Mitt Romney, apparently struck with a fit of envy when he read Mark Sanford’s op-ed in the WashPost, shifted his Hummer into high gear in order to outrun our governor in speeding in the wrong direction.
Folks, this is the time to be finding common ground on a problem that we finally have a consensus about. It is definitely NOT the time to try to outdo each other in appealing to extremes.
Related Posts
Brad, the link “he succeeded” requires a password.
Ideologue = someone you can’t outargue on the merits so you resort to personal attacks.
No, LexWolf, an ideologue is someone who ignores the merits, and simply recites cliches from his little red book. Ideologues don’t think for themselves.
And Randy, I don’t know what’s going on there. It didn’t require a password when I linked it, and now I can’t get it at all. I’ll have to find another way to get it to you, but I’ll have to come back to it later; I’m late for an appointment…
Brad writes:
”
…an ideologue is someone who ignores the merits, and simply recites cliches from his little red book. Ideologues don’t think for themselves.
”
At what point would you consider your support of stay-the-course (in Iraq) crosses the line from a sensible, well reasoned, merit-based position into the realm of the ideaologue? If the surge fails will that be sufficient evidence that stay-the-course can only be supported by ideaologues?
Mr. Warthen feels that Mitt is an ideaologue? school choice, but it will be school choice of the government’s choosing, not the end-users or their parents.
How do you feel about “stay the course” in our public schools, which is precisely what is going to continue?
Oh sure, the “regime du jour” will tout positive change, and even invoke
Wouldn’t want to make those unions and career educrats mad.
“No, LexWolf, an ideologue is someone who ignores the merits, and simply recites cliches from his little red book. Ideologues don’t think for themselves.”
Looked in the mirror lately, Brad?
I look in the mirror constantly, and I haven’t seen a Mitt Romney or a LexWolf there yet.
bud, the people who believe that we can’t possibly abandon Iraq tend to be the least ideological people around — McCain, Lieberman, Graham. You can mischaracterize that as “stay the course” all you want, even though all of us have been critical of how the war has been conducted. What we want is change — we want it done right for a change.
Similarly, “stay the course” is an absurd way to characterize those of us who want to fix the problems with public schools, and who know that abandoning those schools is just as unthinkable as abandoning Iraq.
Sometimes there are things you have to do even though they are very, very hard to do. And only a fool approaches a difficult and complex problem from an ideological viewpoint. You keep asking, “What will work, and why don’t we do THAT?” But you don’t quit, not when the costs of quitting would far outweigh the costs of carrying on. And that’s the case with both Iraq and the public schools.
Brad, I keep asking (in different ways) and you keep avoiding an answer. At what point would YOU, Brad Warthen, consider our mission in Iraq a failure? (That moment came for me when the dome of the golden Mosque was obliterated by insurgents about a year ago). There has to be some set of circumstances that would clearly signal that continuing the effort is not worth the cost. If there is NO such set of circumstances then, by definition, that classifies you as an ideologue.
I look in the mirror constantly, and I haven’t seen a Mitt Romney or a LexWolf there yet. – Brad
Lol, clever reply.
The link still thwarted me, but my take on Romney is that he’s an ideologue wannabe with his “change of heart” now that he’s political ambitions have had a change of venue.
his
Brad, the mark of a true ideologue is that he doesn’t see himself as an ideologue even though it’s obvious to everyone else that he is extreme in his ideology. Further, an ideologue believes that everyone not sharing his own ideology is an extreme ideologist. And that, my firend, fits you to a T.
firend = friend
In other words, we are all adherents of some sort of ideology but only a true ideologist like you deludes himself into thinking he’s free of ideology.
Here’s an example of an extremist ideologue who doesn’t practice what he so loudly preaches to others:
“An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore’s global-warming horror flick, picked up an Oscar the other night for Best Documentary. Yesterday the Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued an inconvenient report on Gore’s own personal “carbon footprint.” The center obtained utility records from Gore’s mansion “located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville”:
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh–more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh–guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
And then we have someone who doesn’t preach what he practises but instead simply does it:
The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude
Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this “eco-friendly” dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.
A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.
No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.
This is President George W. Bush’s “Texas White House” outside the small town of Crawford.
In his first budget of 2001, President Bush proposed a 1,000% increase in spending on research for harnessing solar, geothermal, wind, and tidal energy, along with developing new fuels and engines.
The Democrats filibustered and blocked passage. They don’t want solutions. They want the issue as theirs for future campaigns.
Lex, here’s a little bit different take on Bush’s Crawford “ranch” home. Apparently it’s nothing more than a stage set created for PR purposes.
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=2053
“The obvious impression here is that Bush, being all PR show and no substance or real convictions, wants to cover all the bases.”
Bud, even if we accept for argument’s sake that Bush is “all PR”, you’ll have to admit that he is at least trying to cover all the bases. Algore doesn’t care – he just wants all the great unwashed to follow his pious screechings while he continues to live large!
You may have a bit of a point Lex. Al Gore should walk the walk. My prediction is he will drastically reduce his carbon footprint during the coming years. I believe he is an honorable man. What possible incentive does he have not to believe what he’s saying?
And, now for the rest of the story…
RTH, my computer won’t let me access your link. Briefly, what is the upshot of your link?
Green Lies And An Inconvenient Truth
Gotta love that hypocrisy!
Bud, Algore probably really believes all that stuff. In any case, making all those $millions from his hot-air speechifying surely would give him a powerful incentive to believe.
The problem is that he, like most high-profile enviros, doesn’t believe that they should actually have to lower their lifestyle. That’s only for the rubes and peons, not for the likes of Algore and his ilk who don’t want to inconvenience themselves in any meaningful way.
bud, here’s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvvMBHOrpLA
It’s Keith Olbermann’s rebuttal to the wingnut noise machine that Lexie so faithfully parrots.
bud, in short here’s KO’s points:
Gore’s 20 room house includes offices for himself and his wife plus a guest house and space for a security detail.
While the Gores don’t use geo-thermal heat they opted to participate in a utility program which costs 50% more in order to support renewable energy sources.
The Gores could have paid $5,893 less than their $16,300+ electric bill last year if they hadn’t chosen to reduce the carbon footprint of their house.
I wonder what Lexie’s carbon footprint would be if we considered commuting, office space etc. Of course, he wouldn’t NEED a security detail but any reasonable person would have to count that as a necessity for the Gores given the number of wild-eyed, gun/SUV addicted wingnuts running around.
Oh, yes, the “think thank” which flogged the story to the Sludge Report is an off-shoot of the American Enterprise Institute. As a policy whore for the petroleum industry and the neo-cons, AEI refuses to recognize global warming but does believe in the “everything is going swell in Iraq” fairy tale.
Left Logic: Ignore the facts if they were delivered by someone you don’t like because of an entirely different issue.
Or just fabricate a generic smear using a mix of the following slogans:
“..right wing..”
“..shills for..”
“..oil companies..”
“..petroleum lobby..”
“..gas guzzlers..”
“..the rich..”
“..CEO..”
“..gun nut..”
RTH, somehow it seems to me that W also seems to have a security detail around him at all times yet he makes do with a much smaller “carbon footprint” in Crawford. Why can’t Algore do the same?
Dd you know, BTW, that most oil companies, as well as other large companies, send a vast majority of their contributions to left-wing, anti-business outfits. Don’t ask me why but it’s a fact. The table at the bottom of that page is stunning, if you ask me.
In this analysis, we examined only those Fortune 100 companies that operated nonprofit charitable foundations that made grants to groups we identified as on either the political right or left. That reduced the number to 53 corporate foundations. (See page 20.) We examined the most recent tax- return filings for these foundations (IRS Form 990) and compiled the dollar values for grants and matching gifts to left-wing groups and right-wing groups.
The results are the exact opposite of the common perception. The Fortune 100 foundations gave more money to the political left. In fact, the grant-making was lopsided: The political left received nearly $59 million, while the political right received only about $4 million, a ratio of 14.5 to 1.
The Wildlife Conservation Society, which took in a huge $35-million grant from the Goldman Sachs Foundation, was the top beneficiary on the political left of Fortune 100 foundation giving. It was followed by the Conservation International Foundation ($4.5 million), the National Council of La Raza ($2.9 million) and the Nature Conservancy ($1.9 million).
The American Enterprise Institute received $575,000, which was the largest single Fortune 100 grant to a group on the right, followed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute ($325,000) and the Employment Policies Institute ($275,000).
Lex,
Let me get this straight.
You claim that it’s a “fact” that Big Oil contributes more money to the democrats.
To support it, you provide a link to a magazine that proclaims to be “leading the conservative movement” and has a giant Ann Coulter ad.
I assume you’ll next post a link to a Marlboro.com article in which it’s proven that smoking increases life expectancy.
Jimmy Carter shared Sunday that he’s lobbying Gore to run. I’m not sold on him, but Carter’s implicit endorsement speaks volumes to me about him.
I agree with Bud in that I believe Gore is an honorable man. I think he, like Dole in 96, got away from who he is and the voters took note.
Randy,
where the truth appears doesn’t matter. Truth is truth. These figures can all be doublechecked with the IRS — just do the same thing the authors did. Do you have any actual information that they are wrong?
If you prefer, here’s the original study:
Funding Liberalism With Blue-Chip Profits
The Gores made their fortune from oil profits from Occidental Petroleum. If Gore would give back all of that income, I may become an official Gorbot.
Lexie, where do you find record of the carbon footprint from Bush’s faux ranch?
Also, just as an initial reaction to the “study” of corporate funding left vs. right organizations, what makes keeping our environment unpolluted a leftist position? I’m happy to accept being labeled pro-environment. Of course, the corollary is that the right wing favors destroying the environment– which seems to be empirically evident.
Dave, why would you think that it’s incumbent upon Gore to “give back” proceeds from Occidental Petroleum investments? A more fair proposal: the Bush family should give back the capital (and substantial resulting investment profits) that they gained from doing business with Nazi Germany.
After all, Occi was (and is) a perfectly legal enterprise. In fact, petroleum has been responsible for much economic growth. Even now, we need petroleum products as we mitigate the environmental damage and move away from them a quickly as possible.
OTOH, some accounts have Bush organizations trading with the Nazis even after the outbreak of WWII.
Heh. The Rethugs just don’t change their dirty-tricks handbook.
Too predictable.
May I say, “I told you so?”
RTH,
you’re quite correct that environmentalism is not a left/right thing. We are all in favor of protecting the environment, regardless of our politics. Even though the likes of you would never admit it, even those eeeeevil Reps don’t want dirty air, dirty water etc.
However, there are different ways of getting there and the currently dominant collectivist, top-down, big-government approach to the environment is indeed very closely identified with leftism. How could it be otherwise since that is after all the standard leftist model: the rubes are all too stupid to live their own lives so they need you and your ilk to force them to do things the way you think they should be done.
Real environmentalists are the hunters and fishermen like NRA members Teddy Roosevelt and the Izzak Walton League who actually DO things themselves, who created so many parks and wildlife sanctuaries. Today, we can all enjoy the areas preserved from development by Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Wild Turkey Federation, etc.
The problem with too much of the environmental movement is that it provides a home and cover for socialists, who will just use any faux cause as a means to wrecking business and individual freedom of choice.
There have been studies of the typical pure environmental activists who are not socialists in disguise. The commonalities of their socio-economic profiles are interesting – urban, upper middle class, older white women comprise a large portion of them.
What differentiates the socialistic environmentalists is that their answers are always to have other people change, and for themselves to dictate the change.
standard leftist model: the rubes are all too stupid to live their own lives so they need you and your ilk to force them to do things the way you think they should be done. – Lexie
It’s the conservatives who favor governmental oversight of morals and values. Which party oversees attempts to ban gay marriage and flag burning,increase censorship, supported Terri’s Law, created the Iraqi War, and of course there’s the abortion issue. George Will differentiates between Southern and Western conservatism.
I’m certainly not suggesting the dems are not for government intervention. I pointing out that your analysis that it’s the dems who want to control the lives of “rubes” is shoddy.
Randy, the problem with conservatives is that they simply won’t acknowledge that the GOP actively uses the federal government to interfere with people’s lives. Take the medicinal marijuana issue. Has there ever been a more crystal clear example of the federal government interfering with a state’s right to pass and enforce laws? The Bush administration has used (or I shold say misused) the interstate commerce clause to override California’s passage of a law that allows physicians to prescribe marijuana. Since there are neither interstate nor commerce issues in play how do they get away with this crap?
Yet the the conservatives continue to suggest the GOP is the party that supports state’s and individual rights. You have to give them credit though. Millions of Americans actually buy their nonsense. The do an amazing job of marketing brand GOP.
Randy, just a few things to put your rant in perspective:
1. there would be no need to ban gay marriage if leftist activist judges weren’t trying an endrun around the legislatures to force gay marriage down the country’s throats even though most anti-gay marriage initiatives so far have passed by a very bipartisan margin of 60%-plus.
2. most current censorship comes from the Left. Just look at campus speech codes, sensitivity training, and the entire political-correctness apparatus – all from the Left.
3. there would probably be no great controversy about abortion right now if leftists hadn’t imposed it by judicial fiat. If this had been left to the states, I’m sure there would be no difficulty obtaining abortions. Instead we’ve had 34 years of needless polarization in this country.
I’m not sure how your other items support your argument.
Bud, the medicinal MJ issue is far from a partisan issue. Remember that Clinton was just as wrong on that as any GOP administration. For one of many examples click here (there are many more here). Personally, I think MJ should be legalized or at least decriminalized, whether for medical use or not.
By Lexie’s criteria, the government can “tell rubes what to do” in certain circumstances:
there would be no need to ban gay marriage if leftist activist judges weren’t trying an endrun around the legislatures to force gay marriage down the country’s throats – Lex
That’s an interesting “Libertarian” point of view, especially the vast number of states that have gay marriage thanks to these “activist judges”.
And Lexie, what about creating a “War”, getting a court injunction for the Schiavo issue, and passing abortion restrictions? Clearly, the GOP is willing pursue government intervention.
One more thing, Bud. That interstate commerce (IC) clause has been stretched beyond all recognition by both parties. Remember the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) a few years back which was based on the IC clause. While the prevention of rape and violence against women is surely a laudable goal, it’s not quite clear what it has to do with interstate commerce. Yet Dems pushed it through on that basis anyway. The Supreme Court struck it down.
Another example of the abuse of the IC Clause is wetlands regulation which often includes places far from any state borders, i.e. no IC is involved whatsoever.
I agree with you on the abuse of the IC clause, Bud, but this happens on both sides with IMO a preponderance on the Dem side. For better or worse, it’s become a catch-all “justification” for more federal government intrusion
“the vast number of states that have gay marriage”
Name five of that vast number!! Include the links.
Lex, how about gay marriage exists because gay people want to have the same partner benefits according to law that “traditional” marriages have? Gay marriage is an issue because gay people want to get married, not because a judge somwhere thought it was a good idea.
Touche Preston.
Lex, I was exaggerating in reply to your suggestion that such activity is rampant:
there would be no need to ban gay marriage if leftist activist judges… Lexie
Lex,
you defend GOP big government telling rubes what to do because of all these activist leftist judges forcing gay marriage down the throat of the country but then point out there aren’t even 5 states with pushing gay marriage.
You don’t see the contradiction?
When two gays get married, does one declare to be the wife, and the other the husband? In the marriage vows, serious question here.
That’s a tangent Dave. The point is Lexie the “Libertarian” criticizes the “leftists for telling rubes what to do” but turns a blind eye to the government intervention on social issues.
The merits in issues themselves is not what I was addressing.
Preston, if gay people want to get married then they should push it through the various legislatures just like everyone else has to do.
Randy,
no contradiction at all. Government isn’t forcing anything down gay people’s throats. Until recently there has never been same-sex marriage and apparently a large bipartisan majority doesn’t want to change that either. It’s gay people’s job to persuade people to change this situation through legislative action, not to have activist judges force it down the people’s throats. Defending traditional marriage is not government intervention – instead it is actually a defense against leftist intervention.
Lex, just ignore that elephant in the room, he’s not invasive at all.
I can’t imagine why anyone considers you an ideologue.
Since some homosexuals are also want to “decriminalize” sex with children, if they can create the legal fiction of “gay marriage”, their next push will be to include children and multiple partners in the definition. Some of the big proponents are friends of Pelosi and Feinstein. Do a Nexus search of the San Francisco Chronicle.
I agree with Lex on the IC clause. Both parties have grossly abused it. The only point I would add is this: Conservatives have routinely slammed liberals for trampling state’s rights but they don’t mind federal government meddling when it suits their agenda. Liberals openly admit they have no problem with federal meddling.
My question to you Lex, is why do you care? How does it effect your daily life if two people that you know want to have basic human rights? The whole “gay marriage” thing in a misnomer. “Marriage” in the context you are using is a religious deal. I think that we should call it what it really is, which is a civil union. I don’t think that Gays for the most part are looking for recognition by the church, but by the government. Social conservatives use “marriage” to act as if it is an attack on the church, rather than an attempt by gays to achieve societal equality.
What don you have against equality and human rights Lex?
Do you think child molestation is a “basic human right” of adults? That is what many homosexual activists assert as part of their definition of “gay marriage”.
The way homosexuals run through “committed relationships” at the rate of every 18 months, letting them call it marriage will fill up the courts with multiple “spouses” demanding a slice of estates and pensions.
Preston, this is an issue that should be decided democratically, in state legislatures, not by a few blackrobed ideologues.
It seems to me that gays are in this childish “I Want! I Want! I Want!” mode and a bipartisan 60% to 75% of voters are being parents and telling them no.
What do you have against democracy and majority rule, Preston?
Preston, Lex is defending GOP efforts to “tell stupid rubes what to do” (his words). Yet, this is the type of governmet intervention he criticizes…even though he supports government oversight of our schools (and posted an article about the Utah voucher plan as evidence).
I can’t keep track of where he stands. It’s political relativism.
Lex, I do have a problem withg majority rule in some cases. Gays are a minority, therefore they will never be able to constitute a voting majority. Along the lines of your arguement, if things were “states rights” as you propose, blacks probably wouldn’t be voting in South Carolina now. Hell, women probably wouldn’t have basic rights either. Am I wrong?
Yes, you’re wrong. Blacks and women do have basic rights, mostly achieved through legislative channels.
Would your “problem withg majority rule in some cases” just happen to be only in those cases where you didn’t get your way? In other words, if the majority decides the way you want it everything is fine — after all, the voters have spoken, right? But if the majority isn’t on your side, then we need blackrobed ideologues to jam things down their throats. Looks to me as if you’re trying to have it both ways.
Another example of government intervention doing good in society. Thanks for the example Lex. No wonder you want government oversight of your private schools.
What about Brown v. Board of Education? Just another activist judge? Do you know anything of history here in the South, Lex? I am most certainly not wrong.
Please answer this, how do homosexual civil unions negatively impact you in your daily life?
I don’t know how I missed this, but Mitt Romney actually introduced Anne Coultergiese at the CPAC conference with these words:
*********
“I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!”
**********
This woman has been nothing but vile for some time now. Sure she does it to sell books and make money but does the GOP hierarchy and Fox News still have to give her a stage for her garbage? What’s funny is that later Mr. Flip-Flop Romney denounced her remarks.
Recap: The leading GOP contenders for president are:
1. A cousin marrying, mistress keeping, thrice married creep.
2. A septagenerian war-monger.
3. A flip-flopping panderer.
When did child molestation become a “civil right” of adults?
Only in the minds of the radicals who support Pelosi and Feinstein.
Lee asks: When did child molestation become a “civil right” of adults?
Just ask any Catholic Priest. They can tell you.
Preston, what is this? The old if you’re not a teacher/police officer/soldier/doctor, you can’t talk about education/crime/military/medical care?
There are quite a few people on this blog who have no direct daily involvement in the Iraq War, for example, yet they yakk their heads off anyway.
Why don’t you tell those 70% or so who would vote against gay marriage in South Carolina that they shouldn’t vote if gay marriage has no direct daily impact on their lives?
70% of South Carolinians are complete morons. We are the dumbest, least enlightened group of people collectively in the US. You are proud of this?
No direct involvement in Iraq? If you pay taxes to the US government, you are directly involved. Period.
I don’t care what 70% of people here feel because they are wrong. It is a sub-human bigoted viewpoint. That is my point. If it doesn’t effect you, why the outrage?
As an example, I find Moromons’ beliefs offensive, but am I here saying that they should be banned? They have more of an impact on me than gay marriage has on you because they actually knock on my door and disturb my peace.
I guess some people will never be happy until there is somone weaker than they are to pick on.
Throwing the Catholic Church molestation scandals up in our face is a poor defense of homosexual child molestation… since 95% of the priests caught in that scandal were homosexuals.
Thanks making my point.
The way homosexuals are proposing to decriminalize child molestation is to redefine “marriage” to include an adult with serial and multiple juvenile “spouses”.
Priests, who cannot marry, would not be able to avail themselves of this legal ruse.
Lee, why don’t you go crawl back under your rock. To throw out the vile, idiotic crap that you come up with really is disgusting. Did you learn this from Ms. Coultergiese, the queen of bad taste?
There is not self-respecting homosexual that wants to in any way decriminalize child molestation. All proposals related to the gay agenda deal strictly with consenting adult issues. If you want to argue those points fine, but leave this child molestation crap out of the discussion. It shows you to be nothing but an illiterate moron.
Whoever becomes our next president will be hard pressed to compete with the wisdom of the Decider. Here’s a choice quote from our leader while he was touring the devasted town of Enterprise Alabama:
“This is a town that refuses to be devastated.”
Bud, that is a derivative of the phrase “Refuse to Lose”. Actually he was paying the town a real compliment. Give him credit.
bud, you cannot dispute the fact that almost all the priests in that molestation scandal were homosexual child molesters.
Of course there are lots of decent homosexuals who oppose legalizing child molestation, but they are not running the political agenda – the radicals are, and they are friends of Pelosi and Feinstein.
When did child molestation become a “civil right” of adults? – Lee
Just ask any Catholic Priest. They can tell you. – Bud
Bud, would your clarify your statement? It comes off very badly.
Randy, I was stooping to Lee’s level. It was an ill advised reference to the Catholic Priest scandal. Lee has outrageously accussed liberals of supporting child molestation. I was acting in kind by attacking a conservative institution. It was indeed a cheap shot.
Thank you Bud.
I have also fallen victim to the double E blogger. Even Demarco jumped into the mud pit a couple weeks ago.
Take a shower and hop back in here!
If you had a serious answer to the fact that the priest molestation scandal was almost entirely homosexual molestation, you would not be playing games to avoid the issue.
The same goes for the fact that Pelosi and Feinstein are politically aligned with radicals advocating the repeal of child molestation and statutory rape laws.
Again, Lee, where’s your proof?
We’re not a bunch of your pre-Alzheimer retiree pals at the Dunkin’ Donuts. Don’t insult our intelligence with these ridiculous, unsubstantiated slanders.
Nancy Pelosi and former San Francisco mayor Diane Feinstein have been long time supporters of the so-called “Gay Pride Parade”, and friends of its organizer, Harry Hay.
The 2001 article in the San Francisco Chronicle shows Nancy Pelosi marching alongside Harry Harry in that parade.
Harry Hay was a vociferous advocate of using children for his pleasure and abolishing laws against statutory rape and child molestation.
Can you find any statements from Nancy Pelosi or Diane Feinstein denouncing Harry Hay or his philosophy? If so, please post the citations.
Wake up! Stop playing the idiot party line. Mitt did not save the State of MA. He buried us! He cut state funding to the towns to balance the state budget. This made him look good initially. What happened was the towns raised our property taxes through the roof to make up for the short fall. Our schools cut programs, our libraries closed, and many programs were shut down. He wasn’t even here the last 2 years of his term, he was preping for the big job. He is a liar! He left the next govenor a 1 Billion dollar deficit. He didn’t balance anything but his own check book! Forced healthcare, the highest cost of living in the country, I believe 3rd in taxes. Are you kidding me?! I may have to move out of the state to take care of my family…Oh yea, look at how many people and businesses are leaving the state because it is too expensive. Mitt beat the hell out of us! Stop the lying Mitt and face it, you want fame and the spot light, you don’t care about anything but you! Look at his record in the state! Not what he is blabbering about. Screw the olympics! It didn’t do anything for America! Just wake up people!