For Democrats, the percentages are 71-25; independents respond 53-44; and Republicans 23-74.

2. Ronald Brownstein has a very smart piece on the politics of the Obama’s stance on marriage. When it comes to the electoral college and political leaders, Brownstein notes:

By the end of this year, 13 of the 18 “blue wall” states that have voted Democratic in at least the past five consecutive elections may have authorized gay marriage or civil unions.  Leading potential 2016 Democratic presidential contenders like governors Andrew Cuomo in New York and Martin O’Malley in Maryland have embraced the idea.

Moreover, as Democrats’ electoral coalition has changed, it has become composed of demographic groups that are most supportive of same-sex marriage (or, in the case of African-Americans and Hispanics, more concerned with other issues and thus unlikely to be wedged from the Democratic party on this basis).

3. The rapid shift in Americans’ views has not gone unnoticed by Republicans. The response to Obama’s statement by Republican elected leaders and by conservative media like Fox News been quite muted. And one of George W. Bush’s 2004 pollsters is out with a memo recommending that Republicans find a way to support at least some of the LGBT rights agenda.

It’s worth reading the whole thing, but here are some selections:

Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. . . [T]he trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position. . . Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians.

The memo recommends that, in discussing LGBT rights, Republicans focus on “conservative fundamentals” such as “personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government.”

It will be interesting to see how strongly social conservatives, a key part of the Republican coalition, react to Republicans’ blunting and shifting of messages about gay marriage and rights. In Maine, Michael Heath has deemed Mitt Romney unacceptable because he “launched homosexual marriage in New England.”

4. The Guardian has an excellent set of charts comparing all U.S. states on a variety of “rights for gay, lesbian and transgender people on a range of issues, including marriage, hospital visitation, adoption, housing, employment and school bullying.”  If you check these out, you’ll see some very clear regional differences.

You know who else flip-flopped on gay marriage?

Many millions of people — maybe even you.  I can think of a certain eighty-something in my family who qualifies.

Here’s some evidence on this, from years of data from Pew.

The data are broken down by age group and each and every group has become increasingly supportive of marriage equality.

The least supportive group moved from 21% support in 2001 to 30% in 2012. That, by itself, means millions of those folks, who were born between 1928 and 1945, have changed their minds — have flip-flopped.

And the percentages for other groups? Baby boomers increased their support as well, going from slightly less than a third (32%) to nearly 4 in 10 (39%). Generation X started as rather supportive (49%) but increased to 51%. And even the most supportive, the Millenials, increased their support.

Given this enormous attitude change through the population, this criticism seems to be a very ineffective line of attack.

For more on attitudes toward gay marriage/marriage equality, see my earlier post, “When will gay and lesbian Mainers be able to marry?”

As luck has it, a relevant book was awaiting me when I returned last night from a scholarly meeting. It’s Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party by historian Geoffrey Kabaservice. (If you’re interested in discussing it, say so in the comments. Perhaps we can hold a virtual book group discussion at this blog.)

Political scientists have long examined structural shifts that have increased political polarization.  (I wrote about some of these structural issues in a piece on the possible impact of an independent U.S. Senator from Maine.) During the Obama administration, Republicans in the Senate adopted the strategy of using filibusters routinely, thus making it very hard to pass anything.

Even when Democrats had a super-majority, the routine use of filibusters meant that legislation had to pass muster with the very most conservative Democrat. As Ezra Klein writes, “This is not Lyndon Johnson’s Senate.” Examining broader historical dynamics shows why analyses like Richard Cohen’s — that Obama would get more legislative victories if only had more golf games with politicos — is so foolish.

When it comes to the Lugar loss, some of what he said reminded me of what Olympia Snowe said soon after her announcement that she would not run for re-election. Snowe said that the Senate was increasingly operating like a parliamentary system, such that legislators were more consistently voting with their own parties.

The problem is that the U.S. does not have a parliamentary system. With a separation-of-powers, checks and balances system, legislators cannot behave as they would in a parliamentary system and have the system operate effectively.

Lugar’s 1425 word statement is a remarkable take on the state of the Senate and American politics. Here is a man who writes about the policy issues he cares about and about the processes that have hurt him, along with his commitment to the institutions of American democracy.

It’s so powerful that I’ve cut and pasted it below.

One thing Lugar mentions is the role of organized groups who launched what he calls, “a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators.”

Opposing Lugar was not only the tea party grassroots, but also groups with strong connections to particular business and corporate interests. This is not just about ideology, but about money — and payback.

As Politico reported a few months ago:

The banking industry is making an example of Sen. Dick Lugar.

Several veteran financial services lobbyists are fundraising for the primary challenger of one of the most-senior Senate Republicans, sending a clear message to GOP lawmakers who have opposed banks on key votes: Don’t cross us.

Lugar and a dozen other Republicans voted against banks on an amendment that would have blocked caps on swipe fees last year. That amendment, which failed in the Senate, was a battle royal that pitted two of the nation’s most influential business groups — banks and retailers — against each other.

This is part of the “purification exercise as, to quote Politico again,”bankers want to make it clear that there will be consequences for Republicans who vote against them.”

And here is Lugar’s statement:

I would like to comment on the Senate race just concluded and the direction of American politics and the Republican Party. I would reiterate from my earlier statement that I have no regrets about choosing to run for office. My health is excellent, I believe that I have been a very effective Senator for Hoosiers and for the country, and I know that the next six years would have been a time of great achievement. Further, I believed that vital national priorities, including job creation, deficit reduction, energy security, agriculture reform, and the Nunn-Lugar program, would benefit from my continued service as a Senator. These goals were worth the risk of an electoral defeat and the costs of a hard campaign.

Analysts will speculate about whether our campaign strategies were wise. Much of this will be based on conjecture by pundits who don’t fully appreciate the choices we had to make based on resource limits, polling data, and other factors. They also will speculate whether we were guilty of overconfidence.

The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy. One does not highlight such headwinds publicly when one is waging a campaign. But I knew that I would face an extremely strong anti-incumbent mood following a recession. I knew that my work with then-Senator Barack Obama would be used against me, even if our relationship were overhyped. I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators.

We undertook this campaign soberly and we worked very hard in 2010, 2011, and 2012 to overcome these challenges. There never was a moment when my campaign took anything for granted. This is why we put so much effort into our get out the vote operations.

Ultimately, the re-election of an incumbent to Congress usually comes down to whether voters agree with the positions the incumbent has taken. I knew that I had cast recent votes that would be unpopular with some Republicans and that would be targeted by outside groups.

These included my votes for the TARP program, for government support of the auto industry, for the START Treaty, and for the confirmations of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. I also advanced several propositions that were considered heretical by some, including the thought that Congressional earmarks saved no money and turned spending power over to unelected bureaucrats and that the country should explore options for immigration reform.

It was apparent that these positions would be attacked in a Republican primary. But I believe that they were the right votes for the country, and I stand by them without regrets, as I have throughout the campaign.

From time to time during the last two years I heard from well-meaning individuals who suggested that I ought to consider running as an independent. My response was always the same: I am a Republican now and always have been. I have no desire to run as anything else. All my life, I have believed in the Republican principles of small government, low taxes, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and trade expansion. According to Congressional Quarterly vote studies, I supported President Reagan more often than any other Senator. I want to see a Republican elected President, and I want to see a Republican majority in the Congress. I hope my opponent wins in November to help give my friend Mitch McConnell a majority.

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.
This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve. The most consequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise.

Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don’t succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.

Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today – from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.

I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.

I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that. I hope we will demand judgment from our leaders. I continue to believe that Hoosiers value constructive leadership. I would not have run for office if I did not believe that.

As someone who has seen much in the politics of our country and our state, I am able to take the long view. I have not lost my enthusiasm for the role played by the United States Senate. Nor has my belief in conservative principles been diminished. I expect great things from my party and my country. I hope all who participated in this election share in this optimism. [Source]

What’s wrong with Cohen’s advice? He overlooks the structural changes in American politics, including the movement of the south to the Republican party, the internal unity of the parties (particularly the Republican party), and the concerted use of the filibuster by Senate Republicans. Oh, and Caro, from whom Cohen said he took his advice, contradicts it, saying that the Senate Republican caucus is “intractable and it has the votes to stop legislation.”

2. Everyone says they believe in equality of opportunity, but they don’t all consider how different are individuals’ actual opportunities. As Paul Waldman points out, “There are a thousand ways in which wealth determines the opportunities available to you, in large part by making things easy.” Waldman points to some comments made by one of Mitt Romney’s sons about his ability to jump into the private equity business that demonstrate a lack of understanding about how his family status opened this opportunity. (Also related is my earlier take on how health security and opportunity and intertwined.)

3. Maine had very contentious state Republican convention at which Ron Paul supporters won nearly all of the delegates and took a majority of the seats on the committee that runs the state party. Here’s some comments from convention participants.

Aaron Prill, a social conservative who supported Governor LePage in the 2010 primary and supports Poliquin for the U.S. Senate nomination, criticizes the tactics of Ron Paul supports. His blog post and the comments from many quarters are well worth reading.

Michael Heath, the anti-gay activist who calls marriage for gay men and lesbians “sodomy based marriage” found the Ron Paul effort inspiring and said, “The future of the GOP in Maine has just become much more interesting.”

Representative Harvell of Farmington declaims against Ron Paul supporters, saying, “To those who achieved this “victory” You have won nothing and you have destroyed what took years to build. . . I am done with all of you fools the cult of personality worship I saw reminded me of Nuremberg only the outstretched arms were missing.”

UPDATE 3: Ron Paul has also won 3 delegates representing the First congressional district. With Ben Ginsberg, Romney’s top lawyer present, it’s being reported that the Romney campaign will challenge the Paul delegates right to take these seats at the national convention.  By the way, Ginsberg was the leader of George W. Bush’s 2000 Florida recount team.

UPDATE 2: Based on voting on day one, Ron Paul appears to have won the 15 at-large delegates to the Republican National Convention. (Update 1 at the bottom of this post.)

With much to occupy Maine Republicans — a platform to adopt, speeches to be heard from candidates for the U.S. Senate, and networking and organizing to try to benefit all of the fall campaigns, from the statehouse to the U.S. Congress and the White House — day two of the convention will kick off in the shadow of day one.

For what happened on day one, see below, and read reports by Eric Russell and Steve Mistler.

There are questions to ask about day one, day two, and beyond. If you have any thoughts on any of these, please share in comments.

1. Ron Paul forces have been organizing all over the country and picking up delegates. What did they accomplish in Maine? How might it matter for what happens at the Republican National Convention? Are there potential spillover effects on the presidential race?

2. Will Ron Paul supporters be back in the same proportions as they were on day one? Or, with a nice day outside, will they decide they don’t need to come back to participate in party doings?

This will show if they want an on-going role in the operations of the party and if they want to influence the platform. While state party platforms are not usually controversial, this was not so two years ago, when tea party forces had theirs adopted. A similar platform sends a signal to the broader electorate about the Maine Republican party.

3. Day two will include speeches by the candidates for the U.S. Senate seat held by Olympia Snowe. How will they be received by these activists? Is there a favorite among non-Establishment parts of the party and among the Establishment Republicans? And how will Senator Snowe be treated?

4. How do presidential and senatorial preferences track with the factions of the Maine Republican party — and will there be lasting schisms affecting the fall election? Ron Paul’s support comes from disparite groups, libertarians and social conservatives like anti-gay activist Michael Heath. Yet, while social conservatives have candidates in Scott D’Amboise, Deb Plowman and, to a lesser extent, Bruce Poliquin, libertarian Paul supporters may not support them. D’Amboise and Plowman are the candidates most associated with the tea party.

After 2010, when the tea party was strong nationally and affected Maine politics, and after this year’s GOP convention with activated, anti-Establishment forces, will an Establishment Republican end up winning the Senate nomination? Establishment candidates include Rick Bennett (the choice of the Maine Heritage Policy Center and the most corporate), Bill Schneider (with the best foreign policy credentials of all and a life of public service and heroism), Charles Summers (Maine’s Secretary of State), or, again to a lesser extent, Bruce Poliquin (the state Treasurer).

5. And how do these splits track with Republican divisions regarding Governor Paul LePage’s policies and his tone, which could affect positioning in the legislative special session and as part of legislative campaigns?

Ultimately, how these questions are answered matter for the composition and political position of the Republican party nationally and in Maine.

Day one: Before day one, Webster had fretted that Ron Paul supporters might “take over” the convention and called them “wingnuts.”

On the first day of the convention, supporters of presidential candidate Ron Paul arrived in force, ready to rumble. After the Maine caucus mess, at least some Paul supporters thought they had been robbed by the state’s Republican Establishment, including party Chair Charlie Webster. What happened at the caucuses had consequences.

Paul supporters won votes for the convention secretary and chair but the schedule slowed, with balloting for the delegates to the national convention occurring late and in, according to Twitter reports (at #mepolitics), a confused, even chaotic matter. Totals were not released that evening, so it was unclear if Paul forces had taken the majority of delegates.

Updates: As of 9 AM, Twitter has unverified rumors that Ron Paul has won the delegate selection from the convention.  See also this report from Dirigo Blue about an attempt by Romney forces to give Paul supporters a replacement slate of delegates in the format that was used by Paul organizers, but had not been by the Romney people. (It looks like something similar happened in Nevada.) Dirigo Blue posted this video regarding the shenanigans.

I am not at the convention, but should update from time to time.

Why? On the one hand, it’s because, they say, any president would have made the same decisions. And on the other hand, they claim that presidential military decisions are less important than what the military did and only these heroes should be praised.

But these sorts of claims overlook a number of realities. 

One is that, as the president holds the position of commander-in-chief, the president is judged for his actions as such.  Through America history, presidents have been judged both in the short term and the long term. After Nixon ordered the bombing of Cambodia and Kennedy ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion, they were criticized. No one said that those they ordered deserved criticism.

And the same is true when people approve of military action. George H.W. Bush received a great deal of support for a well-conceived effort in the Persian Gulf War. Some criticized him for not going beyond Kuwait into Iraq, but more praised this decision — and it was the president’s decision. He got credit for it, not just the military leadership and troops for having done it so well.

Presidents, when they get praise, talk about these accomplishments. They and their supporters don’t ignore them. Presidential decisions on military matters have been talked about in campaigns for years and years, both praise and criticism.

Moreover, not every president would make the same decision in the same circumstances.

There are long debates about what other presidents would have done in similar circumstances. How would have presidents other than JFK handled the Cuban Missile Crisis? What if Johnson hadn’t been president 1963-1968? How would have the Vietnam War developed?

When it comes to bin Laden, we know that the Bush administration wasn’t all that interested in finding bin Laden. President Bush said so and the record is clear that his administration was more interested in state sponsors of terrorism. Romney’s words in his last presidential campaign mirrored the Bush approach and his current set of foreign policy and military advisors are from that administration. Romney’s views and those of his advisors will certainly affect his likelihood to engage in or refrain from particular military actions.

In brief, presidents always get support or condemnation based on what they do as commander-in-chief.

This is not a some sort of strange quirk, but is rather a feature of the American constitutional system since not all presidents would make the same decisions.

And arguing about whether a president deserves praise or condemnation, as well as arguing about whether the president is out of line for doing so is inherently political and has also always been a part of American politics. As has been pointed out, we are seeing people who promoted our last president’s place as a military and foreign policy leader, and drawing sharp contrasts between the president and his political opponents, claiming that such activities are just not right.

Addendum: When it comes to Obama and bin Laden, here’s what Richard Clarke, the long-time White House anti-terrorism official said:

The iconic image of President Barack Obama and his national security team huddled in the Situation Room to monitor the unfolding operation in Pakistan has come to symbolize the president’s difficult decision to override several of his advisers and launch the operation.

Perhaps less appreciated, but also crucial, were other decisions he made about that operation. The president chose a risky helicopter raid over a more cautious but imprecise air strike that might have compromised success and risked significant collateral damage in the surrounding Pakistani town. He then personally decided to add backup helicopters.

He also decided not to inform Pakistan of the operation beforehand, since Pakistan has previously tipped off terrorists to help them escape surprise raids. Still, this is a difficult calculation: Pakistan remains a necessary partner in the pursuit of al-Qaida, and the raid came against the backdrop of tense diplomatic battles over the U.S. drone campaign in that country.

The president’s impact on the successful pursuit of bin Laden dates even earlier to 2009, when he reviewed activities aimed at bin Laden and ordered a stepped up operation to find the terrorist leader. The truth is that under President George W. Bush, resources had been diverted from the hunt for bin Laden, and the White House had played down the importance of his capture. Obama has also kept up a relentless campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. The United States launched more strikes in Obama’s first year than in Bush’s eight, and the targeted strikes have severely reduced the ranks of senior al-Qaida figures.

After three ballots for the position of convention secretary, the Paul- supported candidate, Ron Morrell, has won, 1119-1089. This was an issue going in because the Republican party chair, Charlie Webster, who is not trusted by the Paulites, had named someone, even though rules require that this position is picked by convention attendees. (This paragraph has been edited to reflect corrections.)

OOPS – The vote is now (12:30) unclear, as Cumberland county delegate preferences are being recounted.

Another update: Ron Paul supporters have elected the convention secretary and chair.

How will this affect the allocation of delegates to the national convention and the voiced support for different candidates for the Snowe seat?

I’m not there, but have been following through the Twitter hashtag #mepolitics and to a lesser extent, #megop.

Also, there’s a livestream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/octojofo

In these first tests of the strength of the Paul v Romney flanks, it’s Ron Paul 2 – Mitt Romney-Republican Establishment 0.

On what happened on day one and a look forward to day two and beyond, see Paul v. Romney, day 2.

2. Part of my summer will be spend reading the latest volume by Robert Caro on the life of Lyndon Johnson, The Passage of Power. Caro’s is a remarkable achievement, having spent nearly 40 years writing what are now four volumes of this biography. One only hopes he lives long enough to complete this project. (By the way, Caro’s one volume book about Robert Moses, The Power Broker, is an incredible work about Moses and his ability to shape politics and policy in New York.)

How high-profile is this work? The reviewer for the new volume for the New York Times is a fellow who had the same job as Johnson, Bill Clinton. About Caro, be sure to read this piece in Equire by Chris Jones.

3. Like everywhere else, newspapers in Maine are undergoing change. The Bangor Daily News, which hosts this blog and my biweekly column, has done quite a lot in terms of developing its digital operations. What else is happening and what are the key challenges? A roundtable discussion will consider these and other issues on Monday, May 7 in Portland. It’s free, but organizers ask attendees to register beforehand.

Barack Obama said he’d get bin Laden, or at least try. He said it over and over again during the 2008 election. And others — including Romney — said they didn’t think that was important.

In his speech accepting the Democratic nomination, Obama drew the contrast on Iraq and bin Laden:

For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives.

In a presidential debate with John McCain, Obama promised to end the war in Iraq and go after bin Laden:

What I’ve said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put — provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

In contrast, this is what Romney and some others said:

“It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” - Mitt Romney

Senator Obama likes to talk loudly. In fact, he said he wants to announce that he’s going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable. You know, if you are a country and you’re trying to gain the support of another country, then you want to do everything you can that they would act in a cooperative fashion. – John McCain

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority… I am truly not that concerned about him.” - George W. Bush

Not only do we see these differences, many complaints do seem to display a real double standard, since George W. Bush so clearly exploited September 11 for his political purposes — even as Obama has the advantage of accomplishment.

By the way: I completely agree with James Fallows that Romney is quite mistaken in how he uses President Carter as a symbol for a weak president. It’s insulting to Carter, a graduate of the Naval Academy who spent ten years in active service, and it overlooks the consequences of the call Carter made in trying to rescue the Iranian hostages.

In 2008, no one knew if Obama gutsy enough to send the U.S. military into Pakistan without that government’s permission. It turned out he was. In 2012, we have no evidence that Romney would have done what Obama did — and in fact, during the last presidential campaign, Governor Romney said he would not.

Here’s the ad:

Truth be told, these legislators both exemplify the continued presence and vitality of center-right Republicans in Maine and are an indication of the need for moderate Republicans to separate themselves from Governor LePage for their own electoral vitality.

But amidst the coverage of the corruption contrempts claims came an acknowledgement that is worth noting:

[Senator Roger] Katz said that a large percentage of state workers live within his district and he considered many of them to be his neighbors and friends. He pointed out that some make less than they could in the private sector and stay because they believe in public service.

Yes, Senator Katz told the plain truth: state workers “make less than they could in the private sector.”

Now, there are some who say otherwise, but they base their claims on incorrect methods of comparing salaries. What they do is to compare salaries paid in the public sector to salaries paid in the private sector and then find higher averages in the former.

But that is all wrong, simply because the occupational mix of the public sector and private sector are quite different. In the federal government, for instance, there is a much a higher percentage of Ph.D. research scientists, including biomedical researchers who often have both medical degrees and doctorates. (I know one of those M.D.-PhDs. employed by the feds and he is incredibly smart, driven and hard-working).

If you look at both public and private sector workforces, you see the private sector has many more younger workers, with less experience and education. Thus if you compare this group to the public sector workforce, with its higher level of education and experience and a higher average age, you’re comparing apples and oranges.

Even comparing people with the same degree gets complicated. For instance,

A pediatrician with a small practice in Des Moines and a doctor at the National Institutes of Health who is leading a team of 50 researchers trying to cure cancer both provide health care, for example, but we shouldn’t expect that they be paid the same.

But the biggest issue is that there is a higher percentage of highly trained and highly educated individuals working in government than in the private sector.

And, for them, government pays less than does the private sector. For instance, a 2009 compensation study by the University of Maine System, as well as data from the American Association of University Professors, reveal lower pay for faculty in Maine’s public universities compared to similarly-ranked private colleges and universities.

In any case, Senator Katz spoke the truth: State workers do make less.