Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Haha: Mitt Romney got Beat up by a Girl!

Margery Eagen had as much fun today pointing out Mitt's hypocrisy as anyone in the Massachusetts lefty blogosphere. Just look at her go,

OK, Mr. Romney. But if gay couples' children - so minuscule a number the government has no definitive stats yet - are in terrible danger, what of the children of the divorced and never married? What frightening perils do they face?

And if Romney is really so disturbed about children's plight shouldn't he first protect the millions and millions produced by 100 percent heterosexuals? I mean, wouldn't that make more sense?

Why, yes, it would Margery. Margery's beating continues,

What's even more enraging about Romney's transparent let's-use-the-kids-as-pawns ploy? Mitt's on his supposed high moral horse just days after the Security and Exchange Commission raised questions about his administration's possible lying about safety checks in the Big Dig Tunnels.

Gay marriage hasn't yet killed anybody, has it?
However, none of this is as good as what Margery ultimately uses her column for: pointing out how little Mitt Romney cares about either Kerry Healey or the Republican Party of Massachusetts.

This sort of thing surely fuels notions that Romney wants Kerry Healey to lose. How do you suppose all this played with on-the-fence independent voters in Springfield, Worcester or anyplace else? Romney's hardly been home for months. Did he have to come home just to bad-mouth his own state - on Tremont Street, within inches of the Freedom Trail?
I would like to point out that Margery Eagen is only partly right. It's not that Mitt Romney wants Kerry Healey to lose, it's that Mitt Romney probably doesn't give a crap about what happens to Kerry Healey. Mitt Romney cares about one thing and one thing only: becoming President. If he cared one iota about the people of Massachusetts, he'd be making his case right now trying to beat Deval Patrick, but he's not.

My question for Republicans: would you really support someone like Mitt Romney for President? There isn't a bigger political hack gunning for the Oval Office - nor is there anyone who could care less about Republicans who could badly use his help and support. Mitt Romney once wished to help expand the Republican Party in Massachusetts. He really did field some candidates and provided them with at least some support. Yet, his meager attempts failed miserably - Republicans actually lost seats.

However, that doesn't mean a fully dedicated Governor couldn't have increased Republican rank and file here in Massachusetts in '06. Imagine if Romney had been going town to town, stumping for Republicans running for this upcoming race in November - instead of running for President two years before that election. Not only would some Republicans have won who otherwise wouldn't have, but Mitt Romney would be seen by all as trying to rebuild the state. He'd actually be here, working for Massachusetts. He'd actually earn (and deserve) respect by people across the state. Heck, he may have even had a shot at reelection.

Instead, Mitt Romney doesn't even care about his own supposed partner in this administration. Where's the party loyalty? Republicans from across the country would be wise to read Margery Eagen's column and decide for themselves if that's the kind of guy they'd want leading the USA.


StunnedVoter said...

You know, if Mitt really had the courage of his convictions, and it's really about the children, then what does marriage have to do with it?

I mean, if children are harmed by being raised by gay couples in his opinion (I'm assuming that's his point, it's probably not that children are harmed by having married parents in general), then what difference does it make if they're married or not? Shouldn't he be advocating for gay people's children to be confiscated from their destructive by the state and warehoused in orphanages a la Newt Gingrich at taxpayer expense?

I don't think anyone would be in favor of that, not even the real crazies because oh yeah, nothing is worth it if they have to pay a penny in taxes, so unless he has the cojones to propose the only remotely logical proposal arising from his position, maybe he should consider saying something that actually makes sense. Or, you know, just go back to bashing the state up and down because who doesn't love that.

Ryan Adams said...

It's so hard to say things that make sense when you're trying your hand at demagoguery...

myclob said...

Of course, even today, circumstances can take a parent from the home, but the child still has a mother and a father. If the parents are divorced, the child can visit each of them. If a mother or father is deceased, the child can learn about the qualities of the departed. His or her psychological development can still be influenced by the contrasting features of both genders. Are we ready to usher in a society indifferent about having fathers and mothers? Will our children be indifferent about having a mother and a father? My Department of Public Health has asked whether we must re-write our state birth certificates to conform to our Court’s same-sex marriage ruling. Must we remove “father” and “mother” and replace them with “parent A” and “parent B?” What should be the ideal for raising a child: not a village, not “parent A” and “parent B,” but a mother and a father. Marriage is about even more than children and adults. The family unit is the structural underpinning of all successful societies. And, it is the single-most powerful force that preserves society across generations, through centuries. Scientific studies of children raised by same sex couples are almost non-existent. And the societal implications and effects on these children are not likely to be observed for at least a generation, probably several generations. Same sex marriage doesn’t hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years. Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing. One person may choose to live as a single, even to have and raise her own child. Others may choose to live in same sex partnerships or civil arrangements. There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding. But there is a difference between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights, but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all. Some have asked why so much importance is attached to the word “marriage.” It is because changing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same sex practice. It is inconceivable that promoting absolute indifference between heterosexual and homosexual unions would not significantly effect child development, family dynamics, and societal structures. Among the structures that would be affected would be religious and certain charitable institutions. Those with scriptural or other immutable founding principles will be castigated. Ultimately, some may founder. We need more from these institutions, not less, and particularly so to support and strengthen those in greatest need. Society can ill afford further erosion of charitable and virtuous institutions. For these reasons, I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment. Some retreat from the concept of amendment, per se. While they say they agree with the traditional definition of marriage, they hesitate to amend. But amendment is a vital and necessary aspect of our constitutional democracy, not an aberration. The constitution’s framers recognized that any one of the three branches of government might overstep its separated powers. If Congress oversteps, the Court can intervene. If the Executive overreaches, Congress may impeach. And if the Court launches beyond the constitution, the legislative branch may amend. The four Massachusetts justices launched beyond our constitution. That is why the Massachusetts legislature has begun the lengthy amendment process. There is further cause for amendment. Our framers debated nothing more fully than they debated the reach and boundaries of what we call federalism. States retained certain powers upon which the federal government could not infringe. By the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, our state has begun to assert power over all the other states. It is a state infringing on the powers of other states. In Massachusetts, we have a law that attempts to restrain this infringement on other states by restricting marriages of out-of-state couples to those where no impediment to marry exists in their home state. Even with this law, valid same sex marriages will migrate to other states. For each state to preserve its own power in relation to marriage, within the principle of Federalism, a federal amendment to define marriage is necessary. This is not a mere political issue. It is more than a matter of adult rights. It is a societal issue. It encompasses the preservation of a structure that has formed the basis of all known successful civilizations. With a matter as vital to society as marriage, I am troubled when I see an intolerant few wrap the marriage debate with their bias and prejudice. I am also troubled by those on the other side of the issue who equate respect for traditional marriage with intolerance. The majority of Americans believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but they are also firmly committed to respect, and even fight for civil rights, individual freedoms and tolerance. Saying otherwise is wrong, demeaning and offensive. As a society, we must be able to recognize the salutary effect, for children, of having a mother and a father while at the same time respecting the civil rights and equality of all citizens. Thank you. - Taken from a 06-22-2004 Press Release

StunnedVoter said...

Thanks for demonstrating what a fatuos moron Romney is, myclob. No way is even he stupid enough to believe that, he's really playing these poor suckers for fools.

Shorter Mitt: I really want to be President. Same sex marriage would hurt kids, because, um, it just would. But if gays can't get married but can just live together, their kids will be fine, I don't really care anyway, except for the part about probably not having health insurance or whatever, but who needs that? Not kids! And maybe being put into an orphanage if their biological parent dies and their other parent has no legal claim to them, but Oliver is such a cool movie! And um, if we let gays marry, then a kid might see a book about another kid with two parents and um, that would ruin his life. Because books are scary. Also, because with us in charge government is too incompetent to do what it's supposed to, we're totally dependent on charities, and if gays marry, they'll stop existing, because, they just will! Gays don't need charity becasue they have nice shoes, so that will be the end of that! Then we'll really be screwed! And well, why don't I come right out and admit that the only basis for not allowing gays to marry is religion. So we should forget about the stupid concept of individual rights and the state should enforce religious doctrine because that's what we're here for and you need to adhere to my religious beliefs regardless of what yours are and the whole Constitution thing is really lame. Theocracy rulz! And like, if I don't get to dictate the most personal decisions of others while getting to live my own life according to my choice, my life is totally being infringed on and it's all intolerant, but if you can't marry who you want to because my religion says so, that's not infringement or intolerance, that's what freedom is all about. I have freedom to marry who I want when I want where I want with no imput from you, you have freedom to marry if I say you can and to procreate according to my dictates. LIBERTY! Loving v. Virginia started this whole mess when ungpdly interracial marriages were imposed on states and the whole concept of state's rights was really blown up by stupid Lincoln in the first palce, it's all his fault! And it's so lame when any Justice who's not Scalia makes stuff up!

Okay, maybe not so much shorter...lol

About Ryan's Take