E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
BRENTWOOD, N.H. -- Fresh off an impressive second-place finish in the Iowa caucus, Rick Santorum on Wednesday landed here hoping the same message he preached through his barnstorming tour of Iowa will be the one that keeps him in the spotlight after the Granite State's primary.
The newest presidential candidate to surge in the polls told New Hampshire voters almost verbatim what he echoed down the final stretch of his Iowa campaign. "You fight to be first. You have a responsibility in doing that, and that is to lead, not pay attention to what the polls or pundits say," he told a crowd of nearly 120 people.
His first stop in the state since the New Year showed promise. A packed house of primary voters showed a renewed interest in a candidate who just weeks ago was largely written off as a non-factor in the first-in-nation-primary.
"People have asked me repeatedly, 'Well, you know Rick, you've done well in Iowa, but you know New Hampshire's such a different place and it's just nothing like Iowa," said Santorum. "I said, 'They're all Americans, they all have the same fundamental values that our founders put in place."
He was polling in single digits in Iowa before his surge. In New Hampshire, he was at just 5% in the last Suffolk tracking poll conducted before the Iowa caucuses. He got a slight bump today – he’s at 8% and in third place, but still well behind the months-long leader Mitt Romney, who pulls in 41%. Ron Paul is second with 18%.
The former Pennsylvania senator answered nearly every question from voters in a town hall meeting that lasted nearly two hours. While some grumbling in the audience could be heard during Santorum's many lengthy answers, the questions kept coming.
Even before he arrived, Santorum touted that former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman is the only candidate to eclipse him in the amount of time spent the state. But he also has acknowledged the uphill battle he now faces in a race in which Romney has a commanding lead. Santorum will on Sunday campaign in South Carolina, a move that shows he is focused beyond just New Hampshire. There, like Iowa, 60% of GOP primary voters said they were evangelical or born-again Christians. But Rick Perry threatens to cut at least somewhat into what could be a strong base for Santorum. Romney figures to have a lock on establishment Republicans from the coast to the middle of the state.
Santorum barely mentioned any of his GOP rivals during his stumping in New Hampshire yesterday -- instead focusing on President Obama. He blasted the president for the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
"This is pretty scary stuff,” Santorum charged. “And -- you said -- I hope the United States Senate does what they're supposed to do, and they should go and even take the president to court. This is not something that the president should get away with.”
And the candidate known for his emphasis on family values faced a question about his own family, namely a nephew who wrote an op-ed in support of Ron Paul.
"Of our 35 nieces and nephews, it’s pretty good," Santorum joked. "He's a Ron Paul supporter. God bless him. I mean, it’s a phase; I understand it. I mean, we all go through those things."
Santorum will make five stops through the Granite State today.
NBC's Domenico Montanaro contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
Speaking of Ron Paul - check this out;
JC Penny's white sheet sale is going on NOW!
Open your eyes & mind people...
The folks in the southern back country will love it. (Inbreeding you know)
Can't wait to watch the NH Republican bigotry contest begin!
Classic Feisty [libbie logic] - Paul is terrible and horrible because he has links to bad people.
But it is undisputed that Obama was 'linked' to Rev. Wright. 20 years of sitting in the pews, but that's just not important, right old gal?
Well, at least you have the whole consistency thing going for you.
Well, I sure remember Mr. Buckley, he was a true conservative not one of the ass kissers of the Neonuts or the Moral Majority like the current crop of so called conservatives. Not that I supported his views but he wasn't one of tin foil hat crowd.
The social conservatives and the rest of the RWNJs couldn't carry his briefcase.
Santorum continues his message:
1) I hate Obama
2) Poor people are black
3) Gays are similar to people who commit incest and bestiality
4) I hate Obama
A winning platform!
I have noticed since the Iowa caucus the Ron Paul supporters are not all over the blogs.
Spanky (First Reader most irrational poster) There is a huge difference between going to a church for 20 years where the minister went off the tracks in his sermons a few times, and allowing racist comments to be published in a newsletter you used to raise money, being endorsed by a white supremacist, and giving the keynote address at the John Birch Society's 50th anniversary. I like Ron Paul as a person, but there is no denying, he attracts a dangerous fringe. (PS I know some of these whackadoodles, do you?) Oh, this is cool, one of the founders of the John Birch Society was Fred Koch, daddy of today's Koch Brothers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society
The only reason Ron Paul placed third in Iowa was not just because a small percentage of people think as he does about civil rights but because the press failed to bring Paul's questionable and often disgusting views to the attention of voters. Paul's anti-war, mind our own business, deficit spending, anti-drug war message was the driving force for young voters and probably a good percentage of his other supporters as well. They did not look beyond that logic. Too few in the media bothered with Paul because they dismissed his candidacy as an impossibility. Well, here we are--Paul has momentum and now the media speaks of his questionable past. Regardless of who is leading the polls, regardless of the legitimacy or the probability that a candidate will or will not be the nominee, voters need to hear both the negative and the positive about every candidate. Kelly O'Donnell was wrong, their job is not to make policy and politics "sexy", it is to ensure that all the facts, all the information is brought to the attention of the voters. "Fair and balanced" should be buried because it is often just an excuse to let lies stand unchallenged.
Ron Paul place third in Iowa because the GOP bosses didn't want him winning...
I've put the proof up in any number of places...
I haven't gone anywhere, we are here..
Devie, well said. Buckley--while I disagreed with him often, I also agreed at times--represented true conservative views, the Eisenhower views of common sense on taxes, spending, the environment, social assistance obligations, policy for the public good not just for a few. Buckley also is the one who rallied the GOP to throw the John Birch Society out of the RNC. After the Tea Party emerged, the RNC invited the John Birch Society back into the fold. Buckley must be turning over in his grave right along with Ronald Reagan.
Feisty
If David Duke gives his endorsement, I want to see it from duke himself, I think the MSM would be all over it as would news for dum fux. Don't ya think?
You got a link for me to any one of those?
Ron Paul place third in Iowa because the GOP bosses didn't want him winning...
That is exactly right. The same thing can be said about Newt Gingrich.
When Paul fails spectacularly, which he will, I hope Ron Paul supporters realize the failure isn't the fault of liberals or the "liberal" media. The fault lies (if you assume the fault isn't Ron Paul's) with the Republican establishment. They were never going to allow Paul the nomination. Never.
Spanky always have it twisted........Spanky logic.
Egilman, my point is, despite what proof you posted that the GOP bosses interfered, that Paul likely would not have finished third IF more media attention had been paid to his racist, discriminatory past had been brought to light long before he surged in the polls. He began to drop when things began to surface again. The local papers and media made little effort to cover Dr Paul's newsletters beyond his excuse that he didn't write it; very little mention was made to his racist and bigoted comments; there was little, if any, mention of his past in Iowa.
Egilman,
Sorry, just googled it and indeed, David Duke did endorse Ron Paul. I know you are a devout Paul supporter and I a progressive, but I do feel for you.
Actually Jody, I think in the primaries, it really isn't a big issue, if he gets the nomination, then it will become a big issue, but not until they are saving it as the supposedly ultimate silver bullet. IMHO
Phine,
I'm sure the doctor won't refuse the support, no candidate would, you think Obama would turn away the Black Panthers?, no he wouldn't. The Panthers support didn't hurt Obama, Duke I hope doesn't hurt Dr Paul...
Well it is election season, the definition of SILLY SEASON!!!
Jody: The media in general, and conservative media in particular (Fox News) made a point of ignoring Dr. Paul. They treated him much as they did President Obama before he won Iowa in 2008.
I hope every Democrat who can goes out, changes party affiliation for one year, and votes in a Republican primary for Dr. Ron Paul. I want to see the exploding heads of the GOP pundits.
Nisl,
Fortunately, there are more primaries than caucuses, they really can't mess with the primaries like they can with a caucus, besides, what I've heard is that the Dr came away with most of the delegates...;-0)
Yeah Amy - 'just a few times.'
I know it's hard, but my hats off to you.
It must be hard to keep your spirits up enough these days to walk through those hot coals. But then again you really are the champion of the underdog.
Spanky, when was the last time you were in a church, never mind belonged to one? I'd hate to be held to account for everything my ministers have said or done over the years. Believe it or not, that's not how the Congressional faith works; we follow Christ, not our ministers. (That sheep/flock thing is just a metaphor :)
We can do it.
2) Poor people are black - according to Democrats. That was the Whole point of the CRA clear back to 1977. They structured that program to find and eliminate discrimination based on the logic that if you deny a loan to to somebody poor, then you are probably discriminating because of race because they know that an larger portion of minorities are in the lower income bracket than any other.
You know Jody, one of these days the republicans, the TRUE progressive conservatives of Ike, Taft, Reagan, Lincoln will wake up and throw these radical pukes out of the party. I'm hoping that even if Dr Paul doesn't get the nomination he is at least able to do that, bring the good Republicans back to america. If he manages to do that he would be a national hero in my eyes!
I think Amy has a problem with the word irrational. Amy, here's a clue. Look in the mirror.
ha ha! I meant to write Congregational, not Congressional. I 'm a Congregational Christian, same as Barack Obama!
Egilman - In your opinion... is a progressive conservative the complete opposite of a progressive liberal? Just looking for your definition of terms.
Amy, you are truly one for the books. You're so acquisitional at the hint of any impropriety with a Republican, but are so dismissive of the same types of connections and behavior made towards a Democrat, in this case your hero, Barack Obama.
Everyday you prove you're more about humor and hypocrisy rather than being about any part of a serious discussion. In in that way you fit in well with your brotherhood and sisterhood on these pages.
This frothy candidate is a "RCP" religious cult psychopath...he is extremely unstable mentally..to say "he would bomb Iran" ..He has no regard for human life ..if he can utter a sentence like that ... This lose cannon, if elected will have his nimble fingers on the nuclear buttons ! 92% of the American public are totally against this clown ! Then we are stuck with the tin man Romney !...Another republican that even the republicans don't want ! Who tries to buy the election !
acquisitional? Maybe you mean oppositional?
You're welcome!
Brianb-999431 @1.28
Actually, a Progressive is a Progressive, a Democrat is a Democrat and a Republican is a Republican.
IF you can have a Conservative Democrat, or a Liberal Republican, (which you can) You can also have a Conservative Progressive and a Liberal Progressive.
In politics of the '50's a Progressive would be between a democrat and a republican. In today's political world, a progressive would stand to the right of a republican. (understanding that the republican party is controlled by Neo-Conservatives)
Does this make it clearer or did I succeed in confusing you more? ;-)
Spanky,
Fiesty is not only a classic..
"J C Penny's white sale is on now" is priceless.
Fiesty, great post and fabulous ending!!!
I agree wholeheartedly with that Jody. He was a strong voice for the true conservatives of the GOP and a decent human being.
Spanky ... Yes, Feisty is on occasion ... well, feisty. But why do you feel the need to level a personal attack on her every post? Do you fear all intelligent, well read, opinionated women, or is there a Redhead in your past who used to laugh at your inane comments, and by extension, you?
Egilman - Why do you have to end your comment with a demeaning remark? I didn't ask my question in an offensive way. If you took it as offensive then it's your problem. I was seeking what your opinion was, nothing more.
You didn't really answer the question though. Think diametrically.
Spanky: typical wing nut attempt to cloud the issue with unrelated minutia. Thanks for the demonstration of how truly desperate and clueless the right wing is. At least you've got the whole consistency thing going for you.
Hatred and Racism won it for the Dems in 2008. Why wouldn't the Republicans try the same game plan.
Saluki: Been listening to fox, have we??? Mouthing the nonsense of Flush and Insanity??? Your misidentification (and that is being truly charitible. Most would just call you a liar but I feel generous today) of the reality of what is going on is truly breathtaking.
No, a progressive would not stand to the right of a republican. Here is a quote from Wikipedia that sums up the Progressive movement in America:
The Progressives believed in the Hamiltonian concept of positive government, of a national government directing the destinies of the nation at home and abroad. They had little but contempt for the strict construction of the Constitution by conservative judges, who would restrict the power of the national government to act against social evils and to extend the blessings of democracy to less favored lands. The real enemy was particularism, state rights, limited government.
Conservatives, especially in today's sense, are the exact opposite of progressives.
C'mon now, admit it, you're missing Michelle Bachman already. Havn't we come to expect a Palin clone in every GOP field since wonder from Wasila hit the national stage and tripped.
Sarah Palin, Christine O'donnel, Michelle Bachman, it just won't be an election without some right wing bimbo saying stupid and silly things.
I know, Santorum tries, but he just doesn't have the legs.
Obama/Biden 2012
it's ok skip,
they'll always have Coulter
Santorum has happyfeet - dancing and jumping up and down like a fool that he is, this guy is not qualified to be stupid. The people of Pennsylvania kicked this loser out because of his poor performance. This is not the person we need as President of the United States. We can do better.
Yeah Lori, but Coulter's got that "ice queen" hard edge that's kind of off-putting and when she gets going she turns downright ugly.
Palin, O'Donnel and Bachman were attractive women and they had something of a look alike, clone mystique that Coulter just can't match. Besides, I saw a drag queen in DC doing Coulter and the imitation was so good I began to wonder if Coulter IS a drag queen. That would explain a lot.
No, I never thought I'd say this but I miss Michelle. Santorum just can't take her place.
Obama/Biden 2012
Brianb-999431
It wasn't intended to be demeaning, I didn't think I was being clear so I was inquiring if I was or wasn't
Ok, Daimetrically, I'm going to assume you mean diametrically opposed.
No, Progressive Conservatives are in my opinion not directly in opposition to Progressive Liberals, from a standpoint of BASE they can agree on most things on a basic level, but differ in the details or approach to an issue.
Like FDR and Ike they both had what they called the "Loyal Opposition" in their administrations. If you think about it, it makes sense. The Founding Fathers set it up in a way to require the opposition to always have to work together to run the country.
When FDR was first elected with his majorities in congress the called the leaders of both parties together and told them all that they had to put the bickering and politics away and work to run the government because that is what the citizens elected them to do. It was unifying, not divisive like today.
Sometimes a liberal approach to an issue is a better approach, other times a conservative approach is better. It is foolish to eliminate any approach to a problem. Today in both parties we have a lot of foolishness.
Does this help make what I'm getting at clearer?
Santorum is just another puppet for the Tea-Retards and the Kocheads. A vote for this dirtbag is a vote to go to war with Iran. The GOP+ 1%= War mongrels.
Buckley was a highly-educated, sophisticated and intelligent individual who could put forth, and defend, logical arguments. That's why he would never be tolerated in today's Christo-taliban GOP.
So, I'm confused ... do both Paul and Obama get a "pass" from you for their respective shady associations, or do they both "flunk"?
It's nice when you set it up for me like that. I'm all a'tingle in anticipation of your response.
Jeez -- 10 hours and no response? The verification of your trolling for effect is pretty much rapped up.
You'd have to be a fool to vote for a man who's top 3 contributors are Goldman Sachs, Merryl Lynch, and JP morgan.
You'd also have to be a fool to vote for anyone that Is Pro-life, and then turns around and lets his wife have an abortion.
Looking forward to seeing his Christian Sharia shtick playing out in fiscally conservative socially progressive New Hampshire.
I wonder if former Senator Santorum was as upset when Bush had recess appointments?
The recess appointment power has been interpreted by scores of attorneys general and their designees in the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel for over 100 years to require an official, legal Senate recess of at least 10-25 days of duration. (There are a few outlier opinions, never sanctioned by the courts, that suggest a recess of six to seven days might be enough--but never less than that.)
May have violated that slightly. Senate was still in session.
He certainly was not upset about the debt and spending during that time. Santorum voted for each and every budget busting policy during the Bush admin. Policies such as the Iraq war, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and Medicare Part D, all un-paid, and still adding to the debt.
funny how libs think medicare part d was a budget buster but obamacare is going to save us money
year right
Rob, probably because it will save us money. Right now health-care premiums are high because we pay for those who get treatments and can't pay because they have no insurance.
Think a little bit.
To play Devil's advocate however, premiums are also high because of drug patents (Lipitor anyone?) and the amount of advertising drug companies do, causing consumers to demand these brand-name drugs they may not even need.
Which is why the conservative in me wants to go back to not allowing drug companies to advertise on TV, and the democrat in me wants to further regulate drug patents.
"You're right"
Noticed the misspelling. Fixed it for you.
@ Bob Medicare part d Congress never set up a way to pay for it.
So yes, it is adding to the deficit. Like it or not Congress did find some ways to pay for
the new health care law. You could google for yourself how much Medicare part d
is costing. Just so you would know the facts.
Why worry about a recess appointment that protects us all except Wall Street. Oh, that's right, the Republicans don't care about us. They care more for Wall Street and the crooks that support them.
It's cool, now citing Obama's action the next president can simply appoint Supreme Court judges once the senate recesses.
I'm sure this has old Harry R. very excited.
And seriously Job 1 - Obama is Mr. Wall Street. Why else does he surround himself with nothing but Goldman Sachs alums?
No Labels
When our Founders gave the Senate "Advise and Consent" power over presidential appointments, they hoped it would encourage the president to appoint qualified people and avoid conflicts of interest.
Today, it's the senators themselves who seem to have conflicts of interest, with key presidential appointments routinely held up for trivial reasons or to serve the narrow interests of a single senator. In one notorious case from 2010, a senator held up over 70 presidential nominees at once to secure more federal spending for his state.
As of late 2011, more than 200 presidentially-appointed positions remained unfilled. In the last few years the directorship of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), key positions at the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve and numerous federal judgeships have been left unfilled for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the quality of the nominees.
As a FYI, the Senator that held up 70 appointments to secure more funding for their state was Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama. A state that has consistently received more money from the federal government then they send. When is enough, enough? As recent as 2005, Alabama was receiving $1.66 from the federal government for every $1 they send.
Dude, the precedent was set for that a LOOOOOOONG time ago!
President Washington used a recess appointment when he appointed John Rutledge as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1795.
President Eisenhower used a recess appointment to the Supreme Court 3 times...William J. Brennan. Potter Stewart and Earl Warren as Chief Justice.
Spanky-
It's cool, now citing Obama's action the next president can simply appoint Supreme Court judges once the senate recesses.
I'm sure this has old Harry R. very excited.
And seriously Job 1 - Obama is Mr. Wall Street. Why else does he surround himself with nothing but Goldman Sachs alums?
Why are thou twisting the truth? The truth behind all these lies is simple....... you and your cronies do not want a fair playing ground. Mind you, most Americans are as excited as old Harry for this appointment.
So Pen which part is the lie?
Sure, like Feisty above, it must be a lie that Obama that Wright was Obama's preacher for 20 years, and that he is forever linked to him.
And that Obama has surrounded himself with Wall Street fat cats. His cabnet is packed full of them.
Or is it that what Obama has done is not constitutional?
Lies all I am sure. But no matter - all are coming home to root for Team O.
And it's getting bad for them.
I expect Santorum was no more upset about the GOP presidential recess appointments than he was when he voted for the two unfunded wars and huge cut taxes at the same time; no more upset about the unfunded Rx Medicare Plan he supported. Now, like all the phony conservatives, deficits matter and how dare President Obama make recess appointments. What a bunch of hypocritical liars.
Greg in NY, good points, well said. Senators no longer object to a person on qualifications but rather they object because the other party nominated the person. No wonder government is too often dysfunctional.
spanky- You guys will always get it wrong. WS is part of this country. Hence, Obama or any other president have the right to appoint anyone from this section. If Obama embrasses the norms of WS then there dwells the problem. But he does not.
This same Obama who's asking for policing WS saved them from collapse. You guys are not been truthful. All you want is total lawlessness in WS where the masses are taking to the cleaners with impunity all in the name of capitalism/job creators. GOP don't want a regulated industry or EPA. Invariably, you guys asking for anarchy in our system. Your argument is a thesis put forward by the rich who does not want to be policed.
Pen - do tell, how are you drawing your conclusions? I'm intrigued.
Greg in New York -
And boy haven't we all felt the pinch and inefficiency in GovCo because those positions weren't filled? Don't think so. Kind of shows you the importance that those positions brought along with them. Kind of like the budget cuts which are nothing more than a hold on the increases in budget forthcoming. They don't exist. The positions are obviously junk political posturing and "make work".
BTW I fixed your "presidentially-appointed" for you.
It wasn't my comment dumbass. What the hell do you think No Labels is about at the beginning? It only takes 3 seconds to Google No Labels. I believe in giving credit where it is do.
Beyond that, when were you appointed spokesman for every American and when did you meet with each American to determine that the absence of the appointees wasn't a detriment? Just because it has not affected you personally does not mean that it has not affected others. Somehow I have a feeling that thinking beyond yourself is something you are incapable of.
You have a funny way of showing "credit" with no quotation marks, no dates, no nothing except a line. Sorry, never heard of "No Labels".
If it was indeed a detriment, the MSM would be all over it. Not some obscure supposedly independent website. And no, I think beyond myself. That is how I know that politically "appointed" positions are not always what they seem on the surface. Does your "source" have a listing of those appointees that they so vehemently pointed out or are we just supposed to guess? Do you have information on these appointees and know of anyone or any part of the country that has been affected? Don't think the dumbass was necessary. Oh, I forgot. "if challenged resort to calling names".
Sorry, didn't know I was writing a paper for a college professor where citations were required.
As an advanced FYI, this is from the US Constitution
Article II
Section 2: Presidential Powers
Clause 3: Recess Appointments
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Article I
Section 5: Procedure
Clause 4: Adjournment
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
This means that neither House may adjourn without the consent of the other for more than three days. They must hold a pro forma session every three days; such sessions are merely held to fulfill the constitutional requirement, and not to conduct business. This is basically a ploy. The House has been on recess since December 23rd and they will not be back in session until January 17th. Between those dates is what House Republicans refer to as a District work period. During the entire month of January the House will be in session a total of 6 days.
http://www.house.gov/legislative/
Either the House is in session or it isn't. If Republicans want to claim that it is in session then they need to get to Washington and start doing work and stop freeloading off of taxpayers.
If you really want to know the names of the 200 people, then do your own research.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/nominations.htm
As for those affected, one simple example is the Federal Judges. Less judges equals more backlogs which results in longer waits. Just because you don't have a case in the Federal Court system doesn't meant that others don't. It just proves that you are incapable of looking past yourself. If it doesn't affect you, it therefore does not affect anyone else.
To quote your name, "Talk to the Hand"
Okay. Only has to do with the Senate though on appointees. Not the House. All of your points are taken. I will research. The link you gave is a bit obscure but a good start.
The appointments are done by the Senate, but the House is the one using Article I Section 5 Clause 4 to obstruct a stated Presidential Power. The House will not let the Senate adjourn even though most of the members of Congress are not in Washington. The House Republicans are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They are on recess, yet they are in session. I also think it is disgusting that over 6 weeks they will work a total of 6 days. Too bad every employer in the US doesn't give those sorts of benefits.
Bush Jr. had more than twice as many recess appointments per year as Obama, Bush Sr, had almost exactly twice the number per year, and Reagan had more than 4 times the number per year.
Bill Clinton had less than twice the number per year.
All in all, you have to conclude that Republican presidents do these a lot more than Democrats.
So, let's cut the BS and admit what's really happening. The Republican minority is trying to prevent a law that was passed by both the House and Senate, and signed by the President from taking affect. The people's representatives passed this legally and according to the constitution, so stand aside obstructionists.
They aren't preventing a law. Just an appointment to HEAD of the department. Big difference. But I get your point.
They are preventing the law since most provisions of the law cannot be used until there is a head of the department. That is written into the law itself, the Republicans know it, and that is why they are specifically calling these ridiculous pro forma sessions right now, while they sit on their duffs at home.
Off topic here, but yesterday on Dylan Ratigans show, there was a story about Montana's Supreme Court voting Not to allow Corparate Politcal cash to become involved in the State political process. This Law has been on the books for 99 Years. Also, NY & California have similar laws. This may be the endaround ot the US Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United.
Lets Hope So!
Occupy SoggyBottom!
'End around the US Supreme Court.'
Good one Rick.
Say Rick do you all got a different definition of "supreme" out there in Ky?
The very existence of The Supreme Court as it is today makes a lie out of your claims of obstructionism
Rick,Ky. Thank you for going off topic. Very good informtion and I appreciate it. Again, thank you.
Rick, KY, the Montana High Court upheld a 99-year old ban on corporate funding of campaigns in that state which in essense threw the obviously bad US Supreme Court Citizens United decision under the bus. There are about 20 other states trying to pass legislation that declares that "corporations are NOT people". You are right (and Spanky is simply full of himself, all hat and one cow), it is a end run around the Supreme Court because it means that States which pass legislation opposite of Citizens United will band together to challenge the Supreme Court's decision. Our Federal Congress, in its current state of dysfunction, should be passing such legislation but they can't even agree that Congress adjourned in mid December.
Spankster, comeon man, whasssup & Happy New Year.End around the Federal Law that was struck down by the Supremes in DC, you know that, doncha, but I know you also like to agitate because you have nuttin better to do.
I guess you're takeing a break from diggin Drug Tunnels for the Cartels again. See here in Rural Ky, we let the Moles dig tunnels(drives my Dogs crazy). Are you a Mole Spankster?
Spankster,most(not all) of Kentuckians believe in a Supreme Being, but being the way I am, I just believe in Being!
Slighyold(i'm also slighyold), You're Welcome.
Occupy SoggyBottom!!! Where the Moles dig Tunnels!
Rick and others interested in this situation, can check out www.freespeechforpeople.org who are behind this movement that has been flying under the radar.
The movement was launched the same day the awful decision was made by the Supreme Court.
Jody is right Spanky is full it, they are well on their way to getting this back before the Court and are expecting that to happen some time later this year.
Isn't it ironic that the first "victim" of the decision is a republican at the hands of a republican. Bet ol' Newt never figured he'd be that "victim"
Santorum is one of the few (if any) who believe that his "message" had anything to do with his "Last anti-Romney standing" surprise showing in Iowa.
Well, I guess it is nice to have belief in one's self.
I hereby officially predict that Rick Santorum will never get the GOP nomination this year.
I also hereby fervently hope that I'm proven wrong.
Rick Perry needs to win the nomination, simply so I can watch Obama slaughter him at debates.
I saw a clip of Jon Huntsman in NH, and I thought "what a nice guy." I've never thought that of Mitt Romney. No matter how hard he tries, Romney is just not likeable. Not likeable and not really brilliant equals not going to be President.
Dangerfield, so true. The only reason Santorum rose to the top was there were no others to pick; the rest of the evangelicals had imploded.
JoAnne PA, good one.
Amy, I agree. Mitt Romney may be a strong family man but he has never been a "nice" man; he's a two-bit phony used-car salesman (no offense to car salesmen) who would do anything required to be President including selling his soul to the devil. He's all those words we said yesterday.
"I saw a clip of Jon Huntsman in NH, and I thought "what a nice guy." I've never thought that of Mitt Romney. No matter how hard he tries, Romney is just not likeable. Not likeable and not really brilliant equals not going to be President"
BREAKING NEWS: Moonbat Amy has negative comment about Republican candidates. This is only the 5,013th content-free snarky statement she has made this week!
And, shockingly, other left wing kooks agree! Who would have guessed?
Clearly Obama has sewn up the moonbat vote in First Read-land.
We'll see Amy, we'll see. Had a look at the latest polling numbers?
:-)
J. Merle Stanley.
Why yes, I saw that 3/4 of Iowan Republicans wanted someone else to be their nominee! And Romney "won" that caucus by the smallest percentage ever recorded. Wow, if Republicans don't like him, how are the rest of us supposed to feel?
Rassmussen Nationwide Poll done yesterday. Romney 29, Santorum 21.
Santorums number previously was like 3 or 4 percent. Romney dropped about 10 points.
In the last week Santorums numbers in state poles for New Hampshire +6 points. One poll has him above Huntsman who had gone to 12 points just a few days earlier.
In a 2-hour Q&A, couldn't someone ask Santorum why he objects to protections for consumers?
Couldn't someone clue in Man on Dog and the rest of the Republicans to go back to their middle school civics course and remind them that congress passes laws and the president carries out the law. Congress passed a law creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the President is bound by the Constitution to carry that out. Similarly, the President is also carrying out the law that there is a functioning National Labor Resources Board. I would love to see a Supreme Court case challenging the President's authority on this when Congress refuses to give an up or down vote on a President's nominee and keeps the President from carrying out his Constitutional responsibilities.
That's "National Labor Relations Board.
From the content of his comments above, it certainly seems Santorum's concern is focused more on the President of the United States' disregard for the rule of law and his contempt for the Constitution /Congress than some disingenuous "consumer protections."
Nice deflection though!
Absolutely bob. They tried to take it out of context and twist it to make him sound like he was against the "common man". Look for more going forward to November. It is all they have got. The POTUS present has no record to run on. I understand now he is even working on a "vote buying" plan involving refinancing of mortgages under water. This will be construed as "everyone is getting their home for free, praise Obama" when indeed there is a list of criteria (just like the last homeowner help bill that didn't work) a mile long. But that won't come out until after the election or possibly will rely on the sheep to "spread the word, the hero has risen to help us" crap until people realize that not everyone will be eligible. Like one of the stipulations is you have to be current and paid for the last three months on your mortgage. Be fun to watch.
Al,
Number 1, there is no recess for there to be a legal recess appointment.
Section 5 Article 1 of the Constitution states that "Neither House" of Congress can adjourn for more than 3 days "without the Consent of the "other" house.
The House of Representatives did not consent to the Senate's adjournment. Not LEGAL by definition.
Number 2, Obama did not even notify Congress of his intent to nominate the 3 NLRB appointees until December 15 ..... no chance for even 1 confirmation hearing.
Bottom line - As he has demonstrated many times, Obama has no regard for the Constitution, Congress or the rule of law when it impinges the advancement of his statist agenda.
That simple ..... that putrid.
When the Republicans pull their dirty tricks and try to block the President at every front, the President does what he has to do in order to protect the people of the United States.
So, get over it. It's done and the American People win
Again, I would love to see the Supreme Court rule whether Congress is actually "in session" when no one is present for these pro forma sessions and no business is being conducted. Also, Senate Republicans were already on record of saying that no nominee for the CFPB would come to a vote. I would love to see the case go to the Supreme Court, we need to have a ruling on this dysfunctional system. For you righties who love to rip the way my state does business, that is where we are headed in DC where everything is filibustered and the President appointees don't get a vote.
Job,
Dirty tricks?
Republicans do the Cornhusker Deal, Louisaiana Purchase, deem to be passed when it didn't pass .... do they violate federal court orders, violate federal contempt orders .... ?
Like when Obama dosesn't have the Congressional support to pass his Cap and Trade, he merely states ... "there is more than one way to skin a cat" and executes it through executive fiat ....AGAINST THE WILL OF CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
It has nothing to do with "protecting" the people" of the United States.
What a joke .... that the reason he leaves the borders open.
Selling 2,500 assault rifles to Mexican cartels is protecting the people?
Your sobriquet and the content of your post are tantamount to nothing more than a job, as in a daily bodily function.
Usurping the rule of law, the Constitution and the will of the people is a win?
Only for a radical ideologue.
Ursula, it would be nice if reporters asked any of the GOP candidates and legislators that question.
So all the legislation Obama signed when he was out of the city, signed with the "robo" pen is not real either?
Sheez, some of you guys are so weak.
Jody,
Good point.
It would also be great if they reported what the real issues, the real concerns the repubs have too!
You don't have any problem with this guy / agency not being accountable to your elected representatives or subject to Congressional appropriations?
You don't care about it making "consumer" decisions with no regard to bank safety and soundness?
Btw - I enjoyed watching your Hawkeyes ... that Canzeri is a pretty feisty, tough little guy.
Bob numbers, stop your fake outrage.
Al in Visalia CA, well said. I'll add that the filibuster isn't in the Constitution so it could be declared unconstitutional if for no other reason that it promotes the tyranny of the minority and does not allow the Senate to function as intended--majority rule.
bob, seriously, the GOP's doesn't have any concerns except that the Consumer Finance Protection Agency will interfere with big banks ability to scam you and me. If you were a "real conservative", you would welcome the idea of protecting consumers (that's you and me, bob) as opposed to big banks. The role of government is to protect the public from the private. Without that protection, we get the economic collapse of 2008 which hurt, not the banks or the wealthy, but you, bob and the rest of the bobs and Jodys.
Fake outrage?
One of the definitions of outrage is an offensive act or insulting act.
Obama is an outrage with his offensive assault on the Constitution, the Congress and his actions an insult to the will of the American people.
Nothing fake about.
Jody,
It is stunning that you still deny the true reason for the economic collapse.
I can understand your wanting to defend big government and their desire to help the poor buy a home.
It is a noble intention, but it didn't work.
Why can't you accept that.
Big government did not protect the American people, it saddled the people with the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Do you really think the evil rich bankers would have made the crap loans on their own ... if they would have been responsible?
Makes no sense and you know it .... you just won't accept it.
The 5,280 pages of Dodd-Frank do nothing to address Fannie and Freddie - the root cause.
You rail against big banks .... but fail to see that only the big banks can deal with 5,280 new pages of regulations. The little guys can't afford it.
All it has done has give more power to the big guys buy helping to eliminate the smaller guys - their competition!
I just don't understand why some of you do not read a RCP or National Review ... where they put both sides and use your head ... not your heart on the matters of economic reality.
If the Congress is not in Washington working, they are on recess. Where you pissing and moaning, when President Reagan made many more recess appointments than the last few Presidents, put together?
President Obama has never violated the Constitution, and the Congress has brought about his actions because they the Congress are insulting the will of the American people, by not doing their job
Remember, President Obama is ranked a lot higher by the American People than this worst Congress ever.
So, you people on the right can stop your fake outrage, because there is nothing you can do about it.
I gave you Section 5 Article 1 of the Constitution and you still don't understand that simple sentence?
The very definition of willfull stupidity.
Your comments are simply worthless.
See ya.
I and many understand it. However, many folks on the right don't. So, President Reagan made many more recess appointments than the last few Presidents and he didn't break the law either.
Are you really serious?
You really don't understand the difference between what is a legal recess appointment and what is not?
Do you not understand that Reagan's were legal ... just like Obama's other appointments before these?
But these aren't legal.
Please let me know that you get it .... you understand the difference.
Otherwise ...... well ... I certainly don't want to pick on someone retarded.
I believe the President and the White House lawyers are a hell of a lot smarter than you are. So, the appointment stands, and there is not a thing anyone can do about it.
If President Reagan's appointment were legal, so is the one by President Obama.
The bottom line, if you are not in Washington working on business in the joint houses, you are in recess.
It's pretty simple that even some special needs folks can understand this.
Psssssst Bob:
Pssssst Al,
Yea, Reid played this trick on Bush by keeping the Senate in a pro-forma recess, and yea a couple of advisers, the guys above, had the opinion you stated. It didn't stand up - Bush didn't make the appointments.
So what was your point?
And what about then Senator Obama saying it wasn't Constitutional to do it under Bush (and again - Bush didn't) but now says it is OK?
Nice try ...was that thinkprogress cut and paste crap for the drones?
And as President Obama said to the Congress concerning this recess appointment, "If you don't like it you can lump it."
It's a done deal.
Santorum will have a harder time in NH--not as many door-knocking, in-your-face evangelicals. NH has more of the Yankee MYOB type of conservatives. It will be interesting to see how well he does there. But as long as Rick and Rick hang around, Romney will have to claim that he is a strong conservative.
my sister lives in NH and she describes it as a state founded by accountants. There aren't that many millionaires in NH, or low income people, either, no extremes, it's very much a middle class place.
@Amy It appears New Hampshire is big on diversity either.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-03-22-new-hampshire-census_N.htm
Spanky what is your inference? That Republicans have never used recess appoinments? Want a list of them ?
They were legal and Constitutional. See my post #2.1 above. Mr. Obama violated it blatantly.
And sure Ray, if you want to go to the trouble, enlighten us. Could you also provide the information on whether or not the Senate was in session at the time? Thanks. You're a peach..........pit.
Ray,
Spanky doesn't have an "inference"...he's too busy reading the State Bar of California ethics and rules...
@ HAND The present situation with congress setting up "pro forma" sessions is nothing but BS to keep the President from doing the work of the people by saying as long as the gavel is banged, they are in session (which they are not) and to make certain their rich buddies are protected. Go President Obama. President Obama has made 9 recess appts per year. Bush made 31 per year. Go criticize Mr. Bush!
They know Talk, and that's why they are hosed.
Are recess appointment illegal? Of course not.
Did Obama do it in an illegal manner?
Yep.
Cathy - how many times did Reid set up pro forma session to block Bush's appointments?
I take it you were cool with those, but somehow these are different?
Too funny.
The legal test of the appointments will be interesting. The real question will be, who has the right to challenge the appointments. The Republican Senator's don't, because they are not in charge of the Senate. The Democratic Senators won't, because they actually want the appointments to go forward. I don't think any other group or person has the right to challenge the appointments.
@Mickey , Nice to see you!
Now, be wery quiet, I'm hunting
wabbitser re-regs!The US Chamber of Commerce is considering a challenge.
What's interesting is that the Senate is not interested in challenging the executive branch from usurping the Senates duties.
dirp101, Why haven't we heard anything from Senator Reid and the other far left liberal Senators? Could it be, since they came up with pro forma, they know that Obama is making illegal appointments but a afraid to say so?
I would like to know where in the constitution it says that the President of the United States can determine when and if the congress is in recess.
I think the President should just walk over to the Senate Chamber,...Do a basic 'roll call' and then ACT.
Screw the gamesmanship. Let's get this @!$%# done. I would further state that any nomination tabled for more than 60 days is automatically appointed until evidence for their termination is produced.
I for one am sick to death of the BS. These putz' are on VACATION. The President came back to work in a timely manner, WTF is wrong with the rest of 'em?
But, hey, that's just me.
dirp101 and Cathy - If what you says is true
wouldn't it have to be Reid who called the senate to session (pro-forma or not) to block the appointments since he is the majority leader? And the Dems want it? S'plain please Lucy.
sfcret, now that's the goofiest twisted logic today. Guess you weren't paying attention because I have heard democratic senators applauding President Obama's action. And in case you haven't noticed, they're all on vacation because the Senate is not in session unless the Majority Leader says it is. This pro-forma nonsense is just a waste of taxpayer money. What's it cost us for one senator to come in a stay for a minute and do absolutely nothing? "Here, I'm here, nobody else is here but I am here to declare the senate in session and do absolutely nothing while I'm here except say I'm here which means by being here I can block anything President Obama tries to do". Nonsense, there's nothing in the Constitution that says one senator can keep Congress open for business especially when that senator does absolutely nothing except turn on the lights for a minute then turn them off.
Jody, Now that is the dumbest response so far. Name me the Senators that have been applauding President Obama's action. Further in case your memory doesn't work very well it was the Democrats in the Senate that came up with the "pro forma" sessions, so according to you it was the democrats that that used nonsense and wasted money to stop Bush's appointments.
Where does it say in the constitution that the President can decide when the congress is or is not in session? The constitution does give the congress the right to make their own rules and procedures. BTW, since the Senate rules state that adjournment approval is obtained in a concurrent resolution approved by both chambers, so can you or some other liberal come up with the concurrent resolution? Maybe you should read the constitution and the rules of the Senate and House first then comment.
The fake outrage by both side over the recess appointments is comical. Both parties have used this to get the appointee in position while the other side can save face with their constituents and cover their asses. It's just how they get their "Guy" in place. John Bolton ring any bells...
Jody ummmmm, look above you at #7.10. They are in session because the majority leader says they are.
I get so tried of the talk coming from Santorum and others saying that are a real conservative. This Country will never have a real conservative President. They may say they are conservative, but they are not.
He and others always site Ronald Regan as being a conservative. News for you, Ronald Regan was not a conservative, but instead a moderate.
So get use to it, This Country will never have a real conservative President.
Job1,
What is your definition of a real conservative?
Santorum can sleep with all the dead fetuses he wants to. He can move to Whereever he wants and send his kids to schools whereever. He can support people like Ensign while attacking democrats for less. He can kiss Vitter's ring or whatever. He can rail against abortion yet agree that his wife have one to create the fetus they slept with and deny it to anyone else. He can get his ass handed to him in an election that saw A complete moron get beaten and cost the GOP. None of this will prevent him from being President. He simply will not be President because the base does not want him as President. He is what 5th or 6th choice of the GOP? LMAO Trump was chosen before Santorum. SO please all of you Conservatives send him your money, please do.
@Ray I assume you have never lost a child or dealt with grief counselors at a hospital. This is a common recommendation for those who lose children at birth. You can criticize him for his politics but get educated before making such asinine comments about the child this family lost.
Uh...no, Rick, those people are correct. New Hampshire is nothing like Iowa. Iowa Republicans are an anomaly in the U.S. You played to their extremely conservative, almost fanatical way of thinking, because that's who YOU are. New Hampshire, and many parts of the country, DON'T think that way. You're going to have to sound a lot more moderate to win over many Republicans in NH, which you are NOT.
He doesn't get it, Ricky I mean, the GOP bosses used him, he's a sucker that thinks he's actually got something that people want to hear. The only reason he is where he is is because the Bosses twisted the arms of the voters, they didn't want Paul, a NON-republican winning Iowa.
"In case you didn't understand just how Catholic and pro-life I am, I have 35 living nieces and nephews and gosh-I-don't-know-how-many other than living ones. And so, 1 out of 35 in support of Ron Paul is still less than 3% of all my living nieces and nephews and probably closer to 2% of all the nieces and nephews I have ever had."
Capeesh?
Iowa isn't New England and Mitt is from New England. Don't get your hopes too hight Rick.
This evangelical-style MULLAH will NEVER be POTUS. What a waste of time, space, and air. He's not very bright, and will most likely say something hilarious in the near future though, so maybe not a total waste of time.
Santorums Iowa message was " I am a white male christian and I will decidedhow to legisl how you use your vagina, who you can marry and which godlike idol to worship".
I don't get cultural conservatives...they prattle on about non interference in their lives while they want to butt into everyone elses...
Santorum was a ringleader when the government decided to butt inot the Terri Schiavo case...making themselves and their supporters look like meddling buffoons...
My big question? why are they treating him like he's a viable candidate? They gotta know he's gonna be smoked by Florida.
I like Sanrorum's works but the experience is not there.
Ron Paul 2012!
The leading candidate on the Democratic side had his Pentagon Bombing Terrorist Buddy, Bill Ayers, ghostwrite the "Autobiography". I would think in a POST 9/11 World, the Dems would not want someone in the Oval Office with such close associations to a Pentagon Bomber.
Ah, Kurt? Just wake up after a three year nap? We elected Obama in 2008, and he killed Osama bin Laden. That "paling around with terrorists" thing turned out to be irrelevant, and so is the woman who coined it.
Amy B. Portland, ME....."Ah, Kurt? Just wake up after a three year nap? We elected Obama in 2008, and he killed Osama bin Laden. That "paling around with terrorists" thing turned out to be irrelevant, and so is the woman who coined it. ....."
Not so fast, Amy. First off, Obama didn't kill Osama Bin Laden. Seal Team Six did. Granted Obama gave the order to go in, and that is commendable. But, he gave that order with intelligence that was gleaned over a 6 year period. It wasn't as if B.O. went out and found the guy himself.
Secondly, Obama's close associations with federally convicted political racketeers, and domestic terrorists such as Tony Rezko, and William Ayers are indeed relevant. They are just as relevant as the Bush families alledged ties to the Bin Ladens by mutual investment in an offshore energy company, as was reported by your hero Michael Moore.
The main stream media hasn't picked up on the stories (yet). They are probably reluctant to do so after the "Killian Papers" fiasco in 2004.
Bu, the stories are there, and eventually they will come to the surface.
Ahh, a FRESH day of hopelessness for J. Merle. Dude, still stinging about how that 3:00a call was answered?
Bummer.
So according to Amy, if one Terrorists happens to be killed by the Navy Seal under your Adminstration, it is then ok to have a President who is buddies with a Terrorist that bombed the Pentagon. With thinking like that no need to bother with Homeland Security.
You know you look around in any politicians background you are going to fine little nitpicky things that are against your personal ethics code, The president has some ties to some not so nice people but so does Dr Paul, Mittsy, Sandy, the Grinch, Reagan, Clinton, all of the Bushes, Hell Mr & Mrs Lincoln held seances in the White House trying to channel their dead child's spirit for God's sake? FDR held secret meetings with those nefarious republicans when he was in the White House?
Everyone needs to grow up and start acting like adults!
This frothy candidate is a religious cult psychopath...he is extremely unstable mentally..to say "he would bomb Iran" ..He has no regard for human life ..if he can utter a sentence like that ... This lose cannon, if elected will have his nimble fingers on the nuclear buttons ! 92% of the American public are totally against this clown ! Then we are stuck with the tin man Romney !...Another republican that even the republicans don't want ! Who tries to buy the election !
PEOPLE!! PEOPLE!! PEOPLE!!
Santorum is a POLITICIAN!!! Nothing more!! He will tell you what he thinks you want to hear!!
Quote: Santorum! He is not telling the hole truth in Iowa!! If he will lie to the people what wlse will he do?????????
"I said, 'They're all Americans, they all have the same fundamental values that our founders put in place." Our founders were not what most people think they were, they had slaves, and not all were Christians!!!
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note All religions are equaly respected !! ALL RELIGIONS
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's Battle of the Wealthy People!!! Who will OWN America and everyone in it?
"Santorum continues his message:
1) I hate Obama
2) Poor people are black
3) Gays are similar to people who commit incest and bestiality
4) I hate Obama
A winning platform!"
Apparently I missed all those statements in Santorum's speech. The only part I heard was "What motivates me? The dignity of every human life." Santorum's a Christian, and it was Christianity and its tenets of equality, liberty and redemption that brought the first settlers to our shores... ended slavery in the U.S..... gave us the Civil Rights movement... and moves millions of Americans to open their hearts and wallets to widows and orphans around the globe every year through charitable giving. Christianity values EVERY human life, no matter if you're male or female, and no matter your race. Rich... poor.... we will all have to answer for how we lived our lives on this earth.
To be completely truthful, it was (for the most part) liberalism that brought people to our shores and away from conservative england. It was liberalism that ended slavery while conservatives fought against it (and christianity/the bible was used to defend slavery). It was liberalism that fought for civil rights while again conservatives fought against it. "Give me liberty or give me death". Lady Liberty, the Liberty Bell, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Religion was specifically cited as something that should be left out of government so individuals could live thier lives with liberty (freedom) and pursue happiness according to thier own ideals.
I get real pleasure in knowing that Rick Santorum will never even be elected President of the United States.
Obuma sucks and is right up there with carter as the worst president ever .
if this country is to continue we must all stand up and remove all monies from politics! we can not have this crazy speech about policies which leave the 99% of 300 million citizens without any representation. we must stop this corruption and defend our country.
when we listen to these canidates and their lack of knowledge spewing their lies we must all stop and say, there has to be someone out there who wants to fight for their country and the 300 million citizens, but atlas they are marching to the orders of the neo right without any care for any of us?
Santorum is an extreme right wing religious nut. In Pennsylvania we voted him out for a reason - the more you got to know him the stranger he became. One weird dude.