As recently as eight years ago, Mitt Romney personally donated $10,000 to the AIDS Action Committee (AAC).  That sounds great – I mean, who’s in favor of AIDS? (Yes, okay, the Phelpsians, but I’m talking about normal people.)  Here’s the problem: the AAC promotes gay sex to kids. From Steve Baldwin at RWN (emphasis added) -

One of the AAC’s more infamous publications is The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, which was published, as the booklet itself states, with assistance from Romney’s Department of Public Health. The booklet promotes the most perverse behavior, including “water sports,” “rimming” and “fisting.” It also lists local gay bars. Incredibly, this filth was distributed to public schools. In 2005, when some parents discovered the booklet was passed out at Brookline High, all hell broke loose. Apparently, some parents thought teaching their kids how to urinate on one another wasn’t a good idea. The controversy was covered by the Boston Globe and Romney was questioned by a reporter about it. He had little choice but to denounce The Little Black Book as “graphic pornographic material” that didn’t belong in the public schools.

However, a year earlier, Romney’s own Department of Public Health assisted AAC with the publication of the booklet. Moreover, the AAC has always used graphic material in its publications, even during the time period it received $10,000 from Romney. It’s what AAC is known for. It is hard to believe Romney didn’t know this. Romney apologists will argue that AAC also worked to prevent AIDS, but it hard to see how a group that promotes such risky behaviors can do any good preventing AIDS.

Just eight years ago, Mitt Romney personally and also professionally, in the course of his work as Governor, supported a group which promoted urinating on one another as part of a sex act to minors, and a list of local gay bars.

Is eight years a long time? Here in New Orleans, when remembering past events we still tend to mark time as BK and AK – and Romney’s donation was just one year Before Katrina. Not so long ago. Children born in 2004 are now in the second grade. That’s still pretty young. Consider your own political views – if you’re anything like me, they’ve changed somewhat over the last decade. But have they changed this radically?

Keep in mind that he was a Mormon then as he is today – and by anyone’s standards, Mormons are very socially conservative. Yet somehow he managed to fit a $10,000 donation to the AAC into his philosophy.  Was he completely fooled by these people when he donated? Then I question his judgment. Was $10,000 no big deal to him – the equivalent of giving a homeless guy a ten spot?  Then I question his financial management.  Was he currying favor with liberals? Then I question his political acuity.  We can be sure he wasn’t adhering to honestly held convictions, because his campaign is working mightily to minimize and deny his record.

This is who Romney is – he will take whatever position he needs to take.  And don’t think for a minute that the good looking rich guy with the charming smile won’t be congratulated, repeatedly, by the likes of Donna Brazile and James Carville and every other Democratic operative for his committment to gay rights. Including gay marriage which Romney also supported when he was governor.

He appointed gay judges, issued gay proclamations, gave a “parents of the year” award to a gay couple, funded gay school programs, promoted gay pride parades, gay proms, and much more. Additionally, Governor Romney aggressively and unilaterally implemented the Goodridge gay marriage decision even though the court never ordered him to do so. Moreover, he personally issued special “one-day” permits for 189 same sex couples to marry. So much for opposing gay marriage “at every opportunity” as his campaign claims he did.

Romney’s record on this issue will be a very effective weapon in the hands of Democrats who seek to undermine him with GOP voters, and it also goes to the issue of his serial flip-flopping.  Again, every GOP candidate has problems – incredibly, with a series of poor decisions the GOP has managed to make this race competitive for Obama. But the idea that Romney is the most electable, and that conservatives need to just get in line and support him if/when he wins in FL – at which point just four states will have voted for the GOP nominee – is patently insane.

I took part in John Hawkins latest poll to see where conservative bloggers stand prior to the FL primary, and here are the results.  For whatever it’s worth, I’m leaning Gingrich/Santorum. As I’ve written in the past, I’m not opposed to voting for Romney because of his Mormon religion.  I’m opposed to voting for Romney because of Romneycare, because his limited political career has featured attacks on conservatives, and because he’s a whiny little… okay, I’ll stop right there.  Suffice to say that his nasty habit of carpetbombing other candidates with the most vicious and disingenuous attacks, and then screaming like a spoiled little girl, “Mom! They hit me BACK!” when they respond in kind, is very tiresome.  I expect politicians to be sneaky, bad people. But this election season has me concluding that Romney is worse than most.

All of the candidates are bad choices.  But of the bad choices, I favor first Gingrich, because

• he started his campaign by going positive, and he entreated the other candidates to join him.  For a while there, he was so cordial and fair with other candidates that I was convince he was really running for Vice-President. It’s unfortunate that they did not join him, and I believe he made the only decision he could by ultimately responding to them in kind, but I admire him for trying.
• while he’s notably gone off the conservative reservation on some issues like global warming, he also has a long history of taking conservative action when he had the power to do so. Unlike Romney, who speaks like a conservative when he’s required to, but governed like a liberal/statist.
• he will fight the Obama machine, viciously when necessary, and is totally unafraid to call out the media for their partisanship.
• I agree with Gingrich that this election is primarily about ideas rather than personalities.  No, Newt isn’t polished or charming. But he can fluently express conservative ideas, and he has sufficient intellect to pound Obama on his record.  He won’t let Obama slide on issues like taking credit for drilling; he’ll bring it right back to the fact that Obama has fought hard to stop drilling at every turn.

As to Gingrich’s personal foibles – I’m hardly enthused about his serial philandering, and I do think it speaks to his judgment.  But I don’t need the President to provide a moral example for me to live by.  It would be nice if he were a virtuous person, but the lengthy pursuit of power that all politicians undergo tends to burn that out of you.  I will settle for a President who doesn’t interfere with my faith, the way Obama is doing in his attacks on the Catholic Church.

If the establishment – and this is ironic given how “establishment” Gingrich is himself – manages to drum him out of the race, I’ll fall back on supporting Santorum.  If I have to vote for Romney, I will, but I’ll go kicking and screaming the entire way.

“Is Ron Paul batshit crazy, or am I just sane?”

“He was never the same after Baggins stole the Precious.”

(Shamelessly swiped from Hawsepiper.)