Ultra-conservatives really love the closet. And no, I'm not just talking in a Larry-Craig-kinda way. Sure, some of them who use it to protect themselves, but many more use it to protect their agenda.

You see, the closet can hide all sorts of truths among its shadows. Americans and any facts about America that don't fit the right-wing narrative can be disappeared in this enclosed recess--either bullied into silence or simply ignored--and conservatism can continue to prosper. Because, quite frankly, conservatives need a big enough closet to house a combo Imelda Marcos/Carrie Bradshaw shoe collection if they're to continue prospering after the economic, foreign policy, and social destruction they've wreaked upon this nation.

Right wingers can then tell you that gays and lesbians are some strange breed of misanthrope intent on intergalactic sexual dominion, because if you've never met anyone who is gay before, you just might believe it. Enough of us to sway an election might, all polling to the contrary, be convinced by television advertisements that most Americans want to cut Social Security, think closing the gun-show loophole is unimportant or believe the Citizens United decision makes any sense whatsoever. On all of these, by the way, the "progressive" or non-Ted-Nugent position polls at or north of approximately 70 percent in "swing states" and nationally, making people possessing these ideas the silent majority Richard Nixon once considered worthy of song.

So the protectors of the status quo will fight like hell to keep you and your ideas safely behind the folded khakis or under the Etch A Sketch, you can bet on it. It is what makes Sandra Fluke, Ellen DeGeneres and interviews with those who've lost their jobs due to Mitt Romney's machinations, in a word, dangerous. Human faces, especially, serve to blow up their myths. Because if we see people with which we can identify going through a crisis, or having made what for them was a sensible decision, then it might not seem unreasonable to us. (The principle holds true with humans but not cyborgs. Hence, the reason most of us react to Mitt Romney in much the same way we do to a malfunctioning fax machine)

All of which brings us to last week, at a progressive blogger conference in Providence, Rhode Island, called Netroots Nation. At this conference, former Microsoft software developer and current Congressional candidate from Washington State's 1st District, Darcy Burner, stood up and courageously spoke about the issue of abortion during a keynote address.

Most people don't know that 1 in 3 women have had an abortion (in fact I had no idea until last week), because the Right has successfully shamed women who made a legal, medically-based decision into hiding in those shadows in the closet. Burner, not one for running meek campaigns (a breath of fresh air among Democrats), asked women in the crowd to stand if they had had an abortion, and felt comfortable doing so. She proceeded to ask if everyone else would join them and stand up, showing support for the courageous women around them. Then, Burner rightly said, "this is how we change the stories in people's heads."

Right wingers, as well as other various confused souls, felt that closet door opening ever so slightly. And they knew they needed to kick it closed, lest others cross the threshold and not feel ashamed. Enter comical right-wing blogger Melissa Clouthier (who likes to keep "doctor" in her official title, so we might think she possesses some sort of guidance for us on these and other matters--and as a chiropractor, I'm just sure she's an expert on the uterus), who misquoted Burner and claimed the women in the hall were "celebrating" abortion.

Common sense was also lost on Joe Connelly of the Seattle Post Intelligencer, as he took to Clouthier's misquote and spin. And of course Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson's publication, The Daily Caller, got in on the mythmaking too. But after being fired from most known television networks founded since about 1973, I guess Carlson has to do something to keep his 4 names in the press.

Lucky us, being able, in real time, to watch 1000 Mesozoic-Era intellects bloom.

Burner, on the other hand, was doing what must be done in an age dominated by right-wing moneymen, pouring millions of dollars into everything from telling us Jesus was a car-elevator-owning hedge fund manager to global warming isn't happening.

This is why it is so important that Burner brought some sunlight to the truth. And we'd be all be the better for it if there were many more like her in our politics.

Follow me on Twitter: @cliffschecter

This column first appeared at Al Jazeera English

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

Oh, this is awesome. Anthony Weiner challenged HR 358 (The Protect Life Act) on a point of order because the authors failed to cite the appropriate constitutional authority to permit its introduction. Then Frank Pallone chimes in with the answer: Republicans can't cite Constitutional reason for the bill because there IS no constitutional authority.

The statement produced which Republicans claim is in compliance with the rule reads this way:

Mr. Weiner then read from the statement submitted by Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts, the sponsor of the legislation, which stated in full: “Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: The Protect Life Act would overturn an unconstitutional mandate regarding abortion in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

As Weiner points out, the challenge isn't whether it's constitutional or not, but that the rules require that all bills introduced must cite Constitutional authority for its introduction. Democrats have sent a formal request (PDF) for the bill to be withdrawn until such authority is added:

Chairman Pitts' bill is an assault on a woman's access to abortion services. Its apparent objective is to make it impossible for women to choose an abortion by effectively eliminating coverage for the necessary medical services. It also calls into question the obligation of health care providers to provide the emergency services needed to save the l i fe of a pregnant woman. Because the bill represents a federal intrusion into the most intimate personal decisions of women and fanlilies, it is exactly the type of legislation that most needs a clear statement of Congress's constitutional authority.

While we do not dispute that you have the right to bring H.R. 358 before the full Committee, we respectfully suggest that you use your discretion not to do so. You should ask Mr. Pitts to introduce a new bill with a valid statement of constitutional authority and use the new bill, not H.R. 358, as the vehicle for any further consideration of this matter in the Committee. That would send a strong signal that the Committee is serious about the requirement that the constitutional basis of legislation be clearly stated before legislation can be considered in Committee.

The end is particularly delicious, where Joe Barton cites the section of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to pass legislation. I'm certain that's what the Tea Party had in mind when they pushed for that constitutional authority rule, aren't you?

Of course, they'll find an excuse to introduce the bill without the required constitutional authority, but this whole argument just highlights how ridiculous the entire notion of limiting legislation to that which has cited constitutional authority.

I'm glad Anthony Weiner is on our side of the House. He is a formidable opponent.