Spain's general strike shows first signs of rebellion against austerity

Spain's general strike shows first signs of rebellion against austerity
Austerity measures look set to become far more dramatic on Friday, when prime minister Mariano Rajoy delivers one of harshest budgets ever seen in Europe
Giles Tremlett, in The Guardian, March 29, 2012

With near-empty railway stations, shut factories, mass marches and occasional outbreaks of violence during a general strike on Thursday, Spaniards showed the first signs of rebellion against the reformist, austerity-preaching conservative government they voted in four months ago.

Police and pickets clashed in a handful of places, but it was a largely peaceful general strike in a country whose sinking economy, with 23% unemployment, has become the focus of worry about the future of the whole eurozone area.

Thousands of police officers remained on duty around the country on Thursday night as tens of thousands of flag-waving demonstrators flooded into city centres for protest marches against labour reform and austerity measures introduced by prime minister Mariano Rajoy's conservative People's party [PP].

Demonstrators brought the centres of Madrid, Barcelona and other cities to a standstill as trade unions claimed the strike was more widely supported than previous nationwide stoppages in 2010 and 2002. Rajoy's officials claimed, however, that the 2010 strike against a socialist government had received greater support.

Electricity consumption fell by 17%, suggesting the strike was impacting on major industries – though most shops appeared to be open in Madrid.

Street fires were set in both Madrid and Barcelona, where roads into the city were blocked, but there were few reports of serious violence.

The strike was most successful where Spain's big two unions, the General Workers Union and the Workers Commissions, are strongest – in large factories, the civil service and transport.

General Workers leader Cándido Méndez put average participation at midday at 77% but said that it was 97%in industry and construction.

"This strike has been an unquestionable success," he said.

Civilized protest looked unlikely to alter the determination of the government to drive on with reforms and austerity.

Rajoy has pledged not to backtrack on reform that has made it easier for employers to sack workers. And the austerity measures which strikers also demonstrated against looked set to become far more dramatic on Friday, when Rajoy is set to deliver one of the harshest budgets ever seen in Europe.

The general strike came on Rajoy's 100th day in power and at the end of a week that marks a watershed in political support for his party.

At the weekend he had seen support slip away in Spain's largest region, southern Andalucia, where the PP's share of the vote fell in a regional election from 46% to 41%.

The party also did badly in the northern region of Asturias, where it finished in third place in a Sunday vote.

Regional governments, which provide most welfare services and jointly failed to reduce their deficits at all last year, are seen as one of Spain's main problems.

The strike came amid growing concern about Spain in Brussels and the financial markets, which have put pressure on bond yields in recent weeks – though the Spanish government has had no trouble borrowing money to finance itself.

Yields remain below the levels at which bailed-out eurozone countries like Greece, Ireland and neighbouring Portugal were forced to seek help. Spain's national debt remains lower than in most eurozone countries.

Portugal's central bank cut its economic outlook on Thursday, warning the economy would be flat next year, where it had previously forecast a mild rebound of 0.3%. This year it expects a contraction of 3.4%.

With an economy that is twice the size of Greece, Portugal and Ireland put together, however, problems in Spain would have far-reaching consequences.

Rajoy held the budget back until Friday in order to avoid alienating voters in Andalucia, a strategy that has annoyed some commentators who believe he has wasted valuable time.

The European Union has set Spain a target of cutting its deficit from 8.5% of GDP to 5.3% this year, a net cut of some €34bn (£28.3bn).

As Spain falls back into a double-dip recession, however, economists say austerity measures will sharpen the fall. The government already predicts a 1.7% fall in GDP this year, with unemployment rising to 24%.

And with Spain entering a spiral of falling tax income, higher unemployment and recession, the real size of the cuts or tax hikes needed to meet the deficit target are much higher.

Economists have put the total adjustment needed to meet this year's target at between €52bn and €64bn – or well over €1,000 per Spaniard. The government has already covered €15bn of that with emergency measures announced in December.

Government sources said they were aware that Spain's credibility with the markets was on the line if it failed to meet the target, though some economists consider this impossible.

But Juan José Toribio, of Spain's IESE business school, said the country could no longer afford the welfare state built up during boom years and fuelled by a giant housing bubble that has since burst.

"We cannot sustain the current model of the welfare state," he said. "I am not saying we cannot have welfare, but we must seek a less expensive model."

Kathleen Brooks, research director at Forex.com, warned that the sight of protesters on the streets of several Spanish cities will prompts fears that the government might relax its fiscal plans, making sovereign debt a less attractive purchase.

It's a GOP Race of Two and a Half Candidates

Shouldn't it be obvious by now? This is a race of two and a half candidates. Much as former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum would like it to be a two-candidate competition for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, it is not. And while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich believes that it is a three person race, it is not that either.

Scroll down - Santorum threat to Romney ahead with Etch-a-Sketch gaffe & Romney flip-lops -See flip-flop video links

Gingrich --besides the Alabama and Mississippi races, has been stuck in the seven to 15 percentage zone. His returns in all the other recent primaries bear that out:
14.4 percent in Kansas
10.9 percent in Hawaii
8.0 percent in Illinois
(Remember that Gingrich did not even have the organization for getting into the Missouri contest; and Puerto Rico saw Gingrich getting an even weaker return, two percent.)

The former Confederate states provide the exception to the rule of Gingrich mired below 15 percent in the primaries or caucuses. The Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi contests were in the to 23.9 to 31.2 percent range. So, with Gingrich's 15.9 percent share of the vote in yesterday's Louisiana primary, this was a precipitous defeat.
Crushing defeat for Romney
Furthermore, the Louisiana results were terrific for Santorum and terrible for Romney. Santorum took the entire state, save for one county, Orleans County, the one with the state's largest city, New Orleans. With Santorum's win of 49.0 percent of the vote, the Louisiana win was his third greatest victory yet since the Missouri contests with 55.2 percent of the vote. and Kansas with 51.2 percent. Romney was over 20 percentage points behind Santorum in Louisiana with 27.0 percent.
References:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-republican-primary-schedule/
With either reference click on the state contests on the 2012 table for the links to the addresses for the 2012 primary returns.

THESE WILL BE SANTORUM'S NEXT VICTORIES & HOW WILL VOTERS REACT TO MITT'S FLIP-FLOPS?:
One cannot help but think that longtime Romney campaign advisor Eric Fehrnstrom's Wednesday March 21 gaffe that Romney will switch his positions in the general election campaign with President Obama like Etch-a--Sketch will play poorly with authentic conservative voters.
The quote:

“Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”

4/3, a Tuesday: Wisconsin primary
4/24, a Tuesday: Pennsylvania, aside from the northeastern (Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island) primaries losses to Romney
(And Romney's victories in New York, Connecticut and Delaware will not be that total. For upstate New York is much like the conservative regions of Pennsylvania and unlike any area in New England. See maps of these results from 2002 or 2004; and Connecticut is the state in which Republicans ion 2010 chose flaky World Wrestling Entertainment entrepreneur Linda McMahon for their Senatorial nominee, and Delaware is the state that gave us even flakier not ready for prime time Christine O'Donnell as its 2010 Senatorial nominee. So there will be big percentages for Santorum in those states. With the proportional distribution of delegates in these states the Romney victories will not mean a thorough sweep of the delegates, for Santorum will take his fair share with the proportionality rules.
This statement, combined with Romney's record of flip-flops in transitioning from Massachusetts to the national stage, will further caste doubt on his real plans for governing. See this set of videos of Romney's public statements on issues ranging from abortion to Contract for America, gay marriage and gun control. Youtube video of Romney speaking in support of Massachusetts' gun control laws. Youtube compilation of Romney flip-flops, "Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush." "That's what we did in Massachusetts. That is, we put together an [health care insurance] exchange. The president's copying that idea. I'm glad to hear that." On global warming: "I believe that the world is getting warmer. I believe that humans are contribute to that.")
5/8, a Tuesday: Indiana, West Virginia primaries
5/15, a Tuesday: Nebraska primary

*Multiple choice exam on Mitt Romney positions on social and economic issues:
http://massresistance.org/romney/quiz/MittRomney20.pdf
5/22, a Tuesday: Arkansas, Kentucky primaries

Table of liberal cartoonists and their newspapers

Please scroll down. Tricky html pushed the thing down.

Newspaper	cartoonist
Washington Post:	Tom Toles
Los Angeles Times:	Jeff Danziger, David Horsey (hired away from Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
Philadlphia Inquirer:	Tony Auth
Philadelphia Daily News:	Signe Wilkinson, one of few women cartoonists
Atlanta Journal Constitution:	Mike Lukovich
*Austin:	Ben Sargent
Boston Globe:	Dan Wasserman
(Dallas Morning News:	no seeming staff cartoonist)
Miami Herald:	Jim Morin
Chattanooga Times-Free Press:	Clay Bennett
Cleveland Plain-Dealer:	Jeff Darcy
Denver Post:	Mike Keefe
*Hartford Courant:	Bob Englehart
Houston Chronicle:	Nick Anderson (centrist)
Kansas City Star:	Lee Judge
*Lexington Herald-Leader:	Joel Pett
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:	Rob Rogers
(San Jose Mercury News:	no seeming staff cartoonist)
St. Louis Post-Dispatch:	R.J. Matson
Seattle Times:	Eric Devericks (centrist)

(Chicago cartoonists are pro-Republican; except Sun-Times, which runs Margulies cartoons)
*Not in top 50 circulation papers
Syndicated: Jimmy Margulies, Tom Tomorrow

How Smart Is It to Have a SmartPhone? --Theft of Photos and iPhone User Account Info Rampant

Much news on smartphones is cause for serious concern.
Sharing and inter-connectivity have their risks. I have long had this concern, and I early noticed that security problems, including vulnerability to viruses, malware are abundant in Microsoft Office products, especially Microsoft Outlook.

On the iPhone your photos can be remotely captured by another user. This is of concern for people concerned for their privacy and their families' security. It also is of concern for people that want to have proprietary control over their photographs, lest they want to sell such photos.
From at Suzanne Choney at MSNBC, undated: "iPhone photos can be seen by others: report"
http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/iphone-photos-can-be-seen-others-report-261014

And Android has other problems with apps and security:
From Kevin Fogarty at IT World, March 2, 2012, "Google threatens to ban insecure apps on Android: News: Google to ban all Android apps: Google threatens apps that exploit excessive access rights; not security system that allowed them"
http://www.itworld.com/security/255210/google-response-flaw-lets-apps-steal-photos-ditch-insecure-apps-thats-all-them

Missouri Caucus Confusion, Arrests; Broader Implications

March 17, 2012 turned out to be a day of complexity for the Republican presidential contest in Missouri. 5:00 Eastern time and we do not have clear results.
However, we do have impressionistic reactions. Of course, the impression is that Rick Santorum did well. Interesting are the reports from the ABC-TV News blog that this was one of Ron Paul's best days. Also, news supports contentions that there is some level of coordination or at least strategic peace between the Mitt Romney and Ron Paul campaigns.
See ABC's "Missouri Caucus Anecdotes: Arguments, Arrests, and a Good Day for Ron Paul", March 17, 2012.

Actually, this story will not resolve this weekend, for the last results do not get released until March 24, 2012. Many locales, including St. Louis, will not hold their caucuses until the 24th.
From UPI:

So the winner of Missouri's 52 electoral votes for the GOP presidential nomination will not be known until a round of meetings in April, weeks after most of the county-level caucuses are conducted.

And reports on the political infighting and arrests: These are not a good development, for if these things were happening on the Democratic, or a third, progressive side, the Left would be crying, state control:
From Des Moines Register: Contention, confusion mar Missouri caucuses, http://www.desmoinesregister.com/usatoday/article/53587822?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Iowa%20Politics%20Insider|s
From STLive: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/gop-caucus-sites-drawing-big-crowds/article_a8eb35ec-7050-11e1-acac-0019bb30f31a.html

Celeb gone psycho: Russell Brand in snatch and toss of photog's phone, in police custody

New Orleans, March 15, 2012, from TMZ:
Whoops!!!
British TV and film Actor Russell Brand, the one with the sinister or at least moody glare, the one that recently separated from famed pop singer wife Katy Perry, the one famous for his roles in Forgetting Sarah Marshall and the 2011 remake of Arthur, is alleged to have snatched a photographer's cellphone and is further alleged to have tossed it out a window.
The celebrity gossip site, TMZ, gave the news flash in the last hour: "Arrested for Cell Phone Snatch and Smash".
Apparently, there is little dispute over the facts at hand. Also, it has taken a while for the matter to reach the stage of the New Orleans police's arresting Brand. The incident happened on Monday night. However, the retrieval of the phone and Brand's offer to pay for the broken law office window in question was not enough. Police and prosecutors nonetheless have moved against Brand.
The New Orleans Police Department issued an arrest warrant for Brand; and he turned himself in.
NOLA.com reports that Brand is in the Big Easy for making a movie.

HR 347, Obama, Congress and America's Authoritarian Turn | Adbusters Culturejammer Headquarters

America's Authoritarian Turn | Adbusters Culturejammer Headquarters

Super Tuesday Analysis: Santorum's Victory

Conservatives love to make hay of the liberal bent of MSNBC.
Romney's victories
NBC News is a different story: David Gregory of Meet the Press is in steady pro-Mitt Romney mode, speaking with a cheery tone about Romney's victories:
Massachusetts,
Vermont
and Virginia (which doesn't count as a competitive model, as only Romney and Paul appeared on the ballot).
(BREAKING: By 11:15 PM, television network news announced that the Ohio margin had reversed, from Santorum with a narrow lead, to Romney with a narrow lead. The margin remains less than 5,000 votes.)
The Wyoming caucus results are at first indications leaning towards Romney.
Santorum's greater number of victories: Super Tuesday true big story
Rick Santorum has won Oklahoma and Tennessee.
Since about 9:00 PM Eastern, all the returns have Santorum leading over Romney.
NBC just reported that the North Dakota caucus went to Santorum.
Ginrich's sole victory
New Gingrich has won his home state, Georgia, probably what will be his last victory of the campaign.
(The Idaho caucuses seem too early to call, but are strongly leading to Romney at 10:50 PM.)
Santorum in the coming contests
This Saturday, March 10, the Kansas caucuses will probably go to Santorum. All of Kansas' surrounding contests, to date have gone to Santorum: Missouri, Oklahoma, Colorado and Iowa.
And the same holds for next Tuesday's main contests will go to Santorum: Alabama and Mississippi. (Hawaii will probably go to Romney.)

Little Romney pick-up soon
And it will be until March 20 and the Illinois primary that Romney will have a victory.
Another big night for Romney will probably be April 24, with friendly primary contests in Connecticut, Delaware, New York and Rhode Island.

Mere Cracks in Democrat Leadership or Will Emanuel, Obama Attacks Lead Teachers, Other Public Workers to Sit Out 2012 Presidential Race?

On the one hand, we have this story that hints to cracks in Democratic leadership, suggesting that some Democratic Party leaders, or elites, are disgusted with Rahm Emanuel's fight against Chicago schools and teachers. (Chicago Mayor Emanuel is continuing predecessor Richard Daley's school closing program.) Rev. Jesse Jackson has called Rahm Emanuel's school policies, "educational apartheid." Mike Klonsky's SmallTalk Blog reports that Nance Pelosi will appear this morning at Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition headquarters, where she is expected to endorse son Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s reelection bid to Congress to the 2nd Congressional District of Illinois.

But don't hold your breath for open breaches in the Democratic Party elite. The wind is blowing in the direction of more of the same public sector austerity. Take note:
In New York there is Governor Mario Cuomo who is on a holy war crusade against organized labor, government employees and their pensions: from Bloomberg Business Week, January 27, 2011: "Cuomo’s New York Budget Faces Union Fight on Pensions, Teachers".

Jan. 18 (Bloomberg) -- New York Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed a $132.5 billion budget that links an increase in education spending to a new teacher-evaluation system and raises the retirement age for future workers, a move already drawing opposition from unions.

Cuomo’s spending plan for fiscal 2013 closes a $2 billion deficit with no new taxes in part by finding $1.14 billion in savings from consolidating purchasing and human resources, he said yesterday in Albany, the capital. A tax deal reached last month that raised rates on those earning $2 million or more added $1.5 billion in revenue.

The proposal follows through on Cuomo’s pledge to raise spending on Medicaid and education by about 4 percent. The boost in school aid will be tied to compliance with a new statewide teacher-evaluation system, a plan similar to one proposed last week by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The governor suggested he expects opposition from the teachers’ unions.

One wonders what is driving Cuomo to do this. Most likely is a pandering to middle class voters wincing at taxes, and willing to cut living and retirement standards of public employees.

From public employee unions we do not hear much, but Danny Donohue, president of the Civil Service Employees Association, the state’s largest public-workers union said,

“The proposal for a new public employee pension tier is an assault on the middle class and a cheap shot at public employees . . . . It will provide no short-term savings and will mean people will have to work longer, pay more and gain less benefit.

. . . . . . . . .

Then we have Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy, who apparently is now beginning to pursue a war against teachers. (This is an about-face to his pandering to teachers in his 2010 election campaign: "Malloy’s pitch to teachers: pensions to stay, binding arbitration a right, Foley would slash funds," from the Raising Hale site, September 22, 2010.) In his February 8, 2012 State of the State he said, “…only thing you have to do is show up for four years.” (No, he was not talking about being governor, he was speaking about teachers.) He is the state's first Democratic governor since 1991 and he is making this anti-tenure statement?
Malloy further said,

“Since 2009, 31 states have enacted tenure reform, including our neighboring states of New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. It’s time for Connecticut to act. ”

Jonathan Pelto's "wait, what?" blog pointed out that Malloy conveniently skipped over the fact that Connecticut with its four year probation length is one of the nine states with the longest probationary period for new teachers.

Democratic Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, "Quinn looks to shift teacher pension funding to local school districts", February 4, 2012.

And in Maryland, with Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley and Democratic-led Senate and House, we are seeing the impact of the kind of shift of pension funding to local districts. The effect is local layoffs, cuts to libraries: from CBS Baltimore, February 29, 2012, "Counties Warn Of Cuts If They Pay Md. Pensions,"

Montgomery County school officials say they would have to cut 600 teachers and increase class sizes if lawmakers in Annapolis approve Gov. Martin O’Malley’s proposal to shift teacher pension costs to the counties.

Board of Education President Shirley Brandman told the County Council on Tuesday that class sizes could increase by an average of 2.4 students per class. She says that would be the result if the school system has to pay $38 million in pension costs in the 2013 fiscal year.

Prince George’s County officials say they’re also worried the shift would lead to cuts in the workforce and services.

Politicians, Democratic and Republican, love to use the words, "cut," "trim." But they are skipping over the fact that those things mean the diminishing of the quality of life for public workers AND for the USERS of public services (schools, police, libraries, medical facilities).

From Truth-Out:
How Pop Culture Influences Political Expectations
Saturday 25 February 2012
by: Bill Moyers, Moyers & Co. | Interview and Video

Film historian and culture critic Neal Gabler joins Bill Moyers to discuss how representations of heroism in movies shape our expectations of a U.S. president, and how our real-world candidates are packaged into superficial, two-dimensional personas designed to appeal to both the electorate and the media. As a result, says Gabler, we never get to the true pressing questions and issues of America.

“We love candidates who speak their mind in movies,” Gabler tells Moyers, adding that the same is not true for real life. “Movies are clean; democracy is a mess.”

Neil Gabler on How Pop Culture Influences Political Culture from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

BILL MOYERS: For all its many qualities, including some fine acting, “Contagion” was frozen out of the Oscars—not a single nomination. In fact, none of my favorites were nominated. Nonetheless, let’s go to the movies for some insights on our politics today, because when it comes to storytelling, Hollywood and Washington are co-dependents. Political conspiracies, skullduggery, and infighting have long provided solid plotlines for moviemakers. In turn, politicians try to embrace the values that movies depict as the noblest virtues of the American character: selfless courage, patriotism, sincerity and compassion. Both know that movie entertainment informs our image of what leaders should be but at the very same time capably and handily distracts us from certain grim truths.

So we’ve chosen this moment to talk with Neal Gabler, the historian of culture and film who expertly interprets how movies reflect our society and politics. Here in New York, Neal Gabler is an indispensable Saturday night guide to the movies on our flagship public station WNET/Thirteen.

NEAL GABLER on Reel 13: Welcome to Reel 13. I’m Neal Gabler.

BILL MOYERS: His books include biographies of Walt Disney and the powerful gossip columnist Walter Winchell, this one An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood and my favorite, Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality. He’s back in town after a semester as a fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Welcome home, Neal.

NEAL GABLER: Thank you very much.

BILL MOYERS: When you say life's a movie what are you saying?

NEAL GABLER: What I'm saying is that life itself has become an entertainment medium, that we are all actors in, and audience for, an ongoing show, that we have so steeped ourselves in the theatrical arts by watching them and ultimately by assimilating them that we have turned our own lives, and life outside of us, into a movie which we can watch and which we can perform in simultaneously.

I'll give you one example, you know, if you were to ask a farmer in the 19th century, or even in the 20th century for that matter, 'Why are you wearing overalls?' He would have looked at you in complete befuddlement. 'What do you mean why am I wearing overalls?'

But now we have people who walk down the street wearing cowboy hats from Ralph Lauren or wearing safari outfits from Ralph Lauren. You can, your clothing becomes a costume and you become a role player in some sort of fantasy.

And of course we see this in politics, you know, in spades where politics is a movie. And we're now, you know, in a campaign season where what we're really watching is not so much political debate, though it's called that, as we are watching a movie in which candidates are contending to be our protagonist-in-chief, as I would put it.

BILL MOYERS: Protagonist-in-chief--

NEAL GABLER: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: Meaning?

NEAL GABLER: Meaning that they, themselves, see the country as a kind of movie and they want to be the hero of the movie because they understand that's what the American people really are looking for. They want a Clint Eastwood, they want a John Wayne. They want an Arnold Schwarzenegger to be the head of state.

BILL MOYERS: But we wanted heroes in the White House before there were movies. George Washington, hero; Andrew Jackson, hero; Ulysses S. Grant, hero. That was some-- that seems to be something inherent in human nature, not in the movies, per se.

NEAL GABLER: I mean, there’s a distinction between real heroes and celebrities who are people on whom we impute a kind of heroism who haven't really earned it. John Wayne is a perfect example. John Wayne never whenever to war, and yet almost everybody in America regards in as heroic because he played a hero.

So the lust for heroism I don't think is anything new. That's a product of human nature possibly, and it's certainly a tradition in America. But the difference is the nature of heroism, what we define as heroism and the way in which heroism gets framed. We have expectations now of our political leaders.

And the expectations are that our political leaders are going to operate the same way that movie heroes operate, not the traditional war heroes or whatever operate, but that movie heroes operate, and that they'll essentially slash their way through problems and vanquish them at the end of the presidency, which in this case is the end of the national movie.

BILL MOYERS: It used to be that the first reel contained a villain and the last reel contained a hero. But in politics it's just the opposite. Very often the hero, who gets elected is a villain by the time he takes office, right?

NEAL GABLER: Well, you know, the election is the greatest movie of all. And when the lights come up on election day and we leave the theater and we say as we did in 2008, as many people said, 'Boy, this is, what a great day for America that we could actually elect an African American to the presidency and that the slogans of hope and change that you can believe in, all these things are really operative.' But there's a sequel. And the sequel is governance. Now, as much as the movie of the election may be powerful and entertaining and even in some cases uplifting, governance is a whole different thing.

BILL MOYERS: So in the end are movies contributing to the paralysis and the frustrations of democracy? Because as you say, the movie is glamorous, governing is not.

NEAL GABLER: Absolutely. In fact I think the-- I would even go farther than that. I mean, governance is a very bad movie, it's a really lousy movie. Elections are a better movie because look at, elections fit into a clean framework of there's going to be a winner and there's going to be a loser. It's essentially a sporting event.

But then, that contest ends and after that we have a whole different set of problems and situations, but there aren't clear winners and losers. There isn't the clear framework. There's not the clear sense of hero and villain as there was during the election as we impute those things onto our candidates. So governance is as I say, is a lousy movie. And we don't know how to deal with that.

BILL MOYERS: One of my favorite moments in one of the best political movies ever made, The Candidate, Robert Redford--

NEAL GABLER: Ah, wonderful movie.

BILL MOYERS: Remember he runs this race for the-- and he's elected.

NEAL GABLER: He’s selected, tapped as the Democratic candidate in California partly because he's the son of a former governor, but also because he looks like Robert Redford.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah.

NEAL GABLER: You know, he's handsome and he's articulate and he gives the impression of sincerity, all the things that one needs to be elected. But there's no substance to the campaign whatsoever. And indeed, as the campaign goes on it becomes more and more about aesthetics.

About how one looks, how one appears, where one shows up. I mean, there's one scene in the movie where he walks down the beach just so he can be photographed for a television commercial and people come up to him and he looks like, boy, he's so relaxed, he's in his element. And then we get to the end of the movie. Now, he's elected and he goes to his political advisor-

MARVIN LUCAS in The Candidate: Okay, we have about 60 seconds of privacy before they find out we’re here now, so what’s on your mind, Senator?

BILL MCKAY in The Candidate: I don’t know.

MARVIN LUCAS in The Candidate: Okay, we got to get out there. See I told you they’d be here.

BILL MCKAY in The Candidate: Marvin, what do we do now?

MARVIN LUCAS in The Candidate: Wait a minute, wait a minute, what?

NEAL GABLER: Election's easy. Governance is hard.

BILL MOYERS: The hero of the campaign becomes a pretty weak figure at the moment of governance, right?

NEAL GABLER: If the campaign is about aesthetics. And that's what has happened in American politics.

BILL MOYERS: Earlier this week on CNN there was a headline that said, "Will the debate reveal a new Romney?" I mean, a new Romney is the-

NEAL GABLER: A new Romney? Well, here we have another debate and what's Romney's role going to be in this debate? How does he project himself? This is all about the narrative that the candidates are presenting to the public. And it's all about how well they can seduce the public. Now, the public's wise to this. It's not like the public is sitting back and they're stupid. The public gets this. They understand that this is-

BILL MOYERS: So why do we go along? Why do we go along with it?

NEAL GABLER: Well, I think--

BILL MOYERS: Because we-- after the election we are so frustrated, democracy's not working, nothing gets solved. And yet we were party to the movie, we were in the audience applauding when the new Romney emerged.

NEAL GABLER: You know, there's, I think, a kind of American schizophrenia about our politics. On the one hand we love to sit back and see these people be compelled to seduce us because elections are basically about seduction. And we understand, there's no fooling us that that's what the process is. So we sit there and we say, 'How well are they going to seduce us?'

But that also gives way to an incredible cynicism about the process. Americans are deeply cynical about politics generally. And one of the reasons we're cynical is because we get it. We get how it works. On the other hand we would have theoretically at our disposal the ability to change American politics, to say, you want to know something? I don't want to buy the new Romney, or the old Romney, or the new Gingrich, or the old Gingrich, or the new Santorum, or the old Santorum.

I want to know who a candidate really is. I want him to speak honestly and forcefully to me. And I also want to understand policy-wise what choices is he going to make? What interests are we going to-- is he going to serve? You know, these are questions that are almost never addressed in a political campaign and yet they're the fundamental questions of a political campaign.

BILL MOYERS: But let's go to The Candidate because there is another scene that I remember so well when Robert Redford, the candidate, tries to get his opponent and the media to take the issues seriously.

NEAL GABLER: This is the moment during the debate, if I'm not mistaken--

BILL MOYERS: Exactly.

NEAL GABLER: Where he's debating his Republican rival, a three-term Republican senator. And he's saying, 'Look it, we've got to address the issues here. We're not addressing the issues.'

DEBATE MODERATOR in The Candidate: Mr. McKay, you now have one minute to sum up. Mr. McKay?

BILL McKAY in The Candidate: In the begin-- I don’t, I think it’s important to note what subjects we haven’t discussed. We completely ignored the fact that this is society divided by fear, hatred, and violence. And until we talk about just what this society really is than I don’t know how we’re going to change it. For example, we haven’t discussed the rot that destroys our cities. We have all the resources we need to check it and we don’t use them. And we haven’t discussed why not. We haven’t discussed race in this country, we haven’t discussed poverty, in short, we haven’t discussed any of the sicknesses that may yet send this country up in flames. And we’d better do it. We’d better get it out in the open and confront it. Before it’s too late.

NEAL GABLER: And his handlers absolutely feel that he's done the absolutely wrong thing in trying to compel the press to address issues in an aesthetic campaign.

But the difference today would be that there would be a headline that the candidate says, Redford says, 'America is rotten,' or, 'America is sick.' And everyone would jump on it and then he would be compelled to come before the camera and say, 'I didn't say that America was rotten and I didn't way that America was sick.'

Now, interestingly, we've seen Newt Gingrich do a variation on this, and I think it's fascinating, it's kind of post-modernist. Because Gingrich is going around saying, that, you know, we don't talk enough about policy. We really ought to talk about policy. We're talking about personal things, but we really ought to talk about policy. But in talking about talking about policy, he never talks about policy. He's simply talking about talking about policy. Now, this is a wonderful trick. It makes him sound as if he really wants to address policy without ever having to do so.

To see more articles and videos from Moyers & Co., click here.

BILL MOYERS: So would Mitt Romney get the role of playing Mitt Romney if there were a movie about which Mitt Romney is going to win?

NEAL GABLER: Well, it depends on which Mitt Romney you want in the movie. I mean, I think what Mitt Romney has done is he's created the narrative that he is the strong businessman. And he looks the part, and that's one of the reasons why he can play this role.

On the other hand, that narrative has not played well with the Republican constituency. Because they don't care whether he's a strong businessman. What they want to know is, does he have the courage of his convictions which is essentially the courage of their convictions, their conservative convictions.

So Romney's problem in this campaign is his narrative is the wrong narrative. He's playing the wrong role. They want to see if he has courage. They don't want to see that he has the financial acumen to run the economy, they don't care. And this is a very difficult thing to do. He's miscast. What makes a great actor? What makes a great actor is the authenticity. You believe in that performance. That's great acting.

And, what we do is we get a candidate, Gingrich, you know, coming along and saying, 'Well, I'm authentic because I'm going to-- I say what I want to say. I don't pull my punches.' And then he gets taken down. Now Santorum is cast in the same way. Why is Santorum being boosted? Because he's sincere.

BILL MOYERS: You say in here that we escape from life by escaping into a neat narrative formula. Isn't that true of politics, as well? Movies give us a neat story, a neat drama with a beginning, a middle and an end and we like that even though politics isn't really like that?

NEAL GABLER: Politics is antithetical really to the values of movies even though the values of movies as I said earlier permeate politics, and that's a problem. You know, Americans love democracy, but they hate politics. And politics is one of the things that gives us democracy.

BILL MOYERS: I would have thought just the opposite. They love politics, witness the audiences for the debates, witness the enthusiasm of the crowd. But it's the working of democracy they don't like.

NEAL GABLER: Well they love the theatricality of politics. But when I say politics I don't mean the horse race aspect of it. I mean the bargaining, the negotiations, the policy, all of those things which are the essence of real politics and political decision making, Americans hate that and they are cynical about that. They feel it doesn't work.

And that is not a healthy situation for democracy. What we have to do is embrace the fact that democracy's a mess. Movies are not, movies are clean. Democracy is a mess. That's what makes it democracy.

It's about finding out how interests get resolved, that's what democracy's about. Movies aren't about that. Movies are about vanquishing a villain, that's what movies are about. And what happens in American politics is that notice how, and we see this in the Republican debate, that idea of vanquishing the villain, in this case Barack Obama, has become the political meme.

It's not about policy. It's not about interests. It's about, there's this bad guy in the White House and we've got to defeat him. That's Batman. That's not really the way the political system would operate. And it contributes to polarization.

BILL MOYERS: Have you seen Ides of March with--

NEAL GABLER: Yes, I have, yes.

BILL MOYERS: George Clooney? There's a moment in there where he talks differently about religion from the way many candidates including Santorum are doing. Let me play that for us.

GOVERNOR MORRIS in The Ides of March: I am not a Christian, or an atheist. I'm not Jewish or Muslim. What I believe, my religion, is written on a piece of paper called the Constitution. Meaning, that I will defend, until my dying breath, your right to worship, in whatever God you believe in. As long as it doesn't hurt others. I believe we should be judged as a country by how we take care of the people who cannot take care of themselves. That's my religion. If you think I’m not religious enough, don't vote for me. If you think I’m not experienced enough, or tall enough, then don't vote for me. Because I can’t change that to get elected.

NEAL GABLER: Of course, if anybody had ever said what Clooney says here, and again this is where we get this kind of schizophrenia, we love candidates who are forthright on the movies. We love candidates in the movies who say what they want to say and just rip the cover off the ball and, you know.

But in real life if a candidate ever said that he would have doomed his chances to be elected in a second because the headline would be-- and every one of his opponents would say, 'Doesn't believe in God. Clooney doesn't believe in God.' And then for a week the narrative that week would be him having to come back and def—'I never said I don't believe in God.' And you know, this is the kind of idiocy that absolutely overtakes the American political narrative. But this is the only-- the only thing we get is idiocy. We get one-

BILL MOYERS: We're a nation of idiots?

NEAL GABLER: I won't say we're a nation of idiots although I will say this-- I would never say that of course. Because if I said that-

BILL MOYERS: In a movie you would.

NEAL GABLER: That would-- in a movie I would, in a movie, absolutely. Yes.

BILL MOYERS: We'll do a movie.

NEAL GABLER: But I would say that we allow this kind of thing to happen, we let it happen. And we let the media promulgate this sort of thing and we don't put our feet down and say, 'You know, enough, enough.'

And I think we have to shame the public and the media, shame them, into saying, 'Look, as a citizen this is your responsibility. It's not your responsibility to watch, you know, woodpeckers in a debate, you know, knock one another's heads. That's entertaining and it's fun and all of that, but now you have a duty. You have a responsibility.'

We've got an Occupy Wall Street movement. We now need an Occupy Media movement in which, you know, ordinary people say, 'I want a real debate on issues.' And find the resources to do that.

BILL MOYERS: But in a society so thoroughly saturated with entertainment, aren't we losing our capacity for the sustained or more serious ideas?

NEAL GABLER: We are losing our idealism. We are losing our ability to process these things. We outsource our opinions. I mean, when you look at Fox News and MSNBC for example, and they're not the only culprits, what do they really represent? I mean, people always say, 'Well, they're, they market to a niche.' But what they really represent is outsourcing our own opinions.

Yeah, we don't have to think. We can outsource it to Fox. We kind of agree with them generally, we kind of generally agree with MSNBC, so now we've outsourced it. They'll do it for us.

So in some ways in this media saturated, entertainment saturated culture what we have to do, it's imperative for us to do this, is disenchant ourselves, get ourselves out of the movie, leave the theater for a moment and say, what is the real impact?

When we get into the cold light of the sidewalk after the movie is over, what is the impact of all this? What is it going to mean for my life? What is it going to mean for America? And if we don't start asking those questions we can't move this forward at all. All we're going to get is punditry and analysis of who's winning and who's losing and a movie. We'll get nothing but the movie. But the problem is movies don't answer the pressing questions of America. Policy answers the pressing questions of America and we have to demand to know what these guys are going to do and what choices they're going to make.

BILL MOYERS: Neal Gabler, we'll continue this conversation as the year goes on. Thank you for joining me.

NEAL GABLER: Thank you so much, Bill.

Update: Best page for 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries dates, # of delegates, winner-take-all or proportional through Super Tuesday

My developing table on 2012 Primaries and Caucuses for the Republican Presidential Nomination: (parentheses = probably)
The Republican National Convention will be held at the Tampa Bay Times Forum, Tampa, Florida, August 27 (Monday) to 30 (Thursday), 2012.

State	Date (Sat. elections in italics)	Caucus or primary	Open or closed	Winner-Take-All or proportional	Number of delegates
Iowa evangelical	January 3	Caucus	Closed	Proportional	28
New Hampshire libertarian but New England	January 10	Primary	Open to Republi- cans and Indepen- dents	Proportional	12
South Carolina evangelical	January 21	Primary	Open	Winner-take-all	25
Florida evangelical, Old South north; cosmopolitan southern section	January 31	Primary	Closed	Winner-take-all	50
Nevada libertarian West; besieged with foreclosures	February 4	Caucus	Closed	Proportional	28
Maine (municipal level)	February 4 to 11	Caucus	Closed	Determined at precinct level (Likely WTA)	24
Colorado social conserv., but libertarian	February 7	Caucus	Closed	Unbound	36
Minnesota	February 7	Caucus	Open	Unbound	40
Missouri (non-binding, see 3/17 cauc.)	February 7	Primary	Modified	Alloct. at convention	52
Arizona	February 28	Primary	Closed	WTA	29
Michigan	February 28	Primary	Open*	Proportional (15% threshold)	30
Washington	March 3	Caucus	Open	Mixed WTA/Proportional	43
Alaska	March 6	Caucus	Closed	Proportional	27
Georgia	March 6	Primary	Open	Mixed WTA/Proportional	76
Idaho	March 6	Caucus	Open	Mixed WTA/Proportional	32
Massachusetts	March 6	Primary	Semi-Open	Proportional (15% threshold)	41
North Dakota	March 6	Caucus	Open	(per state party's county convention rules)	28
Ohio	March 6	Primary	Closed	Mixed WTA/Proportional	66
Oklahoma	March 6	Primary	Closed	Modified WTA	43
Tennessee	March 6	Primary	Open	Mixed WTA/Proportional	58
Vermont	March 6	Primary	Open	Modified WTA	17
Virginia	March 6	Primary	Open	Modified WTA	49
Wyoming	March 6 to March 10	Caucus (County Convention)	Closed	(per state party's county convention rules)	29

Table in progress.

Source for winner-take-all or proportional allocation of delegates:
http://www.fairvote.org/delegate-allocation-rules-in-2012-gop
*In Michigan, voter may chose which party primary in which to vote, but once they have chosen that party, they must vote for all one party once they have entered the voting booth.
Source:
http://www.fairvote.org/congressional-and-presidential-primaries-open-closed-semi-closed-and-top-two#.T0nx_Ixj5ac

Projected winners in latest opinion polls; highlights are links to polls:
Arizona: Mitt Romney
Michigan: toss-up, leaning Romney
Big considerations, states with over 50 delegates, March 6, Super Tuesday:
Georgia: Newt Gingrich, but with only a three point lead on Romney
Ohio: Rick Santorum
Tennessee: despite being next-door to Gingrich's home state: Santorun

Key Ohio GOPer Switches from Romney to Santorum; CPAC and Religious Endorsements

KEY OHIO ENDORSEMENT:
Yesterday (February 17, 2012) in a major coup for the Rick Santorum presidential campaign, Attorney General Mike DeWine speaking publicly in Columbus, Ohio, switched his support from Mitt Romney to Rick Santorum. This could have a detrimental effect on the state next door, Michigan, on February 28 when Romney's birth state holds its presidential primary, 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Central Time. 30 proportionally distributed convention delegates are at stake in the Michigan primary.

RIGHT WING GROUPS' ENDORSEMENTS:
Take a look at the meeting program of the crazy, far right Conservative Political Union's Conservative Political Action Committee "CPAC": February 9 to 11, 2012 at the Ballroom of the Marriott Park Wardman Hotel in Washington, DC:
http://cpac2012.conservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Schedule-Of-Events_Latest.pdf

The CPAC endorsed Mitt Romney for the 2012 presidential nomination, but well short of a majority, 38 percent supporting Romney; Rick Santorum won 31 percent, Newt Gingrich, 15 percent, Ron Paul, 12 percent.

RIGGED CPAC ELECTION?
Rick Santorum charged that the process was manipulated:

“Well, you know, those straw polls at CPAC — as you know for years Ron Paul has won those because he just trucks in a lot of people, pays for their ticket, they come in a vote, and then they leave,” “We didn’t do that. We don’t do that. I don’t try to rig straw polls.”

--As reported by The Raw Story blog.

Earlier post:
The CPAC is due to make an endorsement. In the past they have endorsed Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Political_Action_Conference
Which of the remaining Republican candidates for president in 2012 will they endorse?: Romney? Gingrich? Paul? Santorum?
DO these groups' endorsements have an effect?
Did the religious conservatives' January 14, 2012 endorsement of Rick Santorum at their Texas meeting play a role in his recent primary and caucuses wins (Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri)? (More than 150 religious conservatives such as Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference president Rev. Samuel Rodriguez and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer met at the Benham, Texas ranch of retired judge Paul Pressler.)

Mitt Romney says Romneycare should go national (8/5/07)

Social Roots of the Enduring Support Gingrich is Recieving --The Story the Media is Missing

The media have been abuzz with commentary about how former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is the front-runner in the 2012 Republican presidential contest.
They have missed analyzing the county-level returns. In contest after contest, the social conservatives, first former Senator Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania), then former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Georgia) have been cleaning up in the non-urban, cultural periphery parts of states and their primary or caucus contests.

First, in the Iowa caucuses, Santorum won the majority of the counties, and particularly, he won the rural counties. (See this county map of the 2012 Iowa Republican caucuses.)

Next, in the South Carolina primary (January 21) Gingrich swept to victory in the parts of the state that were outside of the state capital, Columbia and the Atlantic Ocean coast with Charleston and Myrtle Beach. (See this county map of the 2012 South Carolina Republican primary.)

In Florida on January 31 Gingrich got all but three counties in the western part of the state, including counties north and west of the county containing Alachua, and west of the county containing Jacksonville. (See this county map of the 2012 Florida Republican primary.) Presaging the Super Tuesday contest at the beginning of March, Gingrich handily beat Romney in the Florida panhandle, adjacent to Georgia.

Even in yesterday's Nevada caucuses, Romney's support was not quite as strong in the western part of the state.
In Minnesota we can expect some drama as this was one of the better Huckabee states (he was the leading social conservative since the 2008 race), as he got 19.88 percent of the votes in the 2008 caucus.

One can also see a county level map of the whole U.S.A.of the winning pluralities in the 2008 race as part of this 2008 comparison process. Assuming that these depictions are useful future predictions, in the next coming contests, Romney will do quite well in Colorado (Feb. 7), Gingrich will have a level of a come-back in the Minnesota caucus (Feb. 7), Gingrich will have a level of a come-back in Missouri (it has a non-binding primary on February 7 but its binding caucus is on March 17), Romney will will do well in the Maine caucus (February 11) but will share the win with Paul in parts, and Gingrich will have a resurgence in Super Tuesday, particularly in the authentic South (e.g., Georgia as opposed to Florida).

Santorum is in trouble and you would think that he would consider dropping out, he has not exceeded 18 percent of the vote any contest since New Hampshire on January 10, his highest recent response being 17.0 percent in the South Carolina primary.

The winner-take-all ("WTA") dynamic has a way of encouraging candidates to leave the race. Notice the heavy load of delegates racked up for John McCain in the 2008 contest; yet, Romney won many contests as well. However, the WTA delegate stack meant that the delegate accumulation did not happen for Romney, only in significant numbers for McCain. Note these patterns in the 2008 race, in a chronological wikipedia table of vote and delegate distribution for each primary; wearying of the delegate accumulation for McCain, Romney dropped out fight after the February 5, 2008 Super Tuesday primaries.
This year, 2012, however, with more contests having proportional distribution of delegates and candidates insistent on staying in the race after front-runner momentum shows futility for the less successful candidates. (i.e., Think of Santorum in particular.)

* * *
ROMNEY FAILING TO IGNITE REPUBLICAN VOTERS' PASSIONS AND GET WINNING MAJORITIES
It is interesting that Newt Gingrich has not pointed this out more clearly:
Romney is the sole moderate remaining in the Republican presidential race now. Four years ago in 2008 he split the moderate vote with John McCain.
Now, with no McCain in the race, he has not once been able to lift voter enthusiasm beyond the 48 percent mark.
With McCain out of the way, he should be able to win with rates of 70 percent or more.
(Compare with the percentages that Romney and McCain got in the 2008 primary season.)
Yet, look at the states where Romney and his media boosters have trumpeted; Romney has not once broken through the 48 percent point:
New Hampshire, January 10, 39.3 percent
Florida, January 31, 46.4 percent
Nevada, February 4, 47.6 percent

The 2012 Republican primary debate schedule

The last one, Jan. 22, Jacksonville, FL:
8 PM ET on CNN
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012/01/video-watch-the-full-cnn-florida-republican-debate/

THE FULL LIST OF NEXT UPCOMING DEBATES:
Feb. 22 at the Mesa Arts Center, Mesa, Arizona [before the Arizona and Michigan primaries]
8 PM ET on CNN. Sponsored by CNN and the Republican Party of Arizona.

Cancelled: March 1, at a Georgia location [before March 6, Super-Tuesday]
8 PM ET on CNN All but Gingrich pulled out of the debate; see this National Journal report.

Cancelled: March 5, at Reagan Library, Simi, California [also preceding Super Tuesday]
TBD on NBC

March 19, at Portland, Oregon
9 PM ET on PBS. Sponsored by: Oregon Public Broadcasting, NPR, PBS, The Washington Times and the Oregon Republican Party.

Source:
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2011-2012-primary-debate-schedule/

* * *
Righty groups endorsements for 2012 Republican presidential nominee:
CPU's CPAC February 9 to 11 in the Marriott in Washington DC: they chose Mitt Romney over Rick Santorum, 38 percent over 31 percent.
Here's their meeting's program:
http://cpac2012.conservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Schedule-Of-Events_Latest.pdf

Earlier post:
Reportage on them; they are getting nervous about the nomination and President Obama. They might surprise us and endorse Romney; they've endorsed him in the past.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120205/NEWS09/302050037/Conservative-forum-carries-undercurrent-of-tension-about-options
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120205/NEWS09/120205002/-1/JUICE07/A-tough-crowd-Mitt-Romney-will-others-step-up-

But then, see how the evangelicals' endorsement of Rick Santorum was ineffectual. They endorsed, and Gingrich swept the next primary, South Carolina.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/25/1058345/-Rick-Santorum-and-the-Religious-Rights-Ineffectual-Endorsement

BREAKING: Court: Only Romney & Paul Qualify for Va. Ballot - No Newt or Rick in Virginia

Just in:
A court ruling today (January 21, 2012) confirms that only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Virginia GOP primary ballot. Thus, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum will not be on the ballot.
Virginia law requires 10,000 signatures to get a candidate onto the ballot.
Source: SportNews.com, from Christian Science Monitor (csmonitor.com)

The Missouri caucus (March 17) also does not have former House Speaker Gingrich. Yet, it has everyone else on the ballot, even orthodox libertarian Gary Johnson. (The state has a non-binding primary on February 7.)
Source: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MO-R

And:
LOYALTY OATH IMPOSED ON VIRGINIA PRIMARY VOTERS?
Ah, the chickens come home: Remember how much Republicans wanted loyalty oaths from Americans from the 1940s to the 1960s (and in some places until the 1980s)?
Well, now that courts are keeping the super Tuesday (March 6) primary a two-man race Virginia politicians are embarrassed by the oaths they wanted to impose on voters, binding them to support the Republican nominee for president.

A divisive “loyalty oath” requiring voters in Virginia’s March Republican presidential primary to support the eventual GOP nominee is being removed from the ballot in an expedited, last-minute request from the state Republican Party.

Scrambling to meet a Friday deadline for finalizing primary ballots, Virginia Republican chairman Pat Mullins and the party’s executive director, Dave Rexrode, polled the state party’s governing central committee by phone and e-mail.
The committee voted overwhelmingly to reverse its December decision to place the pledge on the GOP ballots, and the Virginia Republican executive committee made the decision official.

The central committee had planned to vote at a special meeting on Saturday, said Lee E. Goodman, an attorney and longtime adviser to the party, “but that would have been too late. The ballots are sent out on Friday.”

Rexrode rushed the executive committee’s authorization to Donald Palmer, executive secretary of the State Board of Elections, who said the proviso was being struck from the ballot.

Republicans, long suspicious that independents and Democrats were meddling with their nominating process in primaries, saw the pledge as a way to address the concern in a state where voters do not register by party affiliation. Virginia Republicans sometimes hold statewide conventions to ensure that only credentialed Republicans select their nominees.

Mullins began working to reverse the decision when it drew condemnation from across the political spectrum.

The American Civil Liberties Union threatened to sue the GOP unless it was rescinded. Democrats ridiculed it, saying it defines the GOP as an exclusionary party.

Read the full link below for end of the AP story.
From the Washington Post, from the AP, January 17, 2012: "Va. Republicans ask state elections board to delete loyalty oath from March primary ballot".