Romney's Tanking Favorables

Who won the Nevada caucuses? Almost certainly, it was Mitt Romney. Officially speaking -- as of this writing at least -- we don't know.

Associated Press:

After months of reassurance that they could play with the big boys despite a trail of mishaps, the Nevada GOP played all of its cards Saturday and lost big time in a messy, disorganized election that saw low turnout and complaints of voter fraud and unexplained ballots.

But the biggest tell that the volunteer-run caucuses didn't go as planned was that more than 24 hours after voters finished casting their ballots, no one officially knew who had won.

By late Sunday, only 89 percent of the votes had been tallied. The holdup was Clark County, the state's most populous county and home to the Las Vegas Strip, where officials stayed up until the wee hours Sunday counting ballots but still couldn't finish the task.

It's not getting a lot of press, since exit polling showed such a convincing win that Romney's victory isn't really in doubt. But the problems in Nevada stem for larger problems for the GOP; Romney's nose-diving approvals and an inability to get GOP voters to give a damn.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Susan G. Komen, Planned Parenthood, and the 'Teachable Moment'

One of the most abused terms in politics is "teachable moment." Most of the time, when someone says, "This is a teachable moment," what they're really saying is, "On the bright side, we've figured out an additional way to fail. We won't do that again." Besides, it's become threadworn and cliche. The way it's used currently, it's almost meaningless. With that in mind, I present you with an honest-to-goodness teachable moment.

The Atlantic Wire:

The Susan G. Komen foundation has reversed its position on Planned Parenthood, and will continue funding the organization after all, issuing a statement that apologizes "for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives." The move comes after a week of online protest over the news that Komen would end a grant to Planned Parenthood to provide mammograms. It was not a move that Komen took lightly. The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg unearthed memos from December that show how the Komen foundation instructed its employees to "obfuscate the issues when confronted with questions about why Komen cut off funding to Planned Parenthood." The letters outline "updated eligibility requirements" that include changes in tax-exemption status and loss of federal funding, among other things.

The first lesson here is the most obvious; if you're a foundation dedicated to fighting a certain disease, don't make politically-motivated funding decisions that will actually increase the overall severity of that disease. Planned Parenthood offers cancer screenings -- for some women, the only access to such screenings they have -- and cutting funding would mean fewer screenings. Fewer screenings means more instances of undiagnosed breast cancer. You can do the math from there.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Blaming the Treatment for the Disease

Bass-ackward reasoning 101: Imagine a patient with kidney disease. This patient has be treated with dialysis regularly or the blood toxins normally filtered out by the kidneys will eventually kill him. It's not cheap, but it's necessary. Everyone knows that the solution to this problem is a kidney transplant. But a group of quacks -- without any real research at all -- insist that the problem isn't the failing kidneys, the problem is the dialysis. Stop giving the patient the treatment and they'll recover.

I bring this up to draw a parallel. After Mitt Romney said he wasn't "concerned about the very poor," head wingnut and US Senator Jim DeMint suggested a better way of putting it -- the dialysis is the problem, not the disease.

Roll Call:

DeMint said that portion of Romney’s comments also need to be reframed. While Democrats have been using Romney’s comments to argue he is callous toward the poor, conservatives have expressed concern that the former governor might be OK with having Americans who are dependent on government-subsidized social programs.

“He needs to address it,” DeMint told Roll Call. “Because I know he does care about the poor. But I think he was trying to make a case that they’re taken care of. But, in fact, I would say I’m worried about the poor because many are trapped in dependency, they need a good job; they don’t need to be on social welfare programs. I think he needs to turn that around because — the middle class is key, and we have to focus on that. And, really, the problem with the middle class is not successful people, it’s politicians — but the key to making our country successful it to get everyone on that economic ladder.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Super PACs and the Power of Negative Thinking

It's a glimpse into most of our futures. There's a big old crapstorm rolling through America and the front has only passed on for a handful of states. Stick the kids in the basement, stock up on food, and board up your TV, radio, and mailbox. It's going to be bad.

Washington Post:

Negative ads were so prevalent in the final week before the Florida primary that they accounted for 92 percent of all campaign commercials that ran.

And the most heavily broadcast commercial this past weekend was not one featuring Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich but Tom Brokaw, the former NBC News anchor whose image the Romney campaign co-opted for an ad that used a 25-second clip from an old newscast on Mr. Gingrich’s political troubles.

These figures, compiled by the Kantar Media Campaign Media Analysis Group, attest to the bitter turn the race took after the South Carolina primary when Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the “super PACs” working to elect them unleashed a barrage of attacks.

Before we go any further, I want to say I'm not against negative ads. In fact, I'm for them. Pro-candidate ads are generally useless information about how the candidate will "fight to protect" things that offend no focus group. We learn, for example, that candidate X is for a good education for our children, a strong economy, and getting Washington back to work -- as if there's any candidate out there who's against all that. In short, positive ads tell us nothing. They're useless information. In them, candidates boldly stake a claim to those things guaranteed to appeal to everyone.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Republicans' Jobless 'Jobs Agenda'

If you want a great example of how the Republican Party's reduced itself to empty talking points, consider their argument that government doesn't create jobs. It's obviously untrue on so many levels, but they keep saying it because the chumps keep buying it. They almost always immediately contradict themselves by talking about all the ways they think government could create jobs. Pet projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, cutting taxes, reducing regulations, etc. will all create a great big jobs avalanche, we're told, if only government would get around to creating all those jobs that they also argue government couldn't possibly create. And lets not forget that all of these people are either drawing a government paycheck or competing for a government job.

But the idea that government can't create jobs becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy with Republicans. They get into government and block measures that would increase employment. And that's when they aren't calling the shots. When they are calling the shots, all that stuff they talked about on the campaign trail and Fox News goes out the window. When Republicans are in power, it becomes time to pay off narrow constituencies that helped get them elected. These payoffs have absolutely nothing to do with jobs, mind you, but good governance was never really the point. The point is a corporate anarchy they wrongly refer to as "free market capitalism" -- and a Republican majority to protect that anarchy.

Since you don't achieve anarchy by passing laws, Republicans become obsessed with trivial busy work. You repeal what you can, hamstring this or that agency when the opportunity arises, but mostly you dick around with inconsequential BS that throws a bone to those narrow constituencies.

Steve Benen:

With Congress' approval rating reaching depths unseen since the dawn of modern polling, self-interested lawmakers should probably focus at least some of their attention on addressing actual problems.

House Republicans apparently disagree. In 2010, the GOP majority invested considerable energy in tackling imaginary threats (killing farm-dust regulations, protecting the "In God We Trust" motto); picking unnecessary culture-war fights (restricting abortion rights, going after NPR); and pursing right-wing measures that couldn't become law (replacing Medicare with a voucher scheme).

CONTINUE TO POST>>

How Many Rounds Can the GOP Primary Fight Last?

The big day in Florida is tomorrow and polling is all over the place. While pretty much all of it shows Mitt Romney winning, the question is by how much -- and in that, polls are in wild disagreement. Of three of the most recent polls, two show the race tightening drastically, while one shows Mittens maintaining a big lead. Already, Gingrich is lowering expectations, talking about a strong showing, rather than a win.

There's a reason why polling results are all over the place in Florida -- it's a blood-soaked battlefield. "Estimates vary on exactly how much more Romney has spent in Florida, but the enormous gap is hard to miss," writes Steve Benen. "TPM's figures say pro-Romney spending outpaced pro-Gingrich spending, $15.3 million to $3.4 million. NBC News totals put it closer to $16.9 million to $4 million. As of Friday, the New York Times pointed to a $15 million to $2.5 million gap."

So Mitt has the financial advantage and that's pretty much the only thing that turned it back around for him. But deep pockets can only take you so far. "In a general election against a well-financed incumbent president," Benen says, "this financial edge will largely disappear."

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Scott Walker's Alternate-Reality Version of Wisconsin

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker scheduled his annual State of the State address the night after President Obama delivered the State of the Union. It says a lot about how little press he hoped to get with his speech. He probably would've scheduled it for the same night, so it wouldn't have even been broadcast, but at a certain point the attempt to hide something becomes attention-worthy in itself, and I suppose that would've been a national news story. So the night after would have to do. In any case, the truth was not invited.

Wisconsin State Journal:

Facing a recall and speaking over a loud and angry crowd outside the Assembly chamber, an unbowed Gov. Scott Walker delivered a State of the State address Wednesday that touted the successes of a difficult year and promised better days ahead.

“During the past year, we added thousands of new jobs,” Walker said. “And we balanced the state budget. We balanced it without raising taxes, without massive layoffs and without budget tricks.”

How much of that is true? Well, pretty much none of it.

CONTINUE TO POST>>