|
|
May 25, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Yes, We Can Walk and Chew GumPosted on May 18, 2012By David Sirota One of the most overused metaphors in a writer’s arsenal is the one about “walking and chewing gum at the same time.” As a hiker and Big League Chew enthusiast, I particularly hate this cliche. Nonetheless, I feel it is fitting right now because it so perfectly summarizes the argument being made by Republicans. They now insist that America cannot simultaneously walk the walk on equal rights and also chew economic gum. In the last week, Colorado was the testing ground for this talking point. At the presidential level, Republican nominee Mitt Romney criticized a Denver television reporter for daring to ask about his position on, among other issues, same-sex marriage. Before restating his opposition, he scoffed at the question, asking: “Aren’t there issues of significance that you’d like to talk about [like] the economy? The growth of jobs? The need to put people back to work?” At the same time, Colorado’s Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty twice blocked a vote on a bill to legalize civil unions. His rationale? “We should not be spending time on divisive social issues when unemployment remains far too high and [when] far too many Coloradans remain out of work,” he said. Echoing that sentiment, the shadowy Republican front group Compass Colorado financed an automated telephone call telling thousands of voters that the push for civil unions was unacceptable because it is “promoting (a) divisive social agenda over Colorado job creation.” Obviously, it’s perplexing to see the Republican Party allege that social issues are insignificant and “divisive.” This is, after all, the party whose most recent presidential nominating contest was dominated by attacks on contraception—the same GOP whose politicians have made an art out of riding a “guns, God and gays” agenda to electoral victory. But while such naked hypocrisy is enraging, the substance of the Republican rhetoric about gay rights is downright offensive. Essentially, conservatives are asserting that we cannot extend equal rights to all Americans and fix the economy. In the process, they are deliberately insinuating that the twin goals are somehow contradictory. Advertisement In light of such achievements, would anyone retroactively argue that America should have opposed the campaign to let women vote because the economy was so bad in the early 20th century? Would anyone insist that lawmakers should have halted civil rights legislation in the 1960s because there was a simultaneous need for a war on poverty? Probably not, because most of us recognize such arguments for what they are: diversionary non sequiturs whose real goal is to preserve institutional bigotry and prejudice. That’s the objective of today’s GOP when it comes to rights for same-sex couples. For proof, just consider the abruptness of the shift: the Republican Party that spent the last decade insisting that we should simultaneously cut taxes, prosecute foreign wars and fight to limit a woman’s right to choose an abortion now suddenly says we can’t even discuss equal rights because of a recession. The language changed not because the new “can’t walk and chew gum” mantra makes sense (seriously—would any sane person really claim that a bad economy justifies continued persecution of lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people?). It changed because the cause of equal rights is involved. And, clearly, that cause is what today’s Republicans are now most committed to stopping—no matter how much their flawed logic indicts their credibility.
© 2012 CREATORS.COM  TAGS:
|
A Cooler Century? Wait and See
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By oddsox, May 22, 2012 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment
Marian G, I guess we’re just going to disagree about the nott-Mitts—and we’ll never know for sure.
But if he gets the chance, Romney should have little trouble out-performing Obama with the Economy. There will likely be a bump upon his election alone.
The “great unknown” w/Romney is whether he will recognize the importance of supporting SMALL business.
Unfortunately, Obama is already a known quantitiy on that front.
Report thisBy Marian Griffith, May 22, 2012 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
@OddSox
At least 6 on your list would have had trouble walking and chewing bubblegum at the same time. Of two I am not convinced of their literacy. And all but 2 can not find a country on a map without somebody pointing it out for you. Oh and one is so self-obsessed that he would be impossible to prise away from a mirror.
Obama may not have done what you hoped he would these past almost 4 years, but the bar he set is still quite a bit higher than any of the republican clown car candidates can even dream of reaching.
Report thisBy oddsox, May 20, 2012 at 4:07 pm Link to this comment
OzarkM, you write:
...“i will like it even less when Mitt (tries to squelch me, as did the Dems). And you know he will.”
Nah, I don’t know that.
I’m gonna disagree with Romney on some social issues: Civil Unions, abortion, others I’m sure.
But the Economy is the #1 issue and the sine qua non, if you dig my Latin.
All I know about Romney is he’s gonna be the nominee and he’ll likely do better with the Economy than Obama will with another 4 years.
According to latest polls, most Americans agree—it’s pretty much common sense.
But I’ll take it a step further: IMO, ANY alternative to Obama would have done better economy-wise: Paul, Santorum, Newt, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman, Daniels, Pawlenty, Trump, Christie— ANY of them, take your pick.
And, yes, even Palin.
Sorry, Truthdiggers, but face it—but it’s a very low bar to clear.
Report thisBy OzarkMichael, May 20, 2012 at 10:23 am Link to this comment
heya oddsox, good post.
It seems to me that when Republicans did take a principled though unpopular stand on social issues that the Truthdiggers used to call that “being divisive”. i cant remember what it was exactly, but i think i recall that Bush(or Reagan?) was blamed for being “the most divisive President in history”. Maybe Sirota himself wrote that. Oh the nakedness of hypocrisy!
But in my opinion we need to hash the social issues out more. Push eachother to think no matter whether the economy is good or bad. I didnt like it when the Dems tried to squelch me and i will like it even less when Mitt does the same. And you know he will.
Report thisBy americanme, May 19, 2012 at 10:36 am Link to this comment
Gerald Ford couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
He was always falling down.
is he still alive?
Anybody remember that guy who pardoned Nixon and opened the floodgates for justifying criminal behavior: If the president does it, it isn’t illegal.
It doesn’t matter one whit if you can walk and chew gum—when folks who CAN’T have that much power.
Report thisBy prisnersdilema, May 19, 2012 at 9:44 am Link to this comment
Well some of us can, anyway….
but then that depends on what your thinking about anyway….doesn’t it?
What Sirorta, doesn’t seem to get are his own points, that those in power detest,
the voters who they have duped into voting for them, and their laughter and
derision of us fills the air….while the great mass of us is too deaf to hear it.
Its the self satisfaction of the Carnival barker, who has tricked the rubes, one more
time. Who sitting in his aluminum trailer reflects on his actions with pride. The
people are just cattle to be herded, with the right words.
As long as the magic words, are spoken, then the zombies will continue to march
down the midway, stuffing themselves with cotton candy, until the moment they
reach the slaughter house door. Where they will then be charged, once again for
the drugs, and medications, that will finally finish the job, leaving their families,
deeper and deeper in debt. Yet denied the ones that could have saved them.
Suitably certified by their Doctor and the FDA.
As Mark Twain Said, it’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have
been fooled.
So why wouldn’t they laugh at us? How could they respect us, even just a little…..
Report thisBy oddsox, May 19, 2012 at 7:00 am Link to this comment
Sirota creates a straw man here, then turns him 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
Romney has learned from Santorum’s mistakes and is wary of social-issue traps laid for him by the activist media who clearly favor Obama.
His best (perhaps only) trump card is the Economy, so it’s no surprise he would rather redirect focus there whenever he can.
Evidently, other Repubs are following suit, but none of this is “naked hypocrisy,” a polarizing phrase Sirota is fond of flinging about wildly.
Jobs and the Economy are rightfully the top issues for this year’s elections.
Other issues are important, sure.
But it’s Social Issues that are being used as a distraction from the Economy, not the other way around as Sirota claims.
For the record, I disagree with Romney on Civil Unions—there are no good reasons to deny same-sex couples this vehicle for equal rights.
Report thisBut I agree that Marriage is defined as between ONE woman and ONE man.
(emphasis for irony, Mitt being a Mormon and all)
By balkas, May 19, 2012 at 6:49 am Link to this comment
is there a war [maybe we shld use words effort, struggle, campaign, striving, etc.,
Report thisinstead of war] on poverty?
or a constant, never-ending struggle for poverty? in other words, isn’t poverty-
riches manufactured or waged by all of us, but under the leadership of the ‘elite’?
or since it exist, how else, then, did it come into existence? or if willed by god,
isn’t god then evil?
and does it mean that since poverty or economic chasm between people exists,
that it must be right/lawful and for an eternity?
it seems that 98% of americans think so!
By balkas, May 19, 2012 at 6:24 am Link to this comment
talking about zimmerman and/or martin is even more divisive than talking about
Report thisthe same-sex unions. none of us mention or talk about unemployment when we
talk about martin or zimm. and that event is by far more divisive than most major
issues.
shld we be shamed or castigated?
on the other, congress is not divided at all on palestina, bailouts, jobs, iraq, iran,
libya, syria, killing ‘aliens’, etc.