Support NeoGAF

[User 406]

So what conversion would be acceptable to people frustrated with Portman?

The goal here is not to figure out how Portman can get us to love him.

So you can only be sincere in your support for SSM if you don't have a gay child? How much fucking sense does that make?

Jesus Christ.

Of course he's sincere in his support. Now. Only after his gay son came out. After years of ignoring gay people begging him for rights.

People are still missing the point that it's about being able to empathize outside of your personal sphere. That's what we should demand of our politicians.

Ever had to alter a stance on an ideological issue that was difficult for you?

Not like you did. But here's the thing. You took your switch in one area, examined it, applied it to the other right wing ideologies you subscribed to, and ended up changing the way you think on a whole raft of issues. That's a real conversion. I'd bet dollars to donuts that Portman's isn't going to learn the same lesson from this, and that he'll still keep voting against things people desperately need, except for gay rights.

The problem is that we need people who can genuinely change, not simply react.


Edit: Yglesias expresses it perfectly.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

He's not jumping on a train. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. As others have said, Portman's reaction is no different from that of millions of older parents/baby boomers in this country. He is not making some calculated move with alterior motives (after all, he could be primaryed over this), he is simply expressing his own personal evolution on the subject.

There are plenty of people who came around on civil rights due to personal connections with black people, or due to their children entering an interracial marriage and having mixed children. You can get on a high horse and reject that type of social transformation but realize you're rejecting how most people evolve on these issues.

Yep. My dad would use a certain yoddish term for black people when I was growing up. I would ask him to stop as I got older but he never did. He didnt think it was an issue. Well, after I started dating a woman who became my wife he stopped. Now that he has a mixed granddaughter he is much more sensitive and aware of such derogatory and offensive terms.

This is common for many people. Unless they are personally affected by an issue they don't fully appreciate how harmful their opinion is.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Eh. I think you're overestimating Portman's presence in the Senate. He's like Burr. Hardly anybody knows he's there.

Major VP contender, OMB director, a decade in the House, one of Romney's largest supporters, and considered one of the more influential republican senators today. Just because you didn't do your homework doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

The anger and dismissal over this borders on pathetic, largely because people can't take partisan blinders off. This happens every single day in America, and is the driving reason why people in their 50s and 60s are slowly moving in favor of gay rights. Not everyone is a 20-30 year old member of one of the most liberal generations in the country's history.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I really don't think many of you fully appreciate how difficult it is to alter course on such a religiously based stance.

 

[LilZippa]

How is this opportunistic? This could mean a very serious primary challenge for Portman. It's a pretty huge risk, actually.

I agree with you there he is not helping himself within the GOP ranks and I think the overwhelming reaction is good on him. You really are focusing on the ',but' of peoples comments.

 

[soul creator]

I really don't think many of you fully appreciate how difficult it is to alter course on such a religiously based stance.

which is precisely why we should always keep an eye on removing the mindset behind supporting the wrong positions, even while still recognizing the benefits of people changing their position. AKA "good for him, but...". For example, if that "religiously based" thinking didn't exist in the first place, this discussion wouldn't even need to be had (and gay marriage would probably have existed a long time ago)

Which seems to basically be what the majority of people are saying. It's not necessarily an either/or position, so I'm not sure why the "but..." is getting all the attention. It's possible to simultaneously go "good for you, portman" while still keeping your eye on the prize, so to speak.

And if Portman actually does support gay rights, he should recognize that as well.

 

[GaimeGuy]

How many of you who are condemning how he came to the decision or doubt he is genuine have ever been faced with doing a 180 on an issue such as gay marriage, in particular one built on religious indoctrination.

Not really religious, but...


When I was in elementary/early middle school I supported the death penalty. I didn't have an "AHA!" moment where I changed stances. I gradually reconsidered my views and had come to a different conclusion by the time I entered high school.

Didn't take me exposure to the death penalty or any criminals for me to change my thoughts; Just some critical thinking and reflecttion.

 

[GhaleonEB]

How many of you who are condemning how he came to the decision or doubt he is genuine have ever been faced with doing a 180 on an issue such as gay marriage, in particular one built on religious indoctrination.

This is a fair assessment. But I also think it highlights a lack of empathy, a failure to see things through another's eyes. Which is what a Senator is supposed to be doing. Now, if this epiphany of Portman's leads to more of the same, that's great.

And to be clear, I think it's a good thing that Portman flipped on this. Good for him. It's a personal issue made more personal by his son's situation, and the politics for the base of his party are pretty toxic. But he did it anyway.

But, to quote the rest of the yglesias piece:

Remember when Sarah Palin was running for Vice President on a platform of tax cuts and reduced spending? But there was one form of domestic social spending she liked to champion? Spending on disabled children? Because she had a disabled child personally? Yet somehow her personal experience with disability didn't lead her to any conclusions about the millions of mothers simply struggling to raise children in conditions of general poorness. Rob Portman doesn't have a son with a preexisting medical condition who's locked out of the health insurance market. Rob Portman doesn't have a son engaged in peasant agriculture whose livelihood is likely to be wiped out by climate change. Rob Portman doesn't have a son who'll be malnourished if SNAP benefits are cut. So Rob Portman doesn't care.​

I hope it leads to a series of further epiphanies.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Not really religious, but...


When I was in elementary/early middle school I supported the death penalty. I didn't have an "AHA!" moment where I changed stances. I gradually reconsidered my views and had come to a different conclusion by the time I entered high school.

Didn't take me exposure to the death penalty or any criminals for me to change my thoughts; Just some critical thinking and reflecttion.

You didnt have anythig to lose theologically to alter course. Also, not to downplay your evolution on the DP but much easier to do so as a teen than a grown man.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Also, not to downplay your evolution on the DP but much easier to do so as a teen than a grown man.

also true

 

[BertramCooper]

Kelly O'Donnell just said on On Point (NPR) that Portman told Romney about his son during the vetting process.

Romney's folks are saying it didn't have an impact on the veep choice.

Which is an absolute fucking lie, of course.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Not really religious, but...


When I was in elementary/early middle school I supported the death penalty. I didn't have an "AHA!" moment where I changed stances. I gradually reconsidered my views and had come to a different conclusion by the time I entered high school.

Didn't take me exposure to the death penalty or any criminals for me to change my thoughts; Just some critical thinking and reflecttion.

Good for you young man, but we're talking about people born in a more conservative, closeted era changing their views on an issue now that they're older. Portman is in his 50s. There are boomers in their early 60s who struggle with this issue too and come around due to a personal experience. I'm not going to knock that.

This reminds me of children born in the 60s vs their parents on civil rights. Those baby boomers were less shackled by prejudices than their parents largely due to growing up in a period of transition vs one of stagnation. We were talking about John Lewis a few weeks ago. One of the biggest turning points of the civil rights era occurred when white people turned on their televisions and saw young whites getting the shit beat out of them alongside Lewis and other blacks. I don't seem to remember MLK shitting on the support that moment spawned, or chastising whites for jumping on a moving train. That's what it takes for some people to honestly challenge their "that's just how things are" mentality.

 

[el retorno]

We were talking about John Lewis a few weeks ago. One of the biggest turning points of the civil rights era occurred when white people turned on their televisions and saw young whites getting the shit beat out of them alongside Lewis and other blacks. I don't seem to remember MLK shitting on the support that moment spawned, or chastising whites for jumping on a moving train. That's what it takes for some people to honestly challenge their "that's just how things are" mentality.

I mentioned this last night.

I'm really disappointed with liberal and progressives response to this. Its a moral superiority that makes them feel like a dirty conservative isn't as sincere in his conversion. I'm willing to bet the majority of those that now support gay marriage didn't their entire life and did so because someone they knew was gay and that played a part.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Good for you young man, but we're talking about people born in a more conservative, closeted era changing their views on an issue now that they're older. Portman is in his 50s. There are boomers in their early 60s who struggle with this issue too and come around due to a personal experience. I'm not going to knock that.

This reminds me of children born in the 60s vs their parents on civil rights. Those baby boomers were less shackled by prejudices than their parents largely due to growing up in a period of transition vs one of stagnation. We were talking about John Lewis a few weeks ago. One of the biggest turning points of the civil rights era occurred when white people turned on their televisions and saw young whites getting the shit beat out of them alongside Lewis and other blacks. I don't seem to remember MLK shitting on the support that moment spawned, or chastising whites for jumping on a moving train. That's what it takes for some people to honestly challenge their "that's just how things are" mentality.

Great points

 

[Fenderputty]

I mentioned this last night.

I'm really disappointed with liberal and progressives response to this. Its a moral superiority that makes them feel like a dirty conservative isn't as sincere in his conversion. I'm willing to bet the majority of those that now support gay marriage didn't their entire life and did so because someone they knew was gay and that played a part.

I'm one of those right here.

 

[el retorno]

A guy from the Human Rights Campaign on MSNBC is praising Portman for changing his view because of his son, "along with millions of other americans"

 

[soul creator]

Good for you young man, but we're talking about people born in a more conservative, closeted era changing their views on an issue now that they're older. Portman is in his 50s. There are boomers in their early 60s who struggle with this issue too and come around due to a personal experience. I'm not going to knock that.

This reminds me of children born in the 60s vs their parents on civil rights. Those baby boomers were less shackled by prejudices than their parents largely due to growing up in a period of transition vs one of stagnation. We were talking about John Lewis a few weeks ago. One of the biggest turning points of the civil rights era occurred when white people turned on their televisions and saw young whites getting the shit beat out of them alongside Lewis and other blacks. I don't seem to remember MLK shitting on the support that moment spawned, or chastising whites for jumping on a moving train. That's what it takes for some people to honestly challenge their "that's just how things are" mentality.

I think people are overstating the amount of "shitting" that people are doing to Portman. It's more like a light nugget of poop. Never mind the fact that people's comments are relatively mild ("good for him, but...") considering we're talking about a privileged US Senator, not some random family member or something.

The way I talk about a US Senator coming around to gay rights on a message board is very different from how I might communicate with, say, my mom or a fellow church member coming around on gay rights, so assuming that I would apply the same comments from NeoGAF to every single person I would interact with seems like a bit of a strawman.

MLK probably didn't shit on those people in public, because part of the strategy is getting those white "moderates" on his side, but it wouldn't surprise me if in Selma-GAF he was like "damn, I wish these white folks realized this shit earlier when my people were getting their ass beat...would've saved us a lot of trouble!"

 

[el retorno]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-were-actually-winning/#.UUM4H7xwOw0.facebook

McConnell to conservatives: ‘It may not seem like it now, but we’re actually winning.’


HAHAHA

The truth, McConnell continued, was that the Republican Party was fine. “Don’t let anybody ever tell you Democrats have the upper hand on issues. I don’t care what the polls say.”

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

While we would all love every individual to come to the decision that gay marriage is moral without having to be personally affected, that just isn't going to happen. How many folks who are against universal health care change their tune once they are out of work and can't afford to see the doctor? How many people who couldn't care less about how outrageous school loans are change their stance once they lose their high paying job and cannot afford to send their kids to school? How many people that believe food stamps are only for the lazy and shouldn't be supported by tax payer dollars have to actually lose their own job and need these same stamps to realize how wrong they are. This is how most people end up reversing course on deeply held and entrenched views.

 

[talisayNon]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-were-actually-winning/#.UUM4H7xwOw0.facebook

McConnell to conservatives: ‘It may not seem like it now, but we’re actually winning.’


HAHAHA

well he's succeeded in bringing Obama further right to appease them..he's not exactly wrong.

 

[B-Dubs]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-were-actually-winning/#.UUM4H7xwOw0.facebook

McConnell to conservatives: ‘It may not seem like it now, but we’re actually winning.’


HAHAHA

Oh man, keep fucking that chicken.

 

[el retorno]

well he's succeeded in bringing Obama further right to appease them..he's not exactly wrong.

Not really the 2011 compromises were further to the right than anything now I believe

Romney's talking now. These people are delusional. They are talking to old white people still. Minorities and young people don't buy this.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

well he's succeeded in bringing Obama further right to appease them..he's not exactly wrong.

How? He is talking about THE ISSUES. The issues that people argue the Republicans lost on: Immigration reform, gay rights, womens issues, being out of touch with the poor and middle class. These are all issues that they have lost on and are still losing on. Obama didn't go to the right of any of these.

 

[KtSlime]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-were-actually-winning/#.UUM4H7xwOw0.facebook

McConnell to conservatives: ‘It may not seem like it now, but we’re actually winning.’


HAHAHA



http://media.tumblr.com/568890a50f2421bd0714d13a771a6839/tumblr_inline_mj3dkaKEJV1qz4rgp.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]

He's probably right. No matter what The People think of a particular topic, the Republican Party probably has a means to circumvent our will.

 

[el retorno]

Romney:

Who came to the rescue of Europe when it faced its darkest hour and came to the rescue of others under the threat of tyranny, in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Bosnia, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq? Whatever you think of these interventions, the impulse behind them was liberation, not conquest. In all of human history, there has never been a great power that has so often used its power to liberate others from subjugation, to set the captives free. This we must teach our children, and never ourselves forget.

Keeps on giving, why do conservatives continue to defend unpopular wars the American people think were mistakes? There's no upside. There's not a large pro-vietnam war voting bloc

 

[User 406]

While we would all love every individual to come to the decision that gay marriage is moral without having to be personally affected, that just isn't going to happen. How many folks who are against universal health care change their tune once they are out of work and can't afford to see the doctor? How many people who couldn't care less about how outrageous school loans are change their stance once they lose their high paying job and cannot afford to send their kids to school? How many people that believe food stamps are only for the lazy and shouldn't be supported by tax payer dollars have to actually lose their own job and need these same stamps to realize how wrong they are. This is how most people end up reversing course on deeply held and entrenched views.

That's been acknowledged multiple times, and what we're saying is we expect better from our representatives.

Some of you guys are ignoring pretty much the central point of contention, which is not about how hard it is to change, or how old and set in their ways people are, or even purely about gay rights, but about the basic pattern of thinking that is unable to break out of personal spheres and concerns.

If you want to go back to civil rights era analogies, here's a better one. There were lots of white people who hated blacks, but had that one they knew personally who was "one of the good ones."

Just because the white man liked one or two black people and treated them well didn't mean he was no longer racist.

Well, gay rights just became one of Portman's "good ones". Now, will he figure the rest out and go march with MLK, or leave it at that?

Really, read Yglesias' article.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Romney:



Keeps on giving, why do conservatives continue to defend unpopular wars the American people think were mistakes? There's no upside. There's not a large pro-vietnam war voting bloc

There is a large pro-miliraty bloc. And this is the rationalization of that stance, that's all.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

That's been acknowledged multiple times, and what we're saying is we expect better from our representatives.

Some of you guys are ignoring pretty much the central point of contention, which is not about how hard it is to change, or how old and set in their ways people are, or even purely about gay rights, but about the basic pattern of thinking that is unable to break out of personal spheres and concerns.

If you want to go back to civil rights era analogies, here's a better one. There were lots of white people who hated blacks, but had that one they knew personally who was "one of the good ones."

Just because the white man liked one or two black people and treated them well didn't mean he was no longer racist.

Well, gay rights just became one of Portman's "good ones". Now, will he figure the rest out and go march with MLK, or leave it at that?

Really, read Yglesias' article.

And that is a fair point and all we can say is that time will tell. I am not going to judge him for what he MAY not do in the future on this issue. He has come out publicly that he is for gay marriage. Not gay marriage for his son alone or only those gays he does know. He came out for gay marriage for everybody. That is more than the racist white politicians who had one black friend did.

 

[soul creator]

Romney:



Keeps on giving, why do conservatives continue to defend unpopular wars the American people think were mistakes? There's no upside. There's not a large pro-vietnam war voting bloc

There is a decently sized "America is awesome at everything" voting bloc, and this is their typically awkward way of trying to appeal to that, heh.

I obviously doubt it'll work though.

 

[besada]

How many of you who are condemning how he came to the decision or doubt he is genuine have ever been faced with doing a 180 on an issue such as gay marriage, in particular one built on religious indoctrination.

Some of us get it right the first time. Are we to be judged as equals with a guy who didn't figure out until decades later? Are whites who changed their views only after the Civil Rights Act was on the floor the same as the young men and women who marched with MLK?

 

[PhoenixDark]

A guy from the Human Rights Campaign on MSNBC is praising Portman for changing his view because of his son, "along with millions of other americans"

Good to hear. I think HRC recognizes Portman represents a major driving force behind this movement. There are young people like us who firmly support gay rights and largely vote for candidates that reflect that; in many ways Obama is a symbol of that group. But there's a larger group of people who Portman represents, and they currently hold most of the power on this and many other issues. People with light opposition to gay marriage: they're for some basic gay rights but against gay marriage because of religion or "that's not how things are." And as they come around we move closer to the finish line.

Alan Keyes has a gay daughter, Newt Gingrich has a gay sister; both are still firmly opposed to gay rights. There are plenty of religious people like them, but I would bet the opposition to gay marriage is composed more of light support from generational folks like Portman than religious right/social values fanatics like Santorum. Which means their base is crumbling every day and will eventually just be what, 30-35% of the country that also thinks Obama is a Muslim and Hispanics are ruining the country?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Some of us get it right the first time. Are we to be judged as equals with a guy who didn't figure out until decades later? Are whites who changed their views only after the Civil Rights Act was on the floor the same as the young men and women who marched with MLK?

At the end of the day who is comparing those who got it right the first time or those who it took longer to get it right? The issue isn't you, I, or Portman. It's equality and Portman is one more person, a Republican Senator who has come out publicly in support of that.

 

[besada]

At the end of the day who is comparing those who got it right the first time or those who it took longer to get it right? The issue isn't you, I, or Portman. It's equality and Portman is one more person, a Republican Senator who has come out publicly in support of that.

Well, we are. History will take another stab at it later. You're asking us to praise the result and ignore the context, which doesn't seem necessary to me at all. I can both praise the result and notice the context. I haven't said anything negative about Portman, other than it took to long, which is the exact thing I said about Obama, who I'm also not spitting on.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Well, we are. History will take another stab at it later. You're asking us to praise the result and ignore the context, which doesn't seem necessary to me at all. I can both praise the result and notice the context. I haven't said anything negative about Portman, other than it took to long, which is the exact thing I said about Obama, who I'm also not spitting on.

I am not actually asking you or anyone to praise him. People shouldn't be praised for doing the right thing. My point is that one shouldn't try to damper his evolution on the matter simply due to his son being gay.

 

[besada]

I am not actually asking you or anyone to praise him. My point is that one shouldn't treat or try to damper his change simply because it was due to his son being gay.

Well, I wasn't doing that, here or in the other thread, so we're cool I guess.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Well, I wasn't doing that, here or in the other thread, so we're cool I guess.

I haven't seen anything you have said that I would take issue with so yes, we are =P.

 

[BertramCooper]

Well, we are. History will take another stab at it later. You're asking us to praise the result and ignore the context, which doesn't seem necessary to me at all. I can both praise the result and notice the context. I haven't said anything negative about Portman, other than it took to long, which is the exact thing I said about Obama, who I'm also not spitting on.

I don't see what is so disconcerting about the context.

Stories like Portman's are extremely common, and they've played a big part in shifting the public in the right direction.

 

[besada]

I don't see what is so disconcerting about the context.

Stories like Portman's are extremely common, and they've played a big part in shifting the public in the right direction.

It's not disconcerting, it's just later than I'd have liked and worth examining. I'm glad he finally had his moment on the road to Damascus. But there's also nothing wrong with pointing out that it's long overdue.

Neither age nor upbringing are good reasons to be discriminatory, although some people are willing to excuse people because of them. I'm not. That's probably because I'm keenly aware that we can choose to believe something different than what our peers and parents believe.

We are NOT bound by our times and our culture. In every era where men treated their fellow men as subhuman, there were people who understood the wrongness of those beliefs and spoke up long before society was ready to listen. Those people are admirable and should be praised in fullness. The people who finally listened to them when they were dead and half the country had already moved on? They deserve less fulsome praise. Not denunciation, just less fulsome praise.

 

[speculawyer]

Damn . . . even Joe Scarborough slapped down Ted Cruz as a clown.

Since arriving on the scene in Congress just a few months ago, junior Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has been outspoken in public appearances and hearings on issues including Obama’s cabinet confirmations, the Benghazi attacks. He recently had a dust-up before the Senate Judiciary Committee with his colleague, California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

That recent brawl has drawn the ire of MSNBC “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough. On his Friday program, Scarborough chastised Cruz and accused the Harvard Law graduate of being “willfully ignorant” on matters regarding the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“Did Ted Cruz not go to law school?” Scarborough said. “Did they teach Ted Cruz to read what the Supreme Court said especially in the landmark — the landmark — decision regarding Second Amendment rights? Over 200 years was written in 2008. And I’m just wondering, why would he use his seat on the Judiciary Committee, if he went to Harvard, to put forward a willfully ignorant statement about this bill violating the Second Amendment, because it does not. And Ted Cruz knows it does not. So who is he playing for? Is he playing for people who can’t read or are illiterate?”

http://news.yahoo.com/joe-scarborough-ted-cruz-willfully-ignorant-u-constitution-172035963.html

 

[Black Mamba]

Portman deserves neither adulation not scorn for changing his position on this issue. All that matters is that it's a good thing that his position changed.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Portman deserves neither adulation not scorn for changing his position on this issue. All that matters is that it's a good thing that his position changed.

Thank you. That is pretty much what I have been trying to convey but you have done it much more pithily.

 

[The Librarian]

Major VP contender, OMB director, a decade in the House, one of Romney's largest supporters, and considered one of the more influential republican senators today. Just because you didn't do your homework doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

True. I can remember the countless votes Portman helped McConnell strong arm Republicans into voting a certain way.

 

[fallagin]

Damn . . . even Joe Scarborough slapped down Ted Cruz as a clown.


http://news.yahoo.com/joe-scarborough-ted-cruz-willfully-ignorant-u-constitution-172035963.html

Yeah, Cruz is just being an asshole to get attention. Who knows if this will be healthy for his career though..

 

[mckmas8808]

Heh, I always feel like Chris Rock whenever a pope/Catholic Church is noted for supporting certain things

"Pope supports condom usage" = "I take care of my kids!"

Spoiler

that said, ever since watching this special, I have other issues now with the "niggas vs. black people" dichotomy Chris Rock uses. But that's for another thread

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the spoiler.

 

[The Librarian]

Obama preparing to use a Nixon-era law to make federal agencies consider the impact of projects on global warming before approving them.

Unbelievable that we have to rely on a law that's over forty years old to get this done.

 

[speculawyer]

Yeah, Cruz is just being an asshole to get attention. Who knows if this will be healthy for his career though..

It is probably good for HIS career as a Texan politician but it is terrible for his party as it portrays them as a southern nativist reactionary party.

Actually, it could end up bad for his career if Texas goes purple such that state-wide offices start requiring moderate candidates. But I'm sure there are plenty of local districts that he could win easily if he moves to Congress.

 

[PhoenixDark]

whoops
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/chris-christie-boy_n_2885338.html?1363376744

You can tell he knew he fucked up after he said it, due to him stumbling over his words

 

[speculawyer]

whoops
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/chris-christie-boy_n_2885338.html?1363376744

You can tell he knew he fucked up after he said it, due to him stumbling over his words

Yeah, I have my complaints about Christie but I'm not worried about him being racist at all.

 

[speculawyer]

Obama preparing to use a Nixon-era law to make federal agencies consider the impact of projects on global warming before approving them.

Unbelievable that we have to rely on a law that's over forty years old to get this done.

Well, it is a brilliant idea. If you know that you can't get any sensible new legislation passed, dig through the old law and see if there is something than you can enforce to help achieve your goal.

 

[speculawyer]

Well... there is the Americans with Disabilities Act

George HW Bush was definitely the best between Reagan, HW, and HW's child.