The Candidates
Featured Archives
Today on National Review Online, pro-Romney blogger Kathryn Jean Lopez responds?to the charges being brought against Mitt for shifting his views —?or?perhaps?his worldview — regarding political issues dealing with homosexuals.? Included in K-Lo’s post are links to plenty of fierce pink flyers and the like, all of which, say critics, indicate a sea change in Romney’s views on this particular issue over the past 10 or 12 years.? I recommend reading all of the links and then K-Lo’s response for a fair and balanced look at the issue.
As a political realist, it doesn’t bother me in the least?when Gov. Romney or anyone else changes their positions over time, even when such changes are solely in the interest of political expediency.? This is how politics has worked for hundreds if not thousands of years, and that’s not going to change now.? And considering that I’m basically a pro-gay rights, pro-civil unions, but also pro-traditional marriage Republican, none of these revelations about Romney are going to reduce my chances of voting for him.
The thing is, I’m not really the sort of Republican that Romney needs to be worried about, because Republicans like me are probably going to have another first-choice candidate, like Rudy, that we’ll be supporting in the primaries.? What Romney has to worry about, IMHO, is that the more socially conservative Republicans that he has been heavily courting will become more susceptible to the siren’s song of a Brownback or Huckabee if too many questions about Romney’s sincerity on cultural issues come into play.? Romney’s best bet is to probably create?a sense that he’s the most culturally conservative candidate who can win the nomination, and hope that conservatives who are moved first and foremost by social issues will see a vote for Brownback as a wasted vote.
Update: Whoops!? It looks like the primary article that K-Lo was responding to wasn’t included in the blog post I linked.? You can find the NYT article that sums up Mitt’s “gay problem” here.? It’s a very good piece.? Says the Times:
Aides to Mr. Romney, who did not dispute the letter’s legitimacy, said that the governor’s opinions on gay issues had not changed. They said Mr. Romney had always been an opponent of same-sex marriage, had always opposed discrimination against gay men and lesbians and had been consistent in his views about allowing them to serve in the military.
Sounds like the DaveG position on these issues.? But is that position amenable to strong cultural conservatives?
#quot;This is quite disturbing,#quot; said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who had praised Mr. Romney as a champion of traditional values at the group’s conference in late September. #quot;This type of information is going to create a lot of problems for Governor Romney. He is going to have a hard time overcoming this.#quot;
Paul Weyrich, a founder of the modern conservative movement, said: #quot;Unless he comes out with an abject repudiation of this, I think it makes him out to be a hypocrite. And if he totally repudiates this, you have to ask, on what grounds?#quot;
So are grassroots social conservatives more likely to side with K-Lo or with Perkins and Weyrich?
December 9th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Aside from the merits of one position or another, unfortunately for Romney more than one incident says “opportunism” just like Gore and Gephardt(but in reverse of course). It is not just abortion; it is also pro-life. It isn’t good enough to say now he is in the right place. It is political opportunism, political courage and ultimately political vulnerability that are at issue. If Tony Perkins is bothered; the broad swath of voters will be. This is what is going to doom Hillary. People don’t want craven, political weasling. Better to know what you got(Rudy-social liberal but fine on judges or McCain fine on social issues but general pain in the rear). Know thyself.
December 9th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
That is why I am supporting Rudy. From the day Sept. 11 occurred, Rudy could have done a complete reversal on all issues of interest and sold himself as the ultimate conservative for 2008.
However he has stuck by his guns and will be contesting the election under the “big tent” banner of the GOP. That within itself is admirable, and separates him from Mitt Romney.
Though Jennifer is right, when you look at his views on same-sex marriage, immigration and gun control…. upon further analysis, these views firmly correspond to the base of most GOP voters.
As someone who is pro-life and anti same-sex marriage, I would have no
moral objection voting for the man.
December 9th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
What is more Rudy has governed as a social conservative. Tough on crime. Defended religious sensibilities in the Brooklyn museum flap. I am pro-life as well but know that there is only one thing a President does that matters on this issue-judges. The great Reagan did nothing other than speak at the annual rally and what is worse, appointed O’Connor who staunchly defended Roe v. Wade. On guns not even Democrats support federal restrictions. As for immigration I suspect he will be slightly to the right of McCain. But let us get real. On the issues that matter- Islamofaschism, low taxes, and spending Rudy is a true conservative. Unlike the dingbats that populate the Democrat primaries the GOP voters are sane and strategic. They ain’t going to throw their vote away on Mitt, risking 8 years of Hillary.
December 9th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Evangelical folks aren’t going to vote because of Ms. Lopez or Messrs. Perkins and Weyrich. I would bet that most evangelicals don’t even know who Perkins and Weyrich are.
This race is probably only going to have two very organized candidates (McCain and Romney) and one non-organized but very charismatic candidate (Rudy). When given a choice of these three viable candidates, plenty of evangelicals will vote for Romney, especially after he performs so well during speeches and debates.
I personally don’t have any problem whatsoever with what Romney wrote in 1994 on gay folks. Like he is, I am against gay marriage and civil unions but absolutely opposed to any discrimination based on homosexuality.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Matt,
The NBA doesnt exclude women from its league – does it? If a woman could compete, she could play – isnt that the case? Like the PGA?
I think the exclusion of women, as a category, from combat is irrational, and it is eroding away as more and more women are given more and more tasks that come pretty damn close to full-fledged combat. The military obviously has an absolute right to only choose for combat roles those soldiers who can perform adequatly. If only 1 in a thousand women can do that, then there is nothing wrong or unjust with having combat forces that are 99.9% male. To arbitrarily exculde the one woman who can do the job, because most other women can’t, doesnt make much sense.
Its the old tyranny of the category. Put people in a category, note a statistic about the category, then treat everyone in the category as if the generalization applied to them. Classic equation for injustice.
You seem to think that showing something to be unfair is no reason for prohibiting the government from doing it. That strikes me as a pretty strange concept of justice. Equal treatment under the laws is an expression of our national desire for fairness, and it is a Constitutional principle.
Marriage laws represent legal recognition of the organic organization of society – meaning that free people choose to pair up into couple-units and to organize their lives around that bond. That is not a constitutional decree, or even a religous one. It is a simple fact of life. Paired-up couples, and the family organization that arises from that, are the structures upon which all stable societies are built. Our marriage laws simply recognie that, and facilitate it with a range of legal instruments reflective of that reality.
Until recently, in most Western societies, gays have been horribly discriminated against. This is not necessarily true in other cultures – many have recognized the reality of gays and they have had respected roles in those societies. But this is rare, no doubt. Recently in the Western societies, gays have achieved a level of freedom that allows them to live without overt repression – a great vitory for freedom. After an initial period of libertine over-enjoyment of that new found freedom (an utterly predictable response), gays have pretty much shown to be just like anyone else – forming pair-bonds and families and becoming part of the “normal” social structure. I wouldnt be surprised to learn that some of the people here have such people in their families – Mr. Cheney certainly does. So now that the underlying ground has moved, and gays are operating in sociey in manners that are similar to everyone else, the laws that recognize social realities must also recognize this new reality, or be unjust.
In fact most marriage laws are not explicitly prohibitve of gay marriage. Which is why there is such a movement to MAKE them discriminatory. It is an attempt to somehow deny the realities of our society and to force a suppression of what free people are freely choosing to do. And what they are freely choosing to do is something that is very constructive for society.
It always amazes me that conservatives are seeking to stop what are, by their own standards, healthy developments. It is in keeping with conservative notions of “family values” that gays be encouraged to embrace committment, stability, and a “normal’ life. When they do that, they are in the same position as other couples – with regard to all the interfaces with the legal and financial worlds. Civil marriage (as opposed to religious marriage – an entirely different issue that is not relevant here) recognizes and incentivizes the family instinct since it is healthy for the society as a whole to encourage that. To extend that to some families though, but not others is discriminatory and unjust. If it could be shown that there is some compelling reason for society to deny this institution to gays, then I guess that would enter into the Constitutional equation. But the only resons for denying recognition of gay families is bigotry, or an irrational desire to pretend that gays don’t exist. Neither of those issues rise to the level of compelling reasons to violate Constitutional standards of equal treatment.