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.

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.

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

(Shamelessly swiped from Hawsepiper.)

@6:38 – Santorum: This is the kind of outright lies and the hypocrisy that Gov. Romney is engaged in, not just with Newt Gingrich now but with anybody who stands in his way. You can get away with it, obviously, if you’ve got millions of dollars to spend and you go out there lying and people don’t hold you accountable. Well, we are. And let me assure you that everybody else in this race is going to start to do the same.

…

@9:14 – Ingraham: Is [Romney] a liar? You said [his TV ads] are filled with lies. He knows what is in the ads so is he a liar?

Santorum: You know liar means–has he perpetrated lies? Yes he has. I’m not going to judge him as a person I am going to judge what his actions are and his actions were not truthful.

I wasn’t going to bother watching the debate tonight, but now… yes, indeed.

I wish we had events like this in the U.S. No media filter, and forget the typical canned politician responses; these people are talking to one another, debating, and the truth is being revealed. Stupidity and laziness can’t hide in this format – they either know their facts and their positions or they don’t. Memorized talking points can’t save them because if they spout out a canned answer it would be obvious. They do this on a regular basis – check CSPAN for the “Prime Minister’s Questions.”

And… Thatchermania! The Heritage Foundation has a great video on Thatcher, for young’uns who never heard of her and old’uns who need a refresher course:

The man is desperate to be President. We mock President Obama’s endless campaigning.  But as Jonah Goldberg put it,

Romney, the son of a politician, has been running for office, holding office or thinking about running for office for more than two decades.

What will he do to win?  Whatever it takes, evidently:

Romney is willing to sit there as former staff members say anything and everything about his conservative competition, while pretending to be above it all. Instead of owning it, he acts like an innocent victim. That’s what Limbaugh and Levin were referencing on their shows yesterday. It’s an open secret many observers know.

Ask a close Romney supporter about it and they’ll say it’s just good politics, damaging your opponent, without hurting your own guy. Romney has ruthlessly exploited today’s campaign finance rules to lie and smear away, the same way he ruthlessly exploited certain businesses in ways that crushed people’s lives. And he danced away then, too, shielded by the notion that, it was simply a corporation. No, Mitt Romney started and led that corporation, just as he has led misleading smear campaign after campaign today. There is a definite pattern here and it includes lying, repeatedly.

So what is Neutral Evil, exactly?

Neutral Evil is called the “Malefactor” alignment. Characters of this alignment are typically selfish and have no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment. They have no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit to it. They abide by laws for only as long as it is convenient for them. A villain of this alignment can be more dangerous than either Lawful or Chaotic Evil characters, since he is neither bound by any sort of honor or tradition nor disorganized and pointlessly violent.

While I’d say this tends to be true of all politicians, I think it’s especially true of Mitt Romney, who takes any position he needs to, carpetbombs his opponents with unfair attacks and dons the mantle of victimhood when they return the favor.  He was perfectly okay with forcing residents of Massachusetts into a system where they pay more, endure longer wait times, and receive less health care.  ”Universal coverage” (which Romneycare did not achieve anyway) does not mean unlimited health care.  These outcomes were easily predictable – just look at the Canadian and UK  healthcare systems.  And yet, he did it, and to this day defends it.  We are expected to believe, however, that he’s going to make repealing Obamacare (which was based on Romney’s health care “reform”) a priority.

I’ll vote for him if I have to – if the only other choice is Obama. But he’s not inevitable, and the ongoing coronation attempts are distasteful.  He’s just not that great a candidate.

Video on Mitt’s flip-flopping:

The International Committee of the Red Cross can’t muster up the energy to condemn Palestinian violations of the Geneva and Hague Conventions against Israel, but is considering ways to “encourage” governments to regulate first-person shooters where players commit virtual war crimes.

Here’s the thing: typically liberals want a kinder, gentler world where all the kids share their crayons and take turns and everything is fair. They often have laudable goals. But – and they know this, because their actions bear it out – human nature guarantees it’s never going to happen this side of heaven. So they work to coerce and force people to play nice.  They are perfectly willing to micromanage every single part of your life in order to achieve their goals.  Kind intentions aside, they are fascists.

Incidentally, let me go on the record here: For any Paul fans who are thinking “This is his time,” I heretofore state I will not support, or vote for, Ron Paul, under any circumstances whatsoever.

That’s where I’m coming form. Under no circumstances whatsoever will I vote for this reactionary, anti-semitic peacenik “We brought 9/11 ourselves” pacifist Chomnskyite crank.

And I’ll say it: I will, yes, be amenable to Barack Obama being re-elected under those circumstances. As members of the Purity Brigade used to tell me–Sometimes you win by losing.

I would decide at that point to use my own “Sometimes we win by losing” chits at that point. As was said of Mike Castle — it’s better that we lose, because at least the guy in office won’t be one of our own, making those bad decisions.

Anyway, that’s my line in the sand. I figure a lot of people agree. Might as well just put that on the record, that for some of us, Ron Paul is not an acceptable third, fourth, or fifth choice.

Yes, indeed.  Click through for a whole lot more on why we need to let go of the concept that any of the GOP candidates are the Great Conservative Hope.  Not a single one of them is, and it’s past time we actually look at the cards we’ve been dealt and play them as well as we can.  And generally, they are acceptable. Flawed, but acceptable, and definitely an improvement over Obama. I will hold my nose and even vote for Romney if I really have to, but yes, I do agree with Ace – I will fold rather than play a Ron Paul card.

But the NASCAR crowd which booed her really was classless. This was a pretty standard First Lady gig at which politics were not mentioned. If she’d paused to lecture everyone about their diet, or repeated her gaffe about finally being proud of her country, that would be one thing. But to me, this just seems really uncalled for:

ADDED: Yes, okay, the obligatory vegetable nag did take place… but not until the NASCAR/Military Family BBQ afterwards, and she did keep politics out of it.