Paul: I'm Not Dropping Out

GORHAM, Maine -- Ron Paul said Saturday the Republican presidential race has "a ways to go" and he doesn't intend to get out or get behind another candidate anytime soon.

The Texas congressman was campaigning Saturday in Maine, which holds caucuses beginning Feb. 4. He spoke to an overflow crowd at the University of Southern Maine and held an outdoor rally outside the famed L.L. Bean store in Freeport. He picked up the endorsement of Linda Bean, the granddaughter of the Bean company founder and a prominent Republican activist in the state.

Paul told reporters that it didn't make sense for him to campaign in Florida, which holds its primary Tuesday and awards all its 50 delegates to the winner. Polling indicates Mitt Romney is leading the field there.

"Some other campaigns have many, many millions of dollars to run a campaign," Paul said. "We maximize the delegates the way we're doing it."

Paul planned to campaign next week in other caucus states, including Nevada, which also holds its caucus on Feb. 4, and Colorado and Minnesota, which hold caucuses Feb. 7.

Paul dismissed suggestions he would back any of his GOP rivals.

"I think that's premature. We have a ways to go," Paul said, adding he was glad they were speaking favorably about some of his libertarian-leaning views.

"I'll work with anybody who wants to come in the direction of Constitutional government," Paul said.

He noted that Newt Gingrich had endorsed his views on monetary policy in a nationally televised debate this week. Paul has called for the Federal Reserve to be audited and ultimately eliminated, and wants the value of the dollar tied to gold.

Paul said he hoped the former House speaker and others would also adopt his noninterventionist foreign policy views, which are far outside the Republican Party mainstream.

"If he says `I agree with Ron Paul, we should bring the troops home from Afghanistan,' my ears would pop up," Paul said.

___

Christine Pelosi: A Cure for Voter Suppression and Voter Depression: Occupy the Vote

2012 will come down to a handful of votes in key races swayed by voter suppression and voter depression. To win, progressives must overcome both. This will require courage in calling out the acts of our opponents and in changing our own patterns of advocacy in order to succeed.

Voter suppression is catalogued by many voting rights groups such as Rock the Vote, the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute and the Brennan Center for Justice -- election codes to limit the voting rights of students and movers, reduce early voting days, and restrict voter registration and "get-out-the-vote" mobilization efforts that all told could restrict voting rights of 5 million Americans in 2012 and disability rights advocates.

When it comes to voter depression, the challenges are external and internal to the progressive movement.

External forces will simply blame everything on President Obama, claiming that change has not come or come fast enough because of him. In classic projection, the Republican party of "no" that blocked more robust stimulus, healthcare reform and Wall Street reform, will blame the cleaning crew not the wrecking crew.

They also engage in the not so subtle dog whistles that seek to "other" the president and progressive Democrats. For months we have heard Republicans complain about Mitt Romney and say conservative dollars will be spent on congressional races instead of the presidential. Karl Rove and company will swoop in and pollute the airwaves with ugly dog whistles about LBGT Americans ("San Francisco"), African Americans ("food stamp president"), Latinos ("illegals") and Jews ("Alinsky").

Internal forces include the purists who see their role as attacking elected officials rather than supporting them. My inbox is full of pledges and petitions from groups seeking political reform but precious few actually lift up elected officials who need to cast the tough votes for reform. Over and over they will say "tell Congress" or "tell the president," but very rarely will they say "praise Congress" or "thank the president" for taking action. Talk about depression! To read their notes is to think there is no hope for change -- when I know that there is.

Simply put, If you are going to amend our tax code in the face of Republican threats to impeach the president as Grover Norquist just threatened or pushing for Citizens United Reform, it takes votes from legislators to do so. Expecting people to take tough votes for reform without a whiff of public support is ludicrous.

What is to be done? Occupy the vote. Cure voter suppression with a commitment to participate in the civic sacrament of voting and to protect others' rights to do so. Cure voter depression by calling out the "othering" and smears from opponents and by pushing and praising progressive politicians. We know the problem and we know the cure -- now we must summon the courage to act and the courage to change.

GOP Hopefuls Play Follow The Leader

WASHINGTON -- The pitch from the Republican presidential contenders to voters sounds a lot like the children's game of follow the leader.

When Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich aren't puffing up their own leadership credentials, they're running down the leadership skills of one another and of President Barack Obama.

If anyone missed Monday's conference call from the Romney campaign about Gingrich's record as a "failed leader," not to worry. They could have tuned in to Tuesday's conference call. Or Wednesday's. Or Thursday's. Or checked out the "unreliable leader" banner splashed across a Romney news release that labeled Gingrich "unhinged."

Romney's political biography, meanwhile, is all about his leadership as a businessman, Massachusetts governor and savior of the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.

It's hard to miss Gingrich's frequent broadsides at Romney for failing to provide consistent, visionary leadership. Or the former House speaker's pronouncements that he, by contrast, offers "exactly the kind of bold, tough leader the American people want." Or Gingrich's descriptions of all that was accomplished in his four years as speaker in the 1990s.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, trailing in the polls, keeps trying to muscle his way into the conversation by offering himself as the steady bet who can be counted on to offer more reliable conservative leadership than "erratic" Gingrich or "moderate" Romney.

In a race where all the candidates are trying to out-conservative one another, stressing leadership credentials gives the GOP rivals a way to try to distinguish themselves. In a year when Obama's own leadership skills are seen as one of his weakest qualities, it gives the Republicans one more arrow in their quiver as they argue over who would be most electable in a matchup with Obama come November.

Leadership is always a part of the equation in presidential elections. In 2008, for example, the candidates all were abuzz with claims that they offered "transformational" leadership.

"I want to transform this country," Obama said when he announced he was running.

This year, leadership is getting an extra dose of attention, perhaps because of statistics such as this: The share of Americans viewing Obama as a strong leader slipped from 77 percent at the start of his presidency to 52 percent in a Pew Research Center poll released this month. Among Republicans, only about one-fourth of those surveyed in the most recent poll said Obama was a strong leader, compared with 80 percent of Democrats.

At a campaign debate last week in Tampa, Fla., Gingrich and Romney both turned a question about electability into an answer about the L-word.

"This is going to come down a question of leadership," Romney said. Then the former Massachusetts governor recited his track record as a leader in business and government and took a dig at Gingrich for having to "resign in disgrace" when he was speaker in the 1990s.

Gingrich, answering the same question, aligned himself with the leadership record of conservative hero Ronald Reagan and offered himself as someone "prepared to be controversial when necessary" to bring about great change.

The answers offer a window into how differently the two candidates define leadership: Romney more as a manager with business school credentials, Gingrich more as a big-thinking visionary.

The leadership argument is a particularly potent campaign weapon for Romney because a number of Republicans who served in Congress with Gingrich have been happy to describe his shortcomings in running the House.

"If you were somebody trying to serve with him, you were always sort of left standing with your hands empty in terms of moving forward with an actual plan or putting a plan to paper," Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., said of Gingrich on a Romney campaign conference call Thursday. "So for me, it's an example that he's just not an effective leader. I think Mitt has the temperament and the ability to lead."

Gingrich, who resigned after a spate of ethics problems and a poor showing for House Republicans in the 1998 elections, managed to turn even his resignation as speaker into evidence that he's a strong leader.

"I took responsibility for the fact that our results weren't as good as they should be," he said in the Tampa debate. "I think that's what a leader should do."

As for the turbulence of his tenure as speaker, Gingrich casts that, too, as evidence of his bold leadership.

"Look, I wish everybody had loved me, but I'd rather be effective representing the American people than be popular inside Washington," he said earlier in the campaign.

Stephen Wayne, a presidential scholar at Georgetown University, said the harsh judgment of Obama's presidential leadership by Republicans and even some Democrats in part is due to the high hopes that he raised during the 2008 campaign. Obama the president has been measured against the words of Obama the candidate ever since.

Now that it's campaign season again, says Wayne, "he's not competing against his own image, he's competing against a real life person that has frailties. ... In a sense, that lowers the bar for Obama."

___

AP Deputy Polling Director Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

___

GOP Establishment 'Terrified By Newt Gingrich'

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Republican insiders are rising up to cut Newt Gingrich down to size, testament to the GOP establishment's fear that the mercurial candidate could lead the party to disaster this fall.

The gathering criticisms are bitingly sharp, as if edged by a touch of panic, a remarkable development considering the target once was speaker of the House and will go down in history as leader of the Republicans' 1994 return to power in Congress. The intended beneficiary is Mitt Romney, a once-moderate Massachusetts governor whom many rank-and-file Republicans view with suspicion.

"The Republican establishment might not be wild about Mitt Romney, but they're terrified by Newt Gingrich," said Dan Schnur, a former GOP campaign strategist who teaches politics at the University of Southern California.

The anti-Gingrich statements have come from conservative columnists, talk show hosts including Ann Coulter, former Reagan administration officials and others. One of the harshest was written by former Sen. Bob Dole, the party's 1996 presidential nominee.

"I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late," Dole wrote in the conservative magazine National Review. "If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices."

As speaker from 1995 through 1998, Gingrich "had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall," Dole wrote. He said he struggled against Democrats' TV attacks in his 1996 campaign, "and in every one of them, Newt was in the ad."

Gingrich has reacted unevenly to the accusations, sometimes denouncing them, other times wearing them like a badge of honor.

"The Republican establishment is just as much as an establishment as the Democratic establishment, and they are just as determined to stop us," he told a tea party rally Thursday in central Florida.

The crowd cheered. But lingering near the back was an example of how the Romney campaign is taking advantage of the whacks at Gingrich: GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah. Chaffetz is beloved by many conservatives, and he goes from one Gingrich event to another to tell reporters why he thinks Romney would be a stronger challenger against President Barack Obama in the fall.

Gingrich aide R.C. Hammond confronted Chaffetz on Friday at an event in Delray, Fla., noting that some Republican officials criticize such shadowing tactics. Chaffetz defended his presence, saying Gingrich has vowed to show up everywhere Obama campaigns this fall, if several hours later.

Romney has drawn other high-ranking surrogates, with mixed results. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley annoyed some of her tea party supporters when she campaigned throughout her state for Romney, who lost to Gingrich by 12 percentage points.

It's unclear whether the anti-Gingrich push is driving a new wedge between establishment Republicans and anti-establishment insurgents such as the tea partyers.

"We don't like the Republican establishment anyway," said Mark Meckler, a Californian and co-founder of Tea Party Patriots. He said tea partyers are heavily focused on state and local races, and are wary of getting drawn into the presidential quarrels.

After all, Meckler said, "it's not as though Newt Gingrich hasn't been part of the Republican establishment."

Many other conservative activists also noted Gingrich's long history as a Washington insider, including 20 years in Congress and 13 as a well-paid consultant, writer and Fox News commentator. His history complicates his efforts to rally angry, working-class Republicans who feel that an "elite" cadre of officials, journalists and others look down on them.

"He's in one sense attacking the establishment he says he helped lead," said John Feehery, a former top House GOP aide who contends the tea party's influence is often overstated. The chief complaints about Gingrich focus more on his personality than his politics, which are hard to nail down, Feehery said.

The most damaging criticisms have come from former friends and colleagues who worked closely with him in Congress. It's Gingrich's egotistic behavior, more than ideology, that is driving the attacks, Feehery said.

Among those defending Gingrich are Sarah Palin, the 2008 vice presidential nominee who is admired by many tea partyers.

"Look at Newt Gingrich, what's going on with him via the establishment's attacks," Palin said this week on Fox Business Network. "They're trying to crucify this man and rewrite history and rewrite what it is that he has stood for all these years."

Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann, who dropped out of the presidential race, are tea party favorites with minimal experience in Washington and in top GOP circles. Gingrich is trying to tap the sense of resentment among their followers. But his long and complicated Washington record and reputation for intra-party quarrels seem to leave some tea partyers unimpressed.

"It's truly a shame that this is where the Republican establishment has chosen to focus their energy," said Marianne Gasiecki, a tea party activist in Ohio. She added, however, that political activists should focus on congressional races. "If we have a conservative House and Senate," she said, "the power of the president is really insignificant."

As Gingrich's broadcast ads in Florida become more pointed, prominent Republicans are chiding him without endorsing Romney or any other candidates. Gingrich stopped running a radio ad that called Romney anti-immigrant after Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said it was unfair and damaging to the party.

So long as party insiders' complaints about Gingrich focus on his personality and quirks, the GOP can postpone a more wrenching debate about ideology, which may be in store if the once-moderate Romney is nominated. For now, conservative stalwarts seem determined to depict Gingrich as too erratic to be the party's standard bearer, let alone president.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer told Fox News: "Gingrich isn't after victory, he's after vengeance." He added: "This is Captain Ahab on the loose."

Some Republican voters are pushing back. "I want so badly to be for Gingrich, and I'm not going to be bullied out of my vote," said Barb Johnson, 52, who attended the tea party rally in Mount Dora, Fla., on Thursday. "I like his strong presence."

Florida's primary is Tuesday.

___

Associated Press writer Brian Bakst contributed to this report from Delray, Fla.

David Frum: Canadians Want a Pipeline, Not a U.S. Campaign Issue

Canadians dislike it when the American political system pays Canada no attention. This election season, Canada may face an alternative: too much attention.

In the midst of his victory speech after the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich inserted a shout-out to Canada. After blasting President Obama for halting the Keystone XL pipeline, Gingrich added:

The Northern Gateway pipeline does not terminate in Vancouver, but close enough, let it pass. The real news here is that Gingrich is hitting a theme that will be repeated and enlarged between now and November. Republicans see in Keystone a powerful political weapon against Barack Obama. The weapon
cuts especially sharp because it divides Democrats from each other. The pipeline -- and the oil sands that will supply the pipeline -- are anathema to Obama's wealthy environmentalist donors. However, the highly paid construction and refinery jobs that will be created by the pipeline are dearly desired by blue-collar Democrats whose votes Obama will need.

Gingrich hit this internal Democratic division hard in South Carolina:

To keep the internal Democratic divide fresh, congressional Republicans are attaching pro-Keystone amendments to a succession of important administration measures: first, a payroll tax cut; next up, perhaps a big multi-year highway bill. Meanwhile, the presidential candidates will talk Keystone on the campaign trail as one more reason to defeat Barack Obama in November.

Canadians, however, want a pipeline, not a campaign issue. The harder the Republicans hit, the more fixed the Democratic position becomes. Obama's original intent on the pipeline issue appears to have been: postpone the pipeline issue until 2013, collect maximum donations from deep-pocketed donors, win re-election, then reconsider. Now, however, opposition to Keystone is hardening into the consensus view of Democrats in Congress. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, told reporters on Jan. 24:

For almost 50 years, American leaders have urged a continental energy policy that would integrate the U.S. and Canadian oil markets into one. The older folks may recall that back in the 1980s, Canadians opponents of the Free Trade Agreement with the US warned that the treaty might lock Canada into
just such a continental deal.

But that was then. Now, Canada is sitting atop a resource so huge and so capital-intense that it cannot be developed successfully unless it is developed for export. Now it is a Democratic senator who expresses hesitation about over-reliance on Canadian oil -- "foreign oil," as he calls it, to conjure up images of oil sheikhs and petro-dictators.

Historically, both U.S. political parties have taken turns advancing the U.S.-Canada relationship. It was a Democratic president, Franklin Roosevelt, who first extended an explicit U.S. security guarantee to Canada. It was a Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, who co-operated on the St. Lawrence Seaway and brought about a common market in defence procurement. The Auto Pact was signed under Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, the U.S.-Canada FTA under the Republican Ronald Reagan, and the acid rain problem solved under another Republican, George H.W. Bush.

It would be strange if that tradition came to grief under Barack Obama, a president whose election was so welcomed by so many Canadians. It would be even stranger if the weakening of the U.S.-Canada relationship proved one of the issues that helped a elect a Republican president in 2012.

This post previously appeared on NationalPost.com

How Money Helped Romney's Florida Comeback

WASHINGTON -- Fresh off a triumphant victory in the South Carolina primary, former Speaker Newt Gingrich came to Florida with the wind at his back. What he may not have known was that he would be riding those winds into a wall of money. A newly feisty Mitt Romney, fighting for his political life, and his loyal super PAC unloaded on Gingrich in the Sunshine State with a massive spending binge that included wall-to-wall attack ads in a repeat of the assault that knocked Gingrich from the top of the polls in the run-up to the Iowa caucus.

The biggest spender in Florida -- the most expensive state in the Republican primary to date -- has been the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future. Run by a trio of former Romney advisers, the group has spent $10.7 million in the state. The vast majority of that -- $9.9 million -- has gone into a barrage of ads, on television and radio, and direct mail attacking Gingrich. That's more than double what pro-Gingrich super PAC Winning Our Future is spending in Florida.

This is the opposite of what happened in South Carolina, where Winning Our Future was able to match the spending of Restore Our Future and provide Gingrich with room to win.

In total, according to a report from ABC News, the Romney campaign and his super PAC are outspending Gingrich and his allies by a margin of 4 to 1 on television. NBC's First Read reported that the total advertising spending between the two campaigns and their respective super PACs is above $22 million.

To put that in perspective, the 2008 Republican primary election saw only $10.64 million spent on broadcast television ads, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG). That spending was done by only three campaigns -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Romney -- and no outside groups.

The negativity of the ads has ramped up as well. Pushing this trend is the Romney campaign, which has abandoned their positive, American optimism campaign for a sharper contrast with Gingrich. The move to a contrast campaign has found Florida television viewers subject to a variety of attacks on the former speaker.

Gingrich "cashed in" with Freddie Mac, the pro-Romney ads say, while "Florida families lost everything in the housing crisis." Despite mentioning conservative demigod Ronald Reagan more than fifty times in the debates, one Restore Our Future ad notes that Reagan only mentioned Gingrich once in his diaries. A Spanish language radio ad notes that Gingrich once called Spanish the language of the ghetto.

All of these ads have played into the lines of attack used by Romney in recent televised debates in Florida. Perhaps to deflect attention away from the debate over his tax returns, Romney made hay out of Gingrich's work as a consultant for the failed mortgage lender Freddie Mac by calling the speaker an "influence peddler." The ad mentioning Reagan came after Romney teased Gingrich in a debate in Charleston, S.C., by informing him that Reagan had only mentioned him once in his diary.

The result, along with two lackluster debate performances by Gingrich, has been a roller coaster ride in the polls. Gingrich shot up in the Florida polls as he was winning South Carolina's primary, but rapidly sunk after the Romney's campaign and super PAC blanketed in the state with ads, while Romney came to life as a candidate in the debates by attacking Gingrich.

The Gingrich campaign and super PAC, meanwhile, spent much of the past week misfiring their attempted attacks on Romney. Their efforts to tie Republican-turned-Independent former Gov. Charlie Crist to Romney fell flat. So did an attack on Romney as anti-immigrant after Sen. Marco Rubio, who is neutral in the primary race, stated, "This kind of language is more than just unfortunate. It’s inaccurate, inflammatory, and doesn’t belong in this campaign."

Another Gingrich ad, released on Friday, used a clip of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) saying, "If a man's dishonest to get a job, he'll be dishonest on the job," before launching into a brutal attack on Romney as a "liar." Huckabee cut the ad off at the knees by issuing a statement saying, "Any use of an out-of-context quote from the Republican presidential primary four years ago in a political ad to advocate for the election or defeat of another candidate is not authorized, approved, or known in advance by me."

The Gingrich super PAC's spending has also failed to reach levels reported in the press. They have only reported spending $3.9 million to the FEC, despite numerous press reports stating an intention to spend over $6 million. That spending could still materialize and the Friday evening release of a new documentary savaging Mitt Romney for allegedly profiting from a company that was engaged in a massive scheme to defraud Medicare could presage a new push to even the fight for the air waves.

Bloomberg: No Ticker-Tape Parade For Iraq War Vets

NEW YORK -- New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says there will be no city parade for Iraq War veterans in the foreseeable future because of objections voiced by military officials.

The mayor said on his Friday appearance on WOR Radio officials in Washington "think a parade would be premature while we still have so many troops in harm's way around the world."

Bloomberg says Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin Dempsey and other Army officials "made it clear" to the city "they do not think a parade is appropriate now."

A Pentagon spokesman in December said the nation's largest city had yet to make a formal proposal for a parade. He said officials were grateful communities were finding ways to recognize the sacrifices of troops and their families.

Peter S. Goodman: 'I've Never Been As Scared As Now'

DAVOS, Switzerland -- They came, they feasted on smoked sturgeon and black truffle risotto, drank liquor paid for by global banks, endured dozens of security checks, and tried not to fall down in the snow. They talked about the perilous state of the global economy and the future of capitalism. Then, they headed back to their home countries -- many in chauffeured limousines, some by private jet.

But as the people who run much of the planet wrapped up the annual festival of influence known as the World Economic Forum on Saturday, any sense of achievement was hard to discern. The participants arrived amid elevated unemployment in many economies, worries about government budget deficits, and fears that contagion from a financial crisis in Europe could infect the rest of the world. They went home with all of these worries intact, and perhaps reinforced.

Nouriel Roubini, the economist who -- not for nothing -- is known as "Doctor Doom," noted that world leaders are divided on a great array of crucial issues, from arguments over trade imbalances and currency valuations to the threats posed by Iran and North Korea and the challenge of climate change.

"On all these issues that require international coordination, there is no agreement," he said during a Saturday morning panel. "It's a world of chaos that can lead to potential conflicts."

European officials confronted a palpable sense of impatience and resentment from their counterparts, drawing accusations that they have imperiled the fate of the globe by repeatedly failing to prop up ailing member states.

In private conversations here this week, senior officials from the United States, Europe and Asia expressed a mixture of resignation and alarm that Greece may yet default on its government debts, despite several efforts by eurozone members to cobble together a credible rescue. Some warned that such an outcome could spook investors into pulling funds out of larger economies such as Italy and Spain, raising the prospect of defaults in those countries. A few suggested this could eventually trigger the breakup of the eurozone and the end of its shared currency, an event that could produce panic rivaling that seen after the investment banking giant Lehman Brothers collapsed more than three years ago.

In a riveting address here on Saturday, Hong Kong leader Donald Tsang recalled his place at the epicenter of the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s, and the experience of the 2008 global credit pullback, asserting that the current situation is worse.

"I've never been as scared as now about the world, what is happening in Europe," he said.

Hong Kong faces little direct exposure to potential defaults on European government bonds, Tsang added, but the global financial system is now so interconnected that this confers no protection. He wondered aloud about the health of financial institutions that trade with Hong Kong's banks and the potential for trouble rippling out from the eurozone.

"We do not know how deep this hole will be when the whole thing implodes on us," he said. "Nobody is immune."

Tsang merely voiced publicly -- if stridently -- the same perspectives expressed privately in recent days by his counterparts on multiple continents. He urged European leaders to demonstrate a sense of responsibility as global citizens, accusing them of putting the world's economy at risk by failing marshal a plausibly large rescue fund. He contrast this with Hong Kong's own brush with crisis more than a decade ago.

"We were very much left to ourselves, and we overcame it," Tsang said. "In Europe now, you need decisive action, you need overkill. You need to inspire confidence. That confidence must come in the decisive action of government, working together. And do it quickly."

But conversations here this week only underscored the sense that Europe is politically incapable of acting in unison. Though the eurozone shares a common currency, it is comprised of 17 different countries with often-sharp differences over policy -- not to mention history, tradition, culture and language.

Many experts have called for the issuance of Euro bonds by the European Central Bank and backed by the credit of member countries as the most powerful way to demonstrate the community's resolve toward supporting troubled members. Germany has consistently opposed such proposals, unwilling to direct its prodigious savings at saving members it views as profligate -- not least, Greece.

"You spend money you don't have on the bills of others, and that's the wrong incentive in a functioning market economy," German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said earlier in the week, shooting down a question about Euro bonds. "At the end, you have to pay your bills. If you spend at the risk of others, it's a strong temptation. Everyone will fail on this temptation. That would be the wrong method in fighting the causes of the current crisis."

Among policymakers and investors alike, the sense has taken hold that a pair of European rescue funds -- collectively holding perhaps $1 trillion in lending capacity -- are insufficient to assuage the market's fears. Bailing out Spain and Italy could absorb four times that sum, according to Roubini.

Many European officials are hoping to receive an expanded assist from the International Monetary Fund, a once unthinkable prospect for an institution traditionally employed to support developing countries facing crises.

The fund's managing director, Christine Lagarde, has been seeking to drum up a fresh $500 billion to attack the crisis, using Davos as an elaborate fundraising platform.

"The IMF is a tool, but we need to have a toolkit," Lagarde told forum participants Saturday morning, later holding up her purse as a prop. "I'm here with my little bag to actually collect a bit of money."

But that request has received a cool reception from major fund shareholders. The United States, the IMF's largest contributor, has signaled unwillingness to allow more fund finances to flow to Europe until the eurozone deploys its own resources toward an aggressive rescue. Japan's economic policy minister Matohisa Furukawa echoed that position on Saturday.

"Speaking of the role of the IMF, I think that the most important thing is Europe itself make utmost efforts," he said. "Then, IMF can support the European countries."

Underlying the debate over whether and how Europe can erect an effective firewall are deeper doubts about the continent's ability to grow. As many states address budget deficits, they are cutting spending and pressuring labor to accept lower wages -- measures that sap their economies of spending power. Slow growth itself tightens financial straits by reducing government revenues, prompting investors to take their money elsewhere, which raises borrowing costs.

"The eurozone is going to be in recession this year," said Robert Shiller, the Yale economist who warned of both the technology and housing bubbles in the United States. "The U.S. may not. The world may not. It's not going to be a great year, though."

The one source of cheerier conversation here this week has been the relatively strong growth in so-called emerging markets, such as China, India, Brazil and Turkey. But these economies have been slowing in recent months. Now, concerns about Europe's problems are amplifying concerns.

A weak Europe translates into fewer orders for goods from developing countries. As European banks seek to bolster their balance sheets, they are pulling funds out of developing economies and bringing them home -- a trend that could prevent even healthy firms in fast-growing markets from getting their hands on cash needed to expand and hire, further crimping growth.

"You're going to see a credit contraction as the banks pull back," World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned.

All of which means that as the masters of finance and heads of government filter out of this ski resort in the Swiss Alps, the anxiety gnawing at the global economy continues unchecked. The damage could run beyond an economic slowdown, further undermining public faith in the institutions that now govern modern life.

For decades, as crises have assailed developing countries from Indonesia to Argentina, the powers-that-be in the United States and Europe have counseled orthodox advice: Get your fiscal house in order; live within your means; act decisively and resolutely. Yet now that crisis is hitting the wealthy world, leaders are avoiding the hardest decisions and hoping to muddle through -- all while exporting their afflictions to multiple shores.

"This has got to have effects on influence, perceptions of power in the world that are going to be quite significant for years to come," Zoellick said. "Whatever we see come out over the course of this year and the next year, the world is never going to go back to the way it was."

State Of The Union Addresses Past: A Look Back At A History Of Forgotten Promises

Every year around this time, we make a huge deal about the president's State Of The Union address because...well, because our political leaders make a big deal about it. From the careful preparations of the president to the rebuttals from the opposition to the genuine enthusiasm expressed by all in attendance, there's a lot to dish about, dissect and discuss. And let's face it -- the State of the Union is basically a long session of case-making from a hopeful commander-in-chief trying to earn the continued trust of the people, often in the form of re-election.

But political science teaches us that these speeches by themselves often don't move the needle of public opinion in a lasting way. And our memories inform us that, for all the work that's put into the effort, we often only remember the odd moment or two. (And often, that odd moment is literally an odd moment.)

This is perhaps as it should be, because it seems that if there's one constant to these orations, it's that they all, in some way, herald a false dawn. We took a look back to State of the Union addresses all the way back to the Nixon administration and found that, often, what you get are flamboyant pledges of Great Things To Come that never materialize and are quickly forgotten. With the help of HuffPost's Hunter Stuart, we've put together a video collage of famous forgotten promises.

BP Emails Reveal Company Veiling Spill Rate

NEW ORLEANS -- On the day the Deepwater Horizon sank, BP officials warned in an internal memo that if the well was not protected by the blow-out preventer at the drill site, crude oil could burst into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of 3.4 million gallons a day, an amount a million gallons higher than what the government later believed spilled daily from the site.

The email conversation, which BP agreed to release Friday as part of federal court proceedings, suggests BP managers recognized the potential of the disaster in its early hours, and company officials sought to make sure that the model-developed information wasn't shared with outsiders. The emails also suggest BP was having heated discussions with Coast Guard officials over the potential of the oil spill.

The memo was released as part of the court proceedings to determine the division of responsibility for the nation's worst offshore oil disaster, which began when the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon exploded April 20, 2010, killing 11 men about 50 miles southeast of the Louisiana coast. The first phase of the trial is set to start Feb. 27.

BP officials declined to comment on the emails late Friday.

The official amount of oil that flowed from the well was pegged at 206 million gallons from at least April 22 until the well was capped on July 15, a period of 85 days. That's a daily flow rate of about 2.4 million gallons – two-thirds of the way to BP's projection of what could leak from the well if it was an "open hole." BP has disputed the government's estimates.

Having an accurate flow rate estimate is needed to determine how much in civil and criminal penalties BP and the other companies drilling the well face under the Clean Water Act.

In the memo, a BP official urges not to share the flow-rate projections and refers to the "difficult discussions" the company was having at the time with the Coast Guard.

Gary Imm, a BP manager, told Rob Marshall, BP's subsea manager in the Gulf, to tell the modeler doing the estimates "not to communicate to anyone on this."

"A number of people have been looking at this we already have had difficult discussions with the USCG on the numbers," Imm said in the email string, referring to the Coast Guard and flow estimates.

On April 23, 2010, the Coast Guard, relying on BP's remotely operated vehicles, said no oil was leaking from the well a mile under the sea. A day later, Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry announced that oil was leaking an estimated rate of 42,000 gallons a day. The Coast Guard and BP did not divulge how they reached that figure.

In the second week after the spill, the official flow rate was increased to 210,000 gallons a day, an estimate the government continued to use until May 27.

On May 24, BP informed Congress they used an "undisclosed method to generate much higher figures" than the official estimates, according to a report from a presidential commission investigating the spill. BP estimated that the flow rates were between 210,000 gallons and 1.6 million gallons a day, the January 2011 report said.

As the spill grew into weeks and months, and soiled fishing grounds, beaches and coastal marshes, independent scientists questioned the official flow rates. Eventually, the federal government convened teams of government and independent scientists to determine how much oil leaked out of the well. They came up with an official estimate of about 2.4 million gallons of oil a day on average.

Former Boston Mayor Dies At 82

BOSTON — Former Mayor Kevin H. White, who led the city for 16 years including racially turbulent times in the 1970s and was credited with putting it on a path to prosperity, died Friday, a family spokesman said. He was 82.

White, who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 2003, died peacefully at his Boston home surrounded by his family, spokesman and friend George Regan said.

"He was a man who built Boston into the world-class city it is today," said Regan, who called his loss "devastating."

White, a white Irish Catholic from a family of politicians, is credited with revitalizing Boston's downtown and seeing the city through court-ordered busing, but he ended his four-term tenure in 1983 under a cloud of ethics suspicions.

White, a Democrat, was elected Massachusetts secretary of state three times before running for mayor for the first time in 1967 against antibusing activist Louise Day Hicks. He defeated her with support from the black community and liberals.

After losing a 1970 bid for governor, White was re-elected mayor in 1971, again defeating Hicks. He won again narrowly in 1975 and 1979.

White was considered as a vice presidential running mate to South Dakota U.S. Sen. George McGovern in 1972 but was passed over for Missouri U.S. Sen. Thomas Eagleton, who was later shunted aside for R. Sargent Shriver Jr.

After U.S. District Court Judge W. Arthur Garrity ordered busing to desegregate public schools in 1974, White protected schoolchildren from violence with federal and state assistance during the period of crisis and in 1976 led a march of 30,000 to protest racial violence.

White was never totally comfortable with busing, however, and called Garrity's plan "too severe."

"I wish I knew a way to have taught Garrity or convinced Garrity to be more generous ... or softer in his implementation of that order," White said after his time as mayor.

Massachusetts' U.S. Sen. John Kerry, a fellow Democrat, said White "knew how to wisely wield the power of the mayor's office for the public good."

"For 16 years," Kerry said in a statement, "the mayor shepherded the city through the turbulence of the late '60s and mid-'70s and in the process ushered in the remarkable city we know today."

Current Mayor Thomas Menino, also a Democrat, praised White for his contributions to the city.

"Mayor Kevin White was a great friend and a great leader who left a lasting mark of hope and inspiration on the City of Boston," he said in a statement. "He will be sorely missed."

White's first two terms were known for his Little City Halls in the city's far-flung neighborhoods that gave power to ethnic and racial minorities, but he consolidated his power in his latter two terms.

White closed the Little City Halls and instead used a network of ward lieutenants who rewarded the mayor's supporters with city jobs and contracts.

Seven mayoral aides were eventually indicted on fraud and extortion charges. His one-time budget director and an official of the Boston Redevelopment Authority were convicted of fraudulently obtaining city pensions. A deputy commissioner was convicted of tax evasion for failing to report money prosecutors said he gained from bribes.

White was never implicated. The State Ethics Commission, however, conducted a 10-month investigation that found "reasonable cause" that White had violated conflict-of-interest laws.

The city also wallowed in a financial crisis in the latter years of his tenure that led to layoffs of police officers and firefighters and the shutdown of some stations.

The crises were exploited by his critics, who called him King Kevin, and he dropped out of the 1983 mayoral race, eventually won by Raymond Flynn.

A liberal reformer, White appealed to a cross-section of society, including the young.

Once, when the Rolling Stones were arrested on the way to Boston, the mayor released them into his own custody.

"The Stones have been busted, but I have sprung them!" he told an audience at Boston Garden.

While the busing crisis brought a stain to the city, White was also revitalizing the city's downtown, especially the shops and restaurants of Quincy Market, which remains one of the city's top tourist attractions. He thought the downtown renaissance would make Boston a "world-class city."

A statue of White was unveiled near Quincy Market in 2006.

Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, said White's stewardship created "a path to prosperity for the city."

White's father and maternal grandfather had been Boston City Council presidents. He married Kathryn Galvin in 1956, the daughter of another City Council president. He was educated at Tabor Academy, Williams College, Boston College Law School and the Harvard Graduate School of Public Administration.

After handing over the office to Flynn in 1984, White accepted a position at Boston University as a professor of communications and public management.

While mayor in 1970, White had major surgery to remove two-thirds of his stomach. He suffered a heart attack in 2001 while at a Florida restaurant and spent several days in a hospital when he had a pacemaker implanted.

He's survived by his wife of 55 years, Kathyrn Galvin White, five children and several grandchildren.

___

Associated Press writer Sylvia Wingfield contributed to this report.

Arianna On Al Jazeera: I Don't See American Politcs As A Left-Right Game

On an episode of 'Talk to Al Jazeera,' Arianna Huffington talks about the erosion of the American dream, the Occupy movement, the 'Arab Awakening' and who she's planning to vote for in the 2012 election.

Arianna expressed dismay about political discourse in America being divided into left and right. "When we continue to see it as a left-right game, we are having a much harder time laying out the choices for the American people," she says. "Caring for the middle class, caring for jobs, wanting to prioritize that, is that a left wing position? Shouldn't everybody want that?"

"We are using these terms in a way which has made national conversation much, much harder to have, and which really marginalizes issues," she says.

Returning capitalism to its moral foundations is key to addressing the economic crisis, she argues. "It's become harder and harder to actually play by the rules and do well and expect your children to do better," she says. "I'm in favor of the capitalism system but not the way it's been perverted."

John R. Talbott: The End of Romney, Part 2

In Part 1 of this story, I said that Mitt Romney had made aggressive use of loopholes in IRA legislation to accumulate $20 to $100 million of his assets in an IRA "retirement" account and thus avoid any taxation on this compensation and its future earnings until it is withdrawn which must begin when he reaches 70 ½ years of age. If one can defer paying taxes on compensation for decades and it compounds tax free, it is almost as good as not paying them at all on a present value basis.

And, it has recently been reported that Romney made extensive use of off-shore vehicles in places like the Cayman Islands that traditionally have been centers for tax avoidance. It was also disclosed that Romney had a Swiss bank account that he closed in 2010 on the advice that it might look bad if he were to run for president.

Romney has said that he has paid every dollar of tax that he owed, and not a dollar more. His supporters have said that he never entered into aggressive tax shelters that were structured to avoid paying his fair share of taxes. And Romney has argued that his assets are held in a blind trust managed by Goldman Sachs, and not himself, so he is not responsible for the investment decisions that led to his having a Swiss bank account or monies held in multiple offshore funds.

But the New York Times today is reporting today that Goldman "helped him execute an aggressive and complex tax-deferral strategy known as an 'exchange fund' in 2002." This is a critical date because it was on Jan. 2, 2003, that Romney was sworn in as governor of Massachusetts and it was in 2003 that he began to utilize blind trusts to manage his assets. If Romney participated in an "aggressive and complex tax-deferral strategy" in 2002 it must have been done under his instruction and supervision and not that of a blind trust.

Exchange funds are enormously complex so I cannot expect the reader to become expert in them in this short article. But here is an overview of why Romney may have found investing in exchange funds to be so attractive. Much of this is taken from an article entitled "Understanding Exchange Funds" that appeared in the November 2004 issue of Financial Advisor magazine:

Here's how exchange funds work. A financial institution, usually a large bank or investment company, establishes a fund and opens it for contributions. Investors with concentrated stock positions then transfer some of their shares to the fund, which are pooled together to create a diversified portfolio. Once the fund reaches its target size and portfolio composition it closes, and each investor receives an ownership interest in the new fund in proportion to the value of their original contribution.

Exchange funds come with a twist, though. Unlike most stock transactions, the transfer of stock to an exchange fund does not trigger any capital gains tax liability. Instead, these transfers are considered nontaxable partnership contributions under Internal Revenue Code section 721. Although this section ordinarily does not apply to contributions of stocks or other securities, an exception exists for funds meeting certain criteria.

If he wanted to diversify his holdings, Romney could have sold his shares in his company and then bought a diversified portfolio of stocks, but that would have been a taxable event and given the low cost basis for the shares he held in his own company would have triggered a sizable tax bill due. Instead, Romney himself, and not any blind trust or advisor, chose to enter into a complex and aggressive tax deferral scheme structured solely so that Romney could avoid and defer paying the taxes he owed. In addition, any earnings in the exchange fund compound tax free to Romney if there are no distributions.

If this has some appeal to you as a taxpayer, not so fast. As Financial Advisor magazine suggests:

Like hedge funds and other unregistered securities, exchange funds are generally only open to "qualified investors" with a liquid net worth of at least $5 million and, in many cases, an annual income of $200,000 or more for the past two years. Most exchange funds also require a minimum investment of $1 million in stock, although a few require substantially more.

Finally, even when Romney leaves the exchange fund there is no taxable event so no taxes are due then either:

The question is not whether or not what Romney did was legal. The question is, do we want a president who aggressively used arcane areas of the tax code to avoid and defer paying his fair share of taxes? And, because the capital gains rate is at 15 percent, and because much of Romney's income was either capital gains or subject to the "carried interest" rules applicable only to private equity funds like Romney's and taxable at only 15 percent, we are not talking about avoiding onerous levels of taxation. No, Romney went out of his way to avoid even paying 15 percent of his compensation in taxes to the government.

When all of Romney's retirement and exchange fund and off-shore income is included, his effective tax rate is estimated to be more like 7 percent. We know who made up the difference. Either you paid more or the country went further into debt to fund Romney's tax avoidance and deferral schemes.

John R. Talbott, previously a Goldman Sachs investment banker, is a bestselling author and economic consultant to families whose books predicted the economic crisis. You can read more about his books, the accuracy of his predictions and his financial consulting activities at www.stopthelying.com.

Union Membership Grew Slightly Last Year, After Years Of Decline

WASHINGTON -- Union membership grew slightly last year, giving labor leaders hope that a period of steep declines has finally bottomed out.

The number of unionized workers increased by about 50,000 to nearly 14.8 million members in 2011, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. The increase comes after unions lost nearly 1.4 million members over the previous two years.

Still, unions' share of the overall workforce fell, from 11.9 percent to 11.8 percent, as state and local governments trimmed thousands of jobs to address budget shortfalls. That's the lowest percentage of union workers since the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Unions saw losses of about 61,000 workers in government employment. But they grew by 110,000 workers in the private sector, mainly in construction and health care. Despite that growth, unions still represent just 6.9 percent of all workers at private companies, unchanged from 2010.

"The devastating losses from 2009 and 2010 have stopped and that's got to be good news for the labor movement," said John Schmitt, a senior economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.

Schmitt said another positive for unions is that private sector membership grew at about the same rate as overall job growth.

Union membership has declined steadily from its peak of about a third of all workers in the 1950s, and about 20 percent in 1983. The losses have been especially steep in private industry with the loss of manufacturing jobs that traditionally are heavily unionized.

"It is telling that as our country begins to recover the jobs lost during the Great Recession, good union jobs are beginning to come back," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

As private sector union membership eroded, labor leaders turned increasingly toward workers in state and local governments, where there was often less resistance to organizing. About 7.6 million employees in the public sector belonged to a union last year, compared with 7.2 million union workers in the private sector. And public-sector workers had a union membership rate of 37 percent, more than five times that of private-sector workers.

But future public sector growth in union membership is in doubt.

States and municipalities laid off tens of thousands of workers to balance their budgets after tax revenues plummeted because of the recession. Public sector unions also have faced growing hostility from GOP legislatures in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states that have tried to curb collective bargaining rights.

Florida saw the largest increase in union members last year, up 68,000, followed by Michigan, a 44,000 increase as auto industry employment surged. Union membership fell most sharply in New York, down 53,000.

New York remains the most heavily unionized state at 24 percent, while North Carolina has the lowest union rate at 2.9 percent.

Among full-time wage and salary workers, the median weekly earnings of union members was $938, compared to $729 for nonunion workers.

The Reality Behind Rhetoric About Food Stamps

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Rhetoric about jobs is everywhere during this campaign season. To emphasize how much they want to create jobs and how valuable small businesses are, candidates frequently stop by local businesses for a photo op and to tell the staff to keep up their hard work.

But with national unemployment at 8.5 percent, jobs are in short supply. The harsh reality that doesn't make for a nice photo op is that many Americans fall through the cracks, and no matter how hard they search, they're unable to find a full-time job that pays enough to cover food, health care, housing and other necessities of life -- and they need extra assistance. Sometimes it's from the community, and sometimes it's from the government.

These people and their struggles rarely pop up on the campaign trail, except as talking points about the need to create more jobs. Rarely, however, is there a deeper discussion of how to provide assistance until those jobs come. Mitt Romney did sit down and talk with a group of unemployed Americans in June, but the event ended up reinforcing the image that he was out of touch when he, a millionaire, joked with them that he was also unemployed.

Just 20 minutes away from where all the GOP candidates gathered Thursday night for a presidential debate is Second Harvest North Florida, a food bank serving 17 counties and reaching 2 million people -- the largest geographic reach of any food bank in the entire state.

A nondescript building located on a manufacturing road with large tractor trailers loading and unloading all day long, going to the food bank certainly lacks the wow-factor of doing events highlighting the space industry or the folksy charm of going to a local diner -- both key stops for candidates in Florida.

No presidential candidate visited the food bank while in the city this year. Second Harvest North Florida's director of communication Tom Strother has been there since 2008. The last federal official or candidate he can remember stopping by was Kendrick Meek (D), when he unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. Senate in 2010.

When issues of poverty and food stamps have come up during this election season, they have usually been used as political attacks rather than in a discussion about how to help Americans who are struggling to get back on their feet.

Both Strother and Jim Chynoweth, the food bank's director of agency relations and distribution, think there's a more productive way of looking at the issue.

"Food stamps are, as our executive director likes to put it, an investment in recovery," said Strother. "Because a lot of times the people who are eligible for these food stamps, they're folks who have just come on hard times. They didn't do anything wrong. They followed all the rules, they lived their lives the right way and the economy smacked them in the face. ... Maybe this is a short-term solution for them to help them get through difficult times."

Second Harvest North Florida has an innovative program in Flagler County pairing the nonprofit community, local government and the local Chamber of Commerce to get more people who are eligible for food stamps -- known officially as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) -- actually enrolled in the program. Why? Besides giving people the assistance they need, it helps the local economy. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that every dollar of SNAP benefits spent results in $1.80 in economic impact.

When the groups started the Flagler County program in August, they estimated that only 64 percent of the people who were eligible for SNAP were actually enrolled in the program. In other words, there were over 3,000 more households in the country that were eligible, worth $11.5 million a year in unclaimed benefits. That equals $20.7 million a year in economic impact.

"So the Chamber of Commerce looked at this and said, I want those dollars being spent at my convenience stores and my Winn-Dixies and my Publix and my Wal-Marts, because that's going to mean they have to retain or hire more bag boys and cashiers. It means they're going to have more dollars available for maintenance and repairs and lights and paving and all the ancillary services that come along with dollars flowing into the community," said Chynoweth.

Between August and December, the coalition was able to enroll 135 households in SNAP.

Strother and Chynoweth recognize that, ideally, everyone would have jobs and no one would need to come to a food pantry or be on SNAP. But until that day arrives, people need extra assistance to get back on their feet.

"At the end of the day, when people find themselves in that situation, we want to be sure they're getting the help they need," Chynoweth said. "Regardless of whether they did or didn't deserve to be in that situation or whose fault or party is or isn't responsible for creating jobs, at the end of the day, there's a single working mom with two kids who needs help, and we want to make sure she gets that."

The need in the community, in fact, continues to grow. Second Harvest North Florida, like other food banks around the country, has partnerships with local retailers and "rescues" products that will either be discarded or taken off the shelves. In 2008, it moved 7.6 million pounds of food through their warehouse. Last year, it had 20 million pounds. The increase was "a direct reflection in demand," according to Strother. Member agencies like the Salvation Army and soup kitchens take food from Second Harvest North Florida and then distribute it to individuals in need.

Second Harvest also has a small food pantry open for three hours each day. People are allowed to come only once, however, and are then guided to member agencies in their own communities so that they can get more direct assistance. In 2008, when Strother started, there were five to 10 people coming a week. Now there are 25 to 30 people a day.

"Most of the families we work with -- they're not living on the food we provide," said Chynoweth. "They can take SNAP dollars and buy this many groceries. Then go to the food pantry and get this many groceries. They're buying, with the dollars they earn working as a cashier at Wal-Mart, they can buy some groceries. Their family is helping them out. Together, that meets their need. But no one is living on any one of these programs by themselves."

In the recession, corporate donations to the food bank have plummeted, but individuals have stepped up to help out. Still, it's not enough. Strother said they should be moving 40 million pounds of food to meet the need in their 17-county area. That, however, would mean raising $7 million a year and doubling the amount of food they currently provide.

Strother said he thinks it could be educational for political candidates to come to the food bank to get a real picture of how people are struggling in the recession.

"Because if you come to the food bank -- depending on the time of the day you come -- you can talk with our member agencies. You can talk with people who have lined up who need assistance individually. You can talk with staff here who see the types of products coming in and out and have a better understanding of how the nonprofit community is making an impact on this issue. I think it could be educational for politicians [and] candidates to come by," he said.

But, added Strother and Chynoweth, it would probably be best to leave the media behind -- otherwise, it would probably just become another hollow photo op.

FL-2012 Primary: 41% Romney, 33% Gingrich, 13% Santorum, 5% Paul (Ipsos/Reuters 1/26-27)

Ipsos / Reuters
1/26-27/12; 732 likely Republican primary voters, 4.2% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
Ipsos release

Florida

2012 President: Republican Primary
41% Romney
33% Gingrich
13% Santorum
5% Paul
(chart)

Peter Worthington: Don't Discount Obama's "Luck Factor"

When asked what sort of generals he wanted when fighting his European wars, Napoleon is reputed to have responded: "Give me lucky generals."

It was more than a facetious quip. "Luck" does play a role in war but, as in sports and politics, it often comes to those who are prepared and poised to take advantage.

This often gives way to the saying that it's better to be lucky than good.

Just how "good" at his job U.S. President Barack Obama is remains unclear. What isn't in dispute is that he can be lucky. At the moment his luck is spelled S-E-A-L.

Twice now, U.S. Navy SEALs have inadvertently given Obama a boost -- first in their daring raid and assassination of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, and then again by their equally daring parachute drop and rescue by helicopter of two hostages held by Somali pirates or hijackers, who were all killed. There were no "friendly" casualties.

SEAL Team 6 -- the same group that knocked off bin Laden -- is Obama's good luck charm of the moment. Deservedly, the SEALs (acronym for Sea Air Land) relish their elite reputation. So far, they've performed with the dash and efficiency of a Tom Clancy novel or a James Bond movie.

Real life isn't always so co-ordinated and successful.

Obama also should be credited with nerve for approving the rescue venture.

Had things gone wrong in the Pakistan and Somalia raids, Obama would have suffered the consequences -- as Bill Clinton did when, on his watch in 1993, Rangers and Delta Force troops went into Mogadishu to capture Somali warlord Mohammed Aidid, and instead 19 U.S. soldiers were killed, their mutilated corpses dragged through the city.

Jimmy Carter also lost an election in 1980, partly because an attempted helicopter rescue of Americans held hostage in Iran turned into a fiasco. The helicopter collided with a transport plane, killing nine and causing the mission to abort.

A factor in Obama's favour today is that U.S. forces are better trained and more adept at improvised warfare today than they were after the retreat from Vietnam and the in early 1990s. Again, Obama was "lucky" that the SEALS were ready.

While SEALs are the poster-boys of derring-do at the moment, one could argue that the British SAS has been doing these sort of operations since the end of WWII. Usually with no advance publicity and no boasting afterwards.

Several books have been written by former SAS types that methodically, and without undue chest-beating, tell harrowing adventure tales in parts of the world that most have never heard of.

The American media make a greater fuss about their military than the British do -- sometimes to the embarrassment of SEAL and Special Forces, who prefer discretion to shouting from rooftops.

In 1976, it was the Israelis who were the gold standard for daring rescues. A C-130 Hercules flew Israeli troops unnoticed into Entebbe Airport in Uganda to rescue 105 Jewish and Israeli hostages who were passengers on a hijacked Air France airliner. A bunch of hijackers were killed, as was the Israeli commander Yoni Netanyahu.

Canada's elite force, JTF 2, is largely unknown and is shrouded in so much secrecy that although they served in Afghanistan, there's no public record of what they tried to do, what they failed to do, what they actually accomplished.

That's the way our government likes it.

Feisty Gingrich Stakes Campaign On Electability

SARASOTA, Fla. — Newt Gingrich has staked his presidential bid on the idea that he's best positioned to defeat President Barack Obama. Yet even some supporters seem to be struggling to buy that claim, an indication that efforts by chief rival Mitt Romney to undercut him may be working.

"Beating Obama is more important than everything else," Patrick Roehl, a 51-year-old computer software engineer, said at a Gingrich rally inside a Sarasota airport hangar this past week. "Can Newt win? I'm not sure. He's got a lot of high negatives. The elections are won and lost in the middle. I'm not sure he appeals to the middle."

John Grainger, a 44-year-old assistant golf pro, doesn't like Romney. But he's having trouble shaking skepticism about Gingrich.

"I want to be a Newt supporter," he said. "This guy's going to have the guts to stand up and speak his piece – no holds barred." But Grainger said he wasn't quite ready to back the former House speaker.

Interviews with more than a dozen Republican voters at Gingrich's overflowing rallies ahead of Tuesday's primary suggest that many Florida voters love his brash style as they look for someone to take it to Obama. But these voters also have lingering doubts about whether Gingrich really is Obama's most serious threat.

Romney and his allies are working to stoke those doubts, and the GOP's establishment wing has started to help the former Massachusetts governor try to make that case.

Romney and his backers are highlighting what they consider Gingrich's liabilities – consulting contracts and ethics investigations among them. They're suggesting that more baggage could emerge in the fall in the general election.

"In the case of the speaker, he's got some records which could represent an October surprise," Romney said, referring to Gingrich's consulting work and ethics allegations when he was in the House. "We could see an October surprise a day from Newt Gingrich."

An outside group dedicated to helping Romney has spent almost $9 million on Florida television advertising, including a massive $4 million investment this week alone, to make the case even more explicitly.

"Newt Gingrich's tough talk sounds good, but Newt has tons of baggage. How will he ever beat Obama?" says the new ad from the so-called super PAC, Restore Our Future.

Gingrich is not letting such criticism go unanswered. He's telling everyone that he alone can defeat Obama. He points to his 12 percentage point victory last weekend in the South Carolina primary as proof.

Exit polling there showed that 51 percent of Republican voters said that Gingrich was better suited to defeat the Democratic president.

"Their highest value was beating Obama," Gingrich told evangelical voters this past week. "And if they thought Romney was the only person who could beat Obama, then they would swallow a lie. But the minute they thought there were two people who could beat Obama, they suddenly turned and said, Well, you know, maybe we should be for Newt."

Polls suggest that Gingrich could defeat Romney in Florida, a surge fueled partly by growing support from the tea party movement and continued anti-Romney sentiment.

"He's a fighter. Mitt, I think, is too wishy-washy," said Dominique Boscia, a 43-year-old unemployed woman from Lakewood Ranch. "I like feisty people. I like people who have spunk."

For months, Gingrich has used aggressive debate performances to fuel his underdog candidacy. He has thrilled conservatives by promising to take the fight directly to Obama in a series of free-form debates modeled after the 1860 meetings between Illinois Senate candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas.

Should Obama refuse, Gingrich says he'll follow the president until he agrees.

That gets good applause lines at rallies. But a closer look at polling suggests that a debate beat down doesn't necessarily mean Gingrich can beat the president in an election that will include independents and Democrats.

Gingrich struggled among independents in a recent Washington Post-ABC News national poll, in which 53 percent gave him unfavorable marks and just 22 percent had a favorable opinion of the former House speaker. While Romney has typically polled better among independents, the poll conducted between Jan. 18 and 22 found virtually no difference: 51 percent of independents viewed him unfavorably, compared with 23 with favorable views.

But when all Florida voters, including independents and Democrats, are asked to weigh in, Romney appears to have a strong advantage over Gingrich, according to a poll conducted by Suffolk University-WSVN-TV Miami. Romney would defeat Obama here 47 percent to 42 percent; Gingrich would lose, earning just 40 percent to Obama's 49 percent of likely Florida general election voters.

Rev. Tim Phillips: Thanking God For Gay Marriage In Washington State

When Washington state Senator, Mary Margaret Haugen, announced her support for legislation that would clear the way for gay marriage, I was impressed by her courage -- not just by her political support on a contentious social issue but by opening the interview with an unqualified statement that she did so as a Christian. Politics is one thing. Supporting gay marriage as an identified Christian is another. That takes real guts.

The coming vote in the Washington state legislature is likely to unleash another round of 'holy wars' on lesbian and gay families by those who presume to speak on behalf of God, the Bible, and all "real" Christians. To disagree with those holy warriors means not only to open your politics for debate but to open your Christian faith to attack. It is no wonder that so many progressive followers of Jesus would simply rather not be identified as "Christian" at all.

But there are reasons, as a Christian, to be thankful for this moment in history.

First, because this debate always gets us back to the basics -- what kind of God do we trust and what kind of Jesus do we serve? Christians like Senator Haugen seem to believe that the God we can trust is one of love and the Jesus we serve is one who creates family beyond biology, race, gender and even sexual orientation. More can be said -- and has -- but it is pretty much the bottom line for some of us Christians. And while there are those among the holy warriors who would be fine with most of the above, they would want to offer their conditions for each of them -- especially the sexual orientation part. So let's just say that the God we trust and the Jesus we serve seem to move in the direction of the un-conditional. That is pretty basic.

Of course, there have to be some conditions for human inter-relating and we are about to hear hair-raising stories about the dire ramifications of re-defining the conditions of marriage to include two adult women or two adult men who choose to make a family together. The slippery slope argument is always about some kind of condition that would render all arguments for any kind of social change untenable.

So, if we have to talk about conditions, let's talk about the conditions under which any intimate relationship between two adults could thrive -- integrity, mutuality, responsibility, maturity, and a certain amount of support. I think it is safe to say that Christians on all sides of the debate would agree that these are the kinds of values that are commended by Scripture. The legal contract of marriage does not, by itself, create nor insure those values. We only have to look at the divorce rate among heterosexual couples to see that. And, frankly, I do not think that we should assume that gay and lesbian couples will be any better at it -- but I think it's worth a try.

The point is: the legal marriage contract creates the conditions under which the expectations of these values come into play for two adults who choose to enter into it. The contract does not guarantee those values but it does create the social -- and I would say 'spiritual' -- expectation of those values and to affirm those in as many settings as a possible is, to my way of thinking, not to diminish the expectations of marriage but to expand them. As a Christian minister, I would prefer the language of covenant but, because we are talking about a legal contract issued by the state, we have to talk about contractual relationships.

And that brings me to the third reason to be thankful for gay marriage. Not only does this debate drive Christians back to the basics and to those values we expect in all our relationships, it opens up the conversation about whether religious leaders should be agents of this state-approved legal contract. If we have to talk about conditions, we cannot help but talk about control. And I, for one, believe that this is exactly the reason for the separation of church and state. That separation is not meant to dis-empower religious communities but to strengthen them for their most profound power -- the free exercise of the heart. Government can have no control over that nor should a particular religious perspective presume it to do so.

It seems to me that this is the testimony of Senator Mary Margaret Haugen. Her courage as a politician and a Christian inspire me. I do not know Senator Haugen's particular Christian tradition but I thank God for her. And gratitude, as the Medieval Christian mystic Meister Eckhart might say about theology or prayer, is everything.

Frank Mankiewicz: America, Meet Saul Alinsky, the Great Man Newt Gingrich Wants You to Know

In his victory statement in South Carolina, and again in the final Florida debate, Newt Gingrich twice accused President Obama of shaping our country to reflect the ideals of Saul Alinsky. He did so twice in his relatively short address, and he has referred to Alinsky as an undescribed villain at least twice before in his campaign. On each occasion, he has offered us nothing beyond Alinsky's name, as though he were referring to as well-known a person as, for example, Steven Spielberg or Paula Abdul. He has told us nothing of Alinsky, whether he is alive or dead and, if of this century, American or not, a political leader or a rock star and, above all, why we should go all out to defeat President Obama in order to thwart this unknown villain's influence over America.

Saul Alinsky's name is not just one of a long list of villains cited by Gingrich as scheming role models or disciples of the President; he stands alone. Alas, except in Chicago, where he spent his entire life, no member of the "Mainstream Media" has picked up on the Alinsky Menace, to tell us in any detail just who this dreaded influence is -- or was, and why we need to support Mr. Gingrich in order to thwart him -- or his memory.

As one who was quite familiar with Alinsky's ideas in the 1960's, when I tried hard -- and at some times successfully -- to put some of them into effect in Latin America as an official of the Peace Corps, I want to add at least a footnote to this campaign for the Presidency, and even to try to put Gingrich's baffling demonization of him into perspective.

Alinsky, born in 1909 and always a citizen of Chicago, was the guiding force in shaping an historic community organization called "Back of the Yards," a loose community group in the area behind the stockyards in Chicago, the very area which is the site of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Alinsky believed these 20th century people, if they realized their common difficulties, could be organized into a community force that could bring about real change.

Alinsky fought hard against the prejudices in the largely ethnic enclaves of Chicago. He struggled with the fact that poor workers were too afraid of their employers to fight against the economic injustices that kept them in poverty. Besides, it seemed "radical"; to form an organization or to join one -- even a labor union. Perhaps even more important, his efforts were almost unanimously opposed by the local priests in the largely Roman Catholic parishes. So Alinsky turned to Rev. Bernard Sheil, the auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Chicago, whom he knew to be a friend of labor, and together, they approached every priest in the neighborhood. Eventually, the Movement had signed up thousands of members, and within a short time the employers had yielded on all the key points Alinsky's organizers had raised.

This triumph and subsequent ones elsewhere made me an admirer and, when I became a Peace Corps official -- in Peru and later as Regional Director for Latin America -- a disciple of Alinsky's. Volunteers under my direction were trained as Community Organizers to, in Alinsky phrase, "rub raw the sores of discontent" in the urban and rural areas of poverty where they were assigned. Communities were formed from collections of individuals with grievances that went unexpressed, until a community organizer urged them to raise them together. We used American examples -- a reading club, a carpool, a credit union -- and unused land became playing fields, abandoned buildings were made into local stores and teachers sent from distant headquarters began to respect their students and their language and their culture.

That's the legacy of Saul Alinsky, Newt, you can find it wherever he or his ideas have played out. And when Saul Alinsky was awarded the Pacem In Terris Award, by a number of Catholic archdioceses and organizations in 1969 he became one of an honorable group of recipients. Among them, well, John F. Kennedy, George Kennan, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King Jr., Sargent Shriver, A. Philip Randolph, Mother Teresa and Lech Walensa. Maybe, Newt, you might want to add all these names with Saul Alinsky's to your own Enemies List.

Baltimore's Catholic head uses atrocious "blacks vs. gays" argument against ... - Metro Weekly

Metro Weekly
Baltimore's Catholic head uses atrocious "blacks vs. gays" argument against ...
Metro Weekly
On Wednesday, O'Brien put his own spin on one of the most heinous arguments put forth by social and religious conservatives -- that gay people's civil rights are an affront to black people and the rights of black people. He stammered through his ...
First lady Katie O'Malley says she regrets saying gay marriage bill failed due ...Washington Post
Maryland's Katie O'Malley: 'Cowards' Killed Gay Marriage BillOn Top Magazine
Maryland First Lady Katie O'Malley Gives Support For Same Sex Marriage ...W*USA 9
The Herald-Mail
all 139 news articles »
Read more [Gay News]

Archbishop of York: don't legalise gay marriage - The Guardian

Telegraph.co.uk
Archbishop of York: don't legalise gay marriage
The Guardian
The government should not overturn centuries of tradition by legalising gay marriage, the archbishop of York has said. Dr John Sentamu, the second most senior bishop in the Church of England, said the church did not object to the introduction of civil ...
Don't legalise gay marriage, Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu warns David ...Telegraph.co.uk
Archbishop of York tells David Cameron not to overrule the Bible and allow gay ...Daily Mail
Archbishop Of York Warns Cameron Against Allowing Same-Sex MarriageHuffington Post UK

all 212 news articles »
Read more [Gay News]

California high court backs panel's new state Senate districts

Even if a GOP-backed proposal to scrap the new plan qualifies for the November ballot, the map produced by a citizens commission is 'clearly the most appropriate' for the election, the court says.

The California Supreme Court decided unanimously Friday that candidates for state Senate this year should run in new districts drawn by a citizens commission, a plan that may give Democrats a two-thirds majority in the upper house.

Sen. Sessions on Obama, Reid: ‘We have no leadership’ (Daily Caller)

Daily Caller - Top Democrats have abdicated their leadership role and are ignoring the nation’s budget problems because they’re focused on their 2012 election campaigns, Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions told The Daily Caller.
Read more [Democrats]

Gay Marriage Bill Clears Washington Senate Panel - On Top Magazine

A bill that would make Washington the seventh state to legalize gay marriage cleared a Senate panel on Thursday, the AP reported. The Government Operations, Tribal Relations & Election Committee approved the measure with a 4 to 3 party-line vote.
Read more [Gay News]

North Dakota Law Restricting Medication Abortion Is Challenged On 'Undue Burden' Grounds

There is only one abortion clinic in North Dakota, and state lawmakers passed a bill last summer that would effectively ban medication abortions across the state.

After the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a challenge, seeking to overturn the measure, a judge in July issued a temporary restraining order against implementation of the law. The center's lawyers are now seeking a temporary injunction, arguing the measure pushes the limits of what the Supreme Court would deem an "undue burden" on women's right to abortion.

An attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights argued in district court on Friday that the new North Dakota law, which imposes requirements for the provision of "abortion-inducing drugs" that are difficult to meet, flies in the face of the Supreme Court's 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. That decision prevents states from passing laws that have "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."

Medication abortions count for about a quarter of abortions in the first nine weeks of pregnancy and are widely recognized as safe and effective by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical experts and professional organizations. The Center for Reproductive Rights, on behalf of Red River Women's Clinic in Fargo, N.D., argued on Friday that the bill "needlessly forc[es] women seeking an abortion to undergo surgery even when such a procedure may be medically inadvisable."

"The law bans medication abortions for no reason whatsoever and denies women a safe, common, effective procedure that's been used by 1.4 million women in the United States," said Suzanne Novak, senior staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights. "For some women, it's a matter of personal choice, but for other women it's medically inadvisable to have surgical abortions."

The defense argued that the law can't be challenged unless there is a prosecution going on. Further, the defense team said, the law places no undue burden on any woman who wants an abortion, because surgical abortion remains unchallenged in North Dakota.

Responded Judge Wickham Corwin: "Well, it certainly seems to put an undue burden on any woman who wants a medication abortion."

Corwin declined to make a decision on Friday as to whether to suspend the law and instead asked for a fuller factual record about the safety of medication abortion and its uses.

Romney Compares Gingrich To 'Goldilocks' For Debate Crowd Gripes

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was upbeat and energetic after his solid debate performance in Jacksonville the night before, telling the crowd at a rally on Friday evening, "I had fun last night, I gotta tell 'ya!"

He used the opportunity to take a shot at former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who failed to deliver the blow needed to knock Romney from his momentum in the run-up to Tuesday's Florida primary.

"Speaker Gingrich said the debate before last night -- that the crowd wasn't allowed to cheer, and so he couldn't do so well because the crowd was too quiet," said Romney, referring to the NBC News debate where the audience was asked to hold its applause. "Then last night, he said the crowd was too loud. It's like Goldilocks. This porridge is too hot, this porridge is too cold."

Romney then told the crowd how eager he was to debate President Barack Obama -- a line traditionally used by Gingrich, who argues that he is best positioned to win a general election debate.

"I'm looking forward to debating Barack Obama," said Romney. "I'm not going to worry about the crowd. I'm going to make sure that we tell the truth about Barack Obama and get him out of the White House."

Former Sen. Rick Santorum also recently invoked Goldilocks, saying Gingrich was "hot, radioactive" and Romney was "cold, timid" -- but he was "just right."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuno (R) gave opening remarks at the rally, held at the warehouse of the Lanco Paint Co. Fortuno officially endorsed Romney at the event.

McCain acknowledged Romney's strong debate performance, saying, "Very rarely at these things do you see a knockout. You saw one last night. You saw Mitt Romney at his best."

McCain called for an end to the debates, saying there were too many.

"It's time to stop the debates. We've had enough -- 19. Let's have our candidates come out and do this kind of thing," McCain said, referring to the rally. "This is what political campaigns are about. The candidate coming and meeting the people, and the people coming to see the candidate. That's what it's all about, and that's what it should be about. I'm tired of the mud-wrestling, aren't you?"

"I think Romney killed him [Gingrich]," agreed David Burr, an Orlando resident who came to the rally and is backing Romney. "It's about time that Romney -- Romney's moral fiber is not to attack people. It's just not his make-up. I'm glad that he did a little attacking last night. I think that Newt needs to be exposed a little bit for what he is, and that's definitely a Washington insider."

Dislike of Gingrich was palpable at the Romney rally, although attendees said they would still back him if he he becomes the GOP nominee. Because in the end, he's still better than Obama, they said.

"The Tea Party conservatives and conservatives all over the place have been demanding that we change Washington. Well how in the world do you change Washington if you're going to send back people who have been in Washington for the last 30 years?" said Brenda Copley, an Orlando resident, referring to Gingrich, Santorum and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.).

Copley, who identified herself as a "conservative family-values Republican," said she was also uneasy with Gingrich's personal life and how it would reflect on the party if he became president.

"I think it sends a terrible message to our youth and to our married couples about fidelity and commitment," she said. "For us to refer to his wife as a first lady is an insult to all other faithful husbands and women who are married and faithful to each other, because she was his mistress for six years and she wrecked his home. Literally, she broke up his marriage. I think that's not an image that the Republican conservative party should be giving domestically or internationally."

Copley's husband, Dick, said he was upset at the attacks Romney has been taking from Democrats for the way he made his money, saying it amounted to class warfare.

"We've been hearing that for the last 50 years," Dick Copley said. "Those darn rich people. I tell them, 'I know rich people. They're smarter than me, they work harder than me, they get better ideas, they get up earlier than I do. They didn't inherit it, and they're not crooks. ... And they also create jobs.' It's class warfare, and Obama is the best at that. He loves class warfare, because his base is on the base, and those folks put him in."

"Why is it we can support the ones who are underprivileged and needy, but we can't support the ones who worked hard and got somewhere?" added Sharon Rousey from Seminole County, who was standing nearby.

Growing Elite Opposition to Military Option Against Iran

Like the imminent prospect of one’s hanging, to paraphrase the 18th century British essayist Dr. (Samuel) Johnson, the suddenly looming possibility of war can concentrate the mind wonderfully. If that aphorism didn’t apply in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq 10 years ago, it appears to be the case now for key sectors [...]
Read more [AntiWar]

Spartan Torch: NOH8 - my.hsj.org

Spartan Torch: NOH8
my.hsj.org
Michael Balk Thanks to the successful outcome of Vista Grande's very own Gay Straight Alliance (GSA), their determination, and compassion has been put on display in our hallway for everyone to see! Simply head towards the nurses and discipline offices ...


Read more [Gay News]

Twitter's New Censorship Policy Ignites Global Outrage

NEW YORK — Twitter, a tool of choice for dissidents and activists around the world, found itself the target of global outrage Friday after unveiling plans to allow country-specific censorship of tweets that might break local laws.

It was a stunning role reversal for a youthful company that prides itself in promoting unfettered expression, 140 characters at a time. Twitter insisted its commitment to free speech remains firm, and sought to explain the nuances of its policy, while critics – in a barrage of tweets – proposed a Twitter boycott and demanded that the censorship initiative be scrapped.

"This is very bad news," tweeted Egyptian activist Mahmoud Salem, who operates under the name Sandmonkey. Later, he wrote, "Is it safe to say that (hash)Twitter is selling us out?"

In China, where activists have embraced Twitter even though it's blocked inside the country, artist and activist Ai Weiwei tweeted in response to the news: "If Twitter censors, I'll stop tweeting."

One often-relayed tweet bore the headline of a Forbes magazine technology blog item: "Twitter Commits Social Suicide"

San Francisco-based Twitter, founded in 2006, depicted the new system as a step forward. Previously, when Twitter erased a tweet, it vanished throughout the world. Under the new policy, a tweet breaking a law in one country can be taken down there and still be seen elsewhere.

Twitter said it will post a censorship notice whenever a tweet is removed and will post the removal requests it receives from governments, companies and individuals at the website chillingeffects.org.

The critics are jumping to the wrong conclusions, said Alexander Macgilliviray, Twitter's general counsel.

"This is a good thing for freedom of expression, transparency and accountability," he said. "This launch is about us keeping content up whenever we can and to be extremely transparent with the world when we don't. I would hope people realize our philosophy hasn't changed."

Some defenders of Internet free expression came to Twitter's defense.

"Twitter is being pilloried for being honest about something that all Internet platforms have to wrestle with," said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "As long as this censorship happens in a secret way, we're all losers."

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland credited Twitter with being upfront about the potential for censorship and said some other companies are not as forthright.

As for whether the new policy would be harmful, Nuland said that wouldn't be known until after it's implemented.

Reporters Without Borders, which advocates globally for press freedom, sent a letter to Twitter's executive chairman, Jack Dorsey, urging that the censorship policy be ditched immediately.

"By finally choosing to align itself with the censors, Twitter is depriving cyberdissidents in repressive countries of a crucial tool for information and organization," the letter said. "Twitter's position that freedom of expression is interpreted differently from country to country is unacceptable."

Reporters Without Borders noted that Twitter was earning praise from free-speech advocates a year ago for enabling Egyptian dissidents to continue tweeting after the Internet was disconnected.

"We are very disappointed by this U-turn now," it said.

Twitter said it has no plans to remove tweets unless it receives a request from government officials, companies or another outside party that believes the message is illegal. No message will be removed until an internal review determines there is a legal problem, according to Macgilliviray.

"It's a thing of last resort," he said. "The first thing we do is we try to make sure content doesn't get withheld anywhere. But if we feel like we have to withhold it, then we are transparent and we will withhold it narrowly."

Macgilliviray said the new policy has nothing to do with a recent $300 million investment by Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Mac or any other financial contribution.

In its brief existence, Twitter has established itself as one of the world's most powerful megaphones. Streams of tweets have played pivotal roles in political protests throughout the world, including the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States and the Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt, Bahrain, Tunisia and Syria.

Indeed, many of the tweets calling for a boycott of Twitter on Saturday – using the hashtag (hash)TwitterBlackout – came from the Middle East.

"This decision is really worrying," said Larbi Hilali, a pro-democracy blogger and tweeter from Morocco. "If it is applied, there will be a Twitter for democratic countries and a Twitter for the others."

In Cuba, opposition blogger Yoani Sanchez said she would protest Saturday with a one-day personal boycott of Twitter.

"Twitter will remove messages at the request of governments," she tweeted. "It is we citizens who will end up losing with these new rules ... ."

In the wake of the announcement, cyberspace was abuzz with suggestions for how any future country-specific censorship could be circumvented. Some Twitter users said this could be done by employing tips from Twitter's own help center to alter one's "Country" setting. Other Twitter users were skeptical that this would work.

While Twitter has embraced its role as a catalyst for free speech, it also wants to expand its audience from about 100 million active users now to more than 1 billion. Doing so may require it to engage with more governments and possibly to face more pressure to censor tweets; if it defies a law in a country where it has employees, those people could be arrested.

Theoretically, such arrests could occur even in democracies – for example, if a tweet violated Britain's strict libel laws or the prohibitions in France and Germany against certain pro-Nazi expressions.

"It's a tough problem that a company faces once they branch out beyond one set of offices in California into that big bad world out there," said Rebecca MacKinnon of Global Voices Online, an international network of bloggers and citizen journalists. "We'll have to see how it plays out – how it is and isn't used."

MacKinnon said some other major social networks already employ geo-filtering along the lines of Twitter's new policy – blocking content in a specific jurisdiction for legal reasons while making it available elsewhere.

Many of the critics assailing the new policy suggested that it was devised as part of a long-term plan for Twitter to enter China, where its service is currently blocked.

China's Communist Party remains highly sensitive to any organized challenge to its rule and responded sharply to the Arab Spring, cracking down last year after calls for a "Jasmine Revolution" in China. Many Chinese nonetheless find ways around the so-called Great Firewall that has blocked social networking sites such as Facebook.

Google for several years agreed to censor its search results in China to gain better access to the country's vast population, but stopped that practice two years after engaging in a high-profile showdown with Chain's government. Google now routes its Chinese search results through Hong Kong, where the censorship rules are less restrictive.

Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt declined to comment on Twitter's action and instead limited his comments to his own company.

"I can assure you we will apply our universally tough principles against censorship on all Google products," he told reporters in Davos, Switzerland.

Google's chief legal officer, David Drummond, said it was a matter of trying to adhere to different local laws.

"I think what they (Twitter officials) are wrestling with is what all of us wrestle with – and everyone wants to focus on China, but it is actually a global issue – which is laws in these different countries vary," Drummond said.

"Americans tend to think copyright is a real bad problem, so we have to regulate that on the Internet. In France and Germany, they care about Nazis' issues and so forth," he added. "In China, there are other issues that we call censorship. And so how you respect all the laws or follow all the laws to the extent you think they should be followed while still allowing people to get the content elsewhere?"

Craig Newman, a New York lawyer and former journalist who has advised Internet companies on censorship issues, said Twitter's new policy and the subsequent backlash are both understandable, given the difficult ethical issues at stake.

On one hand, he said, Twitter could put its employees in peril if it was deemed to be breaking local laws.

"On the other hand, Twitter has become this huge social force and people view it as some sort of digital town square, where people can say whatever they want," he said. "Twitter could have taken a stand and refused to enter any countries with the most restrictive laws against free speech."

___

Associated Press writers Paul Schemm in Rabat, Morocco; Michael Liedtke in San Francisco; Peter Orsi in Havana, Cuba; Cara Anna in New York and Ben Hubbard in Cairo contributed to this report.

Slain woman's family urges teen suspect to surrender - Sun-Sentinel

Slain woman's family urges teen suspect to surrender
Sun-Sentinel
Vanetta Gay, Bianca McNair's godmother, appealed to the fugitive teenager, who has been on the run since the shooting. "We can't rest at night knowing that you're out," she said. "Do the right thing: Turn yourself in." Mandell said officers are ...

and more »
Read more [Gay News]

Video: IAVA to join St. Louis parade for vets

Paul Rieckhoff, founder and executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, talks with Rachel Maddow about his organization's participation in a parade in St. Louis to honor returning Iraq War veterans, and further advocacy for America's war vets. (The Rachel Maddow Show)

Harvard Kennedy School Democrats: The Republican Approach to Foreign Policy: Less Is More

In November 2008, President Obama's election was celebrated not just in the United States but around the world. Crowds in Berlin cheered in the streets while Kenya declared a national holiday after Barack Obama. The president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, sent his congratulations, saying it was "time for a renewed commitment between Europe and the United States." United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon called the election an "historic opportunity" to strengthen the relationship between the United States and the United Nations.

Obama's presidential campaign had impressed global leaders and people the world over with its rhetoric of open engagement and its vow to bring the U.S. back to a time where it was held internationally as a responsible superpower standing up for its values and the interests of humanity. In the last two years, the president has taken serious steps to uphold that promise, with the humanitarian Responsibility to Protect (R2P) intervention in Libya, renewal of the START treaty, and military withdrawal from Iraq, among other actions.

As President Obama's reelection campaign gears up, we now see a new crop of leaders who all promise a dramatic departure from the Administration's approach to foreign policy. The GOP candidates' appalling lack of knowledge and seriousness about basic foreign policy concerns is increasingly apparent with every passing debate, speech and town hall meeting. When it comes to foreign policy, the Republican leadership simply seems to believe that less is more.

Mitt Romney's statements at the Jan. 16 GOP debate, for example, were emblematic of the GOP's grotesque oversimplification of the war in Afghanistan. Lumping al Qaeda and the Taliban together as one entity when in reality they are two very different organizations, he stated that the right objective for the United States to pursue is a military victory in Afghanistan. Most national security experts have concluded that a military victory in Afghanistan is impossible within the time frame of the U.S. draw-down and a political settlement with the Taliban is the best-case scenario for the United States. Romney wants to follow a heavy handed policy that would mire the United States deeper into a conflict that may yet become our generation's Vietnam. As the candidate who is favored to win the nomination, Romney's reductionist approach to diplomacy and development in Afghanistan augurs a dangerous return to the failed policy of George W. Bush.

In the same debate, Governor Rick Perry stated his belief that Turkey is being ruled by Islamic terrorists and that this key ally in the Middle East should be barred membership in NATO and cut off from U.S. foreign aid. Perry has also suggested that the concerns of "multilateral debating societies" like the U.N. and World Bank should have absolutely no impact on U.S. foreign policy decisions. These comments, too, demonstrate an overall lack of knowledge about the complexities and strategic importance of our international commitments and responsibilities.

Yet for all this bluster, nearly all of the Republican candidates seem to shun U.S. engagement and intervention whenever President Obama is responsible. Representative Michele Bachmann, an early Republican favorite who has since dropped out of the race, called the Arab Spring an outright threat to our national security interests, claiming that it is better to have tyrannies than "radical" populist movements in charge in the Middle East. Former Senator Rick Santorum went a step further by denouncing President Obama's decision to support the rights of the Egyptian people in asking Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to step down from power. These sentiments are a far cry from the rhetoric we heard during the George W. Bush presidency, when spreading democracy and promoting political rights were considered a vital national interest and a moral responsibility.

Amongst the candidates it is perhaps Ron Paul who has taken the strongest stance against U.S. engagement abroad. The candidate, who views himself as a prudent "non-interventionist," has stated his willingness to slash the defense budget, immediately pull troops from Afghanistan and cut the U.S.'s military presence in Europe and Asia. While appealing to some voters who are sick of American adventurism in the Middle East, this indiscriminately isolationist policy would prove disastrous for American interests in very short order.

Perhaps the only candidate who demonstrated even a hint of intellectual nuance was Ambassador John Huntsman, who was considered to be the most knowledgeable and experienced candidate in foreign policy. He was the one candidate who best understood the intricacies and importance of U.S. relationships abroad. Unfortunately his moderate views seem to have cost him the nomination.

What would the world look like if one of the remaining GOP candidates were to enact his less-is-more policy? Troops would remain in Afghanistan indefinitely, seeking an unattainable military victory above a more feasible political/diplomatic solution. Iran would have a free hand to engage in nuclear weapons proliferation activities, or would become the site of yet another military quagmire in the Middle East -- depending on the candidate. Those countries that rely on U.S. funding for military, food and health resources would be in jeopardy. We would start supporting the dictators in the Middle East rather than the people.

The short-term and long-term effects of these policies would not only jeopardize the international community, but also result in second- and third-degree effects that would undoubtedly affect our domestic economic stability and national security. Although foreign policy has not been a top issue during this presidential cycle, the American people must be wary of the prominent isolationist and neoconservative strains in the GOP. The future of American power is at stake.

Written by Erum Jilani, Master in Public Administration candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School and Juris Doctor candidate at the University of Michigan Law School. HKS Democrats leadership reviews and approves all op-eds that appear in this space.

Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points -- SOTU Review

Well, that was an eventful week in politics, wasn't it?

On the Republican side, we've endured two more of a seemingly-unending series of televised debates between the candidates. Newt Gingrich did not physically attack either Mitt Romney or a member of the media, for which we can all be thankful. The deep and pressing issue-of-the-day seriously discussed was putting a manned base on the moon -- which will come as a relief to the legions of voters who have been clamoring for this crucially-important subject to be adequately debated in public.

Sigh. Seriously, you just can't make this stuff up, folks. I guess it's an improvement over arguing over ex-wives. I guess.

To the amusement of Democrats everywhere, the Republican establishment woke up last week and realized Newt Gingrich is now a serious contender for their party's nomination. This led to a blistering broadside from all parts of the conservative media and political universe, who are collectively shuddering in fear of Newt at the top of the ticket this fall. This onslaught has seemed to be effective, so far, as Romney's poll numbers have risen in Florida while Newt's surge seems to have crested. But it's still too close to call, and people vote next Tuesday, so next week will be just as eventful, one assumes.

Over on the Democratic side, we had our annual State of the Union message from the president, and a successful raid on some thugs in Somalia who had taken two people hostage.

That's quite a contrast, isn't it? No wonder Obama's poll numbers have been going up, of late. But let's get on with the column, because we'll be spotlighting excerpts from Obama's State of the Union later, in the talking points.

While it doesn't perfectly fit into this category, we'd first like to extend our warm congratulations to Representative Barney Frank, who just announced his engagement to his partner. We wish these two men every happiness in their married life together.

Barack Obama is worthy of at least an Honorable Mention this week, for giving a great speech Tuesday night, for following it up in swing states across the country, and for giving the green light to the hostage raid. Obama seemed calmly competent throughout all of it, which is quite a welcome change after watching so many Republican candidate debates.

But the real Most Impressive Democrat of the Week this week was none other than Gabby Giffords, who left the House of Representatives this week to work on her rehabilitation after being savagely shot in the head last year. Giffords' appearance at the State of the Union and her bipartisan farewell from the House were sad moments in a lot of ways, but also inspiring moments. For a short time, there weren't political enemies in the House intent only on bickering with each other, but instead there were just human beings wishing one of their own well in the future. You don't get moments like that in Washington very often these days, which is why it was so impressive.

Giffords is stepping down now to open up the field for her seat and give a boost to Democrats who are qualified to replace her. If she had waited, it would have been almost impossible for anyone to run against her from her own party, due to her circumstances. By both stepping down and by announcing her husband won't be running for her seat, Giffords has cleared the way for others to follow in her footsteps. This is the mark of a selfless politician, it must be said.

Giffords left with class, and with her head held high. Her journey back from such a grievous wound has been a long one, and we wish her well on her road to recovery. As she is leaving public life, we likely won't be giving her any future awards, so we decided she needed one last Most Impressive Democrat of the Week award as she exits.

[Congratulate Representative Gabby Giffords on her House contact page (while it still exists), to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

We thought we had a good candidate for MDDOTW, but when we looked into the story, two facts precluded the award. First, the guy just survived a recall bid, and second, he is a "non-partisan" politician, because that's the way the town's elections are set up.

We speak of Bob Ryan, mayor of Sheboygan, Wisconsin. His drunken antics made the national news this week right before the recall election, and the details (with photos!) are pretty spectacular -- and not in a good way.

But the award isn't the "MDNPOTW," after all, so we're reluctantly declaring Bob Ryan ineligible. Which, happily, leaves us with no other candidate for the MDDOTW award, as Democrats have been pretty quiet this week (preferring to watch the Republican circus from the sidelines, for the most part).

As always, if we've forgotten someone you feel richly deserves a Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week award this week, please let us know in the comments.

Volume 195 (1/27/12)

President Obama's State of the Union address, many have pointed out, will likely form the core of his re-election message. This is entirely normal, for any first-term president.

What struck me upon hearing the president's speech, and upon reading it over later, was how thematically cohesive the whole thing was. For years now, I (and many others) have been all but begging the Obama speechwriters to develop this theme -- what might be called "What Democrats stand for." Because while laundry lists of policy proposals do indeed have their place, if you don't have an overall vision for the future, they tend to fall flat.

Another way to put this is: A lot of people vote based on emotion, and not cold logic. This is the heart of what lots of people deride as "spin" and "talking points," but that doesn't make it any less true. Emotion is an important part of politics, but Democrats have always struggled to come to terms with this. Democrats are weak on presenting themselves thematically, in many cases.

Barack Obama did a great job campaigning in 2008. After he took office, however, the inspiring oratory seemed to all but vanish from his speeches. He has been doing better on this front -- a fact that many have missed over the past half-year or so -- and in his State of the Union he proved he's just about ready to take this message to the American people on the campaign trail this year.

The speech was remarkable in the theme it struck, which I would sum up as: "We're all in this together." I have two fairly long excerpts from the speech, the very beginning and the very end, where Obama really hit is stride rhetorically. While touting his own record on several issues, he always managed to weave them back into the overall message.

What is possibly the most striking thing about Obama's message is that he's going to run as a strong foreign policy president -- something that I can't for the life of me remember happening in the past 30 or 40 years. This has, during this period, been seen as a huge weak spot for Democrats, so it is astonishing to see one make it such a core part of his campaign message.

Here is how the president began his speech Tuesday night (or you can read the full transcript, if interested):

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought -- and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda's top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban's momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America's Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They're not consumed with personal ambition. They don't obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we're in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

We can do this. I know we can, because we've done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. My grandfather, a veteran of Patton's Army, got the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth.

The two of them shared the optimism of a nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share -- the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake aren't Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. And we have to reclaim them.

Let's remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren't, and personal debt that kept piling up.

In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn't afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people's money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn't have the authority to stop the bad behavior.

It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hardworking Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly 4 million jobs. And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect.

Those are the facts. But so are these: In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs.

Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we've agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we've put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like this never happens again.

The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we've come too far to turn back now. As long as I'm President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.

No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last -- an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.

Now, this blueprint begins with American manufacturing.

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world's number-one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

What followed was the "meat" of the speech -- the usual laundry list of proposals and ideas. Throughout it all, Obama kept hammering on the same broad themes: Fairness is an American value. We can do this together, if we only try. Things are getting better.

This, as I said, will be the centerpiece of his re-election strategy. Of course, realistically, few of his policy ideas are going to make it through Congress, which could get interesting as the other theme Obama kept returning to was: If Congress doesn't act, then I will do whatever's in my power to change things on my own. This "Do-Nothing Congress" theme has been growing for the past few months, and it is a real winner for the president, seeing how Congress' approval ratings have stayed consistently around 10 percent or so for the past year. The public isn't fond of the bickering in Washington, which leaves a big opening for Obama.

Getting back to the State of the Union speech, after Obama finished itemizing his biggest priorities for the future, he built to a rousing finish. Once again, the examples he used were from the military, and once again he used them as a metaphor for how America can work together if we only get our priorities straight.

Obama laid out his theme. He laid out how his vision for the future is a better one than his opponents. He defined the Democratic narrative in a clear and resounding way. Democrats running for office next year would do well to follow Obama's lead, and incorporate some of this language into their own campaign messages:

Which brings me back to where I began. Those of us who've been sent here to serve can learn a thing or two from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn't matter if you're black or white; Asian, Latino, Native American; conservative, liberal; rich, poor; gay, straight. When you're marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you're in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one nation, leaving no one behind.

One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn't matter. Just like it didn't matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates -- a man who was George Bush's defense secretary -- and Hillary Clinton -- a woman who ran against me for president.

All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn't deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job -- the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other -- because you can't charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there's somebody behind you, watching your back.

So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I'm reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other's backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

Jan Brewer Sets Date For Special Election To Fill Gabrielle Giffords' Seat

PHOENIX, Jan 27 (Reuters) - Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Friday ordered a special general election to be held on June 12 to fill the congressional seat vacated by Tucson Democrat Gabrielle Giffords, who resigned to focus on recovering from her gunshot wound of last year.

The Republican governor also set an April 17 primary to choose the candidates who will vie to replace Giffords in what has proved to be a highly competitive district in southern Arizona. (Reporting by David Schwartz; Writing by Steve Gorman; Editing by Paul Thomasch)

Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.