Category: Uncategorized

Bay Windows has posted a copy of the letter that would-be presidential candidate Mitt Romney wrote during his 1994 Senate campaign to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts.

In the letter, Romney claimed he would be an even better senator for gay and lesbian interests than Ted Kennedy. “If we are to achieve the goals we share,” Romney wrote, “we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.”

Here’s how Romney described Bill Clinton’s “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy: “I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being allowed to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.”

The New York Times reports on the letter today in an article that includes quotes from such right-wing figures as Tony Perkins and Paul Weyrich expressing their dismay with Romney.

But as Bay Windows editor Susan Ryan-Vollmar observes, the letter “was widely reported on at the time.” Why Romney thought he could ever fool the Christian right into believing he had always been an ally is a mystery.

Interestingly, the Romney revelations (re-revelations?) coincide with a cover story (sub. req.) in The New Republic about the only other religious-right presidential candidate, U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

Like Romney, Brownback comes off as someone who, a dozen years ago, held distinctly more moderate views than he does today. Unlike Romney, Brownback appears to have undergone a sincere religious conversion, from mainline Protestant to evangelical Christian and, finally, to devout Catholic.

Romney, on the other hand, is trying to claim that his Mormon faith makes his views one with those of the religious right. Never mind that his mother, also a Mormon, appears to have been pro-choice. Never mind that Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, among the best-known Mormon politicians in the country, favors embryonic-stem-cell research, which Romney does not.

And never mind that Romney himself, in his first run for office, portrayed himself as pro-choice and as a staunch supporter of what the religious right likes to denounce as “the homosexual agenda.”

For connoisseurs of political hypocrisy in its purest form, the Romney letter is gold. But have his presidential hopes been destroyed?

Not necessarily. The number-one issue for gay men and lesbians today is same-sex marriage, which Romney can claim never to have supported. Marriage equality was barely on the radar in 1994. Even when he ran for governor in 2002, it had not quite attained critical mass. So he’ll try to thread the needle, saying he supports gay and lesbian equality but not marriage.

Will religious-right voters buy it? It’s hard to say. But Romney had certainly better hope he’s not on record supporting, say, civil unions.

It continues apace, according to the Weekly Dig’s blog. Among the latest victims: Sean McCarthy, whose cheeky sensibility is the sort of thing I thought they wanted at One Herald Square.

One thing that’s inexplicable is the utter lack of planning. You’d think Pat Purcell could sit down with his money people and say, OK, here’s what we can afford to do for the next year, no matter what happens. And if that required whacking 30 more people, well — horrible though that would be, it would certainly be better than dribbling it out a week at a time.

I assume the end is not at hand — otherwise, he wouldn’t have given his daughter a promotion this week. But this is as ugly as it gets.

The headline on this article in Bay Windows by Laura Kiritsy is grossly inaccurate. Gov. Mitt Romney is not fat. Indeed, not only is he always impeccably turned out, but he’s as slim as a twentysomething gay guy at the gym.

Am I out of bounds? Well, 12 years ago Romney might have taken a remark like that it in stride, or even hoped it would win him a few votes. After all, he had adopted the persona of a gay-friendly, Bill Weld-style moderate Republican in his unsuccessful attempt to defeat U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy. In 2002 Romney was at it again, courting gay men and lesbians in his campaign for governor.

As we all know, Romney is now running for president as a hard-right conservative, flipping on such crucial social issues as abortion rights (he used to be in favor; now he’s against) and gay and lesbian equality (he’s become an outspoken foe of same-sex marriage).

The problem is, everyone knows when Romney is lying: his lips move. You may recall that, some years ago, former senator Bob Kerrey referred to Bill Clinton as “an unusually good liar.” It’s always seemed to me that Romney was the opposite. There’s a long public record of Romney’s making statements that are 180 degrees different from what he’s saying today. There’s no shading them; all he can hope for is that everyone forgets.

So kudos to Kiritsy and Bay Windows for digging up and publishing what the rest of us knew was there but were too lazy or distracted to go looking for.

And here’s one of my personal favorites, from a 1994 Kennedy-Romney debate at Faneuil Hall that I watched from the balcony. According to the Boston Globe of Oct. 27, 1994, here’s what Romney said about the Boy Scouts of America’s policy of discriminating against gay boys and adult leaders:

Asked about the policy in Tuesday’s debate, Romney said, “I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue.” But he then added, “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”

After Romney’s defeat, Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby lambasted him as “a watered-down liberal” whom voters found less appealing that “the genuine article.” Well, he’s not going to make that mistake again.

Here is today’s Globe story on the Bay Windows revelations.

I was just about ready to switch Media Nation from Blogger.com to WordPress when I got a message last night saying that I could transfer to the new, improved Blogger. Well, I tried this morning and was informed that it’s still in beta; I can’t join in the fun because my blog is too large.

I’ve been using Blogger since 2002, and have found it easy but consistently frustrating, mainly because it’s down quite a bit. It also hasn’t kept up with new features such as tags and comment verification. Google acquired Blogger a few years ago, but it hasn’t helped. However, the new Blogger is supposed to address a few of these shortcomings — especially reliability and tags. (I may have to go third-party for a better comment system.)

For the time being, I’ll stick with Blogger and hope that I’ll be allowed to upgrade soon — mainly because changing Media Nation’s address would be a huge pain.

Citizen Charles Foster Kane says he’s all done with blogging — but not before taking a final shot at Gregg Jackson, the right-wing cohost of the radio show “Pundit Review.” (It’s fair and balanced — the other host is a normal conservative.)

Kane’s was a voice of intelligent incivility, and he’ll be missed. Perhaps he’ll change his mind.

The Phoenix’s Adam Reilly reports that WGBH president Henry Becton is retiring.

Recently I cited a Wall Street Journal piece by former Boston Globe columnist John Ellis as evidence that the New York Times Co. would not sell the Globe — at least not until it had managed to goose up its value.

Well, last night I checked out Ellis’ infrequently updated blog and discovered that he’s taken it back. He’s posted his entire Journal column, so you can finally read it without a subscription. But he adds this, in reference to Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr.:

I now think he should sell all of the “New England assets” (The Globe, the Worcester paper, the Red Sox stake and the NESN stake), and gather up $1 billion-plus. This would enable the Times company to enter the next (2009-2010?) recession loaded with cash.

The fact is that the Globe is doomed. Without union concessions, the cost structure doesn’t work. And the unions will never concede anything, ever. So the NYT might as well get $600 million for it now, rather than $300 million for it in 2010.

Of course, $600 million is the price that retired GE chairman Jack Welch‘s group has floated for buying just the Globe.

Interesting, speculative though it is. Ellis does not specify what kind of “union concessions” the Times Co. needs. It’s certainly my impression that Globe management is already squeezing the union pretty hard.

I did a Technorati search to see whether I was the first blogger to stumble across Ellis’ revisionist theorizing, and discovered that a financial site called Controlled Greed posted on this yesterday.

It was an experiment preordained to fail.

Two years ago, Clear Channel rebranded two of its weak-signaled Boston-area stations, AM 1200 and 1430, as “Boston’s Progressive Talk,” featuring liberal hosts from Air America (such as Al Franken and Randi Rhodes) and the Jones Radio Networks (Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller).

With little promotion and a small coverage area, liberal radio has not exactly been a ratings success here. Now, Jesse Noyes reports in the Boston Herald, Clear Channel is ready to pull the plug, and is likely to turn over the two frequencies to Spanish-language programming. The move comes as Clear Channel is in the process of being acquired by new owners, including Gov. Mitt Romney’s former company, Bain Capital.

And get this: Noyes says that Clear Channel is boosting the power of AM 1200 from 10,000 watts to 50,000. Gee, do you think that might have made “progressive talk” more popular?

It’s obvious that Clear Channel executives never wanted liberal radio to succeed in Boston. It was just a way of killing time until they figured out what they wanted to do with the two frequencies. Nor is it a terrible thing that Greater Boston’s growing Spanish-language audience will be better served. Still, this is a loss. Someone else ought to give it a try.

Update: Brian Maloney has more, and he also offers this:

These particular stations have really brought out a number of lefty conspiracy theorists who believe the lack of ratings were the result of not enough signal power and a promotional shortfall by the company. But these same arguments could be made regarding a number of other talk outlets that have in fact succeeded.

Uh, Brian. If you can’t hear the station, you can’t hear the station. If I leave for work early or come home late, I can’t listen, because AM 1430, which is the signal closest to me, is a sunup-to-sundown station. I’m pretty sure AM 1200 is, too. That’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s a reality-based observation.

Both the Globe and the Herald report today that it looks like Manny Ramírez will be back in a Red Sox uniform next year. Well, break out the Champagne. Having Julio Lugo, Coco Crisp, David Ortiz, Manny and J.D. Drew batting one through five sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?

But what, really, is the deal with Manny? He did, after all, stop playing for the last six weeks of the season in 2006. I’m prepared to believe that he’s a semi-mature adult, which means that I have to assume he was, indeed, too hurt to play. OK, then. Has he healed? Is he rehabbing? Does he need surgery? Will he be gone by Memorial Day when his knee problems come back?

Fans who defend Ramírez forget that last year was not like any other year. He didn’t just take a few days off under mysterious circumstances. He stopped playing. That was different — and scary for Red Sox fans.

Here’s an actual headline on WorldNetDaily right now: “Dick Morris: Hillary wants to be ‘President Rodham.'” Apparently this is something Morris said on Fox News.

Morris’ comments — and WorldNetDaily’s fascination with them — raise two questions: How does he know? And who cares? (Via Drudge, who also thinks this is hot stuff. Be prepared for a lot of this.)