Bob Garon, Hero of the New Hampshire Primary

This is such a perfect combination of New Hampshire Primary presidential politics and local issues and stupid stereotypes and phony candidates, I could cry tears of joy. Meet Granite Stater and Vietnam vet Bob Garon:

Romney told Garon, who was chowing down on his everyday staple of scrambled eggs and shaved ham at the restaurant Chez Vachon, that he supports a repeal of the same-sex marriage law, prompting an emotional exchange.

…”It’s good to know how you feel, that you do not believe everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights,” the 63-year-old New Hampshire resident responded.

And this is just brilliant:

Afterward, Mr. Garon, who legally married another man in June, said Mr. Romney was not getting his vote.

“He told me that I’m not entitled to Constitutional rights,” he said. “I think a man and a woman and a man and a man should be treated equal.”

…”He is not going to make it,” he said. “Because you can’t trust him. I just saw it in his eyes. I judge a man by his eyes.”

So, does he agree with Mr. Romney on any issue?

“I kind of liked his health care plan in Massachusetts,” Mr. Garon said.

Get this man to Concord for the repeal bills!

Video here.

UPDATE: Just gets better and better:

Reporters asked Garon to explain why he had questioned Romney so intently.

“Because I’m gay, all right?” Garon said. “And I happen to love a man just like you probably love your wife. Alright? And I think that he or she or whatever are entitled to the same rights that I have. I fought for my country, I did my thing, and I think that my spouse should be entitled to the same entitlements as if I was married to a woman. What the hell is the difference?”

In one fell swoop Romney committed a huge fail while simultaneously hurting the marriage repeal effort here in NH. The more regular folks in NH who hear about this exchange, the better the chances that patriotic Granite Staters like Garon can keep their rights.

This could be the most remembered moment of the primary.

(find me > 140 on birch paper; on Twitter < 140)

, ,

  • Rep. Jim Splaine

    …in so many ways.  He deserves our thanks and our respect.  Mr. Romney, et. al., deserve neither.  

  • mevansnh

    and it will not sit well with many independents and others who support equality.  The Constitution says nothing about marriage.  Romney and his supporters seem to think that we’re still living in the 18th Century where “all men are created equal” meant white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian, wealthy land owners, or in the novel 1984 where some are more equal than others.

    • Dartmouth Dem

      But think that you are referencing Animal Farm, not 1984. (Same author)

      • mevansnh

        Thank you.

  • elwood

    saying that marriage was clearly between a man and a woman when the Constitution was written. (NPR had a story with audio.)

    Presumably Mitt doesn’t consider the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the law” a right — he relies only on the slavery-era rev 1.0 Constitution.

    It was pretty expensive to establish the 14th Amendment 150 years ago. It’s a shame that today’s Republican Party wants to relive those fights.

    • hannah

      “belonging to,” but being ruled by select authorities.  Government BY the people is anathema to them and really didn’t have to be considered until the SCOTUS determined that public officials are subordinate to the law. To a certain extent, they’ve come to terms with that by arguing that lawmakers can pass any laws and impose any restrictions they want on the rest of the population and leave themselves out. Controlling the money supply lets them make those restrictions real.

  • BurtCohen

    In case anyone had doubts, here it is.  

  • Granite Gnome

    what with the Vietnam Veteran hat and red flannel shirt, I’m sure he thought this exchange was going to be a slam dunk.

    It turns out we gays are a tricky lot and you can’t tell whether or not we’re gay by our choice of dress. Imagine that.

    Bob Garon makes me immensely proud of both my community and my state.  

  • DianeR

    Notice how guys like Mitt always preface their statements with “I believe…” as in, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.”

    He also believes a whole parcel of stuff I won’t even go into here. (I really, really want to stay away from religion.)

    Can we have a better reason, please? We don’t all share the same beliefs. Isn’t equal treatment for all citizens enough?

    • Lucy Edwards

      “I believe,” but he doesn’t believe anything that isn’t to his best interests at the moment he says it.  Unfortunately, this time he chose the wrong “belief.”  
      I wish I were a fly on the wall at the Romney campaign headquarters today as they try to figure out what he should “believe in” today.

  • mevansnh

    as a good Mormon that the Prophet Joseph Smith’s greatest revelation was that God’s plan for man was to have many wives, as his ancestors had.  Mitt and Huntsman are both descended from Parley Pratt, one of the founders of the LDS. Even though the church renounced plural marriage in 1890 in order for Utah to join the Union, to be a good Mormon one must believe the that Joseph Smith was the Prophet and that Joseph claimed this to be his greatest revelation.  Mitt probably won’t publicly state this belief, but he has to believe it, or else he is a fraud.

    • BurtCohen

      There’s a book called Manifest Destinies about the west in the 1840s. The actual history of Joseph Smith is jaw dropping. At first he claimed to have a hat which contained special secrets, which only he could see. I couldn’t make this up. For sheer entertainment, read up on Joseph Smith.

      • mevansnh

        is a well respected biography of Joseph Smith by Fawn Brodie, written in the 1960s.  Joseph began his career basically as your typical religious con artist, (i.e. Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson), but like those two, he began to believe his own hogwash.  Reminds me a bit of Newt Gingrich.  Glenn Beck may also fit in there, though I still thinks he’s conning his followers, laughing all the way to the bank, but then I could be wrong about that.

      • DianeR

        This one will keep you up late.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U

  • tchair

    Was the Morman church around when the constitution was written?
    What does that make Willard ?

  • Rep. Jim Splaine

    …when the U.S. Constitution was written.  Wonder what Romney et. al. have to say about that.  And we had no child labor laws, so we can’t wait till Gingrich chimes in.  And women couldn’t vote.  

    And I thought the entertainment value of the Republican 2012 cycle was vacuumed out when Sarah Palin decided not to run.  

    • hannah

      of their owners in the Constitution. And wives were the property of their husbands.  
      Contemporary human husbandry is more egalitarian.  Any person can be exploited, especially if they offer not resistance and “consent” to their subjugation, implicitly or by being disobedient.  
      In the culture of obedience, the subordination that used to be exacted from certain populations can now be exacted universally, ironically, by those who are supposed to be subordinate–i.e. our public officials.

      We have a problem.  It’s called insubordination.

  • FrankLloydMike

    I just watched the video and it’s even better than the write-ups or audio I’ve heard. In addition to asking Gov. Romney for his stance on the repeal of marriage equality, Mr. Garon also politely grills him about what the former governor, who is about the same age, was doing while he was serving in Vietnam. Gov. Romney may have been able to dodge the draft, but not so the tough questions of an honest Granite Stater.

    • Lucy Edwards

      None of Mitt’s son’s have served either.  Remember from 2008?

      • mevansnh

        When asked, Mitt said his sons were doing something more important, trying to get their father elected president.  But most good Mormons put the dog in a crate on the top of a car when going on vacation, right?

Site maintenance and hosting by Hoeferweb