A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
June 19, 2005Now, I Really Hate HimFor those of you who didn't know, this week Governor Mitt Romney, whose committment to centrist ideals or lack their of have been discussed on this site recently, has decided to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Mass. Ron says: Yet another sign that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) is preparing to run for President in '08 instead of re-election in '06: he's moving sharply to the right. Romney on Friday abandoned his previous position of opposing gay marriage but would not object to same-sex civil unions. Now Romney is touting a proposed constitutional amendment for the Massachusetts ballot that would ban both gay marriage -- but without permitting civil unions. Wow, there is a difference in understanding that you need conservative votes to win a Republican primary and completely selling your soul to win those votes! In case you are keeping score, Romney's position is now more conservative than Bush's on this issue... What a whore. Posted by Mathew at June 19, 2005 04:43 PMComments
I thought Bush was opposed to an ammendment to the United States constitution. Posted by: ROA at June 19, 2005 05:03 PMYeah, I made a post on my blog about it. You can read my thoughts on why gay marriage should not even be an issue here: http://betteridea.blogspot.com/2005/06/old-piece-on-gay-marriage.html Posted by: Art at June 19, 2005 06:31 PMSorry, I can’t get fired up by such a non-issue. The amendment will not pass so who cares if he or anyone else endorses it? He is pandering to the base as all politicians do. I can’t hate him for that. I already know I am not voting for him so I basically ignore his 2008 maneuvering. As it happens I think he is a tool for other reasons but I just can’t muster any indignation over this stuff. Posted by: Alf at June 19, 2005 06:53 PMWell if you hate him now *really*, then you must've hated him before, only more now, so therefore...he wasn't going for your vote before this weekend anyway. Posted by: Scott at June 19, 2005 09:33 PMI thought Bush was opposed to an ammendment to the United States constitution.No, he's just smart enough to understand that it will never go anywhere, he doesn't need the "values voters" any more (having ran his last race, I mean), so he's not willing to waste valuable political capital on a dead letter to appease the base. I think he believes he can push Social Security reform through, and my feeling is that Bush realises that his ticket to the history books is his transformation of the middle east and reforming social security. I think me might just do it, too. As far as Romney's shift is concerned, my viewpoint on this matter is fairly simple. It's a matter for each state to decide, in which the Federal Government has no power to intrude, for or against. I don't agree with the ban, but I think that the best process for making that decision is the legitimate political process in each state. And, of course Romney is pandering. He's a politician. Posted by: Simon at June 19, 2005 09:49 PMCome on people, as this post clearly demonstrates Simon - Oops! you are correct. I must have been watchintg FOX too much. Posted by: ROA at June 20, 2005 01:06 AMI'll say this AGAIN. Is anyone counting? Romney is not a centrist and he never was. He has always been a bedrock conservative. Anyone who has watched him at all closely should be well aware of this, or else you just can't read between the lines on such things. Take it from a MA rez and long-time Romney watcher. Romney has totally NOT sold his soul. Yes, he obscured his very solid conservatism for the sake of winning in MA, and the people bought it, mostly because MA democrats fielded a total mediocrity in opposition. (MA democrats consistently choose to run party machine tools for governor, the sort of myopic indulgence a virtually 1-party state gets served by its dominant party.) Romney is flying his true colors NOW, unabashedly. This is who he really IS. Forget about what you might have thought he was. You were wrong. Posted by: bk at June 20, 2005 08:18 AMSo he sold his soul a long time ago, and now he's buying it back. Posted by: WHQ at June 20, 2005 10:39 AMLooks like Romney's going into overkill mode. Remember when Pete Wilson, the pro-choice conservative GOP governor of Cali, decided to try and make up for his past on abortion by getting tough on another social issue, immigration? Well, it worked, and the result was that not only was Wilson still unacceptable to the base by being a pro-choice coastal Republican, he was also unacceptable to moderates for being too far to the right on immigration. Republican politicians often don't get it. Ronald Reagan and Bush 41 both had muddied pasts on their abortion positions. But both won the GOP nod and the WH simply by identifying themselves as pro-life and then moving on to other topics. I seriously doubt that Mitt can win the nomination at this rate, as he's POing both the independents he'll need to win NH and is still not good enough for the conservatives in red states. Posted by: Dave at June 20, 2005 12:22 PMThis story is not news. A couple of months ago Oven Mitt “clarified” his position by stating that while he prefers civil unions to same sex marriage he would rather have neither. That was months ago. Why get pissed now? I find the whole Centerfield take on this issue amusing. I hold the mainstream Democratic position on this issue, basically Kerry’s position—I can support civil unions (preferably put in place by the people’s representatives in the legislature) but don’t call it marriage. Oddly many here are to the far left of that position; that is farther left than Kerry and the mainstream Democratic position on the matter. Plus hating someone for a policy disagreement seems so Daily Kos/Free Republic. I would hope that centrists are more reasonable than that. Hi Alf, (Note all occurrences of "centrists" should be understood to mean "most centrists IMO" in the following post.) Even though perhaps "whore" is not the correct term in this case given Mitt's longterm, though camoflauged, position; nonetheless, he may be viewed as espousing a fundamentally irrational position, much in the same way as a creationist (though not as stark certainly). Thus, the outrage. All this being said, I would definitely not advocate a centrist politician to say such things outright, not currently at least. Rather, I would advise that they advocate a compromise position, perhaps like the one you advocate, rather than waste precious time fanning the flames of yet another cultural dispute. Just my thoughts. Also, come on man, if we can't poke a little fun at the wingnuts who can centrists make fun of? I also hope people realize I was being a bit glib in my analysis. Posted by: Adam at June 20, 2005 10:36 PMRomney acting political? That's a shock. http://www.uncorrelated.com/archives/2005/06/as_if_there_wer.html It's all falling into place. So much for the centerist he claimed to be when running for governor. Posted by: Greg at June 21, 2005 09:06 AMOh Alf, everybody else got what I meant. I don't hate Mitt Romney, I hate what he is doing. Geesh... It is a figure of speech. Besides, at least I am not chairman of the whole freaking Democratic Party. I don't understand why you fine the centerfield's position on gay marriage funny, if we actually have a "position"... And by John Kerry's position, you mean the one he claimed he had while he was running for President, right? These comments are depressing... I can't believe we have gotten to a point were Romney's actions can be brushed off as politics as usual. This is beyond your average politician changing his mind. Especially yours, Brian. It's as if we are supposed to ignore the fact that the man changes tunes depending on what office he is running for. This is who he truly is? I don't get it... First you are telling me that he is your average conservative running as a modereate; however, there is nothing average about supporting a law that not only bans gay marriage, but civil unions as well. That is more extreme than your average conservative, IMO. Posted by: Mathew at June 21, 2005 10:47 AMI agree Matthew, even though I was one of the Let's turn this baby, the centrist coalition, into a "militant moderate" machine, and fast. Posted by: Adam at June 21, 2005 11:06 AMLet me try to be more clear, since my umpteen previous posts seems to have failed a bit. My point is that it's always been crystal clear to me whereabouts Romney has stood, and should have been clear to others if they bothered to pay attention. I think people who talked themselves into Romney being moderate and pro-choice were really hearing what they wanted to hear. Has Romney been something of a weasel? Maybe, but not moreso than other politicians. Here's the thing...IMO if you listen to politicians long enought they tell you what they'd say and do if push came to shove. And it's up to you to harvest that push-shove position from all their careful statements. Because that's the real one. When someone says that they are personally opposed to abortion or gay marriage, that's their push-shove position. Not their promise to uphold existing laws while serving in job x, or their conditional support of of bill C only because it's less odious than bill A or bill B. I have never thought Romney was a genuine moderate, and people who did really weren't listening. In all honesty he has always run and made promises in Massachusetts to behave as governor in ways that he thought would be acceptable to MA voters, even though he's a conservative. That has always gone in one ear and out the other. Too subtle? He's a tiger that ran for pussycat. He never said he was a pussycat. He said he was willing to serve in the role of a pussycat and behave as a pussycat while filling the job of elected pussycat. And people who weren't watching and listening closely said, "hey, look at that Romney, he's a pussycat." And people that sorely WANTED a pussycat said "look at the pretty pussycat." Well, Like I've been telling all of you for months now, he's NOT a pussycat, he's a tiger. He's made it clear he's in fact a tiger. So all the people who are angry to discover that he's a tiger and not a pussycat can all just get bent :-) , because it's your own effing fault :-) for either not paying attention or hearing what you wanted to hear. Just kidding around with that last line, but the point remains. NOT a moderate. NEVER was. Now perhaps you are ready to join Roger, Pete and the boys in getting on your knees and praying that you won't get fooled again. Posted by: bk at June 21, 2005 01:01 PMSadly, his appearance as a moderate, but his reality as a hardliner, might actually get him the nomination... depending on how he behaves between now and then. Posted by: Ryan at June 21, 2005 04:51 PMA couple of points: 1. If you have had your eyes and ears open for the last few years you know that Oven Mitt is a conservative and always has been. He pandered to the left when he ran for governor and he is now pandering to the right for his run for president. That is what politicians do. If you are offended by that sort of thing you are going to be permanently offended. 2. Adam, I am not sure that the only reasoned opinion is that there must be same sex unions and that they must be called “marriage.” Reasonable minds can disagree on this controversial issue. I think the position I laid out is “centrist” in that it is a compromise in which both the left and the right get something and give something. 3. Mathew you asked “by John Kerry's position, you mean the one he claimed he had while he was running for President, right?” Do you mean to imply from this that Kerry may have given another position at another time? That he flip-flopped? That he was politicking the issue? I am shocked, shocked I tell ya! Hi Alf, My ideal solution would be to have everyone get civil unions, heterosexuals included. And churches could decide for themselves who they wished to marry. I don't have any problem with a compromise solution at this point in time; I just think that as more people get to know homosexuals the issue will just disappear. I just don't think homosexual marriage poses any threat to the family. There are threats, to be sure, but not gay marriage. I think centrists lean left on this issue because it's hard coming up with a compelling reason to oppose it, other than public opinion. In any case, I feel that a lot Democrats, despite what they say publicly, aren't bothered in the slightest by the prospect of gay marriage. I understand that people can be bothered by it; after all, two men or two women does seem pretty strange at first (especially if you're straight). And I can understand that people are afraid of change, and that they want to raise their children in a moral society. I totally agree and think we ought to have quality character education in schools and public funding for morally uplifting entertainment. I just know too many gay couples to be disturbed by this issue. Posted by: Adam at June 21, 2005 08:56 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
