Box Turtle Bulletin

Mitt Romney Endorses “New Rule” On Disrespecting American Soldier

The newly minted rule about booing an American soldier stationed in Iraq and refusing to thank him for his service has now been fully endorsed by the GOP frontrunner, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. In this interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader, you can watch the panderer in chief in action:

Union Leader: Governor, there were a lot of chattering going on in the mainstream media about some of the goings on at the debates, including a question from a soldier in Afghanistan or Iraq who happened to be gay. Could you hear question and answer from this guy from your position on stage?

Romney: I heard the question and answer, yeah. You hear a lot, I mean you don’t hear everything going on. Obviously you’re concentrating on the people on the stage and what you’re going to say.

Union Leader: Well there was audible, to the home audience, boos from a couple of people or thirty people, I don’t know, in the audience. And I couldn’t tell from home whether you people on stage could hear the boos, and if you did hear the boos what was your reaction to them.

Romney: Actually, I think we can hear the boos, I would tell you that in these debates, there’s been a lot of booing and a lot of applause, cheering and booing, some of which I don’t agree with. Now, I have not made it my practice to scold the audience to say I disagree with this person, I agree with that person because it goes in a lot of different directions. don’t recall whether this soldier, whether people were booing his question or just booing…

Union Leader: They booed as soon as he identified as a gay person.

Romney: You have to look into that. I don’t know when they booed and I don’t know why people booed. But I will tell you, that the boos and applause has not always coincided with my own views. But I haven’t stepped in to try and say, “this one is right, this one is wrong.” Instead, I focus on the things I think I will say.

Union Leader: I ask because I think it was Herman Cain over the weekend was asked about it and he said in effect that he should have criticized whoever was booing in the audience.

Romney: That’s…I understand his thoughts.

Union Leader: But yours are…?

Romney: Look, there were people who cheered when statements were made at the Reagan library that a number of… two hundred some-odd people had been executed in Texas. I don’t know that cheering for executions is something I would agree with either, but I don’t raise my hand and say, “Please let me talk, I want to tell everyone you shouldn’t be cheering.” (laughs) We … I haven’t made it my practice to listen to the cheers and the boos and to try to the people on their expressions of their view.

But you can bet your mother’s grave that if a Democratic audience membered had booed any soldier for any reason that Romney and his cowardly cohorts would have no hesitation to condemn them in the most thunderous, righteous terms available. You can also bet your father’s grave along with it that never before has a Republican presidential candidate failed to thank a man or woman in uniform for their service, and will never again fail to do it — as long as they believe that servicemember is straight.

That’s the new rule in politics. A rule that Romney has refined a bit by by placing the disrespect of an American soldier alongside cheers for  executing 254 prisoners in Texas. Thank you Stephen Hill for your service to America.

Johnson “Embarrased” By Booing of American Soldier, Other Candidates Refuse To Comment

ABC News’ Emily Friedman rounds up the reactions of GOP presidential candidates to the booing by audience members of Stephen Hill, a gay American Soldier stationed in Iraq, who asked about the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during Thursday night’s debate. On the night of the debate, Ambassador Jon Huntsman Jr. said he heard the booing and thought it was “unfortunate.” He later added, “We all wear the same uniform in America. We all salute the same flag I have two boys starting their journey in the U.S military. We should take more time to thank them for their services as opposed to finding differences based on background or orientation.”

After one news cycle passed, Sen. Rick Santorum claimed that he didn’t hear the booing (which was loud enough to actually create an echo in the vast hall in Orlando), and said he should have thanked the soldier for his service. At least that’s what he told Fox News. When speaking to ABC News, Santorum walked it backed a little.

“I didn’t hear it. I didn’t hear the boos,” Santorum told ABC News. “I heard the question and answered the question, so I’ve heard subsequently that happened. I’ve heard varied reports about whether they were booing the soldier or the policy.”

“I don’t know what they were booing,” he said. “If you can go out and find the people who were booing and find out if they were booing because a man was gay or because of a policy they don’t agree with.”

“You find out why they booed, and I’ll respond to your question,” he added.

Today, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson said he was embarrassed by the episode:

“That’s not the Republican Party that I belong to,” said Johnson. “I’m embarrassed by someone who serves in the military and can’t express their sexuality. I am representing the Republican Party that is tolerant. And to me that shows an intolerance that I’m not a part of in any way whatsoever. ”

Johnson added that he could hear the boos from the stage and believes that the other candidates – despite Santorum’s denial – could as well.

That’s a second candidate who admitted he could hear the boos from the stage. Yet none of the nine candidates spoke up against the demonstrated disrepsect of an active-duty soldier stationed in Iraq, and none of them engaged in the time-honored Republican tradition of shoving each other out of the way in the race to thank that soldier for his service to the country.

And for six of those candidates, that silence continues through day three. Pizzaman Herman Cain refused to comment saying he didn’t want his comments “taken out of context.” Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s spokesperson refused to comment, as did the campaigns for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

GOP Candidates On Same-Sex Marriage

Think Progress has a handy compilation clip from Thursday night’s GOP debate in Iowa of candidates discussing same-sex marriage. One of my favorite reactions comes from across the Pond, with The Guardian’s Richard Adams responding to Romney’s argument that “marriage is a status“:

Looking back through some clips, there’s Romney saying: “Marriage is a status, it’s not an activity.” Who says romance is dead, eh? Calling marriage a “status” makes it sound like a Facebook update.

The emerging consensus, albeit a snarky one,  is that the debate’s real winner was Rick Perry, who doesn’t officially declare his candidacy until tomorrow.

Here’s the clip and transcript.

Mitt Romney: Marriage should be decided at the federal level. … Marriage is a status. It’s not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state and as a result, our marriage status relationship should be constant across the country. I believe we should have a federal amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman because I believe the ideal place to raise a child is in a home with a mom and a dad.

Jon Huntsman: I also believe in civil unions, because I think this nation can do a better job when it comes to equality. And I think this nation can do a better job when it comes to reciprocal beneficiary rights rights. And I believe that this is something that ought to be discussed among the various states. I don’t have any problem with the states having this discussion. But as for me, I support civil unions.

Ron Paul: (About whether polygamy would “be okay too”) It’s sort of like asking the question if the states wanted to legalize slavery or something like that, that is so past reality that no state is going to do that. But on the issue of marriage, I think marriage should be between a single man and a single woman and that the federal government shouldn’t be involved. I want less government involvement. I don’t want the federal government having a marriage police.

Rick Santorum: It sounds to me like Rep. Paul would actually say polygamous marriages are okay. If the state has the right to do it, they have the right to do it.

Michele Bachmann: I support the Federal Marriage Amendment because I believe that we will see this issue at the Supreme Court someday, and as president I would not nominate activist judges who legislate from the bench. I also want to say that when I was in Minnesota, I was the chief author of the Constitutional amendment to define marriage as one-man, one-woman. I have an absolutely unblemished record when it comes to this issue of man-woman marriage.

Mitt Romney declares anti-gay litmus test for judicial appointments

NOTE: The header, which originally said “Mitt Romney declares anti-gay litmus test for Supreme Court nominees”, was revised for accuracy.

The National Organization for Marriage is bragging that Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney have signed their pledge:

I, ______________, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will:

One, support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.

Two, nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.

Three, defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act vigorously in court.

Four, establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.

Five, advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.

Most of this is just a declaration of personal anti-gay animus and is neither a pledge of intent or likelihood.

There is almost no chance at all that two-thirds of each house of Congress would vote for a Federal Marriage Amendment and that likelihood decreases significantly with each passing year. By the time that the 2013-2017 Presidential term begins, it doesn’t matter what a President might “support”, it isn’t going to happen.

Also by that time, it is likely that the constitutionality of DOMA3 will have progressed out of the initial federal court hearings and on to appeal. And having declined to defend the law, the Justice Department cannot decide to step in and resume authority once a new Attorney General is in the office. At most, the Attorney General could file an amicus brief, which any of these nominees could do on their own today.

As for establishing a presidential commission to look at how gays are harassing and threatening homophobes, that would be political suicide. Not only would it appear to oh, just about anyone, as homophobic and an abuse of power, but it would be embarrassing to NOM when the commission released its report. The boycott of El Coyote may sound like a “threat” to NOM’s target audience, but “the gays didn’t eat there after the owner gave to Prop 8” is going to sound like a statement of the obvious to the rest of the country.

Equally stupid would be an effort on the part of the federal government to interfere with the District’s Human Rights Act so as to exclude gay people. That is the only mechanism by which legislation could “return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote” on limiting any of the District’s provisions based on sexual orientation. Only two Senators and 37 members of the House were willing to sign on to an amicus brief arguing that the Human Rights Act didn’t cover gay marriage. Even fewer would sign on to legislation to amend the “The Human Rights Act” specifically to exclude gay people from coverage.

Now none of this is to say that Michele Bachman and Rick Santorum would not try to do all of the above. They live in a bubble in which the things that they say actually make sense and where people admire them and their values. But both are wackadoodles with no chance of winning the Presidency.

Mitt Romney, however, is a credible candidate. And he should have thought a bit more before signing onto this pledge. Because he just made a declaration that has potential to negatively impact his campaign.

No, it was not the wacky appeal to ancestor-worship that has our “Founding Fathers” writing the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Palinist history is about symbolism, not fact, so this is not much of a liability to Romney at this stage.

Nor is it unusual for Republican nominees to declare their support for a commitment to constraint and to oppose those who “legislate from the bench.”

But this pledge goes way beyond such language. And by signing, Mitt Romney took the unusual step of declaring that his judicial nominees must reject the idea that the US Constitution protects the marriage rights of gay people. Mitt Romney announced that he has a litmus test.

In practice, litmus tests for judicial nominees are complicated.

An administration makes judicial appointments that it believes share its ideology. But the nominees themselves are bound by professional ethics from declaring their position on matters that are expected to appear before them. And most aren’t much favorable of the notion that your whim is to be followed rather than their consideration of the facts, weight of precedent, or argument of the litigants.

But regardless of whether or not litmus test questioning occurs in private, declaring a litmus test for judicial nominees, especially this early in a political campaign, is not wise. And at some point, a reporter is going to ask Romney the unanswerable question, “Considering Ted Olson’s legal stature and established conservative credentials, would his support for same-sex marriage disqualify him from an appointment to the federal bench?”

GOP Presidential Candidates Debate Marriage, DADT

Last night, seven candidates for the GOP presidential nomination appeared in a debate in New Hampshire, home to the nation’s first primay. Participating were Godfather Pizza magnate Herman Cain, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. And of course, LGBT issues came up in the debate.

Only Herman Cain and Ron Paul opposed a Federal Marriage Amendment to ban marriage equality in the states.

Herman Cain said that he didn’t support repealing DADT, but he didn’t want the distractions that it would take to put it back into effect. Pawlenty says that he would seek the advice of “combatant commanders.” This wiggle room leaves open the likelihood that he would re-instate DADT. Ron Paul appeared to say the would keep it in place. He talked about punishing behavior, without specifying whether a consensual relationship between two people of the same gender would be punishable. Romney dodged the question altogether, saying that DADT should not have been repealed “until this conflict is over.” Gingrich answered by building a case for its reinstatement, an indication that he would work to restore the discriminatory policy. Bachmann said she “would keep the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.” When asked to clarify, she indicated that she would reinstate the policy after sufficiently cloaking it with “advice” from the military. Santorum took a lot of words to more or less repeat what Ron Paul said, but given the context of Santorum’s overall policies and attitudes toward gay people, I don’t think his eagerness to reimpose the policy would be much in doubt.

Not one candidate spoke about gay people as though they were taxpayers, patriots, or fellow citizens.

On DOMA, Social Conservatives Howl While Pols Shrug

By virtually any measure, the Obama Administration’s announcement that they will no longer argue that the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” is constitutional portends a monumental shift, with repercussions we are all still trying to sort out. Anti-gay activists are, predictably, howling with rage, calling on Congress to intervene. But as we noted, House speaker John Boehner refused to take the bait, and is instead sticking to his promised focus on slashing the budget. The New York Times noticed similarly tepid reactions among many other political conservatives:

In the hours that followed, Sarah Palin’s Facebook site was silent. Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was close-mouthed. Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, released a Web video — on the labor union protests in Wisconsin — and waited a day before issuing a marriage statement saying he was “disappointed.”

Others, like Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and Haley Barbour, the governor of Mississippi, took their time weighing in, and then did so only in the most tepid terms. “The Justice Department is supposed to defend our laws,” Mr. Barbour said.

Asked if Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana and a possible presidential candidate, had commented on the marriage decision, a spokeswoman said that he “hasn’t, and with other things we have going on here right now, he has no plans.”

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is also believed to be a presidential contender, is among the few to come out strongly against the Administration’s decision, calling children being raised by LGBT parents “our little guinea pigs.” Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist for President Bush’s 2004 campaign which deployed marriage as a major wedge issue to turn out conservative voters, may well be right: “The wedge has lost its edge,” he told the Times. Of course, there’s still plenty of time for that to change between now and 2012.

Far Right gathers for Value Voters weekend

Earlier this month we discussed the wackadoodle extravaganza which was the Taking America Back convention. But this weekend, that seminar’s cousin the 2010 Value Voters Summit is meeting for roughly the same purpose: rallying the troops to impose their religious beliefs on non-believers by use of governmental force. And while Taking America Back consisted primarily of the delusional, the excitable, and the social misfits, the Family Research Council’s Value Voters Summit draws “respectable” activists and recognizable politicians.

But make no mistake, the agenda of the Voter Voters Summit is no less radical or unAmerican than that of its low-rent cousin. And no small part of their obsession is on the extent to which gay people should be disallowed from participating in society.

The plenary session presentations consist of:

* We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future
* ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Panel
* We the People: The Tea Party’s Place in American Politics
* Parental Choice Education: Beyond One-Size-Fits-All Schools
* Hollywood Panel

Although only one of the five plenary discussions focuses solely on gay issues, it is without question that much of the other sessions will also be dedicated to “opposing the homosexual agenda”. That is, after all, the number one complaint that social conservatives have with the schools and Hollywood. And for those who really want to spend their weekend on nothing but “evil sodomites”, they can attend Saturday’s 3:30 breakout session entitled The falsehood of the inevitability of same-sex “marriage”.

The entire event will be filled with speeches and presentations by familiar names in the anti-gay movement. But unlike Taking America Back, most of these have social grace and appearance of sanity. With one notable exception: the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer will be speaking tomorrow morning and is likely to spout things that are so irrational as to confuse even that sympathetic audience.

These conferences are useful; they help us separate political opponents from those who truly are devoted enemies of our lives, freedoms and liberties. Many conservative Republicans hold positions that are unfavorable to us, but do so more from ignorance or distorted principle than out of zealous animus. But those who participate at these conferences do so because the believe that they are authorized by God to destroy our cause and our lives.

This year, perhaps even more than most, participation at the Value Voters Summit is a clear indication of animus towards the gay community. And by going there this year, politicians are making a visible statement that they are not just in disagreement with some of our cause but rather that they see us as a threat and an enemy and that they will do whatever they can to harm us.

Most of these names will not surprise us:

Governor Mike Huckabee
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)
Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)
Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.)
Governor Mitt Romney
Senator Rick Santorum
Christine O’Donnell
Newt Gingrich
Governor Bob McDonnell (R-Va.)
Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) (via video)
Representative Gregg Harper (R-Miss.)

Romney Out of Race

Ten years ago Mitt Romney was a moderate Republican, an ally of the gay community, and a voice for reasoned balance between fiscal conservatism and social policy that made room for a broad band of citizens. And this positioning let him achieve the impossible, Republican governance of a liberal state, and much acclaim for his accomplishment.

Unfortunately, Romney saw the acclaim, listened to the voices that told him he should be President, and forgot the policy positions that led him to his success. Romney believed that to gain the White House, he needed to reinvent himself as a social conservative upholding “family values”.

Today he found that compromising his character gained him nothing and cost him 35 million dollars. Those who would have been his supporters were kicked to the curb and those whom he sought to woo saw his fickle ways and never trusted him, choosing instead a Baptist preacher.

So today Mitt Romney returns to the world of the private citizen. The AP reports that Romney has now suspended his efforts to be the Republican nominee for President.

“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,” Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

I wish Mr. Romney well in his future non-political ventures and hope that now that he has no homophobic constituency to pander to, he will be able to return to a worldview that sees all people as equal.

Romney’s withdrawal address can be read here.

Bill Keller’s Faulty Powers of Prognostication

I have to admit that I don’t now much about Rev. Bill Keller, but lately I’ve found him to be quite amusing. (Sometimes it does a soul better to be amused than constantly outraged.) Yesterday, we reported on an apparently retracted press release that Keller issued via Christian Newswire in which he pretended to know what Mitt Romney was going to say this morning.

Well imagine the déjà v I experienced today when this press release bounced into my inbox at 12:37 EST. Just in case that one disappears, here’s a screen capture (Click on the image to see it full-size):

And compare that to yesterday’s withdrawn press release:

It looks like all that Keller did was take yesterday’s press release and “corrected” it. It turns out he had to make quite a few corrections — so many that maybe his strikeout of his own self-description as an “expert” may have been a remarkable moment of candor. Anyway, I’m guessing his markups looked something like this, with italics representing his additions:

Expert Guest/Interview Opportunity: ‘Romney’s Speech Nothing but a Lie,’ Says Evangelical Leader Bill Keller, Who Coined the Infamous ‘A Vote for Romney is a Vote for Satan’ Slogan

ST. PETERSBURG, Fl., Dec. 5  6/Christian Newswire/ — Bill Keller, founder of www.liveprayer.com – the first national Christian leader to call into question Mitt Romney’s Mormon background with his now infamous “A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan” message – is predicting calling Romney’s upcoming speech on Thursday will be “Nothing but a big lie.” [sic – he forgot to strike out “will be”]

So certain is Keller, who sends out a daily devotional to over 2.4 million opt-in subscribers worldwide, that he has pre-written his devotional for Thursday morning critiquing critiqued Romney’s speech as deceptive and misleading.

Keller states that if Romney wanted to be honest, he would be giving have given his speech in at the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, rather than at the George Bush Presidential Library in Houston College Station, Texas. Keller says he is certain Romney will have his wife and five children with him while he gives his speach, and his delivery will be peppered said Romney continues to deceive and mislead people with a steady dose of words such as “God,” “Jesus,” and “The Bible,” even though the god and Jesus of Mormon theology is not the same as the God and Jesus of the Holy Bible. In fact, says Keller, Mormons believe the bible is a flawed and incomplete book.

In the speech, Romney stated that “he believed Jesus to be the Son of God,” failing to mention that according to his churches theology, Jesus is also the spirit brother of Lucifer and NOT and a created being, NOT DEITY, the key tenet of the Christian faith.

Keller concludes that this upcoming speech will simply be is simply Romney’s most recent attempt to try to deceive people into thinking he is a Christian, when in fact Mormon theology that he refused to address is totally inconsistent with biblical Christianity.

“In the end, Romney will try to demonize anyone who has the guts to hold him accountable for his deception, calling them religions bigots and other names,” says Keller. “But I refuse to be silenced since, for me, this is not – and never has been – about politics. It’s about the eternal souls of men who will be lost if they follow the false teachings of a Mormon cult.”

The Last Acceptable Bigotry?

Gary Cass used to be the Executive Director of D. James Kennedy’s Center for Reclaiming America. Now he has founded a new organization he calls the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. His latest press release from Christian Newswire touting his new book, Christian Bashing and the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, carries the title:

Christian Bashing: The Last Acceptable Bigotry

As you can imagine, I would beg to differ. I suspect that in this campaign season, GOP presidential candidate Gov. Mitt Romney might have a thing to say about it too. Here’s another press release from the Christian Newswire earlier today:

Expert Guest/ Interview Opportunity: ‘Romney’s Speech Nothing But a Lie,’ Says Evangelical Leader Bill Keller, Who Coined the Infamous ‘A Vote for Romney Is a Vote for Satan’ Slogan

I would normally link to that press release, but it appears to have gone missing from the Christian Newswire’s web site. Here’s a screen shot though in case anyone’s interested. Just click on the image to see it full size.

No, I’m afraid there’s plenty of bigotry to go around.

Here’s the text of the press release:

Expert Guest/ Interview Opportunity: ‘Romney’s Speech Nothing But a Lie,’ Says Evangelical Leader Bill Keller, Who Coined the Infamous ‘A Vote for Romney Is a Vote for Satan’ Slogan

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla., Dec. 5 /Christian Newswire/ — Bill Keller, founder of www.liveprayer.com – the first national Christian leader to call into question Mitt Romney’s Mormon background with his now infamous “A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan” message – is predicting Romney’s upcoming speech on Thursday will be “Nothing but a big lie.”

So certain is Keller, who sends out a daily devotional to over 2.4 million opt-in subscribers worldwide, that he has pre-written his devotional for Thursday morning critiquing Romney’s speech as deceptive and misleading.

Keller states that if Romney were planning to be honest, he would be giving his speech in the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, rather than at the George Bush Presidential Library in Houston, Texas. Keller says he is certain Romney will have his wife and five children with him while he gives the speech, and that his delivery will be peppered with a steady dose of words such as “God,” “Jesus,” and “The Bible,” even though the god and Jesus of Mormon theology is not the same as the God and Jesus of the Holy Bible. In fact, says Keller, Mormons believe the bible is a flawed and incomplete book.

Keller concludes that this upcoming speech will simply be Romney’s most recent attempt to try to deceive people into thinking he is a Christian, when in fact Mormon theology is totally inconsistent with biblical Christianity.

“In the end, Romney will try to demonize anyone who has the guts to hold him accountable for his deception, calling them religions bigots and other names,” says Keller. “But I refuse to be silenced since, for me, this is not – and never has been – about politics. It’s about the eternal souls of men who will be lost if they follow the false teachings of a Mormon cult.”

Availability: Immediate availability nationwide for radio and television

About Bill Keller:
In 1999, Keller launched LivePrayer.com, which has become the most successful online faith outreach in history. Since its inception, LivePrayer.com has responded personally to more than 60 million online requests for prayer. And Keller’s Live Prayer devotional is received daily by more than 2.5 million email subscribers. For information on where to watch Live Prayer in your area, visit www.liveprayer.com. The Live Prayer program is about to go on worldwide internet (live streaming broadcast). Visit the website for details.

Republican Candidates Support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

In last night’s Republican CNN/YouTube debate, there were two questions about gay issues.

The first question came from Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr (Ret.), who has been openly gay since his retirement. He asked about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The second question was about whether the candidates would accept support from the Log Cabin Republicans.

Here is the transcript from that debate:

Anderson Cooper: All right, let’s get back to the debate. Another question from a YouTube viewer. Let’s watch.

Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr (Ret.): My name’s Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I’m a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service. And I’m a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. And I’m an openly gay man.

I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

Cooper: I want to point out that Brigadier General Keith Kerr is here with us tonight. I’m glad you’re here.

(Applause)

Again, the question to Congressman Hunter.

Hunter: General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.

The reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives.

They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them. I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.

Cooper: I want to direct this to Governor Huckabee.

Thirty seconds.

Huckabee: The Uniform Code of Military Justice is probably the best rule, and it has to do with conduct. People have a right to have whatever feelings, whatever attitudes they wish, but when their conduct could put at risk the morale, or put at risk even the cohesion that Duncan Hunter spoke of, I think that’s what is at issue. And that’s why our policy is what it is.

Cooper: Governor Romney, you said in 1994 that you looked forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve, and I quote, “openly and honestly in our nation’s military.” Do you stand by that?

Romney: This isn’t that time. This is not that time. We’re in the middle of a war. The people who have…

Cooper: Do you look forward to that time, though, one day?

Romney: I’m going to listen to the people who run the military to see what the circumstances are like. And my view is that, at this stage, this is not the time for us to make that kind of…

Cooper: Is that a change in your position…

Romney: Yes, I didn’t think it would work. I didn’t think “don’t ask/don’t tell” would work. That was my — I didn’t think that would work. I thought that was a policy, when I heard about it, I laughed. I said that doesn’t make any sense to me.

And you know what? It’s been there now for, what, 15 years? It seems to have worked.

Cooper: So, just so I’m clear, at this point, do you still look forward to a day when gays can serve openly in the military or no longer?

Romney: I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say.

(Audience booing)

Cooper: All right. General Kerr is — as I said — is here.

Please stand up, General. Thank you very much for being with us.

Did you feel you got an answer to your question?

Kerr: With all due respect, I did not get an answer from the candidates.

(Applause)

Cooper: What do you feel you did not…

Kerr: American men and women in the military are professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

For 42 years, I wore the army uniform on active duty, in the Reserve, and also for the state of California. I revealed I was a gay man after I retired.

Today, “don’t ask/don’t tell” is destructive to our military policy.

Every day, the Department of Defense discharges two people, not for misconduct, not for the unit cohesion…

Cooper: Wait, the mike is — you’ve lost me. Is the microphone not working? Please, just finish your — what is your question?

Kerr: Not for the unit cohesion that Congressman Hunter is talking about, but simply because they happen to be gay.

Cooper: OK. Senator McCain …

Kerr: And we’re talking about doctors, nurses, pilots, and the surgeon who sews somebody up when they’re taken from the battlefield.

Cooper: I appreciate your comments.

Senator McCain, I want to give you 30 seconds. You served in the military.

McCain: General, I thank you for your service to our nation. I respect it. All the time, I talk to our military leaders, beginning with our joint chiefs of staff and the leaders in the field, such as General Petraeus and General Odierno and others who are designated leaders with the responsibility of the safety of the men and women under their command and their security and protect them as best they can.

Almost unanimously, they tell me that this present policy is working, that we have the best military in history, that we have the bravest, most professional, best prepared, and that this policy ought to be continued because it’s working.

Cooper: All right. We’ve got another question. Let’s listen.

David Cercone: Hi, my name is David Cercone. I’d like to ask all the candidates if they accept the support of the Log Cabin Republicans, and why should the Log Cabin Republicans support their candidacy?

Cooper: Governor Huckabee, would you support — would you allow support from the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay Republicans?

Huckabee: You know, in my position in this entire election, I need the support of anybody and everybody I can get.

(Applause)

(Crosstalk)

Huckabee: Sure, they should. I disagree with them, strongly disagree with them on the idea of same-sex marriage, but in a democracy we can have disagreements over some policies and still agree on the greater things that make us Republicans.

So would I accept their support? Of course. Would I change my position on same-sex marriage? No, I wouldn’t. But if they’re willing to support me, I’ll be their president. I’ll be anybody’s president, but I’ll be true to my convictions, and I think that’s what Americans look for — not someone they’re going to agree with on everything, but somebody who at least has some convictions, sticks with them, can explain them, and can at least have respect for people who have different ones.

(Applause)

Log Cabin Republicans Attack Ad Against Mitt Romney

What do you think about this?

I really had to scratch my head over this one. Yes, I get it, Mitt Romney is a shameless flip-flopping opportunist who shouldn’t be trusted. He for abortion rights before he was against them. He was for gun control before he was against it. And he was for gay rights before he was against them. Heck, he even promised to out-Kennedy Sen. Kennedy when he was running for governor of Massachusetts.

Oh, wait. That last part isn’t in the commercial.

It seemed really strange to me that a national gay political group would put out a TV ad like this without mentioning the massive pink elephant in the room. During his 1994 campaign against Sen. Edward Kennedy, Romney sent a letter to the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans promising to be a stronger supporter for gay rights than Kennedy. And the Massachusetts LCR returned the favor by supporting Romney.

Romney went back to the Massachusetts LCR in 2002 to ask for their support for his gubernatorial campaign, promising that if he won he would respect that state’s high court pending decision on same sex marriage and not launch a fight either way. Again LCR endorsed Romney. And the rest, as they say, is history, with Romney leading the fight to try to amend the Massachusetts constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Romney’s positions on an awful lot of things have changed over the years, and LCR naturally is feeling betrayed. And so they’re fighting back by bringing up lot of things that Romney has flip-flopped on.

But the issue of gay rights remains unmentionable. That had me puzzled at first, but after several rounds of emails, I think I understand what’s happening. Think about it. Imagine the howls of protest if LCR had used Romney’s previously-admirable stand on gay rights to tell anti-gay voters not to trust his his current stand on gay rights.

So okay, I get it. The Log Cabin Republicans are letting it be known that no candidate can court the gay Republican vote and accept gay Republican money one year and turn around later and bash gay Americans later in the political careers when it suits them. Revenge can certainly be sweet, and good for LCR for exacting theirs.

But what’s that about “Massachusetts Values” at the end? Ever since same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts three years ago, we’ve heard nary a word about “Taxachusetts.” So I doubt that’s what springs to mind among conservative voters when they hear “Massaachusetts Values.” So what did they mean by that? Are “Massachusetts Values” supposed to be anything like “San Francisco Values”? After all, we all know what that means.

Maybe LCR managed to talk about the big pink elephant after all.

Romney’s Harsh Response

Generally we find that when a public figure is caught in a scandal, political and religious leaders tend express their disappointment but also find a way to display compassion and sorrow (especially with those of the same party).  Phrases like “sympathy for the family”, “hope for recovery”, or “this time of difficulty” tend to abound.

Not so with presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and his comments on Kudlow & Company about his former co-chair Senator Larry Craig:

Yeah, I think it reminds us of Mark Foley and Bill Clinton. I think it reminds us of the fact that people who are elected to public office continue to disappoint, and they somehow think that if they vote the right way on issues of significance or they can speak a good game, that we’ll just forgive and forget. And the truth of the matter is, the most important thing we expect from elected–an elected official is a level of dignity and character that we can point to for our kids and our grandkids, and say, `Hey, someday I hope you grow up and you’re someone like that person.’ And we’ve seen disappointment in the White House, we’ve seen it in the Senate, we’ve seen it in Congress. And frankly, it’s disgusting.

This sort of response is surprising (to me) from a man who until yesterday was a close ally and I think it says several things about the way in which Romney views the world – and the way in which he would preside over the administration of the nation. I’m curious as to what others read into this reaction.