Wednesday, October 10, 2007

How One Runs A Campaign And How One Governs Don't Always Jive

Former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, is taking a hit from his left on the type of campaign he ran in in 1994 United States senate race against veteran gasbag, Ted Kennedy. Only it is not from Democrats but the most left-wing Republican group, the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay and lesbian Republicans.
The Log Cabins are running television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire that are using statements Mr. Romney made in the campaign especially damning is how Mr. Romney admits that he was not a fan of the Reagan/Bush years. Mr. Romney also said that he would be better for gay and lesbians than Sen. Kennedy. That has to be a stretch. Maybe Mr. Romney had a mickey slipped to him to make such a claim. But, they are there.
And, no doubt that even in a Republican avalanche that was 1994, Mr. Romney lost to Sen. Kennedy. But, if there is any solace, Mr. Romney came the closest before or since to defeat the icon of the left.
And, Mr. Romney deserved to lose.
Fast forward to 2002 when Mr. Romney ran for and won as governor of Massachusetts.
Mr. Romney moved to the right, as one can get, in Massachusetts on social issues and won.
When the Massachusetts supreme court divined the constitutional "right" to same sex marriage, Mr. Romney led opposition to it and fought against all odds to try to put the question to a vote of the people. Unfortunately, to get a constitutional question on the ballot is almost an act of God and with Democrats in control of the state legislature with roughly 85% of all seats in the House and Senate combined, he failed and his Democrat successor, Deval Patrick, let it die in the state legislature.
Mr. Romney, carefully, said that he would do nothing to change the abortion laws in Massachusetts. Meaning that if the legislature tried to liberalize the law, Mr. Romney would veto it.
As governor, he did not raise taxes and balanced an out of control state budget.
For some reason, gay and lesbian Republicans do not like that.
The reason is obvious.
The Log Cabins in a sense feel that that the Romney of 1994, a loser and on the wrong side of social and economic issues, is better than the Romney of 2007, the very potential Republican nominee for president.
I suppose the fear of the Log Cabins is that a President Romney will appoint just enough justices to the supreme court that will more than likely decide whether there is a federal constitutional "right" to same sex marriage. And, they would be right. It is called a constructionist. Someone who does not divine the constitution to his or her whim, but tries to reason the intent of the authors.
Log Cabins need to do a better job at reaching out-to fellow Republicans-if they expect to change any minds on same sex marriage. Alienating their fellow GOPers makes no sense.
The other aspect is where are the Log Cabins getting the money to put on the television ads? Also, which Republican candidate are they supporting and if that candidate does not win the nomination, will they support the winner? I doubt it.
The interesting meaning of all of this is that sometimes a candidate, in a race for one office will run to the left and when running for another, and this is key, office in a different time, to the right. And for Republicans, the right always wins.
And that is the Romney story. And he is catching hell from a group that calls itself loyal Republicans, but more often than not, sound like Democrats.
For the Log Cabins, they are chewing their nose off for no other reason than to discredit the front runner in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney. If they want to be recognized and given a place at the table, one would think that they can do better than the lifting for the Democrats.

1 comment:

Pat Jenkins said...

now this i don't get 64. the l.c. repubs know the party platform, no matter the candidate, is going to be against their personal agenda, so why simply focus on romney. are they not attacking his conservative credentials with these adds? do they want a more conservative candidate? an answer for better minds than mine.