RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Santorum’s Coming Ass Kicking — UPDATE

This is not a question of “IF,” but “WHEN.” In previous debates, Santorum was considered a sidelight. Always stuck at the end of the stage and not treated as a serious candidate. Remember when Newt and Herman were once in that position? When they get moved to the center the heat is turned up. Everyone but Romney has cracked under this scrutiny. Well Rick, welcome to the bigs. It is your turn in the ring.

During the next couple of weeks he will get the attention he has longed desired and will find it a double-edged sword. He can’t help himself. He will be asked question after question to define and explain his 18th century views on contraception. He has no good answer. No matter what he does he is done. Why? Because he only has two options.

(HERE IS TODAY’S Santorum appearance on FACE THE NATION)

Option one–lie. Pretend he has never said the stupid shit he has long espoused. Like what? Oh, for instance, the notion that contraception is bad because it encourages kids to have sex. In the book of Rick, sex is only for procreation and should only occur in marriage between a man and woman. Now that may be a swell position if you want to be pastor of a Southern Baptist congregation, but that dog don’t hunt if you want to be President.

Option two–tell the truth. Try to defend that nonsense described above. Oh sure, it will send a tingle up the legs of hardcore conservatives. But that kind of religious extremism (think of it as the Christian version of Sharia law) scares the hell out of the average American voter. Why? Folks like sex. Folks like having sex without having to worry about getting preggers. Santorum’s religious extremism, akin to that of an imam at a radical Madrassa, encourages the kind of intolerance eschewed by most Americans.

America will have a chance to meet the real Mr. Santorum over the next two weeks. It ain’t going to be pretty. Instead of holding an aspirin between his knees, Santorum may want to consider sticking it up his ass.

  • http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

    Ron Paul has a new Santorum Ad Out

    He calls him a “fake” and “not groovy”

    Check it out LOL

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgNJBdTaKE8&feature=player_embedded

  • Anonymous

    Teen pregnancies and sole parent households are the fastest track to permanent poverty one can imagine. 

    The Pill has not stopped this. It has increased it because before you had the fear of God in you not to get pregnant. and if you did you damn well married the guy and no one questioned the mutual responsibility for the act. Sorry, the Pill shifted all the responsibility to the woman now for any “unintended” pregnancies and the Pill makes most women feel like crap, so it does not always get taken properly. Those truths are self-evident. This country needs to deal with the hugely negative power shift the Pill caused to women not up to the task to accept it.

    • Anonymous

       And comments like yours will cause Independent women AND men to flee from supporting the GOP. Attitudes such as this are what drive potential voters away from the GOP. Sure you can have your base but those of us that will determine this election will go elsewhere. And many won’t vote at all.

      Perhaps if men actually acted responsible and wore condoms the pill would be unnecessary.

  • Anonymous

    I’m going to make a prediction. Santorum is going to get a royal smack down at Wednesday’s debate. And the dude taking his gloves off will be Paul.

  • Anonymous

    WHAT I WROTE TO SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST:

    I WAS EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED TO READ THAT SBA HAS
    ENDORSED RICK SANTORUM AS PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.  I did make
    a donation this past December, and planned to make another
    donation this month….but I cannot contribute to  an
    organization who supports a candidate who is Pro-life, and
    anti-African-American. Why has SBA chosen to ignore this?

    ######

    Rick Santorum targeted black people at a campaign stop in Iowa
    on Sunday, saying he doesn’t want to make their lives better by
    giving them welfare.
    According to CBS News, Santorum told a
    mostly white audience in Sioux City:
    “It just keeps expanding – I was in Indianola a few
    months ago and I was talking to someone who works in the
    department of public welfare here, and she told me that the
    state of Iowa is going to get fined if they don’t sign up more
    people under the Medicaid program,” Santorum said. “They’re just
    pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent
    upon them so they can get your vote. That’s what the bottom line
    is.”

    He added: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives
    better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to
    give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”
    ##

     NO…AM NOT AN OBAMA SUPPORTER..Still am of the POV of anyone but Obama…and now I have to add Santorum to the “anyone BUT..list”.

    • Anonymous

       Gingrich has said the same thing.

      • Anonymous

        I don’t know what’s happened to
        Sarah Palin and the Tea Party…with their declared support for a serial adulterer. 

    • http://ptab-outoforder.blogspot.com/ Ptab01

      Watches video of this
      For what it is worth the word is NOT black but blah

      Form your opinions on the matter

      • Anonymous

        oh, please.  if after listening to the video you believe that he said “blah” you have gone beyond drinking koolaid.  you are ready to jump off the cliff.  

        and of course, it makes no sense contextually that he would have said blah.  if you want to excuse him because he made a mistake, that’s ok.  but don’t insult us with this lame excuse. 

        here is what he said:

        Answering a question about foreign influence on the U.S. economy, the former Pennsylvania senator went on to discuss the American entitlement system – which he argued is being used to politically exploit its beneficiaries.

        “It just keeps expanding — I was in Indianola a few months ago and I was talking to someone who works in the department of public welfare here, and she told me that the state of Iowa is going to get fined if they don’t sign up more people under the Medicaid program,” Santorum said. “They’re just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them so they can get your vote. That’s what the bottom line is.”

        He added: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”

        “Right,” responded one audience member, as another woman can be seen nodding.

        here is the video.  http://youtu.be/PeE0BaSRpZY
        you can see that santorum didn’t even hesitate between BLAH and PEOPLE’S

        So, Santorum wants us to believe that what he said was:  I don’t want to make BLAH people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.

        What country or ethnic background are BLAH people from?

        • http://ptab-outoforder.blogspot.com/ Ptab01

          I did not tell u anything other what was there

          u have your own conclusion and I am not going argue w/ u about it.

          That is all I am stating. To you he is a bigot to me? I haven’t decided yet -

          • Anonymous

            I don’t know whether he’s a bigot. he might have said what he said because he believes that a large number of blacks receive benefits (i frankly don’t kown whether that’s accurate).  i just think that his explanation is not credible.  

      • Anonymous

         And if he said: I don’t want to make blah people’s lives better by giving them someone else’s money, that helps your candidate how?

        Are poor people blah people to Santorum?

        • http://ptab-outoforder.blogspot.com/ Ptab01

          Blah peps are my neatest buds
          They never need anything
          I ask them if they want something to drink
          They respond “blah”
          I tell them it is a good day
          They say ” blah”

          This keeps me on an even keel so I appreciate blah people

          Wat r u… Blah Bigot!?!

  • Anonymous

    “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”
    Doesn’t this make Mormons some flavor of Christian?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hank-DeCat/100001190387982 Hank DeCat

       Mormons self-identify as Christians, but Evangelical Christians do not recognize them as such — which is funny, because considering I belong to the original Christian church (and no, that isn’t the Roman Catholic church, but the Eastern Orthodox Church — Roman Catholics are actually the first protestants) and I can tell you that the tenets of Evangelicals are about as far away from the original Christian church as to be almost as unrecognizable from it as the Mormon tenets.

      However, the FACT is –no matter how much Evangelical Christians want to deny it — that all you need to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ is the only son of God, that He died for our sins & was resurrected from the dead –which Mormons do believe.

      • Anonymous

        Wrong your facts are absolutely wrong!! The basic tenants of Mainstream Christianity (Catholicism and  Protestantism) are as follows.

        1. There is only ONE GOD! Jesus Christ is God! Not just the son of God….
        2. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one person, the Trinity)
        3. The Holy Bible is infallible and is the word of God.
        4. There is a Heaven and a Hell…
        5. Christ was God in human flesh and died for our sins and was resurrected ….We are saved by the Grace of God. Meaning by and through Jesus Christ as God…

        The Mormons do not believe this…

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hank-DeCat/100001190387982 Hank DeCat

          Look, bub, the fact that I am more open-minded about who wants to self-identify as Christian does not mean that I don’t recognize my church as the only true, holy catholic & apostolic church. And considering you have a basic problem grasping the concept of the Holy Trinity, you really shouldn’t go around trying to teach religious doctrine to anyone. Jesus Christ is the son of God AND he is the one true God — one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, BEGOTTEN BY THE FATHER — that is how that works — Father, Son, Holy Spirit — 3 as 1, Mr. “expert” on the Eastern & Western catholic church.

          And yes, even though my claim that the Roman Catholics are the first protestants was tongue in cheek, the HISTORICAL FACT is that Rome was the one that changed things from how they were set down from the beginning — WTF do you even think the word “orthodox” means? The FACT is that the pope is merely the Bishop of Rome — the first among equals — but not infallible and able to change doctrine unilaterally, your priests can’t marry and you say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the “Father AND the Son” so YOU belong to the first protestant church (that Filoque that y’all added, btw, is effed up theology there — the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Point. Blank. Period. end of sentence). Deal with it.

          And if you want to pedal your inaccurate, Roman Catholic b.s. propaganda, you are going to have to sell it to someone who isn’t Eastern Orthodox — I mean, you can fool the Baptists.

          • Anonymous

            Your funny Hank! I am not trying to teach anyone about anything. You made an huge inaccurate statement of what it means to be a Christian. 

            Being open minded is one thing proclaiming the opposite of our faiths and what the mainstream Christian  beliefs and doctrine is an entirely different thing.

            Yes I have a huge problem with Mormons claiming to be Christian while not believing in Christ as the true God. So should you!

            Working to resolve theological issues and saying its ok to be Christian if you believe Christ is just the son of God is totally wrong and misleading.

            Be tolerant of our brother and sister religions, yes of course. Work with them, yes of course. But opened minded only to a point where we do not sacrifice our own doctrines and beliefs. 

            As far the differences between our two sects? Your still fighting something that was settled centuries ago. To say that we Romans are the true protestants defines logic and what the Eastern Rite affirms and a slam at our religion. Both sects have their pros and cons and both added, substracted and divided the theology and hurt the faith back in the 4th Century. That fight is now over. Its this fighting over theology that does all true Christian faiths harm….

            Yes Hank I have a very good understanding of both sects since I once worked for and with Bishop’s of both sects.

            Give me a break!

            • Anonymous

               Let me first make the disclaimer that I am not a Christian so you can use that as a reason to ignore what I will say next.

              I was raised as a Christian and my understanding of what it means to be a Christian is to open your heart to Christ. All the other dogmas and stuff are institutional interpretations and inventions.

              Let the flailing and burning begin.

              • Anonymous

                If you believe Jesus Christ is the one true and only God and believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one and that Christ was God in human form, died and was resurrected for our sins to save us…

                Then basically your a Christian…

                The rest of the theology we can debate….
                 

          • Anonymous

             By the way Hank…

            What does the Catholic Church say about the practices and beliefs of Mormonism?

            http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-does-the-catholic-church-say-about-the-practices-and-beliefs-of-mormonism

            Yes we will work with them on certain issues as we do with many many faiths. We will work with them to even resolve differences. But lets face facts… Mormonism not Christianity….

            That is my problem with the Mormons as a religion.

      • Anonymous

        Thanks, Hank. Yes, everyone forgets about Eastern Orthodox but my best friend’s family was Eastern Orthodix.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6RLFUOLWP23SJ5RQHENEPHKME David L

    Religous zealots scare me, I just don’t trust these morons that try to convert you to “their” religion.  Its like having a conversation with the wall, you get nowhere. 

    • Anonymous

       I get the feeling that if Little Ricky had the opportunity he would re-institute the rack, drownings and burnings.

  • Anonymous

    Hate to break in on such a hot posting… But on a more serious note….

    Iran Suspends Shipments of Oil to Britain and France http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/world/middleeast/iran-halts-oil-shipments-to-britain-and-france.html?google_editors_picks=true

    Talk about the apocalypse…
     

    • Anonymous

      That is not a good thing at all

      • Anonymous

         Lets see how the Market reacts this week…..The Brits and French could careless… But lets watch the spot market….

  • Anonymous

    For someone being so supposedly anti-gay, Santorum spends an awful lot of time with a head up his ass.

  • Anonymous

    Words matter.

    The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines theology as:  the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God’s relation to the world.

    Now Little Ricky can smile and try to explain away what he clearly said but he actually meant to use the word he did. And he totally mischaracterizes what the Environmental movement believes (except for the nut-case radicals.) Think of it this way… If the earth is our house and the roof is leaking then we should probably fix it. If a pipe is clogged or a septic tank is full they should be unclogged or emptied. Sure, you can go on living in a leaking house that smells like shit but eventually the roof will collapse and the poison from the sewage will make you gravely ill.

    His comments concerning prenatal testing are bizarre. Does the GOP really believe for a moment that this kind of talk will persuade women to vote for him, especially independents? The Dems are already out there claiming the GOP has declared a war on women. This does nothing to pacify this claim. In fact, it only feeds it.

    • Anonymous

       ”Words matter”

      Rick is playing to his base, just as Romney plays to his base, Noot plays to his base and Paul plays to his.

      No Flop_Flipper brains matter, not words,  liberty matters, not words, the right stuff matters, not words and none of these got has the Right Stuff…. The closest one is Ron Paul but he too is only play with half a deck….

      • Anonymous

        did you listen to santorum’s explanation this morning on face the nation that larry linked in his story.  it’s unintelligible in parts.  santorum tried to explain that when he referred to Obama’s theology he was really referring to enviromental extremists?  WHAT? 

        i’m not saying he’s stupid.  but he ties himself up in knots when he goes down this road. 

        • Anonymous

          The man was spinning…. Like I said he was playing to his base….

          The entire republican slate is one joke after another….

          • http://ptab-outoforder.blogspot.com/ Ptab01

            I think the man was mis speaking the day before actually.
            I would like to hear the whole conversation to nderstand the context.
            Seems odd to jump from global warming earth science to theology
            No?

          • Anonymous

             Then why aren’t we laughing?

        • Anonymous

           I was paying more attention to Santorum’s facial expressions after his tortured answers. I think even he could tell he was in trouble.

      • Anonymous

         If it is true that brains matter, Santorum must think we are all a bunch of knuckleheaded, dark age lurking idiots.

        I think that Paul is about to step up his game. Maine pissed him off and I’m sure he has heard enough from the MSM about him not winning anywhere. Stay tuned.

  • Anonymous

    Pop…don’t know what you are smokin…but spare us the BS please!

    “Judge my faith by my deeds! Joe II is a winner. He is not like the others especially his cousin Patrick.”

    Regarding Joe ll’s character.  Have you forgotten about the young woman left paralyzed after a joyride with Joe ll on Nantucket?  Or the Joe ll who asked the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston for an annulment of his marriage (Catholic Divorce) from Joe lll’s mother, Sheila Rauch.  

    This genius based his request of annulment on the grounds of “lack of due discretion of judgment”, meaning that he was mentally incapable of entering into marriage at the time of his wedding.  

    “Lack of due discretion of judgment”! Their courtship had lasted nine years and their 12-year marriage had produced two children. What a stunning admission of incompetence for a political office holder!  Only a Kennedy and only in MA could that play.  Well maybe in Illinois too.

    Hopefully Joe lll isn’t just another Kennedy…maybe the apple will fall a littler further away from the tree.

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/05/05/time/kennedys.html

    Like
    Reply

    • Anonymous

      This was meant to post way up the thread in response to popsmoke.  Oh well that’s the way it goes sometimes. 

    • Anonymous

       

      lack of due discretion of judgment

      Yep, he’s a Kennedy!

    • Anonymous

       sassysl… Those without sin can cast the first stone….

      Yes Joe II and even III are not perfect. Rome reversed Joe II’s annulment. Says a lot about the Vatican. In the United States annulments are way to easy and granted for the stupidest reasons. This we agree…

      But to say only a Kennedy in MA can pull something like this off is a real understatement. Unfortunately this happens way to often to many throughout the Catholic Church! Not just to Joe Kennedy and those of MA. 

      On the other hand what Joe II  has done for others as a humanitarian is a real success story. Will he make a good politician? Only letting him into office will tell that.

      But then again if Mickey Mouse was a Democrat you more than likely would find fault with Mickey as well.

  • Anonymous

    Does anyone know if there is a way to widen the display so that we can eliminate the spaghetti comments. 1/4 in wide by 2 pages long. 

  • Anonymous

    for you paul supporters:

    Iowa: Romney vs. ObamaDes Moines RegisterObama 44, Romney 46Romney +2Iowa: Santorum vs. ObamaDes Moines RegisterSantorum 48, Obama 44Santorum +4Iowa: Gingrich vs. ObamaDes Moines RegisterObama 51, Gingrich 37Obama +14Iowa: Paul vs. ObamaDes Moines RegisterObama 42, Paul 49Paul +7

  • Anonymous

    just to show the deranment syndrome that larry spoke of a couple of days ago — here is rove sounding more sane and rational than those pushing for a Republican savior:

    On Fox News Sunday this morning, Karl Rove threw cold water on the murmurings by unnamed “top Republicans” that a new candidate could emerge should Romney lose Michigan.

    Host Chris Wallace outlined a scenario in which a new candidate could still get on the ballots of California, New Jersy, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and possibly Texas, and win enough delegates to contest the convention.

    But Rove was skeptical, to say the least.
    “This proves mental illness is transmittable by contact, personal contact. You’ve been talking to all these people and — look, let’s go. . . . Let’s take that list that you just threw up, and let’s add in one more big state just for the heck of it, Texas. . . . There are 554 delegates up in those states that you talked about, plus Texas; 222 of them awarded, winner take all; 332 of them awarded proportionately.“So in other words, even if the candidate gets in and wins the big states with winner take all, and wins half of the states with proportional, wins half of those delegates, we’re talking about 350 out of over 2,000 delegates. And that may be enough to toss it into a convention that gets — that gets decided at the convention, but that is different than . . . brokering a convention.
    Rove added, for good measure, that the thought the possibility of the last scenario — a new candidate with enough delegates to see the nomination decided at the convention itself — was as “remote as life on Pluto.”

    “We have got a nationwide, at least in the punditry class, a call of premature electionitis,” said Rove. “We have got 54 contest in this thing. And we concluded five of them.”

    • Anonymous

      Rove should be in prison for the crap he pulled on Val Plame and for helping his boss fight an unjust war…. So Rove is full of himself….

    • Anonymous

      Cannot get over my loathing for the likes of Rove but I listen to what he says because he “knows” politics. Sometime he’s wrong but more often he’s right. Just cause he’s a slimeball doesn’t mean he isn’t a smart slimeball.

      Same kind of slimeball on the left in Axlerod.

  • Anonymous

    I think this is what Rick was talking about.

    “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally
    with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against
    white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The
    task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black
    community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which
    participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the
    divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black
    people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their
    disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must
    reject his love.”

    - “Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue
    for Black Theology”, in African-American Religious Thought: An
    Anthology, by William R Jones, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube
    (Westminster John Knox Press).

    http://www.jeffhead.com/blacklibtheology.htm

    • Anonymous

      seriously, this is what we are going to focus on in a national election?  been there, done that. ask sean hannity. 

      • Anonymous

         This same Black Liberation theology subscribed to by Trinity is clearly
        what Obama subscribes to. His actions in this regard tell us so. He had
        been going and donating to that particular church for over twenty
        years.

         Obama states in his own book, “The Audactiy of Hope”, that he
        sought this type of church out, went to it, and then decided to join it
        precisely because of its theology/ideology and its activism in this
        regard.

        As stated, he was raising his kids in it, immersing
        them…baptizing them into it. And Reverend Wright did the immersing
        and baptizing.

        While it is true that the church has done a lot of good in the black
        community, helping them to rise socially, taking care of their needy, it
        is also true that the underlying doctrine must be understood in order
        to reconcile the good it does against the hate it also spreads.

        • Anonymous

          I understand.  Hannity pushed this issue religiously (pun intended) in 2008; it didn’t take hold.  I doubt that it is going to be a winning issue in 2012.

          • Anonymous

             Right, but if they want to attack Rick for his beliefs, Mitt for Mormonism and even Newt for his morals, then it`s time to revisit this grifter`s background.

            • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

               All fair game.

              • Anonymous

                 Agreed. But how does this information get out there so that the average American is exposed to it?

                • Anonymous

                   Good question.

                  • Anonymous

                     The MSM will just cover up for  Obama.

          • Anonymous

             oh I think it will take off this time because Americans have a taste of it.  They will pay attach to what makes Odama, Msr Obama and Valeria Jarrett tick.

          • Anonymous

             The problem being that the person pushing it was Hannity and the only network covering it was FOX which O has already declared was an arm of the GOP. The O team has been very clever to attack the messenger so that the message gets lost.

            • Anonymous

              Attack the messenger? Sean Hannity? That’s funny! So Sean hows flipper these days? And I do not mean you Flop Flipper…..LOL!

              • Anonymous

                 I can take or leave Hannity. Usually the later. But I am not so stuck in my ego that I won’t hear truth regardless of who speaks it.

                • Anonymous

                   Remember this when seeking the “truth”…Flop…

                  “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

                  ― Harlan Ellsion

        • Anonymous

           I remember at the time thinking that the Obamas should be arrested for child abuse, raising their children in such a hateful environment.

  • Anonymous

    Seriously, this overemphasis on religious issues is nuts at a time when we are on a fiscally unsustainable downhill spiral.  It is being driven by the MSM but Santorum is also playing it up because it helps him bring out the social conservatives and I understand that MI consists of 2 states; 1/2 social conservative; 1/2 suburbanites interested in the economy.

    This morning on Meet the Press, Paul Ryan was grilled for 3/4 of his appearance on social/religious issues.  He answered every question dutifully and well, until he’d had enough and said that he had been asked to appear to talk about the budget. They finally started talking about the budget.

    If anyone’s been reading the news on the Obama budget and on Tim Geithner’s testimony before the House, the numbers are scary.  According to the Obama administration’s own projections, in 2027, the economy shuts down. THAT’s 2027, within most of our lifetimes, with any luck.

    here are two choice exchanges:

    GEITHNER: “We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to our long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.”

    and

    GEITHNER: You could have taken [the chart] out [to the year] 3000 or to 4000. [Laughs]
    RYAN: Yeah, right. We cut it off at the end of the century because the economy, according to the CBO, shuts down in 2027 on this path.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49621

    • Anonymous

      Geithner is way out of his class arguing with Paul Ryan. Ryan knows what he’s talking about. Turbo Tax Timmy is just talking.

      • Anonymous

         right.

        • Anonymous

          Every time one of these clown argues with Ryan the depth of his knowledge, as opposed to the superficial knowledge they possess, or their dishonesty is apparent.

          That’s why I don’t want Paul Ryan running for president, I want him where he is and can do the most good. He’s a young man, as politicians go, he’s got time to aim higher.

          • Anonymous

             If Ryan could whittle down his message to something the average American understood the GOP would win a landslide this fall. Not that I don’t appreciate what he says. It’s just too complicated for most people to get without much thought.

            • Anonymous

              It’s too complicated for a 30 second sound bite.

              I don’t know how you whittle the message, aka dumb it down, for mass consumption.

              • Anonymous

                 Me either. But one can dream.

    • Anonymous

       IF the GOP had any sense they would talk about JOBS, JOBS and more JOBS until they were blue in the face. It is the one area where almost everyone except hardcore Odrones knows O is lacking.

    • Anonymous

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s29X6Wm0J1Q

      • Anonymous

        this is why all the santorum talk about obama’s theology is so wrong.  this is what we should have been talking about this weekend and every day until it gets fixed.  Paul Ryan hit it out of the ballpark and instead we are talking about obama’s theology and prenatal screening.  NUTS… on so many levels. 

    • Anonymous

       The USCCB and many of the Bishops have had a problem with Paul Ryan and his budget axe…..

    • Anonymous

       

      We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to our
      long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.

      This needs to be in a slew of SuperPAC ads.

      • Anonymous

        Is the GOP smart enough to do that? All they seem to want to do is attack each other and cower every time the Dems call them names. Like “obstructionists.”

        Perhaps Harry Reid’s refusal to bring so many of the bills that come from the House to the floor of the Senate might also be obstructionism. But don’t hold you breath until media points that out. Too busy being press agents for Obama and the Obamacrats.

  • Anonymous

    Your description of Santorum’s Christian views as being the Sharia equivalent are spot on. His comments recently about Obama’s agenda not being based upon the Bible are a direct hint that he believes he is a  Muslim. This may all play well with the insane radicals of the religious wrong but mainstream America won’t put up with it. And I guarantee that should he get the nomination those positions will be front and center come November.

    All this emphasis on a person’s religion is a distraction. We aren’t electing a pope. We are supposed to be electing someone to administer the laws of our land.

    As a side note, I wish to comment upon the O-drone PPAA. Isn’t it funny that he is pushing for Santorum? Kinda obvious that the Dems want to face him in the fall. I wonder why?

    Santorum should probably think about taking a few of those aspirins as a preventative (prophylactic) measure with the headache coming his way.

    BTW… heard a rumor that Santorum backers will introduce a bill in the coming weeks to make Israel our 51st state.

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

       He’s not that politically stupid.  That would be suicidal.  Sounds like something the ONION created.

      • Anonymous

        I apologize if my joke wasn’t apparent. But sometimes I wonder as if that isn’t what people like Santorum want.

  • Anonymous

    the others left couldn’t take the heat.

  • http://twitter.com/MarvinMarks Marvin Marks

    Santorum’s ass-kicking is coming; I agree with that. The question is: Will it come in time for Romney? He’s only got a couple of weeks for the average GOP primary voter to realize how crazy it would be to run this guy as their nominee… 

    The problem – the things that make Santorum so bonkers are things that a lot of Republican voters agree with (like this insane anti-birth control stuff) … I’m not sure how Romney can go at this… he kind of has to hope for Santorum to self destruct…

    I really don’t know what’s going to happen as far as the GOP primaries are concerned, it seems impossible to predict at this point.

    But I am very confident that Obama would beat the hell out of Santorum in a general election.

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

       We agree?  Is this a sign of the apocalypse?

      • Anonymous

         If the GOP doesn’t get smart real soon it’s going to be more like another A-crap-on-us.

  • Anonymous

     9 Mos to Election Day in WA State: Obama Net Approval Minus 5; Voters Split on Same-Sex Marriage:

    9 months from Election Day, Barack Obama has a net approval rating of
    Minus 5 in Washington State, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted
    exclusively for KING-TV Seattle. 42% today approve of the job he is
    doing as president, 47% disapprove. But: the number of Washington voters
    who say Obama has been a worse president than they expected is 2.5
    times greater than the number who say Obama has been better than they
    expected. On specific aspects of his administration, Obama is:

    * Plus 14 on his handling of Iraq.
    * Minus 1 on his handling of Afghanistan.
    * Minus 19 on his handling of the economy.
    * Minus 20 on his handling of health care.
    * Minus 26 on his handling of the federal deficit.

    Voters are split on whether the current state of the economy is more
    Obama’s responsibility or more the responsibility of his predecessor,
    George W. Bush. Voters are split on whether the U.S. Government was
    right to bail out U.S. auto makers, 47% saying it was wrong, 36% saying
    it was right.

    Voters are also divided on how they would react if Washington’s new law
    allowing same-sex couples to marry were put to public referendum. 50%
    say they would vote to approve the law, 45% say they would vote to
    reject the law. Young and old are on opposite sides of this issue.

    http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=91da2dee-d600-4612-80c8-9a2a44668738

    • Anonymous

      All those numbers are great, but they have actually been improving for Obama and would actually be worse for Congress. They are not all that relevant.

      You conveniently omit (as does the HotAir article you quote from) the only numbers from that same survey that matters.

      “In an election for President of the United States today, Democrat Barack Obama holds Washington State’s 12 Electoral College Votes, according to a SurveyUSA poll for KING-TV Seattle. In head-to-head hypothetical elections today, it is:

      * Barack Obama 49% * Mitt Romney 41% * Democratic Margin of Victory: 8 points.”

      http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2011/12/02/washington-state-poll-results-obama-8-atop-romney-19-atop-gingrich/

      Obama is trouncing Romney by an astonding 8 points in Washington State and Obama has not even started campaigning yet.

      or

      KING 5 poll: Obama leading Romney in Washington state

      http://www.king5.com/news/up-front/polls/KING-5-poll-Obama-leading-Romney-in-Washington-state-137295048.html

      If an election was held today in Washington State, Obama would destroy Romney.

      • Anonymous

         

        In head-to-head hypothetical elections today,

        What about “hypothetical” don’t you comprehend?

        A dog pooped in my yard last Monday. On Wednesday another dog pooped in my yard. Friday, you guessed it, there was more new dog poop. Hypothetically, a dog will poop in my yard today. It’s a trend you see, kinda like O’s stewardship of our economy. And dog crap just the same.

        Obama is trouncing Romney by an astonding 8 points in Washington State and Obama has not even started campaigning yet.

        Exactly when did Obama ever stop campaigning?

  • Anonymous

    The fact of the matter is that you cannot so easily dismiss is that a lot more people in the Republican party currently like Santorum over Romney. Romney has had trouble at getting over 25% of your party’s national support and this for a guy who has spend tens of millions and has been essentially campaining for the last 6 years and has the entire Republican establishment behind him.

    A lot more people in the GOP have beliefs that seem to line-up much more closely with those of Santorum’s. People have heard all of Santorum’s BS before and you know what? They like it.  

    LJ, you seem to think that when the word gets out on Santorum he will get killed, when exactly the opposite is happening.

    It is funny because every poll shows that the more people get to know Romney the more they cannot stand him.

    I think you have it exactly backward. The more people get to know Santorum the more they like him and the more people get to know Romney the more that do not like him.

    “The new ABC/Washington Post poll out today has President Obama up over Mitt Romney, 51% to 45%. Perhaps the most interesting number from within the poll: By better than 2 to 1, Americans say the more they learn about Romney, the less they like him. Even among Republicans, as many offer negative as positive assessments of him on this question. Judgments about former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who denounced Romney on Saturday night in Nevada, are about 3 to 1 negative.”

    That is completely stunning. Did you get that? Americans 2 to 1 say the more they learn about Romney the less they like him.

    I would also add that there is some evidence that Romney’s vicious attacking of his opponents is starting to have the opposite effect and is turning people off of Romney. I would also add that if the GOP also thinks they can go full vicious attack on Obama (NQ style) they are going to get their asses handed to them.

    This is very very telling about Romney/Santorum:

    “Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine has had a change of heart.

    The prominent Buckeye State Republican threw his support behind presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Friday afternoon, switching his allegiance from Mitt Romney to the former Pennsylvania senator.

    “To be elected President, you have to do more than tear down your opponents,” DeWine said in a statement.  ”You have to give the American people a reason to vote for you — a reason to hope — a reason to believe that under your leadership, America will be better.  Rick Santorum has done that.  Sadly, Governor Romney has not.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/mike-dewine-to-switch-endorsement-from-mitt-romney-to-rick-santorum/

    Even fellow Republicans are saying you can only take attack politics so far….

    • Anonymous

      I do not think this beyond the reach of Romney at all . . . But he must climb down off the attack ads. I really believe that is what is keeping people like me away to some degree.

      It is no shocker I like Santorum but that certainly will not prevent me from supporting Romney in the General if he should be the nominee. & I think anyone who feels they can not vote for anyone but Romney are not recognizing the existential threat of a second term Barrack Obama represents to this nation.

      We will be irrepairablely bankrupt

      • Anonymous

        The problem with asking Romney to come off the attack ads is that Santorum and Gingrich before him do not miss an opportunity to attack him each time they are given a free soapbox by the media.  Santorum and Gingrich appear on Fox and all others media outlets every day.  and every day they attack romney. 

        and there is no one in the MSM including Fox who ever questions whatever assertion Santorum and Gingrich make about Romney, no matter how unfounded.

        It would be suicide for Romney to stop running ads that highlight his opponents’ records. 

        • Anonymous

          Absolutely jrterrier!

          Santorum and Gingrich attack Romney constantly and demean his every accomplishment. But the minute he fights back he’s some kind of monster.
           
          It’s a wonder that he is even still in the running with all the negativity aimed at him from the media, the left, but I repeat myself and his opponents.

          Santorum and Gingrich can dish it out but whine little little wussies when he retaliates. If either one should win the nomination I wonder what they think the billion dollar Obama smear machine will do to them.

           Word is that the thugs in Chicago have started some oppo reasearch on Santorum. That should be easy pickings.

          • Anonymous

            Romney to date has passed on at least three conservative radio personalities that I know of . . W/ no explanation as to why

            If you were trying garner the conservative vote to you don’t you go out there to speak to that branch? If you want the black vote you do not campaign in Aspen right? You go to New Orleans you go to Atlanta and Harlem.

            And let’s get something straight for all these guys- when someone comes out talking about the other guys record that other guys going to have something to say about it. It ain’t whining and crying it is fighting what one believes to be a slight or slander.

            • Anonymous

              Go pick a fight with someone else. I am beyond tired of you.

              • Anonymous

                Whatever you say m mam sorry to distress u

                Sent from my iPad

          • Anonymous

             And most of their attacks are from the left. If I were Romney and one of those bozos started that crap at the next debate I would pull a Ronald Reagan, “There you go again” and strongly remind them both that this is a GOP debate.

            • Anonymous

              Exactly. When did Republicans start thinking working hard and acheiving success was a bad thing? When did they start attacking each other for acheiving the American Dream as if the were liberals who think only the poor and down trodden have any rights?

              • Anonymous

                 When Gingrich joined the fray.

      • Anonymous

         It’s a bunch of crap-promoted by the MSM that Romney is the only one doing attack ads or attacking.  I have heard Santorum and Gingrich do the same thing.  Why should Romney stop, when those two are still slinging it?

        • http://ptab-outoforder.blogspot.com/ Ptab01

          I can’t honestly tell you I have not heard much here NYC.

          I have seen reports of the Big Government ads on Santorum
          And his response 2 them

          But all candidates need to learn physics

          All actions cause reactions in the opposite direction.

    • Anonymous

      another one of the untruths that are repeated until people start to believe it. 

      NV:  Romney got 50% of the vote; Santorum got 10%(35,000 voters)

      FL:  Romney got 46%; Santorum got 13% (1.5 million voter);

      NH:  Romney got 39%; Santorum got 9% (200,000 voters)

      Then Romney took his foot off the accelerator; didn’t campaign in MN, MO, CO.  For example, Romney was in CO 2x, Santorum 22x.  Santorum has yet to win a primary.  All his wins have been caucuses.  MO was a non-binding contest; a caucus will be held later this year to award delegates. 

      Even Obama lost a lot of primaries.  

      • Anonymous

        Romney out spent his opponents in thos States 6 to 1. He essentially bought the States of FL, NV and NH. It now looks like Maine will go to Santorum, as Iowa did.

        “took his foot off the accelerator”. Is that the spin or excuse now being used for taking a shellacking in those States?

        Good chance Romney losses Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. What are you going to be saying then?

        • Anonymous

          what?  Maine will go to Santorum.  Not a chance.  romney won Maine 39% to 35% for Paul; Santorum got 18%  http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/me 

          Did it trouble you that Obama won the nomination and the Presidency by outspending his opponents? He outspent McCain throughout in 2008.   During the 60 days ending Nov. 1, Obama has outspent McCain on television by better than 2.5-to-1. And in the most recent week, Obama has spent $23.6 million to McCain’s $4.8 million, a spending advantage of nearly 5-to-1.  http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama

          seriously, will you please stop posting misinformation.  these days, it’s pretty easy to verify. 

          Iowa did not go to santorum.  the official count was a draw because the ballots from 8 counties were missing.  but if you and the media want to continue to repeat that untruth, go ahead.

    • Anonymous

       

      The prominent Buckeye State Republican threw his support behind
      presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Friday afternoon, switching his
      allegiance from Mitt Romney to the former Pennsylvania senator.

      You do realize that he first supported Pawlenty, then Romney and now Santorum. If he was a real Santorum ally wouldn’t he have supported him from the start?

  • Anonymous

    How can anyone even think of  Santorum for president. The world has changed some for the good and some for the bad but this guy lives in the dark ages and I am so tired of listening to his abortion stories. I still believe that the government should have NO say  on if a woman has an abortion it is her body and she should decide….

    • Anonymous

       The problem is that some of the GOP base still live in the dark ages too. Santorum is a symptom of a much wider disease. And if the GOP keeps walking along this path they will hand O the election, maybe even a landslide.

    • Anonymous

       The problem is that some of the GOP base still live in the dark ages too. Santorum is a symptom of a much wider disease. And if the GOP keeps walking along this path they will hand O the election, maybe even a landslide.

      • Anonymous

        no not a dark age . . . we live in age that has long ago
        forgotten that the state can only govern with the good will of the governed. Too many half promises and half measures Too many politicians and not enough real circumstance.

         I am sure Romney is a fine man but until i can ascertain he shall compromise his “conservative” principles I remain where i am

        • Anonymous

           Which conservative principles has he compromised?

  • Anonymous

    Look I am no fan of Ricks and do not want to see him as President. He is to much a beltway insider.

    But his views on contraception are the views of the Universal Catholic Church as well as many, many Protestant denominations and not considered extreme. Yes folk like sex, so do I and most Catholics and Christians pay little attention to the Church(s) regarding contraception. That is a problem. While sex is a stimulator its also an albatross and we will not talk about what sex means in some countries or the business of sex and how women are used a cattle. Besides I am sure those of you who have teenage children tell them to just be safe when having sex! Right? In a pigs eye you do! There are adults I am sure who have their regrets on bedding some of the opposite sex before marriage. Right? Like me! Abortions? Well I do believe in the Pro-Life stance of the Catholic Church of course with exception of rape or incest. This coming from someone who in his early years agreed to an abortion out of wedlock. I do not believe in protesting at abortion clinics or marching. I believe this is a personal matter that needs to be handled on a case by case issue, one on one.

    So in this regard I actually agree with Rick and I can assure you I am no extremist.

    Now Romney will be hard pressed to go against this platform. He would loose a good bet of the Catholic and Christian vote if he does besides going against his Mormon principles and standards. While Romney as a former Mormon Bishop would really get pounded by his Church.

    So if contraception is going to be a issue. Then Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are extremist and the republican party is dead in the water.

    Other than that Santorum is a beltway insider with very limited government and foreign policy working (not wonking) experience. I believe he is running to off set Romney with the Catholic vote.

    • Anonymous

      “But his views on contraception are the views of the Universal Catholic Church as well as many, many Protestant denominations and not considered extreme.”

      Not sure where you live, but Santorum’s views on contraception are exactly extreme. This is not 1950.

      There is absolutely no polling in this country that shows Americans views on contraception line up with Santorum’s. In fact, the polling shows exactly the opposite.

      He talks about the “dangers of contraception”. A completely off the mainstream comment.

      Quoting Santorum:

      “Many of Christian faith have said, `Well, that’s OK. Contraception is OK,’” he said. “It’s not OK. It’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. … If it’s not for purposes of procreation, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women.”

      What does “suppose to be” mean?

      http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_19986142

      Nobody wants a Commander-in-Preacher. It is bad enough the Romney believes in magical underwear and his savior came from the planet Kolob.

      http://vallee7.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/mormonism-and-the-planet-kolob/

      And you want to elect these crazy religious nuts (both Romney and Santorum) President?

      • Anonymous

         Don’t care about polling…. The positions are those of the Catholic Church’s and have not changed since Vatican II…. Those who are practicing Catholics will follow those beliefs.

        As far as crazy religious nuts? While I have a problem with Mormonism being considered Christianity. I do not consider either Romney nor Santorum and I will even include Gingrich as religious nuts. None of these guys are or where members of  the Peoples Temple. Even Obama personally does not support abortion… So PPAA lets stop kidding ourselves.

        • Anonymous

          “Those who are practicing Catholics will follow those beliefs.”

          Most “practicing Catholics” in the US do not follow ”those beliefs” regarding contraception. 

          • Anonymous

             Wrong…. Many do not MOST…

        • Anonymous

          Popsmoke,  it’s been awhile, but I think I remember that in David Freddoso’s book The Case Against Obama evidence was given that Obama supported things like allowing viable aborted fetuses to simply die.  Something like that. 

          • Anonymous

            Diana, I have no real clue what Obama thinks about his Christian core beliefs. For that matter I have a problem understanding any of his beliefs….

        • Anonymous

          ” The positions are those of the Catholic Church’s and have not changed since Vatican II…. Those who are practicing Catholics will follow those beliefs.”

          The Catholic Church is outside the mainstream.

          Most Catholics use contraception and have no problem with Obama healtcare mandate regarding contraception healthcare coverage.

          Contraception is covered by healthcare in the largest Catholic countries of the world and the Church has never made a big issue about it.

          Mormonism is the worlds largest cult.

          Nobody is “kidding ourselves”. It is very real that both Santorum and Romney have religious beliefs that are far outside the mainstream of America.

          • Anonymous

             ”The Catholic Church is outside the mainstream.”

            You are the one outside the mainstream….

            The Church has fought contraception since its beginnings.  What planet are you on?

            Again not Most Catholic but many Catholics…. There is only 2 Billion of us that you call outside the mainstream….

            • Anonymous

              Doesn’t matter if the Church has fought contraception since its beginnings. They are outside the mainstream of not only America, but the  world. Their own catholic followers do not even follow the Church’s teachings on contraception.

              Have you ever used contraception?

              2 billion Catholics are hardly against contraception. In big Catholic countries like Brazil, France and Italy contraception and abortion are part of regular healthcare and the Catholic Church in those countries has never attempted to stop that.

              You and your GOP buddies really want to have this losing argument on contraception? Contraception has been widely accepted across America and the world for decades. How can you possibly say the Catholic church views on contraception are within the mainstream?

              • Anonymous

                It’s a religious freedom a issue not cntraception.

                • Anonymous

                  You need to pay attention. We are talking here about Santorum’s and the Catholic church’s views of contraception.

              • Anonymous

                 Yes the Catholic Church is divided about 50/50 on the issue. So lets not go overboard and say the majority just because some outlet polls some 400 to 1000 Catholics….

                I blame the left wing of the Bishops for this as well.

                Cardinal Dolan will be coming back from Rome soon. Watch the bomb he will drop….

                I believe government should stay the hell out of the birth control issue completely!

          • Anonymous

            Yeah keep spreading the lie that what Obama did in mandating that Catholic organizations pay for contraceptives and “women’s healthcare”is an issue of contraceptions instead of religious freedoms.  That is the only way you stand a chance of fooling the public and women.  This president is compelling Catholic organizations to forgo their religious beliefs which is a violation of the constitution.  When deeply religious belifs can be circumvented by the government, tyranny reins.  Obama the tyrannical leader.  Yes he did say that if aborted fetuses survived outside the womb they should be killed because “the woman had contracted for an abortion not a live baby”.

            • Anonymous

              You need to pay attention and read the thread before adding your 2 cents. We are talking about Santorum’s and the Catholic church’s view of contraception. You do not seem so “wise” if you cannot even pay attention to what we are talking about it. 

              But, since you mention heath insurance coverage, I would say keep your church out of my healthcare insurance coverage and if the Catholic church wants to sell health insurance then it has to follow the minimum standards that all insurance companies must comply with in this country. If you do not like it, then do not sell health insurance.

              • Anonymous

                 With the continuing economic policies from your hero O, having 2 cents is about all the spare change most folks have available.

          • Anonymous

             It is obvious that the birth control mandate is an intentional attempt by Catholic women to influence the Vatican’s long held position, using the force (ruse) of law to change doctrine.

            The largest cult in the world is the belief that O is a great man of great moral principles and character.

      • Anonymous

        While Holding office neither man either Governed/ represented their official duties as a preacher . . .they governed in a secular fashion.

        Neither Romney or Santorum did not attempt to legislate contraceptives away from anyone. They separated their religious doctrines and beliefs from their official agendas.

        If you have any evidence to the contrary I would like to see it

        • Anonymous

          This is why I, an old fuddy duddy with some ideas that have been pointed out as being “outdated” in regard to the ways contraception and abortion are being used in this country, really wish candidates with religious viewpoints stick to the topics of HOW THEY WOULD GOVERN and not what they believe.  How they would govern should be to tell the religious organizations to which they belong that as PRESIDENT they personally would believe as they believe but would have to in their official position carry out what they believe is the will of the people.

          Candidates need only state what their religious affiliation is and leave it at that. 

          I am sick of the divisive social issues taking over elections.  They are things that should be ironed out as laws are passed and as the justice system rules on them.

          No one in this crazy debate ever discusses the fact that it’s an ice cube’s chance in hell that the courts are going to over rule Roe vs. Wade and that current laws on providing contraceptions and abortions in every state will be dictated by the President–I guess unless it’s our supreme ruler Obama who doesn’t believe in the Constitution.

          Republican candidates need to stick to the points about how they would treat legal issues differently from the way O does.

          • Anonymous

            I agree and this has actually happened with Romney and Santorum. They are both the record stating they have no thoughts to change the laws on contraception. And they regular dodge the abortion issue b/ c it is a double edge sword . . . Lose your pro life base or lose your shot at the independent vote.

            Sent from my iPad

            • Anonymous

              But then I’m always seening posts of Santorum stating his religious views and I watch him in the debates bringing up his views as they relate to these religious issues.

              So I agree with you more in regard to Romney than to Santorum.

          • Anonymous

            I agree and this has actually happened with Romney and Santorum. They are both the record stating they have no thoughts to change the laws on contraception. And they regular dodge the abortion issue b/ c it is a double edge sword . . . Lose your pro life base or lose your shot at the independent vote.

            Sent from my iPad

          • Anonymous

             I don’t think that anyone’s religion has anything to do with their qualifications for office. It is what a person does, not says that is important.

      • Anonymous

        I was actually starting to agree with everything you said until you grouped Romney in with Santorum. Oh well, what do I expect from an O-drone?

    • Anonymous

       When a child is created from rape it is not created from an act of love. Santorum believes that women should be forced to carry to term a child created from hate. Every single day of that term she is reminded of the hate that was forced and abused upon her, can see it growing from within her body.

      Santorum has a radical view that is not shared by the vast majority of humans. Thankfully.

  • Anonymous

    Someone should ask Santorum’s wife what she thinks of his views on contraception.  After all, she’s given him 7 kids.  I can’t help but think how used up she looks.  She seems wan and a bit lackluster. I wonder if he ever thought about how so many pregnancies affects a woman’s body.  Probably not.   Maybe Santorum should start preaching to us about male contraception.  Since he holds women in such low regard, that’s not likely to happen.
    Hey Rick, how much time did you spend in the military?  Any military?  ROTC?  Anything? 
    Rick doesn’t stand a chance when his history comes out.  He was in trouble when in Congress over where he lived and resulting misrepresentations.  He isn’t as lily white as he would like all to believe.

    • Anonymous

      How much time did Mitt Romney spend in the Military?
      How much time did Hillary Clinton for that matter spend in the military?

      • Anonymous

        It was Santorum who addressed the role of women in the military, not Mitt Romney nor Hillary.
        It was Santorum who put himself on the firing line of the arguments regarding women in the military, not Hillary nor Romney.
        The man is a Victorian throwback wherein women were kept back and were considered by many men as little more than caregivers and broodmares.

        • Anonymous

          First off someone pointed out Santorum had not served in the military. And I responded to the big favorites on this blog have not either.
          Secondly the role of woman in combat operations that is ground assault missions is not a practice of any military force on the planet. And the historical records of female combat units is one that is rife with a very powerful argument against said assignments.
          Thirdly woman do fill combat positions in Air Force, Navy or Army but not as assault forces. At no point in the past had Santorum made reference to their positions being a detractor. The comment is in regard to women being brought into the front lines.
          The emotional effect he references to is well documented in the Soviet military during WW II

          Sent from my iPad

      • Anonymous

         What percentage of his income did Santorum give to charities?

        • Anonymous

          I don’t recall I do not believe it impressive though and nobody is gonna beat Mitt’s tithing .
          In fact I do not think all others combined would match a third of his charity

    • Anonymous

       ”Someone should ask Santorum’s wife what she thinks of his views on
      contraception.  After all, she’s given him 7 kids.  I can’t help but
      think how used up she looks. ”

      That is a low blow…..

      • Anonymous

        Please enlighten me as to what way the truth is a low blow.  The truth is the truth. 
        As to the statement, the end of the sentence got cut off, either by my typo or something else.  What I intended to state was that she looks wan and a bit lackluster. I had no intention of saying anything about her ‘looks’.  That’s immaterial.  
        Since you have never gone through the experience yourself, you may claim ignorance of what having this many children does to a woman’s body.

        • Anonymous

          I think DianaLC has it nailed. You know it does not matter what you or I think. Its what Santorum’s wife thinks really what matters and she seems to be very happy.

          So be it….

        • Anonymous

          What I intended to state was that she looks wan and a bit lackluster. I had no intention of saying anything about her ‘looks’.

          Huh?

          That’s kinda like Santorum questioning Obama’s theology then claiming he wasn’t questioning his faith.

          • Anonymous

            Flop:  No, I was commenting on tiredness, not prettiness.  Get it now?

      • Anonymous

        Exactly–I would wait to comment on what she might think until somebody does ask her.  I hate this idea that if a woman has a large family and is in a long-term marriage, she does because she’s stupid, brainwashed, or abused.  I had to hear that far too much about Sarah Palin.

        This comes from the granddaughter of on grandmother who had eight children and one who had six.  (And I had several great aunts who had more than ten children.  Of course this was before birth control.  But they were remarkable–not used up.  In their time in Russia, the Russian’s were jealous of them because they were so kinderreich.)  I know it’s a different time and place, but choice is about letting women have a choice.  If they want many children–don’t assume they don’t.

        • Anonymous

           Right on!

    • Anonymous

       Going after his wife is inappropriate. Let’s draw a clear line in the sand here and focus on the nominees, not their families. Please.

      • Anonymous

        Oh good Lord, I was not ‘going after his wife”!  I was going after Santorum and what I see as his views on the role of women, which appear to hold them in rather low regard. Oh do get a life!

        • Anonymous

           Not interested in fighting with you as we are probably on the same side. You mentioned how she looked used up and you implied that she had no say in her pregnancies. I felt that was inappropriate. Still do.

      • Anonymous

        Oh good Lord, I was not ‘going after his wife”!  I was going after Santorum and what I see as his views on the role of women, which appear to hold them in rather low regard. Oh do get a life!

    • Anonymous

       Going after his wife is inappropriate. Let’s draw a clear line in the sand here and focus on the nominees, not their families. Please.

  • Anonymous

    Santorum is also getting slammed for his comments on women being recognized to officially serve in combat.  A GOP candidate in Arizona, a female veteran, has publicly called him on his position as idiotic and demeaning.  Ricky the Weenie never served in such a role so I imagine he’d feel threatened by a woman with more intestinal fortidue than his.  Think he’d choose a woman VP candidate???? 

    • Anonymous

       I suppose he wouldn`t support this woman to run for Gifford`s district then.

      In 2004, she was named commander of Davis Monthan Air
      Force Base’s 354th Fighter Squadron, a position she held until 2006. She
      dropped her legal suit at the time.

      After that, she was sent to the Air War College in Alabama where she
      finished first in a class of 225 people being groomed as senior leaders.
      She spent her final three years in the Air Force in Stuttgart, Germany.

      Since retiring from the Air Force in 2010, she’s been a professor of
      National Security Studies at the George C. Marshall Center in Germany
      where she taught government officials from around the world about
      national and international security issues.

      Before all that, in 1994, McSally was the Air Force’s first female to
      fly in combat. Her experience in being in the spotlight and dealing
      with public scrutiny have helped prepare her for this campaign.

      • Anonymous

        How could Santorum, the contraception candidate, support a woman with bigger cajones than he has?

      • Anonymous

         To bad McSally is just starting out her political career, she might make a good candidate for VP.

      • Anonymous

        “She
        dropped her legal suit at the time. ”
        What legal suit, Harp?

    • Anonymous

      How many countries have deemed it prudent or nessecary to deploy women to the frontlines of a combat operation?

      How many times have we witnessed I’ll treatment of our combat forces captured by the enemy?

      What do you think shall be the result/ treatment of a female combatant captured by the likes of Taliban or Al Queda’s?

      In regard spherically to combat pilot McSally – I am certain Senator Santorum had little to no objection of her role as he has not any to other women serving in the USNavy combat fleet.

      • Anonymous

        We already know the answer as it has already happened. It just didn’t get top billing on the evening news.

        The historical reason for not having women do the fighting in wars has nothing to do with those stalwart men not being able to cope withthe sight of injured women, but the fact that women are the ones who procreate. Imagine what might have happened to the species had the millions of dead soldiers in WW1 been female?

        So long as the armed forces are all-voluntary, I think women who volunteer should have exactly the same opportunities as men who volunteer.

        • Anonymous

          Do you have evidence that woman are excluded from the battle field solely b/c of their biological ability to reproduce?

          Do combat personnel react emotionally to companions/ buddies being wounded or killed on the battlefield now?

          Are combat personnel likely to react more or less to the potential capture and torture to a female companion/ buddy?

          Is the abuse of a female combatant likely to be more or less severe by Islamic jihadist?

      • Anonymous

         

        What do you think shall be the result/ treatment of a female combatant captured by the likes of Taliban or Al Queda’s?

        I think having their asses kicked by women would be a humiliation worse than death to them.

        • Anonymous

           ”I think having their asses kicked by women would be a humiliation worse than death to them”

          Are you a woman? Ever been in combat?

          • Anonymous

             No and No. And proud of both truths.

    • Anonymous

      I do not believe women should be on the tip of the spear of any war in a maneuver combat situation. Yes I believe they should be equals in all other areas, except as dirt eaters or front line grunts. Sorry gals but I do draw the line with assault forces.

      Seeing how the guys come home is bad enough.

      • Anonymous

        I thought it was plainly obvious that having woman in combat assault units on the ground is a really really bad idea.

        Most Countries that have included women in combat roles have appealed them as well. Russia used women in many different battles during WWII and saw great things with the all female unites. The problem was not about the female unites though. The problem was with the male unites around the female unites had the lowest morale out of all the unites. Seeing women injured or killed made many unites lose complete control.After the war women were banned from being in combat with males. female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.

        • Anonymous

          “The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently
          experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.  ”
          Funny how this male instinctive protective mechanism sometimes disappears domestically.

          • Anonymous

             Freaking awesome comment!

          • http://ptab-outoforder.blogspot.com/ Ptab01

            Look I can understand your passion and I appreciate your viewpoint even though I do not fully agree with it
            Combat ain’t great no matter who is in it. The men, the bad guys, the civilians caught in the action.
            If there was ever a point in war/battle we needed the extra bodies I doubt females will be locked out of the action. That though is not happening now.
            As for what happens domestically or even while deployed – these are different issues all together. The distressing amount of sexual harassment and assault in the services a distinct problem & I would not assume it would improve by placing females in assault forces.
            The distinction I pointed to regarding Islamist jihadists forces is obvious in their treatment of in their society on the whole. A woman captured in a combat action will undoubtedly be treated worse.
            Female positions in a USN battle fleet or USAF flight squadrons has NOT been part of the restrictions for quite some time now.
            I know that none of this likely to change your mind but I hope I offered something of substance to think about.
            Let us pray we never face a day when we must call upon All to defend our nation against forces … In memory of how the Imperial Japanese were prepared to fight an invasion of their nation.

            • Anonymous

              “The distressing amount of sexual harassment and assault in the services a
              distinct problem & I would not assume it would improve by placing
              females in assault forces.”
              I think you just made my argument for arming women. Perhaps a few “accidents” might remind the males in the forces to attack the enemy not their fellow soldiers.

              The days of men deciding what is for a woman’s own good can’t be over too soon for me.

              • http://ptab-outoforder.blogspot.com/ Ptab01

                That is not going to correct the problem but if it makes u “feel” good Go for it- Btb what branch of service for u?
                I was USN

                • Anonymous

                  I envy you. My whole family was Navy but I come from a time when women didn’t even work never mind join the military. Now if it were now….

          • Anonymous

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2011/jul/21/rape-shame-us-military/print

            Rape shame of the US military

            A US female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by an enemy. Yet most cases go unreported

            Jamie Leigh Jones, who lost a civil lawsuit against private military contracting firm. KBR. Photograph: Although Jones’s case was thrown out, it touched upon a prevalent – yet gravely underrepresented – problem within the US military.
            According to military reporter Adam Weinstein, a US servicewoman is
            twice as likely to be the victim of rape as her civilian counterpart. In
            fact, a US female soldier in Iraq
            is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by an enemy.
            Worse still, the Pentagon estimates that as many as 90% of sexual
            assault cases in the military go unreported.
             

      • Anonymous

         Not allowing women the same exact opportunities as men to defend their country is discrimination.

        • Anonymous

           ”Not allowing women the same exact opportunities as men to defend their country is discrimination”

          Really? They do defend their Country and Honorably too. So where is the discrimination? 

          • Anonymous

             I am not saying that women should be on the front lines fighting wars. What I am saying is that if that is what some women want then they should be given the opportunity. Since they aren’t, that is discrimination.

      • Anonymous

        Fortunately for us “gals” someone else is eliminating the dividing lines.

    • Anonymous

      As to his choice of VP running mate – the least of my concern is their Gender followed by their faith.

      The Character of the person is essential

    • Anonymous

       lol

    • Anonymous

       Mother Teresa is deceased.

  • Anonymous

     Santorum is in for a world full of ass kicking.

  • Anonymous

    Well we shall see then shalln’t we Mr. J.

    But somehow I highly doubt you will stand down and be an objective opinion maker, if he seems to hold up to the scrunity better then you thought he would.
    I wish him luck.
    I wish Romney luck.
    I hope they continue to make strides against Obama camp.

  • Anonymous

    Little Ricky is in for some tough times. And he, who santicmoniously claimed he would not run a negative campaign, yeah right, is throwing mud as fast as he can. From a pulpit no less.

    Santorum questions Obama’s Christian values and Romney’s saving of the Salt Lake City Olympic Games”

    “One of Mitt Romney’s greatest accomplishments, one of the things he talks about most is how he heroically showed up on the scene and bailed out and resolved the problems of the Salt Lake City Olympic Games,” Santorum said. “He heroically bailed out the Salt Lake City Olympic Games by heroically going to Congress and asking them for tens of millions of dollars to bail out the Salt Lake games _ in an earmark, in an earmark for the Salt Lake Olympic games.”

    The Romney campaign does not dispute that congressional earmarks helped save the games. But they noted that Santorum voted for those earmarks, among many others, when he was a senator.

    “Sometimes when you shoot from the hip, you end up shooting yourself in the foot,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said. “There is a pretty wide gulf between seeking money for post-9/11 security at the Olympics and seeking earmarks for polar bear exhibits at the Pittsburgh Zoo.” 

    link: http://townhall.com/news/politicselections/2012/02/18/santorum_surges_but_scrutiny_intensifies/page/2
      link: http://townhall.com/news/politicselections/2012/02/18/santorum_surges_but_scrutiny_intensifies/page/2

    • Anonymous

      Marge,

      Yes Santorum voted for that money. However it was used for security and
      infrastructure. The Washington Post actually did a decent job on that story.
      The title starts with ‘Santorum Slams Romney…..’
       

      • Anonymous

        The point is that Santorum is slamming Romney for getting money for security for the Olympics which he, Santorum voted for himself. Kinda hypocritical isn’t it?

        And in the same article, the one I used from Townhall, Santorum the Sanctimonious attacks Obama for his faith. I don’t like that kind of crap. Never did. Never will.

        • Anonymous

          I suppose you are just as aggravated by Romney’s hypocritical stance on earmarks that Santorum sought while in congress?

          When Teddy and Barney were securing Millions of dollars in earmarks for Ma. Ther is no record of Romney asking them to stop bilking the taxpayers – why do you think that is?

          Saint Hillary reaped billions of earmark dollars in 08 for NY – do you consider corrupt or disengenious?

          My my . . . How we all like to play the blame game and never appreciate it when it is reflected back to our own positions

          • Anonymous

            I am aggravated by earmarks. Period. But Romney wasn’t attacking Santorum for earmarks it was vice-versa.

            Romney as Governor of MA would have welcomed the earmarks just as any other governor would. What’s your point? That I am somehow “blaming” Santorum and condoning earmarks elsewhere?

            My point was the hypocrisy of Santorum condemning Romney. If you don’t get that there is no use discussing it with you any further.
             

            My my . . . How we all like to play the blame game and never appreciate it when it is reflected back to our own positions

            You didn’t do anything except misunderstand my whole point. Several times.

            • Anonymous

              Feb 8th – Romney told reporters here on an airport tarmac. “Rick Santorum was a major earmarker and continues to defend earmarks.”
              This line of reasoning began w/ Romney
              Santorum has responded in kind

              Either they are both hypocritics or they are both honestly presenting each other
              Which way would u like to consider it?

              Sent from my iPad

              • Anonymous

                There is a difference between voting for earmarks and receiving them.  You are not culpable for accepting the payroll tax cut because it will raid the Social Security trust fund?  But are the congressmen voting for it without offseting the tax cut culpbable, YES. 

                Moreover, during Romney’s tenure as MA governor, MA was sending more tax dollars to DC than it was getting back.  not so for all of PA earmarks.

              • Anonymous

                There is a difference between voting for earmarks and receiving them.  You are not culpable for accepting the payroll tax cut because it will raid the Social Security trust fund?  But are the congressmen voting for it without offseting the tax cut culpbable, YES. 

                Moreover, during Romney’s tenure as MA governor, MA was sending more tax dollars to DC than it was getting back.  not so for all of PA earmarks.

              • Anonymous

                Okay. You win. Happy now?

                This has gotten way beyond tiresome. I will respond to you no more. Let’s just agree to disagree.

                • Anonymous

                  I am sorry Marge I amNot trying to b a pain.
                  Just looking at the logical debate here.
                  I agree to disagree.

              • Anonymous

                “Sent from my iPad”

                That’s good. I thought  your comments to Marge came from somewhere else.

                • http://ptab-outoforder.blogspot.com/ Ptab01

                  Whoops sorry that quote came from the LATimes
                  Not from the pad itself
                  LOLs

            • Anonymous

               Keep going Marge.  They may get their hypocrisy eventually. 

              • Anonymous

                Doubtful, all they can do is but, but, so and so was a hypocrite here or there or sometime, or my personal favorite,  he started it.

                I expect hypocrisy from politicians. It’s in their DNA. Most of us imperfect human beings are hypocrites from time to time.

                I simply pointed out one very blatant incident  to highlight Mr. Sanctimony’s feet of clay. Lord knows we have enough people to point out Romney’s every flaw. Real or imagined.

            • Anonymous

               Keep going Marge.  They may get their hypocrisy eventually. 

        • Anonymous

          Agree – Personal attacks make me think of being locked in a 7th grade classroom of severely challenged kids and NO WAY OUT!

    • Anonymous

      Typically throwing mud is usually closely associated saying something factually incorrect. Stating Romney save the Utah Olympics getting Earmarks is not.

      Ie: Romney likes to tickle his fancy on soft shaggy rugs- that is mud slinging

      • Anonymous

        Perhaps I should have said he was “going” negative which he said he would not. Either way  he’s a damn hypocrite.

        You are entitled to your definition of mud-slinging just as I am entitled to mine. id est

        Negative campaigning, also known more colloquially as “mudslinging”, is trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one’s own positive attributes or preferred policies. In the broadest sense, the term covers any rhetoric in which one refers to one’s opponent in an ad hominem manner. 

        • Anonymous

          So Romney is or is not being negative by advertising Santorum as aBig Government spender?

          According to non partisan Tax Group Santorum is a penny pincher
          http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/was-santorum-senate-spendthrift_629850.html

          Who is slinging some mud?

        • Anonymous

          that actually is not an accurate statement. ad hominem means an irrelevant attack against the person rather than against the conduct.  an ad that is factually correct and sheds light on a senator’s voting record, or on newt’s taking money from fannie mae, is not ad hominem. 

          • Anonymous

            The definition I found is:

            An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

      • Anonymous

        your facts about Romney and the 2002 Olympics are just plain wrong.  Look at stories from the time, before it all got politicized to hurt Romney.  Please don’t be misinformed. 

        • Anonymous

          I am not claiming Romney did not do an outstanding job
          I believe he did.

          What is ridiculous is that several weeks ago he started to slam Santorum for being a big government earmark senator and yet his his own state and the one of his biggest accomplishments utilized that kind of government resource.

          That is what I am pointing out.

          I am not trying to detract from Romney in anyway shape or form for his achievement – though I find it less than honest to assault Santorum as a big spender at the same time.

          • Anonymous

            I believe there is a fundamental difference between a governor seeking to have moneys returned to it (MA paid more tax dollars into the fed treasury than it got back) and a senator who while having an obligation to make sure that the USA was running a sustainable budget, was voting for earmarks to benefit his own state that the USA could not afford.  By the way, there is nothing conservative about voting for such garbage as the “bridge to nowhere.”  Admittedly, the bridge to nowhere is one of the most egregious earmarks, but not the only one.   the out-of-control earmarking is one of the reasons that the USA is running unsustainable deficits.  each senator or congressman threw in projects (many of which were laughable and often benefitted the congressman or his family) and then had to approve another congressman’s favorite boondogle in return.  it may have been politics as usual but it was not fiscally conservative. 

            Romney has never done that in any job he’s held.  Not at Bain, not at the Olympics, not in MA.  He left each of those organizations in better shape fiscally than when he took it over.   Did Santorum? 

            • Anonymous

              From the weekly standard…

              The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been rating members of Congress for 20 years. NTU is an independent, non-partisan organization that — per its mission statement — “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.” Steve Forbes serves on its board of directors.
              For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale. NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.” B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category. There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.
              NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.
              Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.
              This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.
              Based on how each state voted in the three presidential elections over that period (1996, 2000, and 2004), nearly two-thirds of senators represented states that were to the right of Pennsylvania. In those three presidential elections, Pennsylvania was, on average, 3 points to the left of the nation as a whole. Pennsylvanians backed the Democratic presidential nominee each time, while the nation as a whole chose the Republican in two out of three contests.
              Among the roughly one-third of senators (18 out of 50) who represented states that — based on this measure — were at least as far to the left as Pennsylvania, Santorum was the most fiscally conservative. Even more telling was the canyon between him and the rest. After Santorum’s overall 3.66 GPA, the runner-up GPA among this group was 2.07, registered by Olympia Snowe (R., Maine). Arlen Specter, Santorum’s fellow Pennsylvania Republican, was next, with a GPA of 1.98. The average GPA among senators who represented states at least as far left as Pennsylvania was 0.52 — or barely a D-.
              But Santorum also crushed the senators in the other states. Those 32 senators, representing states that on average were 16 points to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections, had an average GPA of 2.35 — a C+.
              In fact, considering the state he was representing, one could certainly make the case that Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure. The only four senators whose GPAs beat Santorum’s represented states that were 2 points (Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire), 10 points (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona), 25 points (Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma), and 36 points (Republican Craig Thomas of Wyoming) to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections. Moreover, of these four, only Kyl (with a GPA of 3.94) beat Santorum by as much as a tenth of a point. It’s an open question whether a 3.94 from Arizona is more impressive than a 3.66 from Pennsylvania.

              So, if Santorum was among — and perhaps even topped the list of — the most fiscally conservative senators during this period, who were the least fiscally conservative? That prize would have to go to the two North Dakota senators, who despite representing a state that voted 23 points to the right of the national average in the presidential elections, managed to achieve GPAs of 0.08 (Democrat Kent Conrad) and 0.00 (Democrat Byron Dorgan). Honorable mentions would have to go to Max Baucus (D., Mont.), who got a 0.84 GPA in a state that was 18 points to the right of the national average; Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who got a 0.08 GPA in a state that was 4 points to the right of average; and Utah Republicans Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, who each barely cleared a 3.0 (3.11 for Bennett, 3.08 for Hatch) despite representing the state that, in the presidential elections, was the nation’s most right-leaning (38 points to the right of average).
              As for Santorum’s potential opponent in the fall, Barack Obama’s three years in the Senate (2005 through 2007) overlapped only with Santorum’s final two years. (In 2008, Obama effectively left the Senate to campaign for President and therefore didn’t cast enough votes for NTU to score him that year.) In both of the years that the two men overlapped (2005 and 2006), as well as throughout Obama’s three years’ worth of preparation for the presidency, Obama’s GPA was 0.00 — a rock-solid F.

              Now that’s acting like a Democrat — something Santorum has never done.

              Sent from my iPad

              • Anonymous

                i wonder how that rating takes into account santorum’s vote for the prescription drug program, which is the largest unfunded mandate other than obamacare. 

                • Anonymous

                  I can’t imagine that they would not factor it in.
                  There was a tiny tiny silver lining in it though . . .
                  Prescription drug coverage premiums dropped since it was installed
                  It ain’t much but when was the last time anything health related dropped for the average consumer?

                  Sent from my iPad

              • Anonymous

                i just went to their website.  As far as I can tell, apparently the flaw in the rating is that everyone in the Senate is such an over-spender that even a big spender can get a passing grade.
                 
                so i just went to the archives and searched Santorum.  Here is what came out:
                 

                For Santorum in the
                107th Congress, his voting record shows
                R
                PA
                $351,497
                ($29,040)
                $322,457
                $451,528
                77

                • Anonymous

                  Holy crispes did you look up some of the DEMs?

                  That is INSANE!

                  Sent from my iPad

                  • Anonymous

                    at least for that year, which is the one that came up in the archives, every Senator ran a positive overspend.  I think that Schumer was # 1 and Sununu was #100. 

                    • Anonymous

                      Yikes -Bain capital as of q2 2011 has donated/contributed more to the Democrats (82%)than Republicans(18%)
                      Sheesh talk about playing both sides of the fence
                      Dollar wise of Course Romney is the top get but boy there is little love for the republicans overall

                      Sent from my iPad

    • Anonymous

       Eh… Not to sound as if I am a Ricky fan… But with the Salt-Lake games he is absolutely right. The real hero’s are the American Public! We bailed out the games!

      • Anonymous

        I concur wholeheartly

      • Anonymous

        Romney got the money to support the games through private donations by and large.  Taxpayer money was not a factor in these donations.

        • Anonymous

          Right 1.3 billion is chump change….

      • Anonymous

        He is absolutely wrong.  The overwhelming amount of money that the Salt Lake City Olympics received were for post-9/11 Security measures.  After all, this was the first national event after 9/11; only 5 months after 9/11 to be exact. 

        The non-security money received from the fed govt for the Olympics was around $100 million.  The rest of the money was for safety and security services:  http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092400b.htm Moreover, every Olympics held in the USA is partially subsidized by the fed govt.  The bottom line is that the 2002 Olympics was mired in a kickback scandal that threatened its existence until Romney was asked to come in and rescue the games.  That was long before Romney ran for office anywhere. 

        That was less than the $ 500 million Solyndra debacle, and less that the $450 million bridge-to-where, only one of the Santorum earmarks. 

        We got a lot more for our money on the Olympics.  And it was a national and international event.  Not so for the Santorum earmarks — polar bear exhibit at the Pittsburgh zoo — in addition to the bridge-to-nowhere.

        • Anonymous

           Lets not down-play the security and the associated costs. They were very substantial. Yes all governments subsidize the games. But at Salt Lake we broke the record at 1.3 billion. Lets not downplay that subsidy. That is what truly saved the games. The biggest problem was management of this huge national security event. Not just the scandal garbage…

          Try reading , The economics of staging the Olympics: a comparison of the games, 1972-2008.

          Then understand what really happened at these games.

          So tell me what “exactly” did Romney do to become the hero of 2002?

          • Anonymous

            Do a search of stories from around the time of the Olympics and you will find out what he did.  If you only read current stories, you will get a distorted picture driven by the politics of the writer.  At the time, Romney had not run for any office so the stories were not tainted by politics.  Romney rescued the Olympics from scandal and made it a triumphant, well-run, event; the first post-9/11 international event without a problem.

            “Romney was drafted to take over the Salt Lake Organizing Committee in February 1999, at the height of the worst corruption scandal in Olympic history–the revelations that Salt Lake had won the 2002 Games by wooing IOC members and their relatives with more than $1 million in cash, gifts and favors.

            Sponsors? Not much interested. Budget? Shot to hell. Morale? Low. Optimism? Not much.
            In 20 short months, Romney–a venture capitalist and corporate turnaround artist–has cut costs, aggressively wooed new sponsors and sharply closed SLOC’s budget gap.

            A skilled politician, he has relentlessly pursued essential government funding for transit projects and for Games security. He also has made a point of cultivating constructive working relationships with anyone interested within the International Olympic Committee.

            Yet he doesn’t hang out in hotel bars with the IOC rank and file, and he has not hesitated to make it abundantly clear his view that sunshine is the best disinfectant for scandal, even when that has caused discomfort to some within the IOC.

            Perhaps most important, Romney has restored a sense in Salt Lake City that the Games should be–will be–good fun. Maybe even a party. Or at least as much of a party as is possible in Utah.

            Last Tuesday, 10,000 people jammed a square in downtown Salt Lake City for a party counting down the 500 days till the Games; they begin on Feb. 8, 2002. Romney appeared via TV from Sydney, and afterward laughed in delight.

            “If I can keep from doing something stupid to get us in a deep hole,” he said, “we’ll be fine.”

            No matter what Romney does, it’s likely the Salt Lake Games will forever be linked to the scandal, which prompted the resignations or expulsions of 10 IOC members and led the IOC late last year to enact a wide-ranging 50-point reform plan.”

            http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/01/news/ss-29828

            In fact, the games are not known because of the scandal but for it’s success.

            • Anonymous

               Look the games are way to complicated and way to large for any one single man to save anything. Pressers are not worth the paper they are written on. Anyone with a good PR firm can play this violin.

              Now saying that what Romney did do is reorganize the games management with solid folk and did in fact manage that team very well. Yes he also got a lot more sponsors to fork over some cash as well. For this he gets kudos.. But save the games? Please that is nothing more than duckspeak.

              I do have to wonder if Romney even would have gotten involved if the games were not in Salt Lake the Mormon home base.

              But lets say he did in fact plat a critical roles with the games. This still does not mean he would make a good President.

              • Anonymous

                He did save the games.  When the scandal broke that the organizers had bribed the Olympic committee to the tune of $1million to get the games awarded, there were calls to give back the games or to have the Olympic Committee strip the games from Salt Lake City.  He was asked to come in and save the games.  When he took over, the games were nearly $400 million in the red.  

                Read stories from those times not the current revisionist history.  I’ve posted various links.  One of the primary opponent of bringing the Olympics to Salt Lake, a DEM, who thought it was a bad way to spend money, ended up praising Romney for the way he turned the Olympics around and made them successful.  Utah is still benefitting from the venues that were built for the Olympics.

                And to your second question, we don’t have 100% certainty of how anyone is going to do as President.  Talk is cheap.  Anyone can talk a good game.  The best indicator of a person’s ability is what that person has accomplished in life.  Romney turned the Olympics around; he turned a MA deficit into a surplus; he rose to become president of Bain and then founded Bain Capital, and was successful at both.  At Bain, he turned around companies.  Those are pretty good indicators of what he can do particularly turning around enterprises that are in trouble financially.  So, you are correct, he could still be a lousy president but I am willing to give him a chance that past is prologue.   

                I don’t see anything that Santorum or any of the others have done that gives me more confidence that they will be better than Romney. 

              • Anonymous

                 Oh crap, what do you want?  It shows leadership.  Show me someone else who has shown real leadership.  What has Santorum led?

                • Anonymous

                   beachnan

                  I am not defending Rick…. Just making a few pointers. Look at it this way. I am a practicing Catholic and while I agree with many of his religious statements (I said many not all). I will not vote for him. 

                  He has no real experience….. I for one have had enough of Presidential rookies….

            • http://twitter.com/jbjdjbjd jbjd

              “At the time, Romney had not run for any office so the stories were not tainted by politics.”

              That’s not true. He had previously run for U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy, in MA; and lost.
              http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/12/sports/olympics-the-man-in-charge-romney-s-future-after-salt-lake-a-guessing-game.html?src=pm

              • Anonymous

                I misspoke.  He had run for office against Ted Kennedy but he was not in any campaigns at the time that the contemporaneous stories about the Olympics were being written.  He certainly wasn’t running for President. 

          • Anonymous

            here’s another contemporaneous story about what romney did for the games.  if he could do just a fraction of this for the USA, we’ll be ahead.  romney’s concrete accomplishments are simply much greater than anyone else — santorum’s or obama’s.  i wish people would research the truth of the candidates’ experience and then vote rationally.  Romney would win by a landslide:

            “The scandal surrounding Salt Lake City’s winning of the bid for the 2002 Winter Games has shrouded Utah in a measure of international shame, but it’s had little financial effect on the state’s preparations for the Olympic stage.

            While some critics called for an attempt to “give back” the Games during the dark winter months of 1998-99, the Salt Lake Organizing Committee is now awash in sponsorship dollars, and its venue construction has outstripped all previous Winter Games host cities.
            . . .

            “The fear the scandal would make sponsors run away didn’t materialize,” said Mitt Romney, the SLOC’s president and CEO for the past 18 months. “Sponsors stepped up in record numbers.”

            The SLOC has raised $760 million from domestic sponsors, a major improvement on Atlanta’s record $481 million for the 1996 Summer Games.

            Even the SLOC’s biggest critics credit Romney, a venture capitalist who lost a U.S. Senate campaign against powerhouse Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy in 1994, for shoring up Salt Lake’s credibility.
            “I think Romney’s done a helluva job rescuing this thing,” said Steve Pace, the head of Utahns for Responsible Public Spending, who fought against Salt Lake’s bid. “Sponsorships were in the dumps in the year before he came on.”

            Romney laughed aloud the first time he saw Pace wear a T-shirt with the words “Slalom and Gomorrah” on it to a public SLOC meeting. A sense of humor seemed like a luxury at the time. The SLOC had a deficit of $379 million in March 1999, a month after Romney arrived. It was as if he’d been asked to replace the pilot on the Hindenburg after it began to burn.
            . . .
            To handle these circumstances, Romney and Chief Financial Officer Fraser Bullock have repeatedly scrutinized the budget. Between March and August 1999, they slashed $200 million.

            They’ve cut $15 million over the past year, during which time they added $88 million from new sponsors.
            “Our financial challenges have forced us to cut back to what we consider the fundamental heart of the Games,” Romney said. “We haven’t cut from the sports budget. This will be a first-class, world-class sports experience, second to none. But the international community should know that the amenities will be a far cry from what they’ve seen at other Games.”
            That means cutbacks in food and uniforms for volunteers and in decorations for Salt Lake City, for example.

            Bullock said the management team expects to secure an additional $20 million in sponsorships and make further cuts of close to $20 million.
            “At this stage,” Romney said, “I think it’s fair to say as we get closer and closer to the Games and understand the costs better and better, that I believe we’ll break even.”

            http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2000/09/20000911/No-Topic-Name/Salt-Lake-2002-Games-Back-On-Track.aspx

        • Anonymous

          I am not trying to be a penis about this but McCain on record as the total federal tax bill being 1.3 billion
          400 million on a light rail system
          30 million on highway and parking upgrades
          2 million on sewer installs and upgrades

          That ain’t exactly being “conservative”

          • Anonymous

            Romney’s obligation was to run a successful Olympics, with no security breaches post-9/11 & post-Munich.  He did that.  He obtained more private funding than any other Olympics before then.  He turned the deficit into a surplus. 

            The fed govt always funds Olympics run in the USA.  To me, whether the 2002 Olympics expenditures were “conservative” depends on whether they were wasteful.  Perhaps it was not conservative to bring the Olympics to Utah.  But once there, when Romney was brought in, he ran the games successfully. 

            Think about it:  1.3 billion is only a little more than the Solyndra scandal and only a fraction of the many earmarks that Santorum voted for, many of which were not for a USA-wide successful program (rather than a local one). 

            • Anonymous

              I concur.

              And like I stated b4 I wasn’t berating Romney for his success. Just pointing out that his line of attack is a bit off base when all things are considered.

              Another conservative group – club for growth- has this to say about Santorum
              “Rick Santorum spent sixteen years in Congress – four years in the House followed by 12 years in the Senate – before losing to Democrat Bob Casey in 2006. In the last two years of his Senate career, he had an average Club for Growth rating of 77%, compared to an average of 73% for all Senate Republicans over that same time period. In the previous thirteen years before the Club had a scorecard, Santorum accumulated an average score of 76% on the National Taxpayers Union scorecard. This compares to a 71% average among all Republicans.”

              • Anonymous

                There is a difference between requesting earmarks for pet projects for political purposes and earmarks for a national, international event.

            • Anonymous

              I can tell you a story about a certain Barret 50 cal and security breaches at the Olympics….

              Gosh I give the man his due. But lets not make him out to be god….

              Jeeze….

              • Anonymous

                 

                Gosh I give the man his due. But lets not make him out to be god….

                Agreed, Santorum already has dibs on it.

      • Anonymous

        Here’s a story published in 2001, before this issue became politicized. Of course, the MSM will continue to try to taint Romney to help Obama and to push Santorum so Obama can be decimated.  Please stop repeating untruths. 

        “Two years ago today, Olympic organizers welcomed a new CEO they hoped would rescue them from scandal.

        In a state dominated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they turned to a prominent Mormon financier who moves in lofty political
        circles and sits on the national board of the Boy Scouts of America.

        Mitt Romney rode into Utah as the virtuous knight on a white charger.

        Remarkably, 24 months later, the idyllic image remains intact. In fact, the legend is growing.
        Romney has performed what would have been considered miracles in February 1999, when calls rang out for Utah to give back the 2002 Winter Games.

        That seems preposterous today. All the venues are ready, though some aren’t perfect. SLOC officials now project that their Olympic budget will break even or have a surplus. Sixty-nine percent of tickets have been sold, already doubling the income of Nagano. More than 47,000 volunteers have applied.

        Most amazing is this tidy stat: SLOC has raised $840 million from sponsors, shattering the U.S. Olympic record set by Atlanta in 1996. Atlanta raised $481 million from sponsors, although the Summer Games are at least three times larger than their winter counterpart.
        Read more: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/article_981470c9-6e9e-55bb-bb97-6e31ff89831e.html#ixzz1mqbXLx9Q

        • Anonymous

          That is a fantastic Story. He not only bet a million of his own money, he worked for free and his 4 year contract called for no personal gains unless Olympics were profitable.

          WOW! Everyone please take the time to read this excellent article from jrterrier.

          Can you imagine if he accomplishes even half as much as president what great shape our country will be in??
           

          • Anonymous

             Please…. Please… Please come back to earth! The Mayor of NYC does not take a salary either and he has been Mayor a hell of a long time. Whats that make him? A Great Presidential Leader as well?

            Now If Romney was CEO of Walmarts then maybe I would be impressed. Lets see they only employ 2.2 million worldwide… How many jobs has Romney created?

    • Anonymous

       If there is one thing I would be willing to accept being taxed for it would be for the Olympics. Our national pride and credibility were on the line back then and Romney restored both.

  • http://www.theindependentview.com Matthew J. Weaver

    Santorum = Christrian Sharia Law = Religious Intolerance and Bigotry.

    On the topic of reglious bigotry, Santorum is a poster boy for intolerance.  I was just reading this morning that he’s now being quoted criticizing Obama’s religion as “Some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology.” 

    Now, I’m not an Obama supporter, and never have been, but but I do think Santorum crosses the line when he questions the religious fervor or origins of a candidate. He and others have done the same with Romney, questioning whether Mormons are Christian or not, suggesting overtly and otherwise that if people don’t meet his ideal of Christian, they are bad and do not qualify as president. This is America, we are better than this and, with Obama, there is so much else to focus on instead of getting into religious bigotry.

    Shame on Santorum and anyone who continues to support him.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t recall Santorum saying anything of the morman faith – do you have link to that?

      Calling out the President on his christain faith is not a position I am comfortable w/ myself. But from one fellow christain to another . . .maybe they can have bible study debate on a Sunday

      • Anonymous

        I want a president who’s studied our current situation, not someone sitting around jawboning about ancient history.

        • Anonymous

          Regarding what precisely? The issue of contraceptives and the government mandating their expense to every individual taxpayer across the nation

          Or the open debate between Christians that taking from one person to pay another is a truly Christian thing to do?

        • Anonymous

           If you don’t learn from the mistakes of the past you are doomed to make the same mistakes. This is not original but appropriate to your comment I believe.

          • Anonymous

            I was responding to someone nattering about bible study.

            Ancient history, at best.

            • Anonymous

               ”Ancient history, at best.”

              Its all about history my friend….

      • http://www.theindependentview.com Matthew J. Weaver

        Anyone paying half-attention and having half-a-brain can see that Santorum is playing a Christian card in the election and that he and his supporters have repeatedly attempted to marginalize Romney as a Mormon.

        For example, recall back in January when a group of evangelists and religious conservatives came out in support of Santorum for his Christian values. Among these was Rev. Huey Mills, head of the South Carolina Association of Christian Schools, who said “My attitude is first ‘anybody but Romney,’ and second, ‘let’s get Santorum elected.” He explained in an interview with The Hill (01/18/2012) that “Mormonism is a “cult” and said he could never vote for Romney partly because he is a Mormon.” Many others offered similar commentary.

        If you take a moment to look, you’ll find similar commentary almost daily. Never once has Santorum disavowed this bigotry. No, instead, he mentions at every opportunity that he is a Christian.

        Sorry, Santorum’s Christianity is not mine and I’d like to think not that of most Americans.

        Santorum is a religious bigot, maybe subtle, maybe indirect, but bigot he is.

        • Anonymous

          So if I understand you correctly – if one of your friends or family express an opinion that is divisive, objectionable and politically incorrect . . . Then you are either responsible for that comment or at the least should qualify the statement in some manner to soothe “feeling” of someone else?

          Also u presented one anecdotal incidence to prove wide spread fear mongering of Mormon faith among conservatives . . . I fail to see how that justifies your claims.

        • Anonymous

           ”Mormonism is a “cult” and said he could never vote for Romney partly because he is a Mormon.”

          IMO it’s is not the so called Mormon cult but the cult of Obama that we have to worry about.

          • Anonymous

            Happy you mentioned that . . . This is where santorum was going on the Obama theology remark . . .stating OBAMA’S ideology was as strong as a theological belief.

            I strongly advise people to read the full context of any candidates speeches b/c MSM is NOT gonna spin it in favor of anyone but Obama.

          • Anonymous

             As Steve McCann put in an article posted in the “American Thinker”:

            “The cult of personality
            can be best summed up as: a country’s leader using the mass media,
            staged public events and government assets to create an idealized and
            celebratory public image often through unquestioning flattery and praise
            as well as outwardly sincere empathy with the populace. 

            This term in connection with Barack Obama was first brought up in 2008 campaign by the Hillary Clinton supporters and notable left-wing commentators such as Paul Krugman in the New York Times in reaction to the tactics of the Obama campaign and the adulation of the media.

            In
            the past “cult of personality” was most often associated with various
            dictators and brutal communist leaders such as Stalin and Mao Tse-tung. 
            While no one is comparing Barack Obama to those vile and evil leaders,
            there is one trait that is necessary if a cult of personality is to
            flourish.  That is a determination, without any moral scruples, to say
            or do anything (true or false) in order to accomplish one’s
            goals.  Therefore every action of Obama from this day forward, from the
            most pronounced to the least noticed, must be viewed through the prism
            of his re-election.”

            http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/obama_reelection_and_the_cult.html

        • Anonymous

           ”Sorry, Santorum’s Christianity is not mine and I’d like to think not that of most Americans.”

          One question Weaver…just one….

          Who is God?

          • Anonymous

             Not Santorum

            • Anonymous

               You get a cookie!

      • Anonymous

         No offense, but what does a bible study have to do with running the United States of America, which was founded on religious freedom???

        • http://ptab-outoforder.blogspot.com/ Ptab01

          I should have noted my snarky tone. My bad!

          I have no clue what he was swinging for there. Maybe it may have made more sense in the context of the discussion but alas we know that will not be in the coming campaign ad.

    • Anonymous

      I agree Matthew J. Weaver. Perhaps because I am old enough to remember the nastiness about Kennedy’s religion all those years ago. (I was young but not too young to not understand all the nasty remarks about what was also my religion. As a young girl it was frightening.)

       You would have thought we had gotten past that by now. Evidently not on the far right of the Republican Party. I find it despicable.

      • Anonymous

        I hate to reiterate myself but logic demands that you back up this statement w/ some evidence of WIDE SPREAD fear mongering by the far right over Mormonism. Pointing to an evangelical minister declaring Mormonism as a cult does not make this a wide spread anything.

        Furthermore, asking a Canidate to go back and explain something a supporter has said is exactly the way Obama continuously harassed McCain in 2008. Is that really what you want to be associated with?

      • Anonymous

        That was because the South was the political hammer back in those days and they were anti-Catholic. That has zero to do with Romney and Mormonism. I struggle with Mormonism as a Christian. Do I want a Mormon in the White House? I actually struggle with that issue and hold two opposing opinions. Huntsman would have been acceptable to me because of his past history and the fact he did not overplay his Mormon faith. But true to Mormon colors and while there is no political love loss between he and Romney. Huntsman threw his support to Romney and way to early I might add.

        • Anonymous

          I’m sorry that Huntsman did not point out that he would not be the first President to speak Mandarin – We already elected one – that was Herbert Hoover.
          But that was when we respected achievements in Presidents and didn’t see those achievements as something to attack. We are marching backwards with ignorance becoming a desired attribute.

        • Anonymous

           Thank you for your honesty.  You have trouble with Mormonism because you are a Christian.  My brother, a very strong Christian, first supported Michelle Bachmann, and now supports Rick Santorum.  This is the number one issue for him.  I don’t agree with him.  I think it has little to do with whether someone can be an excellent President.  I believe in God, am a Catholic, but not a practicing one.  Why is it so important what religion he is.  He seems, imo, a good and kind person, with exceptional character.  That’s what we need.  Not is he reading up on his bible every day. 

        • Anonymous

           Thank you for your honesty.  You have trouble with Mormonism because you are a Christian.  My brother, a very strong Christian, first supported Michelle Bachmann, and now supports Rick Santorum.  This is the number one issue for him.  I don’t agree with him.  I think it has little to do with whether someone can be an excellent President.  I believe in God, am a Catholic, but not a practicing one.  Why is it so important what religion he is.  He seems, imo, a good and kind person, with exceptional character.  That’s what we need.  Not is he reading up on his bible every day. 

    • Anonymous

      Mormons are not Christians and I for one struggle with the concept of a Mormon in the White House. While in politics all is fair in love and war! You know that Weaver you play that same game.

      • Anonymous

        I would love to hear why you struggle with a Mormon in the White House because I don’t even take it into account.  All I need to know about Romney is how he has comported his life, which I think is admirably.   I know nothing about any Mormon or the faith itself that gives me pause that Romney, if elected, will do anything to harm the USA.   That goes for any other candidate.    

        • Anonymous

          My struggle with Mormonism is very simple. This Country was founded on Christian principles. Those Christian principles focus on the fact that Jesus Christ is the ONLY GOD! No one else. The Trinity is
          the doctrine that ALL mainstream Christian Faiths hold dear. There is only one God in all the universe and that He exists in three eternal, simultaneous persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

          Our Money says “In God We Trust”.. Not In The Godhead We Trust. Yes the 1st Amendment to the Bill of Right established no religion. But back then as in today. There was and is  only one Christian God. Jesus Christ!

          The Catholic and Protestant faiths all use the same Bible and that also includes we Catholics addressing the additional books of the apocrypha which were affirmed at the Council of Trent in 1546 and the Synod in Jerusalem in 1672. The Mormons use there own version along with the Bible as an additional book and both are in conflict. But all Mormons view the Book Of Mormon as its official word of god. The fact is that Mormonism does not agree with the Bible.

          With this Country grounded in a solid Christian belief by deviating from this standing we are further changing what our Founding Fathers established. Remember back in those days Mormons were really not appreciated and exactly for those reasons.

          There are many more issues I have with the Mormon faith. But that is all doctrinal. 

          Now my quandary with Romney… Morally and even Religiously to Mormon standards he is a better man than I…. This causes me great conflict…

          Moreover,my feelings about Mormonism are secondary, while weighting heavily on me. Why I will not vote for Romney? His politics trumps his Mormonism. To prove that I am not bigoted. Huntsman’s politics appeals to me and that makes it somewhat easier for me to accept his Mormon faith.

          Though I struggle greatly….

          • Anonymous

            “There is only one God in all the universe and that He exists in
            three eternal, simultaneous persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy
            Spirit.”
            Yes, I can see why that confuses people. I think it’s OK if people think of God as singular.

          • Anonymous

             I hate to get into the religious fray but need to speak the truth and expose this long running lie that is perpetuated by those who wish to force their morals and religion on the rest of us. This country was not founded on Christian principles.

            This country was founded on deist principles and Nature’s God. Read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Take a little time out and examine the beliefs of our founders.

  • Anonymous

    Crazy religious conservative vs. offshore-bank-account-holding captain of the 1%… seems about right for the Republican party at this stage in its history, I have to say.

    • Anonymous

      No you didn’t have to say it but just couldn’t help yourself.

      Romney paid the taxes on the money he kept in the Cayman Islands. So what’s your beef with that?

      And as for being rich, he worked for his money. What’s your beef with that? Most people hope to achieve what he did. That’s the American Dream.

      The Kennedy’s were the 1% and Dems had no problem with them. Even now another Kennedy is throwing his hat into the ring and Eleanor Cliff, serial Obama/Dem ass-kisser  columnist says he’s 

      picked up the torch.

      Gag.

      • Anonymous

        Joe Kennedy III is running for Barney Franks seat. This Kennedy is Bobby Kennedy’s grandson.

        Joe Kennedy II runs a company called Citizens Energy. Frankly, true to the Kennedy creed of Public Service, Joe II actually helps thousands of Mass residents have heat they can ill afford every winter.

        Problem some R’s have is that Joe II, like any businessman gets his oil and gas for the best price, which means he buys from Venezuela. Given that he gives anywhere from 15-20% of it away to those in need, Mass residents have no problem with that.

        Expectations are that Joe III will also be true to the Kennedy creed of Public Service.

        As an independent, I vote person and their deeds, not party and some ingrained ideology.

        • Anonymous

          Well I can always hope MA. Residents are a bit tired having the Kennedy family run their affairs.

          Is it not funny out of a nation consisting some 300 million people MA keeps electing people from the Kennedy clan?

          Don’t get me wrong we three deep on Bushes and Roosevelt too . . . I ain’t loving the trend under any banner.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t either. And once the term Kennedy Dynasty comes up I ain’t loving the trend more.

            • Anonymous

               fresh blood is needed.

          • Anonymous

            Judge my faith by my deeds! Joe II is a winner. He is not like the others especially his cousin Patrick.

          • Anonymous

            “Well I can always hope MA. Residents are a bit tired having the Kennedy family run their affairs.”

            Kennedy’s run their affairs? OK..I did not like Ted nor Patrick and I know Patrick and have met Teddy. Matter of fact when Patrick was at Providence College he beat out an incumbent and family friend for Rhode Island House of Representatives at age 21. Of course Teddy bought that seat by spending over 100k on a race that back in 91 would have cost around 25 to 30k. Include John John and Caroline showing up at the polls to sign autographs. That race was certainly a Kennedy circus….

            Now saying all of that… Not all Kennedy’s are self-serving…. Joe II and III  are very different. Very different….So just don’t class every Kennedy like Teddy.

        • Anonymous

          I vote person too. But for people to excoriate Romney for making money and becoming wealthy while worshipping at the shrine of the Kennedy’s annoys me.

          Joe the 3rd may well be a good and decent man. I still wouldn’t vote for him because that would give the Dems another vote in congress. And right now I dislike the Dems more that than the GOP. Although it’s close.

          And my “gag” was for Cliff’s purple prose about picking up the torch not for Kennedy himself. I loathe such adulation for pols.

          The Boston Herald article speaks of him as the best hope to continue the Kennedy “dynasty.” I don’t like that either.

          • Anonymous

            Me too Marge. I was a big fan of JFK but Teddy turned out to be just one big drunken reprobate. He was a big disappointment for me.

            The Dems hate the 1% but give people like Pelosi, Kerry and many of the elected Dems a slide on that issue. So it must be only rich people who don’t agree with your political views that are bad.

            • Anonymous

              I was more a Bobby Kennedy fan than a JFK fan. As for Teddy, after Chappaquiddick I never had any use for him.

      • Anonymous

        Marge,

        If you would be so kind to give me step by detail of how to post a link that would be great. I have some links that Santorum’s so called religious values hinge very much on whether he or the taxpayer is footing the bill.

        Santorum was very muchr FOR birth control, and after his family got the governments Cadillac Health Care was when he decided he was AGAINST birth control.

        • Anonymous

          All I do is just copy and paste Nellie. Right click on the link at the top of the article, to highlight it, then right click to find “copy”, click on that, for instance the one for this post is http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/65144/santorums-coming-ass-kicking/, then right click again where you want to put it and click on paste. That should do it.

      • Anonymous

        KM – No fair putting up pictures of me while I’m sick!

        • Anonymous

          Sorry to hear you aren’t feeling well. Get well soon!

           The picture is actually one of me when ever I hear someone worshipping at some politicians feet. It makes me nauseous.

           But if it looks like you too perhaps we’re related. I know I’m not your mother, I’ve gotten forgetful but I’d remember that.  I’m waaay top old to be your sister. Oh wait, I must be that crazy old aunt that is a part of every family.

          • Anonymous

            It would be an honor to call you aunt!

            • Anonymous

              And I would be proud to call you my niece! Or any member of my family for that matter.

    • Anonymous

       anything is better then a thug from Chicago.  I’ll take anyone but Obama

      • Anonymous

         The Devil?

        • Anonymous

           The Devil already has a job he’s not running.

        • Anonymous

          Where’s the Church lady when we need her?

    • Anonymous

      The money in the offshore accounts was not used to evade or avoid paying federal taxes.  it was used to invest in instruments that foreigners could invest in. And, the deposits were made by the blind trust, which allows Romney to advocate certain positions without proffiting from them. So, were he to say that he supports investing in GM, while he was purchasing GM stock, that would create a conflict of interest. 

      I don’t think you can compare crazy religiousity (your term, not mine) with offshore accounts.   Romney became part of the 1% through his own successful investments and work.  That should be a plus. 

      • Anonymous

         Class warfare nuts tend to link old money with new money as if they are the same. Romney earned his wealth and that offends some who believe that wealth and success is inherently evil.

        You sure don’t hear the left complaining about Soros and Buffet.