President Obama’s regulation mandating that health insurance plans offer free birth control is an issue that most directly affects women. And yet, the cable news chatter over this controversy has been driven mostly by men, according to a new ThinkProgress analysis.

From Monday through Thursday evening, the leading cable news channels – Fox, Fox Business, MSNBC, and CNN – invited almost twice as many men as women onto their shows to discuss contraceptive coverage.

Out of a total of 146 guests who discussed contraception, the cables invited 91 men compared to 55 women as commentators. In other words, males comprised 62 percent of the total guests who commented on contraception. Fox was the most gender stratified network – on the Business network, 10 of 11 guests were male; on the News side, male pundits took up 65 percent of the guest lineup (28 men vs. 15 women). Sixty percent of MSNBC’s lineup was male (44 men vs. 31 women). And while CNN was more evenly balanced, it was still slightly tilted in favor of male perspectives (9 men vs. 8 women).

A note on methodology: The survey did not include male or female hosts of shows who happened to comment on the controversy. Some guests, like Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), appeared more than once during this stretch, but on different programs and networks. Each appearance was counted separately.

Contraceptive coverage is an issue where female perspectives should be heeded and understood. When it comes to contraceptive coverage, adding women’s voices on everything from their experiences with insurers to the decision’s impact on women voters can only make for a richer conversation. Hopefully, those individuals responsible for booking television guests will be more cognizant of gender sensitivities going forward.

During a political discussion at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) today, Fox News pundit and conservative columnist Cal Thomas continued the ugliness. After the Heritage’s Genevieve Wood played a quote of Maddow eloquently debunking the conservative argument on contraception, Thomas said:

I’m glad that you played the Rachel Maddow clip because I think she is the best argument in favor of her parents using contraception. I would be all for that. And all of the rest of the crowd at MSNBC, too, for that matter.

No one on the panel condemned the comment. Watch it:

Feherty began the conversation by lobbying Tebow to run. “I have an idea — would you ever think of running for office, please?” Feherty asked. “We’ve got Romney and Gingrich out there at the minute, and I don’t know what anyone else thinks, but they got the sort of faces that you’d never get tired of punching.”

The deeply-religious Tebow said that politics is “something I’ll have to think about, and if I pray about, and you know, I have no idea right now, but possibly.” Watch it:

Conservative politicians have been politicizing Tebow, seizing on his popularity for their own political benefit.

In one of Tebow’s rare instances of engaging in politics, he appeared in a 2007 Super Bowl ad for the anti-gay group Focus on the Family. The ad, featuring he and his mother, was intended to communicate an anti-abortion message. Watch it here.

That idea — which forms the basis of the radical anti-immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama — is inspired by the work of Kris Kobach, Kansas’ Secretary of State. Kobach, who advises Romney on immigration, explained the “self-deporation” concept in an interview with ThinkProgress recently, calling it “attrition through enforcement.”

In an interview with Univision’s Jorge Ramos, John McCain — who has endorsed Romney — distanced himself from the former Massachusetts governor’s rhetoric. “We have to present a humane approach to a very difficult issue of illegal immigration into this country,” McCain said, adding that he favors a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. Ramos forced McCain to concede that he did not agree with the policy of self-deporation:

RAMOS: You’re talking about a humane way. Is self-deportation a humane way to treat 11 million undocumented immigrants?

McCAIN: No. I think there are some people who want to leave this country and return to the country they came from, but obviously it requires a broader solution than that, and we all know that.

Watch it:

Romney and Kobach’s radicalism is alienating allies in the Republican Party — even those who have endorsed Romney. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who supports Romney, said self-deportation “was frankly a bad choice of words.” Alex Garza, the vice president of Hispanics in Politics — and a Republican — said “the Republican Party shouldn’t promote policies of family separation. Self-deportation isn’t possible.”

Newt Gingrich also assailed Romney, saying “I think he’s amazingly insensitive to the realities of the immigrant community — his whole concept of self-deportation. I’ve not met anyone who thinks it’s in touch with reality. People aren’t going to self-deport.”

LTG (Ret) William Boykin has decided to withdraw speaking at West Point’s National Prayer Breakfast on 8 February 2012. In fulfilling its commitment to the community, the United States Military Academy will feature another speaker for the event.

VoteVets, the coalition of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, is to be commended for raising this issue and putting pressure on West Point to do the right thing. VoteVets Chairman Jon Soltz told ThinkProgress this evening, “This is why VoteVets exists — the calls from veterans, activists, and civil rights leaders around the country made this decision possible. I’m glad that the cadets will not be forced to hear the words of an anti-Muslim general whose rhetoric does not align with the values of our military and also endangers our troops in combat.”

Boykin has a deep record of anti-Muslim rhetoric. For instance, he said there should be “no mosques in America“; Muslims worship an “idol“; “Islam is a totalitarian way of life, it’s not just a religion”; “it should not be protected under the First Amendment”; Muslims operate “under an obligation to destroy our Constitution.”

Hopefully, Boykin will learn from this incident that his rhetoric is both wrong and hurtful.

The West Point Chapel

VoteVets, a coalition of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, called on West Point to rescind Boykin’s invitation. “The presence of LTG Boykin at West Point would violate Army Values, as well as potentially be used as propaganda by the enemy and endanger our troops in combat,” Jon Soltz and Richard Allen Smith wrote in a letter to West Point’s superintendent.

In a statement issued to ThinkProgress, West Point’s Director of Public Affairs, Lt. Col. Sherri Reed, said the military academy stands by its decision to host Boykin and that the invitation is “in keeping with the broad range of ideas normally considered by our cadets”:

The U.S. Military Academy at West Point prepares cadets to be leaders of character with honor and consideration of others. In order to produce effective 21st Century leaders for our Army, and our Nation, cadets are purposefully exposed to different perspectives and cultures over the course of their 47-month experience at West Point.

The National Prayer Breakfast Service will be pluralistic with Christians, Jewish, and Muslim cadets participating. We are comfortable and confident that what retired Lt. Gen. Boykin will share about prayer, soldier care and selfless service, will be in keeping with the broad range of ideas normally considered by our cadets.

Sadly, the man who West Point has chosen as its representative of the Christian faith dangerously views our military conflicts as a holy war against Islam.

If those who have a degree of influence over Boykin do not speak up in protest, he will never understand that his views are wrong and hurtful. He could be better informed about Muslims and Islam if powerful organizations, institutions, and individuals help educate him, rather than giving sanction to his views.

Here’s what Boykin has said about Muslims in the past: there should be “no mosques in America“; Muslims worship an “idol“; “Islam is a totalitarian way of life, it’s not just a religion”; “it should not be protected under the First Amendment”; Muslims operate “under an obligation to destroy our Constitution.”

In the early days of the Iraq war, Boykin served in the Defense Department as a senior intelligence officer. Around that time, he appeared in full military dress at various churches, spouting bigoted rhetoric that casted the military conflicts as part of a religious crusade between Christians and the devil. In a 2004 report, the Pentagon Inspector General admonished Boykin for violating numerous internal regulations. “We recommend that the Acting Secretary of the Army take appropriate corrective action with respect to Lt. Gen. Boykin,” the report said.

VoteVets, a coalition of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, released a letter today, asking West Point President to rescind the invitation to Boykin. Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Richard Allen Smith, an Afghanistan War Veteran, write:

As has been articulated by GEN Petraeus, [statements similar to Boykin’s] remarks threaten our relationships with Muslims around the world, and thereby, our troops serving in harm’s way. LTG Boykin’s values are inconsistent even with current Army doctrine that is taught at the Joint Readiness Training Center, National Training Center and the Combined Arms Center, which instructs Army leaders to respect the Muslim culture as a part of counterinsurgency operations. It is counterproductive for our future Army leaders to hear the views of LTG Boykin, a man whose views are inconsistent with the values of the Army as an institution. [...]

Sir, as Veterans, we have the utmost faith in your leadership. As Veterans of these wars and men who have served in combat alongside Muslim Americans, we respectfully request that you retract LTG Boykin’s invite to the USMA Prayer Breakfast. The presence of LTG Boykin at West Point would violate Army Values, as well as potentially be used as propaganda by the enemy and endanger our troops in combat.

Read the full letter here.

Just today, Boykin was scheduled to speak at the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast in Ocean City, Maryland. People for the American Way and the Council on American-Islamic Relations had waged a vigorous campaign against his appearance.

The Baltimore Sun endorsed that effort this week, writing, “Make no mistake: This is not an issue of freedom of speech or of any of the constitution’s protections for religious expression that Mr. Boykin seems so eager to deny to those who don’t share his own Christian faith.” Boykin has every right to speak, but organizations that invite him “need to make clear whether they agree with Mr. Boykin’s views.” If not, they should not sponsor his hate speech.

We have contacted West Point to seek a reply, and we will post an update if we hear back.

This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, New York Magazine’s John Heilemann asked Santorum why he didn’t show leadership in that instance. Santorum said what he failed to say yesterday: “I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t believe President Obama’s a Muslim, and he’s qualified.”

But then Santorum excused his failure in judgment by spinning it as an example of his own chivalry:

This was an elderly lady. She was there leaning on a cane. She was quite wobbly. And I’m not going to sit there and slam an older lady because she has some way out – some bizarre beliefs. It’s your responsibility to defend the President, not mine. […] I’m not here to defend the President against scurrilous attacks. It’s not my job.

Heilemann noted that when John McCain was confronted in 2008 by a town hall participant who similarly accused Obama of being something he is not, McCain told the woman she was wrong. “Let me be clear, I am not John McCain,” Santorum responded. Watch it:

By openly acknowledging that he will not reject “scurrilous attacks” against Obama, Santorum is essentially sanctioning them.

Ironically, Santorum recently issued this attack against Mitt Romney: “We don’t need someone who supports lies and promotes lies and stands behind those lies in order to get elected president.” Indeed.

The lady continued, Obama “totally ignores” the Constitution, prompting a nod of approval from Santorum. Then she went even further with her conspiracy rant:

He is an avowed Muslim. [applause] And my question is: why isn’t something being done to get him out of our government? He has no legal right to be calling himself President.

In an exemplary show of cowardice, Santorum did not tell the woman that she had her facts wrong or even bother to distance himself from the previous comments. Instead, he did the opposite, giving sanction to her views. “I’m doing my best to get him out” of office, Santorum said, “and you’re right about — he uniformly ignores the Constitution.”

The tail continued to wag the dog as the lady pressed Santorum for tougher language about Obama’s unconstitutionality. Santorum meekly responded, “I agree with you in the sense that he is – he does things that are against the values and the founding principles of our country.” Watch it:

First, of course, Obama is not an “avowed Muslim.” He is a Christian.

And he certainly has every right to be calling himself President as he was soundly elected by the people and has sworn an oath (twice) to uphold his duty to serve and protect the United States.

For Santorum, who frequently touts the need for strong “leadership” in this country, today’s profile in weakness shows he’s unable to stand up to his own right-wing fringe.

“In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday’s vote on the PROTECT I.P. Act.

“There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved. Counterfeiting and piracy cost the American economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs each year, with the movie industry alone supporting over 2.2 million jobs. We must take action to stop these illegal practices. We live in a country where people rightfully expect to be fairly compensated for a day’s work, whether that person is a miner in the high desert of Nevada, an independent band in New York City, or a union worker on the back lots of a California movie studio.

“I admire the work that Chairman Leahy has put into this bill. I encourage him to continue engaging with all stakeholders to forge a balance between protecting Americans’ intellectual property, and maintaining openness and innovation on the internet. We made good progress through the discussions we’ve held in recent days, and I am optimistic that we can reach a compromise in the coming weeks.”

PIPA had been losing momentum in recent days. Reid said earlier this week that he would not whip Democratic votes for the bill. At least 14 Republicans announced their opposition to the bill, and Sen. Mitch McConnell called for a postponement. At last night’s presidential debate, all four GOP candidates denounced the Protect IP Act.

Santorum then pressed Romney whether he also believes people who have served their time should be allowed to vote, explaining the importance of the issue:

This is Martin Luther King day. This is a huge deal in the African American community because we have very high rates of incarceration, disproportionately higher rates particularly with drug crimes in the African American community. The bill I voted on is the Martin Luther King voting rights bill. And this was a provision that said — it particularly targeted African Americans. And I voted to allow them to have their voting rights back once they completed their sentence.

Romney tried to dodge the issue, finally stating, “I don’t think people who have committed violent crimes should be allowed to vote again.” Santorum pushed back, correctly noting that while Romney was governor of Massachusetts, the state employed a policy of allowing violent felons to vote not only after they completed their sentence but also while they were on probation.

Romney blamed the Democratic legislature in Massachusetts for the bill, and disowned any affiliation from the Super PAC running the attack ad (despite the fact that he’s raised money for the group). Watch the heated exchange:

“Voting is the foundation stone for political action,” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr once said. “The basic elements so vital to Negro advancement can only be achieved by seeking redress from government at local, state and Federal levels. To do this the vote is essential.”

As ThinkProgress’ Marie Diamond previously reported, “Hispanic and black communities are disproportionately effected by these laws, with 13 percent of adult black men barred from exercising their constitutional right to vote. Denying former felons the vote can also hold back their successful rehabilitation and reintegration into society.”

Recall, just over a month ago, GOP pollster Frank Luntz offered strategic advice to Republican governors, in which he expressed concerns about the increasing strength of the 99 Percent movement, the Occupy protests, and the waning support for “capitalism.” Luntz told the group that the public thinks “capitalism is immoral. And if we’re seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we’ve got a problem.”

Now, as Romney faces heat from within his own party, Luntz is worried about a “nightmare” scenario where conservatives will go “down the tubes” if they are forced to defend “crony capitalism.” Last night on Fox News, Luntz said the solution is not for conservatives to support a fairer tax system or rid corporate loopholes; rather, just change the language they use:

Conservatives should not be defending capitalism. They should be defending economic freedom. And there is a difference. The word capitalism was created by Karl Marx to demonize those people who make a profit. We’ve always talked about the free enterprise system or economic freedom. Suddenly, they’re trying to defend something that has only 18 percent support.

Watch it:

There’s more than a few problems here. Of course, the Republicans have been long-time defenders of the worst elements of unregulated capitalism. Moreover, conservatives have pilloried Obama for his “war on capitalism,” for wanting to put “capitalism on trial,” and for his purported lack of knowledge about capitalism. As Jeb Bush said succinctly, “I think President Obama has used the bully pulpit as a way to attack capitalism.”

Apparently, Luntz wants the public to believe that Republicans are both the defenders and the opponents of “capitalism.”

BRIAN KILMEADE: Republican candidates have taken shots at Mitt Romney’s private equity background — what he did at Bain Capital. Are you comfortable with that?

ALLEN WEST: Well I think one of the things that Gov. Romney probably needs to do is explain his position there at Bain Capital.

Watch it:

“So if you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that OK?” Santorum asked one student. “Reason says that if you think it’s okay for two [individuals to marry], then you have to differentiate for me why it’s not okay for three,” he argued later. Watch a compilation:

To be clear, Santorum’s offensive and circuitous responses are all meant to reject the natural desire of two same-sex individuals to join in a union and enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples.

The Navy supported two women sailors who became the first to share a coveted “first kiss” upon the ship’s return from sea. Also, a gay sailor who was discharged twice under DADT was readmitted to active duty earlier this month.

ABC’s Jake Tapper interviewed a group of five gay soldiers serving in Afghanistan who have come out in the past year. One soldier said, “The most important thing that has changed since the repeal is now we can focus on the mission.” Watch it:

The New York Times assessed that Gingrich’s failure could “shake the confidence of voters.” The National Review called both Gingrich and Rick Perry “idiotic.” On Fox, Karl Rove said flatly, “This is a problem — if you’re the front runner and you can’t organize your campaign so you can meet those filing deadlines. It’s elemental. It’s the fundamental thing you do.”

By late last night, the Gingrich campaign was trying desperately reassure the public that it could recover. Campaign director Michael Krull went on Facebook to convey that Newt told him “this is not catastrophic — we will continue to learn and grow.” Then, in the very next paragraph, Krull employed a “catastrophic” metaphor to suggest the campaign is now recovering from a calamity:

Newt and I agreed that the analogy is December 1941: We have experienced an unexpected set-back, but we will re-group and re-focus with increased determination, commitment and positive action. Throughout the next months there will be ups and downs; there will be successes and failures; there will be easy victories and difficult days – but in the end we will stand victorious.

Gingrich, who fashions himself as an historian, frequently employs Peal Harbor analogies and anecdotes. In fact, he has co-authored an historical fiction book about Pearl Harbor, which literary critics blasted for its shoddy quality.

One of Rove’s most powerful employers, Fox News, rewarded their employee’s partisan attack group with a lot of free airtime. The ad was featured on Fox’s Sean Hannity show, on Fox’s “The Five,” and during Fox’s daytime hours. On Hannity, Crossroad’s communications director Jonathan Collegio was invited to talk about the ad. Rove himself appeared as a guest on another show to tout his own ad.

Fox pundits lauded the ad as “brilliant,” “pretty funny,” “very effective,” “fabulous,” and “my favorite ad of the year.” Fox guest host Mark Steyn even criticized CNN for failing to cover the ad. Watch a compilation:

As the website American Crossroads Watch notes, “Rove’s group is funded by secret corporate donations made possible by a 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, allowing unlimited corporate funding of elections. Press reports indicate that AC is planning to amass and spend at least $52 million this year to support candidates friendly to Big Business, all without disclosure or accountability.”

In addition to all the airtime that Rove’s group will be able to afford, Fox News is making clear that it will do its part to market the partisan content to its audience in glowing terms. As Media Matters notes, Fox also gave another one of Rove’s attack ads free publicity and endorsements back in Novemeber.