Daily Kos

When John R. Bolton added his name to the list of Mitt Romney's endorsers last week, it was, Ben Smith writes, all part of a "subtle but important shift" to the right in foreign policy for the GOP candidate.

For those who believe it would be hard for Romney to move much further rightward than he already has, it was indeed subtle. This is, after all, the guy who, as governor of Massachusetts, his knee jerking hard, said of a Sept. 11, 2005, visit by Mohammad Khatami, the former president of Iran, "I think it's an outrage in this season of memory of those that lost their lives that we would be inviting someone who is a terrorist to this country."

Khatami, of course, was no terrorist. He was rather the best hope for reform Iranians had seen in 25 years, and likewise the best hope for cranking down tensions between Iran and Europe and the United States. Romney's comment was a simple pander because, y'know, all Muslims are alike. If they're not members of al Qaeda, they want to be.

Romney's mutual embrace of Bolton also seemed a confirmation of his speech last October at The Citadel, the South Carolina military college. It was there that he invoked a phrase made prominent more than a decade ago in the neo-conservative circles inhabited by Bolton and the presidential advisers who gave us the Bush Doctrine of preventive war:

“This century must be an American century. In an American century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. In an American century, America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world.” [...]

“God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will. Without American leadership, without clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place, and liberty and prosperity would surely be among the first casualties. Let me make this very clear. As president of the United States, I will devote myself to an American century. And I will never, ever apologize for America.” [...]

This is America’s moment.  We should embrace the challenge, not shrink from it, not crawl into an isolationist shell, not wave the white flag of surrender, nor give in to those who assert America’s time has passed. That is utter nonsense. An eloquently justified surrender of world leadership is still surrender.

That Providence rather than human beings created the United States was, you may remember, the view of America held by the English Pilgrims and Puritans. They discovered that the epidemics they believed God had sent to clear the land of its original inhabitants for their benefit had not done as good a job as was needed and required some additional effort with muskets, swords and torches to finish.

The implication of "surrender" in Romney's speech was, of course, no different than that of six decades ago when the Republican charge was "Who lost China [to communism]?" In other words, Democrats are "weak on defense." Tried and true campaigning by the GOP ever since. So much so that Democrats themselves have bought the theme, having themselves appointed Republicans more often than Democrats to serve as Secretary of Defense in the past 60 years. Romney chose not "weak" but rather "feckless" to describe Obama's defense policies. No mention of Osama bin Laden because that would wreck the narrative. As would pointing out that plenty of leftist critics consider Obama's foreign policy too aggressive.

Since the Citadel speech, Romney's positions have become clearer both in what he's said and what he hasn't. There will be no talking with Iran, no talking with the Taliban, no bringing the troops home from Afghanistan, apparently no talking with the Russians about further reductions in the planet-trashing capabilities of the world's two largest nuclear arsenals, no retreat from the Bush Doctrine on preventive wars that international law labels wars of aggression. But not to worry:

“Romney isn’t interested in becoming Bush Three,” said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations under George W. Bush and a Romney supporter. “Smart leaders learn from others’ mistakes. Many foreign policy conservatives believe that the primary criteria for U.S. foreign policy positions should be how it effects our national security. Over the past several years we unfortunately moved away from that principle.

“With exploding budget deficits and a national debt, the U.S. can’t afford to police the world or nation build. But we also can’t afford to jeopardize Americans’ safety by ignoring developing threats from our enemies or watching our defense capabilities decline below China’s or others’,” Grenell said.

In other words, although Romney doesn't want to be Bush III, even a modest slowing down of the massive growth in the Pentagon's budget, as President Obama has proposed, is anathema. Romney has proposed adding more ships to a Navy he has labeled "hollowed out" and maintaining the size of the Army and Marines, the two branches having grown in the past four years by more than 100,000 active-duty troops for a total of 766,000. Romney has proposed increasing the core Pentagon budget by about 5 percent from the 2012 level of $533 billion, while Obama has proposed cutting it by 2 percent in 2013 and then letting it rise at the rate of inflation in the years thereafter.

So much for concern about debt and for not policing the world. Romney pretends that we can spend more on continuing the U.S. military build-up and rebuild the U.S. economy simultaneously. That fantasy alone makes him unfit to be president.

Meanwhile, to neoconservatives—allegedly discredited by the war in Iraq, but still resilient inside the GOP, Romney’s rejection of suggestions from rivals like Jon Huntsman that the U.S. should cut defense spending and bring home troops represents a kind of vindication.

“Give Romney credit—he had some of those people in his camp, and he’s clearly made the choice to go in the other direction,” said Michael Goldfarb, a former McCain aide who chairs the conservative Center for American Freedom. “There is no coherent alternative to neocon foreign policy in the party.

What Romney might actually do in foreign policy were he to defeat Obama may well be a far cry from what he sounds like he might do on the campaign trail. But while he's not calling for the reinvasion of Iraq like the Texan who just gave up the GOP contest and endorsed Newt Gingrich, accepting the advice of John Bolton and the other purveyors of a militarily backed "American Century" sounds like a song we've heard before. At immense cost of lives and treasure.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), rarely a bastion of moderation, has determined to go full tea-bagger to fend of a serious primary challenge to his reelection this year. His latest target: retired public employees, those older middle class citizens who have it just too damned easy in life.

Last year, Sen. Orrin
Hatch (R-UT) complained that poor people don't pay enough taxes, calling the fact that rich people pay more "perverse." (Revealingly, Hatch has offered no similar complaint about millionaires who pay no income tax.) Now Hatch has a new plan to redistribute wealth upwards: He wants to slash pensions for state and local public employees:

"The public pension crisis plaguing our nation demands a real solution," Hatch, 77, who represents Utah, said in a statement. "Over the coming weeks, I will be putting forward ideas to reform public pension programs in a meaningful way that doesn't leave taxpayers on the hook."

It's interesting what Hatch considers a "crisis plaguing our nation." It's not a growing gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else that leaves the vast majority of Americans struggling to overcome stagnant wages while a privileged few enjoy unimaginable wealth. No, to Orrin Hatch, the crisis is a pension system that helps senior citizens retire with dignity (not to mention food and shelter) after a lifetime of work.

Hatch is also the guy who thinks people receiving unemployment insurance or public benefits should be drug-tested, so he's just expanding his vindictiveness against poor people to less-poor people. It's the Republican way.

Republicans sure do like to rail against "dividing" Americans, when they really mean, "stop opposing our policies!"

Mitt Romney was asked what he would do for the 99 percent. Here's his answer:

Let me tell you something. America is a great nation, because we’re a united nation. And those who are trying to divide the nation, as you’re trying to do here, and as our president is doing, are hurting this country seriously. The right course for America is not to try to divide America, and try and divid us between one and another. it’s to come together as a nation.

And if you’ve got a better model — if you think China’s better, or Russia’s better, or Cuba’s better, or North Korea’s better — I’m glad to hear all about it.

But you know what? America’s right, and you’re wrong.

Of course, Romney is part of the fundamentalist wing of the GOP, the wing that hates brown people, divides people on race, seeks to deny rights from homosexuals, stands in the way of progress for women, demonizes non-Christians (from atheists to Muslims to Jews and so forth), bashes educators and scientists, campaigns against unionized workers, and rails against entire regions of America—from cities like Chicago, San Francisco and Berkeley, to entire states like Massachusetts, New York and California.

Of course, if that's the model Mittens wants, if he thinks Somalia, or the Sudan, or kleptocratic Russia is better—then I'd love to hear it!

Obviously, Republicans thrive on divisiveness, and Romney's team is hoping this confrontation wins him points with South Carolina Republicans (where divisiveness is their middle name). The only time they recoil is when the greediest one percent are taken to task. Too bad they don't care about unity the rest of the time.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE…

This Late Night Snark is Still in the Race:

"The South Carolina GOP primary campaign is in full swing. Candidates are shaking hands, kissing babies and strategically ignoring Confederate flags."
---Stephen Colbert
-
"Rick Perry has dropped out of the presidential race. Apparently, America did not want a conservative, gun happy, intellectually-challenged governor of Texas for president. At least not again."
---Jay Leno
-
"When Mitt Romney says, ‘The buck stops here,’ he means literally: 'I have your money. Fuck you.'"
---Bill Maher
-
"According to lawyers that have contacted us, [SOPA] doesn’t shut down your web site and remove it from the internet. It just makes it so that people can not in any way access the web site. So it's sorta like coming up with a plan to prevent teen pregnancy that includes filling penises with cement."
---Jon Stewart
-
"I may not be some TV blowhard, but I do speak for the common man, who does his lousy job, goes to church twice a year and watches women's tennis 'cause he likes to hear 'em grunt…those real people out there who buy their coffee from the mini-mart and grab enough sugar packs for a week! Honest, hard-working, sugar-stealing Americans!"
---Homer Simpson, on Head Butt with Nash Castor
-
I can't believe you're 90 years old. In fact, I don't believe it. That's why I'm writing to ask if you will be willing to produce a copy of your long form birth certificate. Thanks, and Happy Birthday, no matter how old you are.
---Letter from President Obama to Betty White on her 90th birthday

And one year ago:

"The Republican-controlled House voted to repeal the healthcare bill. If that goes well, they’ll see what they can do about this whole 'women voting' thing."
---Conan O'Brien

C'mon down and say hi. We're all huddling together for bodily warmth. Your west coast-friendly edition of  Cheers and Jeers starts below the fold... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

It's never say die, for some Republicans.

BALTIMORE – House Republicans, undaunted by the payroll tax holiday debacle that dinged their conference last month, said Friday that they were considering using the Keystone XL Pipeline as a chip in the next round of negotiations over the tax break, as part of their overall efforts to push back against White House policies this year.

“We are going to be looking at every option to keep this issue at the forefront,” said Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee and a member of the bicameral conference committee tasked with coming up with a bill to extend the payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits through the rest of the year.

Mr. Upton said that reviving the 1,700-mile pipeline project, which would stretch from Canada to the Gulf Coast and which President Obama rejected this week for now, would likely be a contingency Republicans would seek in the tax break negotiations. “Certainly that is within the scope of the conference,” he said. [...]

Upending Mr. Obama administration’s decision on Keystone, which Speaker John A. Boehner said this week was “not the end of the fight,” is one of the central goals of the Republican agenda this year. Republicans chose to highlight the issue in their first news conference here, and this week sent out e-mail blasts highlighting all the editorials from around the country criticizing the president’s decision and drawing attention to Congressional Democrats who oppose it.

“We’re going to do everything we can to keep in on the front burner” Mr. Upton said.

Democrats will likely reject that effort entirely, so Boehner will have to find another way to insure his healthy investment profits out of this project.

But what these Republicans are intent on ignoring is the fact that their interference is gumming up the only path to approval for the pipeline, anyway. It has to go through Nebraska. The Nebraska legislature has determined that Transcanada has to find a new route, it has to be approved by the Nebraska DEQ, and then by the State Department, if it will be approved at all.

So the House GOP can bluster all it wants, and try to screw up tax cuts to the middle class in order to try to make the pointless political point. But it's not going to win them much favor with the electorate.

Late last year, it was nearly a given that SOPA/PIPA would pass to law, with the support of an overwhelmingly large number of senators and congressmen, and tens of millions of dollars in lobbyist money greasing the skids.

Then a single lonely voice rose in opposition in the Senate Ron Wyden of Oregon. Online and on television, he single-handedly focused attention on the bill:

His promise to filibuster the bill on Nov. 28, 2011, catalyzed opposition that culminated in Wednesday's day of action and the subsequent defeat (for now) of the legislation. It was his tireless efforts that generated the first organized opposition inside Congress:

The framework for the counterproposal was put forth by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) joined with Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) and John Campbell (R-Calif.).

Greg Sargent caught up with Wyden to get his take on the latest developments, and bottom line? His crusade is not so lonely anymore.

Democratic leaders had been pilloried mercilessly for weeks by bloggers and others organizing against the bills. They were accused of tone-deafness in the face of a major popular outcry — at exactly the moment when they are campaigning on a populist message — and of shunning a major progressive constituency, the online community. Wyden said the message had been heard.

“We wouldn’t accept this enormous body blow to the architecture of the internet — a technological juggernaut for jobs, innovation, freedom of expression, and the like,” Wyden said. “Democratic progressive values are what the internet is all about. If you’re concerned about income equality or what Occupy Wall Street is talking about, the Internet is where you take on the moneyed interests. The Internet is the equalizer — the voice of the grassroots.”

“What has happened in the last few weeks will permanently change the way citizens communicate with their government,” Wyden concluded. “This is a new day.”

Wyden and a bipartisan team of legislators have been working on an alternative to SOPA/PIPA that would better target copyright infringers, and has the backing of the tech industry. Wyden is confident that the Democratic leadership will adopt their approach.

And it would be fitting, because if it wasn't for Wyden, and his early bipartisan band of allies, we likely wouldn't be having this debate today.

Update: You can thank Wyden here!

What's coming up on Sunday Kos ...

• DemFromCT will look at the South Carolina Republican primary results and see where (win or lose) Newtmentum goes from here, whether Romney can pull off a hostile takeover of the Republican base, and what Santorum's key Iowa win means for the surging campaigns of Rick Perry and Herman Cain.
• On Wednesday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released its first list of candidates for its "Red to Blue" program, which assists candidates in competitive contests—a key part of taking back the House in 2012. David Nir takes a look these races to see who made the cut—and who didn't.
• Mark Sumner will say: Meet George Jetson... the future isn't what it used to be.
• Typically, the target list for the party out of power is loaded with freshmen Congressmen of the other party, imperiled by their first bid for re-election. Steve Singiser looks at the Democratic Red-to-Blue list and examines why that typical targeting pattern has gone out the window somewhat in 2012.
• brooklynbadboy describes his long love affair with books. The printed kind.
• New York City retail workers face low wages, "flexible" schedules that give all the flexibility to management, and racial gaps in wages and scheduling, a new study finds. Laura Clawson looks at a few of the low points.
• Scott Wooledge will present the second in a two part series on LGBT employment discrimination.
• As we approach the anniversary of the ratification of the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on January 23, Denise Oliver-Velez will examine the history of the poll tax, struggles for enfranchising those denied the vote, and current Republican efforts towards voter suppression in "The Battle for the Ballot".

Hmm. Via Mediaite:

Appearing at a Winthrop University panel Thursday, MSNBC host and NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd ripped into Stephen Colbert and his not-yet-official run, suggesting that Colbert might have some ulterior motives in the way he’s almost throwing his hat into the GOP primary ring:

“Is it fair to the process? Yes, the process is a mess, but he’s doing it in a way that it feels as if he’s trying to influence it with his own agenda, that may be anti-Republican. And we in the media are covering it as a schtick and a satire, but it’s like, ‘Well wait a minute here…’ he’s also trying to do his best to marginalize the candidates, and we’re participating in that marginalization.”

This leaves me puzzled, and for a number of reasons. First, this implies these candidates haven't been perfectly capable of marginalizing themselves. Second, it implies that top-tier political analyst Chuck Todd has only just now figured out that Colbert might have an "agenda," or that it might be "anti-Republican." There's probably a third thing there too, but like Rick Perry, I have forgotten it.

Political satire pretty much hinges on making fun of politicians. It hinges on having a point of view, or at least on pointing out that some other particular point of view is ridiculous. This is not new. It also does not stop being political satire if it does not take on both parties or multiple points of view equally: Satirists are not afflicted by the constant necessity to "balance" every mercilessly stupid thing that comes out of one party with some supposedly equally stupid thing coming from the other. No, studiously crafting false equivalencies in an effort to "balance" the news in such a way as to offend neither party is the task of political reporters; satirists are free to just tell the damn truth already.

I think it is perfectly legitimate for Colbert to point out both the ridiculous extent to which money corrupts politics, and the ridiculous outcomes we get because we allow it. For starters, cash infusions allow Idiots to run for national office, and that is a bad thing. Without the instant advantage provided by millions of dollars, Idiots might have a tougher time competing—or not. It's difficult to say. But it is also legitimate to at least point out that we are surrounded by Idiots, people who say idiotic things, who contradict themselves daily, or who in their past histories have demonstrated a personal integrity just one step up from that of serial killer. I suppose satirists could bash the Democratic presidential primaries equally, but oh yes, I just remembered: There aren't any to speak of. Go figure.

I think, though, what grates on me is this: Chuck Todd opines that satirist Stephen Colbert might have an agenda, and that that makes covering his campaign (I thought for a while as to whether "campaign" should appear in quotes or outside of them, before determining that it really shouldn't matter) a troubling move for political reporters. But Chuck Todd covers "candidates" with "agendas," often ridiculous "candidates" and "agendas," every day of his damn life. Why is it more troubling in this case? Because of the suspicion that Colbert is not serious? Who the flying hell decided Michele Bachmann was "serious"? Because Colbert says intentionally silly things? Dear political punditry, have you heard some of the crap that spews from Newt Gingrich's emblubbered maw? As supposedly serious politician, Newt calls for overthrowing courts and the Constitution on a daily basis: I am not sure Colbert has ever in his comedic life proposed something that inane. Certainly nothing as dangerous, either.

But if Colbert did have an anti-Republican agenda, why would that make it difficult for political pundits to cover him? Certainly having an anti-Democratic agenda has never caused a moment of pause. And if Colbert has an "anti-Republican" agenda even within a Republican primary, who is the arbiter of what "anti-Republican" means? Does Newt Gingrich get to decide what "being a Republican" stands for? Does Rick Santorum? Does Karl Rove, or Fox News, or Chuck Todd? Perhaps what seems "anti-Republican" to one pundit could be seen by others to be an attempt to shift the party back to a truer form of Republicanism. One not so fear-obsessed, or money-dominated; one not so in thrall to the most radically regressive members. Even as satire, that would be a valid political story.

I am at this point not sure how someone would tell the satiric candidates apart from the sincere ones. If you asked me whether the Republican Party would be better off in the hands of Stephen Colbert, or Ron Paul, or Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney, I hardly think Colbert's would be the first name you would cross off the list. Nonetheless, if the entire point of your political pundit life is to pretend not to notice which of those candidates are profoundly silly or which of their ideas is goddamn disastrous, you probably have no basis to start now.

No, if history is to be any guide, the objective nature of modern punditry would seem to demand you treat the intentionally silly, inane and satiric candidate as the absolute equal to all the others. I'm dead serious here: If the point of punditry is to treat even the gigantic assholes and the outright morons as if they were truly worthy of consideration, equal in abilities and stature to all the others, than it would be incumbent upon you to treat a free-range chicken decked out in sensible business attire as if it, too, were presidential material.

That, of course, is yet another aspect of our discourse that Colbert is openly mocking. The notion that even the most ridiculous of candidates can run for office and, somehow, be treated as if they are sane and credible by a press corps that seemingly cannot tell the difference unless and until you beat them over the head with it. No, it's all about process questions now. Former Senator Bugfuck, how do you think you will do among religious voters? Does your campaign have a plan for Florida? How will you counter charges by your opponent that you hurt small animals for fun, and how will your campaign respond to the pictures your opponent has released that showing you doing that? Do you think he's mean for bringing that stuff up?

Then there's this:

Todd went after both Colbert and Jon Stewart for mocking members of the media, then backing off and saying “we’re just comedians” when the members of the media call them out on it. “Actually, no you’re not [comedians] anymore,” Todd said. “You are mocking what we’re doing, and you want a place in this, then you are also going to be held accountable for how you cover and how you do your job.”

I don't understand that. No, I seriously don't. The rough translation is that Todd (like other members of the media) gets mocked by the comedians Colbert and Stewart, but he thinks that mocking the media somehow does not make them "comedians" anymore, because ... why, again? Because Todd is pissed off at getting mocked, I suppose, which again suggests he is not as up as he thinks he is on this entire "satire" concept. But the threat is that the comedians can expect to be "held accountable," by Todd and others, and that political satirists are overstepping their jester credentials by wanting "a place in this," which I suppose means being too successful in interjecting themselves into the asininity that is politics. The only threat I can think of is that Chuck Todd and other reporters might start treating Colbert and Stewart badly, which is a very lame threat indeed, and one I am not sure the satirists of the world will be quaking over.

I have nothing invested in whether Colbert does or does not do a damn thing. Neither does Todd or any other reporter, frankly, since one would think their profession is long past the point of being able to feel shame. I am a little encouraged, though, that Colbert seems to have reporters actually beginning to realize that yes, Virginia (and South Carolina, and Florida, and Iowa) it is indeed possible for some politicians to be so very silly that you should question their sincerity, their objectively implausible ideas, and possibly their sanity. You might also begin to take a far more critical look at supposedly "independent" organizations with similarly ridiculous claims or schemes, since I hear tell they may have "agendas" of their own.

It apparently took an outright satiric run to get any of them to ponder on these things, though, and even now can only see how it might apply to an interfering comedian, so I doubt we should hold our breath while they puzzle out the possible implications.

Elizabeth Warren raised $1,194,098 in her moneybomb yesterday. In the process, she also successfully stepped on Sen. Scott Brown's (R-MA) announcement of his reelection campaign:

A “money bomb” for Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren — timed to coincide with the reelection launch of her rival, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), netted almost $1.2 million for the consumer protection advocate.

Warren raised about $1,194,000 on Thursday in what her campaign called a grassroots money drive that signaled overwhelming enthusiasm for her campaign.

“Today the message is clear: We have the grassroots momentum and enthusiasm to take the ‘People’s Seat’ back from Wall Street and other powerful interests,” Warren said in a statement. “I am grateful for this show of support and will keep working my heart out for the small businesses and middle class families who deserve someone on their side in the Senate.”

This tremendous haul is yet another powerful demonstration of Warren's ability to inspire people everywhere. She needs every bit of this money too, both because she still trails Brown in cash on hand and because it won't be long before Karl Rove and Wall Street start throwing up even more negative ads against her.

Please, keep the donations pouring in. Contribute $6 to Elizabeth Warren on Orange to Blue.

It's unclear what the real story is here, but NBC has apparently canceled its plans to air Monday's Republican debate in Tampa—and the reason could be Mitt Romney's refusal to commit to the debate. Central Florida News 13 reports:

NBC News has informed their local affiliates the GOP presidential debate planned to air nationally Monday night from Tampa will be replaced with regularly scheduled programming.

The change was confirmed by Tampa NBC affiliate WFLA News Channel 8 News Director Don North.

According to North, the debate will be replaced on the schedule with the "Fear Factor" and "Rock Center" shows.

The debate was scheduled to air from the University of South Florida from 9 to 11 p.m. Monday night.

North said Mitt Romney and his campaign have yet to commit to taking part in the debate.

NBC News, WFLA and USF have not confirmed if the debate has been cancelled.

It's not clear if the debate would proceed without Romney's participation, even if only for the benefit of MSNBC or local viewers. An NBC News PR director tweeted a photo of the set earlier in the afternoon, adding to the lack of clarity.

Given the confusion surrounding what is actually going on with the debate, it's a mistake to draw any conclusions, but at this point it's not looking good for either Mitt Romney, who appears to be scared of debating Newt Gingrich, or NBC, which should continue to air the debate as long as Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum plan to attend, even if Mitt Romney chooses to skip it.

1:30 PM PT: NBC's PR person told Politico's Dylan Byers that NBC plans to move forward with the debate, but it does not appear on any primetime schedules.

NBC is denying reports that it plans to cancel this Monday's GOP debate in Tampa Bay, Florida, because Mitt Romney has not yet committed to participating.

"Preparations for the NBC News, National Journal, Tampa Bay Times debate continue," NBC spokesperson Erika Masonhall told me. "We fully intend to proceed with this long-planned event and we hope and expect all the qualifying candidates will participate."

But as of this afternoon, NBC has left the standard Monday program listings in place -- "Fear Factor" at 9 p.m. and "Rock Center" at 10 p.m. -- a decision the network attributs to an abundance of caution. The network says those listings will be updated with more timely information as it becomes known.

If it plans to proceed with or without Romney, I don't know what NBC is being cautious about. And as Byers notes, the real caution here is coming from Romney:

"There are too many of these," Romney campaign strategist Stuart Stevens told Byron York in the CNN debate spin room last night. "We have to bring some order to it. We haven't accepted Florida…It's kind of like a cruise that's gone on too long."

It's ironic that one of the shows NBC may end up airing is "Fear Factor." Because by all appearances, that's exactly what Mitt Romney's refusal to commit is all about.

Religious conservatives have lost their fight to exempt church-affiliated organizations from a new rule requiring contraception coverage be provided free of charge as part of the Obama administration's health care overhaul. The organizations will get another year to comply with the rule, which goes into effect for everyone else on Aug. 1, 2012. Given that the vast majority of women use or have used birth control, the impact of the administration's decision is considerable. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced Friday:

Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.  We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.

Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing.

Given the way that adding insurance coverage works, the majority of women will be able to receive free birth control starting Jan. 1, 2013. But for those working for church-affiliated groups who choose to go with the administration-approved delay, that coverage will start Jan. 1, 2014.

Churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship are already exempted from providing birth-control coverage. But conservatives had sought to extend the exemption to religiously affiliated hospitals and universities. In November, it appeared that the administration might be considering broadening the exemption, so today's announcement is certain to disappoint those who think it's okay to impose their religious beliefs on those whose paychecks they sign.

For the reproductive rights community, however, it is good news. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America said:

“All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless of where they work. The administration stood firm against intensive lobbying efforts from anti-birth-control organizations trying to expand the refusal option even further to allow organizations and corporations to deny their employees contraceptive coverage. As a result, millions will get access to contraception—and they will not have to ask their bosses for permission.” [...]

“Birth control is basic health care for women, and 98 percent of women use birth control at some point in their lives. Today’s decision stands in stark contrast with the anti-choice presidential candidates’ positions on birth control. We will make sure voters understand the difference.”

After a year of suffering heavy losses in the reproductive rights arena as states enacted more than 80 pieces of anti-abortion and related legislation, it's refreshing to see this setback for the right-wingers. But we can be assured they will never cease their war against freedom of choice, which is, at root, a war on sex, most especially the sexual behavior of women since they are the ones who pay the biggest price for attacks on birth control and abortion rights.

• Today's comic is Dude food by Matt Bors:
  
• Netroots Nation needs your help in developing and organizing the sessions (panels, trainings and screening series sessions) you want to see at Netroots Nation this June 7-10 in Providence. The deadline for submissions is Jan. 31. Guidelines and the submission form are here.
• Republican class in the so-called heartland:

  The Kansas Speaker of the House has apologized for an e-mail in which he prayed about President Obama, “let his days be few and brief,” but insisted that he wasn’t calling for him to die.

  Mike O’Neal (R) had sent the e-mail to House Republicans citing Psalm 109:8, which says, “Let his days be few and brief; and let others step forward to replace him,” the Lawrence Journal-World reported.

  The email said: “At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!”.

  The next line of the Psalm, which was not included in the e-mail, says “May his children be orphans and his wife a widow.”

• Rumor has it that Herman Cain is currently at an undisclosed location, learning to look into the right camera:

  Herman Cain will deliver the Tea Party Express response to President Obama's State of the Union address.

  Tea Party Express, a political action committee, announced on Thursday that the former presidential candidate would be the speaker. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who also ran for president, was the Tea Party Express speaker in 2011.

• This is what passes for deep thinking on the op-ed pages of The Washington Times:

  There is growing consternation in Republican circles and among conservatives over why Republicans keep allowing the various Communist, leftist and otherwise anti-American TV networks to host GOP debates. [...]

  Indeed, the entire phoenix rising candidacy of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich can be attributed to America’s abject hatred of the left-wing media. He was destitute and written off by the press when he tapped into one of the most visceral political reactions coursing through the veins of regular Americans. And once be began beating up the media, America gathered around him.

  Last night, we saw once again why Republicans need to keep allowing fakers and Communists to moderate their GOP debates. Because without the leftist, elitist snobs to beat the ever-living crap out of every couple of weeks, the debates would be so much less fun.

• Scum:

  Vandals spraypainted “KKK” in black letters across a sign reading “Rosa Parks Highway” on Interstate 55 in South St. Louis County, Missouri, last night.
  

• Check out what the going rate is for politicians on the rubber-chicken circuit.
• For the climate change skeptics:

  NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago.

  The video is stunning.
• This is pretty cool:

  Scientists working in the dense jungles of Indonesia have "rediscovered" a large, gray monkey so rare it was believed by many to be extinct. [...]

  The team set up camera traps in the Wehea Forest on the eastern tip of Borneo island in June, hoping to captures images of clouded leopards, orangutans and other wildlife known to congregate at several mineral salt licks.

  The pictures that came back caught them all by surprise: groups of monkeys none had ever seen.

  With virtually no photographs of the grizzled langurs in existence, it at first was a challenge to confirm their suspicions, said Brent Loken, a Ph.D. student at Simon Fraser University in Canada, and one of the lead researchers.

  The only images out there were museum sketches.

• Condolences to family and friends:

  Etta James, whose assertive, earthy voice lit up such hits as "The Wallflower," "Something's Got a Hold on Me" and the wedding favorite "At Last," has died, according to her longtime friend and manager, Lupe De Leon. She was 73.

  She died from complications from leukemia with her husband, Artis Mills, and her sons by her side, De Leon said.