Embarrassing premature exultation by Buzzfeed's Evan McMorris-Santoro.

"Watch A Republican Senate Candidate Sign A Young Woman’s Torso/'No pictures on this,' David Purdue jokes, as campaign staffers hold up signs in front of the camera," giggles nitwit Buzzfeed writer Evan McMorris-Santoro. Gotcha! Except you, Mr. McMorris-Santoro, were taken and you wanted to be taken, you wanted to hurt the bad old Republican, and you lapped up the story that you now have to choke down.

"CORRECTED: Dems Miss Insulin Pump In Video Of Perdue Signing Young Woman," reads the post now.

Insurance company insider says Obama's IYLYPYCKYP fix "doesn’t change anything other than force insurers to be the political flack jackets for the administration."

As quoted by Evan McMorris-Santoro at BuzzFeed and repeated in the headline.

What the hell is a "flack jacket"? A jacket to keep flacks away?

Perhaps he meant "flak jacket," I don't know. The flacks really have been annoying lately.

"Santorum Robocall Asks Michigan Dems To Vote For Him."

TPM reports, with audio and "confirmation that the call did indeed come from the Santorum campaign."

Michigan’s primary rules allow Dems to vote in the state’s GOP primaries. The liberal site DailyKos and other progressive partners have been trying to drum up enthusiasm for “Operation Hilarity” - an effort to get Democrats to vote in the GOP primary and tilt the vote against Mitt Romney. The Santorum campaign evidently decided they’d take votes from any legitimate source.

Following some speculation that the robocall may have been a “false flag” effort designed to harm Santorum, a spokesman Hogan Gidley confirmed to TPM that they were indeed footing the bill, and reaching beyond party lines. “If we can get the Reagan Democrats in the primary, we can get them in the general,” he told TPM.

It's not wrong for Santorum to seek the votes of Democrats. The message strongly pushes the "Michigan worker" to vote against "Massachusetts Mitt Romney" because he opposed the auto company bailouts (while supporting the Wall Street bailouts). The message doesn't tell people that Santorum opposed the auto bailouts too (along with the Wall Street bailouts). So it's a bit deceptive. You can criticize Santorum for that. Who knows whether Santorum would like to bulk up his vote with Democrats who just want the weaker Republican to be the nominee? Frankly, I assume he does, and I don't think that's wrong. Is it?

When Wisconsin has its primary to determine who will oppose Scott Walker in the recall election, are Scott Walker supporters supposed to stay home and allow Democrats to select their strongest candidate? If the primaries are open, doesn't it mean everyone has a right to play the political game any way they want? That's built into the open primary system, adopted by the people of the state, democratically. You can base your vote on any ground that you like. You don't have to explain it to anyone.

What should the Republicans do about their problem with boos?

That was ugly! TPM leans heavily on the GOP for the sounds that emanate from various audiences. There was the booing of the soldier and...

... On Sept. 7, the biggest applause line of the night went to the then-234 executions that had occurred during Rick Perry’s time as governor. At the CNN/Tea Party Express debate a few days later, members of the audience voiced their support for letting an uninsured man die.

Settling in to write this post, I said out loud: "The Republicans need to get their audiences under control." And Meade said:

"No, they don't. They're the party of free speech. Anyone can come in and say what they want to say. It's just like your blog. You're not responsible for what people say in the comments."

There's no real way to control the audience, other than to strictly limit who gets in, which will look repressive and cowardly. And who knows who is booing or applauding in this way that's harmful to the Republican cause? It could just as well be somebody who hates the GOP, trying to generate bad press and distract attention from what the candidates actually say.

The booing in that clip above comes from one very loud guy. Maybe he could be identified. I'd like to know whether he's on the Republican side or he's a dirty trickster. Am I being repressive to suggest that audience members at the next debate ought to pay attention in the future and look when somebody boos or applauds in this way that is useful to Republican opponents?

I don't think so. I think it's similar to going to a protest and photographing people with offensive signs. Let's say someone who hates the Tea Party is thinking of going to a Tea Party rally and holding up a blatantly racist sign in the hope of stoking the belief that the Tea Party is a bunch of racists. If this prankster realizes he will be photographed (or confronted by the people he's hoping to hurt), he probably won't do it.  

A separate matter is whether the candidates should overlook the inappropriate sounds in the room. (This assumes they hear the sounds and can immediately correctly interpret whether it's an approval or disapproval sound and what it refers to.) The candidates have to be smart about what will be used against them and, if they are sharp, they could find opportunities to leverage the moment for their own benefit with a good spontaneous remark. But I don't think that every jerk in the audience, like that guy last night, ought to have the power to command attention in place of whatever response the candidate had brewing in his head as he listened to the question. There lies chaos.

ADDED: I have listened to the video several times, and I stand by my perception that only one person audibly yells "boo." I hear a loud "boo," then a difficult to decipher noise — which could be an ugh response to the booer — and then a little more of a boo, which sounds like the original guy.

TPM takes a screwy Citizens United angle on the subject of Larry Kudlow vs. Chuck Schumer.

Evan McMorris-Santoro raises the alarm:

Kudlow has expressed some interest in mounting a bid. One of the men who's urging him to run, self-proclaimed "Wall St. guy" and Kudlow friend John Lakian, told me today that Kudlow is at "the 70 or 80 or 90% tipping point" toward throwing his hat in the ring. According to Lakian, one of the men behind the Draft Kudlow movement on Facebook and the web, the time is right for a man with Kudlow's extensive Wall St. connections to make a run for office.

"There's no question we'd be an underdog," Lakian said when I asked him how tough it would be for Kudlow or any other Republican to challenge Schumer's considerable war chest. But Lakian said that the new campaign finance rules set down in the Citizens United case would help close the money gap for Kudlow quite quickly.

Citizens United is not about campaign contributions. It's about independent spending. McMorris-Santoro would like his readers to think that corporations can fill up a "war chest" for a Republican challenger to match that of the long-time incumbent's. Alito-like, I'm mouthing the words: not true.

 ... Schumer is a formidable fundraiser who's sitting on $19 million in campaign funds. The DSCC did not respond to a request for comment about Schumer potential vulnerability.

So "Citizens United case would help close the money gap for Kudlow quite quickly" and the gap is $19 million?!