21
   

The U.S. National Elections For President, The Senate And The House Of Representatives.

 
 
ehBeth
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 May, 2012 06:53 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Perhaps Mr. Romney can be sent a copy of http://www.amazon.ca/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645

and

http://www.amazon.ca/Christianity-Social-Tolerance-Homosexuality-Fourteenth/dp/0226067114/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/175-2177558-0549117
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 08:47 am
Mitt Romney reaffirmed his support for gay couples to adopt children

So let me get this straight, Romney opposes gay couples to get married but thinks its ok for them to adopt children? So he thinks they should just live together without any legal protection raising children?
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 09:09 am
Quote:
It's an ugly story. The Washington Post takes us back to 1965, to Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, a prestigious private school for the moneyed elite, and to a teenaged Mitt Romney, illuminating something, something essential, about Romney's character, about what kind of a person he was, and still may be:




Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

"He can't look like that. That's wrong. Just look at him!" an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann's recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber's look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school's collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber's hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.




In other words, Romney was a moralizing bully who physically assaulted a fellow student. As Richard wrote earlier today, this highly disturbing incident reveals "Romney's need to enforce conformity with his own views and his sense that other people who are different are a personal affront to him."




There are some who will call this a prank, excusing it as a youthful misdeed, if a misdeed at all. They will say that it was all in good fun, or, if not, that it hardly matters now, that the Romney of 1965 isn't the Romney of today. Those people, in my view, will be -- and are -- wrong. Because it shows that the privileged rich douchebag of today is very much the same person as the abusive, perhaps bigoted bully who terrorized John Lauber because he didn't like his look, because he thought he was gay.




As you can imagine, Romney's campaign has been on the defensive today, urgently trying to bring in character witnesses from Romney's high school days to tell us that their guy wasn't the abusive bully he would appear, from several independents accounts, to have been. And Romney himself was just laughing if off today -- he always laughs when he's uncomfortable, and when he's hiding something, have you noticed? -- saying he doesn't remember the incident in question. But is this credible? I think not. As Think Progress reports:




Mitt Romney was asked about the Post's story during a live radio broadcast with Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, apologizing before explaining that he didn't remember many of the details of what took place: "Back in high school, I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that... I don't remember that incident," Romney said, laughing. "I certainly don't believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual. That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s, so that was not the case."

It seems odd that Romney would not recall such a bizarre event, especially since so many other students who were asked about it painted clear pictures of what transpired, but perhaps such "hijinks and pranks" were so frequent he has simply lost track of them all.

A separate incident, in which Romney ridiculed a closeted gay classmate by sarcastically praising him with "atta girl!" comments, helps paint a troubling picture for the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee.




It was a different time, certainly, a time when anti-gay sentiment was widespread and even in some circles completely acceptable, but what we see here is a young man who clearly had a problem with difference, and specifically with homosexuality (he's lying when he says sexual orientation was "the furthest thing" from his mind), and who was a leader, not a follower, when it came to taking out his nasty prejudices on others. And one classmate is painting a pretty clear picture of just what sort of a person Romney was:




One former classmate and old friend of Romney's – who refused to be identified by name – said there are "a lot of guys" who went to Cranbrook who have "really negative memories" of Romney's behavior in the dorms, behavior this classmate describes as "like Lord of the Flies."

The classmate believes Romney is lying when he claims to not remember it.

"It makes these fellows [who have owned up to it] very remorseful. For [Romney] not to remember it? It doesn't ring true. How could the fellow with the scissors forget it?" the former classmate said.




Politically, this story alone won't sink him, but it adds an ugly, violent element to the "privileged rich douchebag" narrative that has been building around him for some time now. He became super-rich as a vulture capitalist destroying jobs and ruining lives, and back in high school he liked to abuse others, both verbally and, it seems, physically. I acknowledge that people can change, but there's a common theme to Romney's character here, exposed in those old "pranks," both this assault and others, as well as in how he has behaved both in business and in politics -- and, for all I know, in his personal life. As Jon Chait writes:




My cautious, provisional take is that this portrait of the youthful Romney does suggest a man who grew up taking for granted the comforts of wealth and prestige. I don't blame him for accepting the anti-gay assumptions of his era. The story does give the sense of a man who lacks a natural sense of compassion for the weak. His prankery seems to have invariably singled out the vulnerable — the gay classmate, the nearly blind teacher, the nervous day student racing back to campus. It's entirely possible to grow out of that youthful mentality — to learn to step out of your own perspective, to develop an appreciation for the difficulties faced by those not born with Romney's many blessings. I'm just not sure he ever has.




I'm not sure either, but the evidence that he hasn't keeps piling up. And while it may not be fair to blame him for "accepting the anti-gay assumptions of his era," there's a difference between having generally anti-gay views common to many at the time, including to those of his socio-economic ilk, and physically assaulting and otherwise abusing those he suspected of being gay -- and otherwise singling out the vulnerable for abuse.




We'll have to see to what extent, if at all, this story sticks, adding to the Romney narrative, to the general perception of Romney as an arrogant prick, but to me he ought to be held accountable for his character, and for what these "pranks" say about his character, as well as for his values, and for how those values have manifested themselves in his actions over time, including in high school. Saying that he doesn't remember, or that he "might have gone too far," isn't nearly good enough.



Mitt Romney has spent his life being a bully, and worse. The American people deserve to know just what sort of a person he really is.

Labels: anti-gay bigotry, hate crimes, Mitt Romney


posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at 10:00 PM

source

I know the source is a highly partisan left, however all those incident are all over internet and a person can easily verify them. My interest was not in bringing facts, but the author of that post point of Romney's lack of compassion and bullying ways. I am a bit surprised at this stuff that came out of a washington posts trying to find evidence of Romney's pranks that his wife spoke about. The pranks are not something to brag about on reflection. I expected this of Santorum but not really Romney.

Perhaps he is kind of a frustrated closet gay. Just a thought.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 01:27 pm
New Survey USA poll out today -- including presidential matchup for November...

Quote:
In a November match-up between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney for President of the United States, Obama today edges Romney, 47% to 43%. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll released 2 months ago, when the Republican primary was still competitive, Obama is down 3 points; Romney is up 4. Among women, Obama leads by 13; among men, Romney leads by 6 -- a 19-point gender gap. Independents break 4:3 for Obama. In 2008, Obama defeated John McCain by 16 points in Oregon.


Party ID split for this poll is 38D/35R/27I, which may tilt for Repubs since 2008 exit poll shows the D/R/I was 36/27/37. Also, in this current poll, Independents break more for Obama -- 44/33.
Full poll data
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 03:17 pm
From Gallup today...

Six in 10 Say Obama Same-Sex Marriage View Won't Sway Vote

More say it makes them less likely rather than more likely to vote for Obama

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of Americans, 60%, say President Barack Obama's newly announced support for same-sex marriage will make no difference to their vote. Twice as many say it will make them less likely to vote for Obama as say more likely, though roughly half of the "less likely" group are Republicans who probably would not support Obama anyway.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/25o2c7fz40keqfdwireq_g.gif

The results are based on a May 10 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in response to Obama's May 9 announcement that he supports legalizing gay marriage. Obama is the first president to publicly support gay marriage while in office. The poll finds 51% of Americans approving of his position, essentially matching the 50% of Americans who support gay marriage in general, and similar to his 49% overall job approval rating.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 03:21 pm
Mitt Romney will be in Lynchburg, VA, tomorrow as the commencement speaker at fundamentalist Liberty University. While some Repubs (Boehner) criticize Obama about his comments about gay rights as a distraction from the economy, the people at Liberty want him to address social issues.
I am not sure Romney is ready to address those issues.
Meanwhile, Michelle Obama will be just down the road at Va Tech.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2012 06:15 am
@Irishk,
Notice though that the less likely is in the republican catergory. Among independents and democrats the higher number is in the no difference column.

I am surprised that 51% approve of his position and 50% approve of gay marriage in particular. Every time a gay marriage ban is on the ballet, it seems to pass except a few times.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2012 08:19 am
@revelette,
I think the bigger problem is that it's a poll of adults -- not likely voters or even registered voters, so not too meaningful. I'd imagine Gallup felt a need, in light of recent events, to cobble one together, even as they're aware that the #1 issue in the country today is the economy and the rather dismal 'recovery'.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 May, 2012 06:03 pm
There is an interesting race in Nebraska to replace Ben Nelson (D), who is retiring. The two major Repub candidates are AG Jan Bruning (backed by the Washington establishment) and State Sen Deb Fischer (who has Teaparty support). Bruning has been leading for months but in the last week or so Fischer has closed the gap to within the MOE in polling.
The outcome will depend on how many Repubs have already voted.
The winner will face former Sen Bob Kerrey (D). He will likely lose in repub NE, giving the Repubs a turnover.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 05:34 pm
Fischer won NE reasonably handily to become the Repub nominee. As I read the comments her opponent, Bruner, had a bit of baggage; regarded by many as "another politician" while she is a rancher from rural NE.
She leads by double digits over Kerrey (D).
But I write tonight about a Fox news poll (5/15) which is way out of line with others. It shows Obama up 46-39 (= 85) ... 919 RV.
Other polls (Rasmussen, Gallup, and Washington Times) had only a one point difference (with about 90% expressing a preference) in polls of RV's or LV's.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 08:53 pm
@realjohnboy,
I didn't take the time to try to interpret that Fox poll, other than to check out the sample -- 42D/34R/20I. Not sure if they used registered or likely voters, though. They used a slightly narrower sample last month and I think the result was a statistical tie.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 09:20 am
Quote:
On Thursday at a campaign event in Jacksonville, Florida, presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that he stood by his comments regarding President Barack Obama, even though he couldn’t remember what they were.

“When you did an interview with Sean Hannity in February, you said that you believed that Obama is trying to make America a less Christian nation,” he was asked. “It was responding to quote that he had just played for you on the radio. Do you stand by that? And do you believe that President Obama’s world view was shaped by Reverend Wright and do you see evidence of that in his policies?”

“I’m not familiar precisely with what I said, but I’ll stand by what I said, whatever it was,” Romney responded.




source
0 Replies
 
earthtone
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:43 pm
We need all parties in congress to compromise on issues. Sign the following petition to make the members of congress to agree to compromise.
Link SbjZJJMmAYpe=ws
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 03:40 pm
@earthtone,
I'm pretty sure some here might disagree with me, but not all bipartisan decisions made by Congress on our behalf have been good ones (or in our best interests).
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 07:48 am
@Irishk,
true, however some bipartisanship would be a nice change. However, it won't happen, not part of the game plan.

Quote:
Hmm. Where did Obama and his advisers get the whacked out paranoid idea that anyone is trying to prevent Obama from succeeding? Let’s see ... thinking hard here ... hmmmmm ... maybe it was ... from Mitch McConnell himself:

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Yes, that Mitch McConnell:

“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals,” McConnell says. “Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there’s a broad agreement that that’s the way forward.”


source with links

(from one of links)

Quote:
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, quoted in National Journal, November 4, 2010

Their story line is that there must be some villain out there who’s keeping this administration from succeeding.

-McConnell, appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," October 23, 2011

I wasn't that shocked by McConnell's original statement. Heck, I even appreciated the candor. But if you're going to make the president's failure your top goal -- and if you're going to brag about it -- you really can't get upset when the president blames you for it.


source
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 11:06 am
Poll: Obama, Romney in dead heat on economy...

Sample size: 32D/22R/38I

(The 2008 turnout split from exit polls showed a 39/32/29 split. In the 2010 midterms, the split was 35/35/30.)
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 11:29 am
@Irishk,
As I've said before - many former Republicans no longer identify themselves that way. Whether it means they've moderated or gone further to the right... I would suspect that a much larger percentage of the 'independents in that poll are in fact people who would have called themselves a few years ago.

Cycloptichorn
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 11:36 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Could be, although other pollsters seem capable of finding a representative number of Republicans for their polls. Actually, since January, the highest R sample used by ABC/WaPo has been 27% (with most being in the low 20's).
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 12:47 pm
@Irishk,
It doesn't really matter what people are self-identifying as, as long as they are answering truthfully. I, for example, quite often represent myself as a Republican when being polled - there's no way to verify veracity in responses.

I will note that the ABC/WaPo poll is extremely similar in results to pretty much every other national pollster out there right now, despite differences in party ID affiliation. Ras has Obama at +2 today and Gallup is tied.

Cycloptichorn
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 01:58 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Right. I think that latest Marquette poll that had Walker up by 6 in Wisconsin oversampled Republicans by quite a margin, yet the PPP poll done around the same time frame also had him up by 5. They may have oversampled the R's, too, thinking about turnout. I think both polls were of likely voters...don't quote me on that, though.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 10:37:39