Contraception In America: Welcome to The Brave New GOP World of The 21st Century

As Lawrence pointed out last night, the Catholic Church's ban on contraception is the most widely ignored edict of the Catholic Church in America. Rick Santorum may be the one and only holdout. Mirroring the general population, 98% of sexually active Catholic women have used birth control. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) of Catholics agree with the Obama Administration's requirement that employers, including Church-related employers, such as hospitals and teaching institutions, cover contraception. Some, like DePaul University, the nation's largest Catholic university, already do. Here, the views of Catholics are surveyed:

Amid the controversy over the Obama Administration’s mandate that employers provide health insurance covering contraception and birth control at no cost to employees, a new national survey finds that nearly six-in-ten (58 percent) Catholic Americans generally support this requirement. A majority (55 percent) of all Americans also support the requirement.

The new survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute finds that a slim majority (52 percent) of Catholics also believe that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should have to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception or birth control at no cost. Among Catholic voters, however, only 45 percent support this requirement, while 52 percent oppose it.

“Catholics, like other Americans, generally support requiring employers to provide health care plans that cover birth control at no cost, and they make clear distinctions between two kinds of religious exemptions that have been at the heart of the controversy,” said Dr. Robert P. Jones, PRRI CEO. “While 6-in-10 Catholics agree that churches and other places of worship who mainly employ people of their own faith should be exempt, Catholics are more divided about whether the exemption should apply more broadly to religiously-affiliated colleges and hospitals.”

There is strong support, however, for exemptions for churches and other places of worship.

— Like other religious groups, a strong majority of all Catholics (59 percent), Catholic voters (68 percent) and white Catholics (72 percent) say that churches and other places of worship should not be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.

— Nearly 6-in-10 (57 percent) of Americans agree that churches should not be required to provide contraception coverage. Less than 4-in-10 (36 percent) say that they should be required to do so.

It should be reiterated that churches are exempt from the health care mandate. The new rule requiring coverage of contraceptives applies to Catholic-affiliated schools and hospitals. Survey shows: It has broad support among Catholics. Democrats, as is their wont, are already waffling. Democratic women, by contrast, are standing strong. Maybe they need to take colleagues like Joe Manchin out to the woodshed.

Over on the Dark Side, Mr. 1% plays the natural hypocrite while six of his GOP colleagues in the Senate co-sponsored a federal contraception mandate in 2001. The Republican Party is a one-way Time Machine — Back to The Past. Why can't they just pile in and GO — leave the rest of us ALONE (trans: our CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy), and STOP Republican government probing of women's bodies. Here's a view from the Women's Pulpit of Living Life in The Real World.

Say what ... There's room in the Time Machine for an MSNBCer? Let's send Dylan — rage, rage against the Machine! — Ratigan. We'll keep Chris Hayes in hopes he'll be given Dylan's slot:

Quotable: Jonathan Capehart And The Lizard King

"On the democratic side it’s the FAR LEFT and SUPER PROGRESSIVES in the Democratic Party who energize the base."

Jonathan, I thought we'd covered this territory before. Is this the Lizard King's way of generating some of those 30 million jobs, by bankrolling (through MSNBC) your trip to Texas plus expense account? Next stop the prime steakhouse, where you and the Lizard King plan to boost the economy with a probing examination of the prime beef industry? I wonder, because you have that 'I love junkets' look that's just itching to hit the links and take in a few rounds of golf. And from the size of the Lizard King's widening girth, his Magical Mystery Jobs Tour must have, at least, done wonders for his palate.

Next time you utter incendiary words, fighting words for many of us, insulting words for the comparisons they invoke, be prepared to define what exactly is it that you mean by this mythical "FAR LEFT" and "SUPER PROGRESSIVES" — I'd like to know, because I suspect it says a lot more about you than it does about the liberals and progressives you enjoy smearing.

And while we're on the topic of the bastardization of political language to reflect the ideology of the ruling corporate elites, memo to Big Eddie: Would you call FDR, Truman, JFK, RFK and Teddy a "lefty"? Then, preferably don't do it, or if you prefer, speak for yourself. Just saying.

PS — Jonathan, this is SO YOU. Where have you been hiding the bow ties?

Mr. Tough Times, Jonathan Capehart

PPS — Is Imogen part Italian or Latina? She gesticulates a lot, but I cannot detect a cultural reference. Brits aren't usually that demonstrative, are they?

Could Rick Santorum Be The Republican George McGovern?

This morning, much to the surprise of the Beltway Media and the horror of the Mitt Romney campaign, ultra-conservative insurgent Rick Santorum rolled up decisive victories in three GOP state caucuses (one, a so-called "beauty contest" because no delegates were apportioned; but it matters little in the 'Big Picture') —Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota, by a combined vote total of 47% to distant second-place finisher Romney, with 26% of the vote, and third-place movement libertarian Ron Paul with 18%, hanging around. The Huffington Post headline says it all: "MITTASTROPHE." In the print and paper days, this would have been a "Late Edition;" the initial headline, after the results of the contests were still being tabulated and the scope of Romney's losses not fully known, the more benign headline read, "RICK NICKS MITT."

Presidential campaign politics, the so-called 'horse race', is all about momentum and expectations. Today, as a revived and re-funded Santorum campaign springs ahead after essentially running the table with three strong wins, President Obama's recent surge in the polls is the least of Romney's worries. As we speak, his campaign is furiously scrambling to tamp down expectations while struggling to regain lost momentum. Beltway Media 'analysts', the two-bit touts waving their picks, variously predicted one or two out of three for Romney, with close seconds in those contests he didn't win. Instead, for all his SuperPac millions advantage, the Romney campaign awoke to the harsh reality of the numbers and hard results: Three losses, one third-place finish. Romney is beginning to take on water. The 'presumptive nominee' is not so presumptive anymore; 'inevitability' is looking less inevitable by the hour.

Internally, the Romney campaign itself might be close to fracturing. They do not give the impression of being nimble when off-script. Where is the Karl Rove, 'Ragin' Cajun, or Steve Schmidt of the Romney campaign; who is running the show; who speaks with one voice for the candidate? So far, we've seen a candidate with chronic foot-in-mouth disease when unscripted, which is at least a couple of times daily, and a bunch of proxies — old overweight white guys of the Republican Establishment, like John Sununu and Chris Christie — playing armchair quarterback and competing for advice. On the eve of Romney's ugly loss to Newt Gingrich in South Carolina, Beltway types breathlessly announced the Romney campaign was sending in one of their principal proxies, John Sununu, to campaign for Romney. And I'm thinking, 'what the hell good is that gonna do? A long-retired, crabby New Hampshire governor these southern yahoos probably never heard of' ... Just as I thought.

The New York Times headline was just as dismal, painting a picture of a campaign on the brink — of crisis and disarray: "A Bad Night, And a Prolonged Race For Romney — Mitt Romney is not a strong enough candidate that he can afford more nights as bad as Tuesday." The Huffington Post was blunter, splashing the portrait of a near-fatally flawed candidate: "Romney Suffers Major Blow ... Loses Two States He Won in 2008 ... Loses Every County in Missouri ... Finishes Third in Minnesota." Just to illustrate how much trouble Mitt Romney — the so-called "presumptive nominee" — is in: He was expected to win Colorado, where he was ahead by 10 points in the polls and finished a well-beaten second, five points behind Rick Santorum.

Adding to the Romney campaign's woes is their Ron Paul problem, which the campaign thought they had brought under control and were managing with the "strategic alliance" between the two camps. Suddenly, it's unclear how much Paul's help keeping "the GOP electorate fractured" will redound to Romney's favor, as he finished second, ahead by double digits of a fading Mitt in Minnesota. Largely irrelevant is the Romney rationale that "accommodating [Paul] and his supporters could help unify Republican voters in the general election against President Obama." For today, the Romney campaign has more pressing concerns than looking ahead to the general election against President Obama — namely, staying alive.

Newt Gingrich, until yesterday Romney's main competitor, has emerged as the southern regional candidate, much as Romney is still an eastern 'Establishment' candidate; Romney's Florida win with barely 46% of the vote and a depressed turnout owes mainly to the votes of northern transplants. With 4 wins to Romney's 3 —in retrospect, neighboring New Hampshire where Romney garnered barely 39% of the vote, could well be the 'canary in the mine' early warning of Mitt's fatal flaws — and Gingrich's strong solo win in the ultra-conservative southern state of South Carolina, Rick Santorum is cast as the only candidate so far with broad appeal across regions.

By contrast, Mitt Romney, who is swimming in money and Republican Establishment support, lacks the one ingredient necessary to win: voter appeal beyond the loser's 45% to 47% baseline figure. Of the three contests won by Romney, only in Nevada did he barely break the 50% ceiling, with 50.1% of the vote. And this with a depressed Republican turnout of some 6,000 fewer voters than came out in 2008. Had Newt Gingrich campaigned more vigorously in the state, he may well have denied Romney even this Pyrrhic victory. More humiliating still, for Romney, was the Trump endorsement followed by the Donald taking credit for Romney's lukewarm win in Nevada.

All told, this portends more serious trouble for Romney ahead. As Super Tuesday approaches with a plucky Newt Gingrich set to make his stand with the strong showing he hopes will propel him all the way to Tampa, the dynamics of these southern primaries gain added weight and importance. Rick Santorum, the lean, mean candidate flying under the radar to deal crippling blows to his better funded competitors, particularly Mitt Romney, is no longer an asterisk in the Beltway Media's pro-Romney narrative, driven by fake "journalists" like Mark Halperin and John Harris. Only two days ago, the Idiot Punditocracy were proclaiming yesterday to be Rick Santorum's "last stand," pompously predicting with the supercilious rectitude of the Clueless Pundit that Santorum had to pick up at least one win, two if he was lucky, to keep his hopes and campaign alive. Oops.

Oh, what a difference a day makes. Especially in politics. Now, the greatest threat to Mitt Romney is the very real prospect that his stunted momentum and weak showing in the West and Midwest will manifest in equally weak third and fourth place finishes in the South, as Gingrich and Santorum duke it out for the top two spots and Ron Paul, well, he keeps hanging around. The weakness shown by Romney, the gaping holes in his SuperPac armor, coupled with the increasingly realistic prospect of wholesale rejection of him by southern Republican voters — putting meat on the bones of that old cliché, 'they're just not that into Mitt' — could be enough to deep-six his campaign.

Speaking of strategic alliances, the early feelers between the Santorum and Gingrich camps to arrest Mitt's "inevitability" may be back on track. We're way past the "inevitable Mitt" now, and this alliance would have real rewards rather than the scraps tossed in Ron Paul's direction by the Romney campaign. A Santorum-Gingrich alliance, like the one between Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush in 1980, could be for the top two spots on the ticket: President and Vice President.

As George H. W. Bush might say: Mitt Romney is in "deep dooh-dooh."

Indeed, as this provocative heading asks the historical question, exactly 40 years after Senator George McGovern, the "true liberal" in the Democratic race, wrested the Party's nomination from "Establishment" candidate Ed Muskie, the ghost of McGovern looms large and threatening on Mitt Romney's path to the nomination. As does the specter of Ed Muskie from neighboring Vermont who, like Romney, stumbled in New Hampshire after some dirty tricks by the Manchester Union-Leader. Muskie in 1972, like Romney in 2012, won New Hampshire as expected, but not decisively — and therein lies the rub.

This year, the arch-conservative Union-Leader may well have the last laugh, as its endorsement of Newt Gingrich was scoffed at by the Idiot Punditocracy. The early dismissal of Gingrich by the Beltway Media clouded Romney's obvious weaknesses as the Idiot Punditocracy bestowed on him, with nauseating regularity, the mantle of inevitable "presumptive nominee." As the pundits were 'ooh-ing' and 'aah-ing' at the formidable evil power of Mitt's SuperPacs' carpet bombing demolition of his political opposition, mainly Newt though they are now seriously rethinking the premise, this blog wrote, following Romney's unspectacular Florida romp:

Despite Rachel's somewhat faint praise, most astute political observers (and let's be clear, they're few and far between) would come away with the impression that Mr. 1% was launching forgettable spitballs at President Obama. If this kind of strained, hollow, rich man's version of political character is their standard-bearer, the Republican Party/Establishment is in deep trouble. There's something about Mr. Molten Core that really, really rubs people the wrong way. He lacks not only a core but even that fake conviction. And the harder he tries the worse he sounds. This guy still hasn't cracked 50% of the Republican primary vote, in a state that was supposed to favor him, with literally unlimited funds to carpet-bomb Newt. Yet Mittens' geographic appeal was limited mostly to the urban/suburban rich carpetbagging Florida counties. Newt cleaned up the Tea Party vote and the "southern" panhandle.

I do not agree with Jonathan Alter that Newt prolonging this campaign will help Romney by virtue of contrast with Mittens as the "Massachusetts liberal." Inevitably, Romney's faults will expose a rift in the Republican Party with the base — more Republicans, 6 in 10, still want someone else! — that may be beyond healing. Even more important, the negative firepower needed to pulverize Newt will very likely splatter Romney and further depress his soft, unenthusiastic support. What goes around, comes around, and Mittens will sustain a lot of damage from Newt. 

By the way, Jonathan Alter is one of the few genuine historian-journalists whom I respect and whose opinion carries weight here. But we have areas of disagreement. The difference is, one cannot dismiss what Jonathan says out of hand, as is the case with most of the clowns and pundit poseurs, and not a few sacred cows, making the rounds at MSNBC.

Newt Gingrich, who is his own campaign manager and has always distinguished himself as a top-flight political strategist, may well be the best of all in this Republican race. Think of him as the player-manager who can strategize while on the field. A nimble strategic thinker, although he stumbled in the last debate, Gingrich quickly recovered with a weird but effective 'concession-acceptance' speech, and has since boxed Romney in by furiously assailing the SuperPacs, calling him a liar, and drawing him out on a religious discussion, in which Newt and Santorum position themselves always to the right of Romney, while reminding Christian Right voters of Romney's Mormonism. Far and away the most interesting candidate on the Republican side, Newt Gingrich has an evil, Machiavellian brilliance that reminds us he was the proto-mudslinger, the Founding Father of this modern era of dirty politics of personal destruction.

But Newt remains a southern candidate. The parallels between this year's Republican race and the 1972 Democratic contest are inexact in strict comparisons but broadly similar in the way in which the race shaped up for the party out of power. First in 2012 as in 1972, there is a sitting president with many advantages including the power of incumbency. The downside for Richard Nixon in 1972 was an unpopular war, a shaky but recovering economy, and as yet to metastasize, a hint of scandal. President Obama is sitting on the worst economy since 1932, which he rescued from depression, but the electorate isn't taken to making 'nuanced' decisions. Everything else is subservient to the economy. And as we have seen with the Komen Foundation's cave-in, social conservative 'wedge issues' may redound to the President's favor this year — one more reason Santorum or Gingrich are well cast to play the role of George McGovern.

A distinct difference is that the perceived 'strong bench' on the Democratic side took the plunge in 1972, notably Hubert Humphrey, 'Scoop' Jackson, and Ed Muskie. Even George Wallace, the southern segregationist candidate was a force to contend with in the South. His foray into a northern college had the look of a revivalist Nazi rally: Alabama troopers in brown uniforms flanked their governor as he spat into a white handkerchief and the jeers of "SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL!" from the student audience rained down, drowning out his speech. Today, the same kinds of college students are drawn to a racist Texan candidate linked to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, with a demagogic agenda to destroy all government in the cause of 'liberty'. Considering the neo-Confederate 'don't tread on me' appeal of Ron Paul, George Wallace's message was not dissimilar. As the world turns.

Even though the strong Republican bench — Mike Hucabee, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie — stayed out of the 2012 contest, perhaps hoping not to repeat a do-over of the 1972 Democratic primary battles, those who declared and remain in the race are fairly reasonable stand-ins for an off-Broadway production of 1972. Which is, essentially, as the Times resident genius-nerd (see link above) predicts, a long drawn-out contest for the nomination. Rick Santorum's profile fits more closely with George McGovern's — the 'real deal', the 'genuine article', or as Santorum likes to put it, "the only true conservative in the race." George McGovern, by way of contrast, ran as the most liberal major party candidate in American history.

Both Santorum and Gingrich could lay claim to the McGovern mantle of political purity and authenticity. At this point, Santorum is the most likely candidate. He stuck to his social conservative guns and was pummeled by the more libertarian voters in New Hampshire. But he needs a strategy. Running a so-called "low-burn" campaign and living off the land won't get him over the top in the long haul. Newt Gingrich has more possibilities. Despite his utterly fraudulent and ludicrous claims to the 'Reagan legacy' Newt is enough of a salesman to have convinced a sizable portion of the right wing Republican electorate that he is a genuine conservative — definitions will vary, depending on which state you're in — to make them forget his past woman troubles. In fact, the southern states are a perfect fit for Newt. Not only is the right wing electorate in the South ultra libidinous, but they love forgiving their pastor-candidates their falls from grace, the better to forget their own leading red states porn consumption, among other more carnal pursuits. Rick Santorum, an earnest Catholic ascetic with extremist theological views, will have a harder time connecting with southern arousal.

All of this spells big trouble for Mr. 1% in a long fight for the nomination. The venal negativity of the SuperPacs coupled with Newt, President Obama's best friend, playing the victim card so well because it taps into his redemption narrative with the voters, has had the result of spiking Romney's negatives with the voters. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll has the President leading Romney in a head-to-head contest, 51% to 45%. But most important, perhaps, are the likability internals within the poll data:

By better than 2 to 1, Americans say the more they learn about Romney, the less they like him. Even among Republicans, as many offer negative as positive assessments of him on this question. Judgments about former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who denounced Romney on Saturday night in Nevada, are about 3 to 1 negative.

The more the public hears of Mitt Romney, the less people like him, by 52% to 24%. Not only that, but by a wide margin (findings that are not ever reported by the Beltway Media) the public disapproves by 54% to 36% of what the Republican candidates are saying. As for which candidates "best understand" your problems and values, all the candidates rated abysmally: On 'problems — Newt (26%),  Romney (30%), Paul (11%), Santorum (20%); on 'values' — Newt (21%),  Romney (23%), Paul (18%), Santorum (23%). Newt springs from the pack on experience — Newt (43%),  Romney (31%), Paul (10%), Santorum (4%). But on electability, the only glimmer for Romney and the GOP Establishment; he leads Newt 56% to 22%, with Paul and Santorum trailing far behind. So it's a mixed bag reflecting confusion and general lack of enthusiasm in the Republican electorate — none too encouraging for Republican prospects in 2012.

Perhaps the most damage done was to the Republican (I hate this Beltway buzzword, but there it is) "brand" in 2012. There is only one thing Republican voters can agree on, and that is to defeat President Obama. But even this is called into question, especially among women voters, given the Republican Party's extremist rightward tilt. And as noted above, "[e]ven more important, the negative firepower needed to pulverize Newt will very likely splatter Romney and further depress his soft, unenthusiastic support. What goes around, comes around, and Mittens will sustain a lot of damage from Newt."

In the process of destroying his opposition with the power of unlimited SuperPac money, Romney may be felled by the same sword he used to strike down his rivals. It seems we may be fast approaching a saturation point of no return at which the effectiveness of the SuperPacs is not only diminished but takes down its own candidate in a scorched earth last-person-standing (or not) campaign. Moments after resigning the presidency in disgrace, Richard Nixon warned: "Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."

And he knew whereof he spoke. This race is still Romney's to lose. But it's no longer such a sure thing that he won't.

FUNNIN' RACHEL MADDOW: YOU WEAR IT WELL!

RACHEL lookin' GOOD in GIANTS quarterback Eli Manning's jersey. And now, forever immortalized in the winning colors of the 2012 SUPER BOWL Champs, BIG BLUE!

FROM THE 'YOU READ IT HERE FIRST FILES': HOW THE THINKER INFLUENCES PUBLIC POLICY

SERIOUSLY. It took awhile, but methinks the President's team listens, at long last, to our frank advice. No sugarcoating here. We were first out of the box to declare, in no uncertain terms, that big "D" Democrats should not "unilaterally disarm." OUR PHRASE.

In the face of unlimited campaign spending by SuperPacs, only a madman, a purist loser, or someone who does not have the country's, the President's, and the Party's best interests at heart would refuse or counsel against fighting fire with fire in order to try, at least, to level the playing field. It's about winning. Period. And Jay Carney gave us, this little blog that could, a tip of the hat when he repeated our phrase, "unilaterally disarm."

Believe me, Jay wasn't crediting Newt, who had appropriated the line from us, anyway.

PS — Just trash talking Dylan to get his blood boiling; don't think he's gone insane ... yet. Nice try anyway, Karen. It's his show, he shut you down with the usual out-of-control sophistry. Nothing you could do about it. But do try to push back against this anti-government, not so secret Paulie admirer.

BIG BLUE POSTCRIPT: BAD KARMA SINKS PATRIOTS ...

FULLY RECOVERED from his cry on Rachel's shoulder (or vice versa; Ed, you're one hell of a GIANTS good luck charm) ...

Big Eddie ran this probing behind-the-scenes piece on what off-the-field mystical manifestations, aka, voodoo, macumba, or BAD KARMA accounted for the Patriots' defeat. It basically comes down to two things:

(1) Hosting the PIGMAN in the Pats VIP Box, he of the RACIST football commentary and MASSIVE pushback from the players threatening rebellion should the PIGMAN acquire part ownership of any team; and (2) the fact that SuperModel multilingual curse maven Gisele Bundchen, wife of Pats quarterback Tom Brady, comes from a country that reinvented the "beautiful game" of football, in which throwing and catching the ball is.just.not.DONE.

OH, MY ... Gisele, you a BAD Brazilian Beauty:

Okay, Now Let ME Finish ...

Chris Matthews threw me a curveball last night. In his 'Let Me Finish ...' commentary he closed out that edition of Hardball with a little help from his friend: ME. Talking about the upcoming election, Chris borrowed one of my favorite sports metaphors: The pitching change in baseball.

Here's CHRIS:

"Elections are about the incumbent. Think of a Major League Baseball game and you are the manager. You keep your eye on the pitcher and see how he’s doing.

If he’s throwing hard, mixing up the pitches and getting them out, you keep him in. If he starts letting the other side scatter some hits, you get a little jittery. If he gives up some runs, you get them warming up in the bull pen. If you he looks like he just can’t get the other side out, you walk out there and take the ball from him.

And that’s what good managers do. And we American voters are good managers. We don’t keep pitchers in the game when they can’t finish the job.

Look at Gerald Ford. Look at the senior George Bush. We yanked them. We liked them. But when it came to it, we had no problem pulling them.

Why? Because it’s not about who is in the bullpen. It’s not how hard that guy out there is throwing. It’s about the guy on the mound, the pitcher in the game. If we figure he’s got the stuff to get the job done, we keep him in. If not, we don’t."

Here's ME, commenting on Anthony Weiner's travails, last year:

To use the old baseball analogy: It's Game 7, top of the fifth. You're the manager. Your team is ahead by two runs, and your ace pitcher is on the mound. Suddenly he loses it. His control is gone. Runners on second and third with no outs. What do you do?

Do you hope he gets his control back and manages to get three outs without giving up two or three runs just so he can notch that WIN on his resumé?

Or do you tell yourself: "I've got a 100 mph short reliever I was saving for the ninth, I've got a rested bullpen, AND I've got the whole DAMNED PITCHING STAFF to get the next fifteen outs, because THIS IS IT, THERE'S NO TOMORROW."

What DO YOU DO? Me, I'd yank the ACE in a NEW YORK MINUTE and never look back.

It's a team sport. No one's indispensable. Not even your ACE. And if he can't find the plate, he's OUT.

Okay, I'm like this giant Zeitgeist generator. I get it. I'm flattered, really I am. I mean it. I like Chris, I mean it. Plus he's looking ahead to a tough outing, having to defend the latest, shocking, revelations about JFK as reported by Meredith Vieira. His JFK hagiography is an enjoyable read. I'll give it a positive review and recommendation. That is, as long as Chris doesn't come back with some psycho babble about progressives being incapable of accepting Lee H. Oswald as "a man of the left." Well Chris, not to belabor the point but if you look at the best evidence, common sense dictates he probably wasn't. And whether or not there was a "lone gunman" is less relevant than the strong likelihood there was a conspiracy.

Here's a book on the topic that I can recommend: The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman Versus Conspiracy, by Michael L. Kurtz. The author is professor of history and dean of the graduate school at Southeastern Louisiana University. He isn't some conspiracy kook; he's a serious academic and a recognized expert on the Kennedy assassination. One of our favorite historians, Douglas Brinkley, had this to say about the book: "A smart, engaging history of the stormy debate surrounding the death of President John F. Kennedy. This is a book you can trust on a topic fraught with controversy."

That's it, for now.

KAREN HANDEL RESIGNS: HALLELUJAH, HALLELUJAH!

GOOD RIDDANCE. We're FED UP with right wing ideologues telling us how to run our lives and restricting breast care services for women. (No takers on my 97-1 odds. Oh well ... WIMPS!)

HALFTIME IN AMERICA: THE BEST SUPER BOWL AD EVER!

DON'T MESS WITH WORKERS, Republicans, because CLINT EASTWOOD, aka, DIRTY HARRY, is in OUR CORNER. "IT'S HALFTIME, AMERICA," but we all didn't "PULL TOGETHER," CLINT, though we appreciate the all-inclusive sentiment.

This was the HEADLINE from MITT ROMNEY and the GOP to the auto industry:

MITT AND THE GOP TO THE AUTO INDUSTRY: DROP DEAD!

MITT SAID, "IF YOU WRITE THEM A CHECK, THEY'RE GOING TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS." TELL THAT TO GM, REPUBLICAN ASSHOLE, BACK AS THE # 1 AUTO MAKER IN THE WORLD, thanks to PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE BAILOUT, i.e., LOAN.

And no, CLINT, we didn't ALL "RALLY AROUND WHAT WAS RIGHT AND ACTED AS ONE," but again, we appreciate the sentiment. OR, AS DIRTY HARRY might say to Republicans:

"GO AHEAD. MAKE MY DAY."

BIG BLUE WINS, BIG EDDIE CRIES, AND RACHEL GREETS HER GIANTS FRIENDS!

YO, RALPHIE ... WE HAD IT ALL THE WAY!

ALIENS OF THE GOP: "THEY MOSTLY COME OUT AT NIGHT. MOSTLY ..."

THREE CHEERS FOR OUR main man, NEWT: "I'm not going anywhere," said the indomitable LUNAR visionary, after sustaining withering fire from the MONSTERS OF THE MITTWAY.

Mitt And His Party of Liars And Racists — Perfect Together

MITT ROMNEY has the TWO distinguishing characteristics common to most Republicans — he's a LIAR and A RACE BAITER. Mittens rephrased and reintroduced the Ku Klux Klan slogan he had floated back in Iowa the first time it emerged:

"Keep America American," was a central theme of Ku Klux Klan publications in the 1920s, and served as a rallying cry for the white supremacist group's campaign of violence and intimidation against black Americans, as well as Catholics, gay people and Jews."

Mittens gave a nod to the Tea Party — "our blueprint is the Constitution" (?), meaning ... President Obama's is not? In case it has escaped Mittens, the President, and every president before him took a constitutional oath of office; but the last presidents, (1) to have resigned in disgrace, and (2) to wage two unconstitutional wars, were Republicans. Nice try, Mr. black pot.

Then in his pean to "restoring American greatness" which was stolen from RFK's 1968 campaign slogan, "A Return to Greatness," there was a running pseudo-patriotic narrative in which "America" is mentioned more than 20 times, at last count, ending in "This election, let’s fight for the America we love. We believe in America."

Keep America American, Mr. 1%? This comes dangerously close to so-called "dog whistle" politics. Mittens spouted the usual canards, e.g., the President is "apologizing" for America (a straight-out LIE), before whistling the Big Lie: "Like his colleagues in the faculty lounge who think they know better, President Obama demonizes and denigrates almost every sector of our economy."

In a homage to his, the anti-intellectual, anti-science and anti-evolution party of Teh Stoopid, Mittens demonized and denigrated higher education and college professors, because (Brad Pitt in "Moneyball" snapping his fingers and pointing at the morons) … college professors do know better; science trumps mysticism, superstition, and the pseudo-science of creationism.

But it’s really about smearing the President with the taint of 60s radicalism (when he was eight) for sharing a faculty lounge at the University of Illinois with professor Bill Ayers and calling black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates of “Beer Summit” fame a friend. It’s an old rehashed canard that seeks to paint President Obama as “the other” and un-American. This is getting to be pathetic for the repugnant party.

Guess what: It’s racist. It’s an appeal to the controlling influence of racism in the Republican Party that Chris Matthews not-so-inexplicably dared not mention, while mealy-mouthed Chuckles Toddy finally added the drive-by caveat “Obama supporters” might find it to be so. Chuckles, ya think?

It seems Chris wanted to shut Toddy up before uttering the unspeakable four-letter word — “race” — jumping straight to the analysis of Republican strategist Steve Schmidt. At least Schmidt was honest enough to defy the Capustine, by saying Romney tossed the crowd “red meat” which is the Beltway buzzphrase euphemism (along with "dog whistle") for racism, bigotry, and xenophobia.

 And we didn’t even get to Romney’s operative LIE, the absurd claim President Obama “demonizes and denigrates almost every sector of our economy.” What’s he talking about? The exact opposite is  true. Say what you will about the President, but he’s constantly out there talking the virtues and strengths of every sector of our economy. That’s most of what he does.

Translation: Mittens wants to return, double down, to our long national nightmare when we were in the grip of oil and gas tycoons Bush-Cheney. Notice Mittens had not a single word to say about any of the serious environmental concerns surrounding the Keystone pipeline, concerns even Republican governors and politicians have voiced. The alarming environmental depredations of fracking, which the oil and gas party is seeking to cover up and the Interior Department is seeking to regulate was never mentioned.

This is yet another example of the Republican ‘Big Lie’ in which Romney attempts to neutralize the not so relevant raison d’etre for his campaign — ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ — and bad news for Republicans if the upward trend continues making steady UP progress. So Mittens is reduced to being the petulant spoiled child, bawling: “it’s not, it’s NOT, IT’S NOT!”

After complaining he's been quoted "out of context" (untrue) when he said he didn't care about "the very poor," prompting the cowed Capus clowns to read the "context" from a printout, Romney proceeded to quote President Obama grossly out of context:

Earlier this week, he spoke with a woman from Texas during an online event. She told him that her husband has been out of work for three years. President Obama said he found that “interesting.”

Interesting? Really? I’ve got a better word: tragic. America needs a President who can fix the economy because he understands the economy! 

Here's what the President actually said:

"It is interesting to me — and I meant what I said if you send me your husband's resume, I'd be interested in finding out exactly what's happening right there because the word that we're getting is that somebody in that type of high-tech field, that kind of engineer, should be able to find something right away."

Obviously, demagoguery is to be expected from Republicans, but that's no reason the mainstream/Beltway Media should be derelict in the integrity of their reporting and analysis, calling him out on it. Except for Steve Capus's charges, whose principal function is covering Mittens' ass.

In a final twist of irony, Mr. 1% was unintentionally amusing when he said, "I will not attempt to bribe the voters with promises of new programs, new subsidies, and ever-increasing checks from government. If this election is a bidding war for who can promise the most benefits, then I’m not your President. You have that President today." Really?

No, instead Mr. 1%, King of the SuperPacs and unlimited multi-billionaires' campaign funding, will attempt to buy the election with a hammerlock of negative advertising, LIES, and yes, the demonizing and denigrating of his political opposition. The politics of personal destruction on steroids, thanks to Citizens United, is Mitt Romney's unsubtle road to the nomination. As he said, if they can't take the heat of anonymous big money donors leaving no prints, stay out of Mitty's 'profile in courage'.

As for so-called "ever-increasing checks from government," by far the largest recipients are senior citizens on Social Security. It's not an entitlement; it's the world's most successful pension and retirement benefits program providing retirement income, disability income, Medicare and Medicaid, and death and survivor benefits — the latter taken full advantage of by Paul Ryan, the 'objectivist' architect of Social Security's destruction. Speaking of 'Objectivism', the queen of mean and self-reliance, Ayn Rand herself, projected the "second-rater" appellation on her followers, including of course, Paul Ryan. She was a notorious Social Security filcher. It's what is known as "rational self-interest," i.e., hypocrisy.

Elections are about choices. Elections have consequences. I hope those lessons aren't lost on the general electorate, as they were on the women of America who were "shocked, I say, shocked!" by the Komen Foundation's defunding of Planned Parenthood, but recovered in record time with an awesome display of people power through social media. Sustain and focus this power to finish the job, people. Turn these repulsive Republicans out, straight ballot, from top to bottom.

Listen to the right wing. They're literally terrified of your people power. Use it. Strike, strike. STRIKE.

Music Break: Awesome GAL

GAL COSTA, one of the eternal DIVAS of Brazilian Music in a sweet and magical unrehearsed duet with the great singer-songwriter Jorge Ben:

As I was listening to Ron Paul ramble on about arcane monetary policy to the whoops and hollers of his true believers, he cast a pall on 1971 as the end of good life on this earth. That was the year the U.S. dropped the Gold Standard. But not so to Gal in this 1971 rocker, when she bellowed, "Don't be scared people, when I say that life is good!" And they were living under a brutal military dictatorship, too, but still making great music. Her message: "I am love from head to feet." This is as SIZZLING a basic rock guitar, drums and bass intro as you'll ever hear. The guitarist was Lanny, and man, did he have the licks:

The Odd Couple? Not So Much ...

IS MITTENS playing Ron Paul supporters for fools? And is Ron Paul betraying his libertarian supporters by forming a "strategic" alliance with Wall Street's golden boy, Mr. 1% himself, who is anathema to those who would eliminate the Fed and slash defense spending half as much as Mittens would increase it? Uh ... It would appear so. According to this WaPo piece:

"The Romney-Paul alliance is more than a curious connection. It is a strategic partnership: for Paul, an opportunity to gain a seat at the table if his long-shot bid for the presidency fails; for Romney, a chance to gain support from one of the most vibrant subgroups within the Republican Party.

Romney’s aides are “quietly in touch with Ron Paul,” according to a Republican adviser who is in contact with the Romney campaign and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss its internal thinking. The two campaigns have coordinated on minor things, the adviser said — even small details, such as staggering the timing of each candidate’s appearance on television the night of the New Hampshire primary for maximum effect."

ROMNEY: "HUG? ... HUGGIE? ... HUGGLES?" PAUL: "WA'ALL ... OK, I GUESS ..."

Frankly, I think it's a hard sell. Depending on how one views the paleolibertarian chameleon Ron Paul, it might as well be the political equivalent of the Munich Agreement between Chamberlain and Hitler (what could Mittens possibly say about Paul when he accuses President Obama of appeasement?), or if you like, the Soviet-Nazi non-aggression pact.

So what gives? As the story implies, the Romney campaign wants to bring Paul and his followers quietly into "the fold." It may be the price for avoiding an insurrection by Paul delegates and supporters inside and outside the GOP convention. My guess is Ron Paul has been assured a speaking role at the convention (ignore what Lawrence says; think the opposite) as part of getting "a seat at the table." Have the two campaigns discussed cabinet posts? Too early, but Romney might have dangled that fruit in front of Paul, as his trump card.

Paul's supporters, the thoughtful ones at least, I'm sorry to say are being played for fools by their racist champion. Things are not as they seem. The WaPo story points to Ron Paul not as the free agent libertarian hero, "raging against the machine," but as the cynical subordinate (given the behind-the-scenes coordination between the two camps) to the Romney campaign, a stalking horse for Mittens that "helps keep the GOP electorate fractured." For Romney, "accommodating [Paul] and his supporters could help unify Republican voters in the general election against President Obama." Actually, their greatest concern is not bringing Paul's constituency "into the fold" but keeping Ron Paul from running as a third party candidate. And Donald Trump, too. Which explains the puzzling (to the clueless Idiot Punditocracy) Trump endorsement.

They needn't worry. The Beltway Media has so atrociously misread the Paul-Romney-Trump ménage à trois that its speculation of a Paul third party candidacy is as realistic as the Cubs winning the World Series in 2012. Ron Paul isn't going anywhere. Neither is Donald Trump. But the panicky Romney campaign, victims of an excess of caution, just couldn't take any chances.

The same can't be said for Ron Paul's passionate supporters, whose libertarian ideology will be sorely tested by their hero's alignment with the ultimate GOP Establishment candidate, the insider's insider, Mr. 1%. Maybe when they figure things out, they might decide not to go along.

Ron Paul Ties to Neo-Nazi Group Exposed

Curiously, this story has been studiously avoided by the mainstream/Beltway Media. Even the Huffington Post, while featuring an excellent two-part report on "Anonymous," by far the most comprehensive look at the group, has participated in the blackout of the Ron Paul story. Not surprisingly, the Steve Capus networks haven't reported it either. If they're concerned about proper sourcing, why not have Michael Isikoff look into it and verify the story? The answer is not to pretend it doesn't exist. Besides, "Anonymous" has some serious cred, and is not to be taken lightly or dismissed.

While the Beltway Media seems to be giving the Ron Paul ties to neo-Nazis a wide berth, the story got out (it always does, eventually, see below) and was also reported on British media, where one must necessarily navigate to find out what's going on in the United States.

The group of hackers known as “Anonymous” has shut down several neo-Nazi websites owned by Jamie Kelso, a former John Birch Society member, assistant to David Duke and moderator for the white supremacist website, Stormfront.

“Anonymous” claims to have recovered emails from Kelso that prove that Ron Paul has regularly met with members of Jamie Kelso’s neo-Nazi political party American Third Position and even was on several conference calls with their board of directors. Here is a statement from “Anonymous” from one of the neo-Nazi websites they shut down.

"In addition to finding the usual racist rants and interactions with other white power groups, we also found a disturbingly high amount of members who are also involved in campaigning for Ron Paul. According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors. Ron Paul’s racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage — not to mention having authored the racist “Ron Paul Papers” and receiving financial support from other white power groups (pictured with Don Black from stormfront.org). Hard to believe Ron Paul draws some support from the left and the occupation movements, especially now that it is confirmed Ron Paul hangs out with straight up racist hate groups. We put extra effort in ruining the life of A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso. On top of being on the board of directors of A3P, former $cientologist, and high ranking Ron Paul organizer, he also is the account owner of german nazi forums and store nsl-forum.org, rhs-versand.com."

VICTORY! KOMEN CAVES TO PEOPLE POWER!

ALL HAIL the Twitterverse and the power of 140 characters to break down attempts to politicize and defund women's health. Bobby Kennedy LIVES — He was the FIRST to describe the power of this as yet unborn social media:

Each time a person stands up for an ideal,
or acts to improve the lot of others...
(S)he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope,
and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring,
those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

Robert F. Kennedy (1925 - 1968)

Let's be clear; the right wing and the Karen Handels of this world wanted to make this about abortion, but it isn't. Komen was funding women's breast health which is but one aspect of the 97% of women's health services provided by Planned Parenthood that are not abortion services. No one, on any side of the issue, is in favor of abortion. But those of us who support a woman's right to make her reproductive choices oppose male politicians, or anyone, who would turn a woman's legal reproductive choice into a political and ideological issue.

What are the odds Karen Handel survives? I'll say 97 to 1.

KOMEN BACKLASH: The Women of America Emerge From Their Stupor

WHAT DID THEY EXPECT!? Many now expressing shock over Komen's defunding of Planned Parenthood probably voted the Republican extremists into office, both in the House and statehouses, who then immediately turned their sharp knives against Planned Parenthood in a relentless, widescale attack designed to destroy the nation's primary women's health organization. Those who voted "Republican" and remained on the sidelines as the attacks against Planned Parenthood gathered steam are complicit and can't very well bitch and moan with a clear conscience about what their votes have wrought.

Internally Komen appears to be in turmoil, as the resignations mount in response to its ideologically driven decision. It's nice that people have woken up, at long last, but it's frustrating all the same, as the rest of us beat our heads against the wall while they passively sat on the sidelines. Andrea Mitchell's interview with Komen's CEO (see below) was impressive for its non-Andrea advocacy and hurt — she's been close to tears about this given her personal history, likening it to a "death in the family."

I find the sense of betrayal, on anyone's part, especially those who supposedly have their finger on the pulse, just a tad baffling. It seems like one more indication of the obtuse nature of the Beltway Media. Indeed, only days ago, Andrea's softball interview with Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, painted a false picture of bipartisan "team effort" — minimal at best, despite Snyder's ludicrous claim of "relentless positive action" — glossed over his unconstitutional "emergency powers" grab of municipalities where most of the state's African American Democratic voting populations reside including Detroit, its largest city, and didn't even mention Snyder's 37% approval rating.

In reality, the divisive governor slashed the state's budget on the backs of teachers, union workers, seniors, and the poor, in order to implement his corporate tax cuts. Now Snyder is trying to take credit for the major driver of Michigan's economic recovery — President Obama's reviled bailout of the auto industry, Michigan's primary economic engine. Not surprisingly, the President received no credit whatsoever as the true architect of Michigan's "turnaround," outpacing all other states.

To watch Andrea Mitchell Reports is akin to watching a well produced Beltway Media infomercial, with the obligatory participation of POLITICO, called by Rachel (I love this) the "belt buckle" of the Beltway Media. Now that the Komen story hits Andrea close to home, suddenly she is channeling her inner journalist. I was more surprised than impressed. It shouldn't have to be this way:

Hey Wingnuts, You Can't Erase Your Ideological Bias

The Susan G.Komen Foundation, the nation's largest breast cancer charity, known for "Race for a Cure" and those ubiquitous pink ribbons, provoked a firestorm of outrage when it announced a politically motivated decision to stop its grants to Planned Parenthood. The excuse given is that the embattled Planned Parenthood was "under investigation" by a Republican Congressman to ensure that none of its federal funding was used on abortion-related services. The fact is, Planned Parenthood has been under assault by the pro-life Republican House. This bogus investigation into what constitutes only 3% of the organization's women's health services is just a pretext to shut it down and deny it its vital federal funding.

The other aspect of this story is that the Komen Foundation's senior vice president of public policy, Karen Handel, who is “staunchly and unequivocally pro-life,” was hired last April after she ran as a Republican for governor of Georgia in 2010 on a pro-life plank. She hasn't commented on her Facebook page about the decision to defund Planned Parenthood, but has been basking in congratulatory messages such as this one:

“I was so happy to read about the defunding of Planned Parenthood by Komen. Thank you for any part that you had in this!! I am a breast cancer survivor and I always participated in the Race for a Cure, but I was not going to this year – after hearing about the funding. Now I am very happy to be able to participate with a clear conscience, knowing that the money I collect will not be going to Planned Parenthood! Thank you again!”

Tellingly, Ms Handel retweeted this zinger from a pro-life ally putting the lie to Komen Foundation assertions that its decision was not politically or ideologically motivated: “Just like a pro-abortion group to turn a cancer orgs decision into a political bomb to throw. Cry me a freaking river.” Nice try deleting your retweet Ms Handel, but you should know that finger-speed is no match for net-speed. As Lisa McIntire tweeted, “This is why we take screen shots.” I love 'em myself, knowing how much those of Karen Handel's ilk lie, and how important it is to keep a record. Stay classy, Ms Handel:

PS — SHAME, SHAME on the PBS Newshour and Judy Woodruff for reporting a version of this story that was misleading and incomplete, in an awkward exchange with an LA Times reporter. The political ties involving Ms Handel were never even broached. It seems PBS and its parent company, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, are just as cowed by the right wing pressure from extremist pro-life House Republicans, who have targeted both PBS and Planned Parenthood for termination and defunding. It's a despicable turn of affairs when an extremist right wing minority can control women's health and public discourse.

PPS — White Knight New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg contributed $250,000 to Planned Parenthood to be matched dollar-for-dollar for the funding lost to Komen. This, along with an outpouring of contributions will make up for the lost grants. Said Mayor Bloomberg, “Politics have no place in health care. Breast cancer screening saves lives and hundreds of thousands of women rely on Planned Parenthood for access to care. We should be helping women access that care, not placing barriers in their way.”

Thumbs up to Mayor Bloomberg, a billionaire politician with a social conscience. What are the odds Mittens will contribute some of his personal fortune to replenish programs for the poor he intends to slash, hmm ... ?

HUGE, HUGE: THE DONALD ENDORSES MITTENS ...

THE GOP CIRCUS MAIN EVENT — DANCE OF THE BILLIONAIRES JUST WENT VEGAS!!!

'FIX' WHAT, MR. 1%? A TALE OF TWO RICH GUYS

MR. 1% said by way of justifying, rationalizing his PLUTOCRAT's PERSPECTIVE that the poor have a "safety net" — as if, Joan Walsh noted, it's a "hammock" they're lying comfortably in "while the rest of us work" — and "if it needs repair, I'll fix it." Really?

Romney was saying that, as president, he wouldn’t make the very poor a top priority, because they are doing well enough, at least relative to the middle class.

But where on earth did Romney get that idea? The statistics tell a rather different story. Last year, for example, more than half of all children in poor households experienced a major hardship such as hunger or living in overcrowded living conditions, according to an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And if statistics like that are too abstract for Romney, perhaps he should spend some time in a clinic for the uninsured or a soup kitchen. If he did, he'd discover that life for the very poor is still very hard. They struggle just to pay for food and heat, let alone rent. Most of these people get by – people almost always find a way to get by – but it’s not a life that Romney or anybody else would want for themselves or their loved ones.

Romney is correct that a safety net exists for these people: Food stamps, and housing vouchers, and public health insurance save countless Americans from even worse hardship and, in the best of cases, help lift them into the middle class, where they stay. But the programs are not generous enough, or expansive enough, to do the job adequately. In most states, for example, only mothers and children are eligible for basic health insurance under Medicaid. Housing vouchers and subsidized child care, frequently essential for mothers who want to work, typically have long waiting lists. The value and reach of cash assistance (welfare) has actually declined in relative terms.

The catalyst for Bobby Kennedy's presidential campaign, a transformative event in his life, was his visit to some of the most impoverished parts of this country, Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta, where he cradled a black child whose stomach was distended by hunger, and wept.

As a senator from New York, Kennedy was the impetus for a successful redevelopment project in poverty-stricken Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn in New York City. He proudly carried the title bestowed on him by the press corps, of "tribune of the underclass." He was loved by African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and immigrant labor groups, connecting with them in ways no politician had, before or since. He carried the banner for the poor, those he called the "disaffected" and "the excluded." He aligned himself with the civil rights movement and became a beacon and a lightning rod for social justice, at great personal risk. He fought for a more aggressive posture in the Democratic Party to eliminate poverty and discrimination. He said, “I believe as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil.”

Robert Kennedy's oldest child, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, recalls her father's reaction upon his return from the Mississippi Delta:

She says she distinctly remembers her father coming home "very much stunned and shocked" from hunger hearings he held as a senator in the Mississippi Delta. "Do you know how lucky you are?" he asked her. "Do something for your country."

Townsend says RFK often quoted Luke 12:48 to his children — "to whom much is given, much is expected." He made sure they visited an Indian reservation before taking a wonderful river trip out West, she said, and drove through Harlem on the way to their nice apartment near the United Nations in New York.

"He always wanted us to see a part of life that most people in our situation wouldn't see."

Robert Kennedy was a rich guy too, just like Mitt Romney. But unlike Romney, he chose a life of genuine public service, one that gave back to the community and inspired rather than plundered and destroyed people's lives, which was Romney's career at Bain. Robert Kennedy instilled those values of public service — "to whom much is given, much is expected" — on his children. What, if anything, have Romney's $100 million children contributed to their community and country? To what end has Mitt Romney chosen his "public service" hobby — to enact the Ryan Plan, effectively trampling on the poor and middle class and further enrich the 1%?

Mitt Romney is the poster manchild for the wanton privilege of the SuperPac Oligarchs and the Plutocrat Class, and for the yawning income inequality of the last 30 years which has culminated in what President Obama accurately described as the "make or break year for the middle class." These are the stakes. What this rich guy, Romney, fails to grasp in his 1% fantasyworld is that as the poor go, so goes the middle class, so go us all.

As Robert Kennedy said, "but we can perhaps remember, if only for a time, that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek, as do we, nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and in happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can."

Robert Kennedy was a rich guy too, just like Mitt Romney. But that's where the similarity ends. Bobby was "a good and decent man," as his brother Edward said, with a burning idealism and passionate integrity for making this a better world for succeeding generations of Americans, building a more just and prosperous society for all. We know what he stood for, and we loved him his courage.

That is the legacy he left us, one that Romney blithely seeks to swat away as it isn't central to his life. Mitt Romney, the rich guy with the molten core, couldn't hold a candle to Bobby. Mitt Romney doesn't deserve the high honor and privilege of being our president.

This is still Robert Kennedy country.

Fake 'Progressive' Channel Watch: RESOLVED — Mitt Romney Doesn't Care About The Poor

Memo To Alex Wagner: Where's your progressive mojo gone? Mark Halperin is a REPUBLICAN spokesman/propagandist, okay. He's no journalist; he's a charlatan, a plagiarist, and a political smut-peddler, soon to be an HBO film. For you to call his partner "a man of letters" is like comparing Kitty Kelley to Hunter S. Thompson. By the way, the wingnut blogs are echoing Halperin. He gets a free mic on MSNBC to spout his GOP talking points, and has the audacity to criticize Alex (the media) for Mittens' foot-in-mouth disease. Stop being such a suck-up, Alex!

MSNBC Election Coverage Production Values: YIKES!

Are Chuckles and Tamron Hall trying to give iPads a bad rep? Compared to CNN and John King's sticky fingers, MSNBC's visuals are still sucky and static. How come Toddy can't highlight a certain county on the map, enhance it, and pull up the relevant stats with a couple of finger or stylus taps? And who got the bright idea that, after showing us that Romney 47% - Gingrich 32% graphic ALL NIGHT, and the interesting part FINALLY comes up with candidate speeches, some controlling Einstein ASSHOLE producer decides we'd REALLY LIKE TO SEE that graphic AGAIN with the candidate in a POSTAGE STAMP BOX instead of WIDESCREEN all the time, in which we get to see not only the candidate, but reactions of those around him? Good thing there's CNN, that doesn't do moronic production shit, and I got to catch a little bit of David Gergen's comments, too.

You’re A Leading Beltway Media Luminary, IF …

1. You continue to push the silly sports analogy of the “40-yard line” and midfield as the ideal place to score political points despite the uneven, right-tilting playing field.

2. You watch Bill O’Reilly and come away convinced there is a “hard left” which is the polar opposite of the “hard right” — yet a Newt way to insult liberals and progressives.

3. you cannot define “hard left,” i.e., if “hard right” is the Tea Party then “hard left” is … the Progressive Caucus (?); or, as Bill-O The Clown argued, if MSNBC’s “litmus test” is to “fire extremists” like Pat Buchanan, then, “MSNBC would have nobody on. Nobody on.” Really? Not even Chuckles and Chris?

4. You actually believe Michael Steele will vote for President Obama. (Not.) Either that, or you’re palling around with a devious Republican (recently mocked by Jay Carney) at the audience’s expense, which is worse.

5. Your idea of a great Hardball segment on the economic comeback of the Rust Belt and the auto industry resurgence, thanks to the bailout, is to turn it into a clown skit featuring Michael Steele.

6. You love to insult your progressive audience by allowing proxy Steele to sabotage a great Democratic success story — GM is back as the world’s #1 auto manufacturer — with ludicrous voodoo economics spin, while pretending to be dense about it.

7. You read Republican Establishment luminary Kathleen Parker religiously, and just as religiously fail to correct her outrageous crapaganda in real time. Tell me something I don't know because, uh ... it's untrue!

8. You insist Romney cannot identify with the “yearnings” of the American people, but insist you can? Discuss amongst yourselves: Michael, Chris and Chuckles.

9. You claim to be “center-left” (right) or “left” (center, with a sugar cone) but yearn to be a Charlie Crist Republican (soft right, with sprinkles), which is almost hard right, with a double scoop, yearning to go hard left, that's the Michael Moore triple scoop, with the works.

10. The Reverend Al Sharpton's deadpan Republicans-are-crooks humor keeps you in stitches, so maybe there’s still pie-in-your-face hope.

Clueless Idiot Punditocracy Elites Huff And Puff At Newt Speech ... OH, MY!

It was one of the weirdest — and best! — "concession" speeches I have ever seen. Nasty Newt once again rose to the occasion with the quirky brilliance that had earned him this blog's Republican "endorsement." It was hilarious to witness the reaction of the Idiot Punditocracy. Clearly, Newt got under their skin, lobbing the "elites" mortar, which landed a little too close for comfort. Ha, I loved it!

Despite Rachel's somewhat faint praise, most astute political observers (and let's be clear, they're few and far between) would come away with the impression that Mr. 1% was launching forgettable spitballs at President Obama. If this kind of strained, hollow, rich man's version of political character is their standard-bearer, the Republican Party/Establishment is in deep trouble. There's something about Mr. Molten Core that really, really rubs people the wrong way. He lacks not only a core but even that fake conviction. And the harder he tries the worse he sounds. This guy still hasn't cracked 50% of the Republican primary vote, in a state that was supposed to favor him, with literally unlimited funds to carpet-bomb Newt. Yet Mittens' geographic appeal was limited mostly to the urban/suburban rich carpetbagging Florida counties. Newt cleaned up the Tea Party vote and the "southern" panhandle.

What were they talking about? Newt's speech blew Mittens away. And didn't you love it how he never acknowledged his rivals, never conceded? Of the Punditocracy, David Gergen of CNN, a truly respected éminence grise of political pundits, got it right when he said that had this Newt shown up at the debate, we "might have had a different result." The self-congratulatory Lawrence and Chris were basically clueless about Newt's appeal to the Republican base, although Chris came close citing "all the buttons he pushed" then lost it with some murky "kaleidoscope" reference — not at all my impression of a "stream of consciousness," far from it — followed by a typical condescending Beltway notion that Newt was talking over the audience's heads by citing the repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley.

Those of us who have read up on the Tea Party, and I'm a little surprised the pundits didn't catch on, know that these people, like Ron Paul's followers obsessing over "the Fed" for instance, really get into the weeds of legislation which, for whatever reason, they regard as particularly evil. Newt pushed other hot Tea Party buttons, like the "people power" reference, the grandiose Gettysburg Address "of, by, and for the people" with its exaggerated emphasis, and lastly, what no one seems to have connected, the ending line, in which the Times live bloggers noted, Newt had "appropriated" the last line of the Declaration of Independence: "I promise if I become your president, I pledge to you my life, my fortune and my sacred honor."

Yes, but one of the earliest NYT profiles of rank-and-file Tea Partiers mentions that they customarily end every meeting with those very words, which one member described in near-spiritual terms. Newt didn't use this passage by accident or simply to be grandiose. He was making a very effective pitch for the hearts and minds of the Tea Party legions, the Pitchfork brigades. (Let's not forget Newt's promise to sign an executive order removing the Obama administration's so-called "czars," a cause célèbre among the most conspiratorial Teabaggers.) And judging by some pundit reactions, Newt connected. The usually reserved Steve Schmidt was never more agitated, expressing the alarm of the Republican Party Establishment at the prospect of "total war." Similarly, the usually unflappable Reverend Al lost it when Newt made race baiting references to the President as the "entertainer-in-chief." He and Rachel rightly tore into Newt's representative over the racist references.

I was impressed by Newt's Machiavellian specificity. There was nothing delusional about his focused, snarling prescriptions. He wasn't speaking off the top of his head — no lunar references tonight — but made carefully calibrated remarks for maximum appeal to the Tea Party, including patriotic American history allusions that are a part of the Tea Party gospel. As mentioned in our endorsement of Newt, "we believe his rise will lead to the ultimate destruction of the Republican Party as currently constituted ... Newt Gingrich is the perfect vehicle for the Republican Party's destruction. The "flawed vessel" of our dreams."

I do not agree with Jonathan Alter that Newt prolonging this campaign will help Romney by virtue of contrast with Mittens as the "Massachusetts liberal." Inevitably, Romney's faults will expose a rift in the Republican Party with the base — more Republicans, 6 in 10, still want someone else! — that may be beyond healing. Even more important, the negative firepower needed to pulverize Newt will very likely splatter Romney and further depress his soft, unenthusiastic support. What goes around, comes around, and Mittens will sustain a lot of damage from Newt.

When the semifinal takes too much out of a team, it will stumble flat and bedraggled into the final, against a formidable opponent that coasted. And it will lose. Only those teams with uncommon character actually gain strength from a bruising contest before the Big Show. Sorry Republicanos clubistas, but Mr. 1% lacks that uncommon character.

TEA PARTY Remedial Ed: It's Official ... Social Conservatives Are Dumb

We don't need a scientific study for this; just watch FOX for five minutes, or count the misspelled racist signs at Teabagger demonstrations; or read the Daily Caller or a Ron Paul newsletter, for that matter ... But here 'tis:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

No wonder these people are anti-science — it's like a primitive defense mechanism that rejects any complexity that rocks their simple world; like evolution and global warming:

[T]here is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.

"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

Okay, I understand these people need help, but why do we allow them to run the show and set policy? Because they're armed and dangerous?

Down But Not Out: The Ice Bucket Man Cometh

Newt Gingrich, the House ice bucket slayer, the moon talker doing the candidate moon walk as Mittens prances away in his starched jeans and tasseled loafers like a prissy Captain (Jack) Sparrow, came out swinging and tossing buckets of red meat at his blood-lusty crowds while declaring, without irony, "when you're desperate you will say anything." The polls say he's far behind the mulligan multi-millionaire with the oily phrasing — "have you checked your own investments-ah" — but how can Tea Partying teabaggers, genuine or wanna-be's, possibly reject this swamp thing, this laughing gator and orange demon of the Everglades candidate in their midst? How can any Florida voter with a keen sense of history and appreciation for this political theater of the absurd say no to Newt Gingrich?

Newt Gingrich is the best Republican thing (not counting George W. Bush, El Supremo Putsch, And The Tale of The Well-Hung Chads) to have happened to GOP Floridians since these guy (see below) alighted on the Miami Beach Convention Center trailing a fearsome entourage of loathsome, sadistic German drillmasters to claim their short-lived Republican nomination for President and Vice President. Tragically for the nation, W. went the distance despite his impeachable criminal war record, thanks to the Dark Lord without heart or pulse:

Memories make me want to go back there, back there, All the memories make me want to go back there, back there
All the memories, how can we make it back there, back there, I want to be there again...

Nationally, Republican voters lust for the fake "Reagan conservative" who behaves like the Nixon Loathario of their dreams. The latest Gallup poll had Nasty Newt leading Mittens 31% to 27% with some cave dwellers still undecided. But slick packaging and Establishment peer pressure may yet sway Republican voters to back Mittens the Molten Core. C'mon, peeps. Where's your hatred for "Obama"? Nasty speaks your lingo. When have you ever heard him say, "President Obama"? Exactly. Where's your sense of adventure and possibility? ¡Vamos Cubanos Republicanos de la Derecha! ¡Un voto para Newt és un voto por la invasión de la Isla Bonita!

Break out of your lemming ways, grand ole partying Floridians! A vote for Newt the Nasty is a vote for independence from the tyranny of the Country Club Establishment. Aren't you tired of white one percenters with British colonial accents sitting in New York City telling you what to think and how to vote? Cast a vote for Newt and free yourselves forever of the shackles of dependency on the dependable candidate of the smoke-filled links and corporate boardrooms. Send a chill and a shiver up Ann Coulter's back, a thrill up Roger Ailes's leg! A vote for Nasty Newt is a vote for your heart in rebellion against small minds and even smaller ideas. VOTE for your Manichean self just itching to break through!

Just do it. There's still time. Reject the statist Establishment. The Ice Bucket Man Cometh but once in your lives. Carpe diem. You won't regret it. Trust me. Vote your hopes and dreams.