A bipartisan group of Senators is going public today with a call for Senate hearings on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would expand the ban against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity for all but the smallest private-sector employers, I’m told.Now let's see if it goes anywhere...
The White House came out in support of ENDA as a broader solution after it angered advocates by deciding against an executive order barring same sex discrimination by federal contractors. ENDA is a longtime priority for gay rights advocates, and there’s little chance it would pass this Congress, but the bipartisan group of Senators is hoping to draw attention to the issue in the wake of Obama’s announcement.
Today Dem Senators Jeff Merkley and Bob Casey and GOP Senators Mark Kirk and Susan Collins (who are both Republicans) will release a letter calling on the Senate health and labor committee to hold hearings on ENDA.
Next came the missionary period, and here we begin to reach the part of the biography that the newspapers have already filled in. Romney went to France, finally ending up in Paris (in 1968, no less). He was driving a car one night in the French countryside, with passengers including the Mormon mission leader in France and his wife, and it was hit headlong by an apparently drunk French priest. The mission leader’s wife was killed; Romney was pronounced dead at the scene by one jumpy gendarme, although it turned out that his injuries were comparatively minor.And I don't think he ever has been the same, and that his startlingly absolute lack of empathy probably does in fact stem from a brain injury caused by this accident.
I don't think so. There was a huge hatred of "Hippies". The fact that they were more effeminate was a problem, but not particularly homosexual. In fact a lot of it was probably jealousy that male hippies were getting laid more often.“I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual,” Romney told Kilmeade. “That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s.”I wasn't around in the 60's, but I'm pretty sure this is bullshit, right?
Most people who had never terrorized a fellow student for being gay would be able to flat out deny that it happened. They wouldn't just "not remember."So now we've gone from asking whether or not the kid might have been gay, to just assuming this happened because Romney thought the kid was gay? Look, there was a ton of anger and resentment towards men with long hair in the 60s. It was an actual thing. It had nothing to do with thinking they were actually gay. People just got angry about dudes with long hair. It's totally believable that someone could get attacked simply for having long hair without the assumption of homosexuality.
Well, there's very little to indicate that the incident does not reflect what Mitt actually stands for or believes in.That's idiotic. Does Obama believe in snorting coke, or is it just something he did as a younger person? Plus, again people seem to have gone completely off the rails and are assuming this guy was gay and that's why Romney did it.
there is a Grand Canyon sized gulf of difference between "I treated you really poorly, and the memories of my bad behavior are eating me up. You don't owe me forgiveness, but I wanted to let you know that I recognize that my behavior was wrong" and "Oh well, I was dumb, I'm sorry if you were hurt." The first is actually an apology, for example. -- KathrynT
Decent people do not issue bullshit fake ass non-apologies. -- lord_wolfI'm sure if the victim were alive Romney would invite him for a "beer summit" or something and probably pay him off.
If he has no memory of this incident, how is he so sure that he didn't know the guy was gay? -- zombieflanders
He has no memory of this incident. He remembers fully all the many other times he assaulted and tortured him. -- kenkoHoly crap people, keep up with the thread -- He does remember the incident. That's why he issued the apology you are now complaining about. I guess it's not too surprising you'd bash him without bothering to keep the facts straight.
His campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, said in a statement that “anyone who knows Mitt Romney knows that he doesn’t have a mean-spirited bone in his body. The stories of fifty years ago seem exaggerated and off base and Governor Romney has no memory of participating in these incidents.”Has he and/or his spokesperson now denied this? And if so, why is lying about it better?
“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.”
LGBT students are still more likely to be bullied and victimized by other kids: In a 2009 national survey, 85 percent of kids who identify as LGBT said they’d been verbally harassed at school, 40 percent physically harassed, and nearly 20 percent physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation. The consequences have been laid out by researchers: Boys who are targets have higher levels of anxiety and depression. For girls, being taunted as a lesbian is linked to social withdrawal. Students who are harassed because of their sexual identity miss substantially more school and, in one study, earned lower grades. And in a study of young gay adults between the ages of 21 and 25, the ones who reported being bullied frequently in middle school and high school were over five times more likely to say they’d attempted suicide than the ones who hadn’t been victimized.posted by audi alteram partem at 1:26 PM on May 10, 2012
Way to diminish the problems of the sissification culture there, bro.How the am I "dimishing" it? Literally all I did was point out that it existed and could have been a motivation for Romney's behavior. If anything, you're diminishing it if you think it somehow wouldn't have been "as bad" as doing it because he knew the kid was gay.
Hmm, for some reason I was thinking there was a statement from the spokesman saying he didn't remember, and then later an apology from Romney saying he remembered it and was sorry. But apparently he's saying he remembered the person, but not the specific incident (which seems unlikely - unless he did this stuff all the time, which it sounds like might be the case)“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.”Has he and/or his spokesperson now denied this? And if so, why is lying about it better?
I'm not sure why you're always so worked up over people criticizing Mitt Romney.Because it's this 2-minute hate bullshit where we post any negative thing about Romney and then have FFPs about how how cool Obama is
He's not a nice person politically, since he's been publicly anti-gay and anti-choice for a very long time, and seems dismissive if not outright critical of the working class' plights.So why don't you make a post about that rather then all this pointless personality/decades old anecdote bullshit. Of course, part of the problem is that those things don't change so once you talk about them once, there's nothing more to say. People want to talk about these people and find out more about them. But there's this weird thing where we have to pretend our prurient interest in people's lives is somehow "politically relevant".
Just because he wasn't as loud mouthed and obvious about his shittiness towards people doesn't make him any better than Perry, Gingrich, et al. And as PresidentYeah, because being a republican makes you pure evil, there couldn't possibly be any gradation between Romney and Gingrich, they would totally be just as bad as eachother. Just like there wouldn't be any difference between the policies of Obama or Dennis Kucinich - all members of the political parties are totally interchangeable. (*rolls eyes*).
"'The stories [Obama's marriage stance and Romney's Cranbrook behavior] aren't really about the same thing,' [Post political editor Steven] Ginsberg added, 'but the perception among some might have been that putting them together would have created an impression we didn’t want to create.'posted by ericb at 2:06 PM on May 10, 2012
... Ginsberg said he expected some criticism over the timing of the story, but noted that it had been in the works for weeks, long before Vice President Joseph Biden voiced his support for same-sex marriage Sunday on 'Meet the Press' and Obama's comments on Wednesday. Post editors had initially planned on running the piece mid-week.
In publishing Thursday online, Ginsberg said Post editors were being both 'mindful of the news yesterday and mindful of the competition.'
Indeed, editors are always reluctant to hold stories with exclusive material given the competitive nature of the news business.
The Post's Romney prep school story will run in Friday's print edition along with a second story on the reaction to it." *
Delmoi, you're free to offer any major differences between Romney's current stances.and those of.the other candidates you mentioned at any time.Mitt Romney doesn't want to ban pornography like Santorum, nor does he want to make poor minority children work as janitors, or build moon bases, like Gingrich. Do you think that was, like, difficult?
As others are pointing out in the media, it was 'assault.' The incident happening at a private school does not negate that it was and is considered criminal in nature.Yeah, legally this would qualify as assault, but usually school bullying isn't prosecuted that way, although that might be changing nowadays. Romney would have been a minor at the time so even if he was convicted, it wouldn't have gone on his legal record anyway (not that technicality matters for a presidential candidate, obviously)
Oh, and for the record, this entire article is pointless politics of personality. Every column inch wasted on "How Romney was a jerk as a teenager 50 years ago" is a column inch not spent discussing substantive issues. I'm sorry I even contributed to this gossip-fest.I don't mind "gossip" for the sake of gossip. What's annoying is when people try to turn it into a political issue, or use it to demonize someone. I'm not saying Mitt Romney wasn't a horrible little shit in highschool. But like I said, the same true of LBJ and JFK when they were in office on a personal level.
Being a politician is about how you respond to a shifting political landscape, and how you respond depends on your core beliefs and attitudes not just on your announced policies, and those core political beliefs are deeply tied to your attitude towards people around you, particularly those less privileged
His hair was bleached blonde and fell over one eye. Beatnik? I don't think so. This was the end of the Marilyn Monroe era, and his look said gender gender gender.I wasn't around in 1965, I have no idea what your typical prep school kid would have thought about that. But kids have always attacked each other for being "weird" without worrying too much about any specific thing like being gay.
Mitt’s Mormon moment — when asked about Obama’s ‘treason’There are lots of Evangelicals who think the same thing, despite the fact they are totally opposed to the separation of church and state.
Not really. I think you're trying too hard.I think he was mocking crazy republicans who believe in an "Obama death list" and so on.
You know, I've thought about it a few times, and I never figured out a way to do it that wouldn't cause me to come across as an asshole. The entire college application process basically destroyed my fragile teenage psyche, and I was very eager to put that chapter of my life behind me.The thing is, if you don't tell anyone she'll still be out there screwing over lots of other people. Although who knows if she's still active. It does seems super-bizarre that the school would actually have alumnae interview applicants, but I guess they want to 'maintain their culture' or something. So maybe her treatment of you isn't really that big of a problem for them.
Porn and moon bases are not.major issues. I'm talking about what Congress under full GOP rule would send.to.his desk.So you left out the "poor minorities in Janitors" bit? Santorum has a whole host of bizarre sexual issues of which porn is only one aspect. He's the one who hit contraception, being opposed to it in general. Which I don't believe Romney ever opposed, other then when paid for by religious institutions. And realistically, pornography would become a serious issue if the government tried to ban it. It would mean invasive internet censorship, it would drive pornography underground, and basically be a disaster for civil liberties.
Okay, is it just me, or are the two halves of that statement completely contradictory?Why is it contradictory? Like I said, I don't think people were even as aware of homosexuality in general at the time. It just wasn't talked about as much. I think Romney went after the kid for being "Weird", for being different. That sort of thing happens all the time.
Being a politician is about how you respond to a shifting political landscape, and how you respond depends on your core beliefs and attitudes not just on your announced policies, and those core political beliefs are deeply tied to your attitude towards people around you, particularly those less privilegedThis wasn't an example of someone being 'less privilaged' in terms of money or background, he was going to the same private school as Romney. The problem for him was that he was weird, and it was more about enforcing what he thought of as social norms. That's definitely a bad thing but it's fairly typical of republicans in general. All the stuff you say this says about his politics -- we pretty much already know.
I don't see how - could you please explain?"“I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual,” Romney told Kilmeade. “That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s.”"Okay, is it just me, or are the two halves of that statement completely contradictory?
Privilege can include wealth, class, race, gender, physical strength, age, education, normalcy (vs looking "weird"), and plenty of other things. How you deal with people lower on the totem along any of these dimensions is important, as is how you dealt with them earlier in life.Sure well, kids can get picked on for being rich too (although being picked on does seem to correlate with being poor, not being able to afford 'cool' stuff, etc). Pretty much anyone would have less "privilege" then the son of the governor going to a "lord of the flies" style boarding school. The obsession over making every single thing about "privilege" gets annoying.
To me it seems like the kind of thing an opportunistic, vote-hungry politician in a notoriously liberal state with an aging master of the Senate lefty in charge of state politics would do. Especially if said politician started moving to the right when it became apparent that there was more money there than in being a moderate and attempted to distance himself from his previously commendable record.Romney is raising most of his money from wallstreet, which previously mostly supported Obama. They don't care about people being rightwing, other then supporting banking interests, which as you pointed out both "Obamacare" and "Romneycare" do - they funnel money into private insurance companies who are ultimately owned by wallstreet. His cash has nothing to do with his views on abortion and gay rights, those are issues he took to get votes. Which, it should be pointed out, Obama was also willing to do in pretending to be against gay marriage for a number of years.
Especially especially if said politician's personal life seemed to indicate that rather than having a set of complex, mature stances on a variety of issues that on first glance might seem contradictory, he had demonstrated a repeated pattern of tormenting and stepping on weaker, vulnerable people around himPlease, this is ridiculous. If you can pick and chose whatever anecdotes you want, contextalize them however you feel, then you can portray anyone however you want. That's why so many republicans think obama is a Kenyan socialist Muslim who wants take away guns and put everyone on welfare. It's because they only hear anecdotes that confirm those narratives. Meanwhile, people here are passing around anecdotes that paint Romney as the "Generic evil republican". It's lazy thinking.
and the witnesses said he was picked on for being gay.I didn't see that in the WaPo article. Where was that reported?
We get it, delmoi. You're a contrarian. Collect your badge and your door prize on the way out. Feel free to use the entrance. Because that's so contrarian!Yeah I think contrarianism plays a part here, sure. If everyone wants to pile on it naturally makes me want to take the opposite position if I think it's wrong. No one else is going to defend Romney around here. I'm not going to vote for the guy, but believe it or not it's actually possible to vote against someone without hating their guts!
delmoi, you think Romney will govern as a pragmatic moderate?I think it depends on congress -- the same thing is true about Obama. The democrats controlled congress, but with guys like Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, and other "conservative" (i.e. corrupt as hell) you ended up with a fairly moderate set of policy outcomes. Now with a republican congress, Obama has done nothing legislatively except sign a bunch of spending cuts into law after weakly negotiating them down a little.
If you are right, Romney is a rank liar.You mean, like, every other politician ever? Or do you think Obama really did think gay marriage went against his religious convictions until just a few days ago? (which was his previous excuse for dropping his former support for it)
Seeing as he reserves not only the right to judge, but also the right to open the door to bedrooms all over the US and dictate as to what and cannot be done in them using the law as his righteous whipBeing against gay marriage, as obama claimed to be until a couple days ago, does not mean you want to illegalize being gay. What actual policy positions does he have to regulate what goes on "in the bedroom"?
Aaaaanndddd.... delmoi has fully "evolved." Bravo, sir.Do you actually have anything substantive to say? I have no idea what you're even trying to say here. Obama claimed his position on gay marriage was "evolving" (from for it, to against it, and now back to being for it). Are you saying my position on Mitt Romney is somehow like Obama's position on gay marriage? Because I have no idea what that might even mean.
« Older If you're a DVD/BluRay viewer who is already annoy... | When the Supreme Court decisio... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by joe lisboa at 7:40 AM on May 10, 2012 [7 favorites]