Image 01 Image 03

“You can’t make this stuff up” of the day

“You can’t make this stuff up” of the day

Mitt Romney: Santo’s not conservative enough to be Veep (h/t Uncle Samuel):

“Well that would preclude, of course, Rick Santorum,” Romney said. “Because, I mean, look at his record. I find it interesting that he continues to describe  himself as the real conservative. This is the guy who voted against the  right to work, this is the guy who voted to fund Planned Parenthood,  this is the person who voted to raise the debt ceiling five times. … It’s my way of saying that Rick Santorum is not a person who is an  economic conservative, to my right. I’m saying I’m a conservative, I  give him credit for being a conservative, but not a fiscal conservative.  His record does not suggest he’s got the fiscal conservative chops that I  have.”

Campaign spending chart via BuzzFeed:

Carbonite stock chart today:

Good News: Obama losing the contraception mandate debate:

Sure enough, when asked, “Should health insurance plans for  all employees have to cover the full cost of birth control for female employees  or should employers be able to opt out for moral or religious reasons?” women favored opting out by a 46-44 margin. The margin increased to a decisive  53-38  for “religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or  university.”

That’s among women. Unbeknownst to those who read only the Times‘ main story, the poll asked the same question to men. They were not split. Men  favored opting out by a 20 point margin (57 vs. 37), except when a “religiously  affiliated employer” was involved, in which case the margin increased to 25  points. Combining men and women, a substantial majority (51-40) favors  allowing an opt-out–increasing to 57-36 where religiously-affiliated  institutions are involved.

Bad News: Is Rush being hurt more than we know?

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Thought experiment:

Where would Romney now be standing if stuck at the wrong end of a 10:1 money differential and advertising disadvantage and if the entire GOP establishment had made the same case for the abominations of Romneycare as they did for the personality defects of Gingrich or the unelectability of Rick Santorum? And yet both Gingrich and Santorum, despite being wildly outspent by Romney and outnumbered by the establishment, have at different times in the past three months had their boots on Romney’s neck. All that either had to do was twist his heel. Both failed.

Obama will not.

I cannot believe that Romney had the audacity to say that. He and O have even more in common than I thought.

    TomB in reply to Rosalie. | March 14, 2012 at 9:55 am

    I think Romney is correct. Santorum is a social conservative but not a fiscal conservative. Romney is not as fiscally conservative as I would like, but he is more fiscally conservative than Santorum.

    I await your thumbs down.

No one could keep the “boot” on for very long though huh? Losers are known to slip often, or free fall back to Earth after their brief view from the top, whatever…

All this blather about spending and yet, there is also this. I wonder who has better sources, WaPo or BF?

I hate to ruin the cute little narrative you have going here:

Few expect the fundraising drought to last into the general-election campaign, which still appears likely to rank among the most expensive ever. Once the Republican nominee is chosen, most strategists predict, party donors will quickly rally around the candidate and produce a surge of money to go up against the Obama campaign. The surge will be augmented by money from super PACs and other outside groups, which will have an easier time raising money than they did in previous election cycles.

Me? I am banking on “a passion against the president rather than for the candidate that brings the numbers up.”

    WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 13, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    As much as some of you viscerally loathe Mitt Romney, there are far more Americans who viscerally loathe Barack Obama. That is all that will matter.

      Karl Rogue in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 13, 2012 at 8:07 pm

      Don’t think so. Romney is repellent to well more than half of the right, and to virtually all of the left. There’s a major a$$ beating coming to someone.

        WoodnWorld in reply to Karl Rogue. | March 13, 2012 at 8:13 pm

        While I appreciate your feelings as much as the next conservative, I genuinely believe people who “feel” the way you do are in the (perhaps, very vocal) minority.

        Time sure will tell won’t it?

    Same Same in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 13, 2012 at 5:41 pm


    Hey Joel. Do you get paid to troll, or is it purely for personal satisfaction?

      WoodnWorld in reply to Same Same. | March 13, 2012 at 5:54 pm

      Hey ah… Same Same, I get paid for other skills. This, I do for pure enjoyment! You knew that already though…

        WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 13, 2012 at 6:00 pm

        Hahaha, you KNOW you have gotten under their skins when they flog their Google bars on your behalf!

        Want to fact check anything else I have said on here? It’s all legit baby. 🙂

          Same Same in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 13, 2012 at 6:06 pm

          Actually, I didn’t know.

          I have a friend who works for the Romney campaign. Have thought of asking for the last few months’ talking points to compare them to your posts. More interested in what that says about the Romney campaign, not you. Sorry to burst your bubble.

          WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 13, 2012 at 6:24 pm

          Uh huh. Sure thing brother, whatever you say. If you didn’t know before, hell of a good guess, you sure as hell know now don’t you?

          Go ahead and ask your friend. Take your time. Why mess around with a silly little compare and contrast though? While you are at it, why don’t you just cut straight to the chase and have your friend look for me on any of the rosters? Believe me when I say if I were formally working for a campaign this season, they would know it.

          If it’s talking points you want, I have each (every last one) of the candidates’ public emails from the last six months or so (and I have read and compared/contrasted them all). While I am at it, if it’s reading material you need, I can give you the “daily diet,” 40-50 sites I try to stay regularly updated on…

          Enough about me, for now, how’s that Southern Strategy shaping up for you all tonight Same?

          Same Same in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 13, 2012 at 6:43 pm

          Public emails are of no interest. You may as well read a company’s press releases to decide which products to buy.

          Kind of tragic how neglected you were as a child, to think that any attention, even negative attention, is better than no attention. Guess the internet was made to order for your ilk. Professor ought to do some housecleaning though…

      WoodnWorld in reply to Same Same. | March 13, 2012 at 7:03 pm

      Yes yes, a familiar tactic here. Can’t attack the message? Go for the messenger. It’s the essence of your “troll” approach. Swing and a miss. Newsflash Same, it’s not working. Please believe me when I say you are going to need more than “childhood neglect” to faze me. If I were you I would try to win on the merits or your sources and the strength of your argument rather than on the reflex to attack people you do not agree with. I am not saying you will win (per se), only that you might have more success than trying to come after me personally. Just sayin…

      As far as the good professor is concerned, I first communicated communicated with him and expressed my utmost respect for his site. As always, he is free to do what he pleases with his blog and, if he chooses to “clean house” because you are uncomfortable with the message, I will continue to both read his work faithfully and direct new readers to his site.


      P.S. While you are at it, when you talk to your friend, will you ask if they need any help? I should be home in late Spring, or so, (they should have this pretty sewn up by then) and I would be more than willing to volunteer, make calls etc. Put in a good word for me! Oh, also, before I forget, please pass on that once Mitt does win the primary I will be maxing out my contribution and I am pretty sure I can get a number of friends to do the same. Thanks!

        WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 13, 2012 at 7:07 pm

        Correction: “As far as the good professor is concerned, I first communicated with him *months ago re: the troll “allegation”** and expressed my utmost respect for his site…”

Hey, they’re losing the debate, as polls indicate. They’re wiling to say anything.

I’d be willing to say that, though a few idiots may have suspended ads, that won’t last. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that MORE people are listening to Rush than ever.

The liberals who hate Rush don’t listen to him for anything but criticism anyway.

In the LONG run, it will be beneficial for Rush.

Santorum isn’t particularly conservative, especially on fiscal issues. Won’t argue that. Problem is, what, if anything, is Mitt conservative on?

    Confutus in reply to Same Same. | March 13, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    Romney fought hard against same-sex marriage in Massachussets. He also wants to cut taxes and balance the budget with even deeper cuts in government size and spending, and prune back government regulation. Sounds conservative to me.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Confutus. | March 13, 2012 at 6:35 pm

      That is so blatantly false.

      Romney raised corporate taxes and fees.

      Romney allowed all the radical agenda groups to have their way in Massachusetts…gay marriage, adoption, abortion, contraception with no conscience clause for the church.

      Every part of Romney’s (ruthless) business and (liberal) political life was shored up with huge amounts of taxpayer money.

      The Olympics (a private enterprise, hint: Mormon) got 1.5 billion plus 340 million…more than 700,000 per athlete.

      Romney’s lies are legend and legion. Eight in the last two debates…there are whole websites dedicated to listing his lies, his corruption, flip-flops, deceptions and radicalism.

      Don’t try to defend Romney in writing. We will dish it back to you. (with links of published articles by the dozens)

      There is too much out there on him.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | March 13, 2012 at 6:39 pm

        Here is one evaluation of Romney’s governorship:
        Northeastern University economist Andrew Sum, who has researched Romney’s record, said the state lagged the U.S. average during that period in job creation, economic growth and wage increases.

        “As a strict labor market economist looking at the record, Massachusetts did very poorly during the Romney years, he said. “On every measure you’ve got, the state was a substantial under-performer.”

        At a campaign rally here on Saturday, Romney’s supporters handed out flyers promoting the candidate’s economic credentials, a central theme in his campaign, saying he had “closed a nearly $3 billion budget deficit without raising taxes” during his term in Massachusetts.

        But the $3 billion deficit projected by Romney and state legislators in January 2003 at the start of his administration never rose that high because a surge in capital gains taxes more than halved the shortfall to $1.3 billion.

        While Romney and the state legislature cut $1.6 billion from the 2004 budget, analysts noted he also generated more than $500 million by raising fees and by closing corporate tax loopholes — actions considered tax rises by some businesses.

        “There’s never been under his watch an economic turnaround to speak of,” Michael Widmer, president of the independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, told Reuters. “We added a few jobs over the last three years of his tenure but very few. He also raised corporate taxes and fees.”


        Confutus in reply to Uncle Samuel. | March 13, 2012 at 7:34 pm

        I’m sure you could flood me with all kinds of information that “prove” how liberal Romney was in Massachussets. Sheer volume of information does not impress me if it’s ripped out of context and not representative.

Because nothing says fiscal conservative like all those tax fee increases he sponsored as governor.

Another key signifier of Romney’s fiscal conservatism is his proposal to limit tax deductions for charitable giving by [drum roll, please], the top 1 percent:

Mitt Romney stated, “And by the way, I want to make sure you understand that, for middle income families, the deductibility of home mortgage interest and charitable contributions, those things will continue. But for high income folks, we are going to cut back on that, so we make sure the top 1% keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more.”

    gs in reply to OCBill. | March 13, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    1. From time to time I point out that, given a graduated income tax, income inequality maximizes the government’s revenue, all else being equal. In that sense, notwithstanding protestations to the contrary, income inequality is in the government’s interest—and the politicians know it.

    2. Why has there been so little discussion about a VAT? Obviously the people who are planning it are keeping quiet, but why aren’t conservatives forcing the issue? IMO the best chance to avoid it is with a Democrat President and Republican Congress. I suspect that President Romney would ram it through via Democrats and RINOs: unless he were forced to take an antiVAT pledge and believed that, per Bush 41, breaking it would make him a one-termer.

Premier Radio is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Clear Channel, which is owned by Bain Capital, which is… Romney.

An interesting sentence, so far uninterpreted by the nation’s Palinologists, appeared on Facebook yesterday:

Along with millions of others, I’m willing and free to discuss these issues with the President anywhere, anytime; and I’m sure any of the four patriots currently running for the GOP nomination would also welcome the opportunity to talk about the problems everyday Americans face due to the abject failure of our current administration’s policies.

1. While La Sarahnissima hasn’t thrown her hat in, she continues to finger it while walking around the ring.

2. That she refers to all four candidates as patriots suggests that she could reach a modus vivendi with Romney. Nevertheless, IMO her reference to the Republican field might has a touch of damning with faint praise.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to gs. | March 13, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    BUT – She voted for Newt…her words consistently point to him…always talking about a person who can “best articulately argue conservatism”

    AND, Newt is always talking about, based his whole campaign on HER issue, her field of expertise – which happens to be one of the key means of restoring the economy, national security and solvency.

    Oh, Please…. don’t let the RINOs and Democrats win….

    Uncle Samuel in reply to gs. | March 13, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Part of the Tea Party’s game is to ‘play with’ the RINOs and Radicals….keep ’em guessing…. I do believe they have a plan.

Tom Taylor (in the video) mentioned that Rush played golf Monday, insinuating that he did so to “chill out.” No, that wasn’t the reason; he played in a scheduled charity golf event.

A Great Day at Els for Autism Event

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Kitty. | March 13, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    The Media Mouths and Usual Suspects (evil female trinity – Fonda, Steinem, Allred) are trying so hard to magnify this into an enormous moral crisis.

    Which is simply ludicrous when you listen to their language, jokes, vitriol, vile epithets, etc., watch their movies and read their comments on the blogs.

    I believe this will be turned to good…for Rush.

Apparently Romney is unable or refuses to understand why he is unappealing to a sizable portion of the conservative base. Bean counters will always think that is the be all and end all.

Basic principles of Critical Race Theory (CRT):
1. “Racism is ordinary, not aberrational”;

… so this means that whole “post-racial” thing was all bull shit ?

    theduchessofkitty in reply to Neo. | March 14, 2012 at 2:22 am

    “so this means that whole “post-racial” thing was all bull shit?”

    Yep. You just aced it.