The elites vs. the people once again, as relayed by the New York Times:
"...Singer says, he’s providing $1 million to start a new “super PAC” with several Republican compatriots. Named American Unity PAC, its sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.
In an interview on Tuesday, he told me that he’s confident that in Congressional races, which would most likely be the super PAC’s initial focus, there are more than a few Republicans “who could be on the verge of support” or are “harboring and hiding their views.”
“And this kind of effort could be catalytic in generating some more movement,” he said.
Singer doesn’t court a high news-media profile. His willingness to meet at the Midtown Manhattan offices of his hedge fund, Elliott Management, and talk about marriage equality reflects the strength of his commitment to the cause. Although he is straight, he has a gay son and son-in-law who were married in Massachusetts, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2004."
15 Comments
Had he spent more time with his son growing up instead of amassing billions of dollars, maybe his son wouldn't have turned out gay.
Now he has to use that money to try and normalize his kid's relationship to assuage his guilt.
Imagine a candidate, a party, or a platform that always lost statewide races. The candidate almost always raised more money than his opponent both from in-state and out-of-state contributions. But he still lost. Quite often the candidate appeared to be ahead in public opinion polls. But when the votes were counted, he still lost. The candidate generally enjoyed strong support in the press and great support in the blogosphere…but the result was always the same. He lost. Occasionally, the candidate would get appointed to a position, but when he stood for re-election, the voters tossed him out.
In his most recent election, his opponent got 61% of the vote.
Nevertheless the siren song continues for not one, but both major parties to run the unpopular, but well-financed candidate again and again as rich donors are willing to back him will millions of dollars. “And this kind of effort could be catalytic in generating some more movement.” Indeed.
When billionaire Mitt Romney was donating to NOM were you singing the same "elites" song?
Garrett:
The people support marriage.
That's why you can't win an election despite your moneybags.
Mitt isn't exactly my first choice bout he's right on marriage and as long as he doesn't start waffling for gay cash like Obama just did......
He'll do.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a political contribution by a wealthy donor. But if Mitt Romney had lost every election in his career and every primary this year, then the continued viability of his candidacy and the wisdom of continued donations to him or by him would be called into question.
Had this billionaire spent more time with his son growing up instead of making billions, his son might not have turned out gay and the father wouldn't have to assuage his guilt by trying to normalize his son's relationship with a man. All those billions, yet he has to live with the heartache of having a homosexual son.
The only difference is, that candidate is widely viewed as a good and noble cause, a civil rights movement. That is why so many individuals continue to put their time and energy into this issue. Despite the losses, they are satisfied with what they have achieved thus far and hold hope in future gains.
Notice the double standard from this Garrett guy. He puts down Mitt because of his wealth and bashes this so called billionaire for supporting NOM. However when rich Hollywood liberals and wealthy progressive elites donate millions to the Dems and Obama it is okay.
Is it just me or has anyone noticed that if a person has money and supports Republicans the libtards rail about the influence of wealth on the election. But when the libtards get wealthy support from guys like Soros there is no outrage.
So are there now going to be republican groups for the Kyoto treaty, unilateral disarmament, single-payer healthcare, higher taxes, euthanizing everyone over 80 y/o, etc? Or is it only proper to abandon the voters for something that can make a quick buck?
And they say the GOP is owned by the 1%?
Didn't these snobby rich elitists try that in California and the state GOP there shot it down?
Good to know that even if the republicans in my home state don't won't win, they won't lose their soul.
@Overcame: Okay, ill bite. Is there an appropriate time spent with a child to keep them from being gay? What amazing insight you have! Did Dick Cheney spend too much time with his Daughter? How fascinating...
Ohmyword -
Parents have the responsibility to not only finance the raising of their children, but to form their children into good citizens, good people, Many people these days believe that public schools are supposed to take care of the latter items. I know of one set of parents who are unable to talk to their sons and daughters about sex; they are so happy that this topic is addressed in school so that they do not need to address it.
Parents who decide to disassociate themselves from their children oftentimes do not realize how their lack of participation can adversely affect their children. So when Johnny comes home one day and says that he wants to take Tommy to the prom, they are appalled and wonder how this could happen. And they look for anyone or anything to place the blame on. Or when my friends' son or daughter comes home with HPV because they were taught in school that sex is recreational activity with no consequences as long as one wears a condom, they'll never blame themselves.
Yes, a father can teach his son to be a man; to learn to not to be attracted to other men and/or to know not to act on any such attraction. This is not necessarily taught/learned by addressing the topic per se, but in day-to-day regular interactions in which the son can learn from that which the father does and says. I once made the mistake of showing my dad the Barbie doll that I dressed up; I assure you that I was quickly shamed out of ever doing that or any other "girl" thing again.
Of all my friends who identify as gay I can point to the issues that led to their sexual confusion, usually an absent father but sometimes just an uninterested father. Dads are important in turning their sons into men, notwithstanding those who believe that perspective to be ignorant or outdated.
@OvercameSSA - I presume you have evidence to support a claim that absent fathers can turn boys gay? That is view not held by psychologists or indeed any mainstream opinion. By all means hold your own views but don,t expect to be taken seriously.
Paul -
Not that I have much respect for those great "scientists" in the field of psychology, I understand that even they admit that there is an environmental component in the development of ssa and the adoption of a gay identity.
I do believe that a strong father figure who has a close relationship with his son can prevent his son from becoming gay; I also believe the converse - that the absence of a strong father figure - can at least render a son more susceptible to environmental factors that can make the son choose a gay identity.
So, while I don't have a study to point to (but his guy does: http://fathersforlife.org/dale/preventi.html), I believe that my hypothesis is worthy of serious consideration by anyone who has faith in the field of psychology.
When will NOM release the names of the elite billionaire donors that are supporting it? At least Paul Singer is not a coward and hiding. Come on NOM - man up!