The Log Cabin-Romney Story That Won’t Die
Over at the Washington Blade, Chris Johnson reports that Mitt Romney met with Log Cabin head R. Clark Cooper last week in a Virginia farmhouse.R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin’s executive director, said workplace non-discrimination protections were the focus of the meeting, which took place Oct. 17 at Greenwood Farm in Leesburg, Va., which was a precursor the organization’s endorsement of the candidate announced on Tuesday. The Log Cabin chief was non-commital when asked if he gathered from the meeting that Romney would sign a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act if it reached his desk. “I can say with confidence that the Romney administration would work on desirable outcomes for workplace non-discrimination,” Cooper said. “I’m going to leave it broad like that because I think there’s room for administrative action as well as legislative. I also think it’s probably fair to say that legislation in a form of an ENDA or an ENDA-like legislation is certainly realistic.”
In the photo above, the man on the right is former GOP House Rep. Jim Kolbe, who was outed by activists in 1996 after he voted in favor of DOMA. According to the above-linked story, Kolbe complained to Romney about the potential deportation of his foreign-born partner. Romney reportedly nodded but offered no response.
Mitt Romney Got Log Cabin Republicans’ Endorsement By Promising Major Gay Rights Law
America Blog reports:
[UPDATE: At the bottom of this post I have an update from Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, a lead religious right group. They not very happy with Uncle Mitt. They’re demanding a “flat, empathic, unemphatic, unambiguous denial from Romney himself. Please clarify for us all, Governor. Bottom line: we still need a clear, unambiguous, no loophole denial from Gov. Romney that he will support ENDA as president.”]
Oh, Mitty, there you go again.
Ben Adler reports in the Nation today the remarkable news that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney apparently secured the endorsement of the lead gay Republican group, the Log Cabin Republicans, by privately promising them that he would support passage of a major piece of gay rights legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
It is currently legal under federal law, and in a number of states, to fire, not hire, and not promote someone because they’re gay or trans. ENDA bans that discrimination under federal law.
Romney has previously opposed ENDA, Paul Ryan previously supported it, then got beaten up by his own party and voted to kill it, and now refuses to say where he stands on the legislation.
Adler thought it odd that Log Cabin thought, per their statement endorsing Romney, that they could work with him to pass major gay rights legislation, so he called up Log Cabin’s executive director, R. Clark Cooper, to find out. Cooper, apparently, spilled the beans.
Romney’s greatest asset as a politician is his total lack of integrity, honesty or consistency. He is perfectly willing to go before the religious right one day and pledge fealty to them, and the Log Cabin Republicans the next day to do the same. And, apparently, that is what he has done, in private.
Cooper asserted repeatedly that, “With a President Romney we’re confident we can work with him [on ENDA].” But when asked why, Cooper offered only reasons that Romney should work with them: that discrimination is a form of economic inefficiency and impediment to job growth. But you could make the same argument to any president.
The question is what Romney has said that gives them such confidence. Cooper says, “Romney been clear in his opposition to workplace discrimination.” He also seemed to conflate private conversations with LCR representatives and his public pronouncements, saying such things as, “[Romney] is acutely aware of the problem of the patchwork of discrimination,” meaning that it creates problems for businesses that some states ban anti-gay discrimination and others do not.
Later, clearly referencing private communications with the campaign, Cooper said, “Based on our work with the campaign and Gov. Romney, I’m confident [that he will support anti-discrimination legislation].” Cooper was coy and vague about what exactly Romney said to inspire such confidence; he says Romney “has been adamant” in opposition to discrimination. Romney is clearly quite a salesman.
As I’ve written before, Romney has spoken of his personal preference not to practice discrimination, but he has not actually publicly called for outlawing workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Cooper said he would e-mail me Romney quotes I may have missed that do call for such legislation, but as of this writing he had not done so.
As I continued to press this point and suggested that LCR may be factually wrong about Romney’s position, Cooper blurted out, rhetorically, “Have you met with Romney’s domestic policy team?” Cooper’s implication was abundantly clear: Romney’s domestic policy team has privately told LCR what they wanted to hear. And therein lies the answer to how Romney secured LCR’s endorsement. But Romney so fears the wrath of the religious right that he will not adopt this position in public, (Although ENDA polls very well, major social conservative groups, such as the American Family Association, continue to oppose it and demand that Romney do the same.)
Given that Romney is a reflexive liar, the question then becomes why LCR chooses to believe Romney. For that, I have no answer other than wishful thinking on their part.
How Long Until Romney Flip-flops Again?
Get ready for Romney’s promise to help get ENDA passed to go the way of former Romney spokesman Rick Grenell, who was unceremoniously self-deported from the Romney campaign after the religious right got vewy vewy angwy with Master Mitt.
Just guess what the religious right is going to do when they find out that Mitt Romney has promised to pass the most significant piece of gay and trans rights legislation in the history of America.
Keep in mind that up until recently, Romney used to love the gays. Romney once even promised that he was more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy. Then he wanted to be president, and he realized that he needed to become a neanderthal to run as a Republican, so suddenly Romney was anti-gay, and like his opposition to withdrawal from Afghanistan, past promises went down the memory hole, another victim of Romnesia.
Let’s all count down together to how long it will take for Romney to issue a statement revoking his secret pact to support ENDA: 3, 2, 1…_______UPDATE: Here’s the American Family Association’s response – none too pleased with Uncle Waffle:
Log Cabin Republicans Endorse Romney
After careful consideration and consultation with our members and chapters, as well as communication with Mitt Romney and his campaign team, the National Board of Directors of the Log Cabin Republicans has elected to endorse Governor Romney for president.
“The decision to endorse is the right one for our members, our community, and for the nation as a whole,” said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director, R. Clarke Cooper. “Despite our disagreement with Governor Romney on the issue of marriage, on balance it is clear that in today’s economic climate, concern for the future of our country must be the highest priority. We are Republicans, and we agree with Governor Romney’s vision for America in which success is a virtue, equal opportunity is ensured, and leaders recognize that it is the American people, not government, that build our nation and fuel its prosperity. On issues of particular concern to the LGBT community, we believe Governor Romney will move the ball forward compared to past Republican presidents. No matter who is in the White House, it is crucial our community always has a credible voice speaking out on behalf of LGBT Americans. Log Cabin Republicans will be that voice to President Mitt Romney.”
From the day Governor Romney signed this pledge, Log Cabin has been outspoken in our opposition to this exercise in an outdated politics of division. Even with this endorsement, we will continue to voice our disagreement with any call for a constitutional amendment federalizing a definition of marriage that excludes LGBT families. While even the suggestion of enshrining discrimination in our nation’s most precious document is deeply offensive, there is a significant difference between a valid threat and an empty promise made to a vocal but shrinking constituency. In our judgment, the NOM pledge is ultimately merely symbolic and thus should not be the basis of a decision to withhold an endorsement from an otherwise qualified candidate, particularly given the gravity of the economic and national security issues currently at stake.
RELATED: Both Rep. Barney Frank and GOProud’s Chris Barron are pissed:
Mitt Romney’s Son Tagg Signed “Abortion” Clause In Surrogate Birth Contract Of His Twins
TMZ has learned Mitt Romney’s son Tagg — who had twins this year through a surrogate — signed an agreement that gave the surrogate, as well as Tagg and his wife, the right to abort the fetuses in non-life threatening situations … and Mitt Romney covered some of the expenses connected with the arrangement … and it may boil down to an incredibly stupid mistake.
The twin boys -- David Mitt and William Ryder — were born on May 4, 2012. We’ve learned Tagg and his wife Jen, along with the surrogate and her husband, signed aGestational Carrier Agreement dated July 28, 2011. Paragraph 13 of the agreement reads as follows:
“If in the opinion of the treating physician or her independent obstetrician there is potential physical harm to the surrogate, the decision to abort or not abort is to be made by the surrogate.”
Translation: Tagg and Jen gave the surrogate the right to abort the fetuses even if her life wasn’t in danger. All the surrogate has to show is “potential physical harm,” which could be something like preeclampsia — a type of high blood pressure that could damage the mother’s liver, kidney or brain, but is not necessarily life-threatening.
Paragraph 13 goes on:
“In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision to abort or not to abort is to be made by the intended parents. In such a case the surrogate agrees to abort, or not to abort, in accordance with the intended parents’ decision.”
And there’s another relevant provision in Paragraph 13:
“Any decision to abort because of potential harm to the child, or to reduce the number of fetuses, is to be made by the intended parents.”
Translation: Tagg and his wife, Jen, had the right to abort the fetuses if they felt they would not be healthy.
Sources connected with Mitt Romney tell TMZ, Mitt was involved in the surrogate arrangement because he paid some of the expenses connected with the agreement. We do not know if Mitt Romney read the contract or knew the terms.
Mitt has said, “I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother.” Otherwise, Romney is against abortion.
Now for the stupid mistake. We’ve learned Tagg chose the same surrogate in 2009, who gave birth to a boy. Attorney Bill Handel — a nationally-known expert in surrogacy law who put the deal together between Tagg and the surrogate — tells TMZ when the 2009 contract was drafted there was no Paragraph 13 providing for abortion because Tagg and his wife didn’t want it.
Handel says in 2011, when the second contract was being drafted, everyone involved “just forgot” to remove Paragraph 13. Handel says, “No one noticed. What can I say?”
“Mitt Romney’s attack on the moral character of disabled veterans, elderly and disabled Social Security recipients, and hard-working Americans in low-wage jobs because they do not pay income taxes is especially galling given the great energy he has put into evading income taxes on his very high income. Many of those whom Mr. Romney impugns pay a significant portion of their income in payroll taxes which support Social Security and Medicare. And until Mr. Romney stops hiding his own tax records, we can speculate that those people pay a higher percentage of their income in these taxes than Mr. Romney does on his foreign accounts, tax shelters, and other evasive devices.
What Mr. Romney has done is to make clear – although he had not intended to be so public about it – the philosophical rationale behind efforts of the Romney-Ryan ticket to weaken the Social Security and Medicare safety nets.”
-Rep. Barney Frank-
GOP Rep. Jim Jordan Supports Reinstating DADT If Romney Wins In November
Via Think Progress reports:
A leading House Republican wants to re-instate the military’s former ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy if his party takes control in November.
In an interview with ThinkProgress at the Values Voters Summit on Friday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said he “certainly” supports “going back to the previous policy” of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He left open the possibility that those service-members who have already come out of the closet, like Brig. General Tammy Smith, would be discharged from the military if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is reinstated.KEYES: Is [Don’t Ask Don’t Tell] something that you think the GOP will pursue reinstating starting in 2013 if they take control?JORDAN: I wasn’t for making the change that was made last few years ago in the lame duck session. I was certainly opposed to that, the change that the Obama administration made. We’ll look at guidance from our military, but I’m certainly supportive of going back to the previous policy.KEYES: What about those service-members who have already announced their sexual orientation? Are they going to get kicked out?JORDAN: That’s a military question. I’d have to think about how that would work in practice.Watch it:
Though first elected in 2006, Jordan is no back-bencher. He chairs the conservative Republican Study Committee, a group of more than 160 Republican congressmen dedicated to pushing conservative causes that wields major influence within the GOP caucus.If Jordan were to ask the military about reinstating DADT as he suggests, he would learn that the Pentagon believes that last year’s repeal was actually beneficial for unit morale, and that none of the concerns expressed by opponents of the decision have come to fruition. In addition, there was considerable support for lifting the ban on openly gay and lesbian people serving in the military from the heads of three of the four branches of the military even before DADT was repealed.
Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) has previously indicated that he would not like to see Republicans bring up Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but his opposition may not be enough to stop Jordan and the Republican Study Committee from reinstating the policy if the GOP prevails in November.