GOP vice presidential nominee Mike Pence and Democratic veep nominee Tim Kaine have both altered their positions, and perhaps cut their consciences, to fit this year’s fashions. For instance, both have been supportive of multinational trade-promotion agreements. No more.
Looking at Kaine, the Washington Times reports that when he ran to be Virginia’s governor in 2005, he was against marriage equality and favored restrictions on abortion:
At the time he was a self-proclaimed pro-life “conservative” who openly quoted the Bible in his ads and checked off nearly every other box on conservatives’ wish list.
“The truth is, I cut taxes as mayor of Richmond. I’ll enforce the death penalty as governor, and I’m against same-sex marriage,” Mr. Kaine said in one of his ads. “I’m conservative on personal responsibility, character, family and the sanctity of life. These are my values, and that’s what I believe.”
And in a radio ad, cited here, Kaine said:
I oppose gay marriage, I support restrictions on abortion — no public funding and parental consent — and I’ve worked to pass a state law banning partial-birth abortion … [My opponent] played politics with abortion and as a result Virginia still has no ban. As governor, I’ll always put principle over politics and you’ll always know where I stand. That’s who I am and what I believe.
Nothing new here, of course, but it’s still interesting to see the gyrations that politicians are willing to make.
Defining himself as “conservative on…family and the sanctity of life” goes further than the positions against same-sex marriage that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama held at the time—they were always progressive on social issues, as a matter of self-branding.
Kaine has also just flip-flopped on the right to work without union membership (for it as Virginia governor, now against it).
Still, as this year’s veepstakes shows, maybe most politicians don’t believe anything except what will further their paths to power. Or they convince themselves that their old views were wrong and now they’re right, which just happens to be politically convenient at the present moment.
11 Comments for “Political Expediency”
posted by Doug on
You are really pathetic, Stephen. Try cleaning up your own party before criticizing others. From ‘conversion’ therapy to withdrawing from NATO to endangering national security your party has more than enough sh * t to shovel for the next millennium.
posted by TJ on
LGBT Republicans are the primary people that can impact what the GOP platform and elected officials do about LGBT rights. The problems with the GOP platform, the steadfast opposition to equal rights, are challenges that LGBT Republicans (and their straight allies) need to work on.
LGBT Democrats are primarily the people that can impact what the Democratic Party platform and elected officials do about LGBT rights. ..and straight allies….
The fact that the Republican Party generally stinks when it comes to LGBT rights — outside of a few notable examples — is not the fault of LGBT Democrats. Likewise, we cannot say that LGBT Republicans were responsible for changing how the Democratic Party dealt with LGBT rights issues.
Yes, Democrats can certainly try and lobby Republicans and vice versa. However, the Caitlyn Jenner (or Mary Cheny) is more likely to have some initial credibility with a Republican audience, then say, a major gay Democrat/straight ally.
Yes, the Republican Party made some nice convention speeches about LGBT people, although the platform did not actually improve in a substantial manner, showing that the “religious right” still controls the GOP (but it was nice to see some people trying to change the platform and being really sincere)
Vice Presidents are generally picked because they can help the ticket in one or more important states.
Fun fact: Initially, the Vice President was the presidential candidate that came in second place, cause the founding fathers were a bit leery about party politics.
posted by Houndentenor on
I do not know what any of them “really” believes nor do I care. I will take a politician who is personally uneasy with gay rights but champions them anyway over a politician who doesn’t have any personal issue with gay people but will allow others to undermine those rights to further his own political ambitions. John McCain is not known privately in DC as a homophobe and has had many gay staffers none of whom have said anything bad about him. His wife is definitely for gay rights. But he would have appointed judges, had he become president, that would have ruled against gay rights on the court. That he is personally okay with gay people would have not been of any use to any of the gay couples who are now married.
Stephen, you are falling into a leftist trap by doing this. Actions matter. Ideological purity and “true beliefs” are crap. All that matters is what people do. Trump has promised to appoint justices that would overturn Obergefell. Clinton would not. That is very clear. Whether or not her “change of heart” on gay marriage is sincere or just politics doesn’t change the marriages of all those couples who now have legal protections for their relationships who didn’t before. That’s what matters.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tim Kaine’s change of heart on marriage equality is hardly a recent change.
From a 2013 Richmond Times-Dispatch article written a few months before Obergefell:
The money quote: “Sen. Timothy M. Kaine, D-Va., said Thursday that he used to oppose same-sex marriage but changed his mind in 2006, when, as governor, he campaigned against the constitutional amendment banning it in Virginia.”
That’s right, Stephen, Tim Kaine “evolved” in 2006, not yesterday morning. It would help if you actually bothered to get the facts before wrote. You’d look less like a fool.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
BTW, for those interested, here’s the article from the Richmond Times-Dispatch. I meant to put in in the comment quoting the article.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I see that the WSJ picked up on the Richmond Times-Dispatch article:
The Moonie Times hasn’t, yet, but you never know. I won’t consider any of this definitive, of course, until I hear it from Milo Yappyopoulous in Breitbart.
But the times we live in are interesting. Democrats like Kaine, who expended considerable political capital in fighting Virginia’s anti-marriage amendment in 2006 and who has been a strong supporter of “equal means equal” since, are examples of political expediency, but politicians like TPP are exemplars of undaunted political courage, at least in the mind of LCR head Gregory Angelo:
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A corrected format of the last half of the previous comment:
But the times we live in are interesting. Democrats like Kaine, who expended considerable political capital in fighting Virginia’s anti-marriage amendment in 2006 and who has been a strong supporter of “equal means equal” since, are examples of political expediency, but politicians like TPP are exemplars of undaunted political courage, at least in the mind of LCR head Gregory Angelo:
Yup. TPP had the political courage to stand right up there in front of 15,000 proponents of Gawd, Guns, Guts and Glory [and say] that gays and lesbians shouldn’t be murdered by foreign terrorists. Real political courage that, given the composition of the Republican base, and I’m not being sarcastic.
But as Houndentenor pointed out, actions count, and TPP’s positions on same-sex marriage, Obergefell, judicial appointments, FADA, bathroom bills and all the rest strongly suggest that when it comes time to act on “equal means equal” issues, TPP is not likely to act in way that is “gay-supportive”.
posted by Jorge on
Defining himself as “conservative on…family and the sanctity of life” goes further than the positions against same-sex marriage that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama held at the time—they were always progressive on social issues, as a matter of self-branding.
What was that, Mr. Miller? I didn’t quite catch that.
Still, as this year’s veepstakes shows, maybe most politicians don’t believe anything except what will further their paths to power. Or they convince themselves that their old views were wrong and now they’re right, which just happens to be politically convenient at the present moment.
No, you had it right the first time.
LGBT Republicans are the primary people that can impact what the GOP platform and elected officials do about LGBT rights.
I’m so sorry I didn’t think to go stealth and donate as a Ted Cruz Republican. Wait, he didn’t win any delegates in my state anyway–first you have to get invited.
The fact that the Republican Party generally stinks when it comes to LGBT rights — outside of a few notable examples — is not the fault of LGBT Democrats.
Hmmmmmmmm no.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say it’s the religious right that alienates the progressives through their control over the party but it’s not the LGBT progressives who alienate the conservatives through their control of the party. They not only need to be made irrelevant, they need to be knocked down a peg.
You’re arguing for the very partisan system that is causing this country to split even further. Put some pressure on people. Make the opposition party sweat.
posted by TJ on
Jorge
You misunderstand.
Credibility is essential in trying to persuade someone or a organization. Gay Democrats worked hard in their party to change things. We can see the results.
Gay Republicans have to do the work in their own party. They can’t be lazy. Now some have actually done a bit of work, but many have not.
posted by Jorge on
Sure gay Republicans would have more credibility than gay Democrats among straight Republicans.
But what does your argument say about the credibility of gay Democrats among gay Republicans? I think if the position is too radical, it is not worth bringing to the people at large. Speak the truth to power, using examples and arguments that themselves raise your credibility, and chances are greater.
posted by TJ on
Jorge
The Democratic party improved on LGBT rights (in large part) because gay and straight Democrats worked within the party to educate its members and work on the platform.
Initially (1960s), only liberal Democrats were interested, but by the 1990s some gay rights issues had support of thr more centrist Democrats.
Notice that this dosent mean that LGBT rights have to be seen as only a “left wing” issue.
Now a similar thing has happened wi