* Occupy DC announces it will stage protests during this week's big CPAC confab in Washington. Even money whether CPAC folk will respond with hippie-baiting or self-pity. Maybe both.

* You saw this coming: religious biographer Eric Metaxas compares Obama contraceptive mandate to anti-church policies of Nazi Germany. Interesting parallel since Nazis had strict anti-abortion laws and frowned on birth control.

* You may have seen this coming, too: Administration reportedly seeking compromise with Catholic Bishops.

* WaPo has really lavish graphics for its expose on Members of Congress seeking earmarks with possible connections to their own properties.

* David Frum goes kinda medieval on Charles Murray's new book on white folks.

* Harold Meyerson cracks wise on the Paulite domination of the special Nevada caucus designed mainly for observant Jews.

* Anonymous hacks Assad emails, including crib notes for ABC interview.

I may do a post tonight on the CO-MO-MN results. But then again, I may not, since I'm about to head out for yet another instrusive dental procedure. Barring hospitalization, I will arise from my bed of pain tomorrow morning and take up the speed-blogging yoke as scheduled.

The ever-intrepid Bruce Bartlett notes at the New York Times' Economix blog that with no real fanfare, the House passed a resolution requiring "dynamic scoring" as a sidebar to the Congressional Budget Office's conventional reports. As you might expect, the new report will be "fair and balanced" only in the Fox News sense of the term:

[T]he House-passed legislation would not require a dynamic estimate for appropriations bills, no matter how large. Republicans want the world to know that tax cuts expand real G.D.P., the capital stock and labor supply, but if spending has any such effect they don’t want anyone to know. Implicitly, Republicans want everyone to think that spending never raises growth because it’s their dogma.

But in the real world, everyone knows that government investments in the national highway system, medical and other scientific research, and other programs unquestionably add to growth. And there are times when government spending can provide macroeconomic stimulus, which the C.B.O. has repeatedly documented, to the consternation of Republicans.

It's all a mostly symbolic issue, but is part and parcel of the GOP's longstanding efforts to incorporate its ideology into supposedly objective and nonpartisan sources of information. But aside from the "dynamic scoring" issue, Bruce's post is worth a careful read because it provides a succinct history of supply-side economics and its baleful impact on the budget and every other element of national policy.

First there was Michael Sean Winters, writing "J'Accuse!" in the National Catholic Reporter. "President Barack Obama," Winters wrote, "lost my vote yesterday when he declined to expand the exceedingly narrow conscience exemptions proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services. The issue of conscience protections is so foundational, I do not see how I ever could, in good conscience, vote for this man again."

Next up was E.J. Dionne, a good liberal Democrat (and Catholic), who used his Washington Post column to assail the President for how he "utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health-care law."

Mark Shields, also Catholic, opined on the PBS NewsHour: "The fallout is cataclysmic for the White House and for the president."

Doug Kmiec, the former Reagan administration lawyer who backed Obama in 2008, now says he may not in 2012, over the contraception mandate, and that alone.

With all this Chicken Little talk flying around (at least, as Posner notes, among Catholic men), I looked with more than average interest today at two new polls testing the reactions of Americans, and particularly Catholics, on the issue. If the contraception mandate is going to turn the entire election against Obama, it is not apparent from the numbers.

Here's the key finding from Public Policy Polling's survey:

A solid 56 percent majority of voters support the decision to require health plans to cover prescription birth control with no additional out-of-pocket fees, while only 37 percent are opposed. It’s particularly noteworthy that pivotal independent voters support this benefit by a 55/36 margin; in fact, a majority of voters in every racial, age, and religious category that we track express support. In particular, a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.

The numbers barely budge when respondents are specifically asked about health coverage for employees at Catholic hospitals and universities, in a question framed to include the Bishops' argument that their religious mission requires an exemption.

Prop 8 supporters are now expected to appeal the ruling to the full 9th Circuit, and if they lose there, to the U.S. Supreme Court, the destination of the dispute all along.

While supporters of marriage equality will cheer the news, from a political point of view the proceedings already feel a mite anachronistic. With public opinion steadily trending in favor of marriage equality, it's likely Prop 8 would not win if it were on the California ballot this November. But obviously, the constitutional issue will have a major bearing on same-sex marriage in more conservative states where it might take a number of years for trends to produce a majority for equality.

But instead, Newt Gingrich didn't bother to seek a place on the ballot, and neither Mitt Romney nor Ron Paul is campaigning in Mizzou. Moreover, local Republicans are savagely attacking the event as a waste of taxpayer money.

Turns out the whole thing is a big mistake. In compliance with this year's RNC rules, Missouri Republicans decided to move the primary to March. But the bill the legislature passed to do so succumbed to a veto because it contained non-germane elements offensive to the governor, and Republican solons couldn't get it together to enact a clean bill. To avoid RNC sanctions, the state GOP decided to hold a caucus in March to select delegates, leaving the now-meaningless primary in place.

“Stupidity,” said state Sen. Kevin Engler, a Republican and the author of a bill to do away with today’s primary, of the so-called “beauty contest” vote. ” “It’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen in my time in the legislature.”

The only Republican who seems pleased with the scenario is Rick Santorum, who chose to campaign in Missouri to score a symbolic victory. Perhaps that will work out for him; he's leading in the polls. If he manages to lose, though, Missouri Republicans won't be the only ones who look stupid.

* Karl Rove says he was "offended" by Chrysler Super Bowl ad featuring Clint Eastwood. We all know Karl is a man of exquisite sensitivity.

* Bob Kerrey announces he is not running for the Senate, continuing his streak of non-candidacy announcements.

* In unrelated non-news, Maine's Republicans began a weeklong caucus process on Saturday, at the end of which no delegates will be awarded.

* Jamelle Bouie reports that according to one poll, "birther" convictions are actually increasing among Republicans.

* Former White House intern publishes book about alleged affair with JFK, missing approximately 348 news hooks.

* Thomas Sowell says Romney's disdain for poor showed by his support for minimum wage laws. Seriously.

Back to blogging directly.

What was a thoughtful and thoroughly reviewed decision - one that would have indeed enabled Komen to deliver even greater community impact - has unfortunately been turned into something about politics. This is entirely untrue. This development should sadden us all greatly.

So this politician, who in her last political race made political hay attacking Planned Parenthood, can't imagine why anyone would think politics entered the equation.

Cry me a river, Karen. And maybe next time take a gig that doesn't bring you into direct proximity with one of the targets of your political wrath.

With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.

Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC. We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission.

What this change means practically: Senior campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events. While campaign officials may be appearing at events to amplify our message, these folks won't be soliciting contributions for Priorities USA. I should also note that the President, Vice President, and First Lady will not be a part of this effort; their political activity will remain focused on the President's campaign.

This step is being compared by many to the decision by Obama in 2008 to reject public funds (and the spending limits accompanying them) after promising to play within that system. I don't see it. For one thing, while Obama and other Democrats have deplored the Supreme Court decision that enabled Super PACs, I haven't heard him make any specific promise that he would perpetually oppose the creation of one by Democrats. Moreover, in 2008, John McCain was in a position to attack Obama's "flip-flop" on public financing because he was accepting public funds himself. No Republican candidate is in a position to exhibit innocence with respect to Super PACs.

Sure, GOPers will cry "hypocrisy," while some goo-goo folks will cluck disapprovingly. And the content of Super PAC ads and other activities on both sides could well become an occasional campaign issue. But the minimal political cost of this fairly obvious decision can't come close to matching the potential benefit of leveling the playing field. Super PACs have already become a huge factor in this presidential race. Wishing them away won't do a bit of good, and until such time as the composition of the Supreme Court changes, they will remain an unfortunate but immovable part of the political landscape.

Erickson is basically conducting a slow-motion hissy fit because his guy, Rick Perry (who did a lot for Erickson's ego by announcing his candidacy in a red-meat-filled speech to a Red State gathering in SC) self-destructed. Now he gets to enjoy sniping at the field from his perch as an ideological commissar before getting back to the serious work of hurling rhetorical lightning bolts at the president in his patented self-satisfied manner.

In a way, he really is faithfully representing his constituency. No matter how hard Republicans tack right, it's never, ever enough.

I thought about embedding the ad here, but didn't have enough hand sanitizer. It's offensive not only to Asian-Americans, but to basic good taste.

It's not clear exactly which hammer-headed media consultant first came up with the idea of associating political opponents with cheerful furriners thanking them for their treachery, but he or she is probably going to hell. Hoeckstra's "Thank you, Debbie Spenditnow" spot ranks right down there with Jim Bunning's infamous "Muchas gracias, Senor Baesler" ad in the hall of shame; indeed, it was probably inspired by it.

Michigan voters now have a special responsibility to reward Hoekstra--who calls himself Pete Spenditnot in the ad--for his contribution to the tone of American politics by making him Pete Winitnot. He should have a fine retirement career back home telling racist jokes down at the barbershop.

Vargas was reacting to the news that Mitt had named former California Gov. Pete Wilson "honorary chairman" of his campaign in the Golden State, and said all sorts of nice things about him.

Wilson last made political news for his prominent role (he was campaign chairman) in the disastrous, wildly expensive 2010 gubernatorial bid of Meg Whitman. Indeed, eMeg's association with Wilson was widely understood to have doomed her with Latino voters. It is no exaggeration to say that the former governor, who identified the California GOP with anti-immigrant resentments back in the 1990s, is The Boogeyman to Latinos in the state.

So why would Mitt Romney go out of his way to snuggle up to Wilson? Beats me, unless it's all about fundraising. It's true that Romney isn't going to carry California in a general election anyway, and it's also true that Wilson's notoriety is largely limited to that state. But in a year when the Latino vote nationally could well be the ballgame, it's just bizarre that a candidate who already has problems with this segment of the electorate would make this gratuitous gesture of contempt. It's not as though Wilson is some conservative celebrity who will help him nail down the nomination, either; hard-core California conservatives consider him a squish on issues other than immigration.

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if Mitt is really the remorselessly efficient robo-pol he's cracked up to be. Embracing Wilson is the kind of thing a novice candidate desperate for any kind of support might do. For Mitt Romney, it's simply an unforced error.

Public Policy Polling, which has conducted surveys in all three states, shows Santorum likely to win in Missouri (where Gingrich is not on the ballot) and Minnesota, and to run a strong second to Romney in Colorado. Here's PPP's Tom Jensen on why Ricky's doing so well:

Santorum's personal popularity is the main reason for his sudden reemergence as a relevant player in the GOP race. In all 3 of these states his favorability is over 70%- 74/17 in Minnesota, 72/17 in Missouri, and 71/19 in Colorado. He's far better liked than his main opponents- Romney's favorability is 47-60% in those states and Gingrich's is 47-48%. While Romney and Gingrich have hammered each other in recents weeks Santorum's been largely left alone and he's benefiting from that now.

There are three groups Santorum's winning in all three of these states: Tea Partiers, Evangelicals, and those describing themselves as 'very conservative.' Those were groups that had previously been in Gingrich's column, but it appears right leaning Republican voters are shifting toward Santorum as their primary alternative to Romney. If Santorum does pick up 2 wins and a 2nd place finish tomorrow that trend is likely to be accelerated.

In the state he is most likely to lose, Colorado, Santorum has been ringing up some big endorsements, with former statewide candidates Bob Schaeffer, Jane Norton, and nativist chieftain Tom Tancredo all lining up with him. He also had an interesting moment in Colorado Springs with another prominent supporter, Christian Right eminence grise James Dobson:

“This could be the place where it turns around,” Dobson said at an evening rally, trying to motivate followers of his conservative group to join Santorum’s coalition.

“I have great concern about the other individuals in this race. … It would appear to me that Mitt Romney is not a conservative. And Newt Gingrich, I don’t know what he is,” Dobson said.

Someone shouted from the back of the room: “Swinger.”

The most immediate implication of a big day for Santorum will be to keep him in the race for a while longer, which will also help keep opponents of Mitt Romney nicely divided. But Ricky will richly enjoy his day in the sun, which might be his last in this race.

* Rep. Jon Fleming (R-LA) unironically cites a satirical article from The Onion in attacking Planned Parenthood on Facebook. Time to overhaul that social media team.

* Aging crooner and Christian Right warhorse Pat Boone endorses Rick Santorum.

* Tom Carson says Clint Eastwood beat Madonna in Super Bowl "celebrity death match for the ages."

* Compromise by Senate Dems and White House on union rights in FAA bill has aroused a lot of anger in labor circles.

* Leading conservative evangelical in British Tory circles breaks with allies and endorses same-sex marriage.

* Jordan Michael Smith examines DC wonk-rock scene.

* National Review columnist calls failed strip-malls "Obamavilles." Doesn't quite have the resonance of Depression-era tent-city Hoovervilles, but we'll give him an "E" for effort.

Tomorrow we have Republican caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota, and a non-binding primary in Missouri. Aside from looking at those contests and dealing with the news of the day, I plan to drill deeper on the whole "Obama alienates Catholics" meme.

Selah.

But as Rucker's campaign sources document, it sure looks like Mitt's days of exposing himself to situations where he might be tempted to go "off-message" are at an end:

“You’re safe, you’re steady, you don’t put your candidate in a place where there could be any kind of a pitfall, you stick with the themes that have worked with you so far until you see reason to change them — and I don’t see any reason,” said one Romney adviser who requested anonymity to discuss the campaign’s strategy.

This kind of approach was pioneered by Richard Nixon back in 1968, in the highly scripted campaign that was the focus of Joe McGinnis' famous book The Selling of the President 1968. And even though--or perhaps because--Nixon began his march to the presidency that year by croaking the earnest, old-school candidacy of Mitt's father George--there really is a plausible connection between the campaigns of Tricky Dick and Flip-Flopping Mitt. Both candidacies exemplify the art of self-reinvention, the science of strategic pandering, the attractiveness of flawed but shrewd pols to a party desperate for victory, and the power of an essentially amoral campaign apparatus designed to reveal or disguise the Next President of the United States as circumstances demand. Of course Mitt will now occlude himself as much as possible. What possible reason could he have for behaving otherwise? A desire for authenticity? Too late for that.

This occurs to me today having read another in an interminable line of conservative assertions that progressives secretly want Republicans to nominate Mitt Romney. Now I know a few progressive analysts who really do welcome a Romney nomination, but they generally say so. And the un-silent majority who would love nothing more than an extended GOP cage match crowned with a Gingrich victory tends to be influenced by objective factors like polls and Newt's rich history of political self-destruction. They are not privately conspiring to encourage a walk down the primrose path for the GOP. Even if they felt that way, progressives are far too undisciplined and chatty to deny the public their unfiltered thoughts.

Conservatives are entitled to their counter-intuitive theories (shared by quite a few folk on the Left) that "moderates" are general-election losers while ideologues have the power to both mobilize the ideological base and persuade swing voters by the sheer coherence of their weltanschauung. But if the validity of your theory depends on asserting superior knowledge of my "true" thoughts, you are lost in the fever swamps, buddy, where omniscience is a common delusion.