Connect with us

Mitt Romney: “We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.”

Published

on

Boldly Disappointing Everyone

It must suck to be Mitt Romney. Well actually, as Mitt is fabulously wealthy, well-connected, famous, and enjoys the sort of lifestyle where one day you wake up to find your modest 3000 square foot La Jolla, California mansion confining enough to necessitate replacing it with one that is 8000 square feet larger (as he would like to be closer to the waves), it appears to be pretty goddamned sweet to be Mitt Romney. Politically though, it’s been a little rough.

Mitt Romney is the front runner only if you look at the contest in terms of statistical duration. He has been in the top tier of candidates for longer than any other candidate, just not always in the #1 slot. It was Bachmann for awhile, until people remembered that she was crazy, then Rick Perry for an hour or so, until his campaign proved itself far more valuable as brilliant performance art than as an actual political organization, and now, inexplicably, it is Herman Cain.

Through it all, Mitt Romney has been out there, pleading desperately for the love of a party that really, deep down, can’t stand him. It is, like many old-fashioned Republican marriages, a dry and loveless organism brought about more by appearances and necessity than anything resembling passion. The Republican party may not love Mitt Romney, but in the end they will marry him, if for no other reason than that it will give them someone with health insurance who will help raise the kids.

In the meantime however, Mitt must stand by and watch all the other candidates have their seasons in the media spotlight, biding his time, taking solace in the consistency and depth of his convictions.

I’m joking, of course. Mitt Romney has no deeply held convictions, or to be more specific, he has one deeply held conviction: This man wants to be president. He will say whatever he has to in order to see that goal achieved. He reminds me a lot of John Edwards like that. I felt like Obama ran for president because he believed in things, Romney just seems to want the resume upgrade.

With Romney being such a moving target, it can be hard to know exactly where he stands on anything. Most of the time I simply assume that his views exactly reflect those of the people in his immediate vicinity. Like when he told unemployed Floridians during an appearance, “I’m also unemployed.” That sort of political tone deafness is a clue. This man will say anything.

What then does this mean for LGBT equality should he get elected? Nothing good. The 2012 Model of Mitt Romney is pretty anti-gay. Mind you, he’s not Tony Perkins, Fred Phelps anti-gay, he’s a more watered down, less confrontational brand of bigot.

In fact, gay rights is an area that serves as a wonderful test case for learning more about the craven pander-bot that is Mitt Romney.

See, in 1994, Mitt was running for the Senate in Massachusetts in an effort to unseat Ted Kennedy. And yes, you read that correctly, he was running against a Kennedy in Massachusetts. Just think of that when you consider the strength of Romney’s judgement. That he thought he could pull this off is foot stomping, pee your pants hilarious.

Now, as Massachusetts is a pretty Liberal state, Mitt had to perform some fairly impressive political gymnastics regarding his platform in order to become in any way viable. This meant  attempting to cut into Kennedy’s base by kissing a few asses not normally fondled by Republican candidates. It was in this atmosphere that Mitt wrote a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, asking for their support. Here is an excerpt:

“As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.”

“I am not unaware of my opponents considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.”

“We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination act ENDA, which I have agreed to Cosponsor, and if possible, broaden to include housing and credit, and the bull to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. “

He goes on to talk about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and how Clinton took a step in the right direction but that he wanted to see troops able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. Seriously. He totally said that. And get a load of this:

 

Right? Who is this guy? Where did this Mitt Romney go? Listen to the language he’s using. He talks about “full equality” and the plague of gay and lesbian youth suicide. In the full text of the letter he twice mentions the need to make gay and lesbian equality a mainstream concern. He wants to cosponsor ENDA for crying out loud, and even expand it to include all the housing stuff.

These are the words of a man who understands the situation. The person who wrote that letter gets it. You don’t use words like “civil rights” otherwise. Once you are to that stage of evolution in your thinking about LGBT rights, there really is no way to go back to the “homos make the baby Jesus cry” mindset.

But of course, he was lying. Or he’s lying now. Take ENDA for example, which in 1994 he was eager to co-sponsor. What the hell is this then, from the December 16, 2007 Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT:  You said that you would sponsor the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.  Do you still support it?

GOV. ROMNEY:  At the state level.  I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.

MR. RUSSERT:  Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.

GOV. ROMNEY:  I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.  And let me describe why.

MR. RUSSERT:  So you did–you did change.

GOV. ROMNEY:  Oh, Tim, if you’re looking for someone who’s never changed any positions on any policies, then I’m not your guy.

He never gets around to describing why, in case you were curious.

I consider ENDA a critical piece of the civil rights puzzle. This isn’t one of those issues, like flag burning for example, that is largely symbolic and that you can safely throw around without actually hurting anyone. I live in a state where my employers could fire me on the spot for being gay, and I would have absolutely no legal recourse whatsoever. This is part of the terrifying reality of being gay in America. That is what ENDA is about for me, and I find his flexibility on the issue disturbing.

The problem is that if you leave stuff like this up to the states, it will never ever, ever ever ever, happen. If I live to be 1000 years old, the confederacy will never pass ENDA, or institute marriage equality. There would still be segregation in Mississippi if the federal government hadn’t forced them knock it off. Mitt Romney is wrong here, and he knows he is wrong. This paints a picture of a man who is willing to sacrifice what is morally right if it stands in the way of his presidential aspirations. I don’t want a man like that in charge of the bake sale cash box, much less the most powerful military the planet has ever known.

This was never about civil rights for Mitt Romney. That 1994 letter was simply an exercise in varsity level pandering. He obviously understands our side of the issue, as his language clearly indicates, he just doesn’t care. His behavior is premeditated. Right now, he needs to hate gay people to get elected, so he will do things like sign the National Organization for Marriage’s stupid pledge promising to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This from a man who wrote so passionately about “full equality.”

Then again, he would still like our vote, if he could possibly get it. Watch him try to not sound like an asshole in this clip from a town hall thing he did last week:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=iGJ3J1uUN0o%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US%26rel%3D0

For those of you who didn’t watch, he gets grilled on marriage equality, and trots out the current line of of boilerplate horse crap about a man and woman raising children being the ideal, and how marriage should be reserved for them. (No word on why he’s cool with childless marriages, but whatever.) He then goes on to throw a bone to gay people in the way of allowing the formation of “partnership agreements,” saying that these would allow same-sex couples to have “hospital visitation rights and similar benefits of that nature.”

First of all, go to hell, Mitt Romney. We were looking for some of that “full equality for gay and lesbian citizens” you were talking about before. Not “partnership agreements.” There are no half-measures regarding civil rights. Second class citizenship is not to be tolerated.

Second, this is exactly why Mitt Romney has such a hard time winning people over. On one side, he opposes marriage equality so that the Fred Phelps wackos will like him, on the other, he panders to gay people with his weak offer of “Partnership Agreements.” It’s not enough for either of us.

But that’s Mitt Romney. Never afraid to take both sides of a black and white issue.

This situation reminds me of something my mother used to say when I was a kid. “Cheaters cheat. If he cheated on someone to be with you, then he’ll cheat on you to be with someone else.” Keep that in mind, Republicans. If he cheated on us, then what makes you think he won’t cheat on you, too?

 (Image, top)

Benjamin Phillips is a Humor Writer, Web Developer, Civics Nerd, and all around crank that spends entirely too much time shouting with deep exasperation at the television, especially whenever cable news is on. He lives in St. Louis, MO and spends most of his time staring at various LCD screens, occasionally taking walks in the park whenever his boyfriend becomes sufficiently convinced that Benjamin is becoming a reclusive hermit person. He is available for children’s parties, provided that those children are entertained by hearing a complete windbag talk for two hours about the importance of science education, or worse yet, poorly researched anecdotes PROVING that James Buchanan was totally gay. If civilization were to collapse due to zombie hoards or nuclear holocaust, Benjamin would be among the first to die as he has no useful skills of any kind. The post-apocalyptic hellscape has no real need for homosexual computer programmers who can name all the presidents in order, as well as the actors who have played all eleven incarnations of Doctor Who.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on the question, can the federal government require states with strict abortion bans to allow physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations, specifically when the woman’s health, but not her life, is in danger?

The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan, says it can. The State of Idaho on Wednesday argued it cannot.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, The Washington Post’s Kim Bellware reported, “made a clear delineation between Idaho law and what EMTALA provides.”

“In Idaho, doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death,” Prelogar said, according to Bellware. “Whereas under EMTALA, you’re supposed to be thinking about things like, ‘Is she about to lose her fertility? Is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding? Is she about to undergo the possibility of kidney failure?’ ”

READ MORE: Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Attorney Imani Gandy, an award-winning journalist and Editor-at-Large for Rewire News Group, highlighted an issue central to the case.

“The issue of medical judgment vs. good faith judgment is a huge one because different states have different standards of judgment,” she writes. “If a doctor exercises their judgment, another doctor expert witness at trial could question that. That’s a BIG problem here. That’s why doctors are afraid to provide abortions. They may have an overzealous prosecutor come behind them and disagree.”

Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito appeared to draw the most fire from legal experts, as his questioning suggested “fetal personhood” should be the law, which it is not.

“Justice Alito is trying to import fetal personhood into federal statutory law by suggesting federal law might well prohibit hospitals from providing abortions as emergency stabilizing care,” observed Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis.

Paraphrasing Justice Alito, Kreis writes: “Alito: How can the federal government restrict what Idaho criminalizes simply because hospitals in Idaho have accepted federal funds?”

Appearing to answer that question, Georgia State University College of Law professor of law and Constitutional scholar Eric Segall wrote: “Our Constitution unequivocally allows the federal gov’t to offer the states money with conditions attached no matter how invasive b/c states can always say no. The conservative justices’ hostility to the spending power is based only on politics and values not text or history.”

Professor Segall also served up some of the strongest criticism of the right-wing justice.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

He wrote that Justice Alito “is basically making it clear he doesn’t care if pregnant women live or die as long as the fetus lives.”

Earlier Wednesday morning Segall had issued a warning: “Trigger alert: In about 20 minutes several of the conservative justices are going to show very clearly that that they care much more about fetuses than women suffering major pregnancy complications which is their way of owning the libs which is grotesque.”

Later, predicting “Alito is going to dissent,” Segall wrote: “Alito is dripping arrogance and condescension…in a case involving life, death, and medical emergencies. He has no bottom.”

Taking a broader view of the case, NYU professor of law Melissa Murray issued a strong warning: “The EMTALA case, Moyle v. US, hasn’t received as much attention as the mifepristone case, but it is huge. Not only implicates access to emergency medical procedures (like abortion in cases of miscarriage), but the broader question of federal law supremacy.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Published

on

Hours before his attorneys would mount a defense on Tuesday claiming he had not violated his gag order Donald Trump might have done just that in a 12-minute taped interview that morning, which did not air until later that day. It will be up to Judge Juan Merchan to make that decision, if prosecutors add it to their contempt request.

Prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office told Judge Juan Merchan that the ex-president violated the gag order ten times, via posts on his Truth Social platform, and are asking he be held in contempt. While the judge has yet to rule, he did not appear moved by their arguments. At one point, Judge Merchan told Trump’s lead lawyer Todd Blanche he was “losing all credibility” with the court.

And while Judge Merchan directed defense attorneys to provide a detailed timeline surrounding Trump’s Truth Social posts to prove he had not violated the gag order, Trump in an interview with a local television station appeared to have done so.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

The gag order bars Trump from “commenting or causing others to comment on potential witnesses in the case, prospective jurors, court staff, lawyers in the district attorney’s office and the relatives of any counsel or court staffer, as CBS News reported.

“The threat is very real,” Judge Merchan wrote when he expanded the gag order. “Admonitions are not enough, nor is reliance on self-restraint. The average observer, must now, after hearing Defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well. Such concerns will undoubtedly interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitutes a direct attack on the Rule of Law itself.”

Tuesday morning, Trump told ABC Philadelphia’s Action News reporter Walter Perez, “Michael Cohen is a convicted liar. He’s got no credibility whatsoever.”

He repeated that Cohen is a “convicted liar,” and insisted he “was a lawyer for many people, not just me.”

READ MORE: ‘Old and Tired and Mad’: Trump’s Demeanor in Court Detailed by Rachel Maddow

Since Cohen is a witness in Trump’s New York criminal case, Judge Merchan might decide Trump’s remarks during that interview violated the gag order, if prosecutors bring the video to his attention.

Enter attorney George Conway, who has been attending Trump’s New York trial.

Conway reposted a clip of the video, tagged Manhattan District Attorney Bragg, writing: “cc: @ManhattanDA, for your proposed order to show cause why the defendant in 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 should not spend some quiet time in lockup.”

Trump has been criminally indicted in four separate cases and is facing a total of 88 felony charges, including 34 in this New York criminal trial for alleged falsification of business records to hide payments of “hush money” to an adult film actress and one other woman, in an alleged effort to suppress their stories and protect his 2016 presidential campaign, which experts say is election interference.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.