Poor Rick Santorum. After finishing third in South Carolina, he just got glitter-bombed. Again.

Members of the occupy Charleston movement hurled glitter at Rick while screaming “Gay rights!” and “Occupy!” Perhaps not quite the consolation prize he was looking for.

Santorum has a long track record as an opponent of gay rights.

Perhaps the most violent controversy was spurred by a 2003 interview during which some claim he equated gay marriage with bestiality and pedophilia. (An excerpt of the interview transcript is here).

More recently, he was booed by students during an interview in New Hampshire when he repeatedly brought up polygamy during a series of questions about gay marriage.

Even Meghan McCain (daughter of Sen. John McCain) has gone on the record calling Santorum’s views “dated,” and, “gross”.

Santorum may be confused as to what gay marriage actually is. We recommend someone show him this handy diagram, stat.

Newt Gingrich’s triumph in the recent South Carolina Primary has been largely attributed to his sharp performances in two recent televised debates.

The signature highlight of debate #1 was a confrontation Newt had with Fox News correspondent and former-NPR reporter Juan Williams.

Williams asked Newt Gingrich if calling President Obama the “Food Stamps President” could be considered offensive to low-income people and people of color.

Gingrich’s indignant response, showcased in the clip above, largely blew-off the question. Williams followed up the former Speaker of the House’s response with his assertion that Gingrich might be coming across as “belittling people.”

Gingrich dismissed the claim.

Clearly “Food Stamp President” was meant to be a pejorative slam. But it’s not a surprise that the statement carries a racial connotation for many.

It is reminiscent of President Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign term “Welfare Queens” that many studies have shown carry a clear racial code. Representative Clyburn and Representative Sheila Jackson Lee condemned the label as racially coded.

“Food stamps” is the now-outdated term for SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that President Bush had a large part in rebranding and de-stigmatizing.

When taking a look at the hard numbers, the President who hailed the largest number of food stamps recipients and who experienced the largest program growth was President George W. Bush, with a 63% jump in recipients and an increase in recipients for 7 out of his 8 years in office.

What was arguably more despicable was Gingrich’s pointed comment about Juan Williams after the debate:

I had a very interesting dialogue Monday night in Myrtle Beach with Juan Williams about the idea of work, which seemed to Juan Williams to be a strange, distant concept.

Hmm, not sure we follow you there, Newt. Especially when considering the way Williams reacted during the debate – oh, and the fact that Williams has been pretty prominently employed as a journalist, author, and commentator for years.

We tend to agree with this quote by senior editor at The Atlantic Ta-Nehisi Coates, which pretty much sums it up:

The notion that Gingrich is somehow unaware of that “food stamp president” has racial connotations, that he is being on the level when he says the black community should not be satisfied with food stamps, requires an extension of supernatural generosity.

South Carolina Primary final numbers, courtesy Current.com

Before any of the numbers were in last night, Newt Gingrich was declared the victor of the first Republican primary in the South by all of the major news networks.

Exit polls showed that Gingrich was double-digits ahead of Mitt Romney, a candidate that has been struggling with media coverage and losing popularity after Gingrich’s attack on Romney, in which he painted the Massachusetts Governor as a moderate and exploitative capitalist for his work at Bain Capital.

Many commentators are predicting a similar outcome in Florida, the next primary stop. Other commentators suspect a Santorum drop-out, with the possibility of a Gingrich endorsement. All in all, the three votes so far do not point to a clear winner, with each of the three showings declaring three unique outcomes.

To see the final numbers from the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, click the image above.

Would you vote for Stephen Colbert? Well technically you can’t because he was not on the ballot in South Carolina (or yet elsewhere). But a road block like that is laughable to Colbert.

Last week a South Carolina poll put the comedian’s popularity at 5 percent, ahead of former Governor John Huntsman (some think this humiliation helped to hasten Huntsman’s departure from the Presidential race).

This prompted Colbert to announce his intention to form an exploratory committee to decide if he should make a run for the White House. It seems as though he might test his luck.

Now, South Carolina doesn’t have write-ins, and Colbert is about two months late to file, so he decided to do the next best thing; run using someone who’s name is already on the ballot. So to quote the Colbert “A vote for Herman Cane is a vote for me.” Herman Cain, received over 6000 votes in the South Carolina primary.

USDemocrazy has never endorsed anyone but we are very eager to see how the Colbert campaign develops. Maybe this time next year we will be inaugurating President-Elect Rev. Sir. Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA.

Image from the Daily Kos!

This year could be a big one for supporters of marriage equality across the country. State legislatures in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland are all engaging the issue this year.

In order for marriage equality to pass, supporters need both Democrats and Republicans to vote for it.

But Republicans who decide to support the measure have to break ranks with their party to do so – and for many that could mean angering conservative constituents and tempting primary challenges.

But the numbers are telling a different story for those Republicans who support marriage equality.

While some supporters are touting the economic benefits of marriage equality for states,  the newest round of campaign finance reports tells of a different kind of economic benefit that comes along with supporting same-sex marriage

The New York Times published an article this week reporting that the four Republican senators who split with their party to support gay marriage in New York have seen HUGE jumps in their fundraising.

One senator received 27 times as many donations in this most recent fundraising period compared to the same one in 2009, before his vote.  Much of the donations came from people who often identified as both gay and far left.  Many had never supported a Republican before, but money started flowing into the four senators for their support.

These four senators aren’t the only ones making some moo-la from marriage.  Governor Andrew Cuomo, whose fervent support was credited with the measure’s success, raised over 6 million dollars in the six months after his effort.  And three Wall Street Executives donated $350,000 to the NY Senate Republican Campaign Committee – who came out AGAINST the bill – as a thank you for allowing the vote to take place.

A strategist for the Human Rights Campaign, one of the national organizations working on LGBT equality issues, explained that

It was essential to send a clear signal around the country that we will support those who support equality, irrespective of party.  We were able to win marriage in New York with a bipartisan coalition of fair-minded elected officials. We need to replicate that if we are to keep winning.

So what do you think – are these political contributions better than a thank you note?  Will donors follow suit if Republicans in WA, MD, and NJ also break ranks?  And should Republicans making up their minds about marriage equality take these possible benefits into consideration?