« | »

The Hive – Please Talk Among Yourselves

Here is our usual weekend discussion thread, where comments on the general topics of the day are welcome.

But please remember to post and comment on specific news items in the ‘News Selected By Our Correspondents’ thread below or via the link found in the sidebar.

Thanks!

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Friday, January 20th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

126 Responses to “The Hive – Please Talk Among Yourselves”

  1. canary

    4 French soldiers shot and killed & 16 wounded during fitness exercises by Afghanistan policeman. Again the media reports 6 NATO soldiers dead from helicopter crash. NATO in the media’s newest trend means U.S. Soldiers. Obama’s Operation Slow & Sitting Ducks withdrawal campaign. grrrr.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16645251

  2. proreason

    If this poll is correct it’s tectonic:

    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....antorum-9/

    It could be worse if the momentum is in Newt’s favor. A small victory by Newt would be acceptable to the ruling class. A blowout will blow out the tires. There will be a melt-down.

    If Newt wins by 10 or more expect the following:

    – the ruling class will threaten to pick up their toys and go home
    – Newt will be called a child-molestor, an associate of Charles Manson and Jeffrey Daumer
    – several notable conservative figures will declare that they will vote for obamy rather than newt

    They hate him that much.

    Because he will end business as usual.

    Methinks they should have left Chuckie alone in Iowa.

    Bring it on.

    • tranquil.night

      The establishment is already showing signs of being on the verge of the panic.

      The entire time it’s been “well you Conservatives better fall in line behind Romney because you say nothing is more important than beating Obama.”

      They can’t face the possibility of the tables being reversed.

      I predict they’ll follow the pattern they always take: they’ll continue to wash their hands of this field of candidates and continue to look for ways to snipe at the Right for being the reason why they assert Obama will win reelection.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      It’s not like the ruling class on the right will recognize that they work for the people. We have unfortunately wandered into post Caesar times in America where the republic is at grave risk and the few elites at the top make the decisions on who will be allowed to run for president.

      Yeah, the left does it too but for different reasons, though at the end of the day it seems to be a distinction without a difference.

      The conservatives on the right are seeking someone who will, above all else, preserve the validity and necessity and importance of the Constitution. The left would just as soon wipe their asses with it as it, to them, hampers their concept of governance. I have, from the beginning, questioned Rome-ny’s ability to recognize what the Constitution means and if he does understand it, why he would stray from its confines. I entertained several hypotheticals in my mind all of which ended badly for the citizens.

      Newt is as flawed a human-being as can be found but it doesn’t detract from his strengths. Women are still hung up about his infidelity but guys have for centuries known that marital infidelity doesn’t mean political infidelity or any other kind. Just because a man does a thing one way does not mean he does all things that same way. He needs no defense from me, however and compared to the big Zero, he’s a saint who understands the Constitution and would defend it and adhere to it.

      Everything the left has done in the past century has nibbled away at the strict adherence to constitutional law. This is their goal; To make the Constitution irrelevant. They hate it, except when it suits their need to claim some type of prejudice or bias on the right and then they want to hang it over our heads like a war trophy. There is clearly something wrong with the left. I don’t know if it’s brain damage, over-emotionalism, selfishness, or all three but the fact remains that they don’t like the rules and have set about changing them at every opportunity. The real shame though, is that republicans have let them.

      Watching Boner right now remain silent in the face of Obama’s abuses of authority is testimony to the reference I made to Rome above. He doesn’t want to make any waves…won’t stand up and defend us…and is therefore pretty useless. His own statement about “The courts will probably find them unacceptable” is proof that he’s every bit the lackadaisical thinker and leader the president is, which may be why they get along with each other. Plus, he’s afraid of his own shadow. We’ve been saying this ever since the republicans took the majority in the House…yet Boner himself said (para), “we’re but a fraction of the entire government, what can we do?”. In other words he has command of the Congress but not the Senate and because of that, he remains silent and lets the democrats largely have their way, except in the cases of procedure and curriculum.

      What Newt did last week was, for the first time, the thing that conservatives wanted to hear. We know that the left won’t change their ways but for me, personally, it let the left know that they can’t just mock, goad, ridicule, incense, agitate, poke, prod and push the right around without being called on it anymore. The answer to bullying is NOT acquiescence. That is a myth perpetuated by the left for their own purposes. When you ignore a bully, they will keep coming at you until you cream them and hurt them and make them bleed. Even then, they may come after you again but they’ll think twice because they know they got a licking the first time. Bullies abound on the left but it won’t be long before Newt is accused of bulling poor little John King who “just asked a question”. This is in keeping with the left’s control of the rules.

      Well, I’ve never allowed the left to control the rules. They really don’t like me when I let them have it back in a dripping, smelly paper sack. By their standard, I’m mean, angry and ….you guessed it…a bully. But the fact has always been that they hate the truth, especially when it’s stuck in their faces after they’ve made a bunch of irrational statements and emotional pleas.

      Newt can do it. My only question is, will he keep it up?

    • proreason

      Everyone should read Rusty’s post.

      It’s one of his best in a long time of great comments.

      I think Newt’s attack on the media could be a seminal moment. I noticed a lot of people on other blogs stating that it persuaded them that he is the guy. I said to a friend last night who has become exceedingly conservative in the last three years after a lifetime of liberal/libertarianism that I’m almost to the point that I could live with losing in 2012, as long as the candidate calls Obama out and tells the country who the marxist really is. His response was yes, yes, yes, yes. I quickly recanted the comment and said that I if I thought Romney could win as Casper Milqueghost and Gingrich would lose as General Grant, I would certainly pick Romney. But I’ve also come to the point where I simply don’t believe the 24×7 drumbeat that Romney is the most electable. Why? Seems to me that he is a patrician almost identical to Bush Senior. Yes he’s an accomplished guy, but Bubba Clinton kicked the shit out of him, even though Bush had won probably the most glorious victory for the US since WWII. Gingrich, for all his faults, is a bootstrap guy. He’s a military brat who got to where he is by his own efforts. He has sinned too much, but more than the average person? Frankly, I doubt it. I trust Romney to do the bidding of his country club pals. I trust Gingrich to fight like hell to save the country. I don’t trust the country club pals to lift a finger to help my family.

    • The Redneck

      Sorry, but I’ve really got to disagree.

      1. Newt’s a turd–there’s really no way of getting around it. Yes, the media hates him with the same white-hot, froth-at-the-mouth hate they usually reserve for actual conservatives, but that doesn’t automatically make him a good guy (in fact, I almost suspect that’s why the media’s attacking him–are they smart enough to realize that when we see them pull out the stops on someone we tend to say “Hey, he must be a pretty great guy!”? That would explain why we’re supporting mediocre figures like Palin, after all {well, that and the fact that her figure is is anything but mediocre}…). His ethics violations are pretty obvious, his marriages prove he can’t keep his word to one person much less the whole country, and he’s been taking money from the same people responsible for our crisis–and I really have to disagree that nobody cares about this. These are some pretty flagrant offenses, and the idea that he’ll get tough with the people that he took millions of dollars from, or that people will know that the woman who gives him head on a regular basis can’t trust him but think our votes will earn his undying loyalty, just doesn’t hold water with me.

      2. Newt can’t really do anything. He’s too bombastic, he’s too loud, and he’s too hard to get along with. Even his own campaign staff said “screw this guy” and left–twice. If he becomes the nominee, he’ll get in some great zingers on Obama during the campaign–beautiful, vicious insults that we’ll keep repeating throughout Obama’s second term. Should he actually get into office, he won’t be able to work with either house of Congress unless he’s the absolute star of the show.

      3. Newt’s a RINO. Whether he can effect change doesn’t matter if he won’t try.

      Does this mean I like Romney? Not in the slightest. Romney is another RINO, a New England Yankee who thinks being Republican has more to do with ordering the servants around and counting your stolen silverware than it does with actually upholding conservative values. I think it’s a shame that he’s the front-runner, but the flat truth is the Republican Party has thrown our bright choices under the bus. It’s thrown our half-bright choices under the bus. Now what we have are the stupid choices (Romney or Santorum) and the retarded choices (Newt or Paul).

    • Rusty Shackleford

      According to the local news results, Gingrich is scoring a consistent 40% of the votes compared to Romney’s ~20-25% and Santorum and Paul splitting the rest in the high teens. That’s of 9:00 tonight with not all precincts at 100% yet. Only Greenville is in at 100% with the high score going to Gingrich.

    • proreason

      Turd power.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      How they voted: http://www.cnn.com/election/20.....?hpt=hp_t2

      Interesting breakdown.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      More: http://www.cnn.com/election/20...../epolls/sc

      42% of the men voting voted for Newt
      38% of the women ” ” ” ” ” ” .

      It would appear that the infidelity tack is not working all that well and republican women are not as lock-step about it as the left would have us believe. With the “ex flop” and the air all taken out of that, the left still expected to “beat the conservatives at their own game” and miscalculated….badly. After all, it seemed to work with Cain, right? “Everybody knows the right hates men who are horn-dogs like our own Bill-Jeff.”

      Oops. What else ya got? Ante up.

    • proreason

      After three years of obamy in the white house, women are relieved to be able to vote for a man who can get it up for girls. Turns out that the honey badger is a randy one.

      Did you know that his first wife was his math teacher in high school? Today she would be arrested and paraded before the nation for weeks on Greta’s show.

      Newt was a prodigy in more ways than one.

      btw, check out Newt’s victory speech at Hot Air. The core of the speech is this (no kidding), paraphrased only slightly….”obamy is a Saul Alinsky radical who is building a European style country based on dependency and hand-outs. I will return us to a country based on the founding documents, a country that is based on independence, freedom and military strength”

      If he can force that message out through the barbed wire perimeter of pravda (both our own little conservative pravda, and Big Pravda), he will win every remaining primary and 46 states in the general election.

    • The Redneck

      42% of the men voting voted for Newt
      38% of the women ” ” ” ” ” ” .
      It would appear that the infidelity tack is not working all that well and republican women are not as lock-step about it as the left would have us believe.

      You think only women are concerned that the guy can’t keep his word?

      There’s no doubt he picked up the SC victory, but that doesn’t mean he can win a general election.

    • proreason

      That sly Newt.

      Not only is he consolidating the anti-capitalist vote, he is consolidating the anti-marriage vote as well.

      Because a vote against Romney is a vote against capitalism and a vote against marriage. Karl Rove told me.

      Newt could be worse than obamy. At least obamy is up-front about his marxism.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      The Redneck said:

      “You think only women are concerned that the guy can’t keep his word?

      No. What I said was that the infidelity tag appears to matter less, especially to women, who the left likes to manipulate and play like an old horn. Certainly you can make your own choices but let’s take a look at Obama. He apparently, for whatever reason, has been faithful to his wife, though one can only imagine why. Yet he has engaged in a wholesale destruction of this nation from within.

      You say, because Newt has had fidelity problems, which I’ll acknowledge are significant, that he will be untrustworthy and will do some sort of harm. What harm can he do that will surpass Captain Zero?

      As the infidelity thing goes, I have known several people who cheated on their wives but to that I say this. Even my own father did it but as far as was concerned his job, there was no one more reliable, more steadfast, more dedicated and more hard-working than he. In fact, it was a source of angst for my mother. No, I don’t like how he ended the marriage with my mom but to be perfectly fair, he did not do all things in that manner. Much as I detest Clinton, his travails and proclivities in his sex life didn’t interest me in the least, nor did I think them a symptom of his political bent. However, his defense of same defined his attitude while Gingrich’s admission of his failures only makes me think more highly of him. Had Clinton said, right off the bat, “What I did was unacceptable”, I might have had a brief spell of understanding.

      I refuse to point out the stick in another’s eye while ignoring the log in my own. I have often said that “The last time I looked up ‘perfect’, I wasn’t even on the waiting list”. I make lots of mistakes but as I learned in the military, the goal is to minimize them and the recovery from them is often more important than the mistakes themselves.

      People also often run a misguided judgement campaign that is based on knowing the facts as they have all come out. But, we are all works-in-progress and things unfold in their own time. It’s ridiculous to pass judgement by thinking that the person in question had the gift of seeing the future.

    • tranquil.night

      “Because a vote against Romney is a vote against capitalism and a vote against marriage. Karl Rove told me.”

      Yes, and according to the spin South Carolina was also a vote for anti-Mormon bigotry!11

      Wingnut-o-sphere round-up:

      rdbrewer @ AoSHQ for the win:
      Looks Like We All Owe Gingrich Aide Rick Tyler an Apology

      Haven’t been too keen on the HA crew lately, but Jazz at least doesn’t hide behind the pretense of objectivity like Ed, the pretense of principles like Tina, or have sarcastic personality disorder like Chumpundit. Heh.

      Seven Things We Learned from South Carolina

      2. The anti-establishment GOP meme is not just a meme

      I’m reminded of a scene from the cult classic film, Princess Bride. “Inevitable. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Newt Gingrich may not be the Conservative Ideal for many in the base and his record (or “baggage” if you prefer) may give many pause in terms of the general election. But one thing he’s not is Mitt Romney. Another thing he’s not is the establishment candidate. South Carolina’s history in the modern era of politics should teach us that they are, if nothing else, a generally pragmatic group. If any early state was going to go with the candidate they were “told” was the inevitable winner, it would have been them. But let’s face it… Mitt got his backside handed to him in a fairly decisive fashion. This came in spite of endorsements from prominent “establishment” figures up and down the line, as well as those of ultraconservative, Tea Party favorites. It didn’t matter in the end. The running theme of primary voters being tired of being “told who to vote for” can no longer be taken as a Tea Party talking point, in my opinion. We now have solid voter data to back it up.

      Yay, after months of “The Inevitable Won,” somebody finally got the movie ref. Jazz wins the prize of not being included in the HA editorial roast.

      Establishment hand-wringing (cont’d): Professor Jacobson – Fearmongers for Romney

      “It’s really no surprise. As Mitt Romney has faltered from inevitability to modest favorite, a chorus of pro-Romney voices in the media and Republican Party is insisting that if Newt is the nominee, we not only lose the presidency we also lose the House and fail to take back the Senate.”

      Dan Riehl, who joined the Honey Badger brigade, is laughing at Jenn Rubin.

    • tranquil.night

      Politico – In South Carolina primary, Nikki Haley takes hit with Mitt Romney loss

      Dumb, but SoP.

      I wouldn’t be expecting much political help back from the Romney or the Rovepublican Establishments, Governor.

    • proreason

      tn: “But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.” from the HA post.

      I’ve been arguing elswhere today that its time to start recognizing that Newt is the premier Republican political genius of our lifetimes. As a one-man show he has:
      – overcome the entire political Ruling Class AND the conservative pundit-sphere
      – neutered the marxists’ pending argument that he is immoral
      – neutered the marxists’ pending argument that he is a tool of Wall Street
      – overcome the biggest nuclear character attack in Republican primary history (Iowa)
      – overcome a very clever republican strategy to label him as anti-capitalist
      – overcome the incredible challenge of having to defend three divorces
      – positioned himself as the only candidate prepared to take obama on over the entire front of Constitutional Democracy instead of the narrow and risky battlefield of economics

      This is a stunning achievement in american politics. There are four recent parallels, but none of them were pulled off by a one-man gang: Nixon’s rise from the dead after losing the California governship, Reagan’s stunning win of the Presidency in 1980, Bubba Clintons victory as a hick from Arkansas in 1992, and little lenin’s marxist coup in 2008.

      I’m expecting that Axelrod/Soros is going to start funnelling money to romney now, so it ain’t over yet. Hang on because the ride could become even wilder.

    • The Redneck

      You say, because Newt has had fidelity problems, which I’ll acknowledge are significant, that he will be untrustworthy and will do some sort of harm. What harm can he do that will surpass Captain Zero?
      There’s the issue–he couldn’t if he tried. If Newt becomes the nominee I’ll vote for him to get Obama out of office–hell, I’d consider voting for Ron Paul to get Obama out of office. I’d vote for a film clip of 2girls1cup over Obama–but that doesn’t mean we should actively seek out the film clip.

      I’ve been arguing elswhere today that its time to start recognizing that Newt is the premier Republican political genius of our lifetimes. As a one-man show he has:
      – overcome the entire political Ruling Class AND the conservative pundit-sphere
      – neutered the marxists’ pending argument that he is immoral
      – neutered the marxists’ pending argument that he is a tool of Wall Street
      – overcome the biggest nuclear character attack in Republican primary history (Iowa)
      – overcome a very clever republican strategy to label him as anti-capitalist
      – overcome the incredible challenge of having to defend three divorces
      – positioned himself as the only candidate prepared to take obama on over the entire front of Constitutional Democracy instead of the narrow and risky battlefield of economics

      I don’t know how much he’s neutered the “pending arguments,” and they come from considerably more than just marxists–but if you look, you’ll note that the majority of the “challenges” he’s overcome are consequences of his own actions.

      Moreover, there’s still the problem that Newt’s a RINO–have you forgotten the ads helping Pelosi to push the global warming hoax?

    • proreason

      Well they’re all rino’s now.

      I want the one who can win.

      Just like I’ve wanted from the beginning.

      SC proved that Newt’s marital history is a non-factor.

      This is the year people will accept anything in the guy who demonstrates he will take the fight to the marxists’ house.

    • proreason

      Speaking of Ann’s dimishing influence:

      http://minx.cc/?post=325974

      My hunch is that she’s smart enough to know that she has hurt her brand immensely. Not so much with attacking newt, but mostly with supporting McRomney. People won’t forget it.

      I’m just one insignificant former fan, but I don’t even visit her website anymore.

  3. proreason

    This counts for something. Micheal Reagan endorses Newt.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ian-bolduc

  4. proreason

    Holy shit. Chuck Norris endorses Newt.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/gop.....dorsement/

    Now SC has no choice.

    • tranquil.night

      Fitting pickup for the guy who laid down the debate roundhouses this week.

      Chuck’s a bright writer and commentator for so many relevant issues too. He’s more than just a rare piece of pop-culture candy on the Right.

      Nothing beats a Chuck Norris approved ad though. Team Newt need to get on that!

  5. canary

    US paying Chinese firms paid billions to build bridges in NY, CA, & Alaska.

    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/vide.....t=14594944

  6. Astravogel

    Doonsbury’s strips with the paid voice gal are
    getting pretty good. I liked the “shining city
    looted and sacked” one she did in today’s.

  7. proreason

    Lou Dobbs explained the Cayman Island thing yesterday on O’Reilly.

    Money invested in the Caymans (and apparently other offshore locations) can grow without being taxed until it is returned to the US. It’s like an unlimitted 401K, without all the restrictions on contributions and distributions. Kind of an investment Disneyland for the wealthy. Sweet huh? Totally legal, of course.

    So while you sweat to get a few hundred bucks in a 401K and then have to be careful to follow the rules, lest you be penalized for a mistep (essentially, you can’t touch your money for decades), the rich basically get all the advantages of a 401K with none of the disadvantages.

    Of course, if you have enough money yourself, you could take advantage of the rules. But how much do you want to bet that you need several hundred thousand dollars to be able to get into a fund in the Caymans.

    To me, this follows the pattern that bugs me about Romney specifically and the wealthy in general. Romney is always “legal”. Oh sure, his Pac rips into Newt, but of course, Romney has no control over it. But you say, it’s run by his advisors? No problem monsieur, that’s legal. Romey doesn’t reveal his taxes in time for the most important primaries? Totally legal of course. He isn’t compelled to do so. He’ll reveal them at a later time, and if the contain something that will be a big issue in the general election, well, he didn’t do anything illegal. That would just be the luck of the draw. Taking advantage of a tax loophole so obscure that it wasn’t even revealed until a week after the Cayman funds were disclosed? Well, that’s just what the smart guys do you know; or rather, the smart guys who can affort tax lawyers and lobbyists to bend the tax code in their favor. Totally legally, of course.

    To me, it stinks….but then it turns out I am an anti-capitalist, or so RoveRomney’s minions have declared.

    • David

      That sounds like a good business opportunity! I wonder how much it would cost to set up a small bank in the Caymans and run an online version of this for the average joe! I looked at a couple of the Cayman island banks but they didn’t have a stated minimum but they did have a requirement that you send a statement with how much business you would be doing.
      Well if I set one up S&Lers get a free Mai Tai with each visit! :)

    • Petronius

      I heard Lou Dobbs last night but can’t figure out what he was talking about. I think Dobbs misspoke. The Dobbs rule applies to corporate income taxes. For example, if Coca-Cola operates a subsidiary in Japan, it pays taxes in Japan. But its profits are not subject to the US corporate income tax unless and until Coca-Cola repatriates the money to the US.

      However, that rule does not apply to the personal income tax. If I earn income in Japan, then I must pay tax both in Japan and in the US. This results in double taxation. However, if a tax treaty exists between the US and Japan, part (but not all) of the Japanese tax that I paid would be deductible here on my US personal income tax return.

      Let’s say I have several foreign bank accounts. If those accounts earn interest, tax on the interest income is deducted by the foreign country. I then have to pay tax on the interest to the IRS as well, although part of the foreign tax is deductible from my US taxes.

      The same rule applies to dividends paid by foreign stocks or ADRs. Let’s say you own shares in BP. The British government will deduct UK tax on your BP dividends. You then have to pay US income tax on the dividends. This results in double taxation, but again part of the British tax may be deductible here.

      Foreign bank accounts are most commonly used for purposes other than tax avoidance. For example, they are necessary for people who have investments, property, expenses, or sources of income in foreign countries, such as rental income from real estate, a pension or royalties from a book, or a mortgage on a second home. The payments are made and received in the local foreign currency, not in US dollars, hence the need for the foreign bank account.

      Another advantage of foreign accounts is to hold cash (savings) in a strong foreign currency. Some European banks have historically offered customer accounts in a few different currencies, such as euros, British pounds, US dollars, Swiss francs, Norwegian krone. This is not a service offered by American banks. Some foreign banks also offer trading accounts in gold and silver coins/bullion for customers.

      Another reason for foreign bank accounts is to keep wealth outside the country as a precaution or form of insurance against political risk, in case helter-skelter comes down. The Jews learned this lesson in the 1930s. By the way, if I lived in the North, I would make it a point to have a bank account in Canada.

      I don’t know why Romney has accounts in the Caymans, but Dobbs’ explanation doesn’t make sense. I would hazard a guess that Romney has a company or trust fund there that manages property or investments in other countries, such that money is received and paid in several different foreign currencies. US banks don’t routinely process transactions in foreign currencies. And when they do make foreign exchange transactions, they really gouge the heck out of you on the exchange rate, keeping a big chunk for themselves. So you could not deal through a US bank on a routine basis. You’d have to go outside the USA to find that service at a reasonable price. This, however, is something that Romney cannot easily explain without opening up more questions about his personal finances and investments. Romney may not even know the answers because, with his wealth, he has lawyers and accountants to manage this for him.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      Pro, thanks for the above endorsement and….

      I think what you’re saying is that you resent the ruling class, thumb-their-nose at us “regular people” (Thank you, Mr Bill Cosby) and put on their little-ol’-me face while we struggle.

      I play that game a different way. I almost don’t care what the rich do. If I was rich, I would take advantage of everything I could, while also donating to things I think were worthwhile. But since I do ok…and pay my taxes, etc., I just try to worry about me.

      Taken in the larger context of being the chief executive, he does strike me as being every bit the no-account that Obama is. In other words, he can do as he likes and no one should ask him about it. Sure, he’s a great businessman but I have met “great businessmen” in the past and many of them are pricks. Rude, self-serving, self-important and condescending. One thing I hate more than almost anything else is the “down-the-nose” attitude they have. Sure, you own several great big houses, fancy cars, yachts, jets, etc. but at times, your finger goes through the toilet paper just like anyone else.

      We in the US have a very odd thing going on. Lefties who are rich beyond measure are glorified and held on a pedestal while those on the right who are of the same stature are crucified by the people. To that, I have to reply that “a person’s money is their own and it’s up to me to decide if I respect them or not”. There are those who got their money through nefarious means and then, I have a problem with the all-too-legal insider trading that it seems ALL elected US government officials engage in.

      That’s the kind of “ruling-class-up-yours-buddy” attitude that chaps my ass. Seems to fall under the heading, “Just because you can do a thing doesn’t necessarily mean you should do a thing. Some restraint and yes, a bit of class can go a long way. They would respond, “So, I should just ignore opportunities to become wealthy?” but my answer is, “Not exactly, but I’d prefer you focused your attention on upholding a constitutional government and instead of voting where to spend other peoples’ money, vote instead on how not to as well as keeping 70% of your focus on your portfolio.”

      Our government has become dysfunctional in ways that perhaps the founding fathers could not have imagined. They were very forward-thinking but I don’t think they envisioned a secular nation that was driven by selfish needs to such an extent. They knew that people are inherently selfish and to that end, allowed for a set of checks and balances to keep it from imploding. But they didn’t count on national socialists and the first time that socialism reared its ugly head was, perhaps in the French Revolution. I’m sure they said, “We maybe should’ve addressed that in the documents somewhere”. However, it can be argued that the type of rabble that bring on socialism is in fact addressed by the Bill Of Rights.

      But back to Rome-ny. I cannot control what he does with his money. I have no desire to do so. But by the same token, I can note how he got his money, what he does with it and if he has used it to hurt people in order to benefit himself. And as a subtext to that, was it intentional or the cost of doing business? I acknowledge full-well that I work for a corporation that…given the right set of circumstances could fold in 24 hours. The doors would be locked and I’d be out of a job. I work with many who have had that very thing happen. Such is the life of a capitalist. You pays your moneys and you takes your chances. Does the company owe me a living? No. Not even for all the years of service I’ve given it. When I retire/if I retire from this company, I don’t want any recognition or a gold watch or anything. Just let me go. Leave me in peace. Don’t call me and demand I come in to cover someone who’s sick or didn’t show up for work. I work in order to have a lifestyle I enjoy, not to give some CEO credibility or bonuses. But if they get such benefit, so be it.

      Gone are the days of the community corporation. I have no interest in company picnics and “fun get-togethers” organized by yet another faction of the socialists who think it’s important that we all “share” with each other. I hate sharing, except with my friends and my family. If you make me do it at work, you’re going to find me most unlikable. I respect most of the people I work with but I am friends with but three of them. Socialism demands we be friends with everyone and not have our selfish needs. But that’s all a sham and defies human nature.

      So Rome-ny is your typical selfish capitalist. I see nothing wrong with that in and of itself. He’s not on the level of Soros but deep inside every millionaire is that ego that runs their desire to be appreciated and respected. In the past there were millionaires who didn’t care about such things and there still are. They are largely out of the mainstream public view. My father used to work for one. But those who get into politics, the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, the Roosevelts who were millionaires first seem to crave attention…being seen….having that respect that lives at the core of every human’s desires. Self actualization and though some are happy working their job, doing it well and keeping to themselves (the REAL 99%)there are those like Rome-ny who crave massive, overwhelming, unbelievable levels of adulation and acceptance (They are the REAL 1%) History is full of them.

      But I’m of no mind to support a guy who’s biggest worry right now is if his hair looks good or not; If the news media will be kind to him or not or if the ruling class accept him or not. All that is, at its base level, pathetic. It’s high school. It’s frat-boy bullshit.

      Right now I want someone who’s a mercenary and will take the socialists out one-by-one if necessary and though he might have warts that everyone can see, they are nothing compared to the destruction of our nation that’s going on and apparently tolerated by the likes of people like Rome-ny. He can’t articulate freedom. He can’t speak up against what Obama is doing/has done and if he can’t say it now, he won’t say it when the democrat-run senate destroys any legislation he proposes.

      He’s “business-as-usual” and just another nice haircut on TV. Newt is the smart, nerdy fat kid who has sat and learned and watched and listened and learned some more. He is, to me, most like Rome’s own Cicero, who clearly had his own problems but was able to identify and categorize things very astutely. Cicero wasn’t really allowed to make any major decisions though he probably should have. We have the opportunity to really allow a flawed but truly aware and intelligent man who won’t let the media or the left (redundant) push him around. The left will run article after article of things that will push the right’s buttons but in the long run, it will just agitate the left all that much more.

      The left is the party of hate, anger and fear. The right has fought stupidly and lost a lot of ground. (A LOT) and to get it back, we need a warrior who can do it. He will occasionally get hammered by the media but he will hand it right back to them in a manner that is clear, concise and direct. He uses words that even Obama can understand. Rome-ny cannot do this. Nor will he. He’s McCain II. Likes all the power and respect the ruling elites afford him and they will all sit quietly while he holds court with brandy and cigars at the lodge but he doesn’t understand ANYTHING at a base, core, simple level. Newt does.

    • tranquil.night

      “Romney may not even know the answers because, with his wealth, he has lawyers and accountants to manage this for him.”

      Yes, this is what he told Sean when it was brought up yesterday. He hasn’t been in charge of his finances since 2002 at least to (paraphrasing) ‘avoid the possibility of a conflict of interest.’

      With regards to the wealthy having the means to lobby themselves legal tax protection, so too do I believe we all have the ability to lobby for tax reform.

      Repatriating offshore wealth has been a central piece of a lot of the tax policy discussion this primary. Eliminating capital gains, dividends’ taxes and eliminating ‘loopholes’ by flattening the code are both major points to the Romney and Gingrich plans (Romney with marginal across the board rate reductions, Gingrich also with the move to the optional 15% flat tax rate). Santorum’s proposal also wants to address this, also in slightly different form, as he slashes CG to 12% from 15%, with his plan centering more around industrial revival and exemptions to promote strong families and charity.

      How much of it is political dressing for the rubes and how much of it is achievable? That of course remains to be seen.

      I support lobbying President Gingrich to appoint David our Cayman Ambassador!

    • proreason

      I’m no expert on the matter, but Dobbs didn’t waffle. What he said may be wrong, but it was clear, as far as it went.

      He said that US taxes don’t have to be paid until the money is returned to the US. From what you said, my hunch is that Romney has set up a corporation that houses his money in the Caymans. Maybe the Caymans only assesses a relatively nominal fee, or a tax rate that is so low that the benefit of deferring US taxes outweighs the small cost.

      Dobbs and O’Reilly brushed right by the topic, as if it was no big deal. Which probably means they have money stashed there themselves.

      David…nothing would shock me more than to learn that ordinary people could take advantage of the situation. I would bet the farm that the minimum deposits or other requirements would exclude all but the wealthiest people..

    • proreason

      Well, let me more clearly state my opinion on Romey, capitalist practices, and taxes.

      The issue isn’t what we think or support. The important issue is the impact on defeating the obamunists.

      And that quickly morphs into what the low-information voters who will decide the election will end up thinking about Romney, if he is the nominee. We can debate the nicities of private equity business practices, offshore accounts, and whether Romney went to far with some of Bains transactions. At the end, all the regulars here will agree that whatever he did, it’s a lot better than obamunism.

      But my fear is that the low-information voters won’t end up seeing it that way. They’re going to see Romney as the enemy. Didn’t McLame say about Romney: “he’s just like the guy who laid me off”

      Now, it is certainly possible to argue the equivalent about Gingrich; i.e., he’s an adulterer with ethics problems who has made lots of enemies and took some money from Fannie Mae (which I doubt anyone will really care about). But what’s in my mind is that ordinary people are going to look at that and say “sounds a lot like Cousin Earl, but you know, compared to obamy, Newt’s gotta be an improvement.”

    • tranquil.night

      Yes, through that lenses Pro, that’s probably why voters are getting leery of Romney’s “prevent defense” style of late in not effectively being able to squash these stories surrounding him decisively enough to give people confidence that he’ll be able to go toe to toe with a collection of foes that’ll be much more insidious.

      Meanwhile the Honey Badger Newt is taking viper strikes like a champ then going on to eat the head of the snake.

    • proreason

      oooow. look at Honey Badger run. he doesn’t give a shit. he doesn’t care how many bees sting him. he wants that honey. ooooh gross. honey badger’s eating larvae now. how disgusting.

    • Petronius

      pro : “Dobbs and O’Reilly brushed right by the topic, as if it was no big deal.” Yes, that annoyed me, too. Unfortunately it may become a big deal if Romney is the nominee. In that case we will hear an endless litany of “Caymans,” “Bain,” “Wall Street fat cat,” “vulture capitalist,” “corporate jet owner,” “imperialist capitalist swine,” etc., straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook. All designed to sway the low-information voters.

      O’Reilly abruptly ended the segment in his typical blowhard fashion, as if in his judgment the Caymans story was of little or no weight, and that his judgment was the only one that matters. I believe he did so because Brian Ross (ABC) has been covering the Caymans story, and neither O’Reilly nor Dobbs wanted to dignify it further.

      However, the story is either worth reporting or it is not. And if the story is worth reporting, it is worth reporting correctly and fully. The result of the Dobbs segment was to present incorrect or incomplete information to viewers.

      According to the Brian Ross segment on ABC, Romney is an investor in a number of Bain Capital investment funds, and some of those Bain funds are registered in the Caymans.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg0ZbZ9pwAk

      But of course in that case, Romney would have to pay personal income taxes on any dividends and capital gains generated to his account by those funds, same as any other investment income.

      Dobbs said Romney “gets to defer taxes on the money that is in a trust in the Cayman Islands earning interest. It’s exactly like an IRA, it’s nothing nefarious.”

      http://www.billoreilly.com/sho.....ter=true#5

      So what the heck does that mean? Are we talking about Romney as the investor in a Bain fund? Or Romney as grantor of a private trust? If Romney receives any money from a trust that money is “other income” that he must report on his personal income tax return. If the trust earns interest income but none is paid out, Romney has no income to report. The problem I have is that Dobbs uses technical words of art so carelessly that it is impossible to understand what he means.

      We are left to speculate.

      And so the Brian Ross version will probably continue to gain traction in the public mind.

    • proreason

      Petronius, Romney better some coming clean on this stuff. It will be an issue in Florida.

      I learned a long time ago that if something bothers me, it will also bother a lot of people.

      I’m bothered.

      Newt is going to feel empowered to bring up more stuff about Mitt’s business background and taxes now that he got away with opening the topics in SC. Mitts’ stonewall tactic is going to become a big loser real quick.

  8. canary

    Help me Lord.

    Aside the NYT source, my son came home with a Barney Frank source.
    So I’ve been going through the sites the students can use.
    So, far site after site in regards to government laws and regs, war and peace, 9/11, terrorist attacks, sources have a big gaps from 9/11, but Obama’s 2009 withdrawal troops from Iraq is there which is irrelevant. So, it’s official. Iraq ended in 2009.

    So, I tried going straight to a school source site “Congressional records” and aside album looking covers there is a video of no other the sweating slobbering slivering Barney Frank….

    I don’t know which b.s. lecture he gave because I had to exit out. I will just show a picture for my son of the man I told him about that brought down houses except for of course Barney’s own house he grew marijuana in.

    • canary

      I used the the school congressional reports because yesterday govt sites such as Congressional reports and others were not working and missing pages and pages with some number error at this time.

  9. canary

    Mitt Romney’s official site has only this to say under issues. His on line store says more and those are ‘flimsy little expensive signs $15 he wants for a sign to put in your yard. Free shipping for a limited time.

    The Issues

    “When generations of immigrants looked up and saw the Statue of Liberty for the first time, they surely had many questions and doubts about the life before them, but one thing they knew without a doubt is that they were coming to a place where anything was possible—that in America, their children would have a better life. I believe in that America. I know you believe in that America. It is an America of freedom and opportunity. A nation where innovation and hard work propel the most powerful economy in the world. A land that is secured by

    the greatest military the world has ever seen, and by friends

    and allies across the globe.”

    –Mitt Romney, Stratham, NH, June 2, 2011

    The foundations of our nation’s strength are a love of liberty and a pioneering spirit of innovation and creativity. These values—inherited from our Founders and embodied by all who came to our shores seeking opportunity—have made the United States the most powerful nation in the history of the world. But today, under President Obama’s leadership, Washington is smothering these values at home and sapping our influence abroad. The federal government has grown too large. And President Obama has presided over one of the worst economies in modern history—millions of jobs have been lost, record numbers of Americans are in danger of losing their homes, and personal bankruptcies have skyrocketed. He has failed the American people.

    Mitt Romney believes in America. He believes that liberty, opportunity, and free enterprise have led to prosperity and strength before and will do so again. America, however, must take decisive action to roll back the misguided policies of the last three years, empower our citizens, and restore the foundations of our nation’s strength.

    http://www.mittromney.com/issues

    the end

    Newt Gingrich official site on border control

    Contract with America Legislative Proposal #6: Control the Border By January 1, 2014

    Control the border by January 1, 2014 and establish English as the official language of government; reform the legal visa system, and make it much easier to deport criminals and gang members while making it easier for law abiding visitors to come to the US.

    The United States must control its border. It is a national security imperative.

    Controlling the border is a matter of resources and will. Every nation has the right to control its border. Historically, every country that has been determined to control their border has been able to do so.

    As Americans, we can accomplish unimaginable feats when we have the resources and the will. The United States won World War II in 3 years and 8 months. In the 44 months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States mobilized its resources to defeat Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan.

    Unfortunately, we haven’t brought any sense of urgency to controlling our border – even as a drug-fueled civil war now rages in Mexico.

    In October 1986, Ronald Reagan wrote in his diary that he was signing the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform bill because it was “high time we regained control of our borders & this bill will do this.”

    Today, a quarter century later, we still have not achieved President Reagan’s goal and expectation.

    This bill will waive every obstacle to controlling the border and would shift resources to achieve virtually 100% control by January 1, 2014. If necessary, we would move one-half of the 23,000 Washington-area Department of Homeland Security bureaucrats to the Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona borders.

    At the same time we are controlling the border we should make it easier for honest people to visit America honestly.

    Our current visa system is inefficient, expensive, and inhospitable and drives people away from visiting the United States. Americans and visitors deserve a system that works.

    Americans will benefit from a fairer, more secure, more efficient system, which will ensure that foreign visitors, students, workers and job-creators alike provide as many positive benefits as possible to our economy and society.

    We want legal visitors for our tourist attractions to increase the number of American jobs.

    We want the best legal students in our universities and colleges, and then staying to create American jobs.

    We want legal businessmen and businesswomen visiting the United States easily and comfortably so they can do more business in the United States and create more American jobs.

    We want potential investors and entrepreneurs to visit America easily so they can create American jobs.

    Finally, we want family members to find it easy to visit legally for holidays and family events to strengthen the human bonds that we Americans cherish.

    At the same time, it is currently too difficult to deport criminals and gang members.

    When someone is here illegally and is dangerous, there should be expedited procedures to remove them from the United States as rapidly as possible.

    We can apply modern management techniques to create a more accurate, more secure, less expensive, and more hospitable visa system.

    Combining border control with visa modernization makes it harder to be illegal and easier to be legal and that is a big step forward for America

    http://newtgingrich360.com/control-border

    I take issue with it being difficult to visit U.S. as citizenship is easiest in U.S. than all the other countries, many which don’t allow dual.

    And an article in 2006 ish is scrubbed.
    So, just what what did Newt really say about Mexican visitors being given voter’s cards. Anyone?

    • canary

      sorry, can’t edit.

      I did not know it was hard for foreigners to visit the U.S. during out holidays. I think unless it’s official business only American citizens should have it easy visiting America on U.S. holidays. U.S. holidays Christmas, Easter, evil Valentines Day, Veterans Day, Memorial Day, and the 4th of July, New Years etc. and they should expect to have their underwear inspected. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

  10. canary

    Candidates need to attack Obama. The large gap of GAO reports before 2011 when apparently Congress
    has found we are in bad shape.

    example: The Obama’s spent so much time making lunch menus and regulating what Americans eat that
    The Dept of Homeland Security just came clean that we have not figured what to do if terrorists attack our water & food supplies.

    Obama has done nothing to improve our navy ships though we see the war in the gulf coming, yet the Navy has done a lot of work on solar panels.
    As if we could fight a war with using solar panels and windmills as weapons.
    It may come down to 3 G’s. God, Guns, & Guts.

  11. canary

    Unlike the Mitt’s bareness & Newts wanting it easier to enter U.S. Santorum is the only to blast Obama and acknowledge the dangers of our U.S. borders.

    IMMIGRATION REFORM: SECURING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA

    As the son of an Italian immigrant, Rick Santorum values the important role immigrants have played and continue to play in shaping our nation. One thing that makes America exceptional is that anyone from any part of the world can become an American by embracing our ideals and following our laws. Moving forward, America needs fair and robust immigration policy that will continue to protect Americans, reward lawful citizens, and help grow our economy. Rick Santorum believes that the key to a strong immigration policy begins with securing the American border. For America to grow and prosper, developing a strong immigration policy must become a priority. Unfortunately, President Obama has not only failed to reform America’s broken immigration system, he has also failed to secure the border against serious threats that imperil all Americans. His first visit to the border was two and a half years into his term; not exactly border first.

    A multifaceted approach to border security will not only make America safer, but also save taxpayers more money during these difficult economic times. Securing the border first will put America in a better position to address the immigration system and illegal immigrants that currently live in America. While securing the border is not the only solution to immigration, it will serve as a starting point to fix the broken immigration system and clear the path for responsible reform.

    The policies of the Obama administration have left us today with a serious problem: an exposed border and a nation vulnerable to drug cartels, violent criminals, and terrorists. Rick Santorum shares the views of Americans by and large that once the border is secure more immigration reforms can begin. This is not only a fairness issue but a national security issue as well. With countless threats facing America, securing the border is the first line of defense for America. President Obama needs to stop the political games on immigration and get to real solutions. That’s not what they’re doing in Washington on immigration. The U.S. Constitution explicitly gives this responsibility to the federal government. Instead of providing leadership, President Obama is an antagonist and a panderer, suing states struggling with the burden of illegal immigration rather than supporting them, and promising things he has not and will not deliver.

    Rick Santorum believes that after we get serious about securing the border and earn the confidence of the American people, we need to streamline the legal immigration system, seek to attract the best educated and most entrepreneurial people from around the world, and create a workable guest worker program for farmers.

    Policies:

    * Secure the border first, and then tackle other aspects of immigration reforms to solve an urgent national security challenge and gain credibility with the American people first.
    * Streamline the legal immigration system to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic delays and burdens.
    * The key to a safer America lies in an approach to border security that includes the following enforcement measures:
    * Expand the border fence fully where needed and enhance physical border security;
    * More law enforcement resources and border agents;
    * The increased use of and access to cutting-edge technology; and
    * Enforcing immigration and labor laws including through employer verification including an E-Verify system that is simple, reliable, and protects businesses.
    * Oppose amnesty as unlawful, unfair to legal immigrants, and expensive to taxpayers.
    * Oppose other rewards for illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense such as in state tuition rates.
    * The efficacy and success of border security efforts should not be measured by outputs, but rather by outcomes.
    * Support and partner with state and local authorities to address illegal immigration rather than suing them and support them with the resources necessary to do the job.
    * Make English the official language of government, not to penalize but to promote opportunity and a common culture for new immigrants.
    * Deport immediately all illegal immigrants involved with criminal and drug trafficking activity unless a specific individual would create a security concern because they may be released in country of origin.
    * Coordinate all relevant policy areas and government agencies and functions relevant to securing the border and eliminate duplication.
    * Prioritize admittance of legal immigrants by what is good for our country rather than lottery system.
    * Redefine metrics for successful border security. Goals should be based on tangible results based directly upon actions, such as:
    * Decreased border violence;
    * More apprehensions of illegal immigrants and criminals at the border; and
    * Increased seizure of contraband and illicit drugs.
    * Stop the federal government from requiring states to provide government services to illegal immigrants and oppose provision of government benefits not available to all citizens such as in-state tuition.
    * Promote legal immigration for highly educated and entrepreneurs from around the world.
    * Create a workable guestworker program for America’s farmers.
    * Acknowledge the historic and ongoing contribution of legal immigrants to our country as President of the United States.
    * Encourage States and local school systems to teach more American history.
    * Partner with States to address and prevent discrimination against recent immigrant communities.

    Moving forward, America needs fair and robust immigration policy that will continue to protect Americans, reward lawful citizens, and help grow our economy. Rick Santorum believes that the key to a strong immigration policy begins with securing the American border. For America to grow and prosper, developing a strong immigration policy must become a priority. Unfortunately, President Obama has not only failed to reform America’s broken immigration system, he has also failed to secure the border against serious threats that imperil all Americans. His first visit to the border was two and a half years into his term; not exactly border first.

    A multifaceted approach to border security will not only make America safer, but also save taxpayers more money during these difficult economic times. Securing the border first will put America in a better position to address the immigration system and illegal immigrants that currently live in America. While securing the border is not the only solution to immigration, it will serve as a starting point to fix the broken immigration system and clear the path for responsible reform.

    The policies of the Obama administration have left us today with a serious problem: an exposed border and a nation vulnerable to drug cartels, violent criminals, and terrorists. Rick Santorum shares the views of Americans by and large that once the border is secure more immigration reforms can begin. This is not only a fairness issue but a national security issue as well. With countless threats facing America, securing the border is the first line of defense for America. President Obama needs to stop the political games on immigration and get to real solutions. That’s not what they’re doing in Washington on immigration. The U.S. Constitution explicitly gives this responsibility to the federal government. Instead of providing leadership, President Obama is an antagonist and a panderer, suing states struggling with the burden of illegal immigration rather than supporting them, and promising things he has not and will not deliver.

    Rick Santorum believes that after we get serious about securing the border and earn the confidence of the American people, we need to streamline the legal immigration system, seek to attract the best educated and most entrepreneurial people from around the world, and create a workable guest worker program for farmers.

    Policies:

    * Secure the border first, and then tackle other aspects of immigration reforms to solve an urgent national security challenge and gain credibility with the American people first.
    * Streamline the legal immigration system to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic delays and burdens.
    * The key to a safer America lies in an approach to border security that includes the following enforcement measures:
    * Expand the border fence fully where needed and enhance physical border security;
    * More law enforcement resources and border agents;
    * The increased use of and access to cutting-edge technology; and
    * Enforcing immigration and labor laws including through employer verification including an E-Verify system that is simple, reliable, and protects businesses.
    * Oppose amnesty as unlawful, unfair to legal immigrants, and expensive to taxpayers.
    * Oppose other rewards for illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense such as in state tuition rates.
    * The efficacy and success of border security efforts should not be measured by outputs, but rather by outcomes.
    * Support and partner with state and local authorities to address illegal immigration rather than suing them and support them with the resources necessary to do the job.
    * Make English the official language of government, not to penalize but to promote opportunity and a common culture for new immigrants.
    * Deport immediately all illegal immigrants involved with criminal and drug trafficking activity unless a specific individual would create a security concern because they may be released in country of origin.
    * Coordinate all relevant policy areas and government agencies and functions relevant to securing the border and eliminate duplication.
    * Prioritize admittance of legal immigrants by what is good for our country rather than lottery system.
    * Redefine metrics for successful border security. Goals should be based on tangible results based directly upon actions, such as:
    * Decreased border violence;
    * More apprehensions of illegal immigrants and criminals at the border; and
    * Increased seizure of contraband and illicit drugs.
    * Stop the federal government from requiring states to provide government services to illegal immigrants and oppose provision of government benefits not available to all citizens such as in-state tuition.
    * Promote legal immigration for highly educated and entrepreneurs from around the world.
    * Create a workable guestworker program for America’s farmers.
    * Acknowledge the historic and ongoing contribution of legal immigrants to our country as President of the United States.
    * Encourage States and local school systems to teach more American history.
    * Partner with States to address and prevent discrimination against recent immigrant communities.

    http://www.ricksantorum.com/im.....ng-america

    How can there be such a difference in the essence of 21st century technology for US Presidential candidates to detail their stances.

    Mitt thinks Americans are too dumb to read and we will fall for his new speech dialect he’s fine-tuned.

  12. Mithrandir

    Coulter: ‘With Newt Gingrich you throw out the baby and keep the bath water’ [VIDEO]
    From the Daily Caller via Drudge: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01.....ter-video/

    January 23, 2012

    “Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall,” Coulter, the author of “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America,” said.

    Um….isn’t this the SAME WOMAN who made her entire political career making SNOTTY REMARKS? –have you read even 1 page of any of her books? When has this formula EVER lost? When Reagan boldly attacked Russia–he was a hero. When ANYONE gives the media a drubbing–it’s GOLD. When they impeached Clinton—it harmed Republicans 0%. When anyone shows a steel spine, the American people applaud—it’s our culture.

    “This is not going be the electorate in the fall. I am pretty sure we’ll get everyone who voted for McCain — since no one voted for McCain because we liked McCain — it was to stop Obama.

    Bleech! What do you mean WE liked McCain? This rambling doesn’t make any sense. No wonder she is in the tank for McRomney. The passive weak feminist LOSER McCAIN–she likes. The tough talking WINNER she doesn’t like. And also Gingrich would dismantle the hallowed halls of lawyerdom, and reorganize the judiciary. Since Coulter is a lawyer, her head cannot possibly spin around faster than knowing this fact.

    Anyway, she blabbers on and on about Gingrich’s wives, as if that makes any difference at all, and the 1.6 million from Freddie Mac–which no one cares about. Nice Conservative credentials, from a witch I am severely sorry I ever purchased books from. With that kind of game plan, no wonder Gingrich won.

    • artboyusa

      Her position bafles me because I can’t see any evidence for what she’s saying. Where’s this famous Romney “electability”? He is not electable, he is the opposite of electable and his career proves it. He got elected governor of Massachusetts ONCE but every other time he’s run for anything, he’s lost. And he keeps losing, which is why he’s loser who will get croaked by Obama and his media defence team in the fall. Its fantastic to me that with all the time and money he’s put into buying himself the presidency he is so unprepared to defend himself and so unable to give anyone a reason to vote for him except “Hi, I’m Mitt Romney; I’m not too scarey and I’m a nice guy and I won’t do anything crazy and I never lose my temper and I’m a rich white guy who doesn’t know what to do with himself so what the hey, I might as well be president so vote for me, Ned Flanders – I mean Willard, no, I mean Mitt Romney…”

      No one everr looked at Romney and thought “That guy should be president” except Romney and the American people will not vote for him if he’s the candidate. They might not vote for Newt either (God knows, he’s given them enough reasons not to) but I’ll put my money on the long shot that is Newt rather than the loser-in-waiting that is Romney.

    • proreason

      The biggest election shocker of all…the republican elite hates US (the people) more than they dislike obamy. Ann has shown her true stripes this year. So have dozens of other “pundits” who have made their lucrative livings by catering to regular Americans who are watching in fear as the country approaches the point of no return. Ann and her brethren like the status quo. It pays very well.

      The poll I want to see is the one where the ruling class says who they will vote for if Newt gets the nomination. Probably 90/10 for obamy.

      In other words, all of the high talk about principles, “conservatism”, “the constitution”, freedom, blah blah is just that…talk to soothe the rubes. When the rubber hits the road, money loves money.

      It’s not us against the marxists. It’s us against Washington, then us against the marxists.

      Today, as predicted, the ruling class attack is about the ludicrously trumped up “ethics” charges against Newt, as if a single person in DC whould know an “ethic” if they tripped over it. Newt made the mistake years ago of actually believing what Reagan said. And he paid a steep price for doing it. They have never forgot and never will. Yes Newt has more flaws than a yugo, but at least he means a little bit of what he says, in addition to being a honey badger who is smarter than the whole stinking dung heap in DC.

      Bring it on.

      btw, Rush should be VERY interesting today. Gotta make time to listen.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      Mith, the line reads that we didn’t vote for McCain because we liked him……we voted for him to avoid Obama. Nobody liked McCain…is her point.

      With that said, there’s only one thing worse than a bleeding heart liberal feminist who hates men and that’s a dyed-in-the-wool conservative “feminist” who hates men. Coulter points out bad male behavior in all of her books. Granted, she’s calling on men to live to a higher standard, which is never a bad thing but Mith is right, she spits fire at a lot of people and most of the time, it’s justified. But her anger towards men really comes through a lot as well.

      She reminds me of my junior high-school English teacher who, by last count as of 1999 was on her fifth husband and all of the divorces were “his” fault. That is, she never did anything to deserve it. Aside from the fact that she’s a very intelligent, yet angry, very verbose b**ch. Never an encouraging word came from her lips to any male student. Has no kids herself and she doesn’t care for them very much.

      Ann Coulter is similar, and a verbose supporter of conservativsm but has herself been engaged several times but never married. In other words, She’s not about to make up her mind, apparently. I happen to like her but if I was ever to find myself in an argument with her, I would simply acknowledge that in the perpetual “male/female” book of life, I would be wrong all of the time. There are times when people like her are needed and then there are times when people like her should just shut up and observe.

      Her intelligence and cleverness are sometimes surpassed by her snarkyness. Getting in a dig is fun, sure but she brings it about to new levels and yet has the nerve to criticize Newt for it? Again, I believe her hatred of men is the issue and for her, she cannot get past his lack of fidelity. But, women are “funny” like this. That is, they cannot find any redeeming quality in any man if he’s ever been unfaithful in a relationship with a woman. That seems to trump all. It’s a hell of a way to life a life, too because everybody is imperfect. But not everybody is imperfect in the same way(s).

      Lately I’ve mentioned a lot about that. But to be fair, there’s imperfection and then there’s malevolence. Obama is not only imperfect, he’s very malevolent. He means to do harm to others. And this is due to his anger, hatred for the West and Britain in particular, which bleeds over into our very identity as a nation, which he despises and endeavors to crush. He’s having a long-awaited tantrum and loving every minute of it and he really doesn’t care if he gets re-elected except that it’ll provide more opportunity to punish the nation that gave him so much. He’s the spoiled brat who murders his parents.

      Newt is not. He is somewhat arrogant but unlike Obama, Gingrich knows things and can back up his arguments with facts. I therefore state that his arrogance is justified. People hate it when someone who knows what they’re talking about, do so. It’s a defense mechanism. But people also hate it when people who DON’T know what they’re talking about also do-so. Obama yammers on citing crap as fact and using “no negro dialect” to impress everyone. I used to have a guy in the military who worked under me in my unit. Biggest bullshitter on the face of the earth and he thought everyone ELSE was the stupid one and tried to play others with that attitude. It cost him his military career, such as it was.

      Ann Coulter has called out O-dumbass repeatedly. She’s been right every time. But she’s also very angry at men in general and next time Dennis Miller and she exchange ideas, watch for it. You can see it.

    • artboyusa

      Newt is “somewhat arrogants says Rusty. That’s like saying that Mt Everest is “somewhat tall” or the ocean is “somewhat deep” or Paris Hilton is “somewhat slutty”.

      Newt is the walking, talking, grumbling, rumbling personification of arrogance and smugness and the only person in politics today who is more smug, more impressed with himself and more arrogant than Newt is…Obama. Which is why I’d love to see them face off in a debate…talk about a Clash of the Egos.

    • Steve

      “Ann has shown her true stripes this year. So have dozens of other “pundits” who have made their lucrative livings by catering to regular Americans who are watching in fear as the country approaches the point of no return. Ann and her brethren like the status quo. It pays very well.”

      I have known Ann Coulter since before she was famous. She said the same things when she was on the brink of living on the street in a cardboard box as she says now.

      Anyone who thinks she believes she says what she says for money is dead wrong.

    • proreason

      Well, I probably get a bit carried away with my disappointment when it comes to Ann. I actually think the reason she dislikes Newt so much is because of her rock-ribbed social conservatism that just can’t reconcile to his messy marriage history. And then, she clearly has bought the spin that McRomney is better positioned to beat little lenin. Even there, however, I think she is heavily influenced by her socon views. Americans aren’t much influenced any longer by marital history. South Carolina proved that.

      McRomney would be ripped to shreds by Axelrod and Soros. People are still carrying a lot of anger about 2008 and it would be very easy to direct all of that at McRomney.

      Whereas Newt’s negative are basically yawns. Republican insiders are pissed off at him. Yawn. He took money for Fannie Mae. Yawn, most voters won’t even know what Fannie Mae is. He was a reprobate. Yawn. so are half the people we know including several past presidents. He was censured by Congress. Yawn. You mean the congress with the 9% approval ratings? He was a lobbyist. Yawn. Isn’t everybody who spends any time in Washington.

      Thinking McRomney is more electable than Newt requires fanciful thinking or a hatred of Newt for behavior that by modern standards is normal.

    • tranquil.night

      Ann isn’t a sell-out. It’s hard for me to even criticize her for the vile word-lashings she dishes out regularly on anyone who disagrees with her eminence. That’s been her attitude with the left, it seems to be her temperment with anyone, and I’ve always found it off-putting, charade or not, brilliant woman that she is or not.

      In terms of her political calculations and analysis this primary, she’s just been wrong on just about everything everything. Which isn’t to say her point of view doesn’t contain veritable points, only that her sole objective has always been to distort and inflate those points to the political benefit of her preferred candidate. After years at this site, I’m very sensitive to bias and various media personality’s attempts to ‘out-smart’ (manipulate) less-informed audiences with what isn’t anything more than a personal political agenda.

      But IMO Ann’s maverick-ness has been to good effect. It’s good to see that her unashamed cheerleading for Christie and now Romney has had about as much influence as a McCain endorsement. It’s good that her hypocritical attempts to bully opinion towards her point of view have been by and large met with an eye-roll by the blogosphere and voters. It is, in effect, a strong sign that Republicans do not work like the mob described in her book.

      Oh, that Ann..

    • tranquil.night

      “It is, in effect, a strong sign that Republicans do not work like the mob described in her book.”

      Oh yeah, or just a sign that she doesn’t carry the influence she might imagine she does, which is still respectable and not what I’m trying to demean.

    • Mithrandir

      @proreason / Rusty: Ann is a lawyer, unmarried woman, journalist, writer, political contributor, which makes her the biggest loudmouth busybody the world can ever create.
      With that said, you can start to understand her attitude toward twice divorced Gingrich. And if she is not careful, someone will start to accuse her of being an even more obnoxious version of Maureen Dowd (also never married).
      My family has ALL of her books. I used to love her, but now every time I hear her, she is extremely irritating and grating to my ears. Snotty remarks toward the Tea Party, snotty remarks toward anyone challenging his birth certificate, SNOTTY REMARKS toward Gingrich, Ron Paul, snotty remarks dismissing (those dumb hicks) S. Carolinians when her guy doesn’t win.

      *NOTE*: My DIVORCED sociology teacher in college was the same way. Bombastic, critical of men, angry, sarcastic / bitter, excuse-making, blaming society, making men the root of all social problems etc. It just comes off as being sexist, bigoted, stereotypical…..you know, the very things women used to complain about men? –I guess when they do it, it’s not all those things.

      All the Romney people need to take their own advice, “Get on the Gingrich (or Paul) bandwagon if you want to win this thing. Liberal Romney has as much hope of winning as carbon-copy LIBERAL McCAIN did.” You think Conservatives would be petty, childish, and pout when their guy doesn’t win?–guess what? The liberals are all that and worse, look at all the RINOs who switched parties when they didn’t win their primary, or didn’t get GOP support–Dede Scozzafava, Arlen Specter, jumpin’ Jim Jeffords, ring a bell?
      Why elect a liberal, big-government, status quo, do-nothing, Harvard graduate, socialized medicine man, crony-Capitalist, WHEN WE ALREADY GOT ONE sitting in the oval office!!??

      Remember Massachusetts: shttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1972.svg

  13. proreason

    It’s almost unimaginable what will happen if Gingrich wins in Florida. This whole thing is making 1980 look like kids stuff. The hatred and shock from the politcal elites and their media enablers is reaching a level that is orders of magnitude greater than it has ever reached before.

    It’s as if they are saying to themselves….”those idiot Tea Partiers are actually serious”….how can we stop THIS.

    The 50 year alliance of the McRomney elites and the Alinsky elites is coming to an end.

    Tectonic.

    • Mithrandir

      Unfortunately, politics has come to this for me: I am finding more pleasure in angering big government politicians, their media propaganda machines, then actually producing a candidate that is able to do that job, which I don’t care, we already have a person in the White House who can’t do his job.

      There are only 2 candidates that have the ability (or arrogance) to absolutely ignore every person’s opinion around them and do whatever they d*mn-well pleased if they were to be elected. That’s Newt and Ron Paul. Who would close down federal departments despite the squawking and screaming? Who would fire judges despite the shrill doomsday threats from the media? Who would force our rights back despite a petty veto-overriding Congress? Who would try to secure our border despite the claims or racism?

      Can you imagine kind, silly ‘ol Mitt Romney being able to weather even one attack against him? Loved by the media, and then suddenly hated? Puh! It will never happen. He might throw out a few trial balloons just to satisfy the Conservatives, then back down and claim he has seen the light of reason.

      We’ve seen this before. It’s best to have obama for 4 more years, than have liberal Romney ruin everyone’s trust, and set the stage for another communist (probably obama again) in 2016. Either way, Romney is a disaster waiting to happen.

  14. Reality Bytes

    Newt’s overcompensating for a lack of acceptance by being the BSD will be short lived. Sooner rather than later, he will crash back to earth. It will be uncomfortably uneasy to watch.

    Santorum slayed him with “I love Newt, but we can’t have a president with an idea a minute. After two years, he was thrown out by the conservative wing of his own party.”

    Santorum’s truth of the matter is just putting its boots on while Newt runs from tube to tube whipping the uninformed into a frenzy. Interesting though that he got the womens’ vote, huh.

    “Whenever I’m around the guy I just melt.” Newt Gingrich on Bill Clinton…See what I mean, uncomfortable.

  15. canary

    On Governors Mitt Romney’s watch Massachusetts education rewrote history, focused on globalization
    destroying K-12 in all 50 states.

    CBN News: Students textbooks Muslims discovered America. Saudi funding millions into U.S. schools.
    One of the largest culprits federally funded Hartford University MA which is giving study guides and sources for K-12 grades.

    news video CBN News anchor Erick Stakebeck

    http://patriotupdate.com/17539.....ed-america

    2005 Saudi Prince gave 20 million to Hartford

    FYI Jesus was a Jews born and crucified in Israel the home of the Jews.
    Jesus was not a Palestinian and there is no such global country recognized.

    • Steve

      You need to re-watch the video, Canary. You are confused.

      The Senior Associate Commissioner for the Massachusetts Department of Education from 1999 to 2003, Sandra Stotsky, is the woman who blew the whistle on the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for giving grants to schools like Harvard (sic) after 9/11 for ‘Muslim outreach.’

      She even wrote a book about it, called “The Stealth Curriculum.”

      As part of this ‘outreach’ these universities, such as Harvard and Georgetown and other universities across the country, tried to encourage textbook writers to exaggerate and outright lie about the Muslim contributions to Western culture. They were stopped, in a large part thanks to Stotsky.

      Please don’t use this site to spread misinformation. We have the mainstream news media for that.

  16. proreason

    Romney further humiliates himself.

    http://content.usatoday.com/co.....urprise-/1

    Is this guy a grown man? If he has something on Newt, why doesn’t he spit it out. I thought this concerpt of something so horrid that he cant’ reveal it but voters should be very very worried went out in junior high.

    “if I could only tell you what johnny told me about alex, you would never vote for him”.

    First the Perry rock. Then the Cain women. Now the third or fourth attempt to smear Gingrich.

    McRomney will end up as the only candidate to drop out of running for the presidency after spending three hundred million dollars. What a doofus,

  17. proreason

    And did anybody catch Rush’s dig at Mark Steyn when he ended the show today. Apparently, Rush has tomorrow off, but he said that Steyn would be at the mike to trash everything that Newt said and declare Romney the winner of tonight’s debate, when not being negative about the state of the world in general.

    Then he walked it back half-heartedly before signing off. It was pretty brutal.

    Got a hunch Steyn, who is a pretty good host in most respects, has a contract for a certain number of fill-in shows that Rush has to honor. I’m think we will know when the contract is up because we won’t be hearing from Mark anymore after that.

    Rush likes to stay upbeat. It’s one of his secrets of success.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      As regards the “undocumented talk-show host” I tend to like Mark. I am surprised, however at his assessment of Newt Gingrich and perhaps, he’s the very personification of the turmoil that us republicans are feeling. Given the opportunity, my list of candidates would be much different but they aren’t what’s available so…we have to play the cards we’re dealt.. That alone is off-putting. It’s like being handed the box of nasty old crayons to color with instead of the nice, new one. And there’s no green and no purple in the tin I got. *sigh* So…I’ll have to use the blue and yellow to make green and the blue and red to make purple.

      But with candidates, you can’t make them purple or green. They are what they are. The arguments against Newt that I’ve read have all been, like Pro has said, big yawners. For Rome-ny, I can’t get past his healthcare thingy in Massachusetts. One member of my family thinks he’s pretty nifty keen, but that person is a New England snob, so that seems to fit.

      For me, it simply comes down to which RINO is going to most closely adhere to the rules. The left is now calling him Nixon. But if the left is as accurate about that as they were by comparing Blow-bama to Roosevelt (and his uncle), Lincoln, Kennedy, and even Reagan…then we’ve nothing to fear. However, it causes me to logic-jump to the future with a Gingrich presidency trying to defend a manufactured conspiracy against him by the left. Could get ugly.

      I still think though that Gingrich would surround himself, not with sycophants as Obama has done, but with power-hitters in their areas of expertise. I may be wrong about this but I hope not. Those also who keep harping on Newt’s support of AGW have somehow ignored that he removed that portion of his book before it went to print and he’s reluctant to outwardly support it now. I think if he actually sits down and studies the information objectively, he’ll arrive at his own conclusion. Hey, to be fair, I was at first sucked into the AGW myth. After all, the science I learned in high school said that more CO2 results in higher temps. But as I read, re-read, accumulated more info, thought about it, read more about it, learned and discovered, then I found it to be junk. Newt is capable of the same thought process.

      He knows he’s flawed. He’s not loved by the beltway soiree-goers. To me, that’s a badge of honor. Reagan was a complete outsider and definitely not one of the “cool kids”. But, see, that’s the whole problem with DC insiders. The chic, limo riders and above-it-all society pukes are completely anathema to the core of America. America is brash, bold, sometimes in-your-face obnoxious. Our soft side is also less refined but more honest and direct. Newt is very much like that. Worship the guy? Hardly. I said he was somewhat arrogant. I think he’s far less so than Captain Zero. But when a person is right, I think they’re entitled to some arrogance, just like those who wrong are not. Barry is wrong 99.9% of the time but the media, DC bootlickers, and the blindly ignorant run cover for him and his arrogance is unjustified.

      But for the record, I generally don’t care for arrogant people. But I dislike Rome-ny’s inability to simply articulate conservatism. Rush nailed it when he said that the man can’t do it and it’s very possibly because he doesn’t know what it is. But the last thing America needs now is a “nice guy” for president that the democrats can “work with”. Geez for years here, what have we all been saying about what it means to “work with” and “compromise” with the democrats. It means to lose to them and let them have their way which always, always, always further damages liberty and results in more regulation, more taxation more confinement for all of us. Who’s behind SOPA? Democrats. Who’s behind the EPA? Democrats…the DoE, the whole kit n’ caboodle? D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S.

      Newt articulated the points that conservatives have waited for over 20 years since Reagan to hear. We don’t hate the poor, we want them to find a way to succeed. We don’t hate blacks, we want to get to the day when we are all on equal footing and we don’t have to tiptoe around certain words or phrases. We don’t want grandma to die, but we don’t think “universal” healthcare is the answer to that question.

      So we have to DEFEAT liberal ideology. It needs to be argued down with logic, directness, facts and clear-thinking. Newt can do that. Rome-ny will still be saying “ummmm” while Newt has outlfanked the democrats, taken their armament and then made them surrender. Will he blunder? Absolutely. The thing is though that I think he can now calculate that he’s got to be very careful. I do fear that he might try some under-the-table nastiness but to be quite frank, I guess that’s how much of Washington operates. I do not condone it. I once crucified an NCO for “proving a point by breaking the law” even though his point had to do with security and safety. He went about it wrongly. Dirty pool always ticks me off.

      But I still think Newt’s the right guy. He doesn’t cower in fear from democrats, doesn’t alter his word usage or sentence structure to “speak their language”. He’s apparently not interested in that. The left has been on a field trip to remake this nation into a European disaster area. And they are having a blast doing it. My god, it’s been on parade…in the nude….for three years now. It’s time to shut them DOWN.

  18. tranquil.night

    Sauron is gleefully over coming riots in the US: http://www.thedailybeast.com/n.....print.html (via Drudge)

    Soros draws on his past to argue that the global economic crisis is as significant, and unpredictable, as the end of communism. “The collapse of the Soviet system was a pretty extraordinary event, and we are currently experiencing something similar in the developed world, without fully realizing what’s happening.” To Soros, the spectacular debunking of the credo of efficient markets—the notion that markets are rational and can regulate themselves to avert disaster—“is comparable to the collapse of Marxism as a political system. The prevailing interpretation has turned out to be very misleading. It assumes perfect knowledge, which is very far removed from reality. We need to move from the Age of Reason to the Age of Fallibility in order to have a proper understanding of the problems.”

    Understanding, he says, is key. “Unrestrained competition can drive people into actions that they would otherwise regret. The tragedy of our current situation is the unintended consequence of imperfect understanding. A lot of the evil in the world is actually not intentional. A lot of people in the financial system did a lot of damage without intending to.” Still, Soros believes the West is struggling to cope with the consequences of evil in the financial world just as former Eastern bloc countries struggled with it politically. Is he really saying that the financial whizzes behind our economic meltdown were not just wrong, but evil? “That’s correct.” Take that, Lloyd Blankfein, the Goldman Sachs boss who told The Sunday Times of London at the height of the financial crisis that bankers “do God’s work.”

    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

  19. captstubby

    i tend to agree with Rusty assesment.
    as i said earlyer, ,we are doing the Democrats work for them.
    this is not a bad thing.
    vent all the attack items now and clear the air.
    settle this now so it will be done with.
    whoevere comes out on top could now foucuse on the man up for re election
    if the Republican majority chooses Newt to be their man,
    then lets get the job done.
    together.
    i for one would enjory a debate between Newt and Obamma.
    he has a lot of matieral to work with, but alas, lacks Reagans winnig carisma.
    lets not take our eye of the goal.
    thank you

  20. captstubby

    in my haste to be brilliant, i neglected to review my post for errors.

    i apologize to everyone .

    captstubby

  21. proreason

    the lid explodes off pandora’s box

    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....obamacare/

    What is it that mama said? “beware of what you pray for”.

    When Mitt decided to go over to the dark side and overturn the rock at Perry’s hunting camp, he unleashed a process that will devour him. The sad part is that the ad in the link probably isn’t the worst of it.

    As some of us predicted, Newt knows how to fight. As a reminder, Newt’s sins are personal ones; infidelity, arrogance, a loose lip, perhaps greed, perhaps questionable ethics…not a single one of them, even if you believe the spin 100%, could ever impact a penney in your pocket. When it comes to your money, and your life, Newt has only balanced the budget, cut welfare, cut taxes and fought like a honey badger against the Clintons. But Mitt…he designed obamacare, he has laid off thousands of people, he pays a lower tax rate than you do, he has raised taxes and helped make Massachusetts into Taxachusetts.

    That damn Newt is nasty, vile, over-the-top, no limits, pushing the boundaries of ethics and propriety.

    Or in other words…exactly what will be required to defeat obamy.

  22. tranquil.night

    Well, maybe he can help his secretary with her taxes then: Doc 0 – Warren Buffet Cleans up After Keystone XL

    After her night in the grandstands at the SOTU tonight, of course.

  23. Rusty Shackleford

    Q: What do you tell John Kerry (who fought in Vietnam) with two black eyes and a broken nose?

    A: Nuthin’. Ya done told him three times already.

    http://www.americanthinker.com.....heart.html

    Let’s hope it was a nice “couselling session” from a former Vietnam vet. But the media is espousing his “ruggedness”. I thought the media didn’t like fighting. Or Hockey, or sports that didn’t involve some sort of dancing.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....26506.html

    Just two examples of the national socialists running cover for what is obviously a significant ass-whoopin he got. Would love to have seen it. Word will leak out eventually what sparked the row and I’d like to shake the hand of the man who did it.

    • Mithrandir

      JOHN KERRY EARNS 4TH PURPLE HEART MEDAL…I heard obama overnighted it to him!

      He was for the 4th Purple Heart before he was against it.

      Teresa Heinz-Kerry said he fell down some stairs after she found some text messages on his cell-phone, HE SAYS he got roughed up after being over-athletic in a hockey game. Not sayin’ anyone is lying here, but here is a reminder of Kerry’s athleticism: http://www.google.co.kr/imgres.....29,r:1,s:0

  24. artboyusa

    Here’a a reminder of how he “won” the other three…from the 2004 Artboy Archives:

    The place:Yoko Ono, Vietnam.
    The time: November 1969.

    The yacht, sorry Swift boat, commanded by Lt (JG) John Kerry, is steaming along the war torn Qrap River when its youthful commander gets some BAD NEWS!

    “Lt. Kerry? Sir?”

    “What is it, Jones? Can’t you see I’m fixing my hair? This jungle humidity makes it go all lank and lifeless. Pass me that can of hairspray, would you? Not that one – the Revlon”.

    “Yes sir. Um, sir, I really think you should come topside, sir. I think we have enemy contact, sir”.

    “Oh? And who gave you the authority to make that determination, sailor? Don’t forget who’s the officer on this boat”.

    “No sir. I won’t sir. Its just that, well sir, we seem to be taking heavy enemy fire from both sides of the river bank and the port engine’s stopped and its on fire and we, well, we seem to be sinking, sir”.

    “Now you see, Jones, that’s where people like you –the simple ordinary people, the ones who haven’t had my advantages, make your mistake. You said ‘enemy’ fire. ‘Enemy’ – that’s such a problematic word, Jones, so loaded with meaning, so heavy. Just who is this ‘enemy’ you mention? How do you know that they really mean us harm?”

    “Because they’re shooting at us, sir?”

    “That’s a very black and white kind of attitude, Jones. You need to get out of this negative place your head’s got into. I mean, how do you know that these people, whoever they may be, don’t think that we’re their ‘enemy’ just as much as we’re theirs?”

    “I expect they do, sir”.

    “Well, doesn’t that prove my point? Its all relative you dig? An enemy is just a friend who doesn’t like you yet! There’s no ‘enemy’ in ‘friend’ is there?”

    “Um, no sir”.

    Kerry shook his beautifully arranged hair thoughtfully. “You know, Jones, some day this war will be over and we’ll go back to the World”.

    “Sir?”

    “We’ll resume our normal lives. Me, I’ll come back with a chestful of medals that I awarded myself and some home movies of my jungle adventures and some fake atrocity stories and I’ll become a famous traitor and then I’ll run for office and I’ll work my way up the ladder, climbing as high as my talent for marrying rich women and a pack of lies can take me”.

    “That’s a very exciting prospect for you, sir, but…”

    “And you? Well who are we kidding? You’ll go back to some deadend job on some assembly line somewhere and settle down to a life of grinding frustration, your dreams haunted by endless nightmares of the wicked crimes you’ve committed during your time here as a baby-killing mercenary”.

    “Now, hold on a minute Mr Kerry…”

    “That’s if you’re lucky! You could end up a homeless drug addict, filthy, lice infested, haunted by flashbacks, desperate for that next hot fix that’s the only way to relieve the endless nightmare of psychic agony which is your miserable and useless life”.

    “Mr Kerry! Sir! Pay attention! Big trouble! VC shooting us up! Boat on fire! Boat not moving! Boat sinking! Soon us all dead!”

    “Us? What do you mean ‘us’, sailor? If we sink I’ll simply walk ashore. Too bad about you ordinary mortals, though, but hey, no one ever said life was fair. Toodles!”

    “Mr Kerry! Don’t go out there, sir! Mr Kerry-hey, he really CAN walk on water! Far out! Oops –no he can’t…

  25. tranquil.night

    A good portion of the blogosphere is joining the intelligentsia and establishment chorus of becoming more and more virulently anti-Newt, again.

    Something that grated on me after Iowa was all these ‘objective’ ‘conservative’ pundits pretending the Romney PAC smear ad onslaught was solely what swamped Newt the first time.

    Their bias and selective reporting is getting as juvenile as the MBM, and it’s getting to the point where I really hope credibility will be damaged because they’ve lost all touch with the line between analyzing, strategizing, and flat-out shilling.

    • proreason

      It’s very hard to resist relentless propaganda.

      I would actually like to hear what peole really have against Newt. It sounds to me that it all is based on the “revolt” that happened in 1997. He supposedly blew it for Republicans at the time. But I never read any details, beyond high level stuff that he was arrogant and difficult to work with.

      What I think is that the “revolt” was a ruling class revolt, because we saw exactly what happened after he left…glide path to 2008, with a detour for 9/11 (which allowed Dubya to win in 2004). By 2001, we were back to “compassionate” conservatism. Newt was for Medicare prescription relief, btw, which he can make a good case for, but would he have allowed it to be implemented unfunded, or without cutting other programs of similar size?

      I don’t know that for a fact, but since there are never any details, that is what I think.

      Of course, I discount all the marital indiscretions, which bother a lot of people. I just don’t think they are a big electoral factor in 2012.

      All of his “idealogical meanderings” since the late 90’s seem like tempests in a teapot. He wasn’t in a position to enact anything, so who can say that he would have attempted to implement cap and tax if he had a chance. He says he was trying to find a way to apply conservative principles to real life problems. Why turn that into he was a liberal, unless you have something against him.

      In the general election, like MANY of his ideas, his past positions on global warming will help him. Ditto for SS, Medicare, immigration, and others. He’s a smart politician.

      And McRomney is a dumb politician. He has no discernable core and is totally at the mercy of his advisors.

    • tranquil.night

      I would like to know too – pundits keep saying Newt supporters never want to talk about his glaring negatives, when I say it’s taken two volcanic surges and a landslide in SC before the anti-Newt’s to begrudgingly recognize a single positive.

      I do not believe it’s anything else than the conventional wisdom superficially out there. Ideologically they see no difference between Newt and Mitt. Newt is less electable because of image/baggage. Stylistically he’s a time-bomb, gonna lose us the House. Their spectrum on electability just leads them to a completely different point of view than us. They just get obnoxiously disingenuous in their efforts to try and prop their position up as correct.

      After Team Mitt with Drudge started playing up Princess Pelosi’s ethics investigation baiting, the Harpy’s Nest office backed off the claim she knew anything more than what’s public.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      Well, tranquil, you’ll be pleased to know she’s right back at it: http://michellemalkin.com/2012.....ingrich-3/

      For added fun, MM’s remarks are hilarious and the blog posters have some clever statements as well.

  26. proreason

    this is a fascinating WSJ article about Bain’s successes and failures during the time Romney led it.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....omney+bain

    The article seems balanced and doesn’t come to simplistic conclusions.

    One thing of interest is that 70% of the profits came from 10 of the 77 investments Bain made. Elsewhere, I have heard that most of that 70% came from just one, Staples.

    That tends to mitigate the meme that Romney and Bain were some sort of super turn-around company. Maybe they were just guys who had more than their share of luck, since the economy was booming during most of the 90’s when the profits were largely made.

    Whether they were great investors and managers or not, rest assured that the marxists will be arguing the dark side during the general election. It’s hard to see how the information in this non-inflammatory article is good news for McRomney.

    • canary

      Here, Staples sucks. It is giant store in mass production of the same products available at smaller chains, yet their prices are outrageously high. I’m guessing the empty parking lot & store is a tax write off, as I’ve seen over the years of K-Mart and the likes closing. Target is another write off.

      The smaller than Staples office supply stores and appliances have pleasingly lowered their prices since Walmart continues dropping products and carrying products. Walmart is totally different in the way they do products now and not shopper friendly, aside going up much higher on prices.

      On occasion talking to others across America as to prices going up, I think perhaps my state is doing some gauging that other states aren’t. They certainly are not truthful of the housing marketing in which all our homes are worth less though property taxes skyrocket.

  27. canary

    2nd amendment issue.
    Rick Santorum site hunting & fishing and making assault weapons legal. good.
    Ron Paul reversing Brady law. good.

    While the issues are still bare on Mitt Romney’s site, especially in regards to education in which his one lecture he said private schools should be given input into the public schools and is for charter schools,
    I could only find an article on the 2nd amendment. Did finally find some cute icons of labor (hands shaking) scissors cutting through tape.

    Romney doesn’t seem to have the position to at least go back a legalize assault weapons. And to think he said he longed to go to Vietnam instead of living in French luxury missionary work dodging the draft.
    Tell me how the Mormon Church does not believe that their young men greatest missionary work could be done in ministering to American soldiers in the face of death.

    “Let me speak very directly and candidly about where I stand. I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. It’s essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights…”
    Sep 21, 2007, in a taped message to the NRA’s Celebration of American Values

    Legislations
    After throwing his support behind several gun control laws at the early stage of his political career, most notably, the Brady Act, Romney has reevaluated his position is now opposed to any further gun control legislations

    “I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. I believe in safe and responsible gun ownership and that anyone who exercises the right to keep and bear arms must do so lawfully and properly. I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. Law-abiding citizens have a right to protect their homes and their families and as President, I will vigorously defend that right.”
    January 7, 2008, The Washington Post

  28. tranquil.night

    Newt on ‘Self-deportation:’ “You have to live in a world of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island bank accounts… to have some fantasy this far from reality.” http://www.miamiherald.com/201.....richs.html

    This bullshit class sniping is going to be his downfall.

    He’s totally misreading what little patience among the base there is for it.

    If he’s also against e-verify, then that is frustrating as well.

    • JohnMG

      I’m completely turned off by it and have been for some time, to the point I’ve quit listening. When I hear of something that piques my curiousity, I investigate. Otherwise, I’ll wait ’til the candidate is selected and then vote for whomever that person is.

      To be quite honest, I’ve noticed the same trend here on S&L. Pick your guy, and defend or promote him passionately if you will, but don’t cause irreparable damage to the others such that people become disenchanted with the eventual candidate. I’ve heard some outrageous things said, and some outrageous speculations made on this site which cannot be substantiated yet create serious doubts about certain candidates, and which, in my opinion, will have a lingering effect come November.

      Nothing could be more pleasing to the Obama team than to observe this circus act called the Republican primary campaign creating its own distraction from Obama’s disaterous track record. With the MBM (the DNC’s propaganda organ) gleefully playing it for all it’s worth, over and over again and again. They don’t need people on this and other conservative sites to do the leg work for them.

      I remember four years ago and the disappointments voiced during that campaign, but nothing like this. I’m thoroughly disillusioned with the degree of rancor on display here by people who should know better. It’s OK to disagree, and certainly OK to educate, and inform, and try to persuade others with fact, but to resort to character assassination offends my sense of fair play.

      Now, go ahead and skewer me too if you must. That’s just the way I see things and believe them to be counter-productive.

    • tranquil.night

      I do apologize if anything I’ve written has been perceived to fall under that characterization, John.

      My position is that any of these candidates can win if they’re prepared for the what the Obama campaign and the media are going to do, and they don’t ignore/marginalize the grassroots. My intentions have been to try and note those points on which I personally disagree with candidates, and those points on which I feel could present very real problems in the general election.

      That’s also the intentions behind the original post here too. This ripping Romney because he’s rich schtick rightly upsets big name movement Conservatives and Republicans alike. That and the Bain attacks are probably a lot of what contributed to Newt being a non-factor in New Hampshire. I express it as an open supporter of his who doesn’t support this and doesn’t want to see him keep shooting himself.

      Just as whenever I express frustration with Romney and the establishment’s continued belief in compromise with the Democrats and their unwillingness to connect their failed record to their ideology, it is because I believe, as one who definitely will want to see Romney win if he’s the eventual nominee, that they are putting themselves at a serious political disadvantage. To the point of unelectability? I really try not to argue on those grounds as I hope and believe any of them can eventually win, regardless who I like more or align with now.

      I don’t agree with all the points of view expressed here either, but don’t like prompting conflict among friends while the Leftist horde rages on. Not my place – most here carry much more worldly wisdom than I , unless it’s a point I feel with passion. I’m here for education.
      e’ve been some speculations and accusations here that I’ve found disappointing and a bit revealing too.

    • Steve

      “To be quite honest, I’ve noticed the same trend here on S&L. Pick your guy, and defend or promote him passionately if you will, but don’t cause irreparable damage to the others such that people become disenchanted with the eventual candidate.”

      Hear! Hear!

    • JohnMG

      What I wrote was meant as a general observation and my take on the potential negative impact it can have (is having) on the eventual conclusion, t.n and was never meant as an accusation toward you or your posts. I have my favorite horse in this race (given the field such as it is) but he shall remain unrevealed to others here.

      My own comments tend to observations of the candidates and their positions without impugning anyone. I find your posts to be informative and fair, and I learn quite a bit from this site. It’s just that I see some real harm being done by speculative inuendo, and the stakes are too high to play this game of “chicken”.

      One of the first rules of civil discourse is not to resort to emotion during discussions of topcs on which peoples’ opinions differ. When one’s candidate is attacked (especially unfairly) that person himself tends to personalize the attack. In other words, if my man is said to be stupid, then I assume you consider me to be stupid because I support him. Liberals almost always resort to emotional arguments as a tactic–it’s impossible to have a rational debate with someone who ‘feels’ instead of ‘thinks’. That generally isn’t an issue here, but I’m really alarmed at the highly emotional atmosphere at times.

      I was told at a young age that it was pure folly to try to change anyone’s opinion on matters of politics, religion, and red-headed women. Yet it is possible to render an opinion without stomping on the other guy. Do I feel stomped on? No. But I’ve noticed the absence of a whole lot of “regulars” of late, and while I may not agree with what they say, there often is something to be learned from their saying it.

      No one will keep me from the ballot box in November regardless who the eventual Republican candidate will be. Based on some of the rhetoric I’ve read here lately though, I’m not so sure of some others.

    • proreason

      hmmm. Let’s review.

      1. Gingrich ran an issue-based campaign for 6 months, never attacking any other candidate. By and large, in public, the other candidates also stuck to the issues, and there wasn’t much negative campaigning at all.
      2. But when Perry and then Cain rose in the polls, each was successively undermined in very personal and destructive ways by somebody or some organization. Who? Gingrich, Bachman, Cain or Santorum, none of which had any money or organization to speak of? If it had been Gingrich, btw, do you think there is even an eentsy tiny chance that it would be public knowledge by now? to laugh, it would have been the headline on Drudge weeks ago. Was it Perry, undermining himself? Hunstman at 1% in the polls? Ron Paul who has no chance to win? Obama getting involved with the republican campaign fully a year in advance of the election? Who, who could it be. What a puzzle!!!
      3. Gingrich takes the lead
      4. Suddenly, Mr. Romney decided to run the most negative campaign of all time against Gingrich in Iowa
      5. After being beat down by it, Gingrich responded in kind
      6. The Ruling Class is now outraged, OUTRAGED at Gingrich for negative campaigning. This MUST stop. What are our candidates doing to each other.

      Give me a break.

      Conservatives and other Republican serfs who fall for this crap from their Republican ruling class betters are suckers.

      Note: that says nothing about who the best candidate is. It is simply a factual rehash of what has happened in the campaign.

      Anybody who thinks that there isn’t a concerted effort to shove the most liberal candidate down our throats is a fool. And anybody who thinks Romney is any more electable than Gingrich or Santorum has simply drunk the koolaid. If you think the same thing that Romney is doing to Gingrich right now won’t be done to Romney times ten in the fall, you live in Oz.

    • proreason

      Mark Levin has just gone ballistic over the fraudulent attack on Gingrich’s RR credentials. Levin says if he had to vote today, he would vote for Santorum, so he’s no Newt partisan, but he says Romney’s attack is outrageous. He brought on a guy who was the asst political director for Reagan, and Levin worked in the administration at the time himself. Both say that if Newt had ever attacked Reagan that he would have been persona non grata, case closed. Then they played the clip from 95 when Nancy Reagan “passed the baton” of conservatism that RR had received from Goldwater to “the esteemed Speaker of the House” Newt Gingrich. Levin and Lord (that is the political director’s name), both said that if anyone had ever said even one ill word about Newt that Mrs Reagan wouldn’t have been in the same room as that person.

      As far as I’m concerned, this is a smoking gun. if it was the first underhanded attack against one of the conservtive candidates, maybe it would be forgiveable. But it’s not the first, or the second or the third or the fourth attack by McRomney on candidates who get in his way. There is a long LONG pattern of this guy viciously attacking any cadidate who challenges him. That includes Fred Thomson, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and probably a lot more in addition to Newt.

      I don’t care how jutting his jaw is, how pretty his wife is, how many times he reminds us that he has been married once, he’s vile.

      Why people can’t see it is beyond me. Brain washing, I guess.

    • proreason

      and btw, just wondering why Hot Air doesn’t have any clips or articles yet from the numerous people who have been rebutting the scurious claims since around midday today. If it on Levin, if Hannity is playing the full context of Newt’s remarks ten times in three hours, one would think it is newsworthy

      No doubt they will get around to it in good time. Must be a busy news day in Morrisey’s world.

      Whoever thought that pravda would annex NRO, Townhall, Hot Air and plenty more conservative websites. All’s fair in love and war eh? It’s almost like the “principles” they all hold so dear aren’t quite as firm and pure as we all were led to believe.

  29. tranquil.night

    Heh. Missing that edit module. Steve’s laid down a proof-reading challenge I’ve yet to overcome a majority of posts!

  30. canary

    yeah, I’m trying to focus on Rick Santorum and Ron Paul’s good points to try and get outside the circus which is becoming a red herring that Obama is enjoying.

    The candidates need to be exposing Obama. My gosh, another election and Obama has the press and media on his side just as he always has.

    Dang it let’s not let another election go pampering Obama. The Republican candidates are our greatest voice and they need to focus on getting rid of the Obama agenda and thugs.

    Tea Party needs “No More Obama” bumper stickers.

    • canary

      Also, a new candidate or two jumping in just to address the goal of removing a worthless Obama would be great, and the media would have something else to focus on.

  31. artboyusa

    “Romney is the most electable candidate not only because it will be nearly impossible for the media to demonize this self-made Mormon square, devoted to his wife and church, but precisely because he is the most conservative candidate…” is what we’re being told today, so that’s a relief to my mind. Phew. I thought Romney was unelectable on the grounds that he’s hardly ever been elected to anything and its nice to know that this millionaire’s son is “self-made” (like God, I suppose) and that the media won’t “demonize” him, although I thought that’s what the media and his opponents had been doing pretty effectively for the last few weeks and that he’s the “most” conservative candidate (he managed to keep that to himself, didn’t he? Glad the cat’s out of the bag now…

    • mr_bill

      Hahahahaha, Romney is now the “most conservative” candidate. Does Romney know it, yet? Wasn’t it just a few weeks ago the republican establishment was telling us that Romney was more moderate so his appeal was broader. Now they’ve flipped to telling us Romney is the most conservative and they have Tom Delay telling us that Newt isn’t a conservative. They’re all over the place. It’s embarrasing.

  32. Mithrandir

    Romney debates Ted Kennedy 1994
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

    ~Calls himself a progressive.
    ~Calls himself an independent during Reagan – Bush.
    ~Increased taxes as governor, and taxes on gun licenses.
    ~Instituted socialized medicine, with Ted Kennedy’s approval.
    ~Supported homosexuals into the Boy Scouts of America. –Huzzah! Sexually bankrupt people joining forces with young boys! Outside of Penn State, what could possibly go wrong?
    ~Wants to punish companies that don’t hire enough blacks and woman. –that’ll teach ‘em!
    ~Voted for liberal Paul Tsongas.
    ~Not opposed to global warming.
    ~For gay marriage or not? Civil unions but against discrimination against gays? –can’t seem to figure out where he is on this one.

    At the tender age of 47 years old, (at the time of the debates) it’s not fair to categorize Romney as a liberal, since he hadn’t really lived long enough to sift and winnow the political issues of the day.
    –Just like ‘ol Al Gore. He and his wife were pro-life, against profanity in music, were big tobacco farmers, then they dumped all that once they wanted to jump on a national ticket.

    *Ahem* It bears repeating: Once you want to be on a national ticket, you dump all your other ideas that got you on the political radar to begin with.

    • tranquil.night

      No, see, a lot of that was just what he had to do to be electable in a blue state, and he’s like totally changed now.

      But Newt proclaimed the era of Reagan over, sat on the couch with Pelosi, called the Ryan Plan social engineering and seems to have managed to piss off everyone in politics. Headline news!

      Ah well, I’ve been resolved for the Inevitable Won for a while now. As Rush posited, Newt is sort of a vessel. It’s just good plain fun to watch the establishment go into a full tizzy because one of their own rats jumped ship, went rogue on them, and threw a big fat wrench into their scheme to have this process wrapped up early and the grassroots marginalized.

    • Melly

      Your claims are easily refuted with a click of the mouse. The information is out there. It is up to individuals whether they desire to know the truth. For instance, the following website covers most of the claims you listed: http://whyromney.com/. Read thru it if you wish and you may learn something about Romney. Your Tsongas claim is not covered on the website so let me address it: The late Senator Paul Tsongas was the rarest of rare, especially in Massachusetts, a Democrat who wanted to alert the country to the threat of deficit spending. The Boston Herald described Tsongas as having a “pro-growth stance.” And Romney told the Boston Globe in ‘94 that he voted for Tsongas because he “favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton.” Romney’s support for Tsongas was likely more personal than it was political. Romney often attended events sponsored by the Tsongas-backed Concord Coalition, a budget deficit reduction advocacy group Tsongas co-founded with former New Hampshire Sen. Warren Rudman. Only at the 11th hour did Tsongas come out and endorse Ted Kennedy, and, in fact, Tsongas came to Romney’s aid early in his 1994 bid to unseat Ted Kennedy.

      And the Ted Kennedy debate video you included? We also see another part of that debate where Romeny strongy debates against Federal Nationalized Healthcare — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related You might be interested to watch beginning at the 4:00 mark.

  33. mr_bill

    What is going on in the Republican Party right now? After 3 years of watching the GOP hit the snooze button on important issues, suddenly the GOP factions (old establishment, i.e. Newt and new establishment, i.e. Romney) have worked themselves into a lather over….each other; not over what nerobama and his merry band of delinquents are doing to this country.

    It’s sad that we have another primary contest of “who sucks the least.” Why are we considering the guy who lost to the guy who lost to nerobama? Why are we tolerating “conservative” or republican candidates who are seriously considering “guest worker” programs? Are republican candidates actually giving wach other grief for being capitalists? How many more infidelity stories do we have to hear about candidates. I know some of those stories are lies, muckraking and BS, but can we not find a decent candidate whose character is strong enough that voters can quickly dismiss any of that talk as pure lies? None of the candidates strike me as being particularly conservative, which is more of the doing of the Republican establishment. More of this “big tent” talk that worked out so well for Juan McCain. Reagan didn’t create a “big tent” by watering down conservative ideas, he explained them and had a knack for demonstrating how ridicuous the liberal alternative was. By his articulation of conservatism, he pulled democrats from the other side into the Republican camp, so much so that we still talk about “Reagan Democrats.” Why is the Republican establishment discarding a model that worked for one that failed? The imperical evidence is right in front of them and they’re pushing the debate of the merits of former Gov. Milque-toast vs. former Congressman Milque-Toast and a few other “also-rans.” Color me disappointed: Disappointed in the candidates and disappointed in how they are behaving.

    Like everybody else, I will be voting ABO this year. It’s just sad that once Republicans have finally gotten around to getting fired-up about something, it’s not centered on rolling back nerobama, its a circular firing squad. I heard Rush talk about it today in terms of mitigating nerobama’s deep pockets, but I fail to see how that helps. If the candidates are going to take each other apart before we get to the nomination, who cares what’s left to spend money on.

    • mr_bill

      Ok, I’ll walk back some of the former Congressman Milque-toast talk. I’m seeing what the establishment republicans are doing here, with the complicity of Matt Drudge and some others that I’ve previously held in esteem. I had no idea the intelligencia would go to such disgusting lengths to push Romney on us. I will not be spoon-fed my candidate by a bunch of elites. My support for Newt just got that much stronger. If he scares the Republican establishment this much, imagine how afraid the liberals are.

  34. canary

    Why Obama must go

    INHOFE STATE OF THE UNION RESPONSE

    January 24, 2012

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a leading Senate Conservative, tonight responded to President Obama’s State of the Union Address with the following statement. Highlights of Inhofe’s reaction are bolded.

    “Tonight we heard President Obama’s last State of the Union Address before the 2012 election. It was a campaign stump speech, and it is clear that President Obama believes the best way to keep his job is to continue to promote class warfare in America and blame Republicans in Congress. Not surprisingly, he took credit for successes that he has actively fought against.

    “After three years of failed economic policies, record deficits, and layers of back breaking regulations, President Obama just doesn’t get it. Tonight we heard about more government programs and more government spending.

    “President Obama wants to pay for all this by increasing taxes and cutting defense spending.

    “His defense cuts began in 2009 with his first budget cutting the Army’s Future Combat System and missile defense, ending production of the F-22 and the C-17, and postponing development of a new combat search and rescue helicopter and the next generation bomber. The next two rounds of defense cuts included downsizing the force, cancelling the Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and slowing down production of the F-35.

    “Tonight we heard President Obama’s vision for the future of American Manufacturing. The best thing for American manufacturing is for President Obama to get out of the way. The Obama Administration’s overly intrusive regulations are killing jobs in America.

    “What he couldn’t achieve through legislation, he is achieving through heavy-handed regulations. He is moving forward with a plan to regulate greenhouse gases through the EPA, which will cost American families $300 to $400 billion a year – and this is just the tip of the iceberg: the barrage of regulations coming out of EPA taxing electricity and gasoline have become known as the ‘train wreck’ for the incredible harm they will do to jobs and the economy. In fact, the cost all these regulations put together add up to about the same as Obama’s national deficit, which is a recipe for economic disaster.

    “President Obama continued his double-speak on energy. That is why he’s been touting oil and natural gas production so much lately. As his re-election approaches, he understands that especially in a weak economy, Americans want the hundreds of thousands of jobs, the affordable energy prices, and the increased energy security that fossil fuel development brings. But while he talks the talk, his actions clearly show that he is still determined to shut down oil, gas and coal development so that energy prices will, as he said himself, ‘necessarily skyrocket.’

    “Just last week, to appease his global warming alarmist friends, he killed the Keystone Pipeline that would have provided 20,000 jobs and increased energy security while providing a means to get more domestic energy to the marketplace.

    “We heard quite a bit tonight about fairness. Tonight’s speech makes it clear that his view of America and our values is vastly different from how our Founding Fathers viewed this great nation. He believes that fairness should be mandated and imposed through bigger government, more regulations, higher taxes and wealth redistribution. I couldn’t disagree more. American values are not found in government imposed fairness – but rather through increased liberty, personal responsibility, and individual charity. The unique greatness of America is found in the goodness of our people, not the strong arm of government.

    “Now as usual, he was eloquent. Some of the things he said tonight, like reforming our tax code and investing in our nation’s infrastructure, sounded good. But, as usual, despite his eloquence, his actions defy his rhetoric.

    “He has already had three years of record setting deficits, and now he wants more government programs and even more spending. We cannot allow that to happen.”

    http://inhofe.senate.gov/publi.....;Issue_id=

  35. canary

    Noting above Senator Jim Inhofe getting a few seconds in the media after Obama’s speech and Senator Coburn who must be seething that Obama would name Coburn as a friend came out blasting and showing the pathetic goings on democratic children at work in trying to rise the debt. Senator Coburn (Dr. No) also goes into his latest overspending wasteful investigation b.s. under Obama’s build road crossing for turtles agenda. Coburn also expresses his disgust on both houses

    Senator Coburn shows example of how poorly the house is being run.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/Se.....hbR1ecXH00

    just to let you know some are still trying in between the main media’s circus hunting.

    We can not afford another term with Obama as President.

  36. proreason

    Eliott Abrams hit piece from yesterday debunked.

    http://spectator.org/blog/2012.....t-misleadi

    I know people are tired of it but they shouldn’t be. It’s the most important issue of the moment.

    Note the three main charges against Newt:
    – anti-capitalist
    – Fannie Mae lobbyist
    – lying about his Reagan connections

    All three of them are patently absurd. You don’t even need to see the details to know they are absurd.

    Yet people fall for it.

    And it’s done the exact same way that pravda has been contaminating the entire country for decades. Just because Drudge does it doesn’t make it any less odious.

    We’re going to get the establishment’s hand-picked pseudo-conservative candidate again. Bob McRomeyDole.

    Only this time, the fate of the country is at stake.

  37. proreason

    Now Hotair is discrediting Sarah Palin.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....-gingrich/

    In case you miss the not-so-subtle method, the apostrophes around the word crucify are there to imply that she’s a nut.

    After using the headline to imply that Sarah is making stuff up, Tina Korb goes on to explain her reasons for posting far more negative articles about Gingrich than Romney. It’s all justified, you see. Never mentioned is the fact that all of the negative stuff was started by Romney because he was losing the battle of competing visions.

    But at least, after 3 days of remaining silent about the obviously coordinated attack on Newt’s RR credentials, she provides Hotairs first acknowledgement of the outrage over the marxist tactic. Note, however, how she does it. She provides four links. One is to the Slimes. Another is to a blogger so obscure he goes through Free Republic. A third is to another obscure blogger you never heard of. Then she links to Rush, but is careful to dicredit HIS comments by saying “said Mr. Limbaugh, who has not been a fan of Mr. Romney’s in the past”.

    I don’t get paid by Hotair because I’m not in the tank for Townhall.com, and I’m not a cutsy wutsy young girl, or a noted rino…but even I know that Rush endorsed Romney in 2008 and has been careful not to endorse anybody this season.

    Conservative pravda in action.

    It makes one appreciate our esteemed host all the more.

    • tranquil.night

      I think there was finally a soft revolt by the HA commentariat over all their dumb editorializing and drama-promulgating while feigning neutral analysis. The Jeffrey Lord piece and the pushback from the Honeybadgers I think has left egg on a lot of faces. It’s good that they didn’t get aren’t getting away with the drive-by tactics. It’s an important element in not letting all these dishonest goofballs have sole control of the party’s political narrative and operations.

      Like it goes: journalism, if that’s what HA claims to do, is the only business where the customer is consistently wrong. And stupid!

      “It makes one appreciate our esteemed host all the more.”

      Yes. God bless SG.

      I need to contribute to the Move/Edit module repair fund as my over-use is likely responsible for busting it :)

    • tranquil.night

      Oh, KABOOM.

      Mama Grizzly: Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Lef

      I can’t even take a pull quote. It’s an indictment that pretty much vindicates and sums up everything we’ve been standing here against in the Republican Establishment since the day after the 2010 election, really. Even before that – since as Sarah subtly notes these divides go back to Reagan (which is part of the irony of them attacking a Reaganite in order to give the mantle to a moderate), and she too is an OG anti-establishment honeybadger whom the Republican elite either cold-shouldered or joined the left in relentlessly smearing. And that’s why we’ve stood with her.

      Whoever wins now, the Republican Establishment is not going to be able to ignore and impugn the base and pretend they’re still with them anymore. If they continue down their path, influential names, not anonymous blog commenters, are predicting it will eventually be the end of the party.

    • proreason

      Us against Them.

      And Them have revealed themselve.

      Them aren’t just the marxists. If it wasn’t clear enough before, Them is also the entrenched republican elite.

      Don’t let them win, because if they win, the marxists will win, if not directly in 2012, then in short order, because Them have no interest in reigning government in. None whatsoever.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      Yew gawt dat raht.

      (That’s southern drawl blanconics fer yew sitty slickers)

    • proreason

      Oh, now Hot Air is suddenly only concerned about “who among the current GOP contenders stands the best chance to stop him (obama) from winning reelection”

      http://hotair.com/archives/201.....s-defense/

      Well then, all is forgiven for dragging the candidate’s name through the mud who spent six months running the most positive campaign in Republican history. How dare he challenge the designated winner’s throne.

      Personally, I’ll never go to Hot Air again. There are hundreds of other sites out there.

      Morrisey has his slot now as Hugh Hewitts’ guest host. What more can there be?

      I can’t stand liars and the sychophants who abet them.

  38. GetBackJack

    NEWT.

    Everyone else is talk-talk, but Newt’s been there, done that and got it done. Third highest Office in the land, knows intimately how Congress is wired together, knows how the Legislative process works – won’t have to have intermediaries explaining it to him – and knows where the bodies are buried.

    He’s my Man.

    And he has feet of clay. They all do.

    But what convinces me is the staggering array of establishment voices raised against him. THAT ALONE tells me I must vote for Newt.

    Or, as Jonah Goldberg said this week –

    The establishment fears Newt because he’ll destroy Washington

    Those who are pulling for Newt are doing so because he’ll destroy Washington

    • Steve

      “Third highest Office in the land…”

      Are you aware that Newt was forced out of that office by conservatives? In a ‘coup’ led by Steve Largent and Tom Coburn and others of the 1994 freshman class?

      Washingtonpost.com: Gingrich Steps Down in Face of Rebellion
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....110798.htm

    • proreason

      Boy was that coup ever successful !!

      15 years later, the country is on the verge of a complete takeover by the marxists. If Newt hadn’t done what he did, it probably would have happened 4 or 8 years earlier. The boom of the late 90’s carried the ship for a long long time.

      But gee, the good ole boys sure did well for themselves during those 15 years, didn’t they?

    • Steve

      “If Newt hadn’t done what he did, it probably would have happened 4 or 8 years earlier.”

      You need to read up. The coup occurred because members of the conservative class of 1994, such as Steve Largent, believed that Newt was betraying the cause.

      They believed Newt compromised too readily, easily, with the Democrats and Clinton.

      By 1999, Newt was fighting against the very spending cuts that the conservative House Republicans had gotten through in the previous budgets. He mocked those conservatives as “purists.”

      Yes, Newt helped inspire and lead the 1994 Congressional takeover. But he did not do it alone. And there are very few people who fought alongside him back then who support him today. You have to wonder why.

      The people who had problems with Newt in the past and the people who have problems with him now are not all venal.

  39. GetBackJack

    Agreed.

    Only after all he got accomplished

    BTW Pro?

    Fred Thompson has endorsed Newt.

  40. proreason

    How much deceit and treachery is justified if a cause is good? In a vacuum, I would say, a lot. But what about Mitt Romney?

    Romney’s campaign is based on four legs: his business career, his governorship, his “conservatism”, and treachery.

    BUSINESS CAREER: The 5 most successful living businessmen in America .are Gates, Buffet, Trump, Romney and Soros. Of the 5, Romney is the least successful. 3 of the 5 are more liberal than Romney. Of the 5, Romney has arguably done less good than any but Soros. If Romney “created” 100,000 jobs because he invested in Staples, Buffet must have created a million jobs. I must have created even more because I once invested in Microsoft and Wal-Mart. A business career is no more a credential for president or for conservatism than any other career. That’s why there has been only one business leader elected President in the nation’s history.

    GOVERNORSHIP: Romney ran as a Progressive (his own words). His jobs record was 47th worst out of 50 states. Government spending grew during his tenure. Overall taxes increased. His signature achievement, which he defends vociferously, was RomneyCare. You judge how successful a governor he was.

    CONSERVATISM: He was an independent until 1992, when he registered as a Republican and ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy. In 2002, he declared himself to be a Progressive, won, voted for at least some Democrats, and proceded to run a liberal administration. In 2006 he didn’t run for reelection, because he would have been crushed, and instead reinvented himself as a conservative. Since then, he has talked a good center right game, and he is supported heartily by the establishment Republicans.

    DECEIT AND TREACHERY: This is where Romney really shines. He has run intensely negative, often subversively negative campaigns against Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Huckabee, McCain, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich. Huckabee has said of him: “if a man is dishonest in an interview, you can be sure he will be dishonest if he gets the job”. Romney is the most devious and treacherous candidate in modern Republican history.

    GOOD CAUSE: One of Romney’s causes is in no doubt whatsoever: the establishment Republican cause, in support of the guys who brought the country eight consecutive budget deficits from 2001 through 2008, No Child Left Behind, the unfunded Medicare prescription entitlement, and half a dozen debt ceiling extensions. They are the politicians whose wealth increased by leaps and bounds in the last 15 years…even during obama’s reign. The question is, do they have another cause to reverse the socialist tide, as epitomized by obama? I would strongly question the word “reverse”. “Postpone” would be a better word. These guys simply want their turn at the feeding trough. They hate the Tea Party and they hate people like Sarah Palin.

    There is no way I will vote for Romney in a primary.

    For the first time, I am beginning to question whether I should support one deceitful thug over another in the general election. Maybe my time and energies will be better spent accepting the inevitable, and adapting to it. Why support a man who is just another thug and liar?

    • Steve

      “For the first time, I am beginning to question whether I should support one deceitful thug over another in the general election. Maybe my time and energies will be better spent accepting the inevitable, and adapting to it. Why support a man who is just another thug and liar?”

      I say this as a brother. You are getting carried away with your own rhetoric.

      Both Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin supported Mitt Romney in the 2008 primaries. He is not the enemy.

  41. proreason

    Here’s a link to Dan Riehl (one of tn’s favorites).

    http://www.riehlworldview.com/

    If you want to read viewpoints other than the daily talking points from the Republican Ruling Class, replace your Hot Air link with Dan.

  42. GetBackJack

    And how can this be argued with?

    No other Candidate has a Plan. And I mean a Management Plan for the scale of change needed to take back America.

    http://www.newt.org/contract/videos

    This is a fight for our very lives, Newt seems the only Candidate who has thought through a Plan and it will also be the Fight of our lives.

    Tell me why I shouldn’t be “with” a Candidate who is this far out front

    • Steve

      “And how can this be argued with? No other Candidate has a Plan.”

      Again, I am not taking sides here. The enemy of my enemy is my candidate. But a lot of people today seem to be either new to politics or they have short memories.

      The 1994 conservatives rebelled against Gingrich because he was gutting the Contract With America.

      By 1999 Newt wanted to take out a lot of the budget cuts and put back in a lot of the spending and perks that the CWA had specifically targeted. Gingrich called the conservatives who objected “cannibals” and “purists.”

      This is the same Gingrich who said he used to ‘melt’ in the presence of Bill Clinton. And some of his actions while Speaker indicate that he was telling the truth.

      Newt has problems. They are not the invention of Romney conspirators.

    • proreason

      Nobody argues that Gingrich is perfect.

      The issues are: which candidate would be the best president and which one can win. Both of those are highly debatable. Romney is the one who has serially undermined any candidate who comes close to him in the polls, for 5 years. If Romney is a better fit for the Republican party, why doensn’t he just argue his case rather than ALWAYS going intensely negative about anybody who challenges him.

      What we resent is that the conservative media has united around a candidate who has never been a conservative except in the world of words, and who has lied about his past in just about every respect, while lying about the histories of his opponents, while claiming to be above the fray. The most outrageous lie is the latest…that Gingrich was not the leader of Republican revolution in the 90’s. He obviously was, and he was obviously successful. But it’s much more than that. Look at what happened when his enemies undermined him and drove him out of office.

      Like obama, when the media decides to cover for a candidate, it’s useful to look at the candidate’s associates. And many people are coming to the conclusion that Romney’s backers are the same guys who have been enabling the collapse of the country for at least 15 years.

    • Steve

      A lot of the same people who are claiming the elites are conspiring to give us Romney as a nominee, claimed four years ago that they were conspiring against Romney to give the nomination to McCain.

    • proreason

      It wasn’t Romney’s turn in 2008, but it’s a minor point anyway because 2008 was a much different election than this one.

      I doubt the establishment had a darling in 2008. McCain at one point was reduced to carrying his own bags through airports. The only viable candidate in 2008 who might have qualified as anti-establishment was Huckabee. He WAS undermined by Romney. Who knows whether he was undermined by the establishment Republicans.

      Other then those three, the field in the primaries included Giuliani, Fred Thompsom, and Duncan Hunter. Rudy and Fred were establishment types. Hunter never was a factor.

      Shaking the government up wasn’t a dominant issue in 2008 either. Until very late in the election cycle, it wasn’t even apparent that the economy was on the verge of recession, despite the revisionist history; obama didn’t run on the economy. Hence, the debate within Republican ranks was an order of magnitude less strident than the debate this year. And the theme of the general election was a personality contest.

      A lot of people view the 2012 election as a fight for the soul of the country. There are 3 camps: the leftist camp, the establishment republican camp, and the Tea Party camp. Romney is clearly the candidate of the establishment republicans. Gingrich is currently the candidate of the Tea Party, but because of the intensely negative campaign against him, he isn’t entrenched as the Tea Party favorite. It’s beginning to look like the establishment will be able to take Gingrich down again.

      If they are able to take Newt out, watch what will happen to Santorum. Unless he simply can’t get traction or the establishment decides to coopt him with the vice presidency, they will go just as intensely negative on him as they have on the other candidates who have challenged them. Personally, I think they will make Rick the vp candidate.

      Based on the virulent negativity of the establishment republicans, the country is close to splitting into three parties. And it’s apparent that the establishment republicans don’t care as long as they or the democrats win.

    • tranquil.night

      Like Pro said, nobody believes Newt is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. This is about agendas, and the firm impression Romney and the Republican establishment leave people that 1. they have no interest if not contempt for the grassroots movement of 09-present, and 2. they are not genuinely, despite their rhetoric, going to lead the effort necessary to restrict government and repeal Obamaism. This isn’t about who was what role in ’08.

      It’s exasperating to keep seeing the Republican Establishment’s efforts to influence the vote referred to as a “conspiracy.” It isn’t, just like it isn’t when the Left does their journolisting for what they’re going to try to have everybody talking about that day. When the Tea Parties coordinate to send messages to Washington with a stronger force multiplier, it isn’t a that’s not conspiring but organizing. The establishments can do it too, but what’s so dangerous is that all the interference the Republican Elite are running for Romney now is not going to work when he is the nominee. The MBM is simply much more powerful, expansive, ruthless and in control of millions of more brainwashed drones ready to be programmed with Lefty talking points than the Republican Establishments little collection of publications. This conspiracy characterization grinds my gears because it makes it sound nutty.

      Neither faction works as a fully coordinated top-down effort (although the Republican Party is obviously better funded and more established as the Tea Party) as much as they adopt general strategies to try and achieve their political goal. On the part of the old guard this primary, instead of working with the base’s strong desire to run a campaign based on principles, vision, and reform, their strategy has been to go back to the ’08 formula and employ anyone or any story necessary to flood the airwaves nonstop until it became conventional wisdom that nobody was electable but Romney.

      Blogger Baseball Crank (h/t Smitty @ theothermccain):

      What The Republican “Establishment” Really Means
      Establishments and Our Money

    • tranquil.night

      “Conspiracy.”

      Like Stacy McCain, I believe you’re giving the establishment too much intellectual credit, Steve. These goofs don’t have anywhere near the organization or resources to control the news cycle like pravda, that’s what is so dangerous about all this shielding and interference they’re running for Mittens right now – it is not going to be enough to stop the MBM’s attempt to politically assassinate him. And pravda is by no means a conspiracy. It’s a very understandable top-down control of the media by the state and Democrat Party.

      This is not some big shocking mystery. The Republican Elites have in the past enjoyed the greatest influence over voters in the party in deciding nominees. What happened in 2008 wasn’t a conspiracy either. The Establishment decided on McLame, they helped his campaign at the critical points they could, all of their publications got into gear for him, and in the end that effort combined with the circumstances of that election, (The Anointed One, Bush fatigue, etc) Republican voters were convinced to rally around the perceived safe, experienced, known quantity in Washington with the war record over the fresh Mass. Governor who was getting all the Conservative endorsements. They chose McCain. The Establishment organizations collectively beat the Conservatives that race, there is no doubt, there was no major ‘rigging’ of the election that I can tell, and it was no conspiracy. It was politics, it was influence peddling.

    • Steve

      “These goofs don’t have anywhere near the organization or resources to control the news cycle like pravda…”

      That, actually, is my point. The Romney people don’t have the ability, either.

    • tranquil.night

      “That actually is my point. The Romney ability don’t have that ability either.”

      Correct sir. I still find it incredibly exasperating that his surrogates and allies have engaged in this campaign of knee-capping the rest of the field so they’d never have their guys central negatives seriously challenged.

      This intra-party schism wouldn’t be so wide if the establishment and by extension Romney weren’t constantly behaving as if the Conservative agenda can’t be allowed any serious political viability unless they’re the ones who get to define it.

    • proreason

      “The Romney people don’t have the ability, either.”

      They have enough to orchestrate a darned good attack on Newt’s RR credentials, and “Romney’s people” is the republican establishment.

      I don’t buy that it is all happenstance.

      I agree with tn that big-boy pravda is not what would ordinarilly be called a conspiracy. Big-boy pravda has too many players, and the commitment is too intense for coordination to be required. They don’t need a conspiracy. It’s a built-in function from five decades of j-school. Herds of tens of thousands of buffaloes don’t require a detailed plan.

      In the case of conservative pravda, I’m not so sure. The piling on has been intense. Consider that 75% of the public has consistently been opposed to Romney. So how did 75%+ of conservative pravda come to be his to-the-death Romney champions? Note carefully that it isn’t dispassionate either. It is viscious. Doesn’t make sense to me if it isn’t an orchestrated effort. Color me highly suspicious.

    • tranquil.night

      “I don’t buy that it is all happenstance.”

      http://sweetness-light.com/arc.....ent-207533

      January 25, 2012 at 1:41 pm

      “A good portion of the blogosphere is joining the intelligentsia and establishment chorus of becoming more and more virulently anti-Newt, again.

      Something that grated on me after Iowa was all these ‘objective’ ‘conservative’ pundits pretending the Romney PAC smear ad onslaught was solely what swamped Newt the first time.

      Their bias and selective reporting is getting as juvenile as the MBM, and it’s getting to the point where I really hope credibility will be damaged because they’ve lost all touch with the line between analyzing, strategizing, and flat-out shilling.”

      I believe that was the day before the Abrams NRO piece broke.

      It isn’t happenstance, nor a conspiracy, but a continuous opinion-shaping strategy with the objective to influence political momentum with increasingly poisonous drive-by oppo dumps. It’s a strategy breathtakingly devoid of ethics, honesty, or a perspective towards the danger of the regime’s utopian agenda and ideology. And Sarah Palin is right – it needs to be addressed before the primary is because our party will not be strong if our candidate won in no small part because his allies in the political went goes to radical and contemptable lengths to convince people that no one else can.

      I think that’s what it means when it’s said “the establishment is trying to shove McCain/Romney down our throats.” It’s an unmistakable palpable sense that if voters don’t line up behind the candidate the establishment supports, then the establishment isn’t going to work with or for the insurgent candidate even if he’s the nominee, but perhaps even work with the left to subvert him if for no other reason to say “Conservatism loses. Told you so. Never again.”

    • tranquil.night

      One final point I forgot to make is that I don’t believe the strategy is homogenously coordinated as it is more one of opportunism. It’s not a top-down journolistic cabal, as it is a coaltion of individual surrogates, sympathizers, and supporters at different levels constantly editorializing, spinning and meme building. Romney did not call Drudge and say “Psst, Matt Baby, we got all these clips, and we got Elliot Abrams with a total scorcher and Lowry’s gonna post it first thing in the morning, and we want you just to run the headlines on it all day and Newtzilla is finally dead.” But I still wouldn’t be surprised whatsoever to learn Matt still hates Newt from the 90s and that motivates a sense of obligation to show people the Newt they may not know, as a lost of Conservative activists from the era seem to, and not without reason I know.

    • Steve

      I don’t know why it isn’t possible for people to oppose Newt Gingrich simply because they don’t believe he would make the best nominee out of the remaining options.

      After all, a few months ago his entire campaign staff jumped ship. I doubt it was due to Romney.

      Anyway, I am going to turn off the comments on this thread to encourage everyone to go to this week’s ‘Hive’ thread.

      This one is getting too long.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »