Romney Campaign: No Gays Allowed

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying Symm.

My point, overall, is that if you compare the policies of both candidates from when they were in office, there is nothing differentiating one from the other with respect to gay rights (except that Mitt Romney was governor of a state that permits gay marriage and President Obama was not and is not the president of a country that permits gay marriage).

I do think you have a fair point criticizing Obama's stance, I don;t think the comparison is equal though.

Why?

I've covered some of this before, but basically most see his campaign as pretty homophobic. Based solely on this issue I'd call him homophobic. but looking into his relationships with homophobic groups he does seem to have caved to the right/

Okay, so my follow up point is what makes him different from President Obama? The president is caving to the homophobic element in his own party, is he not?

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying Symm.

My point, overall, is that if you compare the policies of both candidates from when they were in office, there is nothing differentiating one from the other with respect to gay rights (except that Mitt Romney was governor of a state that permits gay marriage and President Obama was not and is not the president of a country that permits gay marriage).

I do think you have a fair point criticizing Obama's stance, I don;t think the comparison is equal though.

Why?

I've covered some of this before, but basically most see his campaign as pretty homophobic. Based solely on this issue I'd call him homophobic. but looking into his relationships with homophobic groups he does seem to have caved to the right/

Okay, so my follow up point is what makes him different from President Obama? The president is caving to the homophobic element in his own party, is he not?

My short answer would be yes. I think you're right.

My longer answer would be that he does so to a lesser extent, a far lesser extent than Romney. I hope that I've made not made my contempt for Obama's take on this a secret. If I have done, consider it undone.

What the Romeny campaign has done and is doing goes way beyond political pandering though.

[thegreekdog]

What the Romeny campaign has done and is doing goes way beyond political pandering though.

Meh. I think it's the same thing. You get more open vitriol from the right towards gays, but it exists in abundance in the Democratic party too. There are a number of prominent Democrats who are vehemently anti-gay marriage, but are suppressed by the party.

[Symmetry]

What the Romeny campaign has done and is doing goes way beyond political pandering though.

Meh. I think it's the same thing. You get more open vitriol from the right towards gays, but it exists in abundance in the Democratic party too. There are a number of prominent Democrats who are vehemently anti-gay marriage, but are suppressed by the party.

I'm not sure how pandering to homophobic elements within a party is quite the same as a party suppressing its homophobic elements.

I can understand your general point- that there are homophobes in both parties, but I think you see the difference in behaviour toward those elements.

[thegreekdog]

What the Romeny campaign has done and is doing goes way beyond political pandering though.

Meh. I think it's the same thing. You get more open vitriol from the right towards gays, but it exists in abundance in the Democratic party too. There are a number of prominent Democrats who are vehemently anti-gay marriage, but are suppressed by the party.

I'm not sure how pandering to homophobic elements within a party is quite the same as a party suppressing its homophobic elements.

I can understand your general point- that there are homophobes in both parties, but I think you see the difference in behaviour toward those elements.

Okay, yeah, except, again, I'm not talking about what Romney or Obama say - I'm talking about what Obama and Romney do in office. That matters more to me than pandering. And if pandering matters to someone, why would it trump what the individual did in office?

Example - When people were saying, as a critique of Romney, that Obamacare was based on Romneycare, I was like, "Yeah, that should help him in the general election if people were smart." But, because most people look at rhetoric rather than policy, it won't.

[Symmetry]

What the Romeny campaign has done and is doing goes way beyond political pandering though.

Meh. I think it's the same thing. You get more open vitriol from the right towards gays, but it exists in abundance in the Democratic party too. There are a number of prominent Democrats who are vehemently anti-gay marriage, but are suppressed by the party.

I'm not sure how pandering to homophobic elements within a party is quite the same as a party suppressing its homophobic elements.

I can understand your general point- that there are homophobes in both parties, but I think you see the difference in behaviour toward those elements.

Okay, yeah, except, again, I'm not talking about what Romney or Obama say - I'm talking about what Obama and Romney do in office. That matters more to me than pandering. And if pandering matters to someone, why would it trump what the individual did in office?

Example - When people were saying, as a critique of Romney, that Obamacare was based on Romneycare, I was like, "Yeah, that should help him in the general election if people were smart." But, because most people look at rhetoric rather than policy, it won't.

I'm not sure if you and I are on the same page here. You seem to be judging Romney based on what Obama does or doesn't do. I'm relatively skeptical about Obama's record on gay rights, but Romney comes across as genuinely homophobic.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure if you and I are on the same page here. You seem to be judging Romney based on what Obama does or doesn't do. I'm relatively skeptical about Obama's record on gay rights, but Romney comes across as genuinely homophobic.

Yeah, I don't think Romney comes across as homophobic. I think he panders. And Obama panders. The pandering is no different.

I'm judging Romney based on what Romney did (Massachusetts gay marriage) versus what Obama did (DADT). Not on what each of them say, because that's irrelevant to what they will actually do.

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure if you and I are on the same page here. You seem to be judging Romney based on what Obama does or doesn't do. I'm relatively skeptical about Obama's record on gay rights, but Romney comes across as genuinely homophobic.

Yeah, I don't think Romney comes across as homophobic. I think he panders. And Obama panders. The pandering is no different.

I'm judging Romney based on what Romney did (Massachusetts gay marriage) versus what Obama did (DADT). Not on what each of them say, because that's irrelevant to what they will actually do.

So if I were to post evidence that Romney funded groups that claim that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured, you would, presumably come right out and say that his stance was homophobic?

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure if you and I are on the same page here. You seem to be judging Romney based on what Obama does or doesn't do. I'm relatively skeptical about Obama's record on gay rights, but Romney comes across as genuinely homophobic.

Yeah, I don't think Romney comes across as homophobic. I think he panders. And Obama panders. The pandering is no different.

I'm judging Romney based on what Romney did (Massachusetts gay marriage) versus what Obama did (DADT). Not on what each of them say, because that's irrelevant to what they will actually do.

So if I were to post evidence that Romney funded groups that claim that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured, you would, presumably come right out and say that his stance was homophobic?

No. I would say he's pandering to votes since it's been announced that he's done that (or else we have to consider this in light of his governorship of Massachusetts).

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure if you and I are on the same page here. You seem to be judging Romney based on what Obama does or doesn't do. I'm relatively skeptical about Obama's record on gay rights, but Romney comes across as genuinely homophobic.

Yeah, I don't think Romney comes across as homophobic. I think he panders. And Obama panders. The pandering is no different.

I'm judging Romney based on what Romney did (Massachusetts gay marriage) versus what Obama did (DADT). Not on what each of them say, because that's irrelevant to what they will actually do.

So if I were to post evidence that Romney funded groups that claim that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured, you would, presumably come right out and say that his stance was homophobic?

No. I would say he's pandering to votes since it's been announced that he's done that (or else we have to consider this in light of his governorship of Massachusetts).

You wouldn't consider the kind of voters he pandes toward as being an issue at all?

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure if you and I are on the same page here. You seem to be judging Romney based on what Obama does or doesn't do. I'm relatively skeptical about Obama's record on gay rights, but Romney comes across as genuinely homophobic.

Yeah, I don't think Romney comes across as homophobic. I think he panders. And Obama panders. The pandering is no different.

I'm judging Romney based on what Romney did (Massachusetts gay marriage) versus what Obama did (DADT). Not on what each of them say, because that's irrelevant to what they will actually do.

So if I were to post evidence that Romney funded groups that claim that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured, you would, presumably come right out and say that his stance was homophobic?

No. I would say he's pandering to votes since it's been announced that he's done that (or else we have to consider this in light of his governorship of Massachusetts).

You wouldn't consider the kind of voters he pandes toward as being an issue at all?

Sure I do. I'm not sure how that informs me as to what he will do if and when he's elected (given his track record), but I take that into account somewhat. You know how people were up in arms about neo-Nazis supporting Ron Paul? While I thought it sucked, I certainly didn't think Ron Paul would cater to those people in office (much like I don't think Mitt Romney would cater to the Christian coalition once he's in office or that Barack Obama will cater to the New Black Panthers).

[Symmetry]

You wouldn't consider the kind of voters he pandes toward as being an issue at all?

I'm not sure how that informs me as to what he will do if and when he's elected (given his track record), but I take that into account somewhat. You know how people were up in arms about neo-Nazis supporting Ron Paul? While I thought it sucked, I certainly didn't think Ron Paul would cater to those people in office (much like I don't think Mitt Romney would cater to the Christian coalition once he's in office or that Barack Obama will cater to the New Black Panthers).[/quote]

I don't understand. Romney is shown to cater to a far right group, anf that's someohow the same as Obama maybe in the future catering to the Black Panthers?

[Night Strike]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying Symm.

My point, overall, is that if you compare the policies of both candidates from when they were in office, there is nothing differentiating one from the other with respect to gay rights (except that Mitt Romney was governor of a state that permits gay marriage and President Obama was not and is not the president of a country that permits gay marriage).

I do think you have a fair point criticizing Obama's stance, I don;t think the comparison is equal though.

Why?

I've covered some of this before, but basically most see his campaign as pretty homophobic. Based solely on this issue I'd call him homophobic. but looking into his relationships with homophobic groups he does seem to have caved to the right/

Why are you basing your opinion of Romney on something that's completely unrelated? Being against same-sex marriage does not mean you have an irrational fear of homosexuals.

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying Symm.

My point, overall, is that if you compare the policies of both candidates from when they were in office, there is nothing differentiating one from the other with respect to gay rights (except that Mitt Romney was governor of a state that permits gay marriage and President Obama was not and is not the president of a country that permits gay marriage).

I do think you have a fair point criticizing Obama's stance, I don;t think the comparison is equal though.

Why?

I've covered some of this before, but basically most see his campaign as pretty homophobic. Based solely on this issue I'd call him homophobic. but looking into his relationships with homophobic groups he does seem to have caved to the right/

Why are you basing your opinion of Romney on something that's completely unrelated? Being against same-sex marriage does not mean you have an irrational fear of homosexuals.

Which of his fears would you describe as rational? If he has a rational reason for opposing same sex marriage, surely he should express that reason.

[Symmetry]

You wouldn't consider the kind of voters he pandes toward as being an issue at all?

Sure I do. I'm not sure how that informs me as to what he will do if and when he's elected (given his track record), but I take that into account somewhat. You know how people were up in arms about neo-Nazis supporting Ron Paul? While I thought it sucked, I certainly didn't think Ron Paul would cater to those people in office (much like I don't think Mitt Romney would cater to the Christian coalition once he's in office or that Barack Obama will cater to the New Black Panthers).

Surely if Romney is already picking his advisors and formulating foreign policy based on excluding homosexuals, that's kind of an issue, no? I get your general cynicism, but I don't understand why you don't apply it to Romney. Are you going to vote for him because you optimistically think he'll be less homophobic in office? Less willing to cave on points of policy?

If I know anything about your take on US politics, it's that you're a cynic. I don't mean that as a bad thing- cynicism is a fair take when it comes to politics. What I don't understand is why you've become an optimist with regards to Romney.

[thegreekdog]

You wouldn't consider the kind of voters he pandes toward as being an issue at all?

Sure I do. I'm not sure how that informs me as to what he will do if and when he's elected (given his track record), but I take that into account somewhat. You know how people were up in arms about neo-Nazis supporting Ron Paul? While I thought it sucked, I certainly didn't think Ron Paul would cater to those people in office (much like I don't think Mitt Romney would cater to the Christian coalition once he's in office or that Barack Obama will cater to the New Black Panthers).

Surely if Romney is already picking his advisors and formulating foreign policy based on excluding homosexuals, that's kind of an issue, no? I get your general cynicism, but I don't understand why you don't apply it to Romney. Are you going to vote for him because you optimistically think he'll be less homophobic in office? Less willing to cave on points of policy?

If I know anything about your take on US politics, it's that you're a cynic. I don't mean that as a bad thing- cynicism is a fair take when it comes to politics. What I don't understand is why you've become an optimist with regards to Romney.

Actually, I'm not voting for Romney. I'm either voting Libertarian or voting for the president. But the determination to not vote for Romney has little to do with his comments on gay marriage, who he donated money to with respect to gay marriage, or what he did or did not due as governor of Massachusetts. And my determination to vote for President Obama (if that's what I end up doing) also has little to do with his comments on gay marriage or what he's done as president.

If you asked me to predict the future with respect to gay marriage, I would say that President Romney would do nothing to make gay marriage illegal and that President Obama would do nothing to make gay marriage legal. Of course, that's my prediction so it could be wrong, but my prediction is what I'm going on.

[Symmetry]

You wouldn't consider the kind of voters he pandes toward as being an issue at all?

Sure I do. I'm not sure how that informs me as to what he will do if and when he's elected (given his track record), but I take that into account somewhat. You know how people were up in arms about neo-Nazis supporting Ron Paul? While I thought it sucked, I certainly didn't think Ron Paul would cater to those people in office (much like I don't think Mitt Romney would cater to the Christian coalition once he's in office or that Barack Obama will cater to the New Black Panthers).

Surely if Romney is already picking his advisors and formulating foreign policy based on excluding homosexuals, that's kind of an issue, no? I get your general cynicism, but I don't understand why you don't apply it to Romney. Are you going to vote for him because you optimistically think he'll be less homophobic in office? Less willing to cave on points of policy?

If I know anything about your take on US politics, it's that you're a cynic. I don't mean that as a bad thing- cynicism is a fair take when it comes to politics. What I don't understand is why you've become an optimist with regards to Romney.

Actually, I'm not voting for Romney. I'm either voting Libertarian or voting for the president. But the determination to not vote for Romney has little to do with his comments on gay marriage, who he donated money to with respect to gay marriage, or what he did or did not due as governor of Massachusetts. And my determination to vote for President Obama (if that's what I end up doing) also has little to do with his comments on gay marriage or what he's done as president.

If you asked me to predict the future with respect to gay marriage, I would say that President Romney would do nothing to make gay marriage illegal and that President Obama would do nothing to make gay marriage legal. Of course, that's my prediction so it could be wrong, but my prediction is what I'm going on.

Fair enough, although I do see his behaviour during the campaign as relevant to how he will behave once elected.

[thegreekdog]

Fair enough, although I do see his behaviour during the campaign as relevant to how he will behave once elected.

I think that is relevant to an extent; although at least with Bush and Obama it wasn't really all that relevant. President Bush didn't do anything untoward to gays, even though he was against gay marriage; he didn't do anything to limit abortions, even though he was publicly against abortion; he didn't raise taxes, but he certainly didn't balance the budget, which he was supposedly in favor of; and he definitely didn't cut spending. So, of the things that Bush talked about prior to his election (and his second election), a lot of them did not result in him doing anything. I've made similar claims about President Obama.

[Symmetry]

Fair enough, although I do see his behaviour during the campaign as relevant to how he will behave once elected.

I think that is relevant to an extent; although at least with Bush and Obama it wasn't really all that relevant. President Bush didn't do anything untoward to gays, even though he was against gay marriage; he didn't do anything to limit abortions, even though he was publicly against abortion; he didn't raise taxes, but he certainly didn't balance the budget, which he was supposedly in favor of; and he definitely didn't cut spending. So, of the things that Bush talked about prior to his election (and his second election), a lot of them did not result in him doing anything. I've made similar claims about President Obama.

Hmm, I see the point you're trying to make, but it doesn't really add up. All we have to judge Romney on is his past behaviour, and his current campaign. We can't look back in the way that we can with Obama, or Bush II and pick out the things he promised but didn't do.

We can, however, look at the things he does now, and criticise them. Hoping that he might not do what he did during an election campaign if elected is the polar opposite of hoping that a politician will do what he promised during an election campaign.

[Night Strike]

Surely if Romney is already picking his advisors and formulating foreign policy based on excluding homosexuals, that's kind of an issue, no?

The guy quit. He wasn't excluded because he was gay. Please get your facts straight.

[Symmetry]

Surely if Romney is already picking his advisors and formulating foreign policy based on excluding homosexuals, that's kind of an issue, no?

The guy quit. He wasn't excluded because he was gay. Please get your facts straight.

He was excluded because he was gay. Get your facts straight.

The ongoing pressure from social conservatives over his appointment and the reluctance of the Romney campaign to send Grenell out as a spokesman while controversy swirled left Grenell essentially with no job.

WaPo

But hey, maybe being gay had nothing to do with it at all. I await your sources.

[saxitoxin]

I await your sources.

Perhaps you should outline what sources you will find acceptable first? After the scene you made with your tantrum earlier in the thread toward GabonX you don't leave people desiring to engage with you in an adult-to-adult manner. This seems to be the source of much of the frustration you experience here.

[Symmetry]

I await your sources.

Perhaps you should outline what sources you will find acceptable first? After the scene you made with your tantrum earlier in the thread toward GabonX you don't leave people desiring to engage with you in an adult-to-adult manner.

It's nice that you care.

[Night Strike]

Surely if Romney is already picking his advisors and formulating foreign policy based on excluding homosexuals, that's kind of an issue, no?

The guy quit. He wasn't excluded because he was gay. Please get your facts straight.

He was excluded because he was gay. Get your facts straight.

The ongoing pressure from social conservatives over his appointment and the reluctance of the Romney campaign to send Grenell out as a spokesman while controversy swirled left Grenell essentially with no job.

WaPo

But hey, maybe being gay had nothing to do with it at all. I await your sources.

Your own sources said that he quit because people disagreed with his lifestyle. He wasn't excluded by the Romney campaign itself.

[Symmetry]

Surely if Romney is already picking his advisors and formulating foreign policy based on excluding homosexuals, that's kind of an issue, no?

The guy quit. He wasn't excluded because he was gay. Please get your facts straight.

He was excluded because he was gay. Get your facts straight.

The ongoing pressure from social conservatives over his appointment and the reluctance of the Romney campaign to send Grenell out as a spokesman while controversy swirled left Grenell essentially with no job.

WaPo

But hey, maybe being gay had nothing to do with it at all. I await your sources.

Your own sources said that he quit because people disagreed with his lifestyle. He wasn't excluded by the Romney campaign itself.

The very quote I gave says that he was excluded by the Romney campaign. That he was left in a position where he no longer had a job, that this was because he was gay, and was a result of outside pressure.

What else would you like me to provide?