Skip to main content

Perhaps this will be lost in all of the many, many valid criticisms of Mitt Romney, but what strikes me most of all is the incoherence of his current attempt to find a way to avoid being completely boxed in by the president on marriage equality.

You see, Mitt believes that marriage, and even civil unions, are and have always been between a man and a woman.

And yet, he is now fine with same sex couples adopting.

W T F ?

(Off topic note:  If you want to skip all this and just go to my grassroots fundraising page, that's fine with me. ;-))

Or you can head past the squiggle to listen to my head explode.

Did I miss something there?  

For as long as I can remember, the argument has gone like this:

Same sex marriage can't happen because [insert bigoted sect of religion x] is offended by that.

Okay, well, this isn't about forcing any church to marry anyone, that would be a clear First Amendment violation.  This is about Civil Marriage.  A government sanctioned contract with rights and responsibilities.

Nope, can't do it, marriage is set up by the state to encourage and support the raising of children in two parent nuclear families.


And so on.  The point being that only two arguments that have ever been put forward by the bigots who oppose marriage equality are 1) playing the religious card, and 2) IT WILL BREAK THE CHILDREN!!!

So what the fuck Mitt?  You not only oppose civil marriage for all AND civil unions, but you support same sax couples adopting?

Can't someone ask the question of this pandering, spineless asswipe:  WTF?


As many have pointed out, the real problem with Mitt Romney isn't that his views are simply repugnant, they are, but that fact is actually secondary.  The real problem with Mitt is that he has no moral compass whatsoever.  None.  He has no idea why he holds the positions he does.  He has never given thought to the implications of what he says.  All he cares about is winning his next personal goal.  

And that says this to me - as hard as it is to believe, and with full awareness that this may sound like hyperbole, Romney in all likelihood would be a much worse president than W.  Think about it.  Bush, an idiot for sure, seemed at times to at least give some thought to when the jackals were going a step too far.  He has always seemed to have at least a shred of humanity.  Yes, he was an immature (emotionally and intellectually) child of a man whose world view was remarkably shallow and who as a result was steered down the path by the warmongers and the oil companies and everyone else, but I think the one thing that could be said for him is that he believed in what he was doing.  And that kept at least a measure of sanity on things (I'm being exceedingly generous on this assessment to make a point.)

Mitt is fundamentally different.  He doesn't give a flying fuck about what you or anyone else thinks except in how to deal with the distractions from reaching his goal.

He doesn't give a shit about same sex couples adopting children per se.  They aren't his children.  I'm not saying he does or doesn't think teh gays raising children will turn them into two headed monsters, for all I know he may.  The point is that he doesn't give a shit about them.  Means to an end baby, means to an end.

Right now he needs to win an election.  He'll do and say anything.  No matter how little sense it makes.  It does not matter.  Hell, I'd bet he would pass a lie detecter test as he is declaring he doesn't remember assaulting his prep school victims.  And I'd also put money on the fact that he remembers it just fine.  It just doesn't matter to him.  He'll lie today, tomorrow, the next day.  It makes no differences.



Fundraising update:

This is my second diary of 2012.  I'm kind of hoping it costs me more than the first.  In that one I announced my second quadrennial Barack Obama fundraising drive.  The drive is simple - I match all donations made through my grassroots fundraising page.  To date, I've only had to match a total of $125, which is a good start, but that only came from 2 - very generous - people.  I'm looking to suck you all in.  As many as possible.  I don't care how much you donate, it will add up.  And my goal is to max out my contributions with your help.  

Thanks for anything you can do.  Hey, and tell your friends!  


Do you think Mitt Romney becoming president is a risk we can take?

9%1 votes
81%9 votes
9%1 votes
0%0 votes

| 11 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, regis

    Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes. - PJ Crowley

    by nsfbr on Fri May 11, 2012 at 07:25:41 AM PDT

  •  The thing about it is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That it is not inherently inconsistent for him to want to deny same-sex marriage and yet approve of gay couples adopting.

    He is probably aware that there are millions of special needs kids that are costing the states a bundle of money to keep in foster care or institutions. I would not be surprised if he is thinking of off-loading those costs onto unmarried hetero couples, gay couples, singles, people of color, etc, while keeping the healthy white babies for those whose religion and lifestyle better fit his definition of The Deserving Ones.

    •  You are right (0+ / 0-)

      Incoherence and inconsistency are not the same things.  He is consistent in his incoherence, in fact.

      Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes. - PJ Crowley

      by nsfbr on Fri May 11, 2012 at 08:25:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site