Romney's "Gay Old Party"

Larry Sabato may have stumbled on the one remaining threat to Mitt Romney's coronation: Scandal. In an article on NewsMax today, Sabato who is convinced Romney will be the nominee short of some unexpected event is quoted as saying, “You never know when a scandal is going to pop up — certainly in his case not a personal scandal — but you just never know what’s out there.”

While Sabato was not specific about the scandal lurking just under the radar, it may be related to information that Andrew Breitbart was slated to release on March 1. Many speculated that Btreitbart was referring to the tapes vetting president Obama when he tweeted, "Wait till they see what happens March 1st" shortly before his death. The Obama tapes debuted a week later, and there is no clear evidence that the conservative blogger had anything else in mind. However, there is a link between Andrew Breitbart and the emerging "scandal" of the GOP establishment's active involvement in promoting marriage equality for gay people.

It was a Romney operative and board member of the gay rights group, GOProud who "outed" a gay pollster on the Rick Perry campaign. Breitbart resigned from the GOProud board in protest over the "outing", making it clear that this practice crosses the line and endangers those exposed. As an active member of GOProud, Breitbart was likely to be well aware of gay rights activists and gay people, both open and closeted within the GOP establishment who are involved in the Romney campaign or who are among his most vocal endorsers. Breitbart's ethics on this issue would have prevented him from "outing" any of these people who were not openly gay, but he could have done damage to Romney's vaunted pro-family stance on gay "marriage" by revealing how extensively the gay rights movement has penetrated the GOP establishment in general and the Romney campaign in particular.

Several key players in the Romney machine are active board members of various gay rights groups, including his lead spokeswoman, Ann Coulter who prides herself in being the "queen of fabulous", being inaugurated as GOProud's "Gay Icon" at their annual "HomoCon" conference. The president of GOProud's board, Jimmy LaSalvia, who has endorsed Romney, lit the fuse that caused all of this to come out ahead of the Illinois primary. In his outing of Rick Perry's pollster, LaSalvia risked mass exposure of others in Romney's inner circle that include such gay luminaries as Matt Drudge, who has earned a spot on Out Magazine's Top 50 most influential gays and lesbians. Drudge has been a central dumping ground for Romney's opposition research on other candidates. Among other advocates are Dick Cheney, who lobbied lawmakers for a gay "marriage" law in Maryland, Laura Bush and her daughter Barbara, former Bush Solicitor General, Ted Olson and former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, who came out in 2010.

Searching through the boards of both conservative and radical gay rights groups yields a lengthy list of familiar names from within the GOP establishment. The "scandal" is not a personal one, as Larry Sabato points out, but one of promoting an entirely different policy agenda under the radar than the party and its platform present above ground. When Rick Santorum took the bait on Obama's controversial battle against the Catholic Church, the establishment punditry within the GOP went into an inexplicable panic urging all candidates to stay away from the social issues. Perhaps there are more areas where private policy activism runs counter to their publicly stated positions.


Romney has been endorsed by most of the gay rights groups on the GOP side. This should come as no surprise to those Republicans who were aware that such groups even existed. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney actively courted the Log Cabin Republicans and worked hard to promote their agenda. In one post, the Gay Patriot blog posted an article stating that GOProud praised Romney's loyalty to gay rights issues with a banner headline, "GOProud Congratulates Romney for Standing Up for Gay Americans."

Indeed, one would hope all of the GOP candidates would stand up for Americans from all walks of life. But we should also hope that they would be up front on their policies. Romney's Gay Old Party establishment has joined him in straying far from the party's publicly stated positions on gay rights issues.

Bolstered by an increasingly moderate establishment, Mitt Romney is likely to enter the White House with a not-so clearly articulated agenda for making gay "marriage" a national policy. Allowing for some constitutional interpretation based on several states already having gay "marriage" laws on the books, it won't be hard for Romney to use the courts to promote this agenda as he did in Massachusetts. There, Romney voiced opposition to gay "marriage" in his state, even as he maneuvered it into law, blaming the Supreme Judicial Court and maintaining his conservative bonafides in preparation for his 2008 run.

What are conservative rank and file to think of an establishment overrun by gay people and their advocates? Perhaps we live in an era where it's understood that people in both parties will come from all walks of life -- it is accepted that gay "marriage" is the nation's future and we should just get used to it. Or perhaps there will be yet another struggle from the silent majority to seek greater influence within the GOP.

It may be too late for conservatives to have a significant influence in the party. Those who control the purse strings, the convention parliamentary rules and the ballot access rules are also serving on boards of the most radical anti-family groups in the country. Short of moving to a truly conservative party like the Constitution Party, social conservatives no longer have a voice in the body politic.

Time for a Catholic GOP Candidate?

Recently, a friend commented that conservatives opposed Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential nominee because he is a Mormon. Results from the Iowa and New Hampshire polling show that Evangelicals supported Romney because they believed he was electable or because they believe his strength as a business leader made him a better fit for these tough economic times. Those who did not support him were more committed to values issues. No exit polling registered opposition to Romney because of his faith. The recent attacks on Romney based on his business practices at Bain Capital clearly demonstrate that he would be unelectable against Obama who would successfully demagogue his way to a second term. It's not about Mormonism -- it's about identity. We are a conservative -- but populist -- nation with which Romney is out of step because of his core values. Those values are separate and distinct from his faith (Mormonism does NOT direct public policy).

However, faith may be a factor in the general election if the GOP candidate is a Catholic. Unlike Mormons, Episcopals or non-denominational Evangelicals, Catholics tend to be motivated both by their faith identity AND the values of their faith. In other words, while Evangelicals may support a Catholic candidate who espouses their views on social issues, Catholics may support him because he is a Catholic, baring a significant difference on issues. In this sense, I'm talking about practicing Catholics and not people who happen to come from a Catholic tradition.

People assume wrongly that because Mormon faith and practice leads them to lead clean and moral lives that their political views are in lock step with their personal views -- that a Mormon who is pro-life would necessarily take the pro-life view as a matter of public policy. Whether gay rights, abortion, legal gambling and drugs -- pick a values issue -- Mormons do not have a church policy that directs them in the area of public policy. Those worried that the LDS Prophet may direct Mitt Romney's administration from some secret location in Salt Lake City are both naive and bigoted. Mormon politicians tend to be more moderate-to-liberal BECAUSE their faith does not dictate their policies; Romney is free to govern as he sees fit, and he comes from a faith tradition that separates individual faith and practice from public policy as no other faith. This is why virtually every Mormon politician of note tends to be moderate to liberal in spite of their personal religious leanings.

In the same way, it is wrongheaded and bigoted to think that a Gingrich or a Santorum administration would be directed remotely from the Vatican. Given this contrast, the idea of a Catholic standard bearer for the GOP as opposed to a Mormon one is an attractive proposition. While Romney's core values are as moderate as those of other public figures from his faith tradition, those of Santorum are just as conservative as those from his faith tradition. The difference is that Catholics have traditionally been a Democratic constituency since JFK. Those Catholics who see the Democratic Party abandoning their core values may find a friend in Santorum or Gingrich; populism tempered by a moral compass.

Debate Update CBS 8:00 EST 11/12/11

Tony Silva
Michele Bachmann will explain how we can improve our foreign policy position by gutting veteran's benefits and using the savings to mail threatening titanium postcards to foreign dictators.

Herman Cain will give a more detailed explanation of how his bold new solution (-9-9-9) will prevent China from acquiring nuclear weapons it already has.

Ron Paul will explain how wiping Israel off the face of the Earth will resolve most conflicts in the world -- and failing that, how talking politely to Iran will encourage them to give up the nuclear program he doesn't believe they actually have.

Rick Perry will, uh... well he -- uh what I mean is, he'll say and that's -- yes that.

Mitt Romney will call for a strong, directed and focused foreign policy that he supported before he opposed it and having looked at it again, feels there are at least 59 points he'll upload to his website sometime next week if he can decide on a plan to stick with.

Rick Sanitorium will declare that he led on this issue long before the other candidates formulated an opinion because he served a term in the Senate and understands these things.... if the moderators will call on him.

Rick Perry will, oh yeah -- I think he already well you know.

John Huntsman will point out that foreign policy is a 10th amendment issue and the federal government has no business imposing a foreign policy on states -- Oh. Wrong debate. His daughters will post a "viral" video immediately afterward.

Newt Gingrich will lay out a clear and coherent position on each major issue as the rest of the candidates furiously take notes and try to repeat his talking points the next time they're called on.

RESULT: Polls after the debate will show at least 50,000 viewers tuning in during Bachmann and Paul segments will think they were on the wrong channel seeing an SNL special. Frank Luntz will talk about how all but one of his focus group people supported Romney and now support Newt. FoxNews will report that Cain, while losing some support remains at the top of the polls... and that Gingrich continues to surge past Romney (who is now third in most polls) but that Romney remains the front runner.

This post is a public service of www.quiverdaddy.blogspot.com

Exclusive Photo of Cain Accuser!



QuiverDaddy was unable to confirm which accuser is in the photo given the large number of annonymous sources in the original story.  Developing.

Herman Cain's Next Steps

Tony Silva

As the Cain "sexual harassment" story unfolded, the charismatic candidate enjoyed almost universal support among the conservative commentocracy. He also faced unrelenting derision among GOP establishment commentators for the handling of this non-issue. His campaign can claim a small victory in the increased donations it received over the course of the first news cycle -- almost a million dollars in a few days.

The problem conservatives face this election cycle is the candidates who most reflect their values lack the skills and experience necessary to win elections. Michele Bachmann torpedoed her campaign from day one by selecting Ed Rollins as her campaign manager. He has since left, along with most of her staff in key states. Cain may have permanently damaged himself in the same way, selecting Mark Block as his key strategist. While it is clear Block has been effective in raising Cain's profile, what he lacks is the crisis management skills that are inevitably needed once a candidate achieves front runner status. Bachmann's assessment is right: Conservatives do not need to settle for the establishment pick. However, unless the anti-establishment choice can run a professional operation, neither Bachmann nor Cain can overcome the odds in Romney's favor; they can't stay at the head of the pack by merely blaming the media or other campaigns for every misstep.

Cain's next steps must be totally focused on building a professional campaign operation capable of rapidly responding to the attacks from both the media and opposing campaigns. Without that, he could not win against Obama even if he could overcome the Mitten Machine. His messaging team needs to get him beyond 9-9-9 and Aegis missile equipped ships to a broad based and well informed set of easy to grasp policy positions. He needs to surround himself with experienced and knowledgeable policy operatives in all areas -- foreign policy, national defense, domestic policy and a broader economic plan than his bold call for serious tax reform.

Before all of these steps, Cain needs to invest some of the money earned from the "sexual harassment" blow back in coaching to learn how to answer questions with the message he wants to communicate. Let Herman be Herman may be a key to putting him into front runner status. Let Herman be nuanced is the next step to making sure he maintains that status.

Cain Hoopla: No Sense of Perspective

Tony Silva

The media are moving on to matters of style rather than substance in the Herman Cain "sexual harassment" scandal.  It's wise for them to do so at this point, given the overall lack of substance to the charges and given the obvious sourcing behind the story.

From the Democrat controlled media to Mitt Romney's apologists on FoxNews, the almost universal analysis now is that Cain did not handle the story well, meaning he did not have all of the facts in order and a carefully plotted damage control plan in place before talking to the media.  To the extent that we're talking about a typical political campaign in which experienced under-the-radar operators take out an opponent with questionably obtained dirt, they're correct.   Unfortunately, Romney's unofficial chef strategist, Karl Rove misses the point with his constant criticism of a candidacy like Herman Cain's.  The establishment and the "old way of doing politics" is turned on its head when a novice fumbles an easy catch like this one.  They're unprepared for just how much sympathy someone like Cain gets when he confronts the traditionally slung mud.

The media has no sense of perspective in this story.  When Bill Clinton was credibly accused of rape, or of real sexual harassment or even of repeated cigaramour with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, his apologists went after the women involved, ruining the lives of almost all of them.  That's how the game is played.  For the legacy media, the Clinton saga was one of a strongly pro-woman politician who had some minor moral flaws; it was all about his personal life, which was irrelevant to his fitness for public service.  Now, they see Cain's waffling as evidence of something more serious than moral bankruptcy.  Nobody on either side believes Herman Cain is capable of the willful misogynistic treatment of women that defined Clinton.  Few people really believe Cain did anything that rises to the level of sexual harassment at all, much less the nearly criminal behavior toward women that is the Clinton contribution to our understanding of this issue.  So what is Cain actually guilty of?  In the media and establishment mindset, his crime is naivete.

From the media's perspective, Cain is predictable in the only high crime and misdemeanor for which political accountability is necessary: political innocence.  It is this quality of the Cain character that has propelled him to front runner status.  We can be fairly certain that his lack of nuance and apparent inability to obfuscate will make anything he says, no matter how clumsy, on issues like this a genuine reflection of the man.   With Cain, we don't need to know what the meaning of the word, "is" is.  If he said he did not sexually harass anyone, he clearly believes that.  It is up to the electorate to consider the available facts.  If Clinton is the standard of permissible conduct, then the only thing left for the media and the Karl Rove wing of the GOP to consider is this lack of guile that is at the core of Herman Cain's gaffery.

We have learned two important lessons in this story:

1. If you're a liberal Democrat, no amount of abusive conduct toward women will harm you politically -- you get a pass
2. If you're a non-establishment conservative Republican, it is only the seriousness of the charges that matters -- as Clarence Thomas learned -- and you get a rope.

Romney Camp Source of Cain Leak?

Tony Silva

A Northern Virginia blogger with a legal background has unearthed a credible link between the recent "sexual harassment" story about Herman Cain and the Romney campaign.  The link comes in the form of a significant donation to the Romney camp this summer from the man who succeeded Cain as president of the National Restaurant Association, Steven C. Anderson.   According to Paul Brados, who's investigation into FEC records uncovered the donation, he confirmed that the Steven C. Anderson in the FEC database is the same person who succeeded Cain and would have had access to the records in question.

If true, there remains plausible deniability for Romney and his media supporters as Anderson could have acted alone.  It is unclear why Brados believes a campaign donation is conclusive proof of a coordinated effort to provide opposition research to one of the campaigns.  However, while it is a believable scenario that an enthusiastic supporter with access to this information would find a way to get it into the hands of someone in the Romney camp who is able to get it into the public arena, it is more likely that the information was leaked to a prominent Romney supporter with media connections and the political savvy to get it before the public without the Romney camp being involved at all.  That could happen if one of the Romney apologists in the media with a reputation for "making things happen" got the "plain Manila envelope" containing the tip.  Only Karl Rove fits that profile.  In his appearance on FoxNews Monday evening, Rove was more animated in his nightly rant against Cain than he has been for the whole cycle.  You could almost see the veins bursting from Rove's neck as he poured forth his wisdom about Cain's presumed moral failure.

The notion of collusion between any campaign operative and the media aside from the daily talking points and press releases that are part and parcel to the process is repugnant to all of us.  But when media operatives work together to surface a story it is unconscionable.  Making sure something happened with random information provided by an enthusiastic supporter fits the Rove attack profile that successfully got George W. Bush nominated, elected and re-elected.  If he was involved -- even if acting on his own -- it could have a devastating effect on both Romney and his media arm in FoxNews.  Already, fellow FoxNews commentators have condemned the action and acknowledged rumors of an "un-named GOP campaign" as the source.  Tuesday evening on the O'Reilley Factor, Bill O'Reilley refused to name the rumored source because it could not be confirmed.  If it was a fellow employee of FNC, known to be promoting the Romney effort, it's doubtful Mr. Rove would be a target in the "No-Spin Zone".

So the list of "suspected leakers" grows.  Initially the prime suspect was the Obama campaign... then Perry was floated as a possible culprit.  Some have even played the "who would benefit most" game as an explanation of why they thought Bachmann would be the pigeon.  But Bachmann was herself the target of this same kind of strategy -- a "random" leak about her having migraines.  Then, the suspected source was also the Romney camp.  In the end, all this speculation proves is that Romney is quite possibly the most hated political figure in the GOP.  His sleazy operation in 2008 automatically makes him the prime suspect anytime something of this scurrilous nature comes down the pike.  That may not be fair to Governor Romney, but the blogosphere did not earn him a reputation for unethical campaigning.   He did that on his own in 2008.  Having Karl Rove as his thinly disguised media advocate only compounds the image.  

So the "credible link" is credible only because the character of Romney and Rove are known.  The character of Herman Cain is largely unknown, but those who know him best seem to be better character references than Karl Rove has been for Romney.