this is weird
The rich white men (and allies) of The Log Cabin Republican Club For Assimilationist Souls, from time to time, have done great things for our community, like fighting to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. But they also have a storied history of problematic political endorsements, and today’s was no exception: “the nation’s only organization of Republicans who support fairness, freedom, and equality for gay and lesbian Americans” have astoundingly (but alas, not surprisingly) announced their wholehearted endorsement of Mitt F*cking Romney.
If anyone doubted that the Log Cabin Republicans would eventually endorse Romney, it would have been because the Log Cabin Republicans invested heavily in defeating Romney (and supporting McCain) in the 2008 primaries, even inspiring Romney campaign spokesman Kevin Madden to declare, “Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment and so it makes sense that a national gay rights group would attack him.” Then, in August, the Log Cabin Republicans made a strong statement against the Republican platform and its anti-gay agenda.
But times have changed.
From today’s press release:
If LGBT issues are a voter’s highest or only priority, then Governor Romney may not be that voter’s choice. However, Log Cabin Republicans is an organization representing multifaceted individuals with diverse priorities. Having closely reviewed the candidate’s history and observed the campaign, we believe Governor Romney will make cutting spending and job creation his priorities, and, as his record as Governor of Massachusetts suggests, will not waste his precious time in office with legislative attacks on LGBT Americans.
Firstly, drawing any conclusions from what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts is downright foolish — he’s made it abundantly clear that he’s ready and willing to flip-flop and flip again on just about everything he’s ever claimed to believe in, ever. Furthermore, as ThinkProgress points out, Romney’s allegedly not-negative attitude towards LGBT equality was hardly on blast during his term as governor:
Despite once pledging, as a candidate, to be “better than Ted” Kennedy on gay rights, Romney made his opposition to marriage equality one of the benchmarks of his one term as governor. He fired two state employees ostensibly for marrying their same-sex partners, dissolved the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, blocked an anti-bullying guide because it contained the words “bisexual” and “transgender,” and his testified against marriage equality to the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled the state’s ban was unconstitutional. A Boston Spirit article recently noted his stunning insensitivity to LGBT people, including reportedly telling a lesbian constituent, “I didn’t know you had families.”
Think Progress also notes that as a presidential candidate, Romney signed NOM’s pledge to support a federal marriage amendment and his website promises Romney’s intention to “appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act” and “champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.” Furthermore, the Log Cabin Republicans focus on economic prosperity over LGBT issues is a bit backwards when many of Romney’s discriminatory policies have direct impact on the economic well-being of LGBTs: Romney is against anti-discrimination employment protections for LGBT people and opposes same-sex marriage, which comes along with tax benefits for same-sex couples. Then there’s the whole “gay marriage is good for the economy in general” argument as well.
Within hours of the Log Cabin announcement, openly gay congressman Barney Frank made a video expressing his outrage, which includes the line “we have never in American history had a sharper distinction between a very supportive candidate/platform and one that’s very very opposed.” :
In the video, Frank also addresses Paul Ryan’s outrageously anti-gay record and points out that The Log Cabin Republicans’ claim that Romney will advance LGBT rights in any way is particularly ridiculous. In addition to agreeing wholeheartedly with that belief, I’d like to point out that in fact the LCR endorses a number of candidates they erroneously claim “appreciate that all Americans seek to enjoy the same freedoms and inalienable rights, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” Although many of these endorsed candidates are in fact mostly pro-equality, such as Charlie Bass (NH-02), Bob Dold (IL-10), Judy Biggert (IL-11), Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08), Nan Hayworth (NY-18), Richard Hanna (NY-22), Gary DeLong (CA-47), Andrew Roraback (CT-05), Gary DeLong (CA-47), John Dennis (CA-12), Chris Fields (MN-05), Charlie Dent (PA-15) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18), many are not. The LCR has also endorsed the following candidates:
Senate
Scott Brown (MA) – Has worked to repeal marriage equality in Massachusetts, voted to suspend same-sex marriages in DC, opposes federal recognition of legally married same-sex couples in MA, opposed an anti-miscegenation law, doesn’t support ENDA, attempted to obstruct the DADT repeal, allied with Mitt Romney to oppose funding gay & lesbian youth services, wants mentions of “alternative sexual behavior” eliminated from public schools and has referred to same-sex parents as “not normal.”
Michael Baumgartner (WA) – Opposes same-sex marriage.
Elizabeth Emken (CA) – Believes marriage is between one man and one woman. (this is pretty damning as well, from a childhood friend of Elizabeth’s.)
House
John Campbell (CA-45) Given a 0% rating by the HRC on gay rights. He does oppose employment discrimination against LGBT.
Joe Carvin (NY-17) – Though considered socially liberal for a Republican, Carvin does oppose same-sex marriage (but is okay with domestic partnerships).
Kevin Raye (ME-02) – Does not support same-sex marriage.
Dave Reichert (WA-08) – In 2010, supported amendment to prevent same-sex marriage, voted yes on constitutionally defining marriage as one-man one-woman and given a 25% rating by the HRC because he did vote for prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I doubt the Log Cabin Republicans’ endorsement will have much of an impact on election results come November, but their persistent willingness to throw their civil rights under the bus doesn’t do much for our overall cause, either, because there’s a giant swath of American People who think the gays are doing just fine, like Will & Grace. As Gary M. Segura, Professor of American Politics and Chair of Chicano/a Studies in the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity at Stanford, pointed out during the Prop 8 Trial in 2010:
“The public sees only gays and lesbians in larger cities. The public thinks that all gay men have advanced degrees. But people who are in the closet are likely to be lower status. The public has a misperception of the level of treatment of gays and lesbian, they don’t realize that not every gay man is Will from Will and Grace. Will is an attorney in New York with a large apartment. When people see this, they think gays don’t need protection. It makes public less sympathetic and makes public view numbers of gays and lesbians as smaller, which diminishes their political power.“
By publicly stating that basic civil rights are less important than corporate tax breaks, the Log Cabin Republicans contribute to a growing national illusion that LGBT people don’t need protection. But perhaps the truth is that the Log Cabin Republicans specifically don’t need protection — they’ve got health insurance, can afford neighborhoods or private schools that enable quality education for their offspring, and are apparently unconcerned about issues such as homeless gay teens and police violence against transgender folks.
I personally believe that as queer people, we are in a unique position outside of the mainstream which enables us to question dominant culture and fight on behalf of all outsiders and disenfranchised citizens — The Log Cabin Republicans clearly disagree. As Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore writes in That’s Revolting: Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation, The Log Cabin Republicans “have more in common with the National Rifle Association than any sort of left agenda, queer or otherwise.”
By endorsing Romney, the Log Cabin Republicans are standing for much more than “a strong economy.” They’re standing against universal healthcare, they’re standing against education equality and they’re standing against women’s rights. As I’ve stated in the past, Planned Parenthood is one of the only places in the country where LGBT women and sex workers can obtain non-judgmental low-cost health care, and Mitt Romney wants to defund Planned Parenthood.
The Log Cabin Republicans argue that things like Mitt’s endorsement of the NOM pledge are superficial gestures and that his administration poses no real threat to the advancement of LGBT rights. It’s worth mentioning that if I told my mother that although my girlfriend didn’t really think I was a stupid self-entitled ugly bitch, she still called me a stupid self-entitled ugly bitch several times a day to keep me in my place, my mother would encourage me to break up with said girlfriend and perhaps attend therapy — even if said girlfriend was paying the rent. My mother would probably characterize that relationship as “emotionally abusive.” Or, as Barney Frank said in the video: “If you’re trying to change people, you don’t change them by rewarding them for continuing to act the way they’ve been acting.” Amen.
The Log Cabin Republicans are fucking idiots. There’s no other way to say it. It’s infuriating that they dismiss their entire community as being focused on issues they deem secondary. “Well, yes, our entire sense of acceptance and worth in the country is kind of okay, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ECONOMY.” I still find it difficult to agree with people that say that economic values benefit everyone, ergo they benefit LGBTQ* people. If I weren’t allowed to marry the person I love, have a legally-recognized family with her, and have the same insurance and tax-benefits as any hetero family, then how the hell would I be able to enjoy cut taxes for the 1%.
As a Canadian in trades, I actually would prefer to see Mitt Romney as president, but Barack is definitely a president for the people, and my heart would just break for America if he didn’t get re-elected.
Apologies for my ignorance – I think I know what you mean by “trades” but could you clarify? (I’m honestly curious what it is you do that leads you to prefer Romney)
Oh no worries. We own an importing/exporting business and a weaker USD means weaker revenue for me. I watched the USD steadily decline since 2007 and I don’t trust that Obama will do much to change that pattern (Romney has stated that he’ll follow the same plan Canada did to get the economy back on track when Obama has straight up ignored our suggestions).
I love everything else that he’s doing, but none of his bigger plans really have any positive affect on me, my family, and everyone else I love. Even still, a really big part of me really wants Obama to win.
Oh my GOD, what a typo. I wish I could delete this comment.
CAN WE GET AN EDIT BUTTON SO I STOP EMBARRASSING MYSELF PLEASE
Typo aside, thanks for clarifying. :)
Interesting, too, because from what I understand a stronger USD is apparently bad for a lot of US businesses in terms of finding markets for their exports – or so they say.
Oh, no, some companies, far out there, are definitely benefiting, but we don’t really import much from the States. Our motto used to be “Spend Canadian dollars, make American dollars” and now it’s not really all that fun to do.
Don’t worry, Romney won’t have time to focus his attention on anti-LGBTQ* legislation. He’ll be too busy with the economy. Just like how Republicans are focused on “jobs, jobs, jobs”. They’re too busy focusing on jobs to do anything about abortion… Oh wait.
Speaking of flip-flop and flip again, anyone who has not heard of this video (epic rap battles of history) really really needs to watch it. Like now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc
MOB, Riese, MOB.
(totally kidding and crying a little bit inside)
Now adding Log Cabin Republicans to the list of people who are annoying me today, along with radfems & libertarians.
Why don’t the log cabin republicans support Gary Johnson, he’s a libertarian, but is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Because third-party endorsements hold little water in our red-vs-blue country. Which is a bummer, really. Go libertarians!
Ok. This is a really well-articulated article and, speaking on principle, I’m in agreement that we need to keep fighting the good fight where LGBT and women’s rights are concerned.
I’m gay, and female, and young, and as a person with a functioning heart and soul, very much in favor of human rights. And if you’re a single issue voter focused solely on human rights, then it’s a long crusade and it’s understandable why in principle you wouldn’t want a republican in the white house. history, records of non-support, so on and so forth. I’ve always been against the right wing social agenda. Always. I was outspoken against Bush’s “codify marriage” statements in 2003 and empowered by Obama’s ideas in 2008.
But in terms of this election, the position we’re in and the precipice over which America is precariously at the moment… I’m just not down with another 4 years of Obama.
LGBT rights are certainly important. Vastly important, even! I want to know that I’ll be able to add some security to my relationship someday. I’ve spent years living overseas and I know firsthand the endless struggle that comes with maintaining a same-sex relationship with someone who does not have the same passport. As a gay person you struggle forever. I would like to see that end someday and I believe we can and will make it happen.
But it’s not the only thing. Gays are not the only people who have struggles and dangers staring them in the face in there immediate futures. Tax benefits, and all of the spousal privilege that comes with having a signed and sealed marriage license? I don’t have that anyway, and I’d prefer to know that I live under a strong enough economy that I will be able to create and sustain a living for myself WITHOUT having to rely on others (be it a partner or much worse, the government itself) to take care of me.
The human rights crusaders would have you believe that a Romney win would mean instantly shoving gays back in the closet, overturning Roe v. Wade and taking condoms off the shelves at Walgreens but it just isn’t so. The concern at hand isn’t about whether things like abortion should be legal – it’s whether, in times where looming economic issues as a whole are much, much worse – the government should be shouldered with the burden of paying for it. On the parental metaphor, If I asked my father for the money for whatever large expense he would tell me to do whatever I feel is right for myself, but I he wouldn’t be the one to pay for it. He wouldn’t tell me I could not do this thing.
It’s not just a “human vs. corporate” issue here. The class warfare mentality Obama has so seamlessly weaseled into everyday speech is something I find frankly disgusting. All people need to know they’ll be able to find work to support their families. We need to know we have a strong currency, trade well with other nations, and can get ourselves out of deficit. After all, where is the funding for Planned Parenthood going to come from if our nation goes the way of Iceland? What financial benefits will same-sex couples be able to afford each other if they can’t even support themselves?
The fact is when I go to sleep at night I worry less about getting my hypothetical partner’s 401k benefits and more about whether I’ll have enough money in the bank to one day give a partner, and eventually a child, the kind of support they need to live and thrive.
On these issues Obama has proven himself wholly incapable and because of that, I’ve gone the way of the LCR’s. I want Romney, too.
not bothering to address the rest of your comment, but i am so fucking sick of people saying ‘LGBT’ and then completely ignoring the existence of the T. LGBT is not a synonym for ‘gay people’, no matter how much it is used as one.
Yeah, Obama should have magically fixed the worst recession since the great depression in four years (the recession, mind you, caused by Republican policies) when the Republicans would introduce abortion bill after abortion bill rather than do anything about jobs. Even with all the obstructionism, the economy has been improving under Obama.
Though I find it really amusing that you think Romney will do anything to help regular people when he’s the person who said he’s already written off 47% of the country. You’ve put a lot of words about why human rights should take a backseat to the economy, but nothing about how Romney will actually be an improvement. So, why exactly do you think Romney will create more jobs and make things better for you?
So I understand you’re angry, and I also understand that the go-to argument for Obama and those who support him are to blame his failures on the precedents set by the previous administration. I don’t claim to support Bush policies now, nor have I ever. But Obama’s argument has heretofore been, “What I think we should do to solve America’s problems, is look at how bad the other guy is.” What has Obama introduced that would indicate he could make anything better over the next four years? Are we really to believe his biggest feats are just around the corner, and that he just need smore time?
Plus, what indicator do you have that Republicans would get into office simply to introduce “abortion bill after abortion bill?” Do you really think it’s the sole existing purpose of those on the right to hinder abortions? Yeah I agree there are many on the right who would impose their idea of proper behavior on others and make no mistake, I think that’s absolutely wrong. But that’s the view you’ve gotten from people who would tell you that everyone on the right is Donald Trump and Ann Coulter. It just isn’t so.
I feel like this is relevant
Oh hey, that’s funny, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said I don’t understand people that say that human rights = single-issue. How the fuck do people get away with focusing SOLEY on the economy as a reason to vote for someone truly despicable, and yet dismiss the opposite side as being only “single-issue” when the umbrella of equal rights encompasses so much more.
Sure, a broken economy sucks for everyone, but nothing Romney has said has indicated that he would fix it. Removing funding for public services is NOT the way to fix a broken country because you’re removing the last life-line for so many people that unfortunately don’t have a chance at paying for those services, regardless of what new “jobs” Shithead claims he’ll create. And you know what? With your analogy of asking my dad to pay for something, if my life depended on it, yeah, I’d ask my dad to pay for it. Because that’s what parents are supposed to do – take care of their children. Guess what the government is supposed to do. Take care of its citizens.
I kinda figure that’s exactly why you’re for Obama; that someone else exists to take care of you. Parents exist to raise their children to a point and once their children no longer need them, the parent knows they have done a good job. Government does not exist to coddle you. Government exists to protect you from external harm, from others who would take away your freedoms; to ensure that you have the freedom to live your own life in your own way. It doesn’t exist to infringe on the rights of many to support the wants of the few.
The fact is, Romney *has* indicated how he would fix the economy. He said in the second and even in the third debate that he would cut egregious government spending; that government spending is not the way to create jobs. Taxing the hell out of small business owners is not the way to create jobs. People are so reticent to grow their businesses and hire new employees because it’s so expensive to do so. Free enterprise, encouraging innovation, allowing individuals to learn from their successes and failures, that’s what has created success in America for generations, and that’s what will continue to do so for generations to come.
What about Obama could possibly indicate to you that he could fix things as they are? Plus could you call him by his name and not “Shithead?” It’s childish.
How exactly does Romney plan to cut government spending? Whatever his plan is, it certainly won’t cover the crazy hike in military spending he intends to carry out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/49352467#49352467
I’m also just going to leave some links here.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/18/14540741-the-economy-and-the-amnesiacs?lite
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/22/14599731-the-recovery-may-not-be-quite-the-liability-romney-wants-it-to-be?lite
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/22/14620955-worst-socialist-ever?lite
(I know all these links are Maddow-related, but man, I just love to watch her talk.)
yes this, all of this
also this:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/23/1070951/obamacare-small-businesses-coverage/
Well I think Romney’s been pretty clear: job creation must be America’s first priority. Government spending does not create jobs. Government intervention doesn’t encourage prosperity. Cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25% is one thing he’s proposed. History has shown that revenue increases as productivity increases; which occurs as taxes decrease. When people make more money, they end up paying more in taxes anyway… so the government actually gets a higher revenue than if it had swooped in and taken a larger percentage. (ex. 30% of 500 is 150. 20% of 5,000, though, is 1,000. Pretty basic.) Romney is among those who understand that human productivity – not government – is the greatest anti-poverty program in human history. Productivity encourages prosperity which yields happiness. Generally speaking. I genuinely believe that myriad social problems would be alleviated were it not for this culture of entitlement, class warfare and blame that Obama has helped cultivate.
Also if you’re going to try to use web articles in the form of persuasion, MSNBC is about as trustworthy a news source as FoxNews; that is to say, heavily partisan bedtime stories at best. You only go there to hear what you already know you want to hear. Likeable though as Maddow is.
How about something reasoned and decisive? Here’s something, if you’d like to take the time. http://observer.com/2012/10/romney-for-president/
“When people make more money, they end up paying more in taxes anyway”
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OMIGOD THE IRONY OF YOUR SUPPORT FOR ROMNEY IS JUST SO BRUTALLY CLEAR RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THAT IS SUCH A BLATANT LIE.
#dropmic
#walkoffstage
I think you missed the point, mate. Perhaps it wasn’t articulated properly. I suggested that a small percentage of a large amount of money, is potentially much greater than a large percentage of a small amount of money. As productivity increases, revenue increases, thus revenue for the government increases. Blatant lie? No, it’s basic math.
Well, I’m Canadian, so I live and breathe because of social programs that so many of Shithead’s supporters claim are evil and “communist”, so yeah. I kind of like the idea of knowing that my government will help me in a life-and-death situation rather than having a selfish population scorn me for my misfortune and leave me to flounder.
Frankly, I think most of Romney’s ideas and supporters are childish, so I guess it’s fitting that I refer to him as Shithead.
I know I’m a little late to this party…but this was a good read from the New Yorker and reminded me of an FDR quote:
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide for those who have too little.”
I also think MHP is relevant here, because when is she not?
Also (if anyone is still around reading this thread) this is a piece from The Nation, by MHP. It’s titled “Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama”. I believe it is relevant for Francis T.
BAH! I really need to stop coming back to this.
if i believed that cutting spending on things like health care was gonna boost the economy, i might see your point in some way. but this all ends up costing us in the end.
so, if we were to get crass and talk about human beings as if they are all quantifiable expenses, here’s how i see it: getting rid of the affordable care act and planned parenthood may help the economy in the short term, but not the long term. unpaid medical debt, and the abundance of never-paid-for emergency room services provided to uninsured people, is a bigger burden on our economy in the long term than the affordable care act would be. covering women’s health services is a smaller burden on our economy in the long term than dealing with parents who can’t financially support their children but keep having them anyway because they have no access to birth control or abortion services. kids raised in foster homes are more likely than other kids to drop out of school, commit crimes, abuse drugs and become teen parents — which ends up costing taxpayers in the end. (also obviously not dissing all foster homes, i have two foster half-brothers myself!, but statistically speaking many of the circumstances that go into the foster system don’t always produce the best outcomes)
when people lack equal education opportunities, health care and government support programs for low-income families, what happens? sometimes jail. sometimes drug addiction and then jail. sometimes the army. all of these things cost more than just giving people health care and good education would have in the first place. (but the prison industry is well-represented amongst romney’s top supporters!) plus it’s just ethically sound.
honestly i think romney and the republicans are hoping that if they drain resources from certain communities, those people will eventually die and stop wanting things.
this is also relevant:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/22/725811/fees-fines-and-debt-how-governments-and-companies-are-jailing-poor-people-to-make-a-buck/
TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS HAS NEVER WORKED. period!
Reise I reckon the comment about Republicans hoping people will die and stop wanting things is a bit heavy handed. I think there are plenty on the fringe right who would probably say shitty things like that but they don’t represent the majority. I just think there needs to be a bigger-picture priority.
If you have a medical problem, for example, you don’t just try to erase the symptoms; you get to the root of it. Low-income families might not be so low-income if they were given the freedom and encouragement to work hard and increase their net worth. Government entitlement programs *keep* poor families poor because they’re then so dependent on the milk from the government’s bottle that they don’t need to make any concerted effort to do these things for themselves. If you don’t need to leave the shire, why would you?
I absolutely agree that social problems should be addressed; things like Medicaid should be kept but largely the entitlement programs need drastic reform.
Prosperity, a sense of personal achievement, etc… these things increase happiness in people’s lives. When people are happier they help each other. When they’re poor, bitter and unhappy, that’s when the partisanship and live-and-let-die attitudes come into play. On a personal level: When you self-loathe, for example, you don’t end up being very nice to other people. But when you are strong, confident, healthy and prosperous, you’re able to share that energy with others. I believe this also applies on a macro level.
In an ideal world the government would shrink to the size at which it began – keeping its people safe from harm, maintaining infrastructure- but largely, granting the people freedom to move about as they choose. People would love and respect others, ego would be diminished so there would be no need for bickering and name-calling over things like human rights because it would be a given. People would understand that every being on earth is essentially the same as they are, so they would care for and help each other if in need.
I actually believe we can get there. I just think we have to go about it another way. I like Romney because he’s a pragmatist, and largely understands the bedrock of the problem. Yea he has his head in the sand on some issues, which is to be expected. I don’t think we’re going to reach enlightenment in 8-10 years, but it’s GOT to be better than this.
” Low-income families might not be so low-income if they were given the freedom and encouragement to work hard and increase their net worth. Government entitlement programs *keep* poor families poor because they’re then so dependent on the milk from the government’s bottle that they don’t need to make any concerted effort to do these things for themselves.”
I don’t think you understand intersectionality and how that limits people’s abilities to “work hard and make money”. In a society that favours white, heterosexual, Christian, cis-gendered men, any other identity will have burdens imposed on them that have nothing to do with government support.
Romney’s “plan” is a poorly disguised structural adjustment plan and just look how well those worked out for developing countries. Since we’re just not living in the industrial revolution anymore, there’s very little chance of higher profits for companies translating into more jobs in any kind of meaningful way.
“Low-income families might not be so low-income if they were given the freedom and encouragement to work hard and increase their net worth. Government entitlement programs *keep* poor families poor because they’re then so dependent on the milk from the government’s bottle that they don’t need to make any concerted effort to do these things for themselves. If you don’t need to leave the shire, why would you?”
This comment is classist and ignorant. Look up the word “intersectionality” and at least read a summary of this book: Flat Broke With Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform by Sharon Hays.
“Prosperity, a sense of personal achievement, etc… these things increase happiness in people’s lives. When people are happier they help each other. When they’re poor, bitter and unhappy, that’s when the partisanship and live-and-let-die attitudes come into play. On a personal level: When you self-loathe, for example, you don’t end up being very nice to other people. But when you are strong, confident, healthy and prosperous, you’re able to share that energy with others. I believe this also applies on a macro level.”
If this is true, why doesn’t the 1% redistribute their wealth and “share that energy with others”?
Roe v Wade is very definitely on the line. The next President could get the chance to appoint two justices, if the justices who get replaced are Ginsburg (79, has had cancer recently) and Breyer (74) you’re looking at potentially 6 conservatives on the Supreme Court by 2016. You can kiss Roe v Wade goodbye if that happens.
Trying to say Roe v Wade isn’t potentially endangered is head-in-sand-hands-over-ears-lalala talk.
You know, it mystifies me when people use “the economy” as a reason to vote *for* Romney. His only business experience was heading a corporation so ethically dubious he’s had to repeatedly distance himself from it over the course of his career, incidentally committing perjury in the process (full disclosure, I was laid off from my last job after the company I worked for got Bain-ed). His budget plan would increase the national debt by trillions, and, in case you missed the last debate, would run contrary to America’s strategic goals in the world.
You sayd you never supported Bush’s policies. Which ones, exactly? Was it his economic policies? You know, the ones that *caused* the recession in the first place? Because Romney is advocating every one of those policies. And, in case you missed the first debate, he failed to articulate a single reform to the financial sector. Was it the war in Iraq? Bush was actually opposed it, but was overruled by his Administration. Romney’s surrounded by those same people, who are pushing for regime change in Iran and Syria. Do you understand how seriously horrible that idea is? You know, Republicans had a chance to choose a nominee who opposed to these policies. There were three on the ballot this primary. But they didn’t. They chose a man who waited until a month before the election to support a budget plan that his running mate killed on the House Floor.
You tell us to think about all Americans? Well, I am, actually. I want a President who knows that Iran has a coast (two, actually). Who can visit England without angering it. Who’s nickname abroad isn’t American Borat. Who’s been able to hold China accountable for trade misconduct. Who’s been able to stop the deficit hike despite extreme GOP obstructionism. Who’s idea of national security isn’t to criticise countries for issuing passports to transsexuals. Who’s bailout policies actually saved American jobs (policies which Romney opposed), and who’s provided the poorest Americans with a route to affordable health care (a policy Romney implemented before he opposed). What advantage does Romney actually have over Obama? The ability to smile for 90 minutes straight? Admittedly, Obama can’t seem to do that. But, in his defense, that’s not the President’s job.
As for social issues: no, I don’t expect Romney to directly make legislation harming gays and women. I fully expect the Republican controlled Congress to be capable of that, because they’re always trying to pass that kindof legislation. The only thing that keeps it from becoming law is the veto. So, who do you think would be more likely in veto: Obama, or a man who would be defying his own party and potentially harming his chances at re-election?
If you go back and take a second look you’ll see I said I opposed Bush’s social policies. That being said however, yea, Bush made economic mistakes that cost America dearly. That was then. So I want a president whose entire agenda isn’t “blame Bush.” I want a president whose nickname isn’t The Amateur (nicknamed by, of all people, Bill Clinton.) I want a president who comes across as a diplomatic and decisive leader and not a petty, condescending man-boy. I did catch the last debate and watched all of that disgusting schoolyard behaviour. It was embarrassing. Most importantly, I want a president whose agenda is to scale back government. Keep on the way Obama would have it, and generations down the line the fed will be naming your children for you.
“petty condescending man-boy”
do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you say stupid ass shit like that?
I’m sure glad to know you can pick out the real highlights.
So, to call someone out for being a bold-faced liar is “condescending”? Christ, you Republicans are a fickle bunch. You know who is condescending – Paul Ryan, who acts like people are children and he has to mansplain how the world works for them because he knows best. THAT is condescension.
Nah, Paper Flowers. Calling someone out for being a liar is not condescending. Arrogant, snarky, side-of-the-mouth jibes during a televised debate, for example? Talking down to others, interrupting, smirking, not making eye contact? “Fewer horses and bayonets?”… condescension. Did you hear how many times the president said “I” or “me” during the last debate? Did anyone hear a single “we”?
Now while we’re on the subject of bold faced liars, does anyone want to talk about Benghazi? This is a man who knew two hours into a seven-hour attack that it had been premeditated and pre-orchestrated, and not only did nothing, but went on to publicly blame the deaths of four Americans on a YouTube video. Does this sound like a man who cares about people?
This is really disappointing to me. I consider myself a Republican so when an organization like the Log Cabin Republicans endorse a candidate like Romney it’s infuriating.
The comments on this really surprise me. I can’t wait for this election to be over because I am so sick of people relentlessly attacking each other without thinking. I believe this election is really important, and we all need to read up on issues and vote. HOWEVER, I’ve always taken autostraddle to be a community of people who were non-judgmental, and I’m not really seeing that here.
There was a time in my life when my parents taught me it was rude to ask someone who they were voting for and silly to lose a friendship over politics. Why are we fighting in the comments section, you guys? We could be baking cupcakes and hugging kittens under a rainbow…
Agreed, Colleen. People’s political views are far too transparent and too often the basis for personal attack than they ever should be.
That said though I think the arguments in this thread have stayed pretty well reasoned albeit disagreeable; with the exception of people like ‘L’ throwing around phrases like “stupid ass shit,” it’s stayed pretty civil in here. Could have been way worse.
i believe it’s getting worse and worse because it’s so obvious that if romney wins this election, things are going to get very bad for certain groups of people, the lgbt community and women being two groups that come to mind and affect a lot of the people who are part of the autostraddle community, even if not personally then tangentially. it’s really difficult to want to bake cupcakes and hug kittens under a rainbow with people who support a man who will hurt me, my family, and my friends in very real, tangible ways.
my little brother will vote for romney (as i’ve written about, and received mixed reactions) so i fully understand the idea that you cannot always discount someone simply because of their political beliefs and choices. i love my brother and will continue to love him after he votes for romney. HOWEVER, if romney god forbid becomes president of the united states, i will feel very sad and betrayed knowing that my brother “helped” put him in a position to control my life in really harmful ways, and i’d hope that my brother could one day see how selfish and dangerous a vote for romney really is.
in short, i am all about respecting other people’s opinions and such, but when an opinion can essentially be boiled down to, “i support a guy who wants to actively take away your civil rights and deny you equality,” it starts to feel like the person with that opinion doesn’t respect me as a HUMAN, and that makes me less inclined to be understanding to their OPINIONS. like it’s all well and good to get exasperated with the obama supporters who say they want to unfriend romney supporters, or want to distance themselves from people in their lives who support romney, but how about being exasperated with people whose actions will prove that they do not consider my rights to be of any importance? i think when someone is ignoring your rights to exist as a human on this planet you are no longer obligated to respect their opinion.
sorry this got so long. it’s really something i’ve been thinking about a lot. i try to stay out of political “discussions” on facebook because i find they are rarely discussions and are usually just a clusterfuck of shouting and namecalling, but i’ve been having a REALLY hard time following my own rule this election cycle. i really do think it’s because things feel SO personal, it feels like every time someone says they support romney they are looking me square in the eyes and saying, “you do not matter as a human. your rights do not matter. you are not my priority.” so yeah, that’s my two cents.
Pingback: Random political image thread - Page 287 - Pelican Parts Technical BBS