal conservatie, He didn’t hardly veto squat until the democrats got control of congress, and now, hoo-boy, he just can’t wait to veto things, can he?  Ironically, I’m still conservative on most issues fiscal.  By and large, this mortgage bailout is a joke, I’m willing to bet for every 1 honest person who gets "rescued", 3 are just plain screwups who borrowed more then they can afford; to say nothing of what’s gonna happen when the screwups default on their new FHA loans.  (which they probably will)

  20. Dark Sovereign says:

    Also, how does any of that prove me wrong? McCain supports lifting the ban on offshore drilling. Obama doesn’t. Instead, he proposed a ten year study to find a solution to high gas prices. Obama’s plan has no garuntee of results and would take a decade. McCain’s plan would have domestic oil production up in six months, with a fairly constant rate of increase as new wells are explored and developed.

    One of the biggest factors in the faltering economy is the high price of gas, which is a reflection of the high price of oil. More oil production means more gas, which means more supply to meet demand, which means lower gas prices. Lower gas prices means more money in the economy in the form of discretionary dollars. Lower gas means more money in the pockets of the working class, which means they can afford more creature comforts, like, say, a more expensive house.

    If a president wants to rescue the U.S. economy of today, they need to reduce oil prices. A healthy economy benefits the rich and the poor alike. McCain proposed a plan (one that doesn’t go far enough, IMO, because I believe we should be drilling in ANWR too) that would decrease gas prices. Obama proposed a study that isn’t likely to do anything for at least ten years, but more likely fifteen. McCain also promised forty five new nuclear plants, which reduces the cost of electricity. McCain would benefit the working class more than Obama, because McCain’s plan actually benefits the economy.

  21. Dark Sovereign says:

    Sorry, no. No trust fund. Are you going to back up your bullshit with anything other than ad hominem and baseless claims, or can I just ignore  you?

    When a person defaults on their loans, the lender is the one who takes it in the shorts. The companies loaning the money have more financial problems as the people who were loaned money. It’s why Bear Sterns, Freddie & Fannie, and IndyMac need government assistance now. It is complete lunacy to expect the rest of the populace to bailout those who took bad loans, or those who gave them.

    I don’t really care for emotional pleas either. You’ll need to prove that the hard working laborer actually tried to live within his means and still got screwed. Since most of the problems lie with variable rate mortgages, which are a stupid investment, I doubt that these people ran into problems from no fault of their own.

    Where do you get the idea that Obama supports tax breaks for anybody? Seriously, Obama would have to put taxes on record highs in order to support his social engineering policies.

    The rich need a tax break because they, for the most part, earned their cash. The wealthy cannot stay wealthy without making good business decisions. Taxing them more than anybody else merely punishes those who succeed, making success harder for everybody else. We are a free market country still, and successful people shouldn’t be treated differently, at least by the government, than anybody else.

    Basically, let the free market take its toll. I believe that the loaners and the loaned to should have to survive on their own.

  22. Anonymous says:

    And perhaps I was too vague. When I said "look like the USSR", I was referring to economic policy. I should have been more specific.

    Even disregarding everything else, the USSR was – economically – a disaster.

  23. Anonymous says:

    The majority of the press already has a Marxist slant, and they don’t even bother to hide it anymore. They’ve done most of the work for the government.

  24. Father Time says:

    "You really, really don’t want America to look like the USSR in 20 years."

    And thinking that obama’s policies will make us like the USSR in 20 years is a stupid exaggeration.

    You really think in 20 years with obama the government will own all the press and all the land in the entire country (plus use Alaska as Siberia)?


  25. Anonymous says:

    In America, the wealthy pay a disproportionately large percentage of their income in taxes.

    Expecting the financially successful to carry the less fortunate (through government taxation) – for whatever reason – is textbook socialism. You really, really don’t want America to look like the USSR in 20 years. Trust me on this. There’s a reason the American Communist party supports Obama, and it’s not because he has a nice smile.

    You may not like the distribution of wealth in the country, but that’s capitalism for you. It still beats the alternative.

  26. Anonymous ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    You are wrong. McCain Would just continue the policy that has already put this nation into a recession. Tax breaks for the rich; come on; if 10% already owns more money than the other 90% of the nation why do you need a tax break. Obama supports tax breaks to the people who have been screwed over by bush and his lackeys for the past 8 years. Besides the oil companies own land with millions of barrels of oil that they don’t even use.  Bailouts for idiots, I bet your just some rich spoiled brat who never has to work a day in his life because of daddy’s trust fund; I do agree that there are some people who did dig themselves into a hole they can’t get out of through sheer stupidity but most of the people hurt are hard workers who doing what they can to make life better despite being screwed more times than a $5 whore by their governments give more to those who don’t need if.

  27. Black Dragon says:

    I always see the harm as having less to do with government regulating the video game industry and more to do with creating a precedent for censorship.

    I loathe censorship. It’s a sick, repulsive ideaology that the government knows better than you, and can pull the wool over your eyes whenever they think it’s appropriate "for your own good".

    Granted, this is about preventing the sale of inappropriate material to youth, not jailing government dissenters, but the less involvement the government has with my entertainment, the better. Video games should go from drawing board to my hard drive without ever being mentioned to a regulator or a congressman. Besides the fact that they just get in the way, they really have better things to spend their time and money on.

  28. Dark Sovereign says:

    The problem is that giving teeth to ratings is unconstitutional. As luck would have it, the Constitution also prevents the Vice President from making policy decisions, so Romney couldn’t do much harm. The biggest problem is that Romney won’t get McCain votes.

  29. I’m not a republican or democrat by no means, but if  he truly goes after those who are selling M rated games to underage children, then I see no harm in it. As a father I don’t want my children being able to by items without my knowledge, and I’m a huge gamer. So I’m a bit confused as to what the issue is here?

    As long as the same attention is paid to TV, Movies, etc., I think its a good campaign, though my fear is somehow the gaming industry always gets singled out. This on the heels of an FTC study that came out within the last couple of months, that stated that Video Games were the hardest item to purchase verses movies, video, mags, etc.

  30. Dark Sovereign says:

    Honestly, I agree. But alienating traditionally supportive voters is not a good way to get elected. So, I doubt Romney would get VP.

  31. Anonymous says:

    So he’d piss off the most liberal part of our party. Whoop dee doo. Personally I’d prefer it if we just shuffled all the "social issues conservatives" like that jackass Mike Huckabee out. They’re the ones that make the rest of us look like bigots.

    "Oh noes!! Romney is a MOAR-MIN. ZOMG111!!"

  32. Black Dragon says:

    While bipartisianism IS largely dead, McCain is one of the few putting his gil into phoenix downs.

    There’s a reason he’s known as a maverick; McCain works much more closely with opposition than most Republicans like.

    As for Romney being VP, he may have some sway in that case, but I wouldn’t worry about it… unless he wants to take Miyamoto quail hunting >_>

  33. Brokenscope says:

    You can fix most of the stupid shit republicans do, the same can’t be said for many democratic policies.

  34. Dark Sovereign says:

    I believe the VP can decide who speaks on the Senate floor, when acting as President of the Senate.

    Before you go spiting the Republicans give this some though: is it better to have a President who can’t get anything done, or is it better to have a President who rubber stamps socialist policy that comes his way?

    McCain wouldn’t be able to get much done, that’s true. But the alternative to McCain is a candidate who alternates between proposing "solutions" that would drive us into an honest-to-God depression (tax hikes for everyone, bailouts for every idiot who lived beyond their means, high gas prices forever), and acting as if he has no clue what he believes in.

    (Note: McCain proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling, which would increase the supply in as little as six months [there are already rigs sitting on deposits off of California, they’re just inactive], along with a gradual increase in oil production for six to eight years. Obama has proposed a ten-year study on how to find a solution, by which time the country will be either completely broke or will have started drilling anyway.)

  35. jadedcritic says:

    I wouldn’t worry about it, it’s not like VP isn’t much more then a token a position anyway. If I remember correctly,  isn’t VP just the tiebreaking vote in the senate?  Is there really much of anything else that comes with the job?  Short of taking over if McCain rolls over and dies, but frankly, I’m not all that worried about that either.  I don’t think McCain will win.  Think the republicans are stuck being the scapegoats (deserved or not) for how (bleep)-y things have gotten lately, and most people will vote democrat if only to spite the republicans.  I know I plan on it.  (Well, that’s not fair really, I just think that bi-partisanism is largely dead, and if we elect McCain, he’ll just spend 8 years quibbling with a democratic congress and not get anything done, so not much of a choice really.)

  36. chadachada(123) says:

    He said our kids are swimming in an ocean of filth! I see no filth in common-day lives, other than the filth that roams the inner cities, the gangs and "gangstas." THAT’s the real problem, and Mitt is trying to say that because some teens play violent video games or listen to music that swears, or whatever, that THAT is a big issue, when it’s really not

  37. Wesley says:

    I know Romney isn’t exactly a fan of video games, but what exactly is wrong with that campaign ad? My big problem with political and other bashing of “violent” video games is that it often uses a huge double standard, one which is not at all present in the ad. Romney specifically refers to other forms of media along with video games when talking about violence.

  38. chadachada(123) says:

    I’d still vote for McCain, but simply would vote for someone else as VP (so long as it isn’t Clinton). Many people forget that the VP and President aren’t a set package, you can vote for one from one party and one from another

  39. gs2005 says:

    The DMCA was endorsed heartily by both Republicans and Democrats and it’s not going away anytime soon.

  40. Vake Xeacons ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

     Doesn’t really change anything. It’s not Romney I’m worried about if McCain’s elected. It’s Liberman.

    I’m not voting for McCain anyway. He’s got the same black ties to Joe Liberman that Clinton does, and he’s been making the same back-alley deals. Romney wouldn’t be any worse.

  41. Zero Beat ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    On the one hand, this would be a bad move that wouldn’t be good for the country.


    On the other hand, this would make my decision much easier as long as Barack continues to look at VP candidates that are not Hillary Clinton.

  42. infect999 says:

    mitt romney sucks…I think McCain should choose Condoleeza Rice for VP (unless she’s anti-gaming…which as far as I know, she isn’t)

Comments are closed.