The Reaction

An Exceptional To The Rule

2012-02-01T09:44:00.001-05:00

By Carl

Interesting quote from Mitt Romney:

"I'm not concerned with the very poor. We have a safety net there," Romney told CNN. "If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

Host Soledad O'Brien pointed out that the very poor are probably struggling too.

"The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor," Romney responded, after repeating that he would fix any holes in the safety net. "And there's no question it's not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor . . . My focus is on middle income Americans ... we have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor."

Now, the main sentiment he was trying to express, that the middle class have it tough in these times, is a pretty accurate one. After all, its the middle and working classes who have lost the most in the mortgage bubble. Significant portions of the money they've invested in their homes-- yea, that's a dopey concept, but you know what? That's what we were told to do-- on the order of 50% or more was lost.

And there is no safety net for that. You can't write it off your taxes like a corporation...pardon me, corporate entity...could. There's no bailout so that you can pay yourself a bonus instead of donating to people worse off than you. You can't leap into a golden parachute because your house is now essentially worthless.

Ah, but there's also no safety net to speak of for the desperately poor: no jobs, no income, no assets. The working and middle classes at least have jobs. They have *something*. The really poor have nothing and the clock is ticking. If they went on welfare because they got laid off from a job cleaning floors at the bank or parking cars on Wall Street, they're bumping up against the five year limit on their welfare.

A smart man, a man who would be President, would know that. He'd know that shortly after he took office, he'd have to put boots on the ground about this problem.

Unless he didn't care. Unless he lived in the double-bubble of conservatism and wealth, he'd see this problem coming.

Don't Republicans get tired of always being in the dark? Don't they get tired of saying, "Well, no one could have seen that coming. A failure of imagination, we missed the signals, the previous administration didn't make it clear enough...." and so on.

I mean, you'd think 9-11 would have been a wake up call to the ignorant that things are not going as swimmingly in America as they are in America Prime, the "exceptionalist" America.

Now, America as we know it is still an exceptional place. Just not as exceptional as even a decade ago. We've been wounded; wounded from abroad, wounded from within, wounded economically, wounded spiritually, wounded morally and perhaps, mortally.

If you had told me, even after 9-11, that we'd condone torture as a nation, I'd have looked at you cross-eyed. If you had told me that we'd spend trillions on two wars that had a goal of no clear victory, I'd have called the insane asylum. And if you'd had told me that the global economy, in large part owing to the lack of oversight of the greediest bastards on the planet, would melt down and destroy the American working and middle classes, I'd give you a sobriety test.

I mean, it's one thing to screw with a sector of the American economy, bubble it up, make money off the suckers, then light another stewpot, but to screw homeowners?

And yet we did it, and we now have a candidate running for President who wants to ignore the blood stains on his hands and plow on, blithely ignorant of the pain and suffering around him.

I wonder what Romney has on his iPod? It must be loud, since he can't hear the crying.

Stephen Colbert said it best, and its partcularly apt when talking about a Mormon candidate who professes to be a conservative Christian, because maybe he missed this about Jesus:

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it."

So, Mitt...about those poor....

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Bishops, Bibles and tyranny

2012-02-01T09:39:00.004-05:00

So let me get this straight, refusing to allow a Church to make its tenets, prohibitions and taboos the law of the land means that Barack Obama has

“cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty”

thus confirming the paranoid fears of Know Nothings and anti-Catholic bigots everywhere. How can we deny that the Arizona Bishop who wrote those words in one out of many letters from Bishops read aloud last Sunday to congregations around the US has perverted the First Amendment to advocate political control of private lives by Churches -- exactly in opposition to the amendment's intent? That intent, of course it precisely to deny such power, or "freedom" if you prefer, to faith based organizations whether elected or not.

I'm sure some will try to dress this up in Sunday clothes, but it's the same old ecclesiastical evil that's been bedeviling us for millennia. What it's about, is the administration's recent decision to make birth control available to women through their private health care plans, thus making "people of faith" second class citizens, according to Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted in a display of dishonest, convoluted and perverted logic describing the demand that women be denied their rights in the name of religious freedom. Perhaps he'd like to explain why his organization pretends to hold all the moral cards here and other "faiths" would not be allowed to take rights and freedom away from their women in the name of some mangy god or demiurge -- perhaps not since it would entail exposing his Church's obscene claim to worldwide tyranny over the minds of men (and bodies of women) as Jefferson put it so unambiguously.

"Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights.”

No they didn't and many of them came to get away from the gruesome and eldritch horrors your ilk have perpetrated in the old country.

Catholics should pray to the Virgin Mary, says he, to "intercede for the nation" since God himself seems uninterested and I would be quite satisfied if that were the extent of this blatant political power grab for which we have to pay through tax policies that allow these plutocratic men of poverty to force their nasty, inhumane policies down our throats as though we were all helpless choir boys and without having to register as a lobby. There's little to suggest that such power would be enough, as anti-democratic and anti-American and inhumane as it may be.

Personally I'd prefer to pray to Dagon or Wotan or Yog-Sothoth, my grandson's teddy bear or even to Anton Kalashnikov that our freedom can continue to endure the unremitting assault from ecclesiastical tyrants of all stripes and as we all know, Yog never forgives anything.

Amen

Live-blogging the 2012 Florida primary: Mitt goes negative, Newt falters -- the beginning of the end of the Republican presidential race

2012-01-31T19:25:00.026-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED FREQUENTLY. VERY FREQUENTLY.

7:18 pm - Yup, here we go again.

After Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, our full attention's been on Florida for about 10 days now... and it's a biggie. I'm just going to have some dinner, but I'll be back shortly and will be live-blogging frequently throughout the evening, with contributions from Richard as well. We know who's going to win, and it'll be called very early (like 8:01?) but we'll try to keep it interesting by keeping the whole damn thing in perspective. See you soon.

7:28 pm - You can see the results here. Returns are already coming in -- 36% reporting.

7:29 pm - Okay... we're almost there...

7:30 pm - Almost there...

7:31 pm - Just a little bit more...

7:32 pm - Yes! The Reaction is now ready to declare Mitt Romney the winner of the 2012 Florida Republican primary.

7:33 pm - We called it! We called it! We can state the obvious! Take that, Wolf Blitzer, you bearded wonder! Ha! Go ahead and wait for those polls in the Central time zone to close in 27 minutes. We're not letting anything get in our way.

7:54 pm - So... is it over yet? With 51% reporting, it's Romney with 48, Gingrich with 31, Santorum with 13, and Paul with 7. Needless to say, a huge lead for Mitt. I thought he'd win by 12 or 13, though the trend was suggesting even more, like 15.

RKB: Yes, this is over.

8:00 pm - Earlier today, I set the over/under for the call on Romney's win at 8:01 and 30 seconds. Are we there yet?

8:01 pm - And I also wrote this: "In case you weren't clear, it's (mostly) the money, stupid. Money, in short, wins." And so, in "honor" of Mitt's big win, here's Rush (once upon a time infatuated with Ayn Rand, though they are one of my favorite bands -- and maybe the greatest Canadian band ever) performing "Big Money":

Big money goes around the world

Big money underground

Big money got a mighty voice

Big money make no sound

Big money pull a million strings

Big money hold the prize

Big money weave a mighty web

Big money draw the flies

It's that old time religion

It's the kingdom they would rule

It's the fool on television

Getting paid to play the fool

8:04 pm - Congratulations, Mitt. You the man. And you're clearly the frontrunner (once again).

RKB: I know Newt said he would stay in for the long haul, but at about 18 points back with 65% reporting that will be hard to do. We all know that Gingrich is really good at ignoring his critics and shooting the messenger and all that, but it's starting to look more than a little sad.

8:21 pm - In case you missed it, Florida Republican wunderkind Marco Rubio said today that the winner of the Florida primary would be the nominee this fall. Hardly an out-on-a-limb prediction. He knew it would be Romney, and Romney is by far the likely nominee.

RKB: This is a WSJ clip discussing the gender gap between Gingrich and Romney. Guess which candidate women don't like? (Can't embed, but you can watch it here.)

RKB: Brit Hume on Fox is speculating about the extent to which Romney will want to turn his attention away from Gingrich and start focusing his attention on Obama. Of course, when he eased off on Newt in South Carolina, he got smoked. I guess it begs the question of when Romney will start to tack to the center to begin courting independents. That'll be hard to do as long as hardcore conservatives don't trust him. Quite a problem. But if Gingrich is mostly done, Romney will need a plan to start sounding more reasonable.

8:45 pm - Florida really does look like penis, doesn't it?

8:46 pm - With the rest of my family watching Glee (ugh), I'll hand it over to Richard to comment on Romney's victory speech...

RKB: Ann Romney is at the podium thanking the whole team. Blah, blah, blah. And then she intros her husband. Could this guy be more insincere? Romney says that a competitive nomination race doesn't divide Republicans, it prepares them. Well, no. Not when the attacks are on character.

Funny how no Republican ever mentions George W. Bush as the architect of the current economic mess. The nerve of these guys.

Romney is so full of shit.

Well, I guess we have our answer.Romney thinks the campaign against Obama starts now.

Romney is all about mindless, meaningless platitudes. What a mean-spirited idiot.

If Romney really is the best the GOP has to offer, Obama must be sleeping well these days.

8:51 pm - Ditto. Have I mentioned that Romney's a privileged rich douchebag with a plutocratic sense of entitlement who will do and say anything for votes? Well, there you go. And that's the narrative that should attach itself to Romney through November.

8:53 pm - Sorry, maybe you expect us to comment on Romney without all the insults? That would be fine if he hadn't shown himself throughout this entire campaign to be a shameless liar pandering to GOP extremism with all his anti-Obama nonsense and otherwise turning himself into a soul-less "Mitt Romney" candidate who seems to stand for nothing but maximizing the wealth of the super-rich and getting himself elected. I mean, he said just yesterday he wishes he could claim he was Hispanic. How utterly pathetic is that?

RKB: Sarah Palin is on Fox right now (8:50 pm). She sounds bitter that Romeny's $17-million investment in Florida bought his success. She is saying that the process has not been "very attractive to the electorate." Palin is obviously lukewarm on Romney. She better get used to him. Man, she is so stupid ,but I guess she has her followers. I still can't believe anyone is fooled by this dolt. What a lot of nonesence from the former half-term governor of Alaska.

8:59 pm - Sure, but I can't argue with her assessment of how Romney won Florida. (I would just add that she isn't terribly "attractive to the electorate" either, including the Republican electorate.)

9:01 pm - Romney's up by 15 with 76% reporting, 47 to 32. Just what the likes of Nate Silver were saying. Needless to say, a big win, regardless of how he did it. Newt's lead in the national polls has been slipping, and there's little doubt that Mitt will now surge (the key and perhaps most overused word of this whole race, no?) into the lead.

9:07 pm - And now I turn it over to Richard again...

RKB: Santorum is speaking from Colorado (?).

Santorum is thanking people for their support during his daughter's recent health problem. Nice to see people reminded that even politicians have lives and families. Nice touch by Santorum. Much as I hate Santorum's social conservatism, he sounds the most honest of the bunch. So, to that extent, he honestly holds values I hate.

Still, Santorum is generally a weak candidate. What a horrible field.

9:09 pm - I've thought the same about Santorum, particularly since his excellent speech the night of the Iowa caucuses (which he ended up winning, of course). I don't agree with him on... well, on pretty much anything, but there's no denying his general sincerity, which contrasts starkly with Romney's shameless dishonesty and Newt's bullying egomania.

RKB: And it certainly doesn't look like Santorum is getting out. Chris Matthews is suggesting that Santorum is angling for the VP job. Don't see that happening. There are a lot better choices.

9:13 pm - It's possible, but I agree. Unlikely. And while Santorum is certainly a bona fide social conservative, he's toxic to independents (and his name is just too much of a joke). Romney will have to appease the right with someone else: Ryan? Rubio? Haley? Jindal?

9:18 pm - And over to Richard again, who's watching and reporting so I don't have to...

RKB: Gingrich is now at the mic:

This will be a two-person race between Newt and the Massachusetts moderate is what he is saying.

He is saying that he will stay in as long as it takes. People power will defeat money power. When did the GOP become the party of poor people? Newt is calling it a "people's campaign." That's great. He's contrasting himself with Romney as the candidate of the establishment. Will anyone believe that Newt is a man of the people?

This stuff is red meat for the base, but rings hollow for independents.

9:20 pm - For some of the base, sure. But Newt's attempt at populism won't fool many on the right. It's okay to be a Buchananite pitchfork populist (i.e., a lynch mob), but going after Big Money is just too... socialist?

9:28 pm - Mitt's still up by 15.

9:44 pm - And again...

RKB: Ron Paul is in Nevada. At the mic now:

Paul's crowd is certainly enthusiastic, as is he. Pretty happy for a guy who just came in last place in Florida with a whopping 7%. Yes, it's all about personal liberty, whatever that means. Oh, I can't stand listening to Paul. Such a waste of time. I do like the idea of bringing our troops home and stopping "unwinnable, undeclared wars." I could get behind that. Otherwise, libertarians make me tired. They aren't even worth arguing with.

Ron Paul is also saying he will go all the way to convention.

9:46 pm - And so he will. It's not about winning for Paul, it's about his libertarian agenda/platform and making sure it's a core part of the GOP. (Note to Rep. Paul: It's not. Well, not really. The anti-tax stuff is, of course, but Republicans have no time for anti-imperialism and civil liberties these days. Even your anti-government views are a tad too out there for most in your party. Why not unite with Trump for a third-party run?)

9:52 pm - Uh-oh. Major drama! Mitt's lead has fallen all the way from 15 to 14. With 94% reporting he's ahead just 46 to 32. What does this mean? What can it mean? Is Mitt falling short of expectations? OMG! WTF? It's back on, baby, back... on!

10:17 pm - Kidding. Of course.

10:18 pm - That's about it for us. There's not much else to say tonight. But, as I peruse some live-blogging posts at other sites, let me quote from Wonkette, which offered up these extremely amusing observations earlier on this evening:

"Florida is a microcosm of America," we just heard one of the Romney and/or Gingrich spin-whores say on the MSNBC just now. Yes, because Florida is a limp dick dangling over a sex-slave resort in the Dominican Republic or whatever. Also, America is truly a symbol of America. Just look at the map, and look at it in profile. What you'll see is a morbidly obese man with a pinhead and a dangling, useless dongle, with a massive ass to the west and a couple of unloved children from his first or second marriage literally "out to sea." Anyway, how badly will Mittens beat the jewelry piglet tonight? Or will there be a surprise?

7:45 PM — Polls are closed in the "fancy part" of Florida, with the Jews and the Blacks and the Cubanos and the gay CIA retirees, while polls remain open for another fifteen minutes in the "Dukes of Hazard" part of Florida, with the angry 60-year-old thrice-divorced small-time property speculators fuming in their single-wides tonight. Which part of the state is "more American," anyway?

Good question. I go back and forth.

But it's certainly true that there's a divide in Florida just as there's a divide elsewhere -- if not quite as stark as Wonkette's humorous characterization of it. It's usually described as red state-blue state, but it's not so much a state-by-state divided, it's an urban-rural one, and we see this clearly in today's results. Romney is winning the largely urban and suburban counties, while Gingrich is winning the largely rural ones. (Santorum is doing better in the rural ridings, while Paul is fairly consistent all over the state.) Take Miami-Dade, for example. Mitt's up 61-26 over Newt there, with Santorum at 6. In Escambia, though, the state's westernmost county, up in the panhandle, Newt's up 39-35 over Mitt, with Santorum at 16. These are extremes, but they reflect what's going on all across the state.

10:35 pm - Okay, done. For now. We're all over this Republican race, and we'll have a lot more to come. Stay tuned.

Good night, everyone.

What Floridians are learning about Newt (and what we're all learning about the GOP presidential race)

2012-01-31T16:46:00.004-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter:

Top 4 Google searches in FL for Newt? "Callista", "Newt ethics violations", "Newt wives", Newt scandals". Ouch. (link)

-- Chris Cillizza (@TheFix)

What can we learn from this?

1) Romney's merciless anti-Newt ad blitz has worked remarkably well.

2) Money is power. Romney has tons of it and has outspent Newt by miles and miles.

3) Newt is still Newt. He can say he's changed, but his ugly past will always haunt him.

4) For those voters who don't know anything about that past, who have forgotten, or would prefer not to be reminded, Romney has been more than happy to be Newt's character reference.

5) The Internet is a powerful source of information, misinformation, and disinformation.

And more generally:

6) Newt's in big trouble in Florida. Romney will likely crush him by 12-13 points. Maybe more like 15.

7) The polls close tonight at 7 pm, with some counties in central time. That means all voting will be done by 8 pm eastern time. The over/under on the networks calling it for Romney should be 8:01 and 30 seconds. I'll take the under (earlier). No need to drag this out.

8) The race won't be over, but it's almost there. Newt could do well in the upcoming caucuses, but they're in the Mitt-friendly states of Nevada and Maine. And he needs Santorum to get out, but that seems unlikely, particularly with the Missouri primary coming up next week. Newt's not on the ballot there.

9) In case you weren't clear, it's (mostly) the money, stupid. Money, in short, wins. (Sorry, Mr. Beane, but it's true.)

And so...

10) Republicans may not be enamored with Romney, and he may be a privileged rich douchebag with a plutocratic sense of entitlement and insufficiently right-wing views who will do and say anything for votes, but it looks like they're stuck with him.

Good times.

This day in music - January 31, 1968: The American Breed's "Bend Me, Shape Me" is certified Gold

2012-01-31T14:17:00.004-05:00

By Richard K. Barry

I remember this song. Can't say that I really remember the group, though. Well, sort of. To be fair, they did chart with a few other songs, though "Bend Me, Shape Me" was their biggest hit. If you were a fan, you will know that other efforts by the band that charted include "Step Out Of Your Mind" and "Green Light." Okay.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the group is that they eventually morphed into an R&B/funk band with the name Rufus featuring a singer by the name of Chaka Khan, and in 1974 had a top ten hit with "Tell Me Something Good." That I remember.

Anyway, The American Breed was a Chicago-based group that lasted from 1966 to 1969 before going in a different musical direction. And in their first incarnation they even got a gold record out of the deal.

I love the general grooviness of the video of "Bend Me, Shape Me" and, what the hell, you'll find a clip of "Tell Me Something Good" just below it featuring Chaka Khan.

By the way, "Tell Me Something Good" was written by Stevie Wonder and is among the earliest songs to make use of a guitar talk box. If you know the song, you'll know what that means.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

"I wish I could claim that I'm Hispanic": Another helpful glimpse into the shameless, whoring opportunism of Mitt Romney

2012-01-31T12:15:00.002-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mitt just can't help himself. Sometimes, without even intending it, he shows us who he really is, what he's really made of, what he's really all about:

On Monday morning's Fox and Friends, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney let out another one of those "I'm running for office, for Pete's sake!" bursts of honesty which, like a burlesque revue at a leper colony, are revealing, but not in a good way. Asked if his father's Mexican birthplace is helping him with Florida's Hispanic community, Romney replied "You know, I wish I could claim that I'm Hispanic..."

Host Steve Doocy highlighted the fact that Gov. Romney hasn't exactly bragged about his Mexican roots before. "The other night when I saw you at one of the debates in Florida," Doocy said, "you mentioned for the first time in my memory, where you were talking about that anti-immigrant allegation by Newt Gingrich. You were talking about how your father was born in Mexico. It's the first time I'd heard you say that. Is that helping you with the Latino community in Florida?"

Romney replied "You know, I wish I could claim that I'm Hispanic..."

That's a bit of a weird thing to say, but let's hear him out. Does he admire the rich cultural heritage, the strong current of faith, the diverse culinary tradition? Romney continued "...and it would help me with the Latino community here in Florida and around the country, but my dad was born of American parents living in Mexico."

Oh, right, he didn’t say he wished he was Hispanic, just that he wishes he could claim it.

It's almost like this privileged rich douchebag will do and say anything for votes, take any opportunity to sell himself to whatever constituency he needs to woo, and pander without any shame or self-regard whatsoever.

Almost? No, that pretty much describes him out on the campaign trail.

Thanks so much, Mitt. We know you're busy lying, but we really appreciate the unintentional honesty. Keep it up.

Jailhouse Rock.

2012-01-31T11:30:00.000-05:00

by Capt. Fogg

"Well, victims have rights too," is the usual evasion given to the question of why the United States has more people in confinement or under correctional supervision than the Soviet Union under Stalin. Well, of course they do have rights, but it's hard to reach the notion that a victim of a crime, or the state which represents that victim has the right to do anything at all to satisfy the rage we feel when someone harms us or our property from that position. Even the harshest laws of classical antiquity were set in place to hinder the endless cycle of revenge.

Harder it is indeed to get to the level of punishment typical in our land for crimes that in fact harm no one at all: "crimes" that throughout the years include marrying outside the arbitrary dictates of dominant religions, drinking from the wrong faucet, having a beer in private or smoking the herb that makes you feel mellow and sleepy. Most hard to justify is the rage for "Zero Tolerance" that makes judges into clerks and executioners unable to apply reason or a sense of proportion as it relates to crime and punishment.

Imagine, as Adam Gopnik suggests in Mass Incarceration and Criminal Justice in the January 30th issue of New Yorker, "Lock yourself in your bathroom and then imagine you have to stay there for the next ten years, and you will have some sense of the experience." At least 50,000 men don't have to imagine it at the moment, they simply have to be conscious.

Although it's tapered off some recently, we've been given editorials and articles and TV harangues about how prison life is too "soft" for "Criminals" such as some teen who sent a naked picture on a cellphone to another teen and gets life in a cage -- or another unfortunate caught with marijuana who has to endure 10 or 20 degrading and terrifying years and lose his civil rights in perpetuity, but Prison life in the US is a veritable nightmare in comparison to what it is in places like Europe. 70,000 prisoners are raped in our prisons every year where HIV is widespread. Texas alone has sentenced more than 400 teenagers to life imprisonment.

My own state of Florida, with a governor who somehow escaped incarceration for having been involved in the largest Medicare swindle ever, is as I write this, trying to "privatize" Florida's prison system. Is that another way of washing conservative hands of blood or is it simply that to the conservative mind, being profitable makes it moral: a corporation locking up people and keeping the corporate bottom line healthy by squeezing convicts as well as punishing them?

Of course Florida, as many other states have done, turned to prison labor as a substitute for slavery after Liberals ended their horrific atrocities, locking up "vagrants" and selling their "slave" labor for private gain in much the same way as China is accused of when we try to seem better than they are.

" More than half of all black men without a high-school diploma go to prison at some time in their lives"

says Gopnik and mass imprisonment has tainted our mass culture with affluent kids in shopping malls imitating prison dress and speech and tattoos. We wear our incarceration culture on the bodies of our children, like the mark of Cain.

"Mass incarceration on a scale almost unexampled in human history is a fundamental fact of our country today—perhaps the fundamental fact, as slavery was the fundamental fact of 1850. In truth, there are more black men in the grip of the criminal-justice system—in prison, on probation, or on parole—than were in slavery then."

Nor is it tapering off. The rate of incarceration is accelerating; tripling in the last couple of decades and with the tendency toward private slaveholder corporations, the comparison to the anti-bellum south is all the more frightening. We'r e being sold a southern sense of justice, suggests the author, and we sell it, as we sell our wars and our attacks on what we were taught were fundamental rights and even our attacks on reformers with appeals to rage. "If the accused had shot someone in your family, wouldn't you want to kill him?" asks the voice and of course I might, but fortunately for all of us, we have a system of laws, we have a civilization to prevent it. Indeed civilization exists as a brake on our base instincts, which instincts so often destroy it.

Is our current fascination with a withered government that thereby facilitates freedom in some magical way really compatible with a government so concerned with keeping all freedom away from so many people for ever expanding reasons? Or is the subjugation of such a huge number of people only a part of a vast scheme to subjugate most of us, to establish America as a vast plantation for the benefit of a very few slaveholders?

Perhaps not. Perhaps it's simply the fear in which we're all marinating in this safest period in history that's pickled our sense of justice; our fear of terrorists, dope fiends, predators, drunk drivers and heretics, but regardless of where the blame is put, we are, and continue to grow as a nation which more than any others, keeps people in cages and allows other people to profit from it.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Obama connects better with Americans than GOP contenders

2012-01-31T10:45:00.003-05:00

By Richard K. Barry

Swiss Francs, Mitt!

Here are some interesting polling results worth passing along.

According to a Pew Research Center/Washington Post poll, 55% of those surveyed say that President Obama connects with the needs of average Americans very or fairly well. This contrasts with 41% who told pollsters that the president doesn't understand the people's problems too well or at all well.

As for the two leading GOP contenders, only 39 percent say that Romney understands the problems of average Americans very or fairly well, and just 36 percent say the same for Gingrich.

As Politico reports on the survey:

Slightly more than half of independent voters, or 53 percent, say Obama is empathetic, while only 38 percent and 37 percent, respectively, had the same positive rating for Romney and Gingrich.

Along party lines, a whopping 84 percent of Democrats say Obama does connect with the concerns of average people. Among Republicans, 61 percent told pollsters Romney does connect well, and 60 percent say the same for Gingrich.

I suppose one could say that the lower numbers for Romney and Gingrich amongst Republicans have to do with the fact that the GOP nomination race is in full swing and these numbers will consolidate around the eventual nominee whenever he is chosen.

But the percentages among independents are interesting. That's a pretty big gap between swing voters who think Obama understands their situation vs. the number who think leading Republicans do.

It may be a simple calculus, but I tend to think people would rather vote for someone to whom they can relate and who can relate to them. After the dust settles and Romney becomes the GOP nominee, there is little doubt in my mind that most American will see the former Governor of Massachusetts as clueless when it comes to the challenges faced by most citizens.

Want to make a $10,000 bet on that? Or maybe we could make the wager in Swiss francs?

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

In Other Election News

2012-01-31T09:25:00.001-05:00

By Carl

You heard it here first: I fully expect the Democrats to chip large portions of the Republican majority in the House away, if not overtake them completely.

Right now, there's a distinct anti-Washington fervor in the nation. There was two years ago, too, but the Teabaggers fucked that up by co-opting any populist agenda into the now-transparent "let's give MORE money to our corporate overlords so we can beg for scraps" ploy that created the whole Mitt Romney candidacy that is limping into the nomination.

Really. Think about it. After Occupy Wall Street & the 99% meme, and Mitt's revelations of paying less than 15% on tens of millions in income, the average voter has got to be thinking "Who's really in charge here?"

Add to that the overheated anti-Latino rhetoric of the Republican primary campaign-- and the last Congress, altogether-- and you have a recipe for taking back enough seats, 25, to overturn the balance of power in Congress.

And for the final kicker, if Romney wins the nomination, the vaunted "enthusiasm" factor the Republicans allegedly had flies out the window. Romney's coattails will be next to non-existent-- he might bolster some Northwest and Mountain races-- and indeed, it will be the down-ticket votes that propel him to any showing whatsoever.

That said, it troubles me how much superPAC money there is floating around. As you are no doubt aware, Newt Gingirich has been the beneficiary of something like $10 million from Sheldon Adelson, who could easily afford to pump another $490 million and still break even on one year's taxes.

Romney can afford at least nine figures himself. Add Adelson's generosity to any potential Republican candidate, altho clearly not as enthusiastically as to Newt, and you have a formidable bloc of money, despite Obama's war chest of nearly a billion.

Worse, this superPAC money can go downstream too and influence tight races, thus propelling Mitt's prospects a little further.

Things look good for Democrats this year, but don't get cocky. It ain't over til the last Cayman withdrawal is made.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Why is Newt losing in Florida?

2012-01-31T08:15:00.000-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's the money, stupid:

Newt Gingrich has been outspent on the Florida airwaves by a nearly $12 million margin, according to a source monitoring the Sunshine State ad war.

Through Friday, the Romney campaign and the super PAC Restore Our Future had spent a combined $15,340,000, the source said. Gingrich’s campaign and the super PAC Winning Our Future spent a comparatively paltry $3,390,000.

That's just the differential in paid-media spending, so it doesn't include Romney's edge in field operations, mail, et cetera. And Romney's advantage isn’t likely to go away in the primary, though the general election is an entirely different story.

Done.

The Book of Jeb: Why no endorsement yet?

2012-01-30T20:19:00.000-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Why does Jeb Bush hate Mitt Romney? What, you say he doesn't hate him, that that's the wrong word to use? Okay, fine.

Why has Jeb Bush not endorsed Mitt Romney? After all, Jeb's once-president dad has endorsed Mitt, and of course Mitt is the near-universal choice of the GOP "establishment," or whatever's left of it, even if no one's all that enthusiastic about him.

True, Jeb once talked up Mitch Daniels, and maybe he wishes that Mitch were in the race, or someone other than Mitt, some other establishmentarian, but it's hard to see how Jeb remains silent as late as the day before the primary in Florida, where he was once governor and still holds great sway, and where an endorsement would mean so much.

Maybe he thinks Romney will win anyway, which he will, and so maybe he wants to hold off for a more opportune time. Or it maybe it's that the Republican Party, and this presidential race in particular, has just gotten too crazy for him:

Mr. Bush has made clear in television interviews and in conversations with friends that he is troubled by the sharpening tenor of the race, particularly on immigration. He voiced his concern directly to Mr. Romney, two people close to him said, urging him to moderate his oratory and views to avoid a collapse of support among Hispanic voters in the general election.

This may be giving him too much credit. It could just be that he wants to run for president himself one day and at this point doesn't want to hitch his wagon to a weak and embarrassing candidate who may get crushed by Obama.

And, yes, that includes Romney.

Some jokes never get old

2012-01-30T15:00:00.006-05:00

By Richard K. Barry

What Happens If...?

2012-01-30T10:52:00.001-05:00

By Carl

First, I'm not going to snark on a dying child. No one, no matter how misguided they may be or how evil their opinions may be, should be teased about something like that.

Second, of course, I'm talking about Rick Santorum and the health scare of his young daughter that forced him off the campaign trail this weekend, ahead of the Florida primary. It got me to thinking: what happens if the worst scenario unfolds?

Santorum stands a pretty good chance of making a case for continuing his campaign in the Florida primary: his religion and his religious nature certainly appeal to one or two of the three ethnic groups in Florida, as according to Bill Maher ("Jews, Cubans, and rednecks").

A strong third or even, heaven forbid, swiping second from a faltering Gingrich, would place Santorum squarely back in the hunt.

This would, of course, do two things: it would force Mitt to extend the primary season by at least a few more weeks and to divide his fire across two camps, and it would offer more Not-Mitt alternatives that people can choose. It's not a secret that the lion's share of Republicans neither like nor trust Mitt, but factions have their different reasons.

I suspect the Newt faction is the faction that dislikes the individual mandate that Romneycare imposed on Massachussetts' citizenry. This is the faction that really dislikes healthcare in any way shape or form, preferring to see people die in the streets than provide a sick person a hospital bed.

The Santorum faction, of course, is the faction that dislikes Mitt, or more likely mistrusts him, for his Mormonism. Santorum is Catholic, and while that dismays many Evangelicals, it's a damned sight more palatable than someone wearing magic underwear and re-baptizing the dead.

So if Santorum has to drop out, quo vadis? (OK, correctly, "quo ibunt?" but I couldn't resist the Biblical reference). Newt's recent seeing of the light has generally been viewed as a sham, a desperate pandering political ploy, and really serves only as a calculated rationalization by those who are devout but more devoutly devoted to their wallets instead.

The Santorum faction, the hard-core ones, at any rate, probably number no more than fifteen percent in Florida. Anything he pulls beyond that is either Not-Mitt or Not-Gingrich. The most recent Marist poll shows Santorum the only candidate to increase his poll numbers after last week's debate. It seems he stole equally from Romney and Gingrich, altho it's hard to be certain.

So here's the scenario that I think Romney is hoping for: After tomorrow, Newt, who has said a strong Florida showing will be the reason to keep his campaign alive, flails and ends up in a surprising third. He drops out.

Then, Santorum, for his personal reasons, agrees to drop his campaign and unite behind Romney, putting his name in the hat for Veep and angling for a 2016 run after Romney gets swamped in the fall.

That scenario, at least vote-wise, seems pretty likely. Whether the egos involved can see the logic behind is awaits to be seen.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Mitt way up, Newt flailing about: The state of the GOP presidential race, the day before the Florida primary

2012-01-30T10:45:00.009-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I was initially going to comment on Cain's endorsement of Gingrich like this:

While it's possible that Cain's endorsement will give Newt a small boost in Florida, and while it's likely that the self-absorbed and not terribly self-aware Cain thinks his endorsement will mean a whole lot more, maybe even pushing Newt over the top, endorsing at this point is like hopping aboard the Costa Concordia.

But then I thought... wait.

That ill-fated ocean liner is just lying there, while Newt, after his poor (relative to expectations, but also in absolute terms) debate performance the other night, is sinking fast.

I thought that Romney might win by 8-10 points, but he's now up by a whopping 15 in a new NBC/Marist poll. Another poll conducted by various Florida news organizations has him up by 11.

Part of this is that Newt may simply have peaked. Expectations were high, too high, going into Thursday's debate, but the fact is, he was never going to live up to those expectations anyway. But of course the other key fact here is that Romney simply has the better campaign (even if he isn't a terribly good candidate himself): He's got money, organization, rigor, and, perhaps most importantly, the will and power of the Republican establishment behind him (even if they're behind him because he's all they've got and not because they actually like him all that much).

Now, there's no denying that Newt is still fighting. And why should he not? He's still doing well nationally, even if his lead has narrowed and a loss in Florida would likely boost Mitt back into the lead, likely for good. At this point, he doesn't have much to lose. His standing with the party? The party's trying to crush him. His future earnings potential as a leading conservative commentator? He'll be fine. His dignity? Please. At some point, sure, all his hammering away at Romney will be too much of a liability, but then he'll just turn on a dime and play the partisan hack again, saying all the right things on Meet the Press and deflecting attention away from himself by attacking Obama and the media. This, as you should know by now, is his modus operandi. Even all the Romney surrogates saying nasty things about him now will change their tune when the party has to unite behind Romney or else.

Maybe Newt is "mad and mental enough to fight on long after Florida," as New York mag's John Heilemann put it, and maybe there will be "a straight-out contest for the next four or five months," as he himself put it yesterday, and maybe if Santorum gets out and his supporters go to Newt, and... well, sure, maybe. But I don't think so. If Romney wins Florida by, say, 12 points or so, which the media would call a landslide, it's pretty much a done deal, what with the next contests coming up in the Romney-friendly states of Nevada and Maine.

At least, that's how it looks today. But if we've learned anything so far, it's that the crazy and largely unpredictable twists and turns of this race will end up biting your confident prognostications on the ass. Yes, I think it's safe to say that Romney will win tomorrow. But what if he doesn't win by as much as we now think he will? What if Newt makes it close -- say, 5 points? And what if Santorum does get out and endorse him (and/or his supporters go to Newt?) And what if Newt does well in the upcoming caucuses (not primaries, which are more open and less likely to be dominated by the hardcore party faithful on the far right) in Nevada, Maine, Colorado, and Minnesota? What if this really does become a tight one-on-one (with Ron Paul still in, of course)?

Hey, anything can, and could, happen.

Republican idiot extraordinaire Allen West says liberals should "get the hell out"

2012-01-29T22:57:00.002-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's really not worth paying any attention to Allen West, the insane right-wing Republican Congressman from Florida who says stupid things (and bigoted things) pretty much everytime he opens his mouth.

But pay attention we do, if only because it's good to keep track of the crazy things Republicans say and do and because in his own way West speaks to the current degraded state of the conservative, er, mind -- a mind that has been purged of reason and civility.

Here, for example, is what West said yesterday at a dinner -- and of all things a Lincoln Day dinner, as if the GOP has anything at all in common with Mr. Lincoln -- in West Palm Beach:

We need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and my dear friend the chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain't on the table. Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.

Of course, this is the usual sort of ridiculousness we hear from so many Republicans these days, even the supposedly sane (but not so much) Mitch Daniels. Seriously, in what world is any of this true? Unless you're completely delusional, perhaps as a result of spending too much time in the presence of Republican propaganda without an ounce of critical thinking, how can you possibly think that Obama and the Democrats are anti-free market? And how exactly do Democrats seek equality of achievement? By refusing to gut Social Security, pumping (not nearly enough) money into the economy when it's just about to go off the cliff, and bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry?

It's like some bat-shit-crazy bizarro world these people inhabit. And it is.

And, yes, Europe, that anti-capitalist, freedom-hating dystopia with... with... with all that social mobility and those hugely profitable companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Siemens and Novartis and Shell and Nokia and Airbus and those massive banks like HSBC and Santander, and those dynamic global cities like London and Paris and Berlin, not to mention that great quality of life.

Slavery!

This is the level of "discourse" we've come to expect not just from West but from Republicans generally. And, as the GOP descends further and further into madness, it's not going to get any better anytime soon.

Behind the Ad: Gingrich assails Romney's character

2012-01-28T15:21:00.001-05:00

By Richard K. Barry

Who: Newt Gingrich attacks Mitt Romney

Where: Florida

What's going on: There have been so many twists and turns to the GOP presidential nomination process that I'm not quite ready to say it's over. Polls in Florida are still settling and I suppose it's still possible Gingrich could pull it out and keep this thing going for a while longer. He certainly seems to be thinking that way, based on his most recent ad airing in Florida.

The money line is this: "What kind of man would mislead, distort and deceive just to win an election. This man would: Mitt Romney."

It begins with this comment by Governor Mike Huckabee: "If a man's dishonest to get a job, he'll be dishonest on the job."

Wow. Not that it hasn't been personal before this, but now it's really getting personal. I still think Romney wins the nomination, but attack ads like this that impugn Romney's reputation as a true conservative are going to have an impact once Romney finally emerges as the candidate.

In part this is the stuff professionals like to call voter suppression. In other words, even if Romney wins the nomination, the feeling that he can't be trusted may well make it less likely that Tea Party or other hard-core right wingers will bother to come out and vote for him. They won't vote for Obama, of course, they just won't vote.

It's pretty effective stuff.

And, among swing voter, repeating over and over that Romney will say whatever it takes to get elected is not going to make him an attractive candidate. As I've said many times, I just think Mitt Romney is a lousy politician, that he doesn't understand how it's done, doesn't understand that voters need to trust the person they vote for, need to believe that the candidate stands for something.

This ad feeds into the feeling growing numbers of people have that Romney is a fraud, that the only thing he stands for is winning because rich privileged people like him, he'd like us to believe, ought to be running the country anyway. Everything else for a guy like Mitt is background noise.

Newt Gingrich doesn't care about the success of the Republican Party. This is scorched earth politics at its best and, as a Democrat, I love it. More of this please.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

This day in music - January 27, 1970: The Partridge Family's "I Think I Love You" hits #1

2012-01-27T16:00:00.002-05:00

By Richard K. Barry

The Partridge Family

When I decided to have some fun with this feature, I told myself I wouldn't impose my own opinions about what was good music and what was "less good." For all sorts of reasons, different artists and songs mean things to other people beyond the understanding of some of the rest of us. Clearly the fact that The Partridge Family had a #1 hit with "I Think I Love You" means that a lot of people went out and bought the record. I can respect that.

The Partridge Family was a television sitcom that aired between 1970 and 1974 on ABC and has lived on in syndication for a long time after that. The basic idea for the show was that a widowed mother and her five children would embark on a music career. This allowed for normal family-type hijinx, with a couple of pretty teenagers (David Cassidy and Susan Dey) in the cast to occupy the hormones of any peers who might be watching.

And then there was the obligatory song in each episode always somehow woven into the plot. As for the music, only David Cassidy, who sang lead, and Shirley Jones (the mother), who sang backup, were featured on the recordings.

One of the more obscure pieces of information about the song "I Think I Love You" is that it made The Partridge Family the third fictional group to have a #1 hit (after The Chipmunks and The Archies). To give the man his due, "I Think I Love You" was written by veteran American songwriter Tony Romeo, who also wrote for a lot of other people.

I remember watching The Partridge Family as a kid. It seemed to pass the time as well as anything else. I doubt the show ever did anyone any real harm, and as pop music goes, it wasn't the worst.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Eva Longoria slams Romney over DREAM Act

2012-01-27T15:57:00.002-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter:

85% of Latino Voters support the #DREAM Act, 100% of @MittRomney, doesn’t!

-- Eva Longoria (@evalongoria)

Yes, that Eva Longoria. The extraordinarily beautiful Eva Longoria.

Very well put. (More here.)

Just because Mitt can name some Latino Republicans (and suck up to Rubio in particular) and pander to militant Cubans doesn't make him a friend to Latinos.

And his shameless pandering to the far-right GOP base, including on immigration, just makes him look like a bigoted nativist.

**********

I generally don't pay much attention to the political views of celebrities, but, to her credit, Longoria is pro-Obama and anti-Tea Party, and generally seems to be a very thoughtful person.

[President Obama] keeps getting beat up lately because there's such an extremist movement, and for me, it's very dangerous because its not the character of America," Longoria continued. And though she didn't specify that the movement beating up Obama she was referring to was the Tea Party, she later scoffed when Kimmel mentioned them, saying they were "good for comedy."

Watch:

The horrendous human costs of your beloved gadgets

2012-01-27T13:30:00.001-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So you like your iPhone, do you? And your iPad? And maybe you're even one of those Apple cultists. (I'm not, but I do love my iPod Touch. I go Samsung/Android with my phone.)

Maybe you love all your gadgets. Maybe you think technology has made your life so much better, so much more fun. Hey, I hear you.

But there's a cost to be paid, and not just whatever low, low, ridiculously low price lured you into your local Best Buy. No, there's a human cost. Actually, many human costs. And it's important that you (and I) know about it (and make decisions accordingly):

In the last decade, Apple has become one of the mightiest, richest and most successful companies in the world, in part by mastering global manufacturing. Apple and its high-technology peers — as well as dozens of other American industries — have achieved a pace of innovation nearly unmatched in modern history.

However, the workers assembling iPhones, iPads and other devices often labor in harsh conditions, according to employees inside those plants, worker advocates and documents published by companies themselves. Problems are as varied as onerous work environments and serious — sometimes deadly — safety problems.

Employees work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Under-age workers have helped build Apple's products, and the company's suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste and falsified records, according to company reports and advocacy groups that, within China, are often considered reliable, independent monitors.

More troubling, the groups say, is some suppliers' disregard for workers' health. Two years ago, 137 workers at an Apple supplier in eastern China were injured after they were ordered to use a poisonous chemical to clean iPhone screens. Within seven months last year, two explosions at iPad factories, including in Chengdu, killed four people and injured 77. Before those blasts, Apple had been alerted to hazardous conditions inside the Chengdu plant, according to a Chinese group that published that warning.

And then there's that whole suicide problem. (Yes, a very serious problem. In addition to the suicides themselves, workers at Foxconn, a manufacturer for Apple and others, have threatened mass suicide to protest the horrible working conditions.)

Now, sure, it's easy to pick on Apple and it's huge profits and cash, but it's hardly alone in this. Pretty much every major (and not-so-major) consumer electronics company is implicated.

Will this stop me, or you, or most anyone else from lapping up the latest wonder-gizmo? Maybe not, but, then, what are we to do? Not have these gadgets at all? Please. We need our superphones and tablets and laptops and PCs. I'm on them all the time at home, at work, pretty much everywhere.

But maybe we should at least think twice (or more) about what we're doing, and maybe, if Apple (to take but the most obvious example) is one of the most egregious players in this horrific system, it should pay -- and pay by losing customers, by having customers demand better of it. And perhaps, too, our attention and habits, should we change them in a meaningful way, and the attention this human toll is getting, will turn this into a political issue with governments demanding, and requiring, meaningful change.

Maybe I'm hoping for too much. Actually, I'm sure I am. And I know I'm a hypocrite. Most of us are. But I do know I look at Apple quite a bit differently now, and if making a choice means choosing the less bad of some generally bad options, well, that's something, at least.

Food for thought next time you're playing Angry Birds.

My one and only post about Fred Karger

2012-01-27T12:00:00.001-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Who's Fred Karger, you ask? Why he's a political consultant and gay rights activist running for the Republican -- yes, the Republican -- nomination for president. Suffice to say that he's not doing all that well. But he is on the ballot in Michigan!

I've been on his mailing list throughout the campaign. I didn't sign up, I didn't ask for it, but there I am. And I'm fine with it. He seems like a decent guy and if his campaign wants to send me an e-mail now and then, so be it. I can pay attention or not. Usually not.

But yesterday... well, yesterday came one of the best moments of the whole campaign so far. Yes, courtesy of Fred Karger.

He announced yesterday in an e-mail blast that he has released his tax returns from 2000 to 2010, obviously a swipe at Romney. But that wasn't all. Do you know where he actually made the announcement? No, probably not...

At the George Romney Institute for Law and Public Policy at Adrian College in Michigan.

Yes, that George Romney. The dad.

"George Romney did the right thing 44 years ago when he released 12 years of his federal tax returns," said Fred. "He was the first presidential candidate to do so when he ran for president in 1968. At the time he said he released so many years of tax documents because one year was not enough. I just followed his lead."

If only his son were so, er, honorable (and less of a privileged rich douchebag with a massively plutocratic sense of entitlement).

Well done, Mr. Karger. And well played.

**********

Photo above, with more on Karger, here. He may not be what Republicans are looking for, not even close (you know, being gay and all), but he's certainly a partisan:

There is no doubting Karger's Republican credentials. He has spent his life working for the party's cause as a top strategist. Like Karl Rove, he was a disciple of the controversial Republican tactician Lee Atwater. Indeed, Karger played a key role in publicising the "Willie Horton" adverts that destroyed the Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Yeah, that's some serious GOP cred.

The Republican Party vs. Newt Gingrich

2012-01-27T10:45:00.000-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I wrote last night that Newt is probably done. He's still ahead nationally, but Romney has pulled well ahead in Florida and simply has too much of an advantage for Gingrich to overcome.

I would add that this is especially true with both establishment and movement conservatives, seeing him as a legit threat and entering full panic mode, going ballistic on his ass, from Dole to Drudge to Coulter, predicting disaster (for the GOP) if he's the nominee. Newt may still have some big names on his side, including Dear Leader Rush (who hasn't endorsed him but who despises Romney), but the full force of the Republican Party is coming down on him, and there's no way the party allows him to win. It'll do whatever it takes, and spend as much money as it takes, to make sure of it.

So much for that moon base. Alas.

Behind the Ad: Gingrich super PAC attacks Romney on health care

2012-01-27T09:15:00.002-05:00

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: Winning Our Future, Newt Gingrich's Super PAC, has said it will spend $6 million on ads to draw attention to Mitt Romney's health care law in Massachusetts. (Gingrich attacks Romney.)

Where: Florida, prior to next week's primary

What's going on: Despite the fact that Romney seems most vulnerable on the issue of his wealth and record at Bain Capital, the whole RomneyCare thing has hardly gone away. Gingrich is at least smart enough to know that seeing how it plays on top of everything else may not be a bad strategy.

The ad, no surprise, depicts Romney as a Massachusetts moderate in lockstep with President Obama, which will surely be red meat for Gingrich's growing base of Tea Party support.

As we know, Romney did a pretty effective number on Gingrich in Iowa with his Super PAC money, so it seems obvious that Newt will push back with whatever he can find in Florida and beyond, now that he has another $5 million from his casino mogul friend Sheldon Adelson to play with.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Voting rights

2012-01-27T06:44:00.001-05:00

By Mustang Bobby.

New Jersey's legislature is on the verge of voting on marriage equality, and Gov. Chris Christie (R) is threatening to veto the law should it pass. His stand is that it should be voted on by referendum, not "121 people in Trenton."

That's a weaselly way of getting out of it the discussion. He's doing it so he doesn't have to take a stand and come across as a homophobic right-winger; hey, it's not the law, it's the process. That's a typical chickenshit way out for a politician. So far so good. But then he goes and steps on the rake.

...he said, there's nothing "so special about this particular issue that it must be handled by a legislature."

"The fact of the matter is, I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South," he said.

That didn't go over too well with some of the people who remember all too well what it was like to fight for civil rights.

The comment outraged many African-American leaders in the state, who pointed out that such a referendum never would have passed in the south during the 60s — and that many black people were also disenfranchised at the time.

“People were fighting and dying in the streets of the South for a reason,” Oliver said. “They were fighting and dying in the streets of the South because the majority refused to grant minorities equal rights by any method. It look legislative action to bring justice to all Americans, just as legislative action is the right way to bring marriage equality to all New Jerseyans.”

“The governor’s comment is an insult to those who had no choice but to fight and die in the streets for equal rights,” she added.

Newark Mayor Cory Booker (D) had a similar take. “Dear God, we should not be putting civil rights issues to a popular vote, to be subject to the sentiments, the passions of the day. No minority should have their rights subject to the passions and the sentiments of the majority. This is the fundamental bedrock of what our nation stands for.”

Gov. Christie sounds like someone who has never faced any kind of discrimination. He has never lived a day in his life with the knowledge that there are laws that were written in such a way as to deny him a life with all his basic rights intact. Must be nice.

Rights are not something you vote on. That's why they are rights; they are fundamental to the foundation of our country. They are the essence of freedom; they don't restrict us, they liberate us. And that is why a lot of people didn't like the idea of black people voting in the South -- or anywhere else -- and that's why they don't like the idea of same-sex couples having the same rights and responsibilities as straight couples. It's not the act that enrages them (although some of them are really hung up on gay sex); it's the fact that they cannot abide the idea of people they hate and fear having the same rights as they do.

I'll give Gov. Christie the benefit of the doubt; after all, he just appointed an openly gay man to the state supreme court. He's a privileged white guy who doesn't have the insight to know or understand what it's like to live without something, so it's easy to dismiss the call for a right that he's never been without. That doesn't make him a homophobic bigot; it just makes him a jerk.

Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

The rise of Mitt, the end of Newt? Idle thoughts on tonight's GOP debate in Florida

2012-01-26T22:35:00.004-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED FREQUENTLY.

Okay, let's do this.

-- For the record, American Idol was a whole more compelling than this ridiculous, faux-dramatic theater tonight.

-- I tweeted and re-tweeted a ton during the debate. (You can see those tweets and/or follow me here.) Here are some of my efforts:

"This may be the 18th GOP debate, but the humidity makes it feel like the 37th."

"I'm proud to be a card-carrying member of the secular elite."

"Give Newt the Nobel Peace Prize. He just solved the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in about 45 seconds. (Uh, no, not really.)"

"Yes, the best way to liberate Cuba is to isolate it and thereby keep it totalitarian. It's worked so well lo these many decades. Awesome."

"Wolf Blitzer makes Mitt Romney look like a man of extreme profundity and authenticity. And that's tough."

"Which candidate would be more willing to blow Rubio in return for his support?" (My bet would go to Romney.)

"I still think Romney's a Stalinist for forcing Mass'ers to have health insurance."

"@taylormarsh - It's not that Mitt's wealthy. It's that he's a privileged rich douche with a massive sense of plutocratic entitlement."

"'@kdrum: Romney sharper tonight, Gingrich off his feed. What accounts for this?' Desperation? New killer software uploaded into his cranium?"

"'@daveweigel: I bet Newt is dreading the space round.' At least Newt's got vision, though. Mitt's just got huge bank accounts he wants huger."

There you go. If you want more, again, go here.

**********

If I'm giving out grades, and I suppose I am, here's what they are, divided into two: actual debate performance (how they performed in a vacuum) and expectations/needs (how they did relative to expectations and/or in terms of what they needed to do going in):

Actual debate performance

Santorum: A-

Paul: B

Romney: C+

Gingrich: C-

Santorum showed once again that he's a formidable debater. He was mostly crisp and clean and avoided any major mishap. Paul was fairly subdued, but his answers were often thoughtful and well-articulated -- particularly his answers on Cuba and religion.

Just because Romney channelled his inner Newt and went on the offensive doesn't mean he did well. He still looked stiff and sounded unconvincing. Pandering frequently, and seeming to be reading his lines, he appeared, as usual, remarkably inauthentic. Because that's just what he is.

Newt... alas. He picked it up later in the debate, but he was on the defensive early on and didn't seem to have an answer for Romney's various attacks, all of which he should have anticipated.

Expectations/Needs

Romney: A-

Santorum: B+

Paul: C

Gingrich: D+

Yes, Romney "won" the debate. The tide was already turning in his favour, with Newt appearing to have peaked (at least in Florida, if not yet nationally), but, going in, the clear expectation was that Newt, the better debater, would wipe the floor with him. Because that didn't happen, and because he exceeded the exceedingly low expectations he had going in, at least as the media was telling it, Mitt effectively confirmed his status as frontrunner and likely nominee. He was already going to win Florida. Now he'll probably win by more.

Santorum did enough to stay relevant. Social conservatives still like him. There isn't much Paul can do to improve his standing, but he was more coherent than in some recent debates. His cult still loves him, and always will.

Gingrich needed to win, and win big, to shift the momentum back his way, but, in a way, he was never going to be able to do that. A win would have been seen as predictable and so no big deal. Which is to say, he had very little to gain and a ton to lose. And he lost a ton. It's too early to say that his campaign is over, but what little chance he had just got littler.

**********

Oh, two more of my tweets:

"Yeah, so Romney finally got the message. It's not enough just to be a privileged rich douchebag. You have to be an asshole as well."

"So here's what happened. Mitt consumed Newt and absorbed his spirit. They are now one being. The new Romney is the worst of each."

**********

Okay, yeah, I'd say Newt is just about done. I realize that's quickly become the CW, and I don't want to be sucked into premature predictions (e.g., Perry will win... how can he lose?), but it's hard to see how he recovers.

Mitt Romney: The douchebaggery deepens

2012-01-26T17:52:00.002-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter:

Romney says omitting a $3M Swiss bank account from financial disclosures was "trivial." (link to an important L.A. Times story)

-- ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress)

Add this to his dismissive claim that almost half a million dollars (for his speaking fees) is "not very much," and you can see why the privileged rich douchebag narrative has taken hold. (And won't be going away anytime soon, if ever, especially with Newt going all right-wing populist on him and with the Obama campaign salivating more and more with each new embarrassing revelation.)

I realize he's a very wealthy man with money all over the world, from Switzerland to the Caymans, but how do you just omit $3 million? And how, as a major political figure with presidential aspirations, do you not take better care of your financial statements? Do you really not think someone's going to do a little digging?

Or do you have such a lofty sense of plutocratic entitlement, what with all your "secret" foreign bank accounts, that you just can't be bothered to give a damn?

Out with the Good and in with the Bad: It's just so yesterday.

2012-01-26T15:00:00.003-05:00

Guest post by Ramona

Ed. note: This is Ramona's fifth guest post for us. Her first four were on cruelty in America, abuse against women, the creepiness of Herman Cain, and Black Friday. -- MJWS

Ramona is a freelance writer based in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Her blog, "Ramona's Voices," is liberal-leaning, with such a small amount of navel-gazing you'll hardly even notice. She is also on the masthead at dagblog, a gathering place for dissidents and reprobates and other friendly people.

**********

Here it is nearing the end of January and at long last, after 17 Republican debates -- count 'em, 17! -- we're down to two actual contenders and a couple of valiant bench-warmers. While Ron Paul and Rick Santorum work hard to make some headway, it looks like it's Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, neck-and-neck, fighting it out for a chance to clobber the current White House occupant and show this country what a real president looks like.

Brian Blanco/European Press Photo Agency

Mitt the Peacemaker, the soft-spoken everyotherman, knows going in he'll never be able to out-mean Newt. Newt the Hysterian has perfected condescending bulldoggedness until it's a veritable political art form. Nobody does it better. His opponents drool at the scope of his talents, awestruck by his ability to use those tools to sidestep any attempt at a messy question. Bad Newt! Bad Newt! And (sigh) the crowds love him.

Poor Mitt stammers, stutters, fast-talks until he's blue in the face, ripping into Newt with all he's got, and nobody cares. So the decision has been made: No more Mr. Nice Guy! He goes for the jugular in the Tampa debate but barely strikes a nerve. It's anybody's guess where he'll need to go from here. It won't be pretty -- a thought that goes against gentle Mitt's Bain, um, grain -- but it's not as if he hasn't had to take people out before.

So there goes Good, off to fend for itself while the candidates get their Bad mojo going so they can become crowd-pleasers, too. Rick Santorum tried it the other day when a woman in his audience went off on President Obama's legitimacy. She wouldn't call him "President" because he shouldn't be there. "He is an avowed Muslim," she said, "and my question is, why isn't something being done to get him out of our government?"

Santorum could have done what candidate John McCain rightly if reluctantly did in 2008 when a woman in his audience repeated that same "Obama is a muslim" mantra. To McCain's everlasting credit, he stopped the woman dead, saying, "No ma'am, that's not true." But Santorum side-stepped it, feeding the woman's fears with, "Believe me... I'm doing everything I can to get him out of the government."

When the press called him on it later, he Gingriched it, huffing and bluffing, "It's not my responsibility as a candidate to correct everybody who makes a statement that I disagree with. There are lots of people who get up and say stuff in a town hall meeting and say things that I don't agree with, but I don't think it's my obligation, nor should it be your feeling that it's my obligation to correct somebody who says something that I don't agree with." (And he's appalled that they would even suggest such a thing. Appalled! Wait -- frankly appalled!)

Ron Paul says the housing mess is "all government manufactured. The best thing you can do is get out of the way." This from a man who wants to be president. Of the United States. Because the last thing we need is some huge honcho giving us advice. Or telling us what to do. So if you elect him, rest assured that he will not do his job.

But then, not 24 hours after that last debate in Tampa, Barack Obama gives his State of the Union address. It's an elegant, impassioned plea for fairness, a love song to the people, a nudge back to sanity. It's more than a promise to get things done, it's an outline of how it will happen. The scorched earth is greening up. Hope is on the horizon. And Gabby Gifford's smile lights up the universe.

AP photo/Saul Loeb

Krauthammer concedes that "Obama has set the right tone." Daniels rebuts with faint praise. The Twitterverse goes wild! Good is off the mat and on its feet, ready for another round.

And four horsemen can be seen riding off, their banshee howls echoing, then fading, then gone.

Behind the Ad: Pro-Romney super PAC says Gingrich is no Ronald Reagan

2012-01-26T13:30:00.007-05:00

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: Restore Our Future, a Super PAC supporting former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's bid for the GOP presidential nomination. (Romney attacks Gingrich.)

Where: Florida.

What's going on: The Super PAC is taking issue with Newt Gingrich's frequent mentions of Ronald Reagan. According to The New York Times' Nate Silver, Gingrich has actually dropped Reagan's name 55 times in the various nomination debates. As The Washington Post describes it, it is sometimes to honor one of the leading figures of modern conservatism, but it is also to claim that he, Gingrich, had worked closely with the former president.

On the latter point, the ad takes aim at the claim that the two men were at all close, stating that Reagan only mentioned Gingrich once in his diaries and there only to criticize him for his ideas that would "cripple our defense program."

Given how much Newt likes to present himself as a student of history, it seems rather sweet that the ad portrays this sanctimonious twit as little more than a footnote of the Reagan years. My guess is that poking fun at Gingrich's self-importance is not a bad approach. The more we see of him, the more this is likely to become his Achilles heel. Is there any conservative "success" for which he won't take credit? I give the ad two thumbs up.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Spaced out: Newt promises U.S. moon base and manned mission to Mars

2012-01-26T12:00:00.003-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For your musical pleasure, make sure to watch the clip below. It's Sinatra, dammit!)

As you may have heard, because the story was flying around the Twitterverse and pretty much ever other -verse seemingly at the speed of light, Newt Gingrich said yesterday that he would establish a permanent U.S. base on the moon by the end of his second term -- which is to say, within nine years:

In a speech pandering to Florida's aerospace community ahead of the state's primary, GOP contender Newt Gingrich made a bold pledge to establish a permanent U.S. base on the moon "by the end of my second term." He further promised that if he becomes president, America will get a man to Mars "in a remarkably short time." A budget-conscious President Obama ended the program for a lunar colony and moon trip after NASA reported it didn't have the money for any part of the plan, "and even if it were to get a budget infusion, the schedule was unworkable." Gingrich rebutted the charge that he is "grandiose" by comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln, the Wright Brothers and John F. Kennedy. ThinkProgress has previously reported on Gingrich's curious space fetish, which has included an idea for a "mirror system in space could provide the light equivalent of many full moons" for nighttime driving.

While this particular pledge is crazy, if only because it's so ridiculously unrealistic given the current fiscal situation, I'm actually willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this and to credit him for being one of the very few major political figures in the U.S. committed to space exploration.

Sure, he may have been pandering for votes, but it's not like it was his first foray into space policy (if I may call it that). And while I certainly understand the limitations imposed by the current fiscal situation and the need to focus on other, more earthly priorities (e.g., fighting climate change, fighting poverty), I am fully supportive of a strong, well-funded, and visionary U.S. space program (working in collaboration with other countries' programs), with the federal government taking an active leadership role in making it happen, just as it has in the past with the Apollo and shuttle programs, among others.

It is only human to quest, to explore, to reach out into the darkness, into the unknown. Think where we'd be today if there hadn't been that commitment to go to the moon. Or if previous generations of explorers had just stayed home. We are richer for our quest to discover, and our future, it seems to me, if we have one, lies in space as much as it does here on earth.

But... let's get back to Newt. I followed the story initially on Twitter yesterday, and I present to you here some of the best tweets that came my way (cleaned up slightly). First there was disbelief (wait, did Newt really say that?), but then the comedy virtually wrote itself:

-- Rick Klein: "Newt (really) today: 'By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American.'"

-- ThinkProgress: "Gingrich rebuts the charge that he is 'grandiose' by comparing himself to Lincoln, the Wright Bros, and JFK #nottheonion"

-- Josh Marshall: "Romney responds with plan to take over moon, load it up with debt and close it down."

-- LOLGOP: "What will Newt do if he finds aliens on the moon? What if they've been there like twenty or thirty years?"

-- Richard Skinner: "At the base, 8-year-old lunar children will #minethemoon to learn a work ethic."

-- David Corn: "Will an American born on the moon be eligible to run for president in the year 2060? #QuestionsforNewt"

-- Molly Ball: "We laugh at Newt's moon-base plans now, but our children growing up in the Pres. N.L. Gingrich Moon Colony won't be laughing."

-- Greg Sargent: "Breaking: Obama to vow to wrap the moon in US flags by the end of his second term to prove his devotion to American exceptionalism."

-- John Cole: "I think liberals should compromise and agree to permanently station Newt Gingrich on the moon."

All very funny. And of course there were many others.

But let me wrap up this post with this, if I may speak to Gingrich directly:

Newt, dear egomaniacal Newt, it's fine and even rather admirable, in a way, that you're talking up space exploration and promising a moon base, but, uh, let me be blunt: You're no Lincoln, you're no JFK, and there's no way you would have gotten that plane off the ground at Kitty Hawk. Now please get back to kicking Romney's ass as hard as you can.

Elizabeth Warren needs to relax

2012-01-26T10:45:00.000-05:00

By Richard K. Barry

That's more like it.

I'm a big fan of Elizabeth Warren, who is running for a Massachusetts Senate seat for the Democrats against Republican incumbent Scott Brown. I like her message. She articulates the plight of the middle class very well and understands what has to be done to improve it. She's obviously really smart and an asset to the party. But she is clearly new to this whole "politics" thing, and it showed in her interview with Jon Stewart a couple of nights ago.

It's much better to be calm and apparently in control on television. Something about it being a "cool medium." Ms. Warren was vibrating in the interview, way too excited, and, to be truthful, it was a little hard to watch.

I don't mean to be hard on her. As I said, I think she's terrific, but someone needs to work with her to help her get more of the optics right. Hey, politics is performance art.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Dissing The Prez

2012-01-26T10:25:00.000-05:00

By Carl

OK, by now, you've either seen or heard about this picture, where Arizona Governor Jan Brewer sticks her claw-like index finger into President Obama's face, practically picking boogers out of his nose. All that's missing is the broom and the pointy hat.

Both sides have downplayed the photo, and said it was a cordial if spirited exchange. Given that the White House has played Jackie Robinson these past four years to the bigots as they've come across them, that's no surprise. Brewer's interviews since the incident tell two different tales, but the ones told to FOX could just be bragging.

So let's take that at face value and say it was not an angry lecture.

That doesn't excuse her actions, much. As a governor herself, she has to know that there is always a camera around, and that gets manifold multiplication when the President is involved.

Even allowing that it might have been a moment of exuberance, it's still telling that she pointed a finger at him like he was the boy raking her garden.

It's also rather telling that she whines about him lecturing her IN THE OVAL OFFICE, where, you know, it's his home turf, and not a place of equals. I wonder, do they teach manners in Arizona schools? It sounds like maybe they should.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Bring out the Bibles, bring out the guns, Jesus is coming to town

2012-01-26T09:52:00.001-05:00

By Capt. Fogg

The headline in yesterday's paper summarizing the President's State of the Union message is 3/8 of an inch tall. The headline just under it, reading RICK SANTORUM RALLIES IN STUART is in bold face type and is much bigger. Welcome to the monkey house.

Santorum was here on Florida's Treasure Coast Tuesday, holding forth at the Community Christian Academy to parents and grade school students, a horror of which some are particularly proud. It's an "up-close look at politics in action," said school officials.

That live action, these politics, included a prayer by the 'Reverend' Dan Holland, affiliated with the school and the pastor of Community Baptist Church in Stuart, Florida.

"I like what he said in the South Carolina rally, where he said ' I come from a place where they have a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other'"

Rick Santorum doesn't need a script, because he really isn't saying much and with such an audience, it doesn't matter whether he makes sense or mangles facts or makes them up. Rick speaks from the pulpit and anything said Ex Cathedra will not be questioned by this crowd. Besides, it's precisely what they want to hear: Barack Obama is the worst president this country has ever had, who hates capitalism, wants to take away what God wants you to keep to yourself and is destroying our natural order of things. Don't forget this is a religion that demands that women be subservient, hints that black people should stay in their place and since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would vote for anything that hated Democrats.

Santorum's ever predictable message was about "family Values" "fiscal responsibility" and "ridding the White House of Barack Obama." One can take the last of the three as the real message since my idea of family values does not include veiled calls to armed crusade and lying about the economy.

An all-white group of 350 heard him say:

"we have to have a candidate who stands proudly, consistently, aggressively, forcefully for the values that made this country the greatest country in the history of the world."

Presumably that greatness was attained with Bibles and guns and anyone suggesting that we are in any way sinners, transgressors or less than perfect instruments of God's Christian ambitions, can go straight to Hell along with that apologist Obama.

They heard him howl about That Commie, apologist, freedom hating Obama bailing out Wall Street from the excesses and crimes the Republicans encouraged them in instead of using "free market forces" which would as any legitimate economist would likely tell you have brought that "greatest country in the history of the Universe" down to the level of Haiti. Still, the problem of galloping poverty isn't lack of resources, said Santorum, contradicting himself,

"the problem is in the home, the problem is in the churches, the problem is in the community. The people living in these woods are not the federal government's problem. . ."

Let's use poverty, disease and misery to fill the pews, because a just society is a commie, secular humanist Christ-hating society.

Perhaps he could have explained to me why the Republican's promise to provide jobs instead of food stamps while it's 'not the government's problem' isn't honest or consistent -- or how unlettered country folk with bibles and guns are going to help in the new anarchistic utopia he offers them -- but trying to present Rick Santorum as a rational candidate with any further agenda than dismantling all the rules that keep markets free, creating a new Christian aristocracy and most of all, hanging up that "White's Only" sign over the door at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is a scam and a con and a farrago of flim-flam as great as any in the history of the world.

People like me can wonder how dismantling our entire economic system, refusing to pay the bills, can be called Conservatism, or any of the other radical, ultra-Chauvinistic, Denialist and dishonest rhetoric that smells more like Attila's unwashed hordes, but the blue-hair church ladies, their God smitten and brainwashed children and the rest of the angry Community Christian Academics don't seem to care. There's just something wrong out there and they don't know what it is and the sick Mr. Rick and his sanctimonious rabble are at hand to point out the enemies and heretics for the burning.

Cross posted from Human Voices)

Post-SOTU thoughts on the SOTU: An uninspiring but nonetheless effective speech

2012-01-25T23:19:00.000-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A day later, I remain unimpressed by yesterday's State of the Union address. But I think it was one of those speeches, one of those political events, that appears better in hindsight, once it all sinks in, than it does in the moment.

Here are some thoughts:

-- The speech indeed lacked vision, or any sort of coherent governing philosophy, but I suppose that wasn't the purpose. Last year it was all about America's "Sputnik moment." The president was visionary, providing aspirational leadership of the kind one expects from the presidency at its most lofty. It may not have been his best speech as president, as some suggested, but it was still strong. Certainly both that one and this one offered Obama's future-oriented economic nationalism -- i.e., America can be great (again) by embracing such nationalism (while remaining internationalist otherwise) -- and sense of American exceptionalism, but this year's lacked the Kennedy-esque vision of last year's. Perhaps both are unrealistic and delusional insofar as the "glory" days of the Cold War are not about to be repeated, not least because there is no way Washington, as divided as it is (like the rest of the country), will support the sort of government activism necessary to get America truly back on top again (if that's even possible), but, again, at least last year's, for all its faults, seemed to point towards excellence.

-- If the purpose last year was to lay out a noble vision for America and the means of realizing that vision that was dramatically at odds with the regressionism of the Republican Party, the purpose this year was to set the table for the general election campaign to come. As Jon Chait wrote, Obama was "backfilling the political narrative" in anticipation of a race against a certain Republican alternative: "Vast portions of the speech were devoted to setting out a favorable contrast with Mitt Romney." He didn't have to mention his name. When he praised the bailout of the auto industry and the success of General Motors, all he had to say was that some others had been against it. Yes, Romney, who through his father is from Michigan, was against it. Look for this to be a major issue on the campaign trail. Obama knows it's a winner. Similarly, when he talked about the super-rich having to pay their fair share of taxes, referencing Warren Buffett, well, we all know he was pointing a finger at Romney. In this regard, I suppose his speech was a success. If nothing else, it set out where he's going to go heading to November. Of course he'll have to change things up a bit if it's Newt, but that's such a desirable (if unlikely) outcome of the Republican race that there's no point worrying about it now.

-- As I have been pointing out, noting an emerging and possibly cementing narrative, the big problem for Romney is not that he's super-rich, nor even that he's a shameless panderer to whatever constituency he needs at the time, but that he's a privileged rich douchebag. All along, it has been expected that he would shift back to the center for the general election and have trouble holding onto whatever conservative support he built up during the primaries. But I actually don't think that's what's going to happen -- if he wins. Rather, he'll have trouble winning independents. And not just because he's had to pander to the right but because most independents are turned off by his privileged rich douchebaggery. Look at it this way: A lot of independents are what used to be called "Reagan Democrats." In ethnic/economic terms, they're the white working class. Obama had trouble with this constituency in his battle with Hillary in '08 and hasn't been doing well with them throughout his presidency, in large part because of Republican propaganda but also because, despite his generally centrist policies, he hasn't governed in terms specifically favorable to them: that is, nationalistic economic populism.

With Romney, though, there's an opening, as Romney has been doing poorly thus far with the white working class. Being an out-of-touch plutocrat who makes millions off investment income and sends his money off to Switzerland and the Cayman Islands doesn't help. Being a stiff, condescending douchebag doesn't either. And so yesterday's speech was all about the president laying out an agenda -- and a campaign platform -- designed to appeal to these voters. It was pro-military, pro-tax fairness, pro-trade fairness, and pro-Wall Street reform. It included specifics, such as support for community colleges, that white working class voters like to hear. And it presented Obama as a tough, determined president prepared to create jobs and home and kill America's enemies abroad.

If the speech was truly successful at all, it was in this regard -- in laying out a stark contrast between himself and the unnamed Romney. And judging by the positive reaction to the speech, and to the very worried responses from conservatives, it would appear that Romney will have an awfully hard time keeping up.

As "tepid" and "detached" as it may have been, as John Dickerson wrote, as boring and uninspiring as it may have been (according to me), it was nonetheless effective.

-- Given the theatrical nature of these yearly addresses, tone (or image) matters more than substance (as it so often does in politics). And, to his credit, the president appeared fully in command -- because he is. He was confident, forceful, and on point. Even more than last year, he seems to get it (see Chait, below). It's not about governing anymore, it's about winning and losing. And he's up against a party that over the past three years has taken it upon itself to try to destroy him. He did his best to rise above the partisan fray and to try to negotiate in good faith with the other side, often willing to give up a great deal to get a deal done (e.g., on health-care reform, on the budget and debt ceiling), often to the great frustration of progressives, many of whom turned against him for being Republican-lite (e.g., on civil liberties, on his militarism, on his extension of the Bush-Cheney national security state) -- and some of whom, like me, grew ever more critical even if we never abandoned him. But it's an election year. And enough is enough.

-- Chait again: "It was the speech of a man who realizes that he has only one thing left to do, and that is to win reelection. The Obama of 2009-10 was a pure pragmatic wonk, and his inattention to politics hurt his standing. Through sheer bloody obstruction, Republicans forced him to the only available alternative, which was to use his office solely as a political platform. His agenda is dead, but his public standing has benefited. Perhaps one day Republicans will wish they had been a little more flexible, and had kept the old, wonky, bargaining Obama rather than the slashing populist who's cutting their throats."

-- However much I may question Obama's populist nationalism, I'm certainly looking forward to seeing the non-pragmatic Obama, the passionate, change-oriented Obama, on the campaign trail. If Republicans want a fight, let's give them one. It's about time.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Darrell Issa

2012-01-25T17:42:00.003-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter:

Darrell Issa compares fracking chemical recipe to recipe for Diet Coke, says Americans have no right to know it. (link)

-- David Roberts (@drgrist)

Interesting. I had no idea you could set fire to the Diet Coke coming out of your tap. Or that some Diet Coke in a river could destroy wildlife. Or that Diet Coke could east away your body from within and destroy your community.

There's a reason Big Gas and its allies don't want their secrets getting out. And it's not because they're afraid of competition from Pepsi.

But maybe Rep. Issa should take a trip to Gasland and go for a swim in one of those pools of fracking water. I mean, if he's so sure of himself and not just a complete moron.

(Then again, Diet Coke may be just as carcinogenic as whatever the hell's in the fracking mix. No, not really, but it made you think, right?)

This day in music - January 25, 1964: The Beatles score their first #1 U.S. single with "I Want To Hold Your Hand"

2012-01-25T16:00:00.001-05:00

By Richard K. Barry

A nice clip of the lads playing "I Want to Hold Your Hand," with an intro by their producer, George Martin. What more needs to be said? (I think you have to click through to the YouTube site to get it, but that doesn't appear to be too difficult.)

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Mitt Romney's continuing problem with the truth

2012-01-25T12:30:00.002-05:00

By Richard K. Barry

On the theory that when lies are told we all bear responsibility for pointing out the truth, I want to repeat the substance of a helpful post that Steve Benen put up yesterday. It concerns Monday night's GOP debate and Romney's continuing problem with telling the truth about pretty much anything.

Here's one of Romney's claims about President Obama:

We have $15 trillion of debt. We're headed to a, to a Greece-type collapse, and he adds another trillion on top for Obamacare and for his stimulus plan that didn't create private-sector jobs. This president has failed.

Ask Mitt anything. Just don't expect the truth.

And here's Benen's response:

It's true we have $15 trillion in debt, but the biggest chunk comes from Bush-era tax breaks. Romney wanted to make them permanent.
Anyone who seriously believes U.S. fiscal challenges are in any way similar to Greece is a fool.
The Affordable Care Act doesn't add to the debt, it cuts the debt by hundreds of billions of dollars.

The stimulus created millions of private-sector jobs. Since March 2010, the U.S. economy has added 3.1 million private-sector jobs. Even playing by Republican rules, that's 3.1 million more than zero.

The final point that Benen makes is that "Romney's penchant for dishonesty in high-profile settings deserves to be story unto itself." He's quick to add, however, that he's not expecting that to happen.

It's been clear to me for some time that Mitt Romney is not a very good politician. It should be clear to everyone by now that he lacks fundamental integrity. Not only does he change his own position on any number of things to meet the needs of the moment, he also grossly misrepresents the views of others without compunction.

This guy is creepy. That's the only word for it.

(Cross-post at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The problem with Mitt Romney

2012-01-25T11:00:00.002-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Let me be clear about something:

The issue isn't that Mitt Romney is super-rich, as his tax returns show, nor even that he pays a low tax rate (that's a separate issue and obviously a huge problem), it's that he's a privileged rich douchebag, a rich guy who thinks that politics should be for rich guys, who has a plan to make rich people like himself even richer, just as he has advocated for that throughout his career, and who dismisses the rest of us as envious.

Is it really any wonder that his favorability rating has collapsed to Newt-like levels? He's just not as electable as he has made himself out to be, one of his key selling points, and a lot of that has to do with his douchebaggery. Independents in particular have abandoned him. As Greg Sargent explains:

Romney has taken an unusually rough battering in recent days, and he has plenty of time to turn things around. But the spike in negative views of Romney among blue collar whites suggests the possibility that the assault on his wealth, privilege, low tax rates and generally out of touch persona could be resonating with them, and is possibly beginning to define Romney among them. One imagines Republicans who are gauging Romney's electability in a general election — and were already inclined to doubt his strength among these voters — might find this somewhat worrisome.

That, I suspect, is a massive understatement.

Steve Benen heads to MSNBC

2012-01-25T08:00:00.002-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Back in the day, I was an occasional guest blogger at Steve Benen's wonderful blog The Carpetbagger Report, sitting in for a weekend or a few days here and there while he was away. It was a wonderful experience, and it helped me, back when this blog was still fairly new and I was still trying to find myself as a blogger, become a better blogger. And, of course, it was an honor simply that Steve liked my blog and my blogging, and that gave me a lot of encouragement to keep going.

Steve moved on to Washington Monthly, where for the past few years he's been writing its Political Animal blog and otherwise emerging as one of the truly essential liberal-progressive voices in the blogosphere and indeed in political commentary generally, no matter the medium. I have always regarded him as a mentor of sorts, along with Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice, an example to follow in my own writing. We don't agree on everything, if on most things, and my voice is quite different than his, but I have always admired his extensive knowledge, ability to communicate, and commitment to Democratic politics and liberal-progressive principles. And, well, he's just a wonderful guy. Not many people would have been so generous with their time and trust to a new blogger just trying to make a bit of a mark. He was. And he has continued to be a friend.

As you may have heard, Steve is moving to MSNBC, where he'll be a producer for Rachel Maddow and a network contributor. And he'll still be blogging, thankfully -- at The Maddow Blog. It's a wonderful step for him and his career, and I think he's fully deserving of it.

On behalf of everyone associated with this blog, and from me personally, I wish to send him our most sincere congratulations.

Best of luck, Steve.

"We can do this": Not really live-blogging SOTU 2012

2012-01-24T21:29:00.008-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And so it begins...

I have no intention of really live-blogging President Obama's address night. I'm just going to sit here, drink my Traquair Jacobite Ale from Innerleithen, Scotland (a strong beer flavored with coriander), and comment at random on a variety of things, some of them having to do with the SOTU.

No Americans fighting in Iraq in nine years. And Osama bin Laden is "not a threat to this country." True on the first point, not so much on the second. Osama is still powerful, even (or especially) in death. But I get the point. Obama has ended an unpopular war but is anything but a pacifist. He's a militarist, too, and he got the baddest of the bad guys. Trump that, Mitt! -- or... Newt?!

What theater, though. How fitting that the SOTU is on the same day as the Oscar nominations. (I know, the Tonys are theater. But you get the point.)

"What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We must reclaim them." Ah, Obama the non-partisan. But a good case to make in a speech that, let's face it, is more or less the opening salvo of Campaign 2012 for Obama. You'll have to find the partisanship between the lines, it seems.

The president is making the case for recovery: businesses are hiring, jobs are coming back, new rules are in place to prevent shit from happening. Fantastic. "I will not return to the policies that brought about this crisis in the first place." Something like that. I just wish I had full confidence in his sincerity. He's done too much for Wall Street for me to believe that he means it -- or, rather, that he'll back up what he means with action, and lasting change.

Well, we heard this before the speech... Osama is dead, GM is alive and kicking. He just made the second point. "The American automotive industry is back." (The quotes may be slightly off, by the way. I'm doing the best I can.)

Message to Americans: Your manufacturing base is not coming back. Sorry. It may get better, and there's certainly an opportunity for innovation to improve domestic manufacturing, but the world has changed -- and it's not changing back. Just ask Apple. Billions and billions of dollars in earnings and cash, but where does it make its iconic "American" products? But, sure, go ahead and try to deal with outsourcing and stop companies from avoiding taxes.

Ah, corporate tax cuts. Of course. What else is new?

Oooh, Eric Cantor looks pissed. Is it because Obama didn't show up with a hammer and sickle?

Don't get me wrong. Policy-wise, I'm for most of this. It's fine. And certainly preferable to what the GOP has to offer. But it's all quite delusional nonetheless. Because, of course, if you tell the truth in American politics, you're doomed. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

"Americans will always win." If there are fair trading practices. Like I said: delusional.

Education... something something something... teachers... something something something... Seriously, it's all good. Though Boner -- sorry, Boehner -- looks unimpressed. I guess he doesn't think kids should stay in school.

Okay, there's no point following this. It's all about speaking points, issue after issue. It's about how the speech will be reported in the media: President Obama said a, b, c, d, etc. I just say, though, there's not a lot that's terribly compelling in this speech so far. He's moving from issue to issue, avoiding partisanship, offering some delusional/aspirational goals, along with a few concrete policy proposals, but that's about it. "We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform now." Okay, but how? And do you really think Congress will be sending you any sort of meaningful reform package anytime soon? Of course not. It's just about hitting the right notes. Like... equal pay for women! Well, fine. Who's against that... other than the Republicans? "Expand tax relief to small businesses." Great. And?

Sorry, I don't mean to be so negative. I know he's doing what he has to do. It's all part of the theater of the SOTU. And I know that leadership requires the communication of such aspirational goals. But I'm not sure what the unifying theme of this speech is. What philosophy, if you will, is driving the president? Or if not philosophy, what vision? Maybe it's coming when/if he ties it all up.

Forget the laundry list of policy proposals for a moment. What is this speech about? Honestly, I'm not sure.

Sullivan, who's live-blogging tonight, of course:

And now a Santorum-style focus on manufacturing -- and the same old abuse of the tax code to influence the economy. This is industrial policy, based on populism. It isn't unleashing the free market through tax reform. It's a throwback to paleo-liberalism. Tax breaks and subsidies to keep jobs at home. It's spitting in the wind of the global economy -- and it fails to grasp government's proper role. Workers here will never be cost-competitive with the Chinese. This is fantasy -- and cheap populism.

I have a different view of "government's proper role" than Andrew does -- I think it should have an activist role to try to rectify capitalism's injustices -- but I tend to agree with this. What we're hearing tonight is populist nationalism. Maybe that's the theme, the vision, the "philosophy."

And, yes, it's all quite "vapid" (while making the tax code more and more complicated).

More Sullivan:

This speech is beginning to make Bill Clintons' look like clear and visionary. But people loved Clinton's long laundry list of micro-policies. I think this is the worst SOTU Obama has given. But maybe it will work. It sure seems like it has been put through a software program to pander to various industries.

I agree it's the worst, trying to think back to the others (through the haze of this ale). It just seems overly processed, as if lines were approved by focus groups and then glued together.

But who can object to "a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans." Republicans, of course! Once more, I hope he's serious and actually follows through on this. It might help if his presidency weren't sponsored by Goldman Sachs.

Uh-oh, now he's going after millionaires. Class warfare! That's what we'll hear from Romney et al. What we're hearing is that the Republican response will be all about how "divisive" this speech was. As if it's divisive to say that millionaires should pay their fair share of taxes. But that's how Republicans think -- they have no interest in requiring the rich, and especially the super-rich, to sacrifice anything at all, even for the common good.

On foreign policy, especially with respect to the Middle East... again, it's not that I disagree with what he's saying, it's that there's no unifying theme to what he's saying. No argument. No unifying vision. He'll stand up for human dignity... but he'll do everything he can to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons? He may not mean it, but... what... he's still got military action on the table? Military cooperation with Israel -- that got a standing ovation -- hoo-wah! Again, what exactly is Obama's thinking on foreign policy, on America's place and role in the world? Or is it all ad hoc, while sucking up to popularity?

"America is back!" Sure, back from where it was under Bush, but what does that mean? "America is the one indispensable nation..." On behalf of every other country in the world: Screw you, America. Seriously, do we need this sort of jingoism, cloaked as it may be in Obama's liberalism?

Would the world be a significantly worse place without America? Think about it.

And now: the military. De rigueur, of course. (And I'm generally fine with it. Not every U.S. serviceman urinates on corpses. Most of them are honorable men and women. What I object to is Obama's militarism, and, make no mistake, he's a militarist. Maybe not as reckless a militarist as his predecessor, but still one nonetheless. He'd do a lot better if he thought less that the military was the solution and considered other alternatives to the establishment of peace.)

Maybe now we'll get some genuine passion: the mission to get Osama. Oh, please. America is like that Navy Seals unit? That unit is a microcosm of America? "There is no challenge too great, there is no mission too hard..." Uplifting rhetoric, I suppose, but a bit forced, no?

"The state of our union will always be strong." Wait, did he say at any point that it is strong? I mean, I wasn't going to watch because of course we all know the state of the union is awesome. What else was there to say? But I wonder.

Anyway, now I have to stop watching. However mediocre the speech, it's the post-speech punditry that is truly horrendous, and it will be no different tonight.

Here's a final word from Sullivan:

This notion that a country, a democracy, should have the same attitude as troops fighting a war is preposterous and slightly creepy. Yes, we should put aside our differences to get important things done, put aside ideology to focus on solving problems. But we are not a military and the president is not our commander. He is our president. We have every right to argue with one another and to distrust one another at times. The whole idea of getting each others' backs in a boisterous democracy is deeply undemocratic. I do not want to be a citizen trained like a member of the Navy SEALs. Nor should anyone. This isn't Sparta. It's America. And to use the raid on bin Laden as the model of our future cooperation struck me as too easy and trite an analogy.

Yup.

Look, who knows, this speech might have been fine. Gergen just called it "politically shrewd." And that's pretty much as CW as it gets. But it wasn't a powerful speech at all, despite what super-partisan Begala is saying, and while he may have done a lot tonight to reach out to independents, he'll have to do a lot more on the campaign trail to energize those of us who consider ourselves members of his, and his party's base.

Have a good night, everyone.

**********

Okay, just a couple of comments on Mitch Daniels's GOP response:

Not much red meat for the base, but it's got its share of ridiculous partisan points: For example, Obama's "constant disparagement" of business? Really? In what world is this true? How is it anti-business to save Wall Street and the auto industry?

And he praises Steve Jobs as a job creator? What, for creating low-paying jobs in China? Please. I realize this guy is more reasonable than most in his party, but his absolute faith in the private sector (and claim that Obama and Democrats are anti-market and don't trust/believe in the American people) is far more delusional by far than anything Obama said tonight about populist nationalism. In fact, much of what he's saying is just blatantly dishonest.

Ah, there it is: Obama the divider. Please. What a bunch of fucking bullshit. Credit Daniels for saying the rich shouldn't have tax advantages, but otherwise this is just your typical old-school Republican nonsense. Just less crazy, and less crazily put, than what we normally hear from Republicans, Mitt and Newt included.

And now... good night.

Apple's billions

2012-01-24T17:52:00.002-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter:

Apple's $46 billion sales set new tech record. (link)

-- CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk)

(Not to mention its $97.6 billion in cash, most of it held not in the U.S.)

The rich get richer. And richer. And richer.

Fuck everyone else.

(Brought to you by Mitt, Newt, and the rest of your beloved GOP. And by my beloved iPod. Alas.)

**********

Where does it end?

Newt overtakes Mitt: Let the Apocalypse begin!

2012-01-24T16:51:00.002-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter:

Gingrich now ahead of Romney in Gallup national tracking poll, 31-27. (link)

-- Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight)

On the one hand, I give up. How is this possible? Are Republicans really stupid enough to nominate Newt Gingrich -- a loathsome and widely unpopular buffoon, bully, and hypocrite?

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Far more than Mitt, and perhaps as much as any other in his party, Newt is in touch with the Republican Party zeitgeist of 2012, which is mostly about taking down Obama (while also advancing a far-right agenda, of course).

When Mitt calls Obama a European socialist and otherwise blames him for all of America's ills, he comes across like an inauthentic politico pandering for votes. But when Newt goes on the anti-Obama rampage, he comes across as the voice of genuine vitriol and rage, channelling the dark side of the GOP, venting the anger and frustration, much of it rooted in racism (that uppity black man in the White House!), that drives so many Republicans these days. It's not so much that anti-Romney Republicans think Romney is a moderate, though that's certainly part of it, it's that they think he's not tough enough to stand up to Obama, particularly in the debates, and to put this (black) anti-American socialist elitist traitor in his place.

Newt has the conservative cred that Mitt sorely lacks, to be sure, but Newt's key selling point is that he'll do what Republicans so badly want done. He'll punch Obama in the face. He'll bloody his nose. He'll knock him out. No one thinks Newt's a saint. No one thinks he's not without serious baggage. But apparently a lot of Republicans, unhappy with Mitt and eager for someone, anyone to speak for them, are willing to overlook his transgressions, and even his deep unpopularity.

I'm not saying it'll last. Assuming no one else greets in the race and that there isn't a brokered convention, I still think Romney is the heavy favorite to win the nomination. He's just got too much money and too good an organization, not to mention the support of the party establishment, to let it slip away, and already we're setting the anti-Newt machine in action in full swing. It let down after it seemed to destroy Newt before Iowa. Now it's back.

But for now at least, Newt is on top, leading in Florida and possibly even nationally. This may be his peak, and it may all be downhill from here, but there's a good reason Republicans are showing him some love.

**********

UPDATE: For what it's worth, Rasmussen also has Gingrich up nationally, 35 to 28 over Romney.

The rush to disown George W. Bush

2012-01-24T10:45:00.000-05:00

By Richard K. Barry

Remember me?

One of the more amazing bits of nonsense that comes out of the mouths of Republican presidential candidates is their claim that President Obama is responsible for the poor state of the economy. We've all heard them say it time and again. It's as if they really think we all forgot the kind of shape the country was in when Obama took over from George W. Bush.

You remember George W. Bush? Or maybe you don't. If you've been watching the GOP debates you can be forgiven if the name of the man who ran the country before Obama is becoming a distant memory.

Yes, for those who count such things, George W. Bush's name has been uttered a mere 56 times by all candidates in the 16 major debates that have happened thus far.

President Obama's name has been mentioned a whopping 560 times.
But, what's even more interesting, as The Washington Post reports:

That's not to say that the candidates didn't have a Republican president at the tip of their tongues. Ronald Reagan, dead these last seven years and whose White House tenure ended nearly a quarter-century ago, by contrast, is a favorite topic -- surprise, surprise -- of the GOP debaters.

They invoked his name 221 times.

Even George H.W. Bush got only two mentions in the debates meaning that Republicans have to go back over 24 years to find a GOP president they are willing to talk about publicly.

I recognize that there is no upside for Republicans to hitch their wagon to the pathetic legacy of "W," but do they really think the rest of us will just forget simply because they are all hoping we will choose to pay no attention to the man responsible for the current fiasco?

As H.W. would say, "not gonna happen."

The electorate may have a short attention span, but I'm assuming that Obama and his campaign team will have no difficulty reminding voters how we got where we are, who was driving the bus at the time and how hard it's been to get back on the road to recovery because of previous GOP incompetence.

You can count on it.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

I Got An Uncle Lives In Taxes. Dollars, Taxes!

2012-01-24T09:26:00.001-05:00

By Carl

So Mitt paid 15% on his taxes.

His defense of this rate is rather illuminating:

"I pay all the taxes that are legally required, not a dollar more," Romney said at the debate. "I'm proud of the fact that I pay a lot of taxes."

Interesting factoid in the article, however. The average American pays an eleven percent tax rate.

I found the table which underlies this statement on the taxfoundation.org website, quoted in the article. While it does indicate that all Americans pay an average of 11.06% of income in Federal income taxes (note the distinction), the breakdown is rather...eye-popping. I'm not sure Mitt wants to be associated with it.

For instance, the bottom 50% of taxpayers earned about a billion dollars, and paid about 2% in income tax. OK, so far, not bad, right? After all, there's earned income credits and other refundable tax credits that offset withholdings.

The breakpoint for this income split is about $32,000 a year, by the way.

The next 25 percent, from the top 25% to the bottom 50%, pays three times as much in taxes, but only earned an additional $600 million.

Think about that: altho the income for the group was higher (nominally 60%, but let's double it, since it represents only one half the population of the first group, so let's say 120% higher), the taxes went up geometrically.

It gets worse. The next 15%, from the top ten percent to the top twenty-five percent, earned only $100 million more than that middle 25%, but paid nearly 50% more in gross taxes as a percentage of that income!

In other words, of that $100 million in incremental income, nearly half went to just federal income taxes alone!

And it continues onward and upward. But here's the thing: the incremental increase in the average tax rate slows down the higher up the income scale you go. That is the opposite of progressive. That's almost regressive.

The bottom 50% pay about 2%.

The next 25% pay about 6%, a difference of 4% nominally, but a tripling of the rate paid.

The next fifteen percent pay 8.25%, slightly more than 2% nominally, but only a rate of increase of less than 50%.

The next 5%, the five to ten percent range, pay 11.5%, slightly more than the national average and an increase of 3% nominally, but a rate of increase of only 40%.

The next four percent, from 1% to 5%, pay 16.4% nominally, but a rate of increase of only 30%.

The top one percent pay 24%, or a rate of increase of 50%. Finally, some normalcy restored.

But wait! The rate of increase in income?

Bottom 50% earn 13.5% of the entire adjusted gross income of the United States (AGI). Next 25% earn 20.7%. Next fifteen, 22.6%. Next five, 11.5%. Next four, 14.8%. Top one percent: 16.9%

So while we can see that the rich do pay more in taxes, it is the middle classes who bears the greatest tax burden, in terms of the increment to their taxes paid versus the increment to their incomes, in the nation.

Mitt is not paying his fair share. No one in the top 1% is.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Rand Paul refuses TSA pat-down. But is he really a libertarian?

2012-01-23T20:48:00.008-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Rand Paul's much-ballyhooed pat-down refusal today is, to me, a non-story, except insofar as it seems to validate his libertarian cred.

While an airport may not be the best place to make the anti-government case for civil liberties, and while I can't say I'm overly concerned about fairly aggressive airport security (without infringing unreasonably on civil liberties, of course), it's easy to understand why he did what he did.

Basically, he set off an alarm, refused a full-body pat-down, was not detained (according to the TSA), was "denied access to the secure gate area" and "escorted out of the screening area by local law enforcement," and ended up on a different flight later on after going through security without a problem.

No big deal.

But here's the thing. Paul is a right-wing libertarian. He believes in extremely limited government. And he has been fairly consistent in embracing that view. But... where was he going?

Paul, a Republican, was traveling to Washington, when he was detained [or not, as the TSA claims]. He noted earlier on his Twitter that he was planning to speak at the March for Life.

"Today I'll speak to the March for Life in DC. A nation cannot long endure w/o respect for the right to Life. Our Liberty depends on it," tweeted Rand Paul at 9:49 A.M.

As Steve Benen writes, "So, Rand Paul, always cautious about his privacy rights, balked at airport security measures. He was en route to a March for Life rally, where he'll speak to activists who don't believe there is a right to privacy. Libertarians sure are an odd bunch."

I'm actually willing to grant that there isn't any hypocrisy here. If you believe that life begins at conception and that government, even a libertarian one, has a duty to protect life, well, you do the math. Pro-choicers may not want to hear it, but it's not about privacy for these pro-lifers / anti-choicers, it's about protecting the lives of the unborn. This isn't a view that I share, but I used to (sort of, to a point), and I understand where they, or at least the more sensible among them, are coming from. It would be different if Paul were arguing against, say, contraception or same-sex marriage or otherwise trying to deny privacy and equal rights. Abortion, alas, is a different matter -- or at least can be understood to be.

And yet the tag of hypocrisy still applies. Paul, for example, is against same-sex marriage. And, unlike his father, he's pro-Gitmo.

I suppose you could say that no one's perfect, but Paul's views suggest that his libertarianism is malleable, and that he holds views fundamentally at odds with libertarianism. Indeed, he may not be much of a libertarian at all, certainly not like his father. At the very least, he's anything but consistent.

France calls Turkey's mass murder of Armenians what it was: genocide

2012-01-23T17:51:00.002-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter:

French Senate votes to criminalize any public denial of what new law calls Ottoman Empire's #genocide of Armenians. (link)

-- CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk)

I'm not big on efforts to stifle free speech, even when the speech in question is a lie, but at least France has the guts to stand up to Turkey and its decades-long campaign of revisionism / denialism.

Genocide is genocide. Period.

Now why the hell won't the U.S. stop kowtowing to Turkey and being an accomplice to its blatant dishonesty and abject refusal to account for its ugly past?

When you can't call genocide genocide, even when geopolitical demands are strong (and, yes, we would prefer Turkey be friend, not foe), you simply don't have much moral standing to your name.

**********

I've written about his issue numerous times already -- critical of both Bush and Obama. Check out:

-- Genocidal denial: Bush, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust (Oct. 2007)

-- Genocide is genocide: Exposing the truth about the Turkish massacre of Armenians (Mar. 2010);

-- Anything but genocide: Obama, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust (Apr. 2010); and

-- Turkish delight: House fails to vote on Armenian genocide resolution (Dec. 2010).

How Newt is winning

2012-01-23T11:30:00.003-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So just how did Newt win South Carolina? More broadly, just how has he come back from seeming oblivion, after his initial surge pre-Iowa, to be a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination, as the only credible anti-Romney conservative alternative there is left?

I looked at this in my South Carolina primary live-blogging post the other day, as well as in various previous posts on the race, but I think Steve Benen hits the nail on the head:

[T]he top three most important factors in South Carolina were the debates, the debates, and the debates. By the time he’d received his second standing ovation in Thursday night's debate, it was hard to not think, "You know, maybe Newt is going to win this primary after all." Back in October, the Romney campaign adopted a strategy predicated on the belief that the debates really do matter. They were right.

Gingrich used these forums to play to the worst instincts of his party's right-wing base, aiming right at the Republican id — presenting himself and his party as victims, condemning the media, and adding some not-so-subtle racial politics to connect with South Carolina Republicans on a gut level. As I mentioned the other day, Gingrich's debate performances are like dopamine for the right-wing soul.

His next challenge: duplicating the efficacy of this strategy elsewhere.

It's not clear that he can, and, indeed, the odds are against him, what with Romney holding an enormous financial and organization edge not just in Florida but everywhere.

But Newt has some advantages of his own. Romney's various weaknesses (his moderate past, his seeming phoniness / artificiality, his inability to connect with the base, his douchebaggery) are certainly helping (a strong Romney would be well ahead by now), but Republicans aren't just voting against Romney, they're voting for Newt. And what they're voting for is not so much Newt but what they see as his ability to voice their anger, channel their frustrations, and go on the attack against their enemies, specifically liberals, the media, minorities, and, of course, President Obama.

Try as he might, Romney just doesn't seem genuine when he goes on the attack. Newt does. And obviously many Republicans love him for it, even if they don't exactly love him.

So what now? Well, the establishment will now try even harder to knock Newt off, but politics aren't what they used to be, not with the ability now of national figures like Newt to connect directly with voters both through the media and even by circumventing the old media with the help of the new. Gone are the days of back-room brokering, when elites could hand power to the chosen -- well, not entirely, but it's much more difficult now. The establishment may succeed, and Romney is still the likely nominee, but Newt is on the rise precisely because the elites can't contain him. And they certainly can't contain him when he's crushing Romney in the debates, which many Republican primary voters are obviously using as a test to see which of the candidates has what it takes to fight their fight this year. As I've written before, Republicans (40% of them in South Carolina) aren't voting for Newt because they think he's a saint, which is most certainly is not, but because they think he'll punch Obama in the face.

How else to explain the popularity of someone so deeply unpopular?

Good Luck, Gabby!

2012-01-23T09:45:00.001-05:00

By Carl

Gabby Giffords will announce her resignation from Congress this week, about a year after she was brutally attacked by a gun nut in an Arizona parking lot.

Her courageous struggle back from her wounds should be an inspiration to anyone who says they can't. She could have given up at any point, but her goal was to take her seat in Congress once more despite the debilitating nature of her injuries and for this, she deserves universal applause and praise.

She's tasted her goal and realized that there was much more work involved in staying there. There is no shame in this. We can't begin to imagine what she went through to get this far, so her sacrifices may seem to be in vain, but they were not.

Her district is highly competitive and the races, both primaries and general election, ought to be barnburners. Giffords' endorsement will weigh heavily in this district, as she was a popular figure among her constituents, and they will barely have time to vet the competition.

It speaks volumes about how the most appropriate and dignified response to violence, particularly gun violence, is to brush oneself off and go on, but it also speaks volumes that a nut could grab a gun and shoot up a crowd so tragically.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Chris Christie says Gingrich has "embarrassed" GOP

2012-01-23T08:00:00.001-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Oh, really:

Romney surrogate and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called Newt Gingrich an embarrassment to the Republican Party on Sunday, one day after the former House Speaker rode a late surge to victory in the South Carolina primary.

"I think Newt Gingrich has embarrassed the party, over time," Christie (R), who has endorsed Romney, said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Gov. Romney never has."

Never? How about all the flip-flopping he did when he decided to take his act from Massachusetts to the national stage? How about all his shameless pandering to the right in his pathetic attempt to woo the base?

Look, I'm hardly a Newt backer, even if I'm supporting him for the Republican presidential nomination (as Democrats should), but at least he's had some success, actually quite significant success, at the national level, and at least, however much of an egomaniac he may be, he has some genuine conservative ideas -- neither of which you can say about Romney, who has been a failure thus far at the national level (and who only won Massachusetts by selling himself as a progressive-friendly moderate) and whose idea of politics is to suck up to whatever specific electorate he needs to win (hence his current sucking up to the Obama-hating Republican base).

Gingrich has certainly embarrassed his party over the years, just as he has embarrassed himself, but he's hardly alone in this. Romney has done much the same, if not as a hypocritical bully and blowhard then as a shameless self-promoter who will do and say anything for votes.

NFL 2011: Playoffs -- Championship Round

2012-01-22T20:29:00.000-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Who cares about football with Newtmania sweeping the nation? Okay, I live in another nation, thankfully, but even here, north of the border, Newt is the big story. Well, okay, maybe only at this blog, but still. It's crazy. President Newt? Is that even possible? (Short answer: no. Longer answer: never.)

No, we still care about football here, particularly Richard, a life-long Giants fan who grew up near NYC, and while my spirits are still drained from that Steelers loss a couple of weeks ago, I'm still enough of a football fan to care about today's games. Though, I admit it, it pains to me to root for the Patriots and Giants. They're just not as detestable as those other teams coached by the Harbaughs.

Anyway, let's look at how we're going and get to our picks -- even though it's already halfway through the second game.

We went pick'em for the regular season, and Richard won, but now we're using the spread and a new scoring system:

-- Wild Card round: 2 points per game;

-- Divisional round: 3 points per game;

-- Conference Finals: 4 points per game; and

-- Super Bowl: 5 points.

Here's how we did last week (divisional round):

MJWS: 2-2 = 6 points

RKB: 2-2 = 6 points

The Kid: 0-4 = 0 points

Ouch. Tough week for The Kid. As for me, I was 0-2 on Saturday and 2-0 on Sunday. Actually, we all went 0-2 on Saturday.

I certainly don't regret taking the Saints, nor even the truly awful Tim Tebow plus 13.5 points -- that's just too big a line. I just didn't think he and that ridiculous offence would suck that badly against the Pats and their mediocre (at best) D. I was (barely) right to go with the Texans, getting 7.5 points against the Ravens. They lost by seven. And Richard and I both thought the Giants would cover in Green Bay. The difference is that he actually picked them to win. I didn't go that far.

When you think about it, though, it made sense. The Giants offence was one of the best in the league down the stretch. New York has one of the best receiving corps in the league and a better running game than the Pack. Eli is no Rodgers, but he's undeniably been a near-elite QB this year. The Giants D-line is awesome, while the Pack have struggled on D all year. And while the Packers had two weeks off (and Rodgers three) and hadn't played a really meaningful game in ages, the Giants were peaking at just the right time. Yes, the Giants had some luck on their side last week, but even so they were the better team. By a lot.

Anyway, here's how we're going so far in the playoffs:

MJWS: 5-3 = 12 points

RKB: 3-5 = 8 points

The Kid: 3-5 = 6 points

Here are today's games:

Baltimore at New England (-7)

N.Y. Giants at San Francisco (-2.5)

And our picks:

Stickings' Pickings

Picks: New England, N.Y. Giants.

I was going back and forth on today's early game but ended up taking the Pats. I just thought they had too much offence even for the Ravens and would win by at least a touchdown. Brady & Co. just seemed a bit off today. I'll admit, though, Flacco always surprises me with how well he can play, if only in spurts, and he gave his team a chance if not to win at least to tie. Cundiff almost never misses a FG attempt like that -- 31 yards. He's usually money, as they say. Crazy. It's a good thing I don't gamble on this madness.

I've been on the Giants side all week, but the weather had me doing some second-guessing earlier today. I've been down on the Niners all year, though, never believing in their D (even after they beat the Steelers, with Big Ben barely able to move), and while I've come to see how good they are, particularly their front seven, I just think the Giants are better, even in the rain: better QB, better receivers (though Vernon Davis has certainly decided to be an elite player again, and that TD in the first half showed just how good he can be), equally good RBs (Bradshaw/Jacobs vs. Gore), and that great D-line (Pierre-Paul, Tuck, Umenyiora, Canty). Sure, San Fran has the better secondary, a much better group of LBs (led by ILBs Willis and Bowman), and a really good D-line as well (led by DE Justin Smith), but I think the Giants can narrowly outscore the Niners in a low-scoring game. And that's where we are now: 10-7 Giants early in the third.

Barry's Tea Leaves

Picks: New England, N.Y. Giants.

I suspect that New England will beat Baltimore by more than one TD. Brady plus Welker plus Gronkowski vs. an aging Ravens D. And Flacco not being on the same planet as Brady. Something like that. Anyway, that should be enough.

As for the Giants and Niners, I have no idea. As a life-long Giants fan, I'm too close to this one to be objective. Whatever happens, the Giants have made this a fun season for me and for that I'm grateful. It's only a game and if it's not fun, why bother watching?

I'll say the Giants by a touchdown, but it could go either way. Here's to hoping the Giants' defence gives Alex Smith headaches all day. My guess is that this one will come down to QBs and that Manning will have a better game than Smith. Too many good qualities for both teams to list and these teams are too closely matched to bother going through it. Both sides probably consider themselves teams of destiny, I suppose, but someone has to win and someone has to lose. Too bad about that.

Comfortable Kid

Picks: New England, N.Y. Giants

(Looks like we're all going the same way today. -- MJWS)

Live-blogging the 2012 South Carolina primary: Newt rising, Mitt stumbling, the GOP in disarray

2012-01-21T19:38:00.007-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED FREQUENTLY. INCLUDING THE NEXT DAY.

7:22 pm - It being Saturday evening, and with other things to do (like spending some quality time with the family), I won't be live-blogging quite to the extent I did for the Iowa and New Hampshire votes. But I'll be back with updates throughout the night.

7:25 pm - The polls were showing a potentially big win for Newt, and today the exit polls are showing very much the same: Gingrich 38, Romney 29, Santorum 17, Paul 15. (Wouldn't it be something if Newt passed the 40 percent mark?) I was predicting an 8-point Newt win, but with so much momentum on his side, with the tide turning so dramatically in his favor, I wouldn't be surprised if he won by 10 or more.

7:31 pm - Only 2 percent of precincts are reporting. For what it's worth, which isn't much, it's 40-32 for Romney. You can follow the returns here.

7:32 pm - As I won't have much time tonight to much in the way of analysis or lengthy commentary, let me point you to a few posts I wrote in recent days:

-- "Another win for Newt: Observations while not live-blogging tonight's Republican debate in South Carolina";

-- "Sarah Palin says Newt will "soar," but will his ex-wife's allegations finally be his undoing?";

-- "Privileged rich douchebag: The Mitt Romney narrative for 2012"; and

-- "Marianne Gingrich interview tonight: Is this the end for Newt?".

Needless to say, the answer to the questions posed above, in the second and fourth posts, is a resounding No.

7:40 pm - And that's it. CNN has called it for Newt. Looks like all the drama in South Carolina was in the days leading up to today. There no drama tonight, and I suppose now all we have to focus on is the margin of victory, specifically: Will Newt hit 40 percent? And/or will he win by 10 points? A thorough drubbing of Romney would certainly make things a whole lot more interesting as we turn our attention to Florida, with the primary there coming up in 10 days, on January 31.

More questions: Will Santorum drop out after this? If so, will he endorse Newt? And if Newt is the only viable anti-Romney alternative left (because Paul isn't a viable contender), will conservatives rally behind him? (Newt will certainly need more money and better organization if he hopes to contend in Florida and beyond.) Or will they hold their noses and turn to Romney?

And what of the generally pro-Romney party elites? At what point does panic set in? Or has it already?

4:04 pm (the next day) - Well, obviously, I didn't get back to blogging last night, nor, until now, today. There just wasn't much to say (and I was too busy to say it anyway). Newt won. By a lot. And he hit those two artificial marks I identified: 40 percent of the vote, 10+-point margin of victory -- with a 40-28 win over Romney, with Santorum in third at 17 and Paul in fourth at 13. It played out as expected, or at least as it had come to be expected with Newt's late surge. He just won by a few more points than I thought he would.

4:07 pm (watching the Ravens-Pats game) - So what does it all mean? Well, it means that Newt has established himself as the largely unchallenged conservative alternative to Romney (Santorum doesn't have much left), that Romney is incredibly weak (with an overwhelming majority of Republicans looking for someone else, even a tainted blowhard like Newt), and that the race will go on, which is exactly what's best for the media, if not the GOP.

4:10 pm - Here's Chait:

My view all along has been that any remotely plausible candidate could beat Mitt Romney. My current view is that there are no remotely plausible candidates, which leaves us with Newt. So we have the immovable object meeting the irresistible force, except the exact opposite. Like almost everybody outside Gingrich's immediate family, I had already written him off twice. But he really seems okay. If some really crazy rich conservatives decide to write him some seven- or eight-figure checks, who knows?

Right, who knows?

Unless the Romney-leaning elites are prepared for a brokered convention, they'll have to do even more to try to derail Newt. Apparently what they did to him in Iowa wasn't enough. And yet, the reality of the GOP right now is that it's deeply divided and unhappy with its options. Even if the elites succeeded in knocking off Newt, the risk is that they'll further alienate the party's conservative base, everyone from Dear Leader Rush all the way down to your average right-wing redneck in South Carolina.

Basically, the situation is perfect for the emergence of a compromise candidate -- sufficiently conservative but also with appeal to independents, and hence electable -- who can bring the party together. But can that even happen? Such an alternative, if one could even be found, couldn't get on primary ballots, and of course it's not like Romney would ever play along. Jeb Bush? Maybe, if his last name weren't Bush. But who else? Christie? Jindal? Ryan? Rubio? No one other than Jeb seems to have what it would take. And so the party remains deeply divided without a clear resolution in sight.

4:20 pm - Here's Marshall:

Newt Gingrich isn't going to be the GOP nominee. I'm not saying Romney will be, though I think it's still very likely. You can never say never in politics. But I think the anchor point for understanding where we are right now is that the institutional GOP, the establishment Republican party, won't let Newt get the nomination.

Look at these numbers: nationwide Newt Gingrich’s favorability number is 26.5%, unfavorable 58.6%. (see the chart here.)

It would be quite difficult for Newt Gingrich to beat President Obama. The bigger story is that he would likely devastate the congressional Republican party. He'd probably weigh down the GOP up and down the ticket. And that puts the whole thing in much sharper relief for Republican officeholders, committee chairs and money folks.

If I'm right about that, that means they have to and will do virtually everything possible now to crush Gingrich and make Romney the nominee.

My best guess is that Gingrich will come on strong or even win Florida. And it'll be bad for Mitt for a while. But eventually Mitt and really the GOP establishment will just grind him down. Do I know that? Not at all. Unless Mitt can totally shut Gingrich down in Florida, it's really all bets are off territory. But again, the one thing I think you can rely on is that Gingrich isn't the nominee — simply because I think the costs to the GOP are simply too grave to let it happen.

I think I agree with all that. Unless the party turns to someone like Jeb, the race is still Mitt's to lose. And we know he's in it for the long haul, with money and organization well beyond anything Newt has.

It's certainly possible that Newt will win Florida, or at least finish a close second, but beyond that he'll say something or do something that reminds voters just who he is. It's just hard to imagine that he'll be able to make it through the long primary season without somehow imploding. And of course Mitt and the elites -- the so-called "establishment" -- will do everything in their power to make that happen.

So I think it's still fairly safe to say that it'll be Romney in the end -- but, by then, just how damaged will he be?

Courage of conviction: President Obama's exemplary military leadership

2012-01-21T11:00:00.004-05:00

Guest post by Rob Miller

Rob Miller is a US Marine Corps combat veteran who served in Iraq in 2003 and 2004. A Charleston native and a graduate of the University of South Carolina, Rob and his family currently reside in Beaufort, South Carolina.

Having served over thirteen years in the United States Marine Corps, from enlisted infantry Marine to Company Commander, serving twice in Iraq to include the Battle of Fallujah in November 2004, I know leadership is the one quality every military service member and veteran wants to see from our Commander-in-Chief.

As Marine Corps Lieutenant General John A. Lejeune said, "Leadership is the sum of those qualities of intellect, human understanding, and moral character that enables a person to inspire and control a group of people successfully." Leadership requires skill, finesse, and unwavering conviction.

Our Commander-in-Chief, President Obama, has very strong convictions. President Obama never faltered on the war in Iraq. He was against the war in 2002, pledged to end the war as a presidential candidate, and kept that promise by ending the war with honor and bringing our troops home last month. Through his leadership, the United States helped liberate Libya and put an end to the Qaddafi regime. President Obama has upheld his promise to our veterans by passing the Post-9/11 GI Bill, increasing funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs and working tirelessly to put returning veterans to work in the private sector.

President Obama believes in justice, strength, and action. Under his leadership, the United States has decimated the leaders of al Qaeda and critically hampered their global terror network. Still not convinced? Let's take a quick look at some of the numbers:

Drone strikes under President Bush: 44

Drone strikes under President Obama: 240+

Everyone knows about the special operations raid to kill Osama bin Laden or the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. But few realize the sweeping success of our military's more targeted operations and its drone campaign, which have led to the capture or death of scores of top al Qaeda operatives from Pakistan and Iraq to Yemen, Indonesia, and Somalia.

Defense spending, which in 2010 equaled nearly five percent of our entire GDP, has surpassed the peak of Cold War spending and is at its highest level since World War II. In contrast, this new wave of precise, targeted attacks embodies the direction in which President Obama and our military leaders wish to take our overarching defense strategy.

The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs recently unveiled a new course for our military, a transition away from the two-war doctrine or Desert Storm X2 concept. This change has been a long time coming. In Joint Force Quarterly in Spring 2000, the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon stressed the need to transition away from a "two-Desert Storm paradigm" to a more mobile expeditionary force structure that encompassed one war and multiple other threats.

Ignoring the wisdom of our national security experts and military leaders, Governor Romney has been quick to say he would continue to grow our military, even suggesting that he would not be against war with Iran. Romney's reckless, short-sighted rhetoric illustrates that he is willing to sacrifice the well-being of our military, our economy, and our country to win cheap votes.

In stark contrast, our Commander-in-Chief has diligently upheld his office and executed his duties with conviction and action. As President Obama prepares our forces to meet the needs of the future, his courage of conviction, decisiveness of action, and steadfast leadership will undoubtedly ensure America's continued success.

Is Newt poised for a big win in South Carolina?

2012-01-20T23:26:00.004-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

***UPDATED BELOW***

Via twitter:

Gingrich led today's interviews in the PPP survey by 14 points. Could be headed for big win in SC.

-- Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight)

The world is a crazy place, and I defy anyone to make sense of it.

As Chait writes, we're witnessing the re-re-Newtening. And what fun it is.

Democrats for Newt! Let him feel our wind in his sails!

(Even if things are lined up nicely for Romney after this: FL, NV, ME, MI, etc. Even if Mitt has the money and organization to win it all. Even if the party elites will make sure he wins. And even if Newt will surely find some way to implode. You just never know, what with conservatives still looking for a way, any way, to stop Romney from being the nominee. Like it or not, Newt is their last hope.)

**********

UPDATE: PPP has Newt up 37-28 over Mitt, with Santorum in third at 16 and Paul in fourth at 14. That's a pretty healthy lead.

Another Silver tweet: "There's a lot of disagreement in the SC polls so we cannot rule out a Romney upset. But also cannot rule out double-digit Newt win."

Predictably, Romney is lowering expectations on the eve of the vote. Quite the formidable frontrunner he is, eh?

Newt Gingrich isn't racist at all

2012-01-20T17:58:00.004-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter:

Gingrich says "work" is a "strange" concept to Juan Williams. (link)

-- ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress)

If only Juan had labored as a non-unionized janitor when he was in grade school...

(Anyone else get the sense one of Newt's main objectives is to put these "uppity" minorities in their place? Like, you know, Obama. Isn't this the ugly message he's sending with his dog whistling to the right?)

What are you hiding in those tax returns, Mitt?

2012-01-20T17:42:00.002-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter:

Romney tells Fox why he won't release his tax returns now: "I don't want to give the Democrats a nice little present." (link)

-- ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress)

Is he such a privileged rich douchebag with such an oversized sense of entitlement that he thinks he can tell us he's hiding something without really giving a shit, or is he just a clueless politico with severe foot-in-mouth disease?

Fair question, I think.

Another win for Newt: Observations while not live-blogging tonight's Republican debate in South Carolina

2012-01-19T21:37:00.004-05:00

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm not live-blogging, but I'm watching closely, with another eye on American Idol, on this perhaps the most important day of the 2012 Republican presidential race so far.

Quick impression: Newt, as expected, is doing exceptionally well, while Romney, as usual, is playing what in football would be the most preventative of prevent defences, doing everything he can to avoid a gaffe, saying nothing of substance, resorting to his usual talking points, most of them ridiculously anti-Obama (his default position to deflect attention away from his own positions and appeal to the anti-Obama right) being anything but a persuasive, dynamic leader -- anything but genuinely presidential and more like some sort of presidential caricature as performed by some sort of robot programmed by aliens who base their understanding of what is presidential on two-dimensional stereotypes.

(UPDATE: Here are my grades for the debate -- In a vacuum, Santorum (A-) won. But Newt (B+) did what he had to do to keep his surge going and to deflect attention away from Marianne and his even worse past than we thought. Romney (C) was typically mediocre and unimpressive. Paul (B-) was okay but seems less and less relevant. In the end, Newt was the winner if only because he will benefit the most from a strong performance.)

I'm also following Andrew Sullivan, who is doing some very fine live-blogging tonight (as usual). Here are a few of his finer observations, in reverse chronological order, with my comments in blue italics.

-- "Why can't Romney once - just once - directly answer the question asked, instead of insisting on saying what he wants to say first? It's deeply irritating and underlines his too-polished, too arrogant affect. And then he forgets even what the actual question was in the first place. Then he segues into a bizarre attack on Newt's relationship with Reagan. He lost it back there. It's his worst performance yet - at the very moment he needs to deliver his best." (It was just Romney being Romney. What else is new?) (9:00 pm)

-- "Buzzfeed says that Newt won the debate in the first five minutes. There's still some time to go but that's my impression as well. Romney is being flattened tonight. Santorum's brutal, relentless attacks, Newt's ccontempt, Paul's jocular indifference... they all contrast with classic, mindless robo-speak from Mr Plastic." (That's a shorter way of saying what I said above: "classic, mindless robo-speak.") "Now Gingrich has ambushed him on his tax returns. This is what South Carolina always does. It's sometimes necessary to look away before the feeding frenzy ends. But the result is always bloody. Romney's sinking. He's sinking." (But will he sink far enough for Newt to win on Saturday? With such a decisive win here, there's hardly any doubt the Newt surge will continue. But what about the Marianne G. interview later? That could quickly derail his astonishing comeback.) (8:48 pm)

-- "A classic Gingrich phrase: 'Mildly amazing.' Classic passive aggression from the 'shy boy' who's now so angry he explodes spontaneously. Then Newt tickles the Southern g-spot, by saying that his debating Obama will be a battle between 'knowledge' and a 'TelePrompTer.' I don't think Newt realizes how his contempt and condescension toward Obama is riddled with racism." (He recoils in horror and then lashes out whenever he's faced with the racism charge, but he has a long record of this sort of racially-charged rhetoric.) (8:44 pm)

-- "Santorum hones his manufacturing working class economic chops in a very deft and indrect criticism of Romney's kind of capitalism. A very effective performance. They're all on tonight, it seems. But Gingrich's spirited, angry, anti-media rant at the start towers over the rest. (Yes, Santorum has been typically strong: confident and coherent. But I'm just not sure it matters anymore. At this point, unless Newt completely tanks as a result of the Marianne interview tonight, all Santorum will be doing by staying in the race is dividing the anti-Romney vote and hindering Gingrich's chances of knocking off the frontrunner. Still, while I don't agree with him on, well, on anything, I've got to credit him with an impressive performance ever since he surged up the polls pre-Iowa. He has way too much baggage, but if he'd been seen as a serious contender much earlier in the race, he might have been a potent conservative alternative to Romney, everything Perry and Bachmann were not.) (8:30 pm)

-- "Gingrich is on a roll - rattling off a list of South Carolina issues, including the port of Charleston. Then he quickly and effectively summarizes a core case against the dodgy practices of Bain Capital. Romney then tries to avoid answering the direct question about Bain and seems to conflate 'crony capitalism' with Democrats' relationships with the union. He does not address the core issue of how you make millions off bankrupting companies." (I don't see the Bain attacks hurting Romney all that much in the GOP primaries, given that he can position himself as a successful capitalist and where there is little concern for the poor and disadvantaged, or for income inequality, or for justice, but this could come back to haunt him in the general election, with independents particularly.) (8:20 pm)

-- "Newt's response to the open marriage is turned into a tour de force against the media. He calls John King's questions 'as close to despicable as I can imagine.' The crowd loves it. The first response as to whether he wanted to talk about it: 'No, but I will.' Perfect. Then he rounds on King and gets another standing ovation. I think he may have won the primary tonight with that response." (You knew this was coming, and I wrote about it earlier: Newt always tries to turn the tables by going after the media.) (8:12 pm)

The wildest day of the campaign so far keeps exceeding expectations. And we still have the interview to come. Crazy.