Mitt Romney refuses to sign anti-gay marriage pledge

[Locutus of Bored]

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.

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.

Has Obama run away from successful programs he fostered due to extremist elements in his own party? Has he had to hide some of his more mainstream views because of that same party extremism?

You're not just voting for the man's privately held stances when there's nothing to lose, you're voting for what the party he represents will allow him to publicly support. If you vote for Romney you're also voting for a party that has made life difficult for gays and will probably continue to due so as they become more and more extreme as time goes on (if present trends continue).

With Obama the problem is completely opposite in that most of his party is actually further to the left of him on the issue of gay marriage, and he has stated that despite his personal misgivings he would support no attempt to legislate against it. So, by voting for him at the absolute worst there's no change in gay marriage laws federally (while states can still legalize it).

I know you're basically a Republican on every issue except one, but it just seems unconscionable to me that you'd even consider voting Republican as a gay man given the current state of the party. It's like voting for George Wallace during the fight against segregation.

 

[DarthTom]

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?

Essentially you're describing someone who was playing political games with the debt ceiling.

[url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/04/obama-admits-he-played-politics-with-2006-debt-ceiling-vote/1]Obama admits he played politics with the debt ceiling[/url]

So I'm hopping that Democrats will shut the fuck up when Republicans do exactly the same thing?

"As president," Obama said, "you start realizing, 'You know what? We -- we can't play around with this stuff. This is the full faith in credit of the United States.' And so that was just a example of a new senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I'm the first one to acknowledge it."

 

[TrekkieMonster]

^ 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.

I'm a little lost as to who's responding to what, but I just wanted to clarify here that I do not disagree with your last proposition at all. All I'm saying is that, in my experience, Romney's drastic course changes have had little to do with making nuanced decisions based on new information, and everything to do with completely changing his public stance on issues solely based on what his people tell him will be popular with the electorate. That's the issue I have with him.

Hey Uncle Sam, why are you so worried about who or what I do behind closed doors?

- Straight, married man.

I'm assuming that's aimed rhetorically at the "real" Uncle Sam, and not at me (based on my AV.) Cuz, I love ya like my luggage, bro, but I really don't care what you do behind closed doors -- though I do seem to recall a comment about approaching whatever it is you do there from starboard recently.)

And to Darth Tom's other point, I would also agree that single-issue voting is misguided (and I say that as a gay man in relation to "gay issues" and as a voter interested in a number of issues), but I also recognize that far too many people (voters or not) tend to reduce any political issue to least common denominators, and both politicians and the media tend to exacerbate the problem.

 

[Squiggy]

Are you going to commit to Mitt as much time and money as you committed to Obama?

I haven't yet decided who I'm going to vote for. But if the economy still sucks in 2012, unemployment is still around ~9% and little has changed in our multiple wars [ya know troops still in Iraq despite his pledge otherwise - troops still in Afghanistan - a lingering conflict with Libya etc] it may be time to take a serious look at Romney if he's going to paddle down the mainstream creek.

Why? Romney's Massachusetts was near the bottom in job creation.

He can only ride the "HAY I MADE THE WINTER OLIMPICS MAKE MONEY!" train for so long.

 

[OdoWanKenobi]

I never said I was going to vote for him. I only said he currently seems like the only Republican candidate that isn't entirely batshit insane. I'm not currently enamored of anybody.

 

[DarthTom]

Why? Romney's Massachusetts was near the bottom in job creation.

He can only ride the "HAY I MADE THE WINTER OLIMPICS MAKE MONEY!" train for so long.

No doubt should Romney get the Republican's nomination it will be the war of the rhetoric on who was better or worse in job creation while, 'on the job.'

Such a dance would be interesting to watch.

Romney at such a dance would just pull a Ronald Reagan and ask, 'are you better off than you were four years ago?" - I'd imagine.

 

[Shikarnov]

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?

Essentially you're describing someone who was playing political games with the debt ceiling.

[url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/04/obama-admits-he-played-politics-with-2006-debt-ceiling-vote/1]Obama admits he played politics with the debt ceiling[/url]

So I'm hopping that Democrats will shut the fuck up when Republicans do exactly the same thing?

"As president," Obama said, "you start realizing, 'You know what? We -- we can't play around with this stuff. This is the full faith in credit of the United States.' And so that was just a example of a new senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I'm the first one to acknowledge it."

Tom, if you really don't see a difference between 2006 and 2012, and if you don't see a difference between a junior senator making a political statement and the GOP threatening the whole world with this horse-shit, then I don't know what to say.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

Good for him. Well done.

 

[Amaris]

In other news, police Chief who made the statement "we're not going to beat down and arrest black guys for just standing around minding their own business" to receive key to city and parade! Film at 11.

 

[DarthTom]

Tom, if you really don't see a difference between 2006 and 2012, and if you don't see a difference between a junior senator making a political statement and the GOP threatening the whole world with this horse-shit, then I don't know what to say.

I think some of the Tea Party people genuinely [if not for misguided reasons] believe what they are doing is right. Rand Paul is en example of such a person IMO.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Tom, if you really don't see a difference between 2006 and 2012, and if you don't see a difference between a junior senator making a political statement and the GOP threatening the whole world with this horse-shit, then I don't know what to say.

I think some of the Tea Party people genuinely [if not for misguided reasons] believe what they are doing is right. Rand Paul is en example of such a person IMO.

Just because they think they're right doesn't make them any less dangerous. In fact, it makes them more dangerous than mere cynical opportunists.

 

[iguana_tonante]

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!

Well, since he's virtually a Republican about all-but-one issues, no real surprise here.

Any gay person that would vote for a Presidential candidate solely based on his position on gay issues is in my opinion very misguided.

You are right. I'm sure you would thoroughly enjoy your tax cuts while being denied a service or being discriminate at work due to your sexual orientation. Really smart.

in prison for having sex with a man.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

I never said I was going to vote for him. I only said he currently seems like the only Republican candidate that isn't entirely batshit insane. I'm not currently enamored of anybody.

This is exactly my position.

While it is true that Dubya left us heaping roomful of dirty dishes, I have not seen Obama do much to clean them up, despite all of that near-hysterical chanting of "YES WE CAN!!!" that went on for months.

Expensive and pointless wars still going on? Check.

Patriot Act still in force? Check.

Economy still in the crapper and unemployment high for everyone except for the super-rich, who keep getting richer by the moment? Check.

In fact, the only thing Obama has done to date that has made me extremely happy was to bump off OBL.

But then, when you look at most of the Republican field, you get this feeling that insanity runs in the party or something. Most of the people who are or have been in contention seem to be off their meds or something, they are so bat-shit wacky.

Never has a country been in greater need of a viable third party than right now. Jon Stewart didn't need to do a mere rally to restore sanity - he needed to do a 3 year campaign! Because sanity - in both parties - has LONG left the building.

 

[Davros]

Tom, if you really don't see a difference between 2006 and 2012, and if you don't see a difference between a junior senator making a political statement and the GOP threatening the whole world with this horse-shit, then I don't know what to say.

I think some of the Tea Party people genuinely [if not for misguided reasons] believe what they are doing is right. Rand Paul is en example of such a person IMO.

Just because they think they're right doesn't make them any less dangerous. In fact, it makes them more dangerous than mere cynical opportunists.

QFT

 

[BillJ]

Why? Romney's Massachusetts was near the bottom in job creation.

He can only ride the "HAY I MADE THE WINTER OLIMPICS MAKE MONEY!" train for so long.

No doubt should Romney get the Republican's nomination it will be the war of the rhetoric on who was better or worse in job creation while, 'on the job.'

Such a dance would be interesting to watch.

Romney at such a dance would just pull a Ronald Reagan and ask, 'are you better off than you were four years ago?" - I'd imagine.

I don't think it makes much sense to make job creation the litmus test of who you're going to vote for when both candidates have a history of failure in that area. Romney may ask "if you're better off now?", but Obama will come right back and ask if Massachusetts was better off after Romney's term as governor.

And it definitely seems Romney is running from his record in Massachusetts.

 

[Thestral]

In other news, police Chief who made the statement "we're not going to beat down and arrest black guys for just standing around minding their own business" to receive key to city and parade! Film at 11.

Army General who makes statement "We're not going to rape and murder civilians in the places we're assigned to defend" to be awarded Medal of Honor! Ticker-tape parade to follow.