TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | right wing

Some of The President’s Faith Allies

By on 08 February 2012

On the Diane Rehm show today, according to my husband who sometimes listens to NPR while he’s driving from order to order, a man called in. They were discussing the Administration’s decision on contraceptive coverage. The gist of what the man asked, as I got it from Mark, is that the man said he got a vasectomy from a Catholic hospital, so why can’t women get contraception? The lawyer on with Ms. Rehm was a bit startled, then said, he shouldn’t have.

I’ll stack my religious faith and spirituality up against anyone on the right, because that’s what this comes down to, right? That’s the battle on which the religious conservatives want to fight. It’s unseemly, because it thrives on division and distracts from the actual purpose of Pres. Obama’s policy decision. Dividing secular public policy meant to aid women, particularly those in the challenged means category, and helping them to be more autonomous and capable of planning their lives, which begins with pregnancy.

As with anything connected to women’s freedoms, religious conservatives, no matter the political party, have chose to attach a political cost to helping women maintain more freedom. Already, David Axelrod has telegraphed the White House will compromise. This is where Democrats and Republicans become one large political party, both willing to use women’s autonomy as a chess piece on their political play board. It’s why my vote is up for grabs in the upcoming 2012 elections.

The connection to something greater, however it’s defined, has guided me throughout my life. This is part of what I talk about in my book, which appears in the chapter “Is Freedom Just for Men?” That my book has never been more timely when it comes to that chapter and the current discussion is enriching.

Below is the text of an email sent out by Catholics for Choice. It lays out some of the President’s faith allies, of which I am one.

Major Mainstream Religious Leaders Support White House on Contraceptive Coverage In Health Care Reform

February 8, 2012, Washington, DC – Today, twenty major mainstream religious leaders released a statement supporting the January 20, 2012 announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that contraceptive services must be covered by most insurance policies without deductibles or co-pays, and that only purely sectarian organizations are exemptfrom this requirement.

Catholics for Choice; the Central Conference of American Rabbis; Concerned Clergy for Choice; Disciples Justice Action Network; Episcopal Divinity School; Episcopal Women’s Caucus; Hadassah; the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; Jewish Women International;
Methodist Federation for Social Action; Muslims for Progressive Values; the National Council of Jewish Women; Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board; the Rabbinical Assembly; the Religious Coalition to Reproductive Choice; the Religious Institute; Society for Humanistic Judaism; The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Union Theological Seminary; Unitarian Universalist Association; and United Church of Christ represent millions of religious leaders
and people of faith across the country.

Together, the leaders of these Christian, Jewish and Muslim national organizations affirmed:

“We stand with President Obama and Secretary Sebelius in their decision to reaffirm the importance of contraceptive services as essential preventive care for women under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and to assure access under the law to American women, regardless of religious affiliation. We respect individuals’ moral agency to make decisions about their sexuality and reproductive health without governmental interference or legal restrictions.

We do not believe that specific religious doctrine belongs in health care reform – as we value our nation’s commitment to church-state separation. We believe that women and men have the right to decide whether or not to apply the principles of their faith to family planning decisions, and to do so they must have access to services. The Administration was correct in requiring institutions that do not have purely sectarian goals to offer comprehensive preventive health care. Our leaders have the responsibility to safeguard individual religious liberty and to help improve the health of women, their children, and families. Hospitals and universities across the religious spectrum have an obligation to assure that individuals’ conscience and decisions are respected and that their students and employees have access to this basic health care service. We invite other religious leaders to speak out with us for universal coverage of contraception.”

Catholics for Choice, Jon O’Brien, President
Central Conference of American Rabbis, Rabbi Jonathan Stein, President
Concerned Clergy for Choice, Rabbi Dennis Ross, Director
Disciples Justice Action Network, Rev. Dr. Ken Brooker Langston, Director
Episcopal Divinity School, The Very Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, President
Episcopal Women’s Caucus, Rev. Dr Elizabeth Kaeton, Convener
Hadassah, Marcie Natan, National President
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Robert Barkin, Interim Executive Vice President
Jewish Women International, Lori Weinstein, Executive Director
Methodist Federation for Social Action, Jill Warren, Executive Director
Muslims for Progressive Values, Ani Zonniveld, President
National Council of Jewish Women, Nancy Kaufman, CEO
Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board, Rev. Jane Emma Newall, Chair
Rabbinical Assembly, Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, Executive Vice President
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Rev. Steve Clapp, Chair
Religious Institute, Rev. Dr. Debra W. Haffner, Executive Director
Society for Humanistic Judaism, M. Bonnie Cousens, Executive Director
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Steven Wernick, CEO
Union Theological Seminary, Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, President
Unitarian Universalist Association, Rev. Peter Morales, President
United Church of Christ, Rev. Geoffrey Black, General Minister and President

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Santorum Sweeps

By on 08 February 2012

His candidacy all but dismissed just days ago, Rick Santorum won the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses and a nonbinding primary in Missouri on Tuesday, an unexpected trifecta that raised fresh questions about Mitt Romney’s ability to corral conservative support. – The New York Times


“Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota.” – Rick Santorum

Mitt Romney’s remarks in Colorado began with making excuses for the tiny crowd, saying it wasn’t as big as the 2,000 plus he had last night, but after all it was snowing, so thanks for coming out. Then walked off the stage to shake hands, with the Secret Service suddenly pulling Romney back and helping him duck what looked like on CNN another glitter bomb attack. That was before he found out Rick Santorum had pulled off a major upset in that state, a major trifecta, handing Mitt Romney a huge embarrassment and a major setback, which makes him look an even weaker frontrunner than ever before.

With his triumphs, Mr. Santorum was also suddenly presenting new competition to Newt Gingrich as the chief alternative to Mr. Romney, the front-runner. Where Mr. Gingrich has won one state, South Carolina, Mr. Santorum has now won four, including Iowa. – Another Twist for G.O.P. as Santorum Fares Well

Rick Santorum’s massive Missouri win last night didn’t surprise me at all. Growing up in Missouri, it’s a conservative southern state, with both KKK and so-called “right to life” woven into the fabric of much of the state.

Wisconsin gave Mr. Santorum a big win too, with Ron Paul coming in second, Mitt Romney third.

It was Colorado, however, that brought the story of Tuesday night into stark view.

Santorum’s victory speech was given before Colorado came in, with the big winner of the night attempting a grander reach in his rhetoric. He needed a teleprompter, because he couldn’t handle the scope or the theater of the moment off the cuff. However, in moments he showed more ease and authentic conservatism than anyone else yet, a quality that has also made Ron Paul so popular.

In contrast, there was Mitt Romney. His Colorado speech was gracious to Rick Santorum, but team Romney is likely to drop a piano on him now. Romney attempted to mimic Santorum’s populism by bringing up his dad, citing George Romney’s humble beginnings, which was a nice touch, especially compared to the repetitive “I love America” patter that’s worn way thin at this point.

Oh, and some other guy named Newt Gingrich didn’t even make a blip on the Republican radar. It made March’s Super Tuesday look a long way away.

Santorum made the best case yet this primary season that he, yes, Rick Santorum, is not only the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, but the guy who is seen as the frontrunner can’t make a closing case with conservatives.

Money should come flowing in to Rick Santorum today.

However, nobody has the organization of Mitt Romney. But it does pose a vice presidential reality that won’t be a choice for Romney if Santorum can get traction from the triumphs he garnered last night.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

Susan G. Komen Fiasco Delivers Karen Handel Resignation

By on 07 February 2012

**UPDATED**

Source: Susan G. Komen 2009-2010 Annual Report
via Mother Jones

From the AP: Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen official, resigns after Planned Parenthood dispute

Karen Handel, the charity’s vice president for public policy, told Komen officials that she supported the move to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. She said the discussion started before she arrived at the organization and was approved at the highest levels of the charity.

“I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it,” Handel said in her letter. “I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve.”

Translation: I am deeply disappointed that I and Ari Fleischer got caught helping Susan G. Komen implement our religious conservative strategy at the expense of women. I openly acknowledge that I believe women do not deserve the same freedoms as men, starting with controlling our own bodies.

Don’t let the door hit in you on the way out.

The fight for full women’s freedom continues, but one villain has been slain.

Read full story · Comments { 25 }

Romney with Donald Trump, Now it’s Pete Wilson

By on 06 February 2012

Is Mitt Romney trying to throw this race? He couldn’t have picked anyone who better represents Hispanic rejection of all things Republican, former Gov. Pete Wilson.

“Romney can’t seem to stop himself from digging deeper and deeper into his hole with Latino voters,” said Eliseo Medina of the Service Employees International Union in a statement. “Here is what Pete Wilson accomplished: He turned Latino voters against the GOP brand.” – LA Times

No wonder religious conservative Erick Erickson has thrown all caution to the ether and endorsed the “sweet meteor of death” over any of the current candidates.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

And Republicans Wonder Why Turnout is Down

By on 06 February 2012

This cannot end well for him, particularly doing this claiming to be a Christian. And it might not end well for the rest of us either. Barack Obama has gone to war with Christians’ consciences and he is perverting God’s word in the process to get his way on public policy. – The Perversion of the Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ by the Sinner Barack H. Obama, by Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson reveals one of the fundamental problems with Republicanism today. It’s not conservative at all anymore.

In a rambling, self-importantly arrogant post, Erickson pontificates on what he thinks he knows about being a Christian through a literal analysis of the Bible. Then he stands in judgment over Pres. Obama.

The self-righteous never see irony coming.

There is nothing Christian in Erickson’s harangue against Pres. Obama. There is also nothing conservative about it.

Conservatism has a measure of grounding when you listen to analysis of it from people who don’t wrap their religion through their conservative ideology.

A religious conservative can be against abortion. But an ideological conservative, while being against abortion and not wanting to fund it, cannot simultaneously take a person’s liberty away by forcing pregnancy on a woman when natural law protects her right to personal autonomy.

The very notion of conservatism is rooted in personal liberty. Whether religious conservatives like it or not, to be true to conservatism, they must honor that liberty. Today, they do not.

Any conservative with intellectual or political integrity would understand that conservatism of any depth must be rooted in the fundamental idea that interrupting the freedoms of any person through the intrusion of government, whether federal or state, is abridging a person’s autonomy in a manner that is the anti-thesis of conservatism.

Religious conservatism or fundamentalist-based Republicanism is actually a self-righteous marketing attempt to make people like Erickson and his ilk think they are on higher ground and have the ultimate interpretation of right and wrong. You hear it through Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the self-righteous radio crowd.

It’s the blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a conservative, but think religious dogma should hold more sway than an individual who’s privacy and personal freedoms are innate to being a person in the first place.

Conservatism without religion can make sense.

Add religion, however, and conservatism becomes authoritarian in nature, relegating women to non-persons, second class citizens and slaves, because the state or federal government, through religious dictates, is now in charge.

Conservatism’s very nature is about doing less, leaving the individual alone to prosper and live without interference, which certainly should include women.

However, since Ronald Reagan invited the “Moral Majority,” which was neither moral or a majority then or now as it exists in other forms, conservatism was bastardized into something that now includes a campaign to take over the domain of a woman’s very body through means of the state or federal government.

Erick Erickson sees no problem with this, because he’s a religious conservative, not a conservative.

You can be religious and you can be a conservative, but once you put the two together in an ideological philosophy you lose the moorings of anything that has integral grounding in what conservatism actually means.

Not even Ron Paul passes this test as a Libertarian. He’s said before that he’s against abortion, because it’s violent, which is perfectly acceptable, but that he’d allow the states to decide the law governing abortions. This fails the basic autonomy test and the very notion of liberty that’s in Libertarianism, which he proved in an interview with Piers Morgan.

The biggest impediment to curtailing abortions is the refusal of religious conservatives and fundamentalist Republicans to accept the primary component to being a person, which is the body that houses the soul, assuming it exists, is something over which no other, certainly no politician, clergy or the state, has control.

This is about personal autonomy and living freely without any dependencies, the first component of personhood. It’s not abortion, but includes it, because religious fundamentalists are using political means to wage a war against the very notion of women’s individual freedom.

If people believing in true liberty don’t start taking religious conservatives on, whatever party they are in, over their fundamentalism, women’s autonomy won’t be sacrosanct one day.

This includes taking on people like Pres. Obama when he decides that a safe pharmaceutical like Plan B can be used as a stick to the contraceptive carrot that came afterward, because women’s individual freedoms remain a bargaining chip for politicians and their supporters.

The ultimate example of this was seen through the Susan G. Komen fiasco this past week, when Komen decided to make ideology more important than the health of women, especially poor women, who have been a political football since the Hyde Amendment. Yes, Pres. Obama used poor women as a football too, and he did it through the religious conservative playbook that created Hyde in the first place.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }

Komen Caves? Not Really.

By on 03 February 2012

**UPDATED**

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives,” the group said. “We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities,” the group said. – Komen reverses decision to stop Planned Parenthood funding

This is what victory looks and feels like. But let’s look at the results to make sure they actually fully fund Planned Parenthood, because “preserve their eligibility” is awfully wishy-washy.

The people at Susan G. Komen underestimated the fury of the Democratic and progressive allies of Planned Parenthood. That’s because you rarely see them in action unless the worst has already happened.

This is instructive to the weak-kneed Democratic base and progressives who have compromised whenever Pres. Obama goes soft on principles that matter to the left.

From the New York Times:

Although multiple sources have said the board’s decision to eliminate funds to Planned Parenthood was driven by abortion opponents inside and outside of the organization, the Komen foundation, in its statement, insisted that its decision was not “done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood.”

“Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation,” the statement said. “We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

The statement asked everyone “who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.”

If you don’t want your “mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics,” then don’t hire a right-winger for public policy at the same time you fire a Democratic lobbyist.

The fact remains that Cecile Richard and Planned Parenthood, along with a lot of Democratic and progressive groups and activists, missed the signals and underestimated yet again the goals of right-wingers.

This is what you can do when you join each other in a worthy fight. But don’t let up, because eligibility is not full funding restored.

The statement from Nancy Brinker and the Susan G. Komen Board of Directors:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight againstbreast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

Economic News Buoys Obama, as Israel & Iran Chatter Grows

By on 03 February 2012

The pace of job creation surged in January, with the US economy generating 243,000 new positions while the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3 percent, according to government data released Friday. – CNBC

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza



This is fantastic news. Besides the people impacted by the turn in the economy, Obama reelect gets a boost too.

“What’s not to like about the report?” said Andrew Wilkinson, chief economic strategist at Miller Tabak in New York. “Not only did payrolls exceed forecasts…but between the November and December revisions employers added 160,000 more jobs than first thought.” – CNBC

I’d like to just offer one note of caution as 2012 election season starts to be seen only through the jobs and unemployment numbers. This is understandable, but as we learned on the run-up to George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004, when Osama bin Laden popped up in a video, what is suspected to be the issue, Bush-Cheney’s screw-up on Iraq, didn’t turn out to do him in. Obama gave the order for a daring SEAL Team Six mission to take out Osama, for which he doesn’t get enough credit, but there other foreign policy areas where he is less surefooted.

There is growing chatter about developments surrounding Iran and Israel. Richard Haas talked about it this week on “Morning Joe,” stressing a new element, the “zone of immunity.” David Ignasius wrote about it yesterday:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

In his State of the Union Speech, Pres. Obama trotted out the old and tired war rattling words “no option off the table” to make the point about Iran. I mentioned earlier when talking about Newt Gingrich and Sheldon Adelson (see Wayne Barrett here and here), who’s whole reason for being is to saber rattle on Iran, that DNI Clapper had warned about Iranian attacks inside the U.S.

There’s an interesting post up at Huffington Post on the entire subject of Obama and Iran.

Mitt Romney is so incredibly weak on national security issues that there can be little doubt he’d have to trip the full neoconservative wire to pass muster with Republicans.

Pres. Obama has shown his Bushesque colors throughout his foreign policy decisions, with an election year bringing even bigger challenges to him. As many of you remember, he ducked an important vote on Iran as a senator running for president. There has been much criticism on his Israeli policy as president, most undeserved. Pres. Obama has been a steadfast friend to Israel, as all American presidents must be, with Romney’s “appeasement” lines absurd.

It has leaked that US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen. Martin Dempsey warned the Israelis that if they launched a strike on Iran that spiralled into a war, they would be on their own. – Juan Cole

It’s a long way until November. However, never underestimate election year foreign policy problems to distract people who remain unhappy about the direction of the country. If Iran and Israel become front and center the Middle East could raise its head and turn the election into something no one anticipates today.

This election year is primed for shock waves.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Susan G. Komen Puts Romney’s ‘Not Concerned About the Poor’ In Perfect Context

By on 02 February 2012

The decision, made in December, caused an uproar inside Komen. Three sources told me that the organization’s top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the Komen board’s decision to cut off Planned Parenthood. ..Three sources told me the organization’s top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the Komen board’s decision to cut off Planned Parenthood. – Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Warning if you watch the video above, you’ll need a seat belt to escape the spinning by Nancy Brinker, founder of Komen, who has disgraced herself through her decision to take a McCarthyite House investigation as gospel.

The Democrats and progressive advocates of Planned Parenthood act as if they’ve never heard of Sun Tsu. But every battle is won before it’s waged. That’s how this entire conversation moved right to the point where Komen feels it has cover to adopt ideology over public health priorities.

One question that remains worth asking, even if I’m the only one asking it, is why was there no outlet or relationship to tap for those inside Komen to reach out to progressive allies to prepare or fight off the defunding of Planned Parenthood? How could Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood be caught so totally flat-footed on a decision that impacted the organization so profoundly? Is it possible Richards knew it was coming and decided taking the battle on after it was decided was the only option she had? If that’s remotely possible, the left is worse than even I imagined.

But if ever two events represented the right’s relationship today with the 99% they are the dueling events of Nancy Brinker of Komen and Mitt Romney for the 1%.

Mitt Romney talked about not being concerned about the very poor, because they have a safety net.

Brinker and Susan G. Komen damaging one of those safety nets for poor women by pulling funding for Planned Parenthood reveals what a Mitt Romney presidency might mean.

Meanwhile, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave $250,000, which goes on top of the money so many are donating to Planned Parenthood since Komen flipped wingnut.

The primary function of Planned Parenthood is reproductive health care, which lives well beyond abortion, with the funds received by Susan G. Komen kept separate from abortion services, which is a fraction of what it does. Now, Megan McArdle is talking about the funds being fungible:

It is, as Josh Barro noted, absurd to pretend that abortion is somehow incidental to Planned Parenthood’s services, and since money is fungible, giving them money is probably helping to fund abortion provision.

Why is it absurd? McArdle’s lazy analysis of “probably helping to fund abortion” flippantly ignores the impact when a woman is denied any reproductive treatment she cannot afford.

The upper crust analyst class is a scourge.

It also doesn’t begin to deal with the investigative yarn being used by Komen to ostracize Planned Parenthood, which is the primary goal of the right, no matter who gets hurt. That the biggest anti Planned Parenthood contingent also absurdly believes abortion is linked to breast cancer proves how far out on the limb these people will go.

Democrats and progressives are outwitted and outgunned in this department, because they simply won’t wage the fight, always careful to appear moderate while clinging to the coveted centrism above principle or any philosophical foundation.

I’ve made it perfectly clear that I believe this event was allowed to happen through negligence and careless naivete of Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood, but also their progressive and Democratic allies. They should have seen this coming, because it’s been in the works for years.

What could they have done? State unflinchingly and unapologetically that the rights of women where our own bodies are concerned are nothing less than a basic human right. That means you fight equally on every front and don’t apologize.

However, Democrats and progressives have not only not been diligent, but they’ve become increasingly and embarrassingly meek to the point of weakness in standing on a line and refusing to compromise on a woman’s basic human right to control her own body. That’s how the right carved out an investigative position over which to wage the Komen battle.

“Our donations are up 100 percent in the past two days. With all of the emotion around these issues — which we understand, we get emotional too, we do this every single day of our lives,” Brinker said, explaining that they do not make decisions to be popular, they make them to fight cancer. – Daily Caller

You don’t “fight cancer” by cutting out cervical screenings and mamograms to women who can’t afford them.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor” is the flag under which Susan G. Komen, Mitt Romney and their conservative apologists stand.

This never would have happened if the left was as strong in refusing to compromise on human rights issues of women’s individual freedoms. Compromising this fundamental purpose is how Planned Parenthood got in this position.

You can’t carve out portions of the women’s human rights philosophy because it makes you uncomfortable or you don’t have the spine to make the argument. Well, you can, but the result is that the right beats you and the least able to fend for themselves get crushed.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Media Made a Laughingstock Chasing The Donald’s Endorsement

By on 02 February 2012

TM NOTE: HostGator botched its hosting duties, so I have been able to write today, but I’m finally back in now (though I still can’t get emails). Onward…

As the Las Vegas Review Journal predicts a massive win in Nevada (pronouced Neva-as in cat-da) by Mitt Romney, traditional and new media outlets fell over themselves last night and today trumpeting The Donald’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich, or so they thought.

There’s only one reason I didn’t write about the pending Donald Trump endorsement last night. It’s because when the news of a Newt Gingrich endorsement started ricocheting across the internets, I simply didn’t think it rang true. The Donald’s ego would never allow him to be caught being so absolutely wrong about something that happens to matter to his crowd, the 1%.

As I wrote earlier, no candidate needs to drop out, because there haven’t been near enough delegates allotted. However, that doesn’t mean Newt Gingrich isn’t over in every other sense. He can still drag his pompous patootie all the way to the convention, but considering he split Tea Party voters with Romney in Florida, I’d say it’s going to get very lonely for Gingrich long before Super Tuesday in March, which could be good for him. That he doesn’t have the organization will become apparent quickly, so his whole charade of a candidacy depends on the generosity of Sheldon Adelson.

Politico’s Maggie Haberman went with “Trump to endorse Newt” at around 9:30 p.m. last night, but that became “Trump to endorse Newt…or Romney?” when Politico figured out they’d gotten it wrong. Haberman, who is as good as it gets, went with this cover: The Times, in fact, went first.

Indeed they did. This is what Political Wire wrote yesterday: Update: The New York Times reports Trump will endorse Newt Gingrich.

That’s the only remaining evidence that they did, because the original announcement has been papered over with something that now reads like this:

10:37 a.m. | Updated RENO, Nev. — Newt Gingrich swept into Nevada on Wednesday trailing far behind Mitt Romney in state polls and lacking much campaign organization, but his aides were ready to boast of a flashy new endorsement: Donald Trump was supposed to announce his support of Mr. Gingrich on Thursday in Las Vegas, according to a senior campaign official.

But today came word that Mr. Trump – at least for now – was preparing to endorse Mitt Romney.

The confusion may reinforce impressions of disarray in the Gingrich campaign in Nevada, evident as the candidate hit the ground after a daunting defeat in the Florida primary and immediately became embroiled in a dust-up over a canceled meeting with Nevada’s governor.

Only the Wall Street Journal remained smartly circumspect in “Donald Trump: An Endorsement?”

Wingnut blogs and many others ran with the Newt endorsement, following the crowd.

The person who remains the one to watch on Romney news, Matt Drudge, had the facts from the start. The Donald backs Mitt Romney and if he wins the nomination there will be no third party or independent run for Mr. Trump.

Today begins the ratcheting down of the Republican circus parade that’s been so entertaining for the last year. Not too many weeks from now it’s going to get deadly serious.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Komen Move to Defund Planned Parenthood Not a Surprise

By on 01 February 2012

Planned Parenthood confirms that Komen is the first, and only, organization to cut off funding since the Congress began debating the issue in earnest last winter. Komen said it could not continue to fund Planned Parenthood because it has adopted new guidelines that bar it from funding organizations under congressional investigation. The House oversight and investigations subcommittee announced in the fall an investigation into Planned Parenthood’s funding. – Why Komen defunded Planned Parenthood

While the right was laying ground for what just happened, the left was giving ground.

This Komen–Planned Parenthood relationship has long been a target of pro-life activists and, media bias aside, this appears to be a remarkable turning point. – Kathryn Lopez

Kathryn Lopez is correct and the abortion rights opponents earned it. Democrats and progressives have no one to blame but themselves.

Nothing happens suddenly on issues this large or in a vacuum. There is always a methodology to this type of madness and when you cede territory to people on a mission you rarely get it back.

In a statement by Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, she says she’s “shocked and saddened.” How embarrassing for her. Others write words like “creep up” to describe what has been systematic strategy utilizing tactics that the left is too squeamish to consider.

As a liberal, all I can say is that the female leaders we have today not only aren’t up to the task, but progressives have failed immeasurably and completely to defend the ground stronger women who came before won.

This fight has been around for decades and revolves around abortion rights not cancer screening. But a tipping point occurred during the health care debate when Democrats chose to allow the Hyde Amendment to be codified into law. Until the Affordability Care Act, the Hyde Amendment had to be voted on yearly in the budget.

It signified Democrats and progressives had blinked and the right got the message.

At the time, Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards wasn’t bothered by the move in ACA or the decisions by Democrats. But when Rep. Bart Stupak was given ground by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker of the House in U.S. history who also empowered the Catholic Church during health care negotiations, something fundamental shifted on the game board. Mr. Stupak was then elevated further through an unnecessary executive order signed by Pres. Obama and the message was sent and received by people who never give ground that Democrats weren’t going to suit up for the fight.

The Susan G. Komen decision is the result of getting beaten, with women across this country the victims because Ms. Richards, Ms. Pelosi, Rep. DeGette and the so-called progressive “pro-choice” caucus, along with many, many others never understood what compromise on issues of bedrock principle to the right would mean in the long-term.

We’ve seen it with Pres. Obama’s actions time and again.

The Susan B. Komen decision is about the abortion rights opponent forces winning a battle through squeezing the foundation, starting with getting them ostracized. Here’s the background if you’re interested. Komen’s current senior vice president public policy person is Karen Handel, a woman who wasn’t going to stop until the defunding of Planned Parenthood was a reality.

These are not people who capitulate and compromise for the sake of anything, unlike Democrats and progressives in Congress and their allies who set this scene up.

An entire chapter in my book, “Is Freedom Just for Men,” was written because I saw the erosion of women’s rights, which began with the Hyde Amendment decades ago. It then crescendoed with it being not only codified into law, but women are expected to find emergency insurance outside the normal routes, shrinking the pool of insured and opening the door to unavailability. In this chapter in my book, I cite all the “mini-Stupak” laws that have spread in a contagion across this country, because of the message sent by Democrats.

Susan G. Komen Foundation made the decision on Planned Parenthood because the right won critical seats in the 2010 midterms in a rabid campaign that Democrats didn’t engage fully, including on economics. It allowed Republicans to corner Planned Parenthood, which set up the investigation, which was written into Komen as something that disqualified an organization from funding.

As I wrote in “The Party’s Over,” for over 30 years Democrats have said women needed to vote for them to keep our rights secure. I’ve done that, trusted them, and with Democrats the only game in politics who aren’t cut out for the current fight, now look what has happened. What I was promised would never occur if I voted Democratic.

When you have female leaders so weak on fundamental issues of women’s individual freedoms that they are willing to give away foundational concessions on issues won through the courts it’s only a matter of time before you lose them. Putting party loyalty above all else is how this unfolded.

This was very well played strategy by the right whose tactics should have been seen a long way out. That the head of Planned Parenthood is “shocked” says it all.

Needless to say, I’m not.

Next you’ll hear a rallying cry from Democrats and others to fight back and that women’s rights are at stake! The mean anti-women’s coalition is targeting us all! Give money now!

Any organization taking your money to fund political prerogatives over the mission they’re touting doesn’t deserve one dime.

It goes beyond hypocrisy. It’s a betrayal of trust and purpose, using women as the coin.

This column has been edited.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

Nancy Reagan Rejects Newt’s ‘Legitimate Heir’ Claim

By on 31 January 2012

…and so continues Newt Gingrich’s very bad day.

He can take heart on one thing. DNI James R. Clapper Jr. has added fuel to Gingrich’s Iranian rhetorical fire, which will make the Republicans day. From the Washington Post today:

U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States in response to perceived threats from America and its allies, the U.S. spy chief said Tuesday.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said in prepared testimony that an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington that was uncovered last year reflects an aggressive new willingness within the upper ranks of the Islamist republic to authorize attacks against the United States.

Maybe that will take the sting out of Mrs. Reagan’s slap.

Few reporters have better sources inside Reagan World than NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who goes way back. With Mrs. Reagan still alive and undoubtedly very protective of the Reagan legacy as she sees it, there was little doubt that Newt’s claims wouldn’t go unchallenged.

From NBC’s First Read:

Calling himself “the legitimate heir to the Reagan movement,” Newt Gingrich recently cited a 1995 speech by Nancy Reagan in which the former First Lady said that her husband “passed on the torch” to him.

… But as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports, Gingrich appears to be taking that comment out of context.

Sources close to Nancy Reagan said the speech itself was written by the host at the Goldwater Organization – where Mrs. Reagan delivered the remarks – and that she was referring generally to Congress and not specifically to the former Speaker, Mitchell reported on her MSNBC program.

Mrs. Reagan isn’t going to let anyone use Ronnie’s legacy for their own aggrandizement, certainly not a political grifter like Newt, with his hangers-on like Sarah Palin.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Who Are We Today?

By on 30 January 2012

What Secy. Panetta described on 60 Minutes as Obama administration policy is nothing close to what candidate Obama said he’d be as president.

But I wonder how many people watching Secy. Leon Panetta found anything at all wrong with what he’s saying in the video above.

Whatever Barack Obama once stood for as a constitutional lawyer no longer exists in his presidency.

That Democrats continue making excuses for him and sounding like neoconservatives when they do says all you need to know about the Democratic Party in the Obama era.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

The Tea Party Slideth

By on 30 January 2012

Occupy is what’s in today.

The Tea Party has energy, but it’s power is long gone.

That’s why I love the “Take Down the Tea Party Ten” campaign, which I came across just today. It’s sponsored by Credo.

The first six lawmakers targeted by the group are Reps. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), Steve King (R-Iowa), Allen West (R-Fla), Joe Walsh (R-Ill.), Frank Guinta (R-N.H.), and Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.). Four more will be chosen by CREDO’s members.

… “We’re taking the traditional super PAC model and turning it on its head — to put power back in the hands of the people, instead of consolidating it in the hands of corporate executives and the ultra-wealthy,” said Becky Bond, president of the CREDO super PAC. “Where Karl Rove and the Koch brothers can use shady money from a few hidden donors to fund a barrage of TV attack ads, this super PAC will empower local voters and our list of 2.5 million activists to build a grassroots campaign that is as hard hitting as it is progressive.

Laura Ingraham admitted on Sunday the Tea Party doesn’t even have that much power today.

“[The Tea Party] don’t have the power that they thought they had, perhaps,” Ingraham said. “I mean, Romney is not a tea party candidate, and they’re talking about 27 percent of the Republican Party that still believe it’s tea party infused. The tea party, they have a lot of energy but you know … more of a moderate view of conservatism seems to get nominated every time. And that’s just a fact. The tea party doesn’t have the great strength that the old media believe.” – Laura Ingraham: ‘Tea party doesn’t have the great strength that the old media believe’

Maybe that means these “Tea Party 10″ can be taken out, because anyone who wants to weaken the definition of rape shouldn’t be in the U.S. Congress.

Can’t we all at least agree on that?

Speaking of Tea Party, have you noticed that Dana “drop trou” Loesch hasn’t been on CNN since she made the offensive remark? I’m sure we all eagerly await her return, but for now, Jenny Beth Martin, a Tea Party co-founder, is taking her place and doing a fine job, too.

Read full story · Comments { 36 }

Election Year January Snapshot: Romney Up in Florida, Advantage Pres. Obama

By on 29 January 2012

Gingrich is badly trailing Romney by 11 percentage points, garnering just 31 percent of likely Republican voters heading into Tuesday’s presidential primary, according to a Miami Herald/El Nuevo Herald/Tampa Bay Times poll released late Saturday night. – Poll: Romney holds big lead over Gingrich in Florida, via the Miami Herald

On ABC’s “This Week” with Jake Tapper today, Newt Gingrich trumpeted the endorsements of Herman Cain and Rick Perry, while parroting Rush Limbaugh and basking in the words of Sarah Palin. His harangue against Mitt Romney, who’s clearly gotten in his head, sounded desperate.

Jake Tapper even did Mitt Romney the favor of playing Romney’s Tom Brokaw ad on national TV. It’s the kind of free media you just can’t buy.

To Newt Gingrich and the right wing Republicans behind him, Pres. Obama and his reelection team simply want to say, thank you and keep it coming.

Things haven’t looked this good for the Democrats in a long time.

From the latest NBC/WSJ poll released on Friday, as we end the first month of 2012:

And for the first time in six months, more people approve of the job the president is doing (48 percent) than disapprove (46 percent).

“The psychology about the economic conditions has switched,” Hart said. “The old saying is a rising tide lifts all boats then clearly, this economic optimism has clearly lifted Obama’s ratings.”

As I’ve written for a very long time, including in my new book, Pres. Obama is beatable. However, it won’t be easy and can’t be done without a Republican Party unified behind one candidate.

Right now, there’s enough animosity being stoked by the Tea Party hard right that this may not be possible.

As I’ve written before, I’m not supporting any candidate for president. However, there are worse things than Pres. Obama being reelected and at the top of that list is Newt Gingrich.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

A Mitt Romney Moment: Fannie and Freddie

By on 28 January 2012

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Ever put a fortune into a company and then not know it?

In the CNN Thursday debate, Mitt Romney claimed he had no idea of his investment involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When confronted by Newt Gingrich over the fact that Romney poured 100s of thousands into a mutual fund that held Freddie and Fannie debt notes, among other government entities, Romney replied that he had no knowledge, because his money is in a blind trust.

Ah, but is that accurate?

From the Boston Globe:

On his financial disclosure statement filed last month, Romney reported owning between $250,001 and $500,000 in a mutual fund that invests in debt notes of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, among other government entities. Over the previous year, he had reported earning between $15,001 and $50,000 in interest from those investments.

And unlike most of Romney’s financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney.

Gingrich is about to go up with a brutal ad deconstructing the situation. Script:

Governor Mike Huckabee:

“If a man’s dishonest to get a job, he’ll be dishonest on the job.”

Voice-over:

“What kind of man would mislead, distort and deceive just to win an election?”

“This man would: Mitt Romney.”

“Romney said he has always voted Republican when he had the opportunity.”

“But in the 1992 Massachusetts Primary Romney had the chance to vote for George H.W. Bush or Pat Buchanan, but he voted for a liberal Democrat instead.”

Romney said his investments in Fannie and Freddie were in a blind trust.

But, as reported in the National Journal, Romney earned tens of thousands of dollars from investments NOT in a blind trust… …

Mike Huckabee has responded to news of the Gingrich ad.

The Miami Herald also has fact checked and it turns out Romney has folks who worked as consultants and lobbyists for the mortgage giants on his campaign team right now:

The Associated Press and Daily Caller report that top Romney advisers and surrogates were paid lobbyists and consultants for Freddie Mac and other interests in the thick of the housing crisis.

Among the consultant-lobbyists on Romney’s team: Former Rep. Susan Molinari and Vin Weber.

Mitt Romney’s campaign has responded to the allegation made by Gingrich. From the Boston Globe, the paper of record on all things Mitt:

The trustee who manages Romney’s money said those investments were made through a charitable trust “operated on a totally blind basis’’ that Romney did not control. He also said that the investment related to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, quasi-public agencies that many conservatives blame for the housing crisis, has been sold.

“This investment, which has been sold, was not known to Governor Romney,’’ Brad Malt said in a statement. Although Romney’s financial disclosure forms do not list it as such, Malt said the fund was held within a charitable trust and has been managed “on a totally blind basis since 2002.’’

Mitt Romney in 1994: “The blind trust is an age old ruse.” See the video below from BuzzFeed.


Taylor Marsh contributed to this post.
Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Newt’s Rube

By on 27 January 2012

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. – Sarah Palin on Facebook

Let’s hope Republican primary voters actually listen to Sarah Palin. If she could push herself on to center stage it would be a whole new circus act.

Sarah Palin finding common cause with Newt Gingrich, a man who wouldn’t be giving her the time of day if conservative Republicans who actually served with Mr. Gingrich weren’t shunning him because they actually know what he’s like as a leader.

The Republican establishment is trying to get rid of Newt because they don’t want a Goldwater blowout in November, with their main concern the House, as well as Senate possibilities, because there are a lot of them who believe none of the current crop of candidates can beat Pres. Obama, which is understandable. A sitting president is tough to beat by a great candidate and these guys aren’t great.

If Mrs. Palin was making that point in this self-important Facebook rant, that there isn’t a candidate to beat Obama so Republicans need to open the primary back up, that would actually make sense. However, that’s not what she’s doing.

This is mostly about Sarah Palin finding a way to get into the action. Reading her Facebook post, half of it is a complete regurgitation of Rush Limbaugh’s talking points, with Palin providing spin that includes herself. If she becomes irrelevant she loses her Fox News Channel ticket and then what does she do?

What a script.

Mrs. Palin even adopted Newt Gingrich’s grandiose remembrances of history to make her point, which like Newt, revolves around her, written by her ego.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

Narcissus was modest compared to these two.

Sarah and Newt, bookends of Ego’s library.


Read full story · Comments { 46 }

A Word About the ‘Israel Firster’ Debate

By on 27 January 2012

From Spencer Ackerman in The Tablet:

Some on the left have recently taken to using the term “Israel Firster” and similar rhetoric to suggest that some conservative American Jewish reporters, pundits, and policymakers are more concerned with the interests of the Jewish state than those of the United States. Last week, for example, Salon’s Glenn Greenwald asked Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg about any loyalty oaths to Israel Goldberg took when he served in the IDF during the early 1990s. (On Tuesday, writer Max Blumenthal used a gross phrase to describe Goldberg: “former Israeli prison guard.”) The obvious implication is that Goldberg’s true loyalty is to Israel, not the United States. For months, M.J. Rosenberg of Media Matters, the progressive media watchdog group, has been throwing around the term “Israel Firster” to describe conservatives he disagrees with. One recent Tweet singled out my friend Eli Lake, a reporter for Newsweek: “Lake supports #Israel line 100% of the time, always Israel first over U.S.” That’s quite mild compared to some of the others.

“Israel Firster” has a nasty anti-Semitic pedigree, one that many Jews will intuitively understand without knowing its specific history. It turns out white supremacist Willis Carto was reportedly the first to use it, and David Duke popularized it through his propaganda network. And yet Rosenberg and others actually claim they’re using it to stimulate “debate,” rather than effectively mirroring the tactics of some of the people they criticize.

…and the ruckus on the left beats on.

As I’ve written before, this is about a very real battle on the left and in progressive circles, with American Jews pushing back very, very hard on being called anti-Semitic when they criticize Israeli policy.

Giving the right and so-called analysts of the Middle East who interpret any criticism some of their own medicine to see how they like it is exploding the debate, but also making an important point. Ackerman’s take seems to miss this point entirely.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Newt Gingrich Lied – John King Vindicated

By on 26 January 2012

**Update below – Rush “rocked”**

Newt Gingrich’s campaign admitted Wednesday night the former House speaker was inaccurate when he claimed his team offered several witnesses to ABC News to refute statements made by Gingrich’s second wife in a controversial interview aired last week. [...] On Wednesday, however, the campaign conceded the candidate was wrong, both in his debate answer and in his interview with CNN on Tuesday. – TRENDING: Gingrich campaign admits error

I’ve been waiting for Newt Gingrich to step in it and it’s happened.


It’s reminiscent of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Bosnia disaster, which came at a critical time, even though David Plouffe’s caucus strategy would easily outplay Mark Penn’s political malpractice and lack of preparation, credit and blame given fully and without flinching in my new book.

Will it be enough to blow Gingrich out in Florida? It should, because it’s representative of everything about him. But who knows, it’s a wacky year and Republican primary voters haven’t cared so far about anything but satisfying their emotions. It also depends if Mitt Romney or his Super PAC jumps on this, but I’d bet they will, because if I were running his strategy, I’d cranked up the ad machine and get one out post haste.

The revelation that Gingrich lied and tried to disgrace a good reporter, John King, with many in the media playing along, should be instructive to people. It didn’t seem to matter that King is a veteran reporter who had never been challenged before, though I wasn’t one of them, standing up for King’s clear decision to ask Gingrich about the hottest story of the day. Anyone looking at trends across the web, even places like Memeorandum, would have seen the proof. I believed he should have challenged Gingrich when he attacked him, and you can argue about starting with the question on Marianne Gingrich, but it’s King’s call and there’s nothing in his history that even hints he’s unethical, biased to one party or another, or isn’t good at his job.

Oh, if only there was a thought bubble above Pres. Reagan's head...

This latest embarrassment comes after a reader pointed me to Elliott Abrams’ piece yesterday and though I hold Mr. Abrams in particular contempt (see Iran-contra, for which Ronald Reagan deserved to be impeached), when it comes to the Reagan era he’s a source with deep knowledge.

“Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” – Newt Gingrich

Newt is getting carpet-bombed by the conservative chattering class and no one deserves it more. Who would know better about unethical gasbags than Tom Delay? From Politico:

“He’s not really a conservative. I mean, he’ll tell you what you want to hear. He has an uncanny ability, sort of like Clinton, to feel your pain and know his audience and speak to his audience and fire them up. But when he was speaker, he was erratic, undisciplined.” – Drudge, conservative media criticize Newt Gingrich

But have you seen BuzzFeed’s contribution on Newt, complete with art?

Ann Coulter, a Romney gal, delivers the best anti-Newt case there is: Reelect Obama Vote Newt! Mitt Romney’s got humongous general election challenges against Pres. Obama, but there is little doubt that Newt as the nominee would result in a Goldwater type landslide and for good reasons.

Newt Gingrich in the White House would be more dangerous than Sarah Palin.

UPDATE: Listening to Rush Limbaugh’s first hour, a regular habit during election season, this one has been stunning. “It’s happening…” Rush began today, talking about Newt being taken out in Florida; with Gingrich slamming Reagan something he said he didn’t know, being very defensive about it. “We can’t keep up with them starting in March,” Rush Limbaugh said before last break, talking about if the GOP nominee is picked early. This came after he said he was “stunned” at the revelations about Newt on Ronald Reagan. “World rocked about now…” then went to commercial break. … “Snerdly’s chin is on the floor,” Rush continues, after playing a clip of Newt Gingrich saying he was a Rockefeller Republican.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

Mitt Slams Newt with Ronald Reagan

By on 25 January 2012



er… I mean Romney’s Super PAC… er… Rather, the Super PAC supporting Mitt Romney that has absolutely no contact with the candidate whatsoever is slamming Newt with Ronald Reagan.

Nate Silver reveals why. In the debates, Newt continually tries to associate himself with the Gipper:

Over the course of the 17 debates that he has participated in during this cycle, Mr. Gingrich has used the term “Reagan” 55 times, according to debate transcripts. By comparison, the nine other Republican candidates who have participated in the debates mentioned Reagan just 51 times combined. (Rick Santorum is a distant second to Mr. Gingrich with 14 mentions.)

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Of Smoke-filled Rooms and Mitch Daniels

By on 25 January 2012

Mitch Daniels, a favorite of Bill Kistrol, the man who brought the GOP Sarah Palin, gave the Republican response last night. For conservatives, it was the perfect setting, given in perfect pitch, and included the perfect message, delivered by someone who didn’t come off crazy. It’s likely why waking up today after Pres. Obama’s State of the Union speech, some Republicans have political morning sickness.

Newt Gingrich has the political touch Mitt Romney lacks, but he delivers it in a way that makes him look maniacal. He also has a taste for the jugular, which is why he won in South Carolina. But Newt’s style is also what has gotten him into trouble a million times before, which is why there are stories and rumors flying about nervousness inside GOP central, which is more a state of mind these days than an actual address.

An aide to Charlie Crist has gone over to Mitt Romney. It took Newt Gingrich about 2 seconds to use it against him. From Politico:

“We discovered last night that Mitt Romney has picked up Charlie Crist’s campaign manager,” Gingrich said Tuesday at the Tick Tock Restaurant in St. Petersburg. “I thought that told you everything you need to know about this primary.”

“As governor of Massachusetts [Romney] was pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-tax increase and pro- gun control,” he said. “Now that makes you a moderate in Massachusetts but it makes you pretty liberal in a Republican primary. That’s probably why he hired Charlie Crist’s staff.”

Newt Gingrich seems to be the only one who doesn’t know he’s not welcome at the top of the GOP ticket. The message is being delivered, though whether he hears it or not is another story.

It’s starting over at Townhall and it’s serious. Because when you tell Andrea Mitchell stuff like this it’s going to hit the airwaves.

ANDREA MITCHELL: “I talked to a top Romney adviser tonight who said, ‘Look, if Mitt Romney can not win here in Florida then we’re going to have to try to reinvent the smoke-filled room which has been democratized by all these primaries. And we’re going to have try to come with someone as an alternative to Newt Gingrich who could be Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, someone.’ Because there is such a desperation by the so-called party elites, but that’s exactly what Gingrich is playing against.”

But all this talk of smoke-filled rooms and Mitch Daniels misses one thing: the Tea Party. Are you telling me that Republicans don’t think right wing conservatives won’t pitch a fit if the Republican establishment decides to scuttle Newt’s rise to possible nominee? They really think in the Tea Party era they can get away with this?

I’d like to see that play.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }