Newt Gingrich wants to work with Democrats - San Francisco Gate

As I noted in my Sunday column, the GOP presidential pack has three candidates who haven’t served in office for five to 13 years. Newt Gingrich hasn’t been House Speaker since 1999.

Saturday morning while he was in town for the California GOP convention, comrades Marinucci and Garofoli and I sat down with Gingrich. I asked him if he thought that, having not served in office for more than a decade, he thought he might be “rusty.” Gingrich answered: “No, not particularly.”

And: “There’s a difference between, ‘Am I a little rusty?’ and ‘Do I think I’m dealing with a different world than we had in 1994?’ Sure. Of course we are. One of the things I would want to do shortly after the election is schedule every single Democrat in the House and Senate for one-on-one meetings, to find out whether or not there’s a coalition to be built, which you know you can’t build through the leaders. The leaders are the most partisan partisan part about the system. And yet you know that there are a lot of members, if members are faced with four years of working with you, there are a lot of individual members who would be glad to sit down and say, ‘Gee, this is my pet project. This is what I’m most worried about, this is what I want to get done, and you might be able to build bipartisan coalitions’.”

Does he think Congress is more partisan now or less? Gingrich answered that it’s “much more partisan.”

Indeed, Gingrich told me he thought he could find Democrats who would join his plan to end civil service.

Who knew Newt was so anxious to work with Democrats. But when you think about it, it makes sense. After all, it’s Republicans who forced Gingrich to resign as Speaker. At the time, he denounced their “cannibalism.” Gingrich frequently talks up his cozy relations with Bill Clinton and how he was able to work with Democrats on welfare reform and the budget. Quoth the Newter, “Everything I passed, Bill Clinton signed.” Note Gingrich did not say: Everything we passed.

View the original article here

Attack against Romney on auto bailout moves beyond Michigan - CBS News

Democrats continue to hammer Mitt Romney for once penning an op-ed entitled, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," but now the attacks are moving beyond Michigan to Ohio, another state with a large number of voters with jobs tied to the auto industry or the unions.

Public sector union AFSCME (American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees) is running an ad in Ohio slamming the Republican for his opposition to the auto bailout. "Romney would have turned his back on us in the depths of the recession," a narrator says in the ad, "but he supported giving the banks billions in bailouts? That's Mitt's world."

Republicans vote in Ohio on "Super Tuesday" on March 6, and a new poll there shows Rick Santorum with a seven-point lead over Romney.

President Obama's re-election team is already running an ad in Michigan that references Romney's op-ed while touting the president's support for the bailout. And the Democratic National Committee published a web ad today on the same theme.

The DNC ad plays a snippet from an interview with Romney on CBS last year, when in reference to his 2008 op-ed, he said, "That's exactly what I said. The headline you read which said, 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' points out that those companies needed to go through bankruptcy."

In that same interview, however, Romney explained that letting a company go bankrupt wouldn't mean liquidating the company, "but allowing them to go to the bankruptcy court to reorganize and come out stronger. That's what happened."

He added, "And the federal government put in, I think, $17 billion into those companies before they finally recognized, 'Yeah, they need to go bankrupt, go through that process, so that they're able to get rid of excess costs.'"

Romney did not mention that there was no private capital available at the time that allowed the managed bankruptcy to take place and the government's intervention was a pre-requisite to the managed bankruptcy.

General Motors and Chrysler were restructured as part of the $85 billion auto bailout, which started under President George W. Bush's leadership and was extended after Mr. Obama took office. Some analysts have claimed more than 1 million jobs were saved by the bailout.

Polls show voters in Michigan approve of the bailout. In a recent NBC/ Marist poll from Michigan, 63 percent of registered voters said the bailout was a good idea.

Nationally, 56 percent of Americans said the federal loans given to GM and Chrysler were good for the economy, according to a Pew survey from this month -- that's up from 37 percent in October 2009.

Romney's op-ed makes him a prime target for Democrats, but the bailout is a sticky subject for the other GOP candidates as well.

Santorum has tried to cast himself as an economic populist who can appeal to working class, social conservatives -- a segment of voters once referred to as "Reagan Democrats" who could help the GOP nominee in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania or Indiana. However, he also opposed the auto bailout. Santorum has tried to claim that he's at least more consistent on bailouts than Romney, since he also opposed the Wall Street bailout (unlike Romney).

"Mitt Romney supported his friends on Wall Street and then turned his back on the people of Detroit," Santorum said Sunday on the ABC's "This Week." "Now, I say turned his back because he supports the concept of bailouts. I don't. And that's the difference between the two approaches."

Rep. Ron Paul, a staunch libertarian, unsurprisingly opposed the auto bailouts. However, in a speech in Detroit on Monday, Paul said that U.S. capital "might have been spent building cars in this country rather than bombs overseas."

With reporting from CBS News/ National Journal reporter Lindsey Boerma

View the original article here

Christie Challenged by N.J. Democrats’ Pitch for Higher Wage - Businessweek

February 27, 2012, 1:34 PM EST By Elise Young

(Adds comments from hearing beginning in 14th paragraph.)

Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) -- New Jersey Democrats, less than a week after Republican Governor Chris Christie vetoed their bill to make same-sex marriage legal, are pushing another priority, a higher minimum wage.

New Jersey would join at least eight U.S. states raising the minimum hourly wage for most workers this year. A bill lawmakers are considering today would boost the rate to $8.50 an hour from $7.25 starting in July, and starting next year would tie future increases to U.S. Consumer Price Index changes.

Democrats, who control both legislative chambers, put a priority this year on the wage issue, same-sex marriage and a tax increase for millionaires. Christie, 49 and in his first term, rejected the marriage bill Feb. 17 and yesterday stood fast in opposing higher taxes on the wealthy. The governor said last month he would consider a higher minimum pay rate, while saying job growth was more important, even $7.25-an-hour jobs.

“I am not yet focused on the minimum-wage situation and what we may or may not do,” Christie told reporters yesterday in Palisades Park. “One thing I can guarantee you of is that nothing will be done unless I’m a player at the table to discuss it.”

“So far, the Democrats have just decided to operate on their own,” the governor said. “We’ve seen this before -- when they operate on their own, things get vetoed.”

Agenda Key

A higher minimum wage “should be a key part of the economic recovery agenda,” said Tom Hester, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, a Democrat from East Orange who sponsored the bill to raise the rate.

“The governor is more than welcome to join this debate with the goal of helping families struggling to get by in these difficult times,” Hester said yesterday by e-mail.

Christie on Feb. 21 introduced a $32.1 billion budget that relies on a 7.3 percent rise in revenue in fiscal 2013, which begins in July. That would be the biggest gain since 2007 and would help pay for his personal and business income-tax cuts and the largest public-pension contribution in state history.

Ahead of Neighbors

New Jersey residents had the third-highest income per capita among states in 2010, at $51,167, trailing only Massachusetts and Connecticut, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The Garden State’s minimum wage last increased in 2009, when it climbed 1.4 percent from $7.15.

A rate of $8.50 would put New Jersey ahead of neighboring New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, which all require the $7.25 federal minimum, and would edge out Connecticut, where the state-set rate is now $8.25, according to the U.S. Labor Department’s website. The Assembly’s Labor Committee will hear testimony today on the bill in the state Capitol in Trenton.

The New Jersey Minimum Wage Advisory Commission, a five- member appointed panel that reports annually, in January recommended in a 3-2 vote to keep the pay rate unchanged this year. The panel cited an economy still recovering from the longest recession since World War II, and a jobless rate which has been 9 percent or higher since May 2009.

An increase “may put the state at a competitive disadvantage,” leading some employers to add fewer jobs or consider moving to lower-cost states, the panel said in a report. It also cited the probable effect of pushing up consumer prices.

For the 12 months ended September 2011, an average 39,700 people in New Jersey were paid the minimum rate, according to the panel, or about 2.3 percent of all hourly wage workers.

Pros and Cons

The current minimum wage isn’t a livable standard in a high-cost state such as New Jersey, Lakisha Williams, a 29-year- old single mother from Newark, told lawmakers today.

Williams, a high-school graduate, said she earns $290 a week working full time as a wheelchair assistant at Newark Liberty International Airport. She said she receives Medicaid health coverage, rent assistance and food stamps.

“I’m the parent of a 12-year-old daughter, and she is very expensive,” Williams said.

The state should follow New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s lead, according to Jon Whiten, a spokesman for New Jersey Public Policy Perspective, a nonprofit organization in Trenton that focuses on “progressive policies,” according to its website. Bloomberg advocates a higher minimum.

“It’s actually good for the broader economic climate to ensure a basic standard of living for those who are working hard,” Whiten said yesterday by e-mail. The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.

New York

In Albany, New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Manhattan Democrat, introduced a bill last month that would raise the state’s minimum wage to $8.50 an hour and index future increases to inflation. Governor Andrew Cuomo, also a Democrat, has said he supports the concept while he hasn’t decided whether to back Silver’s bill.

Opponents such as the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, a 21,500-member lobbying group in Trenton, say it’s the wrong time for a mandated increase. For a fourth straight year, more employers reported declining sales, earnings, spending and hiring compared with those reporting gains, the organization said in a survey released in September.

Bad Timing

“We’re still struggling to get out of a recession and improve the business climate in the state,” Stefanie Riehl, an assistant vice president of employment and labor policy for the group, said by telephone.

Joe Olivo, president of Perfect Printing in Moorestown, said opponents of the increase have been demonized. He said his family has owned the company for 33 years, and that during the height of the economic slowdown in 2008 and 2009, he was forced to fire nine workers. Four of the firm’s 48 workers would get raises after a minimum-wage increase, he said.

“Everybody has their own financial difficulties at my company,” Olivo, 46, told reporters after testifying before lawmakers. “No one wants to come out against somebody and say they don’t feel they should be paid more. I don’t feel like that. I just worry this will hurt the workers they’re trying to protect and our businesses.”

Christie has voiced concern that an increase may lead employers to cut workers’ hours and put off hiring. He has said he recognizes a higher rate may be a good thing and he wants to be involved in the discussions about the policy.

“I’d love to sit down and talk to them,” said Christie, referring to Democratic leaders. “My mind is not set on this issue, but I’m not going to be persuaded in silence.”

--With assistance from Freeman Klopott in Albany, New York, and Terrence Dopp in Trenton, New Jersey. Editors: Stacie Servetah, Ted Bunker.

To contact the reporter on this story: Elise Young in Trenton at eyoung30@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Tannenbaum at mtannen@bloomberg.net

View the original article here

Democrats, Obama actively target Arizona in 2012 elections - AZCentral.com

by Alexander Burns - Feb. 26, 2012 02:06 PM
POLITICO.com

PHOENIX, Ariz. -- President Barack Obama and his party have a modest plan for contesting Arizona in 2012: speeding up time.

Not literally, of course, but Democrats are actively targeting the state this cycle with a push they hope will eventually convert Arizona to permanent swing-state status and test the GOP's appeal up and down the ballot.

The idea is to accelerate a transition in Arizona that's already taken hold throughout the West, as the rapidly growing ranks of Hispanic and independent voters have turned once-conservative-leaning states such as Colorado and Nevada firmly purple.

Strategists in both parties say it's uncertain whether Arizona is changing quickly enough to make it a genuine battleground in 2012 -- or anytime soon. The task of competing here looks especially daunting for a president who has clashed repeatedly with local Republicans, and whose Justice Department has sued the state over its restrictive immigration law. Most Republicans think their opponents are chasing a mirage in the desert.

But if they can fire up Latino voters, bring new registrants into the political process and take advantages of state-level miscalculations by the GOP, Democrats are hopeful that they can at least win back some of the territory they lost in the 2010 conservative landslide.

"All the elements are in place for Arizona to be a competitive state. Demographically, historically, all the pieces are lining up," said Andrei Cherny, a former state Democratic Party chairman now running for Congress. "You need to have an appeal that reaches past party lines and motivates and excites independents. I think that can be done, even on a presidential level."

Democratic state Rep. Ruben Gallego predicted that in a presidential year, Latino voters who sat out the 2010 campaign and who gave native-son presidential candidate John McCain a respectable showing in 2008, would come out in force for Obama.

"Time is moving this way, but what's also happening is the Latino community is becoming more active," he said. "The Republican brand is very damaged among the Latino community in Arizona."

Longtime Republican presidential strategist Charlie Black said he doubted Democrats would be viable in Arizona in 2012. Over a longer political timeline, he explained, the political prognosis is different.

"With the growth of the Latino vote and if Republicans don't get back to being more competitive in the Hispanic community, yeah, Arizona will be a competitive state up and down the ballot," said Black, a top adviser to McCain's 2008 bid. "But people in the West, including Arizona, have a sort of libertarian orientation. They don't much like the federal government and they don't like 'Obamacare,' telling religious voters what to do."

The state's conservative history has been alive and well in recent cycles: Arizona has routinely gone for Republican presidential candidates, handing GOP nominees 50 percent-plus totals in every election since 1996. Republicans control the governor's office, both chambers of the Legislature, both Senate seats and a majority of the congressional delegation.

And yet, the Obama campaign and other national Democrats have insistently signaled that they aim to compete here. The president's team outlined one possible route to reelection that involves strengthening the party's performance here and throughout the West -- potentially offsetting Democratic losses in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Obama has already opened offices in Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff, and plans to open a fourth in Glendale soon, according to a campaign official. As of Wednesday, Obama for America's Arizona staff and volunteers had more than 237 phone banks and 439 voter registration events, the official said.

Democrats have geared up for this year's Senate race, with Obama helping recruit former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona -- a George W. Bush appointee - for the open-seat contest to replace GOP Sen. Jon Kyl. Encouraged by newly drawn congressional maps, the party is hoping to recapture several of the House seats it won in the 2006 anti-Bush landslide and then lost in 2010.

Mahen Gunaratna, the Obama campaign's spokesman for Arizona and New Mexico, said the president's team is "confident we can be competitive in Arizona," emphasizing the potential impact of the Latino vote in a race against "a Republican field whose leading candidates oppose the DREAM Act, even calling it a 'handout,' as well as opposing a path to citizenship for immigrants."

Even Democratic strategists who are upbeat about the party's Arizona prospects suggest that they may fare better down-ballot -- in state and congressional races -- than in the presidential election, with an incumbent tied to a weak economy.

Jill Hanauer -- president of Project New America, the group formerly known as Project New West -- said it's part of the "Western tradition" to engage in split-ticket voting and support maverick members of both parties, such as McCain and Janet Napolitano, Arizona's former Democratic governor.

"I think voters in Arizona are going to be very intentional and do a lot of sorting," she said. "I think Arizona, both short term and long term, is really primed to be what Colorado is now, which is a solidly purple state that favors moderate, mainstream Democrats over Republicans."

On top of long-term trends that ought to make the state more hospitable to Democrats, Arizona has been buffeted since 2008 by a series of political crises and controversies that inject a major dose of uncertainty into the mix for both parties.

The national uproar over Arizona's immigration law -- known as S.B. 1070 -- was the first in a cascading sequence of local political crises, including a federal investigation of firebrand conservative Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a recall election that ousted state Senate President Russell Pearce and, most prominently, the January 2011 shooting of Democratic then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

What has remained constant throughout is much of the state's resentment against the federal government for its immigration lawsuit -- it's now headed for a ruling in the Supreme Court after portions were blocked by lower tribunals -- and the steady growth of the Latino population.

There's no question that population growth looks like a boon to Democrats. Between 2000 and 2010, Latinos went from 25.3 percent of Arizona residents to 29.6 percent, with that percentage markedly higher among younger Arizonans. A Democratic official said that over 111,000 people with Hispanic last names have registered to vote since 2008, and that 80,000 Hispanic voters who participated in 2008 took a pass on the 2010 campaign -- giving the party room to expand this year.

Republicans remain intensely skeptical -- verging on scornful -- of Democratic claims that this demographic shift will be enough to put Arizona in play this year or in the immediate future. To them, the prospect of Arizona-as-swing state looks about as plausible as the short-lived George W. Bush-era fantasy of turning California red.

Republican National Committee political director Rick Wiley issued a memo late last year essentially dismissing the Obama campaign's Arizona chatter as a flight of fancy and said this week he still doesn't "see a scenario" where a president with middling approval numbers can mount a real fight for the state.

"With the gains we had in '10, this is an entirely red state right now," Wiley said. "I think you're looking at a decade, at least, before they can get close in some of these congressional districts."

Though there's some evidence that Republicans are paying a price for their policies on immigration and other divisive policy debates, there's little indication so far that the alternative voters want is a Democrat. When they booted Pearce, the polarizing author of S.B. 1070, they voted in another Republican -- now-state Sen. Jerry Lewis.

And while state and national Democrats have scored points off flamboyant conservatives like Pearce and Arpaio, the party's 2012 ticket is likely to be headed by two more inoffensive candidates: Mitt Romney and Rep. Jeff Flake, who is running for Senate.

That doesn't mean that the GOP isn't taking some steps to prepare for a Democratic push here -- even if it's one viewed as doomed from the start.

At the Republican National Committee's winter meeting in New Orleans, Wiley said the Arizona GOP was asked to take part in an exercise that other 2012 battleground states participated in last year, sizing up their state as a potential target and taking "a long, hard look at why [Obama] can't win."

"I just wanted to put the Arizona party on notice," Wiley explained, calling it a matter of "diligence."

The amount of preparation necessary for the state GOP will depend on how much actual money and national attention Democrats end up devoting to the state -- X factors that are unknowable this far out in the cycle. While Obama visited Arizona only last month, his time and resources will be scarcer by the fall.

"If the Obama people choose to run a serious campaign in the state, we'll have to run a serious campaign," said Black. "But let me put it this way: they will run about 4 or 5 points behind their national median in Arizona. So it won't be a state they'll need to get."

What's more, the president's presence may or may not be an asset to candidates running down-ballot and seeking to appeal to Arizona's independent streak.

That makes for something of a balancing act for candidates like Carmona, who's offering himself to voters in the Senate race as a "centrist and moderate" challenging a state GOP that's perceived as "too radical."

"The average person is just looking for somebody -- more or less any person -- who will do something rather than blaming the other side," he said. "The thing I hear most is, they just want some leadership. 'Somebody solve the damn problem.'"

As for whether that anti-politician mantle would leave room for, say, campaigning with Obama, Carmona was non-committal.

"I haven't even thought about that, to tell you the truth. I know Arizona is one of 50 for him and Arizona is my Number One focus," he said. "I'm certainly happy to have the conversation, but my focus is on my campaign and the issues that I think are important to Arizona."

View the original article here

Democrats Playing Defense In 2012 Governors' Races - Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- Democrats are playing defense in governors' races in 2012, protecting eight seats – some in conservative states like North Carolina and Montana – while Republicans are safeguarding just four. But one of those is in Wisconsin, where a recall effort against incumbent Scott Walker has emerged as a national test of the confrontational measures many GOP governors have taken to balance state budgets.

Both parties agree the landscape is quite different than in 2010, where 37 states elected governors at the height of the economic downturn and amid roiling voter anger over government spending and debt. Republicans netted 6 new seats that year, including important presidential bellwether states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. There are currently 29 Republican governors, 20 Democrats and 1 independent.

This year, just 8 seats are up for grabs against a backdrop of a slowly improving national economy and a presidential contest that will draw a broader range of voters. Republicans are casting the contests as a referendum on their own party's leadership in tough times while Democrats are calling it a potential course correction after two years of GOP overreach.

"The public in a number of states in 2010 thought they were sending the message that with new leadership in the governor's office they'd get an accelerated recovery. Instead they got a hard right turn in ideology," said Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association in an interview.

O'Malley pointed to Ohio, where voters soundly rejected a ballot measure backed by Republican governor John Kasich to curtail public employee unions, and Florida, where Rick Scott's aggressive budget cuts and remote style helped sink his approval ratings to record lows last year.

"The governors we elected over the last couple of cycles have come into office, made tough gutsy decisions that haven't always been popular. But they've been honest enough to tell their voters we can't afford to do things the same way," said Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

Nowhere are the parties' contrasting visions on more vivid display than in Wisconsin, where Democrats submitted more than a million petitions in January to recall Walker, whose efforts to slash state worker benefits and end their collective bargaining rights drew fierce protests from union members and other activists.

The special election is expected to take place in June, with a likely primary in May to select a Democrat to challenge Walker. Former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, a favorite of labor leaders, is expected to run, and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is also exploring a race.

Both parties agree that the Wisconsin recall is likely to be the closest governor's race of the year, and possibly the most expensive.

Democrats have modest hopes for a pickup in Indiana, where Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels is stepping down after two terms. Rep. Mike Pence, a 6-term Republican from eastern Indiana, is running to replace Daniels, but John Gregg, a Democrat and former state House speaker, is mounting a strong effort.

Indiana is heavily Republican and Obama's popularity in the state has dropped considerably since winning the state in 2008, the first Democratic presidential hopeful in 40 years to do so. But the DGA's O'Malley said the strengthening auto industry, both nationally and in Indiana, could boost Gregg's chances.

Some states with elections this year are expecting to retain current governors, including Republicans Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota and Gary Herbert of Utah and Democrats Jack Markell of Delaware and Peter Shumlin of Vermont.

But from there, Republicans expect to be on offense.

_ In Washington state, where two-term Democrat Christine Gregoire is stepping down, Rob McKenna, the popular GOP attorney general, is running to replace her. Washington has not elected a Republican governor in 30 years, but party leaders say McKenna is a good fit for the state which Obama won handily in 2008 and will likely do so again this time. Longtime Rep. Jay Inslee is expected to be the Democratic contender.

_ In Montana, a conservative state where Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer is stepping down after two terms, Republicans are enthusiastic about their chances despite a June primary that has drawn at least 7 hopefuls so far. Former Rep. Rick Hill is considered a favorite. Attorney General Steve Bullock leads the Democratic field.

_ In Missouri, where incumbent Democrat Jay Nixon is seeking re-election, Republicans hope the state's slow economic recovery and an expected tight presidential and senate contest could help their chances of recapturing the seat. Dave Spence, a wealthy suburban St. Louis businessman, is among the candidates running in the August GOP primary.

_ In West Virginia, a rematch is shaping up between incumbent Democrat Earl Ray Tomblin and Republican Bill Maloney, who came within 3 points of beating Tomblin in a 2011 special election despite almost no political experience and little name recognition. The RGA's McDonnell predicted Obama's presence at the top of the ticket this time was likely to drag down Tomblin. Obama lost the state to Republican John McCain in 2008 by 13 points.

_ In North Carolina, where incumbent Democrat Bev Perdue is stepping down after a single rocky term, Republicans are enthusiastic about Pat McCrory, a former Charlotte mayor who came within a few points of beating Perdue in 2008. Former Rep Bob Etheridge and Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton are among the Democrats expected to compete in the May primary.

_ In New Hampshire, where Democrat John Lynch is retiring, Republican conservative activists Ovide Lamontagne and Kevin Smith are vying for the Republican nomination while former state Senate Majority Leader Maggie Hassan is a favorite in the Democratic primary. New Hampshire went heavily Republican in 2010 after a gradual Democratic shift in the prior decade. It's considered a swing state in this year's presidential contest and could even lean Republican if former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee. Obama won the state handily in 2008.

Republicans also have a significant financial advantage in the 2012 contest. The RGA raised $44 million in 2011 and had nearly $27 million cash on hand in the group's most recent filing, while the Democrats raised $20 million and had about $12 million on hand.

___

Related on HuffPost:

Get Alerts Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!

View the original article here

Democrats hear from woman snubbed by GOP lawmakers - msnbc.com

Washington — Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke was given her chance to talk to Congress Thursday, even though lawmakers were on a break and just a few Democratic allies were there to cheer her on.

Don't miss these Health stories Reunited, and it feels so ... bad? Breaking up is hard to do, sure. But a new study shows that recycled romances aren't all smooth sailing. In fact, they can be downright miserable.

Sounds delicious! New study links pitch and flavor Frozen embryo 'open adoption' raises hopes, questions Sudden OCD in kids? Culprit may be strep throat Our Lin-sane attraction to terrible puns, explained

But what a difference a week makes.

Last Thursday the Republican-controlled House Oversight and Government Reform Committee rejected Democrats' request that Fluke testify on the Obama administration's policy requiring that employees of religion-affiliated institutions have access to health insurance that covers birth control.

This week she received almost rock-star treatment as the lone witness at an unofficial Democratic-sponsored hearing. While the rest of the Capitol was mostly empty, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, three other Democrats and dozens of mainly young women supporters crowded into a House office building room to applaud Fluke as she spoke of the importance of reproductive health care to women.

Prominently displayed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., was a photo of five religious leaders, all men and all appearing at the invitation of the Republican majority, testifying last week with Fluke visible in the background, sitting in the visitors' section.

Democrats pounced on that image of a hearing discussing contraceptive rights being dominated by men while the one person Democrats had asked to appear on the witness stand, a woman, was turned away. Pelosi, D-Calif., said they had since heard from 300,000 people urging that women's voices be heard on the issue.

"We almost ought to thank the chairman for the lack of judgment he had," in denying a seat to Fluke, Pelosi said.

Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., had said at last week's hearing that the panel's focus was on whether the administration policy was a violation of religious freedom. He said at the time that Fluke, invited by Democrats in her capacity as former head of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, was not qualified to speak on the religious rights question.

"I'm an American woman who uses contraceptives," Fluke said, when asked Thursday by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., about her qualifications to speak on the issue.

The Health and Human Services Department ruled earlier this year that, under the new health care law, religious-affiliated institutions such as hospitals and universities must include free birth control coverage in their employee health plans.

That raised a storm of protests from Catholic leaders and other groups that disapprove of contraception on religious grounds. Two weeks ago President Barack Obama modified that policy so that insurance companies, and not the organization affiliated with a church, would pay for birth control coverage.

The religious leaders at last week's hearing said that Obama's concession was too little. Republicans in the House and Senate are pushing legislation to let insurance plans opt out of any mandate on contraception coverage if they have moral objections.

Fluke, a third-year law student, said that Georgetown Law, a Jesuit institution, does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan and that contraception can cost a woman more than $3,000 during law school. She spoke of a friend who had an ovary removed because the insurance company wouldn't cover the prescription birth control she needed to stop the growth of cysts.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

View the original article here

Larimer Democrats set caucus precinct sites - Coloradoan

The Larimer County Democrats have announced their 2012 Precinct Caucus sites. Democratic Caucuses will be held on March 6. Registration will begin at 6:30 p.m.; caucus meetings will begin promptly at 7 p.m.

Many precinct numbers and boundaries have changed. Voters should look up their new precinct number at the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder?s website: www.Larimer.org/Elections (click on ?Am I Registered??) prior to caucus.

A person may vote at the precinct caucus, be elected a delegate or an alternate from the caucus and/or be elected as a precinct committee person if they have been:
>> A resident in the precinct for at least 30 days.
>> Registered to vote in the precinct for at least 29 days.
>> A registered Democrat for not less than two months prior to the date of the caucus.

Precinct caucuses are the first step in the Democrats Caucus-Primary process. Delegates to the Larimer County Democrats Convention and Assembly are elected at caucus, and each precinct elects two Precinct Committee People.

The Larimer County Democrats Convention and Assembly will be held March 10 at Fossil Ridge High School, 5400 Ziegler Road, Fort Collins. Registration for the Convention and Assembly will begin at 8 a.m.

A list of Larimer County Democrats Precinct Caucus locations, along with many more caucus details can be found at http://www.larimerdems.org/.

View the original article here

Wisconsin Democrats running first recall ad: ‘Walkergate’ - Washington Post

???initialComments:true! pubdate:02/27/2012 11:24 EST! commentPeriod:14! commentEndDate:3/12/12 12:24 EDT! currentDate:2/26/12 7:0 EST! allowComments:true! displayComments:true!Posted by Rachel Weiner at 11:24 AM ET, 02/27/2012

The Wisconsin Democratic party is releasing its first ad in the recall campaign against Gov. Scott Walker (R) Monday.

“Walkergate” compares a John Doe investigation into current and former Walker aides to the Watergate scandal, juxtaposing news clips about the probe with coverage of the 1970s Nixon scandal.

Petition signatures to recall Walker were filed earlier this year, in response to legislation that eliminated collective bargaining rights for many public employees. Those signatures have yet to be certified, but a recall election against the governor is likely to take place later this year.

As that fight goes forward, prosecutors are investigating four aides and appointees of Walker’s from when he was Milwaukee County executive. Two Walker appointees have been charged with embezzling funds intended for veterans; two aides were charged with illegal fund-raising.

“There are many similarities by Watergate and Walkergate,” said Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate on a conference call with reporters, saying Walker “has given a blizzard of contradictory statements about what he knew and when he knew it.”

Walker says he is not a target of the probe, but he has hired two defense attorneys and is meeting with prosecutors.

Former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and state Sen. Kathleen Vinehout have already entered the Democratic primary to take on Walker.

Democrats would not disclose the amount of money being spent on the “Walkergate” ad, saying only that it’s a rolling buy in multiple markets.

Walker Press Secretary Tom Evenson said the ad was full of “lies and distortions” and that the governor “immediately addressed any issues of misconduct when brought to his attention. ... The character assassination being conducted by Madison Democrats and big-government union bosses in this ad shows they are grasping at straws.”

Walker has been airing ads since the recall petition drive kicked off last fall; he has already raised and spent millions. The political action committee Americans for Prosperity, funded by the billionaire libertarian Koch brothers, has already put hundreds of thousands of dollars into ads supporting the governor.

A recent poll showed Walker leading all likely challengers.

Nia-malika Henderson 

Felicia Sonmez 

Dan Balz 

Sandhya Somashekhar 

Robert Barnes 

Philip Rucker 

David A. Fahrenthold 

Ed O'keefe 

Melinda Henneberger 

Felicia Sonmez 

Carol D. Leonnig 

Glenn Kessler 

Philip Rucker; Dan Balz 

Rachel Weiner 

Eric Yoder 

View the original article here

Will the Democrats say 'I do' support marriage equality in 2012? - DAILY KOS

On Feb. 13, Freedom to Marry launched their "Democrats: Say I Do" campaign, aimed at lobbying the Democratic Party's drafting committee to formally adopt a position of supporting marriage equality into the party platform. The new platform will be ratified at the Democratic National Convention this summer. The current platform language reads (p. 52):

We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.

The proposed new language would read:

The Democratic Party supports the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibility, and protection under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,” and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples.

Is the time ripe for the Democratic party to finally come out of the closet and say "I do" support marriage equality and not just wink and a nod at it?

Reid Wilson writing in the National Journal this week called marriage equality support "The New Democratic Litmus Test." Wilson argues the 2016 Democratic presidential aspirants will inevitably include marriage equality supporters, and Democratic marriage equality opponents may well find themselves at a significant fundraising disadvantage.

In July 2011, President Obama's pollster Joel Benenson and George W. Bush's pollster Dr. Jan van Lohuizen were hired by Freedom to Marry to crunch the numbers. Here's what their analysis of six national polls from Gallup, Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, ABC News/Washington Post and Pew Research Center (Pew) found:

The trendlines are indisputable, and a general consensus seems to be forming that marriage equality is inevitable, Vice-President Joe Biden even said so himself.

Among Beneson and van Lohuizen's conclusions was the declaration that "support strongly correlates with age. As Americans currently under the age of 40 make up a greater percentage of the electorate, their views will come to dominate."

And look who signed up right away to endorse Freedom to Marry's initiative: the Executive Director of Young Democrats of America. YDA has 150,000+ members from chapters in 46 states and U.S. territories and over 1,500 local chapters. Emily Tisch Sussman writing on the group's website said:

“As the Executive Director of Young Democrats of America, I represent young people, and the way we connect young people back to Democratic politics is by speaking out for what is right and taking action. Polling shows that 70 percent of voters 18-34 support the freedom to marry, and for many of our members, it’s a cause that goes to the core of why they consider themselves Democrats. It is time to realize that marriage is no longer an effective wedge issue; it is a cause that we as Democrats should be leading on.”

Leadership is the key issue here.

The changing trendlines certainly are signaling to many Democratic leaders the water's fine, hop right in. The strong hand of leadership emanting from Democratic Govs. Cuomo, Gregoire and O'Malley in New York, Washington and Maryland were certainly key to marriage equality victories in the last year.

There is certainly a school of thought that Democrats should not engage "social issues" and that what voters really care about is the jobs and economy.

While the second part is almost certainly true, total disengagement from this "social issue" is not a luxury the LGBT community has the privilege to enjoy in the 2012 election cycle. Whether LGBT Americans like it or not, their civil rights will be going to popular ballot referendums, definitely in Minnesota, Maine and all but certainly in Washington and Maryland as well. North Carolina too will be voting on May 8 on a constitutional amendment to ban virtually all unions but opposite-sex marriage.

And for some inexplicable reason Republicans seem anxious to make 2012 the year of a resurgent culture war. Inexplicable as polling shows they are out if the mainstream on all touchstone issues. Abortion, birth control and even marriage equality offers increasingly no advantage to winning the hearts and minds of the middle.

Support by party affliation, average five national polls*Nationally marriage equality supporters are indisputably in the majority.

Viewing support through party affiliations, and non-affiliated voters, the divide is even more revealing.

Increasingly the GOP's rhetoric preaches only to their choir. Supporting marriage equality offers little risk to a Democrat to turn off the base or independents. It's becoming clear that the most adamant opposition is fast boiling down to a hardcore group of 30% mostly religious right conservative Republicans. And it isn't at all clear that a voter that doesn't support marriage equality personally considers a candidate's support a deal-breaker in an otherwise acceptable platform of issues.

Believe it or not, even the Republican party seems to be waking up to this. Earlier this year, National Journal took the temperature of political "insiders"—political operatives, strategists, campaign consultants and lobbyists—in both parties. They found an amazing 20 percent drop in GOP's appetite for opposing marriage equality in just under two years. All the movement on the GOP side was toward a desire to "avoid" the issue:

Republicans insiders on marriage equalityMy party should avoid the issueA smart strategist will attack where he sees his opponent retreating and 84 percent of Democratic opinion leaders recommend their party support marriage equality. Quotes from insiders included this from a Democrat: "It's a huge demographic opportunity for Democrats because almost every voter under 30 supports it."  This one came from a GOP operative: "Only idiots fight demography." In New Jersey, Democrats appear to have used Republican Chris Christie's idiocy against him.

But often Democrats are more comfortable discussing the politics of contrast than playing them. To do that you have to get in front of the issue, and lead the conversation in a new direction rather than just respond to what the other side is saying.

As marriage equality support becomes the majority position it becomes less and less understandable to the LGBT community that leaders should treat the issue as radioactive or an electoral albatross.

There is of course, widespread anxiety about these various ballot fights coming to the 2012 calendar, and also perhaps anxiety at the prospect of a 2008 redux.

Think back to November 4, 2008. While Democrats had every reason to cheer, for the LGBT constituency, the evening was more bittersweet. The landslide win of Barack Obama, and downticket sweeps of Democrats did not stop Proposition 8 in California, nor did it stop similar anti-gay ballot initatives in Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas.

In 2009, during the ballot fight for marriage equality in Maine, there was some criticism that Organizing for America was perhaps, less engaged than many LGBT Democrats might have hoped. That ballot initiative failed narrowly.

Signs are encouraging that the larger Democratic establishment will be more engaged in assisting the LGBT community with these battles in 2012 than in the past.

In Maryland and Washington, the party has good incentive to unite. Like marriage equality or not, the Republicans are coming to take away the Democratic Governor's legacy. Govs. Gregoire and O'Malley's triumphs will be hollow, even viewed as a political misstep, should they be erased by voters. In both states, a united front of the Democratic base can assure the governors' fight for the freedom to marry was not made in vain and the Democratic party's legislative agenda vindicated. In Minnesota, the Democratic party, under the leadership of Gov. Mark Dayton is showing a fierce appetite to adopt the fight as their own.

Unsurprisingly, further south of the Mason-Dixon line, the news is less encouraging in North Carolina. Moving the date of the ballot initiative from the general to be concurrent with Republican primary was anything but helpful, at least for the LGBT community. And Sen. Kay Hagan's comment she was "wary" of the amendment was described by North Carolinian Pam Spaulding as more "tepid" and "pitiful" than fierce, but still better than Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue's statement.

The platform adoption is but one strategy for solidifying support within the Democratic base for turning these ballot initiatives into LGBT victories.

Adam Bink of Courage Campaign called adopting marriage equality support into the platform "constructive and important." But Courage Campaign's strategy is perhaps more pragmatic than symbolic and can be summed up in four words: "Show us the money!"

Courage Campaign and Grindr 4 Equality are focused on ensuring the DNC chip in to fund the campaign against these discriminatory amendments in Minnesota and North Carolina and ensure equal rights in other states because ultimately, money is what is needed to get our message out to voters in these critical campaigns."

Courage Campaign's petition to the DNC reads:

LGBT voters and their allies have put Democrats in office for years. Now it's time for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to have our back and help secure equal rights. As many as 5 states (Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina and Washington) will face ballot referenda on marriage equality this year, where voters will vote on the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

In 2008, the DNC chipped in $25,000 to help fight Prop 8 and then-candidate Obama called for a "no" vote. DNC Chairwoman and Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz told reporters she would "certainly consider" funding the fight for equal rights. Let's show the DNC how important it is for them to help again.

Submitted to Madame Chairwoman as she considers the appropriating of DNC resources for the 2012 cycle: the voters these equality-minded organizers will be working furiously to drive into voting booths will almost certainly be disproportionately young, progressive Democrats. Please, consider how that might end well for everyone on election night.

The ask seems particularly effective coming from Courage Campaign as they have distinguished themselves as full-spectrum progressive organizer engaging on issues as disparate as fair taxation, racism, health care reform and countless others.

Michael Cole-Schwartz speaking for Human Rights Campaign said:

We are supportive of Freedom to Marry's and Courage Campaign's efforts. Having party support for marriage and a variety of other LGBT issues is important which is why we've testified previously, including in 2008, before the DNC Platform Committee. As we look toward these critical elections with marriage to be on the ballot in a number of states, HRC will be playing a substantial role in these fights.

The LGBT community has a good friend in DNC chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, a supporter of marriage equality. She has not yet commented on the platform language, but has a long history of standing with the LGBT community, including serving as vice-chair of the House LGBT equality caucus. House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi has already voiced support for the proposed change in platform language. She also once said to marriage equality opponents, "The inconceivable to you is the inevitable to us." Secret Service watches President Obama address
Human Rights Campaign, Oct. 2009 (White House)But of course the elephant donkey in the living room is the awkward optics of a party adopting a position that the party leader does not share. (Although exactly such a situation already transpired late last year in Australia on precisely this issue.) This almost certainly presents the biggest hurdle to the successful adoption.

But even the party leader himself seems to be acknowledging the inevitable telling Joe Sudbay and gathered bloggers in October 2010:

THE PRESIDENT: The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trendlines are going.

Q: The arc of history.

THE PRESIDENT: The arc of history.

The biggest point of debate seems to be when he will—or should—get on the correct side of the arc of history?

Not everyone has lost faith that the president's position will complete its evolution before November 6, 2012. In December, former Clinton White House advisor Richard Socarides wrote of Prop 8 and DOMA constitutional challenges in the New Yorker:

The potential for those decisions, together with a rapid change in public opinion in favor of marriage equality, have clearly become factors in President Obama’s thinking. As a result, I believe that he will announce his support for same-sex marriage before the 2012 election.

Might the president announce his personal endorsement concurrent with that of his party?

It certainly would put a bold exclamation point on his likely place in history as the first American president to declare the freedom to marry as a fundamental human right for every loving couple.

View the original article here

Reagan Democrats’ could decide winner of Michigan primary - Boston Herald

SHELBY TOWNSHIP, Mich. — Mitt Romney has to win Michigan’s Republican primary Tuesday. So does Rick Santorum.

They’re going about it in very different ways.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, promotes himself as a "son of Detroit" who left to conquer the business world. His carefully scripted rallies feature not only reminiscences of the old Detroit area neighborhood, but also reminders of his history as a successful corporate turnaround artist.

Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, offers a different story. He roared into Michigan with strong momentum, having won three contests this month. His freewheeling stump speeches usually are laced with heartfelt reminders of his devotion to God and family.

Polls have shown Santorum and Romney running about even. A Romney loss in a state where, on paper, everything should go his way would be a serious blow. A Santorum defeat would raise new questions about his appeal beyond die-hard conservatives.

A victory by either man would demonstrate appeal in a blue-collar industrial state and give him an important boost in next week’s primary in neighboring Ohio.

Michigan Republicans are torn. Do the residents of this economically ailing state put aside their skepticism about the depth of Romney’s conservatism and choose the businessman who seems best positioned to win in November? Or do they follow their heart sand pick Santorum? And where does Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who campaigned vigorously over the weekend, fit?

Shelby Township, a Detroit suburb visited by both Santorum and Romney in recent weeks, is in an area known in political circles as the suburbs that made famous "Reagan Democrats," rank-and-file workers who felt Democrats let them down economically and culturally and began voting Republican in the 1980s.

At Biggby Coffee on Van Dyke Avenue, the customers drink the $2 java and tell the state’s still-evolving Republican primary story.

"The jury’s out on who people like most," said franchise owner David Danyko.

Customers Stan Grot, Bo Chapman and Mike Torres have similar views — solidly conservative, eager for lower taxes and less regulation, and wary of President Barack Obama.

Grot supports Romney. Chapman prefers Santorum. Torres likes Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who’s making virtually no effort in Michigan.

Grot, the township clerk, worked in manufacturing engineering at General Motors. He lost his job in 1980, spent a year on unemployment and left the Democratic Party.

"I listened to Ronald Reagan’s message," he said. "Ronald Reagan spoke to opportunity and personal responsibility. He created an environment so businesses could thrive."

Grot liked how the 1981 tax cuts put more money in consumers’ pockets, and he opened a restaurant in Hamtramck. He ran it for eight years before selling the place; it’s still thriving today.

View the original article here