• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mitt Romney is pro gay rights

Throckmorton

Throckmorton

Lifer
I'm surprised this 1994 interview with a gay advocacy group hasn't gotten any press. Romney came out in strong support of gay rights, just short of marriage which he called a state issue. He also said that he would have been better than Ted Kennedy because he wasn't seen as an extremist on the issue. http://www.baywindows.com/romney-ill-be-better-than-ted-for-gay-rights-53688

BW: Why should the gay community support your campaign when Ted Kennedy has been a strong supporter of civil rights issues and the gay community?
MR: Well, I think you're partially right in characterizing Ted Kennedy as supportive of the gay community, and I respect the work and the efforts he's made on behalf of the gay community and for civil rights more generally, and I would continue that fight.

There's something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation. When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he's seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights, he's seen as a centrist and a moderate. It's a little like if Eugene McCarthy was arguing in favor of recognizing China, people would have called him a nut. But when Richard Nixon does it, it becomes reasonable. When Ted says it, it's extreme; when I say it, it's mainstream.

I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican party and I would be a voice in the Republican party to foster anti-discrimination efforts.

The other thing I should say is that the gay community and the members of it that are friends of mine that I've talked to don't vote solely on the basis of gay rights issues. They're also very concerned about a $4 trillion national debt, a failing school system, a welfare system that's out of whack and a criminal justice system that isn't working. I believe while I would further the efforts Ted Kennedy has led, I would also lead the country in new and far more positive ways in taxing and spending, welfare reform, criminal justice and education. That's why I believe many gay and lesbian individuals will support my candidacy and do support my candidacy.

I have several friends in the gay community who are supporters, who are working in my campaign. I think they believe I would be a better senator.
Click to expand...
 
tvOjC.jpg
 
To say Republicans have lost the debate on that issue would be an understatement. They had best just stop engaging in that debate entirely, because the younger generation has little appetite for it. I live here in Alabama, and most people I know don't even care anymore.
 
Kantastic said:
The media is probably brushing it under the rug.
Click to expand...

Not such a good answer, taking a pot shot at the media here, when you should be taking a pot shot at Romney for flip flopping on this. Here is Romney is the last GOP primary, disavowing his pro-gay rights stance:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/republican-debate-mitt-romney-gay-rights_n_1192867.html

To be clear, I actually don't think Romney is anti-gay. I do, however, think he'll say whatever he thinks he needs to say to get the nomination, and possibly then something different in a general election.

BTW Throck, your thread title is perhaps not accurate insofar as the word "is" being present tense. However, perhaps in another 6 months it will be accurate once again.
 
Last edited:
woolfe9999 said:
To be clear, I actually don't think Romney is anti-gay. I do, however, think he'll say whatever he thinks he needs to say to get the nomination, and possibly then something different in a general election.
Click to expand...

i get a 'what do i have to do to get you in this car today?' vibe off of him. or he's just a poorly programmed robot.
 
All politicians say whatever is required to attain power. For Democrats nationally, that's pro-gay and pro-abortion. For Republicans nationally, that's anti-gay and anti-abortion. Always pay attention to what politicians do when in power (and in their personal lives) and to a much lesser extent, what they say to friendly audiences when not actively seeking office. Campaign rhetoric is merely necessary fluff.

The only exceptions are those like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich whose honesty costs them any real chance on the national stage. We don't reward honesty, we reward people who tell us our prejudices and greed are well and good.
 
werepossum said:
All politicians say whatever is required to attain power. For Democrats nationally, that's pro-gay and pro-abortion. For Republicans nationally, that's anti-gay and anti-abortion. Always pay attention to what politicians do when in power (and in their personal lives) and to a much lesser extent, what they say to friendly audiences when not actively seeking office. Campaign rhetoric is merely necessary fluff.

The only exceptions are those like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich whose honesty costs them any real chance on the national stage. We don't reward honesty, we reward people who tell us our prejudices and greed are well and good.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's true, especially the point about paying attention to what they do when in office more than what they say. However, I don't think all politicians are guilty of this to the same degree. I have seen pols change positions and openly acknowledge that they have done so and explain why they changed their minds. That is not really flip flopping IMO since people can and do change their views over the course of their lives. It's when you do so without acknowledging it that is dishonest.

I don't like Rick Santorum, but I haven't seen a ton of flip flopping from him. Obama has probably flip flopped more than Santorum but less than Romney. Honestly, I can't recall a politician in recent memory who has flip flopped on so many different issues. It's impossible to determine what he believes on almost any issue. And if the standard is to judge Romney by what he's done, well he governed center-left, right about where Obama is, in Mass. He may well govern center-right as POTUS but that is impossible to tell from anything but his ever changing rhetoric.

- wolf
 
Last edited:
Romney isn't an extremist, but he has to pretend to be one so that the batshit crazy Republican base will nominate him.
 
woolfe9999 said:
Yeah that's true, especially the point about paying attention to what they do when in office more than what they say. However, I don't think all politicians are guilty of this to the same degree. I have seen pols change positions and openly acknowledge that they have done so and explain why they changed their minds. That is not really flip flopping IMO since people can and do change their views over the course of their lives. It's when you do so without acknowledging it that is dishonest.

I don't like Rick Santorum, but I haven't seen a ton of flip flopping from him. Obama has probably flip flopped more than Santorum but less than Romney. Honestly, I can't recall a politician in recent memory who has flip flopped on so many different issues. It's impossible to determine what he believes on almost any issue. And if the standard is to judge Romney by what he's done, well he governed center-left, right about where Obama is, in Mass. He may well govern center-right as POTUS but that is impossible to tell from anything but his ever changing rhetoric.

- wolf
Click to expand...

That's true. Santorum is fairly constant for a politician. He, like Obama, is at his party's extreme, which means no need for flip-flopping at the primary stage. (Who knew anyone could get to the left of Hillary, the lady who proposed sending you to prison for daring to pay for your own health care with your own money?) To be honest, there's a lot to like about Santorum; I just think there's a lot to despise too.

Romney, on the other hand, is an outlier in his party. In order to compete in Massachusetts, he had to slither around his conservative beliefs to compete. In the Republican primary, he has to slither around his liberal beliefs to compete. In a nationwide general election he could much more be himself, to the extent that he even remembers who that is. But in any case, I base my decisions almost entirely on what a politician has done in the past, not on the particular color of smoke he's blowing up my skirt to get my vote.
 
werepossum said:
That's true. Santorum is fairly constant for a politician. He, like Obama, is at his party's extreme, which means no need for flip-flopping at the primary stage. (Who knew anyone could get to the left of Hillary, the lady who proposed sending you to prison for daring to pay for your own health care with your own money?) To be honest, there's a lot to like about Santorum; I just think there's a lot to despise too.

Romney, on the other hand, is an outlier in his party. In order to compete in Massachusetts, he had to slither around his conservative beliefs to compete. In the Republican primary, he has to slither around his liberal beliefs to compete. In a nationwide general election he could much more be himself, to the extent that he even remembers who that is. But in any case, I base my decisions almost entirely on what a politician has done in the past, not on the particular color of smoke he's blowing up my skirt to get my vote.
Click to expand...

You're probably correct about Romney here. It's tough for any republican who has governed a blue state to compete in a GOP primary without flip flopping to some extent. If he was consistently conservative, he would never have been governor of Mass, and never have then had a chance to be on the national stage to compete for POTUS. Still, I feel he could be more honest and less cagey about many of his stances. He definitely shouldn't be acting like he's now ready to throw gays under the bus when he once claimed that he was better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy. He also shouldn't be criticizing Obama for the policy of requiring religiously affiliated institutions to cover things like brith control (which he later backed down on) when he himself signed the exact same thing into law in Mass.

On Obama being at the extreme end of the party, not a chance. Tell me a single issue where he ranks at the left wing of the dem party. The left wing of the party wanted full government single payer health care, and Obama backed a plan with a mandate to buy insurance from corporations, without even a public option to compete against them. That was his signature issue and the left wing of the party so loudly disagreed that many have withdrawn support for him.

- wolf
 
Last edited:
werepossum said:
That's true. Santorum is fairly constant for a politician. He, like Obama, is at his party's extreme, which means no need for flip-flopping at the primary stage. (Who knew anyone could get to the left of Hillary, the lady who proposed sending you to prison for daring to pay for your own health care with your own money?)
Click to expand...
I'm curious which issues you find Obama has been "extreme"ly leftist on. The biggest problem that most liberal Democrats seem to have with Obama is that he's seen as an appeaser, a centrist, and he's continued many of the same policies put forth by Bush (he even used the same SecDef). To be labeled as extremely left-wing strikes me as being completely wrong, so I'm curious which specific issues have led you to use this label.
 
woolfe9999 said:
You're probably correct about Romney here. It's tough for any republican who has governed a blue state to compete in a GOP primary without flip flopping to some extent. If he was consistently conservative, he would never have been governor of Mass, and never have then had a chance to be on the national stage to compete for POTUS. Still, I feel he could be more honest and less cagey about many of his stances. He definitely shouldn't be acting like he's now ready to throw gays under the bus when he once claimed that he was better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy. He also shouldn't be criticizing Obama for the policy of requiring religiously affiliated institutions to cover things like brith control (which he later backed down on) when he himself signed the exact same thing into law in Mass.

On Obama being at the extreme end of the party, not a chance. Tell me a single issue where he ranks at the left wing of the dem party. The left wing of the party wanted full government single payer health care, and Obama backed a plan with a mandate to buy insurance from corporations, without even a public option to compete against them. That was his signature issue and the left wing of the party so loudly disagreed that many have withdrawn support for him.

- wolf
Click to expand...

Atomic Playboy said:
I'm curious which issues you find Obama has been "extreme"ly leftist on. The biggest problem that most liberal Democrats seem to have with Obama is that he's seen as an appeaser, a centrist, and he's continued many of the same policies put forth by Bush (he even used the same SecDef). To be labeled as extremely left-wing strikes me as being completely wrong, so I'm curious which specific issues have led you to use this label.
Click to expand...

How about his statement that the Constitution is flawed because it has only negative rights (what government may not do to you) versus positive rights (what government must do for you)? How about his killing the Keystone pipeline? That's certainly not something that, say, Bill Clinton would do.

As for health care, Obama is for complete, 100% government-provided health care. However, he took what he could get, and even that took arm-twisting, bribes and procedural motions. Don't make the mistake of assuming that what Obama can get is what he ultimately wants. Or for that matter, that the two parties are radically different in what they want.

EDIT: Note also that when I say "extremely liberal" or "extremely conservative", I mean with respect to serious candidates from the two parties. Campaign rhetoric aside, the two parties are far more alike than dislike. We'll probably never have a nominee like Dr. Paul or Dennis Kucinich; fighting over the undecided apolitical and generally moderate center precludes it unless there's a major upset during an election cycle. Even the housing market's and subsequent broad economic collapse, as bipartisan a fuck-up as one could hope to find, didn't severely shake up the electoral cycle, it merely dampened the chances of the party holding the White House (which far too many people feel runs everything.) hell, both parties elected nominees who were Senators in Congress - the body that passed every one of the laws that caused the collapse! Even Santorum, while he is a far right social warrior, is also a big animal rights guy and as a Senator rarely met pork he didn't find palatable. (And I still think he'd lose the general election rather badly for his social views.) I suspect that with the notable exception of some hot button social issues and environmental (or at least fossil fuel) issues, 90% of what President Santorum would push through would be indistinguishable from what President Obama would push through.
 
Last edited:
Heard this joke from a Dem talking head on TV:

A liberal, a moderate and a conservative walk into a bar. What did the bartender say?







Hi Mitt!


Fern
 
Romney is looking a lot like McCain in 2008. A moderate with significant crossover appeal forced to tack hard to the right in order to have a chance at winning the Republican nomination.

The funny part is that liberals aren't thrilled with Obama either. A moderate Romney who appeals to the left, especially on social issues, could maybe have a chance. Except the primary process will never let that sort of thing happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top