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.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
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.

News

‘New MAGA Slush Fund’ Could Hand Trump Coalition ‘Cut of the Spoils’: Columnist

Published

on

President Donald Trump reportedly may drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS in a settlement handing him control of a $1.7 billion “MAGA slush fund” to compensate victims of government abuse, according to The New Republic‘s Greg Sargent, who calls it a “Shakedown.”

Citing an ABC News report, Sargent explains that the proposed settlement “would create a ‘commission’ with ‘total authority’ to settle ‘claims’ brought by those who allege such weaponization. Per ABC, this not only includes the insurrectionists; it could even settle purported claims by ‘entities associated with President Trump himself.’ By all indications it would operate with little-to-no congressional oversight.”

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) told Sargent it is “a shocking new betrayal of the Constitution.”

This “new MAGA slush fund,” Sargent says, would come from an existing Justice Department fund that has strict controls, including transparency requirements. But “Trump would wield quasi-direct control” over the $1.7 billion, including being able to fire commission members “without cause,” and “it wouldn’t be required to disclose its decision-making involving who gets awarded compensation.”

Raskin told Sargent, the “Judgment Fund exists to settle valid judgments against the United States government.”

Raskin said that Trump and his allies are “trying to take money from the Judgment Fund while eliminating any controls and oversight” and put it under Trump’s “direct unilateral control.”

Because Congress did not set up any fund like this it could be unconstitutional.

“Congress never would have passed a $1.7 billion slush fund for his friends—this is completely outside of our constitutional framework,” Raskin said. He called it “an outrageous desecration of congressional power of the purse.”

Raskin also noted that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment prohibits government from assuming any “obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

So if Trump wants to use the $1.7 billion to compensate the January 6 rioters, he will be “using federal taxpayer dollars to compensate people who participated in insurrection,” according to Raskin.

Trump and his lawyers “are figuring out a way to refund the January 6 militia, presumably to get them ready for the next round of battle,” Raskin said.

“So at bottom,” Sargent concludes, “payments from this fund might ultimately serve as a form of coalition management: They’ll keep large swaths of his coalition persuaded that a win for Trump, no matter how illicit or ill-gotten, is a win for them. That his corruption isn’t just in his own interests, but in theirs, too. Because, after all, they’re getting a cut of the spoils.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

CNN Analyst Stunned Bottom Has ‘Completely Fallen Out’ For Trump

Published

on

CNN analyst Harry Enten is stunned at how far President Donald Trump’s approval rating has fallen, especially among Latino voters.

“The bottom has completely fallen out when it comes to Donald Trump and Latino voters,” Enten said on Friday.

“What a different world,” he exclaimed. “Oy vey, if I’m the president of the United States, because just take a look here.”

Trump won a “record share” of Latino voters for a “Republican presidential nominee, 46 percent of the vote,” Enten said, “going all the way back since we had the advent of exit polls back in 1972.”

Trump’s job approval rating, in an average of CNN polls, is 28 percent — “an 18 point drop,” Enten explained.

Latino voters from 2024 “have abandoned him with the utmost, just, dislike of what he is doing so far — just 28 percent, a drop of 18 points.”

And with Latino men, Enten said, “Oh, my goodness gracious.”

Trump is at -41 points, a “movement of 51 points, a shift away from the president of the United States.”

“Again, the bottom has just completely fallen out, and, of course, when you look across that political map, there are so many races that will be involving a lot of Latino voters, and when you see numbers like this, I just go, ‘Uh oh,’ if I am a Republican running for Congress,” he said.

Enten also said that one of the reasons Trump had “record performance with Latinos back in 2024, was because the issue of the economy. They trusted Donald Trump by a three-point margin against Kamala Harris.”

But his net approval on the economy now? “Minus 46 points.”

“No wonder the bottom has fallen out with Latino voters and Latino men in particular,” he added.

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Alito Refuses to Recuse From Supreme Court Case Despite Stock Ownership in Industry

Published

on

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is refusing to recuse himself from a major climate case despite owning stock in several energy companies, although none in the two that are parties in the lawsuit the court will hear next term.

Citing his energy stock ownership, liberal groups have been calling for the conservative justice to recuse, and they have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate Alito’s involvement, NBC News reports. But the Supreme Court says Alito is not obligated to do so.

“Justice Alito does not have a financial interest in any party” involved in the case, a court spokesperson told NBC News in a statement. The court’s legal counsel advised that “his recusal is not required.”

ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy are fighting to have dismissed a lawsuit involving damages for climate harms, NBC News reports.

Justices are not required to recuse unless they have a direct conflict, such as specific stock ownership, a personal relationship, or a history with the case prior to their appointment to the Supreme Court.

In their letter, the liberal groups say that justices should recuse if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” by an “unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances.”

The liberal groups also say they have “deep concerns” about Alito’s “inconsistent history of recusals from cases from which he should be compelled to recuse under long-standing federal law.” They cite “his substantial holdings in individual oil and gas companies and other personal ties.”

They point to what they call Alito’s “irregular recusal practice in oil and gas industry-related cases,” saying that it is “undermining public confidence in the impartiality of the Court.”

NBC notes that “in 2023, Alito did recuse himself when the court turned away an appeal from the companies in the Colorado case.” That same day, “the court rejected appeals in similar cases involving other companies, including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. Alito also did not participate in those cases.”

But the court’s spokesperson said that Alito was “inadvertently recused” from the Colorado case.

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.