In dropping out of the presidential race, Mitt Romney told the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC):
The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and father. Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of a nation. I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history. It is time for the people of America to fortify marriage through constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it!
Romney, like many anti-gay social conservatives, conflates having a mother and father (a good thing, but having two parents of whatever sex to share the responsibility is what studies show is important); state courts deciding that state bans on same-sex marriage violate equality under state law for same-sex partners (personally, I think the legislative route is strategically more effective); and his support for amending the U.S. Constitution to permanently ban state legislatures and courts as well as the federal government from ever recognizing same-sex marriages. (Romney also declared that "tolerance of pornography" is linked to "out of weblock" births).
As I've pointed out before (but believe it's important enough to keep repeating), McCain's view has been different. And in his remarks before CPAC, he didn't grovel but admitted there were areas where he and hard-core social conservatives would disagree.
As Ken Duberstein, Ronald Reagan's chief of staff, tells The Politico:
People seem to be looking for candidates who can govern. We are through with simply appealing to the base. McCain is trying to reach out to independents, weak Republicans, weak Democrats and conservative Democrats to put together a new governing coalition that is less confrontational.
And that's good for us all.
19 Comments for “Bye, Bye Mitt”
posted by Bobby on
So what, Miller, all politicos talk crap. Hillary Clinton has waged war against violent video games and obscene music. What matters is their voting records. How they vote matters more than how they talk.
posted by Rob on
Wrong Bobby, what matters is their character and integrity. Romney had none of it, and neither does Clinton.
posted by arthur on
?weak Republicans, weak Democrats and conservative Democrats?
Geez, can?t find a more polarizing phrase for moderates.
posted by Brian Miller on
Mitt Romney is such a pathetic flip-flopper.
I actually now have a standing bet with several friends of mine as to the likelihood that when Mitt “roars back” in 2016 after two terms of Hillary, if he’ll position himself as the “gay marriage” candidate (as he did in his early runs in Massachusetts).
The man will say — and do — anything for power. He’s not a “social conservative,” he’s just a high-class political ho.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Brian Miller wrote, “The man will say — and do — anything for power. He’s not a “social conservative,” he’s just a high-class political ho.”
Actually, since Mittens paid tens of millions to play, he is more of a high-class political john.
posted by Jimbo on
So Mitt throws in the towel. His flip-flopping wasn’t a help (he seemed to forget that all of his statements supporting abortion & gay rights had been recorded & preserved for prosterity). Let’s be truthful here: his religion was a big fat minus in the South. So now the GOP is stuck with McCain. Bob Dole redux if you ask me.
posted by Richard on
McCain voted against the FMA, but when was the last time a federal const. amendment went anywhere?
What are his positions on LGBT-rights issues?
posted by Brian Miller on
So now the GOP is stuck with McCain. Bob Dole redux if you ask me.
Except that this time, the Democrats will be running an African-American, less politically-savvy Howard Dean against the GOP’s putative Bob Dole.
At this point, the presidential election has literally no relevance for people who value LGBT rights. No matter who wins, the outcome will be the same.
posted by Karen on
“the presidential election has literally no relevance for people who value LGBT rights”
Don’t think for a minute that even if the most weakly anti-gay conservative wins, social conservatives won’t be declaring victory. And don’t think for a minute that even if the most weakly pro-gay liberal wins, social libertarians won’t be declaring victory. There might not be a practical difference in what we can expect right now from a McCain vs. an Obama or Clinton presidency. But I think that momentum and the perceived social climate do matter, and the presidential election is not irrelevant to that.
All else being equal, I would rather see the party that is perceived to be pro-gay win, than the other way around.
posted by Brian Miller on
Don’t think for a minute that even if the most weakly anti-gay conservative wins, social conservatives won’t be declaring victory.
Oh sure, they’ll posture themselves. But the reality is that the policy positions of a McCain administration — versus a Clinton or Obama administration — will be identical on gay rights issues.
Just look at the voting records. They’ve all voted identically, and none of them have taken even a minimal position of leadership on such noncontroversial issues as military service equality.
I would rather see the party that is perceived to be pro-gay win, than the other way around.
I’m sure you would. Then again, the last time that happened, the “party that is perceived as pro-gay” gave us the two most anti-gay federal statutes ever passed — the military’s anti-gay ban and the DOMA (with the latter enthusiastically endorsed and bragged about in campaign ads by the “party perceived as pro-gay’s” presidential candidate in 1996).
I prefer results, not “perceptions” and spin. And the reality is, for those who prefer results, this election will have literally no impact on the state of gay rights at all.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Agree with Rob (and to a lesser extent, Brian). Romney basically sold his soul to the religious right in order to try to win the nomination. What I find telling is that whatever faults the Republicans have (and there are plenty), in this instance, when one of theirs tries to do/say anything to get elected, he is soundly defeated. Contrast that to the Dems, where when two of theirs (the Clintons) will do/say anything to get elected, one gets the nomination, and the other is within an eyelash of getting it.
Brian, I don’t think your analogies are accurate, as even though this is McCain’s second go-round, he has more on the ball than Dole did. And Obama has far more brains/class than Dean.
posted by Richard on
I was never a huge fan of Clinton, but he had a long record of being a centrist politican, unlike Romney who ‘awakening’ was rather sudden.
It will matter which president wins the election, just as it matters which party wins a majority in Congress.
Sometimes little or no change is better then taking steps backwards.
posted by Karen on
Whether you like “perceptions” or not, they exist and they matter. And we’re assuming that there will be basically NO results with either party, yes? So what would be better (in terms of LGBT rights) about a Republican win? The only difference would be that social conservatives would get to crow about how EVERYONE agrees with them. The perception would be that most people do agree with them on LGBT rights. And that matters.
“The ‘party that is perceived as pro-gay’ gave us … the military’s anti-gay ban.”
Erm? No they didn’t? They gave us DADT, as a comprimise after promising to do away with the ban? The gay ban was already in place.
posted by Brian Miller on
I don’t think your analogies are accurate, as even though this is McCain’s second go-round, he has more on the ball than Dole did. And Obama has far more brains/class than Dean.
I am thinking in terms of general approach. McCain is campaigning on “experience” and his long-gone war tenure, much like Dole. He’s unliked and to the left of many in the GOP, much like Dole.
Obama is cynically assembling a group of young voters who are seduced by empty rhetoric of “hope and unity” (ala Dean), and has demonstrated a remarkable ability to morph, chameleon-like, as Dean attempted to do in the past. Obama’s certainly more adept at it than Dean ever was, though his McClurkin moment was at least as embarrassing as Howard Dean’s kow-towing to anti-gay prejudice on the 700 Club television program.
posted by Brian Miller on
McCain voted against the FMA, but when was the last time a federal const. amendment went anywhere?
What are his positions on LGBT-rights issues?
I wish someone would hold the Democrats to the same standard. “Positions” are all well and good, but most of the Democrats have failed to vote or take a leadership role on their so-called “positions.”
A Democrat who claims to oppose the anti-gay military ban and favor equal treatment under the law, yet who blocks votes on those issues from coming to the floor, is no “better” than a Republican who votes against anti-gay legislation and pro-gay legislation alike. “Positions” don’t matter when the votes betray the “positions.”
posted by Karen on
Brian,
Did you miss my post? I would like to know what you think we would gain, in terms of LGBT rights, from a McCain presidency as opposed to an Obama presidency.
Not really expecting leadership from either in actually guaranteeing our rights, the only difference I see is the continued perception of an anti-gay mandate that doesn’t really exist.
Also, could you please explain what you meant by saying that the Democrats “gave us the military’s anti-gay ban”? Do you really believe that to be the case?
posted by Richard on
“I wish someone would hold the Democrats to the same standard.”
People do. It would seem to be the right-wing that has losts it grip on reality.
Yet, on a LGBT message board when some one supports McCain, it is not unreasonable to take a serious look at his record on LGBT legislation.
The notion that their is no difference between the two major parties on LGBT legislation issues is simply false.
posted by Priya Lynn on
If Mccain gets in he’ll apoint more right wing judges to the supreme court that’ll vote against every gay civil rights issue that comes up. With Obama moderate judges will get appointed and gays will get a fair shake in future court cases involving gay rights.
posted by Brian Miller on
Did you miss my post? I would like to know what you think we would gain, in terms of LGBT rights, from a McCain presidency as opposed to an Obama presidency.
Nothing. Nor would “we” gain anything from an Obama presidency versus a McCain one. From an LGBT issues perspective, the old-party races have lost all relevance.
Not really expecting leadership from either in actually guaranteeing our rights, the only difference I see is the continued perception of an anti-gay mandate that doesn’t really exist.
That perception exists only among the deluded who would insist that John McCain represents a satanic homophobic agenda because he voted for DOMA, but that Bill Clinton was the best president for gay people in history (despite calling for, signing, and campaigning on DOMA).
The notion that their is no difference between the two major parties on LGBT legislation issues is simply false.
A lie without proof, endlessly repeated, is not factual — though it is a “Richard”/ETJB/whatever he’s calling himself this month specialty.
If Mccain gets in he’ll apoint more right wing judges to the supreme court that’ll vote against every gay civil rights issue that comes up.
That’s often argued, yet the nominees of Bush Sr. and Reagan were instrumental in ending anti-gay sodomy laws.
Meanwhile, Obama had no problem making anti-gay preacher McClurkin one of his closest advisers, and the head of the Democratic National Committee is facing allegations that she fostered homophobia at the highest levels of that organization.
So again, it’s a wash at best. No real difference between them.