Another Depressing Debate

What’s to say about the GOP debate last night? Romney further disgraced himself demanding that marriage be federalized; Huntsman defended civil unions and the rights of states to decide the issue but overall gave a lackluster performance. Paul was rambling. Santorum and Bachmann were evil. More from The Advocate.

Shifting gears but showing why the “progressive left,” despite its support for marriage equality, is a dreadful alternative, Barton Hinkle has a neat look at liberal apologists for the rioters in Britain.

Here in the U.S. we’ve just been through a budget showdown in which the side that wanted government spending to grow at a slightly less rapid pace than the other side wanted was denounced as terrorists in the literal sense. So far, none of those who called peaceful tea-party activists terrorists have flung the same accusation at the British rioters who have inflicted genuine terror. Interesting.

To be sure, those progressives seeking to understand what motivates the rioters in London do not actually endorse their behavior. They do not think individuals — no matter how aggrieved — should take it upon themselves to storm into other people’s shops and homes and “redistribute the wealth” as they see fit. After all: That, such progressives say, is government’s job.

More. Commenter “another steve” gets the point I was trying to make with this juxtaposition: “We have a choice of warmed over social democracy which has already crashed and burned in Europe, and social intolerance. We need to forge a new mainstream.”

37 Comments for “Another Depressing Debate”

  1. posted by Tom on

    Federal preemption of marriage by constitutional amendment is the last — and probably only — hope of social conservatives in the fight against marriage equality . Nothing else will stop the legal and political march toward “equal means equal”.

    • posted by JohnAGJ on

      I’m also not really worried about it. They don’t have the votes in Congress or enough States that would ratify it. The social cons have enough power to kill any “pro-gay” legislation and delay matters in the courts, but that’s about it which is in itself a big change from 10-20 years ago.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I agree with you JohnAGJ. The social conservative fight against marriage equality is a lost cause, although it will probably take another 10-15 years for gays and lesbians to complete the clean up, given the number of state anti-marriage amendments that passed as a result of the Republican strategy during the Bush/Rove years.

  2. posted by Houndentenor on

    Perhaps at some point the social progressives in the GOP will stand up for gay rights nationally in the way they did (mostly behind the scenes) in New York state recently. I’m not holding my breath but a few months ago I would have been skeptical about what happened in Albany so I dare those folks to prove me wrong. (I live to be pleasantly surprised. My expectations are now so low that it wouldn’t take much!)

    As for Britain and France and other European countries, the way they treat racial minorities is appalling. It’s startling to hear a European talk so liberally and then in the next breath say their languages pejorative for Roma people (or Turks or whatever their local minority is) with the same tone of voice one used to hear (and sadly occasionally still does) people use when saying the n-word in the US. In many ways Europe is racially about 1965. I’m not condoning the violence. I never would. But there are problems in these countries that they need to deal with that they don’t yet want to. I had any number of conversations with Germans of all sorts of political persuasions while I was living in Germany and plenty of them have seen this coming for a long time. Violence is not the answer, but it is a time-tested way of getting the attention of the powers that be who would rather ignore you. I hope they work through these issues. I can’t say that the US has been perfect in race relations, but a lot of us have made a real effort and compared to most countries (not a very high bar, I’m afraid) we have made real progress.

  3. posted by BobN on

    Shifting gears

    I can’t imagine what progressive apologists have to do with the GOP “debate”. Surely a separate thread would have been more appropriate and logical. Plus, I could have enjoyed the unprecedented pleasure of agreeing with one of your threads, though, I think calling Bachmann and Santorum “evil” is a bit over the top.

  4. posted by esurience on

    Mr. Miller,

    You’ll never allow yourself to have an honest and objective understanding of the current Republican party, if you continually make excuses for them by smearing liberals (or “the left”) whenever you bring up a Republican flaw.

    As for your smear, listen… we already have policies that distribute the wealth in a particular way. You act as if we have no policy now, and we want to impose a policy. But that’s not the case. There’s always a wealth-distribution policy. And right now, that policy causes (deliberately), wealth to be distributed in an extremely inequitable and unfair way.

    We seem to divert most of our wealth to the financial sector, who adds very little value into our economy, but rather makes their money through speculation, luck, and raw speed. That’s a wealth distribution policy we have today. We can change that. But not until we’re honest that we do, in fact, have current policies.

    • posted by another steve on

      It’s not a “smear” just because it’s an opinion you don’t agree with.

      Miller’s perspective, which you clearly loath (though you keep coming here to make your loathing known) is more or less a pox on both their houses. We have a choice of warmed over social democracy which has already crashed and burned in Europe, and social intolerance. We need to forge a new mainstream.

      If you find that a “smear,” don’t let the door hit you on the way out (but oh, I’m sure you’ll be back tomorrow!).

      • posted by esurience on

        The ‘smear’ was accusing the ‘progressive left’ of wanting to ‘redistribute wealth’ while neglecting the fact that **EVERYONE** wants to ‘redistribute wealth’ – it’s just a matter of how they want to distribute it. The right wants to redistribute wealth to the top, the left wants it redistributed more equally.

        All taxation is wealth redistribution. To accuse one particular party or ideology of wanting to ‘redistribute wealth’ is a smear because it’s something everyone believes in doing.

        Even if you don’t believe any form of taxes, that’s a policy on wealth redistribution! A person who doesn’t believe in any form of taxes must believe that wealth should be distributed on a first-come, first-serve basis, whoever claims the natural resources of the earth first.

        I hope that cleared up why I called his attack a ‘smear’. To recap: Everyone believes in redistributing wealth. Everyone has a policy on how wealth should be distributed. Different groups/ideologies have different desires policies. But everyone has a policy. To say that only one particular group or ideology wants to ‘redistribute wealth’ is therefore a smear because it implies that that group has a stain on it which other groups do not.

        Clear enough?

        • posted by another steve on

          Despite your insults, which seem to come to you like breathing, let me explain something: Obama and the Pelosi/Reid Democrats have made massive redistribution along the lines of Europe their political agenda. Obamacare is itself a huge redistribution machine, with taxes taken from wealth producers and given through subsidies to the lower middle class. If Democrats were actually helping those in need — the people living on the streets — it would be one thing; but their massive programs are about redistributing wealth to favored Democratic voting constiuencies, including to the able bodied who would rather accept government handouts instead of taking a job that they consider beneath their inflated self-esteem. Europe can’t afford it and is crashing, and we’re following suit.

  5. posted by Hunter on

    Thank you for quoting Barton Hinkle. I needed something to lighten up an otherwise crappy day.

    Now that I’ve had a good laugh, I see the rest of your post is business as usual — if you can’t find anything good to say about the radical right, change the subject.

  6. posted by Tom on

    I watched the debate, but ended with more questions than answers. I want the candidates to have to answer challenging, yet civil, questions about their position thoroughly and be able to explain why they take the position that they do. Follow up questions based on their answer should be allowed. If any of the interviewers are not satisfied that their question has been answered, the candidates has to try again. This would work best with each candidate going through this process one at a time, not in a group setting. Can you imagine going to a job interview and try to get by with attacking other applicants? If these people think they are truly qualified to run this country and get a salary from we, the tax payers, I think intense scrutiny isn’t too much to ask. If they can’t handle the pressure of this, they aren’t qualified to be President. And, just in case anyone wonders…I mean ALL candidates…including Obama…and all the Republicans, and any third party candidate who wants to run. Can you see Obama trying to get through this interview process?

  7. posted by Jorge on

    In perhaps the most surprising twist of the debate related to LGBT rights, Santorum, who pledged to fight against marriage equality at home, criticized Iran during the foreign policy portion because it “tramples the rights of gays.”

    A twist, but it is not surprising that George W. Bush’s biggest fan and the most ardent Catholic in America would believe such a thing. Cost me a good $200 more than I wanted to give him, though; I was not expecting him to actually say it.

    Rick Santorum approaches the 10th Amendment issue from a social conservative direction, but he is absolutely right to say the whole debate is silly and hypocritical, that this is a nation of moral principles, and for his Abraham Lincoln citation that the states do not have the right to do wrong. There is nothing evil about that, and I think to spread myths of that nature does much to contribute to the needless divisiveness and hatred in politics–especially among the progressives. It is this reflexive fear of religion and morality, just because its strongest proponents are against gay rights (you can’t even claim the guy’s anti-gay anymore) that has alienated the left from embracing religion and moral standards on its own terms.

    And speaking of twists, did you know Ann Coulter joined the advisory board of GOProud a couple of days ago? Also not a surprise to anyone who’s paid attention to Coulter, except I didn’t think it’d happen this quickly.

    • posted by BobN on

      Jorge, I have a reflexive fear to those would criminalize sex between consenting adults. The mullahs in Iran do so. We used to do so. When the Supreme Court struck down those laws in Lawrence v. Texas, Rick Santorum criticized that ruling. He is on record calling for the re-criminalization of sodomy. If he has changed his mind on that issue, he has yet to admit it.

      Iran does nothing to gay people that Rick Santorum hasn’t support America doing to gay people.

  8. posted by Jorge on

    I want the candidates to have to answer challenging, yet civil, questions about their position thoroughly and be able to explain why they take the position that they do. Follow up questions based on their answer should be allowed. If any of the interviewers are not satisfied that their question has been answered, the candidates has to try again.

    I don’t have much to say in Fox News’ favor in this debate, but nailing the candidates with follow up “answer the question!” questions is actually something the moderators did pretty consistently, and something I’m not used to.

  9. posted by Tom on

    They did do some good followups, but I am advocating a different approach totally. Think of an interview process a CEO of a major corporation has to endure…THAT’S what I’m talking about.

  10. posted by Jorge on

    I doubt most boards of directors would accept someone who promises ideological fanaticism the way primary voters seem to. But because voters do, there’s not much the media can do if candidates just refuse to answer the question.

  11. posted by Tom on

    Jorge, sharing information like that about Rick Santorum is most appreciated by me. Just because a candidate says he is not for gay marriage does not make me think anti-gay. I would like to know all candidates stance on other gay issues (and all other issues, for that matter) and have to explain why they think that way, and follow up. I can totally predict Obama failing this scrutiny worse than any of the Republicans. I would also bet most of the Republican candidates would prove to not be as anti-gay as the uber-left would want us to believe.

    • posted by BobN on

      Oh, yeah, right.

      I guess you just fell off a turnip truck (didn’t know they even had those anymore!).

  12. posted by Tom on

    “there’s not much the media can do if candidates just refuse to answer the question.” In my world of reality, its not an option, its required. Perhaps you are correct that it might not work well in a primary, but when the party candidates are set for the general election, I say “game on.”

  13. posted by esurience on

    I’m having trouble following the Jorge/Tom conversation here…

    Did Jorge donate money to Rick Santorum? And is it being questioned whether Rick Santorum is actually ‘anti-gay’? The things I read from the commenters on this forum never ceases to amaze.. but I must be reading that wrong…

  14. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    There seem to be two Toms in this thread. My comment was the first in the thread, and I haven’t commented since then.

    I don’t know who the other Tom is, and I’m having the same problem following the exchange between Jorge and Tom that you are, esurience.

  15. posted by Tom B. on

    I’m sorry for the confusion of Tom’s. I didn’t notice there was another Tom til well after I had been posting comments. As for being confused…I can see that. LOL. Not sure what Jorge meant with the $200 thing myself. As for what I have been saying, basically I don’t necessarily think anti-gay marriage necessarily means anti-gay. It does raise a caution flag and the makes me want to know more about what reason he has for this stance and how he feels otherwise about gay rights. We must remember, Obama is not in favor of gay marriage (although he is “evolving,” whatever the hell that means…I’m thinking it means give me money and then we’ll see). The cold hard fact is we will not have any candidates who support gay marriage. Therefore, I want to know more about how the candidates actually feel about gays other than the marriage thing before I judge them too harshly.

  16. posted by esurience on

    Tom B,

    There are degrees of anti-gayness. Not being for marriage equality is certainly anti-gay, to a degree. A degree which is far exceeded by the positions of a man like Rick Santorum. Positions of which you are apparently ignorant of. Ignorance is not, in all cases, a crime, but you shouldn’t go absolving Rick Santorum of the charge of being anti-gay, just because you happen to be ignorant of his record.

    And as for your attempted equating between Obama’s position on marriage equality, and these Republican candidates position… that is entirely bullshit.

    Obama opposes DOMA. He opposed Prop8 and opposes (at least in position), other initiatives like that. He believes in federal civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

    Rick Santorum shares none of those positions. NONE OF THEM. Not only that, but he wants a FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT banning gay and lesbian people from marrying. Every other Republican candidate seems to share Rick Santorum’s views, save Huntsman and Kruger.

    So please, cut it out with the bullshit. It is accurate to say that Obama opposes federal recognition of marriage for gay and lesbian people. It is not accurate to say, or even COME CLOSE TO IMPLYING that his position is ANYTHING like what the current crop of Republican candidates believe. Not. Even. Close.

  17. posted by Jorge on

    Oh. I didn’t realize that it was a different Tom (although I definitely would have suspected something from the follow up posts).

    Did Jorge donate money to Rick Santorum?

    Yes. I wouldn’t have disclosed it if it weren’t for the quote I cited. Nor would I have given as much.

    And is it being questioned whether Rick Santorum is actually ‘anti-gay’?

    He did say that Iran tramples on the rights of women and gays, that is what I was referring to in my parenthetical remark, and I think my remark was justified.

    His record, of course, is not anywhere near that of George W. Bush, who was a generation-defining champion of promoting civil rights through conservative means, who moved the Republican party to the right on gay issues, whose Attorney General made it clear that hate crimes against gays are not to be tolerated, who expressed a vision for Democracy in the Middle East and a war against international terrorism, who made the combat of AIDS and other disease in Africa a priority, and who, we have learned since, practiced restraint in how (and how often) the harshest interrogation methods at Guantanamo Bay were used. However, it is not George W. Bush who is running for president.

  18. posted by Jorge on

    There are degrees of anti-gayness. Not being for marriage equality is certainly anti-gay, to a degree.

    Yeah. Obviously I don’t agree with that.

    Therefore, I want to know more about how the candidates actually feel about gays other than the marriage thing before I judge them too harshly.

    And let me tell you, I pay very close attention. The main (potential) candidate I remember placing in the absolute no category is Mike Huckabee.

    • posted by JohnAGJ on

      Santorum is another candidate I would place in the “absolute no category” along with Huckabee and Bachmann. I could no more vote for him than I could Obama in 2008. Yeah his comments about gays post-Lawrence are bad, but it is his threat to reinstate DADT that clinches it for me. You cannot repeal a ban for a year or two and then reimpose it without that negatively impacting the military. I don’t care if the man says he opposed repeal but it’s a done deal now and will have been in place for enough time by the time he would take office and could actually get a new ban passed in Spring of 2013 at the earliest. I have other reasons to oppose Santorum but this one item right here is enough for me.

  19. posted by Jorge on

    Jorge, sharing information like that about Rick Santorum is most appreciated by me. Just because a candidate says he is not for gay marriage does not make me think anti-gay. I would like to know all candidates stance on other gay issues (and all other issues, for that matter) and have to explain why they think that way, and follow up.

    Watch the debates and do internet searches. It’s hard to parse how they really feel because they all know to give stock answers.

    Rick Santorum is most infamous for making public remarks in opposition to the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision case which overturned state bans on gay sex.

    Sarah Palin and Joe Biden on the surface had very similar positions on gay marriage in the vice presidential debate (although they differed on civil unions), but their body language was very different. Biden was very proud to make any statement in support of the gay community. Palin could barely mutter that she favors allowing hospital visitations.

    I have never seen Huckabee say anything even remotely positive about or empathetic toward gays.

  20. posted by esurience on

    Jorge,

    You’re donating to a person who believes you practice a depraved sexuality and that it should be against the law for you to have sex. See a psychiatrist.

    You’re not interpreting his statement about Iran and gays in the appropriate context. Santorum doesn’t believe in “gay rights” as a concept, so for him to say that Iran is trampling the rights of gays is a statement that has no actual meaning. I don’t know what you’re trying to infer from his statement, but it’s not justified.

    Santorum wants a federal constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, he wants to reinstate DADT (or worse), wants to make gay sex illegal, and wants to ban gay adoption. And you donated money to him. And you’re gay.

    You really need help. And I’m not saying that in the “anyone who disagrees with me must be mentally ill” way. I mean that you, specifically you, have to be mentally ill. I think even Stephen H. Miller might agree with me here.

    You’re unable to handle the real animosity that so many on the right have for gay and lesbian people, and so you’ve convinced yourself that it’s not really there. You’ve convinced yourself that you can be a part of their club, even the club that includes their most viciously anti-gay members, and that they don’t really have some fundamental problem with you as a person, but they just have some sort of minor disagreement over an issue. It’s a delusion, and you should seek help for it.

    And this site, indegayforum, should be more aggressive in fighting that kind of mental illness within our community.

    • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

      Esurience, why don’t you produce your professional credentials?

      Name and state, please. Since you want to diagnose mental illness for a person that you have never seen and never met, you are going to be reported to the state ethics board.

      Furthermore, you are going to be publicized to your professional organization, and your professional organization is going to have to publicly answer for its endorsement and support of an individual who is diagnosing an illness and prescribing treatment for a person that he has never met.

      By the way, that is a massive ethics violation at the least, and will likely lead to you being stripped of your license to practice psychiatry.

      Oh, you don’t have any credentials? Then you aren’t qualified to diagnose mental illness, and are just stating something that you know not to be true in a malicious attempt to injure Jorge’s reputation.

  21. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The cold hard fact is we will not have any candidates who support gay marriage. Therefore, I want to know more about how the candidates actually feel about gays other than the marriage thing before I judge them too harshly.

    I recognize that a candidate’s personal views on gays and lesbians is relevant to some extent (Bachmann’s and Santorum’s statements over the years reflect real animus, in my opinion, while other candidates’ statements don’t …) but what really counts is where candidates stand on issues.

    The issues change from year to year, but here’s my list for 2012:

    (1) Support/oppose federal constitutional amendment denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
    (2) Support/oppose DOMA, Section 2.
    (3) Support/oppose DOMA, Section 3.
    (4) Support/oppose state constitutional amendments denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
    (5) Support/oppose state constitutional amendments denying same-sex couples the right to enter into marriage-equivalent civil unions or domestic partnerships.
    (6) Support/oppose disqualification of gays and lesbians from military service and/or support/oppose reinstatement of DADT.
    (7) Support/oppose including sexual orientation in existing federal non-discrimination laws.
    (8) Support/oppose including sexual orientation in existing state non-discrimination laws.
    (9) Support/oppose adoption by gay and lesbian individuals and/or support/oppose adoption by gay and lesbian couples.
    (10) Support/oppose granting child custody and unsupervised visitation to gays and lesbians in a divorce.
    (11) Support/oppose any legal recognition of same-sex relationships (e.g. hospital visitation, end-of-life, inheritance, burial).
    (12) Support/oppose public employer recognition of same-sex relationships (e.g. employee benefits).

    I don’t know where each of the Republican candidates stands on each of the issues yet, and maybe won’t, but based on statements so far, the Republican field generally (Huntsman is an exception on several issues, and there are other exceptions on this issue or that, mostly nuances) seems to be falling in line with the social conservative agenda — support (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6), oppose (7), (8) and (9), no clear statements (with an exception or two) on (10) or (11), and oppose (12).

    Is that “anti-gay”? I guess so, in the common sense of the term. But I think “anti-equality” is the better term because it reflects the real question: Does the candidate believe that gays and lesbians should be treated equally under the law — “equal means equal”.

  22. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    As we all know, Romney made the case for federal preemption of state marriage laws in Iowa’s debate:

    I believe the issue of marriage should be decided at the federal level.

    You might wonder why is that? Why wouldn’t you just let each state make their own decision? And the reason is because people move from state to state of course in a society like ours, they have children. As to go to different states, if one state recognizes a marriage and the other does not, what’s the right of that child? What kind of divorce proceeding potential would there be in a state that didn’t recognize a marriage in the first place?

    There are — marriage is a status. It’s not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state. And a result our marriage status relationship should be constant across the country.

    I believe we should have a federal amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

    Romney is not alone, of course.

    What do the conservatives on this list think about federal preemption of state marriage laws? Is preemption advisable or not?

    My view is that federal preemption is a bad idea. The courts can be trusted, in my view, to handle the constitutional question if state marriage laws offend the federal constitution, as it did with state laws banning interracial marriage.

    In general, I think that our country’s historic “leave it to the states” tradition has worked well, and I think that expanding federal power in this arena is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

  23. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Rick Santorum approaches the 10th Amendment issue from a social conservative direction, but he is absolutely right to say the whole debate is silly and hypocritical, that this is a nation of moral principles, and for his Abraham Lincoln citation that the states do not have the right to do wrong.

    In context, I gather that you are Roman Catholic and oppose state civil law recognition of same-sex marriage on moral grounds as articulated by the Church. Do you feel the same way about “the right to do wrong” when it comes to state civil law recognition of remarriage after divorce? If not, why not?

    It seems to me that the two cases are similar with respect to the interplay of Christian moral teaching and civil marriage laws.

  24. posted by Jorge on

    Santorum wants a federal constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, he wants to reinstate DADT (or worse), wants to make gay sex illegal, and wants to ban gay adoption. And you donated money to him. And you’re gay.

    Not only did I donate money to him, I declare it openly, and I am a moderate (if also a big government conservative). However, I am not discussing this any further with someone I clearly do not answer to. The fact that you cannot handle such a vast dissonance from your view of the world–that Rick Santorum is the devil incarnate who can be given no quarter or any positive attention by anyone self-identifying as gay–without attacking my mental functioning is a function of your maladaptive defense mechanisms, not mine, not to mention a bigotry that I have no intention of tolerating.

    I recognize that a candidate’s personal views on gays and lesbians is relevant to some extent (Bachmann’s and Santorum’s statements over the years reflect real animus, in my opinion, while other candidates’ statements don’t …) but what really counts is where candidates stand on issues.

    I have some disagreement with this.

    In context, I gather that you are Roman Catholic and oppose state civil law recognition of same-sex marriage on moral grounds as articulated by the Church.

    No, I believe very strongly in legislating morality, but I think my church is wrong on that issue. Its position on same-sex marriage assumes that the soul is indivisibly male or female. I believe the soul is genderless and that a feminist analysis should be controlling on the issue of same-sex marriage.

    Do you feel the same way about “the right to do wrong” when it comes to state civil law recognition of remarriage after divorce? If not, why not?

    Do I feel that states should not have a right to upend society and trample on basic American values and liberties through marriage and divorce laws? For centuries this country has allowed the states to regulate marriage and many other customs on their own, according to their own needs and traditions. But can there be abuses? Absolutely. A state should never permit bigamy. It must recognize a marriage that remains valid in another state, it cannot abuse that marriage by granting an unlawful rubber stamp divorce, such as to a single nonresident who left his wife and went halfway across the country to try to get a divorce, thereby allowing one person to marry again without consequence. And if any states do such abuses, then yes, the federal government should intervene to stop the abuse and make things right. That’s why there are federal divorce laws (not many, though).

    In general, I think most state laws do well enough to balance the admonition to think less of remarriages with the contrary need to offer stability to the remarried couple’s children and step-children through custody laws and alimony laws.

    It seems to me that the two cases are similar with respect to the interplay of Christian moral teaching and civil marriage laws.

    Christian moral teaching is not controlling on whether or not something comports with American values.

    • posted by BobN on

      “Not only did I donate money to him, I declare it openly”

      I suggest you write a letter to his campaign declaring that you, Jorge, a sodomite, have proudly donated $200 to his campaign (make sure to include a photocopy of the check). Oh, and make sure to CC various media organizations.

      That way, though you may not regain your sanity, at least you’ll get your money back.

      • posted by Jorge on

        I think you have the guy confused with Dan Savage.

        Whoops, I mean Michael Savage.

      • posted by Jorge on

        But FYI I have written to him.

Comments are closed.