Gingrich just wants the attention (and campaigning is a good way to sell his children's books and dvds) Paul is loyal to his message, and the GOP gives him the chance to preach it.

Obama is President but has a LONG way to go before being reelected.

You're absolutely on the money 'phancy. Gingrich could have saved a lot of money and time if he'd simply bought air time to sell the books.

I applaud Paul (and everyone else) who campaigns on his principals without waiver. Even if a person doesn't care for his message they should be able to admire his character.

Regardless of this, Obama has been doing a more than adequate job under some of the most dire circumstances against him (Congress). As long as the job numbers continue to improve and IF he can get gas price under control, I don't see him faltering in his campaign to be re-elected.

Rob,

Surprisingly, I agree with you. And, I would imagine, the Obama re-election team is taking nothing for granted. As I always say, polls now mean absolutely nothing about the general election, Talk to me in the fall about polls.

Now, saying that, the GOP has a lot of work to do regarding the women and Latino vote. They have really hurt themselves in that area - and both groups are a LARGE voting block.

Oh Super Tuesday and the narrow wins (aside from Teapublican inability to conduct elections even when only within their own Party, and the fraud OMG), while it is reassuring to see that votes can't be bought (there is a saturation threshhold for negative ads, after which money is wasted, thank goodness) another disconcerting fact is that Santorum would be the front-runner now if Gingrich had dropped out.

I'll give it time for that to sink in. That's how weak Romney is that he can't win against this Field of Clowns. Gingrich will stay in until the upcoming southern states have voted, splitting the wacko votes thus keeping Santorum from his true title of front-runner.

Now some may think what a joy it would be to put religious radicalism on trial, and to see the Senate and House go down with Santorum. But knowing that conservatives actually vote for someone like this, especially if it's their only choice with (R) next to the name compared to the president and their irrational hatred for him, does anyone really want to take that chance?

And don't think that a crushing loss would be a teachable moment for these zealots. They have been crushed before (e.g., Goldwater) and look at them now -- Not just rehashing old debates like Roe v Wade, but Griswold v Connecticut and contraception! Heck, do you see any of them admitting how bad Citizen's United has been for their own nasty primary? The very definition of "conservative" is inability to change and progress!

Romney will be the anointed one, whether bought and paid for or fraud--what ever it takes. And then he will have to finally answer to his lies about Romneycare, and earlier statements on tape about wanting his ideas to be used at the federal level. Wow, how much rationalization will it take for all the "Obamacare" hysterics and haters in the right-wing to vote for Romney?!

I hear and see all the confidence about President Obama being reelected. No doubt the president is the only adult in the room and deserves another term. But NEVER underestimatethe far-right fanatics in this country. On election day, these wing-nuts will get out the vote no matter how disappointing their candidate may be. So to all the Dems, Independents, and anyone with sanity -- help overcome voter ID issues for your neighbors and get out the vote!

Ideology,

Isn't being able to count sort of important when you are talking about the economy?

Phine,

If i got to a million, I would stop counting and start spending:-)

As to the economy, the people who have already counted well past a million will keep on counting. Those who had to stop below a million will have to start subtracting. (GOP method)

Ideology,

If you get to a million, may I just drop a hint that diamonds (really any nice gem stone) are a girl's best friend? And they just LOVE the one that gives them a few jewels. Proof of this: Callista and Newt Gingrich and their favorite store - Tiffany's.

the only number they need to get to is the one that insures a Romney nomination. They plan to do and redo until they get THAT number.

Irregularities be damned.

Being able to count is not part of politics. If that were the case the following synopsys would never fly:

A business owner made an average of $25,000 per year, but spent $37,000 per year and put the $12,000 deficit each year on credit. He made interest only payments on the debt and never paid on the principle of the debt, so it just built up. Previous attempts to raise his profit on sales resulted in less money coming in as it hurt sales as he increased prices. Currently he is sitting on $150,000 of debt, and building.

So the bank extending his credit complains of the situation and the business owner declares he will make corrections to the situation to satisfy the bank. After going through his records, the business owner declares to the bank he has come up with a brilliant plan.

This plan is to increase his price on goods to increase his profit margin, even though all previous attempts at this resulted in lower income due to lost sales. But this is the plan. And to help even further, he has made massive spending cuts that amount to $350 per year less in spending, thus decreasing his spending all the way down to $36,650 per year.

On the surface this scenarios depicts a business that will be out of business shortly. But it is the current government situation if you add a bunch of zeros at the end of every number.

Currently the governement takes in approximately 2.5 trillion, spends 3.7 trillion, and owes 15.5 trillion. Their proposed spending reduction per year are approximately 38.5 billion per year. They wish to increase taxes to increase revenue in the face that every attempt at such as resulted in less revenue coming in. Same as raising prices on goods usually results in less sales. And while history shows lowering required margins and price on goods sold results in more sales and a revenue increase, this is not being proposed as a solution, and is constantly being blamed as the cause for the current situation.

These are all the approximate numbers for the current administration. Counting delegates or votes may be our shortcoming on the GOP side, but what do these numbers say for the current administration? While we obviously are in a position where stiff cuts to our spending is the only solution to curb our debt build, we tout the cut of $385 per year from $37,000 spending as "Massive Cuts". And we talk of implementing plans that have always shown to reduce revenue as part of the solution.

Obviously counting in government is a skill lacking on both side. But the counting on the side of the Dems is killing the business.

ABO 2102

Idiologyspoilstheveiw,

You obviously don't understand how the delegate processs works. (don't feel bad the media doesn't either) BTW the Democratic party has the same ridiculous process. You see different numbers on every news agency that is attempting to report them because they are all using a BS calculation they devised themselves that means NOTHING. Yes every delegate count you have read regardless of who is publishing it is BS speculation and frankly poor journalism and shoddy reporting. (actually "lie" would be a better description than shoddy reporting) The delegate distribution will not be known until they are pledged so you are correct when you say not even the GOP knows the correct count yet. There will be a lot of surprised people when the correct count is published because of all the misleading numbers these entities that claim they report news have been throwing around. The true numbers will be quite different than anything I have seen being "reported" (in this case "reported" is the same as "made up BS")

A business owner made an average of $25,000 per year, but spent $37,000 per year and put the $12,000 deficit each year on credit. He made interest only payments on the debt and never paid on the principle of the debt, so it just built up. Previous attempts to raise his profit on sales resulted in less money coming in as it hurt sales as he increased prices. Currently he is sitting on $150,000 of debt, and building.
So the bank extending his credit complains of the situation and the business owner declares he will make corrections to the situation to satisfy the bank. After going through his records, the business owner declares to the bank he has come up with a brilliant plan.
This plan is to increase his price on goods to increase his profit margin, even though all previous attempts at this resulted in lower income due to lost sales. But this is the plan. And to help even further, he has made massive spending cuts that amount to $350 per year less in spending, thus decreasing his spending all the way down to $36,650 per year.

Well, dsdsherm, the Teapublican "solution" to that dilemma would be to cut prices well below the cost of actually producing the goods, and make up the difference in volume. Of course, anyone with mathematical savvy would realize that the result would be simply going bankrupt quicker.

The result of a decade of Bush tax cuts has been a decade of record deficits, and more than doubling the national debt. I'd include the current deficits in those record deficits - BECAUSE THE BUSH TAX CUTS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Yep, the Bush tax cuts resulted in the Government pricing its products well below the cost of production, with predictably disastrous results.

They wish to increase taxes to increase revenue in the face that every attempt at such as resulted in less revenue coming in.

That's as absurd as the claim that the Bush tax cuts resulted in increased tax revenues. Definitely not the case, in spite of what the conservative mythology may say. Taxes and tax revenues were much higher under the Clinton administration, and were higher during the Reagan administration as well. In fact, looking at the past history, the greatest economic boom times had relatively high to income tax rates, including periods when the top income tax rates were more than double the rates of today.

Running the most powerful and influential Nation on earth costs a lot of money - money the Teapublicans don't want to pay. They want all the benefits of a big powerful Government, but at tiny 3rd world nation price - sorry, reality just doesn't work that way.

Well CM6969, you help make my point.

You poin to the Reagan years. Yes the tax rates may have been higher than today, but when did the economic boom come? I believe it was right after the largest tax CUT in history. It does not matter that the rates were higher than today, what matters is the boom came after the cut was made.

Can you now point to a time when we had an economic boom after raising taxes?

I do not neccessarily agree with the stance that tax cuts at this point can bring us back into parity. But I know any tax hikes will not. So in a true business model, the next choice is to lower costs and spending, which honestly no one is addressing. It is an unsustainable model they have now, and moving tax rates around will not solve it as the spending is at level that cannot be maintained.

And stop calling them the Bush Tax cuts. They expired and Obama extended them. Call them what they are. The Obama Tax cuts. It may be the only thing he has done right thus far. Now if he could just stop spending so darn much ......

And the claim that the Bush tax cuts resulted in increased revenue is factual. In the 8 years following the tax cuts revenue increased 21.42%. But at the same time spending increased 72.27%. This is documented fact. And this is including a recessionary period, or it would definately be higher. So the resultant doubling of the debt is a consequence of spending, as if it had not been increased to such a level, the increased revenue of the tax cuts would have reduced debt.

The issue is every time more money flows in, the government spends 3 times the increase. Same thing happened when Reagan had revenue increases, which is why the deficit grew during our boom cycle. Definately there was more revenue coming in. Government just spent it all and more.

Running the most powerfull and influential Nation on Earth does not need to cost a lot of money. If the government would follow the constitution and fund only the items they are supposed to at a federal level it would be a no brainer. But we overreach with the nanny state and create and fund programs the federal governement has no business or right to do.

Your argument to me seems to talking points and is not factual from actual data. And making points on propserity as opposed to tax rates at the time is manipulation of the facts. Regardless of what the rate of tax was when Reagan was in office, the boom cycle and revenue increase was due to a cut in the marginal rate that was massive. Leaving this point out is misrepresenting the facts.

I know that no one will be able to concince you otherwise and it is the main difference between conservative and liberal thought patterns. Liberals believe spending more and increasing taxes will balance the budget even though it ihas been tried numerous times and failed. Conservatives believe reducing taxes and also reducing spending will lead to prosperity, but always fails to do both at the same time.

Sad to say, but Clinton was the only one who got it right, as he cut taxes and slowed spending. It may have been forced on him by the GOP in Congress, but he went along with it and it worked. Probably the last time both sides worked together towards a common goal. But the methodology used was conservative, not liberal.

Why we cant look to history and attempt to repeat it is beyond me.

ABO 2012

CM

Amen!

End the Tax Sale! No 'Sale' lasts forever. Bush started the spend more than you take at grossly distorted records,...end the tax sale!

chilled ... that should take Romney about $114,400,000 to accomplish in total.

He can get there ideologyspoilstheview if he makes a business deal to save the US economy by letting it go bankrupt then coming in to save it and walking away with billions. A la Bain......lol

Now that's a plan for the business executive in him.

Good question, JohnNY. And, while they are spending the big bucks now for his nomination, can they keep coming up with the money needed for the general election?

A 10% to 15% return on their investment via financial deregulation and decreased taxes should keep them propping him up for quite a while.

Ideology,

Never thought of that, still, they are sinking a lot of money on a bet that isn't a sure thing (general election time). Primaries have been a fairly sure bet, but the future.............................

Kev,

Have you ever listened to Chuck Todd? He has said that it would take that amount for someone else to get the nomination. Heard him say it, on MSNBC, just this morning. If you don't like our hosts on this site, I would respectfully suggest you go elsewhere to do your media bashing.

Todd ALSO claimed that the "silent majority" are behind Santorum.

Considering last night's results, I guess they are so silent that they don't bother to vote.

Even with help from democrats in open primaries in Ohio and Michigan, Santorum could not win over Romney- this despite the breathless claims from the media that he would.

I've read that Obama does not want to face Romney- I guess the media is doing its job to prevent that from happening.

Too bad it isn't working, huh, guys?

no joe, no bo, nj ... just a shakin' in our boots darlin'

I have no doubt that the re-election team in Chicago is working hard to prepare for a contest against Mr. Romney.

If I were a member of the GOP, I would start worrying now about the low numbers they have with women and Latinos. They cannot win without a strong showing from these two groups. They have burned some bridges with these two groups and better hope they can repair those bridges.

Hold the phone- didn't you claim to be Canadian? You are aware, are you not, that Canadians, like other foreigners, (no matter how friendly), can neither vote, nor contribute, in American elections?

So, who is this "we" of whom you speak?

no joe, no bo, nj

... perhaps the we in the rest of the world who look at the saber rattling GOP with a degree of trepidation? You mention the Iran Hostage crisis this morning ... perhaps we Canadians should not have contributed by helping to free several Americans, or perhaps during 911, we should not have allowed your planes to land ... I will 'contribute' by saying whatever I damn well please to stop morons like Bush and America's at times foolish foreign policies that just cause a lot of death and destruction.

No Joe--once again you are mistaken. The "silent majority" remark came in a discussion of the unusual situation which has occurred during the primaries that Santorum's exit polls seem to understate his support--i.e. more people vote for him than SAY they voted for him. They were speculating on why that might be and they made it clear that it was only speculation on their part.

nojo,

I am a Floridian, and I am not shaking in my boots (I am barefoot at the moment, actually). Ideology has lived in this country and realizes that an American election not only effects us here in the states, but also has a worldwide effect. Why do you suppose some countries to cause different things happen to influence our Presidential elections (maybe Israel bombing Iran, OPEC oil production are two things to try and influence American politics that come to mind)?

ideo: I will 'contribute' by saying whatever I damn well please to stop morons like Bush and America's at times foolish foreign policies that just cause a lot of death and destruction.

Too funny.

Sounds like the local drunk ranting a bit while sitting outside his local bar waiting for it to open.

And Bush isn't president anymore darlin. We have a new moron for a President.

ideologyspoilstheview........................unlike some on this thread, I want to thank you and all other Canadians who have always supported America in a vast number of ways that many of us don't often think about.

When we are at war for example, we often think about our troops. But without the consolidated effort of Canadians, Britons, Aussies and so many others, our efforts would be far less great and our loss of life would be far greater.

Aside from war there is support with oil, manufacturing and many other arenas that we have a joint interest that helps both of our great nations stay strong and independent.

Ideology----thanks again for reminding us that the rest of the world cares about our elections, too. And for the friendship between our two countries. (except when the Penguins play a Canadian team, like tonight).

I just donated $25 to the Obama/Biden campaign in your honor.

Oh looky here, the other evil twin sister has arrived ... wrote a poem for ya darlin' ... are you up to it? While you are waiting perhaps you could take a google at Obama"s approval around the world. Lemme know.

Ideology,

I do believe nojo and jas1 have no deep love for you. Too bad. They don't know what they are missing! :)

Todd ALSO claimed that the "silent majority" are behind Santorum.

Considering last night's results, I guess they are so silent that they don't bother to vote.

Well, a once in a blue moon event, I agree with you on the above NJNB.

Steeler ... Penguins by 3 goals

Let me put an end to this by saying that what I do not love about America I can count on one hand, what I do love about America is boundless.

From what I have seen on NoJo's and JAS1's posts, they love America even less than I could ever possibly do.

"And Bush isn't president anymore darlin. We have a new moron for a President."

There it is folks........finally, JAS admits that Dubya was/is a moron!

ideo: From what I have seen on NoJo's and JAS1's posts, they love America even less than I could ever possibly do.

Now that's not true ideo. We're just not a big old Obama butt kisser like you are poochie. It seems to cloud what little mind you have.

chilly: There it is folks........finally, JAS admits that Dubya was/is a moron!

Yeah. Just like you.

Is everybody "HAPPY" .... !!!!

JAS1 ... I wouldn't kiss you butt with a dead poochie ... guess you want the poem ...

Listen you diatribe of what was …

the dance now belongs to what is

the gates of Heaven

are now guarded by Mary Magdalena.

And the Fall of You is bequeathed

to hubris’s decayed erection.

(But not so to woman of worth,

she shouts throughout history …

“I am anonymous …”

these words etched in stone echo in the light …)

but this fool sees not with her ears

and hears not with her eyes.

Ah woe, her c__t is no longer wide enough

to swallow her pride.

O woeful bitter woman

you have lost the beginning and the end, the Word …

when you defiled the Magdelena’s being.

And in the end,

The prick now proffered

Is subprime and mortgaged

To the hilt and by the hilt

You seek its seedless ravishing.

Your poetry isn't too good ....

Maybe it rhymes a little better , in some other language ....

JAS, chill out.

....I always knew Dubya was a moron!

What ever happen to driveby?

bigbenalaska ... rhyming dove with love is no longer poetry ... go to the library and get some modern stuff from let's say the past 100 years.

Kind of like the beet nick days , I guess then .... ideologyspoilstheview ....

They would say something like , "The Moon Is Blue" ....

And everybody in the auditorium , "Would Cheer" .... "LOL" ....

Sounds a little dirty .... roc .... "LOL"

Politics, learn how to shake someones hand with your other at your side palm up at the same time.