Following up yesterday’s refusal by Mitt Romney to sign a “pro life” pledge — Mitt has issued a statement that affirms his pro-criminalization position on abortion and explains why he didn’t sign the pledge —

As much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List, its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.

The pledge also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government. I would expect every one of my appointees to carry out my policies on abortion and every other issue, irrespective of their personal views.

Mitt apparently is making the critical error of anticipating that he might actually have to govern. Today’s Republicans don’t do “govern.” Mitt’s explanation for why he didn’t sign the pledge fell on deaf ears. All the righties know is that he didn’t sign the pledge, so he can’t be trusted.

In his explanation of why Romney’s position is a mistake, a rightie blogger at Datechguy’s Blog writes,

One factor in the Deval Patrick victory of 2010 where he received less that 50% of the vote was social conservatives.

No they didn’t vote for Patrick, but given the choice between a candidate who declared himself pro-life and one who didn’t. These voters abandoned Charlie Baker and made up part of the nearly 8% of the Vote that Tim Cahill secured in the last election.

For those of us who weren’t following the Massachusetts governor’s race: Charlie Baker was the Republican nominee in the last Massachusetts gubernatorial election; Tim Cahill ran as an independent. The Democrat, Patrick, won.

Datechguy continues by reminding his readers that Mitt has also abandoned right-wing orthodoxy on climate change. He concludes,

As a primary strategy to win with the 30% of the liberal republican vote it is a sound strategy. As a general election strategy it is disaster waiting to happen.

Um, does that make sense to anybody? Show of hands?

The GOP’s problem, which it refuses to admit to itself, is that it has wandered so far right of center that any candidate who is radical enough to win the loyalty of the base is likely to scare the bejeezus out of a significant majority of general election voters.

Datechguy’s argument is that a candidate who is not ready to turn America into Womb Gestapo Nation would lose some part of the base in the general election and thus would lose a close election. But I think a larger percentage of “swing” voters would gravitate to the Dems if the GOP candidate spouted, say, Rick Santorum’s views on abortion and other social issues. The nation as a whole is way more moderate than that. A majority may favor some restriction on abortion, but going back many years only about 20 percent, give or take, are as extreme as the Susan B. Anthony list people.

Of course, the Left has its ideological zealots, also, and there are those who say that Obama is no better than Romney, so let’s punish Obama by voting for Romney. Tbogg explains why this is stupid. I believe I have an even stronger argument for why it is a bad idea but I am out of blogging time. I’ll pick this up later.

Elsewhere: Why Republicans keep losing the African-American vote.

Mitt Romney has refused to sign a “pro-life” pledge. Mitt insists he is “pro life,” mind you, but he thinks this particular pledge contains provisions that would restrict possible nominations to his cabinet and the courts and would block funding to some hospitals.

Give Mitt some credit for integrity here. Anyone who agrees to all the pledges generated by the various whackjob factions of the Whackjob Right would (if he were elected) enter the White House wearing such an inflexible ideological strait jacket he couldn’t so much as cough without breaking a pledge. So, although the CW on Mitt is that he’s a shameless flip-flopper, it appears in this case he is trying to be honest about what he might really do in office. This is unlike the shameless panderers who did sign the pledge — Bachmann, Gringrich, Paul, Pawlenty, and Santorum.

Mitt also has broken with right-wing ideology by admitting the earth is round getting warmer, and that humankind likely is contributing to that.

And this points up the GOP dilemma, which is that a candidate nutty enough to get the nomination is likely to be too radical to win the general election. The American public may be a bit confused about some aspects of climate science, but polls taken after last months tornadoes showed that a significant majority blamed global climate change rather than a wrathful God for the storms.

Before we go any further anointing Romney as the “reasonable” alternative to Right-wing insanity, however, let us point out that Romney can dish out teh crazy, too, when called upon to do so. And while Mitt may be the most viable general election candidate of the crew, many on the Right remember that’s what was said about John Kerry in 2004.

Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann doesn’t shy away from teh crazy — she’s telling cheering crowds of consrvatives that President Obama wants Medicare to go bankrupt so he can force senior citizens into “Obamacare.” This is his “secret” Medicare plan, she says.

The irony is, of course, that Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan actually would do something sorta like that. See “The GOP Proposes ‘Obamacare’ For Seniors.”

Bachmann also wants schools to teach “intelligent design.”

There’s some noise in the news that Moosewoman will announce her presidential intentions soon. Don’t hold your breath. I don’t think she wants to run; I think she wants the attention a candidate gets without actually having to jump through the same hoops as the rest of them and risk being a loser.

And, anyway, current CW on the Right is that Bachmann makes a better Palin than Palin.

It’s heartwarming to see conservatives’ new-found concern for constitutional war powers. Liberals have been complaining about executive usurpation of war powers since at least the 1960s. Conservatives usually just tell us to shut up.

Republicans, and some Democrats, in Congress are complaining the Obama Administration is in violation of the current War Powers Resolution. The White House says it isn’t. The New York Times (begrudgingly) is siding with John Boehner while the Wall Street Journal is siding with the President. I suppose editorial writers, unlike congresspersons, feel a need to be consistent with whatever stance they took during previous military actions.

The fact is, for lo these many years the War Powers Resolution has never been followed to the letter, and Congress only complains about it when is politically advantageous for members to do so. So while I agree with the Republicans in principle, I object to what I see as ex post facto interpretation of the law on their part.

I appreciate that the White House fears the current Congress would order U.S. military aid to the NATO action in Libya be withdrawn. As the New York Times says, if this happened “The cost to relations with Europe and the unity of the military alliance would be enormous — likely felt all the way to Afghanistan.” And the current House will vote to obstruct whatever President Obama wants to do just because it’s him doing it, and the hell with the cost. But I don’t think the President has a choice.

An ex-CIA agent is saying that the Bush White House asked the agency to dig up dirt on Professor Juan Cole, Middle East expert and blogger at Informed Comment. Professor Cole responds.

The retired agent says the Bushies didn’t like what Professor Cole was saying about the Iraq War and wanted to discredit him. It really does sound like something they would do, doesn’t it?

I forgot. Only Democrats are unpardonable. Never mind.

Conventional wisdom of less than a month ago was that either Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels would be the GOP presidential nominee in 2012. Maybe Romney, but nobody likes Romney.

Then Daniels dropped out, and the “smart” money was on Pawlenty. Until this week. After his tepid performance in Monday night’s debate, the pundits already are writing off his chances. They aren’t dismissing him because of his ridiculous economic plan, mind you, but because he failed to deliver a promised insult about Mitt Romney. Oh, and he’s boring.

I swear, some days I think I’m going to wake up from the dream and realize I’m still in high school.

At this moment, Mitt Romney is the obvious front runner. But for a variety of reasons, Romney is unpopular with both the GOP establishment and the Tea Party. Of the lot of them I think Romney is least likely to fall on his face during a general election campaign, so I hope he stays unpopular.

Republicans are looking for a white knight to rescue them from running a clown candidate. NJ Gov. Chris Christie was getting some buzz a few weeks ago, but his popularity is slipping. And he says he’s not running.

So now they’re looking to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who in any other time in American history would be considered a certifiable looney tune. Now the normally sober Nate Silver says Perry potentially is the most conservative candidate who is electable. And political news media are taking Michelle Bachmann seriously.

A tea party group in California has produced what some are calling the most blatantly racist and sexist attack ad of all time. It makes the old “Willie Horton” ad look subtle.

In the blog comments today, righties are weirdly oblivious to why some would find this monstrosity offensive. They think the outrage must mean progressives think the ad is effective.

I understand the California Republican Party has distanced itself from the ad, but the baggers don’t want to take it down. Hey, it’s a free country. Let them stand by the political speech they believe in, and let the world see what they are made of.

The morning’s consensus is that Michele Bachmann was the standout performer in last night’s vaudeville act GOP debate. News stories say the audience applauded enthusiastically at everything she said. Mitt Romney also had a good night, they say, but his biggest applause line was announcing that the Boston Bruins were leading the Vancouver Canucks.

This morning Pawlenty Dim Tim is being soundly denounced as a weenie for refusing to repeat his recent trash-talking of Mitt Romney to Romney’s face. Pizza magnate Herman Cain failed to deliver. Ron Paul was Ron Paul and Newt was Newt. Rick Santorum seems to have disappeared into the woodwork.

I skimmed through the transcript. Most of the “debate” amounted to someone asking the candidates “what would you do about blah,” and the candidates responding that President Obama is failing at blah, or doesn’t appreciate the importance of blah, or even is trying to undermine blah.

If you listened to this crew without knowing any better, you might think President Obama actually wants to shrink the economy and throw more people out of work, for example. Republicans, on the other hand, are in favor of economic growth and more jobs. Bold.

Only Romney and Bachmann were asked about the debt ceiling. Romney refused to respond to what would happen if it weren’t raised, and instead preached about the evils of government spending. Bachmann just said she voted no on the debt ceiling and then made some remarks about failures of leadership. No feet were held to fire, in other words.

The Ryan budget came up a few times. Most of the candidates repeated the party line about “entitlement reform” being the only way to get the budget balanced. Both Romney and Bachmann criticized President Obama for taking $500 billion out of Medicare to fund “Obamacare,” ignoring the fact that this money was mostly the overpayments to the private insurance companies offering Medicare Advantage policies, and not a single Medicare benefit has been taken away from seniors on regular Medicare.

To clarify: The Affordable Care Act does not take anything away from seniors to give to younger people, but rather eliminates some waste that was mostly paying for marketing and profits, and uses that for other health care funding. The Ryan plan, which they all praised, would take benefits away from seniors and give the money to millionaires in the form of tax cuts.

So the candidates are simultaneously denouncing Obama for taking benefits away from seniors, even though he didn’t, and praising Paul Ryan’s plan that really would take benefits away from seniors.

Pawlenty and Gingrich said they loved them some Ryan budget Medicare plan but would do it differently. Exactly what they would do differently will be announced. Mitt Romney simultaneously took credit for and denounced his own “Romneycare” plan in Massachusetts:

“I can’t wait to debate him and say, Mr. President, if, in fact, you did look at what we did in Massachusetts, why didn’t you give me a call and ask what worked and what didn’t? And I would have told you, Mr. President, that what you’re doing will not work.”

No one pressed Romney to give examples of what worked and what didn’t, however.

This is really my gripe about such debates — the candidates are allowed to weasel out of answering anything, and the moderators don’t push it. For example, moderator John King asked a pretty decent question —

Governor Pawlenty, answer the critics — and as you do so — who say 5 percent every year is just unrealistic. And as you do so, where’s the proof — where’s the proof that just cutting taxes will create jobs? If that were true, why during the Bush years, after the big tax cut, where were the jobs?

Now, that’s an excellent question, and one that all Republicans ought to be asked frequently. But here’s Pawlenty Dim’s answer:

Well, John, my plan involves a whole plan, not just cutting taxes. We’re proposing to cut taxes, reduce regulation, speed up this pace of government, and to make sure that we have a pro-growth agenda.

This president is a declinist. He views America as one of equals around the world. We’re not the same as Portugal; we’re not the same as Argentina. And this idea that we can’t have 5 percent growth in America is hogwash. It’s a defeatist attitude. If China can have 5 percent growth and Brazil can have 5 percent growth, then the United States of America can have 5 percent growth.

And I don’t accept this notion that we’re going to be average or anemic. So my proposal has a 5 percent growth target. It cuts taxes, but it also dramatically cuts spending. We need to fix regulation. We need to have a pro-American energy policy. We need to fix health care policy. And if you do those things, as I’ve proposed, including cut spending, you’ll get this economy moving and growing the private economy by shrinking government.

So, he evaded the question — which was not asked of the other candidates — and simply declared he is for strong economic growth while President Obama is, apparently, against it.

Toward the end they were asked about religious faith — they’re for it — and abortion — they’re agin’ it. Like this is a surprise. When asked about foreign policy, they all love the troops deployed overseas and think President Obama has failed at leadership.

Bachmann spoke at some length about Libya saying that we have no business messing around in Libya because no vital interest of America is being served there, and then she denounced President Obama for ceding leadership in the Libya action to France. No one pressed Bachmann about whether she thought being a participating member of NATO was still a vital interest of the U.S.

If I come across any particularly sharp analyses of the debate, I’ll add them here.