Beat me to it!
Mitt Romney refuses to sign anti-gay marriage pledge
- Thread starter DarthTom
- Start date
Beat me to it!
If Fred and Barney could have revealed their true feelings and gotten married in Bedrock they would have had a gay old time.
He's always given me a bad Greg Stillson-vibe... but maybe I misjudged him a bit. I'm glad he didn't sign such a ridiculous document.
A
Amaris
Guest
To be fair, our standards are rather low, now, aren't they? It'd be like seeing a congratulatory headline that says "Politician decides not branding Jews with hot iron to be best move!"
Plus, let's not forget that this is the same Iowa pledge that before omitting the passage from its first page the other day as a result of the controversy remarked on the positive family values effects of slavery.
It's setting the bar pretty low indeed to praise a candidate's bold stance against signing a pledge that says slavery was better for keeping black families together than our current society's attitude toward marriage. It's a sad state of affairs where not being an overt bigot or completely historically ignorant is counted in the plus column.
Nor was Romney the first or only candidate to refuse to sign it. As mentioned, Huntsman refuses to sign any pledges.
If you actually think Romney is going to give you more favorable treatment as a gay man than Obama will given the current extremist state of the Republican Party, you're nuts.
It's setting the bar pretty low indeed to praise a candidate's bold stance against signing a pledge that says slavery was better for keeping black families together than our current society's attitude toward marriage. It's a sad state of affairs where not being an overt bigot or completely historically ignorant is counted in the plus column.
Nor was Romney the first or only candidate to refuse to sign it. As mentioned, Huntsman refuses to sign any pledges.
If you actually think Romney is going to give you more favorable treatment as a gay man than Obama will given the current extremist state of the Republican Party, you're nuts.
That's a good one!
I can't stand when people go "gay marriage" because in that case it's like "civil union". It's a marriage between two of the same sex instead of the opposite. It's not the first time in history gays have gotten marriage. Marriage means nothing besides being an easy legal form to share wealth.
It's sort of sad that we're talking about how amazing it is that a GOP candidate isn't a proud and open bigot.
We live in an age of extremism. Any sign of rationality is a shock. 
I just read that 14 point pledge, and it's really a piece of work. I don't know how anybody in their right mind could sign such a thing...
lol. "Innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy." And as for "all forms of pornography," if Ed Meese, and all the support he enjoyed in his day, couldn't get porn stamped out, the current crop of Republican lunatics sure as Hell won't be able to.
I think this is my favorite part. I know it's anecdotal, but I feel pretty confident that I could round up 1000 married guys and ask them how happy they are with their sex lives, and a majority will have difficulty remembering when they actually had sex last time.
lol. "Innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy." And as for "all forms of pornography," if Ed Meese, and all the support he enjoyed in his day, couldn't get porn stamped out, the current crop of Republican lunatics sure as Hell won't be able to.
I think this is my favorite part. I know it's anecdotal, but I feel pretty confident that I could round up 1000 married guys and ask them how happy they are with their sex lives, and a majority will have difficulty remembering when they actually had sex last time.
Having lived under this animated Ken Doll's reign for 6 years, I can say without hesitation that the above is absolutely correct. The man is ideological silly putty, and will bend and twist and stretch himself in any direction necessary to get elected. And he will have no compunctions about changing course 180 degrees the moment he does get elected. Some may say this is true of all politicians, which may or may not be true to come degree, but - again, having lived through his tenure as Massachusetts governor and having worked on campaigns for other politicians and seeing what the process is like - I am left trusting the Mittster even less than I would most pol's (and that's just less than the distance I could throw most of them.) He's nothing but a huckster and he, himself, is his chosen form of snake oil.
^ I take umbrage with the idea that politicians cannot and should not change their minds. Situations evolve, new information becomes available -- especially when one makes the transition from Senator to President -- and more. It's good campaigning to smear such course corrections as being either politically motivated (which they sometimes may be) or the result of somebody having no ideological backbone.
But given a choice between an unwavering ideologue and somebody capable of making nuanced decisions about something based on all the tools available to him in the here and now, I'd choose the latter.
But given a choice between an unwavering ideologue and somebody capable of making nuanced decisions about something based on all the tools available to him in the here and now, I'd choose the latter.
Yeah, I think calling someone a flip-flopper is pretty shitty, if their change of heart is genuine and they realized their past position was a mistake.
But what you see among many Republicans is not that at all, it's just political opportunism. Democrats do it, too, of course. I think we should draw a distinction between politicians who simply follow the polls and those who have principled positions that they eventually realize are wrong.
But what you see among many Republicans is not that at all, it's just political opportunism. Democrats do it, too, of course. I think we should draw a distinction between politicians who simply follow the polls and those who have principled positions that they eventually realize are wrong.
In 2006 Obama said he voted against raising the debt ceiling because back then he described it as a 'failure of leadership.' Today he calls such an action 'irresponsible.'
He attributes his change in attitude towards the ceiling as playing politics in the past but now has a more responsible view on the ramifications of not doing so.
As John Stewart joked in Tuesday evening's show about the subject - Was the Presdient and adolesent 42 year old and now a mature near 50 year old?
How would you characterize his behavior in '06 versus today? And how is it demonstrably any different than some of the shit that Romney has done with regard to his changing positions on the issues?
Last edited:
Is this going to be the new direction of the thread now that you've finally realized and completely glossed over the fact that you were giving Romney credit for not signing a pledge praising the family togetherness aspects of slavery (amongst other backwards beliefs in the pledge)?
Interesting that you set the bar so low for Romney but so unrealistically high (in other threads) for Obama.
That's how it looks, doesn't it?
Obama doesn't eradicate DADT and DOMA on his first day in office: TOTAL FAILURE.
Romney merely refuses to sign on to a hateful, homophobic, racist pledge: HEY I MIGHT VOTE FOR THAT!
Not at all. But it is a credible comparison where the President changes his positions on issues just as Romney has done as well on many.
Several posters have described Romney's ever changing positions as essentially a character flaw. It seems to me that it's a character flaw that many share up to and including the President.
Any gay person that would vote for a Presidential candidate solely based on his position on gay issues is in my opinion very misguided.
Most gay people I know, vote for someone on a range off issues not simply ones that are gay related.
If the economy continues on the track it currently is - and the President owns it now as stated by himself and by many people repeatedly in the DNC - he should be held accountable for it.
But specifically with regard to gay issues - I see few differences between Romney and Obama with regard to them.
*They both supported desegregation of the military
*They both believe in the traditional definition of marriage and they both however believe it's a state's right issue.
*They both believe in work related protections for gay people
Can you illustrate for me how they differ with regard to gay issues? If they do - I'd really like to know.
Last edited:
Not to blindly defend the guy, but in 2006 the economy, while soft, was by no means at crisis level, and as there was no danger of the debt ceiling not being increased. So then, why shouldn't he -- with all the massive amounts of information available to a Junior Senator of Illinois (that's sarcasm, btw) -- have lodged a protest vote?
I see it like voting for Nader. It's fine to lob a few stones at the goliathan parties when there's no danger of the Republicans rising to power. But when voting for Nader will ensure their victory, then it's just irresponsible.