General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhile Obama is making history, Mitt Romney will be remembered as being on the wrong side of it.
As I read about everything that is happening with Marriage Equality I realize that this is a major part of history that is unfolding before us. Similar to the Civil Rights movement for African-Americans back in the 60's, I truly believe that Marriage Equality for the LGBT community will be one of those defining moments that will go down in the history books and be a party of our history classes for generations to come. Sure we have a long way to go for equality to happen but it only took one statement from a sitting US President to make this part of history happen. We have alot of work to do but knowing that Obama has our back on the issues will make the fight a bit easier.
If I'm correct, even when JFK came out in favor of equality for African-Americans, Richard Nixon was also in support. Say what you will about Nixon, but he was pretty progressive in equality. In fact when the historic Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed, it was the GOP that helped give us the votes needed to make it happen. Mainly because the Democrats loss support of the Dixie Democrats that included Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond (both who left the democrats to join the GOP). Point is this - Equality should not be a Democrat vs. Republicans issue - it is something we should all support.
Which is why Romney will come out as the loser in all of this. Romney could be a leader within the GOP and help push the leaders of the party to abandon opposing this issue. But instead he cowers to the new 'Dixie Democrats' - the Tea Party, a group of people who uses 'too much taxes' to hide behind the fact that deep down inside they have a vile hatred of anything not white. Mitt Romney could stand on the side of history that would make him a leader in this movement but instead 20-30 years from now he will be remembered as the loser who gave into the hate.
It's a shame because honestly, up until a few months ago I always thought of Romney as a Centrist, which made me believe he could be a threat to Obama's re-election. Instead he is a chicken-shit who lies in fear of a bunch of chicken-shit people.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,632 posts)Very well said, and spot on.
lob1
(3,820 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Just like Quayle.
As a mistake.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)I was not old enough to vote when Nixon ran against JFK. I voted against him the two other times he ran, and celebrated when he resigned. Looking at the Republicans of the last decade ( somewhat excepting John McCain) I miss Nixon, as impossible as I would have thought in the seventies. I never denied that he was obviously intelligent and had his mind on statesmanship and his own legacy, and achieved some serious accomplishments. Romney, on the other hand, is the picture of the rich man who doesn't need any more money, but still needs something to aspire to. The presidency, of course. He's not the first, but other rich men before him have spent near lifetimes in government. Romney knocked out a term as governor, then started going for the goal. It's the ultimate prize (as for Trump, who never felt he needed public office behind him). For Romney it's obviously his last ego trip, but he's not thought much about his actual plans to run the country. The debates should be really interesting.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Personally, he's a quitter - just like Sarah Palin.
StitchesforSnitches
(45 posts)why one may ask.
Because he let Bush, Cheney and the rest of the criminal cabal off the hook and used his position as POTUS to block and hinder investigations into the criminal activities of the former administration not only in this country but in other countries too.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)then imagine how it would have grown in numbers, hatred, and violence, if Bush*, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were on trial. It is pretty clear that President Obama was appalled by their acts, probably as much as any of us. However, he chose not to make martyrs of them, I think wisely. I would prefer to be in a place where this prosecution would have been demanded by the public and completely unavoidable, but this is not where I am.
StitchesforSnitches
(45 posts)They could have been stopped 3 years ago now they are obtaining political power.
Huge tactical mistake on Obama's part, all he did was embolden them
Prosecutions will never happen in America now even if the people demand it.
If Obama was appalled he would have done something about it, instead he continues to abuse the expanded power that the fromer regime granted to the POTUS.
Do not be surprised to see once the Pubs get control again to go after Obama for killing Americans with drones.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)and no, it was not a tactical mistake. There was going to be an adverse reaction to electing Obama. The rise of a counter insurgency of conservo-purists was entirely predictable. Making a martyr of Bush*, as much as I would have found satisfaction and even perhaps a small measure of justice in it, would have made the counter insurgency movement larger and far bolder.
Only one member of the US House was shot, this number could easily have been larger. Everyone who is honest about it already knows what Bush* did, those who are not honest about it would not have been convinced by a trial. However I am pretty sure that even more innocent people would have died in this process. Bush* is not worth the turmoil.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)as the Republican McGovern or Dukakis candidate that brought an end to a movement, but only if he loses badly enough and takes alot of congress down with him. Gingrich would have been a better choice for that role, but Rmoney could still pull it off. One hopes...