Activist Groups

When an organization adopts a purportedly blanket policy as cover for undertaking a biased action, the natural laws of the universe (at least of the PR universe) mandate that said policy wrap tightly back on an organization like a pink straightjacket woven with threads of hypocrisy and gall.

That the Susan G. Komen Foundation thought it could get away with stripping funding for Planned Parenthood is not surprising. One of the nation's biggest charities is likely to have some hubris in that regard. That they hired Ari Fleisher to manage the policy rollout and got, well, Ari Fleisher'd is not terribly remarkable either. That the media bought the Komen half-hearted, quasi-sorta reversal as some complete 180 that guaranteed Planned Parenthood funding was also to be expected.

What I didn't expect was that this scandal would still, days later, be a never-ending black hole filled with excuses, contradictions and confusion. It's a marathon of a scandal, and Komen doesn't look to be in any shape to finish strong.

The "investigation" excuse
As soon as news broke that Komen was relying on the existence of a sham federal investigation to pull Planned Parenthood's funding, thousands of keyboard researchers put on their Google mining hats and went digging. They found gold.

The most obvious grant that highlighted Komen's hypocrisy was the $7.5 million to Penn State (Penn State is under federal investigation for its role in a sexual abuse scandal). Others were just as embarrassing. Days before the Komen scandal erupted, the USDA announced it launched an investigation into Harvard's treatment of primates in its research labs. The Education Department had just announced an investigation into whether Harvard discriminated against Asian-Americans in its undergraduate admissions policies. Meanwhile, two members of Komen's prestigious Scientific Advisory Board work at Harvard, while Harvard Medical School and the affiliated Dana-Farber Cancer Institute received over a million dollars in Komen funding.

From Komen-funded hospitals being investigated for Medicare fraud (example) to Komen-funded universities being investigated for civil rights violations, it became immediately apparent that the "local, state or federal investigation" prohibition cast a shadow over a substantial portion of Komen's good work. Within hours of the scandal breaking, it was clear Komen needed a new excuse.

The "education" and "pass-through grant" excuses
Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker appeared on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports" and proclaimed that the real reason Komen cut off almost all grants to Planned Parenthood was because "many of the grants were education-oriented. We don't need to do that kind of education anymore" (watch the video here). In other media outlets, she again disassociated Komen from the "investigation" excuse, reiterated the "education" position and also embraced a "pass through grant" excuse:

“It was nothing they were doing wrong,” Brinker said of Planned Parenthood. “We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money; they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”

More from Brinker from the Mitchell interview:

Our issue is grant excellence. They do pass-through grants with their screening grants. They send people to other facilities. We want to do more direct-service grants. You know, we contacted them in the fall, because we've been a longtime partner of Planned Parenthood, almost 20 years.

MITCHELL: I know.

BRINKER: We've given them over $9 million. Many of our grants worked for a long period of time. This is not -- this is about the restructure of our grant program.  [...]

MITCHELL: Are you going to put out the evidence that you have that there's been anything flawed in the way they've delivered services to --

BRINKER: All we're doing is explaining, again, to our mission, what the criteria for new grants and community-based grants are, for our organization, for the time we are.

Many of the grants were education-oriented. We don't need to do that kind of education anymore. We've done it for 30 years. Now we need to translate this care into usable clinical care in communities.

Think Komen abandoned the "direct funding" and "education" excuse with their new mea culpa policy?

Think again.

Both excuses survive even in Komen's new policy (emphasis added):

We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women.

The absurdity of Komen's position is best evidenced by taking a look at their most current IRS filings. I've put the grant data from both Komen's Parent and Group filings into public spreadsheets here and here.  The classifications of "education," "treatment," "research" and "screening" are Komen's own grant classifications.

Even a cursory review of the data reveals the selectivity of the past and possibly future slash-and-burn approach used against Planned Parenthood.

While Planned Parenthood was singled out by Brinker for its use of "education" grants, that organization actually uses a lower percentage of its grants on education than other organizations that receive grants from Komen affiliates:

Brinker's reliance on a "pass through" grant excuse never made any sense either. Take for example the YWCA, an organization that does great work for women coast to coast. Even though YWCA received more than double the funding of Planned Parenthood and spends more on "education" than Planned Parenthood, and even though it spends more actual dollars on pass-through grant screening, Komen didn't make a peep about that funding. In fact, despite repeated demands from the press and the public, Komen was unwilling to cite a single other organization that fell under Komen's purportedly blanket policy.

Brinker's words, both before and after the "reversal," box Komen into a corner. If true, the desire to shift Komen funding away from education ("we don't need to do that kind of education anymore") and towards "directly administered" screenings and treatment would mean a seismic shift in the organization. Indeed, that's what Brinker suggested in the Mitchell interview when she stated that "this is about the restructure of our grant program." If Brinker was telling the truth, it would mean that thousands of charities, small and large, whose funding is 100% categorized as "education" by Komen would suffer:

That doesn't even take into account the millions in funds meant for screening services undertaken by organizations that do not "directly administer" medical services.

Of course, the truth is, Komen isn't going to stop funding clinics and foundations that offer support groups, education and doctor referrals. The outcry to that policy would be even more deafening. The sudden aversion to "education" and "pass through" grants is nothing more than a doorstop meant to keep hope alive for anti-choice groups and to give Komen a possible out to decrease, if not eliminate, future Planned Parenthood funding.

The policy from the very start was hand-tailored specifically for Planned Parenthood's circumstances, which is why it was and still is so ill-suited for blanket application.

Komen was rated the nation's most trusted charity in 2010. With this debacle, its standing is sure to suffer. Although that pink ribbon has been transformed for many into a badge of shame, and although Komen is still tying itself in knots over how to resolve the matter, the real victims of Komen's biased plan and bungled PR strategy are the thousands of organizations whose funding may be in limbo because Komen can't get its story straight and the thousands of women who depend on those organizations to save their lives.  

Marriage equality passes the New York Senate, July 2011 (Celebration Chapel/Wikicommons) As with every election season since time immemorial, the top priority of the New York Democratic Party is to capture majority control of the Senate. It's within reach, just a couple seats need to flip in 2012.

There is, however, this year a potentially awkward new dynamic that may play out in New York between Democratic loyalists and the LGBT community. Democrats looking to take out four specific Republican senators may find themselves at odds with one of their most dependable constituency and allies, the gays.

The ties that bind Democrats and LGBT groups are strong and go way back. Empire State Pride Agenda, Human Rights Campaign, and Marriage Equality New York are widely credited with playing a key role in the 2008 Democratic takeover of the Senate (which Democrats lost in 2010). The implicit bargain was, "Give us the majority, we'll give you marriage equality."

But unfortunately for everyone in the progressive coalition, that isn't how things worked out.

Marriage came later, and with the help of the Republican caucus—who didn't block the vote, though it was absolutely in their power to do so, and with the votes of four Republican senators.

Which immediately placed the LGBT community in the odd and nearly uncharted territory of being indebted to a few key Republicans.

New York has led on many nascent movements in the country's history, and this fall they may be providing another new template, namely: What does the LGBT movement look like when it truly goes bipartisan?

The 2011 legislative effort could well stand as a case study in success.

It remains to be seen if the 2012 elections will be a case study in diplomatically dealing with the potentially awkward consequences of bipartisan support for the LGBT movement.

Gays "supporting" Republicans is an incendiary topic, perhaps because there seems to be a great deal of anxiety among Democrats that LGBT victories will ultimately result in an attrition of that demographic (perhaps because we all know the LGBT community is monolithically male, rich and white, right?). The attrition worry seems overblown, perhaps fueled by the traditional media's outsized fascination with all things gay Republican. In truth, OpenSecrets reveals that for the 2010 national election cycle, Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud combined reported 112 donors representing about $188,000, to spread across every race nationwide. (It's also worth noting that heterosexual Republican Paul Singer makes up a huge portion of this these funds.) In a post-Citizen's United world, that is a drop of spit in the ocean. There isn't a lot of evidence they warrant as many appearances on CNN and other outlets as they are afforded. It's likely gay Republicans get so much attention because they are masterful, like Glenn Beck, at exploiting their iconoclastic branding with whacky antics and endless fail.

By contrast, Human Rights Campaign's national fund is considered a "heavy hitter" on OpenSecrets and spent nearly a million dollars in 2010, 97 percent of it in support of the Democratic candidates. And HRC represents only the largest electoral machine; there are countless others, like Victory Fund and state organizations like Empire State Pride Agenda, Equality Illinois and Equality California, who enjoy cozy relationships and endorse Democrats and have no Republican equivalent at the state levels.

It's easy enough to forget that these LGBT advocacy organizations are mostly incorporated as non-partisan issues advocacy groups, since there is criticism (or resignation, or delight, depending on your perspective) that HRC functions primarily as an arm of the Democratic National Committee.

So, I've been curious to see how this potentially incendiary dynamic of gays rewarding these Republicans would play out as the election draws closer. When queried on their 2012 electoral plans, major LGBT advocacy organizations assume the common talking point, "We'll stand with those who stood with us." And of course the best politics is built on mutually respectful relationships and delivered, not broken, promises.

A similar dynamic promises to play out in Washington state, where four Republican senators also crossed party lines last week to vote for marriage equality. It seems the lobbying for those votes went rather more swiftly and smoothly than the convoluted multi-year process in New York. Perhaps they got a whiff of the fundraising reports of the GOP marriage equality yes voters in New York? In a Jan. 18 article, titled "Money Flows to Republican Backers of Gay Marriage", the New York Times reported some truly eye-popping numbers for the GOP four. I was glad to see that supporting gay rights was framed as profitable, but I also braced myself for the inevitable screams of "filthy gay traitors!" from other coalition members.

I anticipated that sooner or later, the partisan battle over who owns "the gays'" money and activism to would bubble up, and probably not in a helpful way. I admit, though I did not anticipate it coming from first from the gay community.

Continue reading below the fold.

Visual source: Newseum

Aaron Blake:

Mitt Romney confirmed his status as the prohibitive front-runner in the GOP presidential race Saturday with a win in the Nevada caucuses.

But Romney’s apparently large margin of victory may say more about his opponents than his own candidacy.

Karen Tumulty on Ronmey's dilemma: Move toward the center, he infuriates the base; refuse to, he will alienate independent voters. And however he maneuvers, will voters be left with a clear picture of why he is running? Nothing is more central to the GOP self-identity than that this is the party that stands for big ideas...

In the view of some in his party, Romney has an additional — and more serious — problem heading into the general election: He has thus far failed to brand his candidacy with an expansive vision.

“The fundamental question is whether Romney’s leadership can shape the Republican Party or will the far, far right define Romney?” Duberstein said.

WaPo:

After a likely second-place finish in the Nevada caucuses Saturday, former House speaker Newt Gingrich sought to dispel the idea that he might drop out of the Republican presidential nomination any time soon, promising a hotel ballroom filled with reporters that he will fight on to the convention in the summer.

Des Moines Register:

The undeniable tension between conservatives who want to light the fuse now on a single-minded fight against the president, and those waiting for a miracle from a long shot, will be a central theme of a national rendezvous of conservatives this week. Fight's over, folks. You got nothin' and Romney's your man. Now suck it up and live with him.

Maureen Dowd on Callista and Newt:

While a trophy wife is admired by her man, the admiring eyes of a Transformational Wife are there to propel her man to the next level. And when a woman who wants to be a Transformational Wife merges with a man who calls himself a Transformational Figure, you can expect a narcissistic blastoff.

Castellanos weaves the common tale of a “great but frustrated” man: “The first wife, and often the second, do not grasp his brilliance or grandeur. The starter wives try to confine him in their small world. But his drive to fulfill his gargantuan potential is too powerful. He rebelliously breaks conventions.

“Then he finds the muse who sees him as he sees himself. He is a man of history and belongs to something larger. She agrees that his rejections have been the fault of the audience. They cannot stare into a light so bright. She directs and channels him, saying, ‘This is what you have to do to achieve your destiny.’

“Now he is unleashed. The best and worst of him have been fed and watered.”

Oy veh.

Theda Skocpol:

“Many tea party folks are going to find me, I believe, to be the ideal candidate,” the Republican presidential contender said in a news conference in December. “I sure hope so.”

These words were uttered not by Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul or Rick Perry — but by Mitt Romney. Yes, the same Romney who has been pegged as too moderate to attract tea party voters and hard-core conservatives.

Having now won the Florida primary and Nevada caucuses, and been honored with the coveted endorsement of Donald Trump, Mitt Romney appears to be sitting firmly in the driver's seat.

That being said, however, he's not exactly running away with this thing.

Before Romney can even begin to map out a path to the White House, he must first overcome a few bumps in the road.

Chief among them are the improving economy, and his tendency to choose his words poorly.

Nevada caucuses are currently taking place, and we're liveblogging the results.

Results: CNN | Google | Politico

8:33 PM PT: Dear Newt: I assure you, the news media does not want you to quit this evening. Our bias is that this keeps going.
— @Chris_Moody via TweetDeck

8:35 PM PT: Rumors about Newt going positive are unfounded. He's just confirmed he's not going to "unilaterally disarm."

8:37 PM PT: Whoever thought having Newt stage a press conference to whine about how mean everyone has been to him should never work in politics again. Just a painful cap to a painful night.

8:38 PM PT: Shorter Newt: the states where I'm outspent don't count.
— @adambonin via web

8:41 PM PT: Newt's press conference was the Dean Scream of 2012.

8:42 PM PT: Alright, guys. I'm going to call it a night. Thanks for suffering along with me!

Nevada caucuses are currently taking place, and we're liveblogging the results.

Results: CNN | Google | Politico

7:55 PM PT: Will Romney stay under 40% Hard to see, when Clark comes in. But anything less than 50 percent, even with this anemic, low-turnout affair, would show that Mitt can't motivate half of Republicans to support him.

8:07 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): In not-unbelievably-boring news, we've now raised more than $42,000 for Planned Parenthood to show that this community stands with real pro-woman organizations. Take that, Komen Foundation! Click to donate.

8:18 PM PT: Gingrich now up. We get to hear how he's changing his strategy. He starts by reiterating that he is, in fact, staying in the race. That's never a good way to start any candidate event.

8:19 PM PT: Newt: Unlike Romney, I care deeply about the poor. Which is why I want poor kids to clean school toilets.

8:23 PM PT: Team Gingrich promised a new strategy tonight. Nothing yet on that front.

8:27 PM PT: Again, Gingrich pretends that he'll compete in every single primary in the country, even though he's not on the ballot in Virginia and Missouri.

8:30 PM PT: Gingrich: Obama has declared war on religion in this country. What's he talking about? It's a new policy that says that churches can't get federal money if they discriminate.

They can still discriminate, they just can't get our tax dollars to do so.

8:33 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Nevada caucuses are currently taking place, and we're liveblogging the results.

Results: CNN | Google | Politico

7:15 PM PT: Latino turnout in the GOP Nevada caucuses in 2008, per entrance polls, was 8 percent. Tonight, it's 5%

And in case you're wondering, the Latino population in Nevada continues to grow at a rapid clip.

On the other hand, Republicans cling to the fiction that they're picking up Jewish support. Jewish turnout in GOP caucuses in 2008? 2 percent. Tonight? 2 percent.

7:18 PM PT: Wolf Blitzer reports that in addition to Mitt winning Nevada, Newt will not be winning Nevada. #seriously
— @KailiJoy via web

7:21 PM PT: More fun with entrance polls: in 2008, 11 percent of GOP caucus goers were 17-29. Today, it's 8 percent. Losing Latinos, losing the youth.

7:26 PM PT: Thank you NV! Our message of restoring America’s greatness continues to resonate through the west & across the country #NVCaucus #Mitt2012
— @MittRomney via web Yeah. His message sure is resonating ... with all of 10 percent of Nevada registered Republicans.

7:28 PM PT: 88 percent of 2008 GOP primary voters were white. That number was 90 percent today as GOP loses key growth demographics.

7:35 PM PT: Reminder, because it's such an amazing statistic -- 116,000 Democrats caucused in Nevada in 2008. Republicans, supposedly so fired up, won't muster up 35,000 tonight.

7:36 PM PT: The diversity of the Romney crowd in Nevada is amazing. There is every shade of white. #p2 #NVCaucus
— @Marnus3 via HootSuite

7:41 PM PT: Romney talking blah blah blah. And OMG he's using a teleprompter!

7:51 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Nevada caucuses are currently taking place, and we're liveblogging the results.

Results: CNN | Google | Politico

6:42 PM PT: Sheldon Adelson flirting with Mitt Romney. Gingrich is about to get Gingrich'd.

6:45 PM PT: Rick Santorum says he's the only guy in the GOP presidential primary race that can beat Obama.

This, from the guy who lost Pennsylvania by over 17 points the last time he was on the ballot.

6:49 PM PT:
#NVcaucus results so far: Bain 40.5%, Adelson 24.9%, Peter Thiel 21.5%, Foster Friess 12.8%

— @daveweigel via TweetDeck

6:51 PM PT: This night is so boring, that CNN is giving extended play to REALLY boring Santorum speech.

6:59 PM PT: In 2008, 116,000 Democrats caucused in Nevada, while a measly 44,000 turned out for Republicans.

Tonight, Republicans will be lucky to get to 35,000.

6:59 PM PT:
I wish all the derision coming my beloved state's way from the elite East Coast media were not so....deserved. #nvcaucus

— @RalstonFlash via Echofon

7:00 PM PT: You can get off your pins and needles. It's Romney for the victory.

7:01 PM PT (Laura Clawson): Lander County has been at 44 percent reporting—four of nine precincts—for an hour or more. They've counted 39 votes there.

7:02 PM PT: What would we do without cable news? Wolf Blitzer just said that tonight was "a dramatic night".

7:07 PM PT:
BREAKING: Mitt Romney will win the Nevada caucus according to ABC News projections. http://t.co/... #NVCaucus #FITW

— @ThisWeekABC via Echofon
Really? "BREAKING!" Is it also exclusive? ABC must have some real geniuses working their math!

7:07 PM PT:
Does Romney have to "shed Santorum?"—real question asked on CNN

— @KailiJoy via web

7:12 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Nevada caucuses are currently taking place, and we're liveblogging the results.

Results: CNN | Google | Politico

5:59 PM PT: Rick Santorum on CNN: "This race is a long, long way from being over."

You promise?

6:02 PM PT:
Senior Gingrich official: "Boston.. will be disappointed. This is going on to Tampa or until they drop out whichever comes first."

— @jimrutenberg via TweetDeck
You promise?
6:10 PM PT:
In 2008, Hispanics made up 15% of the NV electorate, Obama won 76% of them. Accounted for 63% of Obama's NV margin of victory.

— @chucktodd via Twitter for BlackBerry®

6:12 PM PT: Nevada is trending blue. The fact that the state's GOP is too incompetent to take out an unpopular Harry Reid in 2010, too incompetent to stage rational caucuses this year, and too incompetent to report results in a timely fashion, suggests that their November chances are looking pretty darn crappy.

6:14 PM PT: Mitt Romney's son on TV tells me that his dad "cares deeply about the poor." I heard different. You know from who?

Mitt Romney.

6:17 PM PT: Michelle Bachmann on Fox: "I thought I was the best candidate to take on Barack Obama."

She's so adorable.

6:22 PM PT: Woah, Gingrich won a county -- Mineral County. He got 39 votes to Romney's 37. Clearly, quite the metropolis.

6:30 PM PT: BREAKING: #NVcaucus Results 1) Joseph Smith's Favorite Poor Hater 2) Cult Leading Racist 3) Angry Attack Muffin 4) Google Him. #gop2012
— @KarlFrisch via Twitter for iPhone

6:33 PM PT: In 2008, Obama lost the popular vote in the Nevada caucuses, yet won the delegate count. His organization was far more effective in organizing for maximum delegate acquisition than the Clinton people.

Apparently, the GOP's system will apportion delegates based on the statewide popular vote.

6:33 PM PT: 90 minutes, and 7 percent counted. Sheesh, can Republicans do anything right?

6:37 PM PT: Enthusiasm gap? Second straight contest in which turnout is way off 2008.
— @davidaxelrod via Twitter for iPhone 6:39 PM PT: Sheesh, Nevada, let's just call it a night and say Obama won.
— @KailiJoy via web

6:41 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Nevada caucuses are currently taking place, and we're liveblogging the results.

Results: CNN | Google | Politico

Romney is going to win big, there's no drama on that front. There is some suspense about whether Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich come in second, though I'm not sure it really matters too much. The bigger question is whether they can add at least a handful of delegates to their count.

But in case you're wondering what the Beltway CW is, here's the latest from this morning's Politico morning newsletter:

CAN MITT BREAK 50? Romney could take a step toward proving he can win over conservatives by rolling up a big winning margin...Forty percent of Nevada caucus-goers described themselves as 'very conservative' according to 2008 entrance polls.

DOES NEWT FINISH SECOND? If he remained at about 25 percent [as in the recent polls], his trajectory would be unmistakable: 40 percent in South Carolina, 32 percent in Florida, even less in Nevada. BUT if he wins close to, or more than, a third of the vote it would suggest that even at a low point he maintains a reservoir of support among tea party activists and the very conservative - and that there continues to be a determined resistance to Romney.

WILL PAUL BEAT EXPECTATIONS? A strong second place would validate Paul's strategy, which is to focus on caucus states in the hopes of amassing delegates in a long slog to the GOP convention. But falling short would be his biggest blow to date.

5:14 PM PT:

Current #NVCaucus results with 0.5% of precincts reporting: Gingrich: 27%, Paul: 15.5%, Romney: 41.7%, Santorum 15.9%, No Vote: 0%

— @nvgop via Tweet Button
5:23 PM PT:
Romney at 46% w/those small counties. Rurals are his worst area -- most conservative. Better in Washoe and much better in Clark. #nvcaucus

— @RalstonFlash via TweetDeck

5:30 PM PT: Despite having a nominally competitive primary, Nevada Republicans don't appear to be too enthused.

Turnout comparison #2: 197 votes cast in Pershing Co. in 2008, 153 today. #fitw

— @mollyesque via TweetDeck
To be fair, would YOU be enthused if your presidential field looked like this?

5:31 PM PT: Wolf Blitzer says he's about to "go one-on-one with Rick Santorum."

5:37 PM PT: Unrelated to tonight's caucuses, but related to the GOP being freakin' insane, Ron Paul: "If it’s an honest rape,” go to the emergency room, get “a shot of estrogen.”

5:38 PM PT: I can't wait to see Sharrrrrrrrrrrrrron Angle on TV. I miss her.

5:40 PM PT:
Good news for Paul: He wins big in Nye County. Bad news for Paul: Nye turnout declined from 2008, from 1226 to 991 total voters. #fitw

— @mollyesque via TweetDeck

5:42 PM PT: Sue Lowden on TV. Remember her? Her solution to expanding access to health care was to pay doctors with chickens.

No surprise, she's a Gingrich surrogate.

5:46 PM PT: Nate Silver:

The five mostly rural Nevada counties to have completely reported all their results so far - Churchill, Eurkea, Mineral, Nye and Pershing - reported that a total of 2,111 votes were cast in this year's caucuses. That meant that turnout was by about 20 percent from 2008, when a total of 2,600 votes were reported in the same five counties.

5:50 PM PT: Only Romney and Paul advertised in Nevada. Santorum has none (remember, he was excited he had raised 200 Gs last week). And Gingrich is marshaling resources for Super Tuesday.

5:52 PM PT:
Newt's new "strategy" in a nutshell: I can't win, I have no money, but I'm still not dropping out.

— @ZekeJMiller via TweetDeck

5:56 PM PT (Laura Clawson):Tonight, I hate how slowly the Nevada Republican party is counting these votes. If it says anything about their level of organization, though, I like it for November.

5:56 PM PT: Gingrich is going to pretend to have a strategy beyond, "play spoiler":

Business Insider has learned that Gingrich plans to lay out a delegate-based strategy that will allow him to make good on his promise to stay in the race until the Republican National Convention this summer.

The former Speaker is also expected to announce a return to a positive campaign message, in what is likely an attempt to end the bloody interparty battle between him and Mitt Romney, the presumptive nominee.

Newt's going positive? That is REALLY the end of the race.

5:57 PM PT: Dear CNN, your interview with Rick Santorum isn't "exclusive". There isn't a person with a microphone that he won't talk to.

5:59 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Unless you were living under a rock this week, you're probably aware of the clusterfuck the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation created for itself when it decided to stop funding Planned Parenthood's cancer screening and prevention programs.

What followed was nothing short of spectacular. The foundation's leadership seemed completely unprepared for the national outrage at the blatantly obvious politicization of breast cancer and women's health. Karen Handel, the foundation's senior vice president of public policy and failed Republican candidate for governor of Georgia (endorsed by Sarah Palin), echoed the "cry me a river" response from fervent anti-choicers on Twitter—a tweet that was deleted, but not before an image was taken and spread far and wide across the Internet.

Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker then took to the airwaves to offer a whole new excuse for cutting the funding, insisting that the decision was not political, and tsk-tsking critics, whom she insisted didn't know what they were talking about and needed to "pause" and "slow down." Translation: Stop criticizing us for siding with an anti-woman agenda instead of with women. And keep buying our pink crap!

That did not go over too well either.

Next, the Komen Foundation released an apology for its decision, which the traditional media (and, sadly, even many alternative media sources, including feminist writers) inaccurately reported as a reversal of the foundation's new policy. Additional conversations with members of the foundation's board confirmed that it had not reversed its policy; rather, the apology was a further attempt to salvage its all-but-destroyed brand, chastise critics, and make the whole PR disaster go away.

What we've learned this week is that even if Komen were to continue funding Planned Parenthood's breast cancer exams and education programs, it's most likely too late for the foundation to undo the damage it has done to its reputation and credibility as an organization that cares about women's health. With its new policy, its anti-choice extremist leadership, and its long history of questionable practices, including suing the hell out of smaller charities that dare to use the word "cure," not to mention the number of articles, new and old, exposing how little of the money the foundation raises actually goes toward cancer research, Komen deserves no second chances. Those who care about fighting cancer have promised to send their money elsewhere, and forced to choose between the pink ribbon and Planned Parenthood, Americans—even self-identified "pro-life" Americans—are standing with Planned Parenthood. I am one of them.

In this weekly series, we usually document and discuss any number of stories that demonstrate the many fronts of the War on Women, and how extremist activists work with extremist lawmakers to roll back legal protections for women and to further enforce anti-woman ideology that impacts women's lives and livelihood.

So this week, let's connect the dots to see how a relentless push by activists to destroy the nation's largest provider of women's health care led to congressional action, which led to the political decision of a private, supposedly non-political, organization joining in that battle—on the wrong side, against women.

There's more below the fold.

One seriously kick-ass breast cancer survivor—and former supporter of the Susan G. Komen Foundation—shows what breast cancer is and is not.

[Warning: She bares her lack-of-breasts in this graphic video.]

Want to tell the Komen Foundation to kiss your ass? Stand up for real women's health care. Click to donate to Planned Parenthood.

(Laura Clawson)

The war on workers is waged at all levels, from seemingly individual intimidation in the workplace to corporations stiffing pensions and laying off thousands of workers to Republicans writing anti-union legislation at the federal and state levels. Most of the time, by contrast, the ways workers have to fight back are relatively low-profile. But fight they do, from small individual acts of defiance to informal organizing to solid victories that few people outside the immediate workplace notice to the occasional action that cracks into the public eye.

The press isn't reporting it, but the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports says that truck drivers at the Port of Seattle parked their trucks and stopped work this week to protest unsafe working conditions. Late last week, meanwhile, Los Angeles port truck drivers working for the Toll Group, an Australian company, filed for a union representation election. The Toll Group's Australian workforce is unionized, but in the United States the company has taken advantage of lax labor laws to keep down wages and working conditions and try to stifle organizing attempts.

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against retaliatory firings of California warehouse workers who had sued Schneider Logistics for wage and hour violations.

At a Kansas City plant, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers had the first union win at GE in 10 years.

Thousands of workers waged a one-day strike at Kaiser Permanente in California over contract negotiations between Kaiser and mental health and optical workers represented by the National Union of Healthcare Workers. And in New York, inspired by last week's union victory for Cablevision technicians, 120 more technicians at a Cablevision contractor engaged in a wildcat strike that won them a raise. They hope to follow up by unionizing.

Taking another approach, a former unpaid intern at Harper's Bazaar is suing Hearst Corporation for violating labor laws by essentially treating her as a full-time employee though she wasn't paid. She and her lawyers are trying to make the case a class action suit.

And more:

• How to throw a worker-friendly Super Bowl party.
• Here's a great way to keep your workers desperate and your workforce young: A new Atlantic City casino is going to hire workers for set terms of four to six years, then make them reapply for their jobs—no matter how good their performance has been.
• Project Labor Agreements (explanation of what a PLA is) that the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority recently signed will require that 40 percent of work hours on the projects will go to people from economically disadvantaged communities, while 10 percent of work hours will go to homeless or chronically unemployed people, among other challenges.
• Yet another reason more workers need unions: ...government workers who were not represented by unions were about four times as likely to lose their jobs last year as unionized public sector workers were. (The trends are similar even if you strip out workers who were represented by unions but were not members themselves.)

A Republican strategy Richard Nixon would love. Ari Berman has another must-read article on the systematic effort of the GOP to disenfranchise millions, focusing in this installment on redistricing—and resegregation—in the South. In virtually every state in the South, at the Congressional and state level, Republicans—to protect and expand their gains in 2010—have increased the number of minority voters in majority-minority districts represented overwhelmingly by black Democrats while diluting the minority vote in swing or crossover districts held by white Democrats. “What’s uniform across the South is that Republicans are using race as a central basis in drawing districts for partisan advantage,” says Anita Earls, a prominent civil rights lawyer and executive director of the Durham-based Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “The bigger picture is to ultimately make the Democratic Party in the South be represented only by people of color.” The GOP’s long-term goal is to enshrine a system of racially polarized voting that will make it harder for Democrats to win races on local, state, federal and presidential levels. Four years after the election of Barack Obama, which offered the promise of a new day of postracial politics in states like North Carolina, Republicans are once again employing a Southern Strategy that would make Richard Nixon and Lee Atwater proud.

If there ever was a strong argument for a 50-state strategy for Democrats, in which strong parties are fostered and competitive in every single state, this is it. The GOP is hell-bent on cheating its way to a permanent majority, whether by voter suppression or a return to segregation. And it's largely happening because of the concerted effort by Republicans in the last 30 years to begin working at the local level, dominating local politics and creating a strong infrastructure to take over first state legislatures, then governorships, secretaries of state, and federal offices.

The fight is in the courts, too, with no fewer than five suits currently pending against Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 is the provision that requires states covered by the act to receive pre-clearance from the Justice Department or a three-judge District Court in Washington for any election law changes that affect minority voters. One of these challenges could well make it to the Supreme Court, where its fate is at best uncertain.

For more of the week's news, make the jump below the fold.

The threadhog emerged, saw its shadow, and settled upon at least six more weeks of blogging.

• What's coming up on Sunday Kos ...
  • For evidence of a war on workers, look no farther than the rise of the lockout, by Laura Clawson.
  • The controversy  and conversations sparked by the “UnFair” anti-racism campaign in Duluth, Minnesota, by Denise Oliver Velez.
  • Why Obama? An Argument to Reluctant Progressives for Supporting the President's Reelection, by Armando.
  • Making new friends, while keeping the old, by Scott Wooledge.
  • Susan G. Komen for the Cure's curious relationship with the science of cancer prevention, by Laurence Lewis.
  • Komen's hypocrisy: Let us count the ways, by Georgia Logothetis.
  • The curious relationship of the Republican Party to the very poor, by Dante Atkins.
• Join us for liveblogging of the results of the Republican caucus in Nevada, starting at 5 PM PT.—Kaili Joy Gray
• Seems like some Republicans want to make a last stand on making sure that children can work in manure pits. Builds character and a work ethic, the way Newt Gingrich would tell it.
• An excellent graphic from the Obama campaign detailing the President's record on job creation. Even better, the page includes utilities to share the graph on your own site or send it as a postcard to a friend. And this is despite the Republican Party doing everything they can prevent things from getting better to damage Obama's reelection chances.
• So, this is back: Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin has just passed on word that the Business Committee of Uganda’s Parliament will discuss the proposed “Kill The Gays” bill next week. Despite rumors to the contrary, the bill did not die at the end of the last session of Parliament, nor were its death penalty provisions removed. It is unclear to what extent the measure will advance beyond next week’s debate. The measure would impose the death penalty or life imprisonment for some homosexual acts (which are already illegal), require people to report every LGBT individual they know, and criminalize so-called LGBT advocacy.
• And speaking of homophobic bigots: The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has vowed to repeal a proposed gay marriage law being debated in Washington state.

  The Senate on Wednesday approved the measure with a larger than expected 28 to 21 vote. Supporters outnumber opponents in the House, making a vote in that chamber just a formality.

  ...

  Opponents cannot begin a referendum campaign until after the bill is signed into law. They will need to collect 120,577 valid signatures by June 6 to put the issue on the November ballot.

  Obviously, the hope is that they can't collect the signatures. But if they do, let's make sure that the people of Washington vote to uphold basic rights and begin the cascading rejection of NOM's agenda.

• There's going to be a lot more of this on Sunday, but let's be clear: Komen didn't cave to the right wing, they became the right wing.
• If Rick Santorum is right, the good people of Missouri need to start shaking in their boots: During a campaign speech delivered in Missouri on Friday, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum did his best to make his audience shake in their boots with the specter of an Iranian nuclear attack.

  “Once they have a nuclear weapon, let me assure you, you will not be safe, even here in Missouri,” Santorum predicted.

  According to The Hill, Santorum is hoping to attract conservative votes in Missouri, where Newt Gingrich is not on the ballot.

  Because we all know the Missouri suburbs are prime terrorist targets, a fact with should leave people like me who live in places like Los Angeles feeling pretty comfortable.

• For the next time your Republican uncle tells you that taxes on corporations are just too high, there's always this: Corporate tax receipts as a share of profits are at their lowest level in at least 40 years.

  Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s the lowest level since at least 1972. And well below the 25.6% companies paid on average from 1987 to 2008.

  So in short, no. Making rich people even richer will not help the economy, and if reducing corporate taxes could make the economy better, it should already have been booming by now.

It's Super Bowl weekend, and you're either psyched for the game to begin—or you can't wait until the whole thing is over. Because this is Daily Kos, we wanted to find out for ourselves exactly how America feels about this annual spectacle, so we threw this question on to our weekly poll: Q: Who are you rooting for in the Super Bowl: the New England Patriots or the New York Giants?

Giants: 37
Patriots: 27
Unsure: 36

I'm a long-suffering Jets fan (is there any other kind?), though I have nothing against the Giants. But I do, of course, have everything against the Patriots. So I'm definitely rooting for New York—along with, I might add, a plurality of my fellow Americans. How about you? Take our own in-house poll below!

Still waiting for Scalia to drag me in. Over the last year, we've had lots of fun at anti-semite George Rockwell's expense (see here for an example, where he claims Justice Scalia will bring me to trial at the Supreme Court). That seemingly came to an end in early December, when he announced: friends don't coordinate jew attacks against friends. and the irony is that your only chance of freeing yourself from jew servitude was to listen to me. now you have lost both your chance at freedom and a friend. good bye, markos.

I wasn't exactly torn up, but he had been a great source of hate mail material! Well, he couldn't stay away. The latest on that soap opera (and updates on the Supreme Court bench trial against me) below the fold.

Republicans never intended to honor their debt deal.
According to TPM, Senate Democrats think they have the upper hand over Republicans when it comes to the $600 billion of defense cuts Republicans agreed to in the debt deal, only to (very, very predictably) vow to renege on that same deal now: Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has not only vowed to hold the line on the cuts, but he recently suggested Dems could use it to force the Republicans’ collective hand.

“The purpose of the sequester is to force us to act to avoid the sequester,” he said. “That sword of Damocles can not be splintered,” he continued, “if it’s going to have its effect.” The effect he said he meant was to “move the rigid ideologues to deal finally with revenue.”

Hmm. Color me skeptical, though we'd all love to see it. From the outset I thought the debt deal was absolutely terrible, because of course Republicans would turn around and nullify the supposed defense cuts long before they ever took effect. That was so obvious a move that the Democratic resistance to acknowledging it was outright insulting. And the leverage Republicans would have in such a fight is the same leverage they always have: calling Democrats "weak on defense," or saying it will "impact military readiness," or suggesting that Democrats want the terrorists to win. Then the Democrats predictably start sweating, and then they predictably fold, and the Pentagon gets another few so-expensive-they-should-be-carved-from-platinum jet fighters as trophies of the short-lived fight.

What Sen. Levin is suggesting here is perfectly reasonable, and is in fact the obvious strategy: Use these cuts to force Republican ideologues to choose between their desired defense budget and their entrenched opposition to raising any tax, under any circumstance, since it is obvious to any rational observer that the two goals cannot possibly be reconciled. But it presumes Democrats will honestly be willing to make that fight, and to block attempts to remove the defense budget from the budget agreement even as Republicans warn that the entire future of the free world depends on giving the Pentagon more and more and more money, and that you're a dirty communist and/or hippie and/or traitor if you think otherwise. What history exists here that would suggest Democrats would not cave in? Democrats have established a history of caving in nicely, which is exactly why the demands of the Republican leadership have gotten more and more extreme during each hostage-taking session.

Republicans willingly signed on to the defense cuts only a few short months ago. Now they're seen as apocalyptic, and impossible, and so dangerous that only a fool would do it. They knew, even back then, that they weren't going to honor the deal. And now, just as with every other goddamn negotiation of the past three years, we're reliant on an aimless Democratic caucus to negotiate for whatever hostage Republicans take this time around.

I will be very happy if Levin is right, and there is stomach this time around (perhaps thanks to Republican self-immolation on the payroll tax cuts) to hold firm on this issue and finally force Republicans to recognize that "tax cuts for rich people" is not the be-all, end-all of all national policy. The only evidence of it, however, would be that clearly non-conservatives cannot continue to acquiesce to these hostage-takings indefinitely—they are causing too much damage, economically, for the country to blithely accept—and so statistically there should be some point at which more moderate voices have gotten fed up enough to say "no more."

Keeping the focus on his blueprint for America, today President Obama reiterates his plan to "help millions of responsible homeowners," while building an economy that will last:

Right now, there are more than 10 million homeowners in this country who, because of a decline in home prices that is no fault of their own, owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. Now, it is wrong for anyone to suggest that the only option for struggling, responsible homeowners is to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom. I don’t accept that. None of us should. [...]

That’s why I’m sending Congress a plan that will give every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgages by refinancing at historically low rates. No more red tape. No more endless forms. And a small fee on the largest financial institutions will make sure it doesn’t add a dime to the deficit.

The President urges Congress to act on this plan and asks for your help:

That’s why I’m going to keep up the pressure on Congress to do the right thing. But I also need your help. I need your voice. I need everyone who agrees with this plan to get on the phone, send an email, tweet, pay a visit, and remind your representatives in Washington who they work for. Tell them to pass this plan. Tell them to help more families keep their homes, and more neighborhoods stay vibrant and whole.

Complete transcript below the fold.