BOSTON -- Massachusetts Republicans Mitt Romney and Scott Brown have a history of supporting each other throughout their political careers.

But with each facing a tough election, neither the presidential candidate nor the U.S. senator is playing up that history, perhaps with good reason.

Brown, trying to win re-election in one of the most Democratic states, spends much of his time promoting his bipartisan bona fides and describing himself as a "Scott Brown Republican" rather than a conservative or liberal Republican.

He may be one of the few Republicans running who boasts of working with President Barack Obama to pass bills. On his campaign website, Brown has posted pictures and videos of him with the Democratic incumbent.

Romney has moved increasingly to the right, shedding some of the more moderate positions he held as Massachusetts governor as he worked to rally GOP activists during the primaries.

As Brown took a more moderate stance, he alienated some of the conservative and tea party activists who helped elect him in 2010. Those are the same people Romney will need if he hopes to win in November. Brown's shift to the middle could make him a liability for Romney among conservatives.

Brown probably will continue to play down his ties to his former governor and emphasize his own independent streak, particularly with recent polls showing Obama enjoying a double-digit over Romney in Massachusetts.

"Brown sees pretty clearly that there are no Romney coattails in Massachusetts for him to ride and, indeed, being close to Romney for his own re-election bid could be a liability," said Paul Watanabe, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts.

The distance between the candidates is more than strategic. Romney and Brown have adopted competing views on several big issues, from a new nuclear weapons treaty with Russia to the fate of the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Romney has said Roe v. Wade should be reversed. Brown says a woman should have the right to an abortion, although he opposes federal money for the procedure. Brown voted for the new START treaty with Russia, saying it was important for national security. Romney said the treaty was Obama's "worst foreign policy mistake."

The differences don't stop there.

Romney has called for repeal of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law. Brown voted for it. Romney backs amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Brown opposes such an amendment and says gay marriage is "settled law" in Massachusetts. Such unions became legal in the state in 2003.

Romney, in 2007, said the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy seemed to be working. Brown voted with Democrats and some Republicans to end the policy that barred gays from serving openly in the military, earning praise from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group.

While Romney hasn't said if he'll release more than two years of his income tax returns, Brown has made public six years of his tax documents.

When pressed on the differences of opinion, Brown's campaign repeats his endorsement of Romney.

"Sen. Brown thinks Mitt Romney is a good and decent person who is devoted to his family and strong on jobs and the economy and that's why he supports him for president," Brown spokesman Colin Reed said in a statement.

The campaigns also share staff, including Eric Fehrnstrom, a top political adviser to both men. Fehrnstrom did not respond to a request for comment.

Romney and Brown come from very different backgrounds. Brown's parents divorced early and his family moved often when he was young. Romney's father was a governor of Michigan and an automotive executive. Still, the two found political common ground nearly a decade ago.

Both are ambitious Republicans from a state known for frustrating GOP hopes.

When a seat opened up in the state Senate in 2004, Brown, then a state representative, jumped into the race. The seat had been held by a Democrat but, with a campaigning and fundraising assist from then-Gov. Romney, Brown squeaked out a narrow victory over his Democratic challenger, who at first doubted the results.

"It's a new day in Massachusetts politics when the Democrats are calling for a recount," said Romney, who appeared at a Statehouse news conference with Brown after the election.

When longtime Democratic U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy died of brain cancer in 2009, Romney supported Brown in the special election to fill the seat. Though Brown was considered a long shot, Romney issued campaign fundraising letters on his behalf.

"Scott's election would shock the country," Romney wrote. "Wouldn't it be nice to elect a fiscal conservative to Ted Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate?" Romney had challenged Kennedy for the seat in 1994, and lost.

The mutual accolades reached a pinnacle at an annual meeting of conservative activists the month after Brown's election to the U.S. Senate.

Introducing Romney, Brown joked that at the start of his Senate campaign "I could have held my campaign rally in a phone booth" and Romney was "one of those guys who was in that phone booth with me."

Romney returned the compliment moments later.

"Scott Brown, boy, I'd take him anywhere I could take him," he told the crowd.

Except that neither has taken the other anywhere lately.

Democrats are busy trying to make voters aware of the ties between Romney and Brown, especially in Massachusetts, where Brown faces a tough fight against likely Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren.

Democrats note that Romney and Brown both supported an amendment in the U.S. Senate this year that would have allowed employers or health insurers to deny coverage for services they said violated their moral or religious beliefs, including birth control. The amendment failed.

"Scott Brown and Mitt Romney have made clear that they share a close personal relationship as Massachusetts Republicans," state Democratic Party spokesman Kevin Franck said in a statement. "They share the same policy agenda of protecting tax breaks for big oil and millionaires, while refusing to invest in helping the middle class."

MIAMI -- Sen. Marco Rubio has close ties to a colleague accused of questionable financial dealings. The freshman senator also once was enmeshed in a controversy over the use of the state party's credit card for his personal expenses. And he has faced increased scrutiny over his personal background since bursting onto the national political scene, including conflicting details of his parents' immigration from Cuba and his recently disclosed ties to the Mormon faith.

Will issues like those in Rubio's personal and political background hold back one of the GOP's fastest-rising stars? That's a question being debated in Republican circles in Washington, Florida and elsewhere as the Cuban-American senator with solid conservative credentials works to raise his profile beyond Florida, if not position himself for a national role within the GOP.

"Marco Rubio is a huge star in the Republican Party in much the same way that Barack Obama was in the Democratic Party between his convention speech in 2004 and his candidacy for the president," said Steve Schmidt, a top adviser to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. "There are a lot of plusses when you look at Marco Rubio as a potential vice presidential candidate, but there are also unknowns."

Rubio, who all but certainly has political aspirations that extend beyond the Senate, frequently is mentioned by Republican insiders as an attractive candidate to be Mitt Romney's running mate partly because the party needs to attract Hispanic voters in battleground states like Nevada and Florida in November.

While Rubio denies any interest in the No. 2 slot on the ticket this year, he's working hard to stay in the national spotlight. He recently gave a major foreign policy address in Washington, he's talking about writing a bill to allow some young illegal immigrants to remain and work in the country without citizenship, and next month he'll release a memoir.

The country is only just starting to get to know Rubio and his political vulnerabilities, though Florida residents know both well.

Rubio's relationship with fellow freshman lawmaker Rep. David Rivera, now facing a federal probe into tax evasion, and the credit card controversy surfaced during his 2010 Senate campaign. And they didn't have much effect. But that doesn't mean the country as a whole would overlook those eyebrow-raising issues.

"Floridians may be numb to these hits because of the rough-and-tumble nature of politics in the state, when it's looked at by a national audience it may not be as palatable," said Abe Dyk, a political strategist who managed the 2010 Senate campaign of Rubio's Democratic challenger.

Rubio and Rivera met in 1992, during the campaign of former Republican Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a fellow South Florida Cuban-American. The two rose through the ranks in the statehouse with Rivera oftentimes playing bad cop to the more congenial Rubio.

During the legislative session, they shared a Tallahassee townhouse, which a bank began foreclosure proceedings on in 2010. Rubio made only partial payments on that mortgage for five months in 2010, even as he held jobs as a consultant, professor and TV commentator. He has said the missed payments were due to a dispute over the terms of the mortgage.

State officials closed a criminal probe into Rivera's personal financial dealings without filing charges but didn't clear him entirely. They cited Florida's brief statute of limitations and its lax campaign finance laws for not charging him with living off of his campaign funds and failing to disclose his income.

In the last year, Rubio has publicly kept some distance from Rivera and has said that his friend has some issues he must address on the campaign trail. Still, Rubio threw a small Washington fundraiser for Rivera last week. So far, Rubio hasn't faced blowback from his friendship with Rivera.

"It's tough to say how that will play out," says Emilio Gonzalez, a consultant who served in the Bush administration and sees Rubio as a potentially formidable presidential candidate in 2016.

If Rubio were to end up on the GOP presidential ticket or mount his own national campaign in the coming years, he all but certainly would face questions about the scandal over the use of state GOP funds when he was the speaker of the Florida House.

The head of the party, Jim Greer, was forced to resign following revelations he and his second-in-command charged $1.5 million on party credit cards, much of it on luxurious hotels, fancy restaurants, chauffeured sedans and lavish entertaining. Greer's trial is set to start July 30, just ahead of the Republican convention, and many Republican observers anticipate he will detail unethical use of party money by other high-ranking GOP officials.

Rubio himself spent more than $100,000 on the party card between 2006 and 2008, paying off about $16,000 in personal expenses and claiming the rest as official party business. His records from 2005, when he was lobbying to become Florida House speaker, never were released. When asked about using the party card for personal expenses, Rubio has said he sometimes just pulled the wrong card out of his wallet and he has called it a "lesson learned."

He also has had to answer criticism for how he spent money donated to two political committees he formed - including payments to relatives. He has acknowledged the bookkeeping for at least one of the accounts was sloppy.

And then there's the fuzziness around his family's background.

Rubio long claimed his parents fled Fidel Castro's regime. But it was recently disclosed that they arrived several years before Castro took power – although they quickly embraced the Cuban exile community as Castro turned toward communism. Rubio has said the dates he gave were based on his parents' recollections.

There's another part of Rubio's upbringing that long had gone undisclosed, and the revelation is one that could turn off evangelicals who make up the base of the GOP.

Rubio was baptized as Mormon when his family lived for a few years in Las Vegas, thanks to the influence of cousins who belonged to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rubio returned to the Catholic Church as a young teen, and as an adult he has also frequently attended Baptist services.

When it comes to the vice presidency, Rubio's greatest liability may be one only time can resolve.

"I suspect that the Romney campaign is going to pick someone who is viewed as unquestionably qualified for the office," said Schmidt, who was intimately involved in McCain's selection of Sarah Palin. "To the extent that (Rubio's) in his first term, he's in the first two years of his term and he's 40 years old probably doesn't help him."

___

Farrington reported from Tallahassee, Fla.

Follow Laura Wides-Munoz on Twitter: (at)lwmunoz

Ben Shapiro, Big Journalism
Never mind that the agency used the “born in Kenya” biography until 2007. Never mind that authors who have worked with the agency state that the agency asks that authors pen their own biographies. Never mind that Obama has routinely padded his biographical details to appeal to particular audiences. Nothing to see here. Michael Shear, at the New York Times, was in full defense mode: “Perhaps the darker side of politics is always close to the surface … the conservative Drudge Report Web site published a headline: “BORN IN KENYA,”...

So, it's official. Disco is dead. The passing of Donna Summer brings to a close an era in American music that... well... if you didn't live through it, it's hard to explain. Especially the outfits people wore in public. And making John Travolta a movie star (although he did atone somewhat, by genuflecting to the 1950s immediately thereafter, in Grease).

Music history aside, it was a somewhat eclectic week in politics. The House -- in one of their rare moments when they actually meet and attempt to get something done -- passed a bunch of bills which have exactly zero chance of becoming law. Well, at least they had fun, right? Republicans were doing their usual clown routine out on the campaign trail, including questioning Obama's commitment to America and (once again) his birth certificate.

Sigh. The more things change, the more the clown makeup remains the same, I suppose. On a lighter note in clowning around, it seems arriving at a red carpet in a dog crate on top of a car is now chic. Heh.

Chicago is about to become "Protest Central" this weekend, for a meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The G-8 meeting was also supposed to have happened in Chicago, but was instead hastily whisked away to Camp David in the Maryland mountains, where popular protest is impossible (Camp David is definitely not a "free speech zone," to put it in Orwellian terms). This likely won't deflate the balloon of protest in the Windy City, but we'll all just have to see what happens over the weekend.

House Republicans passed a budget bill which hikes spending further than what they already agreed to -- yes, you read that right, Republicans are spending too much money -- because it is the one budget item that they'll never ever consider cutting: the Pentagon. They'll happily slash money for the poor, for the retired, and for the hungry... as long as we can build Ronald Reagan's missile defense system to protect us against the Soviet Union (which, someone really ought to tell Mitt Romney and the rest of the Republicans, no longer actually exists).

Americans Elect suffered a spectacular failure this week. These were the Wall Street kids who wanted to play in the big presidential sandbox, by buying ballot access in all 50 states so that they could run a "balanced ticket" of one moderate Republican and one moderate Democrat. However, it seems Americans aren't all that interested in the pipe dream of the Beltway chattering class for some sort of non-partisan "centrist" ticket, and not enough people voted online for anyone -- not even, astonishingly enough, Ron Paul -- for them to qualify for the next round of voting. C'mon, guys, just end the window-dressing attempts and go ahead and offer the ballot access you've already won (in over half the states) to Michael Bloomberg, which was really the whole reason you created this fake-grassroots movement in the first place, OK? Stop pretending you weren't going to do this anyway, and just jump in with both feet.

Enough of this looking backward, though, let's move forward to the rest of this week's nonsense.

 

We've got to award an early Honorable Mention to all the folks in Wisconsin who are working hard to recall their odious governor. The matter is still very much up in the air, and the election is right around the corner. Wisconsin groups are doing the best they can with what they've got, and a story leaked out that they were a bit miffed at the lack of support from the national Democrats for their campaign. Since then, fundraisers have been announced, and support seems to now be a bit more forthcoming.

This is a big deal, not only for the people of Wisconsin, but on the national level, as well. This election is going to happen long before November, and it will be read as having national implications no matter which way the chips fall. If the recall fails, Republicans will crow and push anti-worker legislation even harder at the state level. If the recall succeeds, Democrats will chalk up a huge victory (only the third governor ever recalled in American history), and feel the wind beneath their wings nationally. So it really behooves Democrats in Washington to support this effort to the hilt, because the stakes are much larger than just one state.

But we have two Most Impressive Democrat of the Week awards this week, for Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey, who introduced a populist-anger bill they charmingly titled the "Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy" Act, or (... wait for it... drumroll...) the "Ex-PATRIOT Act." This measure was introduced over the outrage at the news that one of Facebook's founders, Eduardo Saverin, renounced his American citizenship to avoid paying taxes -- right before his company was about to go public. Not only was the bill appropriately named (for once -- Democrats usually aren't so good at this sort of thing), but Schumer got off a great line explaining the bill: "Eduardo Saverin wants to defriend the United States of America just to avoid paying taxes. We aren't going to let him get away with it." Good one, Chuck -- nice use of "defriend," there. Heh.

Whether the bill succeeds or not, it was a nice political stunt to see. It's easy to work up some populist outrage against this sort of thing, because it taps into what it means to be an American -- and also the differences between how an average American views his or her citizenship and how a billionaire views the same thing. It's not only a 99% argument, it is actually a 99.99% argument. And it's not often Democrats get to push the "American exceptionalism" button in such a fashion.

Schumer and Casey's timing was excellent, too -- because Facebook is guaranteed to be the top story in today's news. If I might be allowed to mix a few metaphors, it was striking while the iron was hot and using the sparks to light a fire in some political hay.

OK, maybe that was just a little too over the top, sorry for the lapse. It won't happen again. Well, at least not until the talking points.

Seriously, though, this sort of tactic is usually used quite well by Republicans, and usually bungled when Democrats attempt it. But it has to be said, Schumer and Casey did an excellent job this time. The move by Saverin is so outrageous that it is impossible to politically defend by anyone. The only question is whether the media takes note or not.

For their efforts, and for so successfully playing this political card, Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey are this week's two Most Impressive Democrat of the Week award winners.

[Congratulate Senator Bob Casey on his Senate contact page, and Senator Chuck Schumer on his Senate contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apparently woke up this week and realized that the Republicans are abusing the filibuster in the chamber he is supposed to be running. Oh, sure, progressive Democrats had begged him to reform the filibuster rules back when they had a chance to -- with a simple majority vote -- over a year ago, but Harry wasn't convinced, back then. Now he has realized his mistake, and publicly said so on the Senate floor.

Well, good for you, Harry! It's a day late and a dollar short, but we always like to see people evolve in the right direction, politically. Maybe next time, you should listen a bit harder when progressive Democrats come a-knockin' at your door.

Since we can't very well hand Reid even a (Dis-)Honorable Mention for seeing the light, we will just mention it in passing and move right along.

Instead, we have to look back four weeks ago to find our Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week for this week, down in North Carolina. Back then, we handed out only a (Dis-)Honorable Mention to state party chairman David Parker. Parker was charged with badly handling a sexual harassment scandal against a state party official (not Parker himself), and the only reason he didn't get a MDDOTW was because Parker did the right thing, and handed in his resignation.

Now the news comes that the party committee who hires the party chairman actually voted to reject his resignation and reinstate him, much to the embarrassment of many Democrats -- especially those concerned with the upcoming national Democratic convention to be held in the state in only a few months' time. Parker then "unresigned" and accepted his job back.

So we've got a Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week not only for David Parker, but also for the Democratic Executive Committee of North Carolina. This is not what we need right now, folks. Parker himself, speaking to the press, summed the situation up much better than we could ever hope to do: "Well you crazy people, is this the Democratic Party or what?"

Sigh. Or what, indeed.

[Contact North Carolina Democratic Chairman David Parker on his official profile page (email address at bottom), and the North Carolina Democratic Party on their official contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Volume 211 (5/18/12)

Kind of a grab bag of talking points this week. As always, these are offered up to be used by all and sundry to advance the Democrats' positions and frame the issues the way they truly should be framed. Whether you're a politician on a Sunday morning chat show or just a guy hanging around the water cooler at work, try a few of these out in the coming week.

 

   Home-grown austerity

This is such an obvious one, I'm actually surprised nobody else seems to have thought about it. Why use a different term for Europe and the U.S., after all?

"Republicans' plans for our economy can be summed up as more budget cuts, all the time. But you know, we have a word for that sort of thing, when talking about other countries: austerity. The Republicans want to slash budgets with a meat axe, and impose austerity measures on every part of society except the wealthiest one percent, who somehow are exempt from all of this austerity. But you know what? They should take a look at Europe and see how austerity on steroids is working for them over there. America faced the financial crisis and passed Obama's plan. Europe went all-austerity-all-the-time. Guess which economy is growing now? Ours. We don't need to travel the road Europe is traveling, but if the Republicans get all the austerity they are hoping for, that's exactly what will happen."

 

   Do you really want to go there, Mitt?

This one is also pathetically easy to connect the dots, one would think.

"I see that the people trying to elect Mitt Romney have been considering using Jeremiah Wright ads against President Obama. My question is: Do you really want to go there, Mitt? Do you really want to set the standard for attacks on a candidate's religion? Perhaps you are unaware of American history -- I would suggest you look up the Senate hearings on seating Reed Smoot, of Utah. A century ago, the United States Senate spent years taking 3,500 pages of testimony from 100 witnesses on every aspect of Mormonism they could think up questions to ask about. Do you really want to declare that we've returned to that era, Mitt? Personally, I thought America had evolved a bit since then, but you've already brought up Reverend Wright in an interview, so I guess you've decided that a candidate's religion is fair game. That's sad, and it's disappointing."

 

   Republican War on Women continues

Once again, it's not even the odious laws which place the government between a woman and her doctor, but it's just the sheer disrespect Republicans can't help but showing in the process.

"House Republicans just barred a woman from testifying in a committee, once again. This time it was a stringent abortion law they wanted to impose on the District of Columbia, and the Republicans refused to extend a common courtesy the House normally shows to their own members. The House member from D.C., Eleanor Holmes Norton, was denied an opportunity to address the committee on a law which targets her district -- even though such testimony is normally allowed. It's not so much a bunch of old men trying to get between a woman and her doctor, as it is about basic respect -- and you can bet women voters are noticing this sort of thing."

 

   Partisan games before women

GOP War on Women, continued...

"Instead of passing the bipartisan Senate version of the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, the House Republicans decided to play politics with the bill instead, to water down protections for women against violence. They are putting their own partisan gamesmanship ahead of protecting women, and I find it disgusting. Every other time the VAWA came up for renewal in the past, it would garner a bipartisan vote in both houses. This time around, the Senate passed it with a large bipartisan vote. But the House Republicans would rather play politics on a version of the bill which President Obama has already said he will veto, rather than joining with their Senate Republican counterparts in putting something in this country -- anything, in fact -- before their own desire to play partisan games. Shame on them for doing so!"

 

   JP Morgan's near meltdown

Knock this one out of the park, while the iron's hot. Or, choose your own mixed metaphor -- but get this message out there.

"Republicans have been arguing for years that there's too much 'regulation' on Wall Street -- even after they almost destroyed the American economy because of little or no regulation on the insane risks Wall Street was taking. Republicans tell us over and over again, 'Just let Wall Street run like a casino -- it'll be no problem, because they'll regulate themselves.' This is hogwash, and what we are witnessing at JP Morgan should be seen as a canary in the coal mine. The Dodd-Frank regulations that Democrats passed have not been fully implemented yet. The regulations are still being written, and at every turn Wall Street bankers and their Republican buddies have been blocking everything they can, so that commonsense rules aren't applied to them. The Republicans fighting against these rules should take a long, hard look at JP Morgan -- which has paid millions to lobby against the rules -- and ask themselves if that is really what they want to encourage Wall Street to do again. Wasn't one financial crash enough for them? Then why are they bending so far over backwards to facilitate another?"

 

   Bain-ful

The Obama reelection team fired a salvo against Romney's experience at Bain Capital this week. This is smart politics, and we are likely to see more of it soon. Romney is perceived by the public as being some sort of financial private-sector guru who knows what to do about the American economy. Obama began to launch a full-scale frontal attack on this perception, which is good news. I have to admit, the core of this particular talking point came from an excellent blog post by Robert Creamer at The Huffington Post.

"Mitt Romney says he knows how to create jobs because of his private-sector experience at Bain Capital. But nothing could be further from the truth. Bain is not in the business of 'creating jobs' -- they are in the business of 'creating wealth' for their shareholders. They take over a business and use accounting tricks to insure that Bain makes money no matter what happens to the company. Sometimes the company does well, and hires people. Sometimes it goes bust, and lays everybody off. In either case, Bain walks away with millions of dollars. This is the experience Mitt Romney is supposed to bring to the White House? No wonder he pals around with people like Meg Whitman, whose own company is about to lay off over 30,000 people. Do you think Meg's salary goes down one dollar for destroying these jobs under her watch? Nope. That's the world these people live in -- whether the company and the jobs survive or not, they continue to line their pockets. America simply can't afford someone with this sort of outlook in charge of our economy. It would be an unmitigated disaster."

 

   Good enough for me, good enough for my money

This one may cross some sort of line. Then again, it may not. Innocent deniability is the way to go, should Mitt Romney's name come up in response. You have to refrain from throwing in items like "an elevator for my cars" for this to work, however.

"I personally find it astounding that any sane person would voluntarily give up their American citizenship for any reason, and to hear someone do it just to save money is flat-out disgusting to me. These people live in a different world, apparently. They own multiple houses all over the world, they treat national borders as some sort of inconvenience, and they seek tax havens where they can live with others of the tiny fraction of the one percent who can afford such luxuries as a fluid concept of citizenship and national pride. As I said, to me this is outrageous, but then I've never had millions of dollars in a Cayman Islands or Swiss bank account, so I guess I see things differently. But I do know one thing: you could not pay me enough money to ever -- ever -- give up my American citizenship for any reason whatsoever. America's good enough for me, and it's good enough for me to keep my money in, as well."

 

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

 

Mississippi state Rep. Andy Gipson (R) weighed in on President Barack Obama's gay marriage decision last week, invoking a bible passage that calls for gay men to be "put to death."

In a May 10 Facebook post, Gipson called homosexuality a "sin," citing Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-28:

Leviticus 20:13 reads: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

On the same thread, he responded to a follower, calling same-sex relationships "unnatural" and suggesting that they will inherently "result in disease":

UnityMS flagged the post and issued a response to Gipson's comments:

Mr. Gipson needs to realize he represents all of his constituents. He should not cherry-pick which constituents he wants to work for. He should also realize his positions are neither popular nor Republican. LGBT individuals, couples, and families help pay Gipson’s salary. It’s important that he remember that.

While the nation's approval of gay marriage has trended upward, topping out at over 50 percent in a recent poll, a November 2011 survey found that only 13 percent of Mississippi voters thought it should be legal, while 78 percent said it should remain illegal. Even among Democrats, only 19 percent expressed support.

The 137th running of the Preakness Stakes, the second leg of horse racing's Triple Crown, is this Saturday at Pimlico race track in Baltimore, Maryland. The Preakness can either destroy the dreams of the Kentucky Derby winner's team or it can set up drama like no other at the Belmont Stakes. There has not been a Triple Crown winning horse since 1978, when Affirmed completed the trifecta. I'll Have Another, the 2012 Kentucky Derby winner, is hoping to do the same in 2012.

Mitt Romney has locked up the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 2012. Just like I'll Have Another, he is riding high right now. Romney is leading President Obama in a recent CBS News/New York Times poll. His next major campaign move, selecting his Vice Presidential nominee, might decide what looks to be a very close general election. If you don't believe me, look no further than Sarah Palin in 2008.

So without further ado I give you the "Mitt Romney VP Odd's Preakness Style" based on the first early morning lines of the race when post positions were drawn. Can there be anything more fun than combining premier US horse racing with presidential politics? I think not.

THE FAVORITES

8-5 Odds - Bodemeister/Senator Marco Rubio (R - FL): Bodemeister led from the gate to nearly the finish of the Kentucky Derby until I'll Have Another caught him. Just like Bodemeister, Rubio sprinted out to an early lead in the veepstakes and has maintained it up to this point. He is a rising star, has been called the "crown prince" of the Tea Party movement, and potentially delivers the most important swing state of them all. He also helps with the all important and growing Latino vote. Can Rubio seal the deal with Romney or will he get passed in the end like Bodemeister in the Derby? Maybe Romney passes if Mitt can't handle Rubio's "star power" potentially outshining him. This pick makes so much sense for Mitt.

5-2 Odds - I'll Have Another/Senator Rob Portman (R - OH): I'll Have Another shocked the horse racing world down the stretch of the 138th Kentucky Derby with his closing and finishing speed. Rob Portman is one those guys who has often been mentioned in the running for Romney's mate, but isn't as exciting to many Republicans as Rubio. Portman has served his country in the United States House and Senate, as well as in two cabinet positions in the George W. Bush administration. He is from the coveted swing state of Ohio, which President Obama won in 2008. Portman is a lot like Romney when it comes to style and substance, but his experience might make him a tad bit safer choice than Rubio. Portman is closing fast on Rubio in I'll Have Another fashion.

6-1 Odds - Went the Day Well/Governor Bob McDonnell (R - VA): Went the Day Well went from 17th to a 4th place finish at this year's Kentucky Derby. His jockey, Jose Valezquez, recently said to Fox Sports, "he was so far back I couldn't make up that much ground, no way." Bob McDonnell doesn't have to make up as much ground because he gives Romney a chance to win the state of Virginia, which President Obama won in 2008. A former State Attorney General who has served in the military, McDonnell has seen unemployment in Virgina drop from 7.3 percent to 5.6 percent during his short time in the Governor's office. If "it's the economy stupid" election, Mitt might show that Virginia is for lovers and chose McDonnell.

6-1 Odds - Creative Cause/Congressman Paul Ryan (R - WI): If Creative Cause gets a clean path in the Preakness he just might pull it off. Why you ask? Based on Trakus data that recorded Kentucky Derby race results, Creative Cause traveled 29 more feet than the winner, but 79 less feet than the runner up. He finished only three lengths behind the Preakness favorite Bodemeister in the Kentucky Derby. Paul Ryan is a high profile Congressman who is every cutting government fan's dream. He has a good rapport with Romney and his "Ryan Plan" was endorsed by Mitt. He is on the cover of the Republican conservative budgeting playbook and this might make him irresistible for Romney.

MIDDLE OF THE PACK

12-1 Odds - Daddy Nose Best/Governor Chris Christie (R - NJ): Daddy Nose Best has been called "very perky" since his 10th place finish in the Kentucky Derby. Christie is the exact opposite of Mitt Romney, he likes to ad lib. Scripts, what scripts? The Republican base loves him, but he might be too much for Mitt to handle. Paging Joe Biden.

15-1 Odds - Teeth Of The Dog/Governor Bobby Jindal (R - LA): Teeth of the Dog's trainer says he has "galloped out real good" lately. Bobby Jindal has been doing well himself, as Americans for Tax Reform's Grover Norquist recently said he was the guy Romney should choose for his VP. Republicans and Louisianans believe he is an effective reformer who has weathered many storms in his state. Jindal has been the flavor of the month many times, and his loose personality might be a good antithesis to Romney.

20-1 Odds - Zetterholm/Senator Kelly Ayotte (R - NH): You say Northeast ticket I say Romney/Ayotte, Romney/Ayotte...Romney/Ayotte. Kelly Ayotte is picking up a lot of steam lately in the veepstakes, just as Zetterholm has won his last three races. A female running mate could help Romney with his lagging numbers with this important demographic. However, Sarah Palin has described Ayotte as a "Granite State 'mama grizzly' who has broken barriers." Say what?

30-1 Odds - Cozzetti/Fmr. Governor Tim Pawlenty (R - MN): Cozzetti's trainer Dale Romans recently said of the horse, "One day he's going to wake up and run lights out." Republicans have been waiting for Pawlenty to do this on a national level for awhile. He dropped out of the 2012 race after the Iowa straw poll and was on the very short VP list for John McCain in 2008. He still has a lot of strong conservative fans. Will Mitt give him the chance to run lights out? Probably not.

TAKE A FLIER

30-1 Odds - Tiger Walk/Governor Nikki Haley (R - SC): Why Tiger Walk? Kent Desormeaux is his jockey. Why Nikki Haley for Romney 2012? Female, Tea Party starlet, and she is a governor from the south. Good contrast with Mitt.

30-1 Odds - Optimizer/Congressman Mitch Daniels (R - IN): Optimizer is using the Preakness to prepare for the Belmont Stakes. Optimizer's trainer believes that the Belmont will be his best race. Mitch Daniels was widely speculated to be a presidential candidate in 2012, but choose not to run. This publicity and positive speculation is only helping a possible run in 2016 should Romney lose to President Obama. Daniels serves out his second term as Governor of Indiana.

LONGSHOT

30-1 Odds - Pretension/Fmr. Governor Mike Huckabee (R - AR): Pretension is the token Maryland horse in the race to make the local fans get excited. Folksy Mike Huckabee does the same thing to the conservative and evangelical base of the Republican party. It would be a surprise, but stranger things have happened in politics.

Happy 137th Preakness and 2012 Republican presidential veepstakes.

And down the stretch they come...

I (right) and my partner, Jean Albright, a 20-year Air Force veteran who is director of new media for Windy City Media Group, held a private wedding April 28 in Chicago. We have been together 18 years. We did not register as a civil union in Illinois, out of protest over the unequal treatment of LGBT couples. Mona Noriega, director of the Chicago Commission on Human Relations, led the ceremony. Also pictured is David Strzepek, who was among those standing for the ceremony. Photo by Hal Baim.

Barack Obama returned back to his 1996 view on same-sex marriage last week, but this time he did so as president of the United States. In an interview with ABC's Robin Roberts, Obama confirmed that he has "evolved" on the issue and personally backs same-sex marriage. While he said the issue is for the states to handle, which disappointed some, the fact is that Obama can't regulate what states do, and it will be up to the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal district courts to decide the application of federal laws that force states to recognize other states' contracts, including on marriage.

Obama's revolution back to his 1996 view, stated in a response to an Outlines newspaper candidate questionnaire (Outlines purchased and merged with Windy City Times in 2000), was part personal and part practical. In 1996, when he was first running for the Illinois state senate, Obama said he would support same-sex marriage and fight any efforts to limit it; this was in light of the then-new plans for "defense of marriage" state and federal laws.

At the core, Obama actually never changed his view that same-sex couples should have the same rights and benefits as those given to opposite-sex couples. What changed after 1996 was a slow move away from the word "marriage." In 1998, again surveyed by Outlines, he took no position on the topic of same-sex marriage. In 2004, when he was running for U.S. Senate, Obama told me in an interview for Windy City Times that he supported civil unions and all the benefits and rights of marriage for LGBT couples, but not the use of the word "marriage," because it was a more realistic and practical goal to have. By the general election that year, Obama first injected religion into the argument.

This is pretty much where he has stayed ever since, using a religious excuse as a basis for keeping the word "marriage" out of the debate, while remaining in favor of the rights and benefits. But that practical, academic approach was never going to be enough, because the word "marriage" has very real legal and economic benefits. Setting up an entirely new set of laws for same-sex couples will always be separate and unequal.

Parallel to Obama's own shift on same-sex marriage has been a tremendous shift in public opinion. Some polls show that a slight majority of Americans now favor gay marriage. Even though the right wing still campaigns vigorously on social issues, there is a momentum building in favor of marriage equality. Obama boarded the train mid-trip, but the belief is that his words will play an important role moving forward.

I am the first to state that there should be no government involvement in our relationships, including any benefits given to two people who happen to be married. But while there are more than 1,000 financial benefits of marriage federally, plus many locally, those benefits should be equal. I also see the value of the marriage movement in pulling along, in the jetstream of the marriage fight, so many other LGBT rights issues.

What caused this shift for Obama? He has said in recent months that he was evolving on this issue, but most expected the complete evolution to happen after the November elections. That would have been the practical, cynical thing to do. But the other risk was that his base would continue to see his position as hypocritical and without integrity, and that part of his base would stay home and stop writing campaign checks. This delicate political balance, however, seems to have been only part of the reason for Obama's "coming out" for marriage equality. In the end, his and Michelle's own personal friendships, and the friendships of his daughters with children of gay and lesbian parents, are said to have also fed into this change. He could no longer reconcile his support of "everything but" marriage with his support of equality. He came to realize that civil unions were not the answer. And he made a decision that may hurt him politically but relieve him emotionally.

As he told ABC May 9:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years, as I talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed, monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that "don't ask, don't tell" is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

With those words, Obama made history. No president has done as much as Obama has already doe for LGBT rights and for individual LGBT people's lives (health care, hospital access, etc.). He can't overturn the Defense of Marriage Act without a bill to sign, he can't rule in the courts, and he can't stop states from voting on anti-gay laws, but by speaking out as president for marriage equality, Obama can change hearts and minds. And in the end, the only way we will have long-term success is by changing those hearts and minds. The 1964 Civil Rights Act did not overnight make it easier for African Americans. Had the Equal Rights Amendment passed, it would not have stopped sexism. And the federal hate-crimes law won't stop violence against LGBTs. Racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia will always exist.

But words do matter. And by speaking out, by giving his own personal view, Obama will make a difference. His taking a stand has ramifications beyond the LGBT movement, because other communities who have felt let down by Obama's differed hopes and dreams may now see that he can get out of a middle ground made of quicksand and take a step on the solid ground of equality.

Tracy Baim is publisher of Windy City Times and author of Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage. This column also appears in Windy City Times this week.

The Truth-o-Meter says: Full Flop | Mitt Romney rejected state tax pledge before signing national one

These days, it’s hard for candidates to claim they truly oppose taxes if they haven’t put it in writing. As a presidential candidate in 2012, Mitt Romney signed a pledge to forswear tax increases. In fact, in his official tax proposal, Romney has advocated across-the-board tax cuts. But has he been consistent over the years about putting his commitment not to raise taxes in the form of a pledge? The question about Romney and the tax pledge was raised in late 2007, when the Democratic National Committee released a ...

>> More

It seems for the moment that the arc of the moral universe is bending toward equality. On the heels of the president's historic announcement supporting marriage equality last week, several officials and even rap mogul and philanthropist Jay-Z have come out on the right side of history. In a CNN interview Jay-Z stated, with regard to marriage equality, "I've always thought [of] it as something that was still holding the country back."

Exhibiting praise for inequality is not a business plan, nor should it be a campaign slogan, yet Mitt Romney seems comfortable playing the bigotry banjo as the rest of his camp claps and sings to the beat. Romney had a great opportunity when Richard Grenell, his openly gay national security spokesman, was being attacked by the far right for being gay, to speak out against such vitriol -- especially given that Grenell was so highly qualified. But instead of standing up to the bullies on the right, Romney took Grenell's resignation after just two weeks on the job.

What kind of leadership does that show? Not only did Romney reaffirm his support for inequality after the president's announcement last week, stating that "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman," but he recently reversed a statement he made on gay adoption. Last week Romney said that he was "fine" with gay adoption, adding that "that's something that people have a right to do." But just when he was starting to make sense, he quickly did a political two-step and retracted his statement: "Actually, I think all states but one allow gay adoption. So that's a position which has been decided by most of the state legislatures, including the one in my state some time ago. So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one."

Not only did Romney recant his earlier televised interview, but he did so by misstating the facts. Only 18 states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex parents to petition for joint adoption -- that's a far cry from "all states but one."

Romney reminds me of a kid who is trying his damnedest to get the "cool kids" to like him, but he's failing miserably to convince them he's "down." It's essentially a role reversal from his high-school days as "bully-in-chief," when he led a group of kids in holding down another student as Romney cut his hair while the victim cried and yelled for help. Now, instead of being his own man and showing that he has grown past the "pack mentality," he's decided instead to adopt the role of sheep, following the rest of the conservative right's flock -- right of a cliff! This is the same man who took to the Bay Windows paper in 1994 stating that he would "be better than Ted [Kennedy] for gay rights." Really? But like the right has said about Romney's bullying incident, you can't judge someone on things they did (or said) decades ago -- ain't that the truth!

Danielle Moodie-Mills is the Advisor to LGBT Policy and Racial Justice at the Center for American Progress. Read her musings on politics and pop culture at threeLOL.com, and follow her on Twitter @DeeTwoCents.

ALBION, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska's hearings on the new proposed route for TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline from Canada are drawing big crowds.

The Columbus Telegram reports that more than 160 people attended Wednesday's meeting in Albion.

Pipeline opponents objected to the original route through the Sandhills and the Ogallala aquifer, a massive groundwater supply. TransCanada proposed a new route that avoids the Sandhills.

Some landowners offered praise for the project. Nick Gasper says he thinks project opponents have used scare tactics, and he thinks the pipeline offers more benefits than drawbacks.

Pipeline opponents also attended the hearing. Ken Winston, with the Nebraska Sierra Club, says his group still worries about the pipeline possibly contaminating the aquifer.

These hearings are one of the first steps in the state's review of TransCanada's new proposed route.

___

Information from: Columbus Telegram, http://www.columbustelegram.com

DENVER -- Supporters of traditional marriage rallied at the Colorado Capitol as tensions remained high one day after state Republicans rejected civil unions legislation.

Dozens of people on Tuesday cheered Republican lawmakers and thanked state House Speaker Frank McNulty, who assigned the civil unions bill Monday to a Republican-led House committee sure to defeat the legislation.

A man with a horn heckled McNulty as he urged the crowd to carry the "message throughout the state of Colorado that we will protect families."

At the same time, Democrats blasted McNulty for the demise of the bill and another proposal that would ask voters to repeal three laws that have been ruled unconstitutional. They related to campaign finance and to a 1992 voter-approved ban on cities passing anti-discrimination laws to protect gays.

William McGurn, Wall Street Journal
In his January 2011 inaugural address, California Gov. Jerry Brown declared it a "time to honestly assess our financial condition and make the tough choices." Plainly the choices weren't tough enough: Mr. Brown has just announced that he faces a state budget deficit of $16 billion—nearly twice the $9.2 billion he predicted in January. In Sacramento Monday, he coupled a new round of spending cuts with a call for some hefty new tax hikes.In his own inaugural address back in January 2010, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also spoke of making tough choices for the people of...

Drucker & Livingston, Roll Call
As Washington's tea party class endeavors to rekindle the movement's magic, this month's Texas Republican Senate primary stands as a crucial test of its strength and influence.The effort might backfire in Nebraska, where GOP Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) and conservative organizations including the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks have been stumping for state Treasurer Don Stenberg in Tuesday's three-way GOP Senate primary. 

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. -- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has told University of North Carolina graduates that last week's gay marriage vote shows there is still a lot of work to be done for civil rights in this country.

Bloomberg spoke Sunday to thousands of graduates at Kennan Stadium.

Bloomberg told them Americans have slowly understood since this country was founded that if the government can deny freedom to one person, it can deny freedom to everyone. The mayor says every generation has brought more freedom to this country, and he expects the latest generation to continue to the work, especially in light of last Tuesday's vote approving a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Bloomberg also says the university's motto, "Light and Liberty," should be the defining spirit of this century.

BAGHDAD — In the face of spiraling costs and Iraqi officials who say they never wanted it in the first place, the State Department has slashed — and may jettison entirely by the end of the year — a multibillion-dollar police training program that was to have been the centerpiece of a hugely expanded civilian mission here.

Mitt Romney walked back on his earlier comment that it's "fine" for gay couples to adopt, saying he will "simply acknowledge" that gay adoption is legal.

"Well actually I think all states but one allow gay adoption, so that's a position which has been decided by most of the state legislators, including the one in my state some time ago," Romney told Charlotte, North Carolina's WBTV on Friday. "So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one."

Romney's thoughts on gay adoption came up just one day earlier in an interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto. Romney appeared on the show to discuss President Barack Obama's recent support of same-sex marriage when he made a comment on gay couples' parenting.

"I happen to believe that the best setting for raising a child is where this is the opportunity to a mom and a dad to be in the home," Romney said. "I know there are many circumstances where that is not possible, through death or divorce. I also know many gay couples are able to adopt children. That's fine."

Since Obama came out in support of gay marriage on Wednesday, Romney has continually reiterated his views on the issue. While delivering Liberty University's 2012 commencement address on Saturday, Romney again emphasized his stance, saying he believes "marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

(Updates with details)

* Targets "gateway sexual activities" like touching genitals

* Critics fear limitations will hamper safe sex education

* Tennessee's sex ed law fodder for comedians

By Tim Ghianni

NASHVILLE, Tenn, May 11 (Reuters) - Tennessee teachers can no longer condone so-called "gateway sexual activity" such as touching genitals under a new law that critics say is too vague and could hamper discussion about safe sexual behavior.

Governor Bill Haslam's office Friday confirmed that he had signed the bill, which stirred up controversy nationwide and even was lampooned by comedian Stephen Colbert.

"Kissing and hugging are the last stop before reaching Groin Central Station, so it's important to ban all the things that lead to the things that lead to sex," he said on the "Colbert Report" television show.

But proponents say the new law helps define the existing abstinence-only sex-education policy.

Under the law, Tennessee teachers could be disciplined and speakers from outside groups like Planned Parenthood could face fines of up to $500 for promoting or condoning "gateway sexual activities."

David Fowler, president of the Family Action Council of Tennessee, which pushed the bill, said it does not ban kissing or holding hands from discussion in sex ed classes. But he said it addresses the touching of certain "gateway body parts," including genitals, buttocks, breasts and the inner thigh.

It is unclear from the bill's wording whether Tennessee teachers could promote masturbation.

The bill sailed through the legislative session, passing the Senate 28-1 and the House 68-23.

Opponents, which include Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee and the state teachers' union, say that before they can begin fighting the new law, they have to be able to figure it out. They worry that discussion of sexual behavior could be interpreted as condoning it.

"The very ambiguous language in this bill certainly puts teachers in a very difficult situation" when it comes to knowing what to teach, said Jerry Winters, spokesman for the Tennessee Education Association.

Fowler said the new law was authored in part because of incidents in which teachers were instructing about alternate sexual practices as ways to have gratification without risking pregnancy, according to Fowler.

He said one such incident involved a Nashville high school teacher who was encouraging girls to give boys oral sex in order to get a condom on them.

Fowler also pointed to a Planned Parenthood-organized program at a school in Knoxville, where students were directed to a web site "that actually lists as possible methods of birth control things like oral sex and anal sex play that I think most Tennesseans would find inappropriate."

Lyndsey Godwin, manager of education and training for Planned Parenthood, said the idea that her group was encouraging such behavior was "utterly false." She said that while Planned Parenthood educators may answer a student's question by agreeing that anal and oral sex don't lead to pregnancy, they also emphasize the disease risks.

Godwin said Planned Parenthood supports the state's abstinence-centered policy, but the reality is not everyone can be abstinent. She said that being able to address issues of condom use, contraception and answer questions about sexual behaviors to educate students are essential to her group's role.

Winters of the Tennessee Education Association said that already existing sex education policy was "quite adequate."

"It does focus on abstinence, but in this modern world to say that 'just say no' is the answer to teenage pregnancy is putting your head in the sand," Winters said. (Reporting By Tim Ghianni; Editing by Mary Wisniewski and Lisa Shumaker)

Carl Campanile, New York Post
Bill Clinton thought so little of President Obama — mocking him as an “amateur” — that he pressed his wife last summer to quit her job as secretary of state and challenge him in the primaries, a new book claims,  “The country needs you!” the former president told Hillary Clinton, urging her to run this year, according to accounts of the conversation included in Edward Klein’s new biography of Obama.  The title of Klein’s explosive, unauthorized bio of Obama, “The Amateur”...

The 2012 election should be about what's going on in America's boardrooms, but Republicans would rather it be about America's bedrooms.

Mitt Romney says he's against same-sex marriage; President Obama just announced his support. North Carolina voters have approved a Republican-proposed amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage. Minnesota voters will be considering a similar amendment in November. Republicans in Maryland and Washington State are seeking to overturn legislative approval of same-sex marriage there.

Meanwhile, Republicans have introduced over four hundred bills in state legislatures aimed at limiting women's reproductive rights -- banning abortions, requiring women seeking abortions to have invasive ultra-sound tests beforehand, and limiting the use of contraceptives.

The Republican bedroom crowd doesn't want to talk about the nation's boardrooms because that's where most of their campaign money comes from. And their candidate for president has made a fortune playing board rooms like checkers.

Yet America's real problems have nothing to do with what we do in our bedrooms and everything to do with what top executives do in their boardrooms and executive suites.

We're not in trouble because gays want to marry or women want to have some control over when they have babies. We're in trouble because CEOs are collecting exorbitant pay while slicing the pay of average workers, because the titans of Wall Street demand short-term results over long-term jobs, and because of a boardroom culture that tolerates financial conflicts of interest, insider trading, and the outright bribery of public officials through unlimited campaign "donations."

Our crisis has nothing to do with private morality. It's a crisis of public morality -- of abuses of public trust that undermine the integrity of our economy and democracy and have led millions of Americans to conclude the game is rigged.

What's truly immoral is not what adults choose to do with other consenting adults. It's what those with great power have chosen to do to the rest of us.

It is immoral that top executives are richly rewarded no matter how badly they screw up while most Americans are screwed no matter how hard they work.

Regressive Republicans have no problem intruding on the most personal and most intimate decisions any of us makes while railing against government intrusions on big business.

They don't hesitate to hurl the epithets "shameful," "disgraceful," and "contemptible" at private moral decisions they disagree with, while staying stone silent in the face of the most contemptible violations of public trust at the highest reaches of the economy.

We must protect and advance private rights of individuals over intimate bedroom decisions. We must also stop the abuses of economic power and privilege that are characterizing so many decisions in the nation's boardrooms and executive suites.

ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

BEIRUT, May 10 (Reuters) - Dozens of people were killed or wounded in two "terrorist explosions" which struck a southern district of the Syrian capital Damascus on Thursday, state television said.

Television footage showed dozens of mangled, burnt and smouldering vehicles, some containing incinerated human remains. A large crater could be seen in the road and at least one lorry had been overturned.

Damascus residents said the two explosions, which happened almost simultaneously shortly before 8 a.m. (0500 GMT), struck a district of Damascus which houses a military intelligence complex involved in President Bashar al-Assad's crackdown on 14 months of protests. (Reporting by Dominic Evans; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)

Charles Mahtesian, Politico
So how did a felon incarcerated in a Texas prison manage to win 41 percent of the Democratic primary vote against the president of the United States?For starters, Keith Judd was either clever or lucky enough to have filed for the ballot in the heart of Appalachia's anti-Obama belt.West Virginia's county-by-county numbers tell an interesting story: Judd defeated the incumbent president in 9 counties across the state, and held him under 60 percent in 30 of West Virginia's 55 counties.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's campaign says he's "disappointed" with North Carolina's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Obama campaign spokesman Cameron French said in a Tuesday statement that the ban on same-sex unions is "divisive and discriminatory." French says same-sex couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.

Obama officials have been embroiled in a national discussion of same-sex marriage since Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that he is "absolutely comfortable" with gay marriage. Obama himself hasn't embraced legalizing gay marriage, saying his views on the subject are "evolving."

North Carolinians overwhelming voted Tuesday to amend their state constitution, strengthening a state law that already outlawed same-sex unions.

Peter Wehner, Commentary
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore," Dorothy says in "The Wizard of Oz." Barack Obama might have had the same sensation this weekend when, in his first official campaign event at the Schottenstein Center at Ohio State, Obama spoke to a crowd of 14,000 in a center that fits 20,000. "There were," according to the Toledo Blade, "a lot of empty seats." This happened despite the fact that Obama volunteers worked feverishly to gin up a crowd.

James Piereson, The American Spectator
When the Soviet empire collapsed 25 years ago, many believed that the battle for liberty and limited government had been won. It was only a matter of time, they thought, until America's centrally planned welfare state would give way to a more rational system based upon competition and citizen choice in areas such as education, health care, and retirement planning. They were wrong. Government has continued to grow at all levels in the United States since the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall came down, consuming more resources, imposing ever more burdensome regulations on business, and...