Flippy Mitt Does It Again

by on

Mitt "Mr. Consistency" Romney has launched a new ad in Iowa whose punchline is, "We must oppose discrimination and defend traditional marriage."

Hmm. Oppose discrimination? At last check, Romney opposed anti-discrimination, in the form of the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act. So Romney is anti-discrimination and anti-anti-discrimination. Got that?

In principle, Romney could coherently argue that discrimination is wrong but the law shouldn't forbid it. But, of course, so far as we know he doesn't oppose anti-discrimination laws covering race, ethnicity, gender, and religion. Only anti-discrimination laws that help gay people are "burdensome." So he's against discrimination and against laws against discrimination, except when he's not.

The real burden that's intolerable to Romney, apparently, is the burden of consistency. Nothing new there.

3 Comments for “Flippy Mitt Does It Again”

  1. posted by Brian Miller on

    You’re missing a couple of angles.

    1) Romney is appealing to the religious right’s version of “discrimination,” which is broadly defined as opposing efforts by the RR to impose their view on everyone else. For example, if an RR activist censors a gay activist, that’s not discrimination — but if RR students aren’t allowed to harass gay students in school, they’re “being discriminated against.” (Such harassment by gay students of RR students, of course, would be “evidence of discrimination.”) 😉

    2) It’s entirely possible to oppose discrimination while also opposing big-government uberregulations like ENDA (which don’t really prevent discrimination anyway). This is something Democrats and Republicans both have trouble understanding.

    The real burden that’s intolerable to Romney, apparently, is the burden of consistency

    Of course, but that’s universal in the Democratic and Republican parties.

  2. posted by Last Of The moderate Gays on

    Mitt Romney flip-flopping??? Utterly shocking! Someone hand me my smelling salts!

  3. posted by ETJB on

    “Of course, but that’s universal in the Democratic and Republican parties.”

    And in the Green and Libertarian parties it would seem.

Comments are closed.