Michele Bachmann wins Ames Straw Poll, cruises to Republican presidential nomination

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What you are about to read is true. You know it.

Scene: 24/7 cable news, yesterday, August 13, just after the Ames Straw Poll results were announced.

As you have surely heard by now, because it's more important than 9/11, the first Moon landing, and Nipplegate put together, Michele Bachmann won the contest with 4,823 votes, just ahead Ron Paul with 4,671. Pawlenty finished third with 2,293 but dropped out of the race today. Rick Santorum and Herman Cain finished fourth and fifth, respectively. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney came next, though neither one campaigned actively in advance of the contest. Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman the Formidable were even further back. Thad McCotter brought up the rear.

The takeaway, it seems, was clear.

Mainstream Beltway Media (MBM): (channelling Dick Vitale): It's over, baby! Awesome!

Dumb-Ass Regular American (DARA): What is?

MBM: The Republican nomination for president, baby! It's ooooverrrrrrr!!!

DARA:
But it was just a straw poll, wasn't it? No one actually voted for
anyone. The primaries don't start until... (racking the cobwebs in
narcotized brain)... like... like... next year or something.

MBM: Michele Bachmann! She's for real, baby, the real deal! She's unstoppable. The people have spoken!

DARA: Well, just the people who took the time to go to Ames. They're the party fanatics, aren't they? They don't even represent Iowa Republicans, let alone Republicans nationally.

MBM: I can't believe it, baby! I can't believe it!

DARA: And Romney and Perry didn't even campaign for the straw poll. And (summoning something heard ad nauseam on CNN, or MSNBC, or Fox News, OCDically flipping through the channels with beer in hand) aren't they really the two frontrunners now, along with Bachmann? I mean, Perry just got in the race yesterday. Isn't it premature to declare a winner?

MBM: Uh-oh... uh-oh... uh-oh...

DARA: What?

MBM: Rick Perry, baby! The titan from Texas! I believe, baby, I believe! Awesome!

DARA: (cluing in) So basically it doesn't mean anything.

MBM: Oh yes, show... time! Give it up, give it up! Slam! Woooooo!!!!! Woooooo!!!!! Awesome, baby, awesome!!!!!

DARA: (switching from beer to something harder) I wonder if The Bachelor's on.

And so we slide further into the abyss...

Random thoughts on the GOP presidential field

By Richard K. Barry

Michele Bachmann won the Ames Straw Poll. I understand that it's an important indicator of how a GOP presidential contender might fare over time. I get it. Although the fact that she barely beat Ron Paul, who is a perfect example of a crazy fringe candidate, doesn't exactly make the results unequivocally useful, as far as I can tell.

I understand that this will make it easier for her to raise money and to get some wind in her sails (and any number of other metaphors you might be able to think of).

But she is not going to win the Republican nomination. Conjuring up Dana Carvey's brilliant George Bush senior impersonation: "Not gonna happen."

It's still probably going to be Romney. I guess Texas Gov. Rick Perry's announcement complicates things, though I was intrigued by the assessment of a few pundits who thought that we would be able to tell very quickly if he was the real deal or not.

I'm not sure I know what that is supposed to mean. Does it mean that either all of the Tea Party /social conservative energy in the campaign comes to him more or less immediately, in which case he becomes the consensus choice anti-Romney? Or that a number of candidates continue to share the hard-right constituency, in which case his campaign never really takes off?

Maybe that's their point.

I must say that I loved Paul Begala's description of Perry as "the perfect candidate for those Republicans who viewed George W. Bush as just a little too cerebral."

But is that a problem?

Unkind as this may be, I could modify that famous H.L. Mencken quote to say that "nobody ever lost electoral ground overestimating the intelligence of the average Republican voter." So maybe being duller than George won't be a bad thing for Perry.

Judging from Perry's campaign launch speech, which contained every standard fare Tea Party / social conservative speaking point, he will not be doing anything to alienate the radical right and he will not be forcing anyone on that side of things to think outside the box they've made for themselves. No, no, no.

And as I suggested yesterday, if you base your campaign on pandering to the radical right, you might be able to win the GOP nomination, but the general election would be a much harder nut to crack.

So here's the radical prediction of the day:

Perry's candidacy will eventually force Bachmann out. They appeal to the same constituency and he's going to be a better standard bearer.

Palin will endorse Perry. She has been saying all along that she will only run if no one meeting her criteria steps forward. Perry will be her guy and that will matter.

Most importantly, this will become a Romney - Perry street fight and the campaign will move decidedly to the right as Romney attempts to counter claims from Perry that he is not sufficiently conservative.

And, the prefect storm for the Democrats will have just gotten perfecter. The Tea Party and fellow travellers will have found their candidate. And, even if Romney is the eventual nominee, as I still think he will be, he will have had to tack so far to the right that independents will no longer be available to him.

In the short term, the Democrats have needed one effective, theoretically electable, Republican presidential contender to force Romney to the far right. Bachmann was never that contender. She's not that serious. Perry is.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Gimme that old slime and religion

By Capt. Fogg



The Republican circus' Big Top is beginning to fill with snarling dogs, rooting hogs and booming frogs fighting to get into the center ring -- the kind of things once relegated to side shows so as not to frighten young children and more 'sensitive' viewers.



Rick Perry is, as I write this, now announcing his candidacy from the State of South Carolina, where the First Civil War started with the booming of cannons 150 years ago. The Cold Civil War is heating up and so is the rhetoric. Rhetoric just as emotional and just as full of vain invocations of the common divinity. "It's time to get America working again" he says as though his party hadn't presided in ZERO job growth in the eight Republican years and as though we haven't had significant job growth since. Has Perry suggested anything positive or anything other than blind faith in what got us into this mess? Remember he's the guy who thinks the climate responds better to prayer than to carbon dioxide levels. So far it's still not raining in Texas.





Not all the candidates, however, are quite so willing to engage in such a pitched battle on an even field. All the likely female contestants for instance -- like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich seem to prefer to come out slapping and eye gouging but should anyone be so unfair as to ask such inappropriate, unfair "Gotcha" questions as "which newspapers do you read" or just what Mrs. Bachman meant when she said:

"But the Lord said, 'Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.' "

Perhaps since she wears her religion, not only on her sleeve and on her shield like a crusader, but constantly suggests the superiority it gives her along with the right to make peremptory statements about how the rest of us live our lives, it's an appropriate question. It's the same Question President Carter asked of the Southern Baptist Church and not liking the answer, quit the church in which he was raised and spent his life. She'd have us believe she only meant "respect" contrary to the literal word she's so eager to worship. But she didn't say respect, now did she? Nor did the word of God she thinks she's quoting.



Suggesting both that it's offensively inappropriate for anyone to ask clarification of Bachmann and that her explanation would be far too nuanced for us heathen to understand, we have Roland Martin writing on CNN.com today.



Martin tells us she was asked by Byron York:

"As president, would you be submissive to your husband?"

Forgetting the "Billary" gambit directed against Bill Clinton, Childe Roland hesitates not a bit to be offended on behalf of Biblical literalists and for the shy, sensitive and ever-so-subtly nuanced Bachmann who brought the subject up in the first place.



I don't know how old Roland Martin is; whether he remembers the Republicans' question as to whether John Kennedy would obey the Pope instead of the Constitution or whether like the other hand-waving, special pleading, smoke and mirrors artists he can only take refuge in fog shrouded ineffability when someone asks a damned good question he wouldn't hesitate to ask of others.



It's a question asked only because she's a woman, asserts Martin rather tautologically. After all, men aren't ordered to obey their wives in the old books some people confuse with the US Constitution. Apparently he thinks men aren't even asked similar questions about the conflict between their beliefs about the the legitimacy of government, their credos and their ability to administer secular laws in a secular country they may disapprove of.



He's quite wrong of course. These questions are asked and not just by me -- and they are important questions to ask of a party that is insisting in ever louder voices that secularism is a problem and that the country rightly belongs only to those with suitable church affiliations.



(Cross posted from Human Voices)

World comes to a halt as Republicans take to the stage in Iowa to debate future of humanity

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Ah, yes, there was a Republican debate last night in Ames. Good times. Maybe if I weren't on vacation I would have cared. (I was too busy watching The Makioka Sisters -- a stunningly beautiful film.)

Or maybe not.



No, no, let me be serious for a moment.

Did last night's debate mean anything? Well, not as much as Saturday's straw poll -- which won't really mean anything either, though it will clarify both public and insider GOP perceptions and possibly even help separate the wheat from the chaff, as they say.

Not that we don't already know what's wheat and what's chaff.

Romney is wheat. He's the national frontrunner -- though doubts remain on the right (if not venomous opposition from conservatives and other Tea Party types, and he may have a fairly low support ceiling.

Bachmann is also wheat, or at least what passes for wheat these days in the GOP (and on the far right generally). She's a serious contender, craziness notwithstanding.

Other than that?

It's amusing to see Santorum and Gingrich try to convince us we should take them seriously. Do they take themselves seriously? Of course. Do they know they've become joke candidates without a hope of winning anything other than the political equivalent of a Razzie? Maybe -- if they're being honest with themselves, but one doubts either one is capable of such self-effacing honesty.

It's also amusing to see more of the Bachmann-Pawlenty spat. T-Paw, lagging far behind in the polls (not even doing well in Iowa, so close to his Minnesota home), is still so desperate for attention that he's taking the gloves off, as they say, hopeful of emerging as the compromise candidate (particularly liked by the Beltway punditocracy) between the establishmentarian, business-oriented Romney and whoever ends up leading the charge from the radical right, either Bachmann or Perry (or both). Yes, I suppose he still has a shot. Yes, it's a long, long one. And he doesn't stand a chance against Bachmann in their little ongoing feud.

Pawlenty death watch: He'll "reassess" matters if he does poorly in Ames. Now there's a nice, lovely euphemism for "make up some self-aggrandizing excuses and get the hell out."

Perry life watch: It looks like he'll take the leap on Saturday. Not that he's trying to upstage the Ames straw poll or anything. No, of course not.

Cain? Yes, he took time out of his busy schedule scapegoating Muslims to grace us with his presence.

Paul? Hey, did you know he really hates government and much, much prefers the Hobbesian state of nature?

Huntsman? Oh, yes, Huntsman the Formidable, as I've dubbed him. He remains to me and impressive figure, an old-school, Reagan sort of conservative who in other, saner times would have been the clear GOP pick. Now? Not so much.

Wait, you want substance? Come on, you all know how it went. Obama is the satanic incarnation of anti-American evil. And taxes are bad, so very, very bad!

(But if you want some helpful fact-checking, check here. Needless to say, there was some fastness and looseness going on last night. What else is new?)

Besides, that spat is what seems to have gotten the most attention.



And, overall, it does now seem that civility in this Republican field is a thing of the past. As Slate's John Dickerson explained:

The debate had the makings of a serious discussion about leadership,
what form it should take, whether the candidates have demonstrated it,
and how it should be applied in Washington. However, this discussion
took place in a roller derby where that underlying theme was obscured by
people trying to bruise and batter each other. Criticisms and veiled
critiques broke out into the open among candidates desperate to avoid
being eliminated from consideration. In the end, there was a lot of arm
flailing. Everyone went round and round, and the lot of them wound up
where they had stood before the debate began.

Fight, fight, fight! Isn't that what we all crave -- what really gets us going? Who cares that the global economy is imploding or that our civilization is crumbling? Or that it's this right-wing ideology, so much on display last night, that is one of the main causes of our present (and future) crises?



Politics is a bloodsport.

And now, on that note, I'm going to go sit out on the deck and read (about something that has nothing to do with American politics circa 2011).

(photo)

The Michele Bachmann Phenomenon -- crazy, extreme, formidable

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm still on vacation, and enjoying it immensely (and trying not to pay too much attention to the news, even as the world economy crumbles yet further, day after disastrous day), but I can't resist posting on yet another fantastic political profile by Ryan Lizza at The New Yorker, this one on Michele Bachmann.

It's long but deserving of your time and attention.

We all need to understand better the phenomenon that is Bachmann, not least because she may win the Republican presidential nomination.

Mitt Romney remains the fairly clear frontrunner, but he may very well have a low ceiling of potential support, and, if Rick Perry isn't included (and he may or may not run), Bachmann is currently running a strong second. What's more, given Tim Pawlenty's weakness, she'll likely win this Saturday's Ames Straw Poll in Iowa, an influential barometer (at least for the media, but also for donors and, generally, for party undecideds), particularly if she does well, which she likely will (she is, after all, charismatic and engaging), in Thursday's GOP debate.

If Perry runs, she'll have a hard time securing the right-wing vote, assuming that Perry actually runs an effective campaign. Indeed, if she and Perry end up competing for that vote, Romney's path is made so much easier -- the nomination could then be his by default, with the right-wing vote split.

But if he doesn't, and if Sarah Palin stays out as well (as expected), and if the race turns into a Romney vs. Bachmann slugfest (as opposed to, say, a Pawlenty vs. Bachmann spat, which she crushes), who's to say that Bachmann wouldn't win? (She's got the right-wing bona fides, he doesn't. It might just be as simple as that.)

Anyway, enough horse-race speculation. Read Lizza's piece.

Here are the two high-level takeaways:

1. Bachmann is a crazy conservative ideologue and conspiracy theorist.

2. Bachmann has formidable political skills, has an impressive campaign operation, and is a serious contender for the nomination.

Crazy, extreme, and formidable.

Formidable because she's crazy and extreme.

Because being crazy and extreme is what makes you formidable on the right.

Which says all you need to know about today's Republican Party.

Rick Perry's rally

 By Mustang Bobby.

I don't really care if Texas Gov. Rick Perry's upcoming prayer festival is a big hit or not; hey, whatever gets you through the night, right?  But the folks that he's invited to participate have some interesting interpretations of holy writ, including Oprah being a sign of the Apocalypse, birds dying because of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Statue of Liberty is a pagan idol, and the perennial favorite: Hurricane Katrina was divine retribution for New Orleans being a fun place to visit.

This weekend's prayer rally is intended to serve as the overture to Mr. Perry's run for the presidency, which is all well and good because there's no reason that a person of faith shouldn't run for office... any more than a person who doesn't believe in magical sky faeries or Flying Spaghetti Monsters shouldn't run for office either.  After all, the Constitution is clear on the prohibition of a religious test as a qualification for office.  And I don't have a problem with a candidate or an office holder relying on his faith as a part of his daily life in or out of the office.

What I do have a problem with is a governor or a president or a city council member substituting their dogma for reality or proven fact and turning it into law or public policy.  You can believe all you want in the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, but you don't get to impose that in place of the glaring proof that the universe was not formed 6,000 years ago and that Adam and Eve palled around with triceratops.  You do not get to proclaim that being gay -- or straight -- is a choice because you're obsessed with other peoples' sex lives and you can't get beyond your adolescent fixation with genitalia.  You don't get to assert that some supernatural being has it in for a major American city because too many people are having altogether too good a time at Mardi Gras.  You can't warn the nation about the non-existent threat of the imposition of Sharia law while defending the right to post the Ten Commandments in a court house, and you can't inform the rest of the world about your stunning lack of irony by condemning Harry Potter for being a harbinger of magic while you're on your way to Mass to eat a cookie and sip some wine that has been magically transformed into the body and blood of Jesus H. Christ.  In short, you can't project your own psychological shortcomings onto the rest of society and use your religion as the excuse for your behavior.

Certainly a man of faith can run for the presidency and win.  We all remember the administrations of Presidents William Jennings Bryan, Pat Robertson, and Mike Huckabee, right?  The electorate of America may have its flaws and foibles, but it has so far done well by applying the doctrine of the separation of church and state to candidates as well as the Constitution.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Rick Perry: "Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A-flipping and a-flopping goes Texas governor, right-wing evangelical theocrat, and possible contender for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination Rick Perry.

Is it okay for states to legalize same-sex marriage or not?

Apparently it was not so long ago, when he was pushing states' rights, but now, eyeing the White House and in need of support from the religious right, he's come out in support of federal action:

So much for states' rights.

Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), one of the country's most prominent defenders of the 10th Amendment, is making an exception when it comes to gay marriage. After initially telling reporters that it's "fine with me" if states like New York legalize same-sex unions through their own legislature, Perry is pulling a 180 and calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Perry, who is flirting with a presidential bid, clarified his position to Family Research Council president Tony Perkins in an interview.

"I probably needed to add a few words after that 'it's fine with me' and that it's fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue," he said. "Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn't changed."

Well, no, it has. His personal stance may not have changed -- he's against same-sex marriage and, if it were up to him, there wouldn't be any -- but his political stance has -- he thinks there should be a federal ban that denies states the right to legalize it on their own.

As Joe explains: "This is just more evidence of how the dominionists are forcing the GOP presidential field to conform to their vision of a Christian theocracy." 

Good times.

(photo)

News of the Week

By Distributorcap

While the dog days of summer doldrums may be arriving early on the east coast in the form of a record 104 degree temperature in New York's Central Park, the rest of the world continues to plunge into insanity at its own record pace.

Insane congresswoman (and someone who has passed NO legislation and has NEVER governed anything) continues her 2012 presidential campaign in the Corn Belt.

Amy Winehouse: RIP.

Boner and Obama, the last of the foot stomping whiners, continue to soak up local color by battling for control of the whine vat.

Governor Rick Perry consults with his mentor about a potential run for the 2012 Republican nomination.

News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch proved one too many people has skied over this mogul when he testified in front of the British Parliament and basically told the world "he knew nothing."

Marcus Bachmann and one of his most famous ex-gays figure they could make a few extra bucks pitching for Abercrombie & Fitch.

Even in jaded NYC, the street vendors realized that they should beware of Greeks bearing coffee cups.

This day in history - July 21, 1925: High school teacher John T. Scopes is found guilty of teaching evolution

By Richard K. Barry

In Dayton, Tennessee on this date a high school teacher was found guilty of teaching evolution. Yes, John T. Scopes was found guilty of teaching science. (That's Darwin to the left, by the way, not Scopes).

So, where do the current crop of declared and potential GOP presidential hopefuls stand on teaching science in our schools?

Michele Bachmann has said that evolution is a theory that has never been proven one way or the other and that schools should teach intelligent design as an alternate explanation for the origins of life.

Tim Pawlenty thinks that creationism should be taught alongside evolution, which is Sarah Palin's view.

Rick Perry supports teaching creationism in Texas public schools.

Rick Santorum is a creationist, obviously.

To his credit, Newt Gingrich seems to have a more nuanced view (hell, let's give him credit for something).

Mitt Romney, also to his credit, once said that while he "believed that God designed the universe and created the universe," he also believed that "evolution is most likely the process he used to create human beings."

Even those who want to support science see the need to equivocate in order to keep a large segment of the conservative base happy.

All in all, things really haven't changed that much.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Rick Perry, neo-Confederate nationalist?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

We've known for some time that Texas Gov. Rick Perry, "social conservative" darling and possible addition to the 2012 GOP presidential race, is something of a Texan nationalist who has suggested that Texas could, and perhaps should, try to secede.

But it seems that he has also maintained extremely close relations with neo-Confederate nationalist groups generally. Check out this report at Salon's War Room. It's not just an isolated incident here and there, it's a sustained effort to maintain that relationship, and these groups have responded by showing their unflinching support throughout his political career.

Read the piece for all the sordid details.

As Steve M. asks, "This is the GOP's great, er, white hope?" It would seem he might very well be. Which says a lot about the Republican Party and what it's really all about these days.

Right-wing evangelical theocrats love them some Rick Perry

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Republican presidential field is still embarrassingly weak (and even more embarrassing because the best Republican candidate by far, Jon Huntsman, isn't really catching on at all), and there is still a good deal of talk about some savior coming to the rescue.

With Huckabee not running this time, social/religious conservatives perhaps more than any other core Republican constituency seem to be driving that talk. Much of the rest of the party is already represented, after all, particularly the moneyed establishment (Romney) and the Tea Party (Bachmann, Paul). The theocrats only have Santorum, a distant also-ran with zero electability, and Gingrich, a joke of a candidate who's in it to glorify his ego and fill his coffers, and also Bachmann, though she doesn't seem to be what they're looking for.

The so-called "social conservatives" (actually moralizing right-wing evangelical theocrats) used to be a powerful force in the party, if not the dominant one, but they've been reduced to a bit of an afterthought, even though they still wield enormous influence at the grassroots level. And so it would be foolish to ignore them.

And who are they now looking to as their savior? Why, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, of course, who has done a great deal to appeal to them, presenting himself as their kind of theocrat. They're pushing him to run and no doubt he'd be a formidable candidate if only for their support. Could he actually win the nomination? Maybe. Or maybe he'd be the #2. (How does Romney-Perry sound?) Either way, social conservatives aren't about to let this election cycle pass without trying to wield their influence, and they may just be able to do that through Perry.

For more on this, see Amy Goodman's piece at Time: "Christian Right leaders have sought to find a new – preferably electable – candidate to carry the social conservative banner." They've picked Rick Perry.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Rick Perry

By Michael J.W. Stickings

How just crazy is Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who might very well jump in the race for president as the dream-candidate of many conservatives?

This crazy:

For the past week, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has been roundly criticized by religious and LGBT groups alike for inviting other governors to join him at an anti-gay prayer event hosted by stridently bigoted American Family Association. Not only has Perry courted the radical wing of the religious right for years, he has a history of bucking responsibility for tough problems by invoking God. For instance, while Texas was facing a historic drought and rash of wildfires, Gov. Perry extolled Texans to "pray for rain," as he tried to cut funding for the agency battling the wildfires.

As Perry is poised to sign the most draconian state budget in recent history that slashes essential services for the poor and middle class while potentially laying off 100,000 teachers, Kyle Mantyla of Right Wing Watch Kyle digs up this gem of an interview from May in which the governor sheds some light on his motivations. During an appearance on James Robison's Life Today television program, Perry says he sees a silver lining to the devastating recession that has cost millions of families their jobs, homes, and livelihoods: it will return America to "Biblical principles" and free us from the slavery of big government.

That's right. Fucking crazy. Here's what he actually said:

I think in America from time to time we have to go through some difficult times — and I think we're going through those difficult economic times for a purpose, to bring us back to those Biblical principles of you know, you don't spend all the money. You work hard for those six years and you put up that seventh year in the warehouse to take you through the hard times. And not spending all of our money. Not asking for Pharaoh to give everything to everybody and to take care of folks because at the end of the day, it's slavery. We become slaves to government.

Right, it's all been (his) God's work, or something. Nothing to do with predatory lenders or Wall Street or those companies slashing jobs while they pay their executives massive salaries or the decline of America's manufacturing base or a consumerist culture completely out of control or the very anti-government right-wing policies people like Perry support. No, not at all.

I'm sure this makes all those people who lost jobs and who are having trouble paying their bills and putting food on the table and take care of their children feel so much better.

Hey, it's all for a purpose.

Fuck you, Rick Perry.

Friday night political randomness: Palin, Weiner, and Perry

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sorry, I've been so busy all evening wading through Palin's e-mails. Such a glorious treasure of wonderment. (No, not really. There are people who can be bothered to read through, or even to skim through, the 24,000 pages. I'm not one of them.)

**********

So Weiner had online contact with a 17-year-old girl. Not good -- not good at all. A spokesman says that the contact was "neither explicit nor indecent," but I'm not sure it matters. Well, sure, it does, but his reputation, rightly or wrongly, has already been destroyed, and he's pretty much on his own now, with little to no support from his own party.

Perhaps it was only a matter of time before it came out that he had contact with a minor. He acted like an idiot and did idiotic things, especially for a public figure. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with having contact of an innocent nature with a near-adult, but given that he was using the Internet to chase women, the fact that his contacts included a minor only makes it all seem so much worse. Even if he wasn't sexual with this girl, the speculation that he might have been with some other minor is unavoidable.

I don't see how he escapes this. Pressure is mounting on him to resign. He says he won't, and his constituents apparently want him to stay, but he can't take much more. His thread is unravelling.

**********

The train wreck that is the Gingrich campaign (and that is The Newt himself) leaves an opening for Perry to jump into the Republican presidential race, as some of those ex-Gingrich staffers are close to the Texas governor. And it looks like Perry is very likely to run.

Given the weakness of the field, Perry could very well emerge as one of the frontrunners, perhaps even the favourite if he manages to bridge the divide between the establishment and the far right. Pawlenty looks to be that bridge right now, but Perry could easily surpass him. Republicans, after all, are looking for a savior. Why not Perry? Pawlenty hasn't been able to get much traction, others on the right, like Bachmann (and Palin), are far too crazy/extreme, and the Tea Party and the social conservative base will never approve someone like Romney or Giuliani.

Just keep in mind that Perry isn't exactly a sensible, moderate, old-school Republican, or even the sort of conservative with broad-based appeal. Check out ThinkProgress's "Top 10 Things Texas Gov. Rick Perry Doesn’t Want You To Know About Him."

**********

Oh, there was some good news today: The Obama Administration has extended Medicaid protections for same-sex couples.

That's some change we can believe in.