Friday, November 11, 2005

If a Donkey Brays in the Wilderness...

Brylcreem adWoe to our own Captain Brylcreem, a.k.a. Governor Willard Mitt Romney. He went to D.C. and all he got was coverage in the Boston newspapers.

Speaking to the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, he let a KKK zinger in his introduction pass unchallenged. Then he made a personal attack on the four SJC justices who decided same-sex marriage here.

Clearly, our Cap'n has not abandoned his dream of parking his twin hair brushes on a White House lavoratory vanity.

Amusingly though, while he was posturing and strutting, no one outside Route 128 noticed. Both local papers here mentioned his appearance before the reactionary Federalist Society, but neither the wires, nor broadcast, nor the Times, nor even the Washington press paid any attention. Instead, at the same conference, Samuel Alito's long-term membership was news and Karl Rove's speech insulting democrats was big news.

So our Cap'n, still hungry to be POTUS, must have thought big thinks in planning his oration. What if he gave a speech and everyone was updating his PDA at the time? Did he really deliver?

Not Funny

Well, the Klan introduction made both our provincial rags. The Herald hides it on page six in KKK crack miffs Mitt's Dem foes. For some bizarre reason, the Globe led with Romney's speechlet.

That was a stupid line in Romney's intro by New York lawyer Gerald Walpin – "Today, when most of the country thinks of who controls Massachusetts. I think the modern-day KKK comes to mind, the Kennedy Kerry Klan." The insensate Cap'n and the regressive Federalist Yahoos laughed. He subsequently claimed he was cruising his notes. Right. Since then, normal humans have pointed out the unbelievable crassness of the remark and he has tried to distance himself from it. Too late.

Dissing Maggy

Our Cap'n came to the podium pandering to the Federalists by making personal slurs on the four judges who clarified the legality of same-sex marriage here. Rather than disagreeing, he went ad hominem.

If a judge substitutes his or her values for those values that were placed in the constitution, they do so at great peril to the culture of the entire land...Now my judicially, philosophically oriented liberal fiends were happy, even celebratory. What' wrong, they say, with allowing judges to expand the constitution to do what they and other intelligent people think is the right thing to do?

He added that the court has a choice – "the law or...the social proclivities of the community of thought (with) which the court associates." Cap'n speak: "Will be it the law, or will it be social congratulations?"

The justices' simple finding that the commonwealth's constitution and other laws do not have and never had enshrined discrimination. This blog has covered this many times, including here. There was no legal, no constitutional justification for denying marriage to same-sex couples. That's the law here, Cap'n. Read it and weep.

Po' POTUS Possibilities

So poor Cap'n Brylcreem insulted his commonwealth's highest judges, accusing them of putting gut over mind, liberal clique over duty. But he didn't even come home with a Federalist Society t-shirt.

Someone may point out that he and the legislature had about two years to act before the SJC got to the case. They could have tried to put discrimination on the books. They thought about it. They idled impotently.

1 comment:

worldcitizen said...

"Will be it the law, or will it be social congratulations?"

Yes, not hating gays is sort of like eating brie or driving a Volvo--nothing but Cantabrigian snootiness. Real 'Mericans snarf cheese doodles and drive Fords. And drink Bud from a can. *Be-e-e-elch*

Ugh, he sickens me so.

UpTweet