Duncan Clark writes: According [International Energy Agency] research, 37 governments spent $409bn on artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels in 2010. Critics say the subsidies significantly boost oil and gas consumption and disadvantage renewable energy technologies, which received only $66bn of subsidies in the same year.

[IEA chief economist Fatih Birol] said that a phase-out would avoid 750m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2015, potentially rising to 2.6 gigatonnes by 2035, a level sufficient to provide half the emissions reductions needed to limit global warming to 2C, considered the limit of safety by many scientists. "Fossil fuel subsidies are a hand brake as we drive along the road to a sustainable energy future," he said. "Removing them would take us half way to a trajectory that would hold us to 2C."

Most of the world's fuel subsidies are given out in transitional and developing countries—especially those which themselves export fossil fuels. Sometimes the policies are seen as a way to alleviate poverty, but IEA analysis suggests that the poorest members of society do not see their fair share of the benefits.

"Just 8% of the $409bn spent on fossil-fuel subsidies in 2010 went to the poorest 20% of the population," Birol said. "It's clear that other direct forms of welfare support would cost much less." He added that the poorest people were being "punished twice", because the money used to make fossil fuels cheaper could instead be spent on schools, hospitals and other public services.

Of course, getting rid of subsidies given the clout of the fossil-fuels industry is about as easy as imposing a carbon tax or persuading Rick Santorum that climate change is real.

Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2003:

Bush I built an impressive coalition to help drive Iraq from Kuwait. GHWB was a consumate diplomat, with a deep understanding and respect for our allies and the need to build legitimacy through existing international frameworks. This is how things are done in the sequel:
As the dispute heated up, leaders reacted angrily Thursday to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's dismissal of France and Germany as the "old Europe," saying the comments underscore America's arrogance.

Of course, it's time for the Chickenhawk Right to start demonizing the French and Germans. They're either "with us" or "against us," right?

One interesting turn of events has been the emergence of a more hawkish Powell. Does this mean he has surrendered to the Chickenhawk brigade within the administration?

Tweet of the Day:

High Impact Posts are here. Top Comments are here.

Talk about it here. Watch it live on NBC, MSNBC, or Daily Kos.

7:33 PM PT: I think Newt Gingrich just claimed partial credit for developing supply-side economics. Dude, think big. Take all the credit. We're happy to give it to you.

7:35 PM PT: Rick Santorum decides he might as well start attacking Mitt and Newt, and he starts howling about cap and trade and mandates.

7:37 PM PT:
I think that's probably the best answer Santorum has ever given in a debate.

— @ezraklein
Too bad for him it comes after the winnowing. He's not relevant unless both Newt and Mitt collapse.

7:38 PM PT: Romney brags about making Ted Kennedy take out a mortgage on his house to pay for the 1994 campaign. Weird thing to get your jollies over.

7:39 PM PT:
What did Mitt Romney do for conservatives? He made Ted Kennedy take out a mortgage on his house. Booyah, everybody.

— @jimgeraghty
7:41 PM PT:
Wow, Mitt made a guy mortgage his house. He really "gets" the little people, doesn't he?

— @HunterDK

7:41 PM PT: And just like that, the debate, mercifully is over.

7:42 PM PT: So, who won? Well, whoever is hosting the debate on Thursday night definitely won.

7:43 PM PT: Ah, it's CNN—Thursday night at 8PM ET, in Jacksonville.

7:44 PM PT:
Newt Gingrich can blow me. #FLDebate

— @SaulAlinksy

7:47 PM PT: The highlight reel replay of the Newt-Mitt skirmish isn't kind to Newt. I don't think it's automatically a win for Mitt, but if he can figure out a way to get the crowd on his side during Thursday's debate, he could change the dynamic, and he may have planted a small seed to that end tonight.

Talk about it here. Watch it live on NBC, MSNBC, or Daily Kos.

7:24 PM PT: Mitt Romney panders to Florida and NASA, but doesn't want to admit it would cost money, so he says he wants to partially privatize NASA, and create a military-government partnership. I thought the military was part of the government? My heads spinning from him his bullshit.

7:26 PM PT: Okay, why isn't Mitt Romney attacking Newt Gingrich anymore? Does he think he landed a knockout punch?

7:27 PM PT: I'm not one who thinks you need to pound, pound, pound always—once you've planted the seed, it can be best to back off a little (that's what Newt did with Bain). But I'm not convinced Romney has planted the seed. And if he hasn't, then this debate isn't doing him any good. But he still has plenty of time—Thursday's debate will be more important.

7:29 PM PT: We're on another commercial break, by the way: I think the next segment is the last.

7:32 PM PT: Mitt Romney says the best thing he's done for the soul of the GOP is raising a family, the second best thing is running a business and creating "thousands and thousands" of jobs, and the third best thing was being governor.

7:33 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Talk about it here. Watch it live on NBC, MSNBC, or Daily Kos.

7:09 PM PT: Mitt's immigration solution requires a national ID card that everybody would need to use anytime they did any work for anyone. He doesn't quite make that clear.

7:10 PM PT: I'll bet you ten thousand dollars that Romney really regrets the self-deportation remark #fldebate
— @AliNBCNews 7:11 PM PT: Self-deportation is also the policy Mitt Romney exercises with his money. #CaymanMitt #FLDebate
— @DemocratMachine 7:12 PM PT: Mitt Romney: You have a lot of people in Florida hurting. Like me. I was up by ten points a week ago.
— @LOLGOP

7:14 PM PT: We're taking another commercial break. Discussion for the break: is a boring debate good for Mitt, or good for Newt? Or neither?

7:18 PM PT: Solution to GOP debates: self-immolation
— @Meteor_Blades 7:18 PM PT: Solution to the economic problem: self-employment #romneysolutions
— @DKElections

7:19 PM PT: Solution to the GOP's wingnut problem: self-moderation!

7:22 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Talk about it here. Watch it live on NBC, MSNBC, or Daily Kos.

6:58 PM PT: Still on commercial break. I'm watching in Columbus, Ohio. Most of the ads are for cars and furniture.

6:59 PM PT: Adam Smith, Tampa Bay Times political editor, and Beth Reinhard of National Journal, join Brian Williams, who gives Rick Santorum a chance to say he wants to go to war with Iran, because he didn't get a chance before the break.

7:00 PM PT: If Santorum and Paul and their podiums were just gone when they get back from commercials, everyone would understand.
— @pourmecoffee

7:02 PM PT: Reinhard to Santorum: "Drill baby drill?" Santorum to Reinhard: "Drill baby drill."

7:03 PM PT: Newt's performances are better when taped before a live studio audience. #FLdebate
— @KailiJoy

7:04 PM PT: Newt explains why he's happy to campaign in Greek or Spanish but wants the official language to be English.

7:06 PM PT: Lack of big crowd reaction compared to SC debates makes #fldebate feel less of a prize fight than it has been.
— @dickstevenson

7:07 PM PT: Both Romney and Gingrich say they'd support a Dream Act focused on military service and nothing else.

7:08 PM PT: Mitt Romney's solution to immigration: "Self-deportation." That's an exact quote.

7:09 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Talk about it here. Watch it live on NBC, MSNBC, or Daily Kos.

6:44 PM PT: Whoa ... Mitt Romney talking about how there wasn't enough regulation of mortgage lenders. Free enterprise!

6:44 PM PT: And in the midst of an interesting discussion about housing policy, Brian Williams asks Mitt Romney what he'd do if a boat full of Cuban exiles showed up at his door.

6:46 PM PT: Newt pledges a covert war against Fidel Castro. Raul cackles.

6:47 PM PT: But what if Fidel Castro raped Kitty Dukakis? #fldebate
— @nachofiesta

6:48 PM PT: Ron Paul delivers a huge dose of you all are fucking crazy to want to go to war with Cuba.

6:49 PM PT: Can you imagine any of these guys as president? Not in a million years. Romney probably comes closest, but only because he could play the part in a crappy movie-of-the-week on a little-watched cable channel.

6:49 PM PT: I don't want Mitt to apologize for being successful. But I'd gladly take an apology for tying Seamus to the roof of the car.
— @delrayser

6:51 PM PT: Newt gives himself starbursts: "Jihadists attack the World Trade Center."

6:52 PM PT: What's taking Obama so long to execute these four? #FLDebate
— @KimJongNumberUn

6:54 PM PT: Mitt Romney: "Blah blah blah, Obama failed in Afghanistan, blah blah blah, Obama is a wimp, blah blah blah, we have to beat the people who attacked us, blah blah blah." Dude. Osama bin Laden is dead. Dead! Shut the fuck up already.

6:54 PM PT: After this commercial break, Brian Williams promises to subject us to two of his colleagues.

6:56 PM PT: Times reporter @susansaulny watching the debate with undecided voters in Fla. http://t.co/...  Mixed views on Romney and Gingrich.
— @thecaucus

6:56 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Talk about it here. Watch it live on NBC, MSNBC, or Daily Kos.

6:33 PM PT: Mitt Romney, implying that he was talking about Fannie and Freddie, said congressmen have publicly said Newt lobbied them. But it turns out that her was talking about Medicare. Newt defends himself, but Mitt stands his ground that Newt is an influence peddler, albeit now with respect to Medicare.

6:33 PM PT: And just when things were starting to get interesting ... Brian Williams interrupts and calls for a commercial break.

6:35 PM PT: I'm not sure Romney won that exchange but Gingrich certainly lost it
— @fivethirtyeight 6:38 PM PT: Evangelicals & a casino mogul have united to help a thrice-married disgraced-politician-turned-lobbyist lecture us on morality.
— @LOLGOP

6:40 PM PT: Ron Paul is talking. Hoo, hah! Cherry Soda! (Get it?)

6:42 PM PT: Romney says "of course we help people" end the foreclosure crisis—exact opposite of his "let it hit the bottom" policy. Then he says we need to get government out of the way because government is the problem. So who is the "we" who will help people?

6:43 PM PT: Newt says Dodd-Frank is at the heart of the housing crisis, proving who thoroughly crazy he is.

6:43 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Talk about it here. Watch it live on NBC, MSNBC, or Daily Kos.

6:18 PM PT: Ron Paul gives a long and rambling answer. Says he doesn't want to run as a third party candidate, but who knows?

6:21 PM PT: So Mitt Romney released 23 years of tax returns to John McCain as part of McCain's VP selection process, and says the means he was vetted? Uh, dude, McCain picked SARAH PALIN.

6:23 PM PT: Mitt Romney is trying to complain about how Newt Gingrich's tax plan would mean he would pay a 0% tax rate.

6:25 PM PT: Is it just me or is Brian Williams dull as dirt? This should be an epic debate. Instead, it feels like we're watching the middle rounds of a ho-hum golf tournament rebroadcast on the Golf Channel.

6:26 PM PT: Rick Santorum assures us he's a capitalist. Also, he's not a frothy mix.

6:26 PM PT: Who ARE those guys sitting behind Brian Williams?

6:30 PM PT: Romney finally gets Newt Gingrich to show a flash of anger, pounding on the Freddie Mac thing. And Newt doubles down on the idea that he was paid largely because he was a historian. This is pretty hilarious that he's still claiming that.

6:31 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Talk about it here. Watch it live on NBC, MSNBC, or right here.

5:57 PM PT: There's a gameshow on NBC right now, and I momentarily thought the debate had already started. But then I saw none of the cash prizes are as big as the $5 million that Sheldon Adelson's wife is steering Newt's way. (Through his Super PAC.)

5:58 PM PT: So will Mitt Romney come out swinging and punch the living daylights out of Newt Gingrich? Something tells me Newt won't want to throw the first punch, but who knows. But I'm not sure Mitt can hurt Newt face-to-face. If he doesn't do it, however, it'll be like Tim Pawlenty's "Obamneycare" humiliation multiplied by a 10,000.

5:59 PM PT: Ha, the show is called "Who's still standing?" Answer: Newt, Mitt, Ron, and Rick. But Ron is not participating in the Florida primary. (However, he's in the debate, for some reason.)

6:02 PM PT: Thank you Brian Williams for putting this whole debate in context for us.

6:04 PM PT: First question is about electability, to Newt. Newt humbly informs us that he's Ronald Reagan.

6:05 PM PT: And now he's claiming credit for Bill Clinton's presidency. Forgets to mention he impeached him.

6:06 PM PT: A look at the debate stage:

6:08 PM PT: Mitt Romney starts landing what he thinks are haymakers against Newt. Newt says he doesn't want to waste people's time refuting them and that he'd refute them on his website tomorrow morning. And then he says Romney is guilty of misinformation and is a liar.

6:09 PM PT: BW asks Romney about his problem connecting with Southern conservatives. Romney's answer—I kid you not—is that he did well with New Hampshire conservatives. And now he's going back to attacking Newt for having been forced out of office. And now he switches gears and starts flogging the Freddie Mac attack.

6:10 PM PT: Remember when Romney said his biggest regret was attacking his fellow Republicans? BW does. Romney now says he realized he was wrong to have that be his biggest regret.

6:11 PM PT: Smackdown: Newt says Romney is a bad historian!

6:12 PM PT: At issue: Newt says he didn't resign until late 2008, but the ethics probe was in early 2007.

6:14 PM PT: I think it's really stupid that they don't let the crowd get involved. All of BW's questions are about the horserace aspect of the campaign; given that he's treating it like a sporting event, why not let the crowd get involved?

6:15 PM PT: Just in from Public Policy Poling: Gingrich leading Romney in Florida 38-33. Is Newt the frontrunner yet?
— @ThePlumLineGS

6:16 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Given what has happened over the last week in this absurdity of the Republican primary, the numbers we see today are wholly predictable, aren't they? At least, as predictable as anything has been in an election cycle where the only certainty has been an incessant uncertainty about the outcome and the vectors that its various candidates have taken.

For the moment, however ... and this is subject to change by lunchtime on Wednesday ... Newt Gingrich is ascendant, and it is plausible to see his path to the nomination. Today's numbers, by and large, make that case:

NATIONAL (Gallup Tracking): Romney 29, Gingrich 28, Paul 13, Santorum 11, "Other" 5

FLORIDA (Insider Advantage): Gingrich 34, Romney 26, Paul 13, Santorum 11

FLORIDA (PPP): Gingrich 38, Romney 33, Santorum 13, Paul 10

FLORIDA (Rasmussen): Gingrich 41, Romney 32, Santorum 11, Paul 8

On the general election front, the Gingrich surge does not appear to be making him much more "electable", at least according to what will now be a daily tracker of the presidential general election done by Rasmussen. Obama leads both men, but the margins are quite different, according to the House of Ras.

NATIONAL (Rasmussen): Obama d. Romney (45-43); Obama d. Gingrich (48-39)

Some thoughts to kick off Florida primary week after the jump...

Earlier we posted on the Newtmentum in Florida based on the Rasmussen and InsiderAdvantage polls. Tonight, Public Policy Polling (which is having a great year) weighs in with the pre-debate numbers, putting Newt Gingrich ahead by 5 points over Mitt Romney:

PPP's first post-South Carolina poll in Florida finds Newt Gingrich with a small lead.  He's at 38% to 33% for Mitt Romney, 13% for Rick Santorum, and 10% for Ron Paul.

Gingrich has gained 12 points since a PPP poll conducted in Florida a week ago. Romney has dropped 8 points. Paul and Santorum have pretty much remained in place. Their favorability numbers show similar trendlines. Gingrich's has increased 8 points from +15 (51/36) to +23 (57/34). Meanwhile Romney's has declined 13 points from +44 (68/24) to +31 (61/30).

The full results, all 304 pages, are here (.pdf)

Among the interesting findings:

We asked a question about both Romney and Gingrich pertaining to the general election, and the results are telling. 50% of primary voters say they would enthusiastically support Gingrich, while only 46% say the same for Romney.  But at the same time 15% of primary voters say they would not vote for Gingrich in the general election, while only 9% say that about Romney.  GOP voters might be more excited about Gingrich than Romney...but Romney would be the stronger candidate against Barack Obama, with most people willing to unify around him whether they love him or not.  Voters may need to decide just how badly they want to win in the fall. Indeed. When you watch the debates, that's the key point. For all of Newt's surge, and for all of the very real questions about Romney's core and whether there's a "there" there, Romney has not lost yet and Newt has not won yet.

More:

Newt's continuing to do well with all the groups he dominated with in South Carolina.  He's up 42-23 with Evangelicals, 46-20 with Tea Partiers (Mitt's actually in 3rd with them), 42-28 with men, and 44-23 with voters describing themselves as 'very conservative,' which is the largest ideological group in the Florida electorate.

Losing Florida would be a major setback for Romney, and the only way for him to win it is to beat Newt. And that's something he's going to have to do in tonight's debate, without surrogates.

In less than an hour, game on.

What you missed on Sunday Kos ...

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

Mitt Romney's South Carolina concession speech
  Mitt Romney, during his bitter concession speech on Saturday night, not only confusing questions about his record at Bain with a "front assault on free enterprise," but effectively saying that Republicans should support him because he's rich. When my -- when my opponents attack success and free enterprise, they're not only attacking me, they're attacking every person who dreams of a better future, he's attacking you. I will support you. I will help you have a better future. I will make sure that America is a place of opportunity for all.

I'm passionate -- I'm passionate about our economic liberty because I have witnessed our free enterprise system as it rewards the hard work of many and creates prosperity for all in this great country. And over the past few weeks we have seen a frontal assault on free enterprise. We expected this from President Obama. We didn't anticipate some Republicans would join him. That's a mistake for our party and for our nation. Ours is the party of free enterprise and free markets and consumer choice.

The Republican Party doesn't demonize prosperity. We celebrate success in our party.

And Karl Rove loves the argument, praising Romney for having said the same thing during Thursday's debate:

His best moment on Thursday night was when he said, I didn't inherit this money, I made it my myself, and I'm not going to apologize for it, and anybody who attacks me is attacking the free enterprise system. And I thought that was a very strong moment for him.

Of course, all this talk about free enterprise is nonsense, and voters know it. Hell, even Mitt Romney knows it. If he really believed that voters would blindly "celebrate success" without caring how he achieved that success, he'd have released his tax returns long ago—and he'd have answered the questions he's gotten about how Bain made its money. And that's one of the reasons his campaign is struggling: one of his core arguments is bullshit, and he knows it.

Sen. Rand Paul
(Gage Skidmore/Flickr) One difference between being a senator and being the rest of us? If you get stopped by an airport security scanner, it's all part of the price for our Enhanced Security Nation. If an archconservative senator gets stopped by the exact same scanner, it is quickly seen as evidence of a probable conspiracy: Paul walked into the main terminal at Reagan National hours behind schedule, thanks to an incident at the airport in Nashville he said included him being “detained” by TSA agents for refusing a pat down after a scanner went off as he went through it. Paul said he was held “in a cubicle” at the Nashville airport and told he was not allowed to make any phone calls. Eventually, he told a gaggle of reporters at the DC airport, he left the screening area and was allowed to be re-scanned. The machine didn’t go off, and Paul caught his flight to DC.

The difference between those two scans — one triggering an alarm and one not — will lead to a formal Senate inquiry, Paul (who has been a strong critic of the TSA’s pat down policy) told me in the airport.

Paul questioned why the machine would go off once and then not a second time. He said he suspects the equipment is rigged to set off false positives that then allow the TSA to conduct random pat downs without having to pull a passenger aside.

Two different scanners gave different results? It must be a secret government conspiracy, says the conservative member of that same government. Couldn't be differences in calibration, or the likelihood that the machines might kinda suck. No, it must be a secret Detain This Person button.

Well, go figure: I never thought a member of the Paul family would be so keen on anti-government conspiracy theories, but there we are. We're going to get a formal government inquiry because a sitting senator, as opposed to any other member of the vast American public that has to put up with this crap on a daily basis, was momentarily delayed at an airport. We'll call it Airportgategate. We'll figure out some possible connection to ACORN. This invasion of a (politically powerful) person's privacy will not stand.

As was pointed out previously, Rand Paul was detained because he refused to be patted down by a government-paid stranger after the first scanner triggered. Apparently he felt strongly about this government-sanctioned invasion of his privacy, which led to him being delayed while traveling to give a speech on how government should have expanded powers to take people's privacy away from them.

It's not clear if the scanners have a "detain this person" button. It is clear, however, that they are carefully calibrated for irony.

Margarethe Cammermeyer listens to Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire announce support for legalizing gay marriage. Cammermeyer, a colonel in the Washington State National Guard, was discharged for admitting she was a lesbian in 1989, before being re-instated by court order in 1992 and served till her retirement in 1997. (Robert Sorbo/Reuters) How can Newt Gingrich's third marriage survive this news? Washington's Legislature now has enough votes to legalize gay marriage.
Democratic Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen says she will support the measure, becoming the 25th vote needed to pass the bill out of the Senate. The House already has enough support, and Gov. Chris Gregoire has endorsed the plan.

Washington would become the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriages, following New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.

The forces of bigotry have been doing their darndest to derail this effort.

"You are saying as a committee and a Legislature that you know better than God," said Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church.

The National Organization for Marriage issued a statement Monday morning pledging a referendum campaign to fight any gay marriage law at the ballot. Last week, the group announced that it would spend $250,000 to help fund primary challenges to any Republican who crosses party lines to vote for same-sex marriage in Washington state. So far, two Republicans in the Senate, and two in the House have said they would vote in support of gay marriage.

Gay marriage has strong support from the business community (including local powerhouses Microsoft and Nike).

At Microsoft, we pride ourselves on our products and services, our brand, and our global reach. But unquestionably, our employees are our greatest asset [...]

As other states recognize marriage equality, Washington's employers are at a disadvantage if we cannot offer a similar, inclusive environment to our talented employees, our top recruits and their families. Employers in the technology sector face an unprecedented national and global competition for top talent. Despite progress made in recent years with domestic partnership rights, same-sex couples in Washington still hold a different status from their neighbors. Marriage equality in Washington would put employers here on an equal footing with employers in the six other states that already recognize the committed relationships of same-sex couples - Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. This in turn will help us continue to compete for talent.

And if NOM wants to spend money on a referendum?

When asked how they would vote if a referendum challenging a gay marriage law was on the ballot, 55 percent said they would vote yes to uphold the law, with 47 percent of them characterized as "strongly" yes, and 38 percent responded "no," that they would vote to reject a gay marriage law.

Assuming the law passes, same-sex couples would be able to begin getting married in Washington in June, unless the bigots can get a referendum on the ballot by then.

Next up? New Jersey and Maryland.

• Today's comic is Bedbug Man by Tom Tomorrow:
• Hey, what do you know? It's another Republican debate night. We'll be liveblogging the freak show, starting at 6 PM PT.
• Netroots Nation needs your help in developing and organizing the sessions (panels, trainings and screening series sessions) you want to see at Netroots Nation this June 7-10 in Providence. The deadline for submissions is Jan. 31. Guidelines and the submission form are here.
• Even the Brits are bashing Mitt Romney's Cayman Islands cash: The Cayman Islands are a British territory, and British MP John Cryer, a former member of the British Treasury Select Committee, told the British blog Left Foot Forward that it is “a disgrace” that corporations and investors like Romney and Bain can use them to avoid paying taxes: “As a former member of the Treasury select committee, I think it is a disgrace that the Cayman Islands, a tax haven, can enable wealthy corporations and individuals such as Mitt Romney and others in the wealthiest 1% to avoid tax and still be cloaked in secrecy. Meanwhile all across the western world, hard-working people are seeing their living standards and take-home pay stagnate or reduced.

  “It reminds me of President Kennedy’s comment in his inaugural speech, ‘pay any price, bear any burden’. Except it’s hard-working, modestly paid majority who are bearing that burden.”

• Enjoy this picture of Ron Paul playing in the 1976 Congressional baseball game. Or not.
• Nice work if you can get it: Soon after he retired last year as one of the leading liberals in Congress, former Representative William D. Delahunt of Massachusetts started his own lobbying firm with an office on the 16th floor of a Boston skyscraper. One of his first clients was a small coastal town that has agreed to pay him $15,000 a month for help in developing a wind energy project.

  Amid the revolving door of congressmen-turned-lobbyists, there is nothing particularly remarkable about Mr. Delahunt’s transition, except for one thing. While in Congress, he personally earmarked $1.7 million for the same energy project.

  So today, his firm, the Delahunt Group, stands to collect $90,000 or more for six months of work from the town of Hull, on Massachusetts Bay, with 80 percent of it coming from the pot of money he created through a pair of Energy Department grants in his final term in office, records and interviews show.

• Sen. Chuck Grassley's hacked Twitter account makes for some very interesting reading.
• Offered without comment: News Corp. is launching a Spanish-language network that aims to bring the flavor of its Fox network to Hispanic audiences.

  The company said Monday that the new network, MundoFox, will be launched this fall in partnership with Colombia-based RCN Television Group. RCN already produces popular shows for Spanish-language networks in the U.S., such as "El Capo" and "Yo soy Betty la Fea."

• Michele Bachmann is still getting her facts from 7-foot-tall doctors: Rep. Michele Bachmann predicted Sunday that the November elections will end abortion as she made her first public appearance in Minnesota since dropping out of the Republican presidential race.

  Bachmann said the Supreme Court decision should be repealed within the next year.

• In case you're feeling irony-deficient: When the film "Citizen Kane" came out in 1941, William Randolph Hearst gave it an unequivocal two thumbs down.

  The press lord kept ads for the film out of his many newspapers. Just before its release, one of his allies in Hollywood tried to buy the footage in order to burn it. Another approached FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, who launched a decade-long investigation of Orson Welles, the film's 26-year-old director, producer, co-writer and star.

  But rosebuds bloom in unlikely places. Seventy-one years after Hearst's effort to derail it, "Citizen Kane" will be shown at Hearst Castle's visitors center, with the blessings of the Hearst family.

• Condolences: Uncle Chichi, a toy poodle whose unusual longevity led to fame and an appearance on “Good Morning America,” died on Tuesday after a yearlong battle with cancer. He was 26. Or 24. Or maybe 25.

  The imprecision over his age led to debate over whether Chichi, or the Cheech, as he was sometimes known, had been the world’s oldest living dog.

For the past 39 years, ever since the Supreme Court announced its abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade, tens of thousands, some say hundreds of thousands, of anti-choice demonstrators have gathered for an annual rally every January in front of the Capitol in Washington, D.C. This year is no exception. There have also been satellite demonstrations in scores of cities, this year including San Francisco, Denver and Baton Rouge. And, as in the past, elected leaders, mostly Republicans, have spoken to the crowd in person or remotely to pledge their support for making abortion once again illegal across the land. Speaker of the House John Boehner was on hand this year: “I come before you as Speaker of the whole House of Representatives and leader of the bipartisan pro-life majority in Congress. With your help, this bipartisan majority is standing up for life and working to restore the damage of Roe v. Wade. We are heeding the voice of the people, who overwhelmingly oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. The House has passed bipartisan legislation to codify the Hyde Amendment across all federal programs. And we’ll continue to press the Senate for a vote. ...

“These two founding principles, life and liberty, are intertwined. Together, they form the core of our national character. They comprise the standard by which the world looks to us. When we affirm the dignity of life, we affirm our commitment to freedom. When we don’t affirm life … when life is cheapened or weakened, here or abroad, freedom itself is diminished.

Cheapening of women's lives is what the anti-choice forces are all about. Their four-decade crusade, in Congress, state legislatures and the courts, has steadily nibbled away at reproductive rights, making abortion more difficult to obtain, enacting ever more obstacles for women to hurdle in order to exercise the rights the Supreme Court affirmed are theirs. And while some worked through legislation and the courts to dilute those rights, others engaged in a terrorist campaign of bombings and assassinations, forcing many abortion providers to give up or wear bulletproof vests.

Consequently, today, in the vast majority of America’s 3140 counties, there is no abortion provider. Because of the 1976 Hyde Amendment, 33 states pay for Medicaid abortions only in cases of rape or incest or when the pregnant woman’s life is at risk. From 1981 until 1993, it was even worse: Most states did not cover Medicaid abortions except to save the life of the pregnant woman. The proportion of America's hospitals that perform abortions has dropped to less than 10 percent and the percentage of counties with abortion providers has dropped to 13 percent. Not yet bad enough in the eyes of the anti-choice forces.

In a statement to the demonstrators today, Newt Gingrich said:

My commitment to you is twofold: first, to continue supporting your work to defend the rights of the unborn, and second, if elected President, to advance pro-life legislation, appoint judges who will stay true to the meaning of the Constitution, work to bring about an end to judicial tyranny, defend religious freedom, and work with allies in Congress and throughout the country who desire to bring about a day in which America restores legal protection to all unborn human life.

Specifically, on day one of my administration, I will sign an executive order reinstating Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy that prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions overseas.

I will also oppose federal funding of any research that destroys a human embryo.

I will work with Congress to repeal Obamacare, and will defund Planned Parenthood so that no taxpayer dollars are being used to fund abortions—but rather use that money to promote adoption and other pro-family policies.

For those who argue that this is one of those damned "social issues" that gets the Democrats in trouble on election day, let's not forget that at its core, this is a class war. Even if safe abortions were made illegal countrywide, affluent women would find a way, a discreet doctor, a friend with access to smuggled RU 486, a trip to Canada or Japan, or anywhere else the operation can be done for somebody with money. Less affluent women will have access to abortions, too, unhealthy, maiming and sometimes lethal abortions of the sort their mothers or grandmothers had to resort to. Unlicensed doctor abortions. Self-administered abortions.

As in so many other arenas, as Boehner and Gingrich and a multitude of others among the powers-that-be prove time and again, the struggle to maintain reproductive rights requires warriors relentlessly, persistently and loudly standing up for women's fundamental right to choose. Without it, they are second-class citizens. The anti-choicers will never give up until they have erased this right. It's up to us to ensure that they never ever get their way.

Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor say this session will be about jobs, really.
(Larry Downing/Reuters)
Where have we heard that before? That's the message, anyway, coming out of the House Republican caucus retreat last week: they'll stop the infighting and extremist political battles that fractured the party and focus on jobs. The 2012 GOP playbook is a poll-tested group of bullet points that seems to illustrate a fresh start for the majority. That means tackling issues that unify the party, such as the Keystone XL pipeline, domestic energy production, infrastructure spending and tax reform. It also means dodging the spending and deficit battles that hurt the party last year.

In fact, much of the 2012 agenda will be the mirror opposite of 2011.

In 2011, Republicans talked about cutting spending, trying to convince the public that doing so would create jobs. That message — along with talk of the size of government — isn’t strong, Republicans were told in a polling briefing. They need to stick to the mantra of “Where are the jobs?”

The fact that they’re coalescing around a fresh set of principles shows that leaders are aware of the discontent in the conference and recognize that a fresh start is necessary to maintain their majority. It’s an attempt to scuttle the sense of crisis and improvisation that was the backdrop to governing in 2011. And it illustrates that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) have settled on a set of answers for the coming year.

Right. Here's what John Boehner said they would focus on in the first session of his term as speaker, in January 2009.

"Part of our job is to work with the new administration, to work with our Democratic colleagues, when we think what they're doing is in the nation's best interest."

There will be disagreements, he said, but that doesn't mean there can't be discussion.

"Our job is not to be the party of 'no,' " Boehner said. "We need to be willing to put our solutions out there — or what I would call our better solutions. And if we're not willing to put our better solution out there, then we ought to reconsider the position we're taking."

And what did we get out of last session from Boehner's House? Eight votes to restrict women's reproductive health. They nearly unanimously adopted a budget that ends Medicare. They blocked President Obama's jobs bill. Oh, and they saved the incandescent light bulb.

But this session is going to be all about jobs. Really.

Newt. (Eric Thayer/Reuters) Gallup now has Newt Gingrich doing as well against President Barack Obama as Mitt Romney. Yet he still would be the best general election candidate to run against, by far. Why? Take a look at these numbers: CBS News/NYT, 1/12-17

Newt Gingrich: Fav 17, Unfav 49
Mitt Romney: Fav 21, Unfav 35
Barack Obama: Fav 38, Unfav 45

Fox News, 1/12-14

Newt Gingrich: Fav 27, Unfav 56
Mitt Romney: Fav 45, Unfav 38
Barack Obama: Fav 51, Unfav 46

CNN, 1/11-12

Newt Gingrich: Fav 28, Unfav 58
Mitt Romney: Fav 43, Unfav 42
Barack Obama: Fav 49, Unfav 49

Newt's brutal numbers means he has little, if any, upside. That 48 percent nationally Gallup gave him today (against Obama's 50) is likely his ceiling, while Romney's 48 percent still has room to grow, particularly against a president with mediocre public ratings.

Conservatives have convinced themselves that Newt will be the better nominee because he'll crush Obama in debates. In fact, Newt is fueling this fantasy by claiming he'll demand seven three-hour Lincoln-Douglas-style debates with Obama.

But bottom line, people don't like Newt, and there's nothing about him that will make him more likable. He's a pompous arrogant blowhard, profoundly un-photogenic, and full of self-styled "grandiose" ideas like re-allowing child labor. The GOP establishment is freaking out, and with good reason.

Gingrich will cost Republicans the House and maybe the Senate. They know it, they fear it, and as of right now, they're trying to figure out if there's anything they can do about it.

Woo hoo! (Eric Thayer/Reuters) On Jan. 20, the headline at Gallup's website was: Romney's National Lead Down to 10 Points

Mitt wishes that were still true, because just three days later, and one Sunday after his disaster in South Carolina, Romney's lead is down to a statistically insignificant one:

Now this is a five-day tracking poll, which still includes numbers as far back as the 18th. In other words, only one of the five days is post-South Carolina, suggesting that Gingrich has surged massively the last day or two.

Is there caution in the numbers? Perhaps. Look at the general election trial heats:

Whatever general election advantage that Romney had over Gingrich is erased. Right now, they both do equally well against Obama. If nothing else, this erases Romney's "electability" argument in the primary.

That doesn't mean that Gingrich won't be the better general election candidate for us. He will be. By a mile. If nothing else, he'll motivate every Democrat to get engaged. But it does mean that we can't take anything for granted, no matter who the Republican primary electorate pukes up.

12:53 PM PT: The general election trial heat numbers are from mid-December. I'm not sure why Gallup would include them in the same sidebar as the new numbers, with the poll dates from the last five days. But whatever the reason, those are obviously outdated.