“… I think women should be deacons as well as men. …But if the federal government, if the Justice Department offers a mandate ordering Southern Baptists to make women deacons, I would be the first to say get the hell out of our business.” – Joe Scarborough (9 February)

That quote tells you all you need to know about this debate.

Scarborough’s quote above is a good example of the disingenuous nature of the argument being made by religious conservatives. It is one of the most preposterous falsehoods said yet. That Joe Scarborough chose to say it and then defend it reveals how low Republicans will go to make a religious point even if it’s false.

If the feds tried to tell the Episcopal Church they couldn’t be spiritually feminist, standing up against the misogyny in other churches that bothers no one, I’d be the first to say get the hell out of our business.

The Obama administration has let this play out all week and it will conclude tomorrow with the backdrop of the CPAC conference, when Santorum, Romney and Gingrich give their speeches.

“It’s becoming a thorny problem for the White House and it appears to only be getting worse,” said one Democratic strategist. “The politically astute move would be to modify this thing, and quick.” Asked if the administration should shift course, a former senior administration official said, “I don’t see how they couldn’t. It’s pretty bad.” – The Hill

Pretty bad? Anyone supporting the decision was put in the position of having not only to do White House education on the issue and the constitutionality of it, but damage control on male “60-something pundits” blowing a gasket across cable.

Nicely played, team Obama. It’s political malpractice of the first order. Somewhere Rahm Emanuel is shaking his head.

Pres. Obama also was warned what was coming, which has been reported by Bloomberg, who broke the tick tock, then Jake Tapper and others following.

This is also no longer about contraception, abortion or even a wider rule on religious exclusion. It’s also become about the Affordable Care Act and the allies Pres. Obama had by his side who now feel betrayed. That’s the thumb on the scale as we count down to the compromise.

TPM has a classic headline, with a picture of Pres. Obama that’s unintentionally priceless: Will Dems Shoot Themselves In The Foot On Contraception? I can only assume they’re being ironic or rhetorical.

V.P. Joe Biden and Bill Daley were among the concerned Catholics inside the White House that warned Pres. Obama about what has come to pass this week. I’ve not written about the roll-out, because anyone who thinks this was going to be easy any way the Administration did it hasn’t been paying attention to Republicans lately. Chuck Todd and Mark Halperin opined today that Pres. Obama needs to make the case, which shows you how little the elite news media knows about him. The fact that we haven’t seen Pres. Obama, which I never expected we would on something this electric, is that he has no intention of putting his personal capital behind Administration policy that is in the works of being reversed.

Therein lies the entire issue with Pres. Obama’s presidency. Not shoring up allies in Congress, then using pins and tape at the end of a process to get a second or third version of the legislation you want over the finished line. He’s got no allies, except women in Congress who remain a minority. I have no idea how Obama and his team, especially Valeria Jarrett, concluded he could announce something so sweeping, politically important, as well as a boon to to women, especially hourly wage employees, without knowing who had his back, but also a political strategy to lay it out.

This policy required great theater. Women ready to announce it, religious groups among them, Democratic senators and representatives standing ready to hit the airwaves for a policy they supported.

The stories are ricocheting now, as Friday looms and the Sunday shows approach, which will certainly feature a cavalcade of criticism, even as something is frantically being cobbled together. A conclusion needs to be announced so on Sunday everyone can nod their heads, criticize the initial decision, then smile approvingly that Pres. Obama’s compromise isn’t caving to pressures from the right. It never is, right?

That the Susan G. Komen foundation figured out how to right a PR disaster faster than the Obama White House is embarrassing.

What will Occupy do, or more accurately, what will different people and different Occupy groups do, related to 2012? No doubt, a number of things, some widely embraced, some not. And some well covered, some not.

Will Occupy, in general, endorse a party, of the Duopoly, or otherwise? Will it, in general, endorse candidates? My guess: in general, no.

Will it use the dominant political party / corporate / media system in efforts to move its equality agenda along? My perspective: it already is. Probably more accurately, the dominant players haven’t been able to ignore them, or make them go away. Most importantly, they haven’t been able to shut down the conversations taking place in the spaces Occupy created. And that is politically significant.

Katrina vanden Heuvel at The Nation:

I don’t know how Occupy Wall Street will impact the 2012 election, but one thing seems pretty clear: it’s changed the national conversation.

A few short months ago, the corporate media and inside-the-Beltway chatter was all debt and deficits, all the time.

Occupy changed that. It reset the media narrative so it’s more aligned with the true crises of our times – income inequality, downward mobility and economic fairness. It’s also renewed attention to corporate accountability and the corrosive role of corporate money in politics. …

Sarah Treuhaft, associate director at PolicyLink, says grassroots equity advocates who have been working on these issues for years are now much more confident to speak up about inequality. …

Both Democratic and Republican parties reveal they know they can’t ignore these “issues.” It’s likely done by way of co-opting attempts, or attack points; and I have little to no expectation any of them will do more than the absolute minimum required, as far as seriously acting to change things. That’s also why, I think, Occupy as a whole won’t jump into the political games as usual – the Duopoly is not on our side.

From the same article, about the sudden interest of Electeds and media on the very things Occupy is talking about:

President Obama certainly tapped into that trend, making economic inequality and fairness the centerpiece of his State of the Union address … .

As Election 2012 gathers steam, the corporate media will no doubt fix on the hoopla of the horserace. Independent media has a vital role to play in ensuring that the real issues of our time which are now, at long last, front and center – thanks in no small part to Occupy – remain there.

Of course it isn’t just Mr. Obama who suddenly started talking about such things. From CNN, via OWS News:

Occupy arrives at the Republican Party …

‘Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of people and then walk off with the money?’

‘The 1% is doing fine. I want to help the 99%.’

The above statements are the type you might expect to hear at an Occupy Wall Street protest. But they weren’t uttered there. Instead, the first was from Newt Gingrich and the second was from Mitt Romney.

As for Occupiers, they’re planning ahead, but it seems they are much more interested in staying focused on their “agenda” than trying to fit into, or be fit into, 2012 politics as usual.

From OpEdNews, by John Iacovelli:

In a conference call … Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, two of the movement’s best known organizers, both very active in Occupy Washington DC, answered questions about ‘Occupy Phase 2,’ the directions that the movement should take in the Spring. …

NowDC, the National Occupation of Washington D.C., slated for April, will (be) an important step in coordinating separate occupations nationally, and for its actions to be taken to pressure Congress, when it returns from Spring recess. In addition to ‘Phase 2,’ miscellaneous questions were addressed, including whether the movement should focus on the 2012 elections, and what to do in the period afterwards.

Check out the entire article to read more about “Occupy Phase 2” and NowDC. For now, and staying with the “what about 2012” focus, Iacovelli writes:

Though not strictly part of the discussion, in response to caller questions, Zeese provided a perspective on the 2012 Presidential auction. Simply put, the conversation between President Obama and the Republican nominee is a false conversation, for what will be said is only what those nominees’ contributors allow them to say. The movement has no time to look to elected leaders to solve problems because time is short, and the system does not work. The true conversation is the one we must continue in the movement. But after 2012, it may be time to organize another party.

Whatever ends up happening regarding Occupy in general, and Occupiers in specific locations and as individuals, the movement has already played a significant role. It has the abilities to continuing pushing the conversation, most importantly, among the grassroots dwellers, the non-Elites, the “99%.” That’s where any real challenge to the Two Corporate Parties has to come. Occupy has amplified a long, ongoing conversation by taking it outside the very comfortable and predictable Republican and Democratic structure.

(Occupy NOW-DC via InterOccupy)

“There really isn’t a constitutional issue involved in this.” – David Boies, on “The Last Word,” with Lawrence O’Donnnell (leading U.S. constitutional attorney)

There is no constitutional issue on the contraceptive coverage mandate, as David Boies explained last night.

Republicans have two choices, only one of which could work. Right now they’re all doubling down on the religious freedom argument and stressing Pres. Obama simply has to back down. That won’t work, with Pres. Obama stating to Democrats in a closed meeting that he will not back off his decision. So the only other choice for Republicans is to quietly and quickly shift to government overreach. It has the virtue of hitting Republicans, but also some Independents and religious conservative Democrats where they believe, no facts required.

Republicans and religious conservatives need to move fast, though. Because constitutional lawyer David Boies ended the fake discussion in which so many have engaged.

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

This debate is being ginned up so the right can have a political culture war issue for 2012, because Republican enthusiasm for the current crop of candidates is as low as it’s been in decades at a time when Pres. Obama is absolutely beatable. So, the Republican Party is desperate, ethically challenged, and intent on expanding the war on women that exploded when Obama and the Democrats handed them the 2010 election.

The list of people in the traditional and new media, on all sides, who have been incorrect on this issue needs to be remembered. They are the people who get paid on cable to gin up political firestorms out of fantasy and on the wings of ideology alone.

One note of correction is important to make, which happened, of course, on “Hardball” without rebuttal from anyone. Besides the ludicrous, fact free performance by Melinda Henneberger of the Washington Post who was playing spokesperson for the Catholic Church, Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast was on and made an error of fact, which given the confusion isn’t surprising. Goldberg stated that the co-pay on the health insurance is not at issue and that no one is arguing over a co-pay. Matthews immediately picked up on it. The facts have become beside the point for people like Matthews; though I wouldn’t put it past him to know the facts and allow Goldberg to complicate the discussion.

As I’ve written stressing the economics of this decision by the Administration, never once suggesting a co-pay would solve the issue, the co-pay is very much an issue. What’s to keep the co-pay from being $100, which over a year’s time can get expensive for women, negating the point of the Administration’s decision? It’s becoming clear now that by law contraceptive coverage is to be free of charge and a primary component.

“…

But at the end of the day, the goal here is for women to get contraception with no out-of-pocket costs, because nobody should be locked out of this important care because of cost.”

– Stephanie Cutter

Ms. Cutter also stated emphatically that the Administration is not talking to the Catholic Church. Sarah Posner reported yesterday that Catholic bishops have rejected the Administration compromise. It’s Catholic hospitals that are in discussions with the Administration to find a way to get free contraceptive coverage for those employees, many of whom aren’t Catholic. Catholics can choose not to partake in the contraceptive coverage being offered free of charge, but labor laws (see David Boies in the video) demand all must be offered the coverage available through law.

David Axelrod’s unfortunate appearance on “Morning Joe” fed the media beast in many ways; it’s a similar spot he was in with Rahm Emanuel, according to all reporting since ACA, because neither wanted Obama to tackle health care at the time. I think it’s safe to say that if Axelrod had his way, because he’s in charge of the politics, he’d rather not have this issue and it’s clear why. That Axelrod’s performance made people like me and everyone else prepare for the compromise was due to the fact that it’s exactly what Axelrod would prefer and telegraphed it; coupled with the history of Pres. Obama doing just that, backtracking, as we saw on extending the Bush tax cuts, Gitmo, and a number of other issues.

Joe Scarborough, as well as Mark Halperin, followed even by Jeffrey Sachs, all men, joined in with their non-constitutional law minds to emphatically say Pres. Obama must back down. Axelrod saying the Administration was trying to find a way to compromise was taken to mean what the Scarborough, Halperin, Sachs, Heilemann, Barnicle, Mark Shields-E.J. Dionne-Chris Matthews men’s club contingent thought it should mean.

All I can tell you is what Ms. Cutter offered last night and that is the quote above.

“It is remarkable that we’re debating birth control all these years later.” – Stephanie Cutter

This isn’t about birth control any more than it is about religious freedom, which Cutter certainly knows, but the snark was beautiful.

Nobody in the Administration is going into a Catholic Church to demand they cover contraceptive options. A religious institution is exempt, as it should be. If Pres. Obama is not breaking down the church wall to force the Catholic Church or its parishes to offer contraceptive coverage free of charge there is no violation of religious freedom, and USA Today op-ed writers, on which Joe Scarborough relied yesterday, have joined the uninformed masses. Unfortunately, they blasted their ignorance across the country adding to the furor.

Additionally, as David Boies stated plainly (see video), the 1st Amendment is moored in the theory that no one can force people to practice a given religion. It’s the legacy of King George in law to protect the new America being formed.

This is the culture war being revved up, because religious conservatives, as well as Republicans who want to take advantage of the ignorance and unwillingness of some to accept the facts because they don’t comport to their ideology, want a weapon to use against Pres. Obama in November.

If Obama and the Administration do what Stephanie Cutter is suggesting, which is not to compromise on the free contraceptive coverage model, there is nothing that I know in modern times that comes close to what is being done here by Pres. Obama and his team.

Of course, it doesn’t change that 25-30 million people aren’t covered by “Obamacare.” It also doesn’t change that the Hyde Amendment was codified in that law, leaving poor women, yet again, out of the benefits, which I talk about at length in my book in the chapter “Is Freedom Just For Men?” An open discussion is long overdue on this aspect of how we punish poor women.

David Gregory on “Morning Joe” yesterday said he’d be “shocked, shocked” if the Administration didn’t reverse course.

If Stephanie Cutter is correct, and she looked as solidly sure as you’re going to see an Administration official look on camera knowing tape is rolling, Gregory’s next move, as well as other media types who were so sure the decision couldn’t stand, very well may try to weave a negative narrative to save face. Anyone who is a fan or supporter of Pres. Obama or the policy he’s having implemented better suit up for that battle, because it has the potential to be fierce.

Hell hath no fury like men in the media made fools or Republicans and religious conservatives who are looking at generations of women today and into the future who will owe the Democratic Party for their free contraceptive coverage.

Repeal that, Mitt Romney and I’ll add Rick Santorum just to be safe, because this issue is tailor made for his brand of extremism, but only if Republicans can pivot and make this about government overreach.

“I realize a lot of 60-something male pundits look at this issue & think hmmm… bad politics for Democrats on the Catholic side. There’s another way to look at it.” – Rachel Maddow

Who are those “60-something male pundits?” More importantly why do we care what they think?

Mark Shields, E.J. Dionne and Chris Matthews, as I see it, are three of them, but there are many more.

What’s the other way to look at the issue of Pres. Obama’s contraception decision, beyond what the “60-something male pundits” view?

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

Americans of all faiths, including Catholics, but also those unaffiliated, agree with Pres. Obama. Then there are the all important independents, which Obama has lost over the last couple of years:

Numerous pundits have predicted that the requirement —and its narrow exemption for churches — will be a political liability for Obama. But where Shields sees “cataclysmic” fallout, the White House sees something quite different: a chance to widen the reproductive health debate beyond abortion to issues like contraceptives, winning over key demographics of independent voters in the process. – Why White House sees political opportunity in the contraception battle

It’s a catastrophe say the male pundit class!

Matthews says, it’s not about the number of Catholics who use birth control.

But but but, Mathews say, or the number of non-Catholics who attend Catholic colleges or universities or receive help from Catholic charities.

Matthews say it’s about what the church itself teaches. Mark Shields and E.J. Dionne agree. I’m sure the Catholic bishops are pleased, but all represent a contingent bent on controlling women.

I wonder if any of these men find it ironic that they’re defending dogma that American Catholics by a wide majority completely ignore. All of these men, mind you, don’t have ovaries or the job of planning their life in an environment that is economically challenging.

According to the Matthews-Shields-Dionne contingent, it’s not about the hundreds of thousands of women employees who work in Catholic institutions who would be denied affordable contraception, which is an economic issue for any modern woman, as well as a means to plan her future.

There is another way to look at this issue, but you’d have to look beyond a myopic vision that doesn’t include what’s good for all women, regardless of religion.

We’ve seen throughout our media during this debate why the story on women’s rights and our freedoms is so often left in the dark. They ignore the issue at hand and jump to the fantasy political impact, while screaming about the 20th century traditional views that don’t represent the 21st generation.

Yesterday on “Daily Rundown,” Chuck Todd had E.J. Dionne and another middle-aged man on to talk about this issue. Today he had a terrific panel of women (video below), including the formidable Neera Tanden, making a lot more sense than the 60-something male pundits yesterday. Shira Toeplitz from Roll Call said not even in Pennsylvania, which she covers a lot, will this issue impact over other issues and for the very reason I stated in the previous paragraph. It’s a new generation era. Sara Taylor Fagan, a former Bush administration official, also brought up relevant points.

I’ve done the rundown on what happened on “Morning Joe,” where guests and Scarborough stated Obama would lose the election over this issue, which David Gregory parroted today. Mika Brzezinski did a terrific job this morning herding squirrels, while Tina Brown emphasized that most Catholics agree with Obama.

In new media, Josh Marshall chose to feature a religious conservative reader expressing dissent on the subject of Obama’s free contraceptive care for women. The focus of the email was that the reader claimed to have quit reading the Washington Monthly “because their presentation of religious concerns showed a clear lack of effort to understand the point of view of people who are religious.” Falling into the usual trap of giving religious conservatives a platform to make a women’s health issue about religion is TPM’s choice. It may even be an economic one so as not to lose readers, which I certainly can understand. But when no such threat to religious freedom exists and you choose not to engage the falsehood, you’re not helping women or clarifying the issue. But TPM has never been feminist.

In this discussion we also see yet another chapter in why we still do not have a female president, but also why we still see so few women leaders in our public life. The criteria for what it takes to pass the test is steep. A newcomer first has to kiss all the local establishment men’s rings on religion and women’s right to prove you won’t be too shrill. But we all saw what Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as well as Rep. DeGette and other so-called members of the “pro choice caucus” were willing to do when push come to shove. The first female Speaker of the House in U.S. history caved to the men in her church to get health care passed.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating here. No matter the religion, that women choose to be dictated spiritually through the inherent misogyny embedded in organized religion, wherever it occurs, and the politics that props up this philosophy remains a real issue for modern women and the relevancy of the church today.

Men like Matthews, Shields and Dionne are representatives of this religious hierarchy because they fuel the Catholic Church’s anti-women agenda. But modern women of all faiths and none are seeing through them, because after all, it’s the 21st century and it’s long past time for women to take back faith and spirituality.

Our traditional media, cable networks and even new media sites are replete with hostility for the basic instruments women need to maintain their financial health and plan their lives. They are led by men and network executives, producers and others who are cowardly and some even unethical, putting profits above women’s health and economic security, or pretending there’s a religious freedom issue to boost ratings and the political pie fight.

Below is a comment I want to share from “roseOred.” People are watching how this subject is being covered and many don’t like who networks are choosing to make an argument against women.

With the exception of Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes, MSNBC has been infuriating me on this topic.

• They gloss over or ignore the fact that religious universities and hospitals benefit from public money.
• They ignore the fact that a whole bunch of states all ready require religious universities and hospitals to cover contraception and there was no big uproar over it.
• They ignore the fact that apparently some of those states require even churches to cover birth control (thank you Rachel Maddow).
• They ignore the fact that for a lot of women in a lot of areas, just going to a different hospital or finding a job at another hospital/university isn’t easy, realistic, or even possible.
• There’s no mention of the fact that in this economy it is particularly heinous to vilify contraception given the cost of having and raising children.
• There’s nobody pointing out the irony that when working class or poor women- especially women of color- have unplanned babies and require government assistance to feed them, conservatives fall all over themselves to blame them and call them a drag on society, welfare queens, etc. (You’d think for that reason alone they’d try to help poor women control their own fertility. Of course then they’d lose that warm feeling they get from feeling superior and demonizing groups of people they know nothing about. And they’d lose the perceived electoral benefits that this kind of posturing gives them.)
• And nobody (save Melissa Harris-Perry) has mentioned the one thing that would end this whole controversy forever and ever: the adoption by the US of single-payer healthcare or a public option. If we had either one of those things, nobody’s healthcare would get in anybody’s religion and nobody’s religion would get in anybody’s healthcare. Instant fix, everybody happy! Right?

You know what I love? Some middle aged white dude telling me how problematic our lady-needs are for Catholics (98% of whom use contraception) and for the President’s re-election chances (as if there is any indication at this point that the general election will be that competitive, given the profoundly flawed group of Republican candidates and upward economic trends).

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

The Conservative Political Action Conference is underway in DC, and Occupy is making its presence known, the way it has at progressive events. I’ll admit I’m giving time to Occupy CPAC because of the way that plan was heralded by The Foundry, the “conservative policy news blog” of the Heritage Foundation (a CPAC sponsor), specifically, via The Scribe.

The Scribe’s Lachlan Markay writes Exclusive: Occupy DC Plans Mayhem for Major Conservative Conference. Markay relies heavily on a “source” in reporting. The information from the “source” sounds more than a bit iffy to me, but of course, I wasn’t there.

And truth is, Occupy DC’s call to “Occupy CPAC” isn’t shy about the language they use to describe CPAC, just as they aren’t when commenting about what “progressives” are up to.

Considering Markay’s use of “mayhem,” reading what he writes, and what Occupy says made me think: there’s more than one way to “plan mayhem.” The long list of CPAC speakers itself sounds mayhem-ic to me, including Michele Bachmann, John Boehner, Andrew Breitbart, Herman Cain, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal, Mitch McConnell, Grover Norquist, Sarah Palin, Tony Perkins, Rick Perry, Ralph Reed, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Phyllis Schlafly, and Scott Walker. And checking out the long list of presentations only adds to my sense of turmoil.

From Occupy DC:

On February 9th through February 11th , a who’s who of dastardly politicians will be holding the Conservative Political Action Conference … . Similar to the Alfalfa Club dinner, this event is another gathering of bigots, media mouthpieces, corrupt politicians, and their 1 percent elite puppet masters. …

Spectacles will include imperialist topics such as … ‘Is the ‘Arab Spring’ Good or Bad for America?’ and frequent bloviation on ‘American exceptionalism.’ Openly racist discourses will be given on ‘The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American Identity’ and ‘Islamic Law in America: How the Obama Justice Department Is Selling Us Out.’

You can see the complete list here. A few more examples: “Return of Big Labor: What Can We Learn from Wisconsin & Ohio?”; “Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity”; “In the Name of ‘Tolerance’: Countering Sexual Identity Politics in Schools …”; “Why are U.S. taxpayers spending billions to promote abortion and homosexuality worldwide?”; and “Taking Back Wall Street: The Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street.” To me, the ideas presumably being promoted sound likely to produce mayhem in the lives of targeted populations.

Here’s a part of what Occupy DC says about their plans.

Our Mission: Occupy CPAC. Create as much non-violent resistance as possible, and make this a conference the attendees will never forget.

We will be joining in solidarity with the AFL-CIO, SEIU, National Nurses United, Metro Labor Council, OurDC, and more to make our voices heard in our increasingly top-down, money-corrupted democracy. We will have actions on Friday at noon and 5pm (for Scott Walker’s speech at the Reagan Banquet), and on Saturday we will meet at Malcolm X Park at 16th and Euclid at noon to march to the Marriott.

I could see some potential “mayhem,” disruptive moments in that, even with the stress on non-violence. But according to Markay, the planned chaos leans to the dangerous.

The ‘Occupy DC’ protest group is planning to disrupt the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference using a range of potentially illegal tactics that could even include violence against participants, Scribe has learned. …

I’ve already expressed my skepticism, but have no way to confirm or refute what follows. We aren’t given any information about this apparently first-hand listener to Occupy planning, though whoever it is certainly had a lot of scary sounding things to say. Watch for red flag, mayhem-like language.

During a Thursday meeting at McPherson Square, until Saturday the epicenter of the protests, Occupiers brainstormed tactics for shutting down or disrupting the conference, according to a source who was present at the meeting.

The protesters suggested pulling fire alarms in the hotel where the conference will take place, screaming ‘fire’ during conference activities, ‘glitter-bombing’ participants, cutting electrical power, and barricading entrances to the hotel, according to the source, who requested anonymity.

‘Speakers will be physically assaulted, not just verbally confronted,’ the source told Scribe in an email. Two Occupiers, who the source also identified as members of the New Black Panther Party, ‘said they would be disappointed if they didn’t get arrested and planned to ‘make it count.’’

The “source” quoted another protester as saying, ‘Mitt [Romney] has Secret Service now, but [Newt] Gingrich and [Andrew] Breitbart don’t,’ seemingly suggesting that the latter two would not be as heavily guarded.

Markay writes that assurances regarding security have been provided by the American Conservative Union (host of the conference) and the Marriot. And yet …

… concerns remain. Occupiers reportedly discussed a number of tactics for getting protesters into the conference, where they would be able to do more damage than a street protest could muster.

The “source” said the AFL-CIO was helping get Occupiers into hotel rooms, to get around security measures, but an AFL-CIO spokesperson told Scribe this wasn’t true. Markay then writes:

The AFL-CIO has aided Occupy DC before, most recently in storing Occupiers’ belongings at its headquarters in advance of the National Park Service’s enforcement actions.

The “source” had more: Occupiers from American and George Washington Universities are going to “infiltrate,” and provide “counterfeit credentials” to non-students. Which leads to one last disclosure from the “source,” and this is, by far, my favorite:

‘In order to avoid having to shower and dress in business attire to blend in,’ Scribe’s source said, ‘they plan to wear Ron Paul 2012 gear because they believe Paul supporters ‘generally look like hippies.’’

Of the four remaining GOP hopefuls, guess which one isn’t attending CPAC?

Meanwhile, choose your mayhem carefully.

(Shady Bunch poster via Occupy DC)

Our last national survey for Daily Kos found that 58% of Democrats were ‘very excited’ about voting this fall, compared to 54% of Republicans. Six months ago the figures were 48% of Democrats ‘very excited’ and Republicans at the same 54%. Generally you would expect voters to get more excited as the election gets nearer. That trend is occurring on the Democratic side, but not for the GOP.

Um… 58% of Democrats are “very excited”?

African Americans: “72% of whom say they’re ‘very excited’ to cast their ballots.”

These numbers are not exactly in out of the park territory.

As for Republicans, why anyone is excited to even admit they’re a Republican today is beyond me.

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

Official White House photo by Chuck Kennedy

According to ABC News, the official picture above was taken during a taping of “Late Night” with Jimmy Fallon. I’m a big fan, so I simply had to post it.

I’m also a huge fan of Mrs. Obama’s “Let’s Move” push, which targets childhood obesity.

Health and weight are directly related, with so many things tying in to those two things.

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.

“The Peggy Noonan piece left some things out. … But I have to say, the article appears to be very misleading.” – Mika Brzezinski, “Morning Joe” (7 Feburary)

This started yesterday on “Morning Joe,” with Brzezinski reading part of an over the top declarative Peggy Noonan op-ed and getting very exercised about it before she had the facts.

Something very obvious and important is getting lost in the current contraceptive controversy.

If religious conservatives like Noonan really wanted to stop abortions and unplanned pregnancies they’d hail the opportunity for more women to have access to birth control without charge. That they aren’t says all you need to know.

David Axelrod on “Morning Joe” teased a compromise today, which is not a surprise to anyone, I’m sure. But does the Obama team actually believe religious conservatives are going to compromise? I mean, seriously, because that theory has worked so well with congressional Republicans? It’s the epitome of Obama logic and a catastrophic suggestion, especially when a majority of Catholics (and other religious Americans, including myself) agree with the Administration.

This whole argument has certainly revealed the priorities of religious conservatives, putting them at odds with women. Birth control is an economic issue for modern women, regardless of faith, as is planning pregnancy itself. However, the religious institution and whipping up a crisis around religious freedom that doesn’t exist is paramount in the minds of Republicans, because they want it for a political issue, which was proven quickly because that’s the first place they went. Democrats are more concerned with getting important reproductive health care to low and middle income women, while bending over backward to keep from setting off a religious war with the right who won’t be deterred.

Rarely has an issue set up the political sides so starkly.

Again, if stopping unplanned pregnancies was the goal it’s clear who’d come out on top morally and it’s not religious conservatives or Republicans.

From a new poll by PublicReligion.org:

Majority Support Requirement that Employer Health Care Plans Include Contraception Coverage

• A majority (55%) of Americans agree that “employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost.” Four-in-ten (40%) disagree with this requirement.
• There are major religious, generational and political divisions:
• Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.
• Among Catholic voters, support for this requirement is slightly lower at 52%.
• Only half (50%) of white Catholics support this requirement, compared to 47% who oppose it.
• Among other religious Americans, 61% of religiously unaffiliated Americans believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception, compared to only half (50%) of white mainline Protestants and less than 4-in-10 (38%) white evangelical Protestants.

As an aside, Massachusetts Mitt Romney issued a similar ruling as Pres. Obama did on contraceptives, but presidential candidate Mitt Romney is railing against it today. Chalk it up as just another point of hypocrisy from Mr. Romney.

To Ms. Brzezinski’s credit, she changed her tune today after getting the facts from the White House, which Joe Scarborough labeled as talking to a “mouthpiece.” It’s unfortunate Brzezinski wasn’t armed with the facts before she read Noonan’s piece on the air, because this is important policy for women that needs everyone’s attention, no matter your politics or religion. But this type of thing happens far too often on cable, taking a traditional journalist’s op-ed as gospel when peers revere the writer.

There is no injury to freedom of religion by what the Obama administration has done. It’s patently false to say otherwise, which is what Noonan’s column implied, Joe Scarborough has insinuated, and Mark Halperin posits will alter the 2012 election, with Scarborough agreeing, of which there is absolutely no proof. What applies is if any institution provides health care to its employees they must provide women with the same contraceptive coverage as any other woman in the country. No discrimination because she’s working for a Catholic school or hospital. That in no way precludes what Catholics can choose for themselves.

The hypocrisy of religious conservatives is fully unmasked through this discussion. They evidently think immaculate intervention will stop pregnancy. If the Catholic Church and other religious political operatives really cared about stopping abortion they’d understand that’s what’s at stake here. Preventing unplanned pregnancy and putting the control of women’s lives in their own hands, which cannot happen without access to reproductive health care, starting with birth control.

Contraceptive coverage must be offered, whether you’re in a Catholic hospital or at Fordham.

Bridgette Dunlap, a Fordham University law student, knew that the school’s health plan had to pay for birth control pills, in keeping with New York state law. What she did not find out until she was in an examining room, “in the paper dress,” was that the student health service — in keeping with Roman Catholic tenets — would simply refuse to prescribe them.

Bridgette Dunlap organized an off-campus clinic staffed by volunteer doctors to provide prescriptions for birth control because Fordham University’s student health service does not do so.

As a result, students have had to go to Planned Parenthood or private doctors to get prescriptions . Some, unable to afford the doctor visits, gave up birth control pills entirely.

Title has been changed.

When it comes to mainstream media and the Occupy movement, there is, of course, some actual reporting. But then there’s what at least appears to be two things happening, sometimes overlapping: a negative spin of some sort, when the media seems to be doing exactly what they’re fairly often accused of doing – the bidding of the “1%.” But regularly, at least some members of the media have found themselves sharing, with Occupiers, the unhappy attention of riot geared police.

For an Occupy take on MSM reporting, check out this post. I mentioned it yesterday, but it’s worth another look. An excerpt:

… the corporate media increasingly dismiss Occupy Wall Street as a dying movement.

The corporate-funded political status quo, including corporate-funded news coverage, benefits the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

The OWS’ post then “debunks” four media “myths” – “OWS’s numbers are dwindling”; “was weakened by the eviction of our camps”; “has lost its purpose and focus”; and that “The 2012 U.S. elections are eroding OWS’s relevance” – by

… examining a few of the major Occupy stories and actions of the past month that the corporate media would rather dismiss than cover …

When media coverage is perceived to be biased, it should be called out. So, of course, should unlawful restrictions on the media. From Press TV:

‘The attitude towards people covering the Occupy movement was filled with contempt in the same way that the attitude towards occupiers was driven by contempt, Danny Schechter, editor of Mediachannel.org, told Press TV’s U.S. Desk … .

The crackdown ‘has become a national story because the same pattern seems to have taken place in many places.’

It isn’t as if the media hasn’t let their concerns be known. For example, via Capital New York:

The New York Times fired off another letter to the Police Department … on behalf of 13 New York-based news organizations about police treatment of the press over the last several months.

The first letter, sent back in November during the height of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, resulted in a meeting with NYPD brass and ‘stepped up’ efforts on the part of the department’s public information office to train officers in working with the media.

But in today’s letter … the news organizations, which also include the New York Post, Daily News, Associated Press, Reuters, Dow Jones, Bloomberg News, the National Press Photographers Association, several local TV affiliates and others, say problems have persisted.

‘There have been other reports of police officers using a variety of tactics ranging from inappropriate orders directed at some journalists to physical interference with others, who were covering newsworthy sites and events,’ the letter reads.

I’ve written earlier about the latest Press Freedom Index, but obviously it’s related here. From Common Dreams:

While the United States certainly hasn’t descended into the ranks of the most oppressive regimes, the watchdog group Reporters without Borders observes that in 2011 the political barriers and outright attacks facing reporters had led to a steep drop in the rankings-27 places down, to number 47:

In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 [journalists] were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behaviour, public nuisance or even lack of accreditation.

The most high-profile violations of press freedom took place during the Occupy protests, as reporters were abused by police and otherwise stonewalled by authorities.

Restrictions, intimidation and more aren’t only related to Occupy coverage, however, as the Common Dreams piece continues.

… while the Occupy-related arrests were a major factor in the lower ranking, the organization also noted failures to address other longstanding press freedom concerns.

Reporters Without Borders’ (RWB) D.C. Director Delphine Halgand told In These Times, ‘this big decline [in ranking] is also due to old concerns we have and which weren’t addressed by the Obama administration.’ These include excessive limits on access to government information (despite the guarantees of the Freedom of Information Act), the lack of a legal protections for confidential journalistic sources; and threats to Internet freedom posed by the proposed SOPA and PIPA legislation.

And from Intrepid Report:

… As WMR has reported in past articles, the National Security Agency (NSA) has maintained a series of ‘mug shots’ of journalists it suspects have sources inside the NSA. Often, NSA personnel throught (sic) to have been speaking to journalists are called into NSA’s ‘Q’ security group and questioned on whether they have spoken to various journalists. Along with the names of the journalists, are photographs, described by NSA insiders, as ‘mug shots,’ likely culled from the Internet.

One question that can asked about all of this, as it impacts both Occupiers and media: who benefits from the restriction and spinning and use of excessive police force?

(Freedom of Speech poster via Occupy Design)

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.

From Marjorie Clifton of GoVote over at Huffington Post:

According to the Centers for Disease Control, 79.5% of people aged 18 to 24 have had sexual intercourse, and, of those, 2.2% become pregnant. While Catholic authorities would say that unmarried young adults should not be sexually active to begin with, this position ignores reality and serves only to isolate young people — dismissing the issue as someone else’s problem.

But Catholic students are no different from the broader population. In 2009, the Boston College Undergraduate Government held a vote on whether the university should offer more sexual health services, including STI testing, condoms, and prescription birth control. The vote saw a record turnout, and an overwhelming 89% of students supported making these services available. The truth is in these numbers.

Al Sharpton won the round yesterday morning in a walk, which also revealed the tired arguments of the elite media, though they represent, as CBS did parroting exactly what the Catholic League wanted, conventional wisdom of a certain set. But the culture war today is about how modern women, who aren’t marrying like generations before, control their lives, their fate and plan their future. It cannot be done without birth control.

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

Al Sharpton’s smackdown of the out of touch hosts begins at around 2:30 in the video above, but what’s particularly revealing is the reading of a Peggy Noonan op-ed by Ms. Brzezinski.

“It’s a fight the President can’t win. President Obama just might have lost the election,” opines Peggy Noonan, complete with tired “sleeping giant” awakening cries.

That is religious conservatism on parade, not to be confused with political conservatism, as I wrote about yesterday, by none other than Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter. Noonan represents that moment in time where religious intrusion into the modern political fabric began its crescendo after the era of individual freedom broke out in the 1960s.

The bookend to Noonan is E.J. Dionne representing religious conservatism on the Democratic Party side of things. Part of that group is also Sen. Casey, someone willing to continue the tradition of making a woman’s body subject to government intervention, whether state or federal.

What’s been the problem with women’s autonomy and economic issues like birth control, is Democratic Party leaders have continually ceded ground to religious conservatives and fundamentalist Republicans, because they were afraid to fight on the terms that impact women. Birth control is an economic issue, as can be abortion. But make no mistake about it, when religious conservatives in both parties talk about birth control, they see abortion.

Women, especially poor women, have been made to take a rumble seat on the side car of our national discussion on individual freedoms, because the discussion is forever wound up in abortion rights. Any woman in the throes of such a personal crisis, which I talk about personally in my book through the chapter “Is Freedom Just for Men?”, is thinking about one life she’s trying to save and that’s her own.

Sebelius in USA Today:

Of the 28 states that currently require contraception to be covered by insurance, eight have no religious exemption at all. [...] It’s important to note that our rule has no effect on the longstanding conscience clause protections for providers, which allow a Catholic doctor, for example, to refuse to write a prescription for contraception. Nor does it affect an individual woman’s freedom to decide not to use birth control. And the president and this administration continue to support existing conscience protections. – Secy. Kathleen Sebelius

It’s the most important conversation on women’s health to be launched in recent memory and if the American people are made to engage in it in a substantive way, which remains to be seen, something fundamentally will have been done by Pres. Obama’s decision on contraceptive coverage.

Joe Scarborough and others have said or suggested Pres. Obama’s will backtrack on his decision.

It will be catastrophic for American women and send a dangerous message on privacy if he proves them right. Because this isn’t just about contraception to religious conservatives. It’s about Griswold and the idea that women should enjoy the same privacy and freedoms as men, which no state or federal law or agency, religious institution or employer should have the right to abridge.

Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson

It was the only decision to make, giving the official White House nod to Bill Burton, a former Obama aide.

President Barack Obama — in an act of hypocrisy or necessity, depending on the beholder — has reversed course and is now blessing the efforts of a sputtering super PAC, Priorities USA Action, organized to fight GOP dark-money attacks. – Obama super PAC decision: President blesses fundraising for Priorities USA Action

The rambling excuse by Jim Messina is as unnecessary as it is bloated.

BuzzFeed, Ben Smith’s new haunts, is unimpressed.

“So what do we do? Well, faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations with those allies and partners who support the Syrian people’s right to have a better future. We have to increase diplomatic pressure on the Assad regime and work to convince those people around President Assad that he must go, and that there has to be a recognition of that and a new start to try to form a government that will represent all of the people of Syria,” [Secy. Hillary Clinton] said. – Josh Rogin

It’s no secret I was against the Libya bombing and remain so. Watching the carnage in Syria reveals the flaws in the Obama administration’s strategy, as much as there was one. The unspeakable, which Josh Rogin said outright last night, is civil war in Syria. Even as Secy. Clinton worked the Arab League hard to make the NATO mission feasible, regime change looks differently once it’s over and the fallout begins.

See Egypt, where Americans are reportedly to be tried, including Secy. Ray LaHood’s son. Our so-called relationship today in that country as bad as it’s been in decades, which Josh Rogin explained with Chris Hayes last night. No doubt Secy. Clinton’s first instinct to bolster Mubarak came from this dreaded place. However, the truth is wider and deeper, of an American policy supporting dictators who are our allies in torture and rendition, as both Mubarak and Assad have been, while the people suffer.

The Arab Spring has unleashed a lot of energy, none of which Pres. Obama can predict, contain or manage very easily, but considering we engaged in the contagion to try and impact it, he’ll have to take ownership of something that is uncontrollably unpredictable.

Stephen Walt offers some thoughts on Syria, after the Libyan NATO mission.

One can argue that this was the right course of action anyway, because getting rid of a thug like Qaddafi was worth it. That’s a debate for another day, although I would note in passing that post-Qaddafi Libya remains deeply troubled and the collapse of the regime seems to be fueling conflicts elsewhere. But what if the Libyan precedent is one of the reasons why Russia and China aren’t playing ball today? They supported Resolution 1973 back in 2011, and then watched NATO and a few others make a mockery of multilateralism in the quest to topple Qaddafi. The Syrian tragedy is pay-back time, and neither Beijing nor Moscow want to be party to another effort at Western-sponsored “regime change.” It is hardly surprising that Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin condemned the failed resolution on precisely these grounds. In short, our high-handed manipulation of the SC process in the case of Libya may have made it harder to gain a consensus on Syria, which is arguably a far more important and dangerous situation.

Also read Marc Lynch on what a horror it is that the U.N. failed, which no doubt is making the neoconservatives gleeful.

I wrote about this just a few days ago, but if you count Iran and Israel, the economy may be the least of Obama’s worries, with the Middle East possibly throwing a curve to all the prognosticators.

With Pres. Obama’s foreign policy credentials including ordering the slaying of Osama bin Laden, there is no sense whatsoever that Mitt Romney can make a serious challenge to Pres. Obama if the Middle East goes south.

What that means to Republicans picking a nominee is anyone’s guess. It also could be why Newt Gingrich has seduced himself into thinking the race isn’t over.

“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.

[update]“I just want to say that the spin stops with you guys, and there is no spin in that ad. On this I am certain. I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message about just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was OK. I am not supporting any politician at this time. Chrysler to their credit didn’t even have cars in the ad. Anything they gave me for it went for charity. If any Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it.” – Clint Eastwood to Bill O’Reilly’s producer

The Super Bowl ad above has caused quite a ruckus. As you’ll see in the update at the top [update]. Rove responded earlier.

“I was, frankly, offended by it,” said Karl Rove on Fox News Monday. “I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.” – Karl Rove quoted in the Washington Post

Mr. Eastwood is in direct conflict with what he said last year.

“We shouldn’t be bailing out the banks and car companies. If a CEO can’t figure out how to make his company profitable, then he shouldn’t be the CEO.” – Clint Eastwood

Bailing out the U.S. car industry is one of the most exceptionally American things Pres. Obama has done.

I’ve read Lawrence Summers 57-page economic memo and any person or politician positing that the Obama administration isn’t partially responsible for the trajectory of our economy, which is headed in positive direction, simply cannot be trusted.

What I find inexcusable is what might have happened if Pres. Obama had opened up Medicare as his first stop in solving health care, especially at a moment in time where he had the people ready to back him. A stimulus of the size Robert Reich suggested is another failing. However, at least Pres. Obama didn’t check the austerity box with Bowles-Simpson.

In the Super Bowl ad above, Clint Eastwood, when faced with a script that hails the saving of a quintessentially American industry and manufacturing base, does what any American with common sense would feel compelled to do. Praise the efforts and say we need more of it.

It used to be something on which we could all agree. Objective facts of success leading to someone to seeing a template for paving the way ahead.

Writers like Charles Kupchin are starting to weigh in that China’s GDP will pass the U.S. in around ten years. The World Bank has predicted that the dollar, the renminbi, China’s currency, and the euro will become part of a new “multi-currency” in less than 3 decades.

So far, Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich or any other Republican have come close to explaining their plans for stopping what many see as inevitable, given our current trajectory We’re left with platitudes and fearmongering from Republicans who are asking Americans to vote for them to lead us.

It will be frightening if people actually start believing the current crop of Republicans has one clue what to do, besides inflict austerity on a fragile recovering that is going in the right direction. When you look at Mitt Romney’s answers to our economic woes there is absolutely no sense he understands how austerity will impact the poor, many of whom are women and children.

If Republicans are going to take the government out of the building future of the United States, I would suggest that what Kupchin and others are saying will happen in ten or twenty years will be on our doorstep a lot earlier.

I say this as someone who no longer trusts Pres. Obama or believes he has the ideological compass or passion to do what’s required. However, that doesn’t mean Republicans do. That our politics is dumbed down to this either or choice is partially why writers are giving the U.S. such dire future prospects, because Republicans and Democrats clearly aren’t up to the challenges.

That Clint Eastwood didn’t even get what he was saying or representing in the Super Bowl ad above should give people pause.

Karl Rove clearly got the message and it freaked him out.

In addition to Zinn, Riley and Maher, I’m including some thoughts from a “where we are now” post at OWS.

First, the late historian Howard Zinn obviously didn’t have the Occupy movement specifically in mind when he was included in The Nation’s February 1, 2010 article, Obama at One, which asked for thoughts about Obama’s first WH year. Zinn’s response concluded:

I think people are dazzled by Obama’s rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president … unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction.

On another occasion, Zinn said:

What matters most is not who is sitting in the White House, but ‘who is sitting in’ – and who is marching outside the White House, pushing for change.’

And this:

If those in charge of our society – politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television – can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves.

It’s a matter of opinion what kind of role the Occupy / 99% movement is playing in challenging “those in charge.” Bill Maher recently got some attention for his comments. Via Yahoo News, “Maher to leftover Occupy movement ‘douchebags’: ‘Get a job.’”

‘Let me ask about another occupation … – the Occupy Wall Street,’ Maher said. ‘Because similar to Afghanistan, when you occupy anything too long, people do get pissed off. And as I watch them on the news now, I find myself almost agreeing with Newt Gingrich … — get a job.’ …

‘… the people who originally started, I think they went home, and now, I think it’s these anarchist stragglers,’ he continued. ‘And this is the problem when your movement involves sleeping over in the park. You wind up attracting the people who were sleeping over in the park anyway. And I think that’s where we are now with the Occupy movement. They did a great job of bringing the issue of income inequality to the fore. But now it’s just a bunch of douchebags who think throwing a chair through the Starbucks window is going to bring on the revolution.’

Maher, obviously, has every right to express his opinion. But, activism should continue only as long as you aren’t “pissing off” people? Further, reducing all Occupiers to “anarchist stragglers” and “douchebags” who are only “people who were sleeping in the park” before the Occupation, and how seriously are you going to take that kind of person – that makes for very easy “analysis.”

As I’ve said all along, like every movement, Occupy makes mistakes; they’re evolving, and sometimes quite messily. But they are working at it, “pushing for change.” If you disagree because you think no change is needed, or that they’re going about it the wrong way, fine. Maher’s critique, though, is at best lazy and simplistic.

From the OWS post I mentioned, “In Spite of Elections and ‘Camping Bans,’ Revolutionary Wave Grows”. It includes information about some of the many Occupy and related actions which have taken place this year.

Earlier this month, we celebrated 2011 and declared 2012 would be even bigger. One month in, we’re keeping our word, but the corporate media increasingly dismiss Occupy Wall Street as a dying movement. …

The only lull has been in the media coverage of our continuing struggle to create a more just world for all. While the corporate media have shifted focus to the U.S. Republican primaries and Presidential election, government agents of the 1% continue their assault on Occupy camps … .

The post includes discussion of several points of MSM “misinformation”: that OWS’s “numbers are dwindling”; “was weakened by the eviction of our camps”; “has lost its purpose and focus’; and that ‘The 2012 U.S. elections are eroding OWS’s relevance.’

Politics-as-usual won’t fix our problems. … We support communities trying to improve their present living conditions and fight back against corporate control and economic injustice … . But we do not endorse any politician(s) because no candidate will bring change.

One other perspective, which probably pushes at the margins even for some Occupiers, from a Rolling Stone:

‘Doing What’s Right, Not What’s Legal’: Boots Riley on Occupy Oakland …

One of the most dynamic spokespeople for Occupy Oakland has turned out to be Boots Riley, who grew up in Oakland and might be familiar to music fans as m.c. of the radical hip-hop group the Coup. …

‘All the changes that we’ve had in the last century that people can call progressive change, none of them have happened because people elected the right person into office,’ Riley told me. … ‘We got the eight-hour day because people shut shit down. We got the weekend because people shut shit down. New Deal happened because there were a million card-carrying Communists and people were in the streets and FDR thought there was going to be a revolution.’ …

By directly targeting labor and production through actions like the port shutdowns, Occupy Oakland has been different from other Occupy cities, Riley notes. He’s hoping the movement will grow to include elements of the working class who don’t normally organize, such as fast food workers. …

‘We want to organize where people … are not able to unionize because they’ll get fired. We can eliminate that risk because if they fire the folks who are unionizing, we can shut them down. Unions can’t legally organize in that way.’ Riley smiles. ‘But we can do stuff based on what’s right. Not what’s legal.’

A few thoughts from a few people for your consideration.

(Media Report sign via OWS News)

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.

Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human body that they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). – Sugar Should Be Regulated As Toxin, Researchers Say, Yahoo! News

Super Bowl Sunday is big fun at our house.

This past week, CBS did a program on the best Super Bowl commercials that was hilarious. They really are fun to watch during the game. Adriana Lima is an eye-popping beauty, and every time I see that E-Trade baby I laugh out loud.

I haven’t had a favorite football team in years. Since I moved to D.C. I’ve tried to root for the Redskins, but I grew up in St. Louis, where the rivalry of the Cardinals – Redskins made them my mortal sports enemy, as were the Dallas Cowboys. But having once lived in New York for several years and loved it, I can’t help hope the New York Giants pull off a win today.

One month into the New Year, this big food eating extravaganza Sunday is tough for people who are trying to start a new diet regimen. Of course, the words “diet regimen” reveal the problem. If you want to get trim and fit, it’s not about diet as much as it is changing your entire lifestyle. That’s what so many people get wrong; it’s also why it’s so hard.

So, to all you attempting to start a new food habit and find yourself staring at Super Bowl temptations, don’t be too hard on yourself if you can’t resist. Just remember that come Monday morning, it’s back to the business of getting leaner. (You could always go to the gym, take a walk or something physical to keep from over-indulging.)

It got me to thinking about an extraordinary moment last weekend.

Rep. Paul Ryan was a guest on “Fox News Sunday” last Sunday and Chris Wallace. Knowing it was his birthday, Wallace surprised him with a rectangular cake drenched in thick white frosting, with a large green dollar sign in the middle. Surprisingly, Mr. Ryan recoiled from the cake, chuckling, refusing to eat any. I don’t eat sugar, gave it up a long time ago. Wallace, clearly feeling awkward, asked Ryan to at least cut the cake. He did so, but only reluctantly, because after he cut it he didn’t know what to do with the piece he cut. Chris Wallace laughed nervously.

Good for him. I’m with Paul Ryan where sugar is concerned.

Now, if a liberal had been brought a cake by a host of FNC, can you just imagine the wingnut blog hysteria if he or she had refused to down the sugared goo?

Fill in the blank Democrat too good to share birthday cake with Wallace!

Sugar snob on this Sunday!

Elitist spruns sugar treat!

If more people paid closer attention to their own diet and exercise regimen, our health care costs wouldn’t be so astronomical. The majority of people can control their health and weight through diet, exercise and stress management, which begins with how you choose to live your life, with whom and taking responsibility for all these choices, which is a lot more difficult and involved than writing these sentences.

But whenever a study comes out on a major product, like the one I quote from at the top, that has a huge lobbying arm, I start the countdown for a requisite article to appear trying to disprove the facts or finding fault with the research, even dropping a bomb on the institution that released it. None of these things, however, can disprove what I’ve come to know is true through my own life, usage and experience, as well as those I’ve coached on diet and shaping up their lives.

Think of sugar as a drug or pharmaceutical and you’ve got it about right.

That’s how destructive it can be to your body, your mental functions, but especially your moods, though it’s your weight, blood pressure and cholesterol that’s right up there too. It’s the fuel behind our country’s obesity.

Ever heard of the book Sugar Blues? It’s the most important book you haven’t read.

From the study linked at the top:

Today, added sugar, as opposed to natural sugars found in fruits, is often added in foods ranging from soup to soda. Americans consume on average more than 600 calories per day from added sugar, equivalent to a whopping 40 teaspoons. “Nature made sugar hard to get; man made it easy,” the researchers write.

Many researchers are seeing sugar as not just “empty calories,” but rather a chemical that becomes toxic in excess. At issue is the fact that glucose from complex carbohydrates, such as whole grains, is safely metabolized by cells throughout the body, but the fructose element of sugar is metabolized primarily by the liver. This is where the trouble can begin — taxing the liver, causing fatty liver disease, and ultimately leading to insulin resistance, the underlying causes of obesity and diabetes.

If you want to do one thing for yourself that you’ll never regret and can be a foundation for building a healthier life, the first thing to do is ban all sugar. There will be exceptions, like on Valentine’s Day or maybe on this Super Bowl Sunday, because it’s a big party day and because you’ll never stick with it if you feel deprived.

But if you absolutely have to have a sugar treat, making it a treat, not something you indulge in every day.

If you’re craving something eat protein instead.

Go Giants!

Mitt Romney isn’t featured in the video above, but another rich Republican is. However, the video covers a subject dear to Mitt’s heart.

It’s a thing of beauty.

Thirty years after his father massacred tens of thousands of innocent Syrian men, women, and children in Hama, Bashar al-Assad has demonstrated a similar disdain for human life and dignity. [...] Every government has the responsibility to protect its citizens, and any government that brutalizes and massacres its people does not deserve to govern. The Syrian regime’s policy of maintaining power by terrorizing its people only indicates its inherent weakness and inevitable collapse. Assad has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community… – Pres. Obama

Diplomatically, it was Secy. Clinton versus Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, giving dueling public speeches that came before the U.N. vote delivering a double veto. From Clinton at the Munich Security Summit:

Here in Munich, I have had productive discussions with a number of my counterparts concerning a list of critical issues. One that kept coming up is the ongoing violence in Syria. As a bankrupt regime clings to power by shelling its own people in their homes, we have seen a living nightmare play out in the city of Homs. It’s a nightmare that has been repeated across Syria over these past many months. Almost 30 days – almost 30 years to the day after the infamous Hama massacre, the international community must send Assad a clear message: By repeating the horrors of Syria’s past, you have lost your place in Syria’s future.

From the New York Times we get the outcome:

A United Nations Security Council effort to end the violence in Syria collapsed in acrimony with a double veto by Russia and China on Saturday, hours after the Syrian military attacked the city of Homs in what opposition leaders described as the deadliest government assault in the nearly 11-month uprising.

The veto and the mounting violence underlined the dynamics shaping what is proving to be the Arab world’s bloodiest revolt: diplomatic stalemate and failure as Syria plunges deeper into what many are already calling a civil war. Diplomats have lamented their lack of options in pressuring the Syrian government, and even some Syrian dissidents worry about what the growing confrontation will mean for a country reeling from bloodshed and hardship.

According to Reuters, the latest death toll was 217 people.

Hello news junkies… Wonk the Vote here with a new feature at TM.com that I hope you enjoy!

Tonight, my recommendation for you is the PBS Independent Lens documentary that aired this week  — Daisy Bates: First Lady of Little Rock.

The Louisville Film Society also screened the film at the Dreamland Film Center earlier last month. From what appears to be the press release of that screening:

“As a black woman who was a feminist before the term was invented, Daisy Bates refused to accept her assigned place in society. ‘Daisy Bates: First Lady of Little Rock’ tells the story of her life and public support of nine black students who registered to attend the all-white Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, which culminated in a constitutional crisis — pitting a president against a governor and a community against itself. Unconventional, revolutionary, and egotistical, Daisy Bates reaped the rewards of instant fame, but paid dearly for it.”

Can I just say that I am so glad PBS chose to kick black history month off by spotlighting a *feminist* leader of the civil rights movement? (The late Dorothy Height would have been an excellent choice too!)

Funny how women always pay “dearly” for ego in anything political, but today’s Newts and Romneys and–yes, Obamas, too–all self-inflate with reckless abandon and don’t seem to suffer for it all that much–or have their names disappeared from the history books.

Contra Costa Times, via Kansas City Star:

If you were to compile a quick, off-the-top-of-your-head list of civil rights-era heroes (no Googling allowed), Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and a few others might immediately spring to mind.

But Daisy Bates? Probably not – despite the fact that she played a key role in the Little Rock integration crisis of 1957 and that she, like King, spoke at the landmark March on Washington.

Eurweb.com has a great quote from producer-director Sharon La Cruise:

“I just couldn’t understand, because I studied history and I thought I knew it extensively, especially African American history. I didn’t know why I didn’t know anything about her,” said La Cruise. “So I read her autobiography. I wrote her a letter. I said basically what I’ve just said, to her, that I didn’t understand why I didn’t know about her, and I want to know more about her, and I thought her life would make this incredible film.”

More from La Cruise via her op-ed at Womens E-News:

I became fascinated by the thought of that 8-year-old child who in one day learned she was an orphan and realized that being black meant you lived in a world where your life was insignificant. I wrote Bates and told her how much I admired her and thought her life story should be turned into a documentary film. She responded through her attorney that she would love to explore the idea further.

I was beyond thrilled to hear back, but then realized I had no idea how to produce a full-length documentary. I’d studied at New York University’s School of Journalism but didn’t have a lot of filmmaking experience. So I wasted two years dreaming of producing a documentary, not realizing how ill Bates was. On Nov. 4, 1999, I woke up to hear NPR reading Bates’ obituary. I was devastated.

Five years later though, in 2004, I decided to make the documentary after all. I’d gained experience by then and thought I was ready. But it took me seven long years to complete the film, as I worked on other projects and scraped by on funding. I was the director, producer and bottle-washer in one. I managed to hire some researchers, but did most of it myself. Kind friends helped me out on the script.

Dorothy Height’s memoir is on my current reading list and so her story is fresh on my mind–as is Shirley Sherrod’s encounter with the current Administration. I’m struck by the similarities of all these women’s stories–Daisy Bates’, Shirley Sherrod’s, Dorothy Height’s. They were all spurred to action by simply facing the inequality and injustice that they had faced since childhood, head-on in their adulthood. Their refusal to settle for less than their “inalienable” rights is the quintessential story of the ordinary American hero(ine).

They are each of them Rosa Parks on that bus, just having had enough of being treated inferiorly–but each with a unique story of her own to tell, stories that deserve to be heard.

From the Gray Lady’s review of the doc:

Ms. La Cruise injects first-person musings into the film that sit awkwardly, but she also finds side stories that elevate her movie above mere hagiography. Ms. Bates’s aggressiveness on integration was divisive for the state’s black leaders, and that she was a woman meant she was pushing against more than just racial barriers.

I am reminded here of what Dorothy Heights so eloquently termed the

“triple bind of racism, sexism and poverty.”

SF Weekly echoes the Gray Lady’s take on La Cruise and her Daisy Bates doc:

​In the process, Cruise also uncovers a personality as complex as the era — a charismatic, self-taught firebrand whose need of drink led to three early strokes and whose need of attention often led to alienation, even from those she would help. In some ways this is a tragedy that culminates in a state holiday, but we are left with an authentic heroine who has not been whitewashed.

This is where the political girl-junkie in me says, “Squee!”

PBS has a trailer and a few clips up here, and if you’d like to watch the entire documentary, it will be up for free for your viewing, for the next two weeks.

Also, the Zinn Education Project has a great related lesson plan–Warriors Don’t Cry: Connecting History, Literature, and Our Lives–that you might want to check out, especially you educators amongst the TM.com readership.

Mitt Romney has had his share of gaffes that are giving the Democrats the ammo needed to possibly destroy any hope he has of getting elected president. Gaffes become stories when they fit the narrative and the narrative is Mitt is a rich insensitive guy who does not get it.

What are some of his greatest hits that have become damning for him? Ah, memory lane so far (and I‘m probably missing a few along the way):

“Corporations are people my friend.”- Uh yeah:

Recall this one? His 10 grand bet with Governor Perry over Mitt’s prior support of the mandate? Ordinary folks do not make such bets with that kind of cash:

Romney in Florida this past June joking on how he is unemployed. Good grief:

Mitt tells voters how he feared getting pink slipped. From Bain? RT America has a great story on this comment from Romney and how he was uncovered back in 2007 for never having to worry about being laid off:

Romney tells voters he loves being able to fire people. Not a good one:

And of course the latest: Mitt’s callous remark on the “very poor.” And it isn’t just the remark, it is how he treats CNN’s anchor that is just as bad:

No wonder so many conservatives do not want Romney for their nominee. Watching these clips alone is enough to need a case of Pepto Bismol. And the thought of these sorts of off the cuff (or not) remarks continuing for months on end is simply not acceptable to those who want Obama beaten in the election.

Romney is saying the things the rich are expected to say in the age of Occupy. Gingrich is toxic, but polls show Romney suffering very badly with rising negatives by the week. And for the first time in months Obama now leads Romney handily in Ohio by 8 points. Mitt Romney has to be saved from himself in order to win or is too late?

UPDATED AT END

It’s the time of the year when the annual Human Rights Campaign “galas” kick-off, taking place in cities across the nation from now until November.

Fully acknowledging snark mode, we see HRC doing its Mitt Romney impression and providing more evidence for the Insider disconnect with the “99%.” While the language is a bit different, the criticism of HRC’s out-of-touchness is nothing new. This year’s Greater New York Gala, scheduled for this evening, honors Goldman Sachs with the “Corporate Equality Award.” In this Occupied time, that’s particularly, well, interesting. But it also raises the always present question: what to do when someone with big money is good on your issue, but bad in other ways? It’s certainly not a new conundrum, and it’s just as certain that different people will arrive at different answers.

From HRC:

The Greater New York HRC Steering Committee and Dinner Co-Chairs Eric Blomquist , Jo Doyle & John Rivers cordially invite you to:

‘Celebrate our victories and honor the work ahead for full LGBT Equality and Civil Rights’ at the 11th Annual Greater New York Human Rights Campaign Gala.

Joe Solmonese, soon to be stepping down HRC head, is “Featured Speaker.” The “Ally For Equality Award” will go to Anna Wintour, Vogue Editor-in-Chief, and the “Corporate Equality Award” to Goldman Sachs.

At NYTimeOut:

Last year was not a good one for many workers at Goldman Sachs, but the company’s LGBT contingent had cause to celebrate. The firm’s Ally Strategy program went beyond standard policies of workplace diversity and inclusiveness, and actively sought to educate and engage straight employees to create a more welcoming and open environment for LGBT ones.

Obviously that’s good for queer equality. But especially if you’re already skeptical, at best, about HRC’s Insider status, and even more, if you’re involved with the Occupy movement, honoring Goldman Sachs is akin to getting in bed with 1%.

Queer Occupy Wall Street, a caucus of NYC OWS, announced that it will protest at the Waldorf Astoria, site of the Gala, and in contrast to the VIP $650 a plate meal, host a “Guerrilla Potluck.”

1. The Queer Caucus condemns HRC’s decision to honor Goldman Sachs in a time of financial collapse caused by their unethical business practices and greed, and deplores the use of our cause and suffering for corporate public relations. …

2. The Queer Caucus calls upon HRC to embrace the grassroots demand for Full Federal Equality by 2014 – the 50th Anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. …

3. The Queer Caucus also demands that HRC open the process to transparency and grassroots inclusion. …

With this structure in place, queer occupiers know that only a handful of privileged voices are setting the national queer agenda and strategy, defining what ‘LGBT equality’ means and who our friends are.

For example, HRC’s key sponsors includes a long list of big businesses that contributed to recent economic and environmental distress, including Citi Bank, Bank of America, Chevron, BP, Shell, Morgan Stanley, MetLife, Deloitte, Lexus, Prudential, and Ernst & Young.

In a related press release:

Dubbed the ‘Guerrilla Potluck for Full Equality,’ activists from the Radical Faeries will also bring high-design to the sidewalk demonstration with the message of ‘HELP’. HELP end LGBT abuse. HELP end LGBT suicides. HELP end LGBT discrimination. HELP get Full Equality by 2014.

With an absolutely classic blowing you off political response, via the NYTimeOut piece:

Asked about the planned protest via e-mail, HRC spokesman Paul Guequierre wrote, ‘We are fortunate to live in a democracy where everyone’s opinion counts.’

Some, of course, count more than others.

So, what do you do when someone (corporations are people, remember, so it’s “someone”) with money and a willingness to support your cause is also someone who implements and enforces other policies that are quite harmful, including to people involved with your cause? It’s never been an easy answer, but it remains a very important question.

UPDATE: Check out Bil Browning’s post at Bilerico:

Talk about tone deaf… The HRC Manhattan gala dinner will honor Goldman Sachs. …

‘We are fortunate to live in a democracy that encourages many diverse points of view,’ Fred Sainz, HRC’s vice president of communication and marketing, tells The Advocate. ‘The irony is that our programs serve the 99% of the population this group says it represents.’
What a load of horse shit; that’s the worst spin I’ve seen out of HRC yet.

Bil includes a link to a petition to “withdraw the award from Goldman Sachs.” See it at Change.org.

( Occupy HRC Guerrilla Potluck via Occupy Pix
Occupy Queer OWS Logo via Occupy Pix )

Pretzels? Check.

Caramel? Check.

Chocolate? Check.

Peanuts? Check.

I have devised the ultimate super bowl bar. It takes all the fan favorites and familiars, and meshes them together in the ultimate bar.

Touchdown!

Recipe:

2 1/4 sticks unsalted butter                                       3/4 cup light brown sugar

2 cups salted peanuts                                                  2 1/4 cups all purpose flour

2 cups coarsely chopped salted pretzels                  2 teaspoons plus a pinch of salt

1 cup semi-sweet chocolate chips                             4 cups sugar

1/2 teaspoon cream of tartar

1 cup heavy cream

* Preheat oven to 350 degrees

*Butter and line a 15-by-10 inch rimmed baking sheet with parchment, leave an overhand along the sides

1. Spread peanuts on a rimmed baking sheet, toast until fragrant. Set aside.
2. In the bowl of an electric mixer fitted with the paddle attachment, cream the brown sugar and two sticks of butter, until light and fluffy. Add the flour and a pinch of salt, mix until just combined.
3. Transfer dough to the prepared baking sheet, press the dough into the pan, with floured hands, and spread evenly.
4. Bake for 10-12 minutes until lightly golden, let cool completely on a wire rack.
5. In a wide, heavy bottom saucepan combine the sugar, cream of tartar, 2 teaspoons of salt and 1 cup of water. Stir. Cook over high heat, until the sugar melts and turns a golden.
6. Lower the heat to medium, and stir with a wooden spoon (the mixture will be bubbling the whole time)When the sugar turns a deep golden color, add the heavy cream along the side of the saucepan, in a slow, steady stream (the mixture will get a bit crazy). Stir constantly.
7. Remove from the heat and add the 1/4 stick of butter. Stir until incorporated. Transfer the caramel to a heat-proof dish to cool, for about 10-15 minutes.
8. Stir in peanuts and pretzels, coating them well in the caramel. Spread caramel evenly over the cooled crust and sprinkle the chocolate chips on top. Bake again for 10 minutes until the caramel is set.
9. Let cool completely on a wire rack, and cut into bars.

It’s game day! (Almost) What will you be eating? Who are you rooting for?

I am team Madonna. Let me know, I’ve got my pom-poms ready in the open thread below!

One of the most important cultural links you’ll need this month: The schedule of Turner Classic Movies leading up to The Oscars.

I’ve been a fan of films since I was a little girl dreaming of getting out of Missouri. They were my escape. I’m passionate about them, all sorts of films from “Gone with the Wind” to John Wayne classics to B-movies and Joan Crawford to science fiction, as well as comedy and murder mysteries, you name it.

Gary Oldman, one of my favorite actors, has been nominated for an Oscar in Tinker, Tailer, Soldier, Spy, based on the 1974 book by John le Carré, which is a stupendously marvelous film. I’m not surprised it wasn’t nominated for best picture, because it’s intensity is quietly patient and methodical, not a characteristic of Academy nominees. The performances are out of sight.

Oscar is overrated. It’s political, tilted to the personal or publicist marketing. Film award season just tends to be odd. Meryl Streep won the Golden Glober playing Margaret Thatcher, in one of the most wretchedly over-hyped films that doesn’t deliver. Rooney Mara, a tour de force original, and Michelle Williams give equally brilliant performances. I’m not going through all of them; Gawker has the full list.

Octavia Spencer, from “The Help”, got an Oscar nod. She will also be honored at the Black Women in Hollywood luncheon on Feb. 23., receiving the Breakthrough Award. Ms. Spencer gives a canny and unpredictable performance in a film that is marginally realistic and one of the most insulting white-washes of a truly despicable era of the south. I guess the producers didn’t think anyone would watch it if they stripped away the cheekiness.

If you’re in to all sorts of movies, as I am, Mark Wahlberg’s “Contraband” was a trashy testosterone-filled roller coaster. I’m not a chick flick gal; I’ve never dragged a man to a single one. But action films of all sorts are a passion; as are what I consider B movies. But next time Wahlberg makes a movie like this he needs to call me to help him craft the female part. I mean, really, knowing you’re in danger and leaving your door ajar, but then not having a gun nearby? Rewrite! No decent action film female character would ever write that into her part. Damsel in distress days are o-v-e-r.

Ignore the awards, enjoy the movies.

…and enjoy your evening. Chat it up in the comments about anything you like, if you feel so inclined.

A GOP campaign operative who won plaudits for bolstering Mitt Romney’s recent debate performances is not being retained by the frontrunner’s campaign, an apparent victim of internal tensions over staff receiving too much credit for the candidate’s comeback, POLITICO has learned. – Mitt Romney splits with Brett O’Donnell

Fridays is dump day in politics and the Romney camp has just done a whopper of one. This is as inside political baseball as it gets, but they’re fascinating if you’re interested in the machinations of political campaigns, which I am.

Last weekend, the New York Times ran a story replete with how Romney’s team, advisers, opposition-research crew, as well as a new debate coach, who became the talk after Romney took it to Gingrich, Brett O’Donnell, ganged up on Gingrich in Florida to give Mitt a victory. An excerpt:

Mr. Romney, meanwhile, had been receiving help from a new debate adviser — Brett O’Donnell, a longtime leader of the Liberty University debate team who advised Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota in her campaign last year — and assumed a new role as the campaign’s chief attacker, relinquishing his old approach of leaving the dirty work to supporters and a friendly super PAC.

A team of some of the most fearsome researchers in the business, led by Mr. Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, spent days dispensing negative information about Mr. Gingrich, much of it finding its way to the influential Drudge Report, which often serves as a guide for conservative talk radio and television assignment editors and to which Mr. Rhoades has close ties.

The effort hit a peak by Thursday, when the site was virtually taken over by headlines assailing Mr. Gingrich, whose advisers said they eventually gave up on trying to persuade the Drudge staff to spare them, acknowledging, in the words of one aide, that “very little can be done.”

“The Romney team” became the subject of scathing rants by Joe Scarborough on “Morning Joe” this week, highlighting how scandalous it was for insiders in the campaign to be blowing their own horns, while giving little credit to Romney.

The closer to the article reveals what became a big problem as the week went on:

Mr. Romney was still in South Carolina when the team, led by Mr. Rhoades, presented the plan to him. “He was on the road, and there was a call with him on Sunday morning where we laid out all the different pieces of what was going on,” Mr. Schriefer said. “He asked questions, but it wasn’t a particularly long call; it was very calm, sort of ‘O.K., guys, let’s go win in Florida.’ ”

Mitt’s team tried to get Brett O’Donnell’s name removed from the piece before printing, but they couldn’t.

Ego is all in politics and after the debate everyone was talking about O’Donnell, if not by name.

There’s an old law in Hollywood: always support the star. If you pull focus you’re not going to be around long.

Mitt Romney’s team seen preening on the front page of the Times taking credit for Florida was bad enough, but having someone who actually made a difference in the candidate’s performance named out loud, well, that’s unforgivable.

So, late on a Friday night of Super Bowl weekend, they decided to cut someone loose to send a message. So who do they ax? Not an adviser or part of the oppo-research team, heaven forbid, they let O’Donnell go.

Message: Mitt Romney doesn’t need no stinking debate coach. He’s got game on his own.

“We briefly interrupt this campaign season to bring you special coverage of a shorter version of an equally distracting event, where a ‘world champion’ of teams from one nation is crowned in made-for-television spending entertainment and distraction extravaganza.”

That really isn’t a quote, just me venting. I know millions love the Super Bowl, and wish every one of you happy watching, munching and drinking. I also, however, wish those using the moment to point out the skewed priorities which see who knows how many millions of dollars changing hands, legally and otherwise, due to a professional sports event, while money can’t be found to help millions secure employment, health care, housing, food, clothing and other basic necessities. Obviously the vast majority of those who enjoy the Super Bowl are not of the 1%. And I’m guessing it’s those non-1% who the Occupy the Super Bowl folks are hoping will take notice of the non-football numbers they’re providing.

Via Interoccupy, from Occupy the Super Bowl:

There are currently 21,334 foreclosed homes in Indianapolis. The median list price of these homes is $139,900.00. That’s a total of $2,984,626,600.00.

Capitalism without control results in companies spending $76,667.00 per second for a Superbowl advertisement. At 67 ads that amounts to $154,100,670.00.

These ad profits alone would totally pay off 1101 homes.

$720,000,000.00 was the cost of Lucas Oil Stadium. This cost would return 5,147 homes to their owners debt free.

Like all such comparisons, these are mostly about providing a way to envision what for most of us is a difficult thing to do: what very large amounts of money can buy. And of course, the numbers also provide a contrast between two worlds, or often, between two overlapping worlds. Back to the Interoccupy post:

We The People of Indianapolis are not anti-Superbowl. We’re a sports city lacking only a baseball team. We love our Colts even this year with their atrocious record, they are still The Indianapolis Colts! The point is this, Corporate America is not about doing what’s right for The People, it’s about profit. Yet these same corporations don’t hesitate in demanding funds from We The People.

Or as Dave Zirinon writes, at The Nation:

The Super Bowl is perennially the Woodstock for the 1 percent: a Romneyesque cavalcade of private planes, private parties and private security. Combine that with this proposed (now passed “right to work”) legislation, and the people of Indiana will not let this orgy of excess go unoccupied.

At TomDispatch, via TruthOut, Robert Lipsyte writes, “Four Reasons to Watch the Super Bowl: Joe Hill, Joe Pa, Tebow, Wee Brains,” which includes:

Most Americans won’t need a justification to watch Sunday’s game, but if you’re a TomDispatch.com reader you might think, even in passing, that celebrating the holiest day of violence, consumerism, and class warfare on your couch is a betrayal of your values or a waste of your time. You might even imagine that it would be better to take a hike, read a book, or meditate.

Not this Sunday, buster. It’s an election season. You need to watch this game to fully understand how jobs, religion, leadership, and healthcare dominate every American contest.

You’ll need to check out the article to follow his thinking, but here’s an excerpt:

Even with a progressive attitude, watching the Super Bowl, which seems to float on rivers of oil — think car ads — and beer, is not exactly like holding a OWS-style general assembly in the red zone. Nevertheless, it’s a terrific visual of the American class divide. In their skyboxes, usually in jacket and tie, eating, drinking, and high-fiving — or scowling — are the one-percenters who own the team, which is usually not their only source of income.

Below them, on the field, are their employees (many of them temporary one-percenters, given the median league salary of at least $560,000), using up the capital of their bodies.

One last thing, an indication of some fun and creativity of the Occupy the Super Bowl group, about a music event they’re organizing:

The protests of the 60s and 70s had Wood Stock. We came up with the name Occupy Corn Stock.

(Super Bowl sign via OccupySuperBowl
Jefferson Class Warfare Quote via OWS Posters)

“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.