Yes, you read that right. Another day, another crazy outcome in the GOP primary season. Well, actually 3 crazy outcomes.

Here’s the lowdown from Politico:

Rick Santorum dealt an embarrassing setback to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign Tuesday night, sweeping non-binding contests across three states and raising new questions about conservatives’ willingness to accept Romney as their nominee.
Santorum beat Romney handily in the Missouri primary and Minnesota caucuses, and well after midnight on the East Coast he was also declared the winner of Colorado’s caucuses. He defeated Romney by 30 percentage points in Missouri, 55 percent to 25 percent; in Minnesota, Santorum took 45 percent to Ron Paul’s 27 percent and Romney’s 17 percent.

The margin in Colorado was the closest of the three contests — Santorum led by 5 points with 100 percent of precincts in. But that defeat may have stung the most for Romney, who led polling in the Western state, where his Mormon faith was expected to be an asset.

So if these are non-binding…what’s happening to the delegates? Apparently the GOP thought this contest would be over because party leaders will decide in two of the states…which doesn’t really seem fair, does it?

Here’s more…

All three primaries and caucuses are largely symbolic and no delegates were awarded Tuesday night. Colorado and Minnesota Republicans will apportion their delegates in subsequent party meetings, while Missouri will hold an entirely new, nonbinding caucus process next month.

At this point, Rick Santorum has now won more primary contests than Mitt Romney. And the fact that he won 3 in one night is pretty amazing.

Also, Romney actually came in third in Minnesota. Ron Paul was second with 27%.

Has this race been blown wide open?

More as it develops…

As promised in his last State of the Union speech…

From Politico:

Stepping firmly onto Republican turf, President Barack Obama will announce Friday that he will ask Congress for the power to merge agencies to streamline government and improve efficiency.

First up on his list: the elimination of the Commerce Department and the Small Business Administration, which will be merged with the Office of the U.S. Trade representative and other independent business agencies into a new, unnamed Cabinet agency to create a more efficient experience for businesses.

“The government we have is not the government we need. The last reorganization of the whole government was done by Herbert Hoover,” Jeff Zients, deputy director for management and chief performance officer at the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters. “Since then, agencies have been layered on top.”

But will Republicans get on board?

They seem to be signaling they might…

“Americans want a government that’s simpler, streamlined, and secure. So after presiding over one of the largest expansions of government in history, and a year after raising the issue in his last State of the the Union, it’s interesting to see the President finally acknowledge that Washington is out of control,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “And while we first learned of this proposal this morning in the press, we’ll be sure to give it a careful review once the White House provides us with the details of what it is he wants to do.”

Rep. Darrell Issa, another frequent critic of Obama’s, said he stands “ready to work with President Obama on proposals to reorganize federal agencies.” Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which oversees governmental reorganization, added: “While I have been disappointed that the White House has not embraced earlier bipartisan Congressional efforts seeking collaborative engagement on proposals to reorganize government, I hope this announcement represents the beginning of a sincere and dedicated effort to enact meaningful reforms.”

We shall see…

^{John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi schooled by George Washington Plunkitt}

In a recent feature story on 60 Minutes, Steve Kroft detailed how many in Congress use their privileged access to information on pending legislation, investigations and regulations to line their own pockets. Much of the piece was based on research of Hoover Institute fellow Peter Schweizer from his book “Throw Them All Out”. Among the surprising revelations in the book – Congress is exempt from prosecution for the same kind of insider trading that would send the rest of us to jail.

Coincidentally, über-lobbyist and felon Jack Abramoff was saying much the same thing to anyone who would listen while promoting his new book “Capitol Punishment”. CNBC has been covering the story for a while and offers a succinct summary in the video linked here (I would have embedded it, but my Donk permissions don’t allow).

Abramoff asserts the practice is widespread and growing. Schweizer connects the dots between the increasing entanglement of the federal government in the private economy and the consequential exponential increase in opportunity for our congressional leadership and their staff to partake in the profitable practice of insider trading. Both Abramoff and Schweizer name names.

Kroft focused primarily on the specific examples of our most recent Speakers of the House. He reported John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi participated in investment activity that, at best, created the appearance of conflict of interest. Some have criticized Kroft and 60 minutes for focusing on two of the weaker examples cited by Schweizer, presumably because of their leadership roles. But even these examples are illuminating. More interesting than the exposure of the trading activity itself, was the response from their respective offices. While we already knew that they did nothing illegal, predictably both offices also emphatically denied they did anything wrong.

Kroft described purchases of Visa stock by Nancy Pelosi and her husband while she controlled the timing of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies. Her spokesman:

Current Speaker John Boehner purchased health care stocks when he was aware that the “public option” was about to be dropped from Obamacare. His spokesman:

Note that neither the response of Boehner or Pelosi directly addressed the question of whether their profitable trades benefited from insider knowledge. In both cases they defend their consistent record on the policy issue (credit card consumer protection for Pelosi, opposition to the public option for Boehner), and take umbrage at the mere suggestion that their positions on these issues might be influenced by personal financial gain. Fine and good, but that is not the point. The issue at question is whether they used insider information not generally available to the public to make trades that benefited themselves.

When sorting through these fine gradations in the taxonomy of congressional graft, it is useful to have a guide. There is no better guide or greater authority on the subject than George Washington Plunkitt, who literally wrote the book on political graft.

At the turn of century, George Washington Plunkitt was a Senator in New York, and considered one of the most corrupt members of possibly the most corrupt political machine in our history – New York’s Tammany Hall. He is famous for (among other things) writing his own epitaph – “He Seen His Opportunities and He Took ‘Em.”

Yet – George Washington Plunkitt was not without a moral compass. He made a clear distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. This distinction was a moral line in the sand that even he would not cross. Moreover he forthrightly defended this distinction in a series of public speeches, which were later compiled into a book: “Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: A Series of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics, Delivered by Ex-Senator George Washington Plunkitt, the Tammany Philosopher, from his Rostrum—the New York County Courthouse Bootblack Stand.”

We’ve have had occasion to consult this valuable reference before, when in 2006 we explored the Speaker of the House Denny Hastert’s land deals and came to the conclusion that they perfectly fit Plunkitt’s definition of “Dishonest Graft”. The Speaker of the House of the United States of America in 2006, the man who was third in line for succession to the presidency of the United States, was engaged in activity that would not meet the moral standards of one of the most corrupt 1906 political participants of the most corrupt political organization in the history of the United States.

That was then, this is now.

Good news. Our last two Speakers are no longer participating in “Dishonest Graft”. They are simply engaging in good old, perfectly acceptable, “grab your opportunities where you see ‘em “Honest Graft”. GW Plunkitt explains in Chapter 7:

There you go. Plunkitt’s criteria for honest graft is: Do nothing illegal (monkey with the penal code); serve your party’s interest (the organization); and serve your constituent’s interest (New York City and the US). If you do those things, and you happen to learn about money making opportunities along the way, no problem. You are entitled to that money. Go for it!

With Plunkitt’s criteria in mind, now go back and reread Boehner and Pelosi’s dismissive brush-off of the 60 Minute charges. Nothing illegal. Good for the party. Good for the country. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Of course, there are always a few spoil-sports who don’t appreciate the moral certitude of Plunkitt’s Razor. These misguided souls continue to introduce The Stock Act every year, where it gets no co-signers, is never brought to the floor, and goes nowhere. Reporter Eamon Javers of CNBC is on the case:

This one bears watching. It looks like Representative Slaughter’s bill might even get some action in the Senate. No one has a better nose for political opportunism than Sarah Palin. Palin jumping on the bandwagon may indicate this issue will have legs. Maybe even – dare I say it? – bipartisan support.

It could happen.

^{X-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.}

Analysis soon, but first the numbers…

I continue to be surprised by the sudden rise of Herman Cain. Here’s a guy who has said some unbelievably wacky things on the campaign trail, is just as vague and unfocused as Rick Perry, and yet he seems to be bullet proof when it comes to polling.

In some ways it reminds me of Howard Dean’s rise in 2004 when many anti-war Dems sided with him as an alternative to John Kerry. And that’s what’s really going on here. Because even though Cain’s faults are glaringly obvious, the Tea Party favoring Cain almost 2 to 1 over Romney…

That’s right Republicans…welcome to your brave new world. Cain is the Tea Party’s candidate.

Still, is he really a viable candidate? Reports of his non-existent campaign are already casting heavy doubts as to whether or not he can actually get out the vote when the primary season begins. And then there’s Karl Rove, who is trying to single-handedly scuttle Cain’s campaign.

So, my guess…eventually Cain will implode because of something he says or work he’s not doing on the ground in key, early primary states.

But until then we’re going to enjoy the ride.

In a little less than an hour, all of the GOP hopefuls will go toe to toe. We’ll also get to see Rick Perry in action, which should prove interesting given how high conservatives seem to be on him right now.

Politico gives a great preview of what to look for. Check it out…

In my mind, Romney has to just be okay, but Perry has to shine. This is his coming out party and if he’s mediocre, the excitement will wane.

However, more than anything, folks like Huntsman and Gingrich and Bachmann needs to give voters a reason why they should pay attention to them. Bachmann is really the only one making haying in that group, but she still has a tough hill to climb since Perry has stolen her fire as of late.

And last, but certainly not least, we have Mr. Ron Paul, who can’t seem to get anybody to pay attention to him. If he acts somewhat reasonable in the conservative base’s eyes, he might get some traction, but something tells me that Paul’s audience is already baked in and he won’t be pulling much additional support his way. You either are for Ron Paul or you’re not. There’s very little in between.

So those are my thoughts. What are yours?

UPDATE:
Or, watch it live!

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

Kabuki Theater – a traditional form of Japanese drama characterized by highly stylized poses and exaggerated gestures accompanied by familiar songs wrapped in a plot rooted in historical tragedy (or comedy). The audience knows the story and knows how it ends. The art is in the quality of the performance and not in the story itself. In the United States, this art form is more easily recognizable as “The Debt Ceiling Crisis.” A few weeks ago, I left a comment on the Outside The Beltway blog, describing the show we were about to witness:

“The only thing that provides political cover for a compromise for both sides is the the dire consequences of missing the deadline. So there will be a compromise. The compromise will include some formula for revenue increases, (probably in the form eliminating deductions while reducing rates), it will include cuts to the military, and it will include deep meaningful and substantial cuts in spending in the overall budget. And the compromise will be agreed on the brink of default to no one’s satisfaction. In the meantime, we have six weeks of Kabuki theater to enjoy while the eventual compromise is hammered out. Both tribes will have ample opportunity to point at the feckless hypocrisy of the other. Enjoy the show.”

I do not see any reason to change that prediction. We know the debt ceiling will be raised because all leadership on both sides of the aisle say it will be raised. There is no politician of consequence in Washington who is saying otherwise. We already know how this story ends. It is all about the performance that takes us to the final act.

This is not to say that the performance is unimportant. The performance will determine public opinion and the final shape of the compromise. Whether looking at the more recent temporary measures proposed by Reid, McConnell and Boehner, or the “Grand Bargain” that was being negotiated between Obama and Boehner – the fact is that the two sides are quite close, as Ezra Klein explains:

“Now, remember that the deal Obama offered Boehner about a week ago now, or maybe a little bit less than that was $1.2 trillion in tax increases for $4 trillion in deficit reduction total. Boehner walked from that. but Boehner did say he would be okay with an $800 billion tax increase if there were $4 trillion in debt reduction total. So in some strange way, the two aren’t as far apart as you would think, but they can’t bridge that final gap. so now Boehner’s arguing for no tax increases at all, but Obama is sort of held to that same deal and is trying to continue to offer it to Boehner.”

The “Grand Bargain” is still on the table. That became clear during the dueling press conference “arias” sung by the two principal actors Monday evening. Despite Harry Reid proposing a plan with no revenue increases earlier in the day, Obama ignored Reid’s plan in his speech and continued to make the case for his version of the “Grand Bargain” with revenue increases. Despite Boehner himself proposing a stopgap measure earlier in the day – he spent more time arguing the case for his version of how the “Grand Bargain” negotiation broke down. Conclusion – they are still negotiating the big deal in earnest.

Boehner is playing his supporting role exceedingly well in the shadow of Obama’s scene stealing dramatics, but the President has the edge, successfully portraying himself to the press and most of the public as the more reasonable party in the negotiation. Last week he attempted to press his advantage to push for full $1.2 trillion in revenue increases. That was when negotiations broke down. He pressed it again on Monday with a call for public support to apply pressure in the House. Boehner played his last best move, exiting stage right, proposing a stop-gap, knowing that Obama really wants the “Grand Bargain”. But Obama knows that Boehner wants it too. The plot thickens.

The simple fact is that $400 billion difference is not all that significant in the context of the complete $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. These last few moves are about how that last $400 billion will be split. So far – advantage Obama – but it’s not a big advantage. My prediction – Boehner will move off of his $800 billion “revenue enhancement” cap, but it will stay under $1 trillion. I can hardly wait to see how it turns out.

The problem – both now and throughout this process – is that the “blink contest” negotiation cannot be settled except on the brink of a looming disaster deadline. Neither side can satisfy their constituency with the inevitable compromise. Our representatives on both sides take considerable political risk if they compromise too early – i.e. before a doomsday deadline. We’ve seen this every time the sides get close. Liberals and Democrats are furious at Obama and Reid. Conservatives and Republicans are furious with Boehner and McConnell.

Since a compromise solution of this scope requires a hard deadline, the only remaining variable is whether we agree the deadline actually exists and when it takes place. This is part of what we heard last Friday, with both sides upping the rhetoric to make the case that the deadline was really this last Monday. Nobody bought it. So we are back to the August 2 deadline, except that may not be a real deadline either. Boehner’s stopgap plan moves the deadline ahead another six months. Nobody wants that. I expect we will get a compromise by Monday.

A suggestion – Instead of assuming that one side or the other are intransigent hypocrites, consider the possibility that both sides are arguing from principle (i.e. sincerely believing they are fighting for a position that their constituency holds dear). If you accept this framing, then it follows that both sides must maintain the posture that they are willing to walk right up to the brink of a debt ceiling default rather than compromise their principles. To do otherwise would undermine their negotiating position and be a betrayal of the people who elected them.

Monday night the President said – “The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government.” A good line, but it misses the mark.

We have a divided government because we have a divided country. There is a significant faction of the electorate who would like to see our country more closely emulate a European style social welfare democracy. There is an equally significant faction of the electorate who would like to see our country move back to the more limited government concepts on which it was founded. To a large extent the Democratic and Republican politicians we elected to represent us are doing exactly that – representing our views – just the way we want them to. Our government is not dysfunctional, it is behaving exactly as it was designed to resolve conflicts between large and opposed factions in the populace.

Oddly, I am filled with optimism and almost euphoric watching this performance. It reinforces my conviction that there is no need to put any faith in the motivations of the politicians of either party. It is enough to know that we have a system that was designed to anticipate this kind of political conflict – in fact – to insist on it and institutionalize it. As James Madison said in Federalist #51 when arguing for our Constitutional division of power: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Out of the conflict inherent in a government run by men and not angels we get a better result than we would in the absence of the checks they put on each other. Madison again in Federalist #10:

“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State. In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.”

The time to worry is when the factions are not fighting each other to a standstill. That usually means the system is not working as it should and power is too concentrated. Or it means we are going to war.

My primary rationale for supporting divided government is that it leads to more fiscal responsibility and spending restraint. I am interested in the result, not the histrionics that are necessary to get there – no matter how entertaining. The kind of giant cuts envisioned by the “Grand Bargain” can only happen when we are teetering on the brink and can only happen with a divided government in place. Pay attention to the result – not the performance. At this point it appears that divided government is winning and is winning big. It’s a good thing.

Bravo, gentlemen. Play on.

^{X-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall”}

I’m not trying to lay blame, but context about who has added more to this problem is important. Because Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling every single time it came up under Bush 2.0 and now they’re not so cooperative.

NY Times has more:

A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.

Yes, we have a new class of Repubs in the Congress, but that doesn’t mean that simple logic should be thrown out the window. After all, Warren Buffett suggests that the debt ceiling should be removed entirely.

Listen, default or downgrade isn’t an option. Somehow they’ll get this figured out. But as far as my opinion goes…I’m for the Gang of Six’s plan.

How about you?

Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) just may have come up with something to bridge the gap between Dmes and the Repubs on the debt ceiling negotiations.

It even has Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) coming back to the table…

“The plan has moved significantly, and it’s where we need to be — and it’s a start,” Coburn said. “This doesn’t solve our problems, but it creates the way forward where we can solve our problems.” [...]

Coburn said the plan would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years and increase tax revenues by $1 trillion by closing a variety of special tax breaks and havens.

He also noted, however, that the Congressional Budget Office would score the plan as a $1.5 trillion tax cut because it would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would generate a significant amount of revenue out of tax reform and reduction of tax rates, which authors believe would spur economic growth.

What’s more Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Texas) says she’ll back it…

“Likely 60 [votes],” she said. “The House should like this plan because it has spending cuts and I believe it will spur the economy.”

Hutchison said she would vote for it and urged House Republicans to back it as well.

“It think that they have produced something that has mechanisms that are concrete, and that’s what I think the House is looking for, and [so are we],” she said.

So…is this now a Gang of Seven?

And we just now hear that Obama is in favor…

In an appearance in the White House briefing room, Obama urged congressional leaders to embrace the proposal, which contains both significant cuts and a revenue component. The plan is, he said, “broadly consistent with the approach that I’ve urged: what it says is we’ve got to be serious about reducing discretionary spending, both in domestic spending and defense, we’ve got to be serious about tackling health care spending, and entitlements in a serious way, and we’ve got to have some additional revenue.”

In all, Obama said, the group’s plan amounts to “an approach in which there is shared sacrifice and everybody is giving up something.”

If you want to take a look at the proposal, check out a pdf here.

In other news, Republicans are set to vote on “Cut, Cap and Balance,” which is little more than a symbolic gesture to their base. After that, I’m sure many will start to fall in line with the Gang’s recommends.

Or at least let’s hope…

But he doesn’t think they have a liberal agenda.

From Politico:

“”I think their bias is towards sensationalism and laziness. I wouldn’t say its towards a liberal agenda. It’s light fluff so it’s absolutely within the wheelhouse,” Stewart said. “”If your suggestion is that they’re restlessly partisan, then why haven’t they gone and backed away from [Rep. Anthony] Weiner?”

Or Bill Clinton…or Eliot Spitzer. The list goes on and on.

Listen, what the media loves the most is public, human frailty. On a whole, they live for that because that’s what we’ve demanded to see. So we’re all to blame with this.

So while it’s impossible to say who started it, as audience members we can all start ignoring the nonsense and try to focus on the issues. Because if not, the media will keep getting worse because it’ll become this never ending loop of perception-based reporting that only reinforces what we already think is the truth…because that’s what gets ratings…and that’s what advertisers want.

Just saying…

Over at The Daily Caller, there is a piece up that features Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) commenting on Herman Cain’s famous ‘Muslim litmus test’. In his comments, Rep. Ellison makes the point that:

“Well, you got violent Christians and good Christians,” he said. “You got violent Jews and good Jews. You got people of all — what he said about Muslims is true for every community. So it’s absurd that he would make a distinction when it comes to Muslims. Look, Mr. Cain has made a lot of statements about his hostility toward the Muslim community. Now trying to backtrack but not doing a good job of it.”

Ellison offered some advice for Cain – to review the Pledge of Allegiance and what it means in terms of inclusiveness.

“I would ask him to say look, the Pledge of Allegiance said ‘and liberty and justice for all.’ ‘All’ means all and doesn’t mean ‘except one group or another.’ I would ask Herman Cain to review that Pledge of Allegiance he swears when he gets up.”

Okay. Pledge of Allegiance. Good argument Congressman — but let’s take it a step further, shall we?

Let me back up a bit. Here are Herman Cain’s comments from earlier this year on Fox News Channel:

[A] reporter asked me would I appoint a Muslim to my administration? I did say no. And here’s why. But the reporter didn’t tell you this.

I would have to have people totally committed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of this United States. And many of the Muslims, they are not totally dedicated to this country. They are not dedicated to our Constitution. Many of them are trying to force Sharia law on the people of this country.

My emphasis.

Mr. Cain professes to have a strong affinity towards the Constitution of the United States of America.

So, my question to Mr. Cain is this: have you actually read the Constitution? In particular, Article VI, Paragraph III:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Now, one could make the argument that White House staffers and Presidential appointees are not covered in this statement. But, my point is that, if Cain so highly regards the document, he should use it as a template for running his (hypothetical) administration.

If he’s going to use the U.S. Constitution as a guide in his decision-making, then there is no way that he should be comfortable with using religion as a factor in making staff appointments.

At the Republican Primary Debate in New Hampshire, Cain had to address this issue again:

[T]he statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn’t appoint one. That’s the exact transcript.

And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.

And so, when I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.

Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances -

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey — there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.

KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.

What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have — my term, not his — a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn’t ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.

CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?

KING: Please let’s make it clear.

CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their — you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization –

KING: When I asked — I asked this question the other night, though, you said you want to ask a Muslim those questions but you didn’t you have to ask them to a Christian or a Jew?

CAIN: I would ask certain questions, John. And it’s not a litmus test. It is simply trying to make sure that we have people committed to the Constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration.

The bizarre applause after the Sharia law comment aside, if Herman Cain had simply said the words that I have emphasized, I wouldn’t be writing this post. Looking at a person’s education and record should be the only factors used when deciding whether or not to hire them.

This idea that you need to administer a religious litmus test — because no matter how much he protests, that is what Cain is suggesting — is insanity, pure and simple.

Roger Simon has an excellent op-ed at POLITICO, and I think that his words are very poignant:

You want to live in a country that has a litmus test for Muslims? You want to live in a country that demands loyalty oaths from Muslims?

Fine. Today, it will be the Muslims. Tomorrow, it will be you.

Indeed.

What can you get the man who has nothing and no power?

Apparently, a new campaign team.

From Politico:

Newt Gingrich’s top staff quit en masse Thursday, throwing into question whether his already troubled presidential campaign can continue.

Two sources close to the situation confirmed that campaign manager Rob Johnson, strategists Sam Dawson and Dave Carney, spokesman Rick Tyler, and consultants Katon Dawson in South Carolina and Craig Schoenfeld in Iowa have all quit to protest what one called a “different vision” for the campaign.

The sources said Gingrich was staying in the race.

The mass resignation was, one source said, “a team decision.”

“We just had a different direction in which we wanted to take the campaign,” said a second source.

So who or what was to blame?

Apparently Gingrich’s wife.

From Daily Standard:

Aides to Newt Gingrich have resigned from his presidential campaign in protest of what they felt was a takeover by Callista Gingrich, the candidate’s wife since 2000.

The euphemism offered by departing staffers was they disagreed with Gingrich’s “strategy” for the campaign. Indeed, they did disagree. But it was a strategy – a part-time campaign, in effect – that Gingrich’s wife favored.

Several aides, including campaign manager Rob Johnson, met with Gingrich on Thursday morning and told him of the senior staff’s unanimous decision to quit. Gingrich later put out a statement saying he was staying in the race.

Listen, it is what it is, and I don’t begrudge Newt for playing this campaign close to his chest. Many other potential GOP nominees aren’t exactly making hay right now, but Callista had to do something particularly egregious to push these folks away.

After all, who would align with Newt on something like this and then so publicly walk away? This guy is very smart, very motivated and willing to go forward.

Basically, we don’t know the whole story and we probably never will…until the book is published in 2013.

More as it develops…

I still think it’s a stunt, but Trump is making moves towards running a real campaign.

So says Politico:

Despite an almost universal refusal by Republican establishment figures and the press to take him seriously, Donald Trump is taking very concrete steps toward forming — and announcing — a presidential campaign.

He has interviewed at least two people for a campaign manager position, sources said. He is in contact with several well-known media consultants and has spoken to figures in the evangelical community such as Ralph Reed and Tony Perkins.

Something tells me that evangelicals will not take a shine to Trump and his personal politics. Huckabee or Palin would be their candidate of choice.

Still, some in the fold feel he’s serious…

“I’m convinced he’s probably going to run,” said Steve Scheffler, the head of the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, who said Trump contacted him this past Wednesday in an “introduction” phone call.

“If he comes to Iowa and he engages in conversations in small groups of people one-on-one he might play well on that,” said Scheffler. “I think a lot of it has to do with where he stands on the issues, and if he can convince people that he’s going to go forward on the issues.”

Note that he’s already talking to folks in Iowa.

And not only that, they’re excited…

Trump’s scheduled keynote speech at the Iowa GOP’s annual Lincoln Day fundraising dinner in June is already such a draw that one attendee is planning to drive in from Northeast Wisconsin to see The Donald speak, a local Republican said.

So he won’t make the mistake that Giuliani made in 2008 and bypass the early states. That’s smart if he actually does plan to run.

But again…I don’t buy it.

Regardless…Palin who?

By the way, the picture above is from a Tea Party rally. He’ll be right at home with all those birthers.

More as it develops…

Will it be 2008 all over again?

From Politico:

The Texas congressman raised $1 million through his federal PAC and $2 million through Campaign for Liberty, a 501C(4) which cannot transfer funds directly to political organizations. Paul’s fundraising documents, to be filed later Thursday with the FEC, will also show he has $1.7 million on hand in his congressional campaign account.

“Dr. Paul’s fundraising comes almost exclusively from individuals, not special interests,” LibertyPAC director Jesse Benton told POLITICO. “He received contributions from all 50 states, and his average gift this quarter was under $70, demonstrating his broad grassroots support.

“Dr. Paul’s grassroots fundraising prowess is unmatched, and any 2012 political endeavor on which he embarks will have the financial backing it takes to win,” Benton added.

Interestingly enough, Michelle Bachmann outraised Mitt Romney…

Michele Bachmann became the queen of 2011 fundraising this quarter, bringing in a combined $2.2 million for the quarter – bigger than the $1.9 million that frontrunner Mitt Romney reported bringing in, officials confirmed for POLITICO.

Bachmann raised $1.7 million for her congressional committee, and another $500,000 for her leadership PAC, Bachmann adviser Andy Parrish said.

Of course, Romney hasn’t said he’ll run for POTUS yet. We all know he will, but nothing has been announced yet.

But then again…neither has Paul.

More as it develops…

I’d argue that nearly all politicians do the following, which is nothing more than organize their messaging so they get on the same page, but only Dems would figure out a way to get caught doing it.

From NY Times:

Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process.

After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how to cut spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”

A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.

Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.

Palm -> Forehead

Hey guys, instead of using the oppositions tactics (which were finely honed by Gingrich back in the 90s) how about you just prove their ideas aren’t good for the country?

We’re waiting…

At least that’s what Haley Barbour is saying about her appearance at Rep. Steve King’s conference…and after watching this video I tend to agree. She really knows how to rile up a conservative crowd. Lots of good old fashiony call and response speechifying.

So big deal, right?

Well, when it comes to the caucuses in Iowa, let’s remember that this is the state that voted for Pat Robertson over George Bush in ’88.

More from Politico:

Talking loudly and waving her hands, a pumped Bachmann used a slide presentation of various numbers — the national debt, the cost of a gallon of gas two years ago the day before Obama took office, the corporate tax rate — to make her points and pull the crowd in.

Suggesting that Iowa caucus voters had the power to halt Obama, Bachmann wrapped up her speech by asking, “Are you in? Are you in for 2012?”

“I agree with you!” she said as the crowd cheered, and added, “I’m in!”

Sarah who?

Egypt was not the only regime change story last week. As discussed previously on the Donk, on my blog, and elsewhere, the Democrats were already facing a huge uphill climb to hold their Senate majority past the 2012 election:

That climb just got a whole lot steeper, as incumbent Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb announced last week that he will not run for a second term. This is not a surprise. Webb has been quite open about his frustration with the Democratic leadership. As a consequence, the Republicans are licking their chops and Democrats are grasping at straws.

What seemed likely last fall is now a virtual certainty – the Republicans will retake the Senate majority in 2012. The only way to retain our happily divided government and avoid a rerun of One Party Republican Rule in 2013, will be to re-elect Barack Obama.

Another Democratic* Senator, Republican Roy Blunt (R-Mo), is also reading the 100 POINT ARIAL BOLD writing on the wall and finds some good things to say about divided government:

Of course, in addition to divided government giving Congress the “opportunity to do hard things”, it also gives the Congress the opportunity to not do stupid and bad things, like:

• Squander our blood and treasure to occupy Iraq (One Party Republican Rule)
• Pass wildly expensive stimulus legislation that does not stimulate (One Party Democratic Rule)
• Pass wildly expensive and complex Health Care Reform that does not reform the health care system (One Party Democratic Rule)
• Irresponsibly increase spending and the deficit to insane record levels (One Party Republican Rule), then increase the spending rate to even more insane levels while exploding the deficit to even more irresponsible record levels (One Party Democratic Rule)

We’ve now had divided government restored for only a little over a month. It is still early, but as President Obama moves to the center, and Republicans move toward fiscal sanity, I am optimistic.

So far, so good.

==========

*CORRECTED – Hat tip – Jim S in comments. Also removed “Democratic” from the title. My bad.

^{X-posted & excerpted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.}

In my opinion, any company that opposes net neutrality is nuts. Because what they’re proposing is treating different web sites as if they were cable channels. That means they could make you pay more to visit sites that aren’t in their approved list of preferred sites.

Newsflash…give me 2 minutes and I can create a website. The Internet isn’t cable. Why Verizon and others think it should be treated as such isn’t hard to figure out…they’re greedy. And that’s fine. Fight that fight. But they’re wrong and will not win this fight. So I don’t even know why they’re trying to challenge it.

Here’s more from Politico:

“Today’s filing is the result of a careful review of the FCC’s order,” Michael Glover, a Verizon lawyer, said in a statement.

“We are deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself,” he said. “We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.”

Let’s parse this. Verizon wants to limit which sites you can visit…so they can charge you more money. On the other end of the spectrum…the government wants to make sure they can’t do that so you can visit the BILLIONS of websites that exist. That’s very different than the HUNDREDS of cable channels.

Understandably, Republicans praised Verizon’s decision to actually regulate and limit the internet…even when they’re claiming that the FCC is doing it…

“We welcome the decision by Verizon, and hopefully others … to block the FCC’s misguided attempt to regulate the Internet,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in a joint statement with Reps. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Lee Terry (R-Neb.) “Between our legislative efforts and this court action, we will put the FCC back on firmer ground.”

Seriously, this is absolutely crazy. Net Neutrality is a no-brainer for consumers. This is such a bad move by Repubs. Oh well.

The Congresswoman’s miraculous recovery continues.

The plan now is to move her to Houston.

Politico has more:

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is expected to be released from a Tucson, Ariz., hospital Friday just less than two weeks after she suffered a gunshot wound to her head, her office said today.

She will be moved from the University Medical Center to Houston’s TIRR Memorial Hermann Rehabilitation hospital, which specializes in helping people recover from brain injuries.

“The congresswoman’s family wants to ensure she receives the best rehabilitative care possible for her type of serious penetrating brain injury,” said Dr. Michael Lemole, one of the congresswoman’s neurosurgeons at UMC.

And about her progress so far…

Giffords’s mother told family and friends in a Tuesday e-mail that the congresswoman has expressed “higher levels of comprehension and complex actions,” including looking through photos on her husband’s iPhone, The New York Times reported.

Truly fantastic news.

More as it develops…

The initial reports today speculated about presidential aspirations. But what tomorrow’s press conference is really about is his intentions for the Senate.

Politico has the story…

Lieberman will announce that he will not seek re-election Wednesday in Stamford, Conn., ending months of speculation about whether Lieberman would run as an independent, a Republican, a Democrat, or simply retire.

Several knowledgeable sources on Tuesday confirmed Lieberman’s decision not to run.

“He feels that after 24 years in the Senate and 40 years in public life, it’s time for a new season,” a Lieberman aide said Tuesday night. The aide said Lieberman isn’t bowing out because he was worried about re-election. “It would be tough fight, but that’s not a reason not to run for re-election.”

After his tough fight in 2006 and his support for McCain in 2008, even after McCain picked Palin (which clearly made Lieberman uncomfortable), this isn’t necessarily surprising.

More as it develops…

Yes, this man has the right to be furious with what happened, but directing that anger towards the worst possible scenario is irresponsible.

From Politico:

James Eric Fuller, 63, was detained on misdemeanor disorderly conduct and threat charges Saturday during the event taped for a special edition of ABC’s “This Week,” Pima County sheriff’s spokesman Jason Ogan said.

He apparently became upset when Trent Humphries suggested that conversations about gun control be delayed until all the dead were buried, KGUN-TV in Tucson reported.

Authorities said he took a picture of the leader and yelled “you’re dead.”

Still, any way you slice it this is tragic.

More as it develops…