Come Clean, Conservatives


Would the anti-abortion rights movement suffer by including honesty in its argument? Apparently it believes so.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure has announced that it will no longer provide grants to affiliates of Planned Parenthood, the nearly $700,000 used to provide manual breast exams and referrals for mammograms and biopsies.        Last April, Komen hired as its senior vice president Karen G. Handel who, as a failed candidate for the Repub nomination for governor, told Georgians "since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood."

Instead of owning up to its motivation, however, the organization first contended that it cut off funding because of   a new policy prohibiting support for any organization under government investigation.    The investigation, led by U.S. Representative Cliff Stearns (R-Fl), is described by The Daily Beast's Michelle Goldberg as "a highly partisan affair based solely on evidence from anti-abortion groups," which are continuing their vendetta against health services for poor women Planned Parenthood.     (Komen later claimed that it was doing a favor for women.)

Susan G. Komen, however, has an opportunity to demonstrate its sincerity.     It has been pledged a minimum of $1,000,000 from February 2012 through May 2015 from Bank of America, currently under investigation by four states for financial fraud or other wrongdoing, and soon by the federal government for its behavior leading to the real estate crisis.       (Sarcasm Alert) No doubt Komen will be severing its agreement with BOA promptly.

The decision by the breast cancer organization has been praised by some conservatives, including Christian right luminaries Janet Parshall and Tony Perkins.      The latter two have trumpeted the junk science claiming a connection between abortion and breast cancer, now thoroughly debunked thanks to the efforts of the this research team, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Cancer Society.

Joining studies which show that women suffer no more depression from abortion than from childbirth is one finding that legal abortions are safer than childbirth for the women undergoing them.        Two researchers discovered that from 1998 and 2005 one woman died during childbirth for approximately 11,000 babies born while one woman of every 167,000 died from a legal abortion.

But finding that abortion is no worse than childbirth for the patient's mental health or mortality is no reason not to discourage, deter, or even ban a procedure many people believe ends a human life.       The state, clearly, should not be in the business of sanctioning the killing of an innocent.       Presumably, that prompted one compassionate, pro-life state legislator in North Carolina, Larry Pittman, to send an e-mail declaring

We need to make the death penalty a real deterrent again by actually carrying it out.     Every appeal that can be made should have to be made at one time, not in a serial manner.If murderers (and I would include abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers, as well) are actually executed, it will at least have the deterrent effect upon them.     For my money, we should go back to public hangings, which would be more of a deterrent to others, as well.

Unsuccessful presidential candidate and GOP News personality Mike Huckabee also would target abortion providers In December, 2007 he said during an appearance on Meet the Press

I think if a doctor knowingly took the life of an unborn child for money, and that's why he was doing it, yeah, I think you would, you would find some way to sanction that doctor.     I don't know that you'd put him in prison, but there's something to me untoward about a person who has committed himself to healing people and to making people alive who would take money to take an innocent life and to make that life dead.

The sincerity is overwhelming.         Pittman went so far as to stipulate the individuals- abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers- he would have executed but significantly made one major omission.      For his part, Huckabee apparently would impose some criminal sanction, given that he explained "I don't know if prison" is appropriate while he did not preclude penalties short of prison.      But as is apparently the case with Pittman, the former Arkansas governor would exclude from his opprobrium the individual who would decide to murder her child, seek out the executioner, and pay the execution.       No, Huckabee would not penalize the woman because, he rationalizes, "I think you don't punish the woman, first of all, because it's not about.... I consider her a victim, not a criminal."

Of course, the abortion provider never would have known about this "victim" if she did not, as Huckabee would view it, go to him/her and say "Please.    Murder my baby.    And I'll pay you for it."    

Susan G. Komen can eliminate a few hundred thousand dollars for prevention of breast cancer.     But it ought to acknowledge that it has been intimidated- or, if it chooses to put it otherwise, "persuaded"- by anti-women's health activists.   And conservatives can press for elimination of legal abortion, if they choose.    But continuing the charade of being convinced that abortion is killing while maintaining that the instigator of murder is a "victim" is demonstrably insincere when the real opposition is to reproductive freedom for women.






Share |

Disclosure Sounds So Good


Americans overwhelmingly oppose the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and believe there is too much money in politics.     It was only a matter of time, then, till Republicans began to develop a talking point in their effort to protect big money's influence in elections.

On December 21, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney contended "we'd be a lot wiser to say you can give what you'd like to a campaign.     They must report it immediately...." Former GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty argued on on January 21 "The better position is to allow full and free speech in whatever form, but have instant disclosure."     Six days later, Fred Malek, ex-president of Marriott Corporation and of Northwest Airlines and national finance committee co-chairperson of the McCain 2008 presidential campaign, similarly stated "I would favor unlimited contributions to candidates with full disclosure."    

Noting "a certain level of message coordination," CAP's Francis Keyes finds nevertheless "the GOP’s actions betray any suggestion that they actually stand behind transparency." One wonders where these guys were last September, when every Democrat in the United States Senate voted to end, and every Republican voted to continue, the GOP filibuster of the DISCLOSE Act   

A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.

Critics of the Citizens United decision had argued that the Court paved the way for foreign entities to influence elections in the U.S.A.     When Republicans killed Democratic efforts to impose cloture on the DISCLOSE Act, the GOP struck a blow in favor of foreign influence- and against disclosure of campaign contributions.

Disclosure and its offspring, transparency, are not panaceas, of course.      The $10 million contributed to Newt Gingrich's SuperPac by Sheldon Adelson and his wife is public knowledge.     Yet, most people are not aware of fierce Adelson's advocacy of far-right Mideast views and- far more ominously- fewer still know of his aggressive anti-union tactics in his casino business and alleged connection to Chinese organized crime.

Nevertheless, transparency does have its benefits.      Politico reported this morning

Oscar-nominated documentary filmmaker Josh Fox was arrested Wednesday morning after attempting to film a House Science Committee hearing on hydraulic fracturing.

Fox was led out in handcuffs by the Capitol police shortly after 10 a.m., before the hearing could be gaveled into order. The "Gasland" director was attempting to film the hearing looking into EPA's investigation of potential water contamination from natural gas drilling in Pavillion, Wyo.

I'm within my First Amendment rights, and I'm being taken out," Fox shouted as he was led away.

Fox has been charged with unlawful entry, according to Capitol police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider.

Fox is working on a sequel to his Oscar-nominated "Gasland."

An ABC news crew was also turned away from the hearing. The committee chairman has the discretion on whether to allow uncredentialed members of the media to film hearings, according to a democratic staffer.

The committee recessed after Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) called a motion to suspend the committee rules and allow for Fox and the ABC crew to film the hearing.

It's not likely that expulsion of Fox is a First Amendment issue, though no more a constitutional lawyer than subcommittee chairman Andy Harris, I am uncertain.     But it is even less evocative of disclosure, transparency, or openness, though the fossil fuel industry was no doubt pleased.       Meanwhile, in light of their devotion to the values of free speech and disclosure, we await expressions of outrage from the likes of Pawlenty, Romney, and Malek. 

Share |

The Romney Vision


Reflecting on the upcoming Labor Day holiday, Robert Reich Reflecting on the upcoming Labor Day holiday, Robert Reich noticed "Big American corporations are making more money, and creating more jobs, outside the United States than in it" while CEO pay has "soared" and " the ratio of corporate profits to wages is now higher than at any time since just before the Great Depression." Soon afterward, Politifact grudgingly conceded "Reich's claim is essentially correct."

Little has changed in the succeeding five months, though private sector employment has risen, which no Republican dares admit.        President Obama has extended the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy and the struggling alike while the overall, combined tax rate of Americans is lower than at anytime in the past half century.

And so the leading GOP presidential contender continues to campaign sans substance, as Joe Scarborough noted this morning on the cleverly named Morning Joe ("powered by Starbucks!").            Earlier this month, Mitt Romney charged 

President Obama wants to make us a European style welfare state, where instead of being a merit society we're an entitlement society, where government's role is to take from some and give to others.     What I know is if they do that, they'll substitute envy for ambition,and they'll poison the very spirit of America and keep us from being one nation under God.

Romney was on message, having late last year boasted

Let me make this very clear.    As President of the United States, I will devote myself to an American Century.      And I will never, ever apologize for America....

I believe we are an exceptional country with a unique destiny and role in the world.      Not exceptional, as the President has derisively said, in the way that the British think Great Britain is exceptional or the Greeks think Greece is exceptional.    In Barack Obama's profoundly mistaken view, there is nothing unique about the United States.

There is little if no substance there, mostly generalities and platitudes, bereft of facts or figures and not even advancing a cogent argument.          Not surprisingly, columnist Eugene Robinson finds that Romney's "core message" seems to be "yes, I made a ton of money.      You got a problem with that."     (The second part would sound more natural, though, coming from Romney's prime surrogate, Chris Christie.)         

Robinson concedes that Romney may successfully adapt his message and defeat Obama.       But perhaps unaware that he has shifted his argument, he concludes of the candidate "what he doesn't seem to have is a compelling narrative about the kind of America he envisions and the road he will take to us there."   

There is no roadmap- winning candidates generally avoid specifics- but there is a compelling narrative about the kind of America the former governor envisions. Borrowing from the Pledge of Allegiance,  it's "one nation under God." Romney, unlike that acolyte of Jeremiah Wright, believes in God- however strange his religion may seem to many voters.         And practically every American professes to believe in God, however he or she may define, or defy, the deity. 

America is the best (exceptional) anywhere and deserving of an "American century"- us and us alone!        Romney hints at a nation based entirely on merit which, many non-minority citizens believe, once existed.  In a nod (which no one will recognize as such) to political correctness, Romney takes a swipe at Europe, which most Americans, including Donald Rumsfeld, don't especially like- and which is economically distressed currently.           

Blacks and Hispanics, roughly as patriotic as the rest of the country, may nonetheless may be less enthusiastic about claims of exceptionalism and uniqueness.      This is of little significance, however, given that the base of the G.O.P.  is white and the party's opportunity to tap into minority support is somewhat limited with Barack Obama on the ballot.       

This is not strictly, or even primarily, a racial appeal, though the reference to "take from some and give to others" is an echo- however subtle- of Newt Gingrich's "food-stamp president" knock on the first black Chief Executive.        Meanwhile, the Village might find in Romney's skepticism of an "entitlement society" a helpful skepticism about Medicare and Social Security.      To most Americans, who intuitively recognize those programs as earned benefits, "entitlement" has a different implication.        And that is especially so when when contrasted with "merit," which itself is considered in many minds incompatible with affirmative action, a bugaboo among many white Americans.

In a throwback to a theme adopted, and dropped, by the 2012 McCain campaign (video below), the objective is to paint the candidate himself as a traditional American patriot, godly, and even macho- never, ever apologizing for America.  (In Republican fantasy, Barack Obama always apologizes, never mind Osama bin Laden, Muammar Ghaddafi, and Somali pirates.)        In this formulation, Mitt Romney will be a conventional American president, like we used to have before this strange guy somehow got elected.         Romney doesn't have to say that he is white, was born and raised in the American heartland, and doesn't practice radical religion.         (A more overt message would be objectionable to the media and the vast majority of citizens.)       The voter understands- and little else matters.

Share |

In Vain


Back before Republicans were Republicans, a Republican president stood at a battlefield in Pennsylvania and stated

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.

In an unincorporated area outside of Tucson, Arizona in January, 2011 six people were killed and 23 individuals injured, apparently by one Jared Lee Loughner.             Critically injured, Representative Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) survived but last week announced her retirement from congress.

No verdict is anywhere in sight for Loughner, who faces a hearing in four months to be determined whether he has become mentally competent and hence able to stand trial.          But the verdict is in on the the results of the shooting: the dead have in fact died in vain.

In the justified celebration over Giffords' improvement and spectacular recovery from a horrific activity, noting that the dead have died in vain is almost as popular as was Bill Maher's statement, in the wake of the September, 2011 terrorist attacks, that the Muslim terrorists were not "cowardly."       Maher was right, of course; the perpetrators were evil but, expecting to die in their abhorrent act, were not cowardly.

Commonly, we try to make sense and to find good in the death of individuals, especially if it comes in the course of a vicious crime.      It is some consolation to the living, especially to the friends and loved ones of the deceased.

But just as the stakes were sufficiently high for Abraham Lincoln to to urge that the dead of the Civil War should not be in vain, so it is that the consequences of that January day in Arizona be seen clearly.       Last Wednesday, Pia Carusone, Chief of Staff to Giffords, told Chris Matthews on Hardball

It was determined it seems that the gentleman was, you know, really mentally ill.    And it had nothing to do with it being in Arizona or it being a difficult part of the country politically.    It wasn't that.    It could be in anyone's community.

We don't know whether the shooting had anything to do with the politics of the southwest.     And Lougner's elevator probably didn't reach the top, though, contrary to Carusone's suggestion, he has been found not mentally ill but not presently competent to stand trial.

But that is of minor significance compared to Carusone's assertion "it had nothing to do with it being in Arizona."       Because it likely had a great deal to do with "being in Arizona."      Shortly after the shooting, we read in the Arizona Republic

One thing lawmakers could do is ban high-capacity magazines like the 33-round type apparently used in the Tucson shooting, said Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Legal Community Against Violence, a San Francisco group dedicated to preventing gun violence.

"That created a huge part of the problem in and of itself," she said. The shooters in the Columbine, Fort Hood and Virginia Tech massacres used these types of magazines, Thomas said.

Magazines holding more than 10 rounds were banned under the 1994 assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004. Even during the ban, existing high-capacity magazines were still permitted for sale.

"It's not to say that would have stopped him, but it might saved lives had he not been able to discharge so many bullets so quickly without even having to stop for a moment," she said.

Arizona is not the only state which has failed to enact its own restrictions on high-capacity magazines.     But some states have, and Arizona is one of only three states to allow citizens 21 years and older to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.       (The other two are the extremely rural states of Alaska and Vermont.)

Barack Obama, elected on a slogan of "change we can believe in," gave a well-received speech following the crime in which he claimed

Already we've seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems. Much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

When leadership was called for, the President cowered.      The murders had little to do with guns or the murderer- it was because we say mean things to each other.      The response was so inadequate as to be reprehensible.     On the positive side, however, Obama was no doubt pleased that it enabled the mainstream media to claim that both sides poison the political environment.      And to keep the NRA off his back.

Last Tuesday, President Obama gave his third State of the Union message.       A partial list of the broad range of topics would include:      manufacturing employment; the financial sector; China; Iraq; secondary and higher education and vocational training; immigration; energy; infrastructure repair; governmental regulation; earned benefits; tax reform; Osama bin Laden; Muammar Qaddafi.         After a year to think about it, and on an occasion which featured the triumphant return to Capitol Hill and the hurrah of Representative Giffords, President Obama said the following about gun violence:
         


Share |

If It's Broken, Expand It


The thermometer may be plunging, with rain, snow, or sleet the forecast in your area.      But it's always a good day to criticize Newt Gingrich's immigration plan.

Two of the litmus tests for a Republican is a demand that taxes be lowered for the wealthy and reasonable regulations on the business community be minimized.        Joining those non-negotiable items now is the determination to "control the border."        Though far more reasonable than the other GOP demands, no Republican has yet acknowledged that President Obama has been far more successful pursuing this goal than was either George W. Bush or Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6).          (Bush the Elder has become largely disowned by the party faithful.)       Part of Gingrich's immigration policy, at various times described as "compassionate" and "humane" is the idea Newt often repeats, as he did at last night's GOP presidential debate (transcript, here) in Florida:

You should have a guest worker program, probably run by American Express, Visa or MasterCard so they minimize fraud, which the federal government won’t do. And you should have much stronger employer penalties at that point because you can validate it.

The federal government's current temporary worker program consists of the H-2 visa, broken down into the H-2a visa (agricultural) and the H-2b (non-agricultural) visa.       Owing to the greater worker protections afforded under its terms, H-2b alone has grown in favor among employers.          

Mary Bauer and Sarah Reynolds of the Southern Poverty Law Center explained in March, 2007

In the process of attaining a H-2 guest worker visa, workers typically fall victim to bait-and-switch schemes that force them to borrow huge sums of money at high interest rates (often leveraging family homes) in order to land short-term, low-wage jobs that all too often end up shorter-term and lower-waged than promised. Under crushing debt, and legally bound to work only for the employer who filed petition for them, these workers often face the most dangerous and harsh of working conditions in places like shipyards, the forestry department, or construction, with no medical benefits for on-the-job injuries or access to legal services. Bosses often hold workers’ documents to make sure they don’t “jump jobs.”

There are two levels of the current guest worker program—H-2a for agricultural work, and H-2b for non-agricultural work. Though the H-2a program provides legal protections for foreign farm workers—such as a guarantee of at least three quarters of the total employment hours promised, free housing, transportation compensation, medical benefits, and legal representation—many of these protections exist only on paper. H-2b workers, on the other hand, have no rights or protections.

The exploitation of guest workers begins with the initial recruitment in their home country—a process that often leaves them in a precarious economic state and therefore extremely vulnerable to abuse by unscrupulous employers in this country. US employers almost universally rely on private agencies to find and recruit guest workers in their home countries.

These labor recruiters usually charge fees to the worker—sometimes many thousands of dollars to cover travel, visas, and other costs, including profit for the recruiters. The workers, most of whom live in poverty, frequently obtain high-interest loans to come up with the money to pay the fees. In addition, recruiters sometimes require them to leave collateral, such as the deed to their house or car, to ensure that they fulfill the terms of their individual labor contract.

The entirely unregulated recruiting business is quite lucrative. With more than 121,000 workers recruited in 2005 alone, tens of millions of dollars in recruiting fees are at stake. This financial bonanza provides a powerful incentive for recruiters and agencies to import as many workers as possible, with little or no regard to the impact on individual workers and their families.

Shorter explanation:   workers are exploited by unscrupulous employers and manipulative middle-men. Expansion of the guest worker concept is a truly terrible idea.      Its only saving grace is that it makes Newt Gingrich's harebrained scheme for "citizen" panels seem almost reasonable by comparison.     Barely.

Share |

Backbone Missing



When the great Dan Rather closed his last newscast as anchorman of CBS News, ending it with his signature word, he stated

To our soldiers in dangerous places. To those who have endured the tsunami and to all who have suffered natural disasters, and who must find the will to rebuild. To the oppressed and to those whose lot it is to struggle, in financial hardship or in failing health. To my fellow journalists in places where reporting the truth means risking all. And to each of you: 'Courage.'

Few of us are as courageous as those soldiers, victims of a tsunami, or anyone victim of a great tragedy or willingly risking their lives in combat.     And that is especially true of Chris Christie.    The Philadelphia Inquirer reported yesterday

Opening a new front in the battle over same-sex marriage, Gov. Christie called Tuesday for the issue to be put to voters in November as a proposed amendment to the state constitution.

The Republican governor's proposal, which would need three-fifths approval in the Legislature to be implemented, could for the first time in U.S. history ask voters to legalize same-sex marriage via a ballot question.

Christie's announcement came at an unusually timed news conference after a town-hall meeting in central New Jersey just as Democrats in Trenton held the first hearing on their new marriage-equality bill.

That bill, Christie said for the first time, will be vetoed if it reaches his desk because he opposes changing the institution of marriage. But a ballot question would avoid such an impasse, he argued, and be a more democratic way to "overturn hundreds of years of societal and religious tradition."

"This issue is too big and too consequential not to trust the people who will be governed ultimately by any change in law or maintenance of the current law," 

Christie said, suggesting that even the civil-rights battles of the 1960s could have been avoided had the issue been put to a referendum. "So I say today, let the people decide."

The legislation is likely to pass the Democratic-controlled Assembly and Senate.    However, Christie's move makes unlikely an override of the governor's veto because it gives GOP legislators cover.

Christie's reasoning, however, did spark a heated response from black leaders in the state, who apparently have a greater knowledge of recent American history than the governor.  The ambitious and opportunistic Newark mayor, Cory Booker, remarked "I shudder to think what would have happened if the civil rights gains, heroically established by courageous lawmakers in the 1960s, were instead conveniently left up to popular votes in our 50 states." Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver explained "people were fighting and dying in the streets of the South for a reason.    They were fighting and dying in the streets of the South because the majority refused to grant minorities equal rights by any method. It took legislative action to bring justice to all Americans...."   And the chairman of the Black Issues Convention pointed out "The 1965 Voting Rights act was enacted to overcome the systemic, intentional racial suppression of the black vote. It’s certainly a lack of historical understanding about how the expanding definition of who ‘We the People’ are has happened."

Chris Christie would like to become President someday.      Having decided to forego a bid for the nomination this year and instead become a prime surrogate for Mitt Romney, he likely will run in 2013 for re-election as governor in a state in which, according to poll(s), a slight majority of the electorate favors same-sex marriage.    

If Christie's veto is, as expected, upheld, he risks a backlash in a culturally liberal/progressive state with a strong gay rights lobby.       But if voters thereafter approve same-sex marriage, there will be far less hostility toward Christie's obstruction because it will have gone for naught.    Nevertheless, he will be able to go before a conservative national Republican audience in 2016 or 2020 and not have to defend gay marriage in New Jersey, given that it would have come about through a referendum over his personal objection.

Consequently, Chris Christie's call for a referendum is a brilliant political stroke.    But far from an impulse to honor the will of the populace, it is a profile in political cowardice from a guy, who, in the words of the New York Times' Kate Zernike, "has promoted his reputation as the big, blunt-talking guy." Christie should sign the bill or veto it; if the latter, he should stand by it and not slink behind a call for a referendum.      Lack of principle is no virtue.

The New Jersey governor may be demonstrating that cowardice is convenient and courage optional when a Repub politician is big and blunt-talking.      Zernike concludes by noting  

But as Democrats ridiculed him, Mr. Christie was commanding another news conference, this one about dismantling the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, a longtime goal.

A reporter noted that previous governors had the same goal. What made him think he would succeed? Mr. Christie looked exasperated in a friendly way, then smiled, and explained: “It’s me.”

Share |

Debate Whine




Yesterday, I was blessed with an e-mail, addressed "Dear Conservative," from Newt 2012 in which the candidate stressed his biggest campaign message (no, not racial animus):    I can bash Obama one-on-one.              

"I think I've proven I could take him on in a series of debates," the former House Speaker boasted, "and undo his billion-dollar campaign. It’s very important that we have a candidate who's strong enough, and tough enough to be able to take on President Obama in a series of debates."        Vowing to hold "President Obama accountable," Gingrich promised he "will defeat him in the debates and show the American people that there is a better, more conservative direction."     He added

This is not just a Presidential campaign. It's a battle for the future of this country. That's why I will immediately challenge President Obama to a series of three hour Lincoln-Douglas style debates, and make him defend the passage of ObamaCare, 15 trillion dollars in debt, and out of control unemployment. I'll even let him use his teleprompter!

Republican primary voters are excited by the prospect that Newt would will beat Obama to a figurative bloody pulp in debates.     Except that we learned Tuesday that the tough guy, Newton Leroy Gingrich, is going to take his ball and go home if he doesn't get his way.     On Tuesday morning, he

threatened not to participate in any future debates with audiences that have been instructed to be silent.   That was the case on Monday, when Brian Williams of NBC News asked the audience of about 500 who assembled for a debate in Tampa to hold their applause until the commercial breaks.

In an interview with the morning show "Fox and Friends," Mr. Gingrich said NBC's rules amounted to stifling free speech.    In what has become a standard line of attack for his anti-establishment campaign, Mr. Gingrich blamed the media for trying to silence a dissenting point of view.

"I wish in retrospect I'd protested when Brian Williams took them out of it because I think it's wrong," Mr. Gingrich said.   "And I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they've done in every debate."

Yes, the tough guy, Newton Leroy Gingrich, is going to take his ball and go home if he doesn't get his way.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer, who will be moderating tonight's debate in Florida, has gotten the message, assuring radio host Bill Press "It's going to be respectful.     People are going to be able to applaud if they want.   But I don't want to see any craziness; I want the audience to be respectful of these four candidates."    

Intimidated by the Gingrich campaign, it's a metaphor for the mainstream media, which is afraid to call out Republicans when they play fast and loose with the truth; better to pretend that both sides are equally to blame for a lack of bipartisanship, incivility, and rampant dishonesty.

In the unlikely event Gingrich is nominated, however, he would face a problem few of his supporters have contemplated.         But as Rachel Weiner notes at The Fix, "cheering and shouting were banned in all three general election debates between Barack Obama and John McCain."      

The Obama team, preferring that general election debates not turn into a cheap imitation of Barnum & Bailey, no doubt would demand that arrangements for any debate preclude it from being turned into a circus.     Gingrich supporters would try to portray themselves as victims, but that would be little consolation after an overwhelming presidential and congressional defeat in November.

Share |