Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has joined fellow Republican social right-wingers and presidential aspirants Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum in signing a pledge to oppose same-sex marriage and defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act. The pledge is sponsored by anti-gay activist Maggie Gallagher’s National Organization for Marriage.
As CBSNews.com notes, Romney once upon a time made a very different pledge, promising he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than his Massachusetts Senate opponent, Ted Kennedy. “We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” wrote Romney, then.
Turner Classic Movies last night showed “Random Harvest,” the old Ronald Colman/Greer Garson classic about a man who, due to trauma, suffers amnesia and forgets who he was, and then years later bumps his head, remembers his former life, and forgets everything that happened in between (including marrying Ms. Garson).
Wouldn’t it be nice if Romney would bump his head and announce he hadn’t a clue who Maggie Gallagher is, and was again dedicated to ensuring equality for gay Americans.
It won’t happen, of course. And there is a decent possibility that Romney will be president in 2013, with a Republican House and Senate. That’s why making all possible inroads with libertarian-minded GOP congressmembers is crucial.
30 Comments for “Random Romney”
posted by BobN on
Better than another trauma-induced flipflop, I’d prefer the next bump on the head lead him to choose a quiet life of reflection and gardening, with no time for writing.
posted by JohnAGJ on
Odss are that a Republican will indeed be in the White House come january 20, 2013, but it could be Perry instead of Romney. Of course that’s just what it looks like now and who really knows? Obama could somehow pull a rabbit out, but I doubt it. Regardless, I won’t be voting for any of them.
posted by Jorge on
And there is a decent possibility that Romney will be president in 2013, with a Republican House and Senate. That’s why making all possible inroads with libertarian-minded GOP congressmembers is crucial.
Hoo! Hope Mr. Miller’s got his Wile E. Coyote umbrella ready after that twist. It’s a winning argument, though…
posted by Wilbrerforce on
Please, rubes. I only wsh you would understand moderate, educated, republican thought. But reaally, there is no matthew or plato or basic western culture. I’m sorry, hicks.
posted by Tim on
Frankly I still don’t see any Republican beating Obama in ’12. More crucial is securing a Democratic Congress so long as the GOP remains in thrall (and in debt) to social conservatives. That will not change by 2013, Wishful Thinkers.
posted by Tom on
Romney is a charlatan, willing to change his “principles” as often as his underwear, but I think that Rick Perry, who has at least as good a shot at the nomination, is the more dangerous of the two.
Perry has remained silent on the extreme anti-gay Texas Republican platform, is closely allied with the worst of the anti-gay extremists (Tony Perkins, Don/Tim Wildman, and so on), and organized the supposedly non-political (to which state and federal elected officials, including all 50 state governors, were pointedly invited) “The Response: A call to prayer for a nation in crisis”, which is explicitly Christian, and which, according to its website, “is a non-denominational, apolitical Christian prayer meeting and has adopted the American Family Association statement of faith“:
At best, I don’t think that Perry has any understanding at all of the separation of church and state, and at worst, I suspect that Perry is a Christian dominionist. I do not want him as President, period.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What a surprise; Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach, is trying to bash Christians and prayer by politicians.
Guess Tom Scharbach needs a reminder of what he supports and endorses.
Tom Scharbach is an antireligious bigot; even better, though, he’s an obvious hypocrite.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And of course, we watch Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach insist that politicians’ involvement in prayer events indicates that they are “Christian dominionists” and have “no understanding at all of the separation of church and state”.
And then we look at who Tom Scharbach, Obama Party staffer, worships.
Meanwhile, many other Americans have bristled at the idea that America’s leader needs to have a religious faith, or a faith of a particular kind. They question why the president and Congress would gather at such a high-profile religious event. Obama made clear Thursday he’s not in that camp.
“For almost 60 years, going back to President Eisenhower, this gathering has been attended by our president. It’s a tradition that I’m proud to uphold, not only as a fellow believer, but as an elected leader whose entry into public service was actually through the church.”
Tom Scharbach is a known antireligious bigot; even better, though, he’s an obvious hypocrite.
posted by Tom on
The reason I suspect — the word is important — that Governor Perry is a Christian dominionist is that he is closely allied with the New Apostolic Reformation movement in Texas, as reported by the Texas Observer (“Rick Perry’s Army of God”, August 3) and many other sources. Google “Rick Perry Christian dominion” and you’ll find numerous articles. You can draw your own conclusions.
The thing that was so striking to me about “The Response” yesterday was the dominance of the NAR in the event. “The Response” was emphatically not the “National Prayer Breakfast” or similar inclusive calls for people of faith to pray for the good of the nation of the kind issued by Presidents throughout our history. “The Response” was a narrowly focused event, dominionist in tone and substance, as much a call to action in the political arena as it was a call to prayer.
The NAR is similar to the “C Street” bunch, in the sense that it is secretive . But, as is the case with “C Street”, almost everyone associated with the NAR seems to adhere to one variant of dominionism or another.
The reason that “suspect” is the operative word is that it is possible that Perry doesn’t adhere to dominionist theology in any of its many variants, but is making a 2011 version of the Faustian bargain that the Republican Party made with the “Moral Majority” years ago, trying to ride the tiger so to speak, hoping that he can hop off after the movement has taken him where he wants to go.
So maybe he’s more cynical than a believer. But I don’t know that a Faustian bargain is any better than honest belief; Faustian bargains have a price, and the price must be paid.
I don’t know if Rick Perry has staying power in the Republican primary process. Like Bachmann, Perry has the ideological credentials for a win in Iowa and South Carolina, but unlike Bachmann, Perry doesn’t exude “off-the-wall”. The polls show that he is viable at this stage, anyway.
My guess is that there is at least a 50/50 chance Perry will be the nominee. I think that it is time to pay close attention.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, Tom Scharbach, the reason is that you are an Obama Party staffer trying to push the latest meme from your party, as shown by quoting the partisan Texas Observer (akin to quoting Red State on Obama Party members).
We understand. Your job is to repeat what you’re told and not to ask any questions. Indeed, the Wisconsin Obama Party for which you work is threatening and attacking news sources that use different sources and don’t just repeat the Obama Party line. Since you work for the Obama Party, we should expect you to do the same — just repeat the party line.
posted by Jimmy on
Who is this “we” of whom you speak?
Or, is it a royal “we”?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And isn’t it funny how Tom Scharbach, Obama Party staffer, insists that invocation of God or prayer, especially when a politician calls for people to pray in a televised speech or event, indicates one is a “Christian dominionist” who has “no understanding at all of the separation of church and state”?
Except when it’s someone the Obama Party supports, of course.
You getting the picture, Tom Scharbach? People know you’re a hypocrite. They know you’re a staffer of the Wisconsin Obama Party whose position and power is dependent on always attacking Republicans and always supporting Obama Party members, regardless of what either do. They realize that you’re completely unprincipled, basing your decisions solely on whether or not someone panders to your sexual orientation — or, more importantly, your political affiliation.
posted by Jimmy on
Who is this ominous “they” who know all things amazing things?
Your fellow fascistic butt pickers?
posted by Jorge on
As usual, North Dallas Thirty deals only a glancing blow, only this time it’s on a glass house.
posted by Houndentenor on
Perry’s political stunt (and be honest, we all know that’s what it was) may help him get the GOP nomination but it is going to hurt him in states where the dominant religion is something other than fundamentalist Christianity. His association with an anti-Catholic group at this rally is going to be use against him in a number of swing states.
For the record, I think Perry can attend any event he wants to. No state funds were used and no one is being forced to attend. At the same time, people have the right to draw their own conclusions and form their own opinions about Perry and this event. People have just as much right to think more or less of him as he has to participate.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And here we see the next meme being pushed by the other Obama Party puppet, Houndentenor.
Problem is, it sounds patently stupid coming from gays and lesbians, for which there is a veritable treasure trove of quotes and examples of anti-Catholic bigotry. We could start with how gays and lesbians storm into Catholic churches during Mass and desecrate the Host, scream obscenities at parishioners, and so forth. Or the vandalism against Catholic churches by gays and lesbians. Or we could just quote the regular statements made by GLAAD spokesperson Joe Jervis against Catholics.
I mean, it’s comical. You have gays like Tom Scharbach and Houndentenor who regularly endorse and support anti-Catholic bigotry by gays and Obama Party members trying to accuse others of it. But then again, as I’ve shown, they regularly endorse and support “Christian dominionist” statements from their own Obama, so I guess it shouldn’t be surprising.
posted by Hounentenor on
The desecration of the communion wafers at St. Patricks was done by a handful of act-up activists. I know of no other instance nor of any “storming”. I had no part of that, wouldn’t have had any part of it, and wish they hadn’t done it. But no one involved asked me. I am not anti-catholic. I AM anti-child-molestor. If any other organization had done what the RCC did in shuttling known pedophiles around the country where they abused even more children, there would be dozens of people in prison. Even knowing that child abuse is happening and failing to report it is a crime (and should be). There is nothing in Catholic teaching that is at issue here. This is wrong both according to Church doctrine as well as federal and state law. I don’t single out the church because it’s a church, but I also don’t think they get a free pass for committing these crimes because they are a church. The pope informed the bishops NOT to cooperate with local authorities. As far as I am concerned the current pope is a criminal and should be treated as such.
As for GLAAD, I have been openly critical of that organization for some time and critical of HRC for even longer. It’s a typical lie of the gay right to pretend as if those organizations represent anyone other than their own boards and their numerous conflicts of interest.
And finally, the only reason most Americans are not repulsed by groups like C-Street and other Dominionist-type “Christians” is that they either don’t know about them or don’t understand. People whose church affiliation is of a mainstream protestant variety have no idea how far out from those teachings some Christians have gotten. Yes, people have a right to practice whatever religion they see fit. They also have a right to criticize beliefs they do not agree with. Every time I visit my parents’ Baptist Church every lesson and sermon is about what is wrong with every other denomination. That’s a two-way street. I am not anti-religious or anti-Christian. But I do have the right to criticize what people are doing. Hiding behind religious freedom while committing criminal acts is repugnant to everyone but people like ND30 who want carte blanche for their religion and freedom from responsibility for the outcomes.
posted by another steve on
It’s a typical lie of the gay right to pretend as if those organizations represent anyone other than their own boards and their numerous conflicts of interest.
Oh, please. Do you read the gay media at all. The Advocate? Any gay city weekly? Blaming “the gay right” for presenting these groups as being community leaders and spokespersons when the progressive and politically correct gay media and (please note) Democratic politicians who receive their endorsements are the ones who treat them as our “leaders” is just silly.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What’s really funny, another steve, is that gays like Houndentenor never apply the same standards of proof and association to themselves that they do to others.
I mean, on this very thread, we have a staffer and operative of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, Tom Scharbach, claiming that Rick Perry is a “Christian dominionist” who wants to criminally overthrow the US government. And Houndentenor goes right along with it.
It’s funny how officials of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin are already out there proclaiming that Rick Perry is a criminal with absolutely zero evidence, but here it is; the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and its spokesperson, Tom Scharbach, are stating that anyone who attended a prayer event yesterday or subscribes to Christian beliefs is a “dominionist” who wants to criminally overthrow the US government.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If any other organization had done what the RCC did in shuttling known pedophiles around the country where they abused even more children, there would be dozens of people in prison.
Well, let’s see; the International Lesbian and Gay Association, which represents the gay and lesbian community worldwide and to the United Nations, not only protected and supported pedophiles, they openly endorsed and supported their actions, demanding that age-of-consent laws were “homophobic” and agitating for them to be repealed — for over a decade.
And the ACLU deliberately helped and tried to keep NAMBLA members who had not only molested, but outright MURDERED, a child out of prison, instructing NAMBLA members not to cooperate with authorities and to destroy evidence of NAMBLA activities.
You and the gay and lesbian community supported NAMBLA for decades, Houndentenor, even though you knew they openly advocated pedophilia. Indeed, you and the gay and lesbian community even supported and endorsed their demands to legalize pedophilia. You supported criminal activity.
So claiming you’re “anti-child-molester” is a farce, given that you and your fellow gay and lesbian community members were more than willing to have child molesters around and indeed thought that their child molestation was an essential part of the gay and lesbian community.
As for GLAAD, I have been openly critical of that organization for some time and critical of HRC for even longer. It’s a typical lie of the gay right to pretend as if those organizations represent anyone other than their own boards and their numerous conflicts of interest.
Sure. Just like you and the ILGA were “critical” of NAMBLA.
I had no part of that, wouldn’t have had any part of it, and wish they hadn’t done it. But no one involved asked me.
So why aren’t you out in the streets screaming for their punishment?
Because it suited your anti-Catholic bigotry. You just didn’t want to have to do the dirty work. You fully support and endorse their agenda, as shown by your association with them, just as you fully support and endorse child molestation, as shown by your association with ILGA and the gay and lesbian community.
posted by Houndentenor on
What a twisted world you live in, ND30. The association with NAMBLA ended years before I came out. I never condoned or endorsed it. I do not know any pedophiles and if I did I’d report them to the police. So would everyone I know.
About age of consent laws, I have heard of no move in the US to remove those laws. I do believe they should be the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals. They vary from state to state (16, 17 and 18). Since I have no interest in anyone under 30, none of that is of interest to me, but your lies and distortions are characteristic of your own homophobia. Is that really how you see all gay people? What does that say about you?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The funny part is how you contradict yourself so readily, Houndentenor; you, for instance, claim that you and your fellow gays and lesbians would report and criticize pedophiles, but then you call people who do report and criticize gay and lesbian pedophiles, and those who support and endorse them, “homophobes”.
The only way one could be a “homophobe” for reporting and criticizing pedophilia is if it were a normal part of being gay or lesbian. Clearly, then, your insistence that people who criticize gay and lesbian pedophiles as “homophobic” indicates that you consider sex with and being attracted to children a normal part of being gay or lesbian.
posted by Jorge on
I am not anti-catholic. I AM anti-child-molestor.
Was that *really* necessary? I’m getting tired of hearing this, even if you’re holding back. The Catholic Church is in truth a noble institution headed by a fundamentally good person, who, unfortunately, is just a human. The Church is paying the price for its politics… oh well.
Okay, I have a question, Mr. Houndentenor. Will you condemn NAMBLA? *Plugs ears.*
I do not know any pedophiles and if I did I’d report them to the police. So would everyone I know.
Will you condemn GLAAD and HRC? Yes, condemn them. *La-la-la-la-la!*
As for GLAAD, I have been openly critical of that organization for some time and critical of HRC for even longer.
Well if you don’t condemn NAMBLA, GLAAD, and HRC, obviously you support them. Case closed.
posted by Jimmy on
“The Catholic Church is in truth a noble institution headed by a fundamentally good person, who, unfortunately, is just a human. ”
It is laughable, Jorge, that you imagine you stand on some high ground after that statement.
You’re getting tired of hearing it?
Tough.
posted by Jorge on
You’re a real piece of work.
posted by Jimmy on
“I’m a piece of work, I’m iron and lace
I’m shy, I’m right up in your face
I’m all dumbfounded, stubborn as an ass
Sharp as an arrow in a pile of glass.
I’m a sweetheart, genius, reckless jerk.
Lord, have mercy, I’m a piece of work.”
I think I’ll watch these again, just for funzies.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=intelligence+squared+debate+catholic+church&aq=2&oq=Intelli
posted by james on
wow reading the responses from this north dallas thirty guy he sounds kind of ate up with the dumbass. you want a social / civil war jesus boy and perry supporter bring it. we will dispatch amazon drag queens to scare the crap out of your “ex gay ” gays and you scared fascist cross burners and you passive aggressive hopped on anti-depressent wives and then you guys can start your own country in texas where christianity is the law. please please please invite all fascist… i mean christians to texas and start your own country. good riddance.
posted by Tom on
I’ll say one thing for Romney’s current iteration — in contrast to Perry/Bachmann, Romney he isn’t bothering to do the “I’m 110% in favor states’ rights, but marriage equality, not so much …” dance.
He’s flat our for federal preemption on marriage:
“Marriage is a status. It’s not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state and as 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. “
posted by BobN on
From the guy who said he was a better supporter of gay people than Ted Kennedy.
posted by Tom on
Well, Romney is determined to spare every gay and lesbian in the country from marital discord. That’s support after a fashion, I guess.