Circus Weekend: Mr. Inevitable Returns!

Once again by popular demand in the center ring of the GOPer circus here in downtown Florida for only four more days: he goes up, he goes down, but he's back (maybe): MR. INEVITABLE!

Yes, circus fans, Mr. Inevitable is back!  A new and even fiercer fusillade of fire from da Establishment, which these days apparently includes not only Bob Dole but Drudge and talk radio (except for Rush) against high-flying Gingles climaxed on Thursday, but fear not!  The daring old man on the flying trapeze had his best act coming up: another GOPer debate!  On CNN with a loud audience!

But a funny thing happened on the way to the presidency by acclamation: Casino Newt fell off the high wire and down down down.  At least according to all the live bloggers, the dead bloggers and that guldurn media in general.  They all gave the fight to his Romneyness, who moreover won this time not by default, but by punching, landing blows, etc. etc.  as the metaphor quickly breaks down.

So promptly on Friday the latest round of polls showed Romney in the lead, by around 9 points.  So that's it, it's over!  Romney will win FLA and the nomination! Mr. Inevitable!  It's all over but the counting!

  But wait! Haven't we heard the Mr. Inevitable cry before?  The election isn't until Tuesday!  Sort of (lots of absentee and early voting in FLA, so...who knows?)  Anyway, there's time for more spills and chills and thrills and above all, comedy.

Here's what we do know: Romney got credit for besting Gingles by relentlessly attacking him.  That may have indeed destroyed Gingles in FLA, and deeply wounded his candidacy (though some suggest Gingles can survive and win more primaries in the South.)  But it did nothing for his Romneyness.

In fact, the more Romney talks, the more questions are raised, the more lies are lied and exposed, and the more his negatives go up.  What has particularly hurt him and may stick to him and haunt him the rest of the way is being the poster boy for rich guys who don't pay their fair share in taxes--which is going over really badly.

Here's the joke that is supposed to be true. Newt: Why do people dislke me so
instantly?  Dole: It saves them time. 

Gingles meanwhile feels even more aggrieved and is launching fresh aggressive attacks on Romney.  So this weekend here is what Romney faces: new charges on his involvement in a company convicted of Medicare fraud, from both Gingles on FLA TV--and the Democratic National Committee.

Meanwhile the economic news continues to be good and President Obama is solidifying the Democratic coalition.  He told Dem House members that they should work with Rs to pass needed laws but "Where they obstruct, where they’re unwilling to act, where they’re more interested in party than they are in country, more interested in the next election than the next generation, then we’ve got to call them out on it,” Obama said. “We’ve got to call them out on it. We’ve got to push them. We can’t wait. We can’t be held back.”

But back to the circus. Rick Sanctimonious reputedly had a good debate, but he's so far back in the polls and so close to broke that he's taking the weekend off and leaving FLA.  Ron St. Paul has hardly been in FLA at all except for debates, but he's made news when a Washington Post story quotes folks who were involved claiming that he indeed approved those racist newsletters--he even proofread them.

So here's how it looks now: Gingles' latest rise energized the Rabid Right, they got a taste of triumph but if Romney takes the nom now, they are going to be very aggrieved.  But it seems unlikely they could agree on a third party candidate (Trump?  Hermaniac Cain? Sarah?) so it seems more than possible to me that a lot of them will just stay home in November.

Update: Speaking of Queen Sarah, here's what she had to say Saturday about Mr. Inevitable getting the nom too soon: "Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up."

But there's plenty of circus still ahead.  War on the Sunday shows,  FLA will arise groggy by TV ad onslaughts to vote Tuesday, and the pundits will dance, dance, dance!        

Light Show

The latest solar storm did its worst on Wednesday, with apparently little effect other than creating some spectacular northern lights, as here in Norway, in a photo by scanpix.

State of the State of the Union

On Wednesday, the conventional pundit wisdom (cpw) changed a little on the State of the Union, as available evidence came in that non-pundits liked it.  (Even Andrew Sullivan reconsidered and recanted some.) 

For example, the results of a CBS News poll: 91% of viewers surveyed approved of the policies President Obama proposed and discussed.  The pool for the poll was 45% Dems, 25% Rs, the rest presumably that amorphous group discussed as if it were a real identity: Independents.  Since Dems were more likely to watch the Dem prez, this rating suggests the base is solid, but this was statistical verification of anecdotals on various sites that suggested that the speech had broad appeal, even to some conservatives.  The poll details are full of good news for Obama, with big jumps in approval for his approach to the economy, jobs, even his health care law.

A couple of other followups: it became part of the cpw today that Obama said nothing about health care.  It's true he didn't single it out, but he also never mentioned the Recovery Act by name--just its effects.  He also mentioned the first effects--being felt now-- of the health care law, much of which hasn't yet taken effect.  And he did so in a context that said he was resisting the calls for its repeal: "I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny your coverage, or charge women differently than men." 

But in my summary last night I left out one conspicuous and important set of statements: where President Obama explicitly described the accomplishments of his administration.  And these were some of the most effective passages.  They told Democrats that he was going to defend his record, and that he could effectively communicate that narrative.  They told people who had been under the spell of the FOX version of reality that a lot has been accomplished.

It's seemed to me that the obfuscations and outright lies told by GOPer pols and their media overlords provided an interesting opportunity for the Obama campaign, once the country is paying attention.  If Obama and his campaign could tell the story of his accomplishments, of the promises kept, then to much of America it would be a new story, an eye-opening one.  So I consider the State of the Union a preview, and a boost of confidence to Dems, because President Obama clearly can tell that story effectively.

And as it turns out, so can Joe Biden, who summarized it in tweetspeak: Osama bin Laden is dead, General Motors is alive.

But it turns out the evening wasn't complete. Before the speech, President Obama made the decision to send in a Navy Seal team to rescue two hostages from Somali pirates.  The opportunity was there, and the health of the Danish man was deteriorating.  The team was parachuted in, they engaged and killed the captors with no injuries, and the hostages were helicoptered out.

The mission was underway during the speech, although the rescue itself had apparently happened, because President Obama was seen congratulating Secretary of Defense Panetta. After the speech, when the mission was completed, President Obama (with Michelle at his side: see photo) phoned the father of the American woman who was rescued, to tell him his daughter was safe.

One of the most moving moments at the Capitol was President Obama embracing Gabrielle Gifford before his speech.  As the L.A. Times story notes, it was both a welcome back to Giffords, and, for now at least, a farewell, as she leaves Congress to concentrate on her recovery from gunshot wounds.

It wasn't the only notable embrace.  The other was Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who lifted her arms to embrace the President.  Could it be that she feels she might be attending her last State of the Union?  In any case, it was clearly a significant moment for her.

Here's video of Gifford's moment with President Obama.

Build to Last

The theme of President Obama's third State of the Union address could be characterized in various ways, but to me it was about building--not winning, but building the future.

 " Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded."

He invoked the period of building after World War II, when government managed the transition from a wartime economy and used both the wartime spirit and the experience of using public funds to create public good that would serve the people and private enterprise: the GI Bill, the housing and highway programs.

Later he invoked the Depression programs, when as Rachel Maddow has so eloquently said, America built its way out of economic collapse.  He even used an example right out of her promos: Hoover dam.  He talked about building infrastructure, about building cars, about rebuilding the middle class.

But his proposals demonstrated an appreciation for political realities.  Despite the equal appreciation of electoral politics, the proposals he specifically made were incremental and should be doable.  But he did not stake everything on possible if unlikely action by Congress this year.  In each area he named an action he will do by executive order, or by federal administration initiative working directly with states, private companies, other countries. 

President Obama began and ended his address with reference to the war in Iraq and the raid resulting in the death of Osama bin Laden.  Aside from the not exactly accidental reminders of his two most impressive achievements with the electorate, he used these as a metaphor for the country working together, regardless of differences, on the same mission.  He began:

"These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together. "

He ended: "No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong."

The theme of working together and the theme of fairness are intertwined.  Only a country where the fruits of effort are fairly shared can truly be one nation, working for the good of each and all.

 The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. (Applause.) What’s at stake aren’t Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. And we have to reclaim them.

Casting this characteristic theme with this new metaphor was more than a connection to his famous 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention--it expressed the same conviction.  If you simply listen to this State of the Union, you may well hear what I heard: the strong resemblance to what that 2004 speech sounded like, even in vocal delivery. 

But this time he is President, and his call for collaboration was accompanied by strong statements of where he stands and what he will and will not do. Noting the hard choices and tough fights that resulted in coming back this far from the realities and the further threats of the Great Recession:

And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place. 

He proposed measures to further encourage the expansion of American manufacturing, and trade. " I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules."

He emphasized the need and the great advantages of  rebuilding American infrastructure, something the two parties used to agree on as obvious.  Not any more, but he isn't going to wait. "In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home."

He made specific proposals on education, job training, immigration reform and research and development. He made proposals on energy, both fossil fuel and green energy.  " But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy...  I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We’ve subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits. Create these jobs."

He asked for congressional action, but announced his own executive actions: expansion of green energy projects on public lands, and through the U.S. armed forces.

He proposed reforms to make refinancing mortgages easier.  "A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit and will give those banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.  Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom. No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody."

He spoke about our broken politics in blunt language: "The greatest blow to our confidence in our economy last year didn’t come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?"

He talked about government regulations, about getting rid of the dumb ones, but he defended the ones that worked, especially in regulating the financial industry, and now consumer protection. "So if you’re a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits. You’re required to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail – because the rest of us aren’t bailing you out ever again."

And he announced a new administrative initiative: "And tonight, I’m asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorney general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. (Applause.) This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans."

The part of his speech that seemed most topical (given Mitt Romney releasing his tax returns on Tues, and the bitter charges on the GOPer campaign trail) and will probably be the most discussed had to do with taxes.  President Obama first called on Congress to extend the middle class tax cut for the year, without drama and without strings attached.  He called for the end of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  He proposed that the tax rate on an annual income above one million dollars be no lower than 30%.  (Mitt Romney paid less than 14% on his $21 million income, or less than half the rate that middle class Americans pay.)  And he made the case for these policies:

" We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get a tax break I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference -- like a senior on a fixed income, or a student trying to get through school, or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know that’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to the future of their country, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last. (Applause.)

He talked about reforming the federal government, consolidating executive departments and functions, and also fixing Congress so that a majority in the Senate can actually pass something.  He decried the influence of money in Washington and politics.  He made modest proposals in both areas, but the White House announced that other actions will be proposed as well.

He spoke then in more detail about America's position in the world, and defended his administration's approach, both with detail and with this withering assertion: "From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back. Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about."

In terms of response, one focus group noted by the LA Times was broadly positive about the speech and its proposals, across the political spectrum. But the full influence of this State of the Union won't be fully known until November.  Pundits pointed out that few of these speeches immediately move public opinion, though a surprising amount of legislation does emanate from them.  In a campaign year, the influence of this speech may well be in the soundbites that get amplified in campaign ads.

Pundits were generally unenthusiastic and mostly cynical about the speech.  Notably, Andrew Sullivan--author of "The Long Game" Newsweek article defending Obama--was bitterly disappointed.  Political pundits felt it was all too poll tested, but also made the contradictory observations that it was all a campaign speech and not geared to doable legislation, and that it was too conservative as a grand goal-setting visionary campaign speech, and too much of a laundry list of proposed legislation.

One dissident to this early pundit consensus (aside from the commentators on MSNBC)  was Sahil Kapur who wrote at TPM: "The prescriptions lay out a decidedly progressive vision of government."

Pundits admitted however that in contrast to the GOPer nominees, President Obama was more authoritative, eloquent, presidential and optimistic.  The speech arrived on a day that poll numbers show the truth of Lawrence O'Donnell's quip last night that Republicans are about to nominate a candidate who can't defeat President Obama--they just don't know his name yet: both the major GOPer contenders are slipping badly with the electorate, particularly independents.  But though conventional pundit wisdom says that the more optimistic candidate usually wins, GOPers are clearly betting on disaffection and anger (Mitch Daniels so-called rebuttal echoed the GOPer candidates in this.) 

The economic news continues to be good, especially rising consumer confidence.  But the recovery is fragile, and so is the world economy.  Europe is still lurching towards a possible crisis, and disarray in the Middle East--particularly Iran--could still send oil prices into the stratosphere.  Even so, though I recognize that my perceptions are not necessarily shared by the US electorate, I can't see how anyone could witness this speech after witnessing a GOPer debate, and conclude anything but that in bad times as well as getting better, the presidency can only be safely entrusted to Barack Obama.

Here is a video of highlights from the speech, and another of the specific proposals.   Here's the official transcript.  And for the politically minded, here's something I noticed--several instances of President Obama directly refuting Mitt Romney statements without saying so.

Courage and Consequences

This is the Gabby Giffords video in which she announced that she's leaving Congress.  If you haven't seen all two and a half minutes of it, it's worth your time on so many levels.  Giffords will be at President Obama's State of the Union address tonight.

War and the American Electorate

Before the State of the Union and its focus on the economy, I wanted to say something about foreign policy issues, and particularly the issue of war and peace.  The GOPer debates are showing clearly that their candidates (except for Ron St. Paul) are clueless Cheny clones, pandering to a delusional and perhaps illusional base.  The candidates' generally warmongering attitudes could very well plunge the world into more wars, even nuclear wars, while bankrupting the country in the process.

That's the good news.

Because part of their cluelessness is totally misreading the majority of American voters, who are clearly sick of stupid wars and all their costs.  Barack Obama won the presidency largely on his promise to end the war in Iraq.  He ended the war in Iraq, and that's going to be a major reason he will win reelection.

The GOP candidates arguments are the same as the Cheneyites, except cruder, if that's possible.  But this time the counter-arguments are going to be made by the real President and the real Secretary of State, with solid foreign policy accomplishments, including one that has to be obvious even to the generally uninterested voter: they got rid of Osama bin Laden and crippled al Queda and its ability to harm this country or its citizens.  Less obvious--though just as ignored by the GOPer candidates whose only possible tactic is lying, which they do regularly--is the success so far of U.S. strategy on Iran.  It's still a dangerous situation, but efforts short of war now underway are effective.  A little demonstration of that, and it will bolster the public's clear opposition to engaging in another war.

The Obama administration hasn't been perfect.  They haven't succeeded in closing Guantanamo, and it remains a stain and a scandal and a moral tragedy. Many of the excesses of the Patriot Act and so-called anti-terrorism tactics that violate civil rights, human rights and any civilized conscience, still remain.  But it's interesting that a journalist has chronicled President Obama's relationship with the military hierarchy, a story of progress resulting in reasserting civilian control after eight years of abuse.  Other parts of the bureaucracy have changed slowly and unevenly to match actions with the goals and principles the Obama administration brought with them.  I have high hopes for real progress on all these matters in a second term.

In a way it is similar to another story--by Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker-- which purports to follow President Obama's learning curve on the limitations of presidential power.  As a student of history, I doubt he was entirely surprised by either the power of the generals or the lack of presidential power, although it's likely that the lessons are a lot more impressive in reality.  But at least in the abstract, I understood these as a teenager avidly following the Kennedy administration.

 Newsmagazines followed JFK's disenchantment with the generals after the Bay of Pigs, and his amazement at their Doctor Strangelove-like advice during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Between the two he learned to trust his own judgment and assert his control.

In end of the year interviews--I think even after the first year, and certainly the second--he stressed the limitations of presidential power.  It was a theme of two popular political books of the time, which I eagerly read, naturally, and still have: Presidental Power  by Richard E. Neustadt and Decision-Making in the White House by his own long-time advisor and presidential assistant, Theodore Sorensen.  (Since Sorensen also supported Obama and they met, I'd assume he knows of this book.)

 Yet it was after understanding these limitations (and successfully defying the generals in the Cuban Missile Crisis), that JFK engineered his two boldest initiatives: the successful effort to get the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty signed and ratified, and introducing the Civil Rights legislation that became the basis for the historic laws passed after his assassination.  Both changed America and American politics.

So there are two points here, I suppose: President Obama will be an even better President in the next four years, having learned what he learned in the first four.  That's not unusual, but in our times, it could be very important for the country and the world.

But the point I started with is this: Americans are for all intents and purposes anti-war.  If the economy offers some hope, President Obama will be re-elected simply on the strength of his record in ending the war in Iraq, winding down the war in Afghanistan, and his largely successful efforts to achieve justifiable American goals without the bluster and bullying and especially the whine of bullets.   GOPer candidates are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the electorate on this.

The Circus Comes to Disneyworldland

Apparently "The Word" of the circus debate in Florida Monday was Romney's: "self-deportation."  Several live bloggers excused themselves saying they were self-deporting.  At Kos there were other tweeted glosses: solution to economic problems: self-employment.  Solution to the GOP debates: self-immolation.  Self-deportation is what Romney does with his money, to the Caymans.

Otherwise most of the bloggers and pundits scored a modest win for Romney, though Josh Marshall thought Gingles held his own and so the dynamic hasn't changed, and he will continue to lead in Florida polls.  But there's another circus act on Thursday!  If Romney stopped the bleeding, that's when he'll have to turn things around.  Otherwise, our circus critics graded the entertainment value as poor, perhaps because the audience was so sedate that the Economist guys in the UK thought there wasn't one.

But momentum is with Gingles, even though he continues to take credit for the Clinton administration's accomplishments, including the first balanced budget that Gingles directed House Republicans to oppose.   Fred Thompson (R-Law & Order) endorsed him, and more importantly, most importantly, his Vegas sugar daddy ponied up another five million bucks for Florida!  Casino Newt rides again!

Meanwhile, Romney's tax return shows he paid a 13.9% tax rate on income of $42 million, and in a factoid sure to please the Tevangelist base, he gave more in "charity" donations than he paid in taxes--most of it to the Mormon Church (he tithes, as Mormons are supposed to.) 

But the line of the night belongs to Lawrence O'Donnell: "Tonight the Republican Party is on its way to nominating a presidential candidate who cannot beat President Obama.  The only thing we do not yet know is that candidate's name."

Stormy Weather

There's rage on the sun, and it's resulting in the strongest solar storm heading this way since 2005. Scientists don't expect electrical problems on Earth as a result, though that's still a possibility.  But it could affect us in other ways.  Does this for example explain raging Casino Newt Gingrich?  Maybe.  But Andrew Sullivan writes what I've been trying to say:

"This now is the party of Palin and Gingrich, animated primarily by hatred of elites, angry at the new shape and color of America, befuddled by a suddenly more complicated world, and dedicated primarily to emotion rather than reason. That party is simply not one that can rally behind a Mitt Romney...This is Gingrich's party; and Ailes'; and Rove's. They made it; and it is only fitting it now be put on the table, for full inspection. Better sooner than later. Obama is a poultice. He brings poison to the surface. Where, with any luck, it dies."

A True Bright Star



Gabby Giffords with husband, space shuttle astronaut Mark Kelley

Gabrielle Giffords announced on Sunday that she is giving up her seat in Congress in order to concentrate on her recovery from the assassination attempt last year in Arizona.  It is a reminder that however miraculous her recovery so far, such violence has enduring consequences.  It is a measure of our political decadence that the enormity of this act, and the atmosphere supporting gun violence and violent politics, was not confronted even after this incident that killed a federal judge, a public servant, and a child born on 9-11, among others.

Of Giffords, President Obama said: Gabby Giffords embodies the very best of what public service should be. She’s universally admired for qualities that transcend party or ideology – a dedication to fairness, a willingness to listen to different ideas, and a tireless commitment to the work of perfecting our union."  House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called Giffords "a true bright star."  It is a phrase worth contemplating--a bright star that points true.  

This gun violence, enabled by cowardly politicians and their at best deluded and at worst hate-filled constituents, silenced an exemplary voice in Congress, a voice that this Congress badly needs, and now that silence will continue.  But there will be one more opportunity to acknowledge some of this, as well as to honor Giffords, when her last act as a Member of Congress will be to witness President Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday. 

Aye of Newt , the Casino Candidate

Gingles cleaned Romney's clock in the South Carolina GOPer primary.  He got more than 40% of the vote to Romney's 29%.  Sanctimonious got 17%, Ron St. Paul 13%.

The rejection of Romney was led by Tevangelicals who didn't vote for a Mormon--this was clear from exit polls.  They coalesced around Gingles' rage rather than Sanctimonious' sanctimony.

Pundit and political pols are split on whether SC was a fluke, a special case, or whether Romney is in trouble, with most moving towards the latter view.  Next up is Florida, and if Gingles wins that one (says Steve Schmidt, former McCain campaign manager), the GOPer establishment will go into full panic mode between then and Super Tuesday five weeks later.  Gingles negatives are so high that many believe--including many GOPers-- he will never be elected President. 

On the other hand, there's the rage, and others are coming around to the pov I expressed yesterday: Gingles could feed it and ride it to the nomination, and it would all be out there to see.

Roger Simon at Politico had an ascerbically funny characterization of Gingles.  "He is not the best-looking guy in Republican race or the best-funded or the most ideologically pure. But he has found his shtick, and he is shticking to it. Newt Gingrich is the angriest man in America." "Anger, umbrage and bitterness are so much a part of Gingrich’s public persona that he likes to attack the very concept of happiness.."

This has always been Gingles rhetoric stance--I remember it from the 90s.  And it has never been more in line with the raw anger and hatred of a rabid and racist GOPer core.  Gingles victory speech was his usual mixture of anger and contempt, and grandiosity--having won exactly one primary, he spoke as if his Inauguration were tomorrow.  He complimented his GOPer rivals, though he suggested anyone who had voted for them had voted in error or by accident.  He again insulted the intelligence of President Obama.   He takes his election as a given. “It will shock the country,” Newt says. “It will shock the world. And shock is what we need.” 

That's the Gingles Shock Doctrine.  He has to hope that Americans will forget they don't like or trust him (his disapproval rating is 60%), or that most sober and intelligent analysts rate his policy proposals as catastrophic or insane, and just go with a generalized rage that things aren't going well enough with that non-white man in the White House.  So what the hell, roll the dice.

Next comes Florida, where the campaign will engage with an even greater ferocity.  Romney won Iowa when he poured millions into ads attacking Gingles, and Gingles didn't and couldn't respond.  Then Gingles got $5 million from his Vegas casino sugar daddy, and won SC after going negative on Romney while Romney tried to stay positive.  Ain't nobody going to be positive in Florida, and a hurricane of  Super Pac paid negative ads will flood that state.  The Romney campaign has already said that it's going after Gingles even harder than in Iowa, and Gingles may well have the millions to exploit Romney's exposed weaknesses (the Bain stuff seems to have hurt him in SC.)  Romney has millions, and I saw a report that Gingles is getting millions from other billionaires as well as his Vegas daddy.

Two years after Citizens United, the coming ten days before the Florida primary will be the biggest and most graphic demonstration yet of what that Supreme Court decision has unleashed.  Right now Newt owes his SC victory to one man with a $22 billion fortune who can spend $5 million on a ego-inflating election in any and every state he wants, at least as much as to his debates and the luck this time of timing.  He's Casino Newt, a bought candidacy.  These are likely to be ten days that will shake democracy.  That's the Supreme's Shock Doctrine.   

Let's Stay Together

With so much attention on the GOPer circus, President Obama has mostly been governing, making tough decisions.  But he's also been doing the PR part of being President, like supporting tourism in Florida and the Gulf Coast, and praising the Apollo Theatre.  Where, incidentally, he sang.

Not much, but well.  A few phrases from an Al Green song, which maybe should be the campaign theme song: Let's Stay Together.  (Green was in the audience.  Obama likes to do it on these occasions, apparently.  He sang to Aretha and Dionne Warwick as well, though before he was Prez.)

He did it on the night that the GOPers were screaming at each other.  He did it with perfect pitch and in the exact key of the original Al Green song.  The folks Americans apparently accept as vocal experts--you know, American Idol judges--praised his performance.  It was so impressive that an Irish bookmaker immediately upped the odds that he would be reelected.

But things get serious again Tuesday, when President Obama delivers the State of the Union address.  This will be after a week of GOPer debate carping and electioneering, of scandal and confusion, panic and petty conflict, and patently wild charge and unserious flailing around pandering for votes from the FOX-stoked perpetually outraged.  And another GOPer debate on Monday.  Then the real President talks about real problems and real possible solutions in a serious way on Tuesday.  The contrast should have America singing, pleading: Let's stay together.  

Step Right Up to the...Well, Not the Greatest Exactly

It's South Carolina primary day, and everybody is expecting a Gingrich victory, especially Gingrich.  Depending on the ground game and voter turnout, it could defy the polls that show his lead growing, but the Romney campaign is whispering that they expect to lose, and his Romneyness is suggesting that he expects to be going up against Gingles right up to the convention. 

The Romney campaign does seem to be weirded out by the turnaround from Mr. Inevitable to Mr. Collapsing in a single week.  In a post he titles "Romney Campaign Curling Up in a Ball on the Floor," Jonathan Chiat responds to the rumor Friday that Romney may skip the first pre-Florida debate on Monday (the Florida primary is 10 days after S.C.) as mind-boggling.  I agree-- with a big SC win and Romney refusing to debate him, Gingles could win Florida which otherwise would be very difficult.   

The wild card in S.C. and afterwards is now Rick Sanctimonious.  He's finally been officially declared the winner of Iowa, and by many accounts he had a strong debate Thursday, especially in hitting Gingles vulnerabilities.  He's polling 4th of 4 at the moment in SC (though Herman Cain is still on the ballot, and Stephen Colbert had the biggest rally of the day in SC to urge voters to vote for Cain) but if he moves up past Ron St. Paul at least, there may be some interest in keeping him in the campaign, just so there is an Anti-Romney left if Gingles implodes. 

But at this point I say you know what GOPers? Go ahead and get it over with, nominate Newt.  If you're all about unfocused ignorant rage and racism, let's get it out in the open.  Give Newt his opportunity to match intellects with President Obama.  It's an open question whether the racist strings Gingles is playing reflect his own convictions, but he wouldn't be the first blowhard whose rants get so much applause that he comes to believe them. The idea that Barack Obama is an intellectual lightweight is as ridiculous as it is racist (and for the same reason: there is no evidence to support it, and lots of evidence to the contrary.)  Personally I can't wait for that debate. There's plenty of evidence that Gingles doesn't have the true wattage to live up to his bombast.  He's all blow and no hard.

As for his Romneyness, the guy is genuinely phony to a point that is almost surreal.  His radio interview that Rachel highlighted Friday is close to the equivalent of Cowboy Rick's hugging the syrup moment in New Hampshire. Rachel found the money quotes that shall live forever in campaign ads if he's the nominee, but the whole interview is distinctly weird (including the unforced Oedipal stuff at the beginning.)  Here are the quotes though:

Ingraham: How do you answer the president's argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign when you yourself are saying that it is getting better?

Romney: Well of course it is getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession. There is always a recovery. There has never been a time, anywhere in the world, where an economy has never recovered. The question is has it recovered by virtue of something the president has done or has he delayed the recovery and made it more painful. And the latter of course is the truth.

 Ingraham: Isn't it a hard argument to make if you are saying he inherited this recession and he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, now we are seeing some more jobs, but vote against him anyways? Isn't that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?

Romney: Have you got a better one Laura? It just happens to be the truth.

Reality Check

Hereabouts the rains have come.  Our rainy season started Wednesday with a slowly building storm that's in its third day on Friday, with about four inches of rain total so far.  The forecast is the traditional solid gray for the forseeable future, with quiet periods between storms (next one is Sunday.)  So while this is a relief mentally, the disappearance of sunshine is its usual emotional drag.  But at least one of the hummingbirds is negotiating the swinging feeder.

Meanwhile our friends Mike and Alice are more than 3,000 miles into their epic cross country trip, doing what retirement is supposed to be for.  These photos are stolen from the blog they've created to chronicle their adventures, which is right here.  This mountainscape is from New Mexico.





They're probably in California by now, and will fly off to Hawaii for a couple of weeks before figuring out a route back to Pennsylvania.   Happy trails!

Aye of Newt, and Dead-Blogging the Live Bloggers

Okay, Circus Boy is officially my GOPer campaign coverage persona.  For one thing, everything Circus Boy warned you about on Wednesday rocked the GOPer world on Thursday:

Iowa announced (sort of) that Senator Sanctimonious won Iowa (sort of)-- not Romney.

Gingrich's second wife made headlines with her interview hours before it actually aired.

After all the public promptings, Cowboy Rick quit the race (Adios, MoFos) and endorsed Gingrich. 

Gingrich continued to climb in the polls.  And now the rumor about those Tea Party leaders is that they will endorse Gingrich, perhaps on Friday.  One day before South Carolina votes.

All that was just Thursday's early show!  The big show under the big tent--in the center ring!--the last GOPer candidate debate before the voting on Saturday! 

Rather than watch the debate, I watched the Live Bloggers on my Internet machine.  Much more entertaining!  And I bring you some of their greatest tricks!

Let's start with the Guardian bloggers because their "yes, but" judgment that Gingrich won the debate in the first five minutes--and their caveats--were echoed by other bloggers:

First question is to Newt Gingrich, asked about Marianne Gingrich's comments that Newt asked her for an "open marriage". "Would you like to discuss that, Mr Speaker," asks John King. "No, but I will," replies Newt. "It is as close as despicable as anything I can imagine. I'm frankly astounded than CNN would take trash like that and se it to open a presidential debate."
He's won this already.

But maybe he made too much of it, going on just a bit too long. Many millions watching would have been unaware of the Marianne Gingrich interview: the former House speaker has just provide great advertising for the ABC interview. He has just ensured many of them will be tuning in to hear it.

This also was a common judgment:

Meanwhile, up on stage, Romney is having his worst debate performance of the entire campaign. Just now he got dragged into a spat with Santorum, with Santorum talking over him. He looks and sounds tired. It may not matter in the long run but this is the precise low point of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.

Jed at Kos:
So the crowd in this debate ... cheered adultery, lustily ... but that was an improvement, over cheering the death of the uninsured.

6:55 PM PT: Newt says Obama is the "most dangerous" president he has every seen. "Truly frightening," he says. White conservative men across South Carolina are getting that sturburst feeling right about now.

(I googled "sturburst" and it seems to mean something but I don't know what. Most of the hits were of this very statement.)

Though Jed concluded The debate is over. Not much to analyze: Newt killed the field. Big win for him, he was funniest about Sanctimonious:

Rick Santorum really needs to stop saying "bottom up."

Rick Santorum says his concern about Newt Gingrich is that he's always worried "something is going to pop."

Rick Santorum says he's a the grandson of immigrants, and that we don't need any more of them.

Josh Marshall at TPM:

9:05 PM: I feel like I need to read the transcript of what Mitt just said about his taxes but I think I'm going to need to get stoned first.


9:27 PM: I'm sort of amazed how on Gingrich has been in this debate. He's made Romney look like a bystander. Except in the portion where Romney dominated the stage with his epic tax return release meltdown.

His conclusion:
I think Newt Gingrich did very well tonight. I think he knows it. He's right. I've heard a number of people say that Rick Santorum had a really strong debate too and even that he 'won' the debate. Santorum was basically more on his game than I think I've ever heard him. He had a really good debate. I think Newt did better. But here's the key: Gingrich is in a position to capitalize in a big way on a strong debate performance. I don't think Santorum is. So it all comes down to a very strong performance by Newt -- one I think will likely clinch a win for him on Saturday night, notwithstanding the tell-all interview coming later tonight.

Andrew Sullivan:

8.48 pm. Buzzfeed says that Newt won the debate in the first five minutes. Theres still some time to go but that's my impression as well. Romney is being flattened tonight. Santorum's brutal, relentless attacks, Newt's ccontempt, Paul's jocular indifference ... they all contrast with classic, mindless robo-speak from Mr Plastic. Now Gingrich has ambushed him on his tax returns


8.44 pm. A classic Gingrich phrase: "Mildly amazing." Classic passive aggression from the "shy boy" who's now so angry he explodes spontaneously. Then Newt tickles the Southern g-spot, by saying that his debating Obama will be a battle between "knowledge" and a "TelePrompTer." I don't think Newt realizes how his contempt and condescension toward Obama is riddled with racism.

Contempt and condescenion yes, but as a Georgia boy and as his Newtness, he realizes it.

His conclusion:
10.01 pm. A Gingrich triumph. His only concern must be how well Santorum did tonight. Paul performed well, but remains peripheral to the struggle for the orthodox "conservative" candidate. I think Romney is in serious trouble now, and the bottom fell out tonight. He died with that glib response - "maybe" - to the question of whether he'd follow his father's example.

I may be crazy but I think Romney loses South Carolina after tonight. And that means this thing blows wide open again.

Not everyone thought Rick S. did so well--and I never thought I'd be quoting uberconservative Michael Medved: The big loser: Rick Santorum, whose insufferably sanctimonious demeanor answered all questions about why social conservatives have begun to coalesce around Newt Gingrich rather than the former Pennsylvania senator. His decision to issue smug, full-bore attacks on every one of his rivals backfired badly.

Medved is pretty sanctimonious himself, and maybe I'm likewise seeing in Rick S. a tendency in myself.

But I leave the best for last, the Economist quartet:

If Newt's pomposity could be monetized, he'd be a rich man. But would it be taxed at 15% or 35%? Discuss

"How do you revive 'Made in America'?" Rename China?

Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich." Great line from Santorum.

Conclusions:
· Rick Santorum was tonight's stand-out performer. Apparently emboldened by his belated Iowa victory, he came out swinging and I think did some real damage, especially to Gingrich and his grandiose dilettantism. Newt's desperate opening attack on the media for daring to listen to what his ex-wife has to say about him was enthusiastically received by the crowd, but I thought made him look like a snarling, cornered dog. Ron Paul was a comforting Ron Paul-like presence. Romney was on and off, and I don't think his performance made a difference to his prospects in South Carolina. Actually, insofar as Santorum's effective barbs hurt Newt more than Mitt, Romney may have come out of the evening ahead.
by W.W. 7:08 PM
 Nothing that happened tonight will change the fact that Mitt Romney is your Republican nominee. But Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are moving in opposite directions: Santorum becoming more endearing, Gingrich more repulsive.

It was a strange debate. Newt started strong out of the box, but Santorum went after him effectively, and he ended up looking too pompous by half. Romney was clearly the loser: he stuttered, smirked, dodged and look insufferably smug. He wins the nomination in the end, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him lose SC.

So there are two theories: 1. Newt is headed for victory in S.C., Romney is really wounded.  If Newt wins it may become a real race.  2. Rick S. had a good debate, the second Mrs. G. interview is going to add to doubts, and Rick and Gingrich are going to again split the anti-Rs, and Romney squeaks out a S.C. victory.  And if both Rick and Ging do well, neither will drop out, which also helps Romney.

Maybe the most intriguing bit of information I heard is that polling data suggests a gender split in the Tevangelical vote: men like Gingrich, women like Sanctimonious (and are definitely anti-Ging over the wives stuff.  The revelation that Ging and Calista had sex in Ging and wife.2's  marriage bed  could put them over the top on that issue.)

So Gingrich had his best day and his "best" (angriest, most racist) debate, and Romney had his worst and his worst.  Will Romney's free market utopian fantasy-mongering prove stronger than Gingrich's ability to amplify the blind rage of white SC GOPer voters?  Will it matter?  Who cares?  The circus ain't leaving town anytime soon!

The Oil Sands of Time

President Obama accepted State Department advice and killed the Keystone oil sands project, as officially announced Wednesday.  The oil sands of time were running out, thanks to the GOPer congressionals' deadline, so it's bye bye pipeline.

Bill McKibben commented: "this isn’t just the right call, it’s the brave call. The knock on Barack Obama from many quarters has been that he’s too conciliatory. But here, in the face of a naked political threat from Big Oil to exact ‘huge political consequences,’ he’s stood up strong. This is a victory for Americans who testified in record numbers, and who demanded that science get the hearing usually reserved for big money."

GOPers gushing the usual oily bullshit from whichever orifice they use to talk, charge this kills jobs, kills energy independence.  Their inflated figure for how many jobs the pipeline would have created was 20,000.  Actual experts say it would have been closer to 6,000.

But according to the Brookings Institution, the growing clean energy industries already employ some 2.7 million in the U.S., with explosive job growth that outpaced the rest of the economy during and after the Great Recession.  Moreover, "The clean economy offers more opportunities and better pay for low- and middle-skilled workers than the national economy as a whole."

Meanwhile, in one industrial city just north of the U.S. border, a coalition of business, government, environmentalists and labor (including the efforts of one of the most dedicated readers of Captain Future's Dreaming Up Daily--congrats, Cousin Lemuel, otherwise known as Bill Thompson) has brought a major wind turbine manufacturing project to Hamilton, Ontario--with an expected 1900 jobs.  These will be the first offshore wind power assembly facilities in North America.

This is just the beginning, if America would get serious. A new study concludes that a truly serious approach to energy efficiency could alone add up to 2 million new jobs in the next few decades.

So the jobs argument is specious, and is only part of the economic story (if you want to reduce everything to that.)  Opponents to the Keystone pipeline cite tremendous costs to protect water, soil and air against pollution, and even higher costs for accidents and the hidden costs (because families mostly bear them) of bad effects on health.  It's a similar story with clean energy--the health benefits are also economic benefits. 

And of course, there's the economic price of the Climate Crisis--which the Keystone pipeline would hasten to its worst case scenarios---with costs that could include the very concept of "economy" as we know it.

In the transitional meantime, an expanding U.S. oil and gas industry has added some 75,000 jobs since President Obama took office.  There's no truth to even this charge, that the pipeline harms the effort to decrease dependence on foreign oil sources.  But apparently a 13% expansion of these industries isn't enough for some of these fossil fuel hot air billionaires.  They have to own the planet, as they ruin it.

Coming Attractions

I'm starting to feel like Circus Boy (yeah, that's Mickey Dolenz before he became a Monkee.  He starred in the Circus Boy TV show in the 50s.)  I'm enjoying this circus too much.

I'm not the only one. I wonder if anybody at MSNBC will be able to sleep tonight.  There are several potentially big stories that could break in the next day or two that together or separately could turn the GOPer primary circus into real chaos.

One is the ABC interview granted by the second-ex Gingrich wife, expected to air Thursday night, which is potentially explosive.   She apparently once claimed that she could end his political career with one interview.

Another is the possible certification of the Iowa caucuses results (maybe by Friday), which may well change the winner from Romney to Rick Sanctimonious.   Combined with Gingrich's rising in South Carolina (and national) polls, it could create new doubts about Romney, who increasingly  appears to be vulnerable, if not to fellow GOPer attacks, then to the same attacks mounted by Dems in the general. 

But what if BOTH of these things happen?

And oh yeah, a couple of Rabid Right "leaders" have called for Cowboy Rick to drop out before the voting in South Carolina, in favor of Gingrich, who was endorsed by Sarah Palin Wednesday, as well as another megachurch minister.  There's also rumor that some sort of Tea Party coalition is going to endorse a candidate before S.C. votes.

Meanwhile His Romneyness is slowly being bronzed as Richie Rich, the guy who thinks his speaking fees--which in one year added up to seven times the average US annual income--don't amount to much.  Not when he probably has many millions in offshore tax shelters.

And what happens in South Carolina if this ABC story gets traction?  That while at Bain, Romney directed millions of dollars worth of investments to the Mormon Church.

In his New York Magazine piece entitled "Romney Caricatures Himself," Jonathan Chiat concludes:

"Whatever the merits, the total self-portrait Romney has helped craft is utterly devastating: the scion of a wealthy executive, who helped create, and benefited from, revolutions in both the market economy and in public policy in the last three decades that favored the rich over the middle class, and who appears blithe about the gap between his privilege and the lot of most Americans.

As I’ve said before, Romney has been positively associated with “electability” because he is more electable than most of his rivals. But he is the one-eyed man in the land of the politically blind. Romney, by normal standards, is a terrible candidate. He is nowhere near as formidable as John McCain was four years before. The latest poll from PPP has his favorability rating at a miserable 35 percent positive, 53 percent negative. He may win – he probably will win if the economy dips back into recession – but he is a weak candidate who in many ways embodies the public’s distrust of his party."

I'll add this caveat: while the political mood seems to be strongly against Richie Rich, the appeal of a powerful rich guy can't be dismissed.  There's an undeniable "participation mystique" thing that goes on when ordinary people are confronted with the rich and powerful: they may identify with them, imagine what it would be like to be them, and want to be like them--want to be recognized by them, and included within their aura.  It's a powerful pull and can't be dismissed.  Romney has shown no signs of being able to capitalize on this, but it's a long time until the election.

Romney as without core beliefs is an image that won't go away.  There's the opposition research book put together by the McCain campaign in 2007 that's just been leaked.  One observer commented: "In extensive detail, the book documents Romney’s various turns on major issues—how he changed his mind on the Bush tax cuts, gun ownership, abortion, and immigration, just to pick a few issues. Romney’s flip-floppery is so pervasive that it cannot be summed up except to say that it is a fundamental part of his political self."

Its possible effect in the general election is dramatized, cartoon style in this Gingrich campaign ad which shows President Obama debating Romney.  The Obama voice is actually pretty good.

Today's Fix

A number of prominent web sites including wikipedia are down today or otherwise limited to focus awareness on a couple of bills in Congress that threaten to turn over significant control of the Internet to corporate interests.

While I fully support these sites, I do worry about you twitchy readers out there with less to read.  So as a public service for desperate net dependent addicts who stumbled onto this site, I will provide content.  Contented?

That's not as good a pun as Lawrence had Tues. evening, concerning Romney's revelations about the minuscule tax rate he pays: he was talking about taxes, "which Republicans are wont to do, but not in the way Republicans want to do it."

Andrew Sullivan was making waves on Tues. with his Newsweek cover piece making the case for President Obama's "long game" and the delusions of those who don't see his actual successes.  His basic premise about the Obama record of solid accomplishment  (not unfamiliar to readers of this site) is "So many people have been taken in by fantasies - on both sides - that are demonstrably untrue."

He was defending the piece against rightward and some High Left critics all day on his blog, and had this to say about Obama leading from behind, specifically on gay rights (gay marriage specifically) and medical marijuana/decriminalization:

"Oh please. If you accept my premise - that he "leads from behind" for a "long game" - you can begin to see my case. Obama is not going to crusade for either cause. But he is not going to oppose them either and has quietly encouraged them. Hence instructing the DEA not to interfere with state laws on medical marijuana and withdrawing a legal defense of DOMA. Yes, there's been some regional slippage in California on allowing states to determine their medical marijuana laws, but that hasn't apparently come from Obama's office. Combined with the breakthrough on gays in the military, this has been the most productive period for gay equality in a long time. And it's more durable because Obama didn't do it. We did. Which was the fucking premise of his entire campaign."

Something along these lines occurred to me earlier in the day before I read this concerning one of the more hopeful signs of the year: the democratic rebellion in various states against GOPer oligarchical power grabs and antidemocratic laws, restricting the right to vote and to organize in unions.  Specifically the news in Wisconsin, where over 1 million signatures were gathered to recall its governor--which is nearly equal to the number of votes that he got in his election.  When all of this controversy started, there were calls for Obama to get directly involved, and cries of anguish when he didn't. He didn't make big speeches, though he did mention his support for these efforts, and the White House issued statements.  And yet, the people through their unions and local organizing have successfully recalled several bad laws in several states, and are ready to recall awful officeholders.  This is community organizing--something that Barack Obama understands pretty well.  And it's just as Sullivan says: it's more durable because Obama didn't do it. We did. Which was the fucking premise of his entire campaign."

After this choice reading experience, if you're still hungry for Internet pleasure, you might check out the new kid on the block, Bill Moyers, with video from his new web and TV projects, including a lot about income inequality.  Seriously, it's great to have him back (even if he never really went away.)

Circus News

I'm sorry, I just can't resist.
Monday began with Jon Huntsman dropping out of the race (because he was polling behind Steven Colbert, according to Rachel) and endorsing Romney.  This led to several video compilations of all the nasty stuff Huntsman said about Romney, especially about how he has no beliefs and can't beat Obama.

Rachel gleefully catalogued the ongoing fight within the Evangelical preacher corps over whether they did or didn't really endorse Rick Sanctimonious--accusations of deceit, dirty tricks, ballot-stuffing etc.--all the things GOPers are good at.  What goes around...

And all this was before the FOX clown show, aka debate.  As conventional wisdom swings definitively behind the certainty that Romney will be the nominee--and that the GOPer establishment is pushing this narrative--Romney had an awkward debate, Sanctimonious and Gingrich did better--with Gingrich demogoging the heartlessness and mindlessness of the assembled S.C. GOpers.  Some choice reaction from folks who actually watched it:

Jed Lewison at Kos: The one nice thing about this debate is that even though it's obvious that Mitt Romney has the nomination nearly locked down, it's equally obvious how much Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich dislike Mitt Romney.

Conservative Ron Dreher: There goes Gingrich with the food stamp thing again, blaming Obama for "putting more people on food stamps than any president in American history." It wasn’t Obama that did it, Gingrich, it was the depression recession. This is food we’re talking about. This is people struggling to feed their families in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And Gingrich is playing racial and cultural politics with it. To listen to Gingrich, you’d think that Obama signed up all those layabouts for food stamps just so he could throw government money at them.

And two gems from the Economist live blog:

 This is Jon Huntsman's best debate by far.

I think this crowd will be disappointed when informed that there will not in fact be a public hanging later in the evening.

MLK Day in Retrospect

Martin Luther King is in that middle area of figures considered "great" enough to have a holiday: he was too long ago to be real to most people, and he's not yet a figure so remote that he's going to be used to sell used cars or shill for a sale on his Day, as are the figures of Washington and Lincoln.  But when GOPers who stoked the suspicion and hate that enveloped him in a penumbra of violence for what was left of his young life are blithely praising his idealism and "hope for the future," then the attempted co option has reached beyond reality.

It's pretty clear that while culturally and in certain legal areas, African Americans are better off than in the 1960s, in other ways they are in worse circumstances that are worsening.  The indefensibly high rates of incarceration of black men generally, and specifically for crimes that whites much more often escape such penalties, is clearly racist in effect and to a great extent in cause.  This is one of the more obvious remnants of racism.

The promises of the 1950s and 1960s have not been fulfilled in other ways.  De facto segregation of schools, separate and unequal, are still the law of the land, however formally illegal.  De facto retrenchments of voting rights are rising, with the poll tax substitute of ID laws.  And an entire state of Michigan is denying entire cities with majority black populations of the right to vote for any local official, by installing GOPer governor appointed dictators.  This is as clear a tyranny as any this continent has ever seen.

But of course the most telling fact is the economic injustice that has swollen the wealth of the inconceivably wealthy 1% and is sending more and more people off the cliff of ordinary life, among the 99%.  People without homes, without enough food, without medical care, without the means to have a decent life--those numbers are growing, and growing fastest among the most vulnerable populations, which certainly includes minorities, and certainly includes African Americans.

In that context, the South Carolina GOPers who assembled for their debate on Martin Luther King Day--as other GOPer audiences in other primary debates--are showing  faces of America carefully hidden behind suburban doors and suburban secret codes, small town murmurs and city euphemisms, for decades.  But these days the mobs are whipping into a frenzy again, and the white sheets are there for all to see.  Their hate extends to all other colors, to any other religion or culture (they even booed the idea of applying the Golden Rule), and even to any foreign language (French, say, or science.)  These are shock troops of the Dark Ages, and if they succeed, those times will hasten. 

The Dreaming Up Daily Quote

"Our problem today is that we have allowed the internal to become lost in the external. We have allowed the means by which we live to outdistance the ends for which we live...Enlarged material powers spell enlarged peril if there is not proportionate growth of the soul."

Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Address

Weekend Update

God apparently took Saturday off, allowing his Saints to lose, and sending Tim Tebow and the Denver Broncos straight to hell, which in their case was New England.  He split the difference on Sunday, teaching some humility to the defending champion Packers but allowing the overrated Ravens another week of hubris.  Next week it's the Niners vs. the NY Giants, and the Patriots vs. the Ravens.  God's message so far: don't diss the defense.

In circus news,  the weekend began with elements that suggested a Gingrich revival, beginning in South Carolina.  He was near even with Romney in some polls, and he picked up a few Tevangelical preacher endorsements.   So the stage was set for the purist preacher summit in Texas to consolidate behind the strongest anti-Romney.  So of course they didn't.  They endorsed Rick Sanctimonious, purer perhaps but polling in single digits in South Carolina, with uncertain prospects (to be generous) in Florida and following states.  (E. J. Dionne has a more optimistic view.)   So despite the reputed "hit" that Romney takes on this, he is probably the winner of that confab.  The biggest loser was Cowboy Rick, who is likely now to drop out sooner rather than later, maybe even before the South Carolina voting.  If that happens, and Gingrich drops out if he fails to win South Carolina, Sanctimonious has another shot to consolidate the Anti-Roms, but as the likely fourth place finisher in S.C., he's likely toast.

Late news update: numerous reports say Jon Huntsman will officially quit the race on Monday, and back Romney.