Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"I'm Not Trying to Return to Reagan-Bush!"
Wow, the Log Cabin Republicans are
really taking Mitt Romney to the woodshed.
Here's the group's explanation:
“Whether it’s taxes, immigration, education, gay rights, gun ownership, stem cell research, abortion, campaign finance reform, or other key issues, Mitt Romney has a long list of flip-flops. The American people don’t trust Massachusetts flip-floppers, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans,” said [Log Cabin head Patrick] Sammon.
“As much as Governor Romney wants to re-invent himself, his record speaks for itself,” said Sammon. ”The Mitt Romney of today is different from the Mitt Romney who was elected Massachusetts Governor and ran for the U.S. Senate. Romney may have forgotten what he used to believe, but Republicans won’t forget.”
Note that this ad is (I'm estimating) 4567 percent more effective than the "Gays for Giuliani" ad, simply because it follows the rhythms and structure of a real campaign ad.
Why are the LCRs so angry at Romney but not at Rudy? I'm guessing it's the sheer arrogance with which he turned on Massachusetts gays when he decided he was running for president. Yes, I'm familiar with Hugh Hewitt's take on this, but Romney went from saying he'd be great for gay rights ("better than Ted Kennedy") to adopting all of the "save marriage" rhetoric of anti-gay rights campaigners in the Bay State. He showed a cold, calculating scorn of a group that voted for him, and they won't forget that.
(Via Liz Mair.)
|10.4.07 @ 11:57AM|#
What's the big deal? Ol' Mitt's gonna have a whole new set of positions if he's nominated anyway.
|10.4.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Is it ironic or clever (or both?) how the Log Cabin'ers have
crafted this ad to specifically horrify the religious right? Do
they not think that the
gun-tote'ing-anti-abortion-anti-gay-marriage will recognize the
sponsor of that ad as gay repulbicans?
Or will they simply continue to believe that "gay" and
"republicans" are mutally exlcusive?
|10.4.07 @ 12:02PM|#
This will dog him the whole election, but IMHO hes the odds on
favorite to be the nominee.
Can someone who lives in Massachusetts (joe maybe?) tell me how he
really was as governor? Was he very active or passive, compromiser
or stubborn, rigid or a flip flopper (though I'm pretty sure I have
the answer to that one), etc.
|10.4.07 @ 12:03PM|#
Not sure its really a gay thing.
I think most people believe Massachusetts such a left of center
place that they intuitively believe that anyone who reached of
elective office in the state must be left of center as well, even
if a Republican. When Romney tries to move towards the national
center for a national campaign it makes it easy to question his
core commitment to the issues.
Sometimes, regional stereotypes can work to a candidates advantage.
Clinton successfully relied national stereotypes of Arkansas as a
culturally conservative state to sell his image of Democrat with
mainstream cultural values.
I think that Giuliani escapes a lot this because people seem to
think of him more as a simple hard-ass pragmatist than as someone
committed to an elaborate ideological framework. He comes of more
of having the mindset of a firefighter than a history
professor.
Perhaps some gays find Giuliani more comfortable because he appears
to just not care about matters such as gay-rights that seem to have
no immediate, day-to-day import.
|10.4.07 @ 12:20PM|#
I'm a MA resident, and I have to say I was unimpressed by
Romney. He delivered on pretty much zero of his campaign promises
(where are all those new housing starts, Mitt?), got caught up in
all the shameful little machine-politicking patronage grafts the
legislature pulled, did bupkis to make MA a two-party state again
(indeed, he took the Republicans even farther right and even
further away from relevance), and finally handed off the
Governorship to the Democrats by not grooming a successor.
To be fair, doing nothing is actually excellent
performance from a MA politician. There's a lot he could have
screwed up...
...oh, wait, like the health care thing. Right. The one thing he
gets off his political ass for is to put the minimum contents of
everyone's health insurance under the control of the legislature,
abolish what few high-deductible plans still existed, and create an
"individual mandate" with such laughably pathetic enforcement that
it's almost guaranteed to cost more than the existing system. The
only question is whether the new system manages to completely kill
off employer-provided health care before or after destroying the
individual health care market.
|10.4.07 @ 12:26PM|#
I think the LCR is a barely undercover Democratic Party
operative group.
I think the LCRs are wealthy (UMC) gays, weary of their tax burden.
Why they don't move, en masse, to the libertarian Party buffaloe
me.
Any LCR types out there in Reasonoid Land?
|10.4.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Why are the LCRs so angry at Romney but not at Rudy? I'm
guessing it's the sheer arrogance with which he turned on
Massachusetts gays when he decided he was running for president.
Yes, I'm familiar with Hugh Hewitt's take on this, but Romney went
from saying he'd be great for gay rights ("better than Ted
Kennedy") to adopting all of the "save marriage" rhetoric of
anti-gay rights campaigners in the Bay State. He showed a cold,
calculating scorn of a group that voted for him, and they won't
forget that.
Huh?
Log cabin republicans are gay activists? I did not know
that....
|10.4.07 @ 1:01PM|#
I just looked up LCR on wiki...and they are gay
republicans...
Fuck i thought they were caucus of republican reps like the dems
blue dogs.
I feel like I'm 15 years old again...and discovering that the
Village People are gay.
"No way...YMCA is about what?"
Rhywun|10.4.07 @ 1:05PM|#
core commitment to the issues
I guess I part company with the rest of the world in not giving a
damn about a presidential candidate's "core beliefs". He's an
executive, not a legislator. His (or her) only qualification should
be "can they lead the country". Their duties include such things as
advertising America to the world, and not embarrassing us. Ah, WTF
do I care. I stopped voting years ago.
|10.4.07 @ 1:08PM|#
I am on the LCR mailing list (but not a member) and based on
where they hold their get-togethers (aspen! nantucket! mars!) you
get the impression that they are pretty well off. But locally in my
state - I don't see that members of the LCR are more wealthy or
poorer than your average person. I see more money at gay democrat
and HRC events than i've ever seen at most republican
get-togethers.
Based strictly on discussions with a couple local members they do
believe that government should be involved in social issues
(marriage, support of family, etc). Which I believe would be the
difference between libertarians and LCR crowd.
|10.4.07 @ 1:28PM|#
not to sound orientationist (?) but isn't being a LCR and trying to make inroads with the James Dobson party the same as hitting yourself in the face every 20 minutes?
ed|10.4.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Log cabin republicans are gay activists?
It's a very small cabin.
Nicely decorated, however.
|10.4.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Rhywun
I guess I part company with the rest of the world in not giving
a damn about a presidential candidate's "core beliefs"
People like politicians to have core beliefs because they think it
allows voters to predict the politicians behavior in office.
That trick might work for legislature but for executive, it seems
like the imperatives of the office seem to control Presidential
behavior. especially in matter primarily the responsibility of the
executive such as foreign policy or defense. Regardless of their
avowed stances before assuming office, all Presidents end up
implementing very similar policies.
|10.4.07 @ 1:35PM|#
There are no gay Republicans, while some may occasionally experiment with members of the same sex, they are all god fearing family men that love their spouses in a proper one man one woman marriage. Only Democrats are gay and in league with Satan.
|10.4.07 @ 1:42PM|#
As governor, Mitt Romney picked his battles very, very carefully. His most notable fights were his support of a 0.6% reduction in the state's flat income tax, and an effort to shut down gay-straight alliances in high schools.
|10.4.07 @ 1:44PM|#
I think the LCRs are wealthy (UMC) gays, weary of their tax
burden. Why they don't move, en masse, to the libertarian Party
buffalo[s] me.
J sub D - I've thought the same thing. I view the LCRs like Western
women who voluntarily convert to Islam - they have some self-esteem
issues or are just masochists.
JBinMO|10.4.07 @ 1:45PM|#
I would rather have a "flip flopper" than someone that will pick a course and stay with it no matter how bad it is.
highnumber|10.4.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Aw, you don't have to bash Islam just so you can bash the Repubs. Not all Islamic cultures are oppressive of women. Be fair.
|10.4.07 @ 1:56PM|#
highnumber - no, not all Islamic cultures are oppressive to
women, and not all Republicans are oppressive to gays.
However, I suspect the percentages of those that are
oppressive is similar.
|10.4.07 @ 1:58PM|#
Sigh... Waching the LCRs stand with the GOP in its current form (i.e. controlled by bible-beating homophobes) is like watching a woman go back to her physically abusive husband/boyfriend.
VM|10.4.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Eddie? Eddie are yoooo hier?
EDWARDDDDDDD(ild)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Come back and play. I swear, this time you can be
the Corn Dog! And yes, as a wacky person, we'll play "whack the
corn dog", too
|10.4.07 @ 2:13PM|#
I think we are seeing the Ron Paul effect, actually.
How much you want to bet the other candidate, seeing the kind of
money Dr. P raised, will start publicizing their
slightly-more-liberal issues.
Rhywun|10.4.07 @ 2:46PM|#
I would rather have a "flip flopper" than someone that will
pick a course and stay with it no matter how bad it is.
Agreed. The whole poking fun at "flip-floppers" thing has always
baffled me. I don't expect myself to hold the same exact viewpoints
for any great length of time--why should anyone expect it of anyone
else?
no, not all Islamic cultures are oppressive to women
I think it's fairer to say that not all Islamic people are
oppressive to women. The same cannot be said for countries. E.g.
Malaysia--as moderate an Islamic country as you can hope to
find--is
quite oppressive to women:
Despite government initiatives and continued gains, women are still underrepresented in politics, the professions, and the civil service. Violence against women remains a serious problem. Muslim women, whose grievances on family matters are heard in Sharia courts, receive unequal treatment because Islamic law favors men in matters such as inheritance and divorce, and does not give equal weight to the testimony of women. A new family law was passed by the Parliament in December 2005 that would further inhibit women's rights by eliminating the requirement that men prove their ability to financially provide for multiple wives prior to engaging in polygamy and giving men the right to a spouse's assets after divorce. The government has delayed implementation of the law, however, in light of widespread objections.
|10.4.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Any country that includes religion in it's political identity is
going to be oppressive to women. Sexism is all-but-universal in all
traditional societies.
I can point you to places like Turkey or Bosnia, where women have
equal legal status with men, but the answer is "They're not Islamic
Republics, they're secular governments."
Yes, exactly. Traditionalist, fundamentalist Muslims are like
traditionalist, fundamentalist Christians - they believe in gender
inequality and in theocracy. When you find a theocracy, you're
going to find official gender inequality.
|10.4.07 @ 3:03PM|#
highnumber - what joe said. I picked on the Muslims, but my beef
is really with any kind of religiously inspired oppression.
I have no problem with Salman Rushdie, Kemal Ataturk, Ayaan Hirsi
Ali, etc.
|10.4.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Seeing as how gays vote about 90% Democratic, and are about 5%
of the population, I think Romney is thinking there are more votes
to be won in a Republican primary by dissing gays than otherwise.
This would hurt him in the general election, but he's trailing in
the primary and has to win that first.
As for political principles, Romney is like virtually all
"successful" politicians -- willing to say or do whatever is needed
to fool 51% of the people into believing he shares their beliefs.
He may be privately principled, but as a public figure that is a
luxury he likely feels he can't afford.
|10.4.07 @ 3:23PM|#
As governor, Romney was a speed bump. And that's pretty much all
a governor can be in a state with such a partisan imbalance as
Massachusetts. The legislative leadership pretty much runs the
show.
That's what we want out of our governors - someone who will act as
check on the Beacon Hill Democrats. People here will even vote for
candidates well outside of their political comfort zone (Pual
Cellucci, Mitt Romney, Bill Weld) over someone much closer to the
local poltical mainstream (Scott Harshbarger, Shannon O'Brien) if
they don't think the Democrat is 1) independent from the party
machine and 2) strong enough to push back effectively.
Deval Patrick became the first Democratic governor in 16 years
because his status as a DC Democrat, and a black civil rights
lawyer, set him pretty clearly apart from the Tommies and the
Jakeys and Sals who run the House and Senate; and because he showed
a capacity to fight back when the Republican candidate went
negative on him durin the election.
Romney was a perfectly good speed bump, but the idea that he was
either effective in furthering his own agenda, able to function as
a nonpartisan consensus builder, or able to present a moderate
image that appealed to Democrats is laughed at up here.
|10.4.07 @ 3:28PM|#
"J sub D - I've thought the same thing. I view the LCRs like
Western women who voluntarily convert to Islam - they have some
self-esteem issues or are just masochists."
It is a pity that all gays don't fall in line behind the Democrat
platform. I think these queers should be rounded up and put into
camps for the sake of the children.
|10.4.07 @ 3:32PM|#
"""There are no gay Republicans, while some may occasionally
experiment with members of the same sex, they are all god fearing
family men that love their spouses in a proper one man one woman
marriage."""
Or like the Republican said about Craig on TV. It not gay sex, it's
sex between two men.
Actually this fits the Republican M.O. of the last few years. The
Republicans will say "X" is wrong when the opposing team is doing
it, yet when they do "X" they say it's really not "X" it's "Y" and
"Y" is ok.
|10.4.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Why would any group like the Log Quisling Rethuglicans, whose
very raison d'etre is sucking up to the party of hatemongers like
Dobson and Falwell (as well as pervs like Ted Haggard and Larry
Craig), think that a presidential candidate should have any
semblance of integrity?
BTW, if Mike Huckabee's campaign starts to gain traction, will
Romney drop his LDS affiliation like a used condom?
|10.4.07 @ 3:54PM|#
YFQ - The Republicans, except for Paul, are a waste. They've
pretty much jettisoned whatever good points American conservatism
had - fiscal restraint, a healthy suspicion of government,
etc.
They now pander to a base of fundy Christians who hate
gays. If the LCR wants to join the Republicans so they can get spat
upon, they are free to do so.
And I'm free to point and laugh at them for being douchbags.
DannyK|10.4.07 @ 3:59PM|#
The Republicans don't need gay people to vote for them. Or,
apparently, black people or Latinos. Heck, John McCain doesn't even
need Jews!
This strategy will either look very, very smart OR very, very dumb
in 2008. I'm betting on dumb.
|10.4.07 @ 4:13PM|#
From what I remember from the last time I heard about the Log
Cabiners, the group is based out of a PA town close to New
York.
That being said, they are likely in the vein of other Republicans
I've met in the area; namely, relatively liberal but still fiscally
conservative and VERY pro-gun.
Based on the fact that it's Log Cabin, they likely are all avid
hunters...
These are just guesses however, as I have no idea why gay folks
would vote GOP in their wildest dreams...
|10.4.07 @ 5:40PM|#
Your Favorite Queer,
So when someone thinks its ridiculous that gays would vote the
anti-gay party, you assume that they're upset that "gays don't fall
in line behind the Democrat platform"? Hmmm... Not Republican =
Democrat? Is that what you're arguing? On libertarian website, no
less?
|10.4.07 @ 6:22PM|#
Why would any group like the Log Quisling
Rethuglicans
This isn't fucking DailyKos. I really hate stuff like
"Rethuglicans" and "moonbats".
highnumber|10.4.07 @ 7:00PM|#
I've been away since I've asked you to be fair, BP, but yeah, ok, that is fair enough. Carry on.
|10.4.07 @ 9:40PM|#
ChrisS - thanks. I had to leave for work, and couldn't make a follow up comment. I'd thought that the context made it clear I couldn't believe gays would choose Republicanism over libertarianism, and it only occured to me later that YFQ was actually thinking only Red and Blue.
No sense of irony|10.4.07 @ 9:43PM|#
Cesar, I agree with you about childish terms like Rethuglican
and Moonbat. When in the arena of ideas it is ideas that should be
debated. Ad homonims do nothing to this end. Besides, if we use
such terms how can we remain united against the congresscriters,
government thugs and pigs?
Speaking of gays here is a website that truly does challenge
political assumptions about gay people.
http://www.pinkpistols.org/
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|10.5.07 @ 1:35PM|#
So, David Weigel (if that is your real name), we're supposed to believe that your careful estimate just happened to have digits that were 4 consecutive integers? I think not!
|10.5.07 @ 7:20PM|#
According to national polling of Republicans, 76% think you
shouldn't fire someone for being gay. 49% say you should allow gays
to serve openly in the military and 46% say there should be legal
recognition of same sex couples. Republican voters are getting with
the gays, it's their leaders who are still afraid of getting bitch
slapped by Dobson et al. (So looks like Log Cabin bitch slapped
Romney for them)
And saying gays shouldn't work in the GOP is like saying preachers
shouldn't talk to sinners. That's where the work needs done. Many
gay people hate taxes, like their guns and think Hilary sucks too
(and not in the good way).
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|10.6.07 @ 1:52AM|#
Raging Moderate:
Even if you made up those percentages, good job on leaving out any
sequence of four consecutive integers!
M. Simon|10.6.07 @ 7:30PM|#
You folks are really strange.
It is like you get your ideas about the Republican Party from comic
books.
I'm rather libertarian oriented (I used to be a Libertarian) and
hang in Republican circles mostly these days. The vast majority are
nothing like what most folk here imagine.
Well what can you expect from the Libertarian loony fringe (see how
that works?).
You guys need to get out more.
|10.12.07 @ 12:54AM|#
Well, I joined the Rs to help nominate Ron Paul, and I'm
affiliated with (or at least bemused by) the LCR. They're stuck
with the GOP for the same reason that libertarians are stuck with
the GOP (assuming they want to be players, not martyrs).
Structurally this is a two party political system, and if you want
to have any role in change, you're sort of forced to join one of
the two reigning coalitions, if only to moderate their bad
behavior.
Now, why am I doing it? I think there was something in that Kool
Aid after all...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245