Yesterday I mentioned Newt who is unelectable. Joe M at merit bound alley takes a look at Mitt Romney who believes that the Angel Moroni gave additonal chapters of the bible to earthlings on golden tablets and is trying to adopt George Bush’s “I’m a Divider not a Uniter” platform and if you have not seen this Youtube video of Rudy Guiliani in drag, check out the career killer here.
That leaves John McCain for the GOP, and he wants to reinvade Iraq and do it right this time. Why? Who knows. He is not saying.
The Bottom Line: If you want a say in who is going to be the next President of the United States register as a Democrat.
Meanwhile: The GOP is fighting the “war on terror” by monitoring elderly Quakers.
November 21, 2006 at 8:09 am
If you read to the bottom of that “43% would not vote for a Mormon” story you get to this bit of good news for Romney:
A potential Mormon presidential candidate fared better than one who is Muslim or an atheist running for the White House, the Rasmussen poll also found.
November 21, 2006 at 9:19 am
I’ll support Mitt, as long as he don’t let them queers get married. That’s issue #1 for me.
http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
November 21, 2006 at 9:37 am
Yeah, because Americans would never vote for a Governor who turned around a $3 Billion deficit into a $1 Billion surplus and provided a healthcare solution for every citizen of the state, has been married to his high-school sweetheart for 35 years and is a self-made multi-millionaire executive with a history of turning around bad situations, whether it be failing companies, the Olympics or the state of Massachusetts. That would require a national electorate with common sense.
Generic “would you vote for a” questions are meaningless. No one thought a Catholic would be President before Kennedy. No one thought a divorced man would be President before Reagan.
November 21, 2006 at 9:56 am
self-made multi-millionaire
LOL ! You’ve still got it.
It is easy to be a self-made man when your Dad was the chairman of the American Motors Corporation from 1954 to 1962 and was elected three times as the Republican Governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969.
November 21, 2006 at 10:15 am
He took what he had and made much more with it. He’s been nothing but successful. I understand why it scares the crap out of you that he might be on the ballot.
November 21, 2006 at 10:54 am
“I went into business with nothing but a dream and $500,000 dollars in my back pocket, and my Dad connections, and by god I made something out of myself.”
Inspirational.
November 21, 2006 at 10:54 am
I don’t care how rich he is or what religion he’s sold his soul to, any candidate who is against equal rights for everyone as defended in the Constitution does not deserve a place on the ballot.
November 21, 2006 at 11:26 am
No one thought a Catholic would be President before Kennedy.
Mitt Romney damn sure is no Jack Kennedy nor even a Ronald Reagan.
Keep dreaming FSP. No one will take that away from you.
November 21, 2006 at 12:01 pm
““I went into business with nothing but a dream and $500,000 dollars in my back pocket, and my Dad connections, and by god I made something out of myself.””
You obviously don’t know his story.
“Mitt Romney damn sure is no Jack Kennedy nor even a Ronald Reagan.”
No, he’s not. He’s Mitt Romney. Get used to hearing his name.
And Joe M, if you’re saying that being opposed to gay marriage precludes one from being on the Presidential ballot, you’re a powerful man. You just eliminated the Republican party (and half the Democrats) from the Presidential race.
November 21, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Oh, I forgot to mention one thing. In addition to fixing the budget and solving the healthcare problem, Romney also is leaving office with Massachusetts ranked #1 across the board in education.
There’s so much there, sometimes I forget to put it all in.
November 21, 2006 at 12:05 pm
any candidate who is against equal rights for everyone as defended in the Constitution does not deserve a place on the ballot.
That must mean that any candidate who is pro-affirmative action isn’t one Joe would vote for.
November 21, 2006 at 1:13 pm
“And Joe M, if you’re saying that being opposed to gay marriage precludes one from being on the Presidential ballot, you’re a powerful man. You just eliminated the Republican party (and half the Democrats) from the Presidential race.”
Well, it does happen that I would not vote for the average republican or half of the democratic party. However, I did not say that being a hater of equal civil rights for all Americans makes a candidate ineligible to run, simply that they don’t deserve to hold office.
“That must mean that any candidate who is pro-affirmative action isn’t one Joe would vote for.”
To be honest, my feelings on this subject are conflicting. While I feel it would be wonderful to be able to make up for the injustices visited on people in the past, I don’t know that giving anyone special favor in getting jobs or an education based on their minority status is the way to do that. I have thought about this a lot, and have yet to come to a decision, much less one makes me comfortable.
November 21, 2006 at 3:16 pm
No one thought a Catholic would be President before Kennedy.
No one thought a divorced man would be President before Reaga
No one thought a Romney would be President before Mitt proved them all right.
November 21, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Joe: An honest assessment. And I agree it’s a difficult situation. As you may have deduced, I don’t think “reverse discrimination” is the way to rectify past wrongs either. And I believe it (AA) defies the heart of the 14th Amendment as well as the 1964 Civil Rights Acts.
November 21, 2006 at 4:41 pm
However, I did not say that being a hater of equal civil rights for all Americans makes a candidate ineligible to run, simply that they don’t deserve to hold office.
Joe, I’m curious about this coupled w/your vitriolic post of your own. If memory serves, the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court mandated that the state legislature pass the law that allowed gays to “marry.” And you talk about “tyranny”? It seems to me that that is what Romney is fighting against, not gays per se. And if gay “marriage” is a civil right (BTW, it wouldn’t be so protected by the Bill of Rights as you stated, but by the 14th Amendment) then it has to be asked why not polygamists? Bigamists? Incestuous adults? I’m not asking this to be snide or homophobic or anything of the sort. But if gays have the “civil right” to marry, why not those I listed? Are they not protected by the equal protection clause too?
And besides — the Constitution has discriminated since day one. Notably, it practices age discrimination via voting and ability to serve government.
November 21, 2006 at 5:04 pm
It is easy to be a self-made man when your Dad was the chairman of the American Motors Corporation from 1954 to 1962 and was elected three times as the Republican Governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969.
*****
http://www.alumni.hbs.edu/bulletin/1999/october/profiles/romney.html
http://donklephant.com/2006/11/16/mitt-romneys-company-buys-clear-channel/
Mitt just bid to buy Clear Channel.
YO that gives me pause!!!!!!!
No way should he lead our country.
November 21, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Yes, they passed a law giving access to a basic civil right to a minority. That’s not tyranny, that’s enlightened leadership.
No, he pretends to be fighting for the enactment of a clause in the MA constitution, when he is actually fighting to remove the right to marry which was not granted, but acknowledged by the Supreme Court.
Why not polygamists? If they are finding a way to be happy together without infringing on the happiness of each other, then why not? Bigamists, however, are breaking a vow they have made to their husband/wife, otherwise they’d simply be polygamists. Incest is different because that can have very significant affects on the mental/physical wellbeing of any offspring. Look at the Hapsburgs. I have no problem with polygamy, because that is consensual to all parties. Bigamy, no, because you infringe on the right to happiness of the person you are betraying. Incest, no, because you infringe on the possible well-being of any offspring.
And, before anyone delves even deeper into “what if one of the polygamists heart isn’t really in it” or “what if the incestuous couple don’t have kids”, please note that that I haven’t thought about it to that depth and don’t care to. Plus, it would be a derailment of the topic at hand.
On the other hand, to those that want to protect the sanctity of marriage as “a man and a woman professing their love to god”: why aren’t you fighting to revoke the right for atheists to marry? Or those in arranged marriages?
The simple fact is, that by denying gays the right to marriage, you (not you specifically, Hube) are doing no better for the country than denying right for blacks to own land, or women the right to vote. All based on the fact that the thought of who they fuck makes you cringe.
You can’t fix everything all at once. All the points you’ve brought up as unthinkable and possibly laughable, I think are subjects of actual thought and consideration. Even if they are decided against, at least they were considered. And I have a lot of difficulty in believeing that anyone who wants to withold or revoke the rights of a minority has given the prospect their fullest consideration. It is completey unethical to allow the majority to vote on the civil rights of a minority.
November 22, 2006 at 8:01 am
Yes, they passed a law giving access to a basic civil right to a minority. That’s not tyranny, that’s enlightened leadership.
Pardon?? “Enlightened leadership”? When one branch of government dictates what another must do? Sorry pal, but that is the tyranny you’re addressing. I’m sure Castro, Stalin, et. al. all thought they were “enlightened,” too. Yes, the hyperbole is overblown, but just imagine if right-wingers said George Bush is offering “enlightened leadership.” You’d laugh, and rightly so in many regards. As I do at your statement here.
No, he pretends to be fighting for the enactment of a clause in the MA constitution, when he is actually fighting to remove the right to marry which was not granted, but acknowledged by the Supreme Court.
Where do you get this stuff? It was granted. Show us where it was “acknowledged.”
Bigamists, however, are breaking a vow they have made to their husband/wife, otherwise they’d simply be polygamists. Incest is different because that can have very significant affects on the mental/physical wellbeing of any offspring.
Irrelavent and misunderstood. First, it shouldn’t make a difference using the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause when it comes to “breaking a vow,” now should it? This is as arbitrary a line as man-woman “marriage” and man-man “marriage,” is it not? Second, similarly, it shouldn’t matter using equal protection what two adults wish to do with their lives. I’m sure there are studies that show the optimal home for children is a heterosexual marriage as opposed to a homosexual one … so?
please note that that I haven’t thought about it to that depth and don’t care to. Plus, it would be a derailment of the topic at hand.
That’s right — you haven’t. Which is very convenient, isn’t it? And it in no way “derails” the topic at hand. You just don’t want to address the very relevant questions that are associated with the issue.
The simple fact is, that by denying gays the right to marriage, you (not you specifically, Hube) are doing no better for the country than denying right for blacks to own land, or women the right to vote. All based on the fact that the thought of who they fuck makes you cringe.
This is ridiculous hyperbole. If gays are granted the right to civil unions, this satisfies the equal protection argument while preserving a thousands + year old tradition of man-woman marriage.
All the points you’ve brought up as unthinkable and possibly laughable
They’re only so b/c you can’t — or won’t — address them, as you pretty much admitted anyhow.
And I have a lot of difficulty in believeing that anyone who wants to withold or revoke the rights of a minority has given the prospect their fullest consideration. It is completey unethical to allow the majority to vote on the civil rights of a minority.
First, marriage has been defined as a “civil right” only by you and some others. I might as well claim owning a playstation as a “civil right.” Second, the people vote on all sorts of “rights” matters constantly, so your claim is specious on its face. Look at what just happened in Michigan. They voted to ban affirmative action. Did they vote to rescind minorities’ “civil rights”?
November 22, 2006 at 8:24 am
Nancy – Romney resigned from Bain Capital a long time ago.
November 22, 2006 at 8:45 am
This is ridiculous hyperbole. If gays are granted the right to civil unions, this satisfies the equal protection argument while preserving a thousands + year old tradition of man-woman marriage.
Nothing like following an accusation by indluging in it (”hyperbole”).
There are no subclasses to equal protection, with some more “equal” than others Hube. As in…”sure, you can own property…just nothing here, here, or here….”.
Sorry but that does not wash as “equal”. It has to be substantively AND procedurally equal.
As far as a 1000’s year old tradition, there you go again, like the religious fanatics who think the government is there to give them special rights for their particular religious beliefs. The “marriage tradition” is side by side with slavery, as far as duration. “Preserving tradition” is not what equal protection of laws is about nor the Constitution either. So you can forget about that pile of nonsense.
When you can make one valid civil or legal justification for NOT granting equal civil rights in marriages at law to two consenting adults, without gender classifications, then I am glad to hear you. Otherwise save your Tom Crow law exceptions (separate but equal)
for the fools still stuck in the 19th century. Traditions (like slavery once was) be damned, if they impede the basic civil rights of any person. Remember, civil rights are human rights.
The best way to preserve tradition is to get government out of the business of administering it for some and not others.
November 22, 2006 at 8:54 am
First, marriage has been defined as a “civil right” only by you and some others.
The right to marry has been long determined in American jurisprudence as a “fundamental” right, Hube. So forget your “it’s not a civil right”, which contradicts all your arguments about its sacrosanct nature, in the first place.
Civil rights are equal access to civil laws, not protections for some and denials to others. If you want to act like marriage isn’t a civil right, as we know it today, then you better be prepared to see it defined any way the government arbitrarily chooses at any given time and in any given jurisdiction. If you want to preserve it you better make it equal to any couple, irrespective of gender, seeking its social and economic “stamp of approval”.
November 22, 2006 at 9:01 am
anon: First, I am hardly a religious fanatic, especially since I detest and abhor organized religion. (How’s that for hyperbole?) Second, there are subclasses to equal protection. It happens all the time (based on age, affirmative action, etc.) but even granting your premise there is no inherent “subclass” between marriage and civil unions at the legal level.
When you can make one valid civil or legal justification for NOT granting equal civil rights in marriages at law to two consenting adults, without gender classifications, then I am glad to hear you.
Um, I just did. For both.
Otherwise save your Tom Crow law exceptions (separate but equal)
for the fools still stuck in the 19th century.
Gee, that really got me. Ouch.
Traditions (like slavery once was) be damned, if they impede the basic civil rights of any person. Remember, civil rights are human rights.
Not being called “marriage” is not a civil right. If gay people are granted civil union recognition and are equal before the law with married hetero couples, the question is moot. Making a claim that the term “marriage” must be utilized b/c it’s a “civil right” is just plain laughable. Again, I might as well claim that it’s a civil right for me to own a playstation.
BTW — personally, I could give a hairy bongo if gays have civil unions or even “marry.” It ain’t gonna affect me one way or another. But, as I’ve seen many times, the “arguments” here just use epithets, overheated talk about “civil rights” and refuse to address other pertinent equal protection queries.
November 22, 2006 at 9:04 am
When you can make one valid civil or legal justification for NOT granting equal civil rights in marriages at law to two consenting adults, without gender classifications, then I am glad to hear you.
Um, I just did. For both.
This might be unclear. By this I mean I’ve made clear that claiming the term “marriage” is a “civil right” is silly.
November 22, 2006 at 9:06 am
The right to marry has been long determined in American jurisprudence as a “fundamental” right, Hube. So forget your “it’s not a civil right”, which contradicts all your arguments about its sacrosanct nature, in the first place.
Wrong. You insist on injecting views which I presume I hold onto me. Once again, if civil unions carry all the legal rights as marriage, the question is moot. Defining gay unions as “marriage” is not a civil right despite all your hooting and hollering.
November 22, 2006 at 9:07 am
which YOU presume I hold….
November 22, 2006 at 10:44 am
Defining gay unions as “marriage” is not a civil right despite all your hooting and hollering.
Defining marriage as non-gay unions is not a civil right nor legally defensible despite all your somersaults and backtracking.
November 22, 2006 at 10:53 am
After reading your above twists and leaps around your shifting arguments, which make no consistent sense other than to keep moving the target to suit your ideology, I have to conclude you really know shit about the law. I am not going to bother engaging in the typical far right fragmentation arguing you guys love. i.e. if you lose a point just shift to another or say you never agreed with what you argued in the first place.
Do you happen to be a lawyer? You seem to have a pretty damn invariant self-assured but totally inconsistent view of what is and what is not the law. Just curious who died and made you legal God?
November 22, 2006 at 10:54 am
“Pardon?? “Enlightened leadership”? When one branch of government dictates what another must do? Sorry pal, but that is the tyranny you’re addressing. I’m sure Castro, Stalin, et. al. all thought they were “enlightened,” too. Yes, the hyperbole is overblown, but just imagine if right-wingers said George Bush is offering “enlightened leadership.” You’d laugh, and rightly so in many regards. As I do at your statement here.”
All the Supreme Court of Mass. did in 2003 was to declare that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. Yes, that affects how the other branches have to redesign certain county code, but that’s only because the Court decision means those laws were unconstitutional, not suddenly, but always were. The Court did their job, and that forces the other branches to do theirs. They made an unpopular decision because the current system infringed on the civil rights of a minority. That’s enlightened leadership. Compare that to forcing a bill through Congress to allow torture and revoke Geneva Convention rights, and I think you may see where the “fine” line is.
“Where do you get this stuff? It was granted. Show us where it was ‘acknowledged.’”
I call it acknowledged because equal rights are something I believe all people have, but are unfortunately not recognized by all laws. And as I stated above, the blocking gay marriage was always unconstitutional, but it took the Supreme Court to acknowledge that and enforce the constitutional law.
Irrelavent and misunderstood. First, it shouldn’t make a difference using the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause when it comes to “breaking a vow,” now should it? This is as arbitrary a line as man-woman “marriage” and man-man “marriage,” is it not? Second, similarly, it shouldn’t matter using equal protection what two adults wish to do with their lives. I’m sure there are studies that show the optimal home for children is a heterosexual marriage as opposed to a homosexual one … so?
When the vow is also a legal contract between two people that con only be truly broken by a court proceeding (divorce), then it does make a difference, because two laws are conflicting. Hence, that is not an arbitrary point.
“That’s right — you haven’t. Which is very convenient, isn’t it? And it in no way “derails” the topic at hand. You just don’t want to address the very relevant questions that are associated with the issue.”
It does derail the conversation because we’re talking about the rights of gays to marry in Massachusetts, not about the psychological affect of a polygamous relationship on one of its members, or the choice of an incestuous couple to have children. I’m afraid that you are trying to attack my credibility in this argument by my lack of consideration of issues that have little relation to the actual topic other than the fact that they may be covered under the same US Constitutional Amendment.
“This is ridiculous hyperbole. If gays are granted the right to civil unions, this satisfies the equal protection argument while preserving a thousands + year old tradition of man-woman marriage.”
I’m sorry, Hube, spearate but equal did not work for women and it it wont work for gays. Let’s also not ignore that marriage has been in a state of almost constant evolution since its inception, and not a tradition set in stone when the concept was born.
“They’re only so b/c you can’t — or won’t — address them, as you pretty much admitted anyhow.”
This has been addressed.
“First, marriage has been defined as a “civil right” only by you and some others. I might as well claim owning a playstation as a “civil right.” Second, the people vote on all sorts of “rights” matters constantly, so your claim is specious on its face. Look at what just happened in Michigan. They voted to ban affirmative action. Did they vote to rescind minorities’ “civil rights”?”
As marriage grants certain legal and social benefits such as tax breaks, and it’s denial makes one citizen less than equal in the eyes of the law, it is a civil rights issue to deny that to a minority. As for the playstation (I thought you disliked hyperbole), it would be a rights issue if gays were not allowed to have one, just as it would be if blacks were not allowed to chew gum, or if women were not allowed to hopscotch to work. As affirmative action does not apply to current civil rights issues, but the compensation for previous violations, I’m not sure how your Michigan point relates. However, I will answer the question by saying No, I don’t believe that rescinds minorities civil rights, because affirmative action gives preferential treatment to a minority.
November 22, 2006 at 11:20 am
“Second, the people vote on all sorts of “rights” matters constantly, so your claim is specious on its face.”
Yes, the people do vote on rights issues all the time, however there is a difference between upholding the right for all Americans to own a gun (for instance) and the struggle for a minority to gain the same rights that all other American are free to enjoy.
November 22, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Nancy – Romney resigned from Bain Capital a long time ago.
Yeah, just like Cheney resigned from Halliburton a long time ago.
November 23, 2006 at 7:40 am
Big difference, Dick. Bain Capital invests in companies. Halliburton largely relies on government contracts. Romney has no say on what companies Bain Capital invests in. This issue is a non-starter, Dick.