Has Rick eschewed earmarks? You know, putting specific spending measures in a bill to benefit constituents and supporters? No. He was a big player in this regard. Did Rick want to keep Government out of health care and limit its size? Double hell no. He fully backed the idiotic Republican sponsored prescription drug benefit.

Has Rick ever created a real job in the private sector outside of hiring consultants to help him get elected? Very few (and here I’m counting clerical staff and legal aides at his law firm, though he was never a Managing Partner).

So why are conservatives so enamored of this guy?

I understand the hunger and passion to get rid of Barack Obama. But wanting to get out of a burning airplane does not justify strapping a concrete block to your back and jumping into the abyss.

So here is your chance to tell us why Ricky should rule.

Democrats and Republicans are largely an unprincipled lot who care only about holding power and reaping the rewards that come from being in charge. No? Then how do you explain the Democrats sudden enthusiasm for using U.S. military Special Ops forces and the President’s own death squad? Surely you’ve heard the Democrat talking points extolling the fact that Obama has killed more terrorist overseas, including Bin Laden, than his predecessor, George W. Bush. Of course those same Dems wanted to haul George W. before the World Court and try him for the war crime of putting presumed terrorists in Guantanamo. Imagine the conniption fit on the left if Bush had ordered the killing of American citizen Anwar al Awlaki? But when their guy does it, “no problemo.”

Which brings us to the new crises involving Syria and Iran. Who is the terrorist threat we should be most concerned about? When George W. Bush was in office it depended. Prior to September 11 the Bush Administration told the FBI not to blame Bin Laden/Al Qaeda for the bombing of the USS Cole. Source for this? Ali Soufan’s book, BLACK BANNERS. Then came the attacks of 9-11 and Al Qaeda was temporarily on the front burner.

Getting Bin Laden and destroying Al Qaeda remained a priority for Bush until January of 2002. At that point the emphasis had shifted on going after Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We were told we absolutely were facing a smoking mushroom cloud if we did not act against Saddam. Did anyone in the Bush Administration tell the public that by attacking Iraq we would be empowering Iran?

Hell no. So we get rid of Saddam and populate the government of Iraq with the majority Shia, most of whom had close ties with the Government of Iran. During our 8 years in Iraq, the United States Special Ops forces devoted a lot of resources and manpower to finding and carrying out kill/capture missions against the group we labeled, Al Qaeda in Iraq aka AQI. They also carried out some missions against Shia groups, but the main source of the violence against us and against the Iraqi government came from Sunni tribes and Sunni Salafi activists from other countries like Libya, Yemen and Egypt. The violence subsided significantly, not because of the surge per se, but because U.S. forces started paying Sunni tribes to provide security in their areas. Most of the bombings and attacks previously had been carried out by unemployed Iraqi Sunnis who were offered money for mayhem.

Enter Barack Obama. Despite pinky swearing to withdraw all U.S. forces by the end of May 2010, he stuck with the deal negotiated by Bush. And Obama also continued with the Special Ops capabilities created by General Stan McChrystal and allowed them to continue their efforts to find and finish terrorists around the world. Now here is the interesting part. With the head of Al Qaeda–Osama Bin Laden–dead, where is the threat?

We are still told that Al Qaeda is a threat but has shifted to Somalia and Yemen. But aides to DNI Chief Clapper are also out briefing the Obama team with the claim that Taliban equals Al Qaeda. With me so far?

Yet we also are being warned in increasingly dire language that Iran is the biggest, baddest mutha on the planet. Iran is the source of most terrorism (so we are told). The Obama team eagerly has circulated the arrest of an Iranian loon in Texas who supposedly was acting under the direction of Iran’s version of the CIA to plot murder of the Saudi Ambassador in a Washington, DC restaurant. Then we are told that Iran is the new Nazi Germany and Ahmadinejad is an Iranian Hitler and we must stop him at all costs.

Except go back to Iraq? Iran continues to wield enormous influence in Iraq and has an enormous intelligence network operating in all of the major Iraqi cities. And what does Iran do with that network? They send support to Syria’s Government and they go after Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. Why? Because Al Qaeda is a Sunni/Salafi movement while Iran is under the sway of Shia clerics.

Don’t think that matters? Remember the Zarqawi, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed in a U.S. military mission in May of 2006? Zarqawi directed his followers to spend more time killing Shia (because they are godless evil doers) rather than kill “Crusaders” (that’s us).

The fighting in Syria is like Iraq in reverse. The majority of the population in Syria are Sunnis whereas the majority in Iraq are Shia. Syria’s leader, Assad, is aligned with the Shia and has been getting extensive support from Iran, both economic and military. The Sunni majority in Syria are getting lots of support from other Sunni Arab nations. The Muslim Brothers in Egypt are backing them. And, I hope you are sitting down, Al Qaeda (or at least Sunni radicals who claim sympathies with Al Qaeda).

And the Obama Administration’s response? Go after Assad. Why? Because it is the frontline of the looming war with Iran. We can’t allow Iran to expand its hegemony. EXCEPT, we already did that dirty work for Iran by getting rid of Saddam and installing Iranian loyalists in power in Iraq.

So where is our Middle East policy? IT IS A TOTAL MESS. And yes, this is also the fault of Secretary Clinton. I like and respect Secretary Clinton, but the current policy unfolding in the Middle East may show some strokes of tactical brilliance, but the strategic vision is zero. We are now on a collision path for a war with Iran while having lost significant influence over the key Sunni nations–Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

We are now in a position that we may act in Syria to counter Iranian influence and, whether by design or by accident, will empower the most radical elements of Sunni Islam. Those radical Sunnis have populated the ranks of Al Qaeda over the past 20 years. U.S. influence in the region has eroded dramatically. Egypt is trying to prosecute democratic activists and the Muslim Brothers will be in full control of the Parliament. Our relationship with Turkey also has soured.

If a delegation from Mars lands tomorrow and is briefed on what is unfolding in the Middle East now, it would quickly conclude that the major threat the U.S. is prepping to confront is Iran. That delegation would also understand the U.S. counter terrorism focus is shifting away from Al Qaeda.

We actually have a schizophrenic policy. We insist that we are fighting Al Qaeda. And we are. We also are gearing up to fight Iran. But in the process of doing that, especially within the intelligence and military communities, some are treating Al Qaeda and Iranian backed terrorist groups (i.e., Hezbollah), as the same thing.

Our current policy toward Syria is dangerous and short sighted. It is headed in a direction that we will end up empowering those most sympathetic to Al Qaeda. Will Obama want to run on that accomplishment?

Presidential candidate and former Penn senator Rick Santorum arrives on stage to speak to 39th Conservative Political Action Committee Feb 10, 2012 Wash, DC. MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty

The Romney campaign crack-up is undeniable even to those in the party who prosper in denial.

Rick Santorum’s boom is fresh and delightful; however the demands of the national campaign and the accompanying scrutiny will drain Rick Santorum of his already limited humor. Am told that Rick Santorum’s nickname in high school was “Rooster.”

Am told that the Romney campaign will now nuke Santorum with the usual facts about his less than consistent voting record for two terms in the Senate. Romney counts on resentment to eliminate his rivals.

The Obama re-elect counts on inertia to secure 270 EV.

My expectation is that the GOP will not rally to Romney because of anger.

Romney needs a plan as straightforward as Ronald Reagan’s: cut taxes for all, permanently, reduce federal spending 5% per year; de-regulate; communicate that Washington is not the solution to any one’s problems. Intrade shows Obama re-elect at 60%, and Romney elect at 30%.

Easy money on POTUS unless — Do not expect to see enthusiasm on either side this summer and fall? Have not seen enthusiasm recently. Suppose we held an election and no one much showed up?

A few weeks back, we had to listen as Santorum compared gay marriage to polygamy, and now this “conservative” who loved to spend taxpayer money, and grub earmarks along with the best of ‘em, is reviving his socially conservative street cred with a new spate of vague, sexist remarks.

According to Politico, in an interview with CNN’s John King, Santorum stated:

“I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country. . . but I do have concerns about women in front-line combat.

“I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat,” Santorum added. “And I think that’s not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”

What “emotions” would those be, Rick?

Is a woman in the army worried about having a bad hair day? Maybe she’s having her ‘time of the month’ and is a little crabby. Do ya’ think maybe she’ll fire on one of her brothers in arms just to blow off a little steam? Or maybe she’s angry about the rate of sexual assault of women in the armed forces by men in the armed forces. As reported in CSMonitor:

The rate of violent sexual crime has increased 64 percent since 2006 according to the US Army report, which noted that “rape, sexual assault, and forcible sodomy were the most frequent violent sex crimes committed in 2011.”

While women comprise 14 percent of the Army ranks, they account for 95 percent of all sex crime victims.

Women aren’t raping men over there. So perhaps these nebulous “other kinds of emotions” of which Santorum speaks are coming from men — is that possible? Then why doesn’t he say so? Instead of making it seem as though it is the woman’s fault for overstepping herself and wanting to go where she doesn’t “belong” — namely anywhere else but the kitchen.

Does he think he is going to curry favor with women in the military that he allegedly “appreciates”? Earth to Rick – which women does he think serve in the American military…radical lefties? Clearly, if women think they can handle front line combat, this tells me women from both sides of the political spectrum are long past his 50s ‘let the woman put on her apron and look pretty for her man’ mentality. While many women in the military are not getting credit for it officially, they are already on the front lines. Where has he been?

H/T to Jennifer Rubin of WaPo for being kind enough to unearth this little tidbit from his 2005 book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.

Many women, he adds, have told him that it is more “socially affirming to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children.”

That ideology, he says, has been shaped by feminists who demean the work of women who stay at home as primary caregivers.

“What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else — or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon — find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism,” Santorum writes.

Idiot.

Crap like this was one of the reasons I considered his Senatorial defeat in 2006 a personal victory. It is easy to be sanctimonious about the way one “should” raise a family when you have a nice home, or several, and are making good dough on the taxpayer teat.

I would never demean women who stay at home with their kids. But some women don’t have that choice, or has he not observed the society in which he lives?

I come from a home where the mother was the breadwinner. There are a lot of reasons why a woman is in the workforce. It is often just as much out of necessity, even urgent an need, to take care of ones family as “fulfillment outside the home.” Further, it is not his hooting business what a woman finds fulfilling. If she doesn’t need to work, but wants to work, that is her business and her right.

Here’s a hot flash, Rick. The man is just as capable of staying at home and being a good and nurturing caregiver. In fact, some men are doing just that in families where, in their chosen professions, the female spouse is able to generate more income. There is no shame in this. None. And I would suggest that Mr. Santorum leave the sixteenth century or wherever he gets his genius ideas from. More from Mr. Santorum:

“Sadly the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root,” said Santorum. “The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.”

Convincing women? Maybe women convinced themselves. Why doesn’t he stay home with six kids and deal with their needs day in and year out to the exclusion of all else when his wife goes to work and then he can talk about what he finds fulfilling.

It is interesting to me that the conservative line of thinking often centers around states’ rights, smaller government, individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness with a particular bent toward big government not offering cookie cutter solutions. But I guess Mr. Santorum does not think that applies to women, because he sees fit to tell us all how to live.

No one has a cookie cutter life and what may work for Mrs. Santorum may not work for me.

Women now comprise nearly half the workforce. His Donna Reed Show picture of what life should look like is not reality and is insulting. Of course families need to pay attention to their kids and not just park them in front of the xbox, but you tell me how many people can make a living on just one income these days? Our current economic situation is not the fault of “radical feminists.” What is a radical feminist anyway? For the record, here is the definition of feminism:

the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

I guess that makes me a radical – because I am radically for equality – for everyone.

It is easy to make moral prescriptions for others without proposing real solutions as to how such a lifestyle would even be possible. Not to mention, whether or not it would be desirable.

Though she was more than polite in her column, even conservative Jennifer Rubin was telling Rick to get off it.

Our only hope, now that Santorum’s numbers are up and the spotlight is on him, is that the public will take a good look and cast him on the ‘maybe not’ pile. He is dangerously out of step and falls into the John Edwards “not a lot of gravitas or experience but I have a supercilious smile and can spew the talking points” category.

Spare me.

Since, for inexplicable reasons, Romney and his staff don’t publicize Mitt’s impressive list of accomplishments, I finally read his bio at Wikipedia. Have you noticed that Modest Mitt mutters “the Olympics,” but adds not a word to explain what he is referring to? Mitt’s supporters say “Mitt saved the Olympics,” as if we’re supposed to know what they mean. SO! Which Olympics did Mitt save? How did he do it? What was so great about what he did? When I read the Wikipedia’s account, I finally knew what Romney did to save the 2002 Park City Olympics from ruinous scandals and budgets suffering massive coronaries.

Last night, Mitt, for the very first time, told us a tender family story.

Oh okay, you cynics! Yes, it would have been better if Mitt had told a touching story that involved himself, not his dad, but you gotta go with whatcha got. Mitt’s daddy-was-a-regular-dude story (that he’d surely planned to tell as part of his victory speech for one or more states. But that got ALL screwed up when he lost all three states, so he had to weave the story into a concession speech. (But wasn’t it just about the coolest thing ever that he got to call Little Ricky to congratulate him instead of Newt the Brute?! Mittster is lucky that way.)

Back to the story about his dad who could put nails in, I don’t know, I guess walls or floors, with HIS TEETH! That’s had me stumped because while I can envision how George could hold the nail straight out with his teeth, how in the heck did he pound it into the wood? Wouldn’t he end up breaking his nose? And what about the inevitable damage to his frontal lobe (aka the gooey brain matter underneath our foreheads)? Maybe THAT’s how George eventually headed a behemoth car company and also became governor of Michigan! Pounding all those nails with his forehead distorted his senses and turned him into the kill-or-be-killed being you’ve gotta be to not feel guilty about stepping over all the other executives who wanted the top dawg gig.

But there are some differences. Santorum insists he is the authentic conservative though he had no qualms about backing that other great Republican conservative, Arlen Specter. Santorum loved to do earmarks. That’s another authentic conservative principle. Right?

Part of me hopes that Santorum gets the nomination. Why? Only after he gets thoroughly crushed in the general election and helps the Dems take back the House of Representatives will the so-called conservatives like Santorum finally sit down and shut up.

One of the key beefs I have always had with Obama is his complete, utter lack of experience as an Executive and in managing large scale projects/activities. So the prescription of the conservative base of the Republican party is to advance a total lightweight like Santorum? That is completely insane. But hey, who said the Republican faithful are sane?

I am a person without a party if Santorum is the Republican ideal of Presidential timber.

The Democrats are equally nuts. Look at the hordes who excuse Barack Obama keeping Guantanamo open and executing American citizens overseas without any judicial due process. If George Bush was doing that shit the Dems would be hollering for impeachment. Obama does it?
No problem. It is okay.

The country is in trouble but we are being presented a choice of Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber.

Above all, let’s endeavor to make this an analytical discussion not influenced by our personal feelings about Romney, i.e. whether or not we like him or think he can win. We begin our chat together with the indisputable fact that, to date, Romney has far more delegates, that Romney has millions and millions more in both his campaign war chest and in the Super Pac funds that create advertising for his candidacy, and he has, all set to go, highly organized and staffed campaign sites in all 50 states. Not one of the other three candidates (Gingrich, Santorum or Paul) comes close to matching Romney in the number of delegates, amounts of money, or ability to activate the already-established teams of staffers and volunteers — these are “givens” that we need not waste our time discussing.

Those “rules” in place, let’s begin, with the devastating losses by Romney last night fresh in our minds:

(1) Why, yesterday, did Romney lose so badly in the three states — Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado — especially since he had just won Nevada on Saturday, crushing his opposition, and the week before, in Florida where, as they say, “he kicked ass”?

(2) What verifiable evidence do you see that you can present to argue to us that Romney 1) can or 2) cannot beat Barack Obama in November?

(3) What evidence leads you to foresee that one of the other candidates could fare better against Obama?

(4) The “Mainstream Media” (MSM) consistently speculates that, whenever Romney does poorly, it is because he comes across as wooden, insincere, not human. Do the MSM have it right? Or what are they missing?

(5) At this late date, is there any reason to work towards making any of the other three remaining candidates into the frontrunner? Despite their lack of money and organization?

That’s all I have for the moment…. I got interrupted a lot, so I haven’t had a chance to fine-tune this, so accept my apologies for anything that may be unclear and PLEASE FEEL FREE to rephrase or create questions that YOU think are important to consider.

Update: 3 Colorado’s GOP announces Santorum the victor, via CNN.
Update: 1 Romney is now ahead of Santorum in Colorado – slim lead, reports Wolf Blitzer. May be a long night. Update: 2 Btw, CNN is doing a great job of covering the returns, better than Fox, I must say. (Here’s my POV: Fox’s coverage is always compromised by sticking with the regularly programs (O’Reilly, Hannity, Van Susteran) — is it written in their contracts? — who insist on doing segments completely unrelated to the night’s breaking news. Fox’s apparent inability to break with O’Reilly et al. also badly affects their post-debate coverage. Fox assembles a terrific analytic panel run by a REAL reporter, Bret Baier, but Baier’s panel is lucky to get 5-8 minutes before Fox is compelled to switch to the mediocre, one-note ramblings of Hannity. That’s when I switch to CNN, which outclasses Fox in all respects with its superbly planned coverage of each primary return. Only Van Susteran is up to the job.)

Earlier, as I waited for returns, I checked out the list of delegates won to date. This list (see right) will change in the next few hours, thanks to Santorum’s big victories!

Here’s the take from one of Politico’s op-eds:

The AP just called the Minnesota caucuses for Rick Santorum, giving him his second victory of the night.

It’s another no-delegate contest but still a huge feather in Santorum’s cap, after what turned out to be his win in Iowa was called for Mitt Romney on caucus night there.

The Colorado caucuses vote is neck-and-neck between Santorum and Romney right now and will be too close to call for a while. But it is shaping up to be, at least as it stands now, a difficult evening for Romney.

Romney came in third in Minnesota, despite having the backing of former Gov. Tim Pawlenty, in a state where he beat John McCain in 2008. …

Don’t we have the coolest-est president in the history of ever?  You’d never see Ronald Reagan or other so-called “adult presidents” working so hard to be “cool!”

I mean look at him! Wearin’ his cool Ray-Ban shades, jacket slung over his back.  Posing just like they taught him at GQ.

And now he’s got black hair again, singin’ some Al Green for three seconds.  What an achievement for the LOTFW!  I’d like to see Newt Gingrich sing like that!  Seriously!

Click here to view the embedded video.

I wonder how many hours he rehearsed that one line.  I hear he hired a vocal coach to help him get ready for that.  He must have stood in front of the mirror every morning, singing that one line over and over and over, trying out different poses.  Maybe he asked his singing coach if it would be “cool” if he grabbed his crotch for that high note.

Is our American Idol president auditioning for the real American Idol?  Do you suppose Simon Cowell would tell him the truth?  Oh, yeah, I believe he would – and I’d love to hear it!  “You should ask your singing coach for his birth certificate!”

Really, though, it’s just ludicrous that Obama is so desperate to be “cool” that he sets up these pre-arranged opportunities to show how spontaneously cool he is.  And how pathetic that he doesn’t realize that if you are trying to be cool, you’re not!  Real cool is never rehearsed or pre-arranged, it just happens.  And you don’t grin like a 6-year-old who just learned how to make fart noises with your armpit!

He must sit around with Valerie Jarrett and his latest boy-toy and reminisce about the good old days, back in ’08, when he was Joe Cool.  When girls fainted at his feet.  When 18-year-old boys woke up from dreams of their idol, Buh-ROCK, that left them sweaty and sticky.

He was a rock star in 2008.  The coolest presidential candidate since Bobby Kennedy.  The heir to the throne of Cool. Mister Cool Himself.

Or maybe that should be… Mr. Kool.

Evan Newmark worries about consumer spending with witty Spencer Jakab.

POTUS re-elect needs the consumer to get involved in the recovery. This will increase the growth of wholesale jobs, transportation and manufacturing jobs, that we saw in the January jobs numbers.

The housing crush remains the unknown. Watching consumer sentiment also, because it moved down for January, from 64 back down to 61. Wrong direction.

The virtuous circle is when the sentiment follows the jobs growth follows the spending follows the Spring.

Spoke to John Avlon and Taegan Goddard re the ABC/WaPo poll that shows Obama gaining again among independents over the likely Romney nomination, 48 to 44. Also shows Obama doing as well with white voters with Romney as he did with McCain in 2008. Doing better with Romney than McCain with college educated white voters.

The GDP is the rival, not the GOP.

Consumer spending? That is the known unknown.

The first comes courtesy of the Weekly Standard. Penned by Jonathan V. Last, Obamacare vs. the Catholics, provides a pithy, succinct and biting analysis of Obama’s idiocy:

On the last weekend of January, priests in Catholic churches across America read extraordinary letters to their congregations. The missives informed the laity that President Obama and his administration had launched an assault on the church. In Virginia, Catholics heard from Bishop Paul Loverde, who wrote, “I am absolutely convinced that an unprecedented and very dangerous line has been crossed.” In Phoenix, Bishop Thomas Olmsted wrote, “We cannot​—​we will not​—​comply with this unjust law.” In Pittsburgh, Bishop David Zubik wrote that President Obama had told Catholics, “To Hell with your religious beliefs.” Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria asked his flock to join him in the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, which concludes: By the Divine Power of God / cast into Hell, Satan and all the evil spirits / who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.

It was a remarkable moment, in part because despite their stern reputation, most Catholic bishops are not terribly conservative. They tend to be politically liberal and socially cautious. If they were less holy men, stauncher conservatives would call them squishes. Real live conservative bishops are so few and far between that whenever one appears on the scene, such as Philadelphia’s Archbishop Charles Chaput, he’s seen as a vaguely threatening curiosity. You can tell when a bishop is conservative because you will hear him referred to as “hardline” or “ultra-orthodox,” so as to mark him apart from the rest of the herd.

But that’s only a taste. Obama didn’t stop there. He tried to shutdown the First Amendment rights of Army Chaplains.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who leads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, wrote a letter to be read at all Sunday Masses for U.S. military personnel around the world that said that a regulation issued by the Obama Administration under the new federal health care law was “a blow” to a freedom that U.S. troops have not only fought to defend but for which some have recently died in battle.

“It is a blow to a freedom that you have fought to defend and for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle,” the archbishop wrote. . . .

The message from the archbishop touched off a controversy both in and outside the military when the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains told the service’s senior chaplains that Catholic priests serving as Army chaplains should be told not to read the archbishop’s letter from the pulpit. . . .

The Archdiocese for the Military Services has described that move as a violation of the archbishop’s First Amendment rights as well as the First Amendment rights of the Catholic chaplains involved and their congregations. . . .

In his Jan. 28 telephone conversation with Army Secretary McHugh, Archbishop Broglio was able to extract from the secretary an admission that it had been wrong for the secretary to try to silence the Catholic chaplains. The archbishop decided that the line in his letter that said Catholics cannot and will not comply with the “unjust law” of the HHS regulation would not be read aloud in Catholic Masses by the chaplains, but that the rest of the letter would.

The line stating “we will not … comply with this unjust law” did remain, however, in the printed letter that was distributed at Masses said by Army chaplains and it remains in the copies of the letter posted on the website of the Archdiocese for the Military.

Call this Obama’s jihad on Catholicism. Way to go sport. I encourage you to read both articles. Astonishing.

On a different front, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point banned retired Lt. General Jerry Boykin from speaking at the West Point prayer breakfast:

Yet when the West Point National Prayer Breakfast convenes February 8, the cadets will be deprived of hearing from a world-renowned expert on counterterrorism. General Boykin was a founding member of the elite Delta Force. He commanded the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and served as deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence. But this week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations put General Boykin on the new blacklist. He won’t be at West Point next week.

CAIR lobbied the academy’s superintendent, Lieutenant General David Huntoon, to rescind General Boykin’s invitation. Apparently the self-esteem of Muslim cadets and Allah’s adherents elsewhere would suffer lasting damage if General Boykin – who is unashamed of his Christian faith, an expert on radical Islam and one of the planet’s foremost practitioners of unconventional warfare – were to speak on these matters. This isn’t the first time Islamists and leftists have intimidated military leaders here at home and demanded the silencing of Christian voices. In 2010, the Pentagon issued – and subsequently withdrew – an invitation for Franklin Graham to speak at the DOD National Day of Prayer. Earlier that year, Tony Perkins, a former Marine and head of Family Research Council, was invited to speak at a prayer luncheon at Andrews Air Force Base. But when Barack Obama subjected our military to open homosexuals, Perkins was deemed too controversial.

Officials at CAIR claim that their opposition to appearances by people like Boykin or Graham is well-intentioned and argue that remarks deemed critical of Islam can precipitate violence.

Boykin is viewed by some as too strident on the issue of Islam. That’s too damn bad. He is not a government official, at least not now, and has the full right to speak his heart and mind. And the cadets have every right to hear him. Let them make up their own minds about whether his views are worthy of their consideration. The Obama plague of political correctness is out of control and it certainly appears that the crosshairs are fixed on Christians.

Yet I fear the search for an ideal is a romantic one, borne of a need to vent, as I used to do, via the safety of a blogger’s alias and a computer keyboard. No one will meet all my expectations. No candidate is going to agree with me on every issue. Even the best of public servants fall down, fail, misrepresent — and yes, sometimes, they even change. I grant you these days there are not many who deserve our praise, but I cannot reject someone simply because I do not agree with everything they do.

I started writing for No Quarter nearly four years ago, an enthusiastic Hillary supporter, fighting for her to get the nomination, or at least a place at the Convention where delegates could vote for the person they were justly elected to represent. I also wanted Super Delegates to vote their conscience without the Pelosi/Reid/Dean arm-twisting they had perfected during the campaign. Let the chips fall where they may. I did not get my wish.

I then witnessed this blog, one of the few that was firmly in Hillary’s corner, lose readers who supported her; or watch supporters become ex-supporters, in a rage that she dared to stay on and serve the administration, and Party, that had betrayed her. I had my own mixed feeling about this, but to this day, I am grateful she stepped up to serve her country in an effort to temper President Obama’s naive foreign policy.

“Hillary the hammer” as she is sometimes called, has done far better than the alternatives. Just the thought of Bill Richardson or John Kerry as Secretary of State makes me cringe. And she continues her fight for the rights of women around the world with a bigger pulpit and more power to do so than she would have had otherwise.

Does that mean I always agree with her? No. Yet I still acknowledge her value and if she stepped up in 2016, I would fight for her yet again. She still outclasses the field in every way.

Some who reject Hillary call her an Alinsky-ite like Obama. Yet in her college thesis on Alinsky, she ultimately rejected his methods and chose not to work for an Alinsky group when given the chance. That doesn’t stop people from saying erroneous stuff…Conversely, those at sites like HuffPo who express disappointment with the President soothe themselves by pretending she would have governed the same way. Poppycock.

On the Democrat’s side, it is Obama or bust in 2012. For the Republicans, the sniping and negativity they have aimed at each other is horrid but typical of campaigning today, period. Still I am glued to their words in an effort to find a candidate with a positive vision, who is willing to drop empty platitudes long enough to give me the laundry list of how he plans to improve our economic situation. The wait continues. President Obama offers class warfare and poll tested sound bites. The wait continues.

Meanwhile there is hand wringing in every corner about the “drawn out” Republican primaries though they have only been contested for a few short weeks. This is likewise reminiscent of 2008. I am sick and damned tired of the media picking our presidents; ditto for the elites in the back room.

Conservatives don’t know if they can forgive Romney for being too moderate and are threatening to stay home. Hell, I said I would stay home if they nominated Rick Santorum, so offended am I by his sanctimonious positions on family and gay sexuality. Anti-Newtists threaten to stay home rather than voting for the “RINO” serial adulterer, and moody, arrogant cuss who seems to lack discipline at crucial moments. Ron Paul has his own faithful followers but it looks like that will be enough to get him a seat at the table, nothing more.

For whom will we show up? Who is acceptable? I don’t have a problem with a long primary that helps candidates to clarify their policies, reveal their true character to more people and hone their message. Since every bit of minutiae in the news is blown out of proportion, taking precedence over important issues that get buried, how else can a voter make an educated decision?

In the process of venting frustration at once again being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, we take it out on each other. I want a forum for ideas, and every opposing opinion, but ugly commentary only mirrors the candidates’ ugly campaigning. Someone has to take the high road and stick to the issues. And make sure our politicians know that they will get support when they actually do their jobs.

I don’t want to call someone a moron (no matter how pissed I am). I can’t learn anything that way. Nor can I get beyond the low form of debate currently passing as political discourse in this country. Insults just make people turn off and go away. I write because I want to express myself, but I also want to learn from you.

Whoever wins the Republican nomination had better be able to do something more than attack (although attack will be necessary). He’d better have some good ideas to sell. Platitudes, bread and circuses and demagoguery are already plentiful. And in an effort to get politicians at any level to pay attention to our needs, demands or ideas, the only 2% chance that exists of doing so is by offering something better than the tripe that passes for punditry today. And to hold them accountable if they don’t rise to our level.

What say you?

The United States’ plan to wind down its combat role in Afghanistan a year earlier than expected relies on shifting responsibility to Special Operations forces that hunt insurgent leaders and train local troops, according to senior Pentagon officials and military officers. These forces could remain in the country well after the NATO mission ends in late 2014.

The plan, if approved by President Obama, would amount to the most significant evolution in the military campaign since Mr. Obama sent in 32,000 more troops to wage an intensive and costly counterinsurgency effort.

Under the emerging plan, American conventional forces, focused on policing large parts of Afghanistan, will be the first to leave, while thousands of American Special Operations forces remain, making up an increasing percentage of the troops on the ground; their number may even grow.

This is the best strategy going forward in terms of tactics but does nothing to address strategy. Why?

We do not have enough combat forces in Afghanistan to seize control of the country. We could do it but would have to dramatically expand the size of the Army and the Marines and we would have to be prepared to spend upwards of $600 billion. Anyone ready to write that check or send their son into combat?

Couple of points to remember. Special Forces is not the same as “Special Operations Forces” aka “SOF.” SF equals Green Beret. The SF specialty is training foreign fighters and conducting counter insurgent operations.

Special Operations Forces is a term to describe to elite, generally highly classified units, that conduct counter terrorism operations. The SOF specialty–conducting kill/capture operations on the leadership of insurgent and terrorist groups. Has been a very effective tool in Afghanistan and has helped reduce the level of violence from what it could be. It is a great tactical tool.

But we still beg the question–what are we trying to accomplish in Afghanistan? On that issue Obama is lost. Okay, got to catch a plane. To be continued.

The question about the hearing aid. I had a heck of a time hearing much of what she was singing. When I strained to hear, I could hear it, and I was somewhat familiar with the songs already, so that wasn’t my main beef. But the rest of it …

This “girl” needs extensive training in singing. But she’s probably the last one who thinks she needs it, and she is a bit long in the tooth.

All of the incredibly expensive sets and costumes in the world cannot make up for an inability to FEEL and EXPRESS a song. Madonna hasn’t a clue how to do that.

Did the game commentators say anything about her show? Don’t they usually? I didn’t hear a peep.

How’s the game? What else is going on? I’m cleaning and stealing glances at the book I’m reading, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. What a read.

Oh oh. Remember when the National Enquirer reported that John Edwards was screwing around and had a love child? So ask yourself, would the National Enquirer risk a lawsuit by making a false, unsubstantiated claim against the potential First Lady?

Is this why Newt is going to hold a press conference? Fold his tent rather than put his family life under further scrutiny?

I don’t think this kind of allegation, if true, necessarily is disqualifying. If it is false Newt may become the owner of the Enquirer. If this story catches legs then Newt is toast with the Christian right. My issue with Gingrich remains his lack of competence, not his wife’s sexual preference. How can you trust someone to be a competent President when he fails to meet the basic requirements to be on the ballot in Virginia, Missouri or Arizona?

But this week, he expanded the ass clownery and raised further questions about his focus:

Gingrich has had a rough time on the trail ahead of the Nevada Caucus, the first presidential contest in the West. Sources in or close to his campaign gave reporters incorrect information that Donald Trump would endorse Gingrich (he endorsed rival Mitt Romney). Gingrich also missed a meeting with the Silver State’s popular governor, Brian Sandoval, a Rick Perry supporter who was viewed as a possible Gingrich endorsement after Perry dropped out and endorsed the former House Speaker, according to The New York Times.

Newt ought to spend less time on “BIG IDEAS” and more time on ensuring that his campaign at least appears competent.

Anyway, has anyone read the Enquirer piece? What do you think?

UPDATE–God bless you Retired. An old friend who comments on the blog sucked it up and got to the bottom of the National Enquirer shocker headline:

For those of you who can’t wait until your next run to the Piggly Wiggly, the National Enquirer article is an alleged exclusive interview with the current Mrs. Gingrich’s alleged female high school buddy and college and sorority classmate Karen Olson, currently a canon with Minneapolis-based Episcopal Church. Karen Olson was a bridesmaid at Newton’s and Callista’s wedding. Olson says that she and Callista have been “best friends” since high school, and that both Newton and Callista are aware of her sexual orientation and are OK with it. Except for some titilating layout and presentation, there is no specific allegation that Callista is a lesbian in the article. Sorry, readers.

While the Enquirer broke news on the John Edwards love child, this is a cheap ass shot. There is plenty of fact to fuel legit attacks on Newt without stooping to smears of his third wife.

Speaking of, Newt is in fullblown meltdown. Check out Ed Morrissey’s take on Newt’s graceless press conference last night:

The surprises, and the fireworks, came from Newt Gingrich, who called a press conference rather than give a speech, which I watched this morning. It turned into a surprisingly angry, bitter affair, with Gingrich blaming Romney for spreading rumors that he was going to drop out after Nevada, when in fact the speculation started in the press when Gingrich called the unusual press conference. He attempted a little bit of press-baiting, but mostly took every opportunity to vent his loathing at Romney and his campaign, calling him the George Soros choice, pro-abortion, and so on. If people thought that the lack of graciousness after Gingrich’s loss in Florida was a careless mistake, this press conference dispelled that notion and made Gingrich’s speech in Florida look courtly by comparison.

Victor Davis Hanson writes today that Gingrich’s speech was about the only way the candidate could possibly have made a bad night even worse:

For Hot Air aficianados you may be surprised to read such a tough, anti-Gingrich piece. Ed and company have been largely supportive of the Newt. Not in this piece.

Newt keeps touting that he is a big idea guy, but can’t seem to grasp the simple idea that if you are going to run a nationwide campaign for President you must raise money, put together an organization and register according to the laws of each state. My jihad on Newt stems fundamentally from his chameleon character. He tries to slam Romney as a “Rockefeller” republican when the only candidate in the Republican field who actually worked on the 1968 Rockefeller campaign is Newt Gingrich. He tries to slam Romney as part of the “Washington Establishment” when he, Newt Gingrich, has spent more than 34 years in Washington and is the only candidate in the field with a Washington consulting business.

Will Newt drop out? NO. He is delusional and focused only on himself. The welfare of the Republican Party or America is the furthest thing from his mind.