In the nation’s two marquee primary elections this year, Democrats in Virginia and Republicans in New Jersey selected moderate candidates for governor, rejecting people whose views were further left or right.

Certainly, it’s hard to draw conclusions about the country’s political mindset from just two races in just two states – primaries in which few voters participated, at that. But the results of Virginia’s Democratic primary on Tuesday and New Jersey’s GOP primary last week provide the only 2009 window into where voters in both parties may stand in Democrat Barack Obama’s first year as president and as the out-of-power Republican Party seeks to rebound.

The results are all the more noteworthy because primaries usually attract only the most motivated voters, typically people at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

But in these cases, voters seemed to chose nominees who may give their parties the best chance of winning in November given each state’s political traditions. Moderate Creigh Deeds won the Democratic nomination in Virginia, which until recently has tilted to the right nationally, and moderate Republican Christopher Christie won the GOP nod in New Jersey, historically a left-leaning state.

Ideologically, each appears positioned to attract independents and moderates from the opposite party in the fall.

The races are shaping up to be bloody; Democrats control both states but Republicans sense opportunity.

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine by law must leave office after one term. The three-way Democratic primary fight to succeed him was ugly – and expensive. Conversely, Republican Bob McDonnell, a conservative who is Virginia’s attorney general, had a clear path to the GOP nomination – and has a hefty bank account.

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine is seeking re-election and has the White House’s backing. But Republicans are buoyed by the fact that his support has tanked along with the state’s economy. Already, a series of polls has shown Corzine trailing Christie, a centrist former federal prosecutor.

“It sounds pretty consistent with the trends that we’ve been observing nationally – that the moderates have more sway these days than they did in the early part of the decade,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.

He added: “Primaries tend to draw more of the party regulars who tend to be more ideological, either left or right. But these results would suggest that even the true-blue Democrats and true-red Republicans have more moderate impulses these days. Voters also are very pragmatic in times of trouble, and these results may reflect that as well.”

Kohut’s nonpartisan organization recently released a survey that found that the country is in the midst of an era of centrism and has experienced such a boost in independent voters that they now make up the largest proportion of the electorate in 70 years. The survey also found no evidence that the country has become more ideologically liberal or conservative, despite sweeping Democratic victories at all levels of government last fall and shrinking GOP ranks.

Still, the ideological extremes in both major political parties have been vocal.

Obama, who had a liberal Senate voting record but is trying to govern from the center as president, is facing resistance from his party’s left wing. At times, he has been at odds with the Democratic-run Congress spearheaded by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Republicans lack a standard-bearer since George W. Bush left office. Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a hero of the right wing, have emerged as the loudest voices in a debate over whether the GOP should adhere strictly to its conservative roots or broaden itself to attract followers from across the political spectrum.

In Virginia, Deeds, a state senator from a rural part of the Southern state, is moderate, if not conservative, on guns, gay marriage and the death penalty. He promised primary voters that he would govern much like centrist Democratic governors Kaine and former Gov. Mark Warner. In the end, he thumped two opponents who ran to the left of him.

They were a well-funded Terry McAuliffe, a former Democratic National Committee chairman and longtime Clinton confidant who modeled his campaign after Obama’s, and Brian Moran, a former state House Democratic Caucus leader who promoted liberal positions like reversing the state’s same-sex marriage ban.

Deeds is trying to become leader of a state that until recent years was long considered a Republican bastion. Last fall, Obama became the first Democrat to win Virginia in a presidential race since 1964. And Virginia is now represented in the Senate by two Democrats, albeit moderates, Warner and Jim Webb.

In New Jersey, Christie had the backing of much of the GOP establishment and raised the maximum campaign cash allowed for the primary. He entered the race with nonpartisan rhetoric that sounded much like Obama. After a spirited contest, Christie easily dispatched Steve Lonegan, an ultraconservative one-time small-town mayor who pushed him to the right throughout the campaign, calling for massive state government layoffs, a ban on abortion and no business taxes. Less of a threat to Christie was conservative assemblyman Rick Merkt.

Christie is more moderate than them, though he has staked out conservative positions on school vouchers, abortion restrictions and regulatory issues. He also was nudged to the right on economic issues through the campaign, but is likely to tack back to the center as he tries to prevail in a state that has more registered Democrats than Republicans.

For years, moderate Republicans ruled in New Jersey. But, like in much of the Northeast, the GOP has sustained heavy losses in recent years, and Republicans see the New Jersey’s governors race – Christie’s candidacy coupled with Corzine’s unpopularity – as a chance to reverse that trend.

Gay marriage became legal in Iowa in April after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that denying gays the right to marry is discriminatory. In New Hampshire, the Legislature approved a gay marriage bill Wednesday that will take effect Jan. 1.

While some see opposition to gay marriage easing nationwide, that’s not the case among Iowa Republicans – especially the relatively small number who dominate the state’s leadoff precinct caucuses. Social and religious conservatives dominate that group, and their opposition to gay marriage is solid.

To be competitive among Iowa Republicans, presidential candidates likely will have to toe that line, key strategists said.

“I’m guessing that most of the serious candidates will be for a constitutional amendment to define marriage,” said David Roederer, a veteran activist who managed John McCain’s campaign in the state. “I don’t think there’s going to be much of a difference.”

Steve Scheffler, head of the Iowa Christian Alliance, said the debate over gay marriage is part of a larger discussion of what he sees as the declining social culture of the country. Candidates must address that, he said, and gay marriage is a key element.

“I think there’s a whole wide range of issues they need to address – the state of our economy, the decline of our culture. All of those things have to be put on the table,” said Scheffler. “It’s absolutely essential, and it would behoove them to talk about it. I don’t think they can dodge it or duck.”

That isn’t the case in New Hampshire, where Republicans tend to be more fiscally conservative and socially moderate. New Hampshire has allowed civil unions since 2007; Iowa never allowed them.

“When presidential candidates campaign here, they have traditionally focused on the economy, foreign policy, health care,” said political analyst Dean Spiliotes. “Social issues have never really played a major role here in the campaign.”

A poll conducted by Dartmouth College in May found New Hampshire voters evenly split on gay marriage. Broken down by party, gay marriage had the support of 63 percent of Democrats, 43 percent of undeclared voters and 17 percent of Republicans.

Although the two states vote only days apart, candidates have a history of switching gears between Iowa and New Hampshire and will continue to do so, Spiliotes said, pointing to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won Iowa’s GOP caucus in 2008.

“When he was in Iowa, it was all about social conservatism, and then when he came to New Hampshire, that almost completely vanished,” he said. “So I don’t think that it’s going to have a huge impact on how people campaign here because I think to some extent, the state already had the reputation for being more libertarian, if not more moderate.”

New Hampshire’s primaries are open to independents, who outnumber those registered with either party and hold significant sway. Many are likely to vote Republican in 2012 if President Barack Obama seeks re-election and faces no primary opposition.

In Iowa, there’s very little party switching or involvement by independents, and history shows that a relatively small number of the parties’ hard-core activists determine the outcome. Giving an easy victory to Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, speaks volumes of the mindset of the Republican activists who dominate the party and the precinct caucuses.

“We’ve gone so far to the social right, particularly in caucus attendees, that unless you meet certain litmus tests, you have a very difficult time competing in Iowa,” said Doug Gross, the party’s 2002 gubernatorial nominee.

Gay marriage might pose a different kind of litmus test in New Hampshire, said Jennifer Donahue, political director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics.

“The way people interpret this issue tells more about their feelings about government’s role in their personal lives than it does about gay marriage,” she said. “It becomes almost a litmus test for the candidates as to how libertarian they are.”

The goal of “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” was to trigger a legal fight and ultimately overturn regulations that prevent places of worship from supporting or opposing candidates for office. But a conservative legal group that organized the effort says the IRS has yet to notify the churches of any investigation.

Legal experts suggest a number of possibilities: The IRS has nothing to gain from a costly and mainly symbolic battle; it has limited resources; or it could still be deciding how to respond.

On Sept. 28, participating pastors urged worshippers to vote according to conservative views on abortion and gay marriage. Several endorsed Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voter guides, run nonpartisan voter-registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. But they cannot endorse a candidate, nor can their political activity be biased for or against a candidate.

Churches that violate the rule can lose their tax-exempt status.

The protest was organized by the Phoenix-based Alliance Defense Fund and involved pastors in 22 states.

“The wheels of bureaucracy move slowly,” said Erik Stanley, the group’s senior legal counsel. “We’re prepared if they do come after these churches, and we’re also prepared if they do not.”

IRS spokesman Christopher Miller declined to comment, and the agency would not confirm or deny whether it is conducting an investigation. At the time of the protest, the IRS said it would “monitor the situation and take action as appropriate.”

ADF officials view the regulation as a violation of the pastors’ right to free speech. Some legal scholars counter that the government has every right to treat political and nonpolitical speech differently.

A number of the pastors said they hoped the IRS would respond immediately so the legal challenge could get under way.

Luke Emrich, pastor at New Life Church in West Bend, Wis., had urged about 100 congregants to support an anti-abortion platform by voting for McCain. He said he was disappointed the IRS had not responded.

“It would have been nice to have a direct conversation with the IRS,” he said. “I thought they would at least contact us, talk to us about the issues.”

Historically, the IRS has been shy to investigate political activity in churches. It has stepped up oversight in recent years after receiving a flurry of complaints from the 2004 campaign. The IRS reported issuing written advisories against 42 churches for improper politically activity that year.

It’s possible the IRS ignored the recent protest because it does not have an incentive to pursue the issue, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University.

“It would be expensive for them to fight, and it would give people all sorts of reasons to say the IRS is evil and irreligious,” Tuttle said. “It’s not like they’re going to recoup a lot of money. Their attitude is probably ‘why bother?’”

Or, it could be too early to say. When similar violations occurred during previous presidential elections, the IRS took two or three years to introduce litigation to strip a church of its tax-exempt status, said John Witte Jr., director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University.

“Even so, if the IRS wanted to pounce on this, I think it would have by now,” Witte said. Perhaps it did not consider an investigation a wise use of resources, he speculated, or maybe the agency is occupied with more pressing cases.

Stanley, the ADF’s attorney, said the organization will continue its protests as long as necessary, holding annual Pulpit Freedom Sundays every year ahead of federal, state or local elections. If the IRS does not take action against future protests, he said, pastors will learn the regulation can be safely ignored.

Polls suggest the campaign does not have wide support. An August survey from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that two-thirds of adults oppose political endorsements from churches and other places of worship. Another 52 percent wanted religious institutions out of politics altogether.

But those statistics did not dissuade Pastor Paul Blair, who took part in the initiative at Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla. He said the main point of the protest was to make a stand to protect religious freedom.

“I don’t let the federal government dictate to me what I can and cannot preach,” he said. “I answer to a higher power than the federal government.”

Call me a racist or bigot. Say I’m a reactionary queen who feeds off the hard work of others. Throw out the “excuse maker” line.  Accuse me of what you will, but Prop 8 passed because the “No on 8″ side had no clue about strategy.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I know. Start typing those comments about how “ashamed MLK would be of today’s blacks” or maybe point to  those CNN “numbers” showing 70 percent of black voters supporting Prop 8. Meh. After you are done venting your moral outrage and furious anger, riddle me this: why didn’t the folk running the “No” campaign use a letter from then candidate Barack Obama?

The letter was written to the  Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club in June of last year and this is what candidate Obama had to say at the time.

“As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. …

“And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states. …

“Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks.”

Why was this kept on the sidelines? Apparently the argument went the letter got press in the New York Times and no one outside of the Bay Area knew anything about the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club

“That was a close call,” said Steve Smith of DeweySquare, a Sacramento-based consulting firm involved in the “No” campaign. “Maybe we should have.”

A close call?!?!?! A close call?!?!?!? I know what I want to say, but this is a family site. Go at it Dan Savage.

Burns, the city’s first openly gay mayor, will be forced out by term limits in May. Mel Martinez has said he will not seek re-election.

Two other Democrats have already announced their candidacy for the party’s nomination – U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek and State Sen. Dan Gelber.  U.S. Rep. Ron Klein also may run.

On the GOP side, Gov. Charlie Crist, U.S. Rep. Connie Mack, U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan and former House Speaker Marco Rubio are reportedly considering a run for their party’s nomination.

Burns is a North Miami native.  He lives with with his partner of  24 years and their five-year-old daughter. Before entering politics, he was a real estate broker.

He became mayor in 2005, focusing on education.

Martinez was elected to the Senate in 2004 after winning the GOP nomination in a race marked by one of the nastiest anti-gay campaigns in the history of the Sunshine State.

During the primary, Martinez launched a massive attack on fellow Republican Bill McCollum. A Martinez campaign mailer  called McCollum “the new darling of the homosexual extremists” because he supported a hate crime bill that included protection of gays.

Martinez, a former U.S. Housing and Urban Development secretary, was forced to pull a television ad criticizing McCollum’s views on the hate crime bill just two days before the primary.

The Martinez attacks became so aggressive that the influential St. Petersburg Times rescinded its endorsement of Martinez the day before voters went to the polls.  The paper in a editorial accused Martinez of “hateful and dishonest attacks” on McCollum.

“The Times is not willing to be associated with bigotry,” the editorial said.

Martinez was encouraged to run by President George W. Bush’s political advisers.

In the Senate, Martinez said he would oppose the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill and ENDA.  He supported amending the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage and said he supported “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The court said it would hear arguments on Franken’s petition to get a certificate before the conclusion of a lawsuit by Republican Norm Coleman, but not until Feb. 5. The court order also granted Coleman’s request to intervene in the case, which names Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie as defendants.

The development extends an already lengthy fight over the last undecided Senate seat from the 2008 election.

Also, Coleman proposed a schedule for the trial on his lawsuit disputing the recount results, which showed him 225 votes behind Franken. His recommendations would push the trial well into February and probably beyond.

In a filing, Coleman recommended conducting the trial in stages. He said the case should proceed to the next step only if he gains “a sufficient number of votes” in the prior stage. A spokesman for Franken said he will submit his own, shorter timeline on Thursday.

The decision rests with three district judges appointed to hear the case.

Franken wants to take office before that lawsuit is resolved, but the governor and secretary of state say state law bars them from issuing an election certificate before then. Franken’s petition aims to force the officials to act without waiting for Coleman’s lawsuit to play out.

Coleman’s legal team said they were pleased by the court’s decision not to rush the Franken request.

“The Supreme Court’s scheduling order has thrown cold water on the Franken campaign’s latest power grab,” they said in a written statement.

On the election lawsuit, Coleman attorney Tony Trimble said the campaign already is examining documents and holding depositions for witnesses who may be called during the trial.

Under Coleman’s proposal, the court would take up disputed absentee ballots first. Both sides claim in court filings that hundreds of absentee ballots were wrongly excluded. They want the exterior of the sealed ballots examined for voter compliance with state law and have incorrectly rejected ballots opened and counted.

A later stage in Coleman’s plan would address ballots from Minneapolis that election officials say went missing. The board that oversaw the recount decided to use Election Day machine tallies for that precinct to account for the lost ballots.

Other issues for later consideration include deliberation over ballots with questionable voter intent and a probe into Coleman’s argument that some voters had more than one ballot counted.

On the last issue, a group of Coleman supporters said Wednesday they would file legal papers to intervene in the case. They contend that as many as 150 ballots in firmly Democratic Minneapolis precincts were double-counted.

“If even one vote is counted twice, that dilutes and disenfranchises millions of other people whose votes were counted only once,” said Tony Sutton, a longtime Republican Party leader.

The group didn’t provide physical evidence to support their allegations, which mirror those being made in Coleman’s lawsuit. They say that some duplicate ballots made to replace ballots that couldn’t be fed through tabulating machines weren’t properly marked, making it impossible to link the originals and duplicates. In some cases they say both were counted.

Recount tallies in some precincts exceeded the number of votes picked up by the machines on Nov. 4. But not all election officials have released the polling place sign-in rosters that are a more accurate measure of the number of voters.

It could be impossible to trace original ballots that weren’t marked to align with a duplicate, as state law requires. The group’s attorney, Doug Seaton, said it’s too soon to say what a possible remedy would be.

Contrary to some 365 chatter, I think homophobia among black folks needs to be discussed, and critiqued, for what it is: bigotry. It is true  if you come screeching nonsense then I’m moving on. Unfortunately most of the time when the topics race, sexuality, and prejudice are in the mix, a mess is sure to follow.

Writer Gabriel Arana wants to talk about black homophobia but he trips over the topic before he even gets out of the gate. I’ll do my best to be polite, but his essay is filled with the type of misconceptions that kill any type of meaningful discussion. I’m not sure where to begin because his words are all over the place and some of his sources are dubious at best. Call me a snob but I trust this source on the “dreaded” down low, rather than the one Arana uses.

Aside from the nitpicking, his whole premise is slightly dubious because there have been conversations about black homophobia. Go here, here, here, here, and  here. All those come up with a quick Google search.

However, with all that said, his last paragraph broke the deal for me.

“Finally, I think part of the hesitation in acknowledging homophobia in the black community is about privilege: Who gets to talk about problems in the African-American community? For members outside of the African-American community (read: White people) to critique its social norms is to invoke White privilege and call to mind the historical power relationship between blacks and whites. I think it would be best for LGBT folk who are African-American to lead the discussion, no less so because they speak from a position of greater understanding.”

So if I read  Arana correctly, there needs to be some talking about black homophobia and it should be led by black gays and lesbians because of our “position of greater understanding”; however, if those same black gays and lesbians note the role faith plays in black homophobia then we are not being honest about the topic?

And why does he assume  group membership implies an understanding of group dynamics. That’s some multi-cult noise we learned in school (and I’m a proud diversity baby), but it really doesn’t make any sense because it assumes black gays and lesbians speak with  a singular voice. Keith Boykin equals Jasmyne Cannick equals James Withers. Or to flip the script,  Dan Savage equals Andrew Sullivan equals Jennifer Vanasco. And isn’t prejudice so pernicious that what only counts is that it is called out, no matter who is doing the calling?

I’ll give Arana credit for taking on an important topic, but he’s going to end up talking to himself if this is the type of stuff he’s going to throw out.

In letters the campaign sent to Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, Franken’s lawyers argued that a seven-day waiting period for issuing the certificate after an election has passed and he should get the signed certificate. But the state officials said their hands were tied by state law and they could not act.

Franken led Republican Norm Coleman by 225 votes after a statewide recount that was completed Jan. 5.

Coleman is suing over the result, claiming there were irregularities on Election Day and during the recount.

Minnesota law prevents officials from issuing an election certificate until legal matters are resolved. But Franken’s legal team argues that federal election law entitles Franken to receive the certificate before the lawsuit is settled.

“The people of Minnesota are down a senator in the U.S. Senate. This is an opportunity for Governor Pawlenty and Secretary Ritchie to ensure the interests of all Minnesotans are represented in Washington,” Franken lawyer Marc Elias told reporters in a conference call. He didn’t rule out a lawsuit.

In a statement, Ritchie said state law requires him and the governor to turn down Franken’s request.

“Minnesota law is very clear on when a certificate of election can be issued. Neither the governor nor I may sign a certificate of election in the U.S. Senate race until all election contests have reached a final determination,” Ritchie’s statement read.

The statement didn’t specifically address Franken’s argument that federal law supercedes the state law.

Pawlenty echoed Ritchie, saying it is clear the law won’t allow him to issue a certificate while the race is being contested in court.

Coleman campaign manager Cullen Sheehan dismissed the move as a power play meant to get around Franken’s need to defend the election outcome in court.

“He can’t and won’t be seated in a seat he didn’t win, so he is trying this underhanded attempt to blatantly ignore the will of Minnesotans and the laws of the state,” Sheehan said.

Franken’s campaign was due to file a response to Coleman’s lawsuit later Monday. Elias characterized the Coleman action as “riddled with errors that are fatal to much if not all of the claims made in the petition.”

By law, a trial on the lawsuit must start within three weeks of its filing, which occurred last Tuesday. It will be heard by a three-judge panel that has not yet been named.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force study that looked at race and religion in the Proposition 8 vote is being called into question by Timothy Kincaid over at Box Turtle. I’ll spend no time going through Kincaid’s methodology mainly because numbers contests can be boring (what’s that quip about statistics?). However, there are two things Kincaid says that need discussion.

He starts by bemoaning that ever since Dr. King’s death there has not been “frank discussions about race.” Whenever the words frank, discussions, and race are used in the same sentence I get nervous because usually  the next line is how crazy those colored folk be. Those words are also problematic because this is America we are talking about. When was the last time we had a “frank” talk about anything? Did we talk frankly about race when King was around? I can name a few folk who would say no.

With that said, Kincaid’s words need to be read because he says something that requires serious thought.

“The fact is – regardless of how much NGLTF would wish otherwise – that the gay community does not truly have a strategic alliance with black voters.”

This is something I’ve been saying for awhile. Don’t think so? Go here, here, and here. While the mainstream civil rights organizations are always putting out press releases supporting each other’s work, this hasn’t translated to voters on the street. Socially conservative black citizens and gay citizens  eye each other with suspicion, especially if we are looking at folk who identify and/or vote as Democrats. If the Prop 8 vote did anything, it made the “we are the world” cover impossible to use anymore.

Can these two groups see eye to eye? I doubt it mainly because both are unwilling to let go of their own spin and moral outrage. Alliances are never formed with either around.

P.S.: I really don’t want to say this but I know how the game is played: if anyone accuses me of calling Kincaid a racist, step away from the computer and go sign up for a reading course. Today.

Better Jennifer than me. Writing about the Proposition 8 vote and race is tiring because some people have weak reading comprehension skills. Ever since marriage rights were taken away in California, I’ve “learned” the following about myself: 1) I hate whites, 2) I think all white gays are racist, and 3) I’m an excuse maker when it comes to homophobia in the black community.

None of those truthiness ditties are true, but they have been thrown out here in the 365 neighborhood because I’ve questioned CNN’s exit poll that 70 percent of black California residents voted yes on Prop 8. Others have also pointed to the poll’s flaws, from numbers guru Nate Silver at 538.com to political analyst David Binder (who did polling for President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign). Ahh, but to point to these perspectives is just excuse making. My “brothers and sisters” (who knew Ma was so busy!)  screwed gays over. I’m a racist whose character is questionable.  Meh.

Yesterday’s released study by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, written by Patrick J. Egan and Kenneth Sherrill, points out that a yes vote on Proposition 8 was mostly pushed by age, faith, and political perspective. The study mirrored Binder’s unofficial numbers that black support for Prop 8 was between 57-59 percent. This high support however makes sense when religion is factored in.

“…Controlling for frequency of religious attendance helps explain why African Americans supported Proposition 8 at higher levels than the population as a whole. Among Californians who attend worship at least weekly, support for Proposition 8 was nearly uniform across all racial and ethnic groups.”

This new study gives no one a pass. This new study gives no one a pass. Let the choir hear this for the last time from me: this new study gives no one a pass. Homophobia, no matter who espouses it, needs to be exposed for what it is: prejudice. However, we really can’t fight our enemies if we don’t know who they are or how to counteract their rhetoric. And yes Virginia there are going to be people with black faces who are anti-same sex marriage. Get over it and stop being shocked (shocked!) that some blacks sound like those whites back in the day wringing their hands over interracial marriage.