A Gay Girl’s Guide to the GOP: The 2012 Republican Candidate Cheat Sheet

Golly gee, is it getting to be election season already? Yes, it is, because in America “election season” is the entire 15 months, give or take 5 months, before a presidential election. Since there’s little one can do at this early juncture to really influence the outcome, it almost seems better to stick your head in the sand until at least the point where there’s a single candidate nominated and televised debates for you to scream and throw things at. That’s actually a totally okay strategy.

But if you are the kind of person who just needs to know, and who has had a vague background noise of anxiety going on for weeks because you keep hearing snippets of NPR stories about candidates you don’t really know anything about and how awful is Michele Bachmann REALLY and you sort of feel like maybe one of them might be a Scientologist? If you are that person, here is a helpful cheat sheet of the basic facts about the frontrunners, with special attention to How They Feel About Gay People.

Now, note that “frontrunners” up there – there are as of right now 15 GOP presidential candidates, and we’re only going to talk about five. They are the five that I felt were most worthwhile to discuss, mostly because they seem most likely to win a nomination. For example, they do not run a pizza chain, nor are they Jimmy McMillan (as much as I sort of think he’s hilarious and great, as does Riese sometimes) or Ron Paul (who I never want to hear another word about ever.) That said, there are other candidates who are interesting and worth reading about, even if they almost definitely won’t become President – like Gary Johnson of New Mexico, who recently lashed out at other candidates for their anti-gay views, saying:

“This type of rhetoric is what gives Republicans a bad name… While the Family Leader pledge [ed. note – which was recently signed by Santorum and Bachmann] covers just about every other so-called virtue they can think of, the one that is conspicuously missing is tolerance. In one concise document, they manage to condemn gays, single parents, single individuals, divorcees, Muslims, gays in the military, unmarried couples, women who choose to have abortions, and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.”

If you would like to know more about the rest of those candidates, I recommend Wikipedia and also, duh, their campaign websites. Actually I recommend that for the candidates below also, because you shouldn’t let me be your only source on this, I mean really.

That said, get out your red-white-and-blue flags to wave while scrolling, and let’s get to it. (Thanks to Julia for research help and Rose for dead-on Harry Potter insights.)

+

MITT ROMNEY:

Platform:

Believing in America and believing also that Obama is a bad president. Also though, job creation, fiscal responsibility, health care and foreign policy.

What he’s got going for him: As of last month, Romney was well ahead of the other candidates in polls – “A quarter of Republicans or GOP-leaning independent voters said they would back Romney over the rest of field for the Republican nod.” It seems safe as of right now to call him “the favorite.” As one of the more moderate candidates (i.e. not Michele Bachmann), he has more political clout within the Republican Party than Santorum, which gives him a pretty strong advantage.

 What might not work out so well: Despite his popularity, Romney has more than a few strikes against him. Maybe the most important is his religion – he’s Mormon, and the LA Times reports that “between a quarter and a third of voters say they would have a problem voting for a Mormon.” Furthermore, Romney has a history of flip-flopping that’s pretty objectively impressive, on issues from abortion and gay rights to job creation. This will be brought up again and again by his opponents, and so far in his career Romney doesn’t seem to have formulated a good defense. Lastly, as former governor of Massachusetts, Romney participated in a state healthcare program that shared many of the same tenets as Obama’s Affordable Care model – some have used the derisive nickname “Romneycare” alongside “Obamacare.” Healthcare is a huge issue in this election, and Romney will have to work hard to distance himself from Obama on it to win over Republican opponents of it.

Feelings about The Gays: Romney was the governor of Massachusetts when same-sex marriage was legalized in 2004, and so he’s never been in a position to espouse any really virulent antigay attitudes (although, as a Mormon, one has to note that he’s complicit with a church that has proven itself to be out to get them.) When pressed on the issue, his response is… to not commit!

PIERS MORGAN: Do you personally think homosexuality is a sin?
ROMNEY: Nice try, but I’m not going to get into –
MORGAN: That’s a valid question, isn’t it?
ROMNEY: It’s a valid question and my answer is nice try.

Of course, no one can be president if they support gay marriage, so mostly Romney’s party line has been to express tepidly supportive feelings towards gay people while disavowing support for marriage equality. From a 2007 primary debate:

“I’ve been in a state that has gay marriage, and I recognize that the consequences of gay marriage fall far beyond just the relationship between a man and a woman. They also relate to our kids and the right of religion to be practiced freely in a society.”

“I agree with 3000 years of recorded history. I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman and I have been rock solid in my support of traditional marriage. Marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. It’s unfortunate that those who choose to defend the institution of marriage are often demonized.” — 12/14/06 National Review Online

Death Eater Equivalent:  Snape: No one knows whose side he’s on (since he’s flip-flopped on issues so many times)

+

TIM PAWLENTY:

Platform: 

At the risk of sounding lazy, no different from any other Republican politician. Strengthening the economy, healthcare, national security and “values.”

What he’s got going for him: He allegedly goes by T-Paw in his personal life? He was governor of Minnesota, where an anti-gay marriage amendment is currently looming. When he originally announced his candidacy, he was viewed as a possible strong alternative to Romney. He has a genuinely working-class background, which is very attractive to Republican voters right now, and his populist leanings are appealing to the Tea Party, as is his evangelical Christianity.

What might not work out so well: Pawlenty doesn’t have the name recognition that most of the other candidates do, and in a word, he’s boring. He’s not a charismatic and inspiring speaker like Romney or Bachmann, and may not elicit a strong emotional reaction from voters. At least, he doesn’t seem to be so far – the Wall Street Journal reports that “Ms. Bachmann statistically tied former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney last month in a poll of likely Iowa caucus goers (22% and 23%, respectively). Mr. Pawlenty took 6% support.”

Feelings about The Gays: Not great. In a widely publicized and slightly bizarre turn of events, he recently responded to Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way,” saying that he disputes the theory that there’s a genetic basis for homosexuality.

As a strong social conservative, he definitely opposes gay marriage.

Death Eater Equivalent: Lucius Malfoy: Because he’s able to come off more mainstream and get lots of respect from politicians across the aisle while secretly being just as bad as the rest of them. Like how Lucius Malfoy was able to be in a high-ranking Ministry position for a while.

+

RICK SANTORUM:

Platform: 

The very first issue listed on Rick Santorum’s campaign website is “the preservation of the traditional American family” which means, obviously, that he hates your family. Not a good sign. He’s also concerned with “making sure American tax dollars are spent wisely” (which sounds suspiciously like code for shutting down government programs for the underprivileged and universal healthcare) and also something pretty unhinged-sounding that’s vague but refers to 9/11, “American Exceptionalism” and Jihadism, which is charming. Has said that he thinks healthcare is “the number one issue for voters.” 

What he’s got going for him: He’s smart, and has been trying to play the game, making friends in the party – like John Boehner, Speaker of the House. He’s socially conservative enough to appeal to people who are attracted to some of Bachmann’s views but not her delivery, and comes across as someone who really cares about his ‘family values.’ Seems very unlikely to have a bizarre sex scandal surface (although it’s always the unlikely ones, isn’t it).  He’s one of the candidates who have enough political clout that a bid for presidency seems possible, and his views might really resonate with the conservative voting bloc.

What might not work out so well: His last bid for re-election was a major failure, and his poll numbers were very low as of last month. His level of respect within his own party seems remarkably low — Tony Norman writes that “Mr. Santorum’s popularity among tea party types and social conservatives hovers at 3 percent on a good day, but usually settles at 2 percent. As a result, he’s had to deal with the indignity of being left off of every political svengali’s short list of Republican candidates who could give President Barack Obama a sleepless night or two.” Also, Dan Savage turned his name into the term for “the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.” It’s the first Google result for his name. Which can’t be helping matters.

Feelings about The Gays: I mean, there is a reason Dan Savage turned his name into the term for the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex — Santorum has been a fervent opponent of marriage equality and equality for queers in general since his days as a Pennsylvania senator. He was supporter of John Boehner in his efforts to have the House defend DOMA independently of the DoJ, and signed the same horrific conservative-values pledge as Bachmann (see below). Some choice quotes from him on the matter of gays in general:

On slippery slopes:

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything… In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”

On adoption for gay families:

“A lesbian woman came up to me and said, ‘Why are you denying me my right?’ I said, ‘Well, because it’s not a right.’ It’s a privilege that society recognizes because society sees intrinsic value to that relationship over any other relationship.”

Also, you really just have to read this entire list of Rick Santorum’s 12 Most Offensive Statements, the ones on black people are just really incredible, but here’s a nice gay one: “Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?”

Death Eater Equivalent:  Fenrir Greyback: Since Santorum’s name is now a sexual term thanks to Dan Savage, and Greyback’s name sounds like it should be a sexual term.
dotted-divider2

NEXT:

“Other highlights include “repealing Obamacare,” reducing debt, “defending marriage” and – this is on her website verbatim – “[rebuilding] respect for America as the shining city upon a hill”

 

Pages: 1 2 See entire article on one page

Profile photo of Rachel

Rachel is Autostraddle's Managing Editor and the editor who presides over books and news & politics coverage. Originally from Boston, MA, Rachel now lives in the Midwest. Topics dear to her heart include bisexuality, The X-Files and tacos. Her favorite Ciara video is probably "Ride," but if you're only going to watch one, she recommends "Like A Boy."

Rachel has written 767 articles for us.

93 Comments

  1. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    Karger is a great example of the type of candidate that we need in America- one that demonstrates that economic conservatism does not necessarily go hand in hand with social conservatism. He actually just needs his own political party, kinda like the Tea Party, but less batshit crazy.

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      I mean, I’m glad libertarians have somebody they can get behind (and not Ron Paul since he’s a racist and anti-choice and doesn’t want real equality for gays), but I think economic conservatism is the last thing this country needs right now. One of the big reasons we have such a huge deficit is Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, and we would probably be doing better if Obama hadn’t given in on keeping those cuts.

      If anything, we need more money put into the government right now, not less.

      • Thumb up 0

        Please log in to vote

        That aside, I am glad there is a Republican this year I could actually vote for, if I didn’t live in a state which required me to *be* Republican in order to vote in their primary. I miss Michigan sometimes.

        • Thumb up 0

          Please log in to vote

          I realize it sounded like I’m all for economic conservatism- I’m not, by any measure. But of the Death Eaters presented to us by the GOP, I’m glad at least one is socially liberal, not that he has a snowball’s chance in the first six circles of hell.

  2. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    I agree with Regulus for Karger. He was a Death Eater but didn’t really agree with their methods. And he was hella ballsy, which you have to be in order to run as an openly gay Jewish Republican.

    I don’t know about Snape for Romney, though, because you do know where Snape’s loyalties always lay now that the series is through. And Snape was, in the end, possibly the book’s greatest hero despite being a Death Eater. I say Peter Pettigrew for Mitt – he wasn’t really loyal to anyone and in the end, no one ended up liking him because he didn’t really stand for much of anything.

    Clearly, I am focusing on the most important parts of this article…

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      We had Peter Pettigrew for Ron Paul originally (because of how liberals seem to see him as “not as bad” when, no he’s not). I like the Regulus comparisons, but ultimately I didn’t assign Karger one because I didn’t realize we’d be covering him – I thought we’d only be going over the bad ones.

      But I’m glad he’s running. He sounds like all the shit I was told about Ron Paul by his fanboys four years ago, except that Karger IS actually all those things.

  3. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    I’m so glad to live in a country where these sort of games won’t get you elected.
    I really don’t know what to say. If some of these quotes were aired by candidates in many other countries they would be out of the running. Only in America and all that.
    (IlovealotofAmericansandalotaboutAmericabutthesepeoplescareme.)

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      “these sort of games”…do you mean the rhetoric / promises game? because that gets everyone elected, no matter which side of the political spectrum one is on.

      and i don’t know..i feel like there are a lot scarier people out there..the kind who don’t bother to say what they will / will not try to do if they happen to win an election. some scary people just do whatever the eff they want, when they want & that’s that.

      i can see where you’re coming from though.

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      Okay, but plenty of other countries have other issues they can be totally insane on and it’s perfectly fine even if not particularly these ones… So “only in America” is totally inaccurate.

      But these people do scare me.

  4. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    I kind of just spent ten minutes laughing over the fact that I misread John Boehner as John Boner. Over this side of the Atlantic, we have a Labour (the left-leaning party) politician called Ed Balls. Basically no matter the seriousness of the situation, you can always make a dick joke about politicians… you know, because most of them are.

  5. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    Ron Paul is the most pro-gay candidate in the race, democrat or republican, and you’ve just written him off. What an incredible disservice you’ve done for us all.

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      Ron Paul thinks marriage should be settled by the states and he has supported DOMA. On that former point, he’s where Obama is and on that latter point, he’s BEHIND Obama. And both of them are behind Fred Karger.

      I mean, I don’t understand you Ron Paul supporters. Karger is everything everyone wanted Paul to be back in ’08 and everything his fans incessantly claimed he was despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Why aren’t you guys flocking to Karger?

  6. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    “someone you are related to is voting Republican this year, consider yourself prepared.” yes. every time i try to have a conversation with my parents about how insane the candidates are, they tell me that i’m probably just misunderstanding whatever it was that michelle bachman or whoever said. now i have actually “things they said” to give to them. thanks rachel!

  7. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    dude, i kind of LIKE belletrix lestrange though! this is TOTALLY offensive to her. plus her name is way cooler than “michelle” and there ain’t no WAY helena bonham carter plays bachmann in any movie, ever. you should’ve just called her voldemort and gotten it over with. or just one of the demons, like maybe the basilisk or something else disgusting.

  8. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    You should have talked about Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson!

    Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson are officially for civil unions, have said that they respect NY’s gay marriage law, and would not sign the anti-gay marriage “Marriage Vow.” So even though they’re uncomfortable with the term marriage (or fear that it would make them even less viable of a candidate than they are), I don’t think either of them would defend DOMA/prosecute states for allowing gay marriage.

    Not Death Eater-y at all.

  9. Pingback: Autostraddle — A Gay Girl's Guide to the GOP: The 2012 Republican … | MyGaySpot

  10. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    Thoughts:
    -What the hell is in the water in Minnesota?
    -Rick Santorum can suck my Dick Santorum. Seriously, fuck that guy.
    -“…pro-marijuana legalization Gary Johnson…” HELLO, GARY JOHNSON!
    -Basically what this article tells me is that the GOP is a clusterfuck right now and all the votes will be split and Obama will win. Probably. Hopefully.

  11. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    Don’t want to ever hear about Ron Paul again? Ron Paul is racist and anti-choice?

    Ron Paul is the preeminent freedom and liberty candidate, so I fail to see how one could label him fairly as “anti-choice”. If by this, one means he is against abortion, well, yes, he is on a personal level. How can he not be when, as a physician, he has delivered over 4000 babies? Despite this, he would still leave the regulation of abortion to the states, some of which would legalize it, while others would ban it altogether.

    As for the claim that Ron Paul is racist, how can that be true when he has said he will pardon ALL non-violent drug offenders victimized by the racist federal War on Drugs?

    Yes, Ron Paul supported DOMA, but only Section 2, which protected the rights of states from intrusion by the federal government. He did NOT support Section 3, which attempted to establish a federal definition of marriage for all. On the gay marriage issue, he has been very clear that he thinks the government should stay completely out of it.

    You all should do some research before jumping to conclusions about Ron Paul.

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      LOLing at the idea that I haven’t done research on this issue. Research on the issue of Ron Paul specifically is what got me asked to be a writer at Autostraddle. I really don’t think I need to write essays in response to obvious trolls to prove I have done my research on Ron Paul. But I’ll do it this once so it won’t be in dispute any more.

      A quick Google search of “Ron Paul racism” turns up this:http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/88421/ron-pauls-racism
      and this:
      http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS
      and this:
      http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/
      and this!
      http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/why-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-matter/

      The fact that the drug war is racist does not mean that those who oppose it are automatically anti-racist. Racism is one reason to want to end it, but it is far from the only one. Another one is wasteful spending, which I imagine is probably closer to Ron Paul’s heart as a libertarian.

      I’m just not going to touch your privilege-denying and historically-ignorant nonsense about “states’ rights” apparently being more important than people’s rights. Or the idea that Ron Paul being a former OB-GYN somehow means he can read the minds of every pregnant woman in the U.S. and know what their particular life situations and needs are. I’m really done arguing these points with privilege-denying jerks who are never going to concede that perhaps as people who are not female and are not queer, they are not the best people to be deciding what matters to women and queer people. The very fact that you think, as a male, that you deserve a say in what should and should not be covered on a LESBIAN site means you obviously don’t get it.

      I think the one who needs to do their research here is you. Specifically, I think you need to look into information about Paul other than his official campaign material.

  12. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    I’m sad Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul aren’t even in there. I know, I know, nobody’s ever heard of friggin’ Jon Huntsman but there’s a reason Obama sent him away, he was afraid of his political might! (Even though is first ad is about basically… who he isn’t… Wrong strategy buddy)

    I’ve been harassed by Ron Paul supporters too, I understand your reluctance. But sometimes he makes sense, and he’s Kucinich’s right wing equivalent. Be it on Libya or same-sex marriage, he can be cool once in a while.

    And I can’t stand Fred Karger. That is all!

  13. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    Posts like these make this European gal really happy. Using Harry Potter-comparisons to make people like me understand stuff is absolutely brilliant and makes me feel less of a nerd.

    Autostraddle, if you were a girl, instead of a website, I’d obsessively stalk your Facebook, annoy the shit out of all my friends by incessantly talking about you, alongside being to shy to dance with you and writing embarrassing calligraphy containing both our names in my diary. […] Oh wait. I actually do that shit.

  14. Pingback: Romney Silent Over Debt Talks – Wall Street Journal | Conservatives for America

  15. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    “LOLing at the idea that I haven’t done research on this issue. Research on the issue of Ron Paul specifically is what got me asked to be a writer at Autostraddle.”

    I find this statement interesting because what you have actually done, by giving time in your article to some of the other, in my opinion, more anti-gay bigoted presidential candidates, is help promote their presidential candidacies. If you dislike Ron Paul so much, why not just include him at the top of your list and ridicule him as much as you can? That you haven’t is in conflict with your apparent position that the candidates whose policies you’ve reviewed are the ones gay people should be most concerned about.

    “I really don’t think I need to write essays in response to obvious trolls to prove I have done my research on Ron Paul. But I’ll do it this once so it won’t be in dispute any more.”

    I read the articles found at the links you provided.

    Regarding the newsletters with racist content, there’s no evidence that Ron Paul wrote any of them (in fact, one of the articles you suggested implies strongly that Lew Rockwell did!). Any alleged evidence that does exists is either circumstantial or hearsay, none of which would survive a respectable challenge in court. Either way, I fail to see what all of this says about Ron Paul himself, except that he once might not have been as attentive to what goes out under his name as he is today. Agreed, he should have known about the letters, and on that point, to the best of my knowledge, he takes full responsibility. But to say his doing so proves he is racist is utterly ridiculous. It’s like saying that because the infamous fabulist and writer, Stephen Glass, fabricated most, if not all, of the articles he wrote, the entire editorial staff at The New Republic, that was ignorant of what he was doing and that eventually apologized on his behalf, was necessarily comprised of liars too. In the end, all that really matters about the newsletters (in the way they apply to Ron Paul) is that none of the racist ideas expressed in just a few of them is or has ever been represented anywhere in Ron Paul’s voting record.

    About the Civil Rights Act and property rights issue on which so many people appear fixated, I’ll start by saying that I believe the Civil Rights Act was instrumental in ending segregation. You got me there. But that doesn’t mean it was a perfect bill. In fact, it was the Jim Crow laws which were responsible for legally creating segregation in the first place. It is those laws the government should alone have repealed instead of passing legislation that infringed on property rights. What if instead of property rights, it had been racist language targeted at the time? Would you have supported a move to limit 1st Amendment rights just to keep people from saying controversial and/or discriminatory things? Saying Ron Paul is racist because he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act the way it was written is like saying he did not vote for the Patriot Act because he supports terrorism.

    “The fact that the drug war is racist does not mean that those who oppose it are automatically anti-racist. Racism is one reason to want to end it, but it is far from the only one. Another one is wasteful spending, which I imagine is probably closer to Ron Paul’s heart as a libertarian.”

    Ron Paul is against wasteful spending, that is true, and most especially in regards to the enormously wasteful Drug War. But I’m surprised you think someone who is truly racist would free, en masse, those minorities who are under incarceration from the obviously racist Drug War. If anything, a better plan would be to NOT do this and also vote in favor of police state policies, which happen to be the very things Ron Paul has fought against all his life. Look, if all you’ve got are the newsletters to support your position on this, I’m sorry but your argument just doesn’t stand up to critical examination. It just doesn’t.

    “I’m just not going to touch your privilege-denying and historically-ignorant nonsense about “states’ rights” apparently being more important than people’s rights.”

    How you confuse “states rights” with “privilege-denying” and “ignorant nonsense” is beyond me. All states rights means is that “powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the PEOPLE [my emphasis].”

    “Or the idea that Ron Paul being a former OB-GYN somehow means he can read the minds of every pregnant woman in the U.S. and know what their particular life situations and needs are.”

    I don’t think Ron Paul has ever claimed to be telekinetic due to his former practice as an OB/GYN. However, again I say, as a physician who has delivered many babies, he has a unique perspective on the abortion issue that I believe should be heard by everyone.

    “I’m really done arguing these points with privilege-denying jerks who are never going to concede that perhaps as people who are not female and are not queer, they are not the best people to be deciding what matters to women and queer people.”

    First you call me a troll, then a privilege-denying jerk, and then you denigrate me as a male, suggesting that because I’m not a lesbian, I’m likely not qualified to have an opinion about abortion and gay rights. What does being female or gay exclusively have to do with abortion? I think regardless of sex, both straight and gay people know what a baby is and can determine for themselves if life does or does not begin at conception.

    “The very fact that you think, as a male, that you deserve a say in what should and should not be covered on a LESBIAN site means you obviously don’t get it.”

    Please don’t try to make this a lesbian rights issue. It’s about getting your facts straight about Ron Paul. Do that and you won’t have a problem with people like me who are sick and tired of the establishment, the status quo, and the people who blindly follow it. And BTW, the last time I checked, this magazine you write for is open to the public. If you or it are fearful of public discourse and prefer to indulge in a media echo chamber, you should configure your website to be members only or something.

    “I think the one who needs to do their research here is you. Specifically, I think you need to look into information about Paul other than his official campaign material.”

    I have looked into Ron Paul’s history and I have read his books. Because of his absolutely stellar voting record on being pro-civil liberties and anti-war — which the other presidential candidates, especially the incumbent, cannot even hope to match — he has my unwavering support for president. And I believe he should have yours too.

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      I didn’t write this particular article, but I responded since you were obviously targeting what I had to say in the comments.

      For starters, you really need to familiarize yourself with the concept of “male/straight privilege” before you start throwing around accusations that I am anti-men, or anti-straight, or afraid of criticism. Here is a nice place to start: http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146

      Re: racist newsletters – They were printed in the “Ron Paul Political Report.” Whether he wrote them or not, he clearly put his stamp on approval on them. He clearly didn’t mind them being associated with his name. I think it’s fair to assume, then, that Ron Paul didn’t see them as problematic and therefore is racist.

      Re: drug war – There are many different ways of being “truly racist,” and many degrees of racism.

      Re: “states’ rights,” “privilege denial”: What I mean is you need to look up the history of the term “states’ rights” in the U.S. and how it has been used. It has a long history of being a way of denying minority rights, which is obviously how you are using it here (as though “states’ rights” is somehow more important than women’s and LGBT equality). I reiterate: states do not have more rights than people. And on property rights – again, as with states’ rights, which “property rights” are you talking about here? Think about what you’re saying. A landowner’s “property rights” are only infringed by the civil rights act if the landowner wants to discriminate based on race. Black people do not have true equality if people can continue to deny them homes. Your First Amendment analogy is a false one; allowing people to say racist things (with the real issue here being, who defines “racist”?) is totally not the same as forcing Black people to be homeless because landowners are allowed to turn them away. And when it comes to specifically using hateful speech to intimidate or drive away Black people – aka “hate speech” – the legal issues are much murkier.

      Re: abortion, I think you need to review this: http://alexryking.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/notdifficult.png?w=500&h=465 You should also review the fact that medical literature, by and large, does NOT determine the start of “life” at conception – it defines at implantation, if anywhere. This is largely a religious value. And you are aware that Ron Paul is not the only OB-GYN in the world, right? There are plenty who have delivered just as many, if not more babies, who are pro-choice. I don’t think his status as an OB-GYN is what is important here. What is important is the fact that as a man, this is not his issue, just as it is not yours for the same reason. Neither of you will ever have to worry about making that choice. This is what we mean when we talk about privilege.

      I don’t see how you can recommend to me who I should vote for when you know very little of my personal political credo. We haven’t even gone into his economic policies, which are enough reason for me not to want him to be president, even apart from his troubling views on the issues discussed here. I think it’s very telling, though, that with this little information you already think I should vote for Ron Paul. It seems to indicate a lack of respect for viewpoints different than your own, that you think the best candidate for you is the best candidate for everyone.

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      this is a small part of your comment, but it bothers me; can you really not understand why it angers women when men think their stake in the issue of abortion is the same as theirs? when, exactly, will you ever get pregnant and have to make a decision about what’s happening to your body? and is it men or women in our culture who do the vast majority of the child-rearing? I think someone else made this point already, but still….

  16. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    You’re take on R Paul’s View on civil rights is not as thorough as I want So Ill help complete your reply.

    Ron Paul banks off of the illegitimacy of the American government. How politics are dirty, and that the well being of our people can only be attained by the division of federal powers in order to dilute corruption, and lower the influence of lobbying. Ergo, power to the individual/true democracy on the smallest level.
    On social issues, He’s supportive of EVERY lifestyle, Lesbians included.He banks off of trusting individuals to make their own life choices and not restrict the liberties of others.

    Laws favoring segregation were actually put into power by the federal and state governments in the early 1880s. Would Ron Paul’s respective Ideologies come in play at that time, We wouldn’t have needed to go through many decades of segregation and discrimination.

    His justifications for supporting Jim Crow Laws are simple and true. A) The owner of the land of the business should have the right to permit or deny serving whoever he wants.B) Not serving a specific race in unregulated capitalism means less business. Less buisiness means going out of business.

    -To the lady that wrote the article-
    Shame on you. Leaving out something like a political CANDIDATE on your “Republican 2012 cheat sheat” is veiwed as a very nasty thing by any experienced political thinker.

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      Goddammit, you guys. She barely mentions your personal hero, and you still can’t STFU about Ron Paul. And you wonder why Rachel and everyone is sick of hearing about him?

      She left out lots of people from this list. You guys make so darned sure that the whole world will never hear the end of Ron Paul, it isn’t going to ruin his chances that one site did not cover him.

      Grow up, it’s not all about you.

Contribute to the conversation...

You must be logged in to post a comment.