Where ever there is a rise, there’s a fall…right?
If only there was an excuse to put his ugly mug on the cover of Sports Illustrated, which of course has a well-known jinx.
vruz: can I print it big and play darts with it?
Then and now.
—via cognitivedissonance:
This flyer is from when Mitt Romney was running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. It states, “All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference” and wishes folks a great pride weekend.
As governor, he backed that statement up. From Joe Sudbay at AMERICA blog:
While running for governor in 2002, Romney and his running mate, Kerry Healey, distributed pink fliers at a Gay Pride parade, declaring “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend.” He backed domestic partner benefits for public employees, winning the endorsement of the national Log Cabin Republicans. In his inaugural speech, he promised to defend civil rights “regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race.”
As governor, he appointed openly gay and lesbian people to high-profile administration positions. He doubled the budget line item for the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, until he tried to disband it last May — more political theater for the Republican right.
And now? Well, he’s changed his mind. The gays are no longer A-OK for Romney:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has joined Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Sen. Pennsylvania Rick Santorum in signing a pledge to oppose same-sex marriage on a number of specific fronts.
The three candidates signed the pledge advanced by the National Organization for Marriage, which has led national and state campaigns to limit marriage to a man and a woman. The signature of the front-runner, Romney, is a bit of a coup for the group, as he’s been careful about committing to other pledges, including a broad promise to a socially conservative Iowa group that caused trouble for other candidates.
Romney, Bachmann and Santorum signed on to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, to appoint federal judges who don’t see a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and to back the Defense of Marriage Act.
They’ve also pledged to support a referendum on marriage in Washington and to establish a “presidential commission on religious liberty” aimed at protecting the rights of marriage foes to speak out.
Here’s the pledge, with Romney’s signature.
Civil rights for all Americans just aren’t politically expedient for today’s GOP. However, Romney has never been a huge supporter of marriage equality - only civil unions, and reluctantly so. From a (rather internally contradictory) 2004 press release:
Same sex marriage doesn’t hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years.
Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing… There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding.
But there is a difference between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights, but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all.
Some have asked why so much importance is attached to the word “marriage.” It is because changing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same sex practice. It is inconceivable that promoting absolute indifference between heterosexual and homosexual unions would not significantly effect child development, family dynamics, and societal structures.
Among the structures that would be affected would be religious and certain charitable institutions. Those with scriptural or other immutable founding principles will be castigated. Ultimately, some may founder… Society can ill afford further erosion of charitable and virtuous institutions. For these reasons, I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment.
Romney saw civil unions as the compromise of protecting marriage and individual rights; however, his latest signing of this pledge indicates his complete shift to the far right on this issue, and is nothing more than political pandering by a floundering candidate.
—via cognitivedissonance:
No joke: Presidential candidate Rick Perry and comedian Stephen Colbert, who last week barraged Iowa voters with advertisements urging voters to support “Rick Parry,” shared the same political committee treasurer – until they didn’t.
Salvatore Purpura, who has represented numerous political committees as treasurer over the years, told POLITICO that he resigned on Thursday as treasurer of Colbert’s super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.
Then, on Monday, Perry - not Parry - formally filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission listing Purpura has his campaign treasurer. ”Obviously, there was a potential conflict of interest,” Purpura said. “I told [Colbert lawyer] Trevor [Potter] on Thursday I would not be able to be treasurer anymore.” Colbert, in an email to POLITICO, praised Purpura’s service.
Uh… that’s cool and all, but can I say, you couldn’t pay me enough to leave a job with Stephen Colbert. And Rick Perry? Well, I guess if you’re a Republican, Perry’s the flavor of the moment in what’s essentially a carton of Neapolitan ice cream. But familiarize yourself with his origin:
“He’s not George Bush on steroids. Rick Perry is what happens if Lex Luthor distilled down George Bush essence in a laboratory, and crossed it with gunpowder and semen from the finest thoroughbred in Lubbock, and then strapped that concoction onto a nuclear missile, and shot it into the fucking sun. And then waited, waited, waited, until one day, on the anniversary of the Alamo, a solar flare yadda yadda yadda RICK PERRY.” — Jon Stewart
vruz: should we look for green kryptonite or something?
vruz: it’s the onion. but then all parody is the amplification of a real trait, and obama hate in GOP quarters is a very real one.
—via cognitivedissonance:
Calling a GOP victory in the 2012 presidential election antithetical to the party platform, top Republicans revealed a new long-term political strategy Tuesday: reelecting Barack Obama and making his life even more of a living hell than it already is.
“For three years, the Republican Party has coalesced around the single goal of making President Obama’s every waking moment sheer and utter torture,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters. “But we can’t continue to do that if he’s not in office.”
“If we are going to make the president a haggard shell of a human being by the time he leaves the White House, we need four more years of never compromising, four more years of miring every piece of legislation in unnecessary procedural muck, four more years of pretending we want to work with the president and then walking away from the table at the last second,” McConnell added. “Four more years! Four more years! Obama 2012!”
According to GOP sources, the decision to cede the 2012 election to Obama came after rank-and-file Republicans agreed that grinding the president down to nothing and pushing him to the brink of insanity was far more in line with the Republican Party’s core principles than actually controlling the White House, making laws, or governing the country.
I’m 90% sure this is the actual plan. The GOP’s hatred of Obama is completely irrational - he gives them nearly everything they want.
