By Jay Floyd
In 2008, for the first time since becoming a voter, I couldn’t vote for the Democrat that was running for President. It was an awful feeling. I’d enjoyed being part of a ‘team’, as well as the intellectual laziness that allowed me to break out the pom-poms every four years without asking too many questions. Of course, back then I didn’t know that I was being intellectually lazy. I didn’t know that I’d given in to team mentality. I could have sworn that I was voting on principles. Well, Hillary’s failure to achieve the nomination of the party I’d called home forced me to look closer, and I’ll never be the same. Twenty years from now it may seem like a blessing. Today, it still sucks.
I now believe there to be about five degrees of difference between the parties. I used to think that they were as different as night and day. I was wrong. It seems more likely that there are two parties in this country: The Very Rich, and Everyone Else. Going by who our politicians actually serve, this is the most logical conclusion I can come to.
This year, just as I did in 2008, I’ve been listening to the Republicans more than I ever had at any other time in my life. I said to my friend John, the proprietor of this fine blog spot, “I’m just waiting for them to say something so socially retrograde that I run for the hills.” Then, today, it came.
One of the talking heads at the RNC said during an interview today that though some may find the current GOP ‘fractured’, they all still believe in its core principles. The chief principle on the list being the most important: Family.
Statistically speaking (as though the word ‘family’ wasn’t code for other issues), please consider the following as of the 2010 census:
*There are 99.6 million unmarried people over age 18 in the U.S., representing nearly 44% of the adult population. U.S. Census Bureau. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2010″
*Unmarried households were 45% of all U.S. households. – U.S. Census Bureau. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2010″
But the conservative wing of the GOP isn’t talking about statistics when they use the word ‘family’. They mean ‘straight people raising kids’. They specifically mean, NOT gay people or anyone who chooses not to marry, when it’s legal, or reproduce. Overpopulation being the parent to absolutely all of our largest problems, this point of view would be forgivable if it were only ignorant. But it’s not. It’s hateful. It is made of the stuff that slavery was: this class of people are the ‘good’ people and everyone else is less valuable or even deviant.
It’s a snotty, elitist country club they’ve got going there, and they can kiss my ass. I think one did once… but that’s another story for another blog.
I will listen to Romney and I will listen to Ryan. Specifically, I will listen to the way they use the word ‘family’. And they probably will. What are the chances they’ll include other people’s definition of family? We’ll know soon enough.
I don’t think I’ll be listening to them much longer, though.
Come on, Gents. Surprise me.
What Jay said.
Jay – I’ve been feeling the same way. I am no longer a Democrat, thank you Ms. Brazille, but I cannot abide the Republicans. Since 2008 I can listen to them and actually hear what they’re saying but for the most part I still don’t like it. I also don’t see even five degrees of separation. .
As a voter in a swing state I am voting third party. I have had several people tell me that I am throwing away my vote. I don’t believe I am. I loathe Obama. Loathe. But I can’t go to the other side. At least I like the people here in the middle with me.
Lynne, a vote can’t be wasted as long as it’s owned. People who lay that crap on you are simply saying “You’re fucking with my paradigm, please stop.”
Please don’t stop.
I’m voting third party as well. I’m not really in a swing state, but nothing could compel me to vote for either corrupt clown. There are still some issues that matter to me and neither one of these grossly corrupt candidates will do anything but harm what I’ve fought for so long. Better a vote for Jill Stein than voting for the corrupt resident or the vulture capitalist . Blech.
If we all voted 3P, they’d all be swing states.
Lynne in Lakeland, I’m in a swing state too. And the way I see it, by voting for Jill Stein, I am making my vote count. IMO, throwing my vote away = voting for either Uni-Party candidate. You may want to toss that back in the faces of those who tell you you’re wasting your vote.
Thank you Jay. Very much. I just can’t polish that turd. Just because I despise what’s there doesn’t mean I am capable of pretending what wants to replace it is any better. I am just too angry and trapped with no place to go to say it well—and I know it. So…. Just….thank you for saying much of it for me. There is nowhere to go……
Spot on, Jay. Spot on.
Exactly, Jay. Excellent post.
Where the hell is the little applause emoticon when I need it!
This voter too is disgusted with both parties. And happy as a clam that I do not live in a swing state. (Don’t let anyone tell you PA is in play- that is pure unadulterated bullshit- as long as O takes Philly, Pittsburgh, Scranton/Wilkes-Barre and State College- they get the 20 electoral votes and I don’t see them losing any of those districts)
Neither party represents me. Or my family. Or what I internalize as “America.”
I heard the “family” crap last night and understood what they were saying. “Family” – that 1950′s fantasy family. Where nobody is gay, where no woman works outside the home after having children, where if a woman goes to college it is for the express purpose of “catching” a good (straight) marriagable man, and where she checks her opinions and any learning she gained at the door of the Church.
No thanks. Nope, the R’s are just as much a danger to this country as the current incarnation of evil called the (not) D party.
My vote will not be a vote “For” anybody. The strategy is to keep them (of either side) from getting veto proof majorities in both houses- and to keep DC from becoming a one party town. On both sides there are very strong factions trying to take us to a theocracy- one worships at the altar of Obama, the other at the altar of a vengeful “god” who has not one thing to do with Christian compassion at all.
PFFFTTT on them all.
Right on, Jay.
Hate to say it but I loved Ann Romney’s speech until she said she and Mitt had a “real marriage”. I got the message and it hurt.
I’m sorry, when did “family” become a hate word? When did someone saying that their marriage is not “storybook” but “real” become an attack on non-traditional marriage?
Seriously, some people are acting like everything.is.about.them.
If we’ve come to the point where straight people are not allowed to say nice things about their spouses or romantic partners without being attacked as haters, then no conversation is possible.
When Mitt Romney went to inner-city Philly to talk to about education and charter schools he talked about two parents being important. The press immediately called that anti-gay marraige. But how many black inner city kids have the problem that their two gay parents can’t get married – no, the overwhelming reality in Philly’s school problems is that teen moms are raising fatherless kids. There’s only so much that schools can do to help kids when their family – (yeah, I said that word so obviously I’m an anti-gay bigot) – when their family life sucks up the wazoo. But the media and the left would prefer to ignore that problem because it’s generates more campaign donations to pretend that the problem is anti-gay bigotry.
For the record I have always supported gay marriage but this attitude is crap. The country does not revolve around gay issues.
Sorry, Jay, I don’t mean to attack you personally on a guest post. I just vehemently disagree with this meme.
Don’t apologize for a good rant.
Votermom, it’s inexplicable to me that you don’t see how the ‘family’ concept is meant to exclude or chastise those who don’t have or want, as PMM said above, the ‘fifties model family’. This is not self indulgence on my part one little bit, nor is it only a gay issue that I’m calling to the carpet. The conformist ‘family’ concept peddled by conservative absolutists is as corrosive to single mothers as it is to a big homo in the West Village.
I understand what you’re reacting to, but it’s not applicable here.
Yeah, it’s inexplicable to me too that you think family, any kind of family, as long as it has love & support, can be a bad thing.
Single moms have a tough time – I know, my mom was one (widow) with no extended family support. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. I decry any culture that glorifies or glamorizes single-parenthood – raising a kid is a tough job. I don’t care if you are straight or single – having a kid is huge responsibility which is better faced if there are two of you equally committed to that kid’s well-being. (Even better if there are aunts & uncles & grandparents around, but primary commitment comes from the parents, whether bio or adoptive)
“Yeah, it’s inexplicable to me too that you think family, any kind of family, as long as it has love & support, can be a bad thing.”
I’m taking these words that you put in my mouth and giving them right back to you as I have no use for them.
Votermom- I’m gay and I am giving you a standing ovation. It seems that we are hearing “family” as an anti-gay dog whistle just like the self-described progressives hear “angry”, “arrogant”, “unqualified”, and “food stamps” as anti-black dog whistles.
ALL politicians waaaay overdo the odes to families as they pander to those pining away for Ward and June Cleaver. But when I hear someone talk about their husband, children, or wife, I don’t automatically assume that it’s a back-handed slap at me.
Thanks Kim.
Jay, I hear you. Having never voted R in my life, it’s hard to acknowledge even thinking about it., especially when they seem oblivious to how the other half lives Don’t their drivers ever have to traverse normal neighborhoods ? Have they never needed to use a public restroom, or grabbed a Mickey burger when everything else is closed ? Oth, the D’s have become almost unrecognizable too., what with Obamania, pandering, and corruption..When O finally showed a lukewarm approval of gay marriage, my first thought was that he did it to raise money. I hate how cynical today’s politics have made me, and I suspect, many others. They remind me of the obnoxious uncle who always gets invited to every family gathering, like it or not. Who decided on that ‘tradition’ ?
.
The disastrous “Boy in a Bubble’ has now become a metaphor for most politicians. Do their drivers never have to traverse through normal neighborhoods ? Have none of them ever needed to use a public restroom, or grab a Mickey burger when everything else was closed ? Both sides have become the obnoxious uncle who must always be invited to the party, who decided on That tradition ?
Neither side sees America clearly, the view is obscured by years of pandering, bending over for lobbyists,and pitting Americans against each other… An interesting exercise is to imagine who you would vote for if party affiliations were not shown on the ballot, a blind ‘taste test’ of sorts.
oh damn, the wordpress war rages on..
I watched last night. And wondered why sanitarypad frothy mix did not come on at his schedule dtime. We will never know but I suspect he whined and his far right wing fans whined until he got moved to prime time- so he could say things like this-
And there it is. Pandering to the people who hate gays and think they do not have the right to relationships and family. Because it is not “traditional.” Notice his “assault on marriage and the family” and then he goes on to define ‘home” (read family) as Married Moms and Dads. And he does not mean moms married to moms or dads married to dads.
They can shove it where the sun don’t shine. Santorum and his ilk still have a much too loud voice and too much control of the party. My daughter- and every other gay person- deserve happiness and if they want a family- well then. She also deserves choice.
And most of all she deserves a political party that represents her.
And neither party does that.
Mom, I didn’t take the marriage comment that way at all, but I do appreciate your sensitivity to the issue. Having spent too many years in the “single Mom” culture, ensuring that they get untold Social Services, I interpreted the comment from a very different perspective. The mute acceptance and support for teen mommies is destructive in so many far reaching ways it is impossible to describe here. The most injured victims are the children themselves. A kid growing up with two mommies or two daddies is a lucky child indeed. Although, one grown up and committed parent is also a far better break than most of the kids I encountered ever got.
See? No code-wheel deciphering needed.
What ever could Santorum have in mind when he speaks of “the assault on marriage”?
Apparently, unmarried moms & dads, that is, domestic partners who skipped the formality of having a 60-year old virgin wearing a dress sanctify their union, are undermining our community and raising bad citizens.
conner- LIVED the single mom thing and yes it was hard, and yes it sucked. I had sisters and parents and brothers to help out and I get what you are saying on the teen mother issue.
However, Santorum has always, ALWAYS, been very open about his vehement opposition to any marriage but the traditional one of Mother/Father, male female. His hatred of gays and wish to deny them is legend. His absolute opposition to a woman’s right to reproductive choice is well known- he spouts it as often as he is given a stage.
We can know that two loving stable parents – regardless of their sex or sexual orientation-give children all kinds of social, economic and emotional benefits. Santitarypad and his followers do NOT believe that and will do everything they can to impose their views and beliefs on the rest of us.
I want none of it. The choices this time around are slow death and slower death.
Could this be because of his glaring and embarrassingly uncontrollable obsession with his grandfather’s “thick, big hands” I wonder? He’s a fucking sicko, and I think he knows it
Great post, Jay.
I share your feelings about voting R (for the first time in my life, too) in 20008. I voted for McCain in 2008 because of the two choices I had, he was the more trustworthy in my opinion. Not saying a lot for the Dems, is it?
I have never been a registered D or R. I have always been in Independent because I don’t like the luxury (or intellectual laziness, as you put it) of ‘group think’. But I had also always voted for Democrats because their platform and philosophies were closer to my own than the Republicans.
In 2008 the Democrats threw Hillary Clinton aside like a crumpled paper wrapper, despite the fact that she had the majority of the popular vote. That left me feeling completely betrayed by the party I believed had my back for my entire life. So here I was – I had no more trust in my (perceived) heroes. They had shown themselves to be as shady as their adversary, and I truly felt like the cliché “Man Without a Country”, and to some degree I still do.
If Hillary Clinton was running today, I would vote for her in a heartbeat. I would also phonebank, volunteer – anything I could – to ensure her best shot at winning. But she’s not running, and at this time I have to say that I honestly trust Mitt Romney a hell of a lot more than I trust Barack Obama, so he has won my vote.
I feel differently than you and others here about third party candidates. I personally believe that casting a vote for one of the TPC’s would do little more than contribute to Obama winning in November. That is not to say I believe I’m right and you (plural) are wrong. I mention that because that “I’m right and you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about!” sentiment is often seen in this comment forum, and I want to be clear that I am not part of that small but loud chorus.
I feel that way because our political system is so shady that even if a TPC wins, our corrupt Congress would block each and every step they take simply to ensure their next term and the vice grip they have on voters. It is imperative that Obamacare be either repealed or (preferably) revised and reformed. To satisfy my spirit just isn’t as important when casting my vote. Its not a level playing field and the game of campaign politics is a dirty game. I’m just going to game the system vote for the person I trust more, regardless of which of the two (bogus) parties they are represented by.
Sorry for the long winded comment, but I’ve been working my ass off for the past four days, and have’t had time to come up for air until now. Your post resonated strongly with my own feelings and I hope I’ve contributed another point of view. If you made it this far, thanks for reading.
A good thoughtful comment. I agree, for the most part. Definitely agree on the Hillary part.
You’re fooling yourself if you think you can “game the system” — the system is rigged, & plays all of us like a fiddle. Ever accepting Hobson’s choices between the lesser of ever more evil evils, is exactly what the system hopes we’ll do.
If our system is so “shady” and Congress so “corrupt” as you believe, why play along? I often encountered such resignation in East Germany; now it’s appropriate for the USA?
Unlike obama, I do *trust* Romney to do what he promises. I just don’t like what he’ll do.
There is a way out of this — we only need to take the first step.
http://www.jillstein.org/
Tamerlane, perhaps “game the system” was a poor choice of words. A better explanation would be that if we really only have two choices because of the way the system is rigged, than my vote will be cast for a person rather than a party. I live in New York, which is a shoo-in for Obama, but the more purple it becomes, the straighter a line local elected officials will walk because it will become apparent that not all is well among the people. If that’s all I can accomplish, then thats enough for me. I also trust Romney to do what he says he would do, and based on his performance as a R governor in a D state, the amount of bi-partisanship he showed himself capable of is far more telling than the promises he makes to his base while trying to rouse their enthusiasm.
I also ‘get’ your enthusiasm for Stein, but I don’t agree with much of her platform. The only thing that appeals to me is that she is a woman and she is a 3rd party candidate. My opinion is that those votes will be exceeded by votes cast for either Romney or Obama and might possibly put Obama at an advantage.
For my own personal reasons, I think a second term would be dangerous both economically and also specifically with regard to healthcare. I’ve done enough advocacy for seniors who are already being deprived of the same quality of care they’ve been given before the ACA was implemented, and in reading the way the remainder of the ACA will be implemented over the next 5 years I can see that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
While I can understand your opinion, I cannot agree with it. I could not vote for Stein because of her POV on many issues, and to cast my vote for her as only a protest doesn’t sit well with me. That doesn’t mean that I can’t understand why it would make sense to you, but I don’t share that opinion. I have no problem disagreeing about this in an agreeable manner, so I do respect your point of view and don’t think you’re fooling yourself – you simply espouse that opinion. Its just not an opinion that I share after looking into Jill Stein’s platform.
What you’re saying is, among obama, Romney, Stein, and Johnson, Romney’s platform most closely matches your views. That leaves me a bit confused as to why you were such a loyal democratic voter, and adore Hillary Clinton so much.
Let me try to help clear some of that confusion. Until 2008, I believed that the Democrats had my back. I’m a fiscal conservative, but more than a little (more than very) liberal on social policies. If you want details, you can link to my website and read the “About Me” page.
I’ve been registered as an Independent all my life. I didn’t support Hillary Clinton because she was a Democrat. I supported her because she earned my respect over many years, and when she was my state Senator, she was able to reach across the aisle and create bipartisan solutions. In other words, I voted for the person, not the party.
By time 2008 came around, the Dems had been hijacked by their progressive wing, much like the Repubs had been hijacked by the neocons (and Jesus). Because of the progressives (hilarious word for such zealots), the Democratic party no longer represented fiscal responsibility. Hence, the systematic elimination of Blue Dog Dems which were replaced by the likes of Alan Grayson (who lasted less than a New York minute), and Debbie Wasserman Shultz. That’s why I voted for McCain in 2008 – I trusted him more than his opponent.
My support for Romney is because of his record in public service as well as in the private sector. His unpopularity with the Repub base encourages me to see him as the moderate he appears to be, which is supported by his actual record. As with my support for Hillary Clinton, my support for Romney has been earned. It has nothing to do with the party he is affiliated with.
” I read somewhere that Mitt and I have a storybook marriage. Well, let me tell you something. In the storybooks I read, there never were long, long rainy winter afternoons in a house
with five boys screaming at once, and those storybooks never seemed to have chapter’s called
M.S. or breast cancer. A storybook marriage? Nope, not at all. What Mitt Romney and I have is a real marriage.”
I don’t hear a dog whistle. Sounds like an attempt to paint the Romney’s as ‘ordinary foik’.
No need for a code wheel to discover secret messages in the candidate’s wife’s speech: the GOP is very open about its preference for ‘traditional’ forms of behavior.
Agreed.
I do think though that she missed an opportunity to use a more inclusive definition of marriage. Then again, she’s a (converted) Mormon, so that may be a bridge too far.
I saw this comment about “real” marriage as a way to differentiate themselves from a woman in a “corporate” marriage (as posited by the proglodytes), for the sake of appearances and general financial contract gains. A real marriage where there is give and take, and arguments, shared chores (however they chose to split them), compromises and Mitch’s compassion. The type of daily disagreements we have with our “spouse.” Sounds like much of this occurred early on in their marriage and while the kids were young. There are plenty of people who are rich who actually don’t have a live-in maid/housekeeper. I agree that Santorum spouting his ides before Ann’s speech shows no need to hide what he and his like believe to be traditional marriage. But as far as the Romney speech, it was just a way to connect with those woman who are in a like situation.
Jay — While I don’t agree with your takeaway from Ann Romney’s speech (I’m assuming that’s what you’re reacting to), I’m happy to see a piece by you, and I enjoyed reading it. Hope to see other contributions.
I’ll correct myself, Jay — looks like you were reacting to a RNC talking head (who?), not Ann R. (or at least not exclusively so).
I was not in fact commenting on Ann Romney or her speech.
For the political addicts here, this is fun to play with: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/ecalculator#?battleground
“…, and they can kiss my ass. I think one did once… but that’s another story for another blog.”
ROFL…do tell.
Panning this one, Jay. Nearly everyone has a parent, grandparents, aunts, and uncles, and they are family too. Family is a unifying feature of American life whether someone is married or not. It’s not anit-gay speech, and it’s more than a little ironic of you to use that last line while complaining about exclusion. My 2 cents.
You’re supporting your candidate to the point of blindness, Lola, which is exactly what I expected you to do.
If you’re referring to the word ‘Gents’, show me a woman in the running and I’ll change it.
Lola’s not blind, Jay.
She sees and she knows what she’s doing. She’s read the manual. She’s a bit late to the game but she knows the rules.
You asked me, in the last thread, why I’m interested in what people think. I’m interested because when people tell you what they think they’re telling you who they are. The more they tell you what they think, the more they reveal the truth of who they are. Even when they’re lying. I’m a lifelong student of human nature and there’s no better instructor than getting to the truth of individual human beings.
I’m relentlessly observant and I believe people when they show who they are.
I just have a hard time thinking I’ve gotten to the ‘real’ person when addressing them exclusively under a false identity they’ve created. I know others don’t find this a conundrum – but I do.
Last night, I had the opportunity to look an actual person in the eye and say, “Any viewpoint that excludes marriage equality is completely unacceptable.” It was such a relief.
You didn’t refer to the candidates, Jay, you referred to a “talking head” and the entire GOP. Guess what? Plenty of women in that party, ya know.
As for your bitchy point about my support for Romney, looks my sensible critique of your post here might have hit a nerve, so you jabbed with a personal insult to my intelligence. Every little hurt you have does not need to be writ large in the national fucking conversation, ffs. It isn’t always about you. And if you can’t take the criticism, maybe you should think harder before producing such utterly narcissistic tripe in text.
My point exactly, Jay.
You get to the real person by listening to what they say and seeing what they do, not by their name or presentation.
Very few human beings replace their authentic self with a false identity. They put on a mask, learn how to flatter or manipulate, all that’s a veneer on their real self. Our true identity remains like our fingerprints and in our words and actions (especially unguarded), we show who we are.
BTW, this penchant today for adoration of the likable and rejection of anything delivered as smug or condescending is an easy way of recognizing why people keep making such poor choices. Judging what’s good or bad by the cover, by the color of skin, by the superficial personality, is a sure recipe for getting it wrong.
Lola:
First:
“You didn’t refer to the candidates, Jay, you referred to a “talking head” and the entire GOP. Guess what? Plenty of women in that party, ya know.”
You said “and it’s more than a little ironic of you to use that last line while complaining about exclusion. ” The last line in my post uses the word ‘Gents’. The talking head reference was at the top of the post. So now I have no idea what you’re talking about.
As for your intelligence — no, I think you’re intelligent. And blind as a fucking bat. That you don’t see it is expected — I’ve been there myself about Bill Clinton years ago. You prove it here, because what I wrote about in this post is absolutely true and absolutely appalling. Yet you minimize, deny, deflect or defend it.
I’ve been clear as a bell that the ‘family’ values crap isn’t just about gays, so you can bring it up and pretend that’s what I’ve said all you want.
While we’re in this unpleasant place, wasn’t it you who used a version of the word ‘faggot’ non-ironically in an argument with Zal somewhat recently?
Lola-at-large,
It’s clear the point Jay is making escapes you – perhaps you’re being purposely obtuse. It is well known that the “family values” crowd prefer straight couples and families. As a women’s rights/gay rights/civil rights activist for more than 40 years this mindset is pretty prevalent within the halls of conservatism AKA Republicans.
Why you, a Hillary Clinton supporter, could now be fundraising for a Mormon whose church has institutionalized inequity between the sexes, who is also a vulture capitalist, and who is a conservative Republican and all that embraces, is totally incomprehensible to me and throws the values of Hillary Clinton right under the bus.
This also goes for those not willing to vote third party to try to get a big enough number of us that will tell the two-party dichotomy that we, the people, have had enough. This is the election in which third party votes can indeed make a difference.
Two jackasses who support the same policies and are bought and paid for by the same corporations, why wouldn’t anyone who could see this situation not vote third party?
And Anthony, you may not agree with Jill Stein’s POV, but I guarantee that she is a much better representative of We, The People.
To those of you above who don’t accept what ‘family’ values means on the lips of staunch conservatives, here’s how Wikipedia explains exactly what I’m talking about:
***
Since 1980, the Republican Party has used the issue of family values to attract socially conservative voters.[4] While family values remains an amorphous concept, social conservatives usually understand the term to include some combination of the following principles (also referenced in the 2004 Republican Party platform):[5]
Promotion of traditional marriage and opposition to sex outside of marriage
Support for a traditional role for women in the family.
Opposition to same-sex marriage
Support for complementarianism[6][7][8]
Opposition to legalized abortion
Support for abstinence education
Support for policies that are said to protect children from obscenity and exploitation
Social and religious conservatives often use the term “family values” to promote conservative ideology that supports traditional morality or Christian values.[9] Some American conservative Christians see their religion as the source of morality and consider the nuclear family to be an essential element in society. For example, “The American Family Association exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth and traditional family values.”[10] These groups variously oppose abortion, pornography, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, certain aspects of feminism, cohabitation, separation of church and state, and depictions of sexuality in the media.
***
Wikipedia’s list of how social conservatives have “usually” understood the term “family values” since the 1980s? Wow, that’s some pretty weak proof for your sweeping statement that republicans want an America: “Where nobody is gay, where no woman works outside the home after having children, where if a woman goes to college it is for the express purpose of “catching” a good (straight) marriagable man, and where she checks her opinions and any learning she gained at the door of the Church.”
You reached deep into your own bag of dusty stereotypes to pull that one out.
Kim, respond to what I’ve actually said or shut up.
NOWHERE did I say that all Republicans are this way. I’ve said that a vocal and far right contingent is, and they are. This is a fact. It is not disputable.
Keep in mind though that not every republican agrees with that platform. I have family members who are republican who don’t and support gay marriage. Some of my sisters consider themselves that “new type of feminist.” Romney still has to be considered attractive to both factions of the party — fiscal & social–in order to beat Obama. So the message of “traditional marriage” from Santorum was no surprise to me. Indeed, he did win delegates so they had to put him on stage, and when they saw he still got votes despite releasing his delegates a prime time slot made more sense; there was no getting away from it.
Wasn’t Romney’s softness/moderateness on social issues the reason it took so long for him to win the nomination anyway? He’s not a true conservative as far as the fundies are concerned. I’m more impressed with Romney’s willingness to work with the other side of the aisle as Mass Gov. It was also telling that the RNC chose to hold an open roll call vote knowing that there would not be unanimous support for Romney (Ron Paul got quite a lot of delegate votes, Santorum a few). Still unsure which way my vote will go; thinking about writing in Hillary again. Waiting to hear what Romney says.
Jay, you certainly deserve respect for sharing your opinion. You were open with your support and now see proof that ensure the Repubs won’t get your vote. I wouldn’t expect less from you — an open-minded person who has his principles. But since I do know repubs who aren’t the whacky conservative types that want to dictate our bedroom behavior, I disagree with some of your points.
If I understood Jay’s post correctly, he was saying that the GOP’s inclusion of anti-gay, anti-nonconformist sentiments under its ‘tent’ is a deal-breaker for him entering that tent or supporting candidates of that party.
As an atheist and libertine, it’s a deal-breaker for me, too.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/29/on-paranoia-and-lefts-obsession-with-hearing-dog-whistles/
Bingo.
Great link, myx. And, so true.
What I think about when I see posts like this is – wake up!!! We don’t have the luxury of wallowing – yes, I said it – on these social issues that Presidents have little to not control over. I don’t live in a traditional family structure – never have – but NOW IS NOT THE TIME. We have VERY SERIOUS economic problems to deal with. That is THE ONLY THING I. CARE ABOUT. There is a serious problem in Greece right now with people abandoning their children because there is no way to make enough for many people to live. How far away do you think we are from that if we dont right the ship before time runs out? The Greeks aren’t worried about whether their leaders all agree exactly with them about any definition of family structure. They just wish they had competent managers who could run their country and not run it into the ground.
As someone who also spends much of my time in southern Africa, it always just amazes me how even many thoughtful Americans see politics and voting as so separate from their basic needs – food, water and shelter – that they have the ultimate luxury of using their right to the franchise to vote for people who only buy into their overall world view. Maybe you will be so lucky to always have it stay that way. But by the time that luck runs out, of course, it’ll be too late. Me – I’m going to vote for the person who I may not agree with on much socially – but who is going to be far and away the best on what I think is the absolute priority: ensuring the best climate for everyone – gay, straight, bi, black, white, brown, everyone – to live a healthy and productive life.
Well this, from myiq’s link, isn’t true:
I don’t know what message Ann Romney intended to convey, but in point of fact it IS possible to interpret her remark as an anti-gay cipher. And considering the Mormon position on homosexuality and same sex marriage, the possibility of a double meaning becomes more possible.
Add to that list ‘liberal or conservative’. Excellent comment, Run. Thanks for presenting the voice of reason.
It is also possible to interpret that remark to mean anything one needs to hear hidden within it if someone is paranoid enough, including a racist slur (per Touré this afternoon.)
It doesn’t mean that those interpretations are accurate. They are only the opinions of others. The only person who could explain what she meant with any degree of certainty is Ms. Romney herself. So far, she hasn’t weighed in.
My guess is that it was a straightforward remark intended for those who think the Romneys are somehow exempt from the trials and tribulations of marriage that people of lesser means have to endure, as the Obama camp has suggested on many occasions.
Run, I agree with you 100% on that point — we simply don’t have the luxury at this point to vote based on our social concerns; the state of our economy is at stake. We are near Great Depression levels. Obama has proved he has no clue as to how to right this ship. Dems, of whom not a single one voted for his economic policy (not once, but 2x), seem to agree with that sentiment. And Obama still hasn’t made jobs a priority nor has he come up with a plan to offer us. As long as he and his cronies are covered, he doesn’t care, and won’t either in a second term. Do I think he give’s a rat’s ass about whether my “husband” has a job even though we support gay marriage and are prochoice? Hell to the NO.
I’ve come to this realization after having grown up in bouts of poverty — flush at one time and downhill after my parents’ divorce, then as an adult when I was diagnosed with chronic fatigue. If you cannot provide for yourself, are starving and have no shelter — you will sell your principles (to some degree) in order to get those basics and you’ll do it faster if you have dependents. Yes, people can make do with govt help. But how much longer can we sustain this type of living for people, recently unemployed ones and those who have been on generational welfare. At some point the bank is gonna bust, like Greece. And we’ll see a return to “Wild Boys of the Road” and “Pretty Baby.” Indeed, increasingly these types of scenarios have been playing out in the impoverished urban communities.
FTR, I’m not lambasting ANYBODY who in the end chooses to vote based on their social concerns, I am not in their shoes so I can’t make that decision for them. But I will try to convince my friends otherwise.
That’s right. And that is the best reason to not vote for a Romney/Ryan administration being in power with a Republican Congress.
Divided government would be better than that.
I agree that “divided government” is better. But, I think we’ll have that: MR in the WH, a R House, and a D Senate. Much as the GOP dreams of this, I don’t think they turn the Senate this time around. I’ll try do my part for divided government by voting DiFi back into her Senate seat.
Personally, I didn’t take Ann R.’s comments as being anti-gay when I heard them, and I still don’t upon further contemplation. That said, I can see how one could put that gloss on them. It’s ambiguous.
Whatever the truth of what she meant, I don’t think, however, that a Romney White House is going to promote the far-right ‘social’ (anti-social) agenda. The far-right damn well knows it too– that’s why MR had to claw his way to the nomination, state by state pretty much through June.
I get why people (including my good friend, SophieCT) are sick and tired of the far-right and their domination of the GOP. I’m sick and tired of it too. But, I think Mitt Romney may actually be part of “your grandfather’s Republican Party.” Not for nothing does he get called a RINO. I’m betting he won’t be intruding into women’s uterii– I just don’t see it.
A friend of mine who is a Republican told me that he is afraid that another Obama term could lead to a backlash where the next Republican will be faaaaaar right. Crazy right. Fascist right.
Lynne, excellent point! This is a concern I’ve heard as well. There are many republicans who are afraid of those loonies because of their social beliefs. Romney seems to be the moderate choice.
Good. And then that horrid party will be dead.
Zal said
Wow. And it is of course POSSIBLE to interpret everything as a racial slur just like our friend Toure. I can’t believe how many intelligent commenters in this forum went down that road.
I don’t think it’s so hard to believe.
Personally, I didn’t interpret it that way but it’s not really a stretch. The Romneys are people who give several million dollars a year -more than most people have in a lifetime- to an organization that disapproves of homosexuality and is staunchly opposed to same sex marriage. Nevermind Ryan and the rest of the Republican Party. It wouldn’t be unprecedented to use a pleasantly presented wife’s speech to insert implied social commentary with plausible deniability.
Many politicians donate thousands to their religious houses that have traditional beliefs about marriage and homosexuality. Like Catholics and Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they are religious whackos. Some people stay in the church for more than religious reasons, there is community and dare I say, networking opportunities. I grew up with religious whackos, fundamentalist pentecostals. There is a difference.
Zal, honest answer please: do you have a problem with the Mormon church? You’re seem a bit fixated on how much money MR tithes to them. I’m no friend of religions in general, but I don’t think the LDS Church is any more homophobic or misogynistic than the Catholic Church.
It’s by far the bulk of his charitable giving, an enormous amount of money to give to one charity, indicating a fervent belief and commitment to what LDS preaches and stands for.
I have nothing against the Mormon Church that I don’t have against other cultish organizations that preach oppression against gays and women.
My wife, an O-supporter, and I, who\’ve voted third party since \’96, still manage to discuss politics for milliseconds before spontaneous combustion. She recommends Adam Gopnik\’s typically fluent if unsurprising essay in the New Yorker on LDS and Romney; she mused why Romney might not release his tax returns. The 10% tithe revelation might stoke evangelical distrust; the GOP does not want to remind voters of such Mormon devotion. Does her surmise make sense to any of you seasoned spectators? http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/08/13/120813crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=all
Run & Fembots, I think your basic premises couldn’t be more wrong.
1. Social justice is not a luxury. Maybe you’re willing to trade them away, but you don’t speak for me.
2. It’s the economy & jobs. I would go for that. You believe that Romney will be good for the economy and that he will create jobs. I don’t see any evidence of that.
For the record, I think Obama is a failure and a waste of four years of American life. But that hardly makes Romney the good guy or even the better guy. You are imparting your own desires on him and that is your right. And as is my right, I disagree with your assessment.
I don’t think that social justice is a luxury. I am not speaking for you or anybody here. What I’m saying is that *most* people will sell their principles for food & shelter. History has proved this time and again, which is why I saw Obama as the danger to liberalism and our economy he has become. He did not have a jobs plan, did not come up with a feasible plan, and will not come up with one that is broad in his second term either. If he didn’t care about his constituents, the working poor, who had to live in slum housing where sewage backed up into their kitchen sinks, roaches were pouring out of electrical outlets, and lived in buildings that did not have windows on them during the subfreezing temps of Chicago winters after thousands of complaints had flooded his office when he was an IL senator — why is he going to care now? He’s even more removed from the little person’s concerns.
Do I personally believe that Romney will be better for the economy because of his economic policies which seem more supply-side oriented? I don’t know. What I do know is that small business owners do not have faith in Obama *now* and as they tend to be cautious with their finances are not feeling secure enough to expand their businesses (invest more) or have laid off workers in anticipation of future financial concerns since they have to think down the road about their economic success (next year, five years, etc.). They have said and proved that they will not expand economically under Obama, and that under Romney who *they* trust, they will. They fear the repercussions of Obamacare on the business they built. Small business owners I know will most likely just wait out another 4 years if Obama is reelected; they are already planning for it.
“What I do know is that small business owners do not have faith in Obama *now* and as they tend to be cautious with their finances are not feeling secure enough to expand their businesses (invest more) or have laid off workers in anticipation of future financial concerns since they have to think down the road about their economic success (next year, five years, etc.). They have said and proved that they will not expand economically under Obama, and that under Romney who *they* trust, they will. They fear the repercussions of Obamacare on the business they built. Small business owners I know will most likely just wait out another 4 years if Obama is reelected; they are already planning for it.”
I believe this to be true.
Fembots thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Out of the mouths of babes… Rand Paul (channeling Franklin) just said:
We must never trade our liberty for any fleeting promise of security.
With all due respect, fembots, you said:
we simply don’t have the luxury at this point to vote based on our social concerns; the state of our economy is at stake.
How ironic that Rand Paul — with his antediluvian views on women’s reproductive rights — should speak of the primacy of liberty. Hypocrisy and politics — two peas in a pod.
“The United States has collapsed economically, socially, politically, legally, constitutionally, and environmentally.”
“There are six million Americans whose only income is food stamps. That means that there are six million Americans who live on the streets or under bridges or in the homes of relatives or friends. Hard-hearted Republicans continue to rail at welfare…”
“Both political parties whore for money.”
“Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to cut or abolish every program that cushions poverty-stricken Americans from starvation and homelessness”
From the blog of Paul Craig Roberts, a conservative and assistant Secretary of Treasury under Ronald Reagan. I urge you all to read the entire article.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/08/24/americas-descent-poverty-paul-craig-roberts/
Sophie, you’re right I did say “luxury”. That was not a good word choice, a better choice could have been made. But from that standpoint, some people (not all of us here at this blog) do feel that it is a subordinate concern to their present economic ones. That’s what makes having a strong middle class so important since it is a strong indicator that our concerns –fiscal and social– can become more equalized in importance.
I respect what you have to say Sophie. I’m just showing another viewpoint that “Middle America” has since I live in the Midwest. Like I’ve been saying since the WI recall effort, the economy is their main concern & the perception of who will satisfy that concern is what they are voting on. Even the college kids are concerned about it. Nobody was a the Obama booth on my campus yesterday, but there were lines of kids waiting to sign up at the Romney one. What a change!
NES — “Hypocrisy and politics — two peas in a pod.” LOL
John: I’m betting you noticed that Ann Romney uttered the till-now forbidden word (in MR’s campaign): Mormon. I think it’s interestign how she rolled that out, quickly pairing it with the reassuring note that she was an Episcopalian (presumably until she converted). I wonder if the Romneys wouldn’t just be better off, politically, if they just OWN it: “Yes, we’re Mormon; deal with it. Not only are we like everyone else, we’re part of a fundamentally American religion — the first to be founded here, in the good ol’ USA.”
Historically, the Mormons have been very impressive — grit and guts. I like them, actually — for the same reasons JFK did: http://archive.org/details/jfk19630926
A: Sophie – “social justice” is a meaningless term. Go ahead. Try to define it. And, yes – some stupid concept dreamt up by law professors to keep themselves employed is most def a luxury we can’t afford.
B: but – I don’t in any way speak for you. Didn’t claim too. And, wouldn’t want to since I believe you are one of those sneaky Obama supporters who claim they don’t support Obama but then spend all their time saying “I don’t see any evidence that Romney can create jobs.”. Of course, this could only be the case for someone wilfully blind to the 1000′s of jobs Romney created himself as a private citizen and the 1000′s more as a governor. Yeah – my “desires!” when i am looking at #s and evidence, only thing an Obot can talk about are “feelings.” Only an Obot creates such an alternate reality for themselves.
O for crying out loud, SophieCT is no Obot. Her dislike of Romney/Ryan doesn’t translate into a vote for O. There’re a number of people here (including the host, I believe) who aren’t sold on Romney, and are therefore voting for a third party candidate; SophieCT’s no different. Why single her out for such an insult?
since I believe you are one of those sneaky Obama supporters who claim they don’t support Obama
Thank you for proving in one comment what I couldn’t dream of accomplishing in 10–that you have absolutely no sense of people and no skills with perception.
To NES and Sophie: Anyone who says something ,crazy like “Oh I don’t like Obama, but Romney is no better on jobs” is an Obot in my book. The whole deciding to vote or not vote based on complete utter denial of basic evidence is an Obot in my book. The decision to vote based on some stupid idiom like “social justice” – which still wasn’t defined by the way but is bandied around by Obots like it means something – is quintessential Obot in my book.
I don’t care how long you say you’ve been talking ill about Obama – choose a side now – a SIDE THAT MATTERS – and for long-term reasons – not because it makes you feel good. And, any choice for someone other than Romney, in my book is because people just want to feel good, not make the tough choice that will matter.
For all those voting for a third party – really??!! I challenge all of you – in your deepest heart of hearts – do you really think that 3rd party candidate would actually be a good manager of the US economy? Because that’s the only question for me. If you were going to put your life savings in the hands of someone to manage – would it be with the 3rd party candidate for President? Would it be with Obama? Or, would you put it with Romney? I know who I would trust with my own money.
And, if you can honestly answer that question, then who would you put the $14 Trillion US economy in the hands of? Obama? Green Party? Or, Romney?
Your “book” was written by a hack writer.
Can you not see how ludicrous it is to CHOOSE A SIDE NOW?” Tell me, would you rather drown in the ocean or a swimming pool? Would you rather have your shit sandwich with mustard or mayo?
There is absolutely no evidence that Romney will be good for the economy. He supports most of the economic theories that have failed in the past. But since you are the kind of person that is uncomfortable without “a side,” I understand your fervent, if misguided, passion.
Sophie – do you think you are funny? Do you think this is the time to tell lame jokes? This is why I label you an Obot – because you think it’s fine to tell stupid jokes when the country is burning. Also, an Obot refuses to see facts and evidence in front of them as did you. We have 4 years of Obama’s incompetence, not to mention a lifetime before he became president. Romney is 60 YEARS OLD WITH A TRACK RECORD AND YOU ACT LIKE YOU CAN’T FIGURE OUT WHAT HE WOULD DO AS PRESIDENT. That’s ridiculous, and what I expect from an Obot. Come on – Jesus H Christ – we have a friggin election – an important one in front of us. Stop acting like this is for prom king.
Tell me how an incredibly successful businessman who has “sided” with policies on both the left and right given what works – because he’s a pragmatist – has “failed.” And be effing specific because this is kind of important.
Actually, I do (sometimes). But I wasn’t being funny eith you I think your book is wrong. Patently wrong. You wouldn’t know an Obot if he intercepted your choom. Obot is the new raycist with you.
I think your premise that Romney would be good for the economy is flat-out wrong. You assume that becuase Romney is rich and ran/runs a successful company, he’ll be good at restoring the American economy to health. That’s just as intellectually lazy as the people who assumed Obama would be good for race relations because he’s black.
Social justice will just have to be yet another one of those things you remain ignorant about because it’s not my job to look up stuff for you. In your world, the economy is important stuff and social justice is soft and squishy stuff. They are intertwined and people who don’t get that live in some of the most miserable countries in the world. If you want to live in a country with a strong economy and lousy social justice, move to Saudi Arabia.
By the way, a family in America is an economic unit. You may think it’s all cute that gay people want to marry each other but it’s economics.
Just so you know, I do admire your tenacity and patience over these last four years. It must have been lonely being the sleeper winger assigned to this blog.
And one more thing–if social justice is a luxury, why is there time for the anti-social injustice that the right-wing keeps hurling at us?
Votermom – I 100% agree with your post above. You are one of the most well thought out and reasoned posters. I have a gay daughter. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with the republican use of the word family. Why would anyone? Family means family. You have to try really, really hard and dig deep to find an anti-gay message in the word family. If people don’t want to vote republican that is their choice but they should be honest about their reasons. It is not the republicans fault some people think family means anti-gay. That bigotry belongs to the person who talks such nonense. Also Republicans have families. Republicans have gay people in their families. A rational person knows some democrats are against gay marriage and some are for it. Same with republicans. People are not cookies cutters. There is no line that says republicans are all against gay marriage and all democrats are for it. That is dishonest.
You are one of the most well thought out and reasoned posters.
Thanks Julie. I really appreciate that. I have a gay nephew who I love to pieces – he was the first baby whose nappies I changed. He’s a proud uncle now and there is no doubt in my mind that family is one of the most important things in his life.
There is no line that says republicans are all against gay marriage and all democrats are for it. That is dishonest.
You are correct. For example, Dick Cheney supports gay marriage. Unfortunately, when he had power and control (in other words, when he could have done something positive), he was running on a Family Values platform and was adamantly against it, despite having a gay daughter.
THIS!
I am most rational- I know there are D’s and R’s who are for and against any number of issues. Gay marriage, reproductive choice, obamacare etc etc.
I live in PA. I heard Santorum last night. As I have heard him in the past. He has never been secretive about his ideology of the family being defined as one man, one woman.
The R platform embodies that concept. And also is anti choice. There are things in the platform that I agree with too. PA threw his ass out for a reason. He is a friggin crackpot.
If they have a message of inclusion I will believe it when they stop giving prime time slots(and platform planks) to the right wing extremists who are interested in controlling what people do in ,their bedrooms and decisions that belong to a woman and ONLY to her.
The posters who are saying family is ant-gay – I find it very insulting that you are saying gay women and men cannot be part of a family. How hurtful and cruel. Keep in mind this is not what Ann and Mitt Romeny are saying. This is coming from your own feelings about gay people. You are projecting. My daughter is part of our family. I don’t think of her as my gay daughter. She is my daughter. She will be home for Labor Day and I will ask her if she considers herself part of our family.
Julie- I don’t see where anybody here said any such thing about gay men and women not being part of a family. My daughter is also part of our family.
My point is that the R platform and Rick Santorum BOTH wish to deny gays the right to marriage and the R platform specifically defines marriage as one man and one woman. Last night Santorum made very clear his belief that family is to be the traditional model only. A female Mommy and a Male Daddy.
No Julie — the word ‘family’ does not imply anti-gay / anti-choice sentiment — except when used by the far right. Then it most certainly does.
I can’t help but wonder if the amount of misreading of the printed word that’s going on in this thread is intentional, or are people just browsing and not paying much attention?
But Jay, this is my question. I completely understand that you want to see a rebuff of antigay policies and the far right by the Republicans and that Santorum’s speech reemphasized that point. But why does this surprise you? I can’t stand Santorum so I didn’t even watch his speech since it is fairly obvious what it would contain. But, Romney did not choose Santorum to be his VP. ALL of the GOP contenders for VP were given a time slot. Santorum won delegate votes so he got a better time slot and is needed to “con” the far righties into voting for Romney because the party needs their vote to beat Obama. Same with the GOP platform. Basic simple strategy in that regard. But have Dems always held to the tenets of their platform?
The more telling part to me of how Romney intends to run his administration is him not choosing Santorum as VP and Romney’s retort that ‘nothing is wrong with birth control, why would we want to get rid of it.’ If Romney had chosen Santorum as VP there is no way I would even think about voting for Romney as ABO. It would have been too big a pill to swallow.
~just my 2 cents
Dick Cheney supports gay marriage. Unfortunately, when he had power and control (in other words, when he could have done something positive), he was running on a Family Values platform and was adamantly against it, despite having a gay daughter.
Couldn’t the same be said for Obama and the democrats? They had the presidency, senate and the house. They did nothing for the people. They certainly helped out their rich buddies. Both sides talk but no action. It is a wedge issue. One the democrats are pushing this election because they have nothing else to run on. Also Obama said he is now for gay marriage – because he thinks it will get him votes. If he is re-elected do you really think he will push for gay marriage?
I voted Dennis Kuninch last election and he sold us out on Obamacare. That and playing the race card by democrats was it for me. I don’t know how Mitt Romney will be but he can’t be worse than Obama. Of course I said no one could be worse than George Bush and I was wrong about that.
To NES and Sophie: Anyone who says something ,crazy like “Oh I don’t like Obama, but Romney is no better on jobs” is an Obot in my book. The whole deciding to vote or not vote based on complete utter denial of basic evidence is an Obot in my book. The decision to vote based on some stupid idiom like “social justice” – which still wasn’t defined by the way but is bandied around by Obots like it means something – is quintessential Obot in my book.
I don’t care how long you say you’ve been talking ill about Obama – choose a side now – a SIDE THAT MATTERS – and for long-term reasons – not because it makes you feel good. And, any choice for someone other than Romney, in my book is because people just want to feel good, not make the tough choice that will matter.
For all those voting for a third party – really??!! I challenge all of you – in your deepest heart of hearts – do you really think that 3rd party candidate would actually be a good manager of the US economy? Because that’s the only question for me. If you were going to put your life savings in the hands of someone to manage – would it be with the 3rd party candidate for President? Would it be with Obama? Or, would you put it with Romney? I know who I would trust with my own money.
And, if you can honestly answer that question, then who would you put the $14 Trillion US economy in the hands of? Obama? Green Party? Or, Romney?
Comment here: http://johnwsmart.net/2012/08/28/family/#comment-33445
was meant to nest here.
The Greens, without a doubt. The Dems and Gops are the ones who got us into this mess.
As usual, Tamerlane – that’s a non answer. I asked who you would trust with your life savings. Obama? Whoever the green party candidate is? Romney? If it’s the green candidate, then that explains all your posts about your own financial condition.
Nader was the Green party candidate for many cycles. And, his organizations are always in financial chaos. Nuff said.
“that’s a non answer.”
My answer is explicit: I trust neither a Dem nor a Gop to fix things. They’ve fucked things up long enough.
“Nader was the Green party candidate for many cycles.”
Last I checked, Jill Stein was running this time. I like her platform. I’m confident she’s not a corporatist whore like every Dem and Gop. That’ll do for now.
“that explains all your posts about your own financial condition.”
Well, fuck you, too, darling! I’m poor because I realized that money can’t buy me happiness. The shit-ass job the Uni-party did with the economy these past 12 years hasn’t helped, either. I’ve never been poorer, but never happier. I’ll root for you to win in the Rat Race, though.
And, I will make no apologies for sounding more strident that even ever before in these posts because we are at the breaking point now, ladies and gentlemen. I think trying to skate by with a “third party” choice is absolute bull-s-it. We need to take a stand. This is a 5-alarm crisis. Now or never. “Social justice” talk is not an option when we are going bankrupt.
Takng a tough stand and making a tough choice isn’t ever pleasant. That’s why it’s tough. Do I wish I lived in a never-never land where I had a realistic choice for President who I agreed with on 80-100% of everything? Of course. But I started thinking that might not be realisuttic when I was about 18. At 42 – in 2008 – I knew it wasn’t a choice I was going to have in my lifetime.
We only have a few more weeks left to make one of the toughest and most important choices in the lives of those of us who have grown up in the last few generations. If I wake up after election day and Obama is President for 4 more years, I weep for this country. I weep for everyone who voted for him or voted against Romney. And, I will be on my way to the final steps to emigration.
I also live in PA. Despise Santorum. He is a nutcase. Democrats have their share of nut cases. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Maxine Walters, the black caucus. I would say calling people racist for political gain is nuts. Let’s not forget it is the democrats and their supporters who were calling for rape of women and children. Working women with children were unfit mothers. Stay at home mothers were not considered worthy. Not aborting your down syndrome child disqualified you as a women. Running for president against a man made you fair game to be raped and taken into a back room and you don’t come out. It also made you racist. It was okay to have your votes stolen and given to the male candidate. Women candidates are also responsible if a nutcase with a gun shoots another woman. How about a campaign theme from the democrats “99 problems and a bitch ain’t one of them”. This is the party of women? Were there leaders in the democratic party that spoke up and said STOP – this is demeaning to women and we don’t stand for this? No Nancy Pelosi etc did not see anything wrong with their party platform.
As to what women do in their bedroom – I believe putting Sandra Fluke as a spokesperson showed how little the democats care about this issue. Asking for free abortions is another way of making sure the issue goes no where. You can’t say stay out of my bedroom but pay for what I do in my bedroom. Democrats could have passed single payer and we all would have benefited. They were in bed with the insurance companies and the pharmacuticel companies.
My feelings on birth control is it should be free when insulin is free, cancer drugs are free, dialysis is free, etc. We could have it if we would stop being divided by being republican or democrat and fight together.
Jay Floyd says:
August 29, 2012 at 7:03 pm
No Julie — the word ‘family’ does not imply anti-gay / anti-choice sentiment — except when used by the far right. Then it most certainly does.
Jay – can you give me proof as to where the word ‘family’ means anti-gay to the far right?
Sure.
I’ve already cited what I consider to be a decent bit of information from Wikipedia above, but I’ll link it again here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values
Also, the anti-gay marriage group ‘Protect Marriage’ that lobbied so fiercely against Prop 8 was tied to another group called ‘Focus on the Family’. That latter organization’s name is not a coincidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProtectMarriage.com
This is a real thing, Julie — not something that I’m making up. I became aware of it harshly in the mid eighties, coming of age in NYC during the Reagan years. The ‘traditional family’ meme was used brutally then, and I don’t think it ever stopped amongst those on the far right. It was so flagrant in my personal experience that I hope you’ll excuse how surprised I am that you don’t seem to have ever heard of it.
Still not sure how you’re only hearing that the word ‘family’ means anti-gay. Of course it doesn’t, but it is used that way as a matter of routine for many in the GOP.
Just to reiterate — I didn’t write this post to focus on a ‘gay’ issue. The ‘traditional family’ nuts assault many other ideals that are equally important in my view, having nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation.
I agree with you about the other versions of what “traditional marriage” imparts. Its Feminism 101. I am not married in the traditional sense. I’ve been with my partner for approx 15 years. No kids due to infertility issues, so like others our fur babies make up the rest of our family, as do our gay friends and other DINKs and singles. It was about the 5-6 year mark and after much ups and downs in my relationship that my religious fundie mother finally said: “Wow. You really seem married.” At 30, she had asked me if I was gay because I wasn’t married. So she’s yet another case in point of what happens when you believe in something on paper (The Moral Majority) and how you face real life. BTW, her brother lived with another man for decades and we visited them often even sleeping in their house. His spouse was part of the family and my family as a whole is still heartbroken over his death. We even took on many foster kids, many who were gay and had been kicked out of their houses as teenagers, and it wasn’t done because my mom wanted to reform them, she just did it out of love and compassion for an unwanted child.
What I’ve learned is that in general, the hypocrisy of human beings is incredible; not due to real mal-intent but because people are just inconsistent with their beliefs.
Proud Military Mom – do you really think their is a difference between the democrats and republicans on gay marriage. Remember Obama campaigning with Rick Warren, who is opposed to gay marrige. Can you image if a republican did the same thing. They would be crucified. Democrats do it is is no big deal. Double Standard. Obama is opposed to gay marriage. Did this stop millions of democrats from voting for Obama? Did I miss the outcry from Democrats and their supporters while Obama was campaigning with Rick Warren? Does this mean the democrats are against gay marriage? I guess for some people it would. Others it is not their primary concern of who gets elected President.
Also from what I have read from these comments, some posters believe family means anti-gay. My daughter is part of my family. I am sorry some people on here do not agree with that. Ann and Mitt Romney did not say family is anti-gay. Posters in this thread did or that is their interpretation. I would say their interpretation comes from their own feelings on the issue. I work with democrats and republicans. I made no secret my daughter was gay. People don’t care. It is the politicans and the media that cause the divide. From what I can see Ann and Mitt Romney have a loving family and they appreciate that. Who can argue that it is a bad thing?
It is sad to see the word family used as a weapon against a group of people. Haven’t we learned anything from democrats using the race card over and over again.
Julie, Nobody here (make that NOBODY) is defending or supporting Obama. Otherwise, good points.
I think “Julie” is another fake name of a regular here.
SophieCT – Thanks. I read this blog most everyday. I agree with alot of the points. I agree with some democratic positions and some republican positions. It bothers me to see people use the word family as a weapon. To say republicans can’t use the word family is silly. How low the political discourse has fallen that any word can be considered racist or anti-gay because someone wants to score points against the other party.
santorum is so annoying. it is like he is trying to make a great speech, but he just plain sucks and isn’t believable at it. talk to people like regular human beings, don’t speechify just to speechify. that’s why i love bill because he has a knack to talk with you in his speeches, not talk at you or over you or lecture you. he is just natural with you and it is totally believable to me. imho.
Socalannie – Nope first time I posted. Julie is my real name. Not ashamed to post in support of my daughter and family. Why would you think I was a fake? Is it hard for you to imagine support of a gay child? I was a registered democrat until a month ago. First politican I actually worked against was George Bush’s second term. Wasn’t political for his first term and voted for Gore (which I regret in a way but I don’t think he would have taken us to war). Did not vote for Obama as he is another George Bush – that much was clear in 2008. Wrote in Kucinch who sold us out on Obamacare. Are you upset because I consider my gay daughter to be part of my family? I live in a mostly republican area in northeast PA. I have never had anyone tell me my daughter was not a part of my family. Remember it was Obama who campaigned with Rick Warren, the anti-gay preacher. Democrats did ont object and they even voted for Obama by the millions. Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the same on gay marriage. I just object to posters who say the word family means anti-gay. I call my family a family. I have a gay daughter. We are a family. I never even considered otherwise.
How low the political discourse has fallen that any word can be considered racist or anti-gay because someone wants to score political points against the other party. It cheapens the argument.
Good n i g h t lola.
socalannie – Good n i g h t Zaladonis
Socalannie – Good n i g h t Zaladonis
” we simply don’t have the luxury at this point to vote based on our social concerns; the state of our economy is at stake. ”
That’s what people said in 1932. In Germany.
Amen.
Really????? What atrocious rubbish. Your are now calling me a nazi? Or maybe just a nazi sympathizer because I think a priority should be saving the ability for people to lead healthy and productive lives rather than vote over social justice nonsense. (Telling no one yet has defined that stupid term). Desperate much?
There were a lot of people in Germany in 1932 who said, ‘Sure, that anti-jewish rhetoric is offensive, but it’s just coming from a radical element of the Party, and besides, we need a strong leader to get us out of this economic malaise.’
If replacing “jewish” with “gay” makes that sentiment identical to yours, Run, then TFB.
obama has no economic plan. It was all just a cover to hide he & his gang of thugs’ raiding of the federal coffers. To compare ‘obama’s policy’ with Romney’s is pointless.
* Romney promises to create 12 million jobs by expanding coal mining and oil drilling, and by lowering regulations to ‘incentivise’ big businesses to hire more.
* Stein promises to create 25 million jobs by expanding green energy and by rebuilding infrastructure.
*Anderson promises to end unemployment with a WPA program.
* Johnson believes that by removing all restrictions on the free market, everyone will eventually find a job.
Pick one of THOSE.
Ok, I’ll choose: Romney.
The other “promises” and “policies” outlined are pie-in-the sky.
define “pie-in-the-sky”
Votermom:
I no longer DO single-issues, either.
Paul Ryan’s Anti-Abortion stance bothers me just as much as Obama’s vote FOR late-term abortion (for me, except at the risk of the mother’s life and severity of deformities in the fetus.)
I believe in the power of the voices of reason, fairness and limiting government intervention in Privacy and Choice – and that Marriage Equality as well as Women’ Reproductive Health – will prevail because those common denominators in defining those two fundamental, American “freedom” principles cross party lines.
I believe that alleviating human suffering has also long been a fundamental principle in American culture. Our record isn’t perfect, by far – but neither are we, as individuals, when our self-interests are at stake.
I believe that unless American Policy returns to a focus on restoring America’s financial security – sadly, by whatever means necessary, now – a largely impoverished American Society will be our fate to navigate for a long time to come.
I have two choices and one was never the person for the job, as proven before day one, but for his aspirations to make history.
I’ve made up my mind to vote to fire him – because 1) To do otherwise is insanity; 2) Romney was far from the Republican Party’s Poster Boy; and 3) Voicing opposition to certain aspects in Romney-Ryan’s Plans or potential Anti-Choice policies, doesn’t tire me nearly as much as treading water only to go under over having No Voice about a Liar-in-Chief who had No Plans, at all, but to continue to hint at some idealistic form of anti-establishment (anti-status-quo) radicalism-in-the-making that would transform the world (hence, “Obamaland”).
I’m done agonizing over the choice being “No Choice” and vacillating back and fourth. Jill Stein won’t be on my state’s ballot and write-in’s are a Vote for Obama. Romney isn’t an Obama or Bush and – at this point in America’s own failing economy on a frightening global stage – that’s reason enough for me to give Romney a chance.
Makes sense, WhyNot.
(Good to see ya.)
Couldn’t agree more, WhyNot.
Jay Floyd – thanks for the links. How do you feel about the millions of democrats who voted for Obama after he campaigned with Rick Warren, the anti-gay preacher. Wouldn’t it be fair to say Democrats are anti-gay – using the same standard for democrats and republicans? California doesn’t support gay marriage and it is a democrat state. Obama holds the same views as the republicans. Why is it only the republicans that get called out. If gay marriage is an important issue than both sides need to be held to the same standard. I realize that Obama said he changed his mind but that is pandering for votes.
I really would like my daughter to be able to marry her girlfriend. They live together and I would like grandchildren. I think mostly the gay marriage issue cannot be broken down between democrat and republicans – It is the politicans and the media that use the issue at election time. Democrats don’t care about gay marriage. After the election you won’t hear anything about it. Most people care about jobs and the economy. I believe gay marriage will eventually be legal in all states. It shouldn’t be an issue but because we can’t discuss without naming calling and media flame throwing and political posturing nothing gets done or gets done very slowly.
That’s why saying republicans cannot use the word family is counterproductive. No one will take you serious. Even people who support gay marriage. Same with race card. Now according to the democrats the word chicago is racist. It becomes so over the top people just laugh and dismiss anything that is said, and rightly so.
If I recall, at the time Jay was thoroughly non-plussed by obama’s “evolution.”
While I agree that both Dems and Gops should be held to the same standard on these issues, this particular debate is not about comparing Dem vs. Gop on gay rights.
The proposition has been put forth, that we should support the GOP. Jay, and others, have stated that this is not an option, based on the GOP’s embrace of oppressive social agendas.
There are plenty of reasons for us not to support the Dems, either.
Julie – I can’t get you to expand your perspective past the conventional use of the word family so this conversation isn’t really going anywhere. You asked me to prove that what I wrote this post about is a a real thing, and hopefully I’ve shown you that it is.
What do I think about Obama’s views on gay marriage? I think they’re a load of BS. I’m not voting for Obama. This post was very specifically about why I can’t at this point make my peace with voting for the Romney / Ryan ticket — because they are far too socially conservative for me.
I don’t want to respond to any more of your comments saying that ‘Republicans cannot use the word Family’, because not only is it an oversimplification / misrepresentation of what I’ve said, it’s devoid of any acknowledgement that there is an unacceptable way to use that word — and the GOP is wildly guilty of it, whether you can see it or not.
This thread reeks of Lola trolls.
What Zal said. Yes, its so common in the blog world to have newbies and long-time lurkers suddenly make an aggressive appearance on a liberal blog, attacking the regulars in several long comments, which sound suspiciously like the posts of the resident republican troll. Not.
Zaladonis – Lola troll – isn’t that childish? New people cannot comment on this blog? I usually read it every day. My daughter is gay so this thread was of interest to me. Sorry if you object. For the record I do enjoy Lola’s posts but we are not the same person.
But if you were, would you know? (Just kidding of course.)
I just read through the entirety of this thread. I’m gobsmacked by six things:
1. That anyone would deny that the “family values” branch of the GOP (unfortunately in the ascendancy) is hostile to gays and other non-traditional pairings or lifestyles. FCS, listen to what they say and believe they mean it.
2. The claim that only Obots would refuse to vote for Romney in these dire economic times.
3. The suggestion that (i) voting for Romney-Ryan is analogizable to the choice Germans made for a strongman between the two World Wars, and (ii) the GOP seeks to persecute gays like the Nazis persecuted Jews.
4. That some are obsessed with trolls supposedly invading this blog, and that all of them are Lola.
5. That anyone believes that people’s voting intentions can be changed by ‘shouting’ and browbeating on a blog. By and large, politics is a matter of ‘potty-training,’ which is to say it’s too deeply-ingrained to be influenced by commenters on a blog.
6. Jay created such a controversy with a piece that stated the obvious: in essence, the current GOP is NOT a Big Tent party. It may revert to that when this strain proves electorally poisonous, but that hasn’t happened yet. (Ok, ok….I threw this one in just to come full-circl with point # 1.)
re. 3. , you put words in my mouth.
1.) I said nothing about voting for R&R per se. I did say: claiming in 2012 that one must ignore a party’s stance on social issues, simply because one believes that party can improve the economy, is no different than the same statement made in 1932;
2.) I did not claim that the GOP would persecute gays the same way the nazis persecuted jews. You extrapolated, erroneously. There was a long road from NS campaign rhetoric to the Nuremberg Laws to Kristalnacht to the Wannsee Conference to Zyklon-B. The GOP is at the rhetoric stage; I seriously doubt their trail would end where that of the NS did. I also have no doubt that a President Bachmann would set up federal gay-curing programs, and ban gays from teaching positions, etc., not to mention making abortion a capital offense.
My overall point was: ignore rhetoric at your own peril.
Thank you NES. So many of the comments in this thread were so wildly divorced from both what I’d written and what I see as obvious reality that I had to decide whether the commenters were intentionally trying to obfuscate the point, or they were stupid, or they were crazy. All three, I believe, are in evidence at different times above.
Thanks for speaking up. Much appreciated.
I agree with your general rhetoric point, Tamer. Apologies for taking license with the rest of what you said to Run. It was incendiary and barbed, but I did extrapolate some.
Welcome, Jay. But, no thanks needed. I thought it needed to be said, is all.
PS NES: This keeps making me laugh for some reason:
That some are obsessed with trolls supposedly invading this blog, and that all of them are Lola.
Why does that make you laugh, Jay? Seriously I’m curious.
don’t want to respond to any more of your comments saying that ‘Republicans cannot use the word Family’, because not only is it an oversimplification / misrepresentation of what I’ve said, it’s devoid of any acknowledgement that there is an unacceptable way to use that word — and the GOP is wildly guilty of it, whether you can see it or not.
Jay I honestly don’t see an unacceptable way to use the word family. Family is family. You cannot let someone else define what family means to you. I’m sorry I just can’t see it from your prespective. Sure some people (republicans and democrats) kick gay kids out of their family but they are still family. Some people don’t talk to family members for years or ever but they are still family. I think you are using the word family as a weapon same as democrats use the race card. It is a way to divide us. I live and work in a very republican area and the people are very family oriented and some include gay children and relatives. Most of these people can and do pull together and help othe people. They don’t ask if the person is gay before they offer help. They don’t care.
It is the media and the politicans who use the word family as a weapon and a sound bite. Sounds like you fell in line. Political rethoric is just that. Maybe I am sheltered but I don’t see everyday people making this an issue. They just live their lives.
So surprised to see “Julie” post in the length of time it took to write that comment after “Lola” pingbacked her post on her blog.
And I’ll resist detailing the consistency of gay hostility/dismissiveness in the revealed thought process.
I took huge offence to a vulgar and degrading comment that was aimed at you. I do think that
folks who want to present themselves as thoughtful and insightful lose all credibility when they stoop to those kinds of remarks.
As to those who assume a variety of i.d.’s, imo they take themselves way too seriously.
Wordpress has baptized me with my Pet Meds name and password, I have no idea how this happened, but got tired of fighting with them.. I still feel like Sophie, the name of one of my beloved dogs, though.
If I ever decide to launch a personal and demeaning attack on another, I will leave my real name and phone number, anything less is cowardly.
While I agree with both you and Jay on the narrow view of ‘family’ presented at this convention, I am nauseous over the Obama habit of continuously using a check list of issues that they pretend to care about, yet do nothing to support.
z
There is no doubt that the GOP Convention’s “Platform,” affirming ITS Anti-Marriage Equality and Pro-Life/Anti-Choice position, is a slap in the face – to both those it personally effects and those “evolved” into fully understanding the consequences to not only millions of American Citizens, but to our entire socio-economic system.
A majority of Americans now believe in Marriage Equality.
A majority of Americans are fully aware and deeply concerned about the burden being placed on a healthcare system that parallels the rising need for social programs to support an ever-increasing population of “dependents” upon such a humanely-charitable system.
A majority of Americans are fully aware and deeply concerned about the same “burden” being placed on our educational system – with a population growth that capsizes State, Local and Federal Tax Revenues.
A majority of Americans are fully aware and deeply incensed over “global” policies that have sent innovation, manufacturing, jobs and tax revenues overseas, in irreplaceable numbers while, at the same time, stretching America’s resources and infrastructure beyond its limits of self-sufficiency/preservation.
A majority of Americans are ready for Solutions – that arrest the factors contributing to the stresses on our socio-economic system – and largely KNOW that “religious immorality” is hardly the “Failure in Government Policies” directly affecting their lives.
To fear that such a “Religious Morality” Platform will rule a Romney-Ryan Administration is to completely ignore the sensibilities and focus of concerns of the majority of American Citizens – and a Mitt Romney – who appear to take the concerns for, and sense of responsibility to, “FAMILY,” to a much broader level.
The man is trying to get elected. I’m relatively certain, looking at HIS record and history of opposition, that he, too, will have “more flexibility,” as the moderate he has been known to be – and that Far Right-Wing Republicans have long feared – once (and if) he is elected.
Yeah, I do that “effects – affects,” grammar and punctuation crap when, publicizing my opinions. But, I promise, I’m not going to spawn.
LOL.
That’s the number two question I always get. The first one being whether the comma goes inside or outside of quote marks.
Jay Floyd, I need to thank you for this post. As someone who tunes out the whole “family” and “marriage” crap, you’ve opened my eyes at yet another way this “traditional” rhetoric can be used in a negative and dismissive manner. You have my sincere thanks.