Myth Romney has a radio ad playing in Iowa. He’s banking on
Ye Olde Politicize Homophobia Maneuver No. 5, or,
A Call for a Federal Anti-Equality Constitutional Amendment.
That’s right folks! He claims that he will accomplish at the federal level what he failed so miserably to do at the state level. Nee, what even the bona fide homophobe Bush failed to do with a congressional republican majority!
A brief recap: gay marriage became a reality in MA on Romney’s watch, and he and his comrades failed to thwart it in MA with a state constitutional amendment.
But according to his ad, he’s gonna protect marriage from the likes of me and mine, by golly! Throughout the Land! And without being prejudiced!
What remains to be seen is whether the good people of Iowa will see through his act. Are they thrilled at the prospect of marriage equality? Well, their state motto is “Our Liberties We Prize, and Our Rights We Will Maintain”, so you never know! But I’ll wager that they’re absolutely not thrilled at being played the bumpkin fools by slickety Mitt, and having some outsider butt into their state business. What do you think?
UPDATE: Republican Mayor of San Diego Jerry Sanders has signed a resolution in support of marriage equality. What will Romney brand him? Activist Nudge? Or will his Grinchy heart grow 3 sizes today?
…because people are being denied a vote in some states, and in others where there has BEEN a vote that went the wrong way, those states are being taken back to court to overturn the voters in those states. Over 30 states have voted for a DOMA, and do not want it wiped off their books by a court decision. Laurel – I really wish gay advocates would think through the ramifications of their actions – if you don't trust the people of Massachusetts with a vote, you REALLY may not like the results of a national one.
You think you can get 67 Senators, 300 Congresspeople AND 38 States to pass this kind of thing?
Keep dreaming. This is flim flam and everyone except the gullible GOP base knows it.
not even Bush at his zenith, with a republican majority could pass a federal amendment. Romney is deceiving Iowans by implying that he could accomplish federally what a) he he has already failed to accomplish at the state level, and b) what the most powerful republican administration in a generation failed to accomplish federally. And why did they all fail? Because no matter what they think about gay people, the people do not abide by the notion of writing blatant bigotry into the US Constitution.
Republicans have been about to ban abortion for a few decades now. Meat and potatoes for social conservatives are other people's morality. Abu Graib? No big deal. Libbly Sccoter? He's a good conservative. Senator Vitter? That was in the past. Gingrich's hospital bed divorce? That's a private matter. The Katrina screw-up? Government doesn't work anyway. An ad from MoveOn? No that's morally repugnant.
I know that 1 + 1 does not equal 3. Romney is calling Iowans fools.
Those of weak faith pray at the traffic light for it to change.
Those of strong faith pray at the stop sign for it to change.
With faith, 1 + 1 can be whatever you truly believe in your soul.
It appears to be a matter of [intelligence http://www.alternet.org/story/62436/] rather than faith.
“There are those who scoff at the schoolboy, calling him frivolous and shallow: Yet it was the schoolboy who said ‘Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.'” ~ Mark Twain in Following the Equator.
I challenge any of BMG’s right leaning readers to watch two HBO documentaries: “When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts”, about New Orleans, and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib.* Of course, they probably won’t.
<
p>
The callous attitude and the silence displayed by the right on such issues speak volumes for their individual integrity and analytical skills. How can they summon the outrage for the ‘Betray us’ ad and Deval’s 9/11 speech but act as if the horrors of New Orleans and Americans who torture innocent people is irrelevant? This is why my respect for the comments emanating from the national and local right wing blogosphere has waned almost to the point of non-existence. And I’m not alone; I can sense an all-time low, a marked lack of respect for the comments posted here by the right wing coming from all corners of BMG. The more certain commenters speak up here, the more they are marginalizing there own voices.
<
p>
———————
*In fact, everyone here should watch both, but I really hope people watch Requiem – please watch this documentary!
Who cares about what moveon says about Petraeous? They're a bunch of wackos. Frankly, I'd be more shocked if they said something good…I'd think they were up to something…sadistic…Deval's speech? It was a frothy “can't we all just kiss and make up and lurrrrve each other” speech. I'd claim I'm suprised, but my nose would take my screen out. You get what you pay for. We elected Deval, so now we all get 4 years of love being solutions to problems that love can't solve. I'm over it. Abu Ghraib? I think waterboarding and painfully torturing people is terrible, and that people who do that should probably do a lil time. However, I think putting hoods on them and tellin them they're going to get shocked and all that “humiliating” stuff with the leashes and whatnot…that's fine. They probably deserved it, it wasn't hurting any of them. In all honesty, it seemed more like a Frat Rush than torture. Katrina? tblade, I'd recommend this article. It's a quick read and quite informative. Yes, a lot of mistakes were made with Katrina and a lot of people dropped the ball, but how long can you criticize the Bush administration and ignore Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco. The restoration of N.O. levees falls on their shoulders — not Bush's. I mean, I don't think I've ever seen someone rip into either of them over their incompetence. Heck, Nagin even got elected again! We could be productive and fix N.O., or we could attack each other over it. Republicans and Democrats failed in this respect, so don't go acting like your side is absolved of blame.
I guess the point is…is that nobody is legitamately offended by moveon and Deval…it's just politics. Hey, you guys would do the same thing. That's how the game is played. Frankly, I don't care. I could care less. This isn't all to be disrespectful to you, stomv, or anyone. I share sentiment that PP is being a tad ridiculous thinking a federal anti-SSM could ever pass. (personally, I think it's a states rights issue anyways, and passing legislation like this weakens that position and centralizes more power to the Fed, which is always bad.)
I don't think the right-wingers on this site are really that disrespectful. It's way worse at RMG, where is seems impossible to have an intelligent conversation. It's all relative.
…and much of it is correct.
<
p>
If you want to see an even handed look at Katrina in NOLA, watch I challenge you to watch the doc I recommend above. Nagin does not escape unscathed as I’ve noted before. But my comment is about what I have seen here when Katrina is brought up. People want to exculpate the president and the entire administration. They are apologists who will defend Bush for gross negligence of Katrina proportions but fry Deval because his 9/11 speech wasn’t vindictive and jingoistic. My rant wasn’t about politicians, it in response to KBusch’s comment on selective outrage. I’m saying that many right leaning commenters in the Mass political are woefully uninformed, ignorant, or willfully propagating bullshit. Yeah, I think the congressional Dems suck, too, when it comes to Katrina and the war. Screw them, too. But that’s besides the point.
<
p>
And as far as Abu Ghraib, I posted the whole doc above via Google Video. Irrespective of what punishments a terrorist might deserve, first recognize that most people going through AG were not terrorists and many weren’t even criminals. If you start torturing innocent people, you are bound to bread some pissed-off motherfuckers who will become terrorists or insurgents. These people didn’t ask us to invade and occupy them. Saddam might have sucked, but when when an occupying force comes in and is followed by an eruption of violence and coupled with brutal police state tactics where civilians are arrested, detained, abused, murdered in torture-camp prisons, shit is gonna get fucked up. The point – where is the outrage? It’s not there because the facts on the ground are ignored or dismissed. Go ahead and justify Abu Ghraib. It can’t be done without separating one’s argument from the facts. And to say “In all honesty, it seemed more like a Frat Rush than torture.” indicates to me you have not been paying attention to what really happens in these places.
<
p>
There is a litiny of stuff that the right wingers could comment on or criticize, but they remain silent or apologetic. Look at Charley’s vocal disappointments with Patrick – for cryin out loud, Joe, how many republican bloggers are still saying Gonzales did nothing wrong and there was no AG scandal(s)? But what are they vocal on? DPs speech. Propagating long debunked disinformation about Iraq. Is intellectual honesty kryptonite to some people? Sheesh.
<
p>
As to your quote, I guess the point is…is that nobody is legitamately offended by moveon and Deval…it’s just politics. That doesn’t make me think any higher of the integrity owned by the people I’m criticizing. Who benefits from the “just politics” diversions of DP’s speech? What are we not talking about, reading about, listening to when people manufacture, as you suggest, false outrage?
Yes, a lot of mistakes were made with Katrina and a lot of people dropped the ball, but how long can you criticize the Bush administration and ignore Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco. The restoration of N.O. levees falls on their shoulders — not Bush’s
<
p>
I don’t know for sure, but it is my understanding that the levee system, not only around Lake Ponchatrain but also along the Mississippi River is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers. This http://www.washingto… seems to confirm that, but it is not entirely clear from the article.
…so my Katrina criticism does not apply to you, PP.
…which I would place in 2002, did not have ACTUAL Gay Marriage, only THEORETICAL Gay Marriage, as an example. And in MANY states, it was regarded as too bizarre to ever happen.
Do not misunderstand me – I think a Federal amendment is a terrible idea, and would be repealed if it happened in a few years, not unlike Prohibition. But CRIMINY – stop whistling past the graveyard, and realize that over 30 states have ALREADY voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
The existing DOMA, which gives authority for marriage laws to the individual states which have controlling authority over marriage now, is your best recourse.
BTW – Romney's 'failure' will be portrayed as activist Democrats and judges refusing to allow the populace to vote, not as a reflection of what the populace may have acutally wanted. Which is the ultimate failure of gay marriage in Mass. – that even its backers didn't think anybody supported it.
Bush was reelected in 2004 by a margin that he claimed to be a mandate. Remember that? Concurrently there was a republican majority (even after DeLay was indicted) in both the House and Senate. Remember that? Shortly before his successful election, in Feb, 2004 he called for another go-round of the Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment. This was in response to the MA Supreme Judicial Court’s November, 2003 decision, which would go into effect in May, 2004. Here is how wiki describes the vote outcome
i hit “post” instead of “preview” before I was done.
<
p>
anyway, Peter. An earlier version of the FMA FAILED in 2003, when you say Bushco was at their zenith. Well, quibble all you want about which moment of which day of which month of which year Bushco reached the ultimate peak of power. The truth of the matter is that they tried multiple times to pass the beast during their years of utmost power, and FAILED miserably each and every time.
<
p>
If it couldn’t be done then, it won’t happen with the Dem-heavy congress we have coming up. Romney knows this. So do you. Stop treating the Iowa voters like idiots.
<
p>
As I said, in the realm of the theoretical. They weren’t here in MA, Laurel, and many southern and midwestern conservatives – in BOTH parties – didn’t think it would ever really happen. Heck, some in Mass. didn’t think so either.
<
p>
Laurel – it’s your strategy and battle, but I really hope you don’t wind up enabling the Federal amendment folks in the long run. I am not trying to argue with you, but am trying to urge you to think through to the potential consequences of advocated actions.
why do you support a candidate who uses bigotry to win political points, who is actively calling for sub-citizenship for LGBT americans, and who thinks the voters he is targeting are so gullible?
“The only time I ever voted vor any candidate that I agreed with 100% was the very first time I voted for myself. By the time I ran for re-election, I had taken votes and positions that I myself didn’t agree with”.
<
p>
I agree with approx. 85% of Mitt’s stances. I think he is the smartest candidate in the race – on either side – and smart is someting we could use a little more of in governmnent. I especially like his plans for government reguation, health care and social security. These are not ‘hot button’ issues, so you won’t see them on TV. I agree with Mike Huckabee, who noted at the last GOP debate that the GOP candidates have yet to get a SINGLE question about education, while they are asked over and over about the permutations of abortion.
<
p>
I disagree with most of his social conservative stances. I am pro-choice, I am (MODIFIED) pro-stem cell, I support the right of individual states to control marriage laws and oppose the Federal DOMA amendment. I disagree with your assessment that he is a bigot.
if you don’t, that makes you a bigot booster. and of course you don’t want to think of yourself as that. i understand your predicament, and i’m sorry for you. my conscience is clear. is yours?
… DOMA is useless in the argument for SSM since selectively (by state) enforcing civil rights doesn’t make sense.
<
p>
If you want to argue that using DOMA in the short term is better strategically, then the civil right rhetoric would need to be toned down because it would morally undercut using DOMA, unless it is strategically advisable to be openly opportunistic about it.
and shift the focus off the “civil right” of marriage and swithch it to the benefits. Hillary believes in “full equality of benefits” not full equality of people… http://www.iht.com/a…
Add to those “activist Democrats and judges refusing to allow the populace to vote” the activist Republican Leadership, Senators Richard Tisei (Senate Minority Leader) and Rep Brad Jones (House Minority Leader) and of course, Tarr, Loscocco, Ross, Hill…
<
p>
Is activism contageous? Maybe, but I like to think that doing the right thing for all people and their families is the true “infection” found in our State House.
If that’s the case, why does he want to prevent people from getting married via the constitution? Wait…didn’t Mitt once say on a big pink flyer that “all citizens deserve equal rights”?
<
p>
Mitt Romney, liar and bigot, ladies and gentleman.
Oh, my mistake. Mitt Romney never sold himself as being for equal rights and then turned around and buys bigoted radio ads in Iowa. I must have him confused with someone else. Nope, no lies here. I’m definitely in the wrong here and Mitt is a man of stellar integrity.
I notice two folks, one liberal and one not, using downratings a lot recently.
<
p>
The value of this site is dialog. Downratings seem like a way to disagree without actually having to spell out why you disagree and then take responsibility for it in the exchange of comments. They irritate without illuminating. They dampen dialog — or turn it into warfare.
<
p>
I have given 0s out for comments that should be deleted. That seems like a fine operation especially when done judiciously
<
p>
I often regret the 3s I’ve given out, though.
…used car salesman. Nobody particularly cares for them, but they sell cars. Although in this case, I doubt that Mittens can sell himself.
<
p>
Giuliani (the thug who I cannot stand) vs. sHillary (the snake oil saleman who I cannot stand) in 2008. VPs? Who cares?
<
p>
But maybe sHillary will get smart and select Obama–but I’m sure that she won’t. Nothing about race, but one thing that I’ve learned observing parliamentary system is that the leader doesn’t want to have strong followers breathing down their backs.
That certainly explains why Cheney has Bush front and center!
The Mayor of San Diego has a heart…and a clear conscience. Does Romney?
of the mayor’s speech explaining his endorsement of the city council’s resolution in support of marriage equality. wow.
a guest on Hardball on MSNBC just said that not having a federal ban on equal marriage but leaving it up to the states is exactly like not having a federal ban on slavery and leaving it up to the states.
<
p>
that’s right: equality = slavery