On the Trail, Romney Not Eager to Engage on Gay Marriage Issue

Jae C. Hong/Associated PressMitt Romney spoke to the overflow area at a campaign event on Thursday in Omaha.

OMAHA – Mitt Romney rarely passes on an opportunity to respond to President Obama or the actions of the White House. But that is precisely what he did here on Thursday.

As Mr. Romney addressed hundreds of supporters while campaigning in Nebraska, one of the nation’s most reliably Republican states, the topic of same-sex marriage did not cross his lips. He urged voters to focus on health care, the expansion of government and the country’s debt burdens.

“I’m concerned about where we’re headed with this president,” said Mr. Romney, whose message echoed Republican leaders back in Washington who were intent on not becoming distracted by the president’s newfound declaration of support for same-sex marriage.

Since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Mr. Romney has struggled to keep the campaign conversation focused squarely on the economy. His economic speeches have been overshadowed by a series of unrelated events, including the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s killing and now, the gay marriage debate.

In a 10-minute speech along the Missouri River at Rick’s Café Boatyard and during a separate luncheon fund-raising event, Mr. Romney railed against the administration on a variety of topics. Marriage did not make his list.

But during a Thursday interview on the Fox News Channel, as well as in a series of local television interviews, the subject could not be avoided. He said that he “respects” the president’s decision and acknowledged differing viewpoints on gay marriage, adding, “This is something you can’t really convince someone about.”

As the president and his re-election team celebrated and sought to rally campaign donors to contribute money in wake of the gay marriage announcement, Mr. Romney said, “I don’t think the matter of marriage is a fund-raising matter.” And he implored voters to avoid distractions from “shiny objects” held up by Mr. Obama and his advisers.

“You have positions. You describe what they are,” Mr. Romney said in the Fox News interview. “Hopefully, people are focused on the major issues of the day.”

In the television interview, he called the marriage issue “tender and sensitive,” and renewed his objection to same-sex marriage. He called for “a national standard to define marriage between a man and a woman.” He said that he supported allowing gay couples to adopt children, but said that he did not view the gay rights cause as a civil rights issue.

In a half-dozen interviews with Republicans who came to see Mr. Romney, not a single person voiced an objection at his decision not to dwell on the issue of same-sex marriage. They said the election would be decided on the economy, health care and Mr. Obama’s first term.

“It’s none of my business. We don’t need to talk about it,” said Mo Birkel, 70, a retired custodian from nearby Papillion, Neb., when asked about gay marriage. “I can’t say if I’m for it or against it because I don’t know what my grandkids will be.”

Hal Daub, a former member of Congress from Nebraska and an enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Romney, said that it was wise for Republicans to avoid falling into what he called a “trap being set by Democrats.” He said that he hoped Republican activists followed party leaders and did not become distracted by gay marriage debate.

“There is a more tolerant viewpoint in the Republican Party,” Mr. Daub said. “You can see that here in Nebraska.”

View the original article here

Republican Candidates Engage in Group Therapy at the Thanksgiving Family Forum (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Part of a Republican candidates' Thanksgiving Family Forum that took place in a church in Des Moines, Iowa, seemed, at times, to be a session of group therapy rather than a group of politicians explaining why they should be president.

The behavior of the Republican candidates, sans Mitt Romney, shows how much American politics has changed. Edmund Muskie sunk his presidential candidacy by apparently crying in New Hampshire in 1972, giving the impression that he was weak. Now manly tears are required for people wanting to be president.

For example, Herman Cain welled up when he recalled getting the diagnosis of cancer that might well have killed him and how supportive his wife Gloria was at the time. Rick Santorum teared up when talking about how his daughter suffered through a chromosomal disorder and the shame he feels now about how he thought of her as less than a person until she fought back from the disease. She is still alive, something of a miracle. Even Newt Gingrich cried a little at one point.

As each candidate opened about personal tragedy in their lives, other candidates, including Rick Perry, visible sought to comfort them.

Telling tales of overcoming adversity and crises of faith is something new in American politics. Franklin Roosevelt would have died a thousand deaths rather that even mention his polio, not to speak of ruminating about his struggle against it. John F. Kennedy concealed his various health problems from the public, rather than use them to political advantage. As late as 2000, George W. Bush did not go on at length about his drinking problem, which he did describe in his memoirs, seeking to conceal a DUI conviction that almost sunk his campaign.

What has changed? Is it because Americans are suddenly comfortable with having leaders who have feet of clay and are ready to admit it? Possibly it involves a political act of jujitsu, admitting weakness in order to convey strength. The idea is that if one had experience a personal crisis or a personal failing and overcome it, one has become stronger for it. By so doing, one is seen as being prepared for the greater traumas that are inherent in being president. How effective it is remains to be seen. But for now, the confessional has become a feature of political life in America.

View the original article here