Last night’s Republican debate had a long exchange on same-sex marriage and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military. The short of it: only Rep. Ron Paul and businessman Herman Cain said that they do not support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in all states, and that they would not reinstate “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Conservative Rep. Michelle Backmann seemed at first to say states should handle marriage issues but then backtracked and voiced support for the amendment – joining Romney, Pawlenty Gingrich and the others in violating the federalist, limited government principles they claim to uphold.
Let’s note that CNN didn’t invite former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson to the debate, and that likely candidate Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah and former U.S. ambassador to China, has not yet declared and so was absent. Both oppose the constitutional amendment and wouldn’t reinstate DADT.
The GOP candidates last night made a number of strong points on the catastrophic deficit growth led by President Obama and congressional Democrats, and the perils of the Democrats’ blocking efforts at (and demagogic scare-mongering over) entitlement reform. But, with the exceptions noted, their fealty to using the government to enforce anti-gay discrimination makes them unacceptable. Here’s hoping Huntsman declares soon.
More. From Politico: Huntsman’s fundraising is targeting gay Republicans, based on his support for civil unions.
13 Comments for “Sorry Performances”
posted by Rodney Hoffman on
About that “catastrophic deficit growth led by President Obama and congressional Democrats”: Must you be so partisan? I think the GOP has had a bigger hand in deficit growth since 2000 than the Dems. See, for example, http://www.cbpp.org/research/index.cfm?fa=topic&id=29 Plenty politicians of both parties voted for the tax cuts and war spending and financial rescue measures that have given us our current (and projected) deficit.
posted by another steve on
Wow. Miller takes pot shots at the Republicans and calls them unacceptable, and you still attack him as partisan. Guess any deviation from the correct Democratic party line is unacceptable in your book. As for being partisan, try looking in the mirror.
posted by RJ on
Cato Institute: In the face of the unprecedented congressional spending binge, President Obama has been asking Congress to spend even more.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11944
and
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12088
posted by Houndentenor on
That’s a good point. If gay conservatives now declare a candidate “unacceptable” for supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, that is progress.
posted by Wayne White on
The moderator kept saying “Remember, one of these candidates is likely to be the Republican presidential nominee”, or something to that effect. Excuse me? We haven’t had a primary, Palin is running second in the polls of Republican candidates and wasn’t there, Huntsman wasn’t there, Johnson wasn’t there, and btw, who in the heck is Cain? I missed the first half of the debates, so sorry, but I never heard of the guy.
Since Republican candidates for the nomination aim to please the far right, particularly on social issues, saying that “One of these candidates is likely to be the Republican presidential nominee” serves to distance independent voters and moderate Democrats from the Republican candidates. I expect there was a lot of shock, but no awe, in open-minded New Hampshire, when they heard the panel’s opinions on gay rights and DADT.
posted by BobN on
“Let’s note that CNN didn’t invite former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson to the debate, and that likely candidate Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah and former U.S. ambassador to China, has not yet declared and so was absent. Both oppose the constitutional amendment and wouldn’t reinstate DADT.”
That’s an awfully weak statement of the positions of Johnson and Huntsman. Weird.
Anyway, had absolutely no interest in tuning in, but I’m struck at the dishonesty all around about the position of the GOP finest. The ones who support the FMA also oppose civil unions. I don’t suppose that even came up. Even the ones who oppose the FMA also oppose CUs.
posted by Jorge on
That… that really hurt.
But, I want big government conservatism to come back. I want governance that solves problems through conservative means. For heaven’s sake, you give me a leader who says that all people are valuable, and that means even that blasted tea party, then I will follow him. Even in the primary. That comes with a price.
But mostly it hurt. I should close my pocketbook… uh, checkbook, and dump its contents on those remaining anti-DADT congresspeople.
They all said almost the exact same things anyway. Even Michelle Bachman said all factions of Republicans are needed. So on some things it may not make a difference.
posted by Tim on
If Republicans were serious about controlling deficits, you might have an argument. But they are not. You can’t carp about government deficits when you insist on giving away billions in tax revenue to the top 2% of the nation’s wealthiest or when you refuse to consider reductions in our obscene military spending. These are the two profligacies that got us into this deficit mess to begin with, and Republicans will defend them with their political lives.
posted by Tom on
But, with the exceptions noted, their fealty to using the government to enforce anti-gay discrimination makes them unacceptable.
To us, maybe, and their statements about DADT are going to lose them independent votes in the general election, if nominated.
But I would gently suggest that “their fealty to using the government to enforce anti-gay discrimination” is precisely what makes them acceptable to Republican primary voters in this election cycle.
That’s the conundrum that the Republican Party has worked itself into over the last thirty years, and the problem that those of you who are Republicans are going to have to solve before too many more election cycles pass.
posted by Carl on
“To us, maybe, and their statements about DADT are going to lose them independent votes in the general election, if nominated. ”
I don’t think they will. Most independent voters don’t care about gay rights. The only way they might is if someone gets up there and gives a Pat Buchanan 1992 GOP National Convention speech, and none of them are going to do that. The Republicans are lucky because they will curry favor for anti-gay views without really alienating anyone.
I’m mostly just concerned that the very, very extreme Michelle Bachmann may end up having a strong chance, because the lowered expectations climate of today’s politics has turned her not having a disastrous debate performance into some kind of victory march.
posted by Tom on
I don’t think they will. Most independent voters don’t care about gay rights.
I don’t know how many independent votes a Republican presidential candidate’s pledge to reinstate DADT will cost in 2012, Carl. I guess we’ll see, but I think that it will cost votes.
I agree that most straight voters, of whatever political stripe, don’t care about gay rights. But most Americans honor our service personnel and do care about the men and women serving in the military. The driving force behind the high percentage of Americans who favored DADT repeal was, in my view, simple: Americans will not tolerate discrimination against men and women who are putting their lives on the line for our country. And I think that doubles down when existing rights are taken away.
After DADT repeal is implemented later this year, as it will be without incident, I suspect that a Republican presidential candidate who pledges to reinstate DADT by executive order will be viewed as a “fringer”, and suspect for that reason.
posted by Carl on
Hopefully you’re right. The Republicans keep saying, “This needs to be left up to the generals,” and, “This shouldn’t be done in wartime,” so if they have a chance, I think they will reinstate DADT and just use those justifications, and many (including the “liberal” media and a number of gay conservatives) may end up going along. But I’d like to be wrong here.
posted by Houndentenor on
I wish I could agree with you. I think independents and moderates don’t care enough about gay issues for it to swing their vote. Maybe I’m wrong (I’d like to think so) but past experience show that they will disagree with the policy but vote for the candidate anyway. That includes gay people (again, based on past experience).