The Disloyal Governor

I have never been a fan of Mitt Romney, and have watched his time-marking stint as governor mostly with detachment, but his latest extra-territorial jaunt really cemented something for me: Mitt Romney is a horrible governor.

He travels away from Massachusetts, participates in a conference at which they make Massachusetts the butt of jokes, and attacks Massachusetts' same-sex marriage as a threat to America.  Does he forget that he lives here?  (I wouldn't mind if he forgot; he could then forget to come home and we'd be done with him.)  Does he forget that some of those families he attacked are his constituents?

He is disloyal to our Commonwealth.  He insults his own constituents.  And he travels the country speaking hate.

Unsurprisingly, many among his audience want him in Washington: ''People will speculate about 2008, of course they will, because he's such an extraordinary leader," [Utah governor] Huntsman said."

Extraordinary leader?  Name one thing he's done for Massachusetts.  One big project.  One helpful initiative.  One instance of leadership.  There aren't any.  He's not an extraordinary leader.

He's an extraordinary ass.

Comments

[JRP]

First, Romney is a moderate consolidator/collaborative lead and moderately efficient administrator, and not really a ideological/visionary leader, so one doesn't expect great new things out of him.

In the face of a veto-overriding Democratic stranglehold on the MGC, the Governor has almost no effective power himself, so he just has to get along as best he can.

Now, I grew up in MA (Framingham). I presently live in Cambridge. Mitt represents a very much more moderate version of my view of our degenerate state.

MA _deserves_ to be the butt of jokes - it's become it's own self-parody. The atheistic, moral relative, marxist deconstruction that passes for "progressive ideas" in MA is a threat to America - same-sex marriage is just one instance of a greater problem.

[carpundit]

While I don't know enough about the inner workings of the executive branch to know whether Romney is a good administrator, he is being called a "leader" by the Utah Republicans. Administration is not leadership.

As for the Democratic majority, it is something with which all R. governors here have had to contend. Weld and -even- Cellucci were better at it than Romney.

If you live in Cambridge, I can understand your anger at the "progressive ideas" around you. But remember, Cambridge isn't representative of Massachusetts.

BTW, I'm in favor of a Repubican governor here. I just want one who cares about the Commonwealth first, before the incubation of his ambition.

[AJK]

While I do not live in Massachusetts and, therefore, do not feel qualified to comment on the effectiveness of its executive branch, I do have a couple of things to say about gay marriage.

Many conservatives speak about bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world these days. Our president is first among them. Yet these same people advocate a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Such an amendment would be a roadblock to the progression of individual freedom at home and would set a terrible precendent by altering our founding document for a relatively trivial social issue.

The argument that it somehow errodes the value of the family is baseless. Those politicians who carry the flag against gay rights in this country are grandstanding to a base continuency that is simply grossed out by guys being with guys.

Let it go. Gay americans deserve the same rights as everyone else. Romney should be supporting his state, not his career agenda. No leader who takes the position he does and makes such statements is a consolidator. He is a divider.

There ARE moral absolutes in the world. The "sanctity of marriage" isn't one of them.

[JRP]

"There are moral absolutes in the world.... isn't one of them."

I assert, you're too ignorant to be able to judge.

First, "Gay Marriage" is a misnomer. There is no such thing, it's a semantic null because of it contains it's own contradiction (a couple of sexes is inherent in the term 'marriage'): it's not even an oxymoron, since an oxymoron can have a referend: this just doesn't. Since there is no such thing, there is no such right. But, I'll go beyond the obvious semantic issue:

Gay Americans have _exactly_ the same rights as straight Americans: they can both marry members of the opposite sex. Gay Americans have a long history of "beard" wives for instance. Gay Americans raised children with their wives, and it was a perfectly legitimate marriage (well, except for the adultery, but one sin is like another). Are you going to call those marriages 'invalid' just because you've decided you don't like them any more? Isn't that entirely disrespectful to those who have gone before? Who are you to impose your values on such people? (Let alone, the rest of us).

What the effort to force the recognition of 'same-sex unions' is doing is divorcing the reality of marriage from it's place in promoting a stable family unit (with one male, one female, children, plus extended family members). It's another devolution in the continuing deconstruction of traditional relationships (which cultural marxists _must_ actively undermine in order to promote their evil ideals in America: families don't matter, children shouldn't be with parents, they should be taken care of by the state, ditto old people, and nobody is better or works harder than anybody else, so nobody should be forced to be 'graded' in school they should be 'nurtured' by the state instead, and nobody should be allowed to have more than others or keep what they earn, to each according to his needs, etc, etc).

Why is having one male and one female a benefit? Because if you don't, you get f'd up. Anecdotally, I've seen it too often: the children of single moms are more f'd up than children of married couples. Even children of couples where the father is not the biological father tend to be more f'd up. Beyond that, children of people with two mothers or two fathers are more f'd up (from my experience of 3 of them - PLUS several socialogical evaluations which assert that gender roles of the children of a gay couple are significantly different than hetero: interestingly enough, both sexes are more feminine, in both couples of lesbian and gay men).

Marriage isn't about two individual's choices. It's about promoting stable, sane, stronger new generations of Americans. And the best way to do this is an atomic family plus extended relatives.

For my further commentary on so-called "gay marriage" (which, again, can not exist): see http://www.massright.com/ppk/archives/2004/11/on_gay_marriage.html and http://www.massright.com/ppk/archives/2005/02/samesex_politic.html , and a few others around that.

[carpundit]

Just weighing in to point out that JRP is spending a lot of energy on something that "can not exist."

[AJK]

Well, I'm sure sure where to begin. First, I used the term "gay marriage" generally. Perhaps I should have put it in quotes.

Second, the position that both can marry members of the opposite sex and therefore there are equal individual rights involved is wrong. Put aside the fact that it does not take a person's sexual orientation into consideration (a fact that takes humanity out of your argument). It is a "separate but equal" argument. If blacks were not allowed to marry whites in this country, would you argue that they had the same rights because they could marry within their race?

If "gay marriage" doesn't exist, what is it when a homosexual man marries a straight woman? Isn't that offensive to your judeo-christian marriage ethic?

When did I say I didn't like those marriages? I never mentioned anything about heterosexual unions or gay men/women married to straight men/women for whatever reasons. It's none of my business. It is certainly not the business of the state.

One sin for another? Are we dealing with law or religion here? Or should we get rid of that amendment when we ratify the new one about your non-existent issue?

Speaking of neurological disorders such as religion....Marxism? Total government control sounds more like Stalinism and "big brother" than Marxism. Both are surely bad. For a person who is so concerned about government replacing the family, you sure seem to be arguing for expansion of government control over the individual.

The fact of the matter is that gay americans in most states have all sorts of legal difficulties because government won't recognize their relationships. Such problems include medical decisions, medical benefits, death and probate, ownership of property and more. Now, just so you don't think that I'm a radical, pink-flag-carrying lefty, I happen to think that unmarried heteros should have the same recognition if they so choose.

"Stable family unit?" Are you kidding? Are we in the same country? We have a 50% divorce rate in this country. A huge number of spouses of both sexes cheat on their significant others regularly. Many women and men are in marriages that are abusive and encouraged to stay there by their religious institutions. What sanctity are you talking about?

Modern day marriage is what the individuals make of it. The family structure is what people make of it. It has no inherent value. As a social "institution", marriage has lost its power. Maybe that is good. After all, marriage as a unit-structure of society was really strong during feudalism.

I don't want to live in a hovel. I like clean drinking water. I like NOT having an outdated religious contrivance govern my life.

See andrewsullivan.com today, actually, for the best response to the child issues.

I fundamentally support your right to object to gay union, homosexuality in general or anything else. It might be prudent to divorce your obvious dislike of homosexuals from the attempted logic in your argument.

I can't believe I spent this much time on this. Last point:

The best way to "promot(e) stable, sane, stronger new generations of Americans" is through good secular education AND good parenting regardless of sexual orientation.

[ZF]

Careful! As a Massachusetts liberal, by labeling him as stupid, you're giving him the stamp already on every nationally successful Republican politician of the past 100 years.