The Politics Thread

[JaneAusten]

Max this isn't about Romney or McCain. Whatever their personal beliefs, they pushed the agenda of their party at the time. McCain in particular I personally lost a lot of respect for.

But rather than making this about those 2, you might ask yourself how in the world some Jim Crow like legislation got passed? Do people in the republican party even ask themselves how something like this happened or really even care that it did? Does this not disturb the republican party members at all?

Barry Goldwater who many were afraid of in the 60's due to his extreme conservatism at the time, would hate all of this. Because unlike today's republican party, he believed heavily in the separation of church and state and felt some things, including abortion and gay rights, should not be legislated because neither are the business of the government. It's the one thing I can't understand the so called Tea Party contingent justifying. In a place where national health care is unacceptable(even if every other western nation has it) because it's not the governments business, how is it the business of the government to legislate our reproductive rights and who we choose to love.

Edited February 26, 2014 by JaneAusten

[marceline]

It's a shame that after all the things McCain has done in his career, the thing he will be remembered for is unleashing Sarah Palin on the American people.

I just keep wondering were all these bills are coming from. It's got to be from the same source. Normally I would think ALEC but there's no real profit component. I assume it's got to be from a handful of big money donors but I can't imagine who. The Kochs tend to lean more towards policies that screw the middle class and the environment. Who profits from these bills?

Edited February 26, 2014 by marceline

[JaneAusten]

I agree with you about the Koch brothers but they did back several senate candidates in the last election, Murdock from Indiana is the one who sticks out, over incumbents like Richard Lugar, a longtime conservative republican senator from Indiana who apparently was too willing to work with the other side for them. Lugar was staunchly conservative but had a reputation as a problem solving and as one willing to work with democrats as warranted. Murdock backed by the Koch brothers ran a nasty campaign against him and Lugar lost in the primary Murdock was a real piece of work, and made dumb statements about rape victims and how being gay was not normal and an unacceptable choice. So while they may not be backing these people for their social beliefs, it doesn't mean they don't exist.

But you're right in saying that there is likely some organization that is pushing for this. According to the articles, this bill in Arizona is being pushed by the Center for Arizona Policy. I guess you'd have to see who their major backers are.

[quartermainefan]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. It looks like you have very little to work with and so now are resorting to "See? Republicans are not as bad as they said, though I admit we're pretty bad at times".

Edited February 26, 2014 by quartermainefan

[Max]

Jane, people in the GOP are very disturbed over this legislation; otherwise there wouldn't be such a loud drumbeat from Republicans for Brewer to veto the bill. But the reason why I made my initial point specifically about McCain and Romney is because Dems attacked those two men as being puppets of the extreme anti-gay fringe (that sadly is a part of the GOP, but is certainly not part of its mainstream).

Neither McCain nor Romney pushed for any type of Arizona/Jim Crow-like legislation during their campaigns, because that was never a part of the mainstream GOP agenda. To the extent that they held an "anti-gay" platform, they stated that they were opposed to same-sex marriage (which was something that mainstream Democrats were also opposed to prior to 2012) and--in McCain's case--that he was opposed to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (which a Democratic president signed into law). (I honestly don't recall Romney mentioning anything about gays in the military in 2012.)

If all the left-wing had said was that the GOP contains a vocal contingent of gay haters, I would have had no objections. But the whole crux of those scare-tactics was that McCain and Romney were in the back pocket of these extremists, when everybody who is honest with themselves knows that a McCain or Romney presidency would have dealt with the issues of most importance to them (which certainly were not the far-right, religious issues such as this). If McCain and Romney were truly anti-gay, they would not be speaking out, as there is no upside for them. In Romney's case, his political career is dead. Furthermore, McCain is actually hurting himself politically by speaking out about this, because this will further damage him when he faces a far-right opponent in the 2016 GOP AZ Senate primary. (And almost all political observers expect McCain to face a primary challenge in 2016.)

What is happening in AZ is not "hard evidence" that the GOP as a whole is dangerous for gays (and it is certainly not evidence that a McCain or Romney presidency would have been dangerous); instead, all it proves is that the GOP members of the AZ legislature are dangerous for gays. Before making any sweeping generalizations, you need to look at what the GOP is doing as a whole, and see how successful similar Jim Crow legislation has been in all 27 states that have Republican-controlled legislatures (as well has how successful such legislation has been in the GOP-controlled House). And in regards to the one mainstream GOP position--opposition to gay marriage--that liberals cite as evidence that Republicans hate gay people, the left completely lacks credibly when making such assertions, given that those clamoring for gay equality unconditionally supported the Democratic Party pre-2012 (back when Democrats were also anti-gay marriage).

I made all my points above, but I just wanted to say that I never said that all Republicans are "pretty bad at times." I did say that the actions of the AZ Republicans were reprehensible, but then explained how these attitudes are not reflective of the mainstream, national Republican Party.

Qfan, if you don't mind me asking, I must admit that I am puzzled as to the enthusiasm showed by you and other gay people towards Bill Clinton. His signing DOMA into law did more to harm gay marriage than anything Bush did. I have no idea why Clinton's signing of DOMA is seen as water under the bridge (unless there is indeed a double-standard on how liberals judge both parties on the issue of gay marriage, as I suspect), because if a Republican president did the exact same thing, he would never be forgiven.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Max

[quartermainefan]

Clinton signed that bill because he was looking at super majorities ready to override his veto. He did say the bill was divisive and according to wikipedia his white house called it "gay baiting". 20 years ago was a long time and a lot has happened since then. All things happen with baby steps and Clinton also signed Dont Ask Dont Tell, which was the first step to the open service of gays in the military. Clinton saw the writing on the wall for DOMA and had no way to stop it but was smart enough to not fall on his sword attacking it and handing even larger victory to republicans. But this is 2014 not 1996. The fears that gay marriage would lead to people marrying their dogs has proven to be just the insane rantings of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.

Max you basically are saying republican politicians are 20 years behind the times and therefore deserve to be seen the way these things were seen 20 years ago. Why stop at Clinton, why not go back to WWII era military policies and maybe we can bash FDR? There is no double standard and if Bill Clinton in 2014 said the things that AZ legislature said he would be finished overnight as any kind of political force.

Edited February 26, 2014 by quartermainefan

[marceline]

Please provide examples of these scare tactics. I've noticed that you like to accuse "the left" of doing and saying things yet provide no examples.

And the Kansas legislature. And Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, Oklahoma, Hawaii and Mississippi legislatures. All those states have introduced these new Jim Crow laws. (Fortunately the one in Ohio got pulled today.) To say the Republican Party isn't dangerous for gays is to ignore the actions of Republicans in power all over this country. (Not just Republicans of course. The Ohio bill was sponsored by three Democrats along with 40 Republicans and believe me, I'm about to put my proverbial foot deep in the ass of those Dems.) The actions of the Arizona legislature are a perfect reflection of the GOP mainstream

The irony is that the Arizona law says that someone can refuse service to anyone if it's because of sincerely held beliefs. Romney is probably opposing the bill because he knows that won't work out to well for Mormons.

I just did. You seem to want to use the fact that these bills haven't been successful as proof of the GOP's intentions. I use the fact that they were introduced at all.

Edited February 26, 2014 by marceline

[Max]

Qfan, the GOP isn't 20 years behind the times on gay marriage. Just 24 months ago, Democrats were saying a marriage should be between a man and a woman, and faced almost no backlash as a result (when the Republicans were vilified for holding the same position).

Marceline, here a few examples of the scare tactics that you seem to have a hard time believing existed:

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/07/for-some-gays-mccain-is-right-choice.html

http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=56323

http://truelogic.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/mitt-romneys-mormon-cult/

Remember also how John Hagee's endorsement of McCain was cited as proof of McCain's supposed rabid homophobia?

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_mccainhagee_connection_1.php

Supposedly, John McCain was responsible for anti-gay comments made by Hagee. Perhaps this "guilt by association" theme would have been understandable, but the left once again exhibited an egregious double-standard, as they absolved Obama of all the hateful things that Jeremiah Wright said (and even insisted that associating Obama and Wright together was a racist action on the GOP's part). And furthermore, Hagee was nowhere near as close to McCain as Wright was to Obama. Just as importantly, if one wants to color McCain by whom he associates with, the best measure would be to take into account the fact that his wife and daughter are strong supporters of gay rights.

As long as where talking about the subject of discriminated groups, I don't know why the left is so fixated on its anti-Mormon sentiment. In my observation, there are more liberals who openly express anti-Mormon sentiments than than there are conservatives who say hateful things about gays. Mormonism isn't the only religion that has a strong, anti-homosexual doctrine. And while it is fair to criticize Mormons for banning blacks from the clergy prior to 1978, Catholics to this very day do the same thing to women. So, how come I see no huge anti-Catholic sentiment coming from the left (analogous to what Mormons have experienced)? Could it be because there are actually many prominent Catholic Democratic politicians, and because Catholics make up far more of the voting pool than do Mormons? (Once again, more horrendous left-wing hypocrisy.)

I don't recall any other states (except perhaps Kansas) passing similar types of Jim Crow laws. The fact that any similar bill never passed in these legislatures is a sign that again the GOP is largely opposed to hate. No mainstream Republican is pleased with the introduction of these bills, and it's a totally unreasonable standard to taint an entire political party based upon what its most extreme members are advocating.

Though we hardly agree on anything, I will give you credit for condemning the three Democrats who supported the Ohio bill to which you referred.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Max

[Vee]

There are no more mainstream Republicans in office. There is only the fringe right - who were foolishly installed in a wave election by a power elite who mistakenly believed they could control the idiots they helped get elected - and the remaining old guard in office, formerly 'mainstream', who must struggle to pander to the extremist wing of their constituents in order to hold their seats. And as for the voters, your extremist wing is the most active, vocal and organized element of your party today. To retool and bastardize an old slogan, you bought it, you broke it, you own it.

Regardless, Jan Brewer did the right thing today.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Vee

[ThePrinceOfSunspear]

She did it because of money and because if she signed it into law that would have practically guaranteed a Democratic governor come next election...

As it is Senator Jeff Flake barely beat Carmona last time around. McCain will probably win reelection but I am curious how close it could be......

We're barely into March and already 2014 is turning out to be a hot mess of a year....

Edited February 27, 2014 by ThePrinceOfSunspear

[Vee]

Of course she did. Doesn't change the fact that she did it.

[DRW50]

I will never forget that the AP called opponents of this bill "shrill", and afterward, huge amounts of people from all sides of the political spectrum objected to the bill.

The AP can kiss my ass.

This is huge, beating this bill back, especially in Arizona, which is a laboratory for this type of legislation.

There are similar bills in many states, so it's not over, but I'm happy about this bill at this moment. I just hope people won't take their eye of the ball.

[Vee]

This stuff was never going to get off the ground. It is scary in the moment, though.

[marceline]

So you post links to crackpot blogs and claim that they are spokespeople for the left yet a few pages back you wanted to pretend that Sarah Palin isn't a recognized voice for the right in spite of the fact that she's constantly on Fox News, speaks at Republican events and shills book after book. Do you see the hypocrisy in that?

No. It proves that the opposition to the GOP's hate was stronger. If the GOP was opposed to hate they wouldn't float these bills to begin with.

[quartermainefan]

You must think everything exists in a vacuum and nobody remembers who said what from one issue to the next. Here is another reason why everyine paid attention to AZ and the republican push to legalize discrimination: It is the same exact place where a couple of years back there was another republican push to legalize discrimination based on skin color. So when you see people want to make every person with brown skin show papers like refugees from Europe circa 1940 and then you want to make it legal for gay people to role play 1950s Alabama, you rightfully earn the title of bigot and hate monger.

I don't know how much clearer it can get. To be a republican is to choose to be a member of a party that exists to expand hate and prejudice. If it isn't the brown skin people it is the gays, and if it isnt the gays it is those welfare queens and the 47% who want handouts. And if it isnt them it is the "elites" who live in NY and want your guns and hate Jesus. That's the republican motif--to show how different everyone is from we true American republicans and resent them. Your post after post ignoring the actual topic (the law in AZ) to instead pretend the topic is liberal persecution of republicans on this issue is one of your weakest arguments to date on this site.

The only persecution in this current topic ( AZ) is the planned, intended and desired persecution of gay people by conservatives. Once again, Putin would be proud to be a republican.