Skip to comments.Is the GOP Caving in on Same-Sex Marriage?
Posted on 04/03/2012 7:28:59 AM PDT by xzins
As the nation faces a crucial election in a little over six months, the Republican Party appears to be caving in on a social issue that many conservatives consider of major import: same-sex marriage. What the GOP felt strongly enough about some 16 years ago to lead the fight for passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), many members are beginning to consider an issue open to compromise. Not only do many Republican House and Senate members consider gay marriage a dead issue, according to Politico.com, but Republican leadership has evolved to the point that it has quietly worked behind the scenes to kill amendments that reaffirm opposition to same-sex unions, the politics website reported.
The change, of course, has nothing to do with personal convictions, but much to do with political expediency, as party functionaries fine-tune their agenda to attract a demographic that has been conditioned to tolerate and even embrace homosexuality as normal. While the GOP certainly cannot match the Democrats in their fawning attitudes toward the gay lobby, there has nonetheless been an evolution in the political approach and an acknowledgment of a cultural shift in the country, Politicos Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer write. Same-sex relationships are more prominent and accepted. There are more gay public figures including politicians and its likely that many Washington Republicans have gay friends and coworkers. Just as important theres also a libertarian streak of acceptance on peoples sexuality coursing through the House Republican Conference.
All of that adds up to an increasing number of conservative politicians jettisoning concern over the nations moral slide of which tolerance for homosexuality is a symptom in favor of a more pragmatic approach to their political positions. Representative Allen West (R-Fla.) demonstrated this evolving GOP mindset when he said, as quoted by Politico: I personally have deep convictions about my children having a financially stable country that they can live in. I want my daughters to have the opportunities that I had, and thats what concerns me. Thats what keeps me up awake at night, not worrying about whos sleeping with who.
Even lawmakers who are committed to protecting traditional marriage concede that the fight for family values is much more challenging than it used to be. Representative Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who sponsored the Marriage Protection Act of 2011, said that while he thinks defending traditional marriage is tied to the stability of the nation as a whole, the attention of many voters is presently fixated on the economy and getting America moving in a positive direction economically. I dont know that peoples opinions have changed that much, he told Politico, but what I think has happened is that people realize the dire straits this country has been in and they think we better deal with that before we get back to the social issues.
Representative Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) noted that things have changed drastically since 1994, when President Bill Clinton introduced the Dont Ask, Dont Tell compromise for homosexuals serving in the military. Its been realized that back in 94, you could jump up on the House floor and pound your chest about [gay issues], and secure a good voter intensity, which you cant do anymore, Kingston told Politico.
It is clear that GOP strategists are beginning to switch their focus to a younger voter demographic. According to recent polls, 31 percent of self-identified Republicans now say they support same-sex marriage. But among 18-34-year-olds overall, that number jumps to nearly 70 percent.
One candidate who may be the beneficiary of such a sea change is GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney. While happy to capitalize on his moral Mormon roots, in reality the former Massachusetts Governor has always been about compromise, and the issue of homosexuality offers a prime example.
As reported by CNSNews.com, when Romney first ran for political office in 1994, challenging Ted Kennedy for his U.S. Senate seat, he set his sights on one of Kennedys most faithful constituencies, Massachusetts gay community. When a reporter for Bostons Bay Windows homosexual newspaper asked the Republican candidate why gays should support him when Ted had always been a dependable pro-homosexual politician, Romney complimented the Democratic stalwart on that record, but suggested that he would do better, and that homosexuals could use a good lobbyist in the Republican Party.
Theres something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation, Romney told the homosexual newspaper. When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, hes seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights, hes seen as a centrist and a moderate. Its a little like if Eugene McCarthy was arguing in favor of recognizing China, people would have called him a nut. But when Richard Nixon does it, it becomes reasonable. When Ted says it, its extreme; when I say it, its mainstream.
Romney added, I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican party and I would be a voice in the Republican party to foster anti-discrimination efforts.
Such a voice out of Romneys mainstream past makes him sound like just the man for the Republican Partys new, updated image. It should also prompt true conservatives to pray fervently against his election in November.
They are caving on all their principles by nominating Romney
Your tagline tells a simple truth. Thanks.
Yes. Romney is a liberal.
I cannot see myself in the same party as Mitt Romney.
The GOP is caving on critical social issues. Has been for years.
Want proof? Look at the campaign for president. All the SoCons are gone. Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Newt and now Santorum....
Instead we are told to shut up on these issues and focus on the economy. Or focus on getting Obama defeated. Or whatever.
But the bottom line is this. There is little to no difference between the Dems and the RINO’s on economic and spending issues. And health care? Puh-leaze. We are gonna be stuck with Romneycare or Obamacare. That’s like asking what type of poison do you want in your Kool-Aid? Strychnine or cyanide?
No.. the ONLY reason to vote the GOP ticket has been for social and moral issues. And if (since) the Repubs have waffled on those basic fundamental issues, then we are doomed.
Politico does not get to define Republicanism.
Yes, they seem to be caving in to everything.
I’ve slowly but surely been coming to the conclusion that my lifelong and exclusive support/allegiance to the GOP (finely honed in the era of Reagan) is rapidly approaching an end-point.
They just get to quote republicans. The republicans are defining themselves.
Well, no, but they sure have mountains of political ammunition to use against them when the Republicans constantly violate the core principles of republicanism.
Yep. Mine too.
The republican party went liberal, and I didn’t buy a ticket.
Romney didn’t just “compromise” on gay marriage. He was the gay marriage pioneer. He was the first. He set the example, which other states and other Republicans then followed.
The Massachusetts supreme court instructed the legislature that they had to pass a gay marriage bill. The legislature did nothing. But Romney stepped in and singlehandedly mandated gay marriage, threatening to fire any clerk in the state who refused to perform the ceremony.
Romney is the gay marriage pioneer. Also the socialist health takeover pioneer. And he nominated plenty of Communist judge whilel he was governor. And he was strongly pro-abortion.
He was the taxpayer funded “kill the baby for your health” pioneer, too.
Anyone who thinks I am going to vote for Romney OR Obama is sadly mistaken. And I think the same will be true of millions of other voters who still know the difference between right and wrong. No on Obama, no on romney, period.
If “spineless rats” lead the party then YES they will cave
I do not dispute the problem of the Republican Party potentially caving on homosexuality and more broadly on moral values. This is serious and it's been a dangerous trend for some time. We're seeing some of that right here on Free Republic with people arguing, contrary to the purpose of Free Republic, that conservative principles do not include a focus on God and basic morality. I've watched the rise of the “gay Republican” movement now for nearly thirty years and the simple fact of that matter is a significant number of conservative Republicans are closeted or quiet homosexuals who agree with the rest of the Republican agenda on economic issues. My attitude is to take their votes and refuse their offers to help in leadership roles, but lots of Republicans have become accommodated to the idea of homosexuality based on their experiences working with known homosexuals.
However, how many of us remember what the Republican Party was like in the late 1960s, most of the 1970s, and (in many states) well into the 1980s? Can any of us seriously argue that the Republican Party has not moved considerably to the right in accepting support from evangelical Protestants and conservative Roman Catholics?
We also need to consider the source. The New American “is published by American Opinion Publishing, a wholly owned subsidiary of The John Birch Society.” Link here: http://www.thenewamerican.com/about
That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, but their perspective needs to be taken into account just as if we were reading something from FOX News, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, or the New York Times.
Principle, and the U.S. Constitution take a back seat when it comes to just getting elected.
That's how we got stuck with Romney-the-RINO (although I will NEVER vote for another RINO, period).
The DimRats and the GOP
two sides of the same
good-cop/bad-cop charade of the globalist puppet masters
29."The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self createdscreen....At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties." New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922
33."For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advanced by the Council on Foreign Relations-One World Money group. Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support.
"The UN is but a long-range, international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power. "The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market....The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank." Curtis Dall, FDR's son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law
39."The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system ,they will rule the future." U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in his l964 book: With No Apologies.
40."The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups." Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University, highly esteemed by his former student, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
37."Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government - a bureaucratic elite." Senator William Jenner, 1954
66."At the old Inter-American Office in the Commerce Building here in Roosevelt's time, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs under President Truman, as chief whip with Adlai Stevenson and TomFinletter at the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco, Nelson Rockefeller was in the forefront of the struggle to establish not only an American system of political and economic security but a new world order." Part of article in The New York Times (November 1975)
82.The Ango-American Establishment "There is... an inner core of intimate associates who unquestionably knew that they were members of a group devoted to a common purpose and an outer circle of a larger number on whom the inner circle acted by personal pursuasion, patronage distribution, and social pressure. It is probable that most members of the outer circle were not conscious that they were being used by a secret society." Tragedy and Hope 1966 "Their aim is nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole." Carrol J. Quigley Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University, Bill Clinton's mentor
92."Humanity is not following a haphazard or uncharted course -- there is a Plan." Who are these "World Servers" "They provide the vision and mould public opinion... The New Group of World Servers has... servers of humanity in every country... They know exactly what they seek to do. They... emphasize the brotherhood of nations, the unity of faith, and economic interdependence... They can be regarded as the embodiment of the emerging kingdom of God on earth." "This kingdom is not a Christian kingdom... it is a grouping of all those who -- belonging as they do to every world religion and every nation and race and type of political party -- are free from the spirit of hatred and separativeness." World Goodwill New Group of World Server
97.....to "invoke" the New Age Interview in Meditation Said Harmonic Convergence Day began a five-year "plan" to purify the Earth and prepare for the coming New Age kingdom. Civilization must be "destructured." "Helping to bring about the new day on earth, would be the establishment of an international `mediarchy'" promoted by globalist activists already in place in the news media - TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, computer networks, etc. Says it is mankind's destiny to "surrender to the higher intelligence that rules the planet." Crystal Earth Papers Says that chaotic events will result in the replacement of current governmental and political structures. New values will be instituted for mankind, including cooperation, collaboration, and unification on behalf of the "Spirit of the Earth." During 1997-2002 will be a time known as the "Era of Reseeding." Major population areas will be thinned-out. "The human population will be resettled, while the care of the planet will be entrusted to shamanic exercises." Industrial civilization will be done away with. UN personnel will develop plans for economic battalions to redistribute the wealth of the world. "Jose Arguelles professor of art at a New Mexico university, mastermind of World Harmonic Convergence Day August 16-17, 1987
110."There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dare to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." John Swinton, former chief of staff, The New York Times, in a 1953 speech before the New York Press Club
Berit's comment: These historical facts are not included in American social studies! But it's not too late to take a look at the roots and rulers behind today's political, economic, cultural and spiritual transformation. These handpicked leaders were chosen and groomed for their future roles as single-minded, pragmatic globalist change agents. According to their strengths and ideological compliance, they are placed where they're needed -- in banks, the media, U.S. Congress, government bureaucracies, etc. They despise our faith and values! In recent decades, potential young leaders have been brought together to be trained and tested at every UN Conference and many other global events.
1883: What part has Skull & Bones played in our elections? Professor Carroll Quigley was President Clinton's mentor, and in Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In our Time the professor revealed that William C. Whitney (S&B) and others, in the late 19th century, developed a plan to control both major political parties through financial contributions and have the two main parties alternate power so the public would think it had a choice. Professor Quigley said Whitney's plan lasted about 16 years, and after that, the "Eastern Establishment" (power elite) moved the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates toward the political center:
1891: Cecil John Rhodes organized a secret society to take control of the world. His mentor at Oxford University was John Ruskin. Ruskin has a swastika engraved on his gravestone, just as Rhodes Trust member Rudyard Kipling has on the covers of his early books. Prior to Adolph Hitler, the swastika, which reportedly also has been seen at the S&B vault at Yale University, was an elitist symbol. In an apparent contradiction, John Ruskin referred to himself as a Tory and a Communist. However, one must realize that the elite have no qualms about working with both the political left and the political right, with an ultimate goal of synthesizing them into a world socialist government.
What is the GOP known far and wide for doing? Anyone who answers caving and kissing obama’s and Democrat ass is on the right trail.
A very thoughtful post. I think something also to consider is that the population at large is more tolerant homosexuals. But the population at large is growing less tolerant of abortion. Look at surveys of young people on that subject and one will see a solid pro-life majority. Look at the bills in the various state legislature further restricting abortion. See the somewhat frightened quotes from Naral et. al. on the subject.
I think our elected representatives largely (!) cater to what the public wants. Right now, 30 years of propaganda is taking its toll and people don’t care about homosex. IMO, it will take another 30 years to reap those fruits and then the tide will turn.
They practically killed the military with the repeal of DADT, and we let that go without a whimper. It could not have happened without the support of significant support from the GOPe.
Neither do Conservatives with convictions. Only the unprincipled ambitious really get heard.
Santorum's not gone yet, though quite a few freepers are happy to join the GOP establishment in sneering derisively against "SoCons!" and whining "This is NOT the election year for that!!" (it never is, of course) and telling us the election is exclusively about FISCAL issues how we're doooooooooomed if we run a social conservative. Of course, these same "conservatives" were on the bandwagon for guys like Ahnuld Schwartzekennedy and Joe LIEberman, gloating about how wonderful it would be if we elected them. Hmmm.
Twenty five or so years of intense indoctrination in the government schools is all it took.
Soon your children will come home and tell you your car is too big, and you eat too much meat, then they will begin to remind you that old people have an obligation to die so as not to rob the young of their rightful inheritance.
In your heart you know that is right :)
Even Rush has recently said that he now realized that the Republican Party had NO ideology. The leaders of the GOP are hollow men, they talk the talk but do not walk the walk. However, now that people are catching on to the fact that not all that glitters is gold in the world of politics, hopefully there will be a spring cleaning in the Republican Party.
Americans in general are caving. Within a generation, there will be no meaningful resistance to the gay agenda. The schools went after the kids and the fight is all but lost. Tradional values will soon be seen as a relic of a bygone era, as social problems create a hell on earth. I feel really bad for my little boy dealing with the degenerate society that will be all around him.
What did Mitch McConnel and John Boener do to stop it?
It is like whoever choses the Republican leadership picked the two most useless marshmallows.
It is definately time for something new but it has to grow up from the grass roots. Maybe people could run for office on the local level with no party affiliation or perhaps regional parties, then during the national elections the regional parties would have to be wooed by the presidential candidates.
We have a real problem with pro-homosexual indoctrination in our schools and our entertainment media. We're seeing the results, and seeing them the hard way.
You're probably right on increasing opposition to abortion on demand at all stages of pregnancy. Better lifesaving technology for extreme premature infants, along with the widespread use of ultrasound photography, is willing the battle to convince people that “it's not a choice, it's a child.”
Of course, without changes in the law, all that change in public attitude does is lead people to say abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” — i.e., discouraging people from choosing abortion rather than banning abortion outright. But at least it saves some babies.
Love your tagline! There are so many FReepers who are ready to hold their nose and vote for yet another Liberal Republican. Your tagline needs to be a headline instead. We desperately need to have this discussion. Organizing a massive write- in if Romney is the nominee would be great. Any ideas?
The "cultural shift in the country" has been the active project of the Progressive Left for a century by now, and is currently being magisterially manipulated, aided, and abetted by so-called President Obama and his coterie of supporters, who are seeded into all major institutions of American public life, public and private.
IMHO, this "president" is a black magician perpetrating satanic evil to subvert the very foundations of our free republic. And yet I hear that Romney is somehow the greater danger to the nation so much so that "true conservatives [ought] to pray fervently against his election in November."
Which is tantamount to praying for Obama's re-election; and I don't think the nation as we know it can survive four more years of his "rule."
Just sayin'.... FWIW.
Indeed. Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Hi, Sister. As you know, I am not a Romney supporter. And, yes, I do consider him every bit as bad as Obama. He’s Mussolini to Obama’s Stalin, imho.
He is a statist crony corporatist, and that makes him a national socialist in my book.
Nor am I. But it looks very likely he will be the nominee all the same.
MY candidate was Rick Perry, on the basis of his successful executive experience and his respect for the Tenth Amendment. Then he was gone. So I tuned into Newt next and then tuned out when it appeared that the guy may be a tad "unhinged." Then I turned to Santorum. But I don't think he has a prayer of winning the nomination owing to poor organization and a dearth of cash.
It's been a very depressing primary season. I can't wait for it to be over.
At the end of the day, Romney may be the last man standing. At which point, for me, the question then becomes: Which is the lesser of two evils Obama or Romney?
You say Romney and Obama are indistinguishable in that they are equally evil. There is not a shade of difference between them. I really have no answer for that, except to say I do perceive differences between them.
But I did come across an interesting quote today, in National Review, from Brad Todd, "a Tennessean Republican strategist":
This election is about putting out the fire, not whether we have a perfect fireman or not.[From: "Romney's Hidden Strength," by Jim Geraghty, NR, April 2, 2012]
To you it may look as if I am caving to the "spirit of the age" in saying I agree with Todd's insight. And that's one way to look at it.
But the way I look at it is, we really do need to "put out the fire" before the nation self-immolates. And that means that Obama and his coterie must go. To me, this is Job One.
It seems "the spirit of the age" the anti-Christ is precisely what informs this administration's plans and policies.
Thus Obama must go. Once again, I am disappointed that "my" candidate did not prevail in the nomination contest. I had to hold my nose to vote for McCain. I guess I'll be holding my nose this time out, too....
For me, the bottom-line is: Anybody but Obama. And I am not going to "sit this one out."
Thanks for writing, dear brother in Christ!
Thank you for writing, Dear Sister in Christ, and while I have been in the past in exactly the same place as you are now, I simply cannot bring myself to do it again.
In my opinion, I would far better use my efforts to work for the creation of a real alternative. That alternative must work to win this contest, no matter how far-fetched that might seem to some, but, more importantly, it must legitimately work for a total conservative alternative for the future.
So, in the future, if I come across in opposition to Romney, it is not directed at you but at what he represents.
Interesting analogy, dear brother in Christ.
Yet note the difference between Mussolini and Stalin. Though both were social Darwinists when it came to their view of man, their ideas about state organization were quite different.
Stalin "nationalized" all private capital in Russia, expropriating all the wealth of the Russian people, and canceling out any possible notion of "private ownership" of anything in Russia. All means of production were conveyed to the Soviet state as direct owner, "on behalf" of the Russian people.
Mussolini, on the other hand, did not outright confiscate private capital. He figured such could be safely left in private hands, because through state regulation, he had all the benefit of effectively running private enterprises without any of the responsibilities attending direct ownership of those entities. You just "regulate them" in a manner that serves "state interests."
BTW, arguably, Bill Clinton employed Mussolini's model to a surprising extent during his presidency. And it seems Obama is following it, too the regulatory explosion under his presidency is unprecedented. He is effectively "legislating" out of his executive departments: Congress passes a statute, but then typically it leaves the rules of its implementation up to the executive departments. That fact leaves a lot of wiggle room for ideological judgments as to how a law is to be implemented, without consulting Congress.
What is government regulation, other than making independent decision makers comply with state edicts, on the theory that "government always knows what is best?"
Anyhoot, I think your comparison of Romney with Mussolini may not be entirely apt (FWIW). I do not believe that Romney is a racist or social Darwinist; I no not see him promoting Left Progressive ideology. I do not see him as promoting wealth transfers based on class. I believe he champions free enterprise, personal initiative, and personal responsibility, not state capitalism/corporatist state models of economic activity.
As a highly successful businessman and venture capitalist, he is very likely skeptical of "top heavy," "top-down" organizational structures in general, wherein all power and authority flows from the top. The most efficient and productive business firms do not deploy this model.
In short, his executive experience and demonstrated skill as a business analyst suggest to me that Romney might actually prove to be pretty good at "draining the federal swamp" which is bureaucratic Washington read: pretty good at deregulation.
Whatever the case, if elected, Romney would not be "the King." Unlike Obama (who seemingly is one, in his own mind at least), and I very strongly doubt he would act like one. But even if he did, if we conservatives elect conservatives to take back the Senate, and preserve or even extend the GOP majority in the House, even a "King Romney" would be facing serious political headwinds to Congressional enactment of any type of corporatist-state proposal from the Executive.
From where I sit now, I just don't see that happening.
Dear brother, it seems to me that here you illustrate the principle: "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
I do not seek "perfection" of human institutions; I only seek "good" ones. In that regard, I suppose you'd have to call me a political realist.
Dear xzins, I know you do not make ad hominem attacks! But thank you for saying your criticism of Romney is just that, not criticism of me personally.
We may disagree on this point. But I do not think less of you for disagreeing with me. For I know your disagreement is principled. I respect that.
Thank you so much for writing!
Mussolini, as a statist crony corporatist, found his model fit well with Nietche’s ubermensch thoughts and saw himself and a select group of elite (the other corporatists) as those who drove the state. In effect, they were not just businessmen, they were a new aristocracy. In the communist model, they would be dictators doing the dictating to the proletariat.
Fascism’s affinity with communism is seen in the early amity between Hitler and Stalin.
Mussolini wasn’t shy about the Fascist/Corporatist linkage: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
But your observation still begs the question: Why do you believe Romney has an interest in consolidating state and corporate power?
Just because he has taken advantage of provisions in the tax code (whether we like the provisions or not) which are equally available to everyone else under similar circumstances, as defined by the IRS Code?
Romney "follows the law." He I imagine has been squeaky-clean "legal" in all his public conduct from Day One.
If we have a problem with the conduct, maybe we should be looking at the offending statute, not Romney's perfectly "legal" resort to it and dependence on it.
Of course, I do discern a difference between what is "legal" and what is "lawful." They are not necessarily the same.
But citizens must rely on what is "legal" for the conduct of their daily affairs.... Otherwise, they will be arrested, irrespective of whether their behavior is "lawful" (i.e., as our Lord defines it) or not.
The linkage, dear sister, is in the ubermensch concept as it applies to the view of the elite toward “others”.
“Others” were expendable. It is not classism; it is eugenicism. It is Sanger ridding the world of undesirables by reducing their fertility. It is Mussolini advocating the Italian Mediterranean and domination of the sub-Sahara because those peoples were not fully human.
It is Romney on abortion, on fraud, on government kickbacks, and on so-called “destructive capitalism”.
The ubermensch don’t bother with the little people.
Tolerance for homosexuals does not equal approval of homosexual marriage. Nor does it equal approval of any other public promotion of the lifestyle. The idea that you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, i.e. promote good economic policy and good social policy at the same time is utterly ludicrous and disingenuous. As the article says, Republicans are caving into accepting and promoting homosexuality either because they themselves or their family/friends are homosexuals or because they think it will get them votes. It’s NOT because they don’t have time or resources to affirm marriage as being an honor and privilege bestowed only upon heterosexual couples.
Most of us don’t want our kids to be taught that it’s an equal and valid choice to be in a homosexual relationship vs. a heterosexual relationship. If you don’t believe both relationships are equally acceptable, then you CANNOT support homosexual marriage. Marriage is an affirmation that one relationship is just as valued by the society as the other. It promotes and encourages both types of relationships equally. Homosexual marriage will absolutely guarantee that indoctrination into the belief that homosexuality is an equally acceptable lifestyle to heterosexuality will begin at the earliest ages and grade levels.
The idea that our country should be one of the only ones in the entire world that I know of ready to accept homosexual marriage is absolutely ridiculous. It represents a shocking degradation of our culture and a precipitous decline in appreciation and understanding of the roots, traditions and basic physical and psychological foundations of a healthy and thriving society. The survival of the civilization depends on absolutely opposing such a fundamental sanctioning of an uncivilized and unhealthy practice.
Make no mistake about it, if the Republicans will change their platform on this, they will change it on abortion, tax policy, entitlements, military policy, and every other issue where they think changing will help get them votes. Of course their strategy only works if they don’t LOSE more votes from the constituencies they already have than they gain from others. That’s why real conservatives must vote against liberal Republican candidates. The party needs to see our protests. If they can keep all their conservative voters while gaining liberal voters, then why in the world wouldn’t they change their platform to a more liberal one? It’s our responsiblity to MAKE the party represent our views.
There is, of course, the broader issue of making the case to the society at large for our viewpoint, which is something that needs to be done by all of us, not just the politicians. This country’s values are going off the cliff in so many ways. Like the Reagan administration said, if a foreign power had done to our education system what we did to it ourselves, it would have been seen as an act of war. Unfortunately we now have a similar poisonous corruption of our nation’s values and culture attacking us on almost too many fronts to keep track of. Most importantly, our economic problems are NOT our fundamental problem, they are merely the SYMPTOMS of our cultural decline.
Conservatives desperately need to get a hold of the reins of power and turn things around or the America we grew up with will become nothing more than a historical footnote, a quixotic, fanciful nation whose ideals were finally deemed too unrealistic to be effective. The culture war is real and every good, decent, patriotic American is losing it badly.
Well, we know that "ubermensch" ideology doesn't "bother with the little people."
But again, what does this have to do with Romney?
Capitalism necessarily involves the principle of "creative destruction." It is part and parcel of what capitalism is, and how it behaves as an economic system.
Capitalism is hands-down the single most successful economic system ever achieved by man, as measured in terms of rising living standards of a society and its general well-being and security over time. It created the American middle class perhaps the greatest strength of our nation.
Capitalism is eminently creative, driven by new ideas, entrepreneurial attitudes, and God willing a State sympathetic to the very idea of capitalism as the engine of economic growth and job creation. In short, as the very foundation of widespread, genuine public well-being.
The downside of capitalism its "destructive" face is that firms that fail must be allowed to fail, the better to redeploy existing capital assets to more promising ventures and enterprises, to the greater benefit of consumers and the public at large.
If one tries to eliminate the "creative destruction" inherent in a capitalist system, then one must advocate for some "state" solution to the problem. And no "state solution" has yet been found though clearly such efforts have been made in the past, involving the deaths of tens of millions of human beings along the way....
Just some additional thoughts, FWTW....
If Republicans are successful at winning elections by changing to a liberal platform, then what's left of the opposition party against Obama and the Democrats? Better that the Republicans fail at this attempt and are taught a lesson, so they can come back next time with a real conservative candidate. Would you rather have 4 years of Obama followed by a real conservative, or a lifetime of 2 parties who agree on sinking our nation into the cesspool of liberalism, maybe one just slightly slower than the other one? If the Republicans win by going left, they will continue doing it. You'll get a vicious cycle of the Democrats going even further left, and the Republicans moving slightly more to the left to try to pick off more of their voters. If they succeed at this strategy it's enormously dangerous to the conservative cause. This is why Newt was such a success in the '90s. He pushed the Democrats to the right the same way the Republicans are being pushed to the left now. We need a candidate who will advance on the enemy and push them back, not one who will keep conceding territory to them and appeasing them.
I wouldn’t be surprised if gay marriage is the defining issue in why Romney is being pushed on us by the elites. Drudge and Coulter are certainly pushing him because they are “in bed” with the gay agenda, figuratively and or literally. Another untold part of the tale might be big money coming in to fund the party from “Log Cabin” types. Romney’s economic record in government is as liberal as it gets for a Republican (tax hikes, welfare expansion, cap-and-trade), so it’s not like they’re pushing a fiscal libertarian on us and just willing to “tolerate” his liberal social views. It’s more like they desperately want to push the gay agenda and are willing to tolerate Romney’s liberal economic record.