Mitt Romney’s Pattern of Homophobia
There’s been lots of debate over whether Mitt Romney’s teenager years as a bully are fair game, but what I find interesting is that it shows a pattern of homophobia over many years. So it’s documented that in the 60s Romney was an avowed homophone; in 2004, as governor, he fired a lesbian government official; in 2006, Governor Romney threatened to end funding for a commission that battled suicides in gay and lesbian teenagers; in 2008, Romney secretly donated to Proposition 8; and, in 2012, the resignation of Richard Grenell. Even Romney’s apologies over Grenell and his bullying days have been tepid and noncommittal.
“Back in high school, I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that,” Mr. Romney told Brian Kilmeade, a radio host. Mr. Romney added, “I participated in a lot of high jinks and pranks during high school and some might have gone too far and for that, I apologize.”
These are one offs, this is a pattern of homophobic behavior by Mitt Romney, plain and simple. Or in layman terms, GOP pattern homophobia.
He then noted that ABC News had spoken to the sister of the man allegedly attacked by Romney all those years ago, who shared that the portrayal of her brother “is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda.”
Nice cherry-picking of this article.
No where does she claim that the incident didn’t happen.
I predict this is about to become a BIG deal, mainly because everyone remembers the trials and tribulations of high school. So everyone can relate.
And Romney can’t help but lie again, either that or bullying and assaulting other people was a such a daily occurrence in his life that he can’t remember all his victims.
Here are Romney’s choices when it comes to this situation:
1. He’s lying (again)
2. He doesn’t remember because he bullied too many people to keep track of.
3. He has a mental problem and no conscience – He truly doesn’t understand the difference between right and wrong.
When I read the wapo article to my husband, he listened attentively, or as attentively as he gets after a day at work and a meeting at night. And when I hit “Romney doesn’t remember the incident” he sat up and said, “That’s a LIE!”
There are things people don’t remember, but this isn’t that long ago. Romney is not the ONLY one there who doesn’t remember this. He’s lying.
Well, we already knew that Romney is a homophobe and a liar.
Yes, Rusty. I think she said that because all those years later people of that generation still think homosexuals were either sick or evil.
If you read back to that original article, at least two of the participants are described as still friendly to Romney. That they would condemn this behavior regardless says a lot more to me than the fact that the victim’s sister is a Republican.
He’s definitely lying. Or he really is a sociopath. The people in the article not only remember the incident, but they have some guilt over not doing the right thing at the time. That’s a normal reaction by someone with a functioning moral compass. Not to remember hurting someone like that (but apologizing anyway!) makes him sound like a serial bully.
I’m leaning towards sociopath.
“Imagine that you’re brain is full of boxes, then find the box that’s gay and CRUSH IT!!!!!!”
~Book of Mormon
The Romney’s had nearly $21 million in gross income. They paid over $3.2 million in federal income taxes. And, they donated over $4 million to charity (501(c)(3) organizations).
Taxes & Charitable Giving as a % of Gross Income: 34%.
The Biden’s had over $379,000 in gross income. They paid over $86,000 in federal income taxes. And, they donated $5,350 to charity (501(c) organizations).
Taxes & Charitable Giving as a % of Gross Income: 24%
(Note: The Obama’s are at 37%. Just above Romney – and well above the Biden’s.)
Both the Romney’s and the Biden’s have the same incentive to make their tax returns look good. Yet, the Romney’s blow the Biden’s away in terms of supporting public causes. Who’re the sociopaths?
(Probably neither.)
@Davy–please check your math. 5350 is NOT 24% of 379000.
Assuming your gross income and charitable giving numbers are correct, the Bidens gave 1.412% of their gross income to charity.
Also, Romney is a devout and prominent Mormon. He most likely gives at least 10% of his gross income to his church/cult.
@D “Who’re the sociopaths?”
Giving $4 million to crazy cults? Sociopath… for sure.
Mitt says: RELAX
@Joe Cass–I think you’ve confused Mitt w/ Frankie.
Now we are finally getting somewhere, le, and lebay believe the morman religion is a cult. at least that gives us a point of reference to evaluat
e any more transmissions from
Them
Still no one has stepped up and explained how a person engaging in a certain behavior has the constitutionally protected right to change the definition of words.
What?
Check out this Viedo
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-romney-stand-up-to-north-korea-pushed-around-yokel-like-me
I read an opinion piece on the Romney bullying episode. The problem Romney had was responding by saying he didn’t remember but if he did it it wasn’t because he was gay. So, yeah, everyone knows he’s lying. The op-Ed writer (I can’t remember who) said this probably would be neutral for Romney at best and at worst people are thinking oh, he’s THAT GUY. I’m definitely thinking he’s THAT GUY.
Taxes & Charitable Giving as a % of Gross Income: 34%.
Sorry, private giving is not counted along with public taxes. They are totally different things. There is that little matter of We The People to contend with.
Taxes are not charity, and charity is not taxation.
It’s a cult, all right. Real churches have clergy.
I’m looking forward to Romney calling Liberty University out on its anti-LDS bigotry. This could be a turning point for Mitt.
@LeBay: Taxes + Charitable Giving
@puck: I’d like to see you explain the difference between taxes and charity. What’s the difference between private giving to a public cause and mandatory giving to a public cause (besides the former allows individuals to choose the cause)?
Of the (about) $4 million that the Romney’s donated to charity, they donated $1.4 million to the Tyler Foundation and $2.6 million to the LDS Church.
http://www.tylerfoundation.org/
The LDS Church is not everyone’s cup of tea, but, like other religious groups, the Church does provide services to the needy.
I don’t see any sociopath running for President, whether Republican or Democrat.
The LDS church does far more than provide services to the needy with that money. Look up its private business holdings sometime. It’s not a religion, it’s Amway with a tax break.
If you need the difference between taxes and charity spelled out for you, this isn’t the blog for you.
I thought that this site preferred reasoned analysis to name calling. Am I wrong? Sometimes, it seems that I am wrong.
@D “I thought that this site preferred reasoned analysis to name calling.”
OK. Reasoned analysis. Follow the money…
Just look at the buildings. If they look like a gold plated Mormon Temple, then it’s not a charity. If it looks like a soup kitchen in downtown LA, then it’s a real charity. Just look at the facilities. It’s easy.
You can also use that same idea to compare Komen with Planned Parenthood. One is all show, the other is all business. Fake charity. Real charity.
Really? The quality of a charity’s facilities determines whether the charity is a “real” charity?
That’s lazy.
In FY 2010, Komen spent nearly $283 million on programs and services (research, education, screening, treatment) and $77 million on support (administration and fundraising).
Support as a % of programs and services plus support: 21.4%
In FY 2010, Planned Parenthood spent about $860 million on programs and services (family planning, public policy, education, medical care) and $169 on support (administration and fundraising).
Support as a % of programs and services plus support: 16.4%
[Non-political example] In FY 2010, the National MS Society spent about $158.9 million on programs and services (client & community services, education, chapter services, research) and $47.7 million on support (administration and fundraising).
Support as a % of programs and services plus support: 23.1%
Komen is more efficient than a smaller organization, MS, and less efficient than a larger organization, PP, which is consistent with the economy of scales associated with running a charity.
You’re letting your political views of the two organizations color your judgment.
You’re letting your political views of the LDS Church color your judgment.
@Davy “In FY 2010, Komen spent…”
You Komen numbers are highly misleading. Giving money to middlemen means that even fewer funds are being used to promote the basic mission. Komen has cut back dramatically on direct research grants and has increased money it gives to middlemen organizations that skim off large portions of the donations. You can make your numbers look pretty when all of the real losses occur on your subcontractor’s account books.
Even the money it gives to Planned Parenthood is subject to both corporate overhead losses. That’s why it’s far better to just donate to planned parenthood directly.
@Liberal Elite: You’re asserting that the numbers are misleading. Provide an alternative metric or other proof that proves your assertion. Until then, your assertion is without foundation.
You can use this site if you like: http://komenwatch.org/.
The real complaints are about Komen’s anti-competitive conduct, Komen’s position on mammograms, Komen’s partnerships with “questionable” organizations, and how much Komen spends on research vs. education and screening (not enough on research). The silly complaints are about the political affiliations of Komen’s leaders. (Komen’s leaders have political affiliations. Planned Parenthood’s leaders have political affiliations. Surprise! People have political affiliations.)
There is no obvious mention of waste. Instead, people just disagree with Komen’s priorities.
Again, you’re objections seem to be politically biased. Komen=conservative=bad; Planned Parenthood=liberal=good. Neither organization is bad. Both provide needed services to our country.
Komen provides no needed service to the country. And since every fundraising letter than includes a note to “remember to get your mammogram” counts not as fund-raising but as “education,” your statistics are fairly meaningless.
It has nothing to do with politics.
The LDS church is a cult not because of politics, but because it’s a cult. No clergy. Secret ceremonies. Strong insistence on tithing and, indeed, moving up in the church organization based on donations.
@Geezer: Every church emphasizes tithing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe. Not that I attend church (or synagogue). And, I doubt that you’ve read anything about the LDS Church that is academically rigorous. There is nothing wrong with a lack of a (professional) clergy or secret ceremonies. In fact, the reformation was in part about the abuses of the Catholic Church’s clergy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation#Corruption.
@Geezer: I provided a website that questions Komen’s integrity. Yet, you have only impugned my statistics with bare assertions. Without evidence, you’re accusing Komen of labeling fundraising activities as educational activities. Stop being lazy.
Davy: I don’t give a flying fuck if you believe me or not. This isn’t a debating club. In the initial burst of publicity about Komen, the point I raised was mentioned. If you don’t want to believe it, don’t believe it. The organization still doesn’t do any vital work, which was the basis of your comment, was it not? You have made clear that you lack any knowledge of the context for the statistics you quote. They’re useless.
As for tithing, there’s a difference between encouraging it and requiring it. And I doubt you know anything about the LDS church. Academically rigorous? There’s an academic field devoted to debunking religious cults? And you’re going to reference the motherfucking REFORMATION to talk about modern cults?
I have no idea what you’re doing here, but we have all the people we need with their heads up their asses.
@D “Provide an alternative metric or other proof that proves your assertion. Until then, your assertion is without foundation.”
I stand by my assertion that Komen is a fake charity and that Planned Parenthood is the real deal.
Anyone who has been paying attention to the news knows this. It has little to do with politics and all about how these organizations have been setup and run. As Geezer says “Komen provides no needed service.”
@Geezer: It’s a place to discuss ideas. Instead, you spout hate. It’s something that you and illiberal conservatives have in common.
You are asserting that the statistics are useless. I challenged you to prove that the statistics are useless. Instead, you attack me.
It does not matter what you or I believe. It matters what we can prove. Apparently, you cannot prove anything.
And, again, most Churches, synagogues, and other places of worship require tithing. It’s just subtle. For example, my (former) synagogue charged fees as a percentage of income.
Can we just agree that Scientology is a cult and move on? Or, do you need to make yourself look silly and closed to new ideas?
Actually, this site seems to be a place to come and fight, not to discuss ideas. And name calling is par for the course.
@Liberal Elite: The news is no substitute for hard statistics. And, again, I provided a website for Komen. No accusations of the sort you raise here (at least from what I’ve read on the website). Provide one website or webpage that justifies your assertion.
And you can stand by your assertion. Just don’t mistake it for fact or a rigorous thesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.
@Valentine: Apparently. You would think that I called the Grinch (Newt Gingrich) awesome. All I did was ask for evidence for an assertion.
Illiberal liberals and progressives. Same as illiberal conservatives. Close minded.
@D “The news is no substitute for hard statistics.”
Your “hard statistics” are from Komen itself. We have stated that we believe that the organization is being dishonest. Their idea of “education” is highly suspect. You must be aware of the numerous stories that repeatedly supported this line.
That I am too busy and too lazy to hunt down these stories you seek does not make your assertions more true. Again… Lack of evidence for my hypothesis is NOT support for your hypothesis. Even a lawyer should know that much.