Thoughts on the marriage equality conversions of Senators Carper and Kirk

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There were two high-profile endorsements of same-sex marriage today from two senators who have "evolved" on the issue:

Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware:

As our society has changed and evolved, so too has the public's opinion on gay marriage — and so has mine. I pray every day for God to grant me the wisdom to do what is right. Through my prayers and conversations with my family and countless friends and Delawareans, I've been reminded of the power of one of my core values: the Golden Rule. It calls on us to treat others as we want to be treated. That means, to me, that all Americans ultimately should be free to marry the people they love and intend to share their lives with, regardless of their sexual orientation, and that's why today, after a great deal of soul searching, I'm endorsing marriage equality.

Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois:

When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others," Kirk wrote on his blog.

Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back -- government has no place in the middle.

Okay, my thoughts:

1) Great. Wonderful. Fantastic. Public opinion has been shifting rapidly in support of marriage equality, but it still needs all the help it can get, including from those on Capitol Hill.

2) I realize that "evolve" is the word being used by politicians to explain what might otherwise be seen as a Romney-style flip-flop, but, really, it's not so much evolution as it is (often belated) reaction to shifting public opinion. Which is to say, it's "safe" now to come out in support of same-sex marriage, and indeed politically dangerous in many cases not to, so politicians are doing just that. This is not to say that people can't grow, and can't change their minds, but in many cases all this just smacks of political convenience as opposed to sincere conviction. And, yes, that goes for President Obama as well. (And, yes, I get political convenience. Politicians need votes and so much paner to public opinion. I'm just saying.)

Read more »

We call them Republicans

By Frankly Curious

On Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher, they did a segment with image confessions. It was pretty funny. You can find the segment over on WhoSay. But I thought this one was good enough to share.

I think that's pretty accurate. It isn't that I think Romney hates everyone. I think just like Rob Portman and most other conservatives, he doesn't give a shit about anyone but his intimate circle. Certainly it is true that Mitt Romney is the kind of guy who can't imagine what it's like to starve to death without actually seeing it happen.

This was also true of Ronald Reagan. If he heard about some kid dying of cancer, he'd write a check for fifty grand. But when it came to providing healthcare for poor children, he didn't really see the problem. Or you can think of the Woody Harrelson character in Seven Psychopaths who weeps over his dog but has no trouble murdering people for the smallest of indiscretions.

When they are in a movie, we call them psychopaths. When they are running for office, we call them Republicans.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

All in the family

By Mustang Bobby

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) has changed his views on marriage equality because he has a gay son.

“I’m announcing today a change of heart on an issue that a lot of people feel strongly about,” Portman said. “It has to do with gay couples’ opportunity to marry. And during my career in the House and also last couple years here in the Senate, you know, I’ve taken a position against gay marriage, rooted in part in my faith and my faith tradition. And had a very personal experience, which is my son came to Jane, my wife, and I, told us that he was gay and that it was not a choice and that, you know he, that’s just part of who he is, and he’d been that way ever since he could remember.”

Portman said his son’s revelation led him to drop his opposition to same-sex marriage. “And that launched an interesting process for me, which was kind of rethinking my position,” he said. “You know, talking to my pastor and other religious leaders and going through a process of, at the end, changing my position on the issue. I now believe people ought to have the right to get married.”

I have heard a number of my friends and fellow bloggers react to this news with a bit of cynicism, including speculation that since Will Portman came out to his parents two years ago, it’s taken the senator a pretty long time to come to terms with it and announce it publicly, especially since he was on the short list of VP candidates for Mitt Romney last year.

Read more »

Rob Portman plays whining Romney attack dog

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Hey Rob, ever been to the Caymans?

Reports have Ohio Sen. Rob Portman on Romney's short list for veep, and he's certainly acting like he wants it:

GOP Sen. Rob Portman defended his party's presumptive presidential nominee Monday from President Barack Obama's "personal" attacks, saying the Democrat was focusing on Mitt Romney because his record falls short.

*****

"The president said back in 2008 when he was running for office complaining about the Republican campaign, he said, 'When you're out of fresh ideas you turn to stale tactics, to attack your opponent because you don't want to talk about your record.' He said that makes big elections about small things. That's exactly what he's doing right now," Portman, who represents Ohio in the Senate, said Monday.

Translation: Mr. President, don't say anything more about Bain or the outsourcing or the tax shelters and foreign bank accounts or those tax returns not being made public or really anything else that goes to Mitt's business record, personal finances, and character because, well, he's vulnerable. There's a lot there, more than most people know, and we're afraid it could all bring him down. Afraid? Really we're shitting-our-pants terrified. The Obama campaign is successfully defining Mitt based on the truth, and it's totally controlling the narrative. We're fucked. So, please, lay off. Please!

Otherwise, Portman, Romney at Bain is fair game, and so are his personal finances. It all speaks to his experience, the experience he himself has been touting as his main qualification to be president, and to get the economy going again, as well as to his character. How he made his money (and what Bain did), what he's done with it, and whether he's been lying to the American people for personal political gain -- all this deserves close scrutiny. Just because he's rich and privileged, and has been that way his whole life, doesn't mean he can get away with being secretive. He may think he deseves to be president and shouldn't really have to go through this whole messy democracy thing, but thankfully America doesn't work that way.

And, Portman, the president has been talking ideas and policy -- throughout his entire presidency thus far -- whether it's been economic stimulus or the rescue of the auto industry or health-care reform or deficit reduction and entitlement reform or immigration or the Iraq and Afghan wars or the war against al Qaeda or Libya and Egpyt or... it goes on and on. Just because Republicans have decided to wage a war of obstructionism against everything he proposes doesn't mean he isn't trying to get things done. And if Mitt wants to talk ideas and policy, and not just the sort of ad hominem attacks and superficial, propagandistic statements he usually traffics in, then, yes, by all means, tell him to go for it. I'm sure the president would welcome that debate and benefit from the clear contrast. But I suspect Mitt won't go there, because he knows he'd lose. All he can really do is talk selectively about his experience, call Obama an un-American interloper (which is the gist of his attacks), and make silly claims about what incredible things he'd do as president.

The point is, if Romney isn't going to tell us about himself in an open, honest, and meaningful way -- and he clearly isn't -- then he's vacated the space for others to fill. Americans deserve to know what sort of a person he is, to know something of his real character, and that means, among other things, going back and looking at what he did at Bain and what he's done with the wealth he made as a vulture capitalist.

You may not like it, Portman, what with all your whining, but if anyone's to blame here, it's Mitt. He may want to spin a nice little mythology about himself, like selling snake oil to the masses, but it's all self-aggrandizing deception. And we're not buying it.

More VP gossip

By Richard K. Barry

Look at me. I'm waving my arm.
Oh, that's exciting!

Politico is reporting that Sen. Rob Portman is being vetted for Romney's VP slot while South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is not. That's not exactly news as everyone knows Portman is near the top of everyone's short-list and Haley has publicly stated she would decline the post if offered.

The upside to Portman is that Romney might actually appear to have a personality while standing next to him, which is also the downside.

As for Haley, or any woman for that matter, I don't see it, no matter what Ann says. Romney may need to appeal to more women to be competitive, but that doesn't mean he'll actually chose one as a running mate. If you think McCain looked uncomfortable next to Palin, can you imagine Romney next to a female VP candidate? I can't. It wouldn't at all appeal to his "stuck-in-the-50s" mentality. 

On the idea of female candidates in general, have you ever noticed that when a political party loses an election in which a woman is their candidate, the party elders often shy away from nominating a woman the next time? But when a man loses an election, they never say, "better not run another man. That didn't work out too well last time." No, they never say that.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Why are Republicans trying to violate the Constitution?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The answer, of course, is because they're Republicans.

But Steve Clemons, in this case, provides the details:

A handful of newly elected Republican US Senators have written to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid trying to undo the Constitutional authority of other elected incumbent US Senators.

That's right. Even the so-called strict constitutionalist Rand Paul is engaged in lobbying that would impose illegal burdens on incumbent elected representatives violating the word and spirit of the United States Constitution.


According to the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution, the respective terms of US Senators and US Representatives ends at noon on January 3rd...

Senators "elect" Roy Blunt (R-MO), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Rob Portman (R-OH), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) have written to Senator Reid stating, as reported by Joshua Rogin:

On Election Day we were elected to represent the constituents of our respective states in the Senate. Out of respect for our states' voters, we believe it would be improper for the Senate to consider the New START Treaty or any other treaty in a lame duck session prior to January 3, 2011.

Too bad guys!

Yes, too fucking bad.

You're not senators yet and the Senate as currently constituted (with duly-elected members) has every right -- it's in the Constitution, for the gods' sake! -- to take up anything it wants (within the parameters of its Constitutional powers), including START.

You are not yet elected and the incumbent Senators seating in seats they "won" previously have ALL the powers embedded in their positions until 12 noon, January 3rd.

Your efforts to impose your will beforehand are extralegal, irresponsible, and unconstitutional.

Rand Paul -- you owe many of your supporters a note of regret for having agreed to sign on to this letter giving your strict Constitutionalist views.

Rob Portman -- an old friend, and someone I respect for his sensible Republican pragmatism -- you too should know better than try to disrupt the operations of our government before your time has clicked in. De-sign this letter please.

Roy Blunt -- this was clever, but you know it was wrong. Dial down please.

Ron Johnson and Marco Rubio -- don't follow the leader so quickly.

This is an inappropriate request of Reid, and the US Senate should move post haste to whatever issues its elected body agrees to move to -- including the START Treaty.

Then again, when did the Constitution prevent Republicans from trying to get their way?