TARMAC TALES OF HORROR: President Visits Red States Held Hostage By Governor Freaks

FIRST, deplaning in Arizona, President Obama tried to sidestep the WICKED WITCH OF THE WEST, finger-waggin' LIAR Jan Brewer: "Me President, you Jan. Step aside, madam." Tomorrow, Mr. Obama returns to Wisconsin to visit a union Master Lock factory, where Limited Edition Union-Buster locks are being crafted to jail Governor Scott Walker and his scandal-ridden administration.

Ouch. Gray Lady Trashes Grammys ...

I make it a point of not watching award shows, except for the Oscars. When it comes to music, which has such a personal and subjective appeal, doubly so. To say award shows are arch and pretentious would be an understatement. The anointing of best whatever 'artists' with Grammys is done by something called the "Recording Academy," which sounds disturbingly Orwellian. And it should be noted that the recording and movie industries are prime movers of the SOPA bill in Congress, which would effectively censor and kill the internet as we know it. So fuck them, already.

I prefer catching the highlights and posting them — see below. It's a timesaver. I don't have to be told that the Boss is losing his touch or that the Foo Fighters are overhyped and overrated. But Adele is Adele and she's still worth a look-see, even though five of those thingys is a bit much. The Times review spares no delicate feelings or bruised egos: "for the umpteenth time, the Grammys went with familiarity over risk, bestowing album of the year honors (and several more) on an album that reinforced the values of an older generation suspicious of change ... That it was done this year under a veneer of progressivism — the anointing of a modern young star as a marquee talent — only makes it more loathsome." Ouch.

Read on. It gets better. The show "went out of its way to uphold antiquated values. The induction of Adele into a not-so-secret society will be cheered as a triumph over artifice, and what an unfortunate thing that will be." Ow! Now that really hurts. He might as well be calling the "night's theme of old school Puritanism" a middle class petty bourgeois extravaganza, or worse, CPAC entertainment. Okay, I get it. It's corporatist, preternaturally conservative, and ancient like the Republicans. Here's the kicker; it's just like the Sunday talk shows! ... Except that the instrument played by the Sunday peddlers is misinformation: "Forget women. Forget black or Latin stars or those of any other ethnic background. In a year in which the Grammys could have reasonably tried to sell progress as a narrative, it chose to end the night with a phalanx of older white men playing guitars, a battalion guarding the rickety old castle from attack, a defiant last stand of yesteryear."

Not Going Anywhere: It'll take More Than A Little Scorching To Render This Baby Obsolete.

But then Times reviewer Jon Caramanica goes a 12-chord bridge too far: "It will take decades, probably, before guitars cede their Grammy primacy, even if they’re losing it everywhere else." I don't think so. From Robert Johnson to Jack White, if there's an instrumental royal lineage in popular music, the guitar is king, the monarch whose "primacy" cannot be endangered by yet another pop music "trend" or the synthetic, overproduced garbage that passes for music these days — not as long as the Grammys are around. So lighten up, Jon. Adele's extraordinary talent is in her vocal chords and song writing; not on the externalities of how "forward-looking" she is. As long as she's not lip-syncing she's fit to print. It's an awards show ... What did you expect?

GRAMMYS 2012: 2 AWESOME PERFORMANCES

ADELE — Man, she SOARS with this SLO-BURN magnetic presence: "We Could've Had it All, Rolling in The DEEP!" Understated, but so, so powerful:

And Jennifer Hudson's emotional tribute to Whitney Houston, all the more beautiful for its heartfelt simplicity:

Both performances gave me chills. Well done, ladies.

Is Mittens The Republican Party's Welfare Queen?!

"A WIN. A WIN! My SuperPac Kingdom for A WIN!"

Uh-Oh. Mittens wasn't even halfway through his alleged CPAC (Crass, Pathetic and Asinine Conservatards) straw poll and Maine caucus "wins" victory lap when Ron Paul and Rick Santorum cried foul. LOUDLY. Rick Santorum charged Romney doctored the straw poll results. He may have a point. The past few years CPAC's straw poll has been dominated by Ron Paul, much to the consternation of 'Establishment' conservatives who would like CPAC to mainline more sensitive racist 'social conservative' wingnuttery, less paleolibertarianism. Although, in truth, the differences are superficial and skin-deep. This year, event organizers moved closer to that goal with racist panel discussions honoring the Buchanan 'multiculturalism is killing America' vision featuring several xenophobic, white supremacists to kick thing off.

Ron Paul didn't even show up this time citing the old fallback, a scheduling conflict. Maybe it's got something to do with the "strategic alliance" he's forged with Mittens — 'pleeease, pretty please Paulie, call your people off' and let Mittens win one CPAC straw poll to show the Cpeeps just how "severely conservative" he is:

Rick Santorum was not amused, however. He said acidly, "I don't try to rig straw polls ... You have to talk to the Romney campaign and how many tickets they bought ... We've heard all sorts of things." The CPAC straw poll results were 38% Mittens to 31% for Santorum, with Gingrich 15% and Paul 12%. Judging by past results, Santorum has a point: something's off when Paul drops down to fourth, behind the Newtster, and Mittens wins the heart of white supremacists and takes it by seven points over Rick Santorum on the strength of his scintillating "severely conservative" speech. Anyone listening to Mittens acolyte Mark Halperin probably thought it was on the up and up. Halperin said Mittens had "shattered" his 50 percent "ceiling" in Florida. The final vote was 50.1% for Mittens. WOW.

(Memo To MSNBC: How shamefully pro-Mittens are you? Let me count the names: Halperin, Meghan McCain, Steve Schmidt, Michael Steele, Moron Joe (where Steele has become a fixture), Susan Page, Steve Capus ...)

And in Maine, where Mittens barely eked out a win edging Ron Paul, 39% to 36%, by canceling the caucus in Washington county, Paul's strongest area! Can anyone say voter suppression, GOP-style?!

Meanwhile, late Saturday night, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) sent an email to supporters that essentially alleged collusion between the Romney campaign and the Maine Republican Party without actually mentioning Romney by name. A portion of the email is below:

"In Washington County — where Ron Paul was incredibly strong — the caucus was delayed until next week just so the votes wouldn’t be reported by the national media today. Of course, their excuse for the delay was "snow." That’s right. A prediction of 3-4 inches — that turned into nothing more than a dusting — was enough for a local GOP official to postpone the caucuses just so the results wouldn’t be reported tonight. This is MAINE we’re talking about. The GIRL SCOUTS had an event today in Washington County that wasn’t cancelled! And just the votes of Washington County would have been enough to put us over the top."

OH, MY. In Maine, known for its rugged glacier-carved rocky coasts, with nary a sandy beach other than around the George H. W. Bush compound in Kennebunkport, where to take a dip in the icy Atlantic one must wear sneakers, those macho Republican state officials postponed a caucus on the basis of a weather report predicting 3-to-4 inches of snowfall. It just so happened to be in Ron Paul's strongest county. Oh, they might reschedule it, eventually, so that as in Iowa we'll learn weeks later that the results flipped and Ron Paul actually beat flopper-flapper Mittens, the "severe" conservative.

Can anyone say, 'Mittens the GOP Welfare Queen'? He's an 80-pound weakling with rubber legs sitting on a barrel of SuperPac cash that the Party Establishment — in the media, embeds Halperin, Schmidt, Steele, McCain, Capus, et al — have to figure out a way of rolling across the finish line.

If It's Sunday, It's Beltway Media Madhouse

David Gregory, the good, the bad and the ugly: He can't help being a white guy in a lineup of whitey males. He still towers above his, um, competition. And, pleasant surprise, David put in a good word for working women, against the 'feminazi' stereotype put forth by the Right and used as a 'dog whistle' by all GOP candidates, particularly pace presser Rick Santorum, closing fast on Mittens around the turn. In the Santorum interview, David stopped playing it close to the vest and mentioned the positive experience of working women in his own family:

"I want to show something that you wrote in your book "It Takes a Family." "The radical feminists," you wrote, "succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness." Now, Senator, everything I've learned about feminism from my working mother, my working sister and my working wife is that it's about respecting the choice of working or not working, not somehow the choice of working undermining the, the traditional family."

Whether or not they'd put him up to it, it was a nice touch by Gregory putting Santorum on the defensive, even though the candidate sounded more reasonable on MTP, as the presumptive front-runner, than he has on the campaign trail:

FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: And, and I stand by what I said. And with respect to the, to the issue of women in the military, you know, I understand that women in the military right now do serve in very hazardous positions and are, in fact, subject to — and we've seen a lot of injury, even serving, serving in front line positions. What I was referring to is women in infantry, in combat in the front lines.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

Really? Here's what Rick Santorum said at CPAC about women in combat, and not a word of it uttered on MTP:

Asked by CNN's John King if the move, "perhaps opening the door to a broader role for women in combat," was an idea he'd support as president, Santorum responded:

"I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country, and they do so in an amazing and wonderful way and they're a great addition — and they have been for a long time — to the armed services of our country."

Then came the big "but."

"But I do have concerns about women in front-line combat, I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission, because of other types of emotions that are involved," Santorum continued. "It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat, and I think that's probably not in the best interest of men, women or the mission."

Here's how Santorum spun his backward, reactionary attitude toward women in combat on MTP, with Gregory's full acquiescence:

FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: Well, there are obviously different physical requirements. I mean, you go to the — to any of the academies, there are different requirements, physical requirements for men and women. Why? Because there are physiological differences between men and women.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: And that's, that's one of the things that we have to consider in, in deploying them in an infantry position out there on the front line. And I don't — you know, I don't know of any, you know, any real discussion candidly that's talking about doing that."

That's actually not true. Former Senator Santorum, as usual for members of the facts-challenged party, is misinformed. According to several reports, "The Pentagon is going to try to get the services to implement what they're calling gender-neutral qualifications. In other words, gender ideally wouldn't be a factor in whether someone gets a certain job in the military." Literally, the same day Rick Santorum was casting aspersions on women in combat roles, the military announced the relaxing of some restrictions on women serving in combat roles.

But you wouldn't know it, watching Rick Santorum on MTP. And how many times do I have to keep repeating the same refrain. David mentioned in passing, non-specifically, Rick Santorum's outrageous remark about "emotions" getting in the way of women serving in combat. The damning CPAC video was never shown. But it should have been. Rick Santorum was allowed to slide.

"MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm."

Indeed.

This guy, Santorum (Google him), is so primitive in his thinking, values and attitudes, he reminds me of one of the "drudges" the British aristocracy disparages in my favorite novela, Masterpiece Classic's Downton Abbey. I mean really, Rick Santorum is at least 100 years behind the times, before the outbreak of World War I. Richie Cunningham? Please. Richie was much too avant garde for the likes of Santorum.

David Gregory's show suffers from a chronic, seemingly deliberate effort to select the most benign and least controversial sound bites to fake 'ambush' the guests, since they said it and can't pretend otherwise or that it isn't coming. It happens so often on the Republican side, that their pretending YouTube doesn't exist is a running joke. And we're left wondering whether the questions are pre-screened, because none of these people dare show their faces on Rachel, and very few on Big Eddie or Lawrence. Whether it's at the producer level, or Gregory himself, MTP's  benign vanilla soundbites, like its faces, are a perennial problem that reflects poorly on David's professional integrity.

It happened again. On contraception, the most damning video was not shown, in which Rick Santorum discusses the "dangers of contraception in America" and "the whole sexual libertine idea" that "many in the Christian faith will say, contraception, it's OK. Well, it's not OK." (See 'Contraception in America: ...' post below and TRMS video.) Millions of non-political female MTP viewers probably never saw this video or heard Rick Santorum's explanation. Don't you think they should, Mr. Gregory?

And while we're on the topic of Rachel Maddow, on a point of personal privilege for liberals and progressives, let me mention why the Beltway Media (which includes MTP) is held in such contempt by the Left. Of three instances I recall Rachel cracking the glass ceiling for truly progressive panelists, twice she was paired with arch-conservative CNN personality Alex Castellanos. This trash talking right wing Cuban-American is a GOP operative, a political hack incapable of making an objective factual argument. Also there, a boring technocratic Latino Dem to cover that segment of the 'base'. Another time, Rachel was matched against Tea Party leader Dick Armey, who is a hyper partisan wingnut of the creepy-repulsive Cal Thomas variety. And he was equally as rude to Rachel as Castellanos and Thomas.

What's going on here, David? You think liberals and progressives are so stupid that your roundtable guest list for a Rachel appearance (essentially representing the progressive POV) must include low-level wingnuts and political hacks on the other side? ('Far this' v. 'far that' — is that how you Beltway Media idiots think?) Has it ever occurred to you, Mr. Gregory, how insulting and offensive it is to liberals and progressives that we scarcely get to see Rachel in an MTP panel opposite normal people capable of making cogent arguments (no offense to the bland politico)? How about fellow conservative journalists like, for instance, a Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, or Andrew Sullivan. I realize Rachel may be too smart for regular MTP panelists, but it would seem the anchor of MSNBC's election coverage has already earned the right to be treated with respect.

Not that they're anything to call home about.

E. J. Dionne joined the Mark Shields school of clueless generational Catholic males with these statements about the contraception dustup: "I think that as long as this was a religious liberty argument, the church and its allies, the bishops and their allies, were — had a very good chance of winning the argument, and in effect I think they did. There are some conservatives in the church who seem to now want to move it to a contraception argument and the Obama administration would love that." ... And: "The president should have seen this coming a long time before he did. And I still think the administration has to look back and say, how did it lose track of that Obama who was so open on religious questions in 2006 and in the 2009 Notre Dame speech... and was very sophisticated. They got to find that guy again."

With all due respect, E. J., you, Mark, Chris and Peggy need to look beyond your conservative circle of elitist D.C. Catholics. (A) This fight is perceived as one over contraception; (B) The politics work just fine for the President; don't forget E. J., this comes on the heels of the Komen Foundation FAIL, not to speak of recent child abuse scandals, so the Bishops aren't much more popular than Congress; (C) For tactical reasons stated here before, the President did see this fight coming, and welcomed it.

Then E. J., the Old School Catholic who didn't know about Richie Cunningham, redeemed himself with this out-of-the-parker:

"MR. DIONNE: We agreed there was overreach on this contraception rule. [Let's just agree to disagree on this one, E. J.] But I know the left. The left is not to the left of where it was, number one. [Are you listening, Chris?] Number two, Barack Obama is a moderate progressive with the emphasis on moderate. Most socialists are insulted when Barack Obama is called a socialist. It's absurd that this man is a socialist. And I think most of the country...

I think right now what you have is that the left is very happy he is raising the issue of economic inequality which Occupy Wall Street pushed him toward. A lot of the country agrees with him on that. And so actually I think the pressures to move further left, and there isn't that much of a left in America to begin with, are really minimized." [How about now, Chris — can you hear E. J. or are you going to continue leading an entire generation of idiot pundits astray, e.g., Jonathan Capehart, with some pablum about 'the 40-yard line'?]

 Peggy Noonan, a longtime GOP tool and card-carrying member of the Idiot Punditocracy, proved once again her total incapacity for growth with these pearls of IP 'wisdom':

MS. NOONAN: As a conservative, as I look at the administration, here's one thing that I think is kind of new the past few years. The leftist, if you will, part of the president's base seems to me to be, A, more leftist and, B, more powerful. When you have a White House, in the past month, E.J., that says, NARAL, National Abortion Rights Action League, and Planned Parenthood are here, the Catholic Church and I would argue the First Amendment are here, Who wins? NARAL and Planned Parenthood, that, to me, is the kind of politic calculation, just politics that is kind of mad, and that suggests a certain sort of, I hate to say extremism, but something rather extreme.

UN-EFFING-BELIEVABLE how TOTALLY CLUELESS this woman is. Keep in mind, it's people like Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, and Bill-O The Clown, to name but a few, that Chris Matthews and David Gregory listen to as "reasonable" voices on the Right. To make matters worse, some probably go to church together. One thing about MTP, it's an invaluable window into the elitist attitudes, prejudices, stereotypes and 'values' of the Beltway Media/Idiot Punditocracy.

Last but definitely not least, is TEH STOOPID himself, Moron Joe:

MR. SCARBOROUGH: ...Andrew Sullivan claims that Barack Obama saw this coming all along and he was just setting his enemies up into a trap ... Which — no, well, but which means that he was trying to set Joe Biden up in a trap and John Kerry up in a trap.

The larger picture — one thing that Andrew Sullivan did say, since we just knocked him around, let's defend him. He did say you can't have it both ways. Barack Obama can't be Joseph Stalin and Jimmy Carter at the same time. Pick your poison. Is he an incompetent moderate, according to the right, or is he a dangerous ideologue? The fact of the matter is, look at his last State of the Union address. He is now in Clinton territory because he understands, like Bill Clinton, he got a lot of big things done on — from the left for the first year and a half, and he's going to spend the rest of his time, whether it's the next year or the next five years, compromising with the Republicans.

I knew there was a reason I'm fond of Andrew; either he reads this blog, or maybe it's that 'here comes the old Zeitgeist again', but definitely this falls into the 'You Read it Here First' category, as it's precisely the point I had made about the President.

Just listen to Moron Joe. This dude makes no sense whatsoever. First, accepting Andrew's premise, which I have, setting "Joe Biden up in a trap and John Kerry up in a trap" was not a bad thing to do, politically. They gave the President cover for taking a position popular with women and most liberals while getting behind the final "compromise" as one they could accept. I don't know about Kerry, but Joe Biden didn't seem to mind being 'set up in a trap' if in fact that's what it was. Then Moron Joe goes bizarro:

"Barack Obama can't be Joseph Stalin and Jimmy Carter at the same time. Pick your poison. Is he an incompetent moderate, according to the right, or is he a dangerous ideologue?"

WHAT?! Let's set aside the Stalin-Carter insanity. For all intents and purposes, the Right and the Republican Party have already settled on a strategy of demonizing President Obama in an effort to portray him as a "dangerous ideologue." The "incompetent moderate" isn't part of the GOP's calculus, however much Moron Joe may wish to push his own political agenda on the fake progressive channel.

Rachel's SCOOP: Paul's Strategy Is to Force A Brokered Convention

As the Beltway Media burrowed into their political racing forms trying to unravel the form, condition, and class analysis that will reveal the next race winner in this field of GOP candidates, Rachel was seeking her edge away from the beaten path of Idiot punditry. The Beltway Media has studiously ignored her, a function of unacceptable gender and politics with a generous coating of fear and loathing, as she was unlocking the secrets of Ron Paul's strategy and intention by delving deep into the weeds of the new GOP caucus rules which her colleague, former RNC Chairman Michael Steele, helped to craft. Amazingly, in an exchange between Lawrence and a guest pundit about this selfsame process, the pundit revealed somewhat disingenuously, that a "brokered convention" was what Steele told him he'd hope to achieve with the new rules; to which Lawrence retorted, "Thank You, Michael Steele!"

Yet Lawrence never followed up and asked the obvious, BEGGING question: "WHY"? Why would Michael Steele craft new proportional delegate caucus rules, with less winner-take-all primaries, that  increase the likelihood of a brokered convention. It's one thing for the Party to try and manage its nominating process with rules designed to prevent an 'outlier' or weak candidate (for the general election) from locking up the Republican nomination early. It's quite another to hope for a "brokered convention" which is, by definition, an expression of the Party's EPIC failure to pick a nominee before the convention rolls around, through the orderly participation of its electorate.

The advent of more primaries and caucuses are intended, particularly, to prevent the old ways and politics of smoke-filled rooms and party bosses that used to select nominees away from the public eye. Instead, the modern political convention is meant to showcase the party and candidates in an endless parade of speeches, testimonials, and political pageantry carefully choreographed by studio professionals to put their best "product" forward before the public. There is scarcely any drama or platform fights and, please, no insurgencies or coups, much to the media's chagrin. All of this so the delegates can leave the convention united behind their nominees and pumped up for November.

Not anymore, it seems.

So what's this about a brokered convention!? What was Michael Steele thinking? No wonder the Republican Party replaced him with a guy named Reince Priebus, who is notorious for this:

It should be noted that the new party bosses, of course, are the secret billionaire donors behind the SuperPacs — and the flamboyant billionaires who choose openly to flaunt their power to buy candidates and elections, proudly applauding their thoroughbreds in the winners circle as their pictures are taken. But that's oats for another story.

My initial reaction to the pregnant disclosure of Michael Steele's unfathomable stated intention to produce a "brokered convention" in crafting the new rules for caucus and primary states was, "what kind of WEED are Lawrence and his guest smoking?"... that they should so nonchalantly drop such a glaring revelation, then disregard it as one huge hanging chad question mark and mysterious unresolved issue for viewers to decode. MSNBC, here's your chance to make Steele's circus hiring partway useful: ASK HIM. In the meantime I'm left with this smooth segue pondering whether to deliberately misspell the name of Rachel's guest, a "senior adviser" to the Ron Paul campaign, who has the look of a pothead in his youth, and a name that must be a real icebreaker and conversation starter. Here's Rachel outsmarting 99% of her Beltway Media colleagues, with good deductive reasoning matched to something they're too lazy to partake in — old fashioned investigative research. Think Dr. House making the connections no one else can see, on his whiteboard. Heeere's Rachel:

Woolly Mammoth Identified: Political Animal Believed Extinct Seen Near Nation's Capital!

A prehistoric wooly mammoth once thought extinct was captured on film as it crossed the Potomac River, heading south from the Mason-Dixon line. Its identity was confirmed as the antediluvian pachyderm when closer photographic analysis of the lumbering animal revealed amazing detail of its Paleolithic herd and tribal heritage:

Here is the astounding footage of the animal’s river crossing, originating somewhere in Siberia-on-the-Potomac, lumbering relentlessly toward that pachyderm graveyard known as the CPAC Conference in Washington, D.C.:

Just For The Record ...

I'm glad Rachel was born, too; makes you think there is a god. But can't say the same for Cal Thomas, apology notwithstanding. And the rest of that FOX crowd. Even for a 'conservative' Thomas rates high on the creepy/repulsive index. Isn't the FOX echo chamber like a padded room for the insane run by Frau Greta?

I'm mean, but I mean well.

Contraception Fight 'A Win' For Obama Administration

Interesting McClatchy piece on how the dynamics of this contraception dustup is a political plus for President Obama. (And this was before the President's well received "compromise" solution.):

'Opponents say it's government overreach that tramples religious freedom for those opposed to contraception as a matter of religious principle.

However, pollsters and strategists say the controversy — and the push for contraceptive coverage for all women — is a political plus with at least one key target audience: young, female voters, a large portion of the electorate.

"Contrary to conventional wisdom, this is a good fight," said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, whose surveys have found that voters across the board — including Catholic voters — support access to contraceptives. "It's a total win for the administration."

Lake argues that the decision benefits the White House by giving Obama a tangible benefit from his controversial health care plan and has the potential to motivate pro-choice voters.

Political analyst Charlie Cook, who in a National Journal column this week said that Obama's prospects for re-election are looking better, suggested that the contest over the contraceptive decision will be won by who can frame the issue best.

"If it is framed as a fight over contraception, President Obama wins and the Church and opponents of the rule lose," Cook said in an e-mail. "If it is perceived as a fight over religious freedom, the Church and rule opponents win and Obama loses."'

IDIOT PUNDITOCRACY "Wisdom": Luke 'The Force Is Not With Me' Russert

"Obama north of 50 for the first time in a long time, Santorum and Romney and Newt seeming to have this battle to the death that's very bloody, this was mapping out to be a good week for President Obama, and instead of the focus being there on the payroll tax battle, one that he won before, the focus is on this issue, I think it's safe to say this is a victory for the Republicans in the fact this has dominated the front pages and the President's economic policy has not." ~ Luke Russert on a faltering, substandard Martin Bashir segment.

Luke, Luke ...  one more casualty of the Beltway Media. Listen carefully, Luke:

1. Obama's poll ratings will not be negatively affected by those who already hate him, doubly hating him. They only get to vote once. The President's initial position had far more 'north of 50' support among all Americans and Catholics. His "compromise" position is off the northern exposure charts. And that's not even counting women.

2. Just a cursory look at CPAC tells us this "battle to the death that's very bloody" among the GOP candidates has gotten — YAY! — bloodier, if you can believe it. So who's your guy, Luke? We already know Romney's MSNBC 'embed' is Mark Halperin.

3. As the GOP 'battle to the death' takes shape around this fake 'war on religion' (good for Newt-Santorum; bad for Mittens), the President (and the country) have moved on as the Dark Side get mired in 'Culture Wars'. Have you seen the latest polls on the people's priorities? The economy is up around 60% while 'values/religion' are in the single digits. Oops.

4. And you say, "I think it's safe to say this is a victory for the Republicans in the fact this has dominated the front pages and the President's economic policy has not." In case you haven't noticed, Luke, women's health and free access to contraception is an economic issue. In fact, women use the health care system, by one estimate, 68% more than men, and the birth control pill is the most commonly prescribed drug for women.

Let's be clear on who the winners and losers are. The President is a winner. The women of  America are winners. Catholics of good faith are winners. Democrats are winners. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are winners. But Mittens and the Republican Party are losers ... if they want to win. Some victory for Republicans.

Oh, wait. The Idiot Punditocracy and Beltway Media are losers. Then again, y'all are perennial losers.

Republicans Were For It ...

'TILL THERE WAS YOU' ... A GOP Valentine's to President Obama:

Meanwhile, at the latest pit stop of the Idiot Punditocracy, a must-see episode of 'Dear Now Diary: The Perils of Alex Wagner' careened toward another Obama cliffhanger, as Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, schooled the POLITICO males on the panel, Ben & Thresh, Beltway Apprentice Luke 'The Force Is Not With Me' Russert ("it's not about abortion"):

"I hate to say it, but I do think there's a Beltway mentality, we think of everything in 24-hour cycles; over the long haul, women in this country now getting access to preventive care, including birth control, with no co-pay, is extremely popular."

The POLITICOs huffed indignantly, Luke knew when to shut up, and Alex as per usual tried to get her meek little voice in edgewise. And President Obama, who is a man among GOP cockroaches, offered the solution he had envisioned from the first. Churches and religious institutions will be exempt from providing free birth control coverage if it runs counter to their religious beliefs. Instead, workers at such institutions will have access to free contraception directly from health insurance companies.

Problem solved. The Idiot Punditocracy were mystified, baffled and perplexed, wondering loudly why the President didn't come out with his "compromise" to begin with, thus avoiding the Alex "kerfuffle." Because, IMBECILES, had he done so the Right would have politicized the issue anyway. What the Catholic Bishops demand is no birth control coverage in health insurance plans at all. Period. Second, the President smoked these extremists out, right on the heels of the Komen Foundation's EPIC FAIL. Hello: why do you think Cecile Richards was smiling from ear-to-ear, you Beltway Media MORONS!?

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.