ALL RIGHT, WE GET IT! Mitt Romney

Outgoing Massachusetts governor and likely presidential nominee Mitt Romney wants to make one thing perfectly clear - he hates gays. That's basically the only conclusion I can come to after Mitt spent the past few days all but wearing a sandwich board proclaiming his hatred of all things gay.
First up "gay = bad" crusade was the revelation that Romney will ask the state's highest court to order a ballot question on same-sex marriage if legislators fail to vote on the matter when they reconvene in January.

Romney said he will ask a justice of the state's Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers do not vote directly on the question Jan. 2, the final day of the current session. Romney's term as governor expires Jan. 4.

The legislature is in recess and, because it did not adjourn, Romney has no legal authority to call legislators back into session.

Romney, an opponent of same-sex marriage, made his announcement to the cheers of hundreds of same-sex-marriage opponents at a rally on the Statehouse steps. A counter-protest was held across the street.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that same-sex marriages are legal. Since then, more than 8,000 gay couples have tied the knot in the state.

Yes, faithful readers, gay couples have had the right to marry for three years now and there has not been a single report of a civilization-ending flood or fire come to wipe the unholy land of Massachusetts off the globe. And no, there's been no enormous hole opening up underneath Boston either to swallow our modern day Sodom and Gamorra. Yet there's Mitt, out there like some deranged nitwit holding up his metaphorical "The End is Near" sign.

Of course, Romney isn't satisfied with simply stripping gays of their civil rights; now he's hoping to up the suicide rate among gay teens. At least, that's what it looks like to me when he decided to cut funding to gay youth suicide prevention programs.

Last week Bay Windows reported that Gov. Mitt Romney’s $425 million in budget cuts announced this month included extensive cuts to HIV/AIDS and LGBT-related programs, but that the extent of those cuts was not completely known. One of the question marks was the Department of Public Health’s (DPH) Supportive and Healthy Communities for Gay and Lesbian Youth (SHCGLY) programming aimed at reducing LGBT youth suicide, which had originally been allocated $350,000 for the Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07). Kathleen Henry, chair of the Massachusetts Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, said this week the commission has learned that the cuts will include $100,000 from the SHCGLY program budget.

...

“[Those cuts] coupled with the events over the weekend about ‘letting the people vote,’ that whole issue, it certainly seems like our community is being used as some kind of target practice for future political ambitions,” said Henry, referring to Romney’s Nov. 19 rally at the State House in support of an amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Hmmm, methinks Ms. Henry may be onto something there. An outgoing governor is doing everything he possibly can to wring every last bit of gay hate out of his agenda before leaving office January 4 by rehashing what is to many people a dead issue while also cutting funding to social programs primarily beneficial to gays. I think about the only other thing he could do to convince the anti-gay voters in the coming primaries of his sincerity to their plight is to actually start lighting random gay people on fire. Of course, I probably shouldn't be giving a hatemonger like Mitt such ideas. I know it's far to early to make too many predictions about the upcoming presidential primaries, but I think Romney's got the "I hate gays" voters locked up. Either that, or the other GOP contenders have got a lot of ground to make up if they hope to court this crucial swing vote.

POSITIVE VISUALIZATION - Newt Gingrich

Continuing my mad obsession with all things Prez '08, I bring you the comedy stylings of Newt Gingrich. Until now, it was only speculation that he would make a run for his party's nomination. Now, he's working on the plan; nay, not a plan, rather a movement that will become so powerful that he will have no choice but to acquiese to the will of the people and simply become president.

"I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen."

Maybe I'm just picking at semantics here, but it's just such an odd way of courting voters. It's sort of like a bizarro version of LBJ's decision not to run in 1968: 'I'm not asking for your vote, but if chosen by the solemn and unsolicited approval of my legions of loving followers, I will humbly accept the post.'

As Shelly Lewis reminds us, Newt's list of offenses is an extensive one, including

[...] the ethics issues, the creation of the sleazy, bullying Republican revolving-door lobbyist system now known as the K street project, and the pouty government shutdown he orchestrated in a losing battle with Bill Clinton[.]

With a resume like that, let's hope that people do not find his amazing panaceas all that compelling so that we can continue to consign him to the dustbin of history.

NOTE TO SELF: STOP OBSESSING

Anonymous Liberal, guest blogging over at The Carpetbagger Report, splashed some metaphorical cold water on my face yesterday as he gave a look at some early 2008 presidential polling. As I've noted numerous times, I enjoy the early polls and straw polls especially. No rhyme or reason I suppose; I guess I just enjoy the hazy look into the future they can provide. Well, AL is having none of it.

The basis for his disdain is a new Pew poll out with its early frontrunners:

Republicans
Rudy Giuliani……….27%
John McCain……….26%
Condoleeza Rice…..21%
Mitt Romney………..7%
Newt Gingrinch…….6%

Democrats
Hillary Clinton……..39%
Barack Obama…….23%
John Edwards……..10%
Al Gore…………….10%
John Kerry…………7%

So what does this mean? Is Hillary a lock? Is Giuliani in the driver’s seat? No and no.The bottomline is this: these polls are all but meaningless. Perhaps nothing illustrates this point better than looking back at polls from this point in the last election cycle. For example, a Fox News poll conducted in January of 2003 (which was closer to the election than we are now) reported the following results:

Joe Lieberman……29%
Dick Gephardt……15%
John Kerry………..13%
John Edwards…….8%
Al Sharpton……….5%
Howard Dean……..2%

In fact, throughout 2002 and much of 2003, Joe Lieberman led in virtually every poll. Did that mean that Lieberman had some deep base of support among Democratic primary voters? Of course not. All this reflected was the fact that Lieberman had the highest name recognition of anyone in the field by virtue of his status as the Vice Presidential candidate in 2000.

...

Take Rudy Giuliani, for example. He polls well because most people know who he is. But I suspect most Republican voters don’t know very much about the guy, and the more they learn, the more likely they will be to reconsider their support. Conversely, most Republican primary voters don’t know who Mitt Romney is. But, like Howard Dean in 2004, Romney may well emerge as a real contender as we get closer to the actual primaries.

The Democratic side is even more interesting. Four out of the five candidates topping the polls are people who have significant name recognition. Gore, Kerry, and Edwards are all former national candidates. And Hillary is, well, Hillary. But notice that the least well known (by far) among the five, Barack Obama, is already polling at 23%. That strikes me as far more significant than any other data point in the poll.

And, of course, you always have to be on the lookout for the person who will inevitably emerge from total obscurity to become an important player. It happens almost every cycle.Long story short, don’t read too much into these polls.

I think AL makes some really excellent points, including the name recognition factor. One candidate in particular, Romney, is someone who I'm favoring given my big love for governors-as-prez-candidates and the fact that he's putting together quite an operation (the guy just bought Clear Channel for crissakes!), including his courting of bigtime Bush donors. And his last paragraph lends credence to my Mike Huckabee theory, as he fits the bill of obscurity while still being a governor (Arkansas). His time is growing short to make a big splash, but I still see him having potential.

On the Dem side, he also makes a good point about Barack Obama, a man who entered the national scene in a somewhat limited capacity just two years ago. For him to already be polling this strong this early bodes well for him.

Still, AL does make the most important point of all; this stuff means next to nothing. Still, if nothing else, I'll be able to look back on this 18 months from now and see just how right or wrong some of my ramblings may have been.

MORE FLIPPITY FLOPPITY - John McCain

Continuing his efforts at giving sloppy wet kisses to the far right wing he chose not to court back in 2000, McCain took a huge jump into the realm of wingerville today by supporting the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Of course, back in 1999, John "Moderate Edition" McCain claimed that overturning Roe would be dangerours for women and would not support such a move. From Think Progress:

I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.

Seven years can apparently change a man's mind, as John "Right-Wing-Jerry-Falwell-Courting" McCain now claims that the Supreme Court should not be legislating from the bench as they did on Roe and should most certainly be overturned by a newer high court decision so that the issue could be decided by the states. Further, he supports a constitutional amendment prohibiting a woman's right to control her own body.

Looking forward eighteen months into a future where McCain is the GOP nominee (no guarantee, to be certain), it behooves the Democratic candidate to pound McCain into the ground at every available opportunity on his flip flopping. His name should be Flip-Flop McCain whenever speaking about him. Not POW McCain. Not Maverick McCain. Flip-Flop McCain. The name should become so ingrained on the public's mind that Flip-Flop McCain should request that ballots list him as Flip-Flop McCain in order to avoid confusion for people who don't know who this John fellow is.

Seriously, if nothing else this is a good thing for our side. For years, we have been attempting to shine a light on John McCain, who is so adored by the media that they refuse to see him as anything other than the Maverick who occassionally talks tough to George W. Bush (but then inevitably toes the company line - remember the ban on torture?). This portrayal of him has been so infuriating because anyone who would choose to do even a cursory evaluation of his record would find that he is one of the most conservative members of his party, despite the Maverick nonsense. His decision to support the overturning of Roe v. Wade may go long way to convincing independent voters that McCain is most certainly not one of them. The final question will come down to media involvment - will they allow McCain to have his cake and eat it too? Can he continue to kneel at the altar of Falwell and the hard right wing while simultaneously getting a pass from the media because they like using the term "Maverick" to describe him?

MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE - Rudy Giuliani

My ongoing fascination with the Rudy Giuliani candidacy continues (again) today. The biggest question mark in many people's minds as to how hard right conservatives could accept a social liberal like Rudy may actually have an answer, as Greg Sargent reports:

Giuliani is laying the groundwork to make the case to social conservatives that he isn't the social liberal he's been made out to be. Maybe he'll blame the liberal media for painting him as a liberal, or something.

Seriously, Rudy's impending effort to pull off a convincing ideological self-transformation is going to form one of the more interesting storylines to watch as we move into the Presidential race. As someone who's seen him up close undergoing previous political mutations over the years, I can tell you that he's way better at distancing himself from the reality of his own past -- and sounding awfully sincere in the process -- than many people might think. So: Will the big news orgs hold Giuliani accountable for his own past statements and positions on issues important to GOP primary voters, or will his designation by the media as an "independent" Republican who allegedly says what he thinks earn him the same kind of hands-off treatment the big pundits and commentators have tended to grant to fellow "straight-talker" John McCain?

So, a plan is apparently in place to whitewash years of executive decisions during his time as mayor of New York. Giuliani knows that his credentials as "America's Mayor" will only gain him so much goodwill with voters; the next phase of Extreme Makeover: President Rudy Edition begins soon.

GALLUP WEIGHS IN

As longtime readers no doubt are aware, I've been following early trends for the '08 presidential contest (because it's never too early). Gallup has provided their first post-election look as well, both for the Democrats and Republicans. (Full information, including methodology minutiae can be found here.) The results:

BASED ON 544 DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANERS

Nov 9-12, 2006
Hillary Rodham Clinton 31
Barack Obama 19
John Edwards 10
Al Gore 9
John Kerry 7
Joe Biden 4
Wesley Clark 3
Bill Richardson 2
Evan Bayh 2
Russ Feingold 1
Tom Daschle 1
Christopher Dodd 1
Tom Vilsack 1

Other 2
None 1
All/any *
No opinion 6
* Less than 0.5%



BASED ON 379 REPUBLICANS AND REPUBLICAN LEANERS

Nov 9-12, 2006
Rudy Giuliani 28
John McCain 26
Condoleezza Rice 13
Newt Gingrich 7
Mitt Romney 5
Bill Frist 4
George Allen 2
George Pataki 1
Mike Huckabee 1
Chuck Hagel 1
Sam Brownback 1
Duncan Hunter *

Other 2
None 3
All/any --
No opinion 7
* Less than 0.5%

For the Dems, the results bare out about how I would have seen them, with Clinton the frontrunner and Obama within striking distance. With Edwards showing up in third, I wonder how much he might suffer from the "loser stench" from '04 election given how we Dems seem to shun our losers, rightly or wrongly. Gore's 9% will go to someone else after he makes his 100th speech denying any interest in running in '08. Same goes for Kerry, who's ship has sailed in my opinion. Depending on how the Iraq war develops over the coming year, Clark could see his support grow. Conversely, if illegal immigration continues to be a big factor, I could see Richardson gaining ground.

The GOP poll I found somewhat surprising, as Giuliani continues to poll very well, despite his non-conservative social views. McCain is very close so these two could be slugging it out over who can appeal more to the base throughout 2007. Rice appearing third was very surprising as she's given no indication towards presidential aspirations. And given the fact that she actually treated a gay couple at a recent event like they were, you know, human did her know favors among the far right anti-gay folks. Romney having only five percent was also surprising as I see him as a strong candidate who will quite likely be the third part of a three-way bout for the nomination. As always, Huckabee remains my darkhorse - and right now the polls bear that out.

EARLY LOOK

POSTSCRIPT


Yesterday, I gave a look to potential Democratic presidential contenders in '08. After flitting around I found a great bit from the Washington Post doing the same thing for both parties. So, in the interest of giving different perspectives, I bring you the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and The Fix's rankings and some thoughts as of this past Friday:

For the Dems:

1. Hillary Clinton - Clinton's stance on the war in Iraq is out of step with many in the Democratic base, and she is clearly vulnerable to a challenge from someone who has been opposed to the war from the start. Despite that seeming vulnerability, no one is better positioned at the moment to win the nomination.

2. Barack Obama - Obama's strengths are obvious -- huge buzz both inside and outside the Beltway and the perception that he could raise $50 million or more to compete with Clinton. His weaknesses? Lack of organization in any early primary or caucus state and a relative lack of experience on the national stage.

3. John Edwards - The one lingering question for Edwards is whether he can raise the tens of millions he needs to compete against Clinton and possibly Obama.

4. Evan Bayh - ... [C]an a centrist message appeal to the liberal activists who dominate the early presidential voting states?

5. Bill Richardson - ... Richardson is not the most disciplined of politicians, a trait that could work to his detriment over the long haul of a presidential effort.

For the GOP:

1. John McCain - No one -- and we repeat no one -- had a better year politically than McCain.

2. Mitt Romney - Romney is the best raw candidate in the Republican field and he is the equal of Obama and Edwards when it comes to charisma. He still must answer doubts among conservatives about his time in Massachusetts and seeming flip-flops on some social questions.

3. Rudy Giuliani - If Giuliani really is planning to run for president, he is taking a decidedly unorthodox approach to it. Giuliani has no staff in early states and doesn't appear to be doing too much courting of key money men and activists across the country.

4. Mike Huckabee - The past year looks like a wasted opportunity for the outgoing Arkansas governor.

5. Newt Gingrich - Gingrich, like Giuliani, seems more enamored with being mentioned as a potential presidential candidate than actually running ...

Not sure I'm feeling Chris on the Evan Bayh and Bill Richardson vibe, but I totally agree with his assessment of Gingrich and Giuliani.