RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Santorum Breaks Media’s Heart

The media’s anti-Romney sentiment took a real kick to the nuts tonight. Two weeks ago Romney was being written off as a dead man walking. Even though Romney has almost twice as many delegates as the other three Republican candidates combined, the media was insisting that he was on the ropes and going down hard. So now he wins in Michigan and snags the majority of the delegates and the media is insisting, “boy, Romney is on life support.”

Got news for you kids–the Obama team is busting its ass to beat Romney now because they know he can wax Barky’s ass good come the fall. Why? Massachusetts health care. The Massachusetts health care reform championed by Romney is actually doing well among the citizens of Massachusetts and is popular. So Romney is perfectly positioned to excoriate Obama for doing it wrong.

Romney’s prior executive experience will also be tough for Obama to counter.

That’s why the media had a major boner yearning for Santorum to kill Romney at the polls. Whoops!!

Don’t want your kid to go to college? Santorum is your boy. Only want to have sex to reproduce? Santorum is your wet dream. Hopefully tonight proves once and for all that Santorum is not a smart man nor is he a gifted politician. He is a rube and showed himself as a bona fide religious extremist. America hates mullahs and religious fanatics of all stripes. We don’t need Elmer Gantry as the President.

It is hysterical watching the media funeral rightnow. Boy, they were pulling for Rick to launch an upset.

Maybe Obama can apologize for this fuck up too?

  • Anonymous

    Larry wrote, “Only want to have sex to reproduce? Santorum is your wet dream.”  To which I would add, “Wanna jerk off?  Santorum is your right hand man.”

    Thanks, Larry.  I needed a laugh today.  I’m watching Santorum’s Michigan concession speech as I write this and now I know why Obama wants to run against him.

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

       Damn you!!!  I wish I had thought of that.  Well played sir, well played.  Brilliant as always.

    • Anonymous

       Speaking for myself, I want a male president that has at least had a blowjob. I won’t discuss in public what I want in a female president.

      • Anonymous

         If you can’t discuss it in public, it is unlikely to be a valid standard for office.

        • Anonymous

           If ya haven’t guessed by now I tend to snark a bit. Thought it was obvious. No offense or intelligent point intended.

  • Anonymous

    On msnbc I think they are close to tears.

    • Anonymous

      I’ve heard that Matthews is getting a tingle up his ass.

    • Anonymous

      yes, i saw that.  particularly chris matthews. 

  • Anonymous

    And Fox is reporting Michigan exit polls show that Saintorum lost the Catholic vote to Romney! Go figure! Even Catholics know tricky Ricky is toxic.

  • Anonymous

    Kick in the nuts is right. Poor Rick lost the Catholic vote in both States.
    Did you see that Marvin?

    • Anonymous

      well, if you are working class catholic, you have two pictures up on your wall — jesus christ and JFK.  maybe santorum will remember that the next time he feels like upchucking.

      • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

         One of the best insights of the day.  You are spot on.

      • Anonymous

        Good point.  I hadn’t thought of that.

      • Anonymous

         I’m sure that the mere thought of it makes him wanna hurl.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mary.cusack Mary Cusack

         OMG My mom and dad had those pictures on the same wall. OMG

        • Anonymous

          Pictures of MLK and John Kennedy adorned our walls when i was growing up.

    • Anonymous

       A kick in the nuts is the perfect contraceptive remedy to Satantorum.

      • Anonymous

         Although the debates have seemed interminable I think it is obvious they were needed. It seems the wheat has finally been separated from the chaff.

  • Anonymous

    Obama is following a pattern.
     

    • Anonymous

       I’m going to have to force myself to remember not to be eating when reading your posts. I almost spewed my cereal all over my monitor. Thanks!

  • Anonymous

    i love ann romney. 

    • Anonymous

       Totally agree. Class act.

      • Anonymous

         Sad to say that the bar for FLOTUS has been set so low for the past 3 years.  In contrast she will shine and certainly be a huge breath of fresh air.  Hopefully, she won’t be trying to tell us what to do, eat, wear, etc.

    • Anonymous

       so do I… she will be a great First Lady.
      and I,m sure she has always been proud of her country

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

    Romney won Wayne County (Detroit), and all of the bordering counties.  This means that the minorities didn’t vote as the union bosses told them to.  Originally being from Michigan, I am very familiar with how the bullshit voting goes in that state.  Both parties have pulled the trick of voting across party lines in the past.

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

    In that terrible & too long alleged concession speech, Santorum failed to
    concede or congratulate the man who bested him in 2 contests today. Stay
    classy, Rick.

    Now that the table has been run on the “Anybody But Mitt” contingent, I’m sure we can expect the usual suspects to start calling for a brokered convention in 3 . .2 . . 1. .

    • Anonymous

      and he is going to win tomorrow in Wyoming. 

  • Anonymous
    • Anonymous

       Who is laughing now? Thanks for the link.

  • Anonymous

    geez, fox is reporting that romney backslid from 2008.  what is it with so-called conservatives?  no one else in the party has won as many significant states or gotten more votes. 

    i want someone to explain why they don’t like romney.  and why did so many who supported him in 2008 (against McCain) now don’t. 

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

       You are spot on.  Fox is extremely anti-Romney.  Thank Rupert Murdoch.  He hates Romney for some reason.  So be it.

      • http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

         clearly they don’t hate Romney more than they all hate Paul.

        • Anonymous

           I see no evidence of Paul hate on Fox. They don’t take his candidacy seriously. Perhaps a soft hate would describe it.

          • Anonymous

            No hate. Indifference.

        • Anonymous

           Fox has two libertarians who have their own shows, John Stossel and Judge Napalitano ( not sure of these spellings). The representation of libertarian political thought is probably very fair compared to the percentage of Americans who consider themselves Libertarians. 

    • Anonymous

       It’s hilarious. they try to spin it but when it comes right down to it they are forced to admit that this is a huge win for Romney. Like pulling teeth but even Fox is starting to come around.

      Is it funny as hell that Romney won the Catholic vote or what?

  • Anonymous

    The media are so transparent

    9% dems vote for Rick………..The media report they are happy with Rick.

    If 9% Republicans voted for a dem……It would be 9% disgruntled Republicans.

  • Anonymous

    Well come Thursday I’m going to take a shower, put on some clean clothes and head back to Ohio to vote for Romney.  My dirty old hippie infiltrating Occupy DC gig will just have to be put on hold until I get back.  

    Hopefully the working class Catholics in Ohio are dusting off their pictures of Jesus and JFK and preparing to send Saintorum a message… don’t fuck with our hero JFK.  Thanks jrterrier for your brilliant insight!

  • Anonymous

    All I gotta say is this: Tricky DICK Satantorum and his Democrat allies couldn’t beat Mitt!

  • Anonymous

    It also appears that, according to reports I heard tonight, Santorum lost the Catholic vote in both Arizona and Michigan.  Imagine that!

    • Anonymous

       Yep. When even the Catholics don’t support their guy you know he is heading toward the crapper. Where I suppose he will throw up before relieving himself of all the shit he is so full of.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/X53NYEMP5AT4XX7VEKC4GMMD2Y anita

    Amen, Larry.  Anything that gets Santorum off the stage as quickly as possible is a good idea.  I am shocked that he has gotten as much mileage as he has.  Now that he got to “Serious contender” status for two minutes, he actually had to speak for himself.  And the electorate got a better look at something they don’t want.  Hopefully that wil lbe an end to it.  Even conservative women find him out of step.  To say the least.

  • Anonymous

    We just might have a game changer?
    I sure hope so!!!!!

    • Anonymous

       If Romney can win in Ohio then Satan’s boy is toast.

      • Anonymous

        Media is all ready playing up the Romney is behind by double digits in Ohio. Boy they sure want to take him down and must be frantic that all their efforts thus far haven’t been able to do that.

        • Anonymous

           A lot can happen in one week. I am actually starting to feel very good about Super Tuesday.

          • Anonymous

            From your keyboard to God’s ear.

        • Anonymous

           A lot can happen in one week. I am actually starting to feel very good about Super Tuesday.

        • Anonymous

           Their bias’ may have finally created a teflon public.  Whatever they try to spin just slides off them.

  • Anonymous

    The frantic anti-Romney media will play this as a bad “win” because it was so close in Michigan.

    Romney had the best answer for that when he said, “We didn’t win by much, but we won by enough.”

    The fact that Romney wins with so much media stacked against him is indicative of just how strong he really is as a candidate. The Obamamedia does everything they can to bring him down as does the right via Rupert Murdock’s media empire. He’s still standing, and winning. That says a lot.

    • Anonymous

       I read something earlier this morning from, I think, Larry Sabato who said that if the Democrat/Santorum team tinkering was taken out of the equation Romney won by 8%.

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

        Even with the Dem/Santorum team tinkering, Romney won more *actual* votes than he did in 2008.

  • Anonymous

    Actually I do not think any major media figures had “written off” Romney. It think many had said his air of inevitability was no longer the case. Most still said he was the favorite.

    Can anyone on NQ give me any examples of any major media figures saying Romney was done? Any link or any quote from anyone of substance?

    “Romney’s prior executive experience will also be tough for Obama to counter.”

    The last poll I saw said that Romney experience at Bain was a net negative not a net positive. Also, is “saving” the Olympics was more of a tax payer boondoggle.

    Romney barely convinces his own party to vote for him and his numbers with Independents has dropped off a cliff.

    Romney is still behind in the polls in: Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and Tennesse. We will see if his polling moves up after last night. 

    • Anonymous

      ” . . .  Also, his “saving” the Olympics was more of a taxpayer boondoggle than anything else.”

      You claim this based on what evidence or facts?

      • Anonymous

        Alternative reality. Because in the alternative reality of the left no Republican/conservative ever achieved anything.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, I skipped past PPAA’s comments after the first words:  “Actually, I do not think.”  PPAA should have left it there because that would have been the first true remark he/she/it ever made.

          • Anonymous

            I always skip past PitifulPotusAffirmativeAction’s comments.  

            If I wanted to hear from an asshole I would have farted!

            • Anonymous

              I can relate to that. LOL

          • Anonymous

            Great comment DianaLC!

          • Anonymous

             Bravo! Worthy of a standing ovation.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, I skipped past PPAA’s comments after the first words:  “Actually, I do not think.”  PPAA should have left it there because that would have been the first true remark he/she/it ever made.

      • Anonymous

        Romney never saved the Salt Lake games. All he did was throw money at it. It was a Romney boondoggle.
         
        Romney took $2.7 billion of taxpayers’ money and throw it at the Olympic games. It was not only a travesty for taxpayers, but also involved corruption and bribery.
         
        “Mitt Romney lobbied congress hard for federal tax dollars effectively provided huge subsidies for each ticket sold, and that the largest corporate sponsorships were in place before he arrived. Once taking over the operations for the Olympic games, Governor Romney began to use his political leverage and relationship with Senator Bill Bennett of Utah to secure $1.5 Billion in tax payer dollars to bailout the failed Olympic operations.”
         
        The Salt Lake games was the second worse over-budgeted Olympics ever, after Montreal. It was 2.5x over budget. It was a financial disaster costing $2.7 billion with the original estimated cost being $800 million, so that was a $1.9 billion of cost overruns. Taxpayers paid $1.3 billion of the total costs. Total security costs for the Salt Lake games were about $300 million, so the excess costs was not because of security after 9-11.
        Don’t believe me then don’t take my word for it, but watch this video of fellow Republican John McCain unloading on Romney and his winter Olympics “rescue”. Do yourself a favor and watch it. It is quite compelling and devastating from a fellow Republican.
         
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
         
        Romney wasted a lot of taxpayer money on those Olympics. There frankly might have been corruption and certainly a lot of “pork barreling”.  McCain himself calls it “corruption and bribery”.
         
        McCain called the Olympics “an incredible pork-barrel project for Salt Lake City and its environs.”The “earmarks” of cash that Romney got for the Salt Lake city games were nothing but pork, as per McCain talks about. It was out-of-control pork barrel spending by Romney in the guise of Olympic spending (he is a Mormon after all and wanted as much money for all kinds of irrelevant things for Salt Lake City and the state of Utah). Read all about it here:”Salt Lake City Olympics Earmarks A Double-Edged Sword For Romney”http://www.witn.com/news/headl…or read this:”Romney cites Olympics success, rivals are leery”http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c…
        If you think differently, then provide some evidence to support your case.

      • Anonymous

        Romney never saved the Salt Lake games. All he did was throw money at it. It was a Romney boondoggle.
         
        Romney took $2.7 billion of taxpayers’ money and throw it at the Olympic games. It was not only a travesty for taxpayers, but also involved corruption and bribery.
         
        “Mitt Romney lobbied congress hard for federal tax dollars effectively provided huge subsidies for each ticket sold, and that the largest corporate sponsorships were in place before he arrived. Once taking over the operations for the Olympic games, Governor Romney began to use his political leverage and relationship with Senator Bill Bennett of Utah to secure $1.5 Billion in tax payer dollars to bailout the failed Olympic operations.”
         
        The Salt Lake games was the second worse over-budgeted Olympics ever, after Montreal. It was 2.5x over budget. It was a financial disaster costing $2.7 billion with the original estimated cost being $800 million, so that was a $1.9 billion of cost overruns. Taxpayers paid $1.3 billion of the total costs. Total security costs for the Salt Lake games were about $300 million, so the excess costs was not because of security after 9-11.
        Don’t believe me then don’t take my word for it, but watch this video of fellow Republican John McCain unloading on Romney and his winter Olympics “rescue”. Do yourself a favor and watch it. It is quite compelling and devastating from a fellow Republican.
         
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
         
        Romney wasted a lot of taxpayer money on those Olympics. There frankly might have been corruption and certainly a lot of “pork barreling”.  McCain himself calls it “corruption and bribery”.
         
        McCain called the Olympics “an incredible pork-barrel project for Salt Lake City and its environs.”The “earmarks” of cash that Romney got for the Salt Lake city games were nothing but pork, as per McCain talks about. It was out-of-control pork barrel spending by Romney in the guise of Olympic spending (he is a Mormon after all and wanted as much money for all kinds of irrelevant things for Salt Lake City and the state of Utah). Read all about it here:”Salt Lake City Olympics Earmarks A Double-Edged Sword For Romney”http://www.witn.com/news/headl…or read this:”Romney cites Olympics success, rivals are leery”http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c…
        If you think differently, then provide some evidence to support your case.

        • Anonymous

          So much for the outright lies Democrats are well known for:
          http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/slaloming-through-olympic-facts/

          The fact is that Romney duly deserves all the credit he is given or takes for the turnaround and success of the Salt Lake City Olympics.

          Before he came in it was going to be an enormous disaster for the U.S. – yes – the United States. Let’s not forget that an international event like an Olympics is first and foremost a country’s event – they are the host country. So the use of taxpayer money is legit and warranted.

          Romney got rid of the corruption, immediately cut back oin waste in budgets, and then convinced dubious brand companies to be sponsors.

          As far as spending taxpayer money, Obama and the Chicago machine wasted about $100 million to try and get the bid for the Olympics at a time when Chicago was in economic turmoil with rampant crime on the streets, His highness Obama headed that effort. Now THAT was a scandal.

          • Anonymous

             Yeah the guy did his job… Kiddos and well deserved. But where is this “saved the games” bit coming from?!

            • Anonymous

              I had some involvement with the L.A. and Atlanta Olympics and also some with the Salt Lake City Olympics.

              All Olympics are financial and organizational missions that generally turn into disasters for cities and states as well as for the organizing committees.

              Salt Lake City started out with a major corruption scandel that threatened to kill the effort and sponsors were fleeing and staying away.

              I did not know who Romney was other than the son of George and did not know he headed Bain Capital although I knew of Bain’s successes.

              Anyone involved back then was familiar with the fact that Romney came in – cleaned house – cut operating expenses – and then personally got involved with attracting back major sponsors. He wasn’t a figure head and this charge that the only thing that ”saved” it was taxpayer money is bogus and typical of worthless inside-the-beltway politicos.

              Salt Lake City actually turned a profit and has stood as a model for subsequent Olympics.

          • Anonymous

            Romney did not save the Salt Lake Games, the American taxpayer did, as all Romney did was throw a bunch of taxpayer money. In addition, much of the taxpayer money he did throw at Games went toward pork barrel projects that had nothing to do with the Games. Just watch or read fellow Republican John McCain’s comments at the time, on the Olympics and Olympic taxpayer money, fraud and waste. How do you explain John McCain’s comments?

            You need to understand the facts a little better. The total taxpayer bill was $1.3 billion. Included in that was $1.1 billion that was pure pork and had nothing to do with the Olympics, even though it was initially given for the Olympics. That is what everyone including McCain is complaining about. All that went to the Mormon state of Utah (a nice windfall for Romney’s Mormon brotthers) in the form of corupt no-bid contracts for infrastructure and other stuff that Romney handed out. The Olympics was a nice $1.1 billion Romney taxpayer boondoggle. Your Factcheck link verifies this.

            Quoting from your link:

            ” It included about $1.1 billion in indirect funding for the 2002 games, including such things as highways, transit systems and other capital improvements.”

            You can read McCain full remarks on the Romney/Moromon Olympics taxpayer boondoogle here (they are devastating):

            http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=4d32bf7f-d708-4169-8a36-253df4fcab0c&Region_id=&Issue_id=15a904d0-1277-40f2-843d-904f077cb0fb

            “”However, as outlined, most of the money taken from taxpayers to foot the bill for the Salt Lake games is going to develop, build, and complete major highway and transit improvement projects – “especially those critical to the success of the Olympic Games.” This last phrase is vital to understanding the fleece game being played by cities like Salt Lake. “It works this way; a city decides they want to host an Olympics to generate tourism and put their home town on the map. In order to successfully manage an Olympics, community leaders know they will have to meet certain infrastructure demands. They develop their plans in coordination with the state government, then team up with their Congressmen and Senators to tap into the motherload of federal pork, the Transportation Trust Fund. Eventually, the project funding is authorized for some point in the distant future, but not appropriated. When the city lands the Olympic bid, the pay-out is accelerated in order to meet the time-line for the Games. All this, under the rationale that the city and state would eventually receive the money anyway. Well, this doesn’t pass the laugh test. It is a shell game of the greatest magnitude, and the victims are the taxpayers of America.”

            • Anonymous

              How do I explain McCain’s comments? He is a typical inside-the-beltway ignorant political moron who was NEVER involved in any kind of venture whether it be a company or an event like the Olympics.

              But his comments are not as uniformed as yours. Clearly you were not involved in this or other Olympics and therefore cannot be expected to have a clue except aping ignorant Dem talking points.

              When Obama brings up the taxpayer money to the Salt Lake City Olympics, Romney will ask about the $100 million Chicago boondoggle that failed to get an Olympic bid but at a time when the city and state had no money and crime was rampant on the streets. I remember being in Chicago back then and supporters of Obama were furious about Obama’s focus on the Olympic bid while he was turning his back on the people of Chicago who were living in fear.

              • Anonymous

                A weak response with no substance.

                You do not explain where the $1.1 billion of taxpayer money went and what McCain refers to as pork barrel for Romney’s Mormon buddies.

                It was a Romney taxpayer boondoggle. You have not proven that it was not.

                There are plenty of news articles, analysis from the budget office and McCain’s commentary that says that it was a boondoggle. What do you have to prove that it was not?

                • Anonymous

                  Substance?
                   Were you at all involved in that Olympics or any Olympics that you can speak with authority? Your comments are blatantly ignorant and purely political – just like all of Obama’s talking points.

                  • Anonymous

                    Again a weak response with no actual facts or proof to support your case.

                    As McCain says he Salt Lake City games were a taxpayer travesty and they were led by Romney.

      • Anonymous

        Romney never saved the Salt Lake games. All he did was throw money at it. It was a Romney boondoggle.
         
        Romney took $2.7 billion of taxpayers’ money and throw it at the Olympic games. It was not only a travesty for taxpayers, but also involved corruption and bribery.
         
        “Mitt Romney lobbied congress hard for federal tax dollars effectively provided huge subsidies for each ticket sold, and that the largest corporate sponsorships were in place before he arrived. Once taking over the operations for the Olympic games, Governor Romney began to use his political leverage and relationship with Senator Bill Bennett of Utah to secure $1.5 Billion in tax payer dollars to bailout the failed Olympic operations.”
         
        The Salt Lake games was the second worse over-budgeted Olympics ever, after Montreal. It was 2.5x over budget. It was a financial disaster costing $2.7 billion with the original estimated cost being $800 million, so that was a $1.9 billion of cost overruns. Taxpayers paid $1.3 billion of the total costs. Total security costs for the Salt Lake games were about $300 million, so the excess costs was not because of security after 9-11.
        Don’t believe me then don’t take my word for it, but watch this video of fellow Republican John McCain unloading on Romney and his winter Olympics “rescue”. Do yourself a favor and watch it. It is quite compelling and devastating from a fellow Republican.
         
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
         
        Romney wasted a lot of taxpayer money on those Olympics. There frankly might have been corruption and certainly a lot of “pork barreling”.  McCain himself calls it “corruption and bribery”.
         
        McCain called the Olympics “an incredible pork-barrel project for Salt Lake City and its environs.”The “earmarks” of cash that Romney got for the Salt Lake city games were nothing but pork, as per McCain talks about. It was out-of-control pork barrel spending by Romney in the guise of Olympic spending (he is a Mormon after all and wanted as much money for all kinds of irrelevant things for Salt Lake City and the state of Utah). Read all about it here:”Salt Lake City Olympics Earmarks A Double-Edged Sword For Romney”http://www.witn.com/news/headl…or read this:”Romney cites Olympics success, rivals are leery”http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c…
        If you think differently, then provide some evidence to support your case.

      • Anonymous

        Romney never saved the Salt Lake games. All he did was throw money at it. It was a Romney boondoggle.
         
        Romney took $2.7 billion of taxpayers’ money and throw it at the Olympic games. It was not only a travesty for taxpayers, but also involved corruption and bribery.
         
        “Mitt Romney lobbied congress hard for federal tax dollars effectively provided huge subsidies for each ticket sold, and that the largest corporate sponsorships were in place before he arrived. Once taking over the operations for the Olympic games, Governor Romney began to use his political leverage and relationship with Senator Bill Bennett of Utah to secure $1.5 Billion in tax payer dollars to bailout the failed Olympic operations.”
         
        The Salt Lake games was the second worse over-budgeted Olympics ever, after Montreal. It was 2.5x over budget. It was a financial disaster costing $2.7 billion with the original estimated cost being $800 million, so that was a $1.9 billion of cost overruns. Taxpayers paid $1.3 billion of the total costs. Total security costs for the Salt Lake games were about $300 million, so the excess costs was not because of security after 9-11.
        Don’t believe me then don’t take my word for it, but watch this video of fellow Republican John McCain unloading on Romney and his winter Olympics “rescue”. Do yourself a favor and watch it. It is quite compelling and devastating from a fellow Republican.
         
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
         
        Romney wasted a lot of taxpayer money on those Olympics. There frankly might have been corruption and certainly a lot of “pork barreling”.  McCain himself calls it “corruption and bribery”.
         
        McCain called the Olympics “an incredible pork-barrel project for Salt Lake City and its environs.”The “earmarks” of cash that Romney got for the Salt Lake city games were nothing but pork, as per McCain talks about. It was out-of-control pork barrel spending by Romney in the guise of Olympic spending (he is a Mormon after all and wanted as much money for all kinds of irrelevant things for Salt Lake City and the state of Utah). Read all about it here:”Salt Lake City Olympics Earmarks A Double-Edged Sword For Romney”http://www.witn.com/news/headl…or read this:”Romney cites Olympics success, rivals are leery”http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c…
        If you think differently, then provide some evidence to support your case.

      • Anonymous

        Romney never saved the Salt Lake games. All he did was throw money at it. It was a Romney boondoggle.
         
        Romney took $2.7 billion of taxpayers’ money and throw it at the Olympic games. It was not only a travesty for taxpayers, but also involved corruption and bribery.
         
        “Mitt Romney lobbied congress hard for federal tax dollars effectively provided huge subsidies for each ticket sold, and that the largest corporate sponsorships were in place before he arrived. Once taking over the operations for the Olympic games, Governor Romney began to use his political leverage and relationship with Senator Bill Bennett of Utah to secure $1.5 Billion in tax payer dollars to bailout the failed Olympic operations.”
         
        The Salt Lake games was the second worse over-budgeted Olympics ever, after Montreal. It was 2.5x over budget. It was a financial disaster costing $2.7 billion with the original estimated cost being $800 million, so that was a $1.9 billion of cost overruns. Taxpayers paid $1.3 billion of the total costs. Total security costs for the Salt Lake games were about $300 million, so the excess costs was not because of security after 9-11.
        Don’t believe me then don’t take my word for it, but watch this video of fellow Republican John McCain unloading on Romney and his winter Olympics “rescue”. Do yourself a favor and watch it. It is quite compelling and devastating from a fellow Republican.
         
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
         
        Romney wasted a lot of taxpayer money on those Olympics. There frankly might have been corruption and certainly a lot of “pork barreling”.  McCain himself calls it “corruption and bribery”.
         
        McCain called the Olympics “an incredible pork-barrel project for Salt Lake City and its environs.”The “earmarks” of cash that Romney got for the Salt Lake city games were nothing but pork, as per McCain talks about. It was out-of-control pork barrel spending by Romney in the guise of Olympic spending (he is a Mormon after all and wanted as much money for all kinds of irrelevant things for Salt Lake City and the state of Utah). Read all about it here:”Salt Lake City Olympics Earmarks A Double-Edged Sword For Romney”http://www.witn.com/news/headl…or read this:”Romney cites Olympics success, rivals are leery”http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c…
        If you think differently, then provide some evidence to support your case.

      • Anonymous

        Romney never saved the Salt Lake games. All he did was throw money at it. It was a Romney boondoggle.
         
        Romney took $2.7 billion of taxpayers’ money and throw it at the Olympic games. It was not only a travesty for taxpayers, but also involved corruption and bribery.
         
        “Mitt Romney lobbied congress hard for federal tax dollars effectively provided huge subsidies for each ticket sold, and that the largest corporate sponsorships were in place before he arrived. Once taking over the operations for the Olympic games, Governor Romney began to use his political leverage and relationship with Senator Bill Bennett of Utah to secure $1.5 Billion in tax payer dollars to bailout the failed Olympic operations.”
         
        The Salt Lake games was the second worse over-budgeted Olympics ever, after Montreal. It was 2.5x over budget. It was a financial disaster costing $2.7 billion with the original estimated cost being $800 million, so that was a $1.9 billion of cost overruns. Taxpayers paid $1.3 billion of the total costs. Total security costs for the Salt Lake games were about $300 million, so the excess costs was not because of security after 9-11.
        Don’t believe me then don’t take my word for it, but watch this video of fellow Republican John McCain unloading on Romney and his winter Olympics “rescue”. Do yourself a favor and watch it. It is quite compelling and devastating from a fellow Republican.
         
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
         
        Romney wasted a lot of taxpayer money on those Olympics. There frankly might have been corruption and certainly a lot of “pork barreling”.  McCain himself calls it “corruption and bribery”.
         
        McCain called the Olympics “an incredible pork-barrel project for Salt Lake City and its environs.”The “earmarks” of cash that Romney got for the Salt Lake city games were nothing but pork, as per McCain talks about. It was out-of-control pork barrel spending by Romney in the guise of Olympic spending (he is a Mormon after all and wanted as much money for all kinds of irrelevant things for Salt Lake City and the state of Utah). Read all about it here:”Salt Lake City Olympics Earmarks A Double-Edged Sword For Romney”http://www.witn.com/news/headl…or read this:”Romney cites Olympics success, rivals are leery”http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c…
        If you think differently, then provide some evidence to support your case.

      • Anonymous

        Romney never saved the Salt Lake games. All he did was throw money at it. It was a Romney boondoggle.
         
        Romney took $2.7 billion of taxpayers’ money and throw it at the Olympic games. It was not only a travesty for taxpayers, but also involved corruption and bribery.
         
        “Mitt Romney lobbied congress hard for federal tax dollars effectively provided huge subsidies for each ticket sold, and that the largest corporate sponsorships were in place before he arrived. Once taking over the operations for the Olympic games, Governor Romney began to use his political leverage and relationship with Senator Bill Bennett of Utah to secure $1.5 Billion in tax payer dollars to bailout the failed Olympic operations.”
         
        The Salt Lake games was the second worse over-budgeted Olympics ever, after Montreal. It was 2.5x over budget. It was a financial disaster costing $2.7 billion with the original estimated cost being $800 million, so that was a $1.9 billion of cost overruns. Taxpayers paid $1.3 billion of the total costs. Total security costs for the Salt Lake games were about $300 million, so the excess costs was not because of security after 9-11.
        Don’t believe me then don’t take my word for it, but watch this video of fellow Republican John McCain unloading on Romney and his winter Olympics “rescue”. Do yourself a favor and watch it. It is quite compelling and devastating from a fellow Republican.
         
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
         
        Romney wasted a lot of taxpayer money on those Olympics. There frankly might have been corruption and certainly a lot of “pork barreling”.  McCain himself calls it “corruption and bribery”.
         
        McCain called the Olympics “an incredible pork-barrel project for Salt Lake City and its environs.”The “earmarks” of cash that Romney got for the Salt Lake city games were nothing but pork, as per McCain talks about. It was out-of-control pork barrel spending by Romney in the guise of Olympic spending (he is a Mormon after all and wanted as much money for all kinds of irrelevant things for Salt Lake City and the state of Utah). Read all about it here:”Salt Lake City Olympics Earmarks A Double-Edged Sword For Romney”http://www.witn.com/news/headl…or read this:”Romney cites Olympics success, rivals are leery”http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c…
        If you think differently, then provide some evidence to support your case.

    • Roger Elder

      It would seem that gridlock is good for the economy. Better for it than “change” anyway. Interesting how the economy started righting itself once everything stopped changing at the same time… take away the fear and uncertainty of “change” and things start to return to normal. Any recovery we are seeing is more about what wasn’t done since 2010 than anything that was done between 2009 and 2010.

  • Anonymous

    If Rick likes Democrats so much, maybe his staff could start a union.

    International Hypocrites Local 666

    • Anonymous

      But, as always the hypocrite or willing to say anything, Romney actually voted in the Democratic primary doing exactly what he criticized Santorum for in asking Democrats and Independents to vote for him.

      “Here’s the transcript from a Feb. 18, 2007 ABC interview:
      ABC: Let me talk about your political journey. You were an independent, a registered independent in the 1980s. You voted for Paul Tsongas as Democrat in the 1992 primaries. Now you’ve describe yourself as a Reagan Republican.

      MITT ROMNEY: Kind of a mischaracterization. In Massachusetts if you register as an independent you can you vote on either the Republican or Democrat primary. When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for a Republican… But let me tell you, in the general election, I don’t recall ever once voting for anyone other than a Republican. So, yeah, as an independent I’ll go in and play in their primary but I’m a Republican and have been through my life. I was with Young Republicans when I was in college back at Stanford. But a registered independent so I could vote in either primary.”

      http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/28/10529940-flashback-romney-voted-in-92-dem-primaries

      • Anonymous

         Are you really so dense that you don’t see the fallacy of your argument? Never mind, it’s obvious that you don’t care for facts. Nonetheless, here is a fact.

        Romney, as an individual citizen, voted for one D. And just for the sake of argument I will add that this particular D was against the liberal spend without paying for it crowd. Romney didn’t encourage other Republicans to vote for him. He didn’t make robo-calls. He exercised his right as an American citizen to vote.

        Facts are pesky little critters, kinda like you. A shame you don’t sense the irony.

        • Anonymous

          HARP2 above complains that Santorum likes Democrats. I assume HARP2 is talking about Santorum encouraging Democrats to vote for him and those Democrats voting for him because they perceive Santorum to be the weaker canidate. However, Romney himself use to do the exact same thing. So I guess Romney “liked” Democrats, as he did exactly the same thing that Santorum was encouraging. The Romney campaign and HARP2 were upset that Democrats were voting from Santorum when Romney “the hypocrite” use to do the exact same thing himself.

          Quoting Romney:

          “  When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for a Republican… “

          • Anonymous

            I was going to respond but realized that it’s impossible to reason with an idiot. My bad.

          • Anonymous

            Let me see if I can clear this up for the mentally challanged.

            When Romney voted in the Dem Primaries he was a Republican messing with the Dem Party.

            When Rush (who I loath) promoted Operation Chaos he was a Republican messing with the Dem Party.

            When Santorum urges liberal Democrat Obama supporters to vote in the Republican primary he is a Republican messing (shitting) his own Republican party pants.

            The 58% liberal vote that Santorum got will not vote for him in the General Election. They are not “Reagan Democrats”.

            Santorum won the right wing and left wing fringe nuts in Michigan. Moderates overwhelmingly went for Romney.

            Sounds about right. Birds of a feather flocking, and the extreme nuts are all in the same can. 

  • Anonymous

    I must admit. Obama has his own unique way of connecting to the people.
     

  • Anonymous

     ”Maybe Obama can apologize for this fuck up too?”

    Try this one….. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/where-were-apologies-when-armed-forces-burned-bibles

  • Anonymous

    Crap like this can and will hurt Romney…
    http://www.newser.com/story/140737/mormons-also-baptized-daniel-pearl.html

    Every time I hear the name Danny Pearl my heart stops…. Mansoor Ijaz you are a jerk.

    • Anonymous

      Popsmoke,  I am not Mormon. BUT…. I have a godson who is married to a Mormon.  I live in a state next to Utah.  In the high school in which I last taught, we had a large population of Mormon students.

      I am not afraid of their religion.  So what if they do this sort of ceremony.  If they did it for me, I don’t think any in my family would be worked up enough to be angry.  We belive what we believe about baptism; they can believe what they believe.  Ultimately, God is the one who makes the decisions, and my Protestant faith puts a lot of faith in God to do what’s best.

      I recently put together a large notebook on my father’s immigrant family and hope to be able to begin work soon on my mother’s immigrant family.  The geneology files the Mormon church keeps provide people lots of information.  I got some very helpful records from them.

      I just have more faith in Americans also.  Most of us can also figure out that they will not kill a family for renouncing that baptism.

      • Anonymous

        DianaLC…

        The issue is how other religions and people will react. Catholic and Protestants do not go around baptizing the dead of other religions or each others religions. Many religions and people take issue with this type of practice. I do not want to rehash the beliefs again. But Romney like Santorum wears his faith on his sleeve and that makes it an issue. 

        As far as Mormons and their deeds are concerned. They are great doers. I will never take issue with their deeds. Matter of fact I will use some of those deeds and the fact they are experts with “community” with my own faith. But faith and deeds are not two separate things.

        But as you know religion is very personal and can become a twin edged sword.

        • Anonymous

           

          But Romney like Santorum wears his faith on his sleeve and that makes it an issue.

          Not sure which nominating process you have been watching but I know that during the one I’ve been watching closely, Romney hasn’t mentioned his Mormon faith. He wears his faith in his heart, not on some damned sweater vest.

          • Anonymous

             Look harder than just the most recent newspseak. Show you how much you do not know about Romney…. Go back to when he was Governor and at Bain…. History matters!

            • Anonymous

              he sometimes makes reference to his religion or to his faith but not in any way that i would agree that he ‘wears [it] on his sleeve” 

            • Anonymous

               I used to be a Democrat. Should I be judged on who I was rather than who I am now? Romney isn’t running a religious campaign. That would be Satan’s son.

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

             popsmoke is watching the same nominating process, but he is doing it through the lens of a bigot.

        • Anonymous

          I was also taught growing up that if an unbaptized infant is in extreme unction, about to die, as a lay catholic, i had the power to baptize him or her by pouring water over their forehead and making the sign of the cross while saying i baptize you in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit.  the idea was to prevent the infant from spending eternity in purgatory or was it limbo.

          and here is a Catholic canno authorizing the baptism of a dying infant “even without consent of the parents”

          Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:

          1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;

          2° that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up
          in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance
          with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason
          for this.

          §2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.

          not the same thing as posthumous Mormon baptism but pretty close.  http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2W.HTM

    • Anonymous

      Popsmoke,  I am not Mormon. BUT…. I have a godson who is married to a Mormon.  I live in a state next to Utah.  In the high school in which I last taught, we had a large population of Mormon students.

      I am not afraid of their religion.  So what if they do this sort of ceremony.  If they did it for me, I don’t think any in my family would be worked up enough to be angry.  We belive what we believe about baptism; they can believe what they believe.  Ultimately, God is the one who makes the decisions, and my Protestant faith puts a lot of faith in God to do what’s best.

      I recently put together a large notebook on my father’s immigrant family and hope to be able to begin work soon on my mother’s immigrant family.  The geneology files the Mormon church keeps provide people lots of information.  I got some very helpful records from them.

      I just have more faith in Americans also.  Most of us can also figure out that they will not kill a family for renouncing that baptism.

  • Anonymous

    Whether you are thrilled with the Republican field or not it’s time to stop whining about it and live with the reality. After all you could be a Dem and only have one choice and that choice a proven clunker.

    The GOP Final Four Had Guts To Stick With It
    By Peter Wehner
    link: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/28/gop-final-four/

    • Roger Elder

      Exactly yes. There is one choice to be made. One. Who we have right now or the other guy… whoever that is. It is pretty simple. Complaining about the other guy just helps who we have right now. I don’t get it. This is dirt simple.

    • Roger Elder

      Exactly yes. There is one choice to be made. One. Who we have right now or the other guy… whoever that is. It is pretty simple. Complaining about the other guy just helps who we have right now. I don’t get it. This is dirt simple.

  • Anonymous

    spot on Larry.

  • Anonymous

    spot on Larry.

  • Anonymous

    I am sure it will because I have learned from reading through the blogs that there is an awful lot of anti-Mormon bias out there.  But all religions have bizarre practices and believes.
     
    But don’t get me started with the Catholic Church’s history, puncuated by the Inquisition.  Catholics believe that through a priest’s invocation a cup of wine and a wafer become the blood and body of Christ; that if you attend 9 first Friday masses in a row and receive communion at some point in your life, you will die in a state of grace and go straight to heaven persumably because seconds before you expire a priest will appear on the scene and give you absolution; there are no excpetions; it would apply to bin laden or daughmer or mcveigh, had they been catholics and done the 9-masses in a row.  And how many have died in Northern Ireland because of the irrational hatred between catholics and protestants.  I mention the Catholic Church because it is what I know. 
     
    Danny Pearl and all those poor souls who were decapitated on TV in those early days of the Iraq war.   

    • Anonymous

      this was in reply to popsmoke’s link to mormon’s practice of baptizing dead persons.

      • Anonymous

         Santorum slept with a dead person. No biggie.

        • Anonymous

          that is mean.   

          • Anonymous

             Yeah, it is. I crossed a line. I’ll delete it.

      • Anonymous

        And Democrats are (in)famous for using dead people to win elections. After I’m dead I’d rather some kind soul baptize me than steal my damn vote!

        • Anonymous

          ROFLOL.

          Don’t worry Marge you will according to Mormon doctrine you will have the final word whether you want to except the baptism or not.

      • Anonymous

        But we do not baptize dead folk from other religions…. That is a no..no in the Catholic Church!

        • Anonymous

          No, catholics don’t baptize dead folk from other religions but it’s not as if the Mormons are robbing graves and exhuming the dead people and baptizing them.  It’s just a gesture supposedly based on their view that you can only enter the kingdom of heaven if you believe in their faith, which is similar to what the Catholic Church believes.  Besides, the Mormon Church has formally prohibited the practice. 

          http://townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/2012/02/29/outraged_by_mormon_proxy_baptism_not_this_jew

           

          • Anonymous

            “There was a commotion over the issue in the 1990s, and in response the
            Mormon Church formally barred proxy baptism for Jewish Holocaust
            victims. As a rule the ban is respected but there are occasional
            violations of church policy, and the issue is back in the news following
            reports that Anne Frank, who died at 15 in the Bergen-Belsen
            concentration camp, was recently baptized by proxy at a Mormon temple in
            the Dominican Republic. Relatives of Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel and
            the parents of the late Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal were also
            submitted for proxy baptisms.”

            Not exactly…

    • Anonymous

      You got the first part right. “Catholics believe that through a priest’s invocation a cup of wine and a wafer become the blood and body of Christ;”

      Now the rest, “that if you attend 9 first Friday masses in a row and receive communion at some point in your life, you will die in a state of grace and go straight to heaven persumably because seconds before you expire a priest will appear on the scene and give you absolution; there are no excpetions; it would apply to bin laden or daughmer or mcveigh, had they been catholics and done the 9-masses in a row.”

      Is this what the Catholic Church teaches? You wish to show me exactly what doctrine says this?

      • Anonymous

        when i was growing up, a long time ago, the catholic nuns taught me that; and “made” us go to the first friday masses.  so, i’m good to go.  :)

        here it is:

        History of First Friday

        First Friday devotions among Catholics are related to devotion to the Sacred Heart of Christ. First Friday practices date to the last decades of the 17th century, when Jesus appeared to St. Margaret Mary and spoke to her of His Sacred Heart. Among the promises Our Lord revealed to St. Margaret Mary, the 12th specifically referenced practices for Fridays:
        In the excess of the mercy of my Heart, I promise you that my all powerful love will grant to all those who will receive Communion on the First Fridays, for nine consecutive months, the grace of final repentance: they will not die in my displeasure, nor without receiving the sacraments; and my Heart will be their secure refuge in that last hour.

        http://www.aquinasandmore.com/catholic-articles/first-friday-devotion/article/186

        • Anonymous

          i shouldn’t make fun of this.  It is a wonderfully blessed promise:

          In the excess of the mercy of my Heart, I promise you that my all powerful love will grant to all those who will receive Communion on the First Fridays, for nine consecutive months, the grace of final repentance: they will not die in my displeasure, nor without receiving the sacraments; and my Heart will be their secure refuge in that last hour.

        • Anonymous

          jrterrier….

          Devotionals are just great! But never do any devotional blindly… Always consult your Parish Priest….

          There are  12 Promises of the Sacred Heart of Christ Devotional  ( http://www.sacredheartdevotion.com/promises.htm ) but none just blindly grant a “Go Directly To Heaven pass”, without a whole bunch of stipulations. Just doing the devotional is not the keys to Heaven.

          Understand  that this devotion is not to be viewed mechanically, as though in some magical way people could simply “catch Mass” on those nine days and otherwise conduct themselves in utter selfishness and still be guaranteed salvation. It is living a state of Faith….

          There are a tons of stipulations here as in any Devotional.

          I do the Divine Mercy Devotion. Its basically granted either a plenary or partial  indulgence and is like receiving a second Baptism.

          The devotional is part of Code of Canon Law (can. 992) ( http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/indulgences_conditions.htm ) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1471)( http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm ).

          There a few stipulations one must have in order to receive the indulgence.

          There is also this about the devotional…..

          “Catholics reasonably accept it as coming from God, but are not obligated to accept it as a matter of theological faith.”

          Understand what this means…..

          Read more: http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/indulgence_vs_promise.htm#ixzz1nrGJcL6w

          But I will never tell any Catholic not to do any devotional. But I will tell them to first talk about what the devotional means and what gifts are to be really expected with their local priest before going forward…

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

        SMH — you haven’t heard of First Friday? For the love of all that is good & holy STOP talking about catholic beliefs popsmoke — you DO NOT know what you are talking about. You don’t even understand the concept of the Holy Trinity!!

        • Anonymous

          Concept of the Holy Trinity? Its a very simple concept and belief. I posted Church doctrine on the Trinity and all I got from you was insults. I told you before if you can’t back up your talk with Church doctrine then grow up…

          You remind me of Hokma, when confronted with written fact just insult and call people names.

          Now show me where I am wrong?

    • Anonymous

       So I’m wondering…. In a Santorum Administration, would Jesus be at the bottom of the food pyramid?

    • Anonymous

      Protestants, e.g., Baptists and Methodists also take communion or sacrament in the form of “bread and wine” as the body of Christ.  I know this personally because at one time I was a Methodist and then a Baptist after marrying.

  • Anonymous

    is it time for someone to file a complaint with the Federal Election Committee against NBC and MSNBC for the in-kind contributions made to the President’s re-election efforts:

    In Nod to Obama (and NBC), NFL to Open Season on a Wednesday Night

    It has become a tradition over the last several years that the National Football League opens its season on a Thursday night in early September, with the previous season’s Super Bowl champions’ playing a home game. But not this year. The NFL has announced that the league will open the 2012 season on Wednesday, September 5, so that NBC — the network with broadcast rights to the game — can devote Thursday night to coverage of President Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention.In 2008, the league and NBC went ahead with the opening game on Thursday although this collided with the speech by the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, at the conclusion of the GOP convention. The game was begun earlier than usual, and McCain waited until it was over to give his speech.The NFL has not played a game on Wednesday since 1948.

    • Anonymous

       I recall that Obama has asked networks to change their schedules before this but can’t for the life of me remember when it was.

      • Anonymous

         For a Republican debate I believe.

  • Anonymous

    “We don’t need Elmer Gantry as the President.”
    Elmer Gantry wasn’t an extremist – he was a con man using religion as a sales pitch to gullible rubes.
    Is Santorum a con man or is he a genuine fanatic? Opinions? 

  • Anonymous

     Romney outspent Santorum 2:1 and split the delegates evenly. How is that going to work against Obama ? Spare me on Romney/Obama care.

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

       They didn’t split the delegates evenly — Romney got 9, Santorum got 7 — that isn’t “evenly” Einstein. And right now, Romney has approximately 100 more delegates than Santorum total and more than 700,000 more actual votes total in the all the primaries to date. And finally, Romney was able to get himself on all the ballots in all the states & all the districts within such states (dumbass Santorum wasn’t even competent enough to get himself on the VA ballot OR on the ballots of 3 of the districts in Ohio). So it was all MONEY WELL SPENT.

  • Anonymous

    Wait a minute…

    “The Massachusetts health care reform championed by Romney is actually doing well among the citizens of Massachusetts and is popular. So Romney is perfectly positioned to excoriate Obama for doing it wrong.”

    I’d be interested to hear how the ACA is meaningfully different* from the Massachusetts reform.  So if anybody can cite actual and significant policy differences between the statutes, I’m all ears.

    *And no, “one is federal and one is state” is NOT a meaningful difference.  It’s an interesting Constitutional question, but it has zero bearing on the success or failure of the underlying policies.  And Larry is talking about policy results, here (as I read it).

    • Anonymous

      First of all, when Romney took on the uninsured in Massachusetts, working with both parties in Boston, he did so with the blessing of the Heritage Foundation. The idea was, essentially, people who were getting a free ride with respect to their healthcare would now have to pay. No more getting healthcare for free. This time you had to pony up some cash or buy insurance from a private carrier. The Heritage Foundation, a longstanding bastion of Conservatism, thought it bold, conservative thinking as they helped to craft its design.

      From a Heritage Foundation articleon Romney’s plan in 2006:
      … to allow people to go without health insurance, and then when they do fall ill expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney proposes to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: Either buy insurance or pay for your own care. Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.

      Like it or don’t like it, this idea, currently known as Romneycare, was the brainchild of Conservatism. Of personal responsibility. In 2006, long before Barack Obama had even thrown his hat into the presidential ring, the Massachusetts answer was “clearly consistent with conservative values” in its requiring recipients of healthcare to pay for a service that they would otherwise have received for free — rather, on the backs of Massachusetts taxpayers. Newt Gingrichsupported its “tremendous potential” and “real solutions” –Gingrinchian praise for “creating a sustainable health system” in Massachusetts.

      But that is not the most significant aspect of thisRomneycare vs. Obamacare battle: Newt’s praise and Conservative origins.

      The most significant aspect of this war of words stems from a common logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, which suggests that if event O follows event R, event R must have caused event O. In the present case, event R would be Romneycare and event O would be Obamacare. Romneycare, they say, brought about Obamacare. Or, said another way, Obamacare came from Romneycare (first fallacy), so it must be just like Romneycare (second fallacy).

      Before we get too lost in the weeds, it might be interesting to see what Romney’s and Obama’s original goals were.
      As stated by Romney back then, “you will be free to choose but your choices will have consequences.” Buy insurance or pay for your healthcare. Romney’s goal was finite and simple: to require the few who were sapping the Massachusetts’ taxpayers to ultimately pay for healthcare either by paying the state or by paying an insurance provider. These people who had no health insurance — fewer than 10% in Massachusetts –would now have to contribute if they wanted healthcare.

      That was it. Insurance companies were not nationalized. Massachusetts did not become the default healthcare provider in that state. It is not what I would have done, but it was seen as bold and it was the kind of “outside the box” thinking that many from both Parties admired. Newt included.

      http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/15/obamacare-vs-romneycare-a-cruc/

    • Anonymous
    • Anonymous

      Both the ACA and Romney’s reform are and will be successful. Both are very good legislation to build from.

      What I find is the most important is the Massachusetts reform only added an additional 1% to the State’s budget and got almost all residents covered. No one is complaining in Massachusettes about the mandate and many small employers for the first time have been able to offer their employees health insurance coverage. The ACA will do exactly the same for all Americans. It will go down as Obama’s signature legislative success.

    • http://lesstalkmoreactivism.blogspot.com/ Anonymous

      I’m a Clintonite, so I support universal healthcare in principle.  My objection to Obamacare is: (1) too big, too much, too fast.  Clinton proposed to reform incrementally, passing universal by the end of her second term.  (2) Post-meltdown/TARP/stimulus, we just can’t afford it right now.  So state vs. fed does bear on the sheer massiveness/unintended consequences of a one-shot overhaul.  

      Then there was the arrogance/grandiosity of Obama-Pelosi, the disgusting race politics, the bigotry against the ‘Tea Party’, the suppression of dissent, the post-Scott Brown skeezer move in Congress that soured the politics.  I don’t trust Obama, he’s a liar and a headcase.  And I think Pelosi went crazy after 2008 — like that nut in ‘Bananas’ ordering the people to change their underwear every half hour (“I’m going to investigate the 9-11 families!”).  None of my problems with Obamacare apply to Romneycare.

      Bottom line: for me, Romneycare is a big political plus.  He’s a fiscally and clinically sane moderate who knows we have to fix our fucked up healthcare system.  Unfortunately, Bush’s meltdown should have been fully repaired first.

  • Anonymous

    I’m sure you’ve all heard that Karen Santorum prays that God will speak through her husband. One would expect that she is seeking divine guidance in this election. But the truth is that even she is tired of listening to Rick’s BS.

  • Lemuel Vargas

    As Sarah Palin  succinctly said,  all the republican nominees are much better than Obama if you only take the time to study their platforms.

    In my opinion, Sarah Palin has been and is still an astute and keen observer of political events and thus will follow whoever she endorses in this election and vote accordingly. If she does not endorse, then whoever is the Repub nominee will be my choice.

    my 2 cents worth of opinion..

    • Anonymous

      Sarah Palin has been non-endorsing endorsing Gingrich for months. Todd Palin has endorsed-endorsed Gingrich.

       In my opinion Sarah Palin is an astute promoter of Sarah Palin. That’s her right and I wish her well. But I no longer see her as the “real deal.” Just another pol.

      Her opinion that the Republican blood bath continue makes me doubt her on other issues.

      As for following anyone because another pol endorses them, seriously?

    • Anonymous

      Sarah Palin has been non-endorsing endorsing Gingrich for months. Todd Palin has endorsed-endorsed Gingrich.

       In my opinion Sarah Palin is an astute promoter of Sarah Palin. That’s her right and I wish her well. But I no longer see her as the “real deal.” Just another pol.

      Her opinion that the Republican blood bath continue makes me doubt her on other issues.

      As for following anyone because another pol endorses them, seriously?

  • Anonymous
    • Anonymous

      that whole recall mess been a waste of money for the state.

      • Anonymous

        Walker has managed to turn the disaster Doyle left into a success. The unions and the Dems, but I repeat myself, smear and fear Scot Walker. That alone is enough to support him.

        Oh by the way, my property taxes went down last year, for the first time in my memory.

    • Anonymous

       great

    • Anonymous

      Probably more. Many here are Walker supporters but believe if they say so out in the open the public sector unions will keep the Fire Department or the Police from responding in a timely fashion.

      After watching the police turn their backs when Union thugs went after Walker supporters in Madison last year I can’t say that I blame them. They stood in “solidarity” and ignored the law.

       I know that I don’t have a Walker sign in my yard even though I voted for him and support him. One reason is that the union sends thugs to our house to make sure that my Union Member Significant Other votes. If they saw a Walker sign I doubt that he would have a job by the end of the week.

      He tells them that he always votes. He just doesn’t vote the way they want him to. He is after all a life-long Republican who hates the union he was forced to join in order to get a job, hates the dues that are extorted from his wages and given to the Democrat Party that he loathes, and wonders why he is paying dues for wages barely over minimum wage. What has the union ever done for him and his fellow employees but extort money and give it to the Democrats?

      We voted for Walker, Ryan and will vote for Mark Neuman.

      • Anonymous

         I was a Union member for 35 years and I understand the reasons why unions were needed when the were started. I was and am still glad that I had a union to belong too. Even though I was a good employee I sometimes had a big mouth I am sure that had I not had backing from the Union I would never lasted 35 years. Some of my bosses didn’t care for me and the feelings were mutual. I never faced any discipline in all my years employment with the same company.

        But not all the employees where I worked were ideal workers and they were always facing investigations from the company. The union of course had to defend these misfits whether they liked it or not. It seemed to many that the union only benefited the bad employees.

        Then again I hated the dirty politics and corruption that my union and probably all unions inherently seem to possess. Union membership is a mixed bag  it has some benefits and some drawbacks.

        I can understand your reluctance to bring up politics to other union members. The Republican members in my union knew what Col.Custer must have felt like at Little Big Horn. We had absolutely no honest political debate at my place of work.

        Just some of my thoughts on the subject.

        • Anonymous

          My loathing of Unions is an evolution. I come from a “union” family and mindlessly supported them for many years.

           The destruction of American Motors, remember them, here in Kenosha by the fight between unions and management opened my eyes.

          The resulting pain as American Motors went under was even more eye opening. I then saw relatives, friends and neighbors in a light I had never seen them in before. So long as they got “theirs” they didn’t give a crap about the town or the rest of us that didn’t have a union. They talked big about bringing the company down if they didn’t get their way. And so they did.

          Then for months, years, the state was supposed to make up to them for the big salaries they no longer had. Many of them had to face a job market that didn’t find their skills worthy of employment. And so the state had to pump more money into “retraining” them.

          Meanwhile those who were part of the regular workforce were left on their own. Much like today. Democrats talk about the American Worker but what they mean is the union worker. Because union workers money goes to the Democratic party. Whether they want it to or not.

          I have come to loathe unions with a loathing so deep I cannot adequately express it. And some of that loathing is for the union members who will support their union out of their own greed. Once again, so long as they get theirs to hell with the rest of us.

          Public sector unions are corrupt and reprehensible. Being forced to join a union and having money extorted from you is corrupt. We live it. We hate it. And worst of all we fear it. Not a very American way to have to live.

          Some more of my thoughts and feelings on the subject.

          • Anonymous

             Union membership has declined dramatically since I first had to join my union. And its all due to the lack of confidence in union from the very people they represent, namely workers themselves.

            Its like the ows people claiming that they represent the 99%. Well I am part of the 99% they are talking about and no one asked me if I wanted them to represent me cause I would have said hell no. So similarly the Unions say that they are representing workers, nonsense. The union bosses are representing themselves so they can continue own high standard of living not the concerns of union members. The union bosses just throw a few bones to the membership to keep them happy and most workers know that today.

  • Anonymous

    Here is scary… Started by Bush and expanded by Obama!

    Blurred Line Between Espionage and Truth
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/business/media/white-house-uses-espionage-act-to-pursue-leak-cases-media-equation.html?_r=2

    “Mark Corallo, who served under Attorney General John D. Ashcroft during
    the Bush administration, told Adam Liptak of The New York Times this
    month that he was “sort of shocked” by the number of leak prosecutions under President Obama. “We would have gotten hammered for it,” he said.”

    Who is Corallo kidding here… They would have been forced to use it in the Plame case. Besides the Bush administration hacks were releasing classed info by the truck loads to the press.

  • Anonymous

     The pundits fretting over Santorum’s lack of support among women crack me up. I’ve heard all kinds of excuses for it but to me it’s really very simple.

    If you’ve ever watched Santorum and his wife together it’s obvious that he is a premature ejaculator. Check out his face and then check out hers. I dare you to prove me wrong.

    Now contrast that with the look on Ann Romney’s face when Mitt is speaking. It’s obvious that Mitt’s got the wood and knows how to deliver.

    A woman can sense these things.

    • Anonymous

      you are very funny but a little nuts.  i do agree that there really is a wonderful warmth between Ann and Mitt Romney.  And something a little off with the Santorums.

      • Anonymous

         Any chance I could use you as a character witness? I’ve been trying to convince my doctor that I’m just a little nuts for the longest time. Dude ain’t buyin it.

        • Anonymous

          LOL.  what, he thinks you are a lot nuts?  i’m not sure my character letter would be much help either way.

    • Anonymous

      If you’ve ever watched Santorum and his wife together it’s obvious that he is a premature ejaculator

      ——————————————————

       No wonder he can`t figure out if he is coming or going.

    • Anonymous

      FF shame on you for making me cry (with tears).

      • Anonymous

         Was it a good or a bad cry?

  • Anonymous

    anybody that votes for backtrack in California is an friggin idiot.

    will veto water bill that repeals the law that created the dust bowl in central California

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/29/obama-ill-veto-bill-that-will-provide-water-to-californias-central-valley/

    • Anonymous

      California’s got too many people and they’ve been stealing water from everywhere they can for way too long.

      • Anonymous

         I remember back when California was whining about the drought and how hard it was not to water the lawn, etc. Then on the news report, the camera panned back and there were acres and acres of swimming pools, one in every yard for as far as you could see. If they had a water shortage, it was their own damn fault.

    • Anonymous

       I just learned from myiq2xu that I am wrong he explained the situation and gave me another point of view about the bill and want it wants to change

      • Anonymous

         Care to elaborate?

        • Anonymous

           he explained about the drought and lack of rain and linked this article which is pretty balanced

          http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_california-water.html

          • Anonymous

             I still find the Save the Smelt campaign ridiculous. I would reroute their native habitat right through Nancy Pelosi’s living room.

    • Anonymous

       You know, as much as I dislike Gingrich, I will say one thing for him. If he was the Speaker he would call a news conference in front of the capital building with the whole Republican caucus surrounding him and demand that Obama pass this bill to create jobs and lower food prices.

      I like Boehner but he needs to add some HGH supplements to his cojones.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/afghans-quran-burning-soldiers-to-face-trial/

    US soldiers and threat of a trial under afghan law for burning korans

    • Anonymous

       if backtrack allows this to happen and there is no impeachment proceedings started then we do not have a government that is in the best interest of the United States

  • Anonymous
    • Anonymous

      This is just plain wrong. They have no rights in my opinion.

  • Anonymous

    here it is. 

  • Anonymous

    the story that few were paying attention to.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_EGYPT_US?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-29-13-19-28

    Egypt lifts travel ban on American hostages. sets bail

    • Anonymous

       They want their money.

  • Anonymous

    This one is just for the resident Oborg, since it waxes so frequently about Obama’s great economic recovery.

    While the economy has shown signs of improvement in recent months, Bernanke warned that several unemployment reports have exceeded expectations and that the labor market is still “far from normal.”
    “The unemployment rate remains elevated, long-term unemployment is still near record levels, and the number of persons working part time for economic reasons is very high,” he said.

    In particular, a “very worrisome problem” is the number of long-term unemployed, as those people have a much harder time getting back into the job market as their skills and contacts deteriorate, he said.

    The underlying data on the economy suggests its expansion is “uneven and modest by historical standards,” and the continued threat posed by
    Europe’s debt woes remains a persistent threat to the U.S. recovery, he said.

  • Anonymous

    This is horrible.

    The Washington Post is reporting that Barbara Johnson, a lesbian who lives with another woman, was recently denied communion at a Catholic mass in Maryland.

    The mass was a funeral for Johnson’s mother. The priest, Rev. Marcel Guarnizo, denied her communion and then left the altar and did not show up for the burial.

    This is a violation of basic human decency. I suppose that you could argue that because the Catholic Church is not supposed to offer communion to those who are causing public scandal, technically someone who publicly flaunts a homosexual relationship could be denied communion.

    • Anonymous

      Well, technically, you can’t just show up and expect the clergy to offer you communion just because you’re there, so yeah, the clergy has the right to deny communion, especially to non-catholics. It’s the catholics most sacred activity with a whole litany of guides and procedures before taking the eucharist.

      Was this person baptized? Did they go to confession since thier last mortal sin? Too much unknown info to say that this priest is really as horrible as he’s being made out to be.

      • Anonymous

         I don’t regard the Pope as the authority on spiritual matters. I don’t need the sanction of any human being to experience the truth within.

        The priest didn’t even show up for the burial. To me that is disgraceful, uncaring and not of love.

        • Anonymous

           Well, if you’re Catholic the Pope is link between heaven and earth, a position that basically traces itself back to St. Peter. Having been born and raised a Catholic I think I have a pretty good grasp on basic catholic stuff, although I was eventually shuffled off to the “lost causes” group when I was doing confirmation ;-P. I guess showing up to classes wearing Iron Maiden and Black Sabbath t-shirts didn’t endear me to the teachers.:-D

          I’ll never forget the first time I went to a non-Catholic church (a Baptist service). Severely disappointed. In a Catholic service there’s a structured mass, with the communion and my favorite, the “peace be with you” part. With the fundies it’s just preaching and singing. Sorry. Kinda creepy.

          • Anonymous

             I find the notion that a bunch of guys getting together and deciding who is going to be the mouthpiece for God is rather amusing.

    • Anonymous

       the Catholic Church has some really strict rules.
      They are not going to change them.
      My mom was refused the Last Rites because she was divorced.

      • Anonymous

         I’m so sorry to hear that. Some of the things some people do in the name of religion horrify and disgust me.

  • http://jyotsana.myid.net/ jyotsna

    It’s fun watching you guys whip yourselves into a frenzy over Obama’s 2nd triumphant inaugural address on Jan 20 2013. While there can be several reasons among Gopers to wish for an Obama defeat, Dems joining them can have only three reasons in no particular order
    - Racism
    - Racism
    - Racism.

    We saw this ugly attitude in shameless display 4 years back and it hasn’t lessened one bit. But enough about Racism, I was talking about the sane ones!

    BTW. Op Hilarity did work. Rom-Bot got the same number of delegates as Santorum. It mayn’t be 9.0 on the Richter, but about 8.0.
    Suggestion me hearties! Have a nice meal and a drink and get over it. Get ready for Obama’s triumph and four more years. After that we will have Democrats running the White House for another 24 years at least.

    • Anonymous

      Boy are you going to be bummed on 1/20/13…

    • Anonymous

       koolaid is the LSD of the 21st century

    • Anonymous

       Screw your racism charges. Take a hike.

    • Anonymous

       DOA

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

      You are too stupid to realize that 9 is more than 7 (the overall winner of the MI primary gets the 2 state wide delegates, asshat) and you presume to speak with authority on anything? Your racism charges are nothing but what psychologists call projection (Google it– I already explained addition to you. I’m not explaining psychological projection — frankly, I believe you are too dumb & suffer too greatly from Obama-delusion to understand it).

    • Anonymous

       There are three reasons, in no particular order, for wanting to get rid of Obama.
      They are, in no particular order:
      Incompetence
      Incompetence
      Incompetence
       

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
    • Anonymous

       one of the best comments I have read

      you know the guy that keyed your car, that’s obama

  • Anonymous

    Romney won the Wyomninn caucuses tonight.  Why no media?

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

       yeah, funny isn’t? /snark

    • Anonymous

      Because the PTB don’t want Romney. I believe it’s just that simple. His wins are downplayed, anyone else’s wins are hyped to the max and the media focuses on his gaffs while ignoring blatant gaffs from the left and the right.

      Where are the fools that were telling us that Romney was the media darling? Still standing with their fingers in their ears, their blindfolds on their eyes and chanting, I hate Romney, I hate Romney, I hate Romney no doubt.

      While I can find endless cartoons depicting Romney as an idiot, an insensitive rich bastard or repeating one of his “gaffs” it is far more difficult to find those that bash Santorum. And that is NOT just on the right.

  • http://jyotsana.myid.net/ jyotsana

    Smallest-violin-in-the-world-time
    ["[Santorum] cheated by asking people who would never vote for him for president to vote for him in the Republican primary,” Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) said on a call with reporters. “I believe that he should agree to give back a percentage of the delegates that he won in the Republican primary with Democrat votes that would never support him for president.”]
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/7w2lk2e 
    The RMoney’s team is whining after having blown 43 million just to get even with Santorum! What a delight!
    What could happen if Rmoney doesn’t make it and Santorum too is damaged goods? We need a dream ticket, How about Herman Cain+Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman+Santorum? Bring out the crazies! The whole world will choke in laughter doubled over!

    • Anonymous

      We are so happy that the DNC sent you to provide us updates.  We felt so lost until you arrived.  Thank you.

    • Anonymous

       Hell no!!!

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

      Since you’re one of those nuts who acts like Obama is handing out hand jobs & chocolate bars while he takes away habeas corpus, you should be right at home with the crazies.

  • Anonymous
  • Pingback: You Hit It, KenoshaMarge & Open Thread : NO QUARTER

  • Pingback: You Hit It, KenoshaMarge & Open Thread | TeaBaggers Of America

  • Lemuel Vargas

    We could concentrate on the House and the Senate for a veto-proof majority Tea Party members. Then if Obama still wins the Election, he would be forced to work with the Tea Party or he could be overridden by the House and the Senate.

    If the Republican Nominee wins the Election, he/she would still be forced to work with the Tea Party or be overriden, too..

    just my 5 cents of opinion..