Tag Archives: Jon Huntsman

Prominent Republicans sign off on same-sex marriage

suicidal GOP

More betrayal from the GOP. More reason to stop registering yourself as a Republican.
For the 2012 presidential election, the Republican Party boldly proclaimed its platform as “Renewing American Values.” Among the “American values” the Republican Party vowed to “renew” was “Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage”:
“The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.”
Blah, blah, blah.
All lies.
Right after Mitt Romney “lost” (see “22 signs of Democrat Voter Fraud in 2012 Election”) the presidential election to the POS, noises began within the GOP and among so-called conservative pundits (like Sean Hannity) that, to win, the Republican Party should try to become “more appealing” to certain demographic groups, such as women and Hispanics.
In other words, transform the GOP into a paler version of the Democratic Party by pandering to those groups and to hell with principles, values and beliefs! As if Democrat voters would actually be fooled and so switch to a paler imitation of the Democratic Party.
Now we can attach names to some of those voices.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports for the New York Times, Feb. 26, 2013 that “dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.”
The document will be submitted this week to the Supreme Court in support of a suit seeking to strike down Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative barring same-sex marriage, and all similar bans. The court will hear back-to-back arguments next month in that case and another pivotal gay rights case that challenges the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Legal analysts said the brief had the potential to sway conservative justices as much for the prominent names attached to it as for its legal arguments. The list of signers includes a string of Republican officials and influential thinkers — 75 as of Monday evening — who are not ordinarily associated with gay rights advocacy, including some who are speaking out for the first time and others who have changed their previous positions.
Ken Mehlman, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, who came out as gay several years ago, has spent months in quiet conversations with fellow Republicans to gather signatures for the brief. He is on the board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the suit against Prop. 8.
Among the 75 RINO signatories of the brief are:

  • Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor, who favored civil unions but opposed same-sex marriage during his 2012 presidential bid.
  • Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey.
  • William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts.
  • Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor.
  • Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York.
  • Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser.
  • Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush.
  • James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official.
  • David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director.
  • Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress.
  • Steve Schmidt, who was a senior adviser to the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

Some high-profile Republicans who support same-sex marriage — including Laura Bush, the former first lady; Dick Cheney, the former vice president; and Colin L. Powell, a former secretary of state — were not on the list as of Monday.
The presence of so many well-known former officials suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party’s official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman.”
“The ground on this is obviously changing, but it is changing more rapidly than people think,” said John Feehery, a Republican strategist and former House leadership aide who did not sign the brief. “I think that Republicans in the future are going to be a little bit more careful about focusing on these issues that tend to divide the party.”
If the above doesn’t convince you that you’re wasting your time and $ with the GOP, take a look at my post of November 15, 2012, Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud.
So what’s next on the fickle Republican elite’s agenda?
How about abortion?
Why not? After all, those single women whose votes the GOP so covets are pro-abortion, and the party has to change to become more appealing to women! — and to Hell with the sanctity of human, albeit yet unborn, life,
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Quiz: Which Candidate Is Most Like You?

USA Today has a quiz you can take to find out which presidential candidate’s views on 11 issues are most similar to yours.
The candidates are, in alphabetical order, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. The issues are:

  1. Afghanistan
  2. Energy
  3. Health care
  4. Medicare
  5. Immigration
  6. Experience
  7. Social Security
  8. Climate change
  9. Taxes
  10. Defense spending
  11. Gay marriage

I took the quiz and must admit I was surprised by the results. Ron Paul’s views are the best fit with mine (66.7% agreement), with Rick Perry being the next (53.4%), followed by Michele Bachmann (46.8%).
But then, like all social science measuring instruments, this quiz is methodologically flawed/inadequate:

  • The quiz gives equal weight to every one of the 11 issues when, in real life, some issues are more important to us than others. And so, although I may agree with Candidate X on a greater number of issues, we are on opposing sides on an issue about which I’m passionate. Whereas, although I may agree with Candidate Y on a fewer number of issues, on the one or two issues about which I care greatly, we are in agreement.
  • The quiz’s scope is 11 issues, leaving out many others, such as education, abortion, the national debt and government spending. Moreover, it’s USA Today who selected those 11 issues because they deem those 11 issues to be important. You or I may disagree.

To conclude, I suggest you take your quiz results with a grain of salt. In the last analysis, you know best which candidate you like, that is assuming you’ve done the homework on the candidates — their qualifications, policy positions, values, and moral character.
To take the quiz, click here.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

A German's View of Our GOP Candidates

Truth be told, among the writers and readers of Fellowship of the Minds, there is no great enthusiasm for the current crop of GOP presidential candidates. That being said, this German’s view of the candidates is nothing less than brutal, calling the candidates “liars,” “demagogues,” “ignoramuses,” and downright “farcical.”
He is Marc Pitzke, the U.S. correspondent for the German weekly news magazine Der Spiegel. Before we totally dismiss him, I say it’s still interesting to find out how an outsider perceives us.
~Eowyn

A ship of fools? (photo by Reuters)


The Republicans’ Farcical Candidates: A Club of Liars, Demagogues and Ignoramuses
A Commentary by Marc Pitzke – Der Spiegel – Dec. 1, 2011
Africa is a country. In Libya, the Taliban reigns. Muslims are terrorists; most immigrants are criminal; all Occupy protesters are dirty. And women who feel sexually harassed — well, they shouldn’t make such a big deal about it.
Welcome to the wonderful world of the US Republicans. Or rather, to the twisted world of what they call their presidential campaigns. For months now, they’ve been traipsing around the country with their traveling circus, from one debate to the next, one scandal to another, putting themselves forward for what’s still the most powerful job in the world.
As it turns out, there are no limits to how far they will stoop.
It’s true that on the road to the White House all sorts of things can happen, and usually do. No campaign can avoid its share of slip-ups, blunders and embarrassments. Yet this time around, it’s just not that funny anymore. In fact, it’s utterly horrifying.
It’s horrifying because these eight so-called, would-be candidates are eagerly ruining not only their own reputations and that of their party, the party of Lincoln lore. Worse: They’re ruining the reputation of the United States.
‘Freakshow’
They lie. They cheat. They exaggerate. They bluster. They say one idiotic, ignorant, outrageous thing after another. They’ve shown such stark lack of knowledge — political, economic, geographic, historical — that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein and even cause their fellow Republicans to cringe.
“When did the GOP lose touch with reality?” wonders Bush’s former speechwriter David Frum in New York Magazine. In the New York Times, Kenneth Duberstein, Ronald Reagan’s former chief-of-staff, called this campaign season a “reality show,” while Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan confidante Peggy Noonan even spoke of a “freakshow.”
That may be the most appropriate description.
Tough times demand tough and smart minds. But all these dopes have to offer are ramblings that insult the intelligence of all Americans — no matter if they are Democrats, Republicans or neither of the above. Yet just like any freakshow, this one would be unthinkable without a stage (in this case, the media, strangling itself with all its misunderstood “political correctness” and “objectivity”) and an audience (the party base, which this year seems to have suffered a political lobotomy).
Factually Challenged
And so the farce continues. The more mind-boggling its incarnations, the happier the US media are to cheer first one clown and then the next, elevating and then eliminating “frontrunners” in reliable news cycles of about 45 days.
Take Herman Cain, “businessman.” He sat out the first wave of sexual harassment claims against him by offering a peculiar argument: Most ladies he had encountered in his life, he said, had not complained.
In the most recent twist, a woman accused Cain of having carried on a 13-year affair with her. That, too, he tried to casually wave off, but now, under pressure, he says he wants to “reassess” his campaign.
If Cain indeed drops out, the campaign would lose its biggest caricature: He has been the most factually challenged of all these jesters.
As CEO of the “Godfather’s” pizza chain, Cain killed jobs — but now poses as the job-creator-in-chief. Meanwhile, he seems to lack basic economic know-how, let alone a rudimentary grasp of politics or geography. Libya confounds him. He does not believe that China is a nuclear power. And all other, slightly more complicated questions get a stock answer: “Nine-nine-nine!” Remember? That’s Cain’s tax reduction plan that would actually raise taxes for 84 percent of Americans.
Has any of that disrupted Cain’s popularity in the media or with his fan base? Far from it. Since Oct. 1, he has collected more than $9 million in campaign donations. Enough to plow through another onslaught of denouements.
No Shortage of Chutzpah
Then there’s Newt Gingrich, the current favorite. He’s a political dinosaur, dishonored and discredited. Or so we thought. Yet just because he studied history and speaks in more complex sentences than his rivals, the US media now reflexively hails him as a “Man of Ideas” (The Washington Post) — even though most of these ideas are lousy if not downright offensive, such as firing unionized school janitors, so poor children could do their jobs.
Pompous and blustering, Gingrich gets away with this humdinger as well as with selling himself as a Washington outsider — despite having made millions of dollars as a lobbyist in Washington. At least the man’s got chutzpah.
The hypocrisy doesn’t end here. Gingrich claims moral authority on issues such as the “sanctity of marriage,” yet he’s been divorced twice. He sprang the divorce on his first wife while she was sick with cancer. (His supporters’ excuse: It’s been 31 years, and she’s still alive.) He cheated on his second wife just as he was pressing ahead with Bill Clinton’s impeachment during the Monica Lewinsky affair, unaware of the irony. The woman he cheated with, by the way, was one of his House aides and 23 years his junior — and is now his perpetually smiling third wife.
Americans have a short memory. They forget, too, that Gingrich was driven out of Congress in disgrace, the first speaker of the house to be disciplined for ethical wrongdoing. Or that he consistently flirts with racism when he speaks of Barack Obama. Or that he enjoyed a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany’s just as his campaign was financially in the toilet and he ranted about the national debt. Chutzpah, indeed.
Yet the US media rewards him with a daily kowtow. And the Republicans reward him too, by having put him on top in the latest polls. Mr. Hypocrisy, the bearer of his party’s hope.
“I think he’s doing well just because he’s thinking,” former President Clinton told the conservative online magazine NewsMax. “People are hungry for ideas that make some sense.” Sense? Apparently it’s not just the Republicans who have lost their minds here.
The Eternal Runner-Up
And what about the other candidates? Rick Perry’s blunders are legendary. His “oops” moment in suburban Detroit. His frequently slurred speech, as if he was drunk. His TV commercials putting words in Obama’s mouth that he didn’t say (such as, “Americans are ‘lazy'”). His preposterous claim that as governor of Texas he created 1 million jobs, when the total was really just about 100,000. But what’s one digit? Elsewhere, Perry would have long ago been disqualified. But not here in the US.
Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann has fallen off the wagon, although she’s still tolerated as if she’s a serious contender. Ron Paul’s fan club gets the more excited, the more puzzling his comments get. Jon Huntsman, the only one who occasionally makes some sort of sense, has been relegated to the poll doldrums ever since he showed sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators.
Which leaves Mitt Romney, the eternal flip-flopper and runner-up, who by now is almost guaranteed to clinch the nomination, even though no one in his party seems to like or want him. He stiffly delivers his talking points, which may or may not contradict his previous positions. After all, he’s been practicing this since 2008, when he failed to snag the nomination from John McCain. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
As an investor, Romney once raked in millions and, like Cain, killed jobs along the way. So now he says he’s the economy’s savior. To prove that, he has presented an economic plan that the usually quite conservative business magazine Forbes has labeled “dangerous,” asking incredulously, “About Mitt Romney, the Republicans can’t be serious.” Apparently they’re not, but he is, running TV spots against Obama already, teeming with falsehoods.
Good for Ratings
What a nice club that is. A club of liars, cheaters, adulterers, exaggerators, hypocrites and ignoramuses. “A starting point for a chronicle of American decline,” was how David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, described the current Republican race.
The Tea Party would take issue with that assessment. They cheer the loudest for the worst, only to see them fail, as expected, one by one. Which goes to show that this “movement,” sponsored by Fox News, has never been interested in the actual business of governing or in the intelligence and intellect that requires. They are only interested in marketing themselves, for ratings and dollars.
So the US elections are a reality show after all, a pseudo-political counterpart to the Paris Hiltons, Kim Kardashians and all the “American Idol” and “X Factor” contestants littering today’s TV. The cruder, the dumber, the more bizarre and outlandish — the more lucrative. Especially for Fox News, whose viewers were recently determined by Fairleigh Dickinson University to be far less informed than people who don’t watch TV news at all.
Maybe that’s the solution: Just ignore it all, until election day. Good luck with that — this docudrama with its soap-opera twists is way too enthralling. The latest rumor du jour involves a certain candidate who long ago seemed to have disappeared from the radar. Now she may be back, or so it is said, to bring order into this chaos. Never mind that her name is synonymous with chaos: Sarah Palin.

Please follow and like us:
error0