Some time last summer I told friends...

We can throw any & all CW out this window in the upcoming election.

The Santorum 'surge' last night has verified that observation!

The only thing for sure right now is, Willard has some serious 'connectivity' issues! lol

Couldn't happen to a phonier guy! ;o)

Santorum!?!?!?! You can't be serious. This caricature/clown/cretin knows with god-imbued certainty how we desperately need him to force his warped morals on America. This is a representative of the same RINO's, who have the nerve to talk about "liberal elitism". Santorum - messenger of some god he has created - is the ultimate elitist.

He pretends to understand the value of labor because at some time in the past, he had a relative who worked in a mine. Mining is dangerous, backbreaking, deadly work. This lily-white lawyer who has spent years on the government dole wants us to believe the aches, pains, calloused hands, and bone-weariness of a true working person are transmitted through genes.

He rails against big government, but wants to govern bedroom behavior, who may marry whom, and the like. He is a war hawk, but has never, ever served in the military. He swears he is a budget cutter, but is first in line for earmarks.

Santorum is the perfect choice of voters who cannot separate fact from fiction. He is the choice of voters who pretend they love a god, but hate a man of color. He is the choice of voters who are swaddled in hypocrisy. He is the candidate of an electorate steeped in ignorance. He is the perfect icon of Strix' Law.

Strix' Law? Strix is the moniker of a poster who noted the incredibly convoluted reasoning of right-wing posters. He noted that many of them were oblivious to the rules of grammar, the parts of speech, and they could not spell. Strix' Law is also known as The Law of Irrelevant Ignorance or, "Hey, just because I'm stupid, doesn't mean I'm not smart."

Nail these low-intellect "writers" for their inability to grasp their native language and they are outraged. Note their poor command of English and you are word cops, grammar police, or worse - an elitist. Their ignorance is irrelevant. They are fully-qualified to criticize anyone for any misstep. The mere fact that they cannot spell the same words they have read should not be taken to mean that they didn't understand what they read. No sir, their ignorance is irrelevant.

Here is a perfect example from the Vine. This person put up a post that was shot through and through with grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that would have sent an English teacher into seizure. As usual, the post criticized the President for his incompetence. Wonderful citizen that I am, it fell to me to point out his egregious butchery of the language.

He was outraged. Didn't I know he didn't have time to compose a grammatically correct paragraph? He is a white collar person, strapped for time, while the President has no responsibilities and has time to loll about 24/7. Yet, not three days later, this troll was correcting Feisty Redhead for her grammar. She should have said "must have", not "must of". The unmistakable stench of dishonesty and irrelevant ignorance go hand in hand.

You see it with the incredibly obtuse damage123, a troll who has mastered the tactics so skillfully enumerated by Saul Alinsky. You see it with Spanky, a first-order misogynist.

Be aware of Strix' Law - The Law of Irrelevant Ignorance - and understand that it is not possible to engage people who defend their ignorance. However, it is even more important to understand that while they truly believe their ignorance is irrelevant to their understanding of the complex world about them, it is indeed NOT irrelevant.

In their abominable ignorance they elect the Santorum's, the Romney's, and the Gingrich's - the liars, the lackeys of the rich, and that particularly nasty slice of humankind that is utterly amoral. Ignore them at your peril. Understand they must not be allowed to govern this country. That is not elitism. That is reality.

“Money is the mother’s milk of politics.”

– Jesse M. Unruh, Democratic Speaker of the California State Assembly, 1966

MSDNC’s feisty former-redhead, “Mr. Ed” Schultz had a Hillaryous comedy bit on last night’s show with regular guest comedian, Jonathan Alter. (BTW, was Alter the inspiration behind SNL’s Conehead characters??) Mr. Ed was spinning Barry’s Super PAC flip-flop as simply “leveling the playing field”. Unfortunately for Mr. Ed, Alter actually spoke the truth and told him that the Dems don’t have a long list of millionaires and billionaires like the Republican’s. Alter also mentioned that Barry’s populist rantings about “raising taxes on the rich” are likely to generate even more money going to Barry’s opponent.

Mr. Ed, brilliant political thinker and strategist that he is (LOL!!!), said the first thing that comes to his mind is “The trial lawyers can step up in support of the President”. Alter pointed out that they are not wealthy enough to make a big difference.

You could see the dejected look on Mr. Ed’s face as the reality sunk in: he told Alter it sounded like the Dems can’t match the Republicans with Super PAC money?? Alter responded “No chance”. And then noted Barry is going to have to rely on money from small donors in 2012.

Looks like the Nasty Redhead, who is always touting how Barry gets so much support from “paper route money”, is going to have to take on an extra route or two until November. And so will a couple of million more lefty liberals.

LMAO!!!!

Saw the segment....

It was pretty embarrassing for them very entertaining for me.

Rejection! such a terrible thing! Couldn't of happened to a better guy! LMAO :)

“A new Quinnipiac poll in Virginia shows President Obama pulling ahead of Mitt Romney in a general election match up, 47% to 43%

Oh Dear!

This news will cause more then a few to be cryin in their Wheaties this morning! lol

Louis, everybody is making fun of Joe Scarborough this morning. It's quite comical. I don't watch his program, but many have said that these egotistical hypocritical male Republicans (inclulding Joe S) need to stay the hell out of our lives. And I concur. Guess he had another one of his melt downs.

Anyway, since Republicans are so "concerned" about the deficit, perhaps this news will cheer them up -

Think Progress:

The CBO reported on Tuesday that the budget deficit fell sharply in January, from $50 billion a year ago to $27 billion last month. The improved numbers were attributable to higher tax collections from individuals and lower outlays. January's numbers bring the total deficit reduction to around $70 billion for the first four months of fiscal year 2012, which began on October 1.

*********

As far as Romney goes, I guess it's a tale of an old old song -

the more I see you, the more I don't want you.

I don't think his Super Pac ads are doing him any favors. Americans across the board see him as strictly buying the presidency by bullying and lying and hiding his own record.

Evidently that Trump/Romney photo shoot the other day didn't help. LoL.

Oh well. Mitt is unlikeable in many many areas. It's not just his money. It's a lot of things.

btw, did he mention the NE Patriots at all last week making it to the Super Bowl? Or did he not want to remind people that he was from Massachusetts? Just curious about that. I don't remember him mentioning it on the campaign trail, but I could have missed it.

someone's Mommy must of have dropped them on their head. then the "Damage" was done!! :)

It shouldn't be much of a surprise that Romney performed an epic fail; he didn't campaign, or spend buckets of money, in the three states he lost last night.

Romney should have won, what with him being the front runner. But he didn't. You know why? Because NOBODY LIKES HIM. NOBODY. And it isn't because of his time at Bain or his record as Governor, it is fully the fault of his personality.

We heard over and over how Dubya was somebody people, "Wanted to have a beer with." Does anyone, anyone, want to have a beer with Romney?

America is just not ready to vote for a Robot, even a Pander Bot, that has to glue his hair on every morning and is programmed to abuse dogs by strapping them to the roof of his car.

Santorum may be, like long time Republican Senate staffers suggest, the dumbest person ever to serve in Congress, but his personality isn't as caustic as Romney's.

I wonder - how much has Santorum spent in this primary season and more importantly, how much have Mitt & Co. spent?

David, the Republicans define an elitist as 1) anyone who didn't take 5 1/2 years and three transfers to earn a bachelors degree or 2) anyone who can read beyond a fourth grade level.

Wonder if tge GNOP ever thought of offering "None of the Above" as their nominee?

*** Romney: “My father was a carpenter”:

When the laughter died down & everyone was finished wiping away the tears...

Willard reminded the audience how he had to walk a half a mile to school in the snow with no boots & only a flannel shirt for warmth! lmao!

Who does this phony think he's fooling?

Let's keep this fight going, for the entertain value. However, this Country will never elect a social conservative as President.

Feisty, no one had that "during the depression I had to walk to school" ... better than Bill Cosby on the Cosby Show. I remember him telling the Cosby kids that he had to walk about 6 miles, in the snow, on one foot because he only had one shoe.

Hilarious.

Feisty, I saw a clip this morning of Romney telling an audience we are the only country in the world where people place their hands over their hearts on hearing their national anthem...followed by clips of everyone from Italians to Venezuelans putting their hands over their hearts when their anthems are played.

That's one for the vault!

I saw a clip this morning of Romney telling an audience we are the only country in the world where people place their hands over their hearts on hearing their national anthem.

Amy, don't we put our hands over our hearts during the Pledge of Allegiance? Did Mitt actually say National Anthem?

It's obvious that the GOP does not want or trust Romney as their Presidential Candidate. They know that he can't go toe to toe with President Obama and win the election.

But what's their alternative? That's the question. The GOP has the weakest group of Candidates in their history. None are qualified to be President and none can hold a candle to Presidemt Obama.

Obama in 2012.

Louis J, David Walker, NDD, Pat Boston and others have started Wednesday off with terrific posts. We know David succeeded because damage123 jumped on to prove David's point.

As for the sarcastic "concern" expressed by a couple conservatives regarding the democratic Super PAC's and Ed being disappointed, most liberals already knew what Jonathan Alter said.

I caught only a bit of Morning Joe, most days I just can't tolerate his blustering ego and his inability to allow others to speak. It doesn't surprise me he would suffer a meltdown; I've seen it before. He really is a drag on that otherwise interesting show. Morning Joe is much improved when Joe isn't there.

Pat,

Yes, Mitt was expounding on how much he loves American "hymns," like the National Anthem, and how Americans feel prompted to cover their hearts with their hands, and he said we are "the only country" that does that. Ha!

That's one for the vault!

Ames,

If things continue the way they are, we are going to need a BIGGER vault! ;o)

Louis, nice observations, really well stated. Good Job.

David, as usual you are spot on, well done

Apologies to you both for complimenting you in one post, am short on time, you two have covered all the arguments why we are looking at such flawed possibilities to challenge the President.

Hate is the fuel for their arguments and ignorance is the accelerant. Have a good day gentlemen, and again, well done.

@Feisty and Pat,

If I recall, that long walk was uphill in both directions....

Amy, that's so Mitt. Apparently Romney didn't watch any of the Olympic medal ceremonies when he took control of the Salt Lake City Olympics and made it a success!

As for Romney's "my father was a carpenter", he's trying too hard. My first thought was he was trying to connect to the evangelicals because Joseph was a carpenter, too. That's probably totally off the mark and unfair but that's what struck me when I read the words.

On Mourning Joe this AM Joe was thrashing about in distress saying the HHS decision on contraception was going to cost Obama the Presidency.

I couldn't stop laughing.

For years now we've heard Joe, and those like him, tell us social issues/the culture war wouldn't matter this time; this time it was all about the economy. They'd even go further and say that if the economy improves Obama will walk to reelection.

Now that the economy is improving what are we seeing? Republicans are starting to go full tilt boogy towards culture war issues. Which, if the wingnut pundits had anything in the way of long term memory, would certainly suggest that Obama, per their predictions, will win reelection easily.

Also too, the Republicans want to run against Obama on the issue of contraception? I'm not even talking about abortion, I'm talking about contraception. Contraception? Really? Over ninety percent of Catholic women use some kind of contraception, and this is the culture war issues Republicans want to run on? Really?

Amy,

Thanks for that a good laugh this morning. Romney needs to learn another patriotic song... or better yet... talk about real issues.

Good Morning everyone, Yup Santorum is the flavor of the week. It is gonna be a lot of frothy ice cream jokes floating around.

You'd think the republican candidates would put forth a plan to move America's economy rather than bash President Obama.The republican know they can't attack the President on foreign policies. Now that the economy is picking up they put forth wedge issues of social conservatism instead of solutions.

We have learned the bible belt is now in the Midwest. Or is it the GNOPee Tea Potty hates this President so much they'd rather vote for any dolt?

Amy, he loves America so much that he feels the need to hide his money in the Cayman Islands and Swiss bank accounts. He loves America so much that he is pro-Iraq invasion where he is perfectly fine with sending other family's kids but not his.

"We are the only country" that does that is absurd. He is empty when it comes to world affairs. He truly is empty.

President Obama on the other hand is quite sophisticated when it comes to rcognizing and respecting other cultures who yes, do cover their hearts with their hands.

Romney is freakin' clueless. For a man who is filthy rich, he seems dangerously uninformed when it comes to the rest of the world. If I had his money, I would travel the entire globe, on foot (with one shoe, haha).

Joe Albany - It's easy to denounce this switcheroo, and no doubt many liberals will do so—for all of 24 hours. This synthetic outrage will be highly entertaining.

I find it ironic that only you and me are talking about this issue, although obvioulsy for different reasons and from different perspectives. While you view this switcheroo with mirth, believe me there is nothing synthetic about my displeasure.

Principles shouldn't have a price.

I read the NY Times editorial about the Obama super PAC that FR linked to. At least the NYT doesn't repeat the big lie that Obama "reversed" his position that First Read and other media outlets promoted yesterday. Obama never promised not to use super PACs, so he didn't go back on any promise and he didn't "reverse" anything. Romney has been such a shameless flip-flopper (on what issue hasn't he flipped and flopped?), so the media is bending over backwards to portray Obama as a flip-flopper, too.

The NY Times may think it would have been noble for Obama to fight with one hand tied behind his back, but nobody would notice the nobility, including the Times, if Obama discouraged super PACs and then lost the election.

I'm not a millionaire, and I think that the radical Roberts Surpreme Court ruling was the worst since the Dred Scott case. But maybe I'll contribute to the Obama super PAC myself. They likely will go after the lies Willard Mittens Romney is telling a lot harder than Obama's official campaign is likely to do.

This should give Newt Gingrich a breather. Romney's super-PAC attack dogs will now probably go after Santorum with a vengeance. Romney might as well admit it. The conservatives in the GOP, do not trust or like him. They probably never will.

Good morning everyone! Welcome back David!

Romney gets rejected.

That made my day. ; )

Amazing, just amazing.

The anybody-but-mitt party strikes again!

I admit it. I thought Santorum was toast. I've been saying that for weeks. Yesterday I agreed with Feisty Red Head's comparison of Santorum tp one of the walking dead and predicted he would be gone for good by Friday.

Wrong again, Cowboy!

Once again I under-estimated the degree to which the anybody-but-mitt party would go to avoid the inevitable.

Wow. Simply, wow. I am struck dumb with disbelief.

I think the President can start picking out the new drapes and carpet for the Oval Office because there is no way a GOP this divided can prevail in November.

This is the most incredible primary in my life-time and may usurp the Democrat primary of 1860 when the party split and held TWO nominating conventions.

This is definitely one for the record books. But it won't stop me from predicting that Romney will take Arizona (Mormon vote again) and Santorum may be able to take Michigan. Newt's looking a bit like road kill. But then, that's what I said about Santorum yesterday.

Congratulations Mr. President, it's in the bag. The GOP is so screwed up I think maybe even I might be able to win in November. Is it too late for me to declare my candidacy and set up a super pac?

Nah...

Obama/Biden 2012

Damage123, I'll expand the definition to include anyone who uses the term "elitist" four times in the same post and spells it right ALL FOUR TIMES!!

nisl

Although Romney was not as active in those states, he still far outspent Santorum.

Don't you think that Santorum using a million dollars for 3 states knows something about spending money properly than Romeny who spent millions on those states - and lost?

Santorum may be, like long time Republican Senate staffers suggest, the dumbest person ever to serve in Congress

Both Romney and Gingrich were not paying attention to Santorum - that is being an elitist. Both Romney and Gingrich recognized what Santorum was doing too late. Romney opened the bank account to try to stop it. Gingrich termed Santorums strategy as "Shrewd". Can't be shrewd and stupid are polar opposites and you are on the wrong pole on this one.

And nisl - name the staffer - you can't - no such person exists!

Looks like Obama is now for it, after being against it.

Ah, we're sorry, did you want Obama to lie down and let the Koch brothers buy this election? Wouldn't that make you happy?

No matter how much wingnuts want America to formally become an oligarchy, or worse yet, a kleptocracy, liberals won't allow it.

Obama's supporters don't want Obama to fight this fight with one hand tied behind his back. We may not like the electoral system the wingnuts on the Supreme Court forced upon this country, but we aren't spoiled children that will take our ball and go home. We will fight.

The only way we will ever be able to change the system is by convincing Republicans that the system does not favor them. That means we have to win convincingly using the existing system to change the existing system.

The "switcheroo" may be regarded as humerous by Albany Joe and with displeasure by Yellowdog Mark, that's fine. But I would point to this, Candidate Obama's initial decision was made BEFORE the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court; the rules changed in mid-term. Our Congress is gridlocked and has done nothing about it. As much as I dislike the idea, I'm a realist and a pragmatist--one side cannot be allowed to play with one set of election rules and the other be required to stand on principle. It is petty to complain about President Obama's decision when the decision had everything to do with trying to level the playing field not just for him but for other democratic candidates at all levels of government.

If we as a people dislike the Citizens United decision, dislike the Super PACs, then instead of being amused or disappointed by President Obama's decision, then it is up to us to demand from our federal legislators that they pass a Constitutional Amendment to change the SCOTUS decision.

During the Iowa caucus, I was elected to the local county democratic committee, we submitted to the State party a petition to request a state Constitutional Convention to undo the damage Citizens United has done to our democracy. We are fighting hard in Iowa to change it. Constitutional Amendments take time. Meanwhile, we cannot expect one party to play with one hand tied behind their backs. Those who are disappointed need to recognize that doing what is necessary isn't always the way we'd like it to be. I also know that Super PACs, Karl Rove's in particular in Iowa, are infusing huge amounts of money into local elections. That should concern everyone.

Let's remember what happened a few years ago under those principled Republicans. These are Bush's words:

“I’d do it again,” proclaimed Bush, speaking to the annual convention of the National AutomobileDealers Association.

The bailout, which ultimately totaled $85 billion, was originally begun during the waning days of the Bush administration. With a specific rescue effort rejected by Congress, the former Commander-in-Chief decided to tap into a separate, $700 billion fund Capitol Hill did approve for the bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry.

“Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy,” said the ex-president, during his speech in Las Vegas, referring to his normal stand in favor of free trade. “If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay,” he said, referring to the collapse of both General Motors andChrysler.

But Bush also noted that coming on top of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the meltdown of the banking industry and the collapse of the housing market, a painful shift in policy was needed.

“I didn’t want there to be 21 percent unemployment,” he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and theautomotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs.

Full article here:

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10342178-bush-on-auto-bailouts-id-do-it-again

Dear Progressive Friends,

Great start to the day.

Thanks

David your message is completely correct, my only concern is the generalization to those on the right (though I do agree from MY observations on newsvine the majority of what you have said has come from the right), There are some posters on the right here who do listen and respond non maliciously and I've witness them recieve harsh treatment from those on the left. Your point is very well take, it is just the generalization does weaken it, however, you are again very accurate when describing Damage.

We can ignore ignorrance as much as we want, but you are correct at the end of the day those people still do have a stake in the outcome of all of our lives.

And nisl - name the staffer - you can't - no such person exists.

Really? How about Mark Salter, who has worked for John McCain since the eighties, who said on Facebook (after Santorum said McCain didn't understand torture) that:

Ron Paul may be the wackiest candidate in the GOP field. But for pure, blind stupidity nobody beats Santorum. In my 20 years in the Senate, I never met a dumber member, which he reminded me of today.

Jody, I thought "my father was a carpenter" was a dog whistle as well, a statement meant to resonate with the evangelical crowd. Makes me sad/mad.

Yellowdog mark, I have always been against citizens united. In a perfect world we could have public funding of elections with time and spending limits. These two year campaigns are exactly why nothing gets done.

Jody, Iowa:Meanwhile, we cannot expect one party to play with one hand tied behind their backs. Those who are disappointed need to recognize that doing what is necessary isn't always the way we'd like it to be. I also know that Super PACs, Karl Rove's in particular in Iowa, are infusing huge amounts of money into local elections. That should concern everyone.

My. The self righteous indignation rantings of a sell out. I guess you can justify just about anything with this "logic".

Romney says that his father was a carpenter ... so was Jesus ... is Romney trying to say that he is the son of Jesus?

ideology,

If it will get him elected, then YES, that is exactly what Romney is saying.

[...is Romney trying to say that he is the son of Jesus?]

He evidently doesn't remember where that kind of talk got The Beatles...

Why isn’t anyone asking the obvious question?

Where was the Catholic Church when the very same mandates were enacted in 28 states prior to the Affordable Healthcare Act??

By my calculation the AFA seeks to provide access to citizens of the other 22 states that

which is already available to more than half the women in the country.

Rachel Maddow has been one of the few members of the punditry class who has maintained some sense of objectivity and pointed out that this is pure theatre

for the right wing and has nothing to do with religious freedom. Anybody who is Catholic can still worship the same way they always have and if they don’t want to use birth control that is their right. However, she pointed out that statistics reflect that most Catholic women are using or have used contraceptives in the past. So why all of the mass hysteria?

Secondly, many women in Italy avail themselves of birth control (part of their Universal Healthcare Plan) and we don’t hear from the Holy See his outrage over this. Is it possible the Pope does not know these women in his own back yard are going against the religious teachings of the church?

Faux outrage much!!!

Looks like Obama is now for it, after being against it.

You have to look beyond this blog for any liberals with principles. Robert Reich who's views I don't agree with very often if ever garners at least respect for not being a hipocritical rumpswabs like the folks here.....

Ah, we're sorry, did you want Obama to lie down and let the Koch brothers buy this election? Wouldn't that make you happy?

How many billionaires does it take to buy a presidential election? “With so much at stake” wrote Obama campaign manager Jim Messina on the Obama campaign’s blog, Obama couldn’t “unilaterally disarm.”

But would refusing to be corrupted this way really amount to unilateral disarmament? To the contrary, I think it would have given the President a rallying cry that nearly all Americans would get behind: “More of the nation’s wealth and political power is now in the hands of fewer people and large corporations than since the era of the robber barons of the Gilded Age. I will not allow our democracy to be corrupted by this! I will fight to take back our government!”

Read more: http://robertreich.org/post/17251255054#ixzz1lo9CA8Df

And if Obama's reversal on superpac isn't enough to prove the guy is a complete sellout without conviction see below. Man-oh-man, image if Bush instituted such a measure the liberal hipocrites was be screaming for impeachment. But listen closely for their reaction to this news....

Look! Up in the sky! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? It’s … a drone, and it’s watching you. That’s what privacy advocates fear from a bill Congress passed this week to make it easier for the government to fly unmanned spy planes in U.S. airspace.

The FAA Reauthorization Act, which President Obama is expected to sign, also orders the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones by 2015.

OBOY!

When the overnight news is not good for the faux thinkers on the right fringes of society, they certainly have a big problem staying on point. Next they'll be crying MSNBC-bias because they won't let the mental lag behinds determine what today's subject will be and write the headline.

nisl and Jody, right on with your observations regarding Obama's SuperPac decisons!

Even the right has seen how the original decison hurts political funding more than helps. But it seems that they are REALLY alarmed to realize that a decision that gave them an advantage, however ill-conceived that decision might be, is no longer their sole province. Now everyone knows the secret and the playing field is level again. If the positions of the parties were reversed, would the Republicans NOT use Citizens United? The genie is out of the bottle.

I do not like the Citizens United ruling. I will continue to speak out against it. But as long as it is legal and is being used by the right, I have no problems with Obama and the left using it. It's not hypocrisy, it's reality.

Didn't we just have this discussion, with the shoe on the other foot, with regard to Warren Buffet and his statements regarding income tax rates?

If super Pacs are all powerful and needed to win an election, how did Santorum just win 3 states in the Republican primary?

Has all the spending so far changed one mind of the posters to this board?

Couldn't happen to a phonier guy!

You've got that right!

The Headline should read: The Weather Vane takes a beating! Which way will he turn now?

The left wing seems to be under the impression that the republicans some how chose the candidates that are running under their ticket. Let's be frank for a moment. The candidates chose to run, not the other way around.

What do you want the republicans to do, liberals? What exactly do you want from them? They are given a reduced field of 4 candidates and they have to choose from among them. As flawed as they are, they are the only choices at this point.

Liberals can rant and rave all they want about the REPUBLICAN choices but that does not change the fact that they are the only ones available to choose from. You can put them down all you like, but that does not change the fact that the choices are limited to only the remaining candidates.

The liberals have everything to say about everyone of the choices... Do you want them all to suddenly drop dead? Everytime a primary comes up and the choice has been made, the next day we get certain liberals on this board railing against that choice. Well you know what? Who cares what you have to say about it? You didn't make the choice, the Republicans did. You wouldn't support any of them anyway. It's getting very old listening to you complain about something you can't control. The question begs to be asked... Do you serve cheese with that whine?

If you are making 300k or below in this country and you vote for one of these greedy republican idiots, you are, quite literally, voting to take your money and hand it over to the rich! If you are making over that and only care for yourself then I could certainly see why you would want one of these canidates to win.

Republican tax cuts for the wealthy provided Americans making more than $1 million with a $128,832 benefit, while Americans earning from $40,000 to $50,000 got an $860 benefit on average.

Sound fair to you? NO? That's because it isn't. The deck is already stacked against the poor and middle-class and these jokers want to make it even more unjust.

Republican momentum is building!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Missouri's contest enjoyed the largest turnout at almost 6% of eligible voters. Minnesota and Colorado enjoyed almost 1.5% of eligible voters participating in the caucuses.

If the GOP can sustain the endorsement of 1 out of every 20 voters - you know they have a mandate.

Of course Republicans do not want Obama even thinking about receiving SuperPAC support. So far, it looks like Obama needs to stand in the closet to allow the Republican field a chance to be competitive.

BrianB: Who cares what you have to say about it? You didn't make the choice, the Republicans did. You wouldn't support any of them anyway. It's getting very old listening to you complain about something you can't control.

If the Republican primaries, caucuses, polls, debates were being played out in a vacuum, you might have a point.

But these events are being conducted on a national stage before a national audience. And the Republican candidates collectively mention Obama more that they do each other. That makes it a national issue, something that involves all of us. The Republican candidates are talking about national policy, what national laws they will change, what national mores they like and don't like.

So stop with YOUR pouting and complaining.

I guess I'm just really a naive rube.

Because every time the Republicans wholeheartedly embrace some shameless activity (sometimes for years) and then at the first whiff of a Democrat doing something that looks similar yell "HYPOCRITE!!!!", I doubt that there is anybody in America who can't see through their bluff.

Yet here are those who prove me wrong, posting away that Obama using super-PAC money is different - because he promised not to take it. Unlike the Republicans, who never promised anything. So they're not hypocrites!

So let me get this straight - if you promise not to do bad things and slip up sometimes or find that circumstances were different than you thought and your thinking has to change, you're a BAD HYPOCRITE.

But if you never promise not to do bad things and merrily go about doing them every day with consistency, you're GOOD because you're NOT A HYPOCRITE?

Okay, got it. Thanks.

Nerm_L - So far, it looks like Obama needs to stand in the closet to allow the Republican field a chance to be competitive.

At this point, even if Obama came out of the closet I'm not sure it would be enough to save any of the Republican field.

I mean, when even those from the right like BrianB are saying things like "we didn't pick them, these clowns just decided to run", I believe the fat lady has started warming up, if not actually singing the first bars.

Obama/Biden 2012

What "march"??? You mean the "march" solely created by First Read and the rest of the MSM that assumed (or hoped) Romney would be the de facto nominee by Super Tuesday??? That "march"??? Chuck Todd, et al at First Read have absolutely no clue.

"Romney" Gets Rejected".

No, he was not rejected. It was a system of voting. People choosing their Right to Vote who they felt was the best Candidate in Minnesota and Colorado.

The Race for the person to represent the GOP party is still on.

Would the Headline state that "President Obama in the final run for a second term when the Election comes" and loses; say he was rejected?

Sensationalism Journalism. Santorum is a weak Candidate---kinda of blah, no dynamics. No one knows until November, 2012, who will be the winner until November..

Rejected? A better description could have been Romney lost in these 2 States.

What do you want the republicans to do, liberals? What exactly do you want from them?

We want them to lose because they represent an ideology and a set of policies that led this country into the dire financial straights it is in. We'd also like them to stop with the double standards and the hypocritical nonsense they spout about the deficit. The GOP has shown it doesn't care about deficits over and over again, but the second they are out of power they pretend to be deficit hawks.

As flawed as they are, they are the only choices at this point.

Maybe if the Republican party actually stood for something you wouldn't have that problem.

Liberals can rant and rave all they want about the REPUBLICAN choices

Okay, thanks for that.

but that does not change the fact that they are the only ones available to choose from.

Well, it sucks to be you then, doesn't it?

You can put them down all you like,

That is exactly what we will do. This is a liberal political blog, what did you expect? If you don't like it maybe this isn't the place for you.

The liberals have everything to say about everyone of the choices...

Really? On a liberal political blogs the commentators make comments about wingnut politicians? Shocking!!!!!

Do you want them all to suddenly drop dead?

No, we want them to lose in a spectacular manner and thereby force the GOP to stop being obstructionists. We saw how Republicans behaved during the Clinton years, we see what they are doing now, and we want you to stop being Aholes. The only way that will happen is if the GOP losses in a big way.

Everytime a primary comes up and the choice has been made, the next day we get certain liberals on this board railing against that choice.

Actually what you are seeing, largely, is called schadenfreude. We aren't railing against the choices Republicans make, we are laughing at them.

Well you know what? Who cares what you have to say about it?

Obviously you do. To which I respond with a hearty, "Ha ha!"

It's getting very old listening to you complain about something you can't control.

Well then maybe you should find another blog. I'd suggest Red State.

The question begs to be asked... Do you serve cheese with that whine?

Your entire post is one big pity party and you say we are whining? That word does not mean what you think it means.

Damage123.....if that's your definition of an "elitist," then it means that Republicans are ALSO in that same category!!!

Nerm - Don't worry about the competiveness of the republicans. They have a lot to go on. The first order of business is Obama's record. You know, the one he can't run on?!? Don't think for a moment that independents aren't going to remember everything Obama did that is offensive to them. Republicans aren't going to choose the next president, independents are.

@RealAmericansFirst

I really don't care about super PACs but lets look at the issue of school choice. I'll even accept that for security/privacy reasons the President has to send his kids to private school.

However, don't you think it's hypocritical for Democrats to deny the same choice to poorer parents that they themselves exercise?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/04/how-members-of-the-111th-congress-practice-private-school-choice

I know it's Heritage, a right wing think tank, but unless you can contradict their numbers let accept them.

Do you think this is hypocritical? BTW Rahm Emanuel also sends his kids to private school.

John from Tucson: The fact that you actually believe what you wrote is amazing! I think you're in for a major letdown come election day; but, hey, that's just my opinion!

Obama/Biden 2012 (for sure)

felden said: But these events are being conducted on a national stage before a national audience. And the Republican candidates collectively mention Obama more that they do each other. That makes it a national issue, something that involves all of us.

Felden - so what if these events are being played out on the national stage? You totally missed my point... The liberals do not have any influence with what the republicans say, do or act on. The only thing they do is complain about the candidate. My point - who cares what the liberals have to say about it? All they do is voice disdain. They are acting like the choices the republican voters make is something outside of the norm of a primary. Hell, the candidate going up against Obama hasn't even been chosen and the liberals are choosing character assassination before the fact. Let them place their aggressive nature in full force AFTER the candidate has been chosen. Right now, all things considered, they are whining and looking like complete idiots.

I'm not the one complaining about the candidates... the liberals are.

As predicted yesterday.....the vultures are out.....against ANY leading Obama opposition.

Yep, here comes another video for the Liberals to "tune out":

• http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=JVAhr4hZDJE&vq=medium#t=19

Oh, "I deserve to be re-elected". Pathetic. LOL

Brianb: Just because these are the only four candidates that the Republicans have put forth doesn't mean you have to vote for them!! I've voted in the past for both Republicans AND Democrats -- I choose to vote for the man/woman who I feel will do the best job in the presidency. Sometimes that has been a Republican (but not often); oftimes it's been a Democrat. So, if Republicans don't like the 4 candidates that are on the ballot....they have two options: (1) don't vote at all; or (2) re-register as a Democrat and vote for someone that will continue to do the job he's supposed to be doing!

That's the problem -- just because you are a Republican doesn't mean you can't change parties if you don't agree with the slate you're given.....but, most Republicans just follow like little puppies without giving it a single thought. Maybe it's time to change????

Alan - Well, even according to that Heritage Foundation (Koch-funded) report you linked, far more Republicans members of Congress than Democrats have ever sent their kids to private schools (38% to 34% in the House and 53% to 37% in the Senate).

And I notice they omitted the figures on how many currently send their kids to private school. Since they clearly had those figures and knowing the Heritage Foundation's reporting methods, I'm quite sure there was a reason for that (namely, the data didn't support their agenda).

The important question is, which party works to make sure that all children can get an equal public education? And we know the answer to that one.

nisl said: No, we want them to lose in a spectacular manner and thereby force the GOP to stop being obstructionists. We saw how Republicans behaved during the Clinton years, we see what they are doing now, and we want you to stop being Aholes. The only way that will happen is if the GOP losses in a big way.

It sounds to me like wishful thinking. Since you are speaking solely from a liberal point of view, it's a great thing that this country doesn't only sport your viewpoint. When you consider that the democrats took a beating in 10, you must be under the impression that dynamic has changed in the past 2 years. You'd better re-evaluate the independent's position and remove those rose colored glasses from your eyes. Independents like me do not think like liberals do. We have a totally different perspective of what's right and what's wrong. What I know, is Obama is wrong for this country and the influence of the liberals only accounts for 1/3 of the voting public.

Alan, well, even according to that Heritage Foundation (Koch-funded) report you linked, far more Republicans members of Congress than Democrats have eversent their kids to private schools (38% to 34% in the House and 53% to 37% in the Senate).

And I notice they omitted the figures on how many currently send their kids to private school. Since they clearly had those figures and knowing the Heritage Foundation's reporting methods, I'm quite sure there was a reason for that (namely, the data didn't support their agenda).

The important question is, which party works to make sure that all children can get an equal public education? And we know the answer to that one.

I notice you didn't answer the question whether Democrats who argue against choice, but have their own kids in private school, are hypocritical. You may not agree with their opinion but this charge cannot be applied to Republicans because they are for choice, and have a policy to extend this choice to poor parents.

As to your question of " which party works to make sure that all children can get an equal public education", the answer is neither. If the Democrats choose not to use the public system then it is by definition not equal, and they are giving their kids an advantage.

And here is some food for thought

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/07/nj_teachers_union_boss_with_500k_salary_tells_poor_lifes_not_always_fair.html

A Santorum win is actually a good thing... he has absolutely zero chance at beating Obama. Not a single moderate or independent will vote for him.

Hell, I know die-hard Republicans who have voted party lines their entire life admit that they will vote for Obama over the disgusting, evil, big-government, scum-bag Santorum. And these are people that hate Obama.

So go on, nominate Santorum... it's a guaranteed Obama win.

Brian B - I've read enough of your posts to know you are not an independent. From your posts you are just as much of a wingnut as Spanky, quit pretending to be otherwise. By the way, technically I'm an independent in that I've never been a member of either party. Nobody can say how "independents" think because independents are, by definition, independent.

And yes, I don't think the 2010 election will resemble the 2012 election any more than the 2008 election resembled the 2010 election. If you think it will you are kidding yourself.

The outrage against contraceptives is akin to the outrage against abortions. I personally know a couple that were outspoken about abortions AND contraceptives until their teenaged daughter somehow became an expectant mother then the rules were changed. They secretly took their daughter to a "doctor" that solved the problem and made sure the daughter knew to use contraceptives. After their problem was solved they went back to their protest of abortions and contraceptives.

I believe that's the way many of the outraged protesters are today. They protest in public about the "immoral" issues but in secret practice them. Only the rich and the ignorant have more children than necessary. The rich can afford them but the ignorant only drive themselves deeper into poverty yet both vote Republican.

I also personally know Republican voters that are protesting welfare to the underprivileged who themselves received welfare for a good portion of their lives until the rules were changed under Clinton and the Republican congress. I call that the "Do as I say now...not as I did rule"

@Jody: did you present the PAM petitions to your committee? That is a great way to begin the "change" effort you are seeking. It takes each state calling for such a Constitutional Convention to pass any amendment that hasn't first gone through Congress and then submitted to the states for approval. It will take 3/4 of the states calling for the conventions to pass the amendments.

didi - I'm a conservative independent. Not all your opposition is republican. I wouldn't vote for Obama if he were the only candidate with a full set of gold teeth, sported wings and could fly. I base my opinion on what I've observed over the last 3 years. He has not won my vote, in fact he's added to the reasons for me never wanting to see him in the White House again. His agenda includes hurting private business, adding rediculous regulations and his spending is totally out of control. Now you may support these things, but as a reasonable adult, I choose to reject them full force. I may not like the republican candidate, but any one of the field of 4 is many times better than Obama.

nisl - I'm right wing - You bet your bippie I am. You are completely confused about what a republican is and what an independent conservative is. I don't find the republicans to be conservative in the least. They capitulate way too much. That's not conservative. Personally I could give 2 sh!ts if you think I'm republican. I know what I am and you only see me through a sliver in the window.

Since you are in the mood for putting what I believe down, I'll openly tell you that I find your ideology (liberal) totally repulsive. The liberal ideology has done more harm to this country and our Constitution than you'll ever admit to, but what's done more harm is the republicans allowing it to happen.

@Brianb-999431 -- Independents are allowed to participate in most of the Republican caucuses. Minnesota does not even register voters by party affiliation - so anyone can participate in the Republican caucus. Republicans are not exciting their own base - and - certainly not attracting independents and unhappy Democrats.

If independents will choose the next President - then perhaps the candidates should be telling us what they will do as President - what their political priorities are - what they hope to accomplish.

Obama does, indeed, have a record. Voters have a pretty good idea what Obama's political priorities are and what he would try to accomplish. Voters can decide if the strengths and weaknesses of Obama are acceptable.

So far, independents have the choice between a product with some ingredients that they may not like - or - an empty box. The flashy label on the product carton is NOT winning the election ...

Republicans are not going to win if they are only relying on the participation of 1 out of 20 eligible voters ...

nisl - your taking the word of a McCain Staffer - What Joke. The person call "stupid" How much weaker of a source can you get.

Man you really don't have much do you?

The liberal ideology has done more harm to this country and our Constitution than you'll ever admit to, but what's done more harm is the republicans allowing it to happen.

And I find your conservative ideology on of the greatest threats to freedom our nation has ever encountered. Conservatives, like YOU, are actively working to strip away our freedoms... FORCING us to follow your religion, FORCING us to follow your morals, FORCING us to love who you tell us, FORCING us to marry who you tell us, FORCING us to follow your instructions in the bedroom, FORCING us to do follow your instructions for our body.

Conservatives like YOU will bring a new darkness to this country, implementing your religious fascism. I do not just find your ideology repulsive, I find it inherently evil and an absolute threat to freedom. Obviously we will never agree, because I see you as a threat to my freedom.

So for every person like YOU who blames EVERYTHING on liberals, there is someone like me standing up to your attempt at tyranny and oppression.

BrianB an "idependent" who believes that current republicans are not conservative enough must be looking at the word independent through one of those silver windows you are speaking of.

Though "independent conservative" may actually be the correct term for some one with your views (I dont know all of them). From what I have seen you sound more like someone who is simply unahppy with their party touting the word independent to distance yourself.

The liberal ideology has done more harm to this country and our Constitution than you'll ever admit to,

No doubt about that. It ended slavery, fought for civil rights and ended (through Social Security) the idea that old people should be able to survive on a diet of cat food. I'm sure, to you, these things harmed our country and our Constitution. I disagree.

DB Akron - So McCain is no longer a Republican? Mark Salter hasn't been his right hand man for the last few decades? By the way, you shouldn't have dropped out of middle school. Look at your post man, good lord, don't you proofread?

x

Great for Santorum!! Glad to see a true conservative win some states.... Now if we only can get negros to get off the obama bus and get smart and vote for a conservative we will be all set. Negroes will vote with the welfare and food stamp king though so i dont expect much from them anyway. Just hope we have enough Americans to win and get this marxist out of office in november

And THAT basically sums up the Republican party.

Boy Indie - someone has been feeding you pablum by the buckets. Typical response from a liberal. Let's agree to disagree. Liberals are natually opposed to anything conservative because being conservative actually involves personal responsibility... something liberals are known to hate.

nisl - Lincoln was a liberal? Talk about a fabrication.

akeem - since you don't know me, and have only observed but a fraction of my belief's I'll simply say... you are entitled to your opinion... but don't confuse it... it's only an opinion.

Yep, Indie, he summed it all up rather well... Republicans, here is your collective voice. Resistance is futile...

Drones... geesh.

David walker - what a humorous and elitist poster you are. Someday you might realize how far off base you are in a real world, regardless of your vocabulary.

I find it interesting that you place so much on a poster having to be grammatically correct or even be the winner of spelling B's. Yes I realize that these blogs support a spell checker. Regardless, why not pay attention to what the poster is trying to say, rather than how it is grammatically presented?

Your paragraph on santorium and mining was very representative of how you wish to use your opinion as fact. So please do tell us about the years you spent below the ground mining or was it jsut living under a rock that gave you such insight?

This lily-white lawyer who has spent years on the government dole wants us to believe the aches, pains, calloused hands, and bone-weariness of a true working person are transmitted through genes.

It does appear that the same argument could be made against obama as well, regardless of obamas thinking that removing his jacket and rolling up his sleeves will make it appear that he understands the poor or middle class.

He rails against big government, but wants to govern bedroom behavior, who may marry whom, and the like..

I wonder is he really trying to tell others how they must live, or is he merely telling his audience what he values. Really david, we can review news videos of obama saying "____— must go" or that corporations and the wealthy must pay their fair share, but within the realm of foreign policy or economic reality isn't obama the one that wants to tell others what to do? I do so like obamas frequent use last year of telling the right that he will veto any bills on the economy he doesn't agree with. It is almost like obama telling us in 2008 that he believed in bipartisanship yet the veto threat says that he doesn't.

As for big government, just what is the point of it? Obviously obama and his supporters want to embrace it, but those of us who pay taxes are beginning to understand just how inefficient government has really become. Nothing like declining revenue and increasing expenditures to emphasize what a waste our $$$ are in governmental hands. David you notice that I am not saying that either party has a lock on this, don't you? The KISS principle has its supporters within the business world, it is time for the politicians to embrace it within the public sector as well.

He is a war hawk, but has never, ever served in the military.

Quite sure the same can be said about obama as well. Saying yea or nay to military ops doesn't make obama a military man.

He swears he is a budget cutter, but is first in line for earmarks.

Sure you don't mean a budget controller? As for earmarks, what member of congress doesn't want to see that their constituents are treated favorably? A POTUS shouldn't have that attitude, but we all know that obama still does.

Substitute the name Obama for Santorum and you have sold us on your opinion...

Obama is the perfect choice of voters who cannot separate fact from fiction. He is the choice of voters who pretend they love a god, but hate a man of color. He is the choice of voters who are swaddled in hypocrisy. He is the candidate of an electorate steeped in ignorance. He is the perfect icon of Strix' Law.

BTW - I will have to consider reading up on your strix law comparison to see if it also applies to obama as well.

Nice to see that you like using a strawman argument for damage, spanky and probably others. Why inconvience yourself in looking intelligently at what they are saying, right?

Akeem made an interesting observation that you focus too much on the right and thereby implies that you fail to see that the left is the same. From your point of view, it probably doesn't really matter since all you do is express an opinion based more on personal bias than any resemblance to facts.

Dear progressive friends......... Wait I dont have any. In fact I really dont know any progressives at all. My neighbors for the most part voted for Mr Obama for reasons other than political party. However since Mr Obama has not bailed out Detroit ( and believe me they are expecting that) they may not vote for him this time around. LMAO......Im kidding, who else would people in Detroit vote for!

How can Santorum rant and rave about abortion, when his wife had one?

“contraception is hardly a controversial topic for most Americans; without it, you wouldn’t see women in the workplace, in political office, or in other places outside the home. It’s a pretty simple fact”

That’s a good point: the Republicans are in effect trying to reverse the feminist movement and put women back where they “belong” – in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.

Brianb-999431: "His agenda includes hurting private business, adding rediculous regulations and his spending is totally out of control."

First, I don’t agree with those statements in the slightest, particularly the first two, but even assuming you are right for the sake of the argument – is that really the best you can do? That is your reason for liking the Republicans instead? You must be insane, not independent.

“being conservative actually involves personal responsibility” – so no conservatives in this country are on welfare? They all take full responsibility for themselves and take no handouts? It’s all just liberals being entitled? And I suppose there are no liberals who are personally responsible (ahem, like me, who has a job, got married before getting pregnant, is responsible and pays my bills, has never been on welfare or food stamps, but isn't stupid enough to ever swallow Republican BS?) Riiiiiiight.

Hey David; nice post. Very articulate. I have a quick question for you, okay actually two:

1. How do you rate Obama's performance overall and explain why you would or would not support him in 2012.

2. What is your point of view on the Obama-contraceptive scandal recently?

Brianb; how are Obama's policies affecting private business? So asking them to pay their fair share in taxes and abide by certain regulations (after the deregulatory bubble of the past 30 years) is bad???? And you are supposed to SPEND during a recession to resuscitate growth; simple economics. Unfortunately, Bush left him a deficit on top of the recession's shortfall, so he had to rack up a huge debt. He also wanted to cut the debt in a balanced way, but the GOP refused to compromise.

YEAH!!!!!!!!! Santorum; go on and win the nomination and crash when Obama takes over the independent vote!!!!

TAKE THAT ROMNEY!!! By the way, Santorum is an unconstitutional right-wing Christian-wannabe. For one thing, he claims to want small government when he wants to monitor people in their private bedrooms. And isn't it unconstitutional (and essentially un-American, in a sense) for the government to tell people who they can and can't marry?? I mean, I'm no fan of gay marriage (no offense), but as long as we claim to believe that "all men are endowed by their Creator certain unalienable rights, among them the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." If being gay makes someone happy, and marry someone of their own sex makes them happy, then constitutionally we are obliged to let them pursue (not necessarily give them it directly, thank you Newt) happiness. And he claims to be a Christian, yet he feeds into the anti-gay feelings of the right wing. I mean, didn't God (and Jesus) say to treat all people with fairness?? And isn't the right big on Judeo-Christian values??? I wonder if the GOP knows that Christianity is based on a lot of communist principles (all people are inherently equal, God/government-controlled paradise, Jesus lambasting the greedy rich and promising to deliver the earth to the meek and poor)????

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

TAKE THAT ROMNEY, YOU LYING, THIEVING, 1% SERVING CONSERVATIVE WANNABE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What's funny are people who think there is any real difference between Romney and Obama. If it comes down to these two, (which is just what the government wants because that way there will be no change to business as usual) we will have 2 vials of the same poison to choose from.

Santorum could beat Romney in Michigan EASILY if he just kept his mouth shut.

Oops!

I'd vote for Romney's dog before I'd vote for Mitt, Mitt, the Hypocrite.

A note of caution, matt----never underestimate the Republicans' hatred of President Obama. The bottom line is--no matter how much they don't like Romney, they HATE the President more and will show up to vote against him. Romney can make Santorum his VP candidate and send him out to stir up the base.

Steeler - should Santorum continue this surge he will be the one selecting a VP. I've been watching this come on. There is a lot of previously not seen support for Santorum that has been voting for Gingrich and Romney.

I was surprised at the magnitude of his wins in Colorado and Missouri, so there is more support for him than even I thought. What appears to have occured is the breaking of the media myth of electibility.

I think it was Damon Runyon who said something like, "The race itn's always to the swift - but that's the way to bet."

It's foolish to count Romney out. He has virtually unlimited money and a good organization. Where else will republicans turn when Santorum fades?

Steeler fan, Your post was right on the money.

The point is, Republicans don't have anyone who could beat Obama because Republicans' positions are all wrong: More Tax Cuts for those who don't need them, more pay cuts and stagnant wages for average Working Americans.

Not to mention the Ryan Plan that all Republicans have signed on to which amount to NO quality health care for anyone EXCEPT the rich, and a promise to take over our Social Security money and spend that too to cover what Republicans won't make the rich pay for that Lie Called the War in Iraq.

Obama / Biden 2012

Rick is no conservative, I read is record and this guy is a huge pork spender. For him to say hes the true conservative is a lie. I wouldnt even waste my vote on him.

Steeler

The problem is, you can't win with just your base. Your base is going to vote for you no matter what. We all know Democrats are mainly going to vote for Obama and Republicans are mainly going to vote for Whoever. Neither of those groups are more than 50% of the electorate. You gotta get the Independents. If you turn off the Independents, you don't get elected. Part of the Republican's problem in '08 was that Independents were turned off by Sarah Palin (i'm sorry, but it's true). Currently, Independents are turned off by Romney. Match Romney and Santorium, Republicans are going down in flames.

To those that say Obama can't lose, you aren't looking at the whole picture. It won't be the left that will bring Obama over the top, nor will it be the right that will bring the republican candidate over the top. It will be the independent vote that decides this election. If you want a true gage on who will win, keep your eye on the independents... if you are a democrat, you aren't an independent so you can't say for certain that Obama will win. Sorry to disappoint the liberals on this board, but you can't make the claim that the republican will lose.

mattpfl

Romney is in prime position to be dealt one final, soul-crushing blow. Santorum has just blown the GOP race wide open

======================

No he hasn't. Of the eight "primaries" so far most have been caucus type votes. Of these eight states only Florida is a large population state. Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. will not determine the outcome of the general elelction. Once states like New York, California, Texas, etc., start holding their primaries we'll see exactly who is the frontrunner.

I hope this fight goes on to the rethugli-con convention. I love watching these clowns destruct one another.

================

mdrn, good post. You hit the nail square on the head.

@American Girl, I agree with you on most of what you state. However, how can we continue to spend, spend, spend and War monger and promote our Empire, the way Barack Hussein Obama continues to do? We need someone to "buck the system". We need less government and more Liberty, while retaining some social programs. This can only be done by spending less over seas. Only one candidate has a plan to do this and it's not Barack Hussein Obama.

TO: piegan who wrote:

"Rick is no conservative, I read is record and this guy is a huge pork spender. For him to say he's the true conservative is a lie..."

You are absolutely right, and he even brags about his "pork barrell spending" in his stump speeches.

I doubt that Rick is going to be able to attract very many "independents" because he's a horrible racist and plays along with carnival barkers which will NOT attract ANY Democrats or Obama Voters.

Obama / Biden 2012

The number of people voiting in these "primaries" is about equal to the

town of Mayberry with the exception of Florida and South Carolina.

New Hampshire does not count because that is Romney's "home" state and if he doesn't win there he might as pack it up!

Soooo.

That would mean 1 for Romney and 1 for Gingrich!

All this other activity is just circus time.

Obama/Biden 2012

The true fact of the matter is that Obama has done NOTHING to make life in this country any better, and everything to make it worse.

Higher health care costs, corporations getting rewarded for political contributions, higher unemployment than any of us have seen in our lifetime, the worst jobs record of any president since the end of the Vietnam War, growing deficits, and a general lack of leadership ability.

Time for a change.

Oh, and those of you who chortle about wanting Santorum in the general....be careful. He might just give Obama all he can handle in a head to head debate.

J. Merle Stanley-2759623

The true fact of the matter is that Obama has done NOTHING to make life in this country any better, and everything to make it worse.

LMAO Evidently you haven't heard the news about the economy improving every month since he stopped the free fall. Of course you will have to tune into a real news station to hear that kind of news.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm

Notice how the GDP has grown since Obama took office. The fourth quarter of 2008 under Bush was the bottom. From there it got better.

Is it just me, or is Romney starting to look frayed and ragged?

He has looked awful in the last couple of photos.

It must suck to be Mitt Romney. With all that money, it can't buy him the things he wants most in the world. Acceptance by the GOP and, ultimately the Presidency of the United States.

This is what comes of all that bad Karma Bain Capitol generated.

Wow. Karma is a bitch isn't it?

Obama/Biden 2012

I guess I'm just really a naive rube.

Because every time the Republicans wholeheartedly embrace some shameless activity (sometimes for years) and then at the first whiff of a Democrat doing something that looks similar yell "HYPOCRITE!!!!", I doubt that there is anybody in America who can't see through their bluff.

Yet here are those who prove me wrong, posting away that Obama using super-PAC money is different - because he promised not to take it. Unlike the Republicans, who never promised anything. So they're not hypocrites!

So let me get this straight - if you promise not to do bad things and slip up sometimes or find that circumstances were different than you thought and your thinking has to change, you're a BAD HYPOCRITE.

But if you never promise not to do bad things and merrily go about doing them every day with consistency, you're GOOD because you're NOT A HYPOCRITE?

Okay, got it. Thanks.

What I want to know is: The delegates from each caucus aren't being placed to any individual who has won in that state until 'later.' Who decides which candidate gets how many delegates, and does the winner of each caucus really get the most, or can that change and each state decides, depending on who is the front runner at the end of all the primaries? 2nd, why the waste of money having a caucus and not a primary?

Rick Perry is going to blow the race wide open, ooops, Hermain Cain is now in the lead and is on his way to victory, ooops, New Gingrich is our man, he is mopping the floor with Romney, never mind he has no chance to beat Obama in November, ooooops. Now it is Santorum, excuse me if I don't get out of my chair and do jumping jacks for Santorum. The problem this year is that the Republican establishment actually thought they were listening to the conservatives this year when they decided to back Romney. Remember in 2008 Romney was the conservative hero, a lot more conservative than McCain. But now that he has establishment backing he is suspect. The problem is the conservative voters are so determined to defeat Obama that they are Schizophrenic. They will believe that career politicians like Santorum and Gingrich are "Outsiders" and people like Romney whose entire polticial career is one term as governor and a polticial campaign for president are somehow "washington insiders". It is rather humourous to watch. Eventually the people will settle on someone, hopefully it will be Romney who is the only one who has sufficient real world experience to actually fix this broken federal government, but if not then Santorum will do fine, if he is smart he will hire people like Romney to fix the broken government.

I don't have any problem at all with someone taking advantage of every loophole available to avoid sending money to our wasteful federal government. I hate sending them money, they have no clue how to use it properly, and I don't like paying some bureaucrat to tell me what I can or can not do, what type of lightbulb I have to buy or what type of health insurance I have to have. It is none of their business.

You Obama supporters have no clue what is going on in the real world. We have no jobs because Obama has created a polticial environment that is unfriendly to the people who create jobs. Even China is smarter that Obama, they encourage one percenters to invest in thier country instead of regulating them, demonizing them and threatening to confiscate their money to buy your votes. Look at europe. These governments can't keep the promises they have made to gullible people like you anymore. There isn't enough money in the world to keep giving you people free stuff to keep you from using your brain and engaging in productive activity. That is where Obama is taking this country. We are following in the footsteps of Greece, Italy and Spain. He is dillusional, he thinks he can do the same things that these governments have done and not end up as bankrupt as they are. You all are dillusional if you believe him. He is telling you lies and you are buying them because you want to believe he can give you stuff forever. He can't, Europe is proof that socialism is a flawed form of government. Get a clue.

Boyd - explain Norway.

Free socialized healthcare.
Free college tuition for everyone.
Free fully-funded retirement plans.

$573 BILLION trust fund in the bank, $0 deficit.

Poor Mitt...all that money, but so little to show for it.

J. Merle, you must not be that old then. Because Raygun had higher unemployment numbers. The last president had worse jobs numbers. And both he and Raygun tripled the deficit and doubled the debt.

I don't like paying some bureaucrat to tell me what I can or can not do, what type of lightbulb I have to buy or what type of health insurance I have to have. It is none of their business.

Boyd,

So when it comes to light-bulbs and health insurance it is "none of their business"...

But when a politician tells you who to love, who to marry, what religion to follow, what you are allowed to do in your bedroom, not to use contraceptives, what you can put into your body, what you can take out of your body, what you are allowed to do with your own body... that IS their business? You are "ok" with that?

Telling you what light-bulb to use = BAD

Taking FULL control of your personal life = GOOD?

Really? light-bulbs upset you... but telling you what to do in your personal life is perfectly fine?

I don't even know the appropriate word to respond to that type of rationale.

Mitt Romney, can you get a clue, conservative is not into you; your 250 million dollars wealth, 13.9 % tax rate and swiss bank account.

Greece, Italy and Spain are three countries out of 50 countries in Europe. Three of the most inept, corrupt, and disorganized countries in Europe. How do you explain Germany that is socialized, having a deficit that is only 3% of its GDP, France at 4.5%, The Netherlands at 4.6%? Hell Bulgaria, one of the poorest countries in the EU, has a deficit that is only 3.1% of their GDP, and the total of their deficit for the first 10 months of 2011 is only 842 million BGN, which is a little over 400 million Euros.

I think that's a good run down of the Bush Presidency now what do you have for O'bama. Other than an 8.3% unemployment rate and 23 straight months of job growth.

killerteam

The only people that didnt prosper during the Reagan years in office were the people on welfare and the people refusing to work... both proper under obama because thats his voting base and the people he caters to.... to bad if your white and work hard and save your money, because your the enemy of obama the marxist

Tell that to the thousands that lost their jobs when steel was outsourced, tell it to those towns where those steel plants were located. Tell it to the fathers of three children who had to take minimum wage jobs after he lost his job at that steel mill, making only $3.25 an hour.

How are the economies of Europe and the US doing with Europe being socialis, and the US trying to be socialist Both heading for train wrecks, no exceptions

http://baselinescenario.com/2011/07/28/who-is-in-worse-shape-%E2%80%93-the-united-states-or-europe/

I don't really think that giving 10% of one's earnings to a "church" that requires it, is charity.

Of course, Santorum won.

He won Colorado and the others, because they are Evangelical Based States.

Romney still has a chance---it is getting ridiculous, that no one candidate stands out in the GOP lineup--

What a mess---

so y ou completely ignore obama and biden.... how very interesting..... two buffoons that shoot their mouths off ab out us cutting back while they both live like kings and give basically nothiing to charity are gonna go after Romney for making money? I dont like Romney either, but give me a break about your boys that are in way over their heads.

funny, when Reagan was president i was a blue collar worker in a steel forging mill and i made money hand over fist, and today am a millionare thanks to regular saving, and not spending foolishly.... problems that seem to be common with liberals with no brains and your welfare thugs.

Many people simply do not like Romney for 2 excellent reasons: First, he is a member of the 1% elite and he pays only 14% taxes to IRS. The second major concern is his comment: "I'm not concerned about the poor because they have a safety net." Regardless of the fact that the major role of Republicans is to cancel what they consider major social welfare benefits to the poor. He is too contradictory and not to be trusted. He has showed himself to be a real flip-flopper!!

So how well do we do with democrats and liberalism? Lets look at Illinois, the number one state not to retire in thanks to out of control taxes and your welfare programs. It is the worst state in the union to retire in, and that is why i left 20 yrs ago. I have a nicer house in tennessee than i had in chicago and i pay 2000 in city and county taxes, while my sister in chicago pays 7000. Democrats have run businesses right out of the state with high taxes and idiotic EPA regulations that are killing the country... Couple that with the closing of electric plants that are run on coal and a projected increase of up to 60% in chicago electric rates and you have your democrat utopia under liberalism.... this is where the country is headed, just check any democrat controlled state.

I think we've reached the tipping point in America today. Whoever loses the November election will see their voters responding in ways that we haven't seen since the protests in the 60s regarding civil rights and war. The sad thing is that today's "hardships" are nothing compared to that era. I'm not saying that today's poverty and government ineptitude are not problems; I just think that with the division in this country (at least on the internet, as people still seem pretty friendly to one another in person) and the complexity of today's problems, there is no one politician who can "turn things around." People will argue for and against the rebounding effects President Obama has had on the economy, but we're all kidding ourselves if we think one person or administration can truly "fix" things - especially in 4 years. There are too many variables.

Steeler fan - Hatred of obama? or just the realization that obama has shown the uncanny ability to talk but rarely deliver.

As a kid, I had a hard time with mohammed ali's rhetoric (now called trash talking), but he sure did know how to deliver.

Whenever I hear obama speak, I am reminded of the ali phrase "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee". Obama has the first part down, but is sorely lacking on the latter. Perhaps obama still considers himself as a jr senator rather than potus.

an idependent thinker.... here is one to think on.... Many people simply do not like Romney for 2 excellent reasons: First, he is a member of the 1% elite and he pays only 14% taxes to IRS

This is after he has already paid taxes on his income you know.... he earned the money and paid taxes on it, invested his money and pays 14% tax rate on the money he was already taxed.... i pay the same rate. At least Romney gives money to charity, something neither obama or biden bother to do.. Now if you couple that with obama trying to turn this country into a welfare state which this country just cant afford, just what do you want the country to do? Already we have half the country not working and on the dole, with 10% of the richest paying 70% of the taxes, so what is fair? If it was up to me i would cancel welfare completely and go back to when a persons family helped out when out of work. Now we just create a welfare state with lifetime members generation after generation popping out babies and making more welfare thugs... you all are just disgusting to say the least

killer, it is misleading at best to compare Obama's charitable contributions from 200-2004 to Romney's from 2010 and 2011. Why didn't the wing nut sites that did those comparisons use Obama's 2010-2011 returns or use Romney's from the same period?

the charitable giving was for the last 10 yrs.

Killer, investment returns is an additional income, it is not money that has already been taxed. I did not realize that we had 50% unemployment.? The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes because they control 80% of the wealth in this country. YOU are the one that is disgusting.

forget your numbers...... if you love democrats and liberalism so much, look at the states run by both..... Michigan... Illinois are two great examples of democrats in action and what you get with them in power.... both destroyed.

killerteam

funny, when Reagan was president i was a blue collar worker in a steel forging mill and i made money hand over fist, and today am a millionare thanks to regular saving, and not spending foolishly.... problems that seem to be common with liberals with no brains and your welfare thugs

Funny, I don't believe you.

killer, why don't you mention some of those bastions of republiCON power, such as Mississippi, Alabama, or how about the wing nut Mecca of Texas, which has the highest deficit to GDP ratio in the country and had to take stimulus money to reduce its deficit?

I will never, under any circumstances, vote for Rick Santorum- so you can just forget about that idea right now. I will not vote for someone so entangled with lobbyists, and who was a lobbyist himself- someone who was part of the problem. I will not vote for someone who supports big government spending. I will not vote for someone who lost their Senate race by over 20%. I will not vote for someone who has promised to start a nuclear war with Iran, who would draft me, and send me off to die, or who would put my family, friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens in jeopardy here in this country or around the world. I will not waste my vote on someone who isn't even on the ballot in several states, and thus cannot possibly win the nomination. I will not vote for someone with an infamous record of ethics charges. I will not vote for someone who espouses vitriol against certain members of our society and would rate some as second-rate citizens. I will not vote for crazy.

TO: J. Merle Stanley-2759623 who wrote:

"The true fact of the matter is that Obama has done NOTHING to make life in this country any better, and everything to make it worse..."

The true fact of the matter is that Republicans are the ones who messed up our economy to begin with, and, if you check the Ryan Plan, Republicans are fully prepared to repeat the same exact things that brought our economy down in the first place, and even worse.

Republicans like to complain that President Obama isn't cleaning up their mess fast enough, and all the while Republicans are thwarting EVERYTHING that would bring our economy back to life.

I can't possibly vote for any Republican because I'm an American WORKER, and NOT a business Owner.

Obama / Biden 2012

killerteam

you earn 50000 in a year and pay taxes on this amount of about 30%..... you save 5000 you earn 10% on the 5000 in a year and get 500 and pay 15% taxes on this 500.... Now is that simple enough for you or do i have to hold your fukken hand and guide it for you slower.

Investment isn't savings, it is investment. It is also income. And since Romney paid less than 15% in taxes, that means he did not work or he would have paid a higher rate.

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. ~Franklin D. Roosevelt

Time to face the facts. What the GOP fears most is what America needs most.
Neither Santorum nor Gingrich can win the nomination for one simple reason. Neither of them can collect enough delegates to win.

Neither man can be the nominee because neither one was able to get on enough states' ballots to make a difference. (564 delegates that Newt can't win, and over 700 delegates Santorum can't win ).

The media and the GOP are praying to God that the American people continue to remain ignorant of this fact for as long as possible while they try to come up with a strategy that will bury Ron Paul before Romney is forced to face him on stage alone and the commentators are no longer able to marginalize Paul by giving all the questions to everyone but him.

Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are the only two candidates that made it on the ballot in every state. Romney will not beat Obama, he's too similar except he will raise taxes on anyone making 40k a year or less in favor of giving himself lower taxes. Independents are going to run to Obama if Romney is the alternative.

It is a two man race between Ron Paul and Romney for the nomination.

It is also a two man race between Ron Paul and Obama for the White House.

It's time Conservatives and people with any functioning brain cells in their heads started backing the only real candidate that will beat Obama and save America. And whether you like it or not, that candidate is Ron Paul.

The facts can't be twisted to point in any other direction. The delegates decide who gets the nomination and you can't get delegates if you aren't on the ballots. It doesn't matter how much money gets pumped into your campaign by special interest groups. The facts are the facts.

IMPORTANT FACTS:

Fact : Gingrich and Santorum cannot win the nomination no matter how much they get in " popular " votes.

Fact : Ron Paul will decimate Obama on his Foreign Policy stance alone. Add in his economic and defense policies (Policies that Obama ran on in 2008 and abandoned once he got in the White House so no one would be stupid enough to believe he's going to follow them in his second term) and you have an un-beatable candidate in the general election who the bulk of the American people will vote for when they finally get a chance to see the man unfiltered and unbiased by the media.

America is broke and the average American is tired of hearing about another war on the horizon and seeing more dead soldiers coming home in coffins for no reason...all the while the freedoms they are dying to " protect " are being stripped away from us by our own government...one by one.

Obama has ‘0’ chance of beating Paul and Washington knows it. The GOP knows it. The corporations that own Washington know it too so they instruct the media outlets they own to hide it from you.

But now you know. Gingrich and Santorum are mathematically incapable of winning the Nomination and Romney can't beat Obama in the general election.

Ron Paul is the only choice we have. It's just nice that, for once, he's the RIGHT choice and not just the " lesser of two evils ".

radave, you dont have to believe me.... i retired in 2008 at 62 yrs old and was saving the max every year i could in a 401k and recieved a small amount in profit sharing... I invested wisely and now have 2 financial advisers, one at a bank, and the other with Ameriprise and my own with Ameritrade and do pretty well. I dont really care if you believe me or not cause its not important. What is important that we teach the kids of today that hard work pays off and not to have them listen to democrat controlled union teachers that turns them into little communists when they get out of school. When i retired i was interviewing new hires for my department and it was all i could do to keep from puking as to what these kids learn and what they are completely ignorant of and graduating for high school. Expecting to come to a job making the top pay, without working is what i got out of 95 % of them and gee, wonder where they get that from???? @!$%#ing liberal democrats is where it comes from.

its like the tax on inheritance.... you already paid in full that taxes on that money and now when it is passed on, the government wants to tax it all over again when its been taxes once already.

first we have to assume that Mitt will be the nominee. Second we have to assume that die-hard teavangelicals will NOT vote for him (no matter what)

That dooms the possibility of his election

Your full of the brown stuff killer. You have no idea what words like communism or socialism means, so stop using them until you do learn it.

killerteam

its like the tax on inheritance.... you already paid in full that taxes on that money and now when it is passed on, the government wants to tax it all over again when its been taxes once already.

Both of those assertions are false. the people who inherit that money is taxed, not the estate. People who inherit money paid no taxes on it, it is income to them. And, when you are taxed on investment, you are NOT taxed on the money you invested, only the return. And, that is why I don't believe you are a millionaire.

TO: killerteam who wrote:

"lets see how our ... president is doing today... Thousands are dead in Syria, with more blood spilled each day. Iran is within arm's reach of a nuclear weapon, threatening Israel's very existence. And in Egypt ..."

Obviously a Republican, so why don't you explain to me where we would get any money to help all your foreign countries you named when Republicans declared the United States to be Bankrupt 3 years ago?

Right now, I'm happy with our American President tending to the needs of America and the American People.

Republicans, who are always in the pocket of the rich, can well afford to hire a pack of Blackwater Commandos and help yourself to your vigilante wars, on your own dime THIS TIME!

Obama / Biden 2012

American, I remember the last time the wing nuts claimed a country was within "arm's reach" of a nuclear weapon.

RealAmerican,

44% tax rate Don't think I want that!

Boyd - explain Norway.

Free socialized healthcare.
Free college tuition for everyone.
Free fully-funded retirement plans.

$573 BILLION trust fund in the bank, $0 deficit.

Norway has a population of 4,985,000 people. That explains Norway!

Killerteam - I just wonder why your avatar looks like a cross between Barack Obama and Ross Perot? Seems like very strange bedfellows.

And here is the oppsite to this article concerning REJECTION:

Mr. Obama's REJECTION:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=JVAhr4hZDJE&vq=medium#t=19

Which is almost as good as:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZs8k4pJcyk

Gotta have media equalization on the playing field.

-----------------------------------

Oh, forgot the footnote:

ABO (Anybody but Obama) / 2012

The tax level in Norway is among the highest in the world. In 2009 the total tax revenue was 41.0 % of the gross domestic product (GDP). Many direct and indirect taxes exist.

Next!!!!!!?

TXHorseman - And yet the Norweigians are some of the most properous (per capita) and happiest people on the planet.

http://www.prosperity.com/rankings.aspx

Now, what does that say about your "low tax Nirvana"? Somalia has very ow taxes, you know.

killerteam

forget your numbers...

Are you a payed shill? I've never seen so many posts by the same person that just harps on anything not GOP. Check the pork, check the defense contractor contributions, and check the money flowing through Super Pacs. Your comment about the "charity" that Romney gives to--10% mandatory tithing to the Mormon Church and other Mormon based charities. All millionaires just seeking to cash in on the office.

President Obama has his money is US Treasury Bills--the other guys? Santorum=coal, Romney=hidden assets in Swiss bank accounts, and Newt=1 casino mogul and Tiffany's.

What did you expect from the insane right-wing ... everytime I see Willard all I see is Bert from Sesame Street and all his little mormon Bert children borne by a fake mormon wife who's family wasn't allowed to enter the mormon church on her wedding day ....

I tell ya .. I ...

LOL.

Republicans are starting to be embarassed by Romney and Newt, and Paul is just a kook, so they voted for Santorum.

They don't really LIKE him, though.

(And why should they, he's as big a hypocrite as the rest of the GOP field.)

killerteam - you earn 50000 in a year and pay taxes on this amount of about 30%..... you save 5000 you earn 10% on the 5000 in a year and get 500 and pay 15% taxes on this 500.... Now is that simple enough for you....

Actually, killer, it's obviously not simple enough for you. Because equity fund managers like Romney (as well as hedge fund managers) NEVER pay that first 30% on their earnings.

The GOP passed an exemption for them to call that "carried interest" instead of wages. They can let that sit in their company vault as long as they want - even after they've left the company (like Romney). And then they can pull it out for living expenses whenever they want and only pay 15% capital gains taxes on it. ONCE.

It would be like you or I getting our wages deposited tax-free to our bank account, earning dividends and interest on it and then only paying a 15% tax rate (or whatever we end up with after all our "special people" deductions) on the amount we withdraw. AND no payroll taxes, either (Medicare & Social Security).

Now, is that simple enough for you? (But it's still not fair.)

Romney can make Santorum his VP candidate and send him out to stir up the base.

1. It's difficult to see why Santorum would want the number two slot when he has a chance at the top of the ticket.

2. Given the anemic turnouts, it doesn't really look like Santorum is 'stirring up the base'. It looks more like no one is very excited about Newt, Mitt, or Ron, and Rick is the only other name on the ballot.

In other words, "None of the above."

Killerteam....Mortifyed....offended.....and you tell lies.....Obama is a christian, it's a fact.....He was born in the USA, once again fact. Just because you are too stupid to call a spade a spade doesnt mean it's true..........You are being dishonest to incite anger either that or, even sicker, you believe your own word vomit..There is easily attainable proof of these things......and if you still refuse that....Get some help man....Please

America is doomed no matter who gets to be the POTUS. There is not a genius alive that can avert the payment that is now due. So cheer on your favorite professional liar, and live in ignorant bliss....for at least a little longer

Kornfed - you're worrying about the wrong boogeyman. Unemployment is the problem, not the deficit.

Kornfed - you're worrying about the wrong boogeyman. Unemployment is the problem, not the deficit.

Not a problem, we will just keep removing people from the workforce.

I did not name Barry Soetoro, Mr Obama chose the name of his kindred... muslims. And if that were not true, if obama were a Christian, would he not be going to a Christian church? If you call Rev Wrights church Christian, i beg to differ with you. Rev Wrights church was a satan inspired, white hating America hating gathering of idiots that hate this country and with obama and his family sitting in the pews of this vile race bating America hating organization, he is as much part of it as anyone. Vote the muslim marxist out of office before he destroys the rest of this country.

'satan inspired"?

Well, that explains a lot, killerteam.

Obama/Biden 2012.

I find it sad so many people in this thread feel the need to call Mitt Romney a phonie and insult him. Listen if you don't like the guys politics that's one thing but it's not really cool to personally insult him. LOL HIS DAD WAS A CARPENTER LAUGH that's so phonie. Well his dad WAS a carpenter, and my dad dug ditches and his dad was a share cropper. Of course my dad went to West Point then Vietnam then became a doctor. You think my dad was a phonie too?

This stuff has got to stop this is what divides the country. If you don't like Romney or Santorum OR GINGRICH OR EVEN RON PAUL fine... But to personally attack them is a little reddiculous (except maybe Gingrich i mean he did cheat on his wife) Santorum might not have the same politics as you but if i was a betting man i'd say he's payed more in taxes than YOU EVER HAVE or that he's donated more of his time and money THAN YOU EVER HAVE. Same is true for all the Republican candidates.

So stop bashing these people for having their viewpoints and start talking about the viewpoints and not the people.

WANTED: Ignorant, fanatical, racists to join the Republican party.

Our numbers are dwindling,

there just aren't as many God fearing racists anymore.

Boyd, we tried that style for over 30 years. It is called trickle-down economics. It hasn't worked. Check how deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy have worked out. I mean, we should encourage investment, but many people who do that invest in foreign countries. We need to stop the tax breaks, bring in more specific incentives that promote job growth in America instead of giving corporations a lump-sun tax cut and hoping that they'll invest here. Yes, corporate tax rates are high, but any companies pay much less in real tax rates. We have to make sure that they pay a fair yet competitive tax rate. But we also need to give them incentives to work here, like a few tax credits or strong markets and demand plus more educated workers. And I heard that of the 4 million jobs that moved to China last decade, 3.5 million will be coming back.

Obama has changed his position on PAC money. We who voted for him cannot deny that. Any excuses and rationalizations are just that: excuses and rationalizations. Although not all politicians will use the dirtiest tricks to get (re)elected, none will pass up free campaign money if it can't be associated with something that will hurt them politically -- and sometimes even if it can.

It's not that I wish Obama wouldn't use the campaign money... I just wish he hadn't taken such a stance to begin with. It shows either a lack of sincerity and/or willingness to pander. Of course you'll use the money if the other guys do! Don't say you won't.

Does that make me regret voting for Obama? No. That kind of BS is part and parcel of politicians. Remember the Dem '08 primaries? Yet, when Obama got the nomination, Hillary was his biggest fan. And it would have been the same had Hillary won it. We saw the same in the Rep primaries between Juliani, McCain, et al. And we'll see the same between Santorum, Romney, Gingritch and Paul this time 'round. Pledges and promises of clean, non-negative campaigns that are forgotten each time someone loses a state. Your opponents are demons during the primaries and gods during the the general election.

Stop seething and taunting every time a politician is caught doing something political. Obama's change on PAC money isn't going to "finally show liberal robots what a liar Obama really is" any more than Romney's new narrative will make "conservatives see that he's a wealthocrat who's out of touch with the average american".

The bottom line should be whether his economic and foreign policies help or hurt. Not if he changed his mind about how much money he'll use during a campaign.

Romney came in third in the straw vote in MN last night, behind Santorum and Paul. Even Tim Pawlenty could not get out the Romney's supporter. But Tim is still Romney's national co-chair. Remember Tim has lots of debt due to his failed run for GOP presidential nomination.He needs money and a job.

The best news for Democrats is that less than 25,000 GOP conservatives showed up at the caucuses. In 2008 the Republicans turned out 63,000 voters.

Enthusiasm among the GOP base in MN for the general election is less than lukewarm.

It is like our current winter: a real big no show!!!

Ideology,

The GOP run states (governor/legislature) haven't done a very good job. I can't see how they could do any better on the federal level.

pp: The GOP run states (governor/legislature) haven't done a very good job. I can't see how they could do any better on the federal level.

Sure. Balanced budgets and positive economic growth in states like Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Texas and Virginia are things the Democrats are against. Wouldn't want to see that at the federal level.

I guess your epitome of success are states like New York (broke), California (broker), and Illinois (brokest). All run by who again?

Jas1

The state of Florida has not had good leadership under the current GOP administration. Ohio's governor is in trouble. So is Wisconsin's. I would say that is poor leadership, wouldn't you?

Amen to that, phine. Scott Walker and his thugs get most of the press, but Maine has a dumber-than-dirt teabag Governor and a GOP legislature that seem to be hell-bent on destroying my state. I used to live in PA and thought that state's government was a joke (except when Ed Rendell was in charge), but LePage is a bully and a whiner. I have no patience for people who drink the Kool-Aid (or tea) and refuse to listen to the people.

pp: The state of Florida has not had good leadership under the current GOP administration. Ohio's governor is in trouble. So is Wisconsin's. I would say that is poor leadership, wouldn't you?

In trouble how, politically? Sure, it's tough telling people no. The unions in the now GOP states had their run, made their money, and had the feeling of entitlement. When that changes, when they are told no, when they are made to pay their 'fair-share' (you're for being fair, correct?), obviously they are angry. But the truth is these states economies are much more healthy and their futures are much more positive. Try making that claim for New York, California, and Illinois, all completely run by the Left, all with poor and corrupt leadership. You can't do it.

Facts is facts hon. You need to face up to them.

Holly,

Our governor here in Florida seems to be using his position to pad his personal wealth. He dictates drug testing for all state employees and welfare recipients to be done. This is done at the facilities (Solantic) that he owns (or rather, since he is governor, his wife owns).

Jas1,

Even the GOP in the state of Florida does not like Rick Scott. And FYI, we have been a "right to work" state for years. Scott has the lowest rating of any governor in the country. I don't think it is because he is "tough" on unions. May I suggest you get a little more information on the matter before rendering judgement?

pp: Even the GOP in the state of Florida does not like Rick Scott. And FYI, we have been a "right to work" state for years. Scott has the lowest rating of any governor in the country. I don't think it is because he is "tough" on unions. May I suggest you get a little more information on the matter before rendering judgement?

Umm, pp, I made no statement and no judgement about Florida. You once again are deflecting from your original statement that "The GOP run states (governor/legislature) haven't done a very good job." Perhaps it is you that needs to get a little more information on the matter before rendering judgement.

JoannaSmith1

The unions in the now GOP states had their run, made their money, and had the feeling of entitlement.

Ah, yes. The corporate predators that Bush coddled for eight years caused the economy to collapse. So she demonizes the unions. Same old same old.

Houston: Ah, yes. The corporate predators that Bush coddled for eight years caused the economy to collapse. So she demonizes the unions. Same old same old.

Too funny. I guess blaming Bush is the catch all excuse Liberals have so they don't have to talk about all the incompetent moves from Obama.

Budgets were being hijacked by unions in the states for decades. When the recession hit it became clear that the states, already saddled with a huge amount of debt from sweet-heart union contracts, couldn't meet their obligations. That problem needed to be cleaned up, and the GOP leadership in many states have done just that. At a national level, Obama disguised a bailout of his union friends in the states with a phony Stimulus bill that pushed billions to the states to continue to pay the union workers. When that money ran out the states were forced to reform their relationships with the unions. Many states have done that and their future looks bright. Others, like California and Illinois, are doing nothing and are just going to let the crash happen.

Ideology, Rachel had a terrific segment last night discussing just what a mess the GOP primary and caucuses have been. I'm not positive but I thought I heard her say more caucus ballots were cast in NV than attendees. As you pointed out, Missouri spent $7 million on a primary that awarded no delegates; it's my understanding they have another vote next month.

Jody, I don't get MSNBC up here unless I go online ... so glued to CNN, I watched the red pundits try to re-wrap a previously enjoyed lollypop. The right seems to be wandering the desert looking for Moses.

Jas1

I understand the GOP likes to put all the budget problems of the states at the feet of the unions. Unions generally support Democrats and this, of course, is something that the GOP dislikes greatly. However, the budget problems cannot be solely the fault of the unions.

Think, please, about the loss of revenue from the collapse of the housing market, for example. When property values fall, so does the amount collected in property taxes. Also, unemployment. You cannot raise revenue from those who have no money to spend.

Just, please, consider these facts when talking about states' budgets.

pp: I understand the GOP likes to put all the budget problems of the states at the feet of the unions.

Unions certainly are a big part of it, along with things like Medicaid. These are problems that needed to be addressed pp. The Democrats haven't, the GOP has.

think, please, about the loss of revenue from the collapse of the housing market,

Yeah, it's called a recession, and it exposed the states that were not managing their budgets well. Recession happen pp, and preparations need to be made for them. States on the brink of insolvency need to be better prepared.

Phinephancy, good point.

I'll add that as Eric Schneiderman said, we seemed to have switched from blaming Wall Street and banks for the economic collapse to blaming teachers, fire fighters and police and in all the investigations he has been part of, there is no evidence that teachers, fire fighters and police blew up the economy. He's exactly right. We have the GOP consistently blaming people who are integral to our way of life, who keep us safe, teach our children and enter burning buildings but heaven forbid, they belong to a union; therefore, they are the cause of all our problems. How completely naive are those who willingly accept the GOP's dogma.

Jas1,

On one thing we do agree, states should be better prepared. Part of the problem was during the housing boom states were spending (under both parties) money wildly. They truly did not prepare for a rainy day!

Unions represent what, 10% percent of the work force? JoJo, wherefore art thy brain? Tell me gal, what is their cut of the GDP, what is their cumulative earnings compared to let's say pick a handful Romneys.

Jody,

I think part of our problem today is each side wants to blame the other, when, truthfully, we are all a little to blame. However, putting everything at the feet of unions is not facing all the facts.

Another thing that would be good to remember is the fact each state is different and their needs and priorities are different. For me to claim that the problems and needs of Florida are the same as Iowa's would be the height of stupidity. And yet, by blaming one group, that is what is happening. I don't know about Iowa, but Florida has, for many years, been a right to work state. So the union claim is weak at best.

ideo: Unions represent what, 10% percent of the work force? JoJo, wherefore art thy brain?

Union pension obligations are bankrupting states like NY, California and Illinois. Even Sir Warren of Buffett's fortune couldn't turn the tide. These are the facts ideo.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/02/opinion/la-oe-fritz-pension-20111102

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-11-08/news/ct-met-illinois-pension-reform-20111109_1_teacher-pensions-pension-abuses-pension-costs

pp: Another thing that would be good to remember is the fact each state is different and their needs and priorities are different.

So are you backing off your original statement that "The GOP run states (governor/legislature) haven't done a very good job." seeing that many of those states in fact have done a decent job?

Jas1

No, I am not. I look to my own state and see the complete mess that the current GOP led government has created.

But I did agree with you on the rainy day issue. So, maybe, there is hope we can start to bridge the gaps the exist and realize that one side does not have all the answers?

[Union pension obligations are bankrupting states like NY...]

New York has one of the strongest pensions in the country...

Your stupidity knows no bounds, does it...

[These are the facts ideo.]

Too bad you wouldn't know what the facts are even if they crawled up your leg and bit you in the ass, so how about you cut the bull@!$%# feigned outrage and quit while you're ahead before you make a TOTAL ass of yourself....

Letting "states go their own way":

Is how the Right will divide and rule, if we don't pay attention.

Some things have to be done as a team America, if we don't want issues being turned into real wars between the (united) states for GOP political gain.

California is doomed.

thetotas, I have lived in California for two years ... it will never be doomed ... try a nice Pinot Noir and you will see why.

Mickey NY: New York has one of the strongest pensions in the country...

Sure they are Mickey, and that's why they are doing this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/nyregion/cuomo-proposes-tough-limits-on-pensions.html?pagewanted=all

You're exceeding the Feisty quotient of stupidity, and that would set the record.

Mickey: Too bad you wouldn't know what the facts are even if they crawled up your leg and bit you in the ass, so how about you cut the bull@!$%# feigned outrage and quit while you're ahead before you make a TOTAL ass of yourself...

Do you ever have anything important to say? Anything? Or are you just playing the dumbass to try and get a little attention? I guess your mom didn't love you as a child, or maybe you're still that child, all grown up now, and you're just a big disappointment to everyone around you.

JoAnnaSmith1,

Those union bastards! Yes they are responsible for 70% of Manufacturing jobs being off-shored. Yes they are responsible for the wealth of the nation moving uphill. Yes they are responsible for the wealthies future generations place in the sun. Yes they are the fault behind NCDSs. It is time to blame them for homosexuality too, no? Let's blame them for weekends also while we are at it, and toss in a few child labor laws ... put women back in the kitchen.

I see phinephancy's attempt to compromise with JoAnna was ignored...

Mittens likes to now use the line "Obama didn't cause the recession but made it worse"..

True, Obama didn't.....but who did cause the recession?...Could it be the previous administration?

Someone needs to ask Mittens, who caused the recession!

Phine,

Compromise is something Republican leaders pledged NOT to do three years ago. They kept that promise to their benefactors and they continue to refuse to act on behalf of ordinary people.

GOP/Koch does not represent the ordinary person in this country. After getting TP-ers in using Big Money, they now hope to buy up Congress completely and finish off the job.

Those on here who forward GOP policies have no intention of changing that approach - they continue to forward that approach,

And they have nothing new to add going forward into a 21st century America.

ideo: Those union bastards! Yes they are responsible for 70% of Manufacturing jobs being off-shored. Yes they are responsible for the wealth of the nation moving uphill. Yes they are responsible for the wealthies future generations place in the sun. Yes they are the fault behind NCDSs. It is time to blame them for homosexuality too, no? Let's blame them for weekends also while we are at it, and toss in a few child labor laws ... put women back in the kitchen.

My. That was quite the rant. Anger Management might help. Perhaps you could invite Mickey to tag along with you?

What's your solution? Blame the taxpayers for being greedy about not wanting their taxes raised?

The 'recession' started in 2007. Who was in charge then? Oh yes, you know, the one who said - "In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009

Oh, and another good one - "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --President Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005. GOP mantra? hmmm

@JoAnnaSmith1 -- The states balancing their budgets comes at a cost to the social structure within the state. That can work at a state level because those that are harmed by budget cuts can leave the state. The same approach will not work on a national level - unless - you are advocating that people harmed by disintegration of the social safety net should leave the country.

The state pension problems were caused by the pensions being 'invested' on Wall Street. Those plush pensions appeared to be possible because Wall Street 'couldn't lose'. The financial problems with state pensions are directly related to 'investing' on Wall Street - instead of real investments within the state. You may certainly blame the unions for negotiating pensions - but - Wall Street is the cause of states not being able to meet those obligations.

Political and economic policy that relies on 'investing' - making money from money - gambling our way to prosperity - is the root cause of our economic troubles. The United States has been 'investing' in the wrong things for decades so it is a little late to whine about the current state of affairs.

Lastly - "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --President Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

California is doomed, how can a minority reject an ammendment like prop 8, that the majority voted for. At least there are some people in Ca. that aretrying to clean up the state. But evidently it does not matter what the majority of voters want as long as a minority of voters cry loud enough. Pretty much like the rest of the country.

some people STILL have no concept of the "majority rule, minority RIGHT" precept. The constitution is set up the way it is to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority - and it all boils down to to 5 of the 9 who sit in SCOTUS,

Well Michigan now has a balanced budget and a surplus for once since 1997. The business tax was eliminated and business's are coming back to Michigan. Of course Detroit isnt happy because they cant get to where they need to be with their Public unions in order to stave off Bankruptcy looming in April. Fear is running the city council and the order of the day is. Dont let "whitey" take over our city. Im not kidding there is video of council member's yelling this when the Governors appointed financial review people come in to look at the books. They want Mr. Obama to bail them out, he is trying with out making it look like he is..... 2 weeks ago the DPD layed off 100 officers as procedure to have them re hired on the federal dollar. Detroit is what we are all looking at if we dont fix this thing.

JoAnnaSmith1

Too funny. I guess blaming Bush is the catch all excuse Liberals have so they don't have to talk about all the incompetent moves from Obama.

Too stupid, blaming unions for the economic disaster that Bush and his corporate cronies created.

JoAnnaSmith1

What's your solution? Blame the taxpayers for being greedy about not wanting their taxes raised?

Keep pretending that Obama raised taxes when you know very well he lowered them, while it looks like the teabag Republicans in Congress may well INCREASE taxes on the middle class by torpedoing the payroll tax cut.

Nerm-l - You need to do a serious re-evaluation of your post 3.34... To wit...

Your first paragraph implies that the states social structure should take precedence over the states budget because one can relocate yet at the federal level they can't. I am sure that there are a lot of Americans living abroad that would take exception to this. Nice attempt at redirection by going from "...can leave the state" to JAS advocating they need to leave the country. Regardless you have failed to define what you mean by "social structure". Seems that you are the one trying to connect dots in a random manner. Nice how you spin "social structure" into "social safety net". LMAO!

Since all government expenditures at the state and local levels are based on collecting revenue either thru taxes or loans or federal funding. Do you really believe that those paying in will do so indefinitely or without complaint if spending knows no bounds? Likewise at the federal level which can also fire up the presses and risk a devalued currency.

You make an interesting observation on government pensions. Your argument that placing the funds in "wall street" is inherently bad is shear folly. What public employee doesn't understand that markets and banks fluctuate in the valuation of their holdings? A pension plan is not guaranteed against either a gain or loss.

Perhaps you need to consider that if government guaranteed that a pension plan maintains value + meet COLA requirements, increased life spans and increasing healthcare costs what would happen to your social safety nets. Think the private sector will just keep on paying higher taxes? Think that the 1% even have enough assets to cover the government guarantees? BTW - where do you think unions invest their pensions?

Since you state...

Political and economic policy that relies on 'investing' - making money from money - gambling our way to prosperity - is the root cause of our economic troubles. The United States has been 'investing' in the wrong things for decades so it is a little late to whine about the current state of affairs.

Perhaps you can tell us what investments we should invest in to guarentee pensions or a social safety net.

@jollyoldsoul1 -- I have no doubt that some are attempting to create a rhetorical villain and divide the population. Unfortunately that is a political game that works well to deflect attention from real problems.

Detroit's problem - like our national problem - has been caused by 'investing' in the wrong things. Perhaps Detroit 'invested' pension funds on Wall Street - perhaps the pension funds were simply 'invested' in keeping the government running. However the pension funds were invested - obviously the investment failed.

If these pension funds were allowed to invest in the local economy - instead of in worthless Wall Street paper - the pension funds could meet their obligations.

The problem that needs to be addressed is the 'investment' monopoly held by Wall Street. We need to be supporting the portions of the economy that actually creates wealth. We cannot gamble our way to prosperity. That is what the shortfalls in pension funds is telling us. Bad investments only cause unfulfilled obligations ...

@american-2051576 -- A city's or state's social structure includes educational resources, transportation infrastructure, consumer protection (such as building codes), police protection, fire protection, emergency medical services, waste disposal, and the many other services that society requires. A city or state can balance it's budget by cutting or eliminating these services. Someone living in that city or state can relocate to a different city or state that offers those services.

Detroit has seen a huge population decline because it is not providing an acceptable level of support for the social structure.

The Federal government does not provide direct support to the nation's social structure. Instead, the Federal government provides indirect support through the social safety net. That is the difference.

Government at all levels collects revenue from taxes. While taxes do represent a revenue stream - they also provide the government a means of moderating unproductive behavior in the economy. The government can use tax policy to direct private investment to areas of the economy that are productive - that will sustain the economy and encourage creation of new wealth.

The last numbers I have seen (which may be dated) indicate that about 5 million US citizens are living abroad. The trend is increasing - more US citizens are choosing to live abroad by choice (not work related). More retirees are choosing to live abroad, too. Like Detroit, that indicates that the United States is not providing acceptable support for its social structure. If the trend continues, the entire country could become another abandoned inner city. The country could end up being the United States of Detroit ...

watchbird the problem is SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the laws but only when it fits their liberal thinking. Most of the time they do not want to interpret but make their own laws.

Derek,

Ron Paul Libertarian Idiocy

Friday, January 27th, 2012 | Posted by Eric L. Wattree

Ron Paul and Libertarian Idiocy

Ron Paul and Libertarian Idiocy

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Ron Paul is a typical demagogue. He specializes in combining fact with fiction, and pointing out everything that’s wrong with all of the policies that are contrary to his agenda. Then he claims that his irresponsible solution is a cure for all of our problems, which is an exercise in pure fiction. Paul is quoted as saying the following:“The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”

Paul’s entire premise is flawed. Total personal freedom was clearly not the intent of the founding fathers. They had the good sense to recognized that a society, or a civilization, as it were, is defined as a “GROUP of people who have joined together to pursue a common interest or goal,” and they clearly set out their intent in the preamble of the United States Constitution, which reads as follows:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare [not just make Ron Paul happy] and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Thus, if Ron Paul doesn’t like the rules we’ve set up to “promote the general welfare,” he has the freedom to move to the wilderness and not live among us. But according Ron Paul’s philosophy, he thinks he should have the right to pee against the wall in the middle of Times Square during rush hour, and the government should be precluded from stopping him. Because you see, according to Paul’s philosophy, and his flawed reading of the United States Constitution, that should be his inalienable right, since he’s not hurting anyone else.

So in essence, Paul wants to have his cake and eat it to. He wants to take advantage of the benefits of living in an ordered society, while not having to adhere to the rules that make it a society. For example, he contends that the civil rights laws that prevent him from refusing to serve certain groups in his restaurant abridges his right to private ownership. But on the other hand, he has absolutely no problem with the fact that the group that he bans is forced to pay taxes that support “his right to private ownership.” If his business catches on fire, he’s going to expect the banned group’s tax supported fire department to come put it out. And if he’s robbed, he’s going to expect the group’s tax supported police department to come to his aid. But the fact is, he can’t have it both ways. If he’s not willing to adhere to society’s rules, he can’t expect to take advantage of the benefits of living in an ordered society.

Paul also wants to abolish the Department of Education, which is essential to maintaining a “more perfect union.” His philosophy also dictates that we should simply “trust” corporations not to grind up rats in our ground beef, or pollute our air and water. He says, “Just let the free market handle it.”

Well, that sounds like a plan, but we saw how the free market handled the Wall Street fiasco, didn’t we? The free market created it, and we paid for it – dearly. The only thing free about the free market is the freedom of ruthless and greedy capitalists to take advantage of a naive and unsuspecting public – and then they tell us we’er un-American if we complain about it.

Thus, Ron Paul’s philosophy represents the rantings of a selfish, unthinking, greedy, and totally irresponsible lunatic. Therefore, if he wants total personal freedom, it’s well within his grasp. He can vote with his feet and move to the wilderness. Then he can pee against any tree in the forest at will – but he shouldn’t expect us to come to his aid if a snake decides to latch on to his pecker. That’s the price of total freedom.

Eric L. Wattree
H
Ewattree@Gmail.com

Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

nerm-l - thanks for your responce. You have adequately defined what you mean by "social structure" Now how about "social safety net"? Keep in mind that the social safety net of SS and medicare are paid directly to the citizen as are their collections directly to the feds.

While taxes do represent a revenue stream - they also provide the government a means of moderating unproductive behavior in the economy.

Moderating unproductive behavior? How so?

The government can use tax policy to direct private investment to areas of the economy that are productive - that will sustain the economy and encourage creation of new wealth

Thanks for reaffirming my belief that government can provide incentives to the private sector to promote growth. Now if you can only explain this to the FR left.

With regards to relocation's, the operative word remains "by choice", whether relocating out of the country or within.

Interesting that you referenced "the united states of detroit" as I considered referencing greece with their current debt problems regarding pensions to your previous post.

Now comes the interesting question...

Within the context of recessionary times (aka reduced revenue) would you say that government has been remiss in not communicating to the public what would happen to the social structure during such times or that spending should have been contained during times of plenty?

Corollary questions would also be related to why politicians rarely look beyond how policies will be covered past the next election cycle. Or why tax policy doesn't follow a sunset policy.

With regards to your definition of social structures, charlie rose had an interesting segment on just such expectations at the local level.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11559

Baldeagle - from your post...

Thus, Ron Paul’s philosophy represents the rantings of a selfish, unthinking, greedy, and totally irresponsible lunatic.

Hardly a selling point for proving or supporting anything. Especially truw when the author doesn't show what pauls position was. Just another op-ed piece with little regards for a balanced argument.

@american-2051576 -- First it is necessary to understand that an economy is based on creation of wealth by combining resources and labor to create something of greater value - and - distributing that created wealth according to contribution in creating the wealth.

In every society there are individuals that are incapable of making a substantial contribution to creating wealth. Those individuals may be physically or mentally handicapped, they may have made inappropriate choices at one time in their life, they may not have had opportunities to develop skills needed for creating wealth, or they may simply have aged so they are no longer able to contribute. The social safety net guarantees that those individuals will also receive a share of wealth created by the economy and be allowed to participate in that economy.

Social security is unique in that it provides guaranteed income in retirement according to individual contributions. Social security is already 'means tested' because the system tracks and provides benefit according to individual contributions. 401k programs are based on the same concept - individual contributions with matching contributions by an employer. Obviously someone that contributes more to their 401k receives greater benefit - just as with Social Security.

The significant difference is that Social Security guarantees a level of income in retirement. Social Security is backed by the full force of the government and the government's ability to extract wealth from the economy to provide that guarantee. 401k plans operated by private sector finance cannot provide that guarantee.

That is why financial funds are attacking Social Security because the government is providing something that private investing cannot. In order for financial funds to attract more of the wealth being created in the economy, the financial funds must create doubt about the guarantee provided by government.

@american-2051576 -- Sorry for the long posts. It requires a lot of verbiage to adequately discuss the issues. Even the long posts are inadequate to fully cover the topics.

The role of government in the economy is to act as a moderating force to counteract nonproductive activity in the economy. Tax policy is one method of moderating nonproductive behavior.

The function of an economy is to create wealth and distribute that created wealth among the contributors. Investments that encourage creation of wealth are productive simply because more wealth is created. Investments in speculation or generating profits are nonproductive because those investments only redistribute wealth - they do not result in the creation of new wealth.

Profits represent created wealth that has not been distributed among contributors. Someone that receives a share of profits without contributing resources or labor is no different that someone provided a share through the social safety net. In economic terms, a stockholder is no different than someone that receives welfare - because - both receive a share of wealth without making a substantive contribution to creating the wealth.

Speculative investing only manipulates prices - and - contributes nothing to creating wealth. Increased prices caused by speculation creates money through inflation. Speculative price increases do not create wealth and devalues existing wealth created in the past.

In our current economy the government should drastically increase taxes on stock gains and speculative investing and lower taxes on business activities that produce tangible goods or services that create new wealth. The government should lower taxes on income, provide greater deductions for labor and equipment investments, and double or triple taxes on unearned income.

Our current economic malaise is the result of a money surplus and a wealth deficit. To return the economy to a healthy balance either the excess money must be destroyed (through debt default) or new wealth must be created through business expansion and job creation.

Nerm,

Excellent post, I would add one little point about stockholders, they do contribute something, CASH, without stockholder equity there would be no basis to create wealth outside of a monopoly.

On that point, the stockholder being a small part of the basis of wealth, is not at all similar to any welfare recipient, who does nothing but receives.

Nerm-l ... long replys are not a problem, obviously I am not a stranger to them myself.

No doubt 401k's and IRA's are different from SS or even funded pension plans. The real bottom line is that none of them can be guarenteed for the level of payout one might expect. Think increased life expectancies, COLA's, market fluctuations, underfunding by corporations or the public sector.

Sorry nerm you have a contradiction...

The significant difference is that Social Security guarantees a level of income in retirement. Social Security is backed by the full force of the government and the government's ability to extract wealth from the economy to provide that guarantee. 401k plans operated by private sector finance cannot provide that guarantee.

The contradiction lies in the formula the government uses in determining the contribution levels and the disbursement levels over time. Add to it that the government raided the funds over time or expanded payouts beyond what the original intent was and the baby boomers creating a serious shortfall, the prospects for a full force of the government to extract wealth from the economy becomes moot. The theory is fine but the actuality says otherwise.

think of it this way, reagan and congress had to massage SS in the 80's, I think clinton had to do it in the 90's and once again we are trying to massage it again + medicare. You can think that the government can guarentee funding, but with a SS trust fund consisting of IOU's, $15 trillion in national debt, influx of the baby boomers and an expected interest rate increase occuring within the next two years, a government guarentee means about the same as saying the markets will never have a retraction. BTW - IRA's, 401k's, etc may be driven by market results but they are also driven by the individual investor and their financial advisors.

BTW - SS was never intended to be the sole source of retirement income.

Onto your second new post...

Investments in speculation or generating profits are nonproductive because those investments only redistribute wealth - they do not result in the creation of new wealth.

Only true if the speculators (investors) don't reinvest or spend the proceeds.

The role of government in the economy is to act as a moderating force to counteract nonproductive activity in the economy.

Not quite, as it assumes that long term welfare is productive. Naturally there exists a very small minority who don't have the ability to be productive. The real disconnect lies in your definition of "non-productive", why not apply it accross the board? Rich and poor alike.

Regarding taxes, I have no problem in seeing the obama (bush) tax cuts expire across the board or seeing the payroll taxes being raised to cover increased SS and medicare disbursements.

Increasing capital gains (unearned income)? Fine let it go back to the 80's rate, Just keep in mind that the investor already paid taxes on it before they invested and that the business also paid taxes on the invested amount as a cost of doing business.

Tax policy is one method of moderating nonproductive behavior.

Who defines non-productive behavior, the market or government? The market would be more efficient, government not so much.

Profits represent created wealth that has not been distributed among contributors.

Actually, profits are what is left after taxes that can be utilized for expansion without taking out a loan or to meet unplanned expenses.

You can make the argument on how wages are determined, however most companies will only pay a wage that prevents one from going elswhere. Ever wonder why graduates with high GPA's and desired skill sets get paid more than the average graduate? Or why some can go from job to job with an increasing pay scale?

Whether this means that the wage meets the desires of the wage earner is another matter.

As egilman pointed out, the investor (be they pension funds, IRA's, 401k's, etc)has skin in the game as well.

thanks for a thoughtfull discussion.

Oh and Jo Anna; so unions are inherently evil??? So my father, who is a union worker and actually got a 10% furlough a few years ago, is supporting something evil???? I'll admit it; unions aren't 100% good. They can mess things up. They've done that a lot. But don't give America the anti-union crap without telling the whole story. Unions can be the only defense between workers and over-powerful corporations. They are an integral part of America, because they are essentially the worker's democracy. So don't go criticizing unions without pointing out how the corporations have also mistreated this nation and have done equal, if not greater, damage. I'm not anti-business. I just don't want any denigrating of unions without somebody telling THE WHOLE TRUTH, not just the truth that they want to tell...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

As Romney put it, some issues are best talked about in a quiet room :)

I enjoyed your post, thanks for clarifying the debate.

Those are very interesting and applicable points you make Allen. Well thought out and presented.

The problem, whether you admit it or not,is that religious exemptions are embodied in the Consitution.

Period.

As recently as last month, the administration was slapped with a nine to nothing decision by the Supreme Court in the case of a Lutheran school teacher who attempted to sue the school for employment discrimination. The Court held that the ministerial exemption was alive and well, thank you very much- despite the teacher's secular duties.

It is very clear that this administration does NOT understand the Constitutional protections granted to all citizens and religious organizations. Despite the hype, Obama was, in fact, NOT a Constitutional law professor, but a Teaching Assistant-and he must have been a pretty poor one, at that.

It helps to remember that when cases come before the Court, one side loses the argument. In the case of this administration, on religious matters, they are, so far, 0 and 1- and that by unanimous decision.

They will lose this case, as well- politically AND in the Cpurt.

NOJO...........once again you make it real easy to refute your lies. Your hate blinds you to any reasoning.

Here is information regarding Obama’s at University of Chicago Law School. Note that he taught 3 courses a year not 3 courses in 12 years.

The following is a statement from the Law School concerning Obama’s teaching load and titles:

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer”. From 1992 until his election to the United States Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as Professors although not considered full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signals adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times in his 12 years as a Professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a fulltime tenure-track position, but he declined.

Great post, Allen. If the Catholic church (in which I was raised) chooses to accept government money for its ventures, it also should follow the government rules that every other employer has to follow. What really has me confused is that there are 28 states with similar rules and yet the Church is able to comply with the rules in those states. Why is this different?

GBM---thanks for pointing out the truth to No Joe. I have taught courses as an adjunct professor and I can tell you that it is usually done out of a spirit of giving back to your profession and for the pleasure of interacting with smart young people. The money isn't great and it takes a lot of time to do. Blind hatred like No Joe's is really sad to witness.

no jo:

Are you in favor of Sharia Law? The SCOTUS just opened that bag of worms - thank you very much.

Steeler, why is this different? ... the GOP is trying to rally its shrinking base. Look for GOP Superpac money to flow towards Congressional seats as the realization that the Presidency is not attainable sinks in.

The problem, whether you admit it or not,is that religious exemptions are embodied in the Consitution (Constitution).

Now we know where the Jersey nut job stands on the constitution, rule of law applies across the board except when it doesn't. Sounds a lot like Romney, it is what it is when it is except when it isn't. Laws against murder or theft apply unless they are exempted based upon religion. If Catholics come out tomorrow urging a systematic cleansing of society of non-Catholics, they are constitutionally protected, according to the Jersey nut job. Sorry baby, the constitution does not grant exemptions to break the law based upon religious belief. If you question that, ask a Mormon attempting to marry multiple wives.

Despite the hype, Obama was, in fact, NOT a Constitutional law professor, but a Teaching Assistant-and he must have been a pretty poor one, at that.

Aside from the fact that you're flat-out wrong, you're more qualified than the President to pontificate about constitutiional law because...?

Allen, Omaha, terrific post. In my view, the republican party is floundering right now, jumping on a religious freedom, cultural war issue is the straw they are grasping.

In thinking about this yesterday, I wonder if the existing health care plans these institutions offer include Prescription Drug plans either as part of the insurance package or separate. If they do, it is possible employees already have access to birth control pills, etc., under that coverage only with a co-pay and the Church was able to stand on their principle while turning a blind eye.

Gingerbread Mamma, well done!!!! No Joe could use a course in reading comprehension.

Jody, a single course won't do it. Perhaps an entire semester? lol

ideology,

You are right. The superpacs will gather their millions and pivot to the House, Senate, and state races. The GOP presidential candidate will be on their own.

That was the point the DNC was making to Obama about superpacs. The election battle will be focused on those races and the Dem's need money to compete. Thus the superpacs for Dems.

Thank you SCOTUS for opening this money train that is out of control.

Jody, a single course won't do it. Perhaps an entire semester? lol

Doubtful a semester will work, the poor thing can't get past her ABCs even with spell check turned on. Capitalization must confuse her fingers.

Consitution Cpurt

The solution to the problem is simple: Universal Healthcare. This employer based system that we have is insane.

That aside, I can't believe that, as a society, we are relitigating the issue of birth control. Geez people, its the 21st century.

Interesting, the left calls opinions from NoJo as lies when she bases the opinion on what she has observed within the court system and obamas perceived scholarly accomplishments. Hardly a basis for calling it a lie when it is expressed as an opinion.

Technically, No Jo stating that Obama wasn't a Constitutional lawyer is an assertion, not an opinion. And she was wrong. It may not have been a lie, as she may not have known (probably not), but it is definitely not true.

Allen, great remark. I haven't thought about that. The only problem I have with the contraception bill is that the employer does not pay for it. Then again, it could just be added as part of her medical coverage (I think it already is). But Allen's right. If the Catholic church can be tax-exempt, they ought to adhere to federal law.

P.S. For any of you wondering if I am an atheist or sound like one, I'm not. I'm one of about 55% of American Catholics okay with contraception and mostly at ease with the law.

I thought he was already unconcious when he spoke. my bad.

Romney's story about his father putting a mouthful of lath nails in his mouth and then spitting them out pointy end first is ridiculous. Carpenters have always used nail bags. I would like to see him show us how his father did this neat trick, lath nails are extremely sharp. This story doesn't make him sound like a blue collar son, it makes him look like a pure phony.

Quote from MSNBC:

"The victories, however, are somewhat informal. Missouri will host a separate caucus next month to allocate its delegates, and the Minnesota and Colorado caucus results are non-binding."

Is this Funny Republican vote counting?

Job1,

Very funny Republican vote counting. Watch how they alienate their base by ignoring their wishes and giving away their delegates. Watch Republicans turn on each other. Can't wait!

Yep.....1 for you..1 for me...2 for you...1, 2 for me...3 for you, 1 2 3. for me.....

Da Noid---I had that same thought last night---welcome to the Romney negative media blitz, Senator Santorum. Romney's successes (other than the win in his own back yard) come when he can throw massive amounts of money into negative media campaigns. So look out---a whole lot of negativity (true or not we won't know) is coming at Senator Santorum.

Tom Yreka,

I agree. When the story isn't yours it always comes off fake! Romney borrowed that story from someone. It is not his own. As is the case with most of Romney's positions. That is why he did not even realize he contradicted himself 14 seconds later during a debate. It takes lots of practice to screw up as badly as Romney has during debates. Not even a comedian can come up with that quick a flip in a skit.

Job1, I believe it's that "fuzzy math" the GOP likes so much.

Once again voter turnout was down from 2008. In the first 3 contest 2 states were flat and only one was up, but only slightly. In Colorado turnout was down over 6% and in Minnesota turnout was down over 24%.

If it’s not Romney driving down the turnout then just what is?

Republicans don't like Romney

It appears, and the GOP-TEA primaries to date seem to prove, that Republicans don't like ANYBODY!!!!

Just call 'em like I see "em.

Dennis, maybe politics in general? Maybe there were good hockey games on last night?

If it was one candidate - a front runner being rejected by his party - wouldn't that drive turnout up? Low turnout usually signals complacency.

Again, not saying it isn't happening, but still too early to tell. I half expect that kind of rejection to happen, but down the road a bit. That's why I keep mentioning the convention and the possibility for someone other than these candidates coming out of it as the nominee.

But other than Colorado, I'm not sure we can yet say Republicans reject Romney.

I understand that Missouri was a Dog and Pony Show since there were no delegates on the line but Romney was most DEFINITELY rejected there. With no Gingrich on the ballot it was the first opportunity to answer the question of whether or not Conservatives would "settle" for Romney and the answer was a resounding "NO".

Not as Stupid - it's a tough field of candidates, for rank and file party members. How many times have people called this race the clown show, or words to that effect? If there was a better candidate running, I have no doubt the Republicans would be gladly waving signs with his name and cheering.

I'm sure Pawlenty has kicked himself more than a few times for getting out so early. Not that he's a great candidate, either. I was a bit surprised by some of those early stumbles. But compared to the others I suspect he'd have gotten his turn with the surge, and probably been better able to hold it. For one thing, the RNC establishment wouldn't have cut him down at the knees, like they recently have been doing with anyone but Romney. The establishment would have been fine with a Pawlenty nomination.

Paul,

There were no delegates earned last night by any candidate. Only delegates to the district and ultimately to state convention here in the Midwest.

What is a fascinating question: will Romney with all his money , superpacs money just stack the convention and pay off all the super delegates? In Florida, he had all sorts of GOP Congressmen running around as his surrogates. Each of those elected officials are super delegates at the national convention.

Here in MN M.Bachmann has not endorsed any candidate yet. She will probably wait and again, with a $400,000. debt her super delegate vote is still up for grabs.

Last night turnout was up in the counties that favored Rick and down in counties that favored Mitt.

For me that indicates a huge enthusiasm problem for Romney.

Denis, I don't think that this is a talking point for the frustrated red team this morning.

Get ready to hear all about Santorum's dead baby ad nauseam - all paid for by Mitt's superpac. It's going to be a long campaign season. I'm grateful they are not fighting for position in my state.

I think you will find it surprising that when the republican candidate is finally resolved you will see most of the republicans (and Im not one) will line up and follow the anyone but Obama line. I know who Im voting for and to be honest it doesnt bother me if Mr Obama gets reelected. As long as Ms Pelosi and Mr. Reid have the word MINORITY in front of their names.

Grand Moff Joseph, you're so right. No offense intended to Catholics or the Pope but as a non-Catholic, I find it odd that the doctrine on birth control is provided by a bunch of men who have never been married.

your going to find something else funny, thats the amount of people who will vote as Catholics. I know you guys have to speak to your beliefs, its just sometimes you forget how rough it was between Hillary (who I may have voted for) and Mr Obama. Even Mr Clinton was in the mudhole elbowing people.

Jody, I am Catholic, and have to agree with you,and Grand Moff Joseph. A lot of Catholics feel the same way.

Yeah, I noticed that, too JohnNY…

For all of the doom and gloom and rhetoric proffered by the GOP in regards to President Obama…

…I’d be inclined to think that they all collectively regret not somehow having him in the Republican Party. President Obama is what the conservatives wish Michael Steele/Allen West/Herman Cain were…and why they tried so hard to push those guys to the front of the viewing public.

President Obama, in a very practical sense, is a lot more like a Ronald Reagan Republican, than the self-professed heir-apparent, Newt Gingrich…at least in terms of long-term national fiscal policy. Which is why President Obama tends to reference Reagan so often, I suppose.

One of the reasons why the President has chaffed so many Democrats and moderates/independents who voted him into office, in my opinion, is that he conducts business a bit differently than they believed he would. We all wanted to forget how the office of the Presidency was effectively reduced to that of a desk secretary by George W. Bush because of how bad our financial house became. (As an aside, I never had any personal animosity towards President Bush 43, although, by the time it was revealed in 2003 that we’d invaded Iraq possibly under false pretenses, I became thoroughly disgusted with his behavior as a glorified yes-man for his party’s war-hawks and financial kooks).

Most people, by the time President Bush 43’s term was over, was convinced that the Presidency was supposed to be in lockstep with the party…and not function as, ultimately, the face of the nation, both domestically and abroad. Which would mean governing the nation with the best interests of EVERYONE at the fore of any policy. And to try to preserve what the American way of life was supposed to be in a practical, every-day, no-nonsense manner.

It’s difficult to accept, for a lot of us, that our national focus has gravitated toward a desire to accumulate more and more wealth at the expense of practically everything else the past 20 or 30 years. Whatever else anybody wants to think or believe, it would take a MASSIVE effort from anybody to shake that feeling loose from its national mores.

And that President Obama is the LEAST likely government official to attempt it.

I had a problem with the bailouts of the banking and auto industries, as a regular, everyday, working guy. We were being asked as taxpayers to pay for the failures of businesses and financial practices that any self-respecting entrepreneurial, free-market, flag-waving American would tell you was supposed to be part-and-parcel with the risks they took. Mitt Romney’s “..let the markets run their course…” refrain was supposed to be apropos here (particularly where the banking industry was concerned).

Except that those ordinary people, like me, were threatened not by the system itself so much as it was by the unscrupulousness and incompetence and selfishness of its stewards…who somehow had led themselves to believe that their success was theirs, and that their failure was ours.

I heard where George W. Bush made an appearance somewhere, taking credit for the recovery of the auto industry, since he technically signed off on some of the legislation that provided the money for it. I get the feeling that he wants to be remembered for doing something beneficial for people…he allowed a lot of his party’s ideologues too much free rein during his tenures, and he may be having some remorse about that (I know how close his father was to an honorable man like General Colin Powell, and having that rift develop between them because of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney has to be leaving a bad taste…)…

But had President Bush 43 oversaw the TARP money that went to the banking institutions the way that President Obama oversaw the auto industry (essentially protecting the investment of the common man who was taking an extraordinary risk and preserving his own security at the same time), perhaps his claim would have more merit.

As it is, I have no confidence in any form of “trickle-down” economics—growing up poor teaches you very vividly just how little anybody is willing to give you. You’d sooner encounter a winning lottery ticket lying on the ground before you did a “generous benefactor” or “charitable organization”. Most people don’t want or need to be given anything more than a chance or an opportunity to better themselves, anyway. That’s what smacked of disconnect with Mitt Romney’s encounter with the struggling woman who he offered the 50 dollars to. Romney may actually have a heart…but he probably hasn’t had to use it for awhile.

To think that our President chose the trickle-down-creamy nougat center template of recovery with the auto industry (wrapped in a hard-shell candy liberal bias), and have it work so well for the industry says that you can politick for things to be either left or right if you want…but to do anything right and worthwhile, you better get everybody working together and doing their part and honoring their commitments…

…and that we’re all better served with a President that, even though it seems like it’s a trickle-down concept, understands that things sometimes have to be built from the ground up if they’re going to last.

My mother told me once that good things tend to grow. They take awhile…they take a lot of work…you’re going to get dirty…you won’t see a lot of results right away…and there are no guarantees, even if you do what you’re supposed to do…but once the roots take hold and the seeds begin to sprout…well, you’re pretty much in business.

She also said that bad things tend to spread, like a virus. Gets around really fast…affects everything it comes in contact with…covers a lot of ground and can really make a big mess, the way a spilled drink seems to stain a larger area of carpet that was even in the glass. But that damage is mostly superficial and doesn’t last.

I’m glad that President Obama doesn’t make everybody happy, on either side of the aisle. His job is bigger than that. It means he’s at least making a genuine effort to give everybody a chance to make their own way, and not have somebody else make it for them. If (simply by osmosis, it seems) his “divisiveness” gets everybody thinking about one another and not about themselves…

…then he’s done a better job than anybody else ever would or could under the circumstances.

Here’s to capitalism. And to the U.S. of A.

Just ask Clint Eastwood…

Great post. Yes, let's ask Clint Eastwood what it means to put COUNTRY first. I'm sure he could give us an earful right about now.

weeds would enhance your garden metaphor,...that's what we are dealing with. A Weed Infestation. a veritable carpet bomb of clover,...

MarcOo, wonderful post. Thank you for taking the time.

JohnNY, good points.

@marc00

That was awesome. A great read.

As you said if one side or the other is to happy something is afoul. Not making any side too happy makes you think. I never knew or deeply thought about that process but it seems as if i never stop thinking since President Obama's election.

Marc00 great post I may save it actually, very well said. My opinions are very simillar and I can relate in many ways. All the right wingers always speak of how us who lean left do not criticize the president.

The truth is we do, but we understand that we cannot always have our way, a lesson I think many on the other side of the isle should learn.

Well aren't you all so sweet!

I didn't know "lefty libs" had "nice" in their vocabulary! What with their socialist welfare and communist govenment leanings and whatnot...

...but seriously...I figured, about the bailouts, that maybe it would have been beter to give all that money to working, taxpaying Americans directly...and we would have seen to how it got used better than anybody in the heads of those industries whose own greed and largesse had them bellying up to the national trough asking for what amounted (to them) to gas money for those jets they flew to Capitol Hill in...

...it would have been sweet revenge. All of those yahoos would have paid for screwing the American people over. American would have paid for what we wanted to keep, and kept thme the hell away from everything else.

Frontier justice--2010 (or Ron Paul) style.

Our President chose a different route. He chose to temper justice with mercy. Even for the louts who categorically didn't deserve any of it.

I guess even a Kenyan-Muslim-Socialist-Marxist-Machurian candidate-half-black-preening idiot like President Obama can figure out how to fake it as a Christian long enough to do the right thing for everybody in spite of his own personal feelings...

I would talk to a few CEO's and ask them why they are not hiring. There is a reason and most for them would probably tell you. Listen to a few investors meetings and you will hear the "speak" The main theme is the business climate is not conducive to the business environment and until it is hiring will stay low.

To add; for some unknown reason GNOP Tea Potty has forgotten the explosion of the social networking age and relied on memory loss in low educated people. Not only are factual statements posted forever, false and misleading websites can be debunked in nano seconds with links and or actual video.

And the internet is in more than 5 billion peoples hand: Apple and Android have changed easy internet access forever with continue growth insight.

Good luck with those millions of TV ads, all I'll do is cut it up and make a funny viral videos out of them.

Job1- Wish I felt as confident of that as you do. It's scary out there.

Better a ROUGH WEEK than the WEAK WEEK the GOP has had, and it is only Wed.

Yellow Dog, I believe the answer lies in Catholic women. Many, a majority, of them have taken or are presently taking prescription contraception. If they support the President, then he will have the deciding factor in his camp.

kingofmyhill,

you called?

I am a woman who is Catholic and I support the President.

kingofmyhill

I agree. All h3ll would break loose if Obama compromises on Catholic institutions providing contraception in health plans. He would loose women's votes and those of their partners. The problem is he is contemplating doing just that. Will he provide yet another exemption?

The female vote will decide the upcoming election, I strongly doubt that they will provide the GOP with a victory seeing that when it comes to a woman's reproductive rights all GOP candidates have signed off on once again relegating them to second class citizens.

Ideology,

Yes, if the GOP keeps going it will be more about gender than class.

They better stick to things they know about, taxes, capital gains... etc.

Yellowdog---contrary to what some here suggest, we are not robots programmed to blindly support President Obama. I have not agreed with every thing his administration has done but I accept that I don't have the same information available to me and that disagreements are possible among people who fundamentally agree on the same basic goals and principles. What I do know is that the President works very hard every day to make our country a better place for ALL of us and that I wholeheartedly support that effort.

Sorry, but I find it very hard to disapprove of common sense, and compromise.

Steeler Fan and others fair enough. Perhaps my original post was a bit much. Concerning Obama's policies or actions, I will not presume to suggest what you and or others disagree or disapprove of.

With that said, I think Obama may win a battle with getting the additional funds, but WE will lose the war as SuperPacs get more entrenched. I just think that this is just another way where I see it hard to differentiate the D and R sides. I fear in our attempt to push or campaign for a Democratic President, we forget that the idea should trump the candidate/incumbent. Perhaps it was common sense to do this but we really lost the high ground.

As Jody noted above, repealing or reforming the SCOTUS decision will not be easy. The oligarchy and elitists will continue to reign supreme.

I guess some might call me hypocritical myself for voting for someone who has dissappointed me so many times. Oh well I guess it comes down to the lesser of two evils. The country needs the veto power to stem the hard right tide coming from Congress in 2012.

Barack Obama 2012 - Change we Can Believe in turns to Voting for the Pen!

I don't see we lost the high ground when President Obama stated he would continue to push for campaign finance reforms. As for Feingold, I respect him but he is living in a bubble to think that one side can take the high ground while the other side is digging underneath it.

Well said SF, I too dont always agree with the President, however they are minor disagreements considering I and many others are not privy to reasons decisions are made. I trust President Obama to make decisions that are in the best interests of the American people. I didn't vote for him expecting perfection, or that he would be able to fulfill all campaign promises. Being pragmatic, no one gets everything they want and to expect differently is not being realistic.

On his worst day, he is 10k times better than what are aiming to run against him and I would bet on that.

As George Clooney said recently, "I'm disillusioned by people who are disillusioned by Obama" and I agree. If one is so unhappy then go find another candidate, otherwise give real support, not warmed over whining.

Like I needed yet ANOTHER reason to love George Clooney?

Eye candy AND a Brain! Yum!

Romney" Gets Rejected".

No, he was not rejected. It was a system of voting. People choosing their Right to Vote who they felt was the best Candidate in Minnesota and Colorado.

The Race for the person to represent the GOP party is still on.

Would the Headline state that "President Obama in the final run for a second term when the Election comes" and loses; say he was rejected?

Sensationalism Journalism. Santorum is a weak Candidate---kinda of blah, no dynamics. No one knows until November, 2012, who will be the winner until November..

Rejected? A better description could have been Romney lost in these 2 States

If one is so unhappy then go find another candidate...

Hello again GBM - Believe me Obama needs votes from people like me, even if some think he can go do it all with W. Buffet's billion.

Another/better candidate, none are available. Besides I'm a yellow dog I don't whine, I howl.

Clooney, Never been married, no children, no worries about the future, no financial issues since he is a millionaire, wondering from his mansion why ANYONE would be disillusioned by Obama.

Not against George, he just doesn't have a clue!!

Nash,

Well said.

Nashville,

I agree. when the parties cannot talk about real issues facing families : jobs,heath care, education, wage stagnation, housing crises, they pivot to the wedge cultural/religious issues.

So we voters have to keep focused on the issues that will move this country forward and provide a government that works for all of us, not just the 1%

Do we really have to be so hyper and hysterical each and everytime we disagree on something?

Well, when it is something that is so obvious and blatantly ridiculous, it tends to rile people. When a group of self-important, self-assigned busybodies runs around shaking their fingers at everyone else, it tends to piss everyone else off.

For example, when a particular movement has spent the last 40 years railing against abortion, and then turns around and starts a vociferous effort to ban contraception, someone might thing that they are mendacious @!$%#s with an agenda they refuse to state, because their anti-positions are anti-each-other. And sometimes people might start thinking that they are full of it because if you want to be against abortion you must be for contraception because that's how you prevent unwanted pregnancies, and then some are all like quelle surprise when people erupt in profanities and insults when the same mendacious pricks who scream about abortion also scream about birth control and seem to be mortally obsessed with something that is flat-out none of their business. Well, it gets to be tiresome. I can only handle so much before I just start rhetorically knocking people over and crapping down their throats.

See, for me the solution is simple: BE CONSISTENT. But when the right wing gets involved, consistency goes out the window. Republicans run up ruinous deficits and say and I @!$%#ing quote that "Deficits don't matter" (Dick-hole Cheney), and then when they're out of power scream bloody murder about the deficits they themselves ran up. It's enough to make a person absolutely insane.

Hear, hear!

Pizza Man- If a person believes that an unborn baby is indeed a LIFE, then why would that person distinguish between a baby who is a product of normal sex or a product of illegal, forced sex? It's very strange to hear people say "no abortion except for in the case of rape." That's the main reason I'm in favor of abortion (as long as it's early)...so a woman won't be forced to give birth to the baby of some worthless POS who raped her. But you people don't understand that. Pro-lifers of Santorum's caliber FIRMLY believe that a NEW LIFE is a NEW LIFE...at conception.

However, if they could come up with something like "no abortion , ever, except in the case where it is likely the baby may grow up to be a liberal..."

I do not fault Mr. Santorum for his personal beliefs. I fault him, however, if he seeks to impose those personal beliefs on all.

Yeah, don't you hate it when people who believe MURDER is a crime try to impose their belief on everybody else?

There are people out there who think murder isn't a crime?

Yeah, don't you hate it when people who believe MURDER is a crime try to impose their belief on everybody else?

What I really hate it is when people who have re-defined abortion to be murder, and claim to be pro-life, then stand heels dug in to ban and end the use of contraception, which of course is the main way you prevent unwanted pregnancies.

See, if you're anti-abortion, you must be pro-contraception. If you are also anti-contraception (as I assume all right-wingers are based on the loud anti-contraception wurlitzer that the right has been running for several years now), you've just deleted yourself from the conversation as a serious participant.

So, are you pro-contraception or not? If not, your opinion on abortion is no longer required.