A Stitch in Haste

To review: My long-standing thesis is that radical social conservatives will be very quick to brush aside former Massachusetts government Mitt Romney as a contender for the 2008 Republican nomination, because despite all their public "Judeo-Christian" blather, privately they scorn Jews, Mormons, Catholics and other "not quite Christians" and simply will not support Romney in large numbers. The presence of a far more "pure" bigot alternative, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (and, to a much lesser extent, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee) will make Romney's fall from grace all the more precipitous.

The latest data points:

Republican Mitt Romney on Tuesday dismissed questions about whether his Mormon faith would be an impediment to his White House aspirations, echoing the argument that voters will be choosing a president not a pastor.
...
"I don't think that I could see someone who is a member of a faith so contrary to my faith having my support," said [South Carolina state representative Gloria] Haskins, a graduate of Bob Jones University, the Christian fundamentalist college. Haskins is backing Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

In September, Charleston County GOP chairwoman Cyndi Mosteller questioned Romney after a speech, asking him to explain his faith.

On Tuesday, Mosteller, who is a Baptist, said, "The question is: Does Gov. Romney support Joseph Smith's doctrines? We as evangelicals don't believe we can go in and change Paul's doctrine. I don't see how you move around this."

I don't see how either. And I'm enjoying every moment of the flip-flopping bigot politician's foundering.

Meanwhile, how can you not love that framing of the issue: "Joseph Smith's doctrines" versus "Paul's doctrine." Too bad none of these infighting bigots seem to care about "Jesus' doctrine."

Previous Romney posts here, here and here.

(Via Americans United.)

Let's check in on the bigots running for president in 2008:

The main race to the bottom contest for the hearts, minds and souls of radical social conservatives, between Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback, had a preliminary skirmish recently:

Romney[,] son of a Michigan governor, reminded the crowd that he grew up sharing the Automotive News each morning with his father, George, who headed American Motors Corp. before serving as Michigan's governor from 1963 to 1969.
...
"He got Michigan moving again," Romney said, before running through his stands in opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage and in favor of tight controls on illegal immigration. "It's time for Republican principles to come back to Michigan again."

Brownback, of Kansas, running as the conservative heart of the party, earned a warm reception with his pledges to protect life and the traditional family.

He also called for wiping out cancer in 10 years[.]

It's interesting that, while both candidates appear to be staying on-message regarding Redstate Redneck issues, they also appear to be turning down the volume a bit, even when addressing a friendly audience. Gay marriage is yesterday's issue (and for Romney, yesterday's flip-flop); anti-immigrant bigotry is the new cause célèbre, and abortion -- which is not even really a "presidential issue" outside of judicial appointments -- is reclaiming the social conservative spotlight.

In any case, there was a time when "Republican principles," to used Romney's term, meant leaving people alone and not ramming Jesus down their throats. Once upon a time.

As for Brownback's warm-fuzzy-feeling, and medically ignorant, call to eradicate cancer (but not AIDS of course), someone should remind him that a previous Republican president already tried that -- and pretty much failed.

Bottom-line, it's still early enough for Romney and Brownback to play nice together in public during unimportant pep rallies. But the gloves will come off eventually, and it will brutal -- and so much fun to watch.

---

Meanwhile, the also-ran among the bigots, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, continues to tap dance around his no-gay-marriage antipathy:

"Taking on a new definition doesn't make sense right now," Huckabee said in an interview with The Associated Press after speaking to business leaders in New Hampshire.
...
But when pressed, he said the historic definition of marriage has worked for so long for a reason.

"People have a right to decide how they live their lives. But they have to respect not changing the definition of marriage," said Huckabee, who served as a pastor in Baptist churches before becoming governor in 1996.

Of course, "traditional" marriage doesn't work so well for excluded gays. Details, details. And if "traditional" marriage works so well, then why push his antediluvian "covenant marriage" gobbledygook? In any case, subjecting insular minorities to oppression by the mob is apparently the goal of "Christians" like Huckabee and their vision of "the American way." Go figure.

Two updates:

ITEM: Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee on — get this — religious tolerance —

Q: How do you fight a worldwide religious war without turning it into a 21st century crusade?

Huckabee: I think you have to be very careful that we don't think that our goal is to take our religion and impose it on somebody else.

This from a man who is not only a member but actually a cleric in what arguably is the single most intolerant, theocratic sect of Christianity: the Southern Baptists. This is a man who is unapologetic in his anti-gay bigotry and who will not explicitly renounce his faith's decree that Mormonism is a cult.

One more passage from the interview, on how faith influences his decisions:

It totally drives it. It makes everything click for me.

So every decision — every single one — that President Huckabee would make will be dictated by his religion — his dogmatic, theocratic, non-inclusive religion.

Generic monotheistic deity help us.

More thoughts from Dorf on Law.

---

ITEM: Poor Mitt Romney. Besides making no inroads with his fellow bigots among the aforementioned Southern Baptists (and how can he prevail as the "social conservative" candidate without them?), he can't even score points with his fellow not-quite-Christians —

Republican Mitt Romney's choice of a museum honoring auto pioneer Henry Ford as the site of his presidential announcement was strongly criticized Monday by Jewish Democrats, who noted Ford's history of anti-Semitism.

The former Massachusetts governor, who is scheduled to formally launch his presidential candidacy from the Henry Ford Museum in Detroit on Tuesday, was taken to task by The National Jewish Democratic Council.
...
[The NJDC executive director] said Romney's "embrace of Henry Ford and association of Ford's legacy with his presidential campaign raises serious questions about either the sincerity of Romney's words or his understanding of basic American history."

Okay, these were Jewish Democrats, with an agenda, so one can hardly expect them to embrace Romney regardless of what he does. And how many Americans know anything about Henry Ford — or anti-Semitism, for that matter — let alone "Henry Ford's anti-Semitism"?

Still, if Romney can't appeal to radical Christians, and can't appeal to radical non-Christians, and repulses moderates, then who exactly is left?

Mitt Romney on strategic voting:

In Massachusetts, if you register as an Independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary.

When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I'd vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for Republican. In the general election.
...
I go in their primary, just like a lot of other folks, and voted against the person who I thought was the strongest Democrat.

Two hasty stitches:

--Romney was not even a Republican as recently as 14 years ago? And now he wants to be their nationwide standard bearer? Somehow I suspect other Republican candidates will not hesitate to broadcast that paradox as the campaign accelerates

--Is this the "Christian" theory of voting? Falsely (not fraudulently, but falsely) posing as something you're not (i.e., a Democrat) and then casting a vote not for someone you support, but for someone you oppose? Since when are duplicity and conniving "Christian" virtues? With which Biblical character do we most associate those traits?

Dispatches from the field:

---

ITEM: Senator Sam Brownback has taken a gratuitous, frivolous (and unconstitutional) stance to reinforce his Red State Redneck credentials —

Sen. Brownback’s legislation calls for the FTC to prohibit rating games only on partial content, as well as withholding content or hiding content for rating. That appears superficially to head off any future repeats of the controversy surrounding "Grand Theft Auto," a popular video game that raised eyebrows (and the ire of legislators) when it was discovered that players could watch explicit sex acts in the game. The resulting media furor caused the game’s publisher to recall it and republish it, edited.
...
The bill also calls for the FTC to examine the effectiveness of the ESRB, to determine whether the content ratings system should be peer reviewed, and to look at the feasibility of setting up an "independent ratings system." Sen. Brownback also wants the FTC to consider employing a "universal ratings system" that stretches across film, television and games.

In other words, Brownback wants government-imposed censorship. "For the children."

Brownback has peddled this bill in Congress before. Even a Republican-controlled Congress wouldn't touch it. To reintroduce it in a Democratic-controlled Congress is pure grandstanding.

Oh, and the bill would be unconstitutional anyway. Video games are not a (supposed) "public trust" and are therefore not subject to the same kind of government controls that broadcast media are.

So if the government cannot censor video games directly, then it must follow that it cannot censor them indirectly by regulating the (private and non-profit) ESRB.

Meanwhile, every attempt by states to restrict access of "violent" (a hopeless vague term by constitutional law standards) video games has been struck down. Every single one.

But this is prime fodder for the radical social conservative voters than Brownback must steer away from his principal rivals, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. So expect many similar proposals from Brownback in the future.

---

ITEM: Mitt Romney has yet again been forced to flip-flop to try to appease those same radical social conservative Republicans:

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R), who once advocated allowing gays to serve openly in the military, said yesterday that he does not think the Pentagon should change its "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the midst of the Iraq war.

"'Don't ask, don't tell' has worked well. We're in the middle of a conflict. Now is not the time for a change in that regard, and I don't have a policy posture as to allowing gays in the military to serve there openly," Romney, a presidential candidate, said on ABC's "This Week."

Worked well? By what standard? How do you measure such a sweeping claim? Apparently you don't measure it by counting the number of grandmothers and idiots the Army is enlisting instead of otherwise well-suited gays.

Meanwhile:

He opposes discrimination against gays and lesbians but supports a federal amendment defining marriage as limited to a man and a woman. "Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children.

Well then I suppose he fully supports the "mandatory procreation" initiative in Washington State? And what does it say about him if he doesn't? And don't try to decipher that first sentence — you'll just get a headache.

Incidentally, one reporter on Washington Week in Review noted that Romney's latest rally was best described as "empty bleacher seats." Good.

For a complete rundown of Romney's flip-flops, from gay rights to abortion to immigration to gun control (less than one year ago, Romney had an epiphany and performed the "Christian" act of joining the NRA), watch Romney's appearance on "This Week." Or, better, read this Richard Cohen piece.

More thoughts at Pam's House Blend.

---

ITEM: Consider this a footnote, since John McCain, although a miserable, decrepit little hypocrite, is not one of the Big Three Bigots (i.e., Brownback, Romney and Mike Huckabee) —

"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned," the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states.

McCain also vowed that if elected, he would appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench."
...
McCain later attended an evening rally promoting an abstinence program.
...
McCain is trying to build support among conservatives after a recent rebuke from Christian leader James Dobson, who said he wouldn't back McCain's presidential bid. Conservatives question McCain's opposition to a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He opposes same-sex marriage, but says it should be regulated by the states.

Although McCain is almost certainly doomed as a candidate considering his blind support of President Bush on Iraq, to the extent that he can flip-flop his way to the Far Right, the Big Three Bigots will be in even more trouble. Stay tuned. (Related: Giuliani flip-flops on abortion.)

Professional bigot Maggie Gallagher, as quoted in OpinionJournal, September 25, 2006:

I believe Mitt Romney may be the only hope social conservatives have in 2008.

Professional bigot Maggie Gallagher, as quoted in OpinionJournal, February 23, 2007:

When I ask myself, who of all the candidates in both parties do I most trust to keep me and my children safe? The answer is instantaneous, deeper than the level any particular policy debate can go: Rudy Giuliani.

Frailty, thy name is Gallagher.

I must admit that I'm curious as to why professional social conservatives like Gallagher and James "No McCain Never" Dobson are not simply jumping on the Sam Brownback bandwagon, or at least dropping his name here and there (yes, yes, Mike Huckabee too).

Could it be that, rather than imagining themselves as Republican kingmakers, the radical theocrats are more interested in simply hedging their bets until a clear winner arises, at which point they can latch on and pretend that they were "always for" whoever prevails in the primaries? Who's courting whom in the GOP these days?

In any case, my Romney thesis is unchanged: radical Evangelicals and other theocrats will pretend to embrace Romney and his Mormonism in public — just as they pretend to embrace Jews and other "not-quite-right" types. But when push comes to shove and the secret ballots are cast, he will quickly be brushed aside.

POST SCRIPT: And don't the editors of OpinionJournal read each other's work?

"You may say you don't hate us, but the people you vote for do, so what's the difference? Our own country's democratic process declares us to be unequal. Which means, in a democracy, that our enemy is you. You treat us like crumbs. You hate us. And sadly, we let you."
--Larry Kramer*

To review, a very stupid person wrote a very stupid thing:

"The caricatures of the left notwithstanding, there is no substantial conservative constituency which is hostile to homosexual indidividuals [sic]."

Let's review some of those recent "caricatures."

---

ITEM: The city manager of Largo, Florida, has been fired for being a transsexual —

The City Commission voted 5 to 2 to dismiss the man, Steven B. Stanton, after a six-hour hearing in which he and his supporters argued that he could do his job just as well once he became a woman. Some commissioners said they had voted to fire Mr. Stanton not because he wanted to become a woman, but because he had violated their trust and caused a major disruption.

Utter nonsense. A sex-change operation is more disruptive than, say, maternity leave? He was fired out of bigotry, by the "no substantial constituency" that loathes gays, transsexuals and other "not hated" "indidividuals."

Stanton had repeatedly received favorable reviews and had just gotten a raise — his firing is almost on a par with the U.S. Attorney scandal. Except here the "no substantial constituency" is being far more overt in their actions.

"Employment at will" is all well and good, but public servants, whom the Largo City Commissioners claim to be, should act in the public interest. Firing a fully competent individual with a better-than-acceptable record, out of petty hatred, fear and ignorance, is simply not "the public interest."

Finally, note that Stanton's plight has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with gay marriage. When they say "it's all about marriage," they lie. It's all about hate.

Previous post here (fourth item). More thoughts from Pam's House Blend.

---

ITEM: How are the Soulforce Equality Riders doing?

We ran into police intimidation in Clinton Mississippi. Prior to leaving the town of Clinton Mississippi the Equality Ride bus was confronted three times by the same police officer who told the Equality Ride bus driver to "go on and get out of town." The final time the officer interacted with the bus driver he threatened to arrest him if he did not follow his order.

The group has filed a formal written grievance with the Mississippi Attorney General for the apparent police misconduct, and six national gay rights organizations have written a complaint to the mayor of Clinton.

So if there is indeed "no substantial constituency" that hates gay "indidividuals," one wonders how the incident happened in the first place, and how swiftly action by Mississippi's "public servants" will follow.

And again, note that the Equality Ride is not about gay marriage per se, but merely about attempting to open a dialog about gay issues on college campuses officially unwelcoming to gays. (Such colleges — and there are many — also apparently comprise "no substantial constituency." Go figure.)

---

ITEM: Finally, exactly what would qualify as a "substantial constituency" hostile to homosexual "indidivuals"?

What would you think of a country that spends most of its time arguing over whether a man can marry a man and do to each other what is despised by 99.9 percent of humanity from the beginning of time until now? Because make no mistake about it: 99.9 percent of humanity despises this behavior because they do not want to go down that road, and they know it's the road of death.

That was Michael Savage, explaining why Islamofascists want to destroy the Western way of life. Not because of fundamentally different religious texts, not because of perceived incursions into their lands. Not because of oil. Not because of a comprehensive opposition to modernity, individuality, equal treatment under the law, and capitalist egalitarianism.

No, they hate us because we don't hate gays enough. So we need to start catching up — to "99.9% of humanity" — by hating gays even more, so maybe the terrorists will leave us alone.

Michael Savage is the third most popular talk radio personality in America, with an estimated audience of eight million listeners.

Who apparently still don't qualify as a "substantial constituency." Neither, apparently, does "99.9% of humanity," if we are to believe Savage.

---

More from Larry Kramer:

What do we do to you that is so awful? Why do you feel compelled to come after us with such frightful energy? Does this somehow make you feel safer and legitimate? What possible harm comes to you if we marry, or are taxed just like you, or are protected from assault by laws that say it is morally wrong to assault people out of hatred?

Good questions all. Perhaps some "substantial constituency hostile to homosexual indidividuals" will someday be able to answer it. For now, unfortunately, remember: no such "substantial constituency" even exists.

---

*Source for the Kramer quotes here, via here. You can listen to a lengthy recent Kramer speech with much the same text at this podcast.

Note that I do not agree with much, perhaps most, of Kramer's ultra-left political leanings, especially his absurd theories of pharmaceutical economics, his revisionist history of ACT UP's importance in the 1980s and 1990s, and his sloppy flip-flop equating of the "gay" and "HIV+" communities, which have neither identical constituencies nor issues. Overlapping, yes to some extent, but not identical — and the differences are important. Still, his view on contemporary gay politics — especially contemporary gay Democratic politics — is spot on.

Mitt Romney, who initially boasted about his campaign fundraising successes, suddenly feels a need to debase his volunteer currency:

Participants in "Students for Mitt" will get 10 percent of the money they raise for the campaign beyond the first $1,000. While candidates often offer professional fundraisers commissions up to 8 percent, campaign experts believe the Massachusetts Republican is the first to do so with the legion of college students who have historically served as campaign volunteers.

"For the kids that [sic] want to get involved in a political campaign and they don't want to spend their summer painting houses, they can help the campaign and themselves at the same time," said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden.

Others take a dimmer view. "It may very well succeed, but I'd like to think that he'd approach young people and college students based on their commitment to the country, not because they want walking-around money," said Steve Grossman, a prominent Massachusetts fundraiser and past chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

I think all volunteer political activists, regardless of age or party, are schmucks -- and disingenuous ones at that. You want to show "commitment to the country" by volunteering? Work in a soup kitchen or a pediatric ward, not a telemarketing phone bank. So I'll recuse myself from the Democratic infighting.

But what about the Mormon angle? As I understand it, young Mormon lads who go on "missions" don't get paid for it. Their lives are quite spartan while they're away. Their reward is not worldly; they're expected to just do it because -- well, because they're expected to just do it.

I would have thought the same should be true for young "missionary" politicos: The reward is supposed to be the fact that your candidate wins, not movie money (or the free video iPod for the top collector).

Or perhaps it's all about the rewards (i.e., ka-ching!) to Romney and not to the idealistic (naive?) kids.

Thoughts?

Mitt "Not a Cult" Romney has had something of a literary epiphany:

But before the debate national media were criticizing Romney for saying during an interview that Battlefield Earth, a science fiction novel by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard was his favorite.
...
Romney later clarified, Battlefield Earth is his favorite novel, the Bible is his favorite book.

Of course, for politicians, "clarifications" such as "When I said X, I actually meant not-really-X" are standard fare. Nothing new there.

On the other hand, one would have thought that Romney's handlers at some point would have suggested not bringing up Battlefield Earth, L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology. "Mormonism v. Scientology: Whoever Wins ... We Lose"

Speaking of the Bible versus Battlefield Earth as favorite books, as one Fark commenter notes: "Which book is more violent and poorly written?"

---

Another big fan of the Bible: