Daily Kos

Daily Kos Elections Polling Wrap: Rick Santorum's surge, act II

rss@dailykos.com (Steve Singiser) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:20:02 UTC

For those wondering how long it would be after the Santorum Sweep on Tuesday before we would see tangible evidence of a bounce, this tweet from PPP's Tom Jensen really ought to suffice:

We put a national poll in the field today and pretty clear your new leader is Rick Santorum.

As the kids say, the shit just got real on the Republican side.

Most of today's polling releases don't reflect the same surge too much, since the bulk of these polls were in the field before Santorum hit the trifecta on Tuesday. But you see some signs, including the first time in a poll in eons that Santorum has claimed a primary lead in his home state of Pennsylvania (which, dare I say, may prove relevant despite its position towards the end of the primary calendar).

NATIONAL (Gallup Tracking): Romney 36, Gingrich 20, Santorum 20, Paul 10
MICHIGAN (Mitchell Research): Romney 31, Gingrich 16, Paul 15, Santorum 15

PENNSYLVANIA (Susquehanna Research): Santorum 30, Romney 29, Gingrich 13, Paul 9

We also see a little tangible evidence of a Santorum bump in the general election numbers, albeit from Rasmussen. Rasmussen seems to be especially bearish on the Romney electability factor this week. Yesterday, they had Newt Gingrich outperforming Romney nationally (which, honestly, does not seem credible). Today, they had Santorum outperforming Romney in Ohio (which is exponentially more believable).

NATIONAL (Rasmussen): Obama d. Romney (48-42)
ILLINOIS (Chicago Tribune/WGN): Obama d. Romney (56-35); Obama d. Gingrich (58-30)

NORTH CAROLINA (PPP): Obama d. Romney (47-46); Obama d. Santorum (48-46); Obama d. Gingrich (50-45); Obama d. Paul (47-41)

OHIO (Rasmussen): Obama tied with Santorum (44-44); Obama d. Romney (45-41)

PENNSYLVANIA (Susquehanna Research): Romney d. Obama (45-43); Obama d. Santorum (47-43)

Some thoughts on the legitimacy of the Santorum bounce, right after the jump.

Conservative reaction to Rick Santorum surge

rss@dailykos.com (kos) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:57:45 UTC

Remind me, is he running for president, or for pope? (Rick Wilking/Reuters)

Time for one of my periodic tours through wingnutlandia, to see what conservatives are saying about their latest white knight conservative savior.

Aaron Goldstein, American Spectator:

Now that Santorum has demonstrated he isn't a one trick pony he's going to very likely face Romney's attack machine full throttle. Now he might well have a stronger jaw than Newt Gingrich. But sometimes Santorum can be his own worst enemy. If Romney's attacks render Santorum into a sullen, scolding, sanctimonious sourpuss then it severely undermines his chances of becoming the Republican standard bearer.

Too late. Santorum is already a sullen, scolding, sanctimonious sourpuss. I thought that's why they liked him!

More below the fold.

Employer birth-control 'exemptions' are a phony issue

rss@dailykos.com (Hunter) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:30:03 UTC

Already covered.
(Ceridwen/Wikimedia Commons)

Fake. Controversy.

Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception and since 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control, many Catholic institutions offer the benefit to their employees. For instance, a Georgetown University spokesperson told ThinkProgress yesterday that employees “have access to health insurance plans offered and designed by national providers to a national pool. These plans include coverage for birth control.”
Similarly, an informal survey conducted by Our Sunday Visitor found that many Catholic colleges have purchased insurance plans that provide contraception benefits [...]

How fake? Pretty darn fake:

“The employee health insurance plans include a prescription contraceptive benefit, in compliance with state and federal law,” DePaul University spokesperson Robin Florzak confirmed to ThinkProgress.

No, really. Really, really damn fake:

Yes, the [Georgia] law was originally passed back in 1999, four years before Republicans gained control of Georgia’s government. But Republicans have had ten years in which to change the law if they thought there was a problem with it; yet, it has remained intact through ten Republican-controlled legislative sessions.
And with no stated exceptions, this law applies to mega-employer Saint Joseph’s Hospital, a 410-bed acute care facility in Atlanta with several subsidiaries including an employed physician’s group and research facilities, with a total of 3,000 employees. And the law also applies to Saint Mary’s Hospital, a 196-bed acute care hospital in Athens, GA.

Both hospitals are members of the Catholic Health East system.

But you see, everyone just noticed that right now. Or rather, it suddenly became untenable just now.

So some Catholic bishops and assorted other anti-healthcare and anti-letting-women-have-birth-control hangers-on have got their knickers in a double bowline over something that has already been the law for many years, that Catholic institutions have been complying with without difficulty for years, and which only just now, for some inexplicable reason that nobody can quite explain, is suddenly an epic threat to Whatever. Because if we don't allow large American employers "exemptions" from national laws in accordance with their every possible religious prejudice, no matter how fringe, then the government is oppressing people.

This can only mean that once again, we have solved all of America's other problems and are at a loss for other things to complain about.

Again, since it is apparently difficult for some people to understand: We are not talking about going into churches and demanding people take birth control when they don't want to. We're not talking about going into churches at all, for that matter. We're talking about large employers, colleges and hospitals, and stating that their religious beliefs do not trump employment laws or the rights of their employees, many of whom are not even of the religion in question. Want to form a church? You can believe whatever you want, and act however you want. Oppress women, be bigoted against brown people, whatever floats your ark. Want to be an employer? Then certain rules apply. You have to provide a minimum wage, you can't chain people to their workstations, you have to have sufficient bathrooms, and if you provide them healthcare you have to provide it in a non-discriminatory fashion to both men and women, and without religious dogma attached. It's a simple concept. A college is not a church. A hospital is not a church. Putting a big cross outside doesn't allow you to treat your employees however you want regardless of the law, and America is very roundly screwed if that ever becomes the case.

This is a non-issue being pushed into the spotlight because one side desperately needs to convince people they're being oppressed and needs preferential treatment. In this particular case, the bishops don't even have the respect of their own flock, and the conservatives using it as yet another bludgeon against healthcare reform doesn't have the public on their side. Yes, yes, it's a "wedge issue." But it's an embarrassingly phony one. The White House has done themselves no favors by continually "negotiating" the non-issue, either. Show some spine, and stick up for employees. It shouldn't be up to your damn employer whether you're "allowed" to use birth control or not.

Send an email to the White House and tell President Obama to stand firm on requiring all health insurers to cover contraception without co-pays.

Good news in South Dakota, but attacks on workers continue in Ohio, New Hampshire, Arizona and more

rss@dailykos.com (Laura Clawson) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:32:10 UTC

A South Dakota House committee has reportedly killed the bill that would have taken collective bargaining rights from public workers in the state. The bill's Senate sponsor had previously reversed himself, not just withdrawing support but announcing his opposition, and, according to the Associated Press, its House sponsor "says no lawmakers will speak in favor of his bill because they fear getting attacked in their next election."

But while there's good news for working people in South Dakota, elsewhere, anti-union Republicans are showing just how determined they are to chip away at workers' rights.

In November, Ohio voters overwhelmingly rejected a bill that would have taken collective bargaining rights from public workers. Later that month, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch's veto of a ~~right to work~~ free rider bill was upheld.

Now, just months after New Hampshire's RTW bill went down, the state House Labor Committee is holding a hearing on another, similar bill. And in Ohio, the anti-union drive announced by tea party activists just two days after the defeat of Issue 2, is progressing: Last week, the state attorney general certified the language for the "Workplace Freedom" (right to work by another name) initiative they hope to put on November's ballot. They shouldn't look for much support from Ohio Gov. John Kasich, though, who seems to be a little gun-shy after November's defeat of his own anti-union initiative. Asked about right to work, he recently said:

[I]f you’re going to bring about massive change, that’s going to cause great unrest – I mean, I've learned this – is you've got to prepare the way. I mean, I've learned it. You take a look at our record, you know, you go out deep-sea fishing, you catch a lot of sharks. We've caught 'em. Once in a while the shark eats you, OK? [...] I don't think the public understands it, I don't think they're prepared for it, and I would say that anybody that wants to move this thing forward needs to do that before anything else.

In other words, "Pushing an anti-union bill got me eaten by a shark once and I don't want to repeat the experience."

While Republicans in New Hampshire and Ohio are trying to resurrect anti-union efforts that seemed dead a few months ago, other states are just launching their own major campaigns. In Arizona, where Senate Republicans began to push a set of bills attacking public workers in ways even Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker didn't try, unions are lobbying legislators and finding that some Republicans are uncomfortable with the bills. Minnesota Republicans are still pushing to get a right to work initiative on their state's November ballot, to join the anti-gay marriage amendment they have already qualified for the ballot. Republicans in Michigan, Maine and Missouri are similarly pushing anti-union bills. Basically, anywhere workers still have union and collective bargaining rights and Republicans control a branch of government, they are waging war on workers.

Lots of reasons for Republicans to cry this week

rss@dailykos.com (kos) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:00:28 UTC

1. People are feeling better about the economy.

Consumer confidence in the U.S. climbed last week to a one-year high, spurred by improving employment opportunities and a rally in the stock market [...] Confidence among political independents, considered a key group in presidential elections, increased to a four-year high.

2. The markets are on a roll, making a mockery of their cries about "socialism". The Dow hit a four-year high, while the NASDAQ hit an 11-year high this week.

3. President Barack Obama's approvals are rising:

And that chart doesn't quite capture the recent numbers: 49/45 from Gallup, 50/49 from Rasmussen (ha ha!), 50/46 from WaPo/ABC, etc. He's now in positive territory all around.

4. Obama is also looking pretty good in the battleground states.

5. Rick Santorum. 'Nuff said.

6. Jobs.

The number of Americans seeking unemployment aid neared a four-year low last week, an encouraging sign that strong hiring could continue in the coming months.
The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly applications for unemployment benefits fell 15,000 to a seasonally adjusted 358,000. That's the second-lowest level since April 2008.

The four-week average, a less volatile measure, fell to 366,250, the lowest since late April 2008. When applications fall consistently below 375,000, it usually signals that hiring is strong enough to lower the unemployment rate.

Best job numbers since George Bush was finishing up his hatchet job on the economy.

7. Mitt Romney.

CNN suspended Roland Martin. Why not Dana Loesch or Erik Erickson?

rss@dailykos.com (Laura Clawson) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:18:55 UTC

As of this week, CNN owns whatever ugliness comes
out of Dana Loesch's mouth. (Gage Skidmore)

It took CNN from Sunday evening or Monday morning until Wednesday to decide to suspend Roland Martin for his homophobic tweets during the Super Bowl. The network's decision to act sets a standard that they have some basic values that apply to their contributors' public statements not only on CNN but elsewhere. But does this standard apply only to Roland Martin?

Earlier this month:

"Here is a story to make you laugh for the day...An Occupy DC protester was shot by stun gun yesterday afternoon," [Erik] Erickson said on his radio show on Tuesday. "Watching a hippie protester get tased just makes my day."

CNN's official position was that "CNN contributors' views are their own." In fact, we have to figure that's the sort of thing CNN hired Erickson to say, since by the time they hired him he had a long record of statements like, "The nation loses the only goat f*&king child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court in David Souter's retirement."

It's not just Erickson. Just a month ago, Dana Loesch used her radio show to say, "Can someone explain to me if there's supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who, as part of an organization, murdered over 3,000 Americans? I'd drop trou and do it too."

Then, too, CNN's position was that "CNN contributors are commentators who express a wide range of viewpoints—on and off of CNN—that often provoke strong agreement or disagreement. Their viewpoints are their own."

But by suspending Martin, the network has accepted ownership of Erickson and Loesch's public statements on their radio shows, Twitter accounts and in other venues. Even if they don't want to retroactively apply a new standard to months-old statements, just this week—days after Martin's offensive tweets—Loesch suggested that the NAACP's Ben Jealous must have been "inebriated" to have said that voter ID laws suppress the black vote.

Politico's Dylan Byers reports that:

CNN would not directly address the decision to suspend Martin while not suspending Loesch and Erickson, though a CNN executive did tell me over email that the network was looking to "raise the bar" on professionalism.

How low does CNN's bar have to be set right now to keep allowing Erik Erickson and Dana Loesch over it? Or does the network have some justification for why Erickson and Loesch are exempt from notions of professionalism?

John Boehner blasts Democrats over lack of progress on payroll tax cut ... then skips town

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:22:37 UTC

The payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits and the Medicare "doc fix" are all set to expire at the end of the month, meaning 160 million American workers could see their paychecks shrink, unemployed Americans could be shit out of luck and seniors may lose their doctors. In 20 days. Congress is scheduled to go on a week-long recess on Feb. 20.

What does the leader of the House of Representatives do? Blames the Democrats for dragging their feet:

“Right now the only ones blocking an agreement are Democrats and the president,” Boehner said. “It’s time for them to act.”
"Time is running short,” Boehner said.

... and then sends all of his members home for a four-day weekend. Obviously, Boehner's sense of urgency on the issue is at best doubtful.

But there is some good news from the negotiations that they got around to before the House left, again: Democrats formally rejected the Republicans' efforts to make life even more miserable for unemployed Americans, by refusing to force them to into GED programs or be drug tested. And while Republicans have wanted to shrink the unemployment benefits eligibility period from 99 weeks to 59, Democrats have offered to shrink it to 93.

Employers have had to provide birth control coverage since 2000

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:45:14 UTC

(Ceridwen/Wikimedia Commons)

Did you know that, by federal rule which has been upheld in the courts, employers and insurers have had to provide birth control as part of preventive care for women? And that that's been the case since 2000, throughout the Bush administration? Lost in the firestorm the far-right has started, and that the traditional media can't resist blowing up, is the fact that coverage of prescription contraception is remarkably run-of-the mill and has been controversy-free for over a decade.

Mother Jones reports:

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today ...
"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

The only thing that's changed in the mandate is that the coverage be provided a no cost, like all the other preventive care programs covered by the Affordable Care Act. Well, that's the only thing that's changed in terms of the policy. That, and that now 90 percent of employer-based plans offer contraceptive coverage. Oh, and that President Obama's plan allows for an exemption for religious institutions. The EEOC ruling does not, and nary a peep has been raised about that in 12 years.

What's really changed is that this expansion of the rule was done by a Kenyan Muslim socialist president.

Send an email to the White House and tell President Obama to stand firm on requiring all health insurers to cover contraception without co-pays.

Open thread: Sh*t Mitt says

rss@dailykos.com (Kaili Joy Gray) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:00:03 UTC

Undisputable evidence of Obama's socialism

rss@dailykos.com (kos) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:07:14 UTC

Two charts, both of them from this week:

Who knew socialism, "overregulation" and "lack of business certainty" were so good for corporations and their investors?

Sen. Gillibrand on MSNBC: America's women overwhelmingly support the president on contraception

rss@dailykos.com (Scott Wooledge) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:04:10 UTC

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand appeared on MSNBC today to voice her full throated support of the president's decision on contraception. She told Andrea Mitchell Reports substitute Luke Russert that, overwhelmingly, American women would have the president's back on this decision.

"Ninety-eight, ninety-nine percent of women have taken contraception in their lifetime. This is common health care for women, and they should not told by their bosses what medicines they are allowed to take."

Indeed.

Saying she spoke with the president yesterday,

"He shares our values, he shares our goals, he's committed to making sure that all women in American have access to affordable birth control."

Earlier the senator's office released this press release, saying: “We Will Not Stand for This Massive Overreach To Undermine The Ability of Women to Make Their Own Decisions”

Washington D.C. – U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) released the following statement today after a USA Today story today revealed the extent to which opponents of women’s access to the full range of preventive health services, including contraception want a “religious exemption” to go. Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops argued any business or corporation owned by Catholics should be excluded when he cited the problem that would be created for, "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this." He went as far to say, "If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate.”

“I am dumbfounded that in the year 2012 we still have to fight over birth control. It is sad that we have to stand here yet again to fight back against another overreach and intrusion into women’s lives.
“This is what it is – a political overreach to roll back access to birth control – not a religious issue. The fact they want to exempt all businesses from providing contraceptive care is just outrageous.

“The power to decide whether or not each individual woman uses contraception should be with that woman – not her boss. We will not stand for these attempts to undermine the ability of women to make their own decisions.

“If my Republican colleagues want to continue to take this issue head on, we stand ready to oppose any attacks launched against women's rights and women's health.

It's bizarre how women's choice has turned to a place where we're debating contraception.

Bernie Sanders leads the fight to save the Postal Service

rss@dailykos.com (Laura Clawson) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:35:15 UTC

Vermont Sens. Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy and Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu are trying to slow down the rush to effectively kill the Postal Service. Currently, the House and Senate are considering measures that would, respectively, kill the Postal Service really fast and somewhat more slowly:

A bill offered by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-D-Conn.; Tom Carper, D-Del.; and Susan Collins, R-Maine, would block the Postal Service from ending Saturday delivery for two years, but Sanders said it doesn't save the processing centers planned for closure. Landrieu, Sanders and Leahy are pushing to extend the ban for four years.
A House GOP bill would allow the Postal Service to act quickly to end Saturday mail delivery and close post offices and processing centers while establishing a commission that could override union agreements, reduce salaries and benefits, and lay off thousands of employees.

Cutting Saturday delivery, closing processing facilities and slowing delivery times would, Sanders argues, produce a "death spiral," responding to the challenges the Postal Service faces by giving people reasons to abandon it. Additionally, he has repeatedly pointed out, cutting 220,000 jobs would hurt not just the Postal Service and those 220,000 people, but an economy in need of more, not less, jobs. He, Leahy, and Landrieu are trying to get the Senate bill changed to delay the end of Saturday delivery for at least four years, remove pension prefunding obligations not faced by either the federal government or corporations, and keep rural post offices open.

Those measures only buy time, though, and to address the challenges posed by the internet, they're calling for a blue-ribbon panel to find ways for the post office to find new revenue sources. Landrieu suggests, for instance, that post offices could offer services like notary publics, copying and handling hunting and fishing license sales. (And fax services, I'd add.) But if that's not enough?

Landrieu said Congress may need to revise a statutory requirement that the service be self-sufficient.
“I’m not sure that that is a goal that can be met,” she said. “That is what the law says. Maybe that law needs to be revisited.”

No kidding. Here's an absolute public good, a vital link between rural areas and needed medicine and services, an entity that can deliver into apartment buildings while the Fed Ex guy is left futilely banging on the outer door hoping to be let in, something that's actually in the Constitution. Modernizing it and giving it new functions to increase its relevance in the age of email is a great idea. Cutting it until it dies and then calling it a natural death is a Republican idea.

Rep. Louie Gohmert: Republican congressman and noted caribou sex expert

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:59:09 UTC

Must be on his way to the nearest pipeline.

House Republicans are obviously obsessed with sexytime. For most of them, it's about making sure women are duly punished for it by making birth control harder to get. But for the "dumbest man in the history of Texas politics," it's about caribou.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, patron saint of amorous wildlife? The Texas Republican, who’s not exactly known as a champion of animal rights, said his primary concern in the development of a massive Alaskan oil pipeline is the love life of the caribous surrounding the project. [...]
Here’s his theory: The caribou very much enjoy the warmth the pipeline radiates. “So when they want to go on a date, they invite each other to head over to the pipeline,” he informed his colleagues. It’s apparently the equivalent of being wined and dined. And that has resulted in a tenfold caribou population boom, he concluded.

“So my real concern now ...if oil stops running through the pipeline...do we need a study to see how adversely the caribou would be affected if that warm oil ever quit flowing?” he asked.

Get on that claim, PolitiFact!

So while Gohmert and the GOP will do their damnedest to make sure women can't get birth control, he wants to make sure animals get laid. Priorities.

Department of Justice announces foreclosure settlement

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:52:52 UTC

The Department of Justice announced today that the nation's largest banks, the federal government, and the states agreed to a long-awaited legal settlement over foreclosure fraud. Forty-nine states joined the settlement, along with Bank of America Corporation, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Company, Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial Inc. (formerly GMAC).

The Justice Department is calling the $25 billion agreement "the largest federal-state civil settlement ever obtained." It is, however, as Matt Yglesias points out smaller than the $250 billion tobacco settlement from the 1990s, and a drop in the bucket when the scope of the housing crisis is considered.

About one in five homeowners is underwater on their mortgage by an average of $50,000, amounting to something like $700 billion in negative equity. It's expected to help about a million underwater homeowners with either principle reduction or refinancing. Another 750,000 who lost their homes to foreclosure fraud will receive direct payments of $2,000. That's definitely small compensation, maybe two months rent, for the loss of a home.

The banks are getting off pretty damn easy on the financial side of this. What makes the settlement less of a disaster than what it looked like even a few months ago is that, thanks to the concerted efforts of a handful of attorneys general (Eric Schneiderman of New York, Kamala Harris of California, Catherine Cortez-Masto of Nevada, Beau Biden of Delaware, Martha Coakley of Massachusetts and Lori Swanson of Minnesota) who refused to sign on to an agreement that gave the banks blanket immunity, legal immunity has been limited to banks very narrowly to robo-signing issues, and investigation of the residential mortgage backed securities market can still procede.

The lawsuits brought by Schneiderman in New York, Biden in Delaware and Coakley in Massachusetts will proceed. Additionally, Harris has preserved her right to undertake separate litigation under the California False Claims Act. What's more, no private rights of action have been waived—individual homeowners can still sue for foreclosure fraud.

The concessions that those hold-out attorneys general were able to wring out the banks were critical for investigations and potential prosecutions in the massive fraud these banks committed. Those investigations, at the state and federal level, if pursued with vigor and a real intention to hold the banks accountable could potentially do what this settlement absolutely won't: Force the banks to reform.

Midday open thread

rss@dailykos.com (Kaili Joy Gray) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:10:03 UTC

Today's comic is Heart & Mind-O-Matic by Mark Fiore:
Here's a fun fact about conservatives: gays are not welcome, but white supremacists sure are:
People For the American Way today called on GOP presidential candidates to speak out against the inclusion of a white nationalist leader this week at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference.
The conference—which will be addressed by Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and other GOP leaders— will be hosting Peter Brimelow, the founder of VDARE, a white nationalist website which frequently publishes the works of anti-Semitic and racist writers.
On a related note, there sure is a lot of scientific evidence that conservatives are idiots.
And continuing on that theme, Exhibit A:

CPAC brings out all the best stars! Also like her mother, no one is interested in paying Bristol Palin to yap these days, so she must offer as bribery a free signed copy of her senior year diary to the “first one hundred people to RSVP.” Aaaahahahahaha. So does that mean the four people who show up will have to take home 25 signed copies each?
In case you ever wondered what "Joe" "the plumber" "thinks" about Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan ...
Whales, unlike corporations, are not people, my friends:

An effort to free whales from SeaWorld by claiming they were enslaved made a splash in the news but flopped in court Wednesday.
A federal judge in San Diego dismissed an unprecedented lawsuit seeking to grant constitutional protection against slavery to a group of orcas that perform at SeaWorld parks, saying the 13th amendment applies only to humans.
Suuuuuuuure ...

[Rudy] Giuliani, asked why he couldn’t get elected, replied: “I could get elected. I just couldn’t get nominated!”
Cognitive dissonance of teabaggers in an easy-to-read chart.
Why does the right hate the Girl Scouts?

The Family Research Council is one of the leading organizations in the religious right movement, but it isn't the only outfit on the right to be worked up about the Girl Scouts.
As recently as December, Fox News went after the group quite a bit, and CNN contributor Dana Loesch not only lamented the "moral decline" of the Girl Scouts, she also suggested conservatives should stop buying their cookies as a form of political protest.

John Boehner threatens to overrule the American people on behalf of the American people

rss@dailykos.com (Kaili Joy Gray) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:36:36 UTC

John Boehner's got a new reason to cry

Unnaturally orange whiny crybaby and Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner has found something new to be a whiny crybaby about: women's health care.

Actually, it's not new; he's been whining and crying about that for years. But yesterday, on the floor of the House, he issued a new threat:

If the president does not reverse the Department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must.

Acting on behalf of the American people? Which American people would those be, Boehner? Certainly not the majority of American people who support the president's new policy to require insurance coverage of contraception. Which probably has nothing to do with the president's rising approval numbers, right? Total coincidence, I'm sure.

But that's cool, Boehner. You keep threatening to do unpopular stuff "on behalf of the American people." Let's see where that gets you and your party with the American people come November.

Catholic Democrats are 'bailing' on Obama on birth control, eh?

rss@dailykos.com (Kaili Joy Gray) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:59:01 UTC

(Public Religion Research Institute)

Politico has a rather odd post today, claiming that the Obama administration's decision to adopt a very popular health care policy is somehow alienating "high-profile Catholic Democrats." And whom does Politico cite as evidence?

At this point, the Democratic defectors are few in number but tall in stature. They include two swing-state pols on the November ballot — Obama’s former DNC chairman, Tim Kaine, who’s running for Senate in Virginia, and Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey — as well as House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson. [...]
Other Catholic Democrats who have come out against the edict this week include Rep. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois and freshman Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who’s up for reelection this year and has called the Obama edict “un-American” and a “direct affront to the religious freedoms protected under the First Amendment.” [...]

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), an Orthodox Jew, tweeted Wednesday that he opposed the administration’s mandate.

Oh no! Joe Lieberman—who is neither a Democrat nor a Catholic—is angry about something? Let me check my Things About Which I Give a Damn List ... nope, Lieberman's thoughts on this, or any other issue, aren't on the list.

The traditional media continues to portray this "debate" about contraception as something that has angered Catholics, alienated the president's fellow Democrats, and may even pose a threat in this year's election.

But poll after poll shows that the majority of the country is with the president—not the disingenuous Republicans, like thrice-married serial adulterer Newt Gingrich, who has once again appointed himself the arbiter of morality, or the Catholic Church, whose own authority on issues of morality is non-existent.

Greg Sargent rather mildly observed that "these numbers do suggest at least the possibility that leading commentators have been far too quick to declare this a certain political loser."

That's a very understated and polite way of saying that the traditional media, which keeps insisting that contraception coverage is a political loser for the president, are flat-out wrong.

This is not an issue that requires any more debate. The American people have spoken. They want the Affordable Care Act to cover contraception without co-pays. Period.

It's time for the media to report the facts, not the ginned-up hysteria from Catholic leaders and Republicans.

And it's time for the president to say enough is enough. The debate is over.

Send an email to the White House and tell President Obama to stand firm on requiring all health insurers to cover contraception without co-pays.

Republican establishment getting nervous about Mitt Romney

rss@dailykos.com (Barbara Morrill) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:40:03 UTC

Fact is, the Republican base hates Mitt Romney (Jim Young/Reuters)

After Mitt Romney's humiliating defeats in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri last week, Republicans are getting a little nervous about their pathetic excuse for a front runner ... and they're telling him to step it up:

“There is not exactly Romney-mania right now,” Senate GOP Whip Jon Kyl told POLITICO, adding that the former Massachusetts governor “absolutely” must shore up the weaknesses with the GOP base that were on such vivid display Tuesday.
“Playing it safe, which Romney tends to do, is not going to get it for him,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a 2008 Romney supporter and a leading voice of his party’s conservative bloc, who called the results this week “a signal.”

Sorry to disappoint you, fellas, but wasn't a signal, it was the warning sirens that have been screaming for months: The Republican base hates Mitt Romney. And you're stuck with him. Or Rick Santorum. Or Newt Gingrich. Not to mention an agenda that will apparently revolve around opposition to birth control—a position, by the way, that most Americans oppose.

Good luck with that. And by luck I mean, bwahahahaha!

GOP caucus turnout poor harbinger for Nevada Republicans in November

rss@dailykos.com (kos) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:10:02 UTC

We've learned two big lessons thus far this year: 1) Mitt Romney really sucks as a candidate, and 2) Nevada Republicans are (thus far) the most incompetent in the nation. Democratic pollster Mark Mellman explains just how bad they flubbed it:

[Nevada] Republicans missed a key opportunity to organize and grow their base. In part because of historic turnout in the 2008 Democratic caucus, Democrats transformed what was a nearly 6,000 person registration disadvantage in late 2006 into an advantage of almost 35,000 after the caucus. That momentum carried through to Election Day, by which time Democrats amassed a 100,000 person registration advantage. By comparison, Republicans have actually lost ground in the run up to their Caucus, as GOP registration declined by some 18,000 between November 2010 and January 2012.

Republican turnout in the Nevada caucuses fell from 44,324 in 2008 to 32,894 this year—meaning that John Freakin' McCain was exciting Republicans more than Mitt Romney and field. For a party that claims to be so fired up about beating President Barack Obama, they sure don't seem to be reflecting that sentiment at the polls.

In Nevada, GOP voter registration is down, voter turnout is down and party competence is down—it took Republicans two days to count those votes this year, while they were able to do it in one day in 2008 (with more votes to count).

The Nevada GOP is in trouble. They got a respite in 2010 because of national trends, but whether it's the drop in Latino support, or the drop in, er, everyone else's support, and given demographic trends in the state ... I'll say it now—Nevada will now, or by next election cycle, be as blue as California.

Catholic Church silent on child rape, taking to the streets over 'intrinsically evil' birth control

rss@dailykos.com (Kaili Joy Gray) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:21:27 UTC

Do you trust this man to decide whether our laws are right or wrong?

The Catholic Church is afraid. It is afraid that Americans, even Catholic Americans, don't actually give much credence to the moralizing passed down and across the globe from Rome.

Last month, Pope Benedict XVI met with several members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to specifically advise them about how to best handle what the the pope described as a "grave threat" to "religious freedom." The threat, according to the pope, is the U.S. government's attempt to "deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices."

If you're thinking now of some of the most notorious "intrinsically evil practices" of our government to which Catholics might object—like war or capital punishment—you'd be wrong. The pope and the bishops are concerned about the Obama administration's new policy to require that health insurers cover contraception without co-pays.

And the pope is especially concerned that if such a policy is implemented, and if Americans continue to not give a damn about what the Church has to say on such "intrinsically evil practices" as contraception—as the vast majority of American Catholics don't—this will "delegitimize the Church's participation in public debate."

That, of course, is the real fear, isn't it? That the Church will lose its influence over policy debates, that it will continue to lose its moral authority to dictate what our laws should be. And that is why the Catholic Church, from the pope to the Conference of Catholic Bishops to the priests in churches across the country, has declared war—to further assert its "legitimacy." And now, despite the continued efforts of the Obama administration to allay the concerns of the bishops about health care for women and their continued and fully protected right to believe whatever they want, the bishops have a new demand, according to Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

"There has been a lot of talk [from the White House] in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular," Picarello said. "We're not going to do anything until this is fixed."
That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this."

"If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate," Picarello said.

So that's the real concern? If Anthony Picarello decides he's done fixing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' legal troubles—a huge and daunting job, no doubt—and trades it in to sell chalupas, he'll be forced against his conscience to allow his employees to purchase contraception through their health insurance without a co-pay. Can you imagine a worse injustice?

How about this one: a systemic and widespread conspiracy, over decades, to cover up the rape and molestation of thousands of children?

Continue reading below the fold.

Mitch McConnell's attack on 'liberal thugs' will be only one bite at CPAC's red-meat conference

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:27:02 UTC

White nationalist Peter Brimelow

The Conservative Political Action Conference has today begun an annual get-together that looks to be even more of a contest in right-wing attacks than usual. American Conservative Union President and long-time lobbyist and Republican heavyweight Al Cardenas got things started with a speech filled with phrases such as demolishing the "subsidized radical left."

In excerpts provided from a prepared speech Mitch McConnell will make, the Senate Minority Leader says that Democratic strategy is to "Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and then polarize it."

“But rarely have we seen those tactics employed with the kind of zeal that we see today. This White House and its lieutenants have made an art form out of the orchestrated attack,” the Kentucky Republican will say, according to excerpts provided to POLITICO.
“They’ve shown they’ll go after anybody or any organization that they think is standing in their way.”

Projection is a chronic ailment of McConnell and his pals.

But he's unlikely to provide the fieriest speech of the conference. In addition to presidential contenders Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, ex-contenders Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann, and possible future contenders Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sen. Rand Paul, Peter Brimelow will appear on a panel titled "The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American Identity." Brimelow is the founder and chief honcho of VDARE.com, a racist, anti-semitic, anti-immigrant white nationalist website. It is named after Virginia Dare, the first child of English parents to be born in North America, 425 years ago in the short-lived Roanoke Colony.

(Continue reading below the fold)

OH-Pres: GOP in early hole in Buckeye State

rss@dailykos.com (kos) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:06:27 UTC

U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown

Just two years after blowing out Democrats in the state, Republicans are looking seriously troubled in the king of Battleground States, Ohio.

Exhibit A:

John Kasich's not getting any more popular. 33% of voters approve of him to 53% who disapprove. Only a little more than half of Republicans think he's doing a good job (58/25), while Democrats (9/80) are almost universal in their disapproval. If voters could do the 2010 election over again they'd vote for Ted Strickland by a 20 point margin, 56-36, numbers that not coincidentally track closely with the Senate Bill 5 repeal result from last fall.

I've long posited that unpopular wingnut governors in Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida would end up being some of the best allies of the Obama reelect effort. At least in Ohio, that much seems true.

Exhibit B:

Sherrod Brown continues to look like a strong favorite for reelection to the Senate from Ohio, leading Republican challenger Josh Mandel 47-36. The race has tightened a little bit though since PPP's last poll, which found Brown leading by a 49-34 spread.

Brown is below 50 percent, so he's not out of the woods. But he's looking surprisingly spry for what was supposed to be one of the biggest GOP opportunities in 2012. Those numbers are particularly heartening since conservative groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's outfit have already spent millions attacking him.

Exhibit C:

Of course, a 4.2-point composite lead isn't exactly a dominant advantage (even if PPP's latest has it 49-42), but it's not far off the 4.6-point margin Obama won in 2008. Kind of makes a mockery of the narrative that Obama and the Dems are losing the Midwest. While Ohio may not be crazy about Obama, they certainly aren't rushing to Mitt Romney's bandwagon. Turns out, Ohio dislikes Romney as much as we do:

The trajectory is decidedly downward, with the latest PPP poll pegging his numbers at 28 percent favorable, 56 percent unfavorable. (By comparison, Obama is at 48-48.)

So to recap, Ohioans hate their governor and wish they'd reelected the Democrat instead, they like their freshman senator enough to give him the big early lead, and they really really really don't like the GOP frontrunner, and give the Democratic president a solid and consistent lead.

Again, Republicans will spend hundreds of millions in attack ads, but none of those will make people like Romney or Kasich or Mandel any better. They can try to drag the Democrats in the muck, but thus far, it hasn't even worked against Sherrod Brown, a freshman senator who is far less defined than the president of the United States of America.

These are not good numbers for Republicans in what is a must-win state for them.

Gallup: President Obama's economic rating continues to improve

rss@dailykos.com (DemFromCT) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:38:03 UTC

For those waiting for better economic news to be reflected in the polls, the numbers are now showing up. At this early stage, polls aren't predictive, they're snapshots. Still, Gallup's latest snapshot is good news for the White House:

After falling perilously low last summer, President Obama's approval rating on the economy has climbed to 38%, similar to the economy ratings he received from 2010 through the first half of 2011. That less-than-stellar rating is significantly lower than his 47% overall job approval rating in the latest Gallup Daily tracking figures -- indicating Americans are factoring more than the economy into account when reviewing the president's job performance. Obama's relatively strong ratings on national defense and foreign affairs could be playing a role. Further, if Americans' economic mood continues to improve, as is indicated in Gallup's latest Economic Confidence Index figures, Obama's economy rating will almost certainly continue to rise accordingly.

When you look at where the improvement is, it's in the economic numbers. And when you look at it for the point of view of independents (Republicans don't matter, indies do):

Gee, no social issues on that list? Don't worry. Republicans will try and add some, since they literally have nothing else to offer. And for anyone who thinks that it's a coincidence that social issues are their outrage du jour, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops offer a compromise on birth control

rss@dailykos.com (Barbara Morrill) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:14:30 UTC

Compromise: Do it our way or burn in hell

Since last month's announcement by the White House that the Affordable Care Act will require employee health insurance to cover contraception without co-pays, we've watched as the outrage of celibate men and the Republican Party melded into a perfect storm of religious fervor and political pandering.

But finally, a way out of the apparently controversial concept of providing American women with basic health care has been found. From the general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a compromise has been offered:

"There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular," Picarello said. "We're not going to do anything until this is fixed."
That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this."

Problem solved! Restrict access to a basic health service for all women.

Of course this never would have been an issue if prepubescent boys could get pregnant.

Send an email to the White House and tell President Obama to stand firm on requiring all health insurers to cover contraception without co-pays.

Heart & Mind-O-Matic

rss@dailykos.com (Mark Fiore) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:50:03 UTC

Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: Patrick Murphy pursues Allen West up the Florida coast

rss@dailykos.com (David Nir) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:00:05 UTC

Want the scoop on hot races around the country? Get the digest emailed to you each weekday morning. Sign up here.

Leading Off:

• FL-18, FL-22: Democrat Patrick Murphy is refusing to let GOP freshman Allen West out of his grasp. A week ago, West declared he'd flee the proposed new 22nd Congressional District for the friendlier confines of the 18th. Now Murphy—who'd been running against the Tea Party favorite West for a year—has decided that he'll chase West one seat up the Florida coastline in order to continue the fight. That should set up a colossal one-on-one battle between West and Murphy in the 18th, seeing as there's been almost no mention of other possible Democratic candidates (outside of some speculation on this very site). Murphy is a first-time candidate but has raised a boatload so far ($1.4 mil), though West of course is a prodigious fundraiser himself.

In any event, I think Murphy's move is great for Democrats, because he's probably the strongest candidate we have to take on West, and it helps avoid an expensive primary fight with fellow Dem Lois Frankel in the 22nd, who is well-situated to take down Republican Adam Hasner. (Frankel still has to contend with newcomer Kristin Jacobs for the Democratic nomination, but I'd be surprised if she could match Frankel's own impressive fundraising, especially given her late entry.)

First-time claims for unemployment benefits fall again

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:04:43 UTC

The Department of Labor reported this morning that seasonally adjusted first-time claims for unemployment insurance benefits fell to 358,000 for the week ending Feb. 4. That was a drop of 15,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 373,000, and the second-lowest level since April 2008. The 4-week moving average that flattens volatility in the weekly numbers was 366,250, a drop of 11,000 from the previous week's revised average of 377,250.

When regular and emergency extended benefits are all taken into account, the total number of people claiming benefits for the week ending Jan. 21 was 7,663,205, an increase of 7,982 from the previous week.

Extended benefits are available in Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin during the week ending Jan. 21.

How much longer they may be available is up to Congress. Republicans are determined to reduce the number of weeks of benefits available from the current 99 weeks in the states hardest hit by unemploymemt to 59 weeks as part of a deal extending the payroll tax cut through the end of 2012. And, as Joan McCarter reported Wednesday, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) is apparently ready to consider some kind of reduction in how long benefits can be collected. If that happens, hundreds of thousands of Americans still receiving benefits could be cut off March 1 and others would soon lose their benefits as well.

Today in Congress: STOCK Act in the House, then lunch on the plane home

rss@dailykos.com (David Waldman) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:00:04 UTC

Woooo! T.G.I.T.! L8Rz!

Recapping yesterday's action:

This is getting depressing, though I suppose we should count our blessings that the output volume is so low. The House yesterday passed the "Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act," then debated but did not vote on another Democratic motion to instruct conferees on the payroll tax cut extension.

That's it.

The Senate was not in session. Senate Dems used the down time (things were being held up while the clock ran on the ripening of a cloture motion) for an off-site issues conference and retreat.

Looking ahead to today:

No improvement on tap for today. The House is in and out today, with the session convening at 9:00 a.m., and expected to be over a little more than an hour later. What little work is slated involves consideration of the STOCK Act, recently passed by the Senate. Only House Republicans intend to pass a different version of the bill rather than the one that came over from the Senate. That by itself isn't all that unusual. But they're going to consider their version of it under suspension of the rules, which will limit debate to 40 minutes, require a 2/3 vote to pass, and prevent any amendments from being offered.

Normally, you can't bring suspension bills to the floor after Wednesday, but the rule governing debate of yesterday's line item veto bill actually included a provision waiving the usual prohibition, and clearing the way for this suspension on a Thursday. So Republicans are really going out of their way to get the STOCK Act to the floor under this particular procedure.

This sets up something of a dilemma for Democrats, who may be angered by the changes in the bill—including one stripping the requirement that "political intelligence consultants" (like, say, Newt Gingrich) register as lobbyists—to vote against it. Under normal circumstances, that wouldn't make much of a difference and the bill would pass without their support, so long as Republicans supported it. But under suspension of the rules, bills require 2/3 to pass, and widespread rejection by Democrats would kill it (or at least force it to come back under regular order later on). And wouldn't that make a great headline if you were, say, a Mitt Romney supporter? Or were shortly anticipating being forced to become one? "Democrats reject anti-insider trading STOCK Act?"

The Senate returns to "action" today, with a 2:00 vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the surface transportation bill.

HOT DAMN, HUH?!

Today's floor and committee schedules appear below the fold.

Cheers and Jeers: Thursday

rss@dailykos.com (Bill in Portland Maine) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:44:02 UTC

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE…

Oh! More Things I Know:

As of today, the Netroots Nation convention in Providence is only 17 weeks away.
Democrats come up with really good policies but they're really bad at selling them. Republicans come up with really bad policies but they're really good at selling them.

The winner of South Carolina's GOP primary always wins the GOP nomination. The way in which Romney and Santorum are forced to leave the race will leave you slack-jawed.

If a celebrity is ever photographed without makeup, a tabloid will run it on the front page with a headline saying that person is dying.

I will gladly pander to you today for the chance to screw you over tomorrow.

Bashar Assad is an ASSHOLE.

The next Republican debate isn’t until the 22nd, but the CPAC convention starts today so we'll still have a rich source of dusk-to-dawn hilarity to tide us over.

Mitt Romney is speaking at a campaign event here in Maine tomorrow. Location: Portland Yacht Services. No word yet on whether he'll drive up in a Rolls or a Bentley.

I support the traditional definition of marriage. Now get over here, woman. You're my property now.

The lower you are on the financial ladder, the more likely you are to be punished for something related to your finances.

I trust you only as far as I can shoot you from this marshmallow cannon I just bought on eBay.

Cheers and Jeers starts below the fold... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: State of the nation

rss@dailykos.com (DemFromCT) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:28:53 UTC

Visual source: Newseum

Dan Balz:

In the aftermath of Rick Santorum’s clean sweep of Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, Mitt Romney is still, in fact, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. But the lack of enthusiasm for his candidacy among conservatives foreshadows a potentially ugly road ahead to Tampa and general election problems if he is nominee.

Colorado was the shocker. But given a choice between social issues and the economy, the GOP base went with social issues. It's a killer for the fall, but they don't care.

Jonathan Capehart:

Mitt Romney can’t translate his carefully manufactured aura of inevitability into reality because no one believes he is who he says he is. We all know this. But after his triple loss last night, I’m convinced that Romney’s problems with the Republican primary electorate and voters in general go deeper. They sense a lack of character in someone for a job that requires bedrock principles and core beliefs. And as far as I can tell, Romney has none.

EJ Dionne:

What Romney has failed to do is give voters strong reasons to be for him. He’s missing what Richard Nixon (yes, that Nixon) called “the lift of a driving dream.” And signs of economic improvement are making Romney’s critiques of the Obama economy more problematic by the week. In the meantime, Santorum keeps getting more appealing simply by staying out of the Romney-Gingrich slugfest.
As for Eastwood, his Super Bowl ad for Chrysler led many conservatives to reveal themselves as whiny complainers incapable of celebrating the achievements of American enterprise and public policy.

Indeed so.

Think Progress:

Catholic leaders and the GOP presidential candidates have intentionally distorted the Obama administration’s new rule requiring employers and insurers to provide reproductive health benefits at no additional cost sharing. Conservatives are seeking a way to politically unite Republican voters around a social issue and portray the regulation as a big government intrusion into religious liberties. In reality, the mandate is modeled on existing rules in six states, exempts houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of faith, and offers employers a transitional period of one year to determine how best to comply with the rule.
It’s also nothing new. Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception and since 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control, many Catholic institutions offer the benefit to their employees.

Glenn Thrush/Politico:

One woman, a veteran Democratic operative, pointed to the resounding 71%-to-29% defeat of a 2012 referendum in Colorado that would have conferred “personhood” status on fetuses, making abortions of any kind comparable to murder. That was an extreme measure, she argues, but so is limiting access to birth control because you work at a diocese-run nursing home -- and 97 to 99 percent of Catholic women already use contraception.
The consultant, who worked on that effort, said internal polling conducted by the campaign in that critical swing state showed 70 percent approval of birth control among women: “It's a political winner for Obama with women voters who will decide the election,” she said.

“Own it,” said one female Obama surrogate.

WaPo:

All of that is good news for Santorum, a Catholic known for his strident opposition to abortion and homosexuality. His focus on courting religious conservative leaders in Colorado and the large rural evangelical populations in Minnesota and Missouri clearly paid off on Tuesday.
While Santorum is downplaying the role the contraception dispute played in his three-state victory, he attacked President Obama’s mandate repeatedly in the days leading up to the contests. And he didn’t just go after Obama. He also hit at Mitt Romney, who supported the distribution of emergency contraception to rape victims when he was governor of Massachusetts.

Just because the culture wars are back doesn't mean the GOP wins. It may be bad for Romney, but it's also bad for Republicans. Homophobia and misogyny are losing issues. But don't worry. I am confident they are far too dumb to get it.

LA Times:

But polls indicate that voters, even Catholic ones, agree that contraceptives should be offered by health plans, even those of faith-based employers. That gives Democrats hope they can benefit from the high-stakes battle.
"This makes Republicans look more extreme," said Eddie Vale, a spokesman for Protect Your Care, a health advocacy organization that has been leading attacks on GOP candidates opposed to the new healthcare law. "It's another concrete benefit they want to take away."

Gallup:

A record-low 10% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, down from 13% in January and the previous low of 11%, recorded in December 2011. Eighty-six percent disapprove of Congress, tying the record high for disapproval set in December.

Keep in mind that when John Boehner is speaking on any issue, the public hates this Congress.

Joy-Ann Reid/Miami Herald:

Karen Handel, the failed pol and onetime “Mama Grizzly” who turned the Susan G. Komen Foundation into just another scarred combatant in the culture wars, has resigned. Now, Komen for the Cure can go back to doing what it does best: putting on pink-clad, heavily corporate sponsored foot races in major cities to raise awareness — and lots of money — for the fight against breast cancer. Except that they can’t go back.
There are some things you just can’t take back...

Meanwhile, the controversy has forced women who would be otherwise sympathetic to Komen’s cause — women like myself who have lost loved ones to breast cancer — to take a deeper look at the organization. Turns out, they’re no stranger to controversy — over partnerships that have “pink-washed” everything from Smith & Wesson pistols to Kentucky Fried Chicken, and over their less media-covered decision to pull the plug on millions of dollars in funding for embryonic stem-cell research, which also delighted the religious right, but which isn’t exactly helpful if your goal is to find a cure for breast cancer.

Gail Collins:

When I was first married, my mother-in-law sat down at her kitchen table and told me about the day she went to confession and told the priest that she and her husband were using birth control. She had several young children, times were difficult — really, she could have produced a list of reasons longer than your arm.
“You’re no better than a whore on the street,” said the priest.

This was, as I said, a long time ago. It’s just an explanation of why the bishops are not the only Roman Catholics who are touchy about the issue of contraception.

Open thread for night owls: America's core strength? Moralizing about sex.

rss@dailykos.com (Hunter) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:30:03 UTC

If there is one thing America is still very, very good at, it is moralizing about sex. Long after the manufacturing jobs have all left America, and after we have drilled out the last drop of oil, and after we've abandoned Arizona to either climate change or some new mutant form of racist old people, we'll still have at least two major industries. The first is the fast food industry, which will never die. The second is the omnipresent industry of deciding who should have sex, when they are allowed to have it, and how much they should be punished for it.

So this was a good week in America. We were able to have lots and lots of conversations about Our Great Defining Issue, the only one that really seems to motivate us anymore. No jobs? Yeah, Congress might get around to that someday. Economy sucks? Meh. Hey, I think we're still at war, right? I think? Hmm, hard to tell. But start talking about penises and vaginas, and everyone in political discourse immediately wants in on that. That's right in our wheelhouse. We're good at moralizing about other people having sex.

9th Circuit Appeals Court panel rules banning gay marriage is unconstitutional: This is a great one. The premise here is whether or not allowing two men or two women to get married somehow poses a "threat" to all the other marriages in the country. The nature of the threat is not well understood, even by the people warning about it, but the major threat seems to be that it suggests that sort of thing might be an option, for heterosexuals, and then all hell will break loose. The number of conservatives out there who would apparently turn gay in a heartbeat, if it were to become an option, is apparently immense (judging from recent scandals, prominent conservatives can only barely contain their rampant gayness now).

Supposedly giving the same legal rights and recognitions to gay couples as to straight ones "delegitimizes" heterosexual marriage; this turns conservative heterosexuals into the true victims, because they have to think about other people having naughty, deviant sex and that makes them sad. Like every other issue of discrimination, we are urged to discriminate because not doing so will hurt the feelings and moral convictions of the people who really, really want to discriminate. And what those people want to discriminate against most, right now, is other people having unauthorized sexytimes.

Congress works on another anti-abortion restriction: Another pillar of American legislative prowess, with the capper of being named after Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass, two great minds that were greatly despised by bigots back in the day, this bill reflects Congress' laser-like focus on making sure people who have unapproved interracial sexytimes are punished to whatever extent we can manage. It makes aborting a fetus based on its race a crime, which is right there something most of us cannot quite fathom happening to begin with. How often is the race of a baby a surprise, exactly? And if it is, does that perhaps suggest we need better sex education, in this country?

The bill also disallows abortion based on the sex of the fetus, which is I think primarily needed because that is what the Communists in China do. So this manages the enviable congressional feat of being racially-premised, and morality-premised, and communist-peril premised, and having an ironic name that would make both Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass cry.

Nobody expects the Catholic inquisition: A fine one, this. The Catholic Church has very, very stringent guidelines against unapproved sexytimes that hardly anyone of the faith actually follows through on, but which are nonetheless considered such pillars of the faith that feeding the poor, healing the sick, and covering up rampant child rape all must take a back seat. First the Catholic Church was upset that the government would not continue to give them free money for their adoption centers that barred adoption by gay men or women. Now they are offended that, when they are acting as employer and not as church, they are expected to abide by the same rules as every other American employer when it comes to health benefits. Health benefits that might, shudder, pay for contraception, which to the Catholic Church is the same thing as paying your employees to be sluts.

Mind you, there is nothing my old church seems to hold so dear as its mandate to govern when, where and how all other people on the planet may have sex. Suggesting they follow the same rules as other employers is something the bishops consider a deep injury to them, because as bishops, they demand control over all aspects of human sexuality. Not Catholic? Who cares. Don't agree with them? Who cares. Everybody else in the country has to follow the same rules? Oh, you'd better believe they don't care.

That brings us to our final story, or at least, our final story for now:

A breast cancer charity cuts off breast cancer screening money because the screeners also provide contraceptives and abortions.

What more can we say about it? The American privilege of deciding who ought to have sex, and whether they should have sex without baby-making, became more important to a breast cancer charity than actual breast cancer was. It was a political effort. It was part of a long-running feud as to whether Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides medical care for even poor women (tsk), should even be allowed to exist. It's not targeted at abortion—if it was, the myriad other, far more common functions of Planned Parenthood would be noncontroversial, and supported—but at the entire premise of women's sexuality. The notion of women having sex without consequences is just as frightening to some as the premise of gay sexuality. It's just not to be done. It is a moral failing, and nothing quite gets a certain segment of the American public so riled up as when furiously denouncing other people's moral failings.

I wonder what would happen if we Americans focused on the economy half as much as we focused on other people's sex-having. If we mustered, somehow, the same sort of passion for a space program or high speed rail, or climate change, or what the hell, world peace—if we mustered passion for those things like we mustered it when pondering whether or not women should be allowed to have sex while taking contraceptives. Pretend for a moment that we had the same amount of legislative obsession with creating new jobs in industry that we do for regulating reproductive health. Imagine every person obsessing over what two men might be doing in a bedroom somewhere instead dedicated themselves towards earnestly not giving a damn, and instead, I don't know, just went and read a book or something.

Sadly, it will probably never happen, but it would be nice to see. The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Want You to Get Over Yourself Act of 2012 has a real nice ring to it.

Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2008:

Cheney spoke yesterday at CPAC, the conference for people for whom reality is just an illusion foisted upon them by a cold and liberal universe. (The universe, you see, is full of dark matter called Librons, which in addition to keeping the universe from flying apart like Ann Coulter in front of a television camera, have the unfortunate side effect of inverting perceptions of reality for all but the most trained Randian observers. Oh, and Scientologists.) I'm supposed to say, at this point, something like "you can't make this up", but of course you can make this stuff up. It's easy to make it up. That's the whole point.
Some highlights...

As conservatives, we believe in a government that takes up a smaller share of the national income, that treats tax dollars with respect and restraint. And we believe in a government that keeps to its limits under the Constitution, never expanding beyond the consent of the governed.

And then, he farted candy and rainbows. And all the little woodland creatures came out from under the floorboards to help sew him a magnificent new dress for the ball.

Tweet of the Day:

High Impact Posts are here. Top Comments are here.

Daily Kos Polling Wrap: Rick Santor-mentum begins in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

rss@dailykos.com (Steve Singiser) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:00:03 UTC

Guess that Nevada bounce for Mittens came crashing down to Earth, didn't it?!

It obviously won't be showing up in the data as of yet, but last night's clean sweep for former Senator Rick Santorum has the definite potential to make the Republican primary a great deal more interesting. After all, only Maine's caucuses lie between now and February 28th, when Arizona and Michigan head to the polls.

For now, we get some data, that looks pretty decent for Mitt Romney, all in all. Use this as "Point A", and let's look to see where these numbers are in about a week or so:

NATIONAL (Gallup Tracking): Romney 37, Gingrich 21, Santorum 17, Paul 12
NATIONAL (Ipsos/Reuters): Romney 29, Paul 21, Gingrich 19, Santorum 18

NATIONAL (Rasmussen): Romney 34, Gingrich 27, Santorum 18, Paul 11

NATIONAL (YouGov): Romney 32, Gingrich 23, Paul 16, Santorum 16

NORTH CAROLINA (PPP): Gingrich 30, Romney 30, Santorum 20, Paul 11

OKLAHOMA (American Research Group): Gingrich 34, Romney 31, Santorum 16, Paul 10

VIRGINIA (Quinnipiac): Romney 68, Paul 19 (Gingrich and Santorum not on ballot)

On the general election front, Barack Obama continues to show some legitimate improvement, in both national and state polling (though the House of Ras goes back on an island by claiming Newt is more electable than Romney).

One slight caveat: the Pennsylvania poll is a little dusty (conducted two weeks ago--I just happened to come across it today).

NATIONAL (Ipsos): Obama d. Romney (48-42); Obama d. Gingrich (50-38)
NATIONAL (Rasmussen): Obama d. Romney (47-43); Obama d. Gingrich (46-43)

NATIONAL (YouGov): Obama d. Romney (51-39); Obama d. Paul (51-39); Obama d. Santorum (52-37); Obama d. Gingrich (54-36)

CONNECTICUT (Yankee Institute--R): Obama d. Romney (50-37); Obama d. Gingrich (56-35)

PENNSYLVANIA (Franklin & Marshall): Obama d. Romney (41-30); Obama d. Santorum (43-30)

VIRGINIA (Quinnipiac): Obama d. Romney (47-43); Obama d. Paul (47-40); Obama d. Santorum (49-41); Obama d. Gingrich (51-37)

A few thoughts about what lies ahead, right after the jump.

Reporters' findings prove the need for more transparency on who benefits from congressional earmarks

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:41:12 UTC

Consequent to complaints and pressure from the tea party wing of the Republican Party and watchdog groups, Congress last year passed a two-year ban on new budgetary earmarks. The Senate extended its ban for another year last week. But the impact of earmarks remain with us still. Some, notably Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), argue the self-imposed bans are being circumvented and the practice has merely been into the shadows.

These sprinkles of money targeting a specific project in the home state or district are dropped into appropriations bills by a senator or representative. They are a form of "bringing home the bacon" about which at one time it could be said "everybody does it." That's changed somewhat because of projects like the Gravina Island "bridge to nowhere." As a consequence of the flak the project received when it and many others were exposed as boondoggles, earmarks first got a full platter of public attention. But it didn't generate the ban until, in 2010, there were a record number, 11,320, according to the Washington Post, totaling $32 billion.

And, despite reporting requirements in the House and Senate, some of those earmarks seem not only to benefit home districts but also the real estate and businesses of the elected politicians who have inserted them. That, at least, is what reporters David S. Fallis, Scott Higham and Kimberly Kindy discovered when they went poking around in various public records seeking to tie earmarked projects to the financial or other personal benefits those projects might have for those who got their funding into the appropriations bills. The reporters found $300 million in such earmarks by 33 senators and representatives, both Democrats and Republicans. You can see if someone you voted for or against is on the list here. Most certainly, those aren't all the earmarks there are:

In recent weeks, lawmakers have acknowledged the public’s growing concern that they appeared to be using their positions to enrich themselves. In response, the Senate last week passed legislation that would require lawmakers to disclose mortgages for their residences. The bill, known as the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (Stock) Act, would also require lawmakers and executive branch officials to disclose securities trades of more than $1,000 every 30 days. At the same time, the Senate defeated an amendment, 59-40, that would have permanently outlawed earmarks. [...]
Earmarks are a fraction of the federal budget, and the numbers uncovered by The Post are relatively small in the scheme of the overall Congress, but the behavior by lawmakers from both parties points to a larger issue at a time when confidence in Capitol Hill is at an all-time low. [...]

Mere proximity to a lawmaker’s property does not establish that an earmark was unwarranted. In some cases, the public benefit of the spending was large, improving life for thousands. In others, the benefit appeared narrower. In some cases, the work was within a mile or two of the properties; in others, it was directly in front of the lawmaker’s land.

The earmarked projects found by the reporting team included everything from the addition of a bike lane to a new bridge near the earmarking representative's home to the replenishing of beach sand near to, but not on, the island property of the earmarking representative. One project revitalized a large commercial area that included a congressman's own building. Another widened a road next to property a congressman's family was developing. Disclosure rules did not require any of them, two Democrats and two Republicans, to reveal the connection of their earmarks to property they owned.

Explanations offered in interviews for these confluences of personal benefit with public money ranged from highly reasonable to ones in the uh-huh-oh-sure category.

Some percentage of earmarks have always been a form of, no other word will suffice, graft. Just as some percentage of politicians in high places have always been grifters. How big a percentage of each there is—10 percent? Twenty?—is anyone's guess because, to some extent, corruption is in the eye of the beholder. One person's graft is another's essential benefit for the common good. Is a new bridge that improves traffic flow for thousands but happens to make it easier for a congressperson to get from his nearby house to a dog park unethical pork?

Earmarks aren't evil in and of themselves. Many badly needed local projects can't be built with local dollars and earmarks are what makes them happen. They also get boondoggles built. What to do? Can earmarks really be prohibited without some clever method of subterfuge being found to get past the ban? Should all of them be banned? Are enough of them so bad that all of them should be banned, the good ones too?

Whether earmarks are or aren't permanently banned, one thing is clearly needed: stricter disclosure of the kinds of intersections of personal benefit and public money revealed by the Post's reporters. There is no way to control what senators and representatives are doing if we can't see what they're doing.

Red state of Georgia has declared war on religion

rss@dailykos.com (Craig Hardegree) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:03:40 UTC

For ten years now, the state of Georgia has been under the exclusive control of Republicans. Republican governor, Republican-controlled house of representatives and a Republican-controlled senate. All statewide offices are filled by Republicans, including the Office of Secretary of State, currently held by Brian Kemp who allowed the recent birther hearing to go forward, previously held by Karen Handel of recent Komen Foundation/Planned Parenthood fame. And to our eternal shame, we birthed Newt Gingrich upon the rest of the country. Our conservative bona fides are unassailable.

Yet, we (quite inconveniently for the current narrative) have this law on the books:

Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 33-24-59.6

Legislative Declaration Regarding Contraception; Coverage for Contraceptives.

(a) The General Assembly finds and declares that:

(1) Maternal and infant health are greatly improved when women have access to contraceptive supplies to prevent unintended pregnancies;

(2) Because many Americans hope to complete their families with two or three children, many women spend the majority of their reproductive lives trying to prevent pregnancy;

(3) Research has shown that 49 percent of all large group insurance plans do not routinely provide coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices. While virtually all health care plans cover prescription drugs generally, the absence of prescription contraceptive coverage is largely responsible for the fact that women spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket expenses for health care than men; and

(4) Requiring insurance coverage for prescription drugs and devices for contraception is in the public interest in improving the health of mothers, children, and families and in providing for health insurance coverage which is fairer and more equitable.

(b) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) "Health benefit policy" means any individual or group plan, policy, or contract for health care services issued, delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed in this state, including those contracts executed by the State of Georgia on behalf of state employees under Article 1 of Chapter 18 of Title 45, by a health care corporation, health maintenance organization, preferred provider organization, accident and sickness insurer, fraternal benefit society, hospital service corporation, medical service corporation, provider sponsored health care corporation, or other insurer or similar entity.

(2) "Insurer" means an accident and sickness insurer, fraternal benefit society, hospital service corporation, medical service corporation, health care corporation, health maintenance organization, or any similar entity authorized to issue contracts under this title.

(c) EVERY HEALTH BENEFIT POLICY THAT IS DELIVERED, ISSUED, EXECUTED, OR RENEWED IN THIS STATE or approved for issuance or renewal in this state by the Commissioner on or after July 1, 1999, WHICH PROVIDES COVERAGE FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ON AN OUTPATIENT BASIS SHALL PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR ANY PRESCRIBED DRUG OR DEVICE APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION FOR USE AS A CONTRACEPTIVE. This Code section shall not apply to limited benefit policies described in paragraph (4) of subsection (e) of Code Section 33-30-12. Likewise, nothing contained in this Code section shall be construed to require any insurance company to provide coverage for abortion.

(d) No insurer shall impose upon any person receiving prescription contraceptive benefits pursuant to this Code section any:

(1) Copayment, coinsurance payment, or fee that is not equally imposed upon all individuals in the same benefit category, class, coinsurance level or copayment level, receiving benefits for prescription drugs; or

(2) Reduction in allowable reimbursement for prescription drug benefits.

(e) This Code section shall not be construed to:

(1) Require coverage for prescription coverage benefits in any contract, policy, or plan that does not otherwise provide coverage for prescription drugs; or

(2) Preclude the use of closed formularies; provided, however, that such formularies shall include oral, implant, and injectable contraceptive drugs, intrauterine devices, and prescription barrier methods.

Well now, isn’t that just so very special?

Continue reading below the fold.

Donald Trump is an idiot (but you already knew that)

rss@dailykos.com (kos) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:47:28 UTC

Donald Trump, dumbass (Steve Marcus/Reuters)

Donald Trump:

Said [Donald] Trump: "Rick Santorum was a sitting senator who in re-election lost by 19 points, to my knowledge the most in the history of this country for a sitting senator to lose by 19 points. It's unheard of. Then he goes out and says oh 'okay' I just lost by the biggest margin in history and now I'm going to run for president. Tell me, how does that work? ... So, I don't get Rick Santorum. I don't get that whole thing."

First of all, Santorum didn't lose by 19. He lost by 17.4 percent.

Second of all, what Trump called "knowledge" is apparently whatever he pulls out of his ass. Reality:

Incumbent Senators Defeated by Largest Margins in a General Election:
1914-2008
1980 Jacob Javits    33.8
1932 Wesley Jones    27.9
1968 Ernest Gruening    27.7
1964 James Glenn Beall    25.6
1938 F. Ryan Duffy    23.0
1978 William Hathaway    22.7
1928 Thomas Bayard    21.9
1958 Frederick Payne    21.6
1934 Simeon Fess    20.6
1942 George Norris    20.4
1948 Joseph Ball    20.2
1946 David Walsh    19.9
1934 Roscoe Patterson    19.8
1946 Joseph Guffey    19.5
1930 James Thomas Heflin    19.4
1980 George McGovern    18.8
1958 John Hoblitzell    18.6
1922 Gilbert Hitchcock    18.6
1978 Floyd Haskell    18.4
1976 Vance Hartke    18.3
1976 John Glenn Beall    17.7
1974 Peter Dominck    17.7
1956 Herman Walker    17.5
2006 Rick Santorum 17.4

And that list was pre-2010, when Blanche Lincoln got trounced by 21 points. So 24 senators had bigger losing margins than Santorum. So with this fact check I rate Donald Trump an absolute moron.

Now Trump is right that Santorum is a big loser. But at least he had the balls to run for reelection, something that Romney refused to do after his first term as Massachusetts governor.

Rick Santorum's campaign sent Hanukkah greetings with New Testament message

rss@dailykos.com (Hunter) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:00:03 UTC

Just as reminder of the brain trust that passes for the Rick "Christian Sharia" Santorum campaign: Santorum's South Carolina team sent out this Hanukkah card last, well, Hanukkah. Notice anything?

(Hunter Walker)

Yep. They sent a card to their nice Jewish friends with a New Testament verse promising salvation in Jesus. Because they're just that inclusive.

Iowa's Chuck Grassley joins Democrats irked over House GOP version of STOCK Act

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:46:24 UTC

Rep. Louise Slaughter

Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Tim Walz (D-MN) are mightily irked at House Republicans who "snatched" their insider-information ethics legislation and recrafted it in secret without their input, the two say. At issue is the House version of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which passed the Senate on a 96-3 vote last Thursday. Given the opportunity to raise the matter during debate on another matter Wednesday, other Democrats, including Jared Polis of Colorado, protested the GOP move.

"Now it's being rewritten behind closed doors, and without the input of Mr. Walz or Ms. Slaughter," Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said. "We don't know what this so-called STOCK Act will contain."

Rewritten behind closed doors with some lobbyists' nudging, cajoling and wink-wink-nod-nodding.

Among other things, the Senate bill explicitly states that members of Congress are not exempt from rules barring the trading of stocks and other securities based on information they receive confidentially as a result of their position as lawmakers. If the bill is enacted, they would have to disclose their purchases or sales of stocks, bonds, commodities futures and other securities within 30 days of all transactions.

The bill also includes an amendment introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that would require firms dealing in "political intelligence" to register as lobbyists. These firms collect information from their congressional contacts and sell it to investors who use it as a guide for where to put their and their clients' money.

It was the jettisoning of that provision in the House bill that had Slaughter and Walz shaking their heads in disgust and dismay Tuesday:

"When writing their own version of the STOCK Act, Majority Leader Cantor and House Republican leadership did not consult with the bipartisan coalition that has championed this bill," she said. "And over the week neither I nor Mr. Walz were asked to contribute to the final product, nor was our leader consulted in any way.
"Despite championing the bill for six years, I was left completely out."

Slaughter has been working on such a bill since 2006 and has gathered nearly 300 co-sponsors, 100 of them Republicans. Many of those co-sponsors clambered aboard in the wake of public outrage over a 60 Minutes investigation cataloguing how sitting and former members of Congress had used confidential information to make investments.

Cantor claimed the House Republicans were strengthening the bill. Said Slaughter Tuesday, "I think strengthening here is a euphemism for weakening."

Sen. Grassley also had a negative reaction:

“It’s astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street’s wishes by killing this provision. The Senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that’s behind the scenes. If the Senate language is too broad, as opponents say, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision altogether? [...] If Congress delays action, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows, just the way Wall Street likes it.”

A vote could take place on the House bill as soon as Thursday.

Ever since the days when railroad company grifters passed out hundred-dollar bills directly to Congressmen, efforts to curtail the influence of lobbyists and their backers have been at least partially circumvented by one clever ruse, then another. The players adapt. It always takes a long time, plus media attention to a scandal or two, before Congress takes fresh action. That's so for the obvious reason that some members who see that they can benefit from the attentions of these firms will choose to do so and block efforts to make this choice more difficult or outlaw it altogether. If the past is any guide, they'll still be at it after the STOCK Act, however amended, is implemented. It will alter but in no way bring a permanent end to such matters.

Mitt Romney attacks Rick Santorum on earmarks? Lame.

rss@dailykos.com (Hunter) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:00:05 UTC

"Hi, I'm Rick. I'll be your nemesis for the evening."

Those of us who appreciate a good dose of hilarity in politics should be in for a real treat, in the coming weeks, as the Romney team tries to ponder through how exactly they're going to attack Rick Santorum. I am quite sure that up until last Tuesday, the Romney camp did not spend a single minute of their lives thinking about Rick Santorum, but now he's the next candidate for Not-Mitt, and that means Mitt has to bring around another few dump trucks of money dedicated towards knocking the wind out of this latest Not-Mitt's sails.

What are they going with? Earmarks, apparently. It looks like the Romney campaign has decided that conservatives will be really, really turned off by all those naughty earmarks Rick Santorum got for his state when he was in the House. From the Romney press release:

"While Newt Gingrich may have opened the door to the abuse of earmark spending, Rick Santorum walked right through it. He renounced his belief that deficits are bad and voted to raise the debt ceiling by trillions – all while supporting billions in pork-barrel spending in Pennsylvania and across the country. That is not a record that fiscal conservatives will embrace once they know the facts.”

Yeah, um ... good luck with that. I really don't see the tea party or anyone else getting so worked up about earmarks that they haul off and decide to vote Mitt Romney. There are real issues among Republicans and there are fake ones, and "earmarks" is about as fake an issue as you could come up with. Everybody condemns them; nobody really cares.

The problem for Romney is that he's boxed in pretty well here. The obvious way to attack Rick Santorum is to point out that he is, in fact, batshit crazy, and an unapologetic right-wing theocrat, and about as electable as botulism. But those are the exact points that are causing some large percentage of the Republican base to vote for him right now. They want a theocrat. They want someone who will ignore the Constitution and just do what they think Jesus probably would want, as interpreted by some batshit crazy right-wing religious zealot. That's the appeal!

Mitt can't attack Santorum's radical stances, then, because it wouldn't work, and because Mitt has trouble enough already convincing the base that he is a "true" conservative. Mitt can't really attack on religious grounds at all, in fact. So what's left? Earmarks? Pfft.

Watching Romney try and out-rightwing Rick Sharia Santorum will be interesting, but I'm genuinely intrigued by the question of how Romney can effectively attack Santorum the way he has done to every other Not-Mitt. The Gingrich attacks wrote themselves. Bachmann, Cain and the others did themselves in with little help. But the Romney campaign (oh, and SuperPAC, which we all know is totally not coordinated with anybody) has only two modes, the first being to keep their heads down and wait for other candidates to self-destruct around them, and the second being to carpet bomb those other candidates with negative advertising. They suck at convincing people Romney is a true conservative, because he's not. They suck at making Mitt likable, because he just plain isn't. And they can't afford to presume Santorum is just going to self-immolate—not with the craziness of the current Republican base, who like extremism.

That leaves them with only the attack option. Can't wait to see what they make of it.

The GOP's war on religion (or 'two can play that game')

rss@dailykos.com (kos) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:55:40 UTC

Republicans are waging war on the Pope by supporting the death penalty, immigrants, and poor people.

So to hear Republicans speak, President Barack Obama is waging a "war on religion" because of regulations requiring religious-affiliated hospitals to cover contraception for their employees. While the vast majority of denominations are cool with that, the Catholic bishops are throwing a hissy fit. You see, they are opposed to birth control because it encourages sex, and sex is only for procreation.

Now most Catholics laugh at that nonsense, considering that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use birth control. Yet that hasn't stopped the out-of-touch bishops from pressing ahead, and it certainly hasn't stopped opportunistic Republicans from rallying to their defense, because, you see, opposing the bishops on this issue means a war on religion!

Wow. Got it. Problem is, under those standards, Republicans are waging quite the jihad of their own!

Unemployment benefits:

On Monday, Bishop Stephen E. Blaire sent a letter to members of the House of Representatives urging them to focus on the economic security of workers at year's end.
"When the economy fails to generate sufficient jobs, there is a moral obligation to help protect the life and dignity of unemployed workers and their families," Blaire wrote. "Therefore, I strongly urge you and your colleagues to find effective ways to assure continuing Unemployment Insurance and Emergency Unemployment Compensation to protect jobless workers and their families."

Republicans refused, shots fired!

Immigration reform:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) opposes "enforcement only" immigration policies and supports comprehensive immigration reform.

Republicans oppose comprehensive immigration reform and push "enforcement only" policies, shots fired!

Drivers licenses for immigrants:

The Catholic Church has been a staunch opponent of the movement to repeal the law that allows undocumented immigrants to earn New Mexico drivers licenses.
Allen Sanchez, the Executive Director of the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops, echoed his speech from a similar rally in September.

“I have a message,” Sanchez told the crowd. “Governor, Jesus was an immigrant!”

Republicans demagogue on the issue, shots fired!

Iraq War:

The capture of Saddam Hussein may help bring peace to Iraq, but it does not change the fact that "the war was useless, and served no purpose," a top Vatican official said [...]
The cardinal said he hopes Saddam's capture "contributes to peace and the reconstruction of Iraq. But it would be illusory to think that it will repair the damage caused by that great defeat for humanity which war always represents."

Republicans CAUSED this war, shots fired!

Death penalty:

The Catholic bishops in the United States have been calling for an end to the use of the death penalty for more than twenty-five years.

Surely, Republicans will fight to prevent their taxpayer dollars from paying for executions, right? No? Shots fired!

Fact is, on all these issues, as well as poverty relief, the DREAM Act, and many others, Republicans are severely at odds with the Catholic Church. Yet there is no talk about a Republican war on religion. Why? Because that notion is idiotic.

Oh, and because Fox News and a bunch of Republican presidential pretenders aren't opportunistically fanning the flames.

Donald Trump is confused about Rick Santorum

rss@dailykos.com (Barbara Morrill) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:00:04 UTC

Donald Trump is confused about Rick Santorum (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

Considering last night's shellacking of Mitt Romney by Rick Santorum and a Republican base that hates him, Romney really needs come up with some better surrogates:

Said [Donald] Trump: "Rick Santorum was a sitting senator who in re-election lost by 19 points, to my knowledge the most in the history of this country for a sitting senator to lose by 19 points. It's unheard of. Then he goes out and says oh 'okay' I just lost by the biggest margin in history and now I'm going to run for president. Tell me, how does that work? ... So, I don't get Rick Santorum. I don't get that whole thing."

Really? That's the argument The Donald chose to go with? That Santorum lost his last election ... unlike, say, Mitt Romney having his ass handed to him by John McCain in 2008?

Keep trying, fellas ...

Pro-choice Republicans warn against making birth control the next battleground

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:56:33 UTC

John Boehner and Mitch McConnell want to make your family planning decisions. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

House Speaker John Boehner has vowed legislative action if President Obama doesn't reverse his new health care rule requiring insurers and employers to provide no-cost contraceptive coverage. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) has introduced legislation to do that. Senate Republicans were already there.

Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) are leading the effort.
“This is about whether the government of the United States should have the power to go in and tell a faith-based organization that they have to pay for something that they teach their members shouldn’t be doing,” said Rubio.

The American people Rubio refers to is actually the Catholic archdiocese. He didn't know about the policy, he says, until an officiant at his church read the letter from the archdiocese at a service. Aside from the fact that the senator should perhaps be a little more on top of the job he's been elected to do, he should be aware that the American people are actually pretty darned supportive of the new rule, including his fellow Catholics.

And including some Republicans who see potential disaster for the party in picking this fight.

“I think this week’s outrage over the Komen decision should be a warning to the Republican party about how quickly there was a mass outrage over further and further attacks on general women’s health,” Kellie Ferguson, executive director of Republican Majority for choice, told me Wednesday. “You could see the same backlash on attacks on contraception.” [...]
“For the last number of years, we in the pro-choice community in general—and we specifically as Republicans—have been saying as this pandering to a sort of social conservative faction of voters continues, you’re going to see the line pushed further and further and further,” she said. “And we’re now crossing the line from discussion of when we should regulate abortion to when we should now regulate legal doctor-prescribed medications like birth control, which is woven in the fabric of society as an acceptable medication.”

Good luck getting that toothpaste back in the tube. There's no place in the Republican party any more for someone who isn't just pro-choice, but is pro-family planning. Those people have a choice: Leave the party or destroy it from within and rebuild it. The point at which you could reason them away from taking extreme ideological stands on social issues is long, long gone.

But the good news is Republicans are now showing their hand. It isn't just about abortion, it's about contraception and it's about injecting their distorted values in to the most intimate and personal aspects of American family life.

2012 valentines

rss@dailykos.com (BrianMcFadden) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:50:03 UTC

Click to enlarge.

Time for the White House to end the contraception conversation with Catholic leaders

rss@dailykos.com (Kaili Joy Gray) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:08:10 UTC

Actually, the Bible doesn't say anything
about clergy writing health care policy.

Ever since the Obama administration announced that the Affordable Care Act will require health insurers to cover contraception without co-pays, a tiny handful of very angry men have been shrieking that Obama is waging a war on religion, and especially the Catholic Church, and it will be the end of freedom and democracy as we know it.

These very angry men claim to speak on behalf of God. And all God-fearing Americans. The reality, however, is quite different. Today, for example, leaders from 23 different religious organizations released a letter of support for the new policy. Polling has repeatedly shown not only that a majority of Americans support the new policy, but that a majority of Catholics support it as well. So while the church clergy may rail against the use of contraception, their congregants in the pews clearly do not agree.

While the administration has repeatedly stated its commitment to implementing this new policy, it also continues to state its desire to work with Catholic leaders to allay their unfounded fears (see above re: end of democracy and civilization). Today, during a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Jay Carney said:

The commitment to make sure that all American women no matter where they work have access to the same health care coverage and same preventive care services, including contraception, is absolutely firm. That’s the President’s commitment, that's explicit in the policy proposal. The discussion, and it's an important one, but the discussion is how can we, in implementing this policy, try to allay some of the concerns that have been expressed? And the President is very sensitive to that. As is Secretary Sebelius and others. But that's the issue. So, describe that as you will but there is no change in the commitment to ensuring that women have access to these important services.

This is on the heels of Obama adviser David Axelrod's appearance yesterday on MSNBC's Morning Joe, where he said that the administration is still trying "to find a resolution that makes sense" to these Church leaders, that it wants to "resolve it in an appropriate way," and that it wants to "work through these issues in a thoughtful way."

The administration's commitment to this policy is to be applauded. But—and yes, there is a but—it is time for the administration to stop wasting its time trying to "allay concerns" and "find a resolution." This is a popular and sound health care policy, and there is absolutely no reason why church leaders should be writing health care policy. Further, given their ultimate goal of banning all contraception and reproductive health care, there is no reason to think any "resolution" or compromise will allay their unfounded conspiracy theories that the president is waging a war on religion.

Today, for example, Sarah Posner at Religion Dispatches reports that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has already preemptively rejected a possible "compromise" that has been floated. And because their hysterical hyperbole has no basis in reality to begin with, it's no less ridiculous for the administration to invest any time or energy assuring them that this health care policy will not, in fact, destroy the Catholic Church than it was for the administration to spend any time assuring birthers that he was not, in fact, at the center of a decades-long plot by the Kenyan government.

The president has the support of the American public on this policy. He has the support of American Catholics on this policy. He has the support of dozens of other religious organizations in this country.

It is time to stop "discussing" the Catholic leaders' paranoid delusions and focus on real problems facing this country. And reproductive health care for women leading to the end of civilization as we know it is not one of them.

Send an email to the White House and tell President Obama to stand firm on requiring all health insurers to cover contraception without co-pays.

You can't spell Romney without 'money'

rss@dailykos.com (kos) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:02:41 UTC

The established narrative about Mitt Romney is that he's a rich fuck out of touch with Americans and their concerns, and incapable of connecting with another human being unless he's firing them. So how does Romney explain his losses yesterday?

"We were spending our time and money in Florida and Nevada. And Sen. Santorum took a different course — left Florida, left Nevada, went to the other states and he was able to reap the rewards of that approach."

In other words, Romney wasn't able to buy yesterday's contests the way he did Florida or Nevada.

Note, Santorum has no money, period. He's never had any money. Heck, this morning, Santorum was bragging about having raised $250,000 since last night, the equivalent of just 25 Romney bets. Yet somehow he's won four states to Romney's three, and spent $30 million less to do so.

So it's clear that in a battle of ideas and personality, Romney's got nothing. The only thing he has is money.

And even he acknowledges it.

Update: Just came across this, from last night, as soon it was clear that Santorum was going to crush Romney in Minnesota:

With a vast war chest and an organization already in place, the Romney campaign could have made a more forceful push in [Minnesota], an adviser to the campaign said. But that would’ve pulled time and resources away from states like Colorado and Arizona – states that hold more weight in the general election.

So last night they were saying that they did put time and money in Colorado, while today Romney claims that he didn't. Which is it?

Furthermore, that's quite the admission there -- that Minnesota is off the map in November, while Arizona is a battleground.

'Anybody can afford' birth control, says clueless Greg Gutfield of Fox News

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:41:30 UTC

Fox News has been on the move against the Obama administration's health-care rule requiring insurance companies to cover contraception without a co-payment. Greg Gutfield, one of the anchors of The Five, a Fox News show rolled out in July, had this to say:

This makes no sense to me. There are two elements that kinda drive me crazy here: The decision is supposed to help make birth control affordable to millions. How much more affordable can you make it? It's like 50 bucks a month. I mean, do we—should we start up like a "buy the pill" campaign? Like "feed the children" where we make sure we all adopt one woman and pay for her pills? Anybody can afford this.

As Solange Uwimana at Media Matters points out, some people can't afford it.

A 2010 survey by Hart Research Associates that was commissioned by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, found that paying for prescription birth control had been no easy matter for 34 percent of women voters at some point in their lives. And 55 percent of young women age 18-34, the most likely demographic to experience unintended pregnancies, had at some time struggled to find enough money to purchase birth control.

Thus, health insurance that doesn't cover contraception, which is what Fox News and other critics would like for church-affiliated organizations like hospitals to be allowed to provide for their employees, can be expected to increase the number of unintentional pregnancies. Which means more abortions.

When contraception is provided free, the number of both falls:

Two studies provide evidence that when the barrier of cost is removed, a shift toward the most effective contraceptive methods results. In 2002, California's Kaiser Foundation Health Plan changed its policy to eliminate copayments for the most effective contraceptive methods (IUCs, injectables, and implants) so that they were 100% covered for all users. Before this change, users of these methods had to pay up to $300 for 5 years of use. The elimination of copayments, along with training for health care providers in the use of IUCs, contributed to a 137% increase in their use—and an estimated 1791 pregnancies averted among Kaiser's patient population.

A policy that helps curtail unintentional pregnancies by providing free contraception, as the Obama insurance rule would do, is not just a blessing for the individuals involved but for the common good as well.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, as cited by The New England Journal of Medicine, "one Medicaid-covered birth in the United States (including prenatal care, delivery, postpartum care, and infant care for 1 year) was $12,613 in 2008." The national average per client cost for contraceptive care in 2008 was $257. The $1.9 billion estimated to have gone toward publicly funded family-planning care that year saved Medicaid $7 billion. Guttmacher estimates that for 2006, publicly funded family-planning services for 9 million women helped prevent nearly 2 million unintentional pregnancies and more than 800,000 abortions.

The Obama administration's ruling on contraceptive coverage is the right one not only in terms of equity, that is, in terms of benefits that should be available to all women regardless of their income and regardless of who they work for. It's also good for the nation's budget.

• • •

Send an email to the White House and tell President Obama to stand firm on requiring all health insurers to cover contraception without co-pays.

So how's Romney's 'message' doing?

rss@dailykos.com (kos) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:41:05 UTC

Thank you NV! Our message of restoring America's greatness continues to resonate through the west & across the country #NVCaucus #Mitt2012

— @MittRomney via web

Romney sent that tweet out last week, during happier times for him. He was cruising to an easy victory in the Nevada caucuses, Gingrich beaten to a bloody pulp, thinking he was enroute to an easy nomination.

Problem was, Romney's self-congratulations were unwarranted. For one, GOP turnout numbers have been outright pathetic.

After anemic gains in both Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina enjoyed a significant boost thanks to Gingrich's Stop-Romney effort. But Florida began what has become a consistent and significant decline ever since.

Now let's look at Romney's share of the vote.

After six years of non-stop running for president, Romney slipped in Iowa before notching significant gains in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. But again, it's been downhill from there. The more Republican voters hear from Romney and his message, the less enthused they become.

It's not as if Santorum is driving out turnout, but Romney's collapse is so dramatic that it's getting easier for the Not-Mitt-Romney to notch those victories—even as fewer and fewer Republicans deign it worth their while to spend even an hour of their time to choose a nominee. All the while, Republicans have to pretend they're fired up to take out Obama when, quite clearly, they're not.

Of course, Romney has to pretend his message is "resonating." He is a candidate, after all. But no matter how many times he says it, fact is, it's simply not true.

Quite the opposite, actually.

Newt Gingrich staying in the race to get to the South and tea party face off with Rick Santorum

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:11:23 UTC

You still have Newt to kick around. (Eric Thayer/Reuters)

Despite a dismal showing in yesterday's contests in the Republican presidential primary, Newt Gingrich seems committed to staying in the race, focusing on Ohio with a two-day swing across the state. A decent showing in Ohio on Super Tuesday, along with his home state of Georgia, could help him last out the race to make it to the conservative southern states, where he should have an advantage.

But last night a new threat to that strategy emerged in the form of Rick Santorum, who won over the tea party and conservative voters, the same group Gingrich is vying for, in last night's contests. Public Policy Polling previews the potential match-up of Santorum and Gingrich with these voters in North Carolina, throwing Mitt Romney into the mix. As of now, Gingrich has the advantage with ultra-conservative tea party voters in the state.

Santorum fared poorly in both the South Carolina and Florida primaries, finishing a distant 3rd with 17% and 13% respectively. And our newest North Carolina poll finds him running behind there too. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are tied for the lead there at 30% with Santorum back at 20% and and Ron Paul in 4th at 11%. [...]
Gingrich is holding up better in North Carolina than he is elsewhere because he's still winning Tea Party voters and those describing themselves as 'very conservative,' two groups whose support he lost to Rick Santorum in the states that voted last night. He gets 35% of the Tea Party vote to 25% for Santorum and 21% for Romney in the Tar Heel state. Romney wins moderates (41-21 over Gingrich) and voters describing themselves as being only 'somewhat conservative' (36-30 over Gingrich.)

Santorum's momentum coming out of yesterday's contests, and his favorability, could cause Southern conservatives to give him a second look. Those decisive wins over Romney definitely change the "electability" lock Romney's had on this race. North Carolina is a long way off, not until May 8. If last night is any indication, plenty can happen between now and then.

With the kind of money Gingrich's sugar-daddy, Sheldon Adelson, has to throw around, it could be a very wild ride.

Midday open thread

rss@dailykos.com (Barbara Morrill) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:00:21 UTC

Today's comic from Jen Sorensen is Komen's wardrobe malfunction:
Democratic Senator Dan Inouye had a few choice words for former Rep. Pete Hoekstra's racist ad that has been getting a lot of attention this week:

“America should expect much more from a candidate for a high federal position,” Inouye said. “His racist thoughts are not welcome in the United States Senate.”
Comedy:

Police in Littleton, Colo., on Monday pulled over a motorist who was protesting the way Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney transported his dog on a family vacation three decades ago.
The motorist, a fan of the fledgling "Dogs Against Romney" protest movement, had a dog kennel strapped to the roof of his car -- just like Romney did during a 12-hour drive in 1983. [...]

"Our 911 center received a call from a motorist who saw the car in the photo drive past, and she said the door to the animal carrier was open and a large white dog was in it," Littleton city spokeswoman Kelli Narde said in an interview. A police dispatcher radioed nearby officers, who spotted the car and pulled it over. Fortunately, no dog was harmed: "There was in fact a stuffed animal in the cage," Narde said.
Sean Hannity is pretty sure that President Obama didn't really want to take out Osama bin Laden. Because ... uh ...
Gone (from the 2012 Republican race anyway) but not forgotten:

After a failed attempt at the Republican nomination for president of the United States, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann has returned to one of her signature causes: banning marriage equality for same-sex couples ... She said same-sex couples do not have a right to marriage, just like she does not have a right to marry her son. [...]
“Well it really is and I think you are exactly right. I think it’s important that we fundamentally remember everyone has the same right; no one is being denied rights,” she said. “Every man has a right to marry; every woman has a right to marry. They don’t have the right to marry the person of the same sex, just like we don’t have a right to marry our son or daughter. We don’t have a right to marry our grandfather or grandmother.”
Apparently Ohio Governor John Kasich gave a rather bizarre State of the State Address yesterday:

Non-bluetongue cows going to Turkey. A dream about Jerry Seinfeld in the back seat of a car. Californians are “a bunch of wackadoodles.”
John Kasich’s second State of the State speech Tuesday was rambling and at times bizarre. Among his head-jerking references, Kasich told the first three winners of a newly-created state courage award not to sell the medals on eBay; pointed out his “hot wife;” and imitated someone with Parkinson’s disease when he talked about “deep brain massage.”
Be sure to watch the video of this marshmallow moment:

"The Secret Service is going to be mad at me about this," Obama said, before energetically pumping a compressor and shooting the marshmallow gun, invented by 14-year-old Joey Hudy.
Obama watched open-mouthed as the candy shot across the room before crashing into the wall near the entrance to the Red Room, an elegant state parlor which stuffed with rare 19th century French furniture.
Researchers have finally reached the fresh water of Lake Vostok, sealed away for millions of years under thick Antarctic ice. How long before they can answer the big question, could life somehow exist in this alien environment? DS

Rick Santorum accuses Obama of being intolerant of hateful bigots

rss@dailykos.com (Kaili Joy Gray) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:35:13 UTC

"I will always take a strong stand for bigotry in the name of the big guy upstairs!" (Sarah Conard/Reuters)

Won't someone please think of the bigots?

GOP presidential candidate and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.) said the Obama administration's view of proponents of the California's "Proposition 8" amounted to bigotry. [...]
According to Santorum, speaking at a campaign stop in Texas Wednesday, the administration's view of advocates of Proposition 8 is that their "'belief of marriage between a man and a woman is purely irrational based on irrational hatred and bigotry. Where's the tolerance in that?"

Of course, the Obama administration hasn't actually said anything about the recent ruling on Proposition 8. But no matter—poor Rick Santorum is feeling awfully oppressed by the president's intolerance of Santorum's intolerance. Why, it's getting so a proud bigot like Santorum can't even express his hatred openly without imagining that the president doesn't agree with him!

Poor guy.

Mitt Romney and the beer test

rss@dailykos.com (kos) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:32:23 UTC

We've spent the last few election cycles having to suffer media blather about the "likability" factor, and which candidate we would rather have a beer with. Because, you know, nothing is more important when running the country than boozing it up with your constituents.

Yes, it's silly and ridiculous and obnoxious and kind of depressing. But it is what it is. And really, looking at the GOP field, is there anyone you'd want to have a beer with? Rick Santorum? If you're a masochist. Newt Gingrich? I'd rather have a root canal. Ron Paul? That clown might be entertaining for a few sips, but really, I don't need to hear him rant about the gold standard anymore.

And then there's Mitt Romney, who fails the beer test on religious grounds. That might be fine, if he made it up on other grounds, but has there been a less likable presidential candidate in the last couple of decades? Maybe Phil Gramm was less likable. Maybe. And saying Romney is unlikable isn't a partisan endeavor.

Rush Limbaugh complains that he "comes across as the prototypical rich Republican." Jonah Goldberg says Romney is "a caricature of a conventionally stiff country club Republican." Another National Review writer wrote, "Perhaps it is these moments, and the various flip-flops, that create the impression of inauthenticity, while the authentic, unguarded Romney is simply disliked."

The guy has money stashed away in the Cayman Islands, in Swiss bank accounts, and makes $10,000 bets. He's different than everybody else, and everybody else knows it.

I mean, look at his bumper stickers above. By blurring out the "R," how can you read that logo without seeing the word "Money"? Indeed, that's what makes this photoshop so funny:

What's bizarre about this whole dynamic is that Romney entered the race thinking his wealth was going to be an advantage. Not only does he have lots of millionaire friends to write big Super PAC checks for him, but Republicans are supposed to elevate the super-rich to deity status.

Instead, it's been a liability. In an era of Occupy Wall Street, excess wealth and greed are frowned upon. Even conservatives are feeling that populist itch, angry about bailouts that have flooded the Wall Street super-rich with taxpayer dollars, and have gotten nothing in return for it. When Romney says he doesn't care about the poor—true of every single Republican—he doesn't get high-fived, but slammed for it ... by conservatives.

That's not to say that Santorum is any better on these issues. After all, he did just tell a mother that drug company profits are more important to him than the lives of children. But he doesn't carry with him the stench of entitlement and inherited success.

It doesn't matter that Romney won't have a beer with anyone, because no one would like to have a beer with him outside of the Wall Street wealth-management scene. He's still likely to get the GOP nomination, but at this rate, there won't be anyone left to celebrate it when he does.