It’s been a busy couple of days; let’s get to it.

Pennsylvania votes on April 22nd–according to Pollster, the Keystone State gives Clinton a 51.2% to 37.7% lead. After that, North Carolina and Indiana vote on May 6th; both of those states give Obama substantial leads (7.3% in NC and 15% in IN).

The mood must be tense in the Clinton camp right now, as plans to hold new primaries in Florida and Michigan–whose delegations were removed after they moved their primaries ahead of 2/5, in violation of DNC rules–have fallen apart.

First Florida:

After weeks of negotiations, the Florida Democratic Party said Monday it will not hold a second primary in the state.

[...]

“We researched every potential alternative process — from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections — but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida,” said state party chairwoman Karen Thurman in an e-mail sent to Florida Democrats late Monday afternoon.

And then Michigan:

The subscription-only MIRS service issued a release just before noon today that Senate Democrats “emerged from a closed-door caucus this morning and proclaimed that a fledging idea floated by top Michigan Democrats to create a special June 3 primary election is all but dead.”

The Clinton camp had hoped to use late contests in FL and MI to both close some ground with Sen. Obama and to generate good press going into the Democratic National Convention; with those re-vote plans tabled, the Clinton campaign will face an even steeper uphill climb to the Democratic nomination.

Another blow to Clinton occurred just few days ago, when Obama put to rest the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright by giving what is already being called a speech for the history books; Obama wrote it over the span of two days, and he shared it with only a handful of advisers before it was delivered.

And now the National Archives have released Sen. Clinton’s record as First Lady, which are already being poured over by the media–unfortunately for her, the records are already dredging up memories of the Clinton scandals of the 90’s.

Political Insider has more:

An early example from ABC News: “Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and may have actually been there when it happened, according to records of her schedule released today by the National Archives.”

Another example: “In December, 2000, when both of Hillary Clinton’s brothers were involved in trying to broker pardon arrangements for associates, several days of documents show only a long list of ‘private meetings’ at the White House.”

The other big danger is that the schedules will shed some light on some of Clinton’s claims of “35 years of experience,” such as this headline from The Guardian: “Clinton a long way from the White House at key foreign policy moments.”

Or this from the AP: “She was also involved in helping her husband win congressional approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal she now criticizes and says she would try to change.”

In the coming days, expect the conflict over Rev. Wright to fade away and the controversy over Clinton’s White House records to ramp up.

Some controversy has been brewing over statements made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Barack Obama is a parishoner.

In order to cut this off at the pass, Obama has written a column at The Huffington Post explaining his feelings on this:

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He’s drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It’s a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he’s been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

With Rev. Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright’s statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.

The entire ’scandal’ is nonsense. The fact that the pastor at Obama’s church said some controversial things has no impact on Obama’s ability to be President.  Nobody’s required to agree with everything their pastor says–if your pastor says something you disagree with, you just acknowledge that you have a difference of opinion and move on. It’s not a big deal.

This phony ’scandal’ reeks of desperation–Obama’s opponents don’t have anything legitimate to throw at him, so they pull together nonsense ’scandals’ like this and try to tar him with it.

In the end, though, none of these manufactured scandals change the fact that Barack Obama has the skills and the judgment to be the next President of the United States.

UPDATE: Scout Finch at Daily Kos brings up two good points:

We have now seen more sermons from Barack Obama’s minister in 48 hours than we ever did of Mike Huckabee —- and Mike Huckabee was a presidential candidate for 14 long months. Why is it acceptable to scour every last sermon given by Wright, but only weeks ago we weren’t allowed to see or read Mike Huckabee’s sermons?  In fact, not only was it totally ignored by the traditional media, but the few times the question of Huckabee’s sermons was raised, it was brushed aside as inappropriate.

Why the hypocrisy? After all, Mike Huckabee was an evangelical Southern Baptist minister who’s entire campaign was based on the fact that he was the Christian candidate. Are we to believe that he didn’t rail against the US government over abortion in previous sermons? Or homosexuality?  We know what he had to say about AIDS victims.

[...]

As several commenters have pointed out, whenever the subject of Mitt Romney’s religion came up - it was portrayed as essentially un-American to even whisper about Romney’s Mormonism.  I agree that it has no place in politics, but let’s make sure this is going both ways.

Today was a big day in politics, so let’s get down to it.

NUMBERS:

The latest Rassmussen poll shows Clinton and Obama virtually tied in Ohio–Clinton now has 47% to Obama’s 45%. In addition, Reuters/Zogby show Obama widening his lead over Clinton in Texas, now carrying 48% to her 42%. ARG shows Clinton leading in Ohio, 50% to 45%, but trailing in Texas, 51% to 44%.

It’s clear that Obama is closing the gap, and by every indication he seems to be leading in Texas and trailing by a relatively small margin in Ohio. With just 4 days left until VOTR Day, Clinton is going to have to start making up ground–and fast–lest she walk away the loser.

DOLLARS:

It’s the last day of February, and the campaigns are releasing their monthly fundraising statistics.

Hillary Clinton raised $35 million in February, a considerable haul nearly equal to what Obama raised in January.

Obama’s exact fundraising numbers are unknown–they haven’t been announced yet–but his campaign advisers have said that it will be “considerably more” than $35 million.

And John McCain trails both Democrats, picking up a pathetic $12 million in February. After his victory on February 5th, it was clear that he would be the Republican nominee–after that, the floodgates were supposed to open up and he was supposed to start raking in the cash. Instead, it looks like the deep pockets and big wallets in the GOP haven’t opened up to him yet–possibly because of his shaky support among conservatives or his numerous scandals. Still, if he can’t start tapping into bigger reserves of cash–and fast–he’s going to get buried by the Democratic nominee.

Of course, even raising money at this point might be a problem for McCain–until the FEC releases him from public financing, he’s still technically in the system, and that means he can only raise and spend $54 million until this summer. Since his last FEC report shows him with over $53 million, it’s imperative for McCain to release his February expenditures as soon as possible–if he violated the $54 million, McCain’s campaign could very well end up in court.

SPIN:

In the wake of their flagging poll numbers, the Clinton campaign has released some of the most ridiculous spin I’ve ever read:

Clinton Campaign Chief Strategist Mark Penn today released a memo to the media, though, with the subject, “Obama Must-Wins.”

“If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem,” Penn writes. And not only does he have to win, they have to be “decisive,” according to the memo.

“Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear,” Penn continues, “Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.”

Obama has more delegates. Obama has won more states. Obama has raised more money. Obama has the support of a majority of Democrats nationwide. But if he fails to win every single state on VOTR Day, then Clinton should be the nominee?

This doesn’t make any sense. It’s well known that if the Clinton camp doesn’t win at least Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, her candidacy’s basically over–and, in fact, Clinton campaign surrogates like James Carville and Bill Clinton have already said as much. TX and OH are her campaign’s self-declared firewall, and have been for weeks. But now, when it’s likely that they’re going to fall short of their goal, they declare that Obama has to win every single state? What kind of sense does that make?

And as I wrote about earlier today, the Clinton camp is trying to muck up Texas by filing a lawsuit over the Lone Star State’s delegate selection rules. Glenn Smith at Burnt Orange Report–a great Texas-based blog–tells us why:

There is method to the Clinton campaign’s mad preemptive sword rattling over the Texas primary/caucus. They want to delay and disrupt the reporting of the delegate count. They hope that if they win the popular vote, they can avoid, at least for one news cycle, news reports that even if they do so they will very likely lose the delegate fight in Texas and fall further behind Obama in the national delegate contest.

This is not speculation. This has been the subject under discussion. While I have not been part of that discussion, plenty of sources last night and this morning confirmed this as the core of the dispute.

It is widely assumed that Obama’s organizational advantage will achieve in the caucus portion of the Texas election just what it has achieved in earlier caucuses: a significant victory in delegates. There are 67 delegates at stake in those caucuses. The Clinton campaign would like to delay the reporting of the caucus results, and that is why they have continually “reserved the right to challenge” Texas law and Democratic party procedures.

Throw the Texas delegate results in dispute, and win or lose the popular vote, they will have advanced their case that the contest remains close and should go all the way to the convention if necessary.

[...]

The Clinton campaign strategy is to justify taking the fight beyond Texas even if they fall further behind Obama in the national delegate count. To do that, they must cast doubt over the fate of the 67 delegates that will be chosen at the caucus level. Hence, their tough positioning in phone calls with Texas Democratic Party officials and others involved in the primary here.

The Texas rules have been in effect for decades. Bill Clinton ran twice under these rules. They are no surprise to anyone, and both campaigns know they have to play by the same rules. There is little point to raising concerns before the election — except one campaign finds itself running a very unique kind of effort. To remain viable, the results of the caucus in Texas must be thrown into doubt. Almost any legal challenge will do. The Clinton narrative can be maintained– but only if their falling further behind in delegates is not reported or is at the least cast into doubt for a news cycle, or two or three news cycles.

If Clinton loses Texas, it’s going to be over for her. The classy thing to do would be to drop out, let Obama assume the mantle as the nominee and focus on salvaging her political career. If her campaign continues to rely on ridiculous spin and tries to solder on, despite falling short of goals they themselves set, then there’s going to be a huge outcry (as well as significant damage to Clinton’s overall political career). We will not have a brokered convention, and I certainly hope the Clinton camp won’t force us any further down that road than we need to go.

Today, Obama picked up the support of West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller today; that makes an even dozen sitting Senators in the Obama camp, while Clinton has the support of 13 Senate colleagues.

And in response to the John Hagee flap–where John McCain accepted the support of radical, bigoted preacher John Hagee–McCain released this tepid statement:

“Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.

“I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society.”

In other words, McCain will be glad to take the support of Hagee and his extremist followers, as long as he also gets to distance himself from Hagee’s more radical statements. Too bad he can’t have it both ways–either he sides with Hagee and his bigotry, or he denounces him and rejects his support.

Finally, the Roadblock Republicans are hard at work blocking funds to help communities struggling with the mortgage crisis as well as an independent Congressional ethics panel. They’re going to need a lot of spin to explain these decisions away before November.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos 

Recently, James Dobson–Christian conservative and head of the extremist group Focus on the Family–endorsed Mike Huckabee, saying that he would never vote for John McCain. At the Conservative Political Action Conference, the GOP rank-and-file booed McCain during his speech. On show after show, right-wing talking head Rush Limbaugh trashes McCain. Republican stormtrooper Ann Coulter said she would rather vote for Hillary Clinton than John McCain. Disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the GOP needs to “shrug off McCain.” Disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay refused to say he’d vote for McCain, even if it would “keep the Clintons out of the White House.”

Why are conservatives kneecapping McCain? While he does have a long record of making enemies within the Republican Party, he has an extremely conservative voting record and he sides with the GOP more often than not. He’s the presumptive Republican nominee–in all likelihood, he’ll be carrying the Republican banner this election. So why would they hurt their own party by attacking their Presidential nominee right out of the gate?

Well, the people kneecapping McCain aren’t just Republicans–they’re movement conservatives. They don’t care about winning the next election, they care about advancing conservative ideas. The movementarians know that their power and influence comes from being the leaders of the conservative movement, and they’ll fight to advance that movement–at any cost.Though McCain’s a conservative, he’s not a movement conservative–he’s an establishmentarian who, despite his pandering, doesn’t always subscribe to the movement’s orthodoxy. He’s willing to contradict them, to throw them under the bus, to fall short of the extreme partisanship demanded by the likes of Limbaugh and DeLay. That’s not to say he doesn’t ever do those things–he just doesn’t do them enough.

McCain will do almost anything to get ahead. In this post-Bush world–where conservative ideas are nowhere near as popular as they once were–McCain wouldn’t be above throwing the conservative movement under the bus, even going as far as to work with some Democrats now and again (instead of shutting them out in true conservative fashion).

So the conservative movement is kneecapping McCain because they don’t care if he loses. In fact, it would be better for them if he lost. Why?
First–as soon as a Democratic President is inaugurated–the conservatives will lay all the country’s problems at his/her feet. They’ll blame him/her for all the problems he/she would inherit from the Bush administration, browbeating him/her for failing solve those problems quickly or completely enough. With both a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, the conservative movement will be able to spend the next 4 years doing what they do best–complaining and attacking Democrats. It would be like the Clinton years all over again.

Second, if McCain were to lose the conservative movement will claim victory. They’ll spend the next 4 years browbeating Republicans, telling them that they lost because they didn’t nominate a “true conservative.” Come 2012, the movementarians will push their extremist candidate of choice on the voters, pointing to the failed McCain candidacy as proof that Republican voters better listen to them–or else.

Third, the movementarians aren’t stupid; they see the writing on the wall. They see massive Democratic fundraising and pitiful Republican fundraising. They see huge turnout on the Democratic side and tepid interest on the Republican side. They see two Democratic candidates with thriving movements and one Republican candidate with lukewarm support and a lagging campaign. They know that 2008 is going to be an uphill battle for the Republican Party, and that it’s becoming increasingly unlikely they can win the next election.

So, as Digby puts it:

Do you get the feeling that the conservatives are gaming this thing? I knew that you would.

They know they are going to lose. They will blame the loss on the fact that McCain wasn’t a real conservative (just like Bush.) They know when to fall back and regroup. They’re already playing for the next election.

Everybody sing: Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.

The movementarians are throwing McCain under the bus–before he can throw them under the bus–for the sake of teir movement. Sure, they’ll be locked out of government for a few years–possibly a good number of years–but they and their ideas will live on to fight another day. They’re trying to make McCain’s loss not a failure of Republicanism or conservatism, but a failure of moderation. In 2012, they’ll be back in full force, demanding that the GOP voters pay fealty to their extremist, cutthroat politics once again.

The conservative movement is dying, and the movementarians are desperately trying to stop the bleeding. Will their gamble pay off? Will they be successful? Or will their contribution to a John McCain loss usher in a new Democratic coalition that could lock conservatives out of government for years to come? Only time will tell.

Today is Super Tuesday, the biggest single day in American primary election history.

We start off today with some wildly divergent polls on the Democratic side, which show both Clinton and Obama with significant leads in California:

Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby gives Obama a 13 point lead:

In California, which alone provides more than one-fifth of the Democratic delegates needed for the nomination, Obama led Clinton by 49 percent to 36 percent, the poll found. The margin of error was 3.3 percentage points.

Survey USA has Clinton leading by 10 points:

24 hours till votes are counted in the California Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton appears to fend-off a late charge from Barack Obama, 52% Clinton, 42% Obama, according to SurveyUSA’s 13th and final pre-primary tracking poll. Obama leads among men. Clinton leads among women. 44-point Gender Gap. Clinton leads among whites. Obama leads among blacks. 53-point Race Gap. Among younger voters, Clinton leads by 3. Among older voters, Clinton leads by 18. In greater San Francisco, the contest is tied. In the Central Valley, Clinton leads by 7. In greater Los Angeles, Clinton leads by 15. In the Inland Empire, Clinton leads by 16.

Survey USA’s poll has a margin of error of +/-3.4%

Of course, the truth might be somewhere in the middle:

One of these polling outfits has the wrong model; either Clinton is up by 10 percent, or Obama is up by 13 percent, or maybe Rasmussen, which calls it a 45-44 lead by Obama with 5 percent undecided, 5 percent saying there’s a good chance they could change their mind, and 19% say they might change, is right.

A lot of people have been speculating how CA’s early voting will affect the results. The conventional wisdom is that, even though Obama has been catching up to Clinton, most early votes were cast when she was still ahead. Personally, I don’t think it will give Clinton a large margin–I doubt people voted for Clinton, changed their minds, but told pollsters they were supporting Obama. I think the CW that Clinton has to lead in early voting since a lot of those votes were cast when she was leading is flawed, since it’s just an assumption that isn’t based on any actual votes cast.

In this regard, the polls are also divided:

SurveyUSA gives those to Hillary by a wide margin, while the widely respected Field Poll registered a one-point edge to … Obama. In short, there simply isn’t any real way to know right now if any of these polls are accurately predicting the outcome.

In considering all of these polls, something worth looking at is this chart showing the average error rate of major polling organizations.

In the end, though, who wins the popular vote won’t be as important as how many delegates each candidate walks away with–and since California awards their delegates proportionally, unless either candidate wins with a massive margin of victory, there won’t be a huge difference in how many delegates each candidates walk away with.

In addition, though one candidate may win a handful of big states, there are also a bunch of small states voting today–states that will be more competitive in the general election than, say, California or New York. To some extent, how those states go may be a better indicator of Democratic electability than the results in large blue states:

But primary victories there are not necessarily indicative of strength in the general election.

After all, losing Democratic nominees routinely win New York and California by wide margins.

In reality, the best indicators of the Democrats’ general election prospects are tucked away in the remaining 18 states, each of which has fewer than 100 delegates a pop.

The true potential of Clinton’s and Obama’s candidacies faces the most consequential test in key swing states such as Missouri, Colorado and Arizona….

Bottom line: Tuesday’s “delegate winner” could actually be the less electable candidate, if the winner’s support comes from the coasts.

No matter what, it’s clear that the Democratic contest will go far beyond today–a situation that could benefit Obama, considering his massive financial advantage over Clinton:

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said that the campaign had raised “about $13 million, $13.5 million” last month, according to the Washington Post.

In contrast, Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign announced last week that it had raised $32 million in the month of January.

For the Republicans, tonight could either be a big win for John McCain or a surprise resurgence for Mitt Romney. I’d consider the former more likely than the latter, considering McCain’s leads both nationally and in a number of key Super Tuesday states.

Since a lot of the GOP’s delegate-heavy states–such as New York, California and Georgia–are winner-take-all, a strong showing in a few of them could easily net McCain a huge amount of delegates.

Of course, the McCain camp has their worries:

McCain’s people fear he may lose the popular vote in California to Romney — even if they haul in the same number of CA delegates — and that the Super Tuesday story will therefore NOT be the crowning of McCain but rather his failure to put away the game, a failure born of his fractious and sometimes unloving relationship with conservatives, especially those millions of conservatives who listen to and abide by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, not to mention Limbaugh and Hannity themselves, and a failure that in turn will be viewed as both a symptom and a cause of the historic crack-up of the conservative coalition that has sustained and nourished the Republican Party for a couple generations.

As I’ve said before, McCain is not well-liked by the GOP base, and the prospect of a McCain candidacy has made them particularly uneasy. So, though Romney is a slick flip-flopper who rankles the Christian conservatives, a lot of Republicans are settling on him as an acceptable alternative to McCain.

In fact, the radical right is pulling out all the stops to kneecap McCain and push Romney into the nomination:

Yesterday, right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh spent his entire program trashing John McCain. Limbaugh said it is ludicrous for McCain to claim the mantle of national security. “The idea that we’ve only got one person in this whole roster of candidates, either party, who is willing to take on the war on terror is frankly, absurd,” he said.

Even disgraced former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is jumping into the fray:

Although Gingrich said, “We need to shrug off McCain,” he predicted that the Arizona senator would capture the Republican nomination.

As is Republican operative Richard Viguerie:

Richard Viguerie told Yeas & Nays. “McCain has to show that he cares about conservatives.”

It’s clear that, if McCain scores big today, he’s still going to have a massive uphill battle ahead of him–if not for the nomination, then at least for the hearts and minds of the GOP. Much like Bob Dole or John Kerry, McCain might get the nomination only to find that he can’t rally enough support to get him to the White House.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has a tall order ahead of him–he has to do well enough today to avoid being completely trounced by McCain. If Romney can’t pull it off, he might not be able to overcome McCain’s strategic advantage. We’ll have to see.

The first polls close at 7:00 PM EST, while the last–Alaska’s–will close at 1:00 AM EST. Make sure to check back for tonight’s results.

UPDATE: This will generate some bad press for Clinton:

[Clinton adviser Howard] Wolfson also said Clinton has accepted a debate on Fox News, something Democrats shunned last year. That debate is scheduled for February 11, in Washington D.C., and would also air on the local Fox affiliate.

Last year, progressives were successful in getting the Democratic candidates to shun Fox News debates, treating Fox like the Republican propaganda machine it really is. Clinton agreeing to do a Fox debate–or even considering it–is a big kick in the teeth to Democrats.

Hopefully, the campaign will announce that Wolfson either misspoke or was taken out of context.

UPDATE II: On the McCain front, radical Christian conservative leader James Dobson has made a striking pronouncement, saying he will never support John McCain.

Here are Florida’s results, via TPM:

Keep in mind that the Democratic results are, since Florida’s delegation was stripped by the DNC and none of the candidates were allowed to campaign in that state.

On the Republican side, where there were some delegates in play, John McCain emerged as tonight’s big winner.  He vindicated his successes in New Hampshire and South Carolina with a victory in Florida, which will award him 57 delegates, enough to make him the new GOP front-runner.

The exit polls give us some interesting information about how people voted– conservatives supported Romney, while moderates (who knew there were any moderate Republicans left) went for McCain.

I  thought that the GOP primary would become a three-way race, each candidate supported by one Republican faction–Huckabee would get social conservatives, McCain would get foreign policy hawks and Romney would get corporate conservatives.

Now, though, Huck is fading fast, which leaves Romney and McCain to split the GOP between moderates and conservatives.  Huckabee needed a win tonight, and now he’s going to have a difficult time moving forward–his unexpected win in Iowa set some high expectations which he hasn’t been able to meet since.

It was widely known that New Hampshire, Nevada and Michigan weren’t fertile ground for him, but South Carolina and Florida were both firmly within his reach, and his losses there are huge setbacks.  Huck says he’s staying until the end, but that may not be in his control–with nothing standing between now and Super Tuesday, Huck doesn’t have the support or the momentum to become the Republican nominee.

A bigger loser than Huck, though, is Rudy Giuliani.  After his chest-thumping going into Florida, there is nothing left for him to do now but drop out.  Early on, he benefitted from  McCain’s collapse to become the national front-runner.  Later, Rudy began bleeding support for a variety of reasons–non-conservative positions on various social issues, exploitation of 9/11, foreign policy uberhawkishness, and scandal after scandal after scandal. The more people got to know Giuliani, the less they liked him–as the campaign progressed, his support dropped lower and lower.

Rudy invested heavily in the early states–particularly South Carolina–without a single decent showing anywhere; Florida was his firewall, and all he could manage to was a distant third place.

Currently, CNN is reporting that Giuliani will drop out and endorse McCain, ostensibly with the hope of getting a position with his campaign and holding on to the national spotlight for a little longer.  With him out of the picture, the GOP race is down to four candidates–Romney, McCain, Huckabee and Ron Paul.

Up next is Super Tuesday on February 5th.  A week from today, a huge number of delegates will be awarded on both sides–not enough to decide the nominees, but enough to put some candidates well on their way to the nomination.

On the GOP side, McCain will be riding high off of his recent victories, while Romney will be touting his conservative credentials and trying to recover from tonight’s defeat.

On the Democratic side, Barack Obama will have his resounding win in South Carolina and his impressive lineup of endorsers on his side, while Clinton still maintains a sizable lead in the most influential February 5th states.

And, as always, I’ll bring you the results as they become known.  For now, we have a week to get ready–it’ll be interesting to see how things go.

In order to diffuse criticism that the Mormon church is racist (since it took them until 1978 to allow African-Americans to be ordained or participate in certain temple ceremonies) Mitt Romney started saying that his father–Michigan Governor George Romney–once marched with Martin Luther King Jr.Unfortunately for him, a few journalists started digging and they found that Romney’s story is completely made-up.More from Blue Mass Group:

Mitt Romney will stop at nothing to score political points. Even if it means lying outright about his father.

I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.

Uh huh.

He made a similar statement Sunday during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He said, “You can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mom was a tireless crusader for civil rights.”

Right. Got it — dad marched with MLK. Even David Broder says so, and supplies some corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. (BMG bonus points for identifying the source of that phrase!)

As Mitt Romney recalled in his address, his father was able to remind people that he had marched with Martin Luther King Jr. (through upscale Grosse Pointe, Mich., in support of open-housing legislation).

Problem is, it’s not true. None of it. As the Phoenix’s David Bernstein reveals (see also update here) in some superb digging, George Romney never marched “with” — i.e., in the presence of, at the same place at the same time — Martin Luther King, Jr.

Here’s Bernstein, who in addition to calling out Romney, calls out Broder:

[W]hile the late George W. Romney, a four-term governor of Michigan, can lay claim to a strong record on civil rights, the Phoenix can find no evidence that the senior Romney actually marched with King, nor anything in the public record suggesting that he ever claimed to do so. Nor did Mitt Romney ever previously claim that this took place, until long after his father passed away in 1995 - not even when defending accusations of the Mormon church’s discriminatory past during his 1994 Senate campaign.Asked about the specifics of George Romney’s march with MLK, Mitt Romney’s campaign told the Phoenix that it took place in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. That jibes with the description proffered by David S. Broder in a Washington Post column written days after Mitt’s College Station speech.

Broder, in that column, references a 1967 book he co-authored on the Republican Party, which included a chapter on George Romney. It includes a one-line statement that the senior Romney “has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit.”

But that account is incorrect. King never marched in Grosse Pointe, according to the Grosse Pointe Historical Society, and had not appeared in the town at all at the time the Broder book was published. “I’m quite certain of that,” says Suzy Berschback, curator of the Grosse Pointe Historical Society. (B[ro]der was not immediately available for comment.)

Faced with the unfortunate reality that Mitt was making things up, his campaign has retreated into a hilarious Humpty-Dumptyism about what it means to “march with” someone. You see, it doesn’t mean that you were actually there. It means that, well, you participated in a march about a related topic on a different day, and maybe you thought about the guy while you were doing it.

Mitt, in other words, was “speaking figuratively, not literally.”

[Emphasis Added]

This is just ridiculous. Romney has been lying and flip-flopping since day 1 of his campaign, but this more than takes the cake. What sense does it make to diffuse criticism that the Mormon church is racist by making up a story about his father marching with Martin Luther King, even though such a claim is blatantly untrue and can be proven false relatively easily? And what kind of truth-bending hair-splitting parsing is it to say that his father marched “figuratively” with King? How does one figuratively march with someone?

Seriously, is this is the best the GOP can do? A flip-flopping serially-exaggerating Governor of Massachusetts, the scandal-prone law-bending cross-dressing Mayor of New York City, and the corrupt, incompetent, vindictive, radical fundamentalist Arkansas Governor with exceptionally poor judgment and Ron Paul? Seriously?

Conservatives don’t seem to understand that the Republican Party is at a historic crossroads. They have the chance to leave their Reagan-Bush era baggage behind and redefine what it means to be a conservative. They can ditch the burden of the Bush years by nominating a visionary candidate who will lead their party into the future, undoing the damage they caused and improving the lives of millions of Americans.

Instead, the GOP nominates a field full of faceless cookie-cutter Republicans; a field full of liars, exaggerators, incompetents, radicals, extremists and others who are completely unfit to be America’s next President. Romney’s latest fabrication shows just how poor the Republican field is, and just how desperate the GOP has become.

UPDATE: Daily Kos has this supposed clarification from the Romney campaign:

A spokesperson for Mitt Romney now tells the Phoenix that George W. Romney and Martin Luther King Jr. marched together in June, 1963 — although possibly not on the same day or in the same city.

[Emphasis Added]

Again, how can you and someone else march together if you’re not in the same city or even doing it on the same day? Doesn’t that contradict the meaning of “together?” Do we even need to discuss this?

Romney’s in serious trouble. He’s been losing momentum for weeks, and this latest incident shows just how much of a slick used car salesman he is–willing to say anything, anything at all, just to get you on his side. This man should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. Period.

UPDATE II: More from The Huffington Post’s Chris Kelly:

Although they never marched together, they did march separately. In that they were both in Michigan and ambulatory at the same time. And, by “the same time,” I mean “different times.”

Except, if you read the Phoenix story, George Romney didn’t actually “march” anywhere. But he was present at an event. Where King was not.

And Mitt never “saw” it, because he was doing missionary work in France.

WHAT MITT MEANT:

We can all agree that George Romney and Martin Luther King were both alive in June, 1963.

Another news cycle, another embarrassing story for Mike Huckabee. This time, it’s a book he wrote in 1998 called Kids Who Kill. Some key excerpts:

Abortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities.

[...]

It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations—from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.

[...]

The legal commitment of ideological secularism to any and all of the fanatically twisted fringes of American culture—pornographers, gay activists, abortionists, and other professional liberationists—is a pathetically self-defeating crusade that has confused liberty with license.

[...]

Men who have rejected God and do not walk in faith are more often than not immoral, impure, and improvident (Gal. 5:19-21). They are prone to extreme and destructive behavior, indulging in perverse vices and dissipating sensuality (1 Cor. 6:9-10). And they—along with their families and loved ones—are thus driven over the brink of destruction (Prov. 23:21).

Blaming pro-choice Americans, LGBT rights activists and environmentalism for school violence? Lumping the LGBT community in with pedophiles and necrophiliacs? Asserting that religion is the only source of morality? I knew Huck was a right-wing extremist, but I had no idea he was this extreme.

Then again, this was pretty much the strategy of the conservative culture warriors of the ’90’s–take a bunch of people you don’t like, lump them all together, blame them for society’s ills and prescribe religion/Republicanism as a solution. I’m surprised that Huck–who is renowned by our political press for his “charm” and “authenticity”–would subscribe to this cookie-cutter right-wing boilerplate.  Then again, with Huck, stuff like this is hardly surprising.

Another news cycle, another disturbing revelation about Bad Luck Huck. How long until the GOP realizes just how many skeletons there are in his closet? Or do they not even realize that this guy is a complete embarrassment, that it would be political suicide to hand their party over to him?

Personally, I’m wondering what tomorrow will bring…

Recently, Ron Paul broke the one-day fundraising record for a Republican Presidential candidate, raking in approximately $5.2 million dollars. Political Wire has more:

“Most of the donations were made over the Internet in what the supporters called a “money bomb” timed to coincide with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. The last fund-raising blitz, which took in 40,000 donations, was timed to coincide with Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates a British mercenary who tried unsuccessfully to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605.” The record take means Paul will likely lead his rivals for money raised during the fourth quarter.

Paul’s supporters will tell you to “Google Ron Paul;” in light of his recent fundriaising success, let’s give that a shot and see what he actually stands for–Orcinus has the definitive account, and it’s nothing less than appalling:

• Ron Paul wants to deny women control of their own reproductive systems–despite calling himself a libertarian, he doesn’t seem to mind government intrusion when it comes to abortion. (H.R.1095 H.R.777 H.R.1548 H.AMDT.1003 (A024) H.AMDT.380 (A022) H.AMDT.312 (A011) H.R.4984). Not only that, but Paul wants to eliminate the legal distinction between a zygote and a person (H.R.2597 H.R.1094 H.R.776 H.R.392).
• Paul wants to prevent the federal courts–or even federal precedent–for being used by those who have been discriminated against due to religious beliefs or sexual orientation. His bills would also prevent cross-state recognition of gay marriage (H.R.300 H.R.4379 H.R.5739 H.R.3893 H.R.1547 H.R.4922 H.R.5078). He also wants to limit the court system’s ability to hear abortion cases (H.R.1545 H.R.1546 H.R.2875 H.R.3400 H.R.3691 H.R.15169).
• Despite claiming to be a libertarian, Paul opposes allowing people to express their freedom of speech by burning the American flag (H.J.RES.80 H.J.RES.82).
• Ron Paul wants to repeal workplace safety and health legislation, including the Occupational Health and Safety Act (H.R.2310 H.R.13264). And so much for giving power to the people–he wants to make it easier to decertify labor unions (H.R.694). In addition, Paul also opposes the minimum wage (H.R.2962) and wants to destroy Social Security (H.R.2030 H.R.4604).
• Paul opposes pro-democracy voting reforms, even after the disastrous 2000 election (H.CON.RES.48 H.CON.RES.443). He also opposes the motor voter laws, which make it easier for people–particularly poorer people–to register to vote (H.R.2139).
• Ron Paul wants to gut anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation (H.R.1247 H.R.1789) and eliminate corporate oversight (H.R.1204). For someone who seems to support giving power to the people, the only people he wants to help are the already-powerful.
• Paul wants to repeal anti-discimination laws (H.R.3863 H.R.5842 H.R.4982), as well as eliminating birthright citizenship (H.J.RES.46 H.J.RES.42), which is in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
• Ron Paul wants to repeal or severely weaken environmental protection legislation (H.J.RES.104 H.R.3735 H.R.4423 H.R.2504 H.R.7079 H.R.724), as well as promoting offshore oil drilling, building more oil refineries and mining for coal on federal land (H.R.2415 H.R.4004 H.R.393 H.R.4639 H.R.5293 H.R.6936).
• Paul, who portrays himself as pro-peace, opposes dismantling ICBM silos in the United States (H.R.1665 H.R.3769) and supports keeping the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court (H.R.1154 H.AMDT.480 (A010) H.R.4169 H.CON.RES.23 H.RES.416). He has also tried to limit the impact of international law on the United States (H.J.RES.1028 H.J.RES.492 H.CON.RES.49 H.R.4118 H.R.1658), going as far as trying to withdraw America from the U.N. (H.R.1146 H.R.1146 H.AMDT.285 (A038) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.190 (A024) H.AMDT.191 (A025) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.306 (A006) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.138 (A010) H.R.1146 H.R.3890 H.R.3891 H.R.6358 H.R.14788). In addition, Paul supports withdrawing the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (H.J.RES.566) and wants to re-establish U.S. ’sovereignty’ over the Panama Canal (H.CON.RES.231 H.RES.1410 H.R.2522).
• Paul wants to weaken our education system by using federal power to interfere with state efforts to improve standards for teachers (H.R.966 H.R.1706 H.R.4653).
• Once again pandering to the powerful, Paul wants to reduce the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans, including those who inherited their fortunes. In addition, he wants to disproportionately burden the poor and working clas by imposing a flat tax (H.J.RES.23 H.J.RES.14 H.J.RES.15 H.J.RES.45 H.J.RES.81 H.J.RES.116 H.R.5484 H.R.2137 H.R.1664 H.J.RES.23 H.R.6352 H.R.4569 H.R.15619). Paul also wants to force us to pay our income tax every month, eliminating withholding (H.R.1364 H.R.4855).
• Paul also wants to abandon the dollar, creating 50 state currencies instead (H.R.2779 H.R.3931).

So, I Googled Ron Paul, and I found a record of conservative, pro-corporate, reactionary policies that are to the far right of even the Republican Party. And keep in mind that I didn’t include some of Paul’s crazier aspects, like his obsession with the gold standard or his desire to “protect” American troops from wearing the insignia of the U.N. or any “foreign states.”

I don’t know what his followers see in him, but it seems that they have been taken in by Paul’s campaign rhetoric, which doesn’t match his record in Congress at all. Personally, I wonder if they would support him so vehemently if they followed their own advice and Googled Ron Paul. Either that, or this country has far more deep-pocketed right-wing extremists than I thought.

Or, as Paul Waldman calls it, The Plutocrats v. The Theocrats:

After months of tedium and mindless chest-thumping, the race for the Republican presidential nomination finally got interesting over the last couple of weeks. And the way it did so highlights the fundamental rift threatening the future of the GOP: the divide between the party’s corporate/anti-tax wing, which includes the people who write the checks, and its social conservative wing, which includes the people who get bodies to the polls. It’s the plutocrats versus the theocrats, and at the moment it’s hard to tell who’s going to win.

[...]

And the plutocrats had such high hopes for Romney, who is truly one of their own: to the American aristocracy born (his father was a corporate CEO and Michigan governor) and with a successful career in business, Romney gives the sense that he plans out his breakfast with a Powerpoint presentation. (”Today’s waffles will proactively impact forward-oriented goal actualization while incentivizing value-added synergisms. And there will be syrup.”)

The plutocrats couldn’t care less whether Romney’s recent conversion to hard-right social conservatism was sincere. He can blather on all he wants about activist judges and border fences; what’s important to them is the tax code, whether the National Labor Relations Board keeps its Bush-era affection for union-busting, and whether agencies like OSHA and the FDA remain regulatory panda bears, lolling about in the grass munching bamboo without worrying their little heads about the safety of workers and consumers. When it comes to these matters, the plutocrats know Romney is their guy.

But they don’t quite trust Huckabee, who, as Sarah Posner has noted, has shown troubling flashes of sympathy for ordinary people and had a mixed record in Arkansas, both raising and cutting taxes at various times. Perhaps in order to appear more of an anti-tax fundamentalist, Huckabee is advocating eliminating all current federal taxes in favor of a national sales tax, an idea so ludicrous no one bothers to debate it.

But as of yet, Huckabee has not pledged allegiance to the de rigueur Republican tax fantasy that cutting taxes ultimately leads to an increase in revenues. Rudy Giuliani has climbed aboard this express train to Stupidville, saying in a recent television ad, “I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues. Democrats don’t know that, they don’t believe that.”

[...]

These voters [the theocrats] are less than entirely pleased with what they’ve gotten from all their hard work over the last few elections. Every two years, they’re promised that if they work their little hearts out, they’ll finally get those constitutional amendments banning abortion and putting the gays in their place. But even George W. Bush, who worked harder to convince the religious right that he was their man more than any GOP nominee ever has, didn’t power up the time machine and take us all back to the bliss of the 1950s. But he worked hard for those tax cuts — you bet your life he did. The plutocrats got showered with riches, and the theocrats got lines from hymns dropped into speeches. As Bush himself famously said, “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — can’t get fooled again.”

[Emphsais Added]

And, thus is the nature of the Romney-Huckabee battle, and thus is the nature of the crumbling conservative coalition.

The Republican party relies on the Christian right as footsoldiers–they carry the Party’s message out to rural America, they preach GOP gospel from the pulpits, and on election day they turn out to the polls in large enough numbers to get Republicans elected.

But, in the end, the Christian right gets a lot of talk and nearly no action in return. Why? Because the GOP cares more about money than ideology. Sure, they’ll pander to the wants and needs of the Christian right, but when it comes down to it they spend their political capital on tax cuts for their wealthy buddies, Wall-Street-pleasing Social Security privatization, free trade, and other giveaways to the top 1% (of which the theocrats are usually not members).

Look at recent years–the GOP controlled all three branches of government, yet they never gave the Christian right their day in the sun. Abortion is still legal, and it’s likely to stay legal for a long time. There was no constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and the 2004 state-level gay marriage bans will eventually be overturned. Immigration reform will not happen without a path to citizenship, and so on.

Simply put, the theocrats have been lied to. Year after year, the GOP promises them the world, yet once in office they stab them in the back and spend their time stuffing their pockets. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Christian right is quickly learning that they aren’t part of that group of friends, and that the GOP has taken advantage of them for far too long. The Christian right is revolting, hoping to exact revenge against the faux-conservative plutocrats who have taken advantage of them for so long.

The Republicans have created a monster that they can no longer control. The Christian conservative footsoldiers have stopped listening to their plutocratic masters and are bucking the party orthodoxy–they’re determined to make Mike Huckabee their candidate, much to the chagrin of the moneyed Romney campaign. And while plutocratic money can certainly get people out to the polls, it’s not nearly as effective as theocratic zealotry.

The plutocrats are afraid. They’re worried that Huck–who couldn’t care less about stuffing their pockets, but who really does care about Armageddon and the end times–will become the standard-bearer of their party. What will they do? What can they do? Will they support him? Will they abandon him? Will they find someone else?

In the end, there is poetic justice in this–the Republican Party, which has become dependent on the dogmatism of the Christian right, is now being consumed by that same burning zealotry. Will the GOP be able to survive a revolt by the monster that the Party believed–in all hubris–they could control forever?

As time goes on, story after story comes out that gives us more and more reasons to dislike Mike Huckabee.

Case in point:

In June 1998, the Southern Baptist convention amended its official statement of beliefs for the first time in 35 years to declare that “a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband.” And Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist minister then serving as governor of Arkansas, signed a full-page ad in USA Today in support of the statement (along with 129 other evangelical leaders).

But wait, there’s more:

Mike Huckabee criticizes the Bush administration for having an “arrogant bunker mentality” that “has been counterproductive at home and abroad.” Nevertheless, Huckabee — who supports the war in Iraq — said he would “not withdraw troops from Iraq any faster than Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, recommends.”

And we’re not through yet:

Today, former governor Mike Huckabee (R-AK) announced Ed Rollins as his new campaign chairman. In 1993, Rollins chaired the successful campaign of Christinie Todd Whitman in the New Jersey gubernatorial race, where he paid black leaders to not speak out for opponent Jim Florio:

“We went into black churches and we basically said to ministers who had endorsed Florio, ‘Do you have a special project?’ And they said, “We’ve already endorsed Florio,” Mr. Rollins said. “We said, ‘That’s fine. Don’t get up on the pulpit Sunday and say it’s your moral obligation that you go on Tuesday to vote for Jim Florio.’”

Mr. Rollins said the campaign used a more direct approach to persuade some Democratic political workers to stay home on Election Day. “We said to some of their key workers, ‘How much have they paid you to do your normal duty?’ ” he said. “Well, we’ll match it. Go home, sit and watch television.”

Are you kidding me?

This is the man the GOP wants to be the next President of the United States? This guy represents the absolute worst of the Bush administration–the extremism, dogmatism, corruption, arrogance. A Huckabee presidency would be just as bad–if nor worse–than the Bush presidency.

So much has come to light that hurts Huckabee, it’s hard to even keep it all straight. Corruption as Governor of Arkansas? Wayne DuMond? Quarantining AIDS patients? Ignoring the NIE? Religious extremism? Demanding wives submit to their husbands? Wanting to stay in Iraq? Shacking up with racist anti-black activists? Where will this list end? How much will it take for the GOP to realize that Huck wasn’t even qualified to be Governor of Arkansas, and he’s certainly not qualified to be our next President?

It just goes on and on and on. Then again, let the GOP nominate Two-Buck Huck; it’ll just make it that much easier for the Democrats to win next November.

UPDATE: Another news cycle, another unpleasant revelation about Huck:

Questions are being raised about then-Gov. Huckabee’s 2004 decision to grant clemency to a repeat Driving While Intoxicated offender in Arkansas named Eugene Fields, despite the objections of a law enforcement official at the time. Documents obtained by NBC News reveal Fields’ case was handled differently from any other DWI clemency or pardon granted by Huckabee, and some Republicans are now suggesting significant political contributions may have influenced the governor’s decision.

Cash-for-clemency? Tell me again how this guy is supposed to be the epitome of honesty and morality?

More from, of all people, George Will:

“Huckabee, this week it was learned that he gave more clemencies, one every four days, to convicted criminals in Arkansas - more than the three preceding governors combined, included Bill Clinton.”

Bill O’Reilly recently declared victory in the War on Christmas. I wonder if this was what he had in mind:

A Muslim man jumped to the aid of three Jewish subway riders after they were attacked by a group of young people who objected to one of the Jews saying “Happy Hanukkah,” a spokeswoman for the three said Wednesday.

Friday’s altercation on the Q train began when somebody yelled out “Merry Christmas,” to which rider Walter Adler responded, “Happy Hanukkah,” said Toba Hellerstein.

“Almost immediately, you see the look in this guy’s face like I’ve called his mother something,” Adler told CNN affiliate WABC.

Two women who were with a group of 10 rowdy people then began to verbally assault Adler’s companions with anti-Semitic language, Hellerstein said.

One member of the group allegedly yelled, “Oh, Hanukkah. That’s the day that the Jews killed Jesus,” she said.

When Adler tried to intercede, a male member of the group punched him, she said.

Another passenger, Hassan Askari — a Muslim student from Bangladesh — came to Adler’s aid, and the group began physically and verbally assaulting him, Hellerstein said.

[...]

The suspects are to appear in Brooklyn District Court on February 7 on charges that include assault, attempted assault, menacing, harassment, unlawful assembly, riot and disorderly conduct, Silverstein said.

The New York Police Department’s Hate Crimes Task Force is investigating the incident, and will determine whether the suspects will be charged with hate crimes, Officer Philip Hauser told CNN.

[Emphasis Added]

I’m not saying this attack was caused by the conservatives’ supposed”War on Christmas,” but the same philosophy underlies both.

Conservatives believe that–since 80% of America is Christian and 83% plan to celebrate Christmas this year–saying “Merry Christmas” should not just be accepted, but required. To them, showing respect to those who celebrate other holidays–or no holidays at all–is seen as waging a “War on Christmas,” disrespecting one holiday by refusing to disrespect every other holiday. These Christian conservatives expect the entire world to kowtow to their beliefs, embodying a form of virulent majoritarianism.

Conservative culture warriors want to create a situation where “Merry Christmas” is the only acceptable holiday greeting, where recognizing other faiths is condemned as part of some “secularist progressive” agenda. Thus, you open the door to situations like the NYC subway attack, where someone who doesn’t say “Merry Christmas” is attacked for not being a member of the majority.

The “War on Christmas” is nothing more than a sad attempt by conservatives to stigmatize tolerance and push their own beliefs. There was a time when tolerance and respect were considered virtues– Christian virtues, even–and now they’re portrayed by conservatives as, ironically, anti-Christian. It’s not enough that 4/5ths of America celebrates Christmas–these conservatives aim to have Christmas be the only acceptable winter holiday. Period.

Conservatives rail against the “ACLU Grinches” who they see as as somehow harming the most widely-celebrated holiday in America, yet it’s like none of them actually read How The Grinch Stole Christmas. If they had, they would know the moral of the story: despite the fact that the Grinch stole the decorations, the food, the presents and all the typical Christmas trimmings, it didn’t stop anyone from celebrating Christmas. Why? Because Christmas isn’t about any of those things–it’s about giving and togetherness, celebration and family, seeing the best in people and recognizing the good in the world.

It doesn’t matter whether the greeter at Wal-Mart says “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays,” and it doesn’t matter if a man on the subway wishes you a “Happy Hanukkah.” In the end, Christmas is about the spirit of the holiday–if conservatives understood this, they would spend the season embodying Christ’s message of tolerance and understanding, not demonizing their political enemies and fighting for public nativity scenes.

If you want to put the “Christ” back in “Christmas,” live up to his teachings by showing your fellow man some tolerance and love. Because, in the end, isn’t that what Christ was all about? And shouldn’t Christmas be a celebration of what Christ was all about?

UPDATE: Welcome readers of Salon’s Blog Report! Thanks for clicking through, feel free to look through the archives and I hope you stop by again tomorrow.

Mitt Romney gave his religion speech today–mostly to counteract the rise of Two-Buck Huck, who has captured the heart of the religious right.

Color me unimpressed. First off, can we please stop calling it his Kennedy speech? Because it was anything but:

Finally, there was the ridiculous comparison to JFK’s 1960 speech. I say the comparison is ridiculous because the situations were completely different. In September 1960, Kennedy was the nominee of the Democratic Party, and faced the task of reassuring Americans that his faith would not conflict with the duties of the office he sought, and upon which Americans would decide within weeks. Today, Romney is just one of several Republican contenders, so his task was actually to convince the evangelical core residing within the Republican Party that his faith is not incompatible with their deciding to let him carry the Republican banner into an election that’s still almost a year away. Kennedy’s target, by necessity, was the greater America. Romney’s target, by necessity, was Republican evangelicals. (Hence the early plug: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” Freedom requires religion? Really? That’s really intriguing. How so? Oh nevermind, he’s not taking questions.) So it should surprise no one that he revealed nothing about his actual religion (which was how the speech was sold), given that an actual appeal for tolerance based on an honest recounting of his theology would have been political suicide.

Romney’s speech was absolutely unimpressive, filled with the same stale rhetoric and religious-right pandering that you can get from any other Republican candidate. In fact, he used the word “Mormon” only once, and he explained nothing about his religion or his particular religious beliefs. Romney was trying to gloss over his religion, using broad platitudes about faith and belief to avoid talking about his faith and beliefs. Honestly, I think this speech will raise far more questions then it answered, and I doubt Romney’s cookie-cutter rhetoric put any skeptical minds at ease.

Also, I know he’s called Flip Romney for a reason, but this is just ridiculous. Watch the flip:

̶