Rick Santorum has finally sauntered off the big stage, leaving him with plenty of time on his hands to harass high-school girls about their skirt length and bark at the moon about its nocturnal promiscuity.

You'd think it would be high times for Team Romney. But you'd be wrong.

What once seemed like it would be the GOP's race to lose, or at the very least a spirited general election contest, has seen Mitt Romney and what remained of his party's brand deconstructed and defenstrated. To put it in Yogi-Berra parlance, for the Romney Campaign,"it got late early out there."

Sure Santorum is technically gone, but he'll be with Romney for the rest of this race. Every time the former Massachusetts Governor has to answer to independent women in the Milwaukee or Philadelphia suburbs about why he'd "get rid" of Planned Parenthood," and explain to Latino families in Las Vegas and Phoenix why he'd "veto" the Dream Act, the ever-cherubic apparition of Santorum will be smiling gaily over his shoulder.

There is no doubt that some things are beyond Romney's control. The falling unemployment rate. The Dow's hitting and now hovering around 13,000. The delay in creating those 3 jobs building the car elevator thingy that takes you to the stadium-sized basement in Romney's 3rd house. These were all unexpected.

But not putting Santorum away early even while outspending him like 9:1, so that the social-issue firebrand could stick around and pull the primary so far right that Vladimir Zhirinovsky would have seemed moderate. Mitt has only himself and his severely marvelous personality to thank for that.

The end result—because of Santorum's squatting in the race as long as he did, while taking a rhetorical hatchet to Romney in much the same language as Democrats have—Romney is so unpopular right now if his dog Seamus were still around he might put Romney in the dog kennel on top of the car.

According to CNN polling, the Governor will be the only presidential candidate since 1996 to exit the primaries with a net negative approval rating. If you want the thumbnail sketch, just take a look at North Carolina.

This is a state President Obama barely won in 2008, bringing it into swing state territory for the first time in a generation of electing right-winger Jesse Helms to the Senate consistently. Changing demographics have moved the state to the Left, no doubt, but going into this election most observers would call it a lean-Republican state if they were being honest.

Yet, at this point, Obama is up 5 points, 49 percent to 44 percent. But it is the internals of this poll, which must look to Romney like they've been infected by Ebola, that tell the story of how badly Romney is doing. He only is viewed positively by 29 percent of voters in the Tarheel State, with a whopping 58 percent viewing him unfavorably.

Basically, he'd have to make a pretty steep climb just to reach the favorability level of Kanye West, or Encephalitis.

It is not over yet for Romney, as there are many unpredictable things that can happen (think terrorist attack, economic crash, or mass hypnosis of American voters). But one thing is for sure—he'd better start Etch A Sketching, stat.

This piece was first published at Al Jazeera English

DOWNLOADS: (2231)

PLAYS: (3155)

Embed

Wow, we know how much the extreme right hates this man and now Dr. Tiller has been killed:

WICHITA, Kansas - Media reports say that abortion provider Dr. George Tiller has been shot and killed at his Wichita church. Tiller has been among the few U.S. physicians performing late-term abortion. His clinic has repeatedly been the site of protests for about two decades. He was acquitted in March of misdemeanor charges stemming from procedures he performed, but moments after the verdict the state’s medical board announced it was investigating allegations against him that are nearly identical to those the jury had rejected.

---

Tiller has been a favored target of anti-abortion protesters, and he testified that he and his family have suffered years of harassment and threats. His clinic was the site of the 1991 “Summer of Mercy” protests marked by mass demonstrations and arrests. His clinic was bombed in 1985, and an abortion opponent shot him in both arms in 1993.

There's not enough information in about this yet, but BillO. certainly has made him a huge target.

Here's More:

Wichita television station KAKE-TV reported that police were looking for a blue Ford Taurus with a K-State vanity plate, license number 225 BAB. Police described him as a white male in his 50s or 60s, 6 feet 1 inch tall, 220 pounds, wearing a white shirt and dark pants.

UPDATE: Scarce just posted about this on Video Cafe too.

Can someone explain to me why Rep. Stupak and Sen. Nelson's attacks on a woman's legal reproductive rights are not being called into question over nothing more than their push to inject conservative ideology into the health-care bill? And why are the media not highlighting this at all?

It's a complete and utter media bias against women. Liberals are being portrayed by the media elites as being against the Senate health-care bill on the grounds of ideology because of the exclusion of the public option, but any serious person knows our beef is with the actual legislation of the bill and how it will help Americans. The public option is a tool that could create real competition against the health care insurance industry, and is its own cost-control mechanism. We also loved the Medicare buy-in at fifty five, but that fig leaf which was yanked out from under us -- a fact missing from the Sunday talk shows.

What function does the Stupak amendment or Nelson's anti-abortion compromise actually serve in the implementing of health-care reform for America, except to target the health-care concerns of women across America?

Barbara Boxer's compromise gives states the right to opt out of actually having health-care providers cover abortions and all medical issues that arise for women who deal with this issue. That's a huge step backwards for women in America.

Does allowing all those "pro-life" state legislatures like South Dakota's to completely opt-out of any requirement to offer coverage for abortion sound like an improvement to you? Do we all relish the inevitable, bloody state-by-state abortion battles?

On Meet The Press, David Gregory didn't even bother to have one female on the panel to discuss what is happening to their rights, as Taylor Marsh observed:

Well, as with the late Tim Russert, once again with David Gregory on “Meet the Press,” women are not seen or heard at a time when abortion politics has been at the center of the healthcare debate. (I’ve been covering this reality for years.) That women also pay more for health insurance evidently doesn’t meet the “Meet the Press” standards for being included in the debate. That says it all, not only about the continuing If It’s Sunday, It’s Misogyny...

Yeah, why would the opinion of a woman be needed when talking about abortion rights anyway?

Here's the latest from the Plum Line:

I’m hearing that House Dem vote counters are preparing to move forward without him. Reports of a deal with Stupak were overblown. Some in leadership argued for it, but pro-choice members shot it down, and Nancy Pelosi never agreed.

There’s still a question as to whether Stupak controls the amount of votes he claims to and discussions with Stupak and the members of the Stupak bloc are ongoing. What Stupak wants — a resolution that adds the same restrictive abortion language Stupak attached last time — isn’t happening.

That may explain why Stupak abruptly canceled his presser.

Conversations are still ongoing, and some kind of accommodation with Stupak is possible, though not the one he’s apparently insisting on. Dems are holding a whip meeting soon to determine where the votes are and whether it’s possible to move forward without him and whoever else he controls.

UPDATE: John Amato:

My sources are telling me that there never was a deal struck with Stupak. A lot of rumors were flying around last night and of course people were in talks.

And Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a leading pro-choice progressive, said they're moving ahead without him. "There's not going to be any deal made with Mr. Stupak...there's been no deal whatsoever. He's been told that his language is not going to be added to the legislation," she told me this morning.

Pelosi just said that there is not going to be a separate vote for Stupak. Pelosi: 'No Separate Vote' For Stupak...Or Anybody Else

House Democratic leadership has apparently told Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) to go take a hike--and they'll move forward without him, or any other anti-abortion Dems threatening to switch their votes from 'yes' to 'no.'

Just off the House floor moments ago, Pelosi told reporters there will be "no separate vote" on abortion or any other measure. And Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a leading pro-choice progressive, said they're moving ahead without him. "There's not going to be any deal made with Mr. Stupak...there's been no deal whatsoever. He's been told that his language is not going to be added to the legislation," she told me this morning.

The NRO is saying the same thing.

Stupak is 'Finished with Pelosi' [Robert Costa]

Two pro-life GOP members close to Stupak tell NRO that any Stupak deals are off. They just spoke with him and they said he's finished with Pelosi. They rejected his enrollment corrections proposal.

Digby:

It looks like the pro-choice caucus stood firm. The proposed Stupak separate vote deal is off the table. Now we're hearing that some sort of agreement is being sought for the President to issue an executive order on abortion. I wonder what that means?

Oh boy, am I happy to hear this: A pro-choice, pro-healthcare reform woman running against Bart Stupak. Can't wait until she gets her fundraising page up:

WASHINGTON – Michigan’s Bart Stupak, a Democratic congressman who could help bring down health care reform over an abortion provision, is getting a primary challenge this year.

Connie Saltonstall of Charlevoix said today she plans to run against Stupak for the Democratic nomination of Michigan’s First Congressional District, citing Stupak’s efforts to stop health care reform if it doesn’t ban use of government money for abortions. Stupak, a former state trooper from Menominee, has held the seat since 1993.

This year and last, Stupak has made a name for himself as a thorn in the side of some congressional Democrats pushing legislation for health care reform. While largely supportive of those efforts, he successfully attached an amendment last fall to ban use of federal funds to help pay for abortions.

“I believe that he has a right to his personal, religious views, but to deprive his constituents of needed health care reform because of those views is reprehensible,” said Saltonstall in a statement.

(I'm posting this only because I smell something rotten in Denmark, or rather, on CBS.)

Did you see the Tim Tebow ad that actually aired during the Super Bowl yesterday? The only one I saw was much different than what CBS told us was going to air during the game and which drew a ton of controversy all across the blogosphere and throughout the pro-choice movement. What I saw was not controversial and didn't even talk about the abortion issues that were supposed to be aired. The LA Times said: Tebow ad falls short of the hype

Here's some CBS reporting which helped get the controversy going on January 26th and then the 27th.

The 30-second commercial is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987. After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child.

She later gave birth to Tim, who won the 2007 Heisman Trophy and helped the Florida Gators win two BCS championships.

CBS said Tuesday that the decision to air the Tebow ad reflected a change in its policies toward advocacy spots that has evolved over the past several years.

"We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms," said spokesman Dana McClintock. "In fact, most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time."

These ads had nothing to do with advocacy on the abortion issue. I think either CBS or Focus on the Family (or both) pulled a fast one on America and they should be called out on it. Not only that they should be panned roundly by the media for providing false journalism and advertising to drum up buzz for the commercial. Shameful, just shameful.

In a big "FU" to the Republican obstructionists in Congress, Barack Obama has re-submitted Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel, after the GOP blocked her nomination late last year.

It should be noted that Johnsen has had glowing recommendations from both sides of the aisle for her legal acumen, but because she did work for a pro-choice group two decades ago, she was deemed "too liberal" to be acceptable for a Congressional vote:

The renomination of Johnsen-the Obama nominee who has waited the longest for a vote-is especially noteworthy. Currently a professor at Indiana University School of Law, Johnsen is extraordinarily well-qualified to head the Office of Legal Counsel. She served for more than five years in that office during the Clinton administration, including as its acting head for more than a year. She has the bipartisan support of both her home state senators and from former heads of OLC from both political parties. Senior officials from every administration since Gerald Ford's have endorsed her nomination.

"President Obama made an excellent choice in Professor Johnsen to lead OLC, and today he's shown his willingness to stand on principle and call the Republicans on their attack and delay tactics," said Marge Baker, Executive Vice President of People For the American Way. "President Obama's statement today is a refutation of the GOP's efforts to spin this eminently qualified nominee as a controversial choice, and he should be applauded. Professor Johnsen's legal scholarship, her integrity, her substantive knowledge, and her commitment to this nation's security and to the rule of law will serve this country well once she's confirmed."

To be fair, this is not strictly a GOP issue:

At least two Democrats — Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania — have also said they oppose her, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, did not give her a floor vote.

It's patently absurd that someone as eminently qualified as Johnsen should not get even the respect of being given a vote. John Yoo--the poster child for the phrase "the banality of evil"--has no problem with his nomination to the OLC, but Johnsen does?

In addition to Johnsen, Obama has re-submitted the nominations of five others whose original nominations were effectively killed by GOP obstructionism:

Mr. Obama will also renominate Christopher Schroeder to lead the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy and Mary Smith to lead its tax division; Craig Becker to be a National Labor Relations Board member; and Louis Butler Jr. and Edward Chen to be district court judges, the official said.

DOWNLOADS: (1590)

PLAYS: (2131)

Embed

Bishop Thomas Tobin, the fellow who decided that abortion-tolerant Catholics like Rep. Patrick Kennedy should be denied the right to partake of Communion ceremonies, went on The O'Reilly Factor last night to try to answer his critics.

In the process, all he did was make it look like the anti-Catholic bigots of yore were right after all.

Tobin's arguments were not exactly convincing. When O'Reilly asked Tobin why it's OK to deny Communion to politicians who are pro-choice but not to Catholics who are pro-death-penalty, Tobin answered with a flimsy argument that amounted to nothing more than theological lawyering, evading the core issue that both are core matters of Catholic beliefs pertaining to "defending the values of life."

And when O'Reilly pointed out that, for people like Kennedy and Sen. John Kerry, it's a matter of democratic principle to separate their personal religious beliefs about abortion from the conduct of their policy, Tobin replied that opposing abortion rights is a matter of "defending your faith."

What people like Tobin refuse to acknowledge is that their belief that abortion is murder, based on the belief that life begins at conception, is fundamentally a religious belief that is not shared by many other Americans, especially those who take a more strictly biological view of the process.

So in denying any American the right to an abortion, anti-abortion politicians are fundamentally shoving their religious beliefs down the throats of everyone else. That's not "defending your faith", it's forcing it upon everyone else. Which is what that whole First Amendment thing about church and state was bout.

Wiser politicians, like Kennedy and Kerry and many others, recognize that this is fundamentally an anti-democratic, anti-First Amendment, and anti-American, way of doing things.

Guys like Tobin? They just make living caricatures of themselves -- people who are the living incarnation of the "Papists" who it was at one time imagined were trying to take over the country so that America would be run by fiat from the Vatican.

Back when anti-Catholic bigotry was much more common in America, it was one of their articles of faith that Catholic politicians were always going to be forced to do the bidding of the Vatican, and to have ultimate loyalty not to the Constitution but to the Church and its edicts.

The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s, for instance, was particularly and viciously anti-Catholic. Its magazines and books -- including Klansmen: Guardians of Liberty and The Ku Klux Klan in Prophecy -- were largely anti-Catholic tracts warning of the dire consequences of "Papist" influence on the political system.

This anti-Catholicism spread into other areas as well, including education. The Klan's anti-Catholic propaganda campaign led to the formation of groups targeting private and parochial schools on anti-Catholic grounds, including the National League for the Protection of American Institutions, which fomented to "protect" the public schools from Catholic ideology.

Remember Al Smith?

Smith was the first Catholic to win a major-party presidential nomination.... Smith’s Catholic beliefs played a key role in his loss of the Election of 1928. Many feared that he would answer to the pope and not the constitution. The people also criticized him for being a drunkard because of the stereotypes placed on Irish Catholics of the day.

The belief that Catholics would be forced to heel to the demands of the Vatican -- that they would essentially be puppets of the Church -- was finally blunted by John F. Kennedy in 1960:

A key factor that hurt John F. Kennedy in his 1960 campaign for the presidency of the United States was the widespread prejudice against his Roman Catholic religion; some Protestants believed that, if he were elected President, Kennedy would have to take orders from the Pope in Rome. To address fears that his Roman Catholicism would impact his decision-making, John F. Kennedy famously told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me." He promised to respect the separation of church and state and not to allow Catholic officials to dictate public policy to him. Kennedy also raised the question of whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated to second-class citizenship just because they were Roman Catholic. Even so, it was widely believed after the election that Kennedy lost some heavily Protestant states because of his Catholicism.

Kennedy went on to win the national popular vote over Richard Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point (0.1%) - the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century. In the electoral college, Kennedy's victory was larger, as he took 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219 (269 were needed to win). The New York Times, summarizing the discussion late in November, spoke of a “narrow consensus” among the experts that Kennedy had won more than he lost as a result of his Catholicism, as Northern Catholics flocked to Kennedy because of attacks on his religion.

Now, ironically, the Church itself is turning on another Kennedy and acting as though it expects total political obeisance to Vatican edicts -- in other words, making the anti-Papist bigots look as though they are right.

Fortunately, that younger Kennedy is around to continue to prove them wrong.

Mike Stark has been a regular member in the liberal blogosphere for a long time and has been on the Hill with his Flip camcorder getting pols on tape to answer questions that the media somehow never seems to get around to asking.

Digby, Howie and myself have joined with CREDO and are trying to generate some cash for him. I know it's tight out there. Advertising has been down for all of us and I may have to do another fundraiser soon for C&L, but if you can please sign Credo's petition that will send a coat hanger to every member of the pro-choice party that voted yes to the ugly Stupak amendment and a dollar to Mike. Blue America is collecting the money from CREDO and we decided to give it to Mike.

Here's Mike to explain:

And you aren't the only folks noticing this work. Blue America (Howie Klein, Digby, John Amato) and Credo Action/Working Assets have also been keeping an eye on my efforts. They realize that this work cannot continue without support (I have a family to feed, student loans and rent to pay, etc. etc.), and they know a movement cannot succeed without mutual support. With that in mind, they've teamed up to raise some money for me.

Credo Action/Working Assets has a petition set up. For every signature on the petition, they'll be delivering a coat-hanger to Representatives that voted for the ridiculously regressive ant-choice Stupak Amendment. In addition, for every signature, up to 5,000, they'll donate $1 to StarkReports. Right now they are at about 1800 signatures.

If you appreciate hard-hitting and tenacious reporting... If you like seeing powerful people asked tough questions... If you want a media that works for you... I can use your help. Please sign the petition (it costs you nothing but your time). Watch my videos. Visit (and bookmark) StarkReports.com. If you've got some extra cash, drop it in the donation box on the right-side nav bar...

In the meantime, I'll be asking more tough questions this week. I've got some doozies stored away; this is sure to be a productive week.

DOWNLOADS: (1197)

PLAYS: (5729)

Embed

Pat Toomey, the Club for Growth hero has been running to become the Senator from Pennsylvania for a while now and has had Arlen Specter in his cross hairs. James Dobson and the religious right squad have been trying to defeat Specter because they aim to control the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v Wade. Since the republican party has turned into teabaggers, Specter has no shot at winning the republican primary in 2010 so he left that party. Toomey is as an extreme right wing fanatic as they come. Check out his beliefs.

Matthews questions him on some of those beliefs, but Chris already knows them quite well. And why does he have to interrupt him so often? It's so annoying.

Matthews: Are you on the political right?

Toomey: I'm in the center right.

Matthews: Center, well let's ask you about a couple of issues. What do you think about outlawing abortion? Arlen Specter is pro choice, where are you on that one?

Toomey: I'm pro life.

Matthews: Would you like to outlaw abortion?

Toomey: Yea, I'm pro life. I think ahhh...

Matthews: Would you outlaw abortion, would you put people in jail for performing...?

Toomey: I think that Roe v Wade was wrongly defined, wrongly decided and I think states should be free to restrict abortion and I would support legislation in Pennsylvania that would ban abortion and I would suggest that we have penalties for doctors who perform them if we were able to pass that law.

Matthews: Would you put people in jail for perfoming abortions?

Toomey: At some point doctor's performing abortions, I think would be subject to that sort of penalty.

Pat Toomey is trying to make believe that he's a different kind of conservative--pro-birther by saying he endorses Sonia Sotomayor. A leopard still has spots, I think. Here's his op-ed from Philly.com:

If I were a U.S. senator, I would vote for her confirmation, because objective qualifications should matter more than ideology in the judicial confirmation process.

In determining whether a nominee is within the judicial mainstream, we should ask how he or she views the Constitution and whether he or she will administer justice impartially. Too many American judges are making up their own versions of the law rather than faithfully interpreting legal texts. Lawmaking must be reserved for the elected, politically accountable legislative and executive branches. In general, though, Sotomayor's record does not show judicial activism...read on.

That's very kind of him. But he also just loves the deregulation of the financial system so there's that. I'm sure some on the right will not like this column, but will forgive him anyway because he's their big hope in Pennsylvania. However, his views are such that he's unelectable.