RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Santorum Hangs Around

Mitt Romney’s inability to put Rick Santorum away is the story for the rest of March and into April. Spoke McKay Coppins, Buzzfeed, in Boston with the Romney campaign, and he pointed to the lack of a Plan B if Santorum wins Ohio. The results show that Romney will win Ohio late, and will have the lion share of delegates after March 6.

What is it good for? Rick Santorum wants the VPOTUS? Am told that Romney is not offering Santorum any prize.

POTUS Obama press conference was artful — emphasizing three foreign policy questions to begin his performance. The price of gasoline is still on the ticket. Will $5.00 a gallon on Memorial Day determine the election for November? Unknown.

Meantime, Santorum hangs around into May, into June, reminding the GOP that Mitt Romney is not much of a Republican anything. Spoke to Lara Brown, Villanova, who reminds me that the general election will be very, very close, because Romney does well with women and Independents. Shrug.

This will likely be the last presidential election where I can support or oppose someone who is older than I am. Romney is too senior to be an eight-year president with any vigor. Do we need a caretaker into the 2020s?

– From the blog for The John Batchelor Show.

  • Anonymous

    Santorum cannot even win a majority of Catholics – many are offended by his sanctimonious attitude.

  • Anonymous

    santorum cannot even get a majority of catholics …

  • Anonymous

    test

  • Anonymous

    I simply don’t understand how santorum thinks he can get a majority anywhere — he is not even getting the majority of Catholics.  An article appeared today pointing out how many of them resent his sanctimonious behavior.

  • Anonymous

    Obama SuperPAC Refuses to return Misogynist Maher’s million dollars.

    “But the notion that there is an equivalence between what a comedian has said over the course of his career and what the de facto leader of the Republican Party said to sexually degrade a woman who led in a political debate of our time, is crazy,” he said.

    This is almost too insane, even for Democrats. He admits that Maher has made these comments for years. Watch the video at the link. Un frickin believable!

    • Anonymous

       Limbaugh-the de facto leader of the Republican Party is I’m sure, news to all the Republican leaders.  These people-the Democrats, are absolutely crazy.

      • Anonymous

        The spin on this is amazing. They really think we are stupid. Note how he attempts to change the subject during the interview. I’ll interpret what he says for those with weak stomachs.

        “Well, as you know Andrea, people just don’t want to hear this shit. Yeah, we brought the subject up and that should have been the end of it. What gives these Republican hacks the right to think that anything we have done matters. Misogyny Smisogyny. We’re Democrats and we can get away with waring on women whenever we like. Just ask them. Not a single one thinks anything Bill Maher said is wrong. That’s not demeaning to women. That’s demeaning to Republican women. Who gives a shit. So let’s talk about all the other crap Republicans do. They’re evil you know. They kill babies. No, what a sec, that’s us. Never mind. They are bad people, really bad people.”

        And all the while Mitchell is nodding her bobbling, bleached blond head. “Yes, you are absolutely right.”

  • Anonymous

    On a more lighter note…. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/07/idUS204008+07-Mar-2012+PRN20120307

    Its the pot calling the kettle black….

  • Anonymous

     Go Figure… Michelle Obama Was a #Occupier For Racial Justice While at Harvard

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/go-figure-michelle-obama-was-a-occupier-for-racial-justice-while-at-harvard/

    • Anonymous

      What, getting into Princeton and Harvard Law with Affirmative Action wasn’t enough?? She wanted Affirmative Action for the teaching staff too?? Just how low does she expect standards to drop before “everyone has a chance”?

    • Anonymous

      What, getting into Princeton and Harvard Law with Affirmative Action wasn’t enough?? She wanted Affirmative Action for the teaching staff too?? Just how low does she expect standards to drop before “everyone has a chance”?

  • Anonymous

    why is this not a surprise afghan airforce drug smuggling

    http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre8270du-us-afghanistan-airforce-narcotics/

  • Anonymous

    On another note… This is priceless….

    $1B of TSA Nude Body Scanners Made Worthless By Blog — How Anyone Can Get Anything Past The Scanners
    http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of-nude-body-scanners-made-worthless-by-blog-how-anyone-can-get-anything-past-the-tsas-nude-body-scanners/

    By the way, the metal case would have been picked up by the magnetometers….
     

  • Anonymous

    backtrack and  bunch really do think congress unnecessary .
    first he tells them no money for you and now his people tell them we’ll let you know when we go to war. We will get international approval , yours is not really necessary

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/07/panetta-we-need-international-approval-to-join-a-military-coalition-but-maybe-not-congresss-approval/

    • Anonymous

       Someone should tell him that only Congress can declare war, and without funding it’s hard to keep troops in the field. Guess who holds the purse strings? Congress!! So if Obummer wants to go to war, he can. He just can’t take any of our troops with him.

  • Anonymous

    Reagan, the Republican god was nearly 70 years old when he took office; Romney is 65.  Hmmm.

    On Jan 20, 1981,1-01-20)69-349&10000000000000069000000 – Reagan was 69 years, &10000000000000349000000349 days old.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s Cal Thomas’ advise to Republican after Super Tuesday:

    It’s no mystery, Bob. They’d prefer Ronald
    Reagan. But here’s a bulletin: Reagan is not coming back, and as the old Washington
    Redskins coach George
    Allen used to say, “The future is now.” So Republicans, if they want to win,
    had better get over the past and start thinking about tomorrow. Get behind
    Romney … and push!

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-03-08/super-tuesday-romney-republican-primary/53402452/1

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

    Now about Santorum (and Gingrich).  Maybe it is not such a bad idea to keep them around and continue sharpening up Romney’s skills and vetting on the national stage.  I’m sure this is good.  On the other hand, the idiocy of Santorum is a risk to the party and Romney as they will have to continually do damage control to not be blamed for Santorum.  It is good that Romney really has kept his eyes on Obama as that is who is is ultimately to face and defeat.  If Paul is the crazy uncle, who’s Santorum?

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

       Santroum is the half-wit nephew you send to the basement when company is over.

    • Anonymous

      There are three problems with both Newt and Santorum staying in:  (1) they are giving the Republican brand a bad name; (2) they are diverting attention from the economy and diverting money better spent on the campaign for President; economic issues are the key to a win in November; and (3) they continue to accuse Romney of being a liar and dishonest, which is a scurrilous unfounded attack and is hurting his favorability numbers. 

      • Anonymous

         Great reply jrterrier.  I agree that the Republican brand is being hurt by Newt and Santorum.  The last thing the Republicans should want is a debate on contraception, but with the likes of his holiness, Rick Santorum, that’s what we will continue to get as long as he is in the race.  Romney seems to stick with the economy and that’s what we need to be talking about.  Stop letting the Democrats divert the attention away from the economy.  Too many people have lost their jobs, and their homes in the past few years.  They know the Democrats are blowing sunshine when they tell you things are getting better.  How do you recover from losing you home?  It will take years to get back the money lost.  Even many of the people who still have a job, are working for less than they did a few years ago.  I am sick of the President lecturing us on everything.  If I have to listen to his bs for another four years–God help us all.

      • Anonymous

        They are also endangering Republicans running for the House and Senate.

        GOP fears rough primary could cost it the House and the Senate
        link:  http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/214869-gop-fears-roughprimary-could-cost-it-the-house-and-the-senate

      • Anonymous

        They are also endangering Republicans running for the House and Senate.

        GOP fears rough primary could cost it the House and the Senate
        link:  http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/214869-gop-fears-roughprimary-could-cost-it-the-house-and-the-senate

    • Anonymous

      “That which does not kill us makes us stronger”. Also it would be better for these candidates to make up their minds to leave the campaign on their own. I remember cries from the Obama crowd for Hillary to leave her campaign and it only alienated her supporters more from the Democratic party.

      As far as Santorum is concerned I think it will look good for the Republican party when he and his outdated ideas have been rejected by the party through democratic means.

    • Anonymous

      “sharpening up Romney’s skills and vetting on the national stage. ”

      Romney’s strategy right now is just to outspend and overwhelm. He is not going to be able to do that with a sitting president.

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

    $5 gas?!  Heck, it is already $6 in some places and still going up.  Obama’s talking about this trying to preemptively excuse himself from blame.  While it does not matter much now as the price of gas doesn’t impact whether primary voters choose Romney or one of the two losers, or Paul, once that is settled, gas prices will be a big deal.  It was around $1.61 when Obama became president, now as much as $6 on his watch, even at his administrations hands (if you believe Chu who says raising prices is good). 

    I seriously doubt Obama can avoid blame any more than Carter could in the 70s.  Today we’re talking about at least a 3x increase in fuel prices while the economy has collapsed, millions out of work or under-employed, housing market crashed, etc.  I doubt many people have seen salary increases since Obama took office.  As even Obama said last year, we are worse off.  Obama cannot avoid blame and no one should let him off the hook as this is among the simpliest things to understand–previously spending $10-20 dollars a week for gas, now spending $50-80.  Yep, great job Obama.

    • Anonymous

      First off, the President has zero power to affect the price of gasoline.  Zero, zip, nada.  When Democrats, including Obama, used to rip Bush on it, they were just as wrong as Republicans are now.  Gas prices are driven almost entirely by global demand, and no President can control global demand.  That said…

      The national retail average was $1.84 when Obama took office, and now it’s $3.79 a gallon.  It took a whole 30 seconds on google to prove that you’re not presenting accurate numbers.  Try harder.

      • Anonymous

         Good luck selling that win43.

        • Anonymous

          It’s true, a lot of people are pretty stupid and don’t get it.  That’s why politicians have so much fun shouting about it.

          Sometimes we get the politics we deserve, you know?

          • Anonymous

             I know that the Democrats think that people are stupid that is why we call them elitists.

            But what we want is a president who can fix things not make excuses. Clinton had a similar situation with rising gas prices and he did fix the situation. Clinton also said recently to start the Keystone pipeline. And I think he should open up a few of the drilling leases on public land that his administration has shut down. That  might increase the over all world oil production. This President has done so many things to hamper oil production in this country and the people know he has done so.

            Don’t give me the argument that oil production has increased during his administration because that is because of drilling oil on private lands which are outside of his meddling.

            The American people know that they can’t wait for algae to be developed. And they also know that they have been sold down the river to please a minority of tree huggers.

            If the Democrats believe that the President can’t effect Oil prices why did they blame Bush when the price of gas increased to $4 during his administration. That hasn’t been that long ago surely you can remember that argument. Or is it you just want to get Obama reelected and you don’t care if you tell the truth or not? I suspect the later.

            • Anonymous

              “But what we want is a president who can fix things not make excuses.”

              Who is making excuses?

              As far as fixing things goes, that is all Obama has been doing. Cleaning up the huge mess your GOP buddies left the country in. And you want to vote for these GOP morons who just want to take the country exactly back to the same policies that got this country into the mess that it is in?

              Do you have any idea what you are talking about with regard to oil produciton in the U.S.? It is currently at it highest level since the 1980s and that is while the demand for oil is actually falling in the U.S. and expected to continue to fall.

              There is no need to drill any more than we already are. The U.S. oil industry is not even using all the land and areas that are already open to drilling.

              ” And they also know that they have been sold down the river to please a minority of tree huggers.”

              That is such a complete BS statement. The U.S. energy industry has basically had a free rein to do what it wants in America for decades. They practically wrote energy policy under Bush. The environmentals have had very very little impact on energy policy in this country. If you think otherwise then prove it. And big oil gets some of the biggest government or taxpayer subsidies while making obscene record profits.

              Some former “liberal” you are. You sound like some extreme-right wing nut, who complains about fictional “environmentalists” and wants big corporate energy interests to do what every they want, no matter the harm they reap on the economy and the environment.

            • Anonymous

               So Obama’s green energy campaign strategy can be summed up in the phrase: “Algae in every pond.”

              I suppose that beats the Simpsons’ take: Two cars in every garage and three eyes on every fish.”

              But not by much.

          • Anonymous

            Here’s then-Sen Obama explaining why he would be able to bring gasoline prices down. 

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?N

            • Anonymous

              Yep.  And here’s me, two posts above the one you’re responding to:

              “When Democrats, including Obama, used to rip Bush on it, they were just as wrong as Republicans are now.”

              If Presidents could control gas prices, they’d magically go down every single election year.  But they don’t, because Presidents can’t.  

              That doesn’t stop the electorate from engaging in magical thinking, though.  And it doesn’t stop cynical pols (Obama included, when it suited him) from encouraging the electorate’s ignorance.

      • Anonymous

        That’s not entirely accurate.  The price of gasoline is driven in part by the price of crude oil.  The price of crude oil is driven in part by international events.  The fear of hostilities with Iran has driven up the futures prices of crude.

        So, there are at least two events within the president’s control that can drive the price of crude oil, up or down, and thus the price of gasoline.  One is a source of oil from outside the middleast.  That is why some DEMS are calling for the President to release oil from oil reserves.  Had the president approved the Keystone Pipe Line or approved off shore oil drilling, the price of futures might not have gone up.  Also, had the President been able to address the unrest in the middle east, the price of futures also would not have gone up. 

        • Anonymous

          Drilling is not the answer… We are ready have more rill rigs than anyone else and Keystone was for oil export….

          We need new refineries, new storage farms and a real energy policy using our own resources…..

        • Anonymous

          You are just incredibly ignorant when it comes to oil and gasoline economics.

          Right now the U.S. is doing more drilling, particularly offshore drilling, than it has been doing for decades. In fact there is a huge boom in oil production in the U.S. right now and at the same time the demand for oil in the U.S. is falling. The price of oil has nothing to do with U.S. production. OPEC has far more influence on the price of oil than any production the U.S. does and even OPEC cannot entirely influence the price of oil.

          Second, the Keystone pipeline that would ship oil, primarily for diesel production, from Canada to the Gulf coast for export out of the U.S., would have no impact on the price of gasoline. It is even going to take years to build, so how would that have any impact on the price of gasoline today.

          How is the U.S. going to address the unrest in the Middle East exactly? BS. If it was up to your GOP buddies they would have already been bombing Iran and the price of oil would be at $200 and gasoline would be at $6 a gallon.

          • Anonymous

            Here’s then-Sen Obama explaining why he would be able to bring gasoline prices down. Does that mean he was “just incredibly ingorant when it comes to oil and gasoline economics’?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka_tjPLJwVI&feature=related

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=45aPR9_EIt0&feature=endscreen

            • Anonymous

              It means he was a politician, scoring easy points with an uneducated public made up of people who (like you) believe that Presidents can significantly change gas prices.

              If you want them to stop treating us like fools, we need to stop acting like fools, and stop believing this crap.

      • Anonymous

        What is astounding is that between you and your idiot President you don’t understand that history and facts are not on your side.

        In 2008 crude oil prices shot up rapidly giving us $4/gallon gas by July, 2008. President Bush then lifted the ban on off-shore drilling by executive order.

        Now I hope you can follow a simple mathematical trend and see the impact of just the symbolism of what Bush did. Crude was climbing until Bush’s order and then suddenly it dropped:

        Date               Crude Oil Price
        Feb. 1, 2008      $88.96
        March 7, 2008   $105.15
        April 4, 2008      $106.23
        May 2, 2008      $116.32
        June 6, 2008     $138.54
        June 13, 2008    $134.86
        June 20, 2008    $135.36
        June 27, 2008    $140.21
        July 4, 2008      $145.29
        July 11, 2008     $145.08
        July 18, 2008     $128.88
        July 25, 2008     $123.26
        Aug 1, 2008      $125.10
        Aug 8, 2008      $115.20
        Aug 15, 2008     $113.77
        Aug 22, 2008     $114.59
        Aug 29, 2008     $115.46
        Sept 5, 2008     $106.23
        Sept 12, 2008    $101.18
        Sept 19, 2008    $104.55
        Sept 26, 2008    $106.89
        Oct 3, 2008       $93.88
        Oct 10, 2008     $77.70
        Oct 17, 2008     $71.85
        Oct 24, 2008     $64.15
        Oct 31, 2008     $67.81
        Nov 7, 2008      $61.04
        Nov 14, 2008     $57.04
        Nov 21, 2008     $49.93
        Nov 28, 2008     $54.43
        Dec 5, 2008      $40.81
        Dec 12, 2008     $46.28
        Dec 19, 2008     $42.36
        Dec 26, 2008     $37.71
        Dec 31, 2008     $44.60

        All the anointed one had to do this year was make symbolic gestures that would influence speculators that the U.S. is increasing its oil output. He won’t do it because he wants high gas prices to force his wacko environmental agenda.

        • Anonymous

          You’re making a joke, right?  You must be.

          Do you remember what was happening in the global economy in the latter half of 2008?

          Are you really sure you want to argue that global energy prices dropped in the latter half of 2008 due to a Presidential order expanding access to offshore oil — which would increase global production by 0% in the short term, and less than 1% in the long term — instead of due to the cataclysmic upheaval in global finance going on at the time?  

          Really, that’s your position here?  You want to dig in to that one, or would you rather go ahead and quietly back off now before you embarrass yourself further?

          • Anonymous

            I guess reading is a challenge for you. Oil prices began to reverse and drop just one week after Bush announced his order. Like most libs, your arguments are based on deception and even lies with lots of smoke and mirrors. Like I said, facts are inconvenient truths for your lies and deception.

            • Anonymous

              Hahaha, so I see we’re going to go with “dig in”…

              Go back to that NYSE website where you got that price list: http://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htm

              On March 31, 2010, Barack Obama announced an expansion of offshore oil drilling.  In each of the next three weeks,** the price was HIGHER than before he made that “symbolic gesture” (in the third week, the BP oil spill started, although price still didn’t move much).  Yet according to you, symbolic announcements should send the price plummeting!  Huh.  I guess magic hand-waving doesn’t actually do anything.

              You know what DOES do something to commodity prices?  Global fucking financial panic.

              I don’t mind arguing with you, but you need to make better points.

              **In the fourth week, the BP oil spill began.  While it did not have a measurable effect on prices, I didn’t want to leave you that as an “out.”  Because no doubt you’ll grasp any straws you can at this point, because your argument is such shit.

              • Anonymous

                Hokma as usual is in over his/her head. You are arguing with someone who gets all of their information and thought likely from FOX News, NQ and any number of ridiculous websites.

                • Anonymous

                  you and your alter ego winnie have no idea what you aere talking about and just waste time spouting Obama talking points.

              • Anonymous

                Hey Schitzo (also PPAA)

                The difference is that Bush actually did remove barriers to off shore drilling. Obama’s orders are smoke and mirrors. With limited space and the knowledge that you will come back with more BS I am not inclined to explain why what you claim Obama did was B.S. which only simpleton libs like you believe.

                • Anonymous

                  But I thought the “symbolic gesture” was all that was needed!  LOL, you’re just wonderfully full of shit.  Thanks for playing.

                  • Anonymous

                    Symbolic and credible. Obama is a BS

    • Anonymous

      Can not compare the two Carter/Obama… Two very different situations. While there are so many people to blame for the high cost of gas its not funny. From OPEC to State taxes to speculators to the auto industry, the lack of a energy policy, a republican/democratic overspending congress to the decline of the US dollar and the world economy going into the dumper. http://crudeoiltradertv.blogspot.com/2012/02/former-shell-oil-president-john.html

      The calls for drill…drill..drill…. are also bullshit. We have more drill rigs than another other nations on this planet… http://www.chron.com/business/article/U-S-oil-gusher-blows-out-projections-3341919.php and http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2012/02/28/fmr-shell-oil-president-us-needs-use-our-own-resources

      What we really need are new refineries and storage farms, besides a real energy policy!

      Then we can even confound ourselves with this … http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1

      Just like the Keystone pipeline…Which is for oil EXPORT not our consumption….

      So, who’s fault is all of this? Its our fault we continue to send the same idiots to Washington every election proving Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity…   “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”….

      • Anonymous

        We do not need new refineries. We have plenty of refining capacity in the U.S. In fact, in 2011 the U.S. for the first time began exporting refined gasoline. The demand for oil and gasoline in the U.S. has actually been falling.

        The price of oil is set in world markets. There is very little the U.S. government can do to impact the price of oil. Right now the high price of gas or at least the last $20 or $30 of the price of a barrel of oil likely reflects geopolitical risk, particularly regarding Iran. As that goes away, the price of oil and gasoline will fall again. It always does.

        • Anonymous

          PA! Your becoming boring and very intellectually dishonest with the talking points. We do not have enough refining capability nor storage.

          Now I suppose yo know more than the former President of Shell Oil.

          If you do not understand the business then get informed. You have the right to an informed opinion but not a right to ignorance….

          http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_dcu_nus_a.htm

          http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTPUPUS2&f=M

          http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/

          Lets see we produce some 17+ million bbls daily and use some 20.687 million barrels…. Just our daily gasoline usage is some 9.2 million barrels. This is part of the problem not the entire problem, but part of it…So give it a break PA!

          • Anonymous

            You do not make a lot of sense. And are confused in your response.

            What point are you trying to make? Are you making the point that the increase in the price of gasoline is because we do not have enough refining capacity in the U.S. Then how do you explain exactly the same ups and down in the price of gasoline in other countries as in the U.S.? See chart below.

            http://beerbarrelpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/gas-prices-global.jpg

            Are you saying that the U.S. could refine more oil, converting it into gasoline regardless of the price?
             
            Yes, that may be the case, but that is not the reason why the price of gasoline in the U.S. has gone up and down with the global price of oil. However, there is a reason refineries have been closed and no new ones have been built in the U.S. in recent years. And also refining capacity utilization currently at about 87% is quite low and has not been this low for 20 years. The refinery utilization rate has been falling since 2000. How can you say we need more refining capacity when its utilization rate has been falling for 10 years?

            http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MOPUEUS2&f=M

            By the way we have 17.7 million of refining capacity in the U.S. and that is at the highest level in 30 years (even though the demand of gasoline has been falling), while at the same time, as I say above, refining operations or utilization remains at a historic low level. We likely have too much refinery capacity.

            “U.S. oil refining capacity increased to its highest level in nearly three decades during 2010, but refining operations remain well below historical highs seen in the 1990s, the Energy Information Administration said Wednesday.”

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/usa-oil-refineries-idUSN1E75S21D20110629

            You then quote production and usage numbers of oil in the U.S. I am not sure why you do that and what that has to do with anything, as you do not explain yourself. Yes, the U.S. uses more oil than it produces. Great. Everyone knows that. What is your point? By the way for the first time in 2011 the U.S. became a net exporter of oil.

            • Anonymous

              Point I was making to Weaver….

              You cannot blame “just” the president….

              Production and Capacity to refine is a major player in the cost of petroleum products. Besides the many other issues that drives the price of oil and gasoline.

              We actually import about a million and a half bbls a day more than we need and export about 1 million bbls in finish product because gasoline demand is falling and no one wants to close a refinery! You know lose more jobs??

              That is the real reason for the export spike….

              We do not currently produce enough oil and gasoline here to meet our energy demands. For the sake of this argument. I was using USG numbers but I have seen US crude oil production numbers as low as 5.7 million barrels per day. So it is actually both a production and finishing issue.

              Now let also factor seasonal grades and in the spring time  is also refinery maintenance time and so production is very effected. By May they are back to full production. Lets not mention that the growing energy demand can in many cases out pace refinery capacity. We need to build  two new refineries at a minimum as well as tap more of our oil reserves! But unless we can finish that crude product drilling is just meaningless… IMO…

              But lets not remember what the real cost of gasoline is from the refiners and how “we” meaning everything else, federal, state and local taxes and “fees” including environmental fees (which are one of the biggest drivers of cost per gallon here in the states) add to that speculation, world market issues, lack of a sound energy plan, fear and greed and you have a world of hurt at the pump!

              The point is…..Its just not the world market as a driver. Yes NO president has any control over the market. But he can alleviate some of it …

              1.Reduce our vulnerability to speculation ..

              2. Focus on using more of our own resources…

              3. Cut back on some of the stupid environmental issues that hamper refineries and auto manufactures. We do have the technology to keep oil production safe and clean.

              4. Reduce the tax and fees on oil production as well as the new increase in royalty rates on new leases.

              5. Get real on alternative fuel. How about pulling a JFK go to the moon by decades end on alternative fuels?

              6. Build more refineries and storage capacities…

              Just for starters…..

              • Anonymous

                End of the day U.S. consumers still pay some of the lowest prices for gasoline on the planet, so what exactly are people complaining about.

                1. Yes, speculation is a problem, as there is no way the volatility in the price of oil is reflected by such quick changes in supply and demand, which takes years to develop. Obama announced a day ago a reconstitution of the oil speculatioin taskforce.

                2. Focusing more on our own resources will not impact the price of gasoline or world price of oil, which sets the price in the U.S. Producers here will just sell their oil overseas to get the highest price. Given that we are currently at the highest levels of production since the 1980s, we are already doing a good job at focusing on our own resources.

                3. I do not see any stupid environmetal regulations. There is certainly nothing material that is holding the energy or auto industry back. The energy industry has had many many years of record profits and energy production is at record levels, so, Boy, those environmental regulations are really having such a bad impact on the energy industry.

                4. Royalty rates in the U.S. are amongst the lowest on the planet. If anything, they should be increased, given the record profits in the oil industry and our federal and state fiscal deficits.

                5. I agree we should get real on alternative energy, but as long as natural gas, coal and gasoline remain cheap in the U.S. you can only go so far. We need to consider all the costs of these fussel fuels in their costs. Cap and trade would have helped to do that.

                6. The industry will build more refineries and storage if it needs it. So far operating refiners in the U.S. has been a good way to lose money. Oil and gasoline demand in the U.S. is expected to continue to fall, particularly as new fuel emmission standards kick in, so hard to say we need more industry capacity.

                Obama has actually had a very good record when it comes to the energy sector. The energy sector has never had it so good.

              • Anonymous

                1. How?
                2. No short term effect; limited long term impact (less than 1% of price, per studies).3. No short term effect; which “stupid” things in particular should be changed?4. Illogical: tax rates on gasoline have not changed, so you cannot claim that taxes are responsible for rising prices.

                5. Good idea, but no short term effect.

                6. No short term effect; very arguable that these are actually needed anyway.

                See, it’s very easy for you to spout a bunch of lines put out by the oil lobby, but much harder for you to point to concrete actions that would lead to concrete changes in price, back by actual data.  

                And that’s because such data doesn’t exist, because Congress and the President have little to no control over gas prices.

                • Anonymous

                   1. Enforce Dodd/Franks and position limits.

                  2. Its called the futures market my friend….

                  3. Emissions…impact studies just to name a few…and then actually do enforcement…
                  4. BULLSHIT taxes are a problem especially on the state and local level.

                  5. Who cares about short term effects? Its about long term!

                  The biggest short term issue is SPECULATION and FEAR!

                  Its not about supply and demand…

        • Anonymous

          By the way PA, you seem to know just about everything about anything! You that well read? Maybe you should be working on staff for your for Obama… Rather than just spouting off bullshit spin….

          • Anonymous

            Maybe he could use that job for Obama as a springboard to better things. Like so many Obama bunglers bundle-rs have done.


            The Influence Industry: Obama gives administration jobs to some big fundraisers

            link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-influence-industry-obama-gives-administration-jobs-to-some-big-fundraisers/2012/03/06/gIQA9y3txR_story.html?hpid=z2

            This was found, to my surprise, in the Washington Post. An entity that once in a while, occasionally, sometimes, once in a blue moon, remembers that it’s supposed to be a “news”paper.

          • Anonymous

            What am I saying that is bullshit spin? Please explain?

            Easy to say that, but why don’t actually tell me where you disagree? And then back it up with some facts to show that I am wrong.

            Otherwise you just sound like a child in a school yard.

    • Anonymous

      How about you go back a few years with your chart? It would show a much higher price of gasoline under Bush and pre-recession. Obviously when Obama became President we were sliding into a big global recession and the price of oil went down because of that recession. So the price of gasoline was low when Obama took over. As we have been coming out of this recession the price of gasoline has just reverted back to where it was before the recession and reflected economic growth and the corresponding increase in the demand for oil. The last few months and the recent spike in the price of oil has largely reflected the geopolitical risks largely around Iran. None of this has to do with Obama. The U.S. government does not set the price of oil.

      This is just basic oil economics. I suggest you spend a little more time learning about oil economics before you comment. You can start by just Googling “what impacts the price of oil” and find a good objective article and read it.

      Here is a chart for you. How do you explain the price of gasoline going up in all other countries similar to the U.S.? How possibly can Obama be at fault when the price of gasoline goes up exactly the same in different countries where Obama has zero policy impact?

      http://beerbarrelpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/gas-prices-global.jpg

      • Anonymous

         5 Ways Government Could Cut Gasoline Prices Quickly

        Taxes. The most obvious government-imposed costs are state and
        federal taxes and fees. Combined, these average 45.7 cents a gallon (the
        federal portion is 18.4 cents). New Yorkers pay the highest rate, at a
        combined 67.4 cents a gallon. California and Connecticut tie for second
        at 67 cents. Alaska is lowest at 26.4 cents, according to the Tax Foundation.

        The weak dollar. Several analysts note that the Fed’s devaluation of
        the dollar has led to higher oil prices, which in turn is adding as much
        as 56 cents per gallon, according to the congressional Joint Economic Committee.

        “From the first day the Fed began engaging in quantitative easing
        back in early 2008, the impact on gas prices has been profound,” noted
        Eric Parnell, an economics professor at West Chester University, in a recent blog post.
        “What is even more irksome is that much of this rise in gasoline prices
        has occurred during a time when gasoline consumption has been falling.
        Have the laws of supply and demand been repealed? No, they’ve just been
        severely distorted by policy action.”

        Boutique fuels. Thanks to federal and state rules, there are about 18
        separate gasoline markets in the country, each with specific
        requirements about what can and can’t be in their gasoline, mainly to
        deal with local air quality issues. But the result is higher gasoline
        prices.

        A Government Accountability Office report
        found that “the proliferation of special gasoline blends has made it
        more complicated to supply gasoline and has raised costs.” Refiners also
        have to switch each season between summer and winter blends, which
        boosts costs.

        Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., has offered up a Boutique Fuel Reduction Act that would give the EPA more flexibility to waive these local fuel rules.

        Environmental rules. In addition to creating local blends, refiners
        must also meet a long list of costly environmental rules. In late 1999,
        for example, the EPA required refiners to drastically cut the amount of
        sulfur in gasoline and diesel, which cost the industry almost $5 billion
        upfront and $1.5 billion each year to meet, according to the agency.

        http://news.investors.com/article/603626/201203080802/5-ways-government-could-cut-gasoline-prices-now.htm

        • Anonymous

          So let me get this straight… you think the way to lower gas prices is to cut gasoline taxes?

          Great.. so what are you going to do to offset the increase in the deficit from the tax cut?

          The U.S. already pays the lowest taxes on its gasoline than most of our peers in the OECD. How much lower do you want to go?

          The dollar has been consistently weakening for more than 12 years. It has generally not been correlated to the price of oil and gasoline. The dollar has actually been strengthening recently while the price of gasoline has been going up. So how do you figure that has happened? So you want to increase the value of the dollar. Great and what about the offset of that further weakening our trade balance of exports making our exporters less competitive.

          Great lets get rid of all of our local (I thought the GOP was for less federal power) and environment laws so we can just lower the price of gasoline a little bit.

          That is a completely ridiculous article that provides zero quantitative facts or analysis. Even if we did all of that, how much would it impact the price of gasoline.

          • Anonymous

             Sorry. I didn`t realize you know more than this investors site.

            You sure are full of yourself.

            • Anonymous

              John Merline at Investor’s Business Daily is a moron. His ideas in that post are completely stupid and tell us absolutely nothing.

        • Anonymous

          So let me get this straight… you think the way to lower gas prices is to cut gasoline taxes?

          Great.. so what are you going to do to offset the increase in the deficit from the tax cut?

          The U.S. already pays the lowest taxes on its gasoline than most of our peers in the OECD. How much lower do you want to go?

          The dollar has been consistently weakening for more than 12 years. It has generally not been correlated to the price of oil and gasoline. The dollar has actually been strengthening recently while the price of gasoline has been going up. So how do you figure that has happened? So you want to increase the value of the dollar. Great and what about the offset of that further weakening our trade balance of exports making our exporters less competitive.

          Great lets get rid of all of our local (I thought the GOP was for less federal power) and environment laws so we can just lower the price of gasoline a little bit.

          That is a completely ridiculous article that provides zero quantitative facts or analysis. Even if we did all of that, how much would it impact the price of gasoline.

      • Anonymous

        Almost 70 percent of the price of gasoline comes from the price of crude oil. Excise taxes, refining costs, and retail/distribution make up the balance.
         
        Gas prices have been higher under Obama than during Bush for a number of reasons. Obama has spent his entire administration making excises without having a credible policy.
         
        The upward pressure from rising use in China and India have been going on for many years and well before the Obama administration, so that is a weak excuse. He has used the excuse of natural disasters, the BP oil disaster, and the middle east uprisings and tensions. He cannot say that our demand is too high because it has been reduced because of the ongoing bad economy and a warmer than average winter.
         
        Obama claims that we have increased oil production in the U.S. but the dirty little secret is that he has nothing to do with that. The increase is a result of increased production on private lands in North Dakota, Texas, and Alaska. On federal lands and offshore, production could have yielded more output, increasing supply and therefore putting downward pressure on oil prices. But Obama refused to open areas to exploration and production, he cancelled or delayed lease sales, and the offshore drilling moratorium significantly reduced oil production.
         
        Obama uses the excuse that the U.S. only has 2% of the world’s oil reserves. That is a falsehood. Although we have only 20 billion barrels of oil in reserves, the amount of oil that can be recovered in the U.S. is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, which includes offshore, Alaska, and shale in the Rocky Mountains.
         
        Increasing oil production takes too long and would not impact the market for at least a decade. While that is true the price of crude is based on futures – not today – and the speculation of where oil will go. Why is this important? If Saudi Arabia has a barrel of oil today and looks at the market and sees that crude prices are increasing, they may let it sit and wait for a higher price and thereby push supply down. If the oil futures market sees significant efforts to increase supply by the U.S., then that will move prices down.
         
        Then there are the massive regulations and unwieldy review processes imposed at the behest of the environmental nuts that are limiting exploration, production and refining. Ever wonder why so many gas stations have gone out of business since Obama took office?
         
        While Obama does want higher gas prices to force us off fossil fuel (which RFK Jr. called “energy from hell”) and move to green energy, the effects of these very high gas prices will force another recession. Energy costs effect every single line item of a company’s costs and the increases we are seeing were not anticipated and therefore companies will be forced to scale back costs elsewhere – including employment.
         
        Obama’s all-of-the -bove policy is bullshit. The only “above” for Obama are wind farms, solar, and batteries – and all we has seen is one failure there after another. He is opposed to natural gas, oil drilling, and nuclear. I am not sure he is in favor of biofuel either. This is way over Obama’s paygrade and is one of a number of reasons he will not be re-elected.

        • Anonymous

          Another completely ridiculous and nonsensical post by you.
           
          “Gas prices have been higher under Obama than during Bush for a number of reasons.”
          Actually the average price of gasoline during Bush’s second term was $2.77 and under Obama so far is $2.99 or 8% higher, so not that much of a difference. Here is the raw data. Do your own math:
           
          http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=w
           
          “He cannot say that our demand is too high because it has been reduced because of the ongoing bad economy and a warmer than average winter.”
           
          Actually, the price of gasoline fell to a low at the beginning of Obama term because we were in a huge global recession and the price has largely moved higher as the global economy has recovery.  The global economy is better since 2009, so the price of oil has been rising as global demand has returned.
           
          “Obama claims that we have increased oil production in the U.S.”
           
          Oil production in the U.S. is currently booming. It has not been this high since the 1980s. Look it up.
           
          “But Obama refused to open areas to exploration and production, he cancelled or delayed lease sales, and the offshore drilling moratorium significantly reduced oil production.”
           
          You sound like you are reading from the script of the Petroleum Institute. The reality is that not only is the oil and energy industry currently booming with record production levels, but that they have plenty of untapped reserves, lands and offshore areas that are available to them and they can tap if they want. The oil industry is not even using anywhere near all the available reserve areas they could be using if they want to. There is no problem with getting access to the reserves that are available. If you do not think so then prove it.
           
          “…drilling moratorium significantly reduced oil production.”
           
          The temporary deep water drilling moratorium impacted only 33 drill sites out of the 3,600 in the Gulf of Mexico and had almost no impact on U.S. oil production, never mind the global price of oil.
           
          “Obama uses the excuse that the U.S. only has 2% of the world’s oil reserves.”
           
          What excuse are you talking about? Complete BS. Yes, the U.S. only has about 2% of the world’s reserves and we are doing a very good job at exploiting those reserves, as we are 11% of total global production.
           
          “While that is true the price of crude is based on futures – not today – and the speculation of where oil will go. Why is this important?”
           
          You have no idea how oil futures work. Oil futures give us an idea of what people think the price of oil might be in a few months or a year from now. Those futures are not impacted by oil projects that take years to develop. The spot price or future price of oil is not really influenced by an oil project that will not be producing for another 5 years.
           
          “there are the massive regulations and unwieldy review processes imposed at the behest of the environmental nuts that are limiting exploration, production and refining..”
           
          Again you sound like the Petroleum Institute. Boy, those “environmental nuts” had so much influence when the oil industry was actually in the room writing energy policy under Bush. The truth is the energy industry in the country has and continues to have a free rein in pretty much doing whatever they want. The environmental groups have largely had no or very little influence.  If you think differently, then prove it.
           
          “While Obama does want higher gas prices…”
           
          Yeah. Obama wants higher gas price during an election year. That makes sense.
           
          “Energy costs effect every single line item of a company’s costs and the increases we are seeing were not anticipated and therefore companies will be forced to scale back costs elsewhere – including employment.”
           
          Actually energy costs overall or on average have not really gone up, as the increased cost of oil has been offset by current record low prices for natural gas.
           
          “…wind farms, solar, and batteries – and all we has seen is one failure there after another.”
           
          That statement is a completely false. The percentage of renewable energy use in the U.S. has been growing fairly rapidly. There have been huge advances in the technology and the costs.
           
          “He is opposed to natural gas, oil drilling, and nuclear.”
           
          Again, another BS statement. Obama is so opposed to natural gas and oil drilling that the U.S. is currently producing natural gas and oil at record levels. How does that work? Obama is so against nuclear that he signed-off on government backed loans to build the first nuclear power plant in America since the 1970s.
           
          I will ask you the same question that I have asked several on here:
           
          how do you explain that the price of gasoline has gone up and own exactly the same in many other countries, as it has in the U.S. where Obama has no policy influence? How do you explain this chart if it is all Obama’s fault?
           
          http://beerbarrelpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/gas-prices-global.jpg

          • Anonymous

            Peddle your left wing garbage somewhere where it might be more appreciated.

            • Anonymous

              That is your response? Good stuff.

              Why don’t you answer the question I ask at the bottom of my comment?

              Crickets….

              • Anonymous

                Gas price trends are all based on worldwide crude oil and so price trends would be the same everywhere.. So what? You really are not very smart.

                • Anonymous

                  So if gas prices move the same everywhere then how possibly can higher gas prices be Obama fault when his policies do not apply in other countries?

                  • Anonymous

                    Because there are only a few countries who can have a major affect on influencing worldwide prices and we are one of them.

          • Anonymous

             Obama claims that we have increased oil production in the U.S.”

            Thanks to the previous administration.

            YOU look it up.

        • Anonymous

          That’s 100% nonsense.

          “The upward pressure from rising use in China and India have been going on for many years and well before the Obama administration.”

          You’re exactly right.  For example, remember the summer of 2008 when the average was well over $4 a gallon?  You’re acting like gas prices now are higher than ever, which they simply aren’t.  The long-term trends in global demand persist.  It’s bizarre that you point this out, and then turn on a dime and blame Obama for it.

          “He cannot say that our demand is too high because it has been reduced because of the ongoing bad economy and a warmer than average winter.”

          Now you’re exactly wrong.  GLOBAL demand has increased along with GLOBAL economic activity.  This includes a decent uptick in the US in the last few months, but we’re not the whole story.

          As for the rest, you admit out of one side of your mouth that taking steps to increase supply would have zero short term effect… then out of the other side of your mouth you say that the market would push prices down if the U.S. opened up more production (production which is already at an all-time high, by the way).  So which is it?

          Then there’s this gem:

          “Then there are the massive regulations and unwieldy review processes imposed at the behest of the environmental nuts that are limiting exploration, production and refining. Ever wonder why so many gas stations have gone out of business since Obama took office?”  

          I’m sorry, what the holy hell do review regulations on exploration for drilling crude have to do with the strength of retail gasoline sales in a recession?  That’s like saying Borders went out of business because of delays in issuing logging permits.

          Your comment might be the most inane thing anybody has said in the comments to this post (non-birther division).  And that’s saying something.

          • Anonymous

            I said our demand – meaning U.S. demand only – and his has been down.

            The point is that the argument that it takes years to extract oil has nothing to do with the price of oil. The price of crude is based on futures which can change for the better quickly simply based on the knowledge that the U.S. will increase its oil output which Obama is not inclined to do.

            he massive regulations and reviews imposed by Obama have either stopped or delayed further exploration and production. These have been issues for about 3 years. Where have you been?

            If you have a clue about even the most rudimentary askpects of this subject you wouldn’t make such ignorant comments.

            • Anonymous

              “The massive regulations and reviews imposed by Obama have either stopped or delayed further exploration and production. These have been issues for about 3 years.”

              Sorry, that’s simply false.  Domestic oil production has expanded every year he has been President.  In 2011, the U.S. issued more new oil leases than were issued in 2003… when Texas oilman GWB was president.

              Huh.

              • Anonymous

                Stop lying PPAA.

                • Anonymous

                  Who are you talking to?  If it’s to me, what did I say that is a lie?

                  • Anonymous

                    Hokma is rather confused. Once Hokma is made to look like an idiot it becomes “you lie” or name calling.

                  • Anonymous

                    because you are one in the same person.

  • Anonymous

    Yet another “green” energy program bites the dust.

    Demand could not keep up with supply, so BPA shut down the wind farms for nearly 200 hours over 38 days.
     

    “It’s the one system in the world where in real time, moment to moment, you have to produce as much energy as is being consumed,” BPA spokesman Doug Johnson said of the renewable energy.

    Now, Bonneville is offering to compensate wind companies for half their lost revenue. The bill could reach up to $50 million a year.

    The extra payout means energy users will eventually have to pay more. 

    “We require taxpayers to subsidize the production of renewable energy, and now we want ratepayers to pay renewable energy companies when they lose money?” asked Todd Myers, director of the Center for the Environment of the Washington Policy Center and author of “Eco-Fads: How the Rise of Trendy environmentalism is Harming the Environment.”

    “That’s a ridiculous system that keeps piling more and more money into a system that’s unsustainable,” Myers said.

    Another fine example of Obama’s misguided “green” energy program. Does this guy even have a clue how not to waste money? Our money? I wonder how much it would cost to pay Obama not to run? It’s a viable solution to our energy problems. And so many others.

    • Anonymous

        “I wonder how much it would cost to pay Obama not to run?”

      Tell him he can keep his campaign fund, and watch how fast he heads out the door, off to live with the 1%. I always said that the reason he decided to run for president was Clintons’ $100 million earned after they left the WH. His announcement to run came a month or two after the press ran a bunch of stories on the Clintons’ worth. Offer him the money and all you will see is the dust trail from his rapid exit.

      • Anonymous

         He’s already told the Congressional Dems that they are on their own. He is keeping all of “his” cash. Suckas.

        • Anonymous

          That is not what I meant. The campaign fund can only be spent on a campaign. I meant tell him he can take it home with him to Chicago as his personal fortune if he resigns, or declines to run again. That would get him out in a heartbeat. Chicago style in reverse.. pay to NOT play.

          • Anonymous

            I know what you meant and I agree with you. Perhaps we should start a fundraiser and see if he’ll go along and get out before the coming embarrassment.

            • Anonymous

               oh I want to see him embarrassed     lol     .

        • Anonymous

          That is not what I meant. The campaign fund can only be spent on a campaign. I meant tell him he can take it home with him to Chicago as his personal fortune if he resigns, or declines to run again. That would get him out in a heartbeat. Chicago style in reverse.. pay to NOT play.

  • Anonymous

    There is nothing that a Santorum alliance would offer Romney. He’s more of the same and much too radical to be anywhere near the White House. Smart money is on a Hispanic VP pick. Martinez and Rubio should be considered.

  • Anonymous

    There is nothing that a Santorum alliance would offer Romney. He’s more of the same and much too radical to be anywhere near the White House. Smart money is on a Hispanic VP pick. Martinez and Rubio should be considered.

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

       Santorum is a liability — hell, Santorum liability right now as people are already associating the entire party (including Romney) with his batshit social conservative “values.”

      • Anonymous

         You nailed that one.

    • Anonymous

      I agree re Rubio or Martinez.  My only concern with them is that they are untested on the national stage and the same press that sees Biden’s gaffes as endearing will be waiting to tear them apart.  Wish they were out on the road right now a little bit more testing the waters.

      • Anonymous

         Who might you suggest? Portman is a possibility but he does nothing to help Romney except in Ohio. It might help “rally the base” but would do little to bring in Moderates and Independents.

      • Anonymous

        ” the same press that sees Biden’s gaffes as endearing will be waiting to tear them apart.

        Couldn’t that be perceived a racism or do liberals get a pass on that ?

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

      No way on Rubio–an anchor baby no more constitutionally qualified than Obama.  Don’t know enough about Martinez to comment.*  I read elsewhere today suggestions for Huckabee.  He’d be fine with me.  Anyway, I trust that Romney will pick a good VP that serves his purpose–he’s not the type that’d pick a Dan Quayle or a Sarah Palin.

      * Besides, I do not buy the ‘need’ for an Hispanic candidate.  Haven’t we suffered enough affirmative action with Obama?!  Nor, does pandering to Hispanics help as, from my perspective, most areas of the country are inundated with illegal Hispanic aliens that can’t vote anyway.  How about letting Romney just pick the best?

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

         Please, Matthew, you have to stop with the “anchor baby” meme. It is infuriatingly wrong, so I’m going to do something I don’t normally do. I’m going to post a wall of text on it.

        The Constitutional requirement is clearly: BORN in the United States. It doesn’t matter if your parents were BORN here or not. Specifically:

        US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

        No person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this
        Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither
        shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained
        to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident
        within the United States.

        Natural born citizen is defined by Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States
        at birth:”

        Anyone born inside the United States *Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen
        of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the
        tribeAny one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens
        of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and
        lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S.
        nationalAny one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in
        the U.S. for at least one yearAny one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be
        determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age
        21Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as
        long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for
        at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this
        time)A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien
        father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

        * The “anyone born inside of the United States” clearly applies to Rubio and any of these other so-called “anchor babies” that you are trying to present as NOT being US citizens — they are. The ONLY exception to a person who is actually born on US soil is that it only applies to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction of the US.” These means children of diplomats born in the U.S. are not natural born citizens, but illegal aliens, and certainly their so-called “anchor babies” are CLEARLY subject to the jurisdiction of the US, unless there is some kind of “illegal alien immunity” of which I’m unaware. (FYI — That last part is snark).

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

          You miss the point, anchor baby or not, Rubios parents were NOT U.S. citizens. The didn’t become citizens until something like 1974. Further, Rubio lied about his background, claiming they came as Castro refugees even though they came years earlier. Yes, he’s born in the U.S., qualifies to be Senator, but with NEITHER parent a citizen, he’s not natural born citizen.

          And as someone who has criticized Obama’s qualifications, even his citizenship, I am not going to play a different tune for Republicans.

          • Anonymous

            You have a crazy-person definition of “natural born citizen,” then, and it is not relevant to anybody outside of a small, strange fringe.  Have fun with that.

            • Anonymous

               I am glad that you recognize that this is a fringe belief. Cause I sure don’t share it. Nor most sensible people.

          • Anonymous

            You have a crazy-person definition of “natural born citizen,” then, and it is not relevant to anybody outside of a small, strange fringe.  Have fun with that.

          • Anonymous

            I think this is the scenario.  the parents came to USA before Castro came to power; returned to Cuba after Castro took over, and then returned permanently to USA after they had a taste of Castro.  So, yes, they came to USA as Castro “refugees.”

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

            With all due respect, you are really missing the point — a person born inside the US is all that is required for him to be a US citizen regardless of his parent’s citizenship status at the time of his birth. The citizenship of that person’s parents is IRRELEVANT. If you are born within the US, you are a US citizen.
            You are confusing the “born inside the United States” part of Title 8 with the other parts concerning people born outside of the United States whose parent(s) are citizens of the US. The conditions of Title 8 are SEPARATE and not dependent on one another (i.e., the “born inside the United States condition to be a “natural born citizens” stands alone).
            I don’t know how much clearer I can be on this. The citizenship of Rubio’s parents is irrelevant — he was born on US soil — he is a natural born citizen & eligible under Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution to be POTUS.

            • Anonymous

              This birtherism and anchor baby redux is political suicide.

          • Anonymous

             READ the Constitution!

          • Anonymous

             

            “The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service
            has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion
            indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution
            or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,”
            including any child born “in” the United States, even to alien parents
            (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of
            United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one
            citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.[1]

            http://wiki.ask.com/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

        • Anonymous

           Thanks. It would be nice if you could edit it to make it easier to read but the wall effect has it’s value.

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

             I edited again just for you. :-)

            • Anonymous

               Bummer. It might be a DISQUS thing cause I had that happen to me once too.

      • Anonymous

        Matthew by your definition isn’t Romney also not a “natural born” citizen?  Wasn’t George Romney born in Mexico? 

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

          No, Romney’s parents were both U.S. citizens, big difference.  Neither of Rubio’s parent’s were U.S. citizens, just as Obama’s bigamist drunkard dad was a Kenyan and British citizen.  Plus, in Obama’s case his mom appeared to later to give up his citizenship upon his adoption and move to  Indonesia, likely even attended school as foreign citizen, etc.

          • Anonymous

            Sigh.

            Your parents don’t have to be U.S. citizens for you to be a natural born citizen.  They really don’t.  Sorry, move on.

            A parent cannot renounce a child’s citizenship on the child’s behalf.  So whatever Barack Obama’s mother did when she married an Indonesian man, stripping Obama of American citizenship was not included.  Sorry, move on.

            Birtherism won’t die, it just mutates…

            [edited for typo]

            • Anonymous

               See, we do agree on some things.

            • Anonymous

               Agreed.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

              But he was legally adopted by a foreign national and therefore given Indonesian citizenship.

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

            I responded to you below –please see it. You are so wrong on this. Born INSIDE the United States is different from being born OUTSIDE the United States. The citizenship of a person’s parents ONLY comes into play when he/she is born OUTSIDE of the United States. If a person is born INSIDE the United States the citizenship of his/her parents is IRRELEVANT.

            • Anonymous

              It’s called The Constitution of the United States of America.

              In my opinion, it should be required reading, including stringent tests, for every school child BEFORE they are required to give The Pledge of Allegiance.

              Shouldn’t they understand what they are pledging allegiance to first?

      • Anonymous

        Maybe because it will hurt the GOP if once again all women and minorities see are two damn white MEN on the ticket.

        We are a diverse country and we would like to see that the GOP knows that. It also makes it harder for the left to smear the Republicans as against women and minorities if one is on their ticket. Martinez fills the bill for both.

        And I really resent your implication that Susanna Martinez, the Governor of New Mexico and Marco Rubio are “affirmative action” candidates. That is both demeaning and untrue.

      • Anonymous

         Rubio was born in the United States. Our federal law states that that makes him a US citizen. According to our Constitution that makes him legally qualified to become President.

        Let’s not denigrate someone entitled by law to be a citizen. If you have issues with the law then address them legislatively. Don’t condemn someone for something they did not create.

        I’m not pandering Hispanics or practicing affirmative action. It’s called smart politics. I’m in it to win it.

        most areas of the country are inundated with illegal Hispanic aliens
        that can’t vote anyway.  How about letting Romney just pick the best?

        They have been voting for a long time now. That is why the Dems bend over backwards to accuse anyone that proposes a sensible immigration plan from the Republican side as a racist.

      • Anonymous

        I don’t understand why you call Rubio an “anchor baby”. My understanding of anchor baby is when a pregnant mother comes to the US for the express purpose of gaining US citizenship for the baby therefore using the babies birth as a oportunity to stay in this country. Marcos parents came from Cuba and were therefore granted asylum in the US and their stay here here was perfectly legal. How can Marco Rubio be properly termed an Anchor baby.  

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

           Terming Rubio an “anchor baby” is the least of the problems with the logic of anyone who thinks a person who is actually born on US soil is somehow not a “natural born citizen” regardless of the citizenship status of his parents at the time of his birth INSIDE the US.

          • Anonymous

            I think that the only qualification to the article is if the parents are foreign diplomats then the child does not get  citizenship.

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

         I’m re-posting my previous comment. Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution states:

        “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this
        Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither
        shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained
        to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident
        within the United States.”

        Title 8 of the US Code, Section 1401 defines defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States
        at birth:”

        Anyone born inside the United States *Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen
        of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the
        tribeAny one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens
        of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and
        lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S.
        nationalAny one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in
        the U.S. for at least one yearAny one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be
        determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age
        21Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as
        long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for
        at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this
        time)A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien
        father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

        These conditions are INDIVIDUAL & not dependent on one another. For a person born INSIDE the United States, the citizenship of his/her parents are irrelevant, unless in the very narrow exception of those with diplomatic immunity, because diplomatic immunity means not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Illegal aliens ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the US. 

        People seem to be confusing being born INSIDE the US with those who are born OUTSIDE the US to parent(s) who are US citizens. BIG DIFFERENCE. If you are born ON US soil you are a citizen at birth. The ONLY time the citizenship of one’s parents comes into play is if a person is born OUTSIDE of the US.

        Rubio was born INSIDE the US — in Florida. The citizenship status of his parents at the time of his birth is IRRELEVANT. He meets the very first condition to be a “natural born citizen” as defined by Title 8. Rubio is a natural born citizen & qualified to be POTUS. Point.Blank.Period. End of story.

    • Anonymous

      Martinez please. I want to see a Female Vice President of the United States come from the Republicans first! Just to shut up, dream on, the Dems and their never-ending claim to be the women’s party. 

      They could have won that claim with Hillary Clinton but chose to do all they could to defeat her. Some women’s party.!

      • Anonymous

         The only knock I’ve found about Martinez is that the Latinos are up in arms about her being opposed to issuing drivers licenses to illegals. That’s an argument that can easily be won on a national stage. And if the Dems decided to attack her as not being Latino enough it would insult a vast majority of Latinos and expose the Dems for the political opportunists they are. After all, didn’t Obama state that he had another 5 years to help Latinos?

        • Anonymous

          Good for her!

          I don’t understand American Citizens, of any ethnicity, who want someone who is in this country illegally to be granted privileges they are not eligible to receive.

          Does anyone think you can sneak into another country illegally or overstay your visa and expect that they will allow you to get a driver’s licence? What nonsense.

          • Anonymous

             Dems seem to think they should. Cause if they aren’t, we’re all racists.

            • Anonymous

              Calling me a racist stopped working a long time ago. The race card has been over played to the point that it’s meaningless.

              Believing the laws of this country should be enforced doesn’t make you a racist, it makes you a law-abiding citizen. If the laws are wrong, change them don’t ignore them. That makes a mockery of the phrase a “nation of laws”

              • Anonymous

                Couldn’t agree more.

              • Anonymous

                Yes once you accept the insult you free up a lot of time for issues other than Civil Rights. I don’t like being stabbed in the back like the Dems did to Bill Clinton.
                And being of Irish decent I know how to carry a grudge.

            • Anonymous

              Calling me a racist stopped working a long time ago. The race card has been over played to the point that it’s meaningless.

              Believing the laws of this country should be enforced doesn’t make you a racist, it makes you a law-abiding citizen. If the laws are wrong, change them don’t ignore them. That makes a mockery of the phrase a “nation of laws”

          • Anonymous

            Pretty soon they’ll expect the government to pay the drivers license fee just like they want the government  to pay for birth control.

      • Anonymous

        We could then add Nikki Haley to the mix of possible VP candidates.

  • Anonymous

    “Do we need a caretaker into the 2020s?”

    Sheesh.  What drivel.  Batchelor’s obviously a Conservative Cannibal. I’m beginning to wonder if conservative media is promoting GOP dischord because it’s good for their ratings.

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

       I’ve reached that conclusion (re: conservative media wants discord to present Romney as a “weak” candidate & guarantee an Obama re-election) to keep their ratings as the “opposition” up a while back. The utter b.s. that they are spinning today about there being “no winners” last night (with one guy who won 6 of 10 contests & not just in reliably red states which is all Santorum or Newt can ever hope to win) has only confirmed it for me.

      • Anonymous

        Agreed. 

        Consider this scenario:  Santorum squeaks out a 100 vote win in OH and loses every other state. 

        Does anyone doubt that the headlines today would have been — as goes OH so goes the nation, and they would be crowning Santorum as the populist phenom?

  • Anonymous

    Actually, Santorum had a good Super Tuesday. He has been outperforming expectations. He is actually strengthened after yesterday. He may not win, but he has had a hell of a good performance, especially given that he had none of the advantages of Romney (no money, endorsements or years of campaigning).

    “Romney does well with women and Independents. Shrug”

    Romney does well with women and Independents compared to his other GOP competitors, but he does no better with women than the GOP has traditional done, which is pretty bad, and I am sure now worse after the GOP war on women, and he his support amoung Independents has fallen off a cliff. Romney’s favorabilty ratings are also horrendous. A very clever strategy for the GOP to run an out-of-touch Wall Street 1%er in this environment.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/DXEH5226VXYIM22E66OTQCVPRE Jacqueline S

      You want to believe that the GOP has a war on Women.  The real war aon women is the DEM abuse of these issues and the stupidity of those who buy in.

      This is abuse and it is perpetrated by the DEMS

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/DXEH5226VXYIM22E66OTQCVPRE Jacqueline S

      You want to believe that the GOP has a war on Women.  The real war aon women is the DEM abuse of these issues and the stupidity of those who buy in.

      This is abuse and it is perpetrated by the DEMS

      • Anonymous

        “the DEM abuse of these issues ”

        Let me remind you that it is the GOP that brings up the issues of abortion, contraception, sex, role of women, defunding Planned Parenthood, redefining rape, etc. and not the Democrats. It is the GOP and its followers like Limbaugh who use sexist bullying and the talk of putting asprin between your legs and not Democrats.

        Here is a simple question for you: Can you name me one women who is in a position of power on a national level in the GOP?

        • Anonymous

           Wow, I thought it was the HHS who released their mandate on January 20th. I didn’t realize that was the GOP’s fault. Thanks for clearing that up.

          Oh, and /s

        • Anonymous

           Wow, I thought it was the HHS who released their mandate on January 20th. I didn’t realize that was the GOP’s fault. Thanks for clearing that up.

          Oh, and /s

        • Anonymous

           Can you name one Democrat?

          • Anonymous

            Um, House minority leader is a pretty powerful position.

            12 Democratic Senators are women, vs. 5 (soon to be 4, with Snowe retiring) Republican Senators.

            Not saying the Democrats are where they should be, either, but it’s pretty easy to see a gender gap between the parties in Washington.

            • Anonymous

               None of your examples are women in a position of power on a national level which was the question asked.

    • Anonymous
  • vinnie winkel

    If Romney is weak, why are the other three unable to close the deal?  

    • Anonymous

      Great question vinnie!

    • Anonymous

       I understand that Santorum and Gingrich are beginning to question their positions on stem cell research and cloning. Since neither one can beat Romney they figure that together they might. The only disagreement is what name they would choose.

      Santorich or Gingtorum

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

    Romney is in great physical shape — to quote Indiana Jones: “It isn’t the age, it is the mileage.” I’ve seen tons of pics of him & his 5 sons playing sports. The man is very active & obviously takes great care of himself. The comment that he is “too senior to be an eight-year president with any vigor” is not only ageist, it is wrong on its face. 

    • Anonymous

       Yeah, I think the ageist comment is way over the line.

  • Anonymous

    Hey Larry, I think you need to help Batchelor pull his head out of his ass re: Mitt Romney.

    • Anonymous

      You are right… NQ should censor Batchelor like they do with most they disagree with.

      • Anonymous

         Don’t believe you have been censored. At least not to my knowledge. I appreciate the daily affirmations that we are right. Thanks.

        • Anonymous

          I have had several posts erased in just the last week and there have been several threats to ban me.

          NQ has a long history of banning posters who do not walk the NQ party line. Recently, they have not censored as much (I guess their eyeballs have done down), but that is likely because Rev. Amy and Ani are no longer involved much. Bronwyn does most of the censoring these days, although LJ will ban you if you challenge him too much, no matter how pleasant you are. He has a thin skin, which is funny coming from a guy who blasts his opinions out to the world. What does he expect that everyone is going to agree with him?

          • Anonymous

             I think if enough people flag a post it is removed.  I’m not positive about that, just a theory.  So I flag every single personal insult I see, jump on board and we’ll make them disappear.

            • Anonymous

              Nobody flags any posts where there are personal insults to me or anyone else who disagrees with NQ. My posts have been censored and I never personally insult anyone or name call anyone.

              • Anonymous

                 I flag every single personal insult that I see.