Daily Kos

Just in case you didn't get your fill of Republicans arguing the finer points of right-wing politics with each other in the previous 19 debates, No. 20 is happening tonight. If the past is any guide, you can be sure that certain questions won't get asked by CNN moderator John King.

My colleague Jed Lewison believes the key to the evening will be how Rick Santorum answers the question: "Are you a religious fanatic and/or would you govern as one?" Assuming, of course, that King decides he can't avoid some version of that even if he gets yelled at for asking it.

Given that Mitt Romney is now making disturbing noises about the "secular agenda" of President Obama—y'know, the non-religious agenda that presidents are supposed to engage in?—the answers he and Santorum both give could be telling.

Here's three more:

• Would you prefer that the United States bomb Iran now or do you want to get credit for starting that war yourself?

• Is there a single item in the New Deal and Great Society programs that you would keep or would you prefer the slate to be wiped completely clean?

• How much more skewed do you think the ratio of economic inequality needs to become to make America world-class again?

Your turn. What questions would you like to ask tonight?

The Republicans have a problem.

“The senator believes Romney will ultimately win in Michigan but says he will publicly call for the party to find a new candidate if he does not. ‘We’d get killed,’ the senator said if Romney manages to win the nomination after he failed to win the state in which he grew up. ‘He’d be too damaged’ … Santorum? ‘He’d lose 35 states,’ the senator said, predicting the same fate for Newt Gingrich. It would have to be somebody else, the senator said.  Who? ‘Jeb Bush.’”

No, it's not that Rick Santorum might beat Mitt Romney in the primary and get clobbered in the general election, or that Romney might lose Michigan in the primary, get nominated and then get clobbered in the general election (both are plausible but less likely than Romney winning Michigan, then the primary, and then losing in the fall). The Republican problem, which the media has to dance around in order to sell their product, is the Republican primary voter.

Republican primary voters are the ones pushing Romney, Huntsman, Pawlenty, et. al. into acting like lunatics chasing after positions they don't believe in. They're the ones that elevated Donald Trump and Herman Cain to serious contenders and made Sarah Palin a household name. And they're the ones that would have to buy into a Jeb Bush or a Mitch Daniels or a Chris Christie as a viable substitute foisted on them by a well heeled Republican elite in a smoke filled back room, undoubtedly well upholstered and well stocked with people who think they know better than the poor schlubs who actually caucus and vote from January through June.

(Continue reading below the fold)

Karen Golinski is a staff attorney at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and all she has wanted for years (seriously, read the procedural history of the case) is what any federal employee wanted: the right to enroll her spouse in the super-awesome federal employee health benefits plan. Thing is, though, Karen's spouse is a woman, legally married under California law, and under Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

This case has a unique procedural history, having first been ruled upon by 9th Cir Chief Judge Alex Kozinski in his internal administrative capacity, an order effectively ignored by the Obama Administration, but now it's before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, with the Administration now refusing to defend DOMA, leaving it to former Solicitor Paul Clement, on behalf of Congressional Republicans, to defend its constitutionality.

That ruling came down today from the Hon. Jeffrey White, and sometimes Pres. George W. Bush's judicial nominees say the darndest things:

The Court has found that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples. Even though animus is clearly present in its legislative history, the Court, having examined that history, the arguments made in its support, and the effects of the law, is persuaded that something short of animus may have motivated DOMA’s passage:

Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile
animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of
careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against
people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.

Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374-75 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

(Continue reading below the fold)

Reposted from Comics by Tom Tomorrow

Click to enlarge.

Here's a conundrum for the Republicans: Republican voters don't like the choices for presidential candidates that they have, but they're also opposed to the only way the party can find a new candidate. That's according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll.

WASHINGTON – While most Republicans wish they had different choices in the party's presidential field, a nationwide USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds overwhelming resistance to the idea of an old-styled brokered convention that would pick some new contender as the nominee.

By 66%-29%, the Republicans and Republican-leaning independents surveyed say it would be better if one of the four candidates now running managed to secure enough delegates to clinch the nomination. [...]

There is undeniable dissatisfaction with the field. A 55% majority of Republicans say they wish someone else was running; 44% say they're pleased with the selection of candidates.

So a large majority wants another choice, but an even larger majority doesn't want to find that other choice the only way they can, through a brokered convention. That, apparently, is viewed as more damaging to the party than the insanely negative slugfest being played out now, the slugfest that's probably only going to make Republican-leaning independents even more turned off by the eventual GOP nominee.

The intensity gap the GOP has shown in this primary seems destined to plague the party in the general, as well, no matter who emerges out of this sorry crowd.

After crowing about how effective his racist Super Bowl ad had been for weeks, the reality of the matter is finally settling in for Republican Rep. and Senate hopeful Pete Hoekstra.
Yeah, it turns out that Michigan voters aren't so keen on overt racism. The ad was so toxic, in fact, that the Hoekstra camp is doing everything possible to scrub the ad off the internet.

Hoekstra, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan, has scrubbed all mention of the ad featuring an actress portraying a Chinese woman speaking in broken English from his campaign Facebook page and YouTube account. Back on Feb 5, when the ad ran during the Michigan broadcast of the Super Bowl, Hoekstra posted it in both places. Then as the controversy kicked up, he used his YouTube account to post clips of him vehemently defending the spot on Fox News.

Now the ad is gone from his Facebook page (as captured in this screenshot, which shows all entries from Feb. removed) as well as his YouTube account. More interestingly, Hoekstra's defense of the ad has also been scrubbed from YouTube (as this screenshot shows).  

That was a weird ad, truly. Originally, I thought the ad was geared toward helping Hoekstra in his primary race. Obviously, nothing plays better in Republican circles than overt racism and xenophobia. But given that Hoekstra is dominating the primary field, that really makes no sense. He's going to get the nomination easily, and will likely keep his opponents in the single digits. So that wasn't it.

The only explanation that makes sense is that Hoekstra's team thought it would win them points in the general election against Sen. Debbie Stabenow. They genuinely believed that the voters of their state were racist xenophobes who would applaud the offensive ad.

In a cycle full of dramatic GOP overreach and unforced errors, it won't be the last time  that Republicans misread the public.

Join us tonight at 8 PM ET as we watch the twentieth—and perhaps final—debate of the Republican primary season, six days ahead of the crucial Michigan and Arizona primaries. It's the first debate in nearly one month, and will be the first debate featuring Rick Santorum atop the national polls (8 points according to Gallup). CNN will broadcast it, and John King will moderate it.

As I wrote yesterday, the big question in tonight's debate will be whether and how Rick Santorum addresses questions about his religious agenda—particular his warning about Satan's attack on America. That might make Republicans uncomfortable, but this is the party they created, and it's not like Mitt Romney hasn't been doing it too.

As ABC's Rick Klein notes, today is Ash Wednesday. Santorum has been wearing ash on his forehead today, although Newt Gingrich hasn't. I suspect Santorum won't wear it during the debate, but it would be a striking visual if he were to do so.

Mitt Romney hopes to put his tax plan at the center of the debate, but his back-to-back gaffes (saying that cutting spending hurts the economy, and using the language of Occupy Wall Street to describe his tax plan), could haunt him.

Newt Gingrich is apparently planning on returning to Churchillian form by letting the others be chihauhaus, whatever that means, and Ron Paul will, as always, be Ron Paul. So gather yourself around the Daily Kos comment threads and join us tonight to watch what would be the most hilarious debate yet.

In the immortal words of California's Jesse "Big Daddy" Unruh, "Money is the mother's milk of politics." This year, billionaire donors have turned it into cream. Just five of the ultra-wealthy have contributed a fourth of all the money received by Super PACs that are having a powerful impact on the elections.

Individuals are limited to $2500 direct contributions to a candidate's campaign. But there is no limit on contributions to Super PACS. These aren't supposed to coordinate with the campaigns, but that is a joke.

By far the most generous contributor is Harold Simmons of Texas, though he has not played favorites during this election cycle. He gave more than $1 million to Rick Perry's super PAC last year (before he dropped out of the race), threw $500,000 to Newt Gingrich in December, quickly pivoted with a $100,000 check to the pro-Mitt Romney Restore Our Future PAC, then went back to Gingrich with another $500,000 check. Perhaps he got confused by the names of the competing PACs — Restore Our Future (Romney) versus Winning the Future (Gingrich). Or as some have pointed out, anyone giving money to Gingrich at this point is really supporting Romney, since Newt's refusal to quit actually undermines Rick Santorum's chances.

During the 2008 election, Simmons donated $2.9 million to fund an ad linking Barack Obama with a former leader of Weather Underground, William Ayers.

As Joan McCarter wrote earlier this month, "looking at these numbers, you don't have to wonder who's future and destiny they're talking about, who is going to be made great again under a Republican president. A hint: It wouldn't to be the 99 percent."

From the Michigan Democratic Party:

Friends,

Republicans have extended an invitation to all Michigan Democrats to crossover and vote in the Michigan GOP presidential primary this Tuesday, February 28th. Yesterday, Republican Senators Rick Jones and Arlan Meekhof said they’d welcome Democrats to crossover. You can check out the invitation for yourselves by watching the video clip below.

Any Democrat who takes Senators Jones and Meekhof up on their offer will still be able to participate in the Michigan Democratic Party’s presidential caucuses on May 5, 2012.

If Democratic crossover votes affect the results of the GOP presidential primary next Tuesday, the Republicans will only have themselves to blame.

Sincerely,

Mark Brewer
Chair, Michigan Democratic Party

• Today's comic by Jen Sorensen is Pundit retraining:
  
  
• Join us tonight at 8 ET as Jed Lewison liveblogs the latest Republican debate, where the candidates will discuss issues that weigh on the minds of all Americans: Satan, transvaginal probes and whether or not women should have basic health care.
• Who is Ann Romney trying to kid?
  

  Making her pitch for Mitt Romney's candidacy during stops in conservative corners of Michigan, Ann Romney said Tuesday that her husband was a “little reluctant” about running for president in 2012.

  Mitt Romney has been running for president for (at least) six years—unless he has some other reason for keeping his money in a blind trust after leaving the governor's office.
• Herman Cain wants to be a kingmaker:
  

  The charismatic former pizza executive is throwing his weight behind a handful of Republican congressional hopefuls who are intent on advancing the conservative platform he espoused — including his signature “9-9-9” tax plan — campaigning for some of them and endorsing others.

  Cain will hit the road this week ...

  ... where he'll probably be on the prowl for another woman to sexually harass.
• This is a game-changer—former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer is dropping his bid for the 2012 Republican nomination and will run as a third-party candidate.
• Republican Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra is trying to erase all evidence of his racist ad that ran during this year's Super Bowl:
  

  The controversial spot has been wiped from its YouTube channel, stricken from its Facebook page and there's no mention of it on the campaign website.

  Even the interviews about the spot have been scrubbed, including Hoekstra's appearance on Fox News Channel. [...]

  A spokesperson for the Hoekstra campaign did not respond to an inquiry seeking an explanation.

• Ever wondered who the hottest president in U.S. history was? I've got to go with Rutherford B. Hayes.
• President Obama sings "Sweet Home Chicago" at a White House event.
• Condolences to family and friends:
  

  American journalist Marie Colvin and award-winning French photographer Remi Ochlik were killed Wednesday in the besieged Syrian city of Homs, opposition activists and a French official said.

• This has to be the best—and by best I mean hilarious—defense by a lawyer for a client caught up in an investigation about a prostitution ring:
  

  A lawyer for Mr. Strauss-Kahn appeared to confirm that he had attended the events, saying that his client would not have been aware if the women who entertained him were prostitutes.

  “He could easily not have known, because as you can imagine, at these kinds of parties you’re not always dressed, and I challenge you to distinguish a naked prostitute from any other naked woman,” the lawyer, Henri Leclerc, told a French radio station, Europe 1, in December.

• They needed to conduct a study to figure this one out?
  

  Men put on their best behaviour when attractive ladies are close by. When the scenario is reversed however, the behaviour of women remains the same. These findings were published February 2, 2012, in the British Psychological Society's British Journal of Psychology via the Wiley Online Library. [...]

  Dr Iredale said: "The research shows that good deeds among men increase when presented with an opportunity to copulate.

• The opportunity to enter your organization or small company in the Netroots Nation's 2nd annual "Grab a Booth" contest ends next Tuesday, February 28th. Netroots Nation is giving away six free booths in the Community and Exhibit Hall at NN12 in Providence this June. Enter today!

That was fast. Just hours ago, the big news out of Virginia was that Gov. Bob McDonnell had switched from fully supporting the state legislation forcing women seeking an abortion to undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound, to thinking, "hey, maybe that's kind of invasive."

Now, McDonnell has changed his mind and is opposing the bill as currently written. From his statement:

Over the past days I have discussed the specific language of the proposed legislation with other governors, physicians, attorneys, legislators, advocacy groups, and citizens. It is apparent that several amendments to the proposed legislation are needed to address various medical and legal issues which have arisen. It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bills stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.

Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state.No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

While it's absolutely unbelievable that McDonnell and his advisors did not know exactly what a trans-vaginal ultrasound was, and what it would mean for Virginia's women, maybe he actually was educated by the huge response against the bill. Or maybe he can just read polls. At any rate, a victory. Now the fight moves to the familiar ground of having mandated ultrasounds of any kind for women seeking an abortion.

1:12 PM PT: The Virginia House of Delegates just passed the bill, taking out the mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasound, mandating just a regular ultrasound.

At the now infamous no-girlz-allowed birth control policy hearing Rep. Darrell Issa held last week, the Democrats had one witness they wanted to speak in the first panel. Unbelievably (to the GOP), it was a woman. Sandra Fluke, a third-year student at Georgetown Law and past president of the school’s Students for Reproductive Justice group, was slated to speak about how the policy would actually affect women.

The horror.

So Democrats have decided to hold their own hearing, an unofficial one because they are in the minority in the house, with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi spearheading the effort. But here's how much Republicans want the discussion of women's health to be limited entirely to male theologians: they aren't allowing the hearing to be broadcast.

Pelosi aides say the House recording studio has denied a request to broadcast the event, “apparently” at the behest of the Republican-controlled Committee on House Administration.

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill pointed to a July 2008 decision in which the committee lifted restrictions on use of the studio.

“If Chairman [Dan] Lungren has reversed this policy, he has done so in secret and not consulted with CHA Democrats,” Hammill said in an email. “This leaves us only to think that the House Republican leadership is acting out yet again to silence women on the topic of women’s health.”

A spokeswoman for Lungren's committee says that the policy has not been changed, but had no explanation for why—for this specific hearing—a policy of always covering hearings is not being followed. Pelosi's office says that this is the first time they've had the recording studio refuse to cover a hearing or to say they had another commitment.

The GOP wants, desperately, this fight to be about religious freedom instead of what it's really about: controlling women. The problem for them is that the more they shut women out, the more obvious their anti-woman agenda is and the less success they'll have in changing the narrative.

So let's help Pelosi and the Democrats keep this issue alive. Sign this petition to tell the Republicans to let women talk about women's heallth.