Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Live with these

Live with these

Working on posts about Santorum’s 2004 endorsement of and campaigning with Arlen Specter (and the false meme that we would not have Alito and Roberts if not for Santorum helping re-elect Specter), and another name to add to Operation Counterweight.

But for now you’ll have to live with these:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“Santorum thinks Mitt rigged the CPAC poll.”

Santorum complaining/whining – that lacks focus and discipline. Stick to the issues, Rick.

I wonder if Rush will point that out tomorrow. You can’t cry over rigging a vote; don’t be a sore loser.

As Laura Ingraham said about Newt when he pointed out that Romney packed the audience with his people at the last debate. You got to do what you got to do if you want to win.

Really?

Oh well, sorry Rick.

Rick does angry so much better than Newt. It didn’t take long.

    NewtCerto in reply to NewtCerto. | February 12, 2012 at 11:26 am

    It will be a two-person race in MI & AZ – between Newt & Romney.

    Certo!

      NewtCerto in reply to NewtCerto. | February 12, 2012 at 11:30 am

      My husband joked that he won’t vote for someone who has a lower tax rate than we do.

      Newt at 32% is way above what we’re paying.

      Romney is below.

      Did Rick release his tax returns?

      http://tinyurl.com/7rxzweq

      Coming soon, so he says.

        NewtCerto in reply to NewtCerto. | February 12, 2012 at 11:36 am

        “Lawrence Sinclair,at Sinclair News:

        Gingrich is not going to go quietly into the night, no matter what the Romney and Santorum campaigns might want.”

        http://conservatives4newt.blogspot.com/

          EmmasMom in reply to NewtCerto. | February 12, 2012 at 11:53 am

          The next post below the above quote is an interview video of Newt after his speech at CPAC. In that interview he clearly says something like, “We messed up in Virginia.”

          Takes responsibility, then moves on saying he will be on all other ballots. No whining, and takes responsibility for something likely not his fault.

          That’s leadership!

Just watched the Breitbart video. I really hope Newt is the nominee.

Together with Breitbart it would be like having Churchill and Patton on our side.

Breitbart = Take Vienna.

Newt was months ahead calling out the Obama administration’s war against religion.

http://tinyurl.com/756hucf

Is is said via the Ulsterman Report that a White House Insider claims that Obama and his co-president Valerie Jarrett are actually Atheists.

Not surprising.

http://tinyurl.com/6s5su5e

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to NewtCerto. | February 12, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    I am an atheist & do not recognise Obama as like any I know of.

    We are not evil & we are not liars.

    We simply do not believe in gods as entities.

    An atheist would never profess a faith he/she does not have .

    Not one of ours hank you

A couple of quotes from the Jonah Goldberg article you posted above made me smile.

On Romney:
The single biggest factor in this campaign remains the fact that the base of the GOP is uncomfortable with Romney and refuses to believe that it can’t do better than the guy who invented Romneycare and talks to conservatives like he’s reading from a right-wing Berlitz phrasebook.

Romney often sounds like HAL refusing to open the pod-bay doors in 2001: A Space Odyssey

On Santorum:
All too often, Santorum looks like he has a thumbtack in his shoe that he presses down on to fool the polygraph. He can be dour and resentful.

However, his assertion that it is a two man race is wrong. Newt is not done by any means.

“Palin said Romney is “a great candidate” whose conservatism “is evolving.” ”

This is how and where I start losing respect for people. This statement is not simply false but self-refuting, given Palin’s comments a few weeks ago about “Stalinist” tactics. Romney is a great candidate who uses Stalinist tactics? How can such a thing be true and how could she say it?

Secondly, if his “conservatism” is evolving it’s doing so in the reverse direction. He ran as a conservative in 2008, failed as he should have, and now is “evolving” into something else — almost with pride. Further, what does an “evolving” conservatism mean anyway and how does it qualify as the stuff of a “great cadidate” for 2012?

Is there some secret subtext here? If not, Palin is doing a disservice to conservatism, the other candidates and herself.

Romney is a highly destructive liar who seems constitutionally incapable of a positive campaign.

    StrangernFiction in reply to raven. | February 12, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    I’ve never thought Sarah was any conservative hero, and I think much less of her now.

      StrangernFiction in reply to StrangernFiction. | February 12, 2012 at 12:52 pm

      Mitt Romney is a cancer to conservatism. Look at the folks selling out their principles to support the man? And he isn’t even close to winning the nomination. For the love of God folks, at least wait until he’s won the nomination to sell out. So, so, so sad.

    holmes tuttle in reply to raven. | February 12, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    I think it’s called damning with faint praise.

    If you look at everything she’s said about him it’s pretty clear what her views her. Does she throw him a bone here and there? Sure. If the best you can say about someone is some boilerplate he’s a “great candidate” fluff, that’s not much. Notice she didn’t say he’d be a great nominee, or a great conservative, or a great leader, or a great President. Just that he’s a great candidate.

    What does that even mean? I think she meant that he’s a great candidate on paper. He’s who all the experts and pundits love. He’s a great candidate for all the political operatives because he’ll spend all this money and pay them whatever it takes. I also think it was a not so subtle dig at the fact that he’s been a candidate for 8 years now.

    It’s like when someone says he is a good family man about Obama. It means they can’t really think of anything good to say.

    Would I love her to be more direct and come out and say “Well, if you ask me, Romney is a total charlatan and fraud, as big a phony as I’ve seen”. Yes, I’d love that. But I don’t expect her to say that on natl tv or anything. I’m sure if you talked to her personally she’d be closer to that.

    But saying he’s not really a conservative and was in fact a moderate and liberal in the past and that he hasn’t really convinced a lot of people along with a bunch of other things she’s said is certainly much better than many others have said. A lot of other Republicans endorsed the guy. Rubio stood up for him and said he’s a conservative. huckabee has defended him and stood up for him. DeMint has said he’s ok with him and even endorsed him in 2008. So she’s actually saying some of the strongest stuff against him of anyone in the political fiigure class.

    I wouldn’t get too caught up over a few words here and there. I think you have to look at thet totality of someone’s comments on a person or issue.

      I get your point, and weighed this. I concluded that words and consistency matter and the stakes are too high and we’re too late in the game for such subtlety. Romney is well beyond the point of faint damning. He’s destructive and needs to be dealt with.

I’ll add that Romney could be called the pure antithesis of a “great candidate” according to Palin’s own standards and examples and exhortations — making her statement sloppy and confounding at best.

Romney has degraded conservatism not merely in his governing performance (gravely, through Romneycare and other concessions to liberalism) but in tone and tactic as a candidate. He repeatedly, reflexively employs Leftist rhetoric and tactics against other conservatives. He hasn’t merely violated Reagan’s 11th Commandment but desecrated it.

Furthermore, the money he has spent in relation to his return on investment makes him a mockery of campaign efficiacy and businesslike efficiency — in objective terms, anything but a “great candidate.”

If you’re not going to endorse Gingrich, Sarah, try not to contradict yourself as you advance the cause of Vichyite progressivism within your party.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to raven. | February 12, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    I think we get it Raven.

    You are critical of Palin .

    Do you have anything else or should I just skip you over?

      I guess that would be your call.

      My critique was impersonal, specific and based on disappointment, i.e., on a higher expectation of her. For Palin to say that Romney is a “great candidate” – to skate over the very things she’d found so objectionable a few weeks ago and which had done such damage to the integrity of the process she has cited and celebrated and has always felt impelled to defend – was profoundly disappointing to me.

      I’d hoped Palin would be a candidate. I think she is less suited to this role, however one defines it exactly – referee, commentator, statesman. The times demand more. Or I demand more. I need more from my leaders. To glibly explain away Mitt Romney’s absurd record and recent destructive conduct as conservatism in “evolution” is unacceptable. She could have said a hundred things better and truer than this.

The longer this vetting goes on, the more the sins of both parties records goes on…and the more the biased motives, attempted manipulations of various ‘conservative’ media are exposed.

And the angrier I become. I hate watching Obama act like a conquering moslem warlord with his armies pillaging, burning, defacing, desecrating, defiling, raping while the establishment looks on in impotent, envious, silent complicity like eunuchs at an orgy, unwilling to stop the action that gives them at least some vicarious satisfaction. In reality, the establishment hirelings of either party don’t love their country and its principles any more than this upstart marxist/Islamist conquering destroyer. Gratification of lust for power and money is the name of the game in the DC jacuzzi. They will get in that swirling hot tub with anyone.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 12, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    The last ‘they’ refers to media and politician alike.

    Bravo.

    LukeHandCool in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 12, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    Yes, Uncle Samuel, well said!

    “…like eunuchs at an orgy,…”

    Wonderful little flourish. I’ll borrow that some time in the future.

    LukeHandCool (who, distraught when he first realized his luxuriant hair was thinning … actually wondered if losing one of two testicles would simultaneously stop the thinning process and allow him to go on being the sweet, lovable, randy guy he always was).

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 12, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    Cheer up Sam . Muslim warlords only like little boys who can be trained to sing & dance like girls but thankfully will never be girls.

    I have decided that Aisha was in fact an hermaphrodite . Thats what they really want.

    Come to think of it Obama looks pretty hermaphrodity. … New Word!

Would have been even better if Gov Palin could have referenced the video from his 2002 Governors race where Romney describes himself as a moderate with progressive views. That’s not someone else saying that, it’s him, in his own words, from his own mouth.

Mr. Jacobson said, “Between Rick saying CPAC was fixed, and Ron claiming the caucuses were fixed, I’d say yesterday was a pretty good day for Newt.”

Seeing as how you described it as a “good day for Newt when there were 3 contests, and in those contests Newt finished dead last, virtually last, and didn’t even appear on the ballot… is it possible for Newt to have a “bad” day in your estimation?

Lots of people who attended CPAC have talked about Romney busing in people to vote for him, the establishment demand our votes be considered inconvenient, and Romney appointed. I know you’re a Gingrich supporter, Professor, but since when has that meant you’re willing to carry water for Romney? If you’re angry at anyone, try being angry at your own candidate, especially for falling in with the likes of anti-American, pro open borders Sheldon Adelson. So many of us, who refuse to vote for Romney would happily vote for Gingrich if he was the nominee, but each time he got the chance, he kept cozying up to those who despise the US, and our constitution, and he’s revealed to us all that he’s another version of slick Willie.

And to “Astroman”, Santorun never said any caucuses were fixed, from memory, in Iowa, it was a Ron Paul supporter who reported errors in vote reporting. Santorum actually was willing to patiently wait for the end count.

I’ve seen what Romney did as governor of Massachusetts, he’s Obama incarnate, he’s a disease, just like Howard Dean is. If the Prof’s been bought by Romney, then more fool him. I like Santorum, and he’s going to get my vote, nothing’s going to change that. I’d suggest Prof Jacobson look in the mirror, because he’s taking on the bitterness of the Occupy crowd. That’s a losing proposition.

BTW, the facts were, it didn’t look good for Toomey to win the election, and so after Spector agreed to vote for principled conservative judges, and he was supported for re-election. Spector voted to approve Alito, et al… are you saying that you feel that it was worth the risk of those two judgeships being given to leftists had a demcorat been elected? You can’t be so volatile and irrational, Prof Jacobson. Obviously something’s crawled up your backside and died, because you’re acting like someone who has sold out and lost it.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend