Image 01 Image 03



Things going down (not in the depraved freak sense):


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“•Charles Krauthammer already starting the narrative, if Mitt is nominee and loses, it fault of those who questioned Bain.”

Of course — it’s all part of the script, written well in advance. Deep down, they know they’ll lose. But this narrative keeps the cycle going, sustains their power and presumption of moral superiority to the Barbarian grassroots.

    gabilange in reply to raven. | January 20, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    As an unabashed ankle-biting peasant angry mob moron clings to guns, etc., this harping by Krauthammer and the other establishment KIAs (Know It Alls) has now caused me to automatically turn off the TV if I see them. Actually, I don’t even watch that few minutes of Fox any more. Someone told me their ratings are down, but I didn’t personally check, as I am to much of an idiot barbarian bigoted dumb tool.

JimMtnViewCaUSA | January 20, 2012 at 11:46 am

It has been educational to read the pro-Newt viewpoint here.
By contrast, here is a site which supports Mitt, mostly over the issue of illegal immigration.
The anti-Obama side has tough decisions to make.

    StrangernFiction in reply to JimMtnViewCaUSA. | January 20, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    The anti-Obama side has tough decisions to make.

    Yes, I can see where it would be tough for my fellow conservatives to decide between Gingrich and Santorum.

Professor – am I overthinking things that Newt’s reaction to King’s question was so predictable that King knew he was going to be crushed by the answer? I mean, Newt just did it to Juan Williams and he’s been beating on the media relentlessly. Metaphorically speaking, is King so clueless that he didn’t know he was pitching a softball that Newt would hit out of the park? Let’s assume for a moment that King isn’t so clueless and Newt’s reaction was the one he expected. Now, let’s ask why King chose it as his first question. Why would King set the tone of the debate (and post debate analysis) like that? Strengthen Newt/weaken Romney? Another reason? By the way I think King’s response to blame ABC was really clueless and King didn’t realize he was pitching Newt another softball. But I still think King knew he’d get hammered by Newt on the 1st question. It wasn’t intended to be a gotcha.

    raven in reply to rfy. | January 20, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    “Metaphorically speaking, is King so clueless that he didn’t know he was pitching a softball that Newt would hit out of the park?”

    Yes, I believe so. But perhaps it should be described not so much as “cluelessness” as a sense of arrogant remove, the lack of consciousness arising from cultural insulation. These people are so accustomed to being viewed as supreme arbiters of all that is news and authorities over the culture, and live so completely in a closed bubble of elitism, they just don’t get it. Look at how this cocky idiot was striding the stage like a grand inquisitor.

    StrangernFiction in reply to rfy. | January 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    No, King is just that clueless. Don’t overthink these things.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to rfy. | January 20, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    Rush had it today that King was crushed only in the eyes of Republicans and conservatives, but that within his own liberal bubble, he’s now a hero for having provoked a GOP candidate. It is true that King cannot be unaware of the smackdowns New gave Scott Pelley and Juan Williams, and could not have anticipated the reaction by Newt and the audience. Per Rush, that was precisely King’s goal.

    Remember Katie couric’s gotcha interview with Sarah Palin? In terms of substance it was nothing, but it made a hero of Couric among liberals. This describes the depths to which modern journalism has sunk – the gold standard for journalism is to create a viral-potential gotcha on a conservative. Nothing more. Substance within the gotcha is irrelevant. I’d bet your average TV ‘journalist’ would trade the promise of ten Pulitzers for one single big-time gotcha of a conservative.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 20, 2012 at 2:34 pm

      Koreckshun: “..and could not have FAILED to anticipate the reaction of Newt..”

        As I was thrilling to Newt’s put-down I was also thinking of the netxt step in this clash with the media: we need to move beyond the angry or indignant rebuke into the Socratic challenge. It is time to turn the tables on the media and start grilling THEM.

        This will absolutely unnerve them. I’ve only seen this done a very few times, most notably and recently by Marc Thiessen in an interview or panel discussion with Christine Amanpour over torture. She completely unraveled.

        Perhaps the debate format is not ideal for this gambit. But it needs to start happening. Start pressing King and others on the premises of their questions and on larger meaning of journalism and objectivity.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to raven. | January 20, 2012 at 4:44 pm

          The glaring problem with GOP debates run by liberal outfits is the questioning is such that the moderator(s) force the candidates to debate with them as much as with each other.

          It’s like a tennis match where the judge is allowed to jump in and smack the ball if he feels like it.

Mitt came out saying he couldn’t believe that he has to explain to Republicans how free enterprise, private equity, and venture capitalism work and how they create jobs.

No Mitt, explain that Bain was different than other PE firms that extracted more capital than they added, leaving others taking the risk. We understand free enterprise and venture CAPITALism … but PE firms, leveraged buyouts and junk bonds are more about “DEcapitalizing”. So instead of conflating the terms, give more details.

Romney also thinks his integrity shouldn’t be questioned on the pro-life issue … it was the judges decision, even though by deliberately leaving out pro-life language, he knew abortion would be covered by the state.

There you go again Mitt … a chronic flip flopper demanding we just trust him. Mitt has had just one wife, but he’s been in bed with several different liberal policies. He’s “cheated” on conservatives, but now demands to be trusted. Perhaps he doth protest too much?

    Billions upon billions of dollars in value disappeared from 401K retirement accounts in the crash of 2008. I believe Mitt Romney to be a person based on his profession that should be able to walk the public through what happened. How did it disappear? Where did the bailout money go? How did that work. He finally mentioned crony capitalism last night, as a talking point. I’ll see what definition he tries to attach to that term. Gov. Palin already laid down a clear marker on what that means. Mitt Romney has had his chance to “clean house” in areas that would really move our country forward and change course. Yet, it appears to me he will not lead reform in the areas he knows most about. To lead reform, you have to be clear, targeted and as Gov. Palin says…sudden and relentless. And, with all the many elected officials moving to endorse him, it appears to me, they as well don’t have the heart to “clean their own house” and set a new course. The only people in the race running on ideas are Gingrich and Paul. Whichever of those two that can offer the best solutions in areas of priority and convince people they can lead reform should come out on top.

    This is a theme with Romney: he seems to resent challenging inquiries or fundamental explanations of any kind. Recall how he snapped at Brett Baier that his questions were “uncalled for”? And when he is pressed more often than not he stutters and fumbles. This reflects a total unsuitability for the role of a leader. The job of a President, of any leader, is just this kind of colloquy and reaffirmation of basic truths (that is, those truths the leader believes and shares with an audience and a people). Romney, like Gingrich and Reagan, should be welcoming this kind of interaction and reaffirmation.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to raven. | January 20, 2012 at 2:36 pm

      “How dare you ask me a question my handlers have not prepped me for in my pre-interview practice runs!”

    MKReagan in reply to Midwest Rhino. | January 20, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    “Mitt has had just one wife, but he’s been in bed with several different liberal policies. He’s “cheated” on conservatives, but now demands to be trusted.”

    WOW. Well said!

Drudge keeps running this link:
I can’t get it to open. I can’t believe it’s true in the sense intended. I was at a PACKED ENTHUSIASTIC meeting Wednesday night with Newt present, and I can’t believe the crowds aren’t bigger and rowdier now.

One of the bigger side stories here is the unbelievable anti-Newt campaign at Drudgereport.

StrangernFiction | January 20, 2012 at 12:29 pm

Charles Krauthammer already starting the narrative, if Mitt is nominee and loses, it fault of those who questioned Bain.

Well then, don’t choose Mitt as the nominee. Possible pitfall avoided. See how easy that was.

The more that the Right talks about comparative income tax rates or about income levels the more they play the Left’s moral relativism game.

StrangernFiction | January 20, 2012 at 12:34 pm

They would also blame right-wingers because they are so unreasonable and stayed home, and they would claim that Gingrich/Santorum wouldn’t have won either.

But one thing they won’t do is look inwards and blame the party truly at fault.

wont vote for mitt but he did great job nailing ows puke here.
posting link to my own site, not sure if allowed. if not please let me know.

    LukeHandCool in reply to dmacleo. | January 20, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Adding you to my favorites, Dave.

      dmacleo in reply to LukeHandCool. | January 20, 2012 at 1:01 pm

      why thank you 🙂
      site is small, just opened up to public on 1-1-2012 but I am slowly getting going. offering many benefits to members, trying to get conservative word out there 🙂

    Henry Hawkins in reply to dmacleo. | January 20, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Offering bennies to members, eh? I’m listening……

      free members get own blog, some other stuff. there are paid subscriptions too with more stuff like no ads, etc..
      backed up nightly, trying to help the conservative cause 🙂
      just getting it off ground so its not a mature site yet, but all the framework is in place now.
      working on css to make home page nicer and will be featuring articles people right.
      quite a bit really, not sure I should use the profs blog to advertise it though.
      sorry if breaking protocol here.

Just a brief question, OT: If Mitt loses the nomination, will he still have that hang dog sidewise look on his face? You know, the one where he looks to a debate opponent and has that sad, sick look on his face!

More than anything else, Mitt’s on stage appearance just doesn’t seem like that of a human being, more like that of a robot or plastic manikin.

More off topic, what ever it was once: Since someone in France is seriously considering building a Napoleonland Park, ala Disney World, and since there doesn’t seem to be any outcry against this monstrous proposal, when will a German propose an idea for one named after its own monstrous leader from 66-years ago?

And, will anyone point out that Nappy was the model on which that German bastard loosely modeled his own concept of European dominance.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Doug Wright. | January 20, 2012 at 2:39 pm


    Oh, sweet irony. Napolean too short to ride the rides at his own amusement park.

      LukeHandCool in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 20, 2012 at 3:12 pm

      I remember reading that his willy is in some museum.

      An inch long … but it’s a “mean inch.”

      Men in those days didn’t have big pickup trucks to overcompensate, and conquest had to suffice. Oh yeah, and Hitler only had one testicle.

        Doug Wright in reply to LukeHandCool. | January 20, 2012 at 4:30 pm

        There’ll be a meeting after lunch to decide whether, or not, that comment violated the “Godwin” rule or not! My personal view is that while it skated close to the edge, it did in fact stay within bounds, at least so far as this post is concerned.

        Still, since neither aforementioned monster is still alive, hopefully, a good swift kick to the gonads for anyone who tries to ennoble either one is in order.

        Alternatively, we can simply start wearing steel toed boots with hip waders.

Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.

However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend.

Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of January, 2012.

[…] Legal Insurrection Share this:FacebookTwitterEmailDiggStumbleUponTumblrRedditPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like […]

Obamatization: The act of carrying water for a candidate, never criticizing them and demagoging anyone that does.

With Newt up +2 at the moment at RCP its an amazing observation just how quiet the pro Romney sites have become today. The best they seem to serve up today are stories about Newt being volitile and his connection with the gang of seven. Suddenly poll numbers arent newsworthy it seems..or perhaps theyre observing a late symbolic gesture to copyright legislation.
Me? I think theyre stunned by the poll numbers. Its as if Rocky Balboa crept into the ring and has thrown a haymaker to the jaw of the presumed candidate/champ.
Not that Newt has won yet but its still sort of fun/gratifying to see how little there is to say about Romney when he isnt ahead in the polls….and how reticent some writers are to even mention Newt at +2%
Also Im not attempting to diminish any Paul or Perry or Santorum supporters…Im sure they can enjoyNewts rise against the machine even if its a vicarous kick.

Nice to know Rocky Balboa isnt dead.

huskers-for-palin | January 20, 2012 at 7:23 pm

Please help this go viral. It’s a Canadian commentator talking about the Keystone Pipeline. It’s awesome!!!

    jimzinsocal in reply to huskers-for-palin. | January 21, 2012 at 9:06 am

    I saw that video yesterday…pretty damning of Obama’s changing position changes. Also very important are the maps that show how those “pristine lands” are already honeycombed with pipeline.
    Ive thought about the ultimate slam against Obama’s silly justifications. Id haul out the old Hoover Dam project…that Liberals love to trot out to justify spending and ask “would you pass this now?” Why not?
    How can liberals love the Hoover Dam…that darling of government spending and not like Keystone when Keystone wont cost the government a dime.
    Job creation? How many jobs do we think Hoover Dam created? Ill give you a hint…far less than projected by Trans Canada Generally 2500 or so with some peaks around 5000.

As a somewhat recent transplant to Utah (moved here in 2008) I can shed some light on Chaffetz. When it comes down to the LDS versus a non-LDS person for anything, the LDS will stick together. I really can’t describe why (I am still trying to figure this culture out myself) but I liken it to Big 10 football. If you are a life long Wisconsin fan, there is no way you will support of former Michigan player running against a former Badger (or vice versa) because NOTHING good ever came out of Michigan.

It’s not quite that shallow but…….