Gingrich takes first step toward 2012 run

(CNN) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday that he is taking the first official step toward a presidential bid.

"We will look at this very seriously and we will very methodically lay out the framework of what we'll do next," Gingrich said during a news conference in Atlanta, Georgia.

Gingrich, who appeared alongside Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, announced the launch of the website NewtExplore2012.com to accompany the exploratory phase. The site is paid for by "Newt Exploratory 2012."

Earlier in the day, he told Georgia radio host Martha Zoller that "Callista and I prepared to see if there are enough folks who want to see if we can get this country back on the right track."

Gingrich is "beginning an exploratory phase," spokesman Rick Tyler said. How long this phase will last, he said, "depends on the success for the phase."

Gingrich is not forming an exploratory committee at this time, Tyler said, and one reason is that he and his wife "have several businesses" and they need to "tie up some loose ends."

The announcement comes just days after Gingrich's political team scrambled to clarify the Republican's presidential intentions after multiple news organizations reported that Gingrich planned to announce the formation of a presidential exploratory committee during his trip to Georgia on Thursday.

Throughout the day, Republicans familiar with Gingrich's plans told numerous media outlets, including CNN, that Gingrich would enter a presidential exploratory phase that would include formation of a committee.

But Tyler circulated a statement to reporters Tuesday night contradicting that announcement, saying "Speaker Gingrich is in Georgia on Thursday, he will NOT announce the formation of an exploratory committee."

Source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/Y8qjWVFgANI/index.html

fox news hamid karzai barak obama hillary clinton george w bush

Crime, immigration topics of Calderon visit

Mexican President Felipe Calderon travels to Washington on Thursday to meet with President Barack Obama, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner and others during a two-day visit likely to include discussions on organized crime, immigration and commerce.

There has been tension between the United States and Mexico recently, and the meeting may serve to smooth things out.

A U.S. diplomatic cable released last fall by WikiLeaks quoted U.S. officials talking about "widespread corruption" in Mexican security agencies and "a dysfunctionally low level of collaboration." The cable, dated January 29, 2010, also described the Mexican army as "slow" and "risk averse" and concluded that only 2% of people arrested in Ciudad Juarez -- the most violent city in Mexico, wracked by drug-cartel-related killings -- were charged with a crime.

Source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/laTL8znFU50/index.html

bill oreilly fox news hamid karzai barak obama hillary clinton

Dems, GOP switch places on border security

Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a CNN.com contributor, a nationally syndicated columnist and an NPR commentator.

San Diego, California (CNN) -- What if, as Americans, everything we thought we knew about the politics of border security were wrong?

Notice, I said "the politics" of border security. That means the way both political parties use and manipulate for political benefit what should be top priority: securing our nation's borders.

I mean "borders." Plural. Not just the southern one that separates our country from dark-skinned people whom many Americans consider inferior and dangerous.

Given what we hear in the public debate, we assume that Republicans are tough on border security, especially to combat illegal immigration, and that Democrats are soft.

But in politics, you have to ignore what people say and watch what they do. And, looking at what politicians do, it seems we have it backward. Republicans are the soft ones, and Democrats are trying to be tougher.

Neither party is acting out of a noble adherence to principle or what it thinks is best for the country. It's all about what's good for the party politically. That's interesting because, in these new roles, the politicos are going against elements of their base. They're gambling the base doesn't notice and they're able to bring in new voters or sew up political contributions.

No other conclusions can be drawn from the budget battle in Washington and the negative impact it will have on funding for security along the border.

First, the good news: Republicans managed to cut $4 billion in spending from last year in a stop-gap measure. But the bad news is they are proposing damaging cuts to border control and customs enforcement budgets that translate into losing hundreds of border agents and nearly $300 million worth of high-tech surveillance equipment.

That's a retreat from a $600 million emergency border security bill passed by Congress last August that, among other things, allowed for 1,000 new border patrol agents.

Aren't these the same Republicans who like to stoke the fires of the immigration debate by blasting the Obama administration, and the Democratic Party, as ineffective at guarding the border and who pitch themselves as the only ones concerned with securing it?

So much for truth in advertising.

Why would Republicans undermine what they claim to be their priorities? Maybe it's that their real priority is keeping big business happy, and the best way to do that is by providing a fluid border and a steady stream of cheap and dependable labor.

But that's only half the story. Who do you suppose is pushing in the other direction by fighting the Republicans and defending the border? The Democrats.

Three Democratic senators -- Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Charles Schumer of New York, and Jon Tester of Montana -- recently complained about the Republican budget's cuts in border security and wrote a letter to House Republican leaders, calling the changes -- 870 fewer border agents, for one -- "dangerous" and "irresponsible."

This is, let's remember, the same Democratic Party that normally disparages and dismisses the GOP immigration strategy of "enforcement only" and, at least rhetorically, supports a more comprehensive approach that legalizes the undocumented. That's what Democrats want their liberal base -- especially Latinos -- to believe.

But in truth, Democrats are too scared and too disinterested to propose a workable comprehensive immigration reform plan, or to even bring up the issue in any meaningful way.

Schumer has an immigration bill that doesn't have a prayer of passing because it deliberately leaves out language calling for guest workers that might have won some Republican votes. Besides, you'd never know the bill exists because Schumer has been so quiet and low-key about it.

The three Democrats resisting cuts to border control and customs better hope that this doesn't get back to Latino voters, who were under the assumption that Democrats were the grown-ups in the immigration debate. Latinos thought Democrats understood that even 20,000 border patrol agents, surveillance cameras on the border, and 20 foot-high walls are not enough to stop people who are desperate to feed their families from penetrating a barrier and seeking out a grueling and low-wage job that lets them accomplish this goal.

But what Democrats understand most clearly is that they can't continue to be re-elected by mainstream voters if they're perceived as "dovish" on border security. They also understand that their benefactors in organized labor want them to do a better job of keeping out illegal immigrants as a way of limiting competition for jobs.

That's it. That's what is happening in Congress on the issue of border security -- and why. And it's not good.

Americans like to talk about how we have a broken border. That's nothing. You want broken? Forget the border. Take a good look at our political system.

The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarrette Jr.

Source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/cXjoCnfEucM/index.html

bill oreilly fox news hamid karzai barak obama hillary clinton

New Republic: Newt Gingrich, Chameleon Candidate

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is expected to announce today that he is exploring a decision to run for presidency. Ed Kilgore of The New Republic analyzes Gingrich's politics over the years, and argues that if Gingrich were to decide to run, his skilled ability to constantly adapt his politics to the needs of the Republican party could be on his side.

Source: http://www.npr.org/2011/03/03/134225208/new-republic-newt-gingrich-chameleon-candidate?ft=1&f=1014

hamid karzai barak obama hillary clinton george w bush nancy pelosi

Study: Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Like Chemicals

"Then, you greatly increase the probability that you're going to get chemicals having estrogenic activity released," he says, adding that more than 95 percent of the products tested positive after undergoing this sort of stress.

But what about all those products marketed as BPA-free? That's a claim being made for everything from dog bowls to bento boxes these days.

The team concentrated on BPA-free baby bottles and water bottles, Bittner says, "and all of them released chemicals having estrogenic activity." Sometimes the BPA-free products had even more activity than products known to contain BPA.

The testing didn't show which chemicals are to blame, which is likely to be frustrating to manufacturers.

But Bittner says consumers should be encouraged that at least some plastic products had no estrogen-like activity. He says that shows it is possible to make these products.

Early reaction to the study was mixed. Some scientists wondered about the test's reliability. Others noted that wine and many vegetables also can act like estrogen. And a few observed that Bittner has a financial interest in the testing lab and in a company involved in making plastic products that don't release estrogenic chemicals.

On the other hand, groups that have warned about the potential dangers of BPA in the past seemed to welcome the new research.

"This is really helpful because they took a look at very common products," says Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group.

But the results suggest that concerns about plastics can't be solved by worried consumers at the checkout counter, Lunder says. It's a problem for government, she says.

"Regulatory agencies need to study the effect of chemicals leaching out of plastic," Lunder says, adding that an EPA program formed more than a decade ago to do this sort of research still hasn't produced many results.

Source: http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134196209/study-most-plastics-leach-hormone-like-chemicals?ft=1&f=1003

hillary clinton george w bush nancy pelosi harry reid john mccain