One of the absurdities of U.S. presidential elections is that untypical Iowa has such an outsized impact on creating early and vital candidate momentum as the first delegate-selecting state, for which we can blame Jimmy Carter. Iowa caucus-going Democrats skew left, and caucus-attending Republicans are dominated by deeply socially conservative evangelicals. That’s why the Iowa GOP gave it’s blessing to caucus winners Rick Santorum last time (edging out Mitt Romney), and before that to Mike Huckabee. Neither went on to win the nomination, of course.
At a final Iowa rally for Ted Cruz, Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” spoke vehemently against same sex marriage and said, “Let’s rid the earth of these people.” Cruz himself called forth “Father God please….Awaken the Body of Christ that we may pull back from the abyss,” which was either scary crazy fundamentalist pandering or worse, or a biblical reference misunderstood by the secular elite (or, as conservative pundit Rod Dreher tweeted, “He’d bite a hobbit’s finger off to win.”). Further on that point, columnist Kathleen Parker said, “I think that the middle of the road people, moderates, more liberal Republicans would find that kind of a little much, and I know that — I don’t see independents falling in line behind Ted Cruz.”
Some reasonable people are glad Cruz made Donald Trump look like a loser, undercutting his veneer of invincibility. But we’ll see how this plays out.
And then there was this apparently absurdist claim about Marco Rubio being secretly gay, which seems like just another last-minute dirty campaign trick, but is amusing.
Onward to New Hampshire.
31 Comments for “Iowa Crazy”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And then there was this apparently absurdist claim about Marco Rubio being secretly gay, which seems like just another last-minute dirty campaign trick, but is amusing.
Silly. Boyishly twinkish, but straight enough.
What isn’t silly, though, is that Rubio is almost indistinguishable from Cruz in his opposition to “equal means equal”. Like Cruz, Rubio has explicitly pledged to overturn Obergefell, appoint judges and Justices who will make it so, rescind President Obama’s executive orders, and holds gays and lesbians out as intolerant thugs. The sad thing is that his views represent the party’s mainstream with near perfect pitch, and the sadder news is that if he becomes the party’s nominee, he will work to cement those mainstream views for several more election cycles.
For gays and lesbians, and for the future of the Republican Party on LGBT issues, Rubio is probably more dangerous than Cruz, because he doesn’t come across as a mean-spirited. Instead of a snarl, Rubio will put a sparkly smile on Republican anti-equality policies.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m sick with the idiotic way presidential campaigns are covered. It isn’t important to win either the Iowa caucuses or the NH primary. All that matters if finishing well enough to still be in the game. At least two candidates are out now based on poor showings. These early states don’t predict the winners but they do give a clear indication of who needs to call it quits. Any candidate not in the top 3 (maybe 4 if it’s close) in either state really should find something else to do with the rest of the year. Everyone who has watched politics for any length of time knows this. In fact even the media talking heads know this but that kind of sane analysis doesn’t drive ratings so instead we get a lot of hype that is undeserved for either early state.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I agree with you that the political reporting is mostly puerile.
It doesn’t look like any of the candidates in the so-called “establishment lane” (Bush, Christie, Kasich and Rubio) will to drop out before New Hampshire, and, depending on the results of that primary, probably not then.
The “buzz” (who knows if it is correct) is that if Rubio does well in New Hampshire, the “establishment” will put a lot of pressure on Bush, Christie and Kasich to step aside in favor of Rubio, letting Rubio battle it out with Trump and Cruz. Among the “social conservatives”, Huckabee is gone, and Cruz is putting pressure on Carson to get out, letting Cruz battle it our with Rubio and Trump.
In terms of LGBT issues, I’m not sure that it makes any difference which of the three (Cruz, Rubio, Trump) is the nominee. Cruz and Rubio are two peas in a pod on gay/lesbian issues, although Cruz snarls and Rubio smiles, which seems to make Rubio more palatable to supposedly pro-equality Republicans like Paul Singer, who dumped just $2.5 million into Rubio’s PAC in the last reporting period (go figure). Trump has been all over the place on gay/lesbian stuff, but seems to be falling into line with the Republican mainstream on LGBT issues.
This is an internal Republican battle. No good is going to come of it for gays and lesbians, no matter which of the three emerges as the nominee.
posted by Mark F. on
So, how do you Democrats feel about the transgender lobby preventing passage of an anti-discrimination law back when the votes were there in 2009-2010? Even with a Clinton Presidency, it’s going to be almost impossible to get anything through for probably a long, long time.
Agreed that all of the Republicans are bad on gay issues. It remains to be seen whether or not the same sex marriage ruling can be overturned. My sense is that Justice Roberts would not wish to revisit the issue, but if the court can be stacked with more social conservatives who knows?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
So, how do you Democrats feel about the transgender lobby preventing passage of an anti-discrimination law back when the votes were there in 2009-2010? Even with a Clinton Presidency, it’s going to be almost impossible to get anything through for probably a long, long time.
I would have preferred to have an incomplete national non-discrimination laws to no non-discrimination laws at all. I’m not sure that strong federal non-discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians (but not transgenders) would have made it through Congress in 2009-2010, though, given the a number of Democrats in the majority who were elected from red districts/states and may not have had the political courage to stand up and be counted.
Agree that all of the Republicans are bad on gay issues. It remains to be seen whether or not the same sex marriage ruling can be overturned. My sense is that Justice Roberts would not wish to revisit the issue, but if the court can be stacked with more social conservatives who knows?
I’m not at all certain what Chief Justice Roberts might do, or not, when the opportunity to revisit Obergefell presents itself. I’m not sure that it makes a lot of difference.
Assume, for a moment, that Rubio is elected President in 2016 (it isn’t a given, but it isn’t out of the question, either, since he isn’t as likely to put off independents in the way that Cruz and Trump will), serves two terms, and makes good on his pledge to appoint Justices who will vote to overturn Obergefell.
During Rubio’s two terms, it is almost certain that he will nominate replacements for Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Scalia. If he is successful in appointing Justices who will vote to overturn Obergefell (on state’s rights grounds or otherwise), the Court will look like this: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Thomas and four Rubio-Justices. Justices Alito and Thomas have made it reasonably clear that they will vote to overturn Obergefell, and it is certain that Justices Kagan and Sotomayor will not. Assuming that Chief Justice Roberts votes with Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, Justices Alito and Thomas and the four Rubio appointees vote to overturn, the majority decision will be 6-3 to overturn.
You know as well as I that many things might change that outcome. The Rubio appointees might rethink their positions on Obergefell, or enough time — say a decade — might pass so that the Court cannot reverse Obergefell in good conscience. But the risk that Obergefell might be overturned is not insignificant.
More to the point, though, and this is a question I ask you and other Republicans or Republican-leaning contributors to the list: Why would you vote for a candidate who has pledged to make overturning Obergefell a priority? And if you care about the Republican Party, why would you support an anti-equality candidate who is young, energetic, and likely to influence the party for at least a decade.
To me, Paul Singer’s active and strong support for Rubio mind-boggling. So if you have a reason why it makes sense for pro-equality Republicans to support a strongly anti-equality candidate, I’d be interested.
posted by Houndentenor on
It would be unprecedented for the court to reverse a ruling this quickly. Yes, they did that with Hardwick but that took 17 years (and even that was unusual). But Scalia and company were none to happy so if the next president were a Republican and appointed a bunch of Scalia wannabes to the court (2-3 would be possible) that could easily happen. Robert might not even have a say. And besides, Roberts is the kind of man who would invite his lesbian cousin to hear the oral arguments and then rule against her right to marry. Am I really to think he wouldn’t vote to overturn a ruling he dissented to? Don’t count on it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m not suggesting that a ruling reversing Obergefell will come during the next few years. I am suggesting (correctly I think) that if Justices hostile to Obergefell are appointed to replace Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Scalia during the next eight years, Obergefell will be in danger for a long time to come.
The average tenure of a Supreme Court Justice is 16 years (according to the SCOTUS website) and longer if the Justice appointed is relatively young. A 50-year old can be expected to serve 25-30 years.
Justices appointed during the next eight years can be expected to be on the court until 2035-2050. That’s a long time.
posted by Houndentenor on
Did we really have the votes to pass? If we exempt people who discriminate against gay people for religious reasons, what good is that? Is there any other reason given Those majorities were narrow in 2010. The DADT repeal was a squeaker. And it wasn’t that good a bill to begin with. I agree that Democrats have not been as good as they could have been on lbgt issues. It’s take a lot of work to move them forward. That’s why I have little patience for homocons who blame liberals for the Republicans being so bad on our issues (as if me wishing the GOP to take some position or other has any manifestation in reality). Of course I should be kind to Stephen today. He did call out some crazy on the right. I’d like to see that be a regular feature. Too often the gay conservatives provide cover for their lousy record rather than working to move them along. Younger conservatives are not nearly so against gay rights and the bigotry is turning off young people from the party. Surely someone in the leadership can see that.
posted by Jorge on
blame Jimmy Carter
“The power of the party bosses, who used to decide on the candidate during the convention, had been destroyed as a result of reforms that were pushed by McGovern after the disastrous 1968 convention.”
What disastrous 1968 convention?
…wow, that was pretty bad. No wonder Chicago has such a horrible reputation.
You know I went to the Carter Presidential Library once. I took pictures of every picture of Smiling Jimmy Carter I could find.
Getting Carter and Santorum for Huckabee and Cruz is not a bad tradeoff.
And then there was this apparently absurdist claim about Marco Rubio being secretly gay, which seems like just another last-minute dirty campaign trick, but is amusing.
So basically, Marco Rubio is weird. Instead of using condoms, golden boy Marco and his wife repressed their youthful sexual urges by having gay friends, and that’s how they met. It’s quite possible they were both virgins when they got married. They may be the first known examples of closeted straight people in history.
But didn’t we know all this already?
At least two candidates are out now based on poor showings.
(Eep! Just two?)
For gays and lesbians, and for the future of the Republican Party on LGBT issues, Rubio is probably more dangerous than Cruz, because he doesn’t come across as a mean-spirited. Instead of a snarl, Rubio will put a sparkly smile on Republican anti-equality policies.
This misses the question of what happens when they make contact with the opposition. It also misses the question of what happens if they make contact with neutrals after the opposition makes friendly contact with them.
Obama is pretty snarly and mean-spirited, and he got a heck of a lot done, semi-permanently, by completely bypassing everyone he did not need (he is brilliant at avoiding being confronted by his opposition). This Ted Cruz is also likely to choose to do. Marco Rubio I think will not.
This is an internal Republican battle. No good is going to come of it for gays and lesbians, no matter which of the three emerges as the nominee.
I disagree. You have a laser like focus on marriage and workplace discrimination. Public safety is always in play, and that is something that correlates with how negatively people say things.
More to the point, though, and this is a question I ask you and other Republicans or Republican-leaning contributors to the list: Why would you vote for a candidate who has pledged to make overturning Obergefell a priority?
That is a very stupid question. Obergerfell was wrongly decided.
If anything, someone who pledges to appoint judges to overturn that decision is hitting the bullseye of both smart and tolerant between a stupid left and an abrasive right. I cannot think of any solution to the problem that is more perfect. I am sure that most other Republican or Republican-leaning gays and lesbians do a similar measuring game even if their views of the court case are different.
By definition, I am Republican-leaning because how I order my priorities happens to better match the Republican party than the Democratic party, and that is not only true when it comes to balancing civil rights issues with other political issues. It is also true when it comes to how to address civil rights issues on their own merits.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: More to the point, though, and this is a question I ask you and other Republicans or Republican-leaning contributors to the list: Why would you vote for a candidate who has pledged to make overturning Obergefell a priority?
Jorge: That is a very stupid question. Obergerfell was wrongly decided.
Got it. Homocons want to see Obergefell reversed, and that explains the reason they support candidates who want to reverse the decision. It explains why none of them have so much as lifted a finger to turn the Republican Party, too. It all makes sense now.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
I suspect that presidential primaries have had serious problems pre Jimmy Carter. The type of problems may have shifted, i.e. less overt racism in who can vote in a party primary.
I dont like alot of things about our election law, but I dont see the presidentail primary process getting substainly better anytime soon.
If you have the ability to write huge personal checks to a major presidential candidate, you may believe that the candiadates anti-gay rights views will not apply to you.
posted by Houndentenor on
Pre-1972 or so there weren’t as many primaries. Delegates where chosen and the nominee was selected at the convention. The idea that we would know the nominees before the convention had even started is a relatively recent one but both parties quickly realized that the kind of squabbling and bickering that had gone on at the political conventions for over 100 years made for terrible television and hurt the candidates. The current system is not how it’s always been, and people really ought to know that. Don’t people study history in school any more?
posted by JohnInCA on
History? Sure.
The particulars of how elections were handled and when those laws/policies changed? Probably not in K-12 education, and unless you’re going for a Political Science degree, not in college/university either.
Face it, it’s hard enough teaching kids how the *current* electoral system works, nevertheless teaching when the current system was put in place, how it’s changed over the years, and the pros/cons of different systems.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
The Republican Party is not going to get better on “equal means equal” if gay Republicans dont work to make it better.
Gay Democrats cannot do the work, and have very little, if any, influence with the GOP leadership or base.
Gay Green or Libertarian party folk also cannot do the work that needs to be done.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
The early States in the primary process are very protective of their status and will fight any effort to change that.
Independent and centrist voters can – some times – vote in the major party primaries.
Yet, the more “hardcore” primary voters are expected to show up in large numbers and they dont always think about Independent/centrist voters
posted by Jorge on
Got it. Homocons want to see Obergefell reversed
I’m a moderate.
(Hah! The only gay to the right of you is Steve Yuhas.)
I’m modhomo.
It explains why none of them have so much as lifted a finger to turn the Republican Party, too.
Mary Cheney cost John Kerry the election and stomped Alan Keyes for good measure, Ann Coulter traded birds at Homocon, Ken Mehlman came out as gay, and Rick Santorum spoke in support of Caitlyn Jenner. Turning the Republican party must mean different things to different people. I have much to complain about. Victory isn’t among them.
And speaking of Rick Santorum (may the sands turn to talcum powder beneath his feet just to annoy people), news is he dropped out and endorsed Marco Rubio. Marco Rubio? Oh, dear, is it because Tom S is right about the three identical homophobes?
*Tick-tick-tick.* Oh.
Duh! Marco’s a war hawk.
And bipartisan.
And oh yes, Ted Cruz is for teeny-tiny government and hates everybody on earth and Rick Santorum. . . isn’t.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: Got it. Homocons want to see Obergefell reversed.
Jorge: I’m a moderate.
Tom. Got it. Homomods want to see Obergefell reversed.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You have a laser like focus on marriage and workplace discrimination.
I have a laser-like focus on the law, and equal treatment of citizens under the law. Marriage equality is a critical part of “equal means equal”, as is the ability to serve in the military, as is adoption and dual parenting, as are non-discrimination in housing, public accommodations and employment. And so on. I focus on the law, I suppose, because I am a retired lawyer.
I am heartened to be living in a time when, for the first time in my life, cultural attitudes towards gays and lesbians are moderating to the point where many gays and lesbians can live openly, but that, to me, is something that will change over time as a result of the increasing number of out gays and lesbians, so I don’t focus on it.
Public safety is always in play, and that is something that correlates with how negatively people say things.
Definitely. It seems to me that the level of anti-gay rhetoric has become more violent in recent years, rather than less. However, preserving free speech is more important than trying to get the anti-gay conservative Christians to act like decent human beings, so we’ll have to let Christians be Christians and live with the consequences, doing what we can to counter the violent speech.
posted by Houndentenor on
Okay so I went to the link. Can someone explain me wtf that website is and what their agenda is? So what if Rubio had gay friends at some point. Or if he danced in some kind of troop a few times. Why is that anything someone should care about. All that shows is the homophobia of the writer and his presumption of homophobia on the part of the reader. Young people, even young conservatives, have gay friends. The Bushes do and so do the McCains. Who doesn’t? People need to join the 21st century. There’s a lot to like here.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If social conservatives shoot down Rubio, they will be shooting themselves right square in the foot. His views on both LGBT issues and abortion are dead-rock social conservative, the Republican “establishment” is falling all over itself to back him, he has a fair chance of winning the Presidency, he would both lock down the party until 2024, and (with any luck at all) assure a solid social conservative majority on the Court for the next 15-25 years. Social conservatives are not going to get another chance like this, and they are fools if they throw that away because he went dancing with his shirt off when he was 17-18 years old.
posted by Jorge on
Well…
There is a difference between Marco Rubio dancing with his shirt off at 17-18 years old, and Newt Gingrich divorcing and remarrying his mistress. To find out, ask each of them about each incident.
posted by Houndentenor on
Actually Gingrich divorced a wife to marry his mistress not once but twice. But didn’t Trump do the same thing? Obviously “family values” are for other people.
posted by Doug on
” Obviously “family values” are for other people.”
And then there are the wonderful family values of the Palin clan.
posted by Jorge on
I have a laser-like focus on the law, and equal treatment of citizens under the law.
That would seem to me to be mutually exclusive with creating policy change through a Supreme Court decision. Changes in law are a fine thing. It’s not the Supreme Court’s responsibility to mediate or decide them.
It seems to me that the level of anti-gay rhetoric has become more violent in recent years, rather than less.
Hmm, anti-“gay agenda”, maybe. But as for what that “gay agenda” is that is being spoken against, I think not.
Okay so I went to the link. Can someone explain me wtf that website is and what their agenda is?
It is not possible.
There’s a resident in my community who writes Letters to the Editor making the most outlandish connections between just about everything and socialism. The connections are always kinda half-there, but then he uses that to say everybody and their grandma are part of a socialist conspiracy of anti-good guys.
That author is of the same ilk. His brain is not working. He has no critical thinking skills.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: I have a laser-like focus on the law, and equal treatment of citizens under the law.
Jorge: That would seem to me to be mutually exclusive with creating policy change through a Supreme Court decision. Changes in law are a fine thing. It’s not the Supreme Court’s responsibility to mediate or decide them.
Not in the least mutually exclusive. Constitutional decisions about laws inevitably “mediate or decide” policy issues.
Think Brown v. Board.
Oh, shit. I forgot you were a moderate. I know, I know — wrongfully decided, unelected judges and all that …
Well, maybe I can point to Citizens United or Mecklenburg County.
posted by Jorge on
You dare to define a moderate? Not even “squishy” is a reliable description, but at least it’s a short one.
Brown vs. Board of Education didn’t go far enough. It’s so elegant and tight, it’s on the wrong flight.
But it is fitting that you would choose that as an example, given how memorably that case argued self-esteem as a basis of unconstitutionality, an argument that was repeated and credited in rather bizarre fashion in Obergefell.
Did I just come up with a non-policy factor in BB and OB that justifies both the same and different decisions to different people? Yes I did. And I was not expecting it. No justification is needed for why the same argument is bizarre in a case about legal recognition of gay marriage yet compelling in a case about school segregation, for that is once again what defines the citizen. BB was rightly decided, and OB was not.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You dare to define a moderate?
Not me. You self-defined (“ I’m a moderate.“). I was using your self-definition facetiously. S few years ago, you self-defined as a social conservative. That self-definition was, in my view, more accurate.
In fact, I’m reminded of Senator Bensten’s rejoinder to Dan Quale: “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
But it is fitting that you would choose that [Brown] as an example, given how memorably that case argued self-esteem as a basis of unconstitutionality, an argument that was repeated and credited in rather bizarre fashion in Obergefell.
I choose Brown because the “dignity” reasoning in Brown is precedent for Loving, Romer, Lawrence, Windsor and Obergefell, as is Griswold and the line of “privacy” cases.
And you are right about one thing — you will have to explain why African-Americans are deserving of “dignity” but gays and lesbians not in order to distinguish the cases. It is not enough to simply call the idea that gays and lesbians are entitled to “dignity” as human beings “bizarre”.
I’ve got a book to suggest if you want to understand how legal precedent works in our courts: Karl Llewellyn’s The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study, written in 1930. It is still used today in many law schools to introduce first-year law students to the topic. I think you’ll learn something from the experience, and maybe you won’t see Obergefell as “bizarre” so much as a logical extension of the Brown line and the Griswold line.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—Mary Cheney cost John Kerry the election
Maybe, maybe not. At any rate it does not really serve as an example of the LGBT Republicans (and allies) working in the Republican Party to change its policies and attitudes.
Mary Cheney and I may disagree about plenty of stuff (cannot say that I have wanted to know where she stands on too many issues) but in terms of the Republican Party’s LGBT policies and attitudes, her problem was that she was — or perceived as being — largely indifferent to said policies and attitudes.
—and stomped Alan Keyes for good measure,
I do not think that Alan Keyes needed much help in that department and I cannot see that he cared too much what Mary Cheney felt….he was not too concerned about what his own daughter felt.
—Ann Coulter traded birds at Homocon,
I am not sure how exactly that can be seen as progress of any sort. I do not think that she has actually supported gay rights (she was dead set against gay marriage at said event).
—Ken Mehlman came out as gay,
Frankly, I am not entirely sure that it was a surprise to too many people within the Beltway (his denials were cute to read, though) and he played a leadership role in an especially anti-gay presidential campaign. What has he done since he came out to change the Republican Party’s positions and attitudes?
Rick Santorum spoke in support of Caitlyn Jenner.
–But if a State wants to outlaw “cross-dressing”, would he support it, like he did with the anti-gay criminal laws? Santorum said something to the effect of, “we should take his word for it” or something like that. That might be seen as an improvement in attitudes, but not so much with policy.
posted by Jorge on
At any rate it does not really serve as an example of the LGBT Republicans (and allies) working in the Republican Party to change its policies and attitudes.
(You know I actually wrote the part about Alan Keyes before I edited in the part about John Kerry.)
I am not sure how exactly that can be seen as progress of any sort.
Really? At the risk of being flippant, I thought it was one of my most tired talking points. If I am not mistaken, then indeed you can see it.
What has he done since he came out to change the Republican Party’s positions and attitudes?
Nothing, it is his successor Renee Feebas (Reince Priebus) who has spent significant capital in that direction (oh, and Michael Steele existed, too). I think your question is irrelevant. The relevant question is is he part of any group Republicans that through combined moments of history has turned the Republican party on (how did Tom phrase it…?) gay equality over time. You point to the past and ask about the future, in opposition to me doing much the same. There is little for me to say, but here’s one question.
I would like to know if you think any condition is likely to occur that will prove my judgment wrong or deficient, and how I will learn of it. Such that I’m not able to do a repeat of, in 2016, 4 1/2 years after Rick Santorum’s almost-infamous boo DADT question, telling you about what he said about Caitlyn Jenner. But instead (or even in addition) I’m telling you about how measurably more depressed not living in a state that doesn’t recognizes gay marriage makes gay people.
That might be seen as an improvement in attitudes, but not so much with policy.
A squishy Rick Santorum can’t win a reactionary revolution.
posted by tom jefferson 3 on
I was hoping that Jorge would actually answer my questions and converns like a civilized person..
posted by Jorge on
I did. You just either didn’t like or didn’t understand the answers. Let me repeat the most important part in two lines and with an added explanation point.
I am not sure how exactly that can be seen as progress of any sort.
A squishy Rick Santorum can’t win a reactionary revolution!