And so it begins, with Romney charging that McCain is being "disingenuous" by claiming to oppose gay marriage. Meanwhile, McCain may be trying to put some distance between himself and Rudy.
More Politics. As alerted to in the comments: Nancy Pelosi has announced that the Democrats intend to keep Don't Ask, Don't Tell around for the foreseeable future. Via the Boston Globe:
Pelosi has also tempered hopes of reversing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on the service of gays and lesbians in the military... Though Pelosi believes homosexuals should be able to openly serve, she has made clear that she believes Democrats have more urgent national-security priorities - including changing course in Iraq and investigating war-related contracting.
Memo to gay activists: If you're waiting for the new Congress to pass an ENDA (Employee Non-Discrimination Act) that includes, at your insistence, the transgendered, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that might interest you.
25 Comments for “Romney Attacks McCain over Marriage.”
posted by Randy R. on
Romney is trying to make a national name for himself by being anti gay marriage. I doubt this is a viable campaign strategy, but time will tell.
posted by Casey on
I can’t think that it’ll make him a viable candidate. I’m a pretty extreme politics junky – had at least 20 house races I was closely watching, actually like keeping C-SPAN on in the background, majored in the subject at the “most political school” blah blah blah – but at this point, about all I know about Romney is that he’s the antigay Mormon governor of Massachusetts. Not the most appealing nugget description, even if you are against samesex marriage. There’s got to be more to you than that if you’re gonna be president, and he’s not doing a good job of showing there is.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Why cover the comments of one anti-gay Republican slamming another anti-gay Republican when there’s a much bigger story?
Nancy Pelosi has announced that the Democrats intend to keep Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell around for the foreseeable future.
You see, the Democrats have, in Ms. Pelosi’s words, “more urgent national-security priorities.”
People hoping for Democrats to support civil unions, or symbolic legislation like ENDA, are fooling themselves. They won’t even repeal an unpopular anti-gay policy that has virtually no political cost to them at all.
That’s a lot more newsworthy than John Supporter-Of-Arizona’s-Failed-Antigay-Amendment McCain getting whacked by Mitt Mormon-Without-A-Clue Romney’s purse.
posted by Randy R. on
Argh. This makes me angry.
However, I disagree that there would be no political cost. Many people said that they were put off by Clinton because the very first thing he did in office was to tackle the gays in the military issue. Pelosi is probably gun-shy, so to speak, on this because of the bad outcome that had.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Recent polling indicates that over 2/3rds of Americans support gays serving in the military.
They claim that that’s not enough of a mandate to carry them through to victory on this issue — but they’re more than happy to shove less popular policies through, such as socialized health care (supported by less than 1/2 the electorate), withdrawal from Iraq (supported by only 40% of the electorate), and tax increases (supported by a rather low portion of the electorate, as always).
This is what millions upon millions of dollars, gay votes, shilling, etc. for the Democrat Party gets — “other priorities” that are “more important.”
posted by kittynboi on
Casey is right.
Romney isn’t going to get anywhere if he keeps with this “Strategy”. He seems to think he can get the nomination solely on gay bashing and nothing else. Has he even formed an exploratory committe? I doubt anyone but a few narrow extremists see him as a viable candidate.
posted by Randy R. on
Rommey should thank his lucky stars for gays and the gay marriage issue. Without it, he’s nothing at all.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
DADT is an opportunity to practice independent politics, it seems to me, by putting the pressure on our elected representatives in Congress, regardless of party. I called Tammy Baldwin, my representative, and talked to her about it — as I did in October, in person, at a candidate debate — and I’m planning on writing both Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold over the weekend. I hope that all of you will do the same with your elected representatives, and not just sit and whine about Pelosi. And, while you are at it, get a half dozen others to write. BTW, send a snail-mail letter if you want it read — e-mails are just fodder for the opinion counts.
Romney’s obsession with same-sex marriage is driven by his need to play “faggot, faggot” in order to get a share of the social conservative vote as much as by any personal conviction, I’ll wager.
But his chance of winning the nomination is about as subminimal as his chance of success in the lawsuit. Romney’s history. He just doesn’t know it yet.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I hope that all of you will do the same with your elected representatives, and not just sit and whine about Pelosi. And, while you are at it, get a half dozen others to write. BTW, send a snail-mail letter if you want it read — e-mails are just fodder for the opinion counts.
Sure, but be prepared to get a mealy-mouthed reply about how “now is not the time.”
After all, what are you going to do, vote Republican or Libertarian or Green?
Partisan gay groups who framed gay rights as a subsidiary of the Democratic Party are the folks who put the entire gay community in this mess. You see, the Democrats view themselves as the parent company and us as the subsidiary. Writing nice notes weeks after the election won’t do any good.
Calling them on their campaign lies — commitments to equality they made to get your vote on November 7th, which they’ve already jettisoned — makes much more sense. A much louder message will be sending the Democrat a letter explaining that you’re not going to accept their campaign mendacity any further and will vote against them in the upcoming election. Libertarian and Green candidates both offer a superior voice on the issues of import to gays anyway.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
By the way, Pelosi is right over what a tough issue this is. a mere 80% of Americans favor ending the gay ban. Something tells me the other 20 percent and change are mostly congressional representatives of both of the old parties.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Rather than make NL’s facile assumption that Democrats generically promised to repeal DADT in the 110th Congress, and attack them generically for Pelosi’s remark, I suggest that people hold their individual representatives and senators responsible for their individual promises, statements, and records. This means looking up what they said and did before firing off a letter. If your House member specifically promised to work to repeal DADT, tell them you expect them to keep their promise to their constituents rather than taking orders from Pelosi. Her political judgment has never impressed me much, and I haven’t been impressed any better since Election Day. The message on DADT, which should be pounded over and over again, is that it HARMS our military readiness. It should not be framed primarily as a rights issue, as if we’re a whining special interest rather than the patriots we are. Gay men and women in military service are seeking to defend their country, and those who defend DADT are putting ignorance and prejudice ahead of the national defense. And the public agrees with us. NL is right about the numbers.
That said, I had no illusions about a Democrat-controlled 110th Congress rushing to pass a bunch of gay bills. In particular, I heard few promises about repealing DADT. My main reason for supporting the Democrats in the election was pragmatic. It was either going to be Republicans or Democrats controlling Congress, and Republican control of both the executive and legislative branches has been disastrous. NL keeps piling up reasons for taking potshots and falsely portraying the two major parties as indistinguishable, but doesn’t offer much in the way of practical solutions for advancing an agenda.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
As you can see, Richard “triangulates” with many paragraphs explaining that Democrat campaign promises all center on what one’s definition of “is” is.
He’s too afraid to acknowledge that if Democrats had campaigned honestly — stating as they now are that the constitutional rights of gays are divisive, irrelevant and unimportant — it would have made his shameless shilling for them all that much more of a pathetic spectacle.
Curiously, however, he has not yet dropped his strident defense of their mendacity. . . nor has he expressed the slightest bit of regret in his pivotal role in their deceptive behavior.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I am sure that even NL does not for a moment really believe that I played a “pivotal” role in the Democrats’ anything.
I see, by the way, that once agan NL complains about people exceeding his short attention span. One, NL’s messages aren’t always brief, and Two, some of us are trying to have a serious discussion of ideas, not just toss off clever put-downs.
NL, kindly quote exactly where I have ever said anything remotely comparable to the notorious Clinton evasion you cite. What I did in fact was suggest that people, in criticizing their members of Congress, address what those members actually said and did instead of adopting your monolithic rhetoric stemming from Pelosi’s statement. The ironic thing here is that my statement, to which NL responds with his usual posture of contemptuous dismissal and misrepresentation of me, I actually criticized Pelosi myself and said he was right on something. In other words, I showed a bit of grace, which NL just cannot bring himself to reciprocate.
As to my alleged shilling, NL knows full well that, however disagreeable he finds my opinions, the Democrats would NEVER have me say what I say about them. A shill does not criticize the people he is shilling for. But as usual, NL seems to recognize one and only one form of wrong-headedness. Thus, being wrong (because I don’t see eye-to-eye with him), I must be his favored caricature of the wrong-headed person. So he ignores my criticism of Democrats, my partial agreement with him, and still doesn’t offer any practical solutions for advancing an agenda.
Let me try one more time: I supported the Democrats and am glad that I did because they were the best realistic option, not because I thought they were perfect. I clearly do not think they are perfect, since I criticize them myself. They only had to be better collectively than the GOP, which they are. Apparently NL considers anything other than total opposition to be the mark of a shill.
I wonder if NL has been in as many rooms on as many occasions as I have been with Democratic officials over the years, giving them hell for various things. Or does he just sit back taking potshots at those of us working in the trenches, getting dirt under our nails by dealing with reality?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Richard, I’ll be the first to note that excessively wordy treatises aren’t superior — nor do they denote greater insight than simple, effective communications.
In fact, I can simplify your entire message by removing the alliterative flatulence for the content.
“I don’t like NL’s ideas, so I will dismiss him with a two-sentence rejoinder at the start of each of my posts, and then complain he’s taking cheap shots.
You cannot provide an exact quote of all of my content, so I am going to deny what I said. Besides, you lack nuance in understanding complexities of Congressman — something only I understand. I don’t like how you’ve summarized my position or Pelosi’s because it’s simple and to the point.
Because I made some limp sorta-criticisms of the Democrats, that’s proof that I’m not shilling for them despite my persistent apologies for their anti-gay actions. Your arguing to the contrary based on my actual arguments is unfair caricaturing, but I will continue to dish out vaporous platitudes.
I still supported the Democrats and am proud. I don’t care if that contradicts my earlier points, because I’m smart and people who disagree with me aren’t. And because I have the ear of various Democrats and have criticized them occasionally, it’s unfair to say my slavish devotion to them isn’t deserved.”
Goodness, about 1/2 the word count, and clearer to read to boot.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I wonder if NL has been in as many rooms on as many occasions as I have been with Democratic officials over the years, giving them hell for various things.
Indeed, Richard; you were probably so mad at the Democrats that you walked back out and wrote another scathing editorial about how Republicans want to kill, roast, and eat puppies.
The Dems know better. They know that what motivates the vast majority of gays is hatred for Republicans and the religious — and, more importantly, that gays will rationalize anything as long as both those needs are met. Therefore, they simply do as they wish, and leave it up to you to explain why it’s good. They are fully aware that your “giving them hell” is simply letting off steam, and in no way will affect your support for them. Furthermore, even if it did, they need only release their “Jewish Nazi”-screaming puppet gays like HRC, and you can be verbally beaten back into the fold.
posted by Marlon on
Gov. Romney so far has proved to be the only viable candidate. He is right about the flip-flopper McCain who did not have a firm position on gay marriage.
Romney is also against abortion, unless under extreme circumstances.
So far the only viable candidate. God Willing he will win in 2008.
posted by raj on
From the post
Memo to gay activists: If you’re waiting for the new Congress to pass an ENDA (Employee Non-Discrimination Act) that includes, at your insistence, the transgendered, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that might interest you.
Memo to Stevie:
If you are suggesting that Democratic-dominated Congress might pass an ENDA, whether or not it includes the transgendered, I have a trip to Mars that you might wish to subscribe to.
So, query, just why did you see fit to give a partial swipe to the transgendered?
posted by raj on
Northeast Libertarian | November 21, 2006, 5:31pm |
Nancy Pelosi has announced that the Democrats intend to keep Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell around for the foreseeable future.
You see, the Democrats have, in Ms. Pelosi’s words, “more urgent national-security priorities.”
People hoping for Democrats to support civil unions, or symbolic legislation like ENDA, are fooling themselves. They won’t even repeal an unpopular anti-gay policy that has virtually no political cost to them at all.
Thank you for telling us that. Unfortunately for your bloviations, here in Massachusetts, the only legislators who are blocking an anti-gay discriminatory amendment to the state constitution are Democrats in the legislature. The Republicans in the state legislature are marching goose-step with anti-gay Romney in favor of the amendment. (If you really are from the northeast, I would presume that you are aware of that.) Given that, just which party do you believe that any sane gay person in the state would generally vote for?
Regarding DADT, aside from the fact that the Democrats did not–as far as I could tell–campaign on its repeal in the last election cycle, the sad fact is that, even if they were able to get the measure passed in both chambers of congress, it would have to be signed by Republican Shrub in order to be enacted into law (the Dems do not have a veto-proof majority in either chamber). In other words, their passing a repeal measure on which they did not campaign would flounder on a likely presidential veto. It seems to me a better use of their time, and certainly better public relations for them, to try to pass legislation directed to matters on which they actually did campaign–the minimum wage, the war on Iraq, etc.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Wrong again, NL, and in typically bad faith.
posted by dalea on
One thing to keep in mind, at least I always do, is that the dems are a broad party: they are open to a wide range of opinions and ideas among their office holders. Anything like a democratic party idea that doesn’t have dissenters and unenthusiastic supporters, is probably not a democratic idea. NL seems to be looking at the parties through a lense of ideology. The libertarian party is an ideaological group; to an increasing extent the republicans are also. For these two it is useful and meaningful to compare actions to words and theory. Aside from social security, there is really nothing that unites all democrats.
The democratic party is a coalition. Got that NL? It is a bunch of people working together to achieve a bunch of goals. Some of which are incompatible with each other. The common word used to describe democratic policies, by actual existing democrats, is ‘pragmatic’. This baling wire and chewing gum way of governing generally appalls the more ideological. Like NL, the libertarians, the right in general, marxists, leftists in general. But it is what the democrats are about. Fixing potholes quickly is a democratic thing, which is why almost all larger cities are run by democrats. Deciding how the forces of history and use bring forth the potholes appeals to the idological.
The dems will do what they reasonably can for their supporters. When it is possible. That is what they promise, and is all they promise. It is the job of gay democrats to keep gay issues befor the officeholders and public, so as to move the politicians to do what they want.
It strikes me as instructive that AFAICT no major city is run by a free market government. All have democrat or rino leaders. And this says something about the practical meaning of libertarian thought.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Unfortunately for your bloviations, here in Massachusetts, the only legislators who are blocking an anti-gay discriminatory amendment to the state constitution are Democrats in the legislature.
Oh, so Democrat Reilly declared the anti-gay petition for the amendment in Massachusetts illegal, due to the advanced petition fraud?
And Kennedy and Kerry have introduced legislation in the Senate to have Massachusetts marriages recognized by the federal government?
And the Democratic caucus from Massachusetts have unanimously called on the federal government to invalidate the DOMA?
And your state legislators have taken steps reverse the segregation-era law that prevents out-of-state couples from getting married?
That’s some bizarre reality you’re living in.
Last time I checked, John Kerry demanded that gay marriage be repealed, no federal legislators from that state supported getting the federal benefits equalized, the out-of-state ban has persisted, and “marriage” in Massachusetts is a symbolic exercise with no validity or meaning outside of a couple of state benefits. And even that worthless status, without equal treatment or recognition outside of that tiny state, has been a source of contention and Democratic attempts to quietly kill the status since it first came about in the “inconvenient” Goodridge decision — a decision that Barney Frank himself blasted.
Like I said, Democrats are worthless on this issue — it’s been three years now, and gay people still are at the same place they were when “marriages” began in Massachusetts — able to get a piece of paper that has no value except for a couple of items in the state itself, with “pro-gay” Democrats who have done zero to change that.
And even that limited status is due to lawsuits by GLAD — opposed from the beginning by Democrats who complained of the “potential for the Republicans to use this issue.”
That’s some brave party you’re shilling for! 😉
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Let’s take a look at the freshman Democratic caucus in the recent election. (Courtesy, Washington Blade).
Of those who have come into office, 29 oppose full marriage equality and only 9 support it. The rest refuse to articulate a position.
Yet we’re supposed to be falling over ourselves to raise money, campaign for, and serenade this party?
Admit it, Democratic gays. You’re as irrational as your religious-right compatriots. You support Democrats, like your right-wing compatriots support Republicans, out of “faith” in the rightness of their big-government positions on things like health care and social services.
Gay rights have simply been a convenient coat hook for you to gain additional votes and money with — but now that you’re unambiguously in charge, you cannot be bothered to do even the most minimal things, like open up the military. Instead, you desperately apologize for the anti-gay Democratic Party and claim you’re being “effective,” when every advance we’ve made in the past 16 years has been due to grassroots activists who took their cases directly to the court — above the objections of the party to which you have such slavish devotion.
Color me (and an increasing number of gays on the ground) unimpressed.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The democratic party is a coalition. Got that NL? It is a bunch of people working together to achieve a bunch of goals. Some of which are incompatible with each other.
That’s not how Democrats campaigned. In the election, Democrats campaigned against Republicans as the pro-gay party. They promised assembled gay voters action on the issues that impact their lives, in exchange for money and votes.
At NO time did the Democrats declare, on gay issues, that they wouldn’t do anything or take any positions because they’re a “broad coalition.” On the contrary, they sprang a lobster trap on gay voters — first, they campaigned against Republicans on gay issues and suggested they’d be different. Then, when elected, they declared that gay issues weren’t important and they weren’t going to think about them at all because they’re a coalition with more important things to do.
Next election, we’ll be making sure that gay voters fully understand the Dems’ duplicity, to the same degree that they understand the Republicans’ hostility.
(BTW, the Democrats are an ideological group — its unifying ideology is a belief in the power of socialism to fix societal problems in health care and education. It breaks over social issues because socialism doesn’t have to mean social liberalism — plenty of socialists are racists, homophobes, and sexists as well).
posted by raj on
You are beginning to sound about as silly as NDXXX.
Northeast Libertarian | November 24, 2006, 3:23am |
Apparently, you really are too dumb to realize that Massachusetts can’t, on its own, make the other states or the federal government accept same-sex marriage. Nor will libertarians get any state or the federal government give up any control over marriage or the rights or obligations pertinent thereto under state or federal law. It just isn’t going to happen, so it isn’t worth the time and effort discussing it.
On the details of your silly post:
Regarding Reilly,
(i) He is not a state legislator (note the part of my post that you quoted), and, as far as I can tell, he has never run for the state legislature, so your conflation of him in his office and the state legislators is more than a bit idiotic; and
(ii) He, as attorney general, has limited discretion under the state constitution in determining whether or not to approve petitions: if opponents of a petition want to challenge his determinations in court, they are more than capable of doing so.
Regarding the “(have) your state legislators have taken steps reverse the segregation-era law that prevents out-of-state couples from getting married,” as far as I’m concerned, I have no interest in having them do so. Why should they? If gay people from other states want to marry in Massachusetts, they are more than capable of moving here to do so. One, AFAIC, there is no issue of anti-gay discrimination–it is a matter of out-of-state discrimination, and the equality provisions of the state constitution do not apply to persons who are not residents of Massachusetts. Two, also AFAIC, the provision serves as something of an impediment against the arguments of the anti-gays in regards a federal amendment. Do I favor repealing the law? No, I most definitely do not. BTW, I have read that some legislators have considered filing a bill to repeal the law, but I don’t know where that stands.
Regarding John Kerry–who, I’m sure that you know, is not a member of the state legislature and, thus, is not entitled to vote on any amendment to the state constitution–I’m sure that you are more than capable, given the enormous research resources available to you, to substantiate your statement that …”John Kerry demanded that gay marriage be repealed…” Last I saw, Kerry indicated that he opposed gay marriage in Massachusetts, but that falls far short of a “demand” that “gay marriage be repealed.” And that’s aside from the fact that Kerry is hardly in a position to “demand” anything at the state level. At the state level, Kerry is nothing more than another voter. He can vote to elect–or not elect–members of the state legislature, and that’s about it.
Regarding Kennedy and Kerry introducing legislation in the federal Senate “to have Massachusetts marriages recognized by the federal government,” I, for one, would not demand that anyone introduced legislation in the federal Senate that has no expection of even being brought to a hearing, much less passed and be signed into law. It may surprise you to know that Kennedy and Kerry were two of the fourteen Senators–all Democrats–who voted against the Defense of some peoples’ Marriage Act in 1996.
And this “–it’s been three years now, and gay people still are at the same place they were when “marriages” began in Massachusetts — able to get a piece of paper that has no value except for a couple of items in the state itself….” No value? That’s silly. And of course they are “in the state itself” since it is the state–Massachusetts–that recognizes the marriage. Why would you expect otherwise?
And, finally, “That’s some brave party you’re shilling for!” is about as dumb as more than a few of the comments by NDXXX here and elsewhere. It makes me wonder whether you shilling for him/her/or it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….actually, Raj, what the Republicans in the Massachusetts Legislature — and a considerable number of Democrats as well — are saying is that people should be allowed to vote on that for which they raised hundreds of thousands of signatures in support of doing.
Perhaps I don’t quite understand why you’re so afraid of that, given that you claim the overwhelming majority of people in Massachusetts favor gay marriage. Why not let them prove it?