The fact that arch social conservative Ken Cuccinelli’s loss of the Virginia governor’s race to Democratic crony capitalist Terry McAuliffe was narrower than expected just makes clearer how social-issues extremism cost the GOP a winnable election. Political columnist Bart Hinkle explains why:
Early in his term as attorney general [Cuccinelli] told state universities they had no authority to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and he has defended with Ahab-like mania a state sodomy law doomed by the Supreme Court a decade ago….
To conservatives, economic freedom is paramount, the rest no big deal. But to libertarians, personal and civil liberties are no less vital: Big government has no place in either the boardroom or the bedroom. If Cuccinelli shared that view, then he would have a better chance of participating in the gubernatorial inauguration Jan. 8 — rather than merely watching it.
Although I haven’t shied away from criticizing N.J. Gov. Chris Christie’s opposition to marriage equality, which came to the Garden State anyway with legislative and judicial support, Christie is nevertheless widely viewed as a social-issues moderate, and his large (as expected) reelection win in a solidly Democratic state is being viewed as another defeat for GOP social extremism.
Finally, the passage of marriage equality in Illinois makes it the 15th state to come onboard. Republican state Rep. Tom Cross, who stepped down from his position as House minority leader earlier this year, voted for the bill, stating, “For me, supporting marriage equality is not only the right decision, but also consistent with my belief in individual freedom, equality and limited government.” Meanwhile, the African American Clergy Coalition praised those who voted against the gay-marriage measure.
Yes, Democrats mostly supported the same-sex marriage bill and Republicans overwhelmingly opposed it, but the lines are not perfectly stark, and that presents an opportunity to expand support beyond the Democratic party, if that’s what’s actually wanted. A bad night for the GOP’s anti-gay “moral” crusaders could make that more likely.
32 Comments for “Election Reflections”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yes, Democrats mostly supported the same-sex marriage bill and Republicans overwhelmingly opposed it, but the lines are not perfectly stark, and that presents an opportunity to expand support beyond the Democratic party, if that’s what’s actually wanted.
I don’t know who you think isn’t in favor of expanding support beyond the Democratic Party, but you keep harping on it, so it is a mystery to me.
Equality Illinois worked hard to discuss equality issues with the few Republicans who were receptive to meeting with representatives of the group. Even the HRC, which you often hold up as an example of the worst of the worst, has hired a Republican campaign strategist to run an outreach campaign to conservatives and is joint venturing with Paul Singer and Daniel Loeb. And so on, all over the country. Working to expand support for equality is going on all around you, but you don’t see it, apparently.
I don’t know anyone, pers0nally, who is active in the fight for equality in Wisconsin who wouldn’t welcome the chance to work with pro-equality Republicans. I suspect that’s true everywhere in the country.
We just wish that those of you who describe yourselves as “pro-equality conservatives” and align yourselves with the Republican Party would work harder to increase the number of pro-equality elected Republicans who we can work with. We can’t do that for you, Stephen. Some things you just have to do for yourselves.
BTW the Hawaii House Committees on Judiciary and Finance amended and passed SB1, the marriage equality bill tonight; 10 to 7 in Finance and 8 to 5 in Judiciary. The Hawaii House will probably take up the matter tomorrow or Thursday.
posted by Houndentenor on
LOL. Mr Miller thinks there’s a conspiracy to keep Republicans on the anti-gay “straight” and narrow. As if Democrats had any ability to do that. Meanwhile not one word about Tom Ridge’s speech to LCR. I find that odd. I read a lot of attacks (many justified) on Democrats for dragging their feet on gay issues. (This Illinois vote should have happened at least a year ago.) But I don’t see any actual effort to move Republicans toward pro-gay positions, not even support for Republicans who have already made the move. Could someone explain this to me.
posted by Wilberforce on
I can explain it to you.
People Like Stephen don’t care about gay rights. That’s only a front. They really want to con gay people into supporting republicans, in order to push their real obsession: tax cuts.
Like all social climbing republicans, their only concern is the bank account. All else is smoke and mirrors. And like most Americans, they have zero self awareness, so they believe their own nonsense, which makes it more convincing to others.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
People Like Stephen don’t care about gay rights. That’s only a front. They really want to con gay people into supporting republicans, in order to push their real obsession: tax cuts.
I don’t know about that, Wilberforce. I’ve been reading IGF since 2003-2004, and I think I’ve learned a little bit about Stephen. I think that he does care about equality, and deeply, but his disappointment and bitterness about the way in which the gay rights movement has turned out channel his views in odd ways.
Stephen is close to retirement age, if I guess right. Like most people our age, he’s seen a lot and been shaped by it, not always in the most positive direction. I have, too.
Stephen worked for GLAAD in the 1970’s, and left the organization. The reason he left, according to what he’s written, is that GLAAD became dominated by the radical gay left, the folks who spurned marriage, stability and normalcy. All of this ran contrary to Stephen’s conservative views.
He and a few others founded IGF to counter that trend toward radical experimentation, pushing moral responsibility, and, in particular, marriage. He and the others who wrote in those days thought, I suspect, that these were essentially conservative ideas, and that, in time, the ideas would be adopted by the Republican Party and brought to fruition through the conservative strain of American political thought.
That did not happen. In fact, just the reverse happened.
The Democratic Party, with a lot of pushing, began to embrace gays and lesbians in the 1980’s, and over time, attracted a significant number of gays and lesbians to the party. Although the earliest gays and lesbians active in the party may have tended toward radicalism, that changed as more came in. As more moderate gays and lesbians became a force within the party, they began to shape the direction that the Democratic Party took, a direction toward marriage, stability and normalcy, the ideas that Stephen appears to have believed were exclusively conservative ideas. Marriage, stability and normalcy for gays and lesbians are, of course, conservative ideas, but they are also progressive ideas, matters of fairness and equality.
The Republican Party, on the other hand, moved toward embracing the “Moral Majority”, the conservative Christian strain of American political thought. Constitutional conservatives like Barry Goldwater warned against this move, to no avail. Over time, as the religious right gained power in the party, the party turned away from the conservative thinking that Stephen favored, and spurned the idea of marriage, stability and normalcy for gays and lesbians. As time went on, the Republican Party began to paint gays and lesbians as deviant, dangerous and threatening.
The American political fight has been a fight for the middle, the moderates. On issues important to gays and lesbians, the Democratic Party has won the middle, and the Republican Party spurned it. As I read Stephen’s writing over the last few years, and compare it to his writing of a decade ago, I sense a deep disappointment at the way things turned out, and a growing bitterness.
But I don’t believe for a minute that Stephen doesn’t care about “equal means equal”. I just think he’s stuck — all his conservative instincts take him in the direction of the Republican Party, and the Republican Party’s continued and increasing (or so it seems to me) estrangement from marriage, stability and normalcy for gays and lesbians leaves him at sea. I think that explains a lot of his lashing out in recent years.
I don’t suppose I’m 100% right about this, but I’ve been reading Stephen for a long time, and I think that I’m reasonably close. A lot closer, anyway, than the idea that he doesn’t care.
posted by Wilberforce on
Nice speech. But it’s all irrelevance and non-issues to me.
I’m 55, and I would never have joined GLAAD back in the day, seeing that mainstream gay culture was and is hopelessly self destructive, and uninterested in stopping HIV or ten other issues that I consider important.
As for Stephen’s GLAAD work, I’ve seen plenty of social climbers do social work to polish their resumes. It’s meaningless, and if you’re tricked by that obvious dodge, there’s really not much to say on the matter.
I’ve read plenty of Stephen’s posts here, and he usually spends his time criticizing the democrats on points that have nothing to do with anything, while stumping for republicans without cause, and while ignoring their blatant nut-kookery.
I’ve also seen the same act for many years from selfish rubes looking to upgrade the credit rating. It’s old hat.
If you can’t see through it, fine. But don’t expect me to join the easily duped masses.
posted by Wilberforce on
The process was explained to me many years ago.
In my early twenties, I worked once a week for a homeless food project. Another guy there, whose mom was a politician, told me that he was there to grease the skids in a bid for power. I’ve seen the type regularly over the years, and I recognize them after only a few words, and fewer actions. Stephen is a carbon copy.
posted by Houndentenor on
GLAAD is an even bigger joke than HRC. All you have to do to get an okay from GLAAD for your homophobic movie is make a big enough donation. I realize that advocacy groups are always hunting for funding, but you can’t whore yourself out so blatantly and expect anyone to take you seriously.
posted by Jared123 on
I don’t know who you think isn’t in favor of expanding support beyond the Democratic Party, but you keep harping on it, so it is a mystery to me.
How about the Human Rights Campaign, which won’t support openly gay Republicans and gay-supportive Republicans in open races, time and again.
Or the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which as a matter of policy won’t support openly LGBT candidates who favor any restriction on abortion (thus eliminating many moderate gay Republicans).
posted by Houndentenor on
They won’t? Or they haven’t in the past. HRC has a long-standing (and idiotic if you ask me) policy of endorsing incumbents whenever possible.
About gay Republican candidates, I’ll find that a valid argument when a homocon endorses a Democrat just because they are gay. Where was the gay Republican support for Tammy Baldwin? Or is that only supposed to work on way?
As for the Victory Fund, if that’s an issue that matters to them, then they should endorse accordingly. Personally I think we should separate certain issues out rather than lumping them together, but both the right and left have a habit of doing that. If you are going to fault people for refusing to support an anti-choice candidate, then you should also fault people for supporting an anti-gay candidate even though they agree with them on other issues. Politics makes strange bedfellows, as the saying goes. I don’t belong to any of those organizations and don’t necessarily approve of their methods, but those examples have nothing to do with the point being made anyway. It’s not up to liberal groups to influence what happens inside the GOP. it’s insanity to think they could even if they wanted to. As for endorsements, they don’t really have much impact anyway, so that’s just another ridiculous red herring to try to shift the blame for the lack of movement in the Republican party on gay issues. (Actually there has been movement…towards more openly anti-gay rhetoric in most of the country.) If you live in the Northeast you may have a different view. Lhota was not running an anti-gay campaign. Where I live it’s revolting the lengths that candidates will go to in order to prove they are anti-gay bigots to Republican primary voters. What do you plan to do about that? If I could do something about it I would. Please give me some suggestions. I’d really like to know.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There is both a theoretical and practical difference between endorsing/supporting candidates, on the one hand, and seeking to “expand support beyond the Democratic Party”, on the other.
The former involves picking candidates who support equality and otherwise meets whatever endorsement criteria may be in place; the latter involves encouraging candidates who don’t line up with your endorsement criteria – or even your political philosophy, for that matter – to nonetheless support equality.
It is not a zero-sum game. Gays and lesbians win when all candidates running in an election are pro-equality. The more, the better.
By focusing solely on endorsements, you are missing the larger picture entirely. A lot is going on, and the more the better. The Republican Party must change.
posted by Jorge on
There is both a theoretical and practical difference between endorsing/supporting candidates, on the one hand, and seeking to “expand support beyond the Democratic Party”, on the other. . . . By focusing solely on endorsements, you are missing the larger picture entirely. A lot is going on, and the more the better. The Republican Party must change.
Far from focusing solely on endorsements, I think over time Mr. Miller’s thesis has been that the larger picture is the HRC (and others, but let’s focus on the HRC) is a corrupt force. It is only with great difficulty that he establishes that in a coherant way, by pointing to multiple divergent situations and events in which the HRC acts in a very similar way.
The way to disprove that is not by saying “this example doesn’t matter”, because in so many divergent situations the example has to matter in at least some of them. Nor is it to say “no, someone else matters”. The behavior of other organizations does not contribute to an understanding of whether or not the HRC is corrupt. And the question of whether or not the HRC is corrupt is one of some significance in understanding the politics of the gay rights movement, as it is still among the most recognized gay rights organizations in the country, and the one most involved in political endorsements.
The way to disprove Mr. Miller’s thesis that the Human Rights Campaign is a corrupt organization is, quite simply, to point to situations in which it acts differently than Mr. Miller claims it does. Give it positive press. Once this is established, if he fails to take a balanced picture into account in the future (and he probably will), then you move in to establish his willful ignorance and penalize his credibility.
If on the other hand, there is no positive press to be said and the HRC is a sociopathic organization, that is something I want to know.
posted by Jorge on
as it is still among the most recognized gay rights organizations in the country, and the one most involved in political endorsements.
Ehsh! Circular reasoning. I think I’ll fold.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think I’ll fold.
Yeah, you should.
The thesis underlying Stephen’s oft-stated proposition is that (1) endorsing/supporting pro-equality candidates and the political philosophy of one party, and (2) wanting to expand pro-equality support in the other party, are mutually exclusive, that is, no individual or organization can do both.
That is obvious nonsense.
Stephen, for example, is a pro-equality conservative who endorses Republican candidates. And yet he clearly wants to expand pro-equality support beyond Republicans. If it were impossible for him to hold both positions, then Stephen’s oft-stated and sometimes apt criticisms of the Democratic Party’s sluggishness on LGBT issues would be the ravings of a lunatic.
Let me ask you this: By Stephen’s logic, Paul Singer’s American Unity PAC”, whose “mission is to engage in federal elections to protect and promote inclusive Republicans”, logically excludes the possibility that Singer could also want Democrats to be pro-equality.
We know better.
I don’t think much of HRC. I’m not a member. But I’m not drinking the Kool-Aid that HRC is a “sociopathic” organization working to keep the Republican Party anti-gay. It is nonsense.
posted by Jorge on
Let me ask you this: By Stephen’s logic, Paul Singer’s American Unity PAC”, whose “mission is to engage in federal elections to protect and promote inclusive Republicans”, logically excludes the possibility that Singer could also want Democrats to be pro-equality.
No it doesn’t! When someone folds, it’s usually a good idea to collect rather than keep the game going.
posted by clayton on
We may be seeing change in individual Republicans, if not yet in the party platform. Witness the bipartisan votes for marriage in Illinois and for ENDA in the Senate. When the actions of such prominent Republicans as Sandra Day O’Connor and H.W. Bush are pro-equality as well, it seems to suggest that social conservatives are losing their strangle-hold on the party.
posted by John D on
Every time the question of why the HRC didn’t endorse this or that gay Republican, the race in question has always involved a candidate who was more pro-gay rights.
It’s a no-brainer that the HRC is going to endorse the candidate that agrees with their agenda, even if it means not supporting a gay candidate.
Let’s imagine that the HRC is looking at a race in which the Democrat is pro-marriage equality, supports ENDA, but is straight, and the Republican opposes both but is gay. Why would the HRC support the gay candidate?
The HRC’s goal isn’t to elect more gay candidates; it’s to elect more pro-gay candidates. That should explain everything.
A gay Republican who wants the HRC’s endorsement needs to be pro-marriage equality and vocal that he or she will be breaking with the Republicans because “ENDA is the American thing to do.”
But I’ve sketched someone mythical enough that he might as well be riding a unicorn.
posted by Houndentenor on
This is hilarious. HRC is a joke. Everyone knows that except people looking for a villain like Stephen and Jorge are here. What other lobbying group has existed this long with NOTHING to show for all the money that has been spent. HRC exists for insiders to throw lavish parties and pat each other on the back for nothing. It’s a top down insider strategy that has never worked for any movement and why anyone thinks it will work for gays is beyond me. I’ve said this many times and on some sites get attacked for it but no one has ever given me any rebuttal for it. HRC endorsements don’t deliver any votes (see: NY Senate Race 1998), so I don’t know why anyone would care whether one candidate or another got one or didn’t.
And I’ll say this again…show me the race in which the Republican has a better record on gay rights than the Democrat. Surely nationwide there has to be at least a half dozen examples.
posted by Jorge on
This is hilarious. HRC is a joke. Everyone knows that except people looking for a villain like Stephen and Jorge are here.
Nice deflection attempt, but who’s bigger than them?
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m not deflecting. I’m baffled at this obsession with HRC. What good does their endorsement do any candidate. Name one person who got elected because of their endorsement who wouldn’t have otherwise? I’m not deflecting. I’m pointing out that HRC is a red herring for homocons who want an excuse for why the GOP is so hostile to gay rights.
posted by John D on
Jorge,
Even if Houndentenor were deflecting (and I don’t think he is), his last paragraph says it all:
So even if you think that an endorsement from the HRC counts, the truth is that gay Republicans always run against Democrats with better positions on gay rights. Always.
posted by Houndentenor on
And, it’s all well and good to have a pro-gay Republican in the House who would vote for ENDA, but since that Republican forms part of the majority that enables Boehner to block the bill from even coming up for a vote, that vote will never get cast. So it still doesn’t matter.
This isn’t my fault. This isn’t the fault of any liberal or leftist or Democrat. Perhaps some benefit from this and even exploit the stranglehold the religious right has on the GOP for their own purposes. Yes, that’s disgusting but it’s no more or less disgusting than how anything else is done in DC so that’s entirely beside the point. I’m sick of gay Republicans blaming everyone else for their own failure to persuade their party to move forward on gay issues. And again, lots of fingerpointing on the left on this blog and NOT ONE WORLD about some interesting developments last month at the LCR dinner. Why is that? Why is Stephen so much more focused on HRC and other left leaning groups than on pro-gay statements from Republicans. If I were a Republican I’d be trumpeting that as loud as I can. I really don’t get this. Is the hatred of liberals so extreme that it tunes out anything else?
posted by Jorge on
I’m not deflecting. I’m baffled at this obsession with HRC.
That’s a little more like it.
But the only place I have ever seen anyone so much as suggest in seriousness that the HRC is not really representative of the gay lobby is on this website. I don’t see it mentioned often other places at all (no doubt it has lost power and influence), and where I do, it’s treated like a serious and leading gay lobbying group. So for you to say that “everyone” knows it’s a joke and to point to me directly as if I’m engaging in some kind of deception or head-in-sand analysis is far too much. Far too much. And I am highly skeptical that it’s borne out of some sort of ignorance or deductive defect.
So it’s a deflection attempt, I object very strongly to your mischaracterization of my motives and thinking, and I choose to call you out on your bad faith. You want to say you’re genuinely baffled, start acting like it instead of attacking people’s motives.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Meanwhile, the African American Clergy Coalition praised those who voted against the gay-marriage measure.
Oh, I’m sure they did.
The AACC was formed for the purpose of fighting equality, is closely allied with NOM/IFI, and the Coalition worked hand-in-hand with Cardinal George, the Catholic Archbishop of Chicago, frequently appearing with him as part of NOM/IFI’s anti-equality campaigning in the Chicago area.
But with little effect, apparently.
Ken Durkin, the Chair of the Assembly Black Caucus, was a sponsor and champion of the bill. Of the 20 African-American representatives in the Assembly, only four African-American legislators (Davis – Chicago, Flowers – Chicago, Jackson – Waukegan, Jefferson – Rockford) voted against the bill.
The other seven Democratic votes against equality were from white “downstate” (that is, rural, more conservative) areas of the state.
Here’s the rundown, for those of you, who like me, are wonky:
posted by Houndentenor on
Why should it surprise anyone that there are anti-gay African American Christians? Why should they be different from socially conservative White, Asian, Hispanic/Latino or other Christians? Why is it a significant fact that this particular group out of many who denounced this vote, is made up of African-American Christians?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Why is it a significant fact that this particular group out of many who denounced this vote, is made up of African-American Christians?
The supposed significance is that African-Americans vote Democratic in percentages, and anti-equality and/or anti-Democrat strategists/apologists think that there is an opportunity to drive a wedge over the equality issue.
The NOM strategy memos disclosed in the Maine election law violation case, you may recall, discussed using equality to drive the wedge at some length.
It is stupid, given that recent polls (post-Obama announcement) show that support for marriage equality is higher among African-Americans now than it is among whites. But NOM and other anti-equality groups are slow to adjust to changes in the political situation. Religious conservatives are slow to catch up with the facts most of the time, in general. A lot of them are still fighting Scopes, which is the driving force behind the home-schooling movement.
In Stephen’s case, I suspect that it just trouble-making, without particular motive, since he doesn’t seem to be active in political work of any sort, one way or the other. But given his scorn for “liberal/progressive” gays, the “Democratic hegemony” of pro-equality groups, and the President, finding an outspoken group of religious troglodytes like Bishop Trotter and Pastor Meeks is probably too tempting to pass up.
I labored in the trenches of Chicago politics for 20 years, as part of the “Independent Democrat” movement, trying to break the back of the old Chicago machine. African-American pastors used to have a lot of political power in the community during the 1950’s and 1960’s; that power has been waning for at least two decades. At present, the pastors have no more say about things among African-Americans than the white pastors do among whites, which is why the AACC teamed up with Cardinal George.
posted by Houndentenor on
McAuliffe was a terrible candidate. He makes me queasy just looking at him. He’s like a poster boy of what’s wrong with American politics. So the fact that he won is a pretty good indicator of how much worse Cuccinelli was. Cooch is like a parody of a social conservative that The Onion would make up. I kept getting facebook updates that claimed he had said this or that and it was so outrageous that I went immediately to google. It seemed like something from a parody site. Surely no actual politician said something so bone-headed. Except he did.
As for Christie, he’s not really that socially moderate. I know that’s his PR but it just doesn’t line up with reality. He got re-elected because he (and the other governors int he area) did a fine job of managing a horrible situation leading up to and following Hurricane Sandy last year. He’s a competent manager. He also has a lot of problems going forward (which the Romney campaign discovered in 2012).
As for Illinois, gay Republicans ought to celebrate the Republicans who voted for marriage equality. They will most likely face primary challenges in the next election. Social conservatives are hopping mad. They’re going to need your support (including money) in 2014. Hawaii is next and I think after New Mexico, that’s probably it for awhile. Am I leaving out a state that isn’t so far right that there’s no chance of gay marriage passing any time soon?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Hawaii is next and I think after New Mexico, that’s probably it for awhile. Am I leaving out a state that isn’t so far right that there’s no chance of gay marriage passing any time soon?
Quite a number of states are moving in the right direction and are close in terms of public opinion, but once we pick up Hawaii and New Mexico, we run into the wall of anti-marriage amendments (I think that Pennsylvania and Indiana are the last two non-equality states that don’t have amendments in place), so we’ll have to dismantle the amendments, one by one, in court or through the legislative/initiative process, and that is going to take time.
A lot is going to happen going forward, but most of the action will now be in federal courts. Once we pick up Hawaii and New Mexico, about 45% of Americans will live in free states, and that is going to create an intolerable legal situation for the portability of marriage. As the federal cases move forward, the thing will come to a head, and SCOTUS will decide it, probably in the range of 2018.
posted by Don on
I just don’t think the Virginia race says what anyone wants it to say. As someone here pointed out, Cuccinelli is practically an Onion creation, except he’s not. I would gleefully point to his loss as crystal clear evidence of the end of the viciously anti-gay right. I call him that because opposing same-sex marriage is one thing. Bringing back felony punishment for gay sex is another animal entirely. He’s the latter.
But he stood for so many different things to so many groups that I think its impossible to say why people voted the way they did. I’m sure unions were terrified of his being elected, even if they were equally anti-gay. And if the word Obamacare makes you spit and sputter, you would probably HAVE to vote for him in your mind. The choice in this election was very stark. And the Democrats won by a modest margin, not the blowout predicted by polls.
Those factors lead me to believe that everyone sees what they want to see in this outcome. The same could be said for the Lt. Governor. What scares me more is that so many people did vote for these virulent homophobes. I don’t think because they were homophobes (although some obviously must have). But I find it terrifying that those positions aren’t scaring many people away at all, if any.
Although this is hyperbole, it’s not too terribly far off to say Candidate Smith is for reducing the corporate tax rate, opposes Obamacare and for legalizing lynchings and still capturing 48% of the vote.
To me, this means that gay dignity, much less gay rights, is a non-starter for a whole lot of voters. It just won’t swing a vote either way unless you’re gay or evangelical.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
How did that Independent governor candidate do that folks here were talking about?
posted by tom jefferson on
1. To clarify — the Virginia candidate who claimed to be a libertarian or some such thing. How did he do?
2. Also Christie certainly wants to run for president and he wants to float some ‘I’m moderate’ stuff out. Romney use to — at one point — pledge to be more supportive of gay rights then Ted Kennedy. Likewise, Rudy Giuliani was all eager to have a moderate record on gay rights, until he ran for president. Yes, It might be a good sign, but it also might just be a gimmick, which is quickly forgotten about in the hopes of winning a GOP primary.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Romney ran on the most extreme anti-gay platform in the Republican Party’s history, and deviated not one jot or tittle during the campaign. Christie, likewise, never waivered in his single-minded pursuit of marriage inequality.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
When Romney was running for U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy — maybe I should have been a bit clearer on that particular point. My main point is that ‘moderate’ Republicans seem to sing a very different tune when they compete in the GOP presidential primary.