Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The afternoon after the morning after

The afternoon after the morning after

Call me a skeptic (or a shill), but I think I am being more level-headed than those who think last night put Santorum on the fast track.

  • More
  • Seven Minutes Of Rick Santorum Talking About How Great Mitt Romney Is (h/t CWLsun in Tip Line).  Mitt Romney “understands why he is a conservative, … it’s not just in his head anymore, it’s in his heart.”  Sounds like Santorum was, um, brainwashed.
  • WaPo columnist about to lose friends: “Or maybe it’s dawning on Wisconsinites — even some who don’t like Walker’s policies — that it would be a disaster to cut his term in half at the behest of a special interest group. That would confirm Wisconsin’s public-sector unions as the state’s de facto rulers, which really would be the end of democracy.”  (h/t MaggotAtBroadAndWall in Tip Line).

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

listingstarboard | February 8, 2012 at 4:48 pm

The dog thing is going to hurt Romney bad.

What the heck is a “Glitterbomb” and why do I care? Additionally when Ron Paul orginanizers do “Money Bombs” do they run up and throw money at Paul?

I went over to read the Citizens United piece and then followed with a quick readup on Buckley v. Valeo. It is really a shame that so many experts know about as much about the Citizens United ruling as the average two year old.

Ha! I rather think that I’m already on every enemy list (known and not yet known) this president has–going all the way back to “flag the fishy.”

*nostalgic sigh*

Remember way back in ’09 when we just suspected this president was a paranoid madman? Those were the days.

Professor, the dog story really cracked me up! I definitely gotta get one of those bumper stickers:)

Well, now we know that Rick and Newt handle being glittered a lot better than Mitt.

I thought the secret service handled that exceptionally well.
Block the guy, remove Romney immediately, and drag the turd from the room as quickly as possible.

Do you know that these guys are trained to run TOWARD a shooter instead of ducking? My husband did that training. It goes against every human instinct.
Those guys rock.
Romney still sucks, but the secret service guys did their JOB.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Tamminator. | February 8, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    Personally I dislike people posting details of others .

    I don’t know how much is out there about Secret Service training but it ought not be much.

    Not only have you blurted out but you have id ‘d your husband.

    Loose Lips Sink ships.

      Gimme a break.
      It’s common knowledge except to twits like you.
      And many people in the military get that training.
      Just because YOU don’t know this information doesn’t make it a secret.
      Loose lips? What, are you 90?

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Tamminator. | February 8, 2012 at 7:31 pm

        Ok then .

        it is all common knowledge -so why is it called secret service training ?

          Um, my husband isn’t in the secret service, but this is training that many elite fighters get.
          Why don’t you google it if you think it’s so “secret”.

          By the way, if I “id’d” my husband, then tell me who he is.

          Where is he?
          What’s his name?
          What does he do?
          Who does he work for?

          Here I was, just complimenting our fine secret service men for a job well done, and you have to jump in with a dumbass comment.
          Why don’t you watch the video again. You’ll miss everything that I saw, I can guarantee that. Clueless people often miss things that a person with training doesn’t.
          It ain’t sooper secret.

          Now I’m irritated with myself for responding to you.
          I’m done.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Tamminator. | February 8, 2012 at 11:26 pm

        Ok now THE HUSBAND is a trained elite fighter .

        And they run towards the enemy.

        Ok.

    And frankly, I fully support the savage beating of these glitter-bombing bumblef*cks. It’s a moronic idea that should involve pain in order to prevent it from becoming more popular.

    Remember: if stupidity were painful, fewer people would be willfully ignorant.

    turfmann in reply to Tamminator. | February 8, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    Considering the weapons that those boys carry beneath their suit coats (and it isn’t a .38 either) that idiot is lucky he isn’t swiss cheese.

    I have great admiration for the men and women in law enforcement for the admirable way in which they can professionally dispatch people like that without mauling them. I do not think I would be able to keep my truncheon in its holster through a single shift.

      Tamminator in reply to turfmann. | February 8, 2012 at 9:50 pm

      Damn straight.
      Glitter bomb queen is lucky he wasn’t killed.
      Glad someone else saw what I did.

        Tamminator in reply to Tamminator. | February 8, 2012 at 9:56 pm

        And by the way, I’d like to make a comment about Newt’s appearance on Monday.
        There were secret service men there TOO.

        And secret service men are not that hard to spot, by the way.
        And they’re usually pretty skinny.

        That whole “huge” bodyguard hype is bullshit.
        Those guys START fights rather than stop them.
        Secret service guys are lean, mean machines who know how to divert a crisis rather than feed it.
        Slick, smooth and professional.

        I give those guys props every time I see them.
        Damn, they’re good.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to turfmann. | February 9, 2012 at 1:32 am

      Lee Harvey Oswald did a very neat job also.

      There have always been good shots.

      Liberty Valance anyone?

Indiana: Remember, when Mitch Daniels first took office, he signed an executive order stopping the state from collecting union dues out of state employee paychecks. By the next year, union dues had declined by over 90%.

So, by now the public unions in IN are broke. They can’t go berserk like they did in WI because they don’t have a multi-million dollar war chest to fight back with.

R’s everyone should note this well. There’s no chance that a Governor would face a revolt like WI or OH saw if they do things “progressively” – meaning you go bit by bit rather than lumping all of your union-busting dreams into a single bill that the unions will rally to defeat. You start by attacking their income source – stop collecting their dues for them (this is NOT an issue unions will get any support on from the general population either). For private sector unions – sign an executive order that ALL state contracts must go to lowest bidder (and no “prevailing wage” nonsense), the previous D Governor was probably funneling all state contracts to union companies. Then wait a couple years for them to go broke. Finally, pass your agenda in various bits and pieces – preferably attached as amendments to the state budget.

    Daniels seems to operate under the radar with his reforms. He took RTW off the table, last year, in order to fully concentrate and pass his school and local municipality reforms. Then he quietly passed RTW a few weeks back. It’s called taking his state back incrementally, instead of blowing everyone’s fuses by overreaching on reforms all at once.

    BTW, Gingrich, unlike Daniels, likes explosions. In one of his recent speeches he said that he would eliminate 40% of the government by executive order, before Obama had a chance to have his wheels down in Chicago, on his way home.

      wodiej in reply to tsr. | February 8, 2012 at 6:22 pm

      Gingrich would be in charge of a country not a state. And Indiana wasn’t in nearly the trouble our country is in w Obama. We need someone like Gingrich who will implement solutions fast. A recent article shows that the labor statistics are not counting 5.4 million in the unemployed essentially doubling our unemployment rate. Many of us have been long term unemployed and we are hanging on by a thread. So I would say some explosions would be in order.

      Hope Change in reply to tsr. | February 8, 2012 at 8:39 pm

      tsr, your comment does not show a grasp of the facts.

      Gov. Daniels was able to UNDO things in Indiana by Executive Order that HAD BEEN DONE in the first place by Executive Order.

      It has nothing to do with “liking explosions.”

      If you pay attention, Newt says explicitly that he will use Executive orders only for things that are within the legal purview of Executive Orders.

      He’s what’s actually going on:

      Newt is proposing that we run a TEAM campaign so that candidates for House and Senate will team up together to get elected on a specific. clear agenda. We would elect people who want to restore the Constitutional basis of our government.

      The candidates for House and Senate would agree that we are going to repeal these terribly destructive pieces of legislation.

      Then, in January, 2013, the FEDERAL LEGISLATURE, the House and the Senate, would stay in session after they are sworn in on January 3, 2013, and write legislation repealing these laws:
      REPEAL OBAMACARE
      REPEAL SARBANES-OXLEY
      REPEAL DODD-FRANK.

      Then, when Newt is sworn in on January 21, 2013, on Inauguration day, before anyone goes to any fancy-dress balls, they would do the work for the American People.

      Newt would sign the legislation, thereby undoing a significant amount of the damage Obama has done.

      IN addition, Newt will sign Executive Orders abolishing all the White House czars as of that moment. Executive Orders can only be used to accomplish things that are completely under the authority of the Executive Branch.

      Newt is explicitly saying that the Executive Orders will be done in accordance with the law.

      The proposed Executive Orders are up at Newt.org for all to see. The 21st Century Contract With America is, too. The intention is that the new technology will be used to create transparency (everything up on line) and accountability (telling you before hand exactly what they’re going to do, and then doing it so we can see what they’re doing) to enact the will of the American People.

      You can see what Newt’s proposing in the speeches: “IF WE GET OUR ACT TOGETHER, WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A TERRIFIC 3rd CENTURY” – PART 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLw8ElOAZLI Part 1 – 14:55 – PART 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=3zXAnSWckLs&feature=endscreen – 14:44
      – February 6, 2012 – Bloomington, Minnesota

        My point was that doing too much, too fast may create an equal sized opposition — an explosion of rebellion. However, when you have a steadfast erosion of policies you want to eradicate, an incremental approach to the reconfiguration of policies in this country, it is more a weaning process, with less hysterics and drama from opponents of smaller government.

        Daniels did go in with an EO, on his 1st day as governor, to undo collective bargaining. But it has been over two terms of his governorship that he has been turning Indiana around with a more gradual reform agenda. Slow, steady turning of the wheel towards the right oftentimes has a lasting effect when compared to a whiplash turn, like Gingrich is insinuating.

          Hope Change in reply to tsr. | February 8, 2012 at 10:24 pm

          Thanks for the clarification, tsr.

          But from my perspective, it looks like this: when two of the wheels of your car are over the edge of a cliff, and a guy comes with the tow truck to pull you back up on the road, he is not doing “too much, too fast.”

          The Left has driven our car off the road. The car teeters on the brink of a long slide down. Newt has the vision, the experience, the expertise to town the car back up on the road. Then we’ll drive where the American People say to drive, not where the Establishment Washington- New York corridor of power says to drive.

          The reason I offer the links to Newt’s speeches is because he tells us clearly in the speeches exactly what he will do on the first day and beyond.

          — how Newt wants to address our serious and myriad problems with health care in a series of smaller pieces of legislation.

          — how Newt plans to make the United States the best place on earth to do business again, and bring manufacturing home again.

          — how we will train the federal bureaucracy in modern management techniques (Lean Six Sigma) to save money and engage in processes of continuous improvement (STRONG AMERICA NOW estimates the agencies could save $5 trillion over ten years; the supercommitte is trying to save something like $1.3 trillion.)

          It’s all in the speeches. It’s online for all to see.

          This is the revolution of tomorrow, becoming available today.

          Below is a link to a 2d group of link to 18 speeches. I think my favorite is the first one, to a New Hampshire group called The Stewards, about how the new communications technologies are going to change politics and community forever.

          AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM: LIFE, LIBERTY & THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
          http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/newt-life-liberty-the-pursuit-of-happiness-18-speeches-interviews

          Hope Change in reply to tsr. | February 8, 2012 at 10:26 pm

          to TOW — to TOW — to TOW the car back up on the road.

          And I proofread n everything!

          tsr in reply to tsr. | February 8, 2012 at 10:54 pm

          Hope and Change

          While I can respect your enthusiasm for Gingrich, I see a lot of hyperbole in his words. He inspires people by reaching for the sky. And, while that is good for getting the blood to boil, the gravity of facts pulls his ideas back down to the ground.

          I do believe that Newt believes what he says to people. But, the work is in the implementation of ideas. And, from Gingrich’s history, such an implementation usually falls on the shoulders of others to carry out. Hence, the reason why he is not held in high esteem among most of the cohorts who have either worked with him in congress or as a staff member.

          Hope Change in reply to tsr. | February 8, 2012 at 11:29 pm

          tsr — thank you for your courteous and thoughtful reply.

          I think that another explanation is that people know that Newt will break up the Establishment.

          I think it’s probably true that Newt was hard to work with in his life. I’m not saying that that doesn’t have importance to me, because it does.

          But I think he has genuinely examined himself and gone through the humbling process of admitting his faults. Not everyone has done that. Not everyone is willing. Not everyone is willing to put aside pride and face the fact of our faults. I think Newt has and genuinely tries to admit it when he is wrong, and be able to see the other guy’s point of view.

          Also, I think much of the opposition to Newt is being paid for one way or another by the Romney people.

          I hear that Fox news has a graphic, which I haven’t seen yet, but am interested to see, showing all the big donors who WERE Obama donors and NOW are Romney donors. Goldman Sachs is the top donor for both.

          I think the BIG BANK GUYS know that Obama can’t win, so they have found their new choice in Romney, whom they will “lead from behind.”

          And the Romney campaign said the goal is no longer to win, but to “destroy” Newt.

          ROMNEY STAFFER: IT’S NOT ABOUT WINNING ANYMORE, IT’S ABOUT DESTROYING NEWT GINGRICH http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/romney-staffer-its-not-about-winning-anymore-its-about-destroying-newt-gingrich/

          ROMNEY “WARPATH”
          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/politics/the-calculations-that-led-romney-to-the-warpath.html?_r=1
          “The size and enthusiasm of Mr. Gingrich’s events scared supporters of Mr. Romney, who had struggled to build similar audiences. Local activists backing Mr. Romney complained that his Boston team was too regimented and slow to meet the challenge.” NYT

          I totally respect that each citizen must make our own choice. That’s what this self-government caper is all about.

          I totally respect that you may not support Newt. (Although I do harbor the notion that anyone who gives the speeches a fair chance will at least see why some of us do support Newt.)

          We’re in this together as Americans, and I really appreciate your thoughtful response whether we agree on the candidate or not.

          Tamminator in reply to tsr. | February 8, 2012 at 11:39 pm

          tsr:
          Sadly, you ignore Newt’s history and record.
          The Professor has provided the links.

          Too much too fast?
          Nothing could be done fast enough to remove the damage that Obama and his marxists have done to this country.

          tsr in reply to tsr. | February 8, 2012 at 11:51 pm

          Hope Change

          Like you said, lets agree to disagree. Like you, though, this has been a good exchange, and I appreciate your thoughtful responses as well.

    KitKat in reply to Aarradin. | February 8, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    It all depends on what the legal and political situation is like. In Indiana, Gov. Daniels was able to undo many of the collective bargaining issues by executive order because that is how they had been enacted. In Wisconsin, the collective bargaining issues had been passed by legislation, so it took legislative action and Gov. Walker’s signature to undo it.

“Whistleblower on Greta Van Susteren’s “Back to Chicago” Moment…(INSIDER RELATED”

http://tinyurl.com/7tp73en

I have family in Mexico. I’m originally from El Paso, TX.

Mexico is corrupt, corrupt, corrupt.

If only La Raza would attempt a revolution there.

So many innocent Mexican people have been killed by the assistance of this administration.

    NewtCerto in reply to NewtCerto. | February 8, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    Greta: “… I am curious (and this is where my imagination begins to travel) whether Pepe is a big political donor to Calderone …and is Calderon’s administration giving him a safe haven in Mexico? And of course I could never figure out why President Obama and President Calderone both rebuked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she said 2 years ago that Mexico is like Colombia of 20 years ago. Why were both President Calderone and President Obama so hot under the collar about that description? Frankly, Mexico IS like Colombia of 20 years ago — maybe even worse. In reading the foregoing, read with caution since this is only my imagination – I have no hard facts. Facts are very different from imagination.

    …But of course the real weird part is the Federal Prosecutors getting an indictment quashed AFTER a PLEA of guilty and AFTER the guy has jumped bail and fled the country. I have never seen prosecutors be so…well…generous? It is weird. This is not my imagination but my experience. Prosecutors just don’t do this. Something is odd.”

    Hope Change in reply to NewtCerto. | February 8, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    Hi NewtCerto —

    Your comment reminds me of one of the best books I have ever read, Tom Bethell’s The Noblest Triumph.

    Bethell describes the crucial role of clear, fair, secure private property rights in creating prosperity.

    Bethell says that Mexico, with its harbors, land, natural resources, climate and people has everything it could possibly need to be superlatively prosperous throughout its economy.

    But, Bethell says, in any nation in which there is a lack of the tradition of public-spirited service to the community, which leads to a habit of corruption in public officials, which in turn leads to making that nation less than an attractive place for investment and entrepreneurs, there will be comparative poverty.

    Also, Bethell said, the tradition of self-help rather than turning to courts to settle disputes leads to violence and insecurity, also not supporting investment and economic growth and prosperity. So this can be another issue that leads to poverty instead of prosperity.

    The people will create prosperity if the conditions are provided by the legal structure and the political class. but you need a “servant’s heart,” a person who would never use their position for personal gain. (Bethell doesn’t use the term “a servant’s heart.” I got that from Sarah Palin.)

    I found Bethell’s book profound. I had not realized the role of predictable private property laws. They work like magic. The people do the rest.

    If La Raza and everyone else understood this, we could help each other create prosperity for the whole continent.

    A dream, perhaps, but a dream that would make everyone better off, safer and happier.

This was taken from a comment that connects the dots quite thoroughly:

“Let’s consider adding up a few loose and apparently unconnected strands that may be well connected…. Or not…but — Let’s connect them:

*the questionable donations — the Feds wanted facts on certain campaign donations to Obama via Federal Election Commission Laws that have yet to be answered for…remember Obama claimed to have had voluminous $25.00 donations yet that turned out not to be true …but totally and completely false.

* the Chicago Rojas drug family as campaign donations Bundler and in particular bundler/donor to Obama campaign ….has Feds drop guilty plea AND receives safe haven in Mexio under Calderone while other Rohas family members remain in Chicago gearing up to bundle donations and More…

* Where is Patrick Fitzgerald in all this.
..Look who appointed Fitzgerald…who else did this serve…who else was in this loop??

*Calderone complains of guns crossing into Mexico right on cue (remember Kabuki)…he plays his part to help Obama destroy the 2nd amendment, a small favor in exchange for a laundry facility with wide open borders for “direct commerce” of drug sales into the USA

* Fast and Furious may be so much more than a gun operation to remove 2nd amendment constitutional rights from the people…it may be that the Obama administration is laundering (for a %) the drug cartels money..Shore Bank, First California, Shore Bank International are Obama/Holder money laundering outlets –with the Rohas drug family in Chicago–close to Shore Bank

*Consider — were our Feds so corrupted by the cash at the border and by cartels and our own Holder Justice Department, that they willingly sent guns without GPS as part of the huge cartels payoffs made it as worthwhile—- as the cops or any other officials can be bought off… is that why Fast and Furious was first known as Operation Direct Commerce (that name since scrubbed from the net). Also remember that whistler blower Agent Dodson and his complete and utter confusion as to what was happening and though told to stand down–stayed for days as a lone lookout before being threatened by his superior–only after Border Agent Terry’s death did he go to Congressional authorities– however until GOP and Daryle Issa took the house in 2010 could there be any investigation as the Dems had put a freeze on it… See Frank Miniter’s article in Forbes 12/7/2011 “Inside President Obama’s War on the Fast and Furious Whistleblowers.”

* First California Bank is another money laundering facility so corrupt they simply send a warning shot over Feinstein’s head as they steal 5 Million dollars from her ( and it may be so much more) bank accounts.

*Note today’s paradigm change — with Axelrod and Obama now embracing the “evil PAC’s” that last year had Obama apoplectic at the State of the Union as he bizarrely lost his composure with the Supreme Court …deriding the justices for giving rights to corporations …now able to give donations to the party of their choice ….thus destroying Obama’s leverage on campaign cash flow…. .and with Wall Street now turning their backs on Obama and refusing to bundle for him– how does he hide where all that cash is flowing from — as he no longer has the Wall Street big money screen to hide behind… Where does he now claim all that money cames from?
Wonder who actually wrote those recent $38,500. per plate checks in New York last week? We’re those tickets prepaid and simply handed out?

***Makes one wonder if the Wall Street bail-outs had as much to do with certain forces knowing their “donations” were actually being supplied for them….Funny thing…Black Mail works in both directions ….hence, big bail outs and big bonus’ regardless of the pious speeches from big mouth

* Jack Wheeler IV was not just a WMD or Chem warfare specialist…he was also a banking/Sec specialist for the US government …for many years.

Where are all those savvy investigative reporters…someone who could put the financial/ criminal picture together… …Unfortunately there are few like Mark Pittman…
Bob Ivy? Greta has put out a fishing line…”

The dog thing is going to hurt Romney bad.

I agree. Back in 1996 the Democrats wanted to go after Bob Dole because some of his big contributors were tobacco companies. They put a guy in a full body suit that looked like a cigarette, named him Mr. Butts (IIRC), and had him show up at almost every public personal appearance made by Mr. Dole for just about the entire six weeks before the election. It was effective because it made for great street theater and it also made for a nice change-of-pace film clip on the local nightly news.

If Mr. Romney is the Republican nominee, I would expect similar shenanigans at his campaign public appearances, only this time around they’d involve a dog suit.

Mitt isn’t the only thin-skinned person on his team. I’ve been critical of Jennifer Rubin along with millions of others. It seems as though Ms. Rubin can’t stand being exposed. She’s now blocking me on Twitter:

Sorry, you can’t follow this user (because they’re blocking you). Learn more×

Wouldn’t you say that she’s more than a little defensive & immature?

Professor, I’m cutting you a lot of slack considering how fast you went from being apolitical to at least being in the right battle field fighting for the right things. But you are stuck in a RINO trap based on a false and ever changing dichotomy: “It’s a two-person race”. No it’s not. In fact, the polls are now showing that Neither can beat Obama while at least for now, Santorum is polling as a winner nationally.

Those of us who have been in the trenches for years find little difference worth fighting for between Rombama and BJ Gingrich. Neither has any discernible core principles other than blind ambition and a need to win. Both have argued all sides of every issue at one time or another depending on political or economic expediency. Not so with Santorum.

All of the things you are criticizing about Santorum are much worse with Gingrich and there is just no argument to be made about Romney being a clone of Obama.

You are rapidly painting yourself in a corner believing that Gingrich can win with conservatives. He can’t. His Contract with America was an utter failure. The budget was balanced because of the surge of government income from capital gains taxes collected from the real estate and stock flipping profits in a bubble economy. Gingrich pledged to eliminate 95 government programs in his Contract but by 1998, not only had none been eliminated, their budgets were increased by an average of over 11%.

As much as Republicans, particularly conservatives don’t like Romney, we HATE Gingrich. Romney is at least a decent person with strong family values. Gingrich is a slime ball.

Think about it.

    Santorum endorsed Romney in 2008, and his kind words toward Romney will write Romney’s campaign ads as far as the eye can see. Most people don’t live in the political trenches, and probably don’t know Santorum endorsed Romney in the 2008 primary. Santorum is someone who gets out there and really talks a lot. There’s a lot for Tean Romney to choose from.

      Astroman in reply to CWLsun. | February 8, 2012 at 9:50 pm

      Santorum’s endorsement of Romney in 2008 is no big deal. A LOT of conservatives endorsed Romney in 2008, because Romney ran as the conservative in that election. That might sound laughable, but the alternatives were John McCain and the Huckster. At least Romney was willing to tell us what we wanted to hear.

      And one of the biggest strikes against Romney now is Romneycare. Now that Obamacare has become law, it really weakens Romney’s ability to campaign against Obama.

      It also weakens Newt’s ability to campaign against Obama and Obamacare – Obama can always say of Newt “Newt was for the federal healthcare mandate before he was against it.” OUCH.

      Is Santorum a weak candidate? Sure, but that isn’t the relevant question. The relevant question at this point is, who would be the strongest contrast against Obama and Obamacare. And the obvious answer, of these three, is Santorum. Obamacare is the single biggest issue of the day, and a Romney or Newt candidacy negates or at least blunts that issue.

        How will Santorum explain his record concerning the following:

        Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
        Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
        Voted against allowing consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.

          Astroman in reply to tsr. | February 8, 2012 at 11:17 pm

          All of that is irrelevant at this point.

          That simply doesn’t compare to Romney providing the blueprint for Obamacare, and Newt having been for a federal healthcare mandate before he was against it.

          If you are at all concerned with Obamacare and healthcare mandates, unless you find Ron Paul palatable, Santorum is the strongest on that issue.

        CWLsun in reply to Astroman. | February 8, 2012 at 11:01 pm

        Sure…the endorsement list is on Wikipedia. The list is pretty spare for FMR senators and FMR reps. Sen. Santorum felt a need to jump in there.

          Astroman in reply to CWLsun. | February 8, 2012 at 11:25 pm

          What you will find is that a whole lot of conservatives who endorsed Romney in 2008 wouldn’t vote for him in 2012. I know, because I am one of them.

          People like Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin too I believe, and a whole slew of others. Many of us jumped on the Romney bandwagon late and reluctantly, not because Romney was so great, but mainly to try to thwart McCain from winning the nomination.

          Like I said, that was then, this is now. The circumstances are very different now. Which is why a lot of us conservatives who got behind Romney in 2008 are now sticking it to Romney as best we can in 2012.

        CWLsun in reply to Astroman. | February 8, 2012 at 11:38 pm

        The way I see it, and I wasn’t political until the financial collapse of 2008, is Santorum felt the need to get out there and make himself relevant with conservatives and talk show personalities who coalesced around Romney. So beyond that I look at current ideas. Newts got them. Romney doesn’t, neither does Santorum. Sometimes people run on ideas and sometimes people run because they are afraid of losing or being seen that way.

          Astroman in reply to CWLsun. | February 9, 2012 at 1:06 am

          I’m afraid of Newt’s “ideas.” I shudder to think of what Newt will think of next.

          Local amnesty boards is but the latest horrible idea by Newt.

    Ah, finally someone who bases their opinions on facts rather than emotion. All you said about Gingrich’s glorious past is so true. But, memories are sometimes tinged with golden recollections. And that is how many are framing Gingrich’s years as Speaker, while totally turning a blind’s eye to all the years as a DC consultant/lobbyist.

    It’s a perfect example of wearing rose-colored glasses!

      Tamminator in reply to tsr. | February 8, 2012 at 11:48 pm

      The same way that those glasses seem to be tinted in favor of Romney?
      Romney will say anything to get elected.
      And still does.

    Hope Change in reply to Pasadena Phil. | February 8, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Pasadena Phil, that’s just total nonsense.

    MANY conservatives who have been in the trenches love Newt.

    They know what Newt is running FOR, for the sake of AMerica, and they love Newt.

    That’s why I offer the links to the speeches. If a person finds out what Newt is FOR, many, many people find out that they actually AGREE with Newt.

    You make scurrilous and vituperative attacks.

    How about what you are for?

      This is a primary, not a love-fest. You may ‘love’ Newt, but a majority of others don’t. Just note all the polls pitting him with Obama, in a GE venue.

      Scurrilous and vituperative? Like your comment which is based 100% on your personal opinion? You can find the facts that I stated here:

      http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4463

      This blog is Gingrich headquarters and my comment was a suggestion to Professor Jacobson and everything I stated was factually correct. Gingrich is NOT a conservative. He is whatever he feels compelled to be depending on the audience. He is an ambitious, narcissistic, shape-shifting opportunist. I see no real choice between him, Rombama or Obamney. They will all take us to the same place.

      (I can’t wait to see my “dislike” score on this one, heh-heh-heh.)

        Whoa, I actually agree with Pasadena Phil. A sure sign of the apocalypse – the end is near!

        Hope Change in reply to Pasadena Phil. | February 8, 2012 at 11:50 pm

        Hello Pasadena Phil, thank you for your response to my comment, my friend in virtual political primary election interest,

        consider this if you will —

        my strongest evidence for Newt is Newt — speaking for himself in the speeches.

        Newt in his own words. There it is.

        Doesn’t it tell you something that I keep asking people to look at the original source….?

        The reason I ask people to listen to the speeches is that the way you describe Newt is the way the MSM WANT people to think of him. I don’t think that description is accurate.

        It’s not what you see if you watch the speeches. Really. IMO.

        And then you can THINK about what Newt is proposing. Let it be considered in your mind.

        We are in a completely new framework of opportunity because we can FIND OUT FOR OURSELVES.

        I think most people who watch the speeches will find a lot to like.

        The policies Newt is proposing are, mostly, certainly fiscally and technologically, JUST EXACTLY what I want to see us do in the United States of America.

        Here’s a second group, of CONVENIENT links to 18 speeches:
        AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM: LIFE, LIBERTY & THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/newt-life-liberty-the-pursuit-of-happiness-18-speeches-interviews

        Hope Change in reply to Pasadena Phil. | February 8, 2012 at 11:53 pm

        Oh, and Pasadena Phil,

        I asked you what you are for,

        and I genuinely would be interested to know more about what you are for.

        We’re in this together.

My humble suggestion:

Romney announces that he is remaining in the race, but that he will no longer stand as a candidate for the nomination. Instead, he will release his delegates to vote for whomever they like at the convention.

This guarantees a brokered convention, takes Gingrich and Santorum out of the equation and makes Romney look like the good guy. In exchange he can ask for just about anything he wants from the eventual nominee (VP, SCT, ambassador, Cabinet position — maybe not Healthcare Czar, but otherwise the sky is the limit).

Fact is that Republicans aren’t happy with the current choices. The primary is already old and boring and way too negative. And Mitt is smart enough to know that striking a deal now for something is much better than staying in the game and losing everything. This way, Mitt gets to be a hero. Republicans can choose a standard bearer who we can come together and support, and the rest of the primary is meaningless — so we can spend our time voting for Romney (without actually voting for Romney) and talking about how much Obama sucks, which is really the point anyway.

Thoughts?

You don’t know what a Chick-fil-A is? Really professor? Wellllll, let me introduce you to only the best fast food chain ever created. Where everyone (EVERYONE!) is courteous and friendly. Imagine ordering fast food from a teenager and instead of getting a disinterested, slack-jawed stare followed by mumbled langauge vaguely resembling English, you get a friendly smile and recognizable English spoken to you in a pleasant tone. Imagine requesting a condiment from that same teenager and instead of getting a grunt of acknowledgement (if you are lucky), hearing in response, “It would be my pleasure.” THAT’s a Chick-fil-A.

SoCA Conservative Mom | February 8, 2012 at 7:49 pm

Ithaca does need a Chick Fil-A! For no other reason than the Spicy Chicken Sandwich Delux…. so yummy, but there will be fire in your mouth. The spicy sneaks up on you. Pass on the Waffle Potato Fries… They do have a compelling story and business model.

Last night’s primaries: I’m glad Santorum won all three. Puts a damper on Mitt’s inevitability and makes later primaries more important. Living in CA, I haven’t let myself fall in love with any of the candidates knowing it will pretty much be decided before we vote in June.

Chick Fil-A is great and Ithaca definitely needs one! Awesome chicken sandwiches! 🙂

Read this and you’ll understand why the Leftists don’t like Chick-Fil-A:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chik_fil_a#Religious_and_political_views

    SoCA Conservative Mom in reply to KitKat. | February 8, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    My husband has the t-shirt with your avatar, except it includes, “I love…” He loves wearing it to Starbucks. Each time he does, he gets strange looks from some of the customers. It’s a cheap thrill for him on his way home from work early in the morning.

    If they get upset over Chick-fil-A, they probably get visibly angry over Domino’s Pizza.

You’re in luck! There’s a Chick-Fil-A only 83.38 miles away in Scranton.

http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Locations/Locator

They are amazingly nice people at Chick-fil-A; they do regular specials for families with small kids (like weekly), etc. etc. etc. I go there whenever I can (my own personal “buycott”)

holmes tuttle | February 8, 2012 at 9:36 pm

If Santorum ends up the nominee and beats Obama any Republican would have beaten him. And if Obama, Axelrod, and Plouffe can’t beat Santorum they really don’t deserve to win anyway.

It’s a testament to just how weak Romney is and how flawed Gingrich is that Santorum is doing as well as he is. I mean Romney, a guy who’s been running for 7 years, who raised almost 60 million last year and whose SuperPAC also raised a ton, who has all that establishment backing and uspport and all those endorsements, who romped in FL and NV and who the media said was inevitable…

And he goes 0-3(insluding 2 states he won big in 08 and 1 of them where Pawlenty the fmr Gov is a key surrogate)? Losing all 3 to a guy who lost his seat by 18 pts in the biggest defeat for an incumbent ever. Who raised all of 2 million last year? Who was a key beltway GOP player during the Bush era and got more lobbyist $ than anyone else in Congress over 05-06? Who has no executive experience? Who in on record as being against contraception, for rape victims being forced to carry pregnancies to term, for comparing consensual gay sex to child molestationa and other coercive and nonconsenual criminal acts, for being against Griswold?

Santorum couldn’t even keep it within double figures against Bob Casey and he’s going to beat Obama?

But it says more about Romney than it does about him. Romney and the establishment totally obliterated Newt. Unfortunately for them they ignored Santorum and left him unscathed. Now all the folks who don’t want Romney are turning towatds him since Newt is beyond repair in many eyes.

I suspect they’ll go after Santorum if need be. There’s more than enough there.

MI and AZ at the end of the month should be favorable to Romney.

But with the states left and all it looks like we will actually have a brokered convention. It will be difficult for anyone to get to the 1144 delegates.

    In 2008, these contests were for actual delegates. This year, they are not. See the difference?

    “I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.” ~ Ed Koch

As much as I like Newt, the momentum has shifted. Newt was slimed by Romney, and he has not helped himself with his erratic behavior. Time to drop it Newt. You are still a great hero in my book, despite what that scumbag Romney says.

    Astroman in reply to Ediv710. | February 8, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    Au contraire, “let’s face it,” Newt has the nomination virtually locked up.

    And remember, if you give me a thumbs down, you’re really giving Newt a thumbs down because he’s the one who said it. =)

    On a more serious note, it comes down to this: which is stronger? Newt’s spite against Romney, or his ego for himself? The worst possible thing that could happen to Romney tomorrow is if Newt were to drop out and endorse Santorum.

      Estragon in reply to Astroman. | February 9, 2012 at 12:10 am

      Newt was always going to go off on some personal ego trip and self-destruct on it. It’s what he does, what he has always done, and he never cares who he screws in the process, including his own future.

      What we used to think was high energy and tireless determination when he was leading the charge against the Democrats when we were in the Minority, we soon discovered was just one aspect of his manic phase. We noticed his erratic behavior beginning in 1995, and some even sounded the alarm at great risk to their own political careers.

      Some people insist on finding out for themselves, though.

        wodiej in reply to Estragon. | February 9, 2012 at 6:11 am

        We need some more of that “erratic, manic” behavior that balanced budgets for 4 years, reformed welfare and got 2 out of 3 people off the gov’t dole, slashed taxes and helped business hire 11 million people. The only time in 48 years since the LBJ “great society” welfare programs went into effect that gov’t dependency decreased was when Reagan was President and Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House under Bill Clinton.

Who’s progressive in Wisconsin

Are Republicans preparing to compromise? I wonder what progressives expect in return.

Well, at least the illegal fourth branch of government is being held accountable. That’s some kind of positive progress.

Progressives believe, correctly, that government can and should provide such public goods and services as education, parks, or aid for the poor and disabled.

Conservatives believe, rightly, that government can and should provide such public goods and services as education and parks. As for aid for the indigent and disabled, well, it doesn’t strictly comply with “promote the general Welfare”, but Conservatives are principally concerned with progressive involuntary exploitation and the corruption of individuals and society that it sponsors.

What were we arguing about again? Oh, yeah. The optimal preservation of individual dignity. The progressives need to reevaluate their tactics. Then there is the matter of sanctity (and valuation) of human life. The progressives need to acknowledge and respect both the natural and enlightened orders.

First Wisconsin, then Indiana, next Arizona …

Republican legislators are launching a push against Arizona public employee unions with bills that include one to ban collective bargaining with government workers, a change that would be felt in school districts and local governments.

Other pending bills would bar withholding money from a public employee’s pay for union dues and prohibit a public employer from paying an employee for union activities,

Another would broaden the current requirement enacted last year for annual authorizations by employees for paycheck deductions for political purposes.

    n.n in reply to Neo. | February 9, 2012 at 12:16 am

    Public unions are funded principally through involuntary exploitation. We need a government, and civil servants, but they must be accountable to taxpayers and private citizens in general. It is imperative that their integrity not be tied to financial incentives in order to mitigate the occurrence of progressive corruption among authoritarian interests.

Shillkeptic, that’s what you are. But who am I to disagree?

Sorry Prof but he is 1000X better than Newt. Or Mitt.

TULL!!!

You really need to put a comments thingy under the video of the day, so I don’t have to do this here.

TULL!!!

TULL!!!

TULL!!!

Uh, Chick-fil-A is the BEST fast food ever

EVER

    it is very good but it’s also overpriced. They used to have a value meal w sandwich, fries and slaw. They changed it to sandwich, fries and drink and wouldn’t let me substitute the drink for cole slaw. I even asked for a manager and he wouldn’t allow it either. I then sent a complaint to the company and basically got a “too bad” response.

    Restaurants have a much wider margin of profit on their drinks than anything and I am sure that is one of the main reasons they did it. To purchase these three items separately would have been $7-8 dollars. It’s still fast food. I haven’t been back.

I am a major dog lover and what Romney did to his Irish Setter is revolting. As someone noted, why not put the luggage on top and the dog in the car. I have never seen anyone do this to an animal. If they did I would call 911 and the local animal control while I wrote down their license plate # and followed them until authorities arrived. It’s disgusting that no one driving in the vicinity of Romney’s car for 12 hours didn’t bother to do this!! WHAT AN IDIOT.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend