What I like about this is that Santorum didn’t worry about the political optics (offending non-Christians) and just went with it. I’m not a Santorum supporter but I do appreciate his authenticity. Santorum is a devout Catholic and doesn’t shy away from his faith.

But as Right Scoop points out, it’s curious that ABC ignored Santorum’s speech in front of these pastors but aired the prayer in full. I think it was the media’s way of showing how strange these “faith people” are. What they fail to realize is that this is only strange to people who live in Hollywood and Manhattan.

This article titled “Obama’s contraception rules under fire from Congress and religious groups” was written by Chris McGreal in Washington, for The Guardian on Thursday 9th February 2012 00.24 UTC

Barack Obama has come under a barrage of criticism from Congress and religious organisations over a new requirement that Catholic-run schools and hospitals provide free contraception to workers.

The issue has ballooned into a political confrontation that appears to mark out one of the battle lines for the presidential election campaign. The Republicans said the new regulation is further evidence that the president is “hostile to people of faith”. Democrats claimed that opposition to it is another front in the Republicans’ “war on women’s health”.

The newly announced regulation, which takes effect in 18 months, says that all health insurance plans provided by employers must offer birth control to women free of charge. It applies equally to Catholic-owned universities, medical establishments and charities.

As the Catholic church loudly denounced the rule, Republican opposition focused on whether a religious organisation opposed to contraception could be forced by the government to go against its principles.

Newt Gingrich, the Republican presidential candidate who is a convert to Catholicism, called the regulation an “attack on the Catholic church”. Two of the other candidates, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, were also strongly critical.

John Boehner, the Republican and Catholic speaker of the House of Representatives, called the White House move a breach of constitutional protections against government interference with religion.

“In recent days, Americans of every faith and political persuasion have mobilised in objection to a rule put forth by the Obama administration that constitutes an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country,” he said. “This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand.”

Republican leaders said they would push legislation to block the requirement.

The Catholic archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, said that the government’s attempts to force the new regulation on his church had prompted outrage from people of all faiths.

“The more people learn what is at stake here, the more people are speaking up. It’s not just a Catholic issue. It’s an issue that touches all faith based communities, all religions, all organisations that draw their inspiration from their faith. I think what’s happening across the country is that the more people learn about this mandate, the more they’re saying this is wrong,” he said.

Obama also came under criticism from some Democrats, including the former Virginia governor, Timothy Kaine, who is running for the Senate and is a close ally of the president. He said that it was a political misstep.

“The White House made a good decision in including a mandate for contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act insurance policy, but I think they made a bad decision in not allowing a broad enough religious employer exemption,” he said. “I have definitely expressed my grave concerns to the White House about that.”

The White House signalled on Wednesday that it may be prepared to reach a compromise, but there were also signs that the administration is not unhappy to fight a political battle in an election year over a social issue likely to see many independent voters, particularly women, side with the president.

Some critics said that Obama may have misstepped in alienating large numbers of Catholic voters who, while many do not follow their church’s teachings on contraception, object to the government forcing it to go against its beliefs. They also said that it would have a negative impact on voters from other religions and again fire up Christian evangelicals who are ambivalent about the prospect of Romney as the Republican presidential candidate.

Peggy Noonan, a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, wrote in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week that Obama has committed an inept faux pas that showed how removed he is from the “essential realities of America”, and that it could cost him the presidential election.

But Obama also has an interest in keeping issues such as access to contraception on the political agenda, especially if he faces Romney as the Republican presidential candidate.

When Romney was governor of Massachusetts in 2005, a new state law required all hospitals, including Catholic-run ones, to provide morning after pills to rape victims, which the Catholic church regards as a form of abortion. Romney said he opposed the law but he was also quoted at the time as saying: “My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information.”

The White House flagged up that the issue will be a political battleground when Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, said that it is “ironic that Mitt Romney is criticising the president” for a regulation that is similar to the one in Massachusetts.

“The former governor of Massachusetts is an odd messenger on this given that the services that would be provided to women under this rule are the same services that are provided in Massachusetts and were covered when he was governor,” he said.

The issue is also likely to play in to concerns about Republican attitudes toward women after the furore around the politically-driven attempt by the Susan G Komen for the Cure foundation to halt grants to Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions.

The controversy may not do the damage to Catholic support for Obama that the Republicans hope.

A poll released this week by the Public Religion Research Institute showed that more than half of Catholic voters agree that employers should be required to provide their workers with healthcare insurance that covers contraception. However, only 45% supported the requirement for religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals to do so while 52% oppose it.

Carney hinted that the White House may give ground, but not much.

“We want to work with all these organisations to implement this policy in a way that is as sensitive to their concerns as possible,” he said. “But let’s be clear: We are committed, the president is committed, to ensuring that women have access to contraception without paying any extra costs, no matter where they work.”

One compromise under discussion is permitting church employers to effectively subcontract the part of health insurance covering contraception to an alternative insurer.

The administration has previously rejected another proposal that would broaden the definition of a religious employer beyond the churches themselves to include schools and hospitals.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Source: CBS
Congressional Republicans are vowing to fight a provision of President Obama’s health care law, which requires all employers who provide health insurance to cover basic birth control for women. Nancy Cordes reports.

Mitt Romney doesn’t have much the Democrats can attack him on. He’s rich (which makes him evil since he’s not a Democrat) but that’s pretty much it. However, he is vulnerable if the left is successful in branding him “out of touch.” John Kerry was successfully portrayed that way by Republicans in 2004.

The clip below is precisely the kind of thing Mittens must avoid at all cost. Clear thinking people know full well what he meant, but bad phrasing like this can do real damage. This clip has been making the media rounds all day, and you can count on it appearing in countless left wing attack ads in the coming months.

What he should have said is, “I don’t give a fig about the very poor.”

This is absolutely horrible. Memphis radio host Thaddeus Matthews viciously berates Republican congressional candidate Charlotte Bergmann simply because she’s a black Republican. At the end he even refuses to shake her hand because he didn’t want her “whiteness” to “rub off” on him. Despicable.

Source: Associated Press
Mitt Romney routed Newt Gingrich in the Florida primary, rebounding from the previous week’s defeat with a commanding victory and taking a major step toward the Republican presidential nomination.

More Chris Christie acting like…Chris Christie. Which means acting awesome.

(H/T Breitbart TV)

Source: CBS
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer defended herself after a contentious exchange with President Obama Wednesday about her book “Scorpions for Breakfast.” Brewer was photographed pointing her finger towards the president.

Source: Associated Press
Republican Newt Gingrich and his rival Mitt Romney clashed in the opening moments of Thursday’s debate in Florida. Gingrich said Romney is the “most anti-immigrant” candidate and Romney called such rhetoric “inexcusable” and “repulsive.”

I’ve watched every single debate so far this season and I really think this was the dumbest. CNN hosted a GOP debate in Jacksonville, Florida. It was moderated by Wolf Blitzer. The only interesting aspect of this debate was Mitt Romney. Whatever funk he was in at the last debate is clearly over. He came out swinging last night and really landed some blows against Newt Gingrich.

The worst part of the debate was when Romney and Gingrich sparred for what seemed like 10 or 15 minutes about each other’s tax returns. Gingrich attacking Romney for being a corporate raider and Romney attacking Gingrich for being a lobbyist for Fannie and Freddie. Then Gingrich went after Mitt for having a Swiss bank account and investing in a mutual fund that invested some money in Fannie and Freddie. The entire back and forth about all that was sickening and I nearly changed the channel. This is not the kind of stuff Republicans should be attacking each other about. This is the kind of class warfare and politics of envy that left wingers thrive on and we are supposed to reject.

I don’t give a damn how much money Mitt Romney has or where he invests it. He earned that money honestly and should be able to do what he wants with it. One thing he does with his money to a greater degree than anyone else on that stage is give to charity. Romney made around $21 million last year in investment income. He gave 15% of that away to charity. He also took no salary when he was Gov. of Massachusetts or when he ran the Olympics. Say what you want about Mitt Romney, but he’s not a greed head.

On the flip side, I don’t care about Newt’s money either. I don’t care if he has a $500K account at Tiffany’s. Last time I checked that was still legal in this country. I also don’t care if he was a lobbyist. It’s not illegal to be a lobbyist. This is a Capitalist country and Newt’s connections on Capital Hill were a valuable asset once he left Congress. I don’t blame him for making a buck.