Rick Santorum says his supports can out-organize Mitt Romney (Steve Marcus/Reuters)
In a new memo distributed by Rick Santorum's campaign, Santorum is making a somewhat convoluted case that Santorum is the favorite to win the Republican nomination because Mitt Romney will have difficulty obtaining the majority of delegates he needs to win the nomination?and that if Romney fails to secure that majority on the first ballot, his support will quickly fade as Santorum steps in to fill the void. From the memo:
Majority Needed for Romney, Not for SantorumThe memo says the Romney campaign's claim that it would take an "act of God" for Santorum to win was a "smokescreen" designed to conceal the "fuzzy math" of delegate counting. By fuzzy math, Santorum is referencing the fact that many delegates are unbound and that media estimates ignore the fact that party activists are likely to dominate the county and state conventions where delegates are actually selected. Thus, the memo argues Romney doesn't have as many delegates as he or the media claims. The memo says the key question for Romney is whether he can hit the magic number of 1,144?and that because of delegate selection rules, it's unlikely that he will. The memo not only argues that Romney's delegate totals are overstated, it makes the case that Santorum's is effectively understated.
Mitt Romney must have a majority on the first ballot in order to win the nomination because he will perform worse on subsequent ballots as grassroots conservative delegates decide to back the more conservative candidate. Subsequently, Santorum only needs to be relatively close on the initial ballot in order to win on a later ballot as Romney?s support erodes.
Romney Difficulty in getting 50% of Remaining Delegates
Even Romney?s own counters admit that he needs to earn almost 50% of the remaining delegates in order to win the nomination. We believe this number is higher than 50% for the reasons described in this memo. Regardless, this is going to be very difficult in a three or four person race, especially as he loses delegates at state conventions such as Iowa.
Conservative Majority of Delegates: Public vs. Actual Delegate CountsOverall, the memo is vague and not terribly compelling?and not just because it lists four reasons despite promising to deliver three. It makes sense to focus on whether or not Romney can get a majority, but to the extent that Romney's counts rely on "fuzzy math," Santorum's argument depends on "fuzzy logic." As Maggie Haberman points out, Santorum has no organization to speak of; Ron Paul is more likely than Santorum to pick up delegates in county and state conventions than Santorum. And given the clear Paul-Romney alliance, Romney could make a deal with Paul to put himself over the top, arriving at the convention with the majority he needs.
There is a ?Conservative Majority? of delegates emerging as county and state conventions elect their actual National Convention delegates. This ?Conservative Majority? will support Rick Santorum over a moderate-establishment Romney.
There are three reasons why the counts that are put out by the RNC and media organizations are not reflective of the real numbers:
• Unbound and Uncommitted Delegates elected by grassroots activists are more likely to favor Santorum than those elected by direct primary election. This represents a movement of delegates into Santorum?s tally.
• Bound delegates elected by grassroots activists will favor Santorum as rules allow.
• Gingrich delegates are more likely to favor Santorum.
• Rule Breaking states such as Florida and Arizona.
In my view, the biggest problem with the memo, both from the analytical as well as strategic perspective, is that it basically ignores the question of which candidate will end up with the most votes. The memo basically makes a process oriented argument that Rick Santorum will be able to take advantage of the delegate allocation process because he has more enthusiastic supporters, but the reality is that both Paul and Romney have a much stronger organization than Santorum. Moreover, every time a party organization has had to make a close call, it's made the call in Romney's favor.
Instead of focusing on trying to do a better job than Romney of gaming the system, Santorum should be trying to win more votes than Romney over the second half of the primary calendar. It's something of a long shot for him to be able to do that, but if he were able to pull it off, it would give him the moral upper hand in a contested convention, particularly if the polls were on his side.
I'm not saying that a strategy focused on beating Romney at the polls is guaranteed to work, but that's because it's not likely to happen. But unless it does, there's no way Santorum will get within smelling distance of the Republican nomination. So instead of getting into the weeds of delegate math, he should focus on trying to claim a popular mandate within the Republican Party, putting him in a position where he can accuse Romney of trying to game the system. It's a big mistake for Santorum to try to claim he's in a better position than Mitt Romney to game the system, if for no other reason that that he can't.
When Rush Limbaugh first began using the term "feminazi" in the 1990s, he said that it described "a specific type of feminist" and that there were "probably no more than 25 of them." However, since then, he has used the term as a broader slur to attack feminists, pro-choice activists, and progressive women.
Limbaugh In 1992 Book: "I Prefer To Call The Most ObnoxiousFeminists What They Really Are: Feminazis. ... I Often Use It To Describe WomenWho Are Obsessed With Perpetuating A Modern-Day Holocaust: Abortion." Inhis 1992 book The Way Things Ought to Be, Limbaugh defined the term"feminazi" as "a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to itthat as many abortions as possible are performed." He wrote:
I prefer to call the most obnoxiousfeminists what they really are: feminazis. Tom Hazlett, a good friend who is anesteemed and highly regarded professor of economics at the University ofCalifornia at Davis, coined the term to describe any female who is intolerantof any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it todescribe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust:abortion. There are 1.5 million abortions a year, and some feminists almostseem to celebrate that figure. There are not many of them, but they deserve tobe called feminazis.
A feminazi is a woman to whom the mostimportant thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible areperformed. Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple. Abortion is the singlegreatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power andadvance their belief that men aren't necessary. Theydon't need men in order to be happy. They certainly don't want males to be ableto exercise any control over them. Abortion is the ultimate symbol of women'semancipation from the power and influence of men. With men being precluded fromthe ultimate decision-making process regarding the future of life in the womb,they are reduced to their proper, inferior role. Nothing matters but me, saysthe feminazi. My concerns prevail over all else. The fetus doesn't matter, it'san unviable tissue mass.
Feminazis have adopted abortion as akind of sacrament for their religion/politics of alienation and bitterness. [TheWay Things Ought to Be, Rush Limbaugh, pages 194-195]
Limbaugh: A "Feminazi" Is "A Specific Type Of Feminist.... There're Probably No More Than 25 OfThem In The Entire World." On the December 4, 1992,broadcast of Limbaugh's television show, he said:
LIMBAUGH: Now we -- we don't have much timeleft, but, you know, the audience of this show is growing left and right. We'renow the number three most watched late-night television show in the country.The only two shows ahead of us are "Nightline" and Leno on "TheTonight Show." So a lot of people probably are tuning in and watching, Feminazi? Why, how can he say that?'And I -- Feminazi is -- is aspecific type of feminist. And sothere's no misunderstanding, I simply want to define it for you before we goout of here so you're not upset. A Feminazi -- there'reprobably no more than 25 of them in the entire world. Well, maybe just in theUnited States. But a Feminaziis a feminist to whom the mostimportant thing in the world is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible take place. A Feminazi is a woman who gets mad when a pregnant woman istalked into giving birth. Now there aren't very many, and it is not true, assome say, that Feminazis are all feminists.So there you've heard it again. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 12/4/92,accessed via Nexis]
Limbaugh Biographer Colford: In 1992 Interview, LimbaughJustified "Feminazi" Term By Saying That "The Millions Of Abortions PerformedIn The United States Were Comparable To A Holocaust." In his book TheRush Limbaugh Story, Paul D. Colford wrote:
"It is the suffix that drives peoplecrazy," ABC newsman Jeff Greenfield said during his 1992 appearance withLimbaugh at the 92nd Street YM-YWHA in Manhattan. "Feminazi.I mean, that is a movement that did not simply want to silence people, itkilled people, by the millions. It is a very powerful, memorable phrase. Ithink it did you much good in terms of defining you as a person with a colorfuland bold turn of phrase. Any regrets about using that particular term?"
No, Limbaugh replied, making it clearthat feminazi did not apply to all feminists, but maybe to twenty or so."I happen to be prolife. I happen to think life is the most sacrosanct thing onthe planet, human life. I think that if we cheapenit, or devalue it in any way, then other societal ills result. I do notthink it is wise for a society to kill for convenience sake, and I think thatis what abortion has become ... A feminazi is a woman,a feminist, to whom the most important thing in her life is seeing to it thatall abortions possible take place. That's why there aren't very many. I don'tknow more than twenty in the whole country. A feminazi is a woman who gets madwhen a woman decides to have a baby, is talked out of having an abortion. Ireally don't understand that, if choice is what this is really all about."He added that the millions of abortions performed in the United States werecomparable to a holocaust. [The Rush Limbaugh Story, Paul D. Colford, pages 184-185]
Limbaugh Prints Fake Ad For "Feminazi Trading Cards" In 1992Book Chapter On "Feminism And The Culture War." In his 1992 book, The Way Things Ought to Be, Limbaughconcluded the chapter called "Feminism and the Culture War" with a mock ad for "feminazi tradingcards":
FEMINAZI TRADING CARDS
FEMALE: I'll give you two GloriaSteinems for one Anita Hill.
ANNOUNCER: Trading cards have alwaysbeen for males only, it's just not fair, it's just not right.
FEMALE: Damn, I spilled nail polish onmy Betty Friedan!
ANNOUNCER: Well. EIB [the Excellence inBroadcasting network] is proud to introduce "Feminazi Trading Cards." For youto save, to collect, to trade. Feminazi Trading Cards are designed with thewoman in mind. On the front, an action shot of a leading feminist burning abra, dominating a TV show, picketing an all-men's club, protesting a RushLimbaugh concert, charging into a men's locker room. Denouncing Ronald Reagan.
FEMALE: I'd do anything for PatSchroeder.
ANNOUNCER: On the back, all the vitalstatistics: waist, hips, the documented age, the number of abortions, and,where applicable, the alimony payments and divorce settlements. Each file hasat least one profound thought and a beauty secret. Get them all! Each set includes not only today's feminazi superstars likeMolly Yard and Eleanor Smeal, but yesterday's heroes like Bella Abzug andGloria Steinem. Plus, outstanding rookies like Anita Hill and Judge SusanHoerchner. Don't get left out. Start collecting Feminazi Trading Cards today! [TheWay Things Ought to Be, Rush Limbaugh, page 204, emphasis original]
Limbaugh Biographer Wilson: "Limbaugh's Claim That He'sAlways Used A Very Narrow Definition Of Feminazi Is Belied By His Proposal For'Feminazi Trading Cards.' " In his book The Most Dangerous Man inAmerica: Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason, author John K. Wilsonwrote:
For decades Limbaugh has been using theterm, without apology, to smear the feminist movement.
Limbaugh has repeatedly asserted thathe has been misquoted and was only describing a "few" feminists as feminazis.
In reality,Limbaugh used that definition of feminazis to define all feminists: "Do youthink looking at someone is sexual harassment.? Do you think all men arerapists? Do you think all sex is rape? If your answer to any or all of thesequestions is no, you are simply not, by definition, a feminist." Consideringthat it would be almost impossible to find anyone who agrees with any of thesestatements, he is trying to define an entire movement by a grotesqueexaggeration of its most extreme advocates.
The claimthat Rush is only insulting twenty-five feminists is absurd, since he arguesthat "they drive the movement." Rush must believe that the leaders of thefeminist movement are secret radicals who have fooled the millions of feministswho agree with them. When he complains that he's been misquoted aboutfeminazis, he is being disingenuous. In fact, Limbaugh has said exactly whathe's been accused of. When asked in 1995 about the term "feminazi," hedeclared: "It's the way I look at the feminist movement." Limbaugh referred tothe National Center for Women and Policing and the Feminist Majority Foundationas "feminazis." So it's not just twenty-five individuals, but every singlefeminist organization, its leaders, and millions upon millions of Americanswith the same views whom Limbaugh compares to Nazis.
In 2004,Limbaugh named "Gloria Steinem, Susan Sarandon, Christine Lati, and Camryn Manheim"as "famous feminazis." He never explained why he thinks these activists andactresses are opposed to women having babies. Limbaugh has never, in histwenty-five-year career on talk radio, offered any evidence of a single personwho fits his definition of a "feminazi": "The definition and real agenda of thefeminazi: radical feminists whose objective is to see that there are as manyabortions as possible." By this definition, there are literally no feminazis.
And Limbaugh's claim that he's alwaysused a very narrow definition of feminazi is belied by his proposal for"feminazi trading cards": "On the front, an action shot of a leading feministburning a bra, dominating a TV show, picketing an all-men's club. On the back,all the vital statistics: waist, hips, the documented age, the number ofabortions and, where applicable, the alimony payments and divorce settlements."[The Most Dangerous Man in America: Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason,John K. Wilson, pages 55-56]
2000 Slate Article: Limbaugh "Has All-But-Dropped The Term'Feminazi.' " A May 2000 Slate article about talk radio claimed: "Limbaughhas smoothed his rough edges. He has all-but-dropped the term 'feminazi.' "[Slate, 5/26/00]
In June 2005, Limbaugh Claimed He Hadn't "Used That Term[Feminazi] On This Program In Years." On the June 22, 2005, broadcast ofhis show, Limbaugh claimed, "I haven't used that term [feminazis] on thisprogram in years."
2004: Limbaugh Referred To Abortion-RightsActivists As "Feminazis." On the April 26, 2004, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said of a rally inWashington, D.C., on April 25,2004:
LIMBAUGH: The feminazis gathered inWashington on Sunday, about a half-million of them, it says here, and it wasthe first big pro-abortion rally in 12 years. The last one was in 1992 duringthe -- that campaign, the Bush-Clinton campaign. They trotted themselves outagain. In fact, grab me the "Feminist Update" theme. OK, just thelast big pro-abort rally that the feminazis had, we actually took audio from itand interposed it, you know, mixed it, with the Forester Sisters and their song"Men," and that gave us our "Feminist Update" theme.[Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 4/26/04,via Media Matters]
2004: Limbaugh Again Referred To "The Pro-Choice Crowd" As"Feminazis." On the April 29, 2004, broadcast of Limbaugh's show, Limbaughsaid, referring to Feminist Majority Foundation president EleanorSmeal:
LIMBAUGH: So,to Eleanor Squeal [sic] and the pro-choice crowd, the feminazis who marched insuch rage and anger on Sunday, we're so sorry. So, so sorry. Will you pleasetry to find it in your -- well, I won't say, hearts -- minds? Will you try tofind it in your minds to forgive any of us who thought that you liberals valuedthe dignity and worth of every life? For this, we will apologize. [PremiereRadio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 4/29/04,via Media Matters]
2005: Limbaugh Called Abortion-RightsActivists "Militant Feminazis" While Dubiously Claiming "The Majority OpinionOf The Country Is Not Pro-Choice." On theAugust 29, 2005, broadcast of his show, Limbaugh again referred to abortionrights advocates as "feminazis" and claimed that "the militant feminists whohave made every abortion, regardless of cost, mandatory," were responsible foralleged lack of support for abortion rights. Limbaugh claimed:
LIMBAUGH:How can this be happening, ladies and gentlemen? How could these people inthese states do it? It is happening in blue states as well. How can this be ifthe majority opinion of the country is pro-choice? Well, the answer to thequestion is, the majority opinion of the country is not pro-choice. And to whomdo we owe gratitude? The militant feminazis, the militant feminists who havemade every abortion, regardless of the cost, mandatory, who have made it clearthat that's the sole reason they exist. I mean, every abortion possible canhappen. Over the years, militant feminazism has backfired on them. With alittle help.
2006: Limbaugh Refers To Protesters Who Were Opposing TheConfirmation Of Then-Nominee Alito As "Feminazis." On the January 4, 2006,broadcast of his show, Limbaugh talked about a press conference held by women'sgroups opposing the confirmation of then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. He referred to the participants as "feminazis,"saying: "I say keep these freaks out there. Keep these left-wing socialistfreaks out there. The feminazis, the 1960s feminazis." [Premiere RadioNetworks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/4/06,via Media Matters]
2007: Limbaugh Refers To Self-Described "Ex-Feminist" CallerAs "Former Feminazi." On the July 31, 2007, broadcastof his show, a caller identified herself as "an ex-feminist and a[former] liberal." After the caller joked that she was "an ex-feminazi,"Limbaugh later referred to her as "the former feminazi." [Premiere RadioNetworks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/31/07, via RushLimbaugh.com]
2008: Limbaugh Mocks NOW's "Love Your Body Day": "Love YourBody Day If You're A Feminazi ... Because Nobody Else Does." On the October16, 2008, broadcast of his show, Limbaugh mocked the National Organization forWomen's (NOW) Love Your Body Day. Referring to NOW as "the NAGs, NationalAssociation for Gals," Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: Yesterday was Love Your BodyDay, the NAGs. It was Love Your Body Day. The NAGs, the National Organizationfor Women, the NAGs, National Association for Gals. "For over a decade now,the" NAGs' "Love Your Body campaign has countered the unrealistic beautystandards, gender stereotypes and sometimes harmful messages. 'We areconstantly bombarded by media's ideals of what beauty should be,' said the" NAG"Foundation President Kim Gandy."
LIMBAUGH: Truth of Life Number 24: Feminism was established so that unattractive womencould have easier access to the mainstream. Sowhat happens? The very -- the only women whomind sexual harassment -- I'm just kidding, drive-bys. Just kidding, just a littlelighthearted interjected comment here. You ever notice a Hooters girldoesn't care? Ahem. Ramming it down theirthroats day here on the EIB Network.
Feminist truth, undeniable truth of life: feminism was established so as toallow unattractive women easier access -- and here you go, the NAGs with theirLove Your Body Day. And actually -- they've got a poster or sign here, itsays, "I love my thighs." What isthis? "I love my thighs." Love Your Body Day if you're a feminazi, ifyou're a NAG, Love Your Body Day, because nobody else does. That's what this isall about. They can't stand that there are still pretty women in theworld, and they really can't stand that one of the prettiest is a vicepresidential nominee, but they do mention Sarah here as having been shellackedand attacked for her looks and so forth -- objectified, they say Sarah has beenobjectified. But this is also about thewoman's movement that took away from us all [sic] the role of women in life.It's all so twisted. So now, Love Your Body Day. Did we need a Love YourBody Day before the feminazis geared up? Love Your Body Day because nobody elsewill. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/16/08, via Media Matters]
2010: Limbaugh Uses "Feminists" And "Feminazis"Interchangeably When Blaming Them For A "Gender War." On the January 19,2010, edition of his show, Limbaugh used"feminists" and "feminazis" interchangeably, saying, "See, the feminists havebeen working for years towards this end, suppressing boys and men. Rather thanlifting everybody, the feminazis make it a gender war,with many battles taking place." [Premiere Radio Networks, The RushLimbaugh Show, 1/19/10, via Media Matters]
2010: Limbaugh Uses "Feminazis" To Describe Those Who AttackConservative Women. On the September 20, 2010, edition of his show,Limbaugh discussed the Senate race in Delaware and then-GOP candidate ChristineO'Donnell with a caller. Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: The supposed home oftolerance, open-mindedness, progressivism, feminism, all that --the Democrat Party, liberalism, they are theones that are viciously attacking [Christine O'Donnell]. They are the ones that viciously attacked all of Bill Clinton's babes.The feminazis never once came to the defense of Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky.They joined in the chorus line -- "trailertrash" or "golddiggers" or what have you. And we made mentionof this last week, the observation here that, well, you can dump on these womenall you want and nobody is coming to their defense whatsoever. And it is adouble standard. There's no question about it. [Premiere Radio Networks, TheRush Limbaugh Show, 9/20/10, via Media Matters]
Nov. 2011: Limbaugh Refers To People Offended By His"Synchronizing Menstrual Cycles" Comment As "Feminazis." On the November10, 2011, edition of his show, Limbaugh discussed the sexual harassmentallegations against then-GOP presidential candidateHerman Cain. Limbaugh wondered "why" Cain's accusers planned to "appeartogether," asking, "Do they want to synchronize their menstrual periods?" Onthe November 11, 2011, broadcast of his show, Limbaugh said, "The feminazis[are] not happy with me, by the way, over that 'synchronizing menstrualcycles.' " [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/10/11,via Media Matters, 11/11/11, via RushLimbaugh.com]
Feb. 2012: Limbaugh Was Angry Komen "Caved" To The"Feminazis" At Planned Parenthood By Restoring Funding For Breast CancerScreenings. On the February 3 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh talked aboutthe Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation's decision to restore funding forcancer screenings to Planned Parenthood after initially announcing it would stop. Limbaugh said: "And the Susan G. Komen bunch,the Race for the Cure, they have caved big time to the feminazis at PlannedParenthood. It is stunning." [CBS News, 2/3/12; Premiere Radio Networks, TheRush Limbaugh Show, 2/3/12, via Media Matters]
Feb. 2012: Limbaugh Claimed Obama Admin.'sContraception Regulation Was To Appease "The Democrat Voter Base ... TheFeminazis And The Far Left." On the February 7 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh talked about theObama administration's decision to require most employers, including some that are religiously affiliated,to provide health insurance that covers birth control. Limbaugh said, in part:"This is all about politics. It's all about keepingthe Democrat voter base happy -- the feminazis and the far left, who hate theCatholic Church. Obama's doing exactly what hisbase wants." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/7/12,via Media Matters]
Update: Reader says some of the links were there in February 2011, and that the Application for Executive Clemency form was revised March 28, 2011.
When Gov. Doyle and past Wisconsin governors served, does anyone recall the "Executive Clemency" link occupying such a prominent placement on the governor's webpage (sitemap page) before?
Sixth from the top sub-heading, there's the Executive Clemency link, including helpful links (PDF and Word) to the nine-page Executive Clemency form.
Walker, who just last November took criticism for the neglect of a constitutional duty (pardons) of a governor (Associated Press Nov. 28, 2011) now appears enthusiastic about the power to grant clemency, or at least very helpfup in directing web readers to the forms needed for Executive Clemency.
The Republican governor "believes these decisions are best left up to the courts," Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said [then].Now, go to the Contact Us webpage and there's more links for Executive Clemency. What about these decisions being best left up to the courts? What is a clemency link doing there?
“We have to either make the decision to make a full commitment, which this president hasn’t done, or we have to decide to get out and probably get out sooner.” – Rick Santorum
In recent polling cited across the morning shows today, 60% of the American people don’t think the Afghanistan war was worth it.
I’d really like to see Republicans try to make the Santorum case that Pres. Obama hasn’t made a “full commitment” and define what that means if he hasn’t.
Pres. Karzai is calling it an “assassination.”
P.J. Crowley thinks the massacre in Afghanistan is the tipping point. He tweeted this after the U.S. soldier, reportedly on his fourth tour, walked a mile to kill 16 Afghanis, including women and 9 children:
This is the Tet moment in #Afghanistan. The string of recent incidents will send public opinion in both countries into permanent decline. – PJ Crowley on Twitter
The reaction among some right-wingers was quite different, which one blogger posted.
If this doesn’t get Republican candidates talking about Afghanistan, separating themselves from the theory of “winning,” what will?
The Taliban has said they will retaliate.
News travels slowly in Afghanistan.
Click here to view this media
After watching the movie adaptation of Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's "Game Change" this weekend on HBO, the one thing I found surprising about the movie is just how big of an emotional mess Sarah Palin was almost straight from the get-go after they recruited her to run with John McCain after not being properly vetted, and the campaign started finding out all of the dirt on her that they should have known about ahead of time if they were doing their jobs.
Which led to scenes like the one above where Palin was none to happy with staffer Nicolle Wallace after her disastrous interview with Katie Couric. I'm sure we can all take a lot of what was in the movie with a grain of salt, due to the fact that a lot of what was in it came from campaign staffers stabbing each other and McCain in the back for their terrible decision to draft Palin in the first place, and other anonymous sources, but on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Wallace admitted that the scene above was "true enough" to make her squirm.
That didn't stop former Dick Cheney adviser, Mary Matalin from calling it a work of fiction, even though she wasn't there herself. Leave it to Matalin to still be carrying water for Palin since she's been one of her staunchest defenders from day one. I expect we'll be hearing more of the same type of sentiments from Republicans who still don't want to admit that McCain made a huge mistake picking her, that she was not ready for the job and that it helped to tank his candidacy, whether every detail in the book or movie are completely accurate or not. The overall theme of the movie and how she was portrayed was pretty obvious to most of us watching that campaign at the time as the events actually occurred in real time.
Full transcript below the fold.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But he is going to be probably one of the most famous men in the world on April 20th. We only have a couple minutes left, but before we go, Nicolle Wallace, in honor of you, you served in the McCain campaign, so you have -- Sarah Paulson played you in the movie "Game Change" last night on HBO. And we're going to show a little bit of the clip here, talking about the infamous interview with Katie Couric.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOORE: You call that interview fair?
PAULSON: Yes, Governor, I do.
MOORE: I certainly don't. She was out to get me from the get-go.
PAULSON: No, she wasn't. The interview sucked because you didn't try.
MOORE: Well, what do you mean I didn't try?
PAULSON: You just gave up.
MOORE: Nicolle, it wasn't my fault. I wasn't properly prepped.
PAULSON: You weren't properly prepped because you wouldn't listen to us.
MOORE: I am not your puppet!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the Palin campaign didn't like it. How true to life?
WALLACE: Well, true enough to make me squirm. But, you know, look, this isn't a movie about campaign staff, and this isn't even really a movie about McCain and Palin. This is a movie about the vast gray area in which 99 percent of our politics actually takes place. And I think that what gets boiled down or sometimes the fights or the instant analysis or the black and white, who's up and who's down.
But the truth is -- and I think everyone around this table has had some experience in their political careers -- where you're just feeling your way through a very gray area and you're doing your best. And this campaign was certainly one of those instances for me.
STEPHANOPOULOS: No question. And, you know, there has been a bit of a backlash, Mary, but there are a lot of points in that movie that's very sympathetic to Sarah Palin.
MATALIN: Mark Halperin, who's the co-author of the book, but -- came down to teach James' class in Tulane and said it was not in total, but large sympathetic. The movie is not that. A lifelong Democrat called me and said "Game Change" is a channel change for me. So it's not RJ Cutler, Pennebaker, "The War Room" or "A Perfect Candidate." It's just a fictional movie. And to that end, it's meaningless, other than I like your hair in the movie, Nicolle.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We're going to -- that's all we have time for. Thanks a lot, guys. We'll be right back.
The housing crisis created a drop in homeownership rates across the board, but the number of Black and Latino homeowners decreased at a significantly higher level than it did for white Americans. A new report from the Bipartisan Policy Center reveals an astounding drop in homeownership rates among people of color. Specifically, the Black community saw levels of homeownership drop to pre-1990s levels:
Between 2004?2006 and 2010, however, homeownership rates dropped sharply, and more so for Hispanic and black households than for white non-Hispanics. The overall homeownership rate of 65.1 percent in April 2010 was 1.1 percentage points lower than 10 years earlier. Blacks ended the 2010s with a lower homeownership rate, 44.3 percent, than their 1990 rate of 45.2 percent and two percentage points lower than just 10 years earlier? The homeownership rate for black non-Hispanics now lags the white non-Hispanic rate by nearly 28 percentage points, compared with 26 points in 2000 and just less than 25 points in 1990?..
?While the housing crisis has hurt people of all races and ethnicities, it has been devastating for many Hispanic and black families, reducing their median wealth by one half to two-thirds and significantly increasing the number of households with negative net worth.
The correlation between skin color and homeownership is not coincidental; during the housing crisis, Black and Latino homeowners were twice as likely to be foreclosed on. Indeed, in California Black and Latino homeowners are said to make up 50% of foreclosures but only 30% of homeowners.
During the housing crisis, the Center for American Progress found, there were huge racial disparities in the makeup of high-priced lending with banks targeting people of color. One of the banks that received a government bailout, was even accused of having steered people of color toward subprime loans. Undoubtedly, these dubious and racist banking practices led to the homeownership numbers we see today.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is now taking steps to ensure the end of discriminatory lending practices. The damage, however, seems to have been done.
A new study from the University of Colorado Cancer Center reveals that not only are gay adults more likely to smoke cigarettes than the general public, but they are also less inclined to quit. According to the survey, 70 percent of LGBT smokers said that they were not planning to quit, compared to 60 percent of the general public who say they are planning to quit or are at least considering it. These results jibe with a study published in December that found that members of the LGBT community are twice as likely to smoke and an issue brief published last year demonstrating how tobacco companies specifically target the LGBT community with advertisements.
On Friday, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine (R) rejected a petition from marriage equality advocates seeking to overturn the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Though Ian James of Freedom to Marry Ohio submitted well over the 1,000 signatures necessary to have the ballot language considered, DeWine claimed he could not certify the summary of the proposed constitutional amendment because the summary was too long and described impacts of the amendment not actually found in the amendment:
After reviewing the submission, I conclude that I am unable to certify the summary as a fair and truthful statement of the proposed constitutional amendment for three reasons. First, the summary is longer than the text of the amendment… Second, the summary states that the amendment retains the rights contained in “Section 11 of Article XV for political subdivisions to not recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals.” However, the text of the amendment does not indicate that political subdivisions would retain these rights. Third, the summary states that the amendment retains “the portions of Title 31 that codifies this Amendment.” However, the text of the amendment does not contain any reference to Title 31.
DeWine is an ardent opponent of same-sex marriage, having co-sponsored a federal marriage amendment as a U.S. Senator in 2006. He also has endorsed Rick Santorum for president. James was not surprised by the rejection, and not deterred either, promising, “We are going to continue to circulate petitions to his desk.”
Meanwhile, Equality Ohio and GetEQUAL Ohio are planning the “largest illegal mass wedding ever held” in Cleveland on March 24. About a dozen clergy will marry more than 200 same-sex couples, even though their unions are not recognized. In addition to raising publicity about anti-gay discrimination, it will serve as an opportunity to collect signatures for additional petition efforts.
In his weekly address, President Obama spoke to the American people from a factory in Petersburg, Virginia about working to overcome our energy challenges as with new American jobs. “I want this Congress to stop the giveaways to an oil industry that?s never been more profitable, and invest in a clean energy industry that?s never been more promising,” Obama said. “We should be investing in the technology that?s building the cars and trucks and jets that will prevent us from dealing with these high gas prices year after year after year.”
More than 90 percent of criminal trials never see a jury; they end in plea bargains and guilty pleas. Moreover, thanks to a series of Supreme Court decisions enabling prosecutors to threaten defendants with harsh sentences unless they take a plea, defendants are often pressured to plead guilty for fear that asserting their innocence could cost them many, many more years in prison. In the face of this reality, civil rights attorney Michelle Alexander proposes a provocative tactic — shut down the criminal justice system with an unmanageable wave of jury trials:
The system of mass incarceration depends almost entirely on the cooperation of those it seeks to control. If everyone charged with crimes suddenly exercised his constitutional rights, there would not be enough judges, lawyers or prison cells to deal with the ensuing tsunami of litigation. Not everyone would have to join for the revolt to have an impact; as the legal scholar Angela J. Davis noted, ?if the number of people exercising their trial rights suddenly doubled or tripled in some jurisdictions, it would create chaos.?
Such chaos would force mass incarceration to the top of the agenda for politicians and policy makers, leaving them only two viable options: sharply scale back the number of criminal cases filed (for drug possession, for example) or amend the Constitution (or eviscerate it by judicial ?emergency? fiat). Either action would create a crisis and the system would crash ? it could no longer function as it had before. Mass protest would force a public conversation that, to date, we have been content to avoid.
Alexander’s proposal is intended to highlight the unfairness of a system where prosecutors can strongarm criminal defendants — even innocent defendants — into prison time and felony convictions. Many of these defendants, Alexander explains, are mothers forced to choose between a guilty plea and leaving their children without a parent for years.
Yet her proposal also highlights another, equally disturbing problem facing out judicial system — the fact that there simply are not enough judges to swiftly and fairly apply the law. Indeed, several jurisdictions already live under the nightmare Alexander described despite no revolt from defendants pleading not guilty. In Arizona, federal felony case filings grew nearly doubled between 2008 and 2010, even though the number of judges decreased in that time. In Texas, one federal judge warned that his docket was so overloaded he could give felony defendants facing “years and years in a federal prison” about as much time as a “traffic judge” who handles $100 or $200 fines could give to his cases.
And, unlike the problem Alexander hones in on, which arises as much from excessive penalties for minor drug crimes as it does from prosecutors wielding too much power, the federal vacancy crisis could be fixed without significant legislation or even much debate by lawmakers. Seventeen of President Obama’s judicial nominees have cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee — all but two of them unanimously or with Tea Party Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) as the only objector. Lee, who also believes that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional, recently announced that he would oppose every single Obama nominee, so his vote is hardly a sign that any of these nominees are the least bit controversial.
America needs judges for the law to function effectively. The Senate needs to confirm each of these seventeen nominees. Right now.