URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID6
Thread Number: 37309
[ Go back to previous page ]
Original Message
"GOP candidate tracker III: buildup to Super Tuesday"
Posted by AyaK on 02-13-12 at 06:57 PM
As of today, February 13, 2012, there are still four candidates left in the race: Mitt Romney; Rick Santorum; Newt Gingrich; and Ron Paul. Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, Gary Johnson and others have disappeared into the ether. And then there are the non-runners, from governors Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie to the conservative queen bee herself, Sarah Palin.

The new thread was requested by some of our posters with slower connections. Continuing to keep all of the politics in one thread has created two very long threads. Here's thread two, with over 400 posts:
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID6/37186.shtml

And here's thread 1, with over 250:
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID6/36694.shtml

Table of contents
Messages in this discussion
"Calendar"
Posted by dabo on 02-14-12 at 01:42 AM
Sat. 2/18 - conclusion of Maine caucuses. see note 1.
Tue. 2/28 - Arizona primary.
Tue. 2/28 - Michigan primary.
Sat. 3/3 - Washington caucuses.
Tue. 3/6 - Alaska caucuses.
Tue. 3/6 - Georgia primary.
Tue. 3/6 - Idaho caucuses.
Tue. 3/6 - Massachusetts primary.
Tue. 3/6 - North Dakota caucuses.
Tue. 3/6 - Ohio primary.
Tue. 3/6 - Oklahoma primary.
Tue. 3/6 - Tennessee primary.
Tue. 3/6 - Vermont primary.
Tue. 3/6 - Virginia primary.
Tue. 3/6 - commencement of Wyoming caucuses.
Sat. 3/10 - Guam caucuses.
Sat. 3/10 - Northern Mariana Islands caucuses. see note 2.
Sat. 3/10 - conclusion of Wyoming caucuses.
Sat. 3/10 - Kansas caucuses.
Sat. 3/10 - U.S. Virgin Islands caucuses.
Tue. 3/13 - Alabama primary.
Tue. 3/13 - American Samoa caucuses.
Tue. 3/13 - Hawaii caucuses.
Tue. 3/13 - Mississippi primary.
Tue. 3/13 - Missouri caucuses.
Sun. 3/18 - Puerto Rico primary.
Tue. 3/20 - Illinois primary.
Sat. 3/24 - Louisiana primary.
Tue. 4/3 - Maryland primary.
Tue. 4/3 - Texas primary. see note 3.
Tue. 4/3 - Washington D.C. primary.
Tue. 4/3 - Wisconsin primary.
Tue. 4/24 - Connecticut primary.
Tue. 4/24 - Delaware primary.
Tue. 4/24 - New York primary.
Tue. 4/24 - Pennsylvania primary.
Tue. 4/24 - Rhode Island primary.
Tue. 5/8 - Indiana primary.
Tue. 5/8 - North Carolina primary.
Tue. 5/8 - West Virginia primary.
Tue. 5/15 - Nebraska primary.
Tue. 5/15 - Oregon primary.
Tue. 5/22 - Arkansas primary.
Tue. 5/22 - Kentucky primary.
Tue. 6/5 - California primary.
Tue. 6/5 - Montana primary.
Tue. 6/5 - New Jersey primary.
Tue. 6/5 - New Mexico primary.
Tue. 6/5 - South Dakota primary.
Tue. 6/26 - Utah primary.

note 1: Maine caucusing was scheduled to conclude on Sat. Feb. 11 but owing to a snowstorm and Republicans wanting to be home when the Girl Scouts came around to sell cookies events in Washington county were postponed to Sat. Feb. 18. The results of these final events could potentially change the official outcome.

note 2: Different dates are cited for the Northern Mariana Islands caucuses, even on different Wikipedia pages. For the time being I am going with the more recent date inserted on the assumption that all others were placeholders. It makes sense for Guam and Northern Marianas to have their caucuses coincide as Guam is part of the Marianas archipeligo. (Notably as well, as one has to cross the international date line when traveling west from Hawaii to Guam and/or Northern Marianas, their placement in this calendar doesn't exactly follow alphabetical order for that date.)

note 3: Due to the 2010 US census Texas gained seats in the US House of Representatives, forcing the state to redraw the districts within the state. The map the Texas legislature decided on was challenged in court as being designed to disenfranchise, in essence, Hispanics and other minorities, and this dispute was upheld, forcing the Texas primary to be rescheduled from "Super Tuesday" to April. Further challenged, the matter went to the Supreme Court, which recently returned the matter to the lower court with a ruler smack on the knuckles for not giving the map of the Texas legislature more respectful consideration. Until this matter is settled, the date of the Texas primary must be considered tentative.

"I'm confused."
Posted by Max Headroom on 02-14-12 at 08:55 AM
This calendar doesn't have Romney's coronation date on it.
"RE: I'm confused."
Posted by dabo on 02-14-12 at 11:11 AM
Well, it is that somehow Ron Paul managed to get on all the ballots, and just won't fold. Newt Gingrich isn't on the ballot in Virginia; Rick Santorum isn't there in Virginia, Washington D.C., Indiana, and has issues still in North Dakota and Illinois. Regional support for Newt in the South and Rick in the Midwest falters eventually, but Ron can keep picking up second and third places all over the board. Ron Paul's camp is hoping to take a late first in Maine even, when Washington County comes in happy with their Thin Mints, knocking down Mitt Romney's New England regional stronghold.

Or, alternately, they are just dragging it out and spending a lot of money to stay in the news as much as possible while Barry Obama runs unopposed for the Democratic Party nomination and Roseanne Barr's bid for the Green Party nomination goes virtually ignored. Mitt has money to burn so why not.

"RE: I'm confused."
Posted by AyaK on 02-14-12 at 11:35 AM
This isn't actually being discussed by either the Paul or Romney camps, but have you seen Paul take a shot at Romney or Romney take a shot at Paul?

And you won't. The Paul camp doesn't believe that Romney is a social conservative any more than the Santorum and Gingrich camps do. The difference is, that's consistent with libertarians' small-government philosophy.

"RE: I'm confused."
Posted by dabo on 02-14-12 at 12:36 PM
To his credit, Ron Paul is campaigning strictly on issues, his concept of government, and is unconcerned about claiming artifices of conservative bona fides and such. Nonetheless, the news media is dredging up anything and everything for a story.

Paul campaign disputes Romney's Maine victory

... Yet in a message to supporters last night, the Ron Paul campaign suggested a chicanery over Maine's decision to declare Mitt Romney the winner before all the votes were counted.

... "This is MAINE we're talking about. The GIRL SCOUTS had an event today in Washington County that wasn't cancelled."

The campaign claims the votes in Washington County, a Paul stronghold, would have been enough to give Paul his first win.

And so it goes.

"RE: I'm confused."
Posted by AyaK on 02-14-12 at 06:06 PM
LAST EDITED ON 02-14-12 AT 06:07 PM (EST)

The Paul campaign thought it had a real shot in Maine, in part because Maine was H. Ross Perot's best state in his 1992 bid for the Presidency (it was the only state in which each of Clinton, Perot and Bush scored over 30% and the only state that Clinton won in which Perot finished second).

Remember, the campaign staffs want victory. The principals can take a longer view.

"More Maine Messes"
Posted by dabo on 02-15-12 at 12:55 PM
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/14/politics/pressure-mounting-for-gop-caucus-reconsideration/

However, a review of the town-by-town results released Saturday by the Maine GOP suggests that some communities that had caucused prior to Feb. 11 were not counted. Nearly all Waldo County towns held caucuses on Feb. 4 but those towns were blank in the results released by the state party. Additionally, Waterville held its caucuses ahead of time but were not included in the results....

"It sure looks like they counted what they wanted to count,”


and from the comments

The Town of Pembroke in Washington County managed to hold its caucus and report the results despite the directive to reschedule. Interestingly, half of the votes went to Ron Paul and NONE to Romney.

"RE: More Maine Messes"
Posted by kingfish on 02-15-12 at 05:10 PM
Waldo County?

The votes in Waldo County were lost?

Where are the late night comics when you need them?

"RE: More Maine Messes"
Posted by agman on 05-04-12 at 02:31 PM
!!!!!!!!!
"Paul Wins Maine!"
Posted by dabo on 05-06-12 at 04:50 PM
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/06/11566194-paul-wins-majority-of-delegates-from-maine-gop?lite

Ron Paul supporters wrested control of the Maine Republican Convention and elected a majority slate supporting the Texas congressman to the GOP national convention, party officials said as the two-day convention neared its end Sunday. The results gave the Texas congressman a late state victory.

"Only one thing to do."
Posted by Estee on 05-07-12 at 10:41 AM
Clearly in order to fairly represent the subsequent primaries with this potential voter influence factored in, we have to run everything post-Maine all over again.
"Wyoming Straw Poll"
Posted by dabo on 03-01-12 at 12:52 PM
LAST EDITED ON 03-01-12 AT 12:53 PM (EST)

Romney wins again! But this is just a minor beauty contest in advance of next week's decision-making game of pay attention to Wyoming.

Romney 822 38.99%
Santorum 673 31.93%
Paul 439 20.83%
Gingrich 165 7.83%
Others 9 0.43%

Oops, didn't mean to reply here, but oh well.

"A summary of candidate positions."
Posted by Estee on 02-14-12 at 01:10 PM
Romney: 'Whatever I have to say to get elected.'
Paul: 'A return to what made this country great: white male power!'
Santorum: 'Christian sharia.'
Gingrich: 'Christian sharia on the moon.'

"RE: A summary of candidate positions."
Posted by foonermints on 02-14-12 at 03:36 PM

CTgirl Obama Chupacabra!
still so hungry.. so hungry...

"Correction"
Posted by cahaya on 02-15-12 at 01:41 PM
Gingrich: 'Another wife on the moon.'
"RE: A summary of candidate positions."
Posted by ginger on 02-15-12 at 05:07 PM
I'm going to quote that post shamelessly this week.



"If you believe that the right of a fetus to be born is more important than any right the woman carrying the child might have, but do not believe in making sure that every child has access to adequate health care, education, or any of the other basic needs an individual requires to become a functioning, capable, productive member of society, then you are NOT pro-life. You’re just pro-birth." -- Devious Weasel

"RE: GOP candidate tracker III: buildup to Super Tuesday"
Posted by ginger on 02-15-12 at 05:09 PM
So Santorum is now the front runner. Is this because of, or in spite of, his weird ideas about women in the military?

It reminded me of the scene in Ron Burgundy, where Steve Carrel's character worries about a woman newscaster, because "their menstruation attracks bears. They attract bears!"

"RE: GOP candidate tracker III: buildup to Super Tuesday"
Posted by Estee on 02-15-12 at 05:16 PM
LAST EDITED ON 02-15-12 AT 05:23 PM (EST)

If people really thought that had any chance of working, we could hypothetically see a volunteer posse standing near Santorum at all outdoor rallies, hoping to get lucky.

(Oh, and Unca Cecil says http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/645/are-bears-more-likely-to-attack-menstruating-women )

At this point, the joy of his candidacy is waiting to see if there's anything he can say that would cost him his voter base. 'The only way to save America is for every dog owner to stab their pet, then smear the blood and entrails all over their church!' And there would be some really smelly churches the next morning.

Well, he could say 'And we should all support gay marriage, the rights of all faiths, and equality of the genders!' But that's not gonna happen.


"Campaign insults from the past"
Posted by AyaK on 02-16-12 at 09:52 PM
A Candidate X supporter said that Candidate Y was a “hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

In response, a Candidate Y supporter said of Candidate X: “Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames. . . female chastity violated. . . children writhing on the pike? GREAT GOD OF COMPASSION AND JUSTICE, SHIELD MY COUNTRY FROM DESTRUCTION.”

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/28/5-nastiest-us-presidential-elections-in-history/
Candidate X was Thomas Jefferson, the third president; Candidate Y was John Adams, the second president.

"RE: Campaign insults from the past"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 02-16-12 at 10:32 PM
Here's more...

Political Jokes and Insults

My fave was the George Smathers-Claude Pepper one, even if it was later claimed to be a hoax by a writer:

In the game of politics, successful attacks cloaked in humor are known as "killers." The all-time masterpiece is a legendary leaflet supposedly devised by Florida Congressman George Smathers to defeat Sen. Claude Pepper in 1950.

It was delivered to rural Floridians and was said to be a significant factor in Smathers' victory:

"Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert?
"Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law.
"And he has a sister who once was a thespian in Greenwich Village.
"He has a brother who was a practicing homo sapiens.
"And he went to college where he matriculated with coeds.
"Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, practiced celibacy"

Smathers denied any connection to the leaflet and offered a reward of $10,000 to anyone who could prove otherwise.

"RE: Campaign insults from the past"
Posted by AyaK on 02-17-12 at 07:55 PM
The Smather-Peppers story that you report was, of course, a hoax. It never happened.

The actual race was one of the nastiest and dirtiest in U.S. history -- especially considering that it took place in a Democratic primary between two Democrats -- which is what made it ripe for a hoax. The story was that President Truman wanted to "get" Peppers because Peppers had led a "Dump Truman" movement in 1948. So Truman told Smathers to do "whatever it took" to get rid of that SOB Peppers, and Smathers did.

The charges of being a Communist dupe in that race flew so fast and furiously that even Sen. Jos McCarthy might have been embarrassed. In fact, the University of Florida maintains a special archive of all of the documents from that race, which they trot out every so often when people complain about incivility in modern politics.

http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/pkyonge/peppersmathers.htm

BTW, Smathers was an ardent racist, and he also tarred Peppers as a "n----- lover". Over and over again.

Smathers did win (unfortunately), and he was every bit as anti-black as George Wallace or Lester Maddox. But Truman got what he wanted -- revenge on Peppers.

"Santorum says..."
Posted by cahaya on 02-18-12 at 04:32 PM
Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator known for his social conservative policies, said that Obama's agenda is "not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology."

Repeat. Phony theology.

Hmmm... couldn't he have said the same thing about Romney? Or is that the next shoe to drop?

"RE: Santorum says..."
Posted by AyaK on 02-18-12 at 04:51 PM
LAST EDITED ON 02-18-12 AT 04:52 PM (EST)

I think most of us can agree that Santorum is an authentic nut.

In a phoniness competition between Romney and Obama, I expect a photo finish. But in a competence competition, Romney would win by a mile.

"RE: Santorum says..."
Posted by Estee on 02-18-12 at 05:06 PM
He's trying to restart the Islam rumors while declaring that his vision of the United States is a theocracy. Not exactly subtle.

And if he stays in long enough, he will go after Romney with the same general 'not my kind dear' tactics. He may just be waiting for more numbers first.

"RE: Santorum says..."
Posted by dabo on 02-18-12 at 09:43 PM
And every comedian in the country is just telling him/herself: "God, these guys, the comedy just writes itself!"
"RE: Santorum says..."
Posted by newsomewayne on 02-20-12 at 09:23 AM
I think another way to read that is that Obama claims (or at least inplies) his philosophy and policies are based on Christian theology and Santorum is saying that that claim is phony.

However, I have no problem believing that on a personal level he feels that non-Bible based religions are phony.

"RE: Santorum says..."
Posted by dabo on 02-20-12 at 11:08 AM
But did you catch the part where he said (about Obama) "But he says he is a Christian so he is a Christian."? Now, I think self-identification is a good criterion for a lot of things, so I can say that and mean it. But my impression was that Santorum was saying that with a "wink wink nudge nudge." Know what I mean?

Which means he meant that as a dig at Obama, and probably also as a dig at Romney and Mormonism. But that opens the door to the Catholic issue he himself has, in that the Catholic Church has a position that non-Catholics aren't genuine Christians they just think they are. Most of Santorum's support comes from what would then be "phony Christians."

He's potentially heading into a brick wall if he keeps on this course.

"RE: Santorum says..."
Posted by newsomewayne on 02-20-12 at 11:32 AM
the Catholic Church has a position that non-Catholics aren't genuine Christians

98% of Catholics don't have the same view as the church.

"RE: Santorum says..."
Posted by dabo on 02-21-12 at 02:06 AM
LAST EDITED ON 02-21-12 AT 02:18 AM (EST)

Well now, that's a mighty high figure, mighty high. I won't dispute it, no sir, it is mighty high. Mighty lot of phony Catholics there, mighty lot. And maybe an indicator that the church itself has "some phony ideal, some phony theology, not a theology based on the Bible." At least in some respects. Rick ought to be seeing to putting his own house in order.

"RE: Santorum says..."
Posted by cahaya on 02-20-12 at 05:10 PM
He's potentially heading into a brick wall if he keeps on this course.

And the same is true for the GOP if they nominate him.

I was once a Republican, but now I have absolutely no idea what that party represents. It's in a schizophrenic mess.

"RE: Santorum says..."
Posted by AyaK on 02-21-12 at 01:17 AM
LAST EDITED ON 02-21-12 AT 01:18 AM (EST)

Actually, the Republican fight now is similar to the Democrats' fight in the 1970s and 1980s.

There's an old story about Justice Brennan that I've told before. On the first day of the term for his new law clerks, he'd get them all together and tell them that there was one word that was more important that any other word on the Supreme Court. Then he'd ask them what the word was. Thay'd say things like "justice," "equity," etc. They'd all be wrong, said Justice Brennan. The word was "five", because it takes at least five justices to have a majority in a Supreme Court case. Justice Brennan believed that any compromise that you had to make to move the law in your direction was a good one, even if you gave up something important, because at least you had the law moving the right way.

In the wake of the reckless, insane ObamaCare mandate, Republicans chose to ignore Justice Brennan and leave the Senate in Democratic hands. They did this by nominating three social conservatives instead of social moderates in Nevada, Delaware and Colorado, and each of them lost a Senate race in which their opponent was favored. It almost happened in New Hampshire, too -- but, for reasons known only to herself, Sarah Palin gave a last-minute endorsement to the mainstream candidate, Kelly Ayotte, and Ayotte hung on to win the Republican primary and then won the general election easily.

Instead of bemoaning the near-miss, though, the social conservatives decided, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, that they lost because they hadn't moved the Republicans far enough to the right. They clearly believe that right makes might. See, for example, this delusional article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577227694132901090.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

I love the nonsensical idea that social conservative issues were important in the 1968 election, which is why Nixon won. Uh, no. Apparently this bozo blocked out something called "Vietnam".

"RE: Santorum says..."
Posted by dabo on 02-21-12 at 11:38 AM
Interesting article. No mention of the ERA, Which was a dominant rallying point during the '70s? Blinders on?

Nixon's election in '68 had a lot to do about Vietnam, and the Democratic Party was taking a lot of heat prior to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, which left the party scrambling for a candidate.

And then the voting age was made 18 (previously 21) by the 26th amendment in 1971, Vietnam again making an impact.

"Romney says...."
Posted by cahaya on 02-21-12 at 09:26 PM
"Unfortunately, possibly because of the people the president hangs around with, and their agenda, their secular agenda — they have fought against religion," Romney said.

Okay, that makes it official.

Regardless of which Lord from the House of GOP leads the knights into battle, this election is a Crusade.

"RE: Romney says...."
Posted by dabo on 02-22-12 at 05:49 PM
LAST EDITED ON 02-22-12 AT 05:55 PM (EST)

Finally had a chance to search this one, War on Religion! sigh

This is bad but, read the article, more dumb than horrible. Romney was asked whether he would protect "religious liberty" during Q&A at a town hall type event. This demonstrates one of Mitt's problems, he should take the time to think some of these things over before the questions are asked, because they will be asked.

Going back to when he said he didn't care about the poor, whatever the question was I don't recall, he lead with the words that he didn't care about the poor before talking about safety nets. If he'd thought about it and gotten his head on straight before the question was asked, obviously he should have lead with safety nets, left out any words about what he didn't care about. (Like I told DD when she was writing to promote herself for a scholarship, they don't want to hear what you're not, they want to hear what you are.) For journalists, especially, regardless of whatever political leanings they may have, those first few words, the lead, establish what's important.

In this instance, a bit further down in the piece is a bit where Mitt says he is "someone who has understood very personally the significance of religious tolerance." That might have been a much better lead than simply piggybacking on things Santorum has said about Obama.

"Rupert Murdoch says. . ."
Posted by AyaK on 02-22-12 at 11:29 PM
. . . and has said right along, vote for Santorum!

If the MSM is in the tank for Obama, it seems News Corp. is in the tank for Santorum.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/80-year-old-rupert-murdoch-joins-the-twittersphere/

http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/211927-murdoch-if-santorum-wins-michigan-game-over-

"RE: Rupert Murdoch says. . ."
Posted by dabo on 02-23-12 at 00:48 AM
Okay, it is proven, there is a Satan and he is out to destroy America and nowadays he goes by the name Rupert Murdoch.
"RE: Rupert Murdoch says. . ."
Posted by HobbsofMI on 02-23-12 at 06:34 AM
Well, maybe he wants to get in with the other super rich club:

25% of Super Pac money comes from 5 people

Who says you can buy anything no a days.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"Maine: The Remake"
Posted by dabo on 02-18-12 at 09:37 PM
LAST EDITED ON 02-18-12 AT 09:54 PM (EST)

And now the Boston Herald is heralding Ron Paul Wins! in Washington county.

To recap and catch up: Last Saturday in Maine the Maine GOP announced a Romney win with the following numbers

Romney 2,190
Paul 1,996
Santorum 989
Gingrich 349
Undecided/Others 61

This prompted a controversy in that caucuses had been postponed in Washington county to this Saturday on account of weather, and the Paul supporters who went along with that didn't realize their votes wouldn't count when they came in. It subsequently turned out that many caucus results had been dropped out of the official count though they'd been counted and duly turned in, the official party line was that this was due to clerical errors. Because it is always the underling you throw under the bus.

In any event, calls for a censure to the Maine GOP party head were issued, and so the Maine GOP decided to in essence call for a recount, or rather that all caucus results should be resubmitted. And depending on where you read it they also decided to include the Washington county results or they also decided to decide later that the Washington county results might be included. Yesterday a revised count was issued.

Romney 2,269
Paul 2,030
Santorum 1,052
Gingrich 391
Undecided/Others 72

Leading to today and continued caucusing in which Ron Paul gained ground on Mitt Romney. Not enough to overtake the lead, just enough for it to be considered a win.

Town of Clinton (Kennebec Co.): Paul 4, Romney 2
Eight towns in Hancock Co.: Paul 41, Santorum 17, Romney 16, Gingrich 9
Washington Co.: Paul 163, Romney 80, Santorum 57, Gingrich 4, Undecided 2
Town of Eastbrook (separate caucus in Hancock Co.): Paul 19, Santorum 8, Romney 7, Gingrich 0

Which if included in yesterday's account would make it

Romney 2,374
Paul 2,257
Santorum 1,134
Gingrich 404
Undecided/Others 74

Amounting to what (other than a black eye for the Maine GOP)? Darned if I know. You see, they caucus from January through March something. At each caucus they take these straw polls, which is what the above figures represent. Then they get around to the business of voting for delegates to the state convention, these delegates selected on the basis of which candidate they support at the caucus, but they aren't bound to vote for that candidate come convention time, they are free to change their minds.

But anyway, today is a great victory for Ron Paul. Just believe the Boston Herald.

"Contoversy?"
Posted by AyaK on 02-18-12 at 11:04 PM
LAST EDITED ON 02-18-12 AT 11:05 PM (EST)

So, basically, the Maine GOP said that the race was over and declared Romney the winner even though about 200 votes weren't included and a few small areas in Washington County hadn't caucused. The 200 missing votes made no difference, and the small towns in Washington County added about 300 votes total (Paul 163, Romney 80, Santorum 57, Gingrich 4).

Total vote count per the Herald showed Romney up by 156, counting everything. SO the whole "controversy" proved to be, in Shakespeare's words, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

"RE: Contoversy?"
Posted by dabo on 02-18-12 at 11:29 PM
LAST EDITED ON 02-19-12 AT 00:23 AM (EST)

What it appears to mean is that many of the Maine caucus-goers don't bother to vote in the straw polls. And so the Maine GOP, unaccustomed to much national attention, was able to pull one on off on the nation. They'll get around to actually deciding some things in their own good time.

Edited because it appears I got the process turned around. They take care of party business first. When that's finished they have the straw poll, which of course doesn't include those who decided to just go home, take a potty break, go to IHOP or whatever.

"Happy Prez Day"
Posted by dabo on 02-20-12 at 02:18 AM
Alright, we have four scoundrels running around the country, collecting chips hoping to win the opportunity to knock off Barry "the Actor" Obama. All four are known politicians, should be approached with caution, and are likely to try to score points on even a non-contest President's Day.

Be on the lookout for:

(1) Rick "Baby Face" Santorum. Don't be fooled by his childish looks, this guy is a scoundrel whose motto is "Shoot first then keep on shooting." He's ruthless and rumored to have a trophy case full of ears. Real ones. Baby Face scored the first win in Iowa, came in 4th in New Hampshire (after Jon "Shotgun" Huntsman who came in 3rd and has since gone to ground), 3rd in South Carolina, 3rd in Florida, 4th in Nevada, then scored a trifecta winning in Colorado, Minnesota, and a beauty contest in Missouri, then scored 3rd in Maine.

(2) Mitt "Pretty Boy" Romney, also known as "The Willard." This guy is the party animal of the bunch, he spends it as fast as he gets it, has lots of friends despite the weather. Has the unimaginative calculating mind of an accountant, he does what it takes. Pretty Boy came in 2nd in Iowa, scored a win in New Hampshire, came in second in South Carolina, scored a win in Florida then a win in Nevada, came in 2nd in Colorado and Missouri, 3rd in Minnesota, then scored the last win in Maine.

(3) Newt "Big Gun" Gingrich, also known as "The Silencer" also known as "The Contractor" also known as "The Groom." Not afraid to get dirty, this scrappy scoundrel previously tried (unsuccessfully) to take down "Slick Willie" Clinton and is known for his combative nature, he's in it to the bitter end, willing to do whatever it takes. He came in 4th in Iowa, 5th in New Hampshire, won in South Carolina, came in 2nd in Florida and Nevada, 3rd in Colorado, 4th in Minnesota, no-showed in the Missouri beauty contest, and then 4th in Maine. Word on the street is he's planning on making his big play on Massacre Tuesday.

(4) Ron "The Operator" Paul also known as "Red Ron" also known as "Doc Sawbucks." From an older generation of scoundrels, this wiley old gent has been around this block a few times before and is hard to pin down. Suspect in numerous hold-ups over the years, a few massacres, he's still running loose and should not be under-estimated. Has no wins but keeps collecting chips, he's managed three 2nds, three 3rds, and three 4ths. There's a pattern here, a method to his madness.

Be on the alert.

"And in the other corner..."
Posted by Max Headroom on 02-20-12 at 10:37 AM
(1) Barack "Political Machine" Obama. Hardened by years of Chicago politics and riding a record of consistently voting "Present", this guy is a Clintonesque speaker who weaves words beautifully without saying anything of consequence. Has mastered the ability of portraying himself as being a moderate without actually being one. As the incumbent, will be a tough out in November.
"RE: And in the other corner..."
Posted by ginger on 02-27-12 at 04:24 PM
In what way could Barack Obama be called anything other than a moderate? Or a centrist?

He is not progressive.
He is not particularly liberal.
He is not conservative.
He is not particularly right wing.


"RE: And in the other corner..."
Posted by newsomewayne on 02-27-12 at 05:37 PM
Obamacare
Solyndra
Keystone
NLRB appointees
Raise taxes on anyone making more than a million $500k $250k just give us all your money and we'll distribute it as we choose in the name of fairness
Government growth is preferable to private sector growth
His belief that America is (or could be) great because of government
Government dependancy is a good thing.
50% rise in government debt.

Yeah, he's a model of being right down the middle.

"RE: And in the other corner..."
Posted by ginger on 04-05-12 at 06:08 PM
Obamacare - You mean Romneycare? The GOP was very pro-mandate for a long time. Health care reform is hardly a "liberal" concern.

Solyndra - I'm sorry, but the Solyndra stuff is just silly. We lost how much money, literally "lost" it, in Iraq, and this is the big focus? The same panel that reviewed the initial Solyndra loans under Bush okayed the loans under Obama. And most of the other companies in those programs are just fine.

Keystone? Oil that was never going to the US? Meanwhile, drilling has quadrupled in the US since 2010.

I have no problem with the 2000 tax cuts elapsing for those making more than $250k. That particular group has done disproportionately well since Reagan's day. They can afford it. The taxation levels since Reagan were a bad enough redistribution away from the middle upwards; the 2000 tax cuts were a disastrous continuation of that wealth redistribution.

American is, in part, great because of its government. You know, democracy?

On the other hand, government growth has DECREASED under Obama, not increased.

And I'm not sure where you get the 50% rise in debt, but if you voted for W, twice, how come you care now? He raised it 89% over what it was when he took office.

He's a moderate.

When I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary, I had a lot of these arguments with Geg, who insisted he was so much more liberal/progressive than HC. Geg was wrong, too.

"RE: And in the other corner..."
Posted by newsomewayne on 05-09-12 at 12:19 PM
It's amazing how you can be wrong on everything. I mean, if it just been one or two things you had a valid point on, I'd try to rebut. But really, when you're this wrong, there's just no point in even trying.
"RE: Happy Prez Day"
Posted by kingfish on 02-21-12 at 01:21 PM
LAST EDITED ON 02-21-12 AT 03:39 PM (EST)

Apprehended (but not easily comprehended):
Herman "The Hammer" Cain. Herman Cain was the mastermind behind the "Pizza Connection", a syndicate of Italian-African Mafiosos. This crime ring was broken up when the boss was caught implicating himself in a sting code named "999" using "undercover" operatives posing as "campaign Workers". The final piece of evidence was obtained in a taped conversation with "Libya" in which he forgot where "Libya" had stashed the goods.

"Delegate count to date"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 02-20-12 at 06:10 PM
Delegate count to date


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"Debate night 19: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran is back!"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 02-22-12 at 11:14 PM
LAST EDITED ON 02-22-12 AT 11:15 PM (EST)

Except for Ron Paul. Plus we get more tax cuts (Romney 20%, Rick 25%, Newt is for them but I missed how big and I think Paul said 0% again) for all and two wars in Syria and Iran now with 3 of them. Talk about doubling down.

I believe me and Mrs. Hobbs are going to vote for Paul on Tuesday or if I feel in an Operation Chaos mood I'll vote Rick.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Debate night 19: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran is back!"
Posted by AyaK on 02-22-12 at 11:22 PM
Why don't you just write in Obama? Here's a slogan: "Four years of incompetence is never enough!"
"RE: Debate night 19: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran is back!"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 02-23-12 at 06:27 AM
LAST EDITED ON 02-23-12 AT 06:44 AM (EST)

I think I would do "none of the above" before that.

Yes, I know Paul is a waste of a vote but at least he's telling me the truth while the rest, including Obama, are telling me what they think I want to hear to be elected.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Debate night 19: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran is back!"
Posted by dabo on 02-23-12 at 11:51 AM
LAST EDITED ON 02-23-12 AT 12:00 PM (EST)

That pretty much encompasses all the reasons to vote for Paul:

1) You at least do know what you're voting for,
2) The other guy is unacceptable.

I may have to consider switching ballots this year if it is still undecided when they get to Indiana, which since a lot of the Democrats are running unopposed is not a tremendous sacrifice (except there may be some locals I want to support in some local races). The situation would be, though, whether it looks like Newt Gingrich could win in the district, in which case I would want to throw support to Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, whichever has the better chance of taking it away from Gingrich. I don't expect that situation to occur, it is hypothetically possible.

Edited to add: Though Paul really has no chance to win the nomination, I suppose if it goes to a brokered convention I'd more rather have Romney cutting a deal with Paul than with Gingrich or Santorum.

"RE: Debate night 19: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran is back!"
Posted by samboohoo on 02-23-12 at 10:01 AM
I have to wonder how many of these Santorum votes are really Santorum supporters. It reminds me a lot of Clinton/Obama here when several Republicans I knew voted Obama to cut out Clinton or to put up who they thought was unbeatable. I still ask them today how that's working out for them.


Samboobree, brought to life by Arkie


"RE: Debate night 19: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran is back!"
Posted by Tummy on 02-23-12 at 11:26 AM
I would agree (and faint) but living in OK there seems to be a big swell for Santorum going on and OK does not want Obama voted back in. Why they think he can win against Obama I'm not sure. I still think Romney's religion is working against him in the Bible Belt.
"RE: Debate night 19: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran is back!"
Posted by AyaK on 02-23-12 at 11:40 AM
I'm with Tummy here. There are a lot of Republicans who didn't learn anything from the Sherron Angle/Christine O'Donnell disasters and honestly think that Santorum could win.

News flash: if Santorum were the GOP candidate, the election would look a lot like 1972 -- the unpopular incumbent hammering the fringe challenger. Santorum would win Utah, just like McGovern won Massachusetts. Would he win anywhere else?

This reminds me a lot of the Terri Schiavo nonsense, which the social conservative right was all-in on as well. Except the stakes are a lot higher.

"RE: Debate night 19: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran is back!"
Posted by frodis on 02-27-12 at 02:01 PM
News flash: if Santorum were the GOP candidate, the election would look a lot like 1972 -- the unpopular incumbent hammering the fringe challenger. Santorum would win Utah, just like McGovern won Massachusetts. Would he win anywhere else?

I'm curious, how do you think that would that end up happening?

I have a hard time imagining a state like Texas turning blue, but if enough voters are unable to hold their noses and vote for Santorum, would they just stay home? Or do you think that independent party candidates will scoop up their votes?


(As an independent resident of a state where my federal vote isn't too consequential, I really only watch the Presidential race as an interesting study in statistics, media influence and human behavior. So, a statement like this piques my interest.)


"RE: Debate night 19: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran is back!"
Posted by samboohoo on 02-23-12 at 12:04 PM
I actually agree with you.

There is a part of me that believes that if Romney is the candidate, the Bible Belt goes with Romney, inspite of his religion because the alternative is four more years of Obamanation.

I think BOTH sides - the Republicans especially - need to realize that birth control is a good thing. A very good thing.



Samboobree, brought to life by Arkie


"RE: Debate night 19: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran is back!"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 02-23-12 at 12:13 PM
The morning radio show wanted to call up Rush and ask him how he felt about his Operation Chaos.

The polls here in Michigan are very interesting but then I don't put a lot of stock in the polls. The primary is an open one but you have to ask for a Pub or Dem ballot and then afterward that information will go to each political party. So some are saying they won't cross over because they don't want a bunch of Pub stuff and calls. IMHO, it don't matter their going to hit you up like they do now. Last night we got 20 robo calls and Romney ads were on every other commercial it seemed.

It's being reported that Romney is now spending more than he is taking in and his war chest could be in trouble if he has to keep fighting for the nomination after Super Tuesday.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"Reality Show?"
Posted by Snidget on 02-23-12 at 08:32 AM
The local 24 hour news called the upcoming primaries the next episode of the reality show "Who Wants To Be President".

You know, that explains a lot.

"RE: Reality Show?"
Posted by dabo on 02-23-12 at 12:24 PM
But what is the actual game? MSM recently has been all over national polling which shows Santorum 10 points ahead of Romney. But the most recent polls (two days ago, actually) I saw for Arizona and Michigan tell a different story, with Romney being a few points ahead of Santorum in Arizona , a virtual tie in Michigan (Romney closing the gap and poised to take the lead).

Paul, meanwhile, could potentially take a win in Washington. While Gingrich is banking on southern support revitalizing his campaign on "Super Tuesday."

"RE: Reality Show?"
Posted by samboohoo on 02-23-12 at 02:12 PM
Yep, with Obama now thinking he's "American Idol."

The 2012 Election is starting to look more like "Vote for the Worst."


Samboobree, brought to life by Arkie


"RE: Reality Show?"
Posted by Tummy on 02-23-12 at 05:57 PM
The only way I could get excited about this election is if Hilary just said "To hell with it, I'm throwing my hat in the ring."

If Mitch is not the candidate, I'm hoping for an Obama landslide. If Mitch is the candidate I don't know that I'll care which way it goes. So for me it would be a Vote for the Worst.

I personally don't blame anything but caving on Obama. As we've discussed here I think he did try to make to many happy which resulted in making no one happy. But that's politics. I definitely don't think he's the Worst.President.Ever. W still holds that spot for me.

"RE: Reality Show?"
Posted by Max Headroom on 02-23-12 at 08:06 PM
I think you mean Mitt. If Mitch Daniels of Indiana was in the running for the GOP presidential nomination, I'd be signing up to help with his campaign. Mitt Romney, nope.
"RE: Reality Show?"
Posted by Tummy on 02-27-12 at 10:44 AM
Lol - true. I'll just let it stand as Mitch though as I really don't care.
"RE: GOP candidate tracker III: buildup to Super Tuesday"
Posted by dabo on 02-23-12 at 12:58 PM
LAST EDITED ON 02-24-12 AT 01:52 PM (EST)

LAST EDITED ON 02-23-12 AT 01:01 PM (EST)

nm, posted on wrong thread.

"RE: GOP candidate tracker III: buildup to Super Tuesday"
Posted by kingfish on 02-23-12 at 06:32 PM
What? No parade?
"Shucks!"
Posted by dabo on 02-25-12 at 00:24 AM
Santorum now on Indiana ballot.

There goes maybe the best opportunity I would ever have to cast an anti-Newt vote. oh well

"RE: Shucks!"
Posted by Max Headroom on 02-27-12 at 10:58 AM
I wonder if I can vote "Present" in the Republican primary here?

"None of the above" would be a better choice.

"RE: Shucks!"
Posted by dabo on 02-27-12 at 12:22 PM
You could just leave no vote in that particular contest. I generally consider local elections to be very important and show up to support people I consider good choices for things like school board and county council and such. Around here the Republicans often don't have any candidate for some of these local positions, though they do keep trying to get ahold of the county assessor's office.
"Newt Takes Aim"
Posted by dabo on 02-26-12 at 08:27 PM
Secular Left's 50 Years War On America

Better watch out, secular middle and secular right, you'll be at war next!

"Arrgh!"
Posted by AyaK on 02-27-12 at 01:49 PM
A long time ago in a galaxy not so far away, I realized that, as an economic conservative, a foreign policy moderate that leaned hawkish, and a social liberal, I didn't 100% belong to any of the American parties.

Rick Santorum's candidacy is bringing this back to the fore in a way I didn't expect. Obama is one of the worst presidents I've seen, if not the worst. But I simply couldn't vote for Santorum, not now, not ever. And Gingrich turned out to be a space cadet.

"RE: Arrgh!"
Posted by newsomewayne on 02-27-12 at 03:45 PM
I was telling a friend today how easy this campaign should be for a conservative to win.

Just:
1. Maintain your campaign focus on the economy, foriegn policy, and gas prices.
2. Run against Obama for the duration of the primary, not really giving two whits what the others are saying.
3. Be unafraid to have personal ethical and social beliefs, but, again, maintain your focus on the economy,etc., saying that while some things are important to you, what is most important for the country is to rescue the economy, etc., etc.
4. Repeatedly point out Obama's failures, missteps, empty promises, and misguided policies.
5. Select drapes for your new elliptical shaped office.

"RE: Arrgh!"
Posted by Max Headroom on 02-27-12 at 04:05 PM
Agree. Though I'm thoroughly unimpressed by Romney, there's at least a chance I'd vote for him, while a Santorum nomination results in an immediate Obama vote from me. And I'm not a fan of Obama either.
"RE: Arrgh!"
Posted by cahaya on 02-27-12 at 04:40 PM
A long time ago in a galaxy not so far away, I realized that, as an economic conservative, a foreign policy moderate that leaned hawkish, and a social liberal, I didn't 100% belong to any of the American parties.

Maybe we should start one. You'd make a fine candidate and could author a solid platform I'd easily agree with on most points. Heck, I'd stump for you.

I wouldn't go so far as to rate Obama the worst President, but I'll agree that he's been far less than stellar. Having said that, I think the current highly polarized Congress is among the worst, if not the worst, I've seen in recent memory.

Also, another graph from the ADA (Washington Post).

"Stay Cool"
Posted by foonermints on 02-27-12 at 04:59 PM
LAST EDITED ON 02-27-12 AT 05:00 PM (EST)


»I wouldn't go so far as to rate Obama the worst President«

With Coolidge


Handcrafted by RollDdice
swoop block!

"RE: Stay Cool"
Posted by cahaya on 02-27-12 at 05:38 PM
Okay, for that comment, we're going to put you in charge of fund-raising for our new party.

Crossthreading, we won't need a Super PAC if we can get a hold of some Super Dollars. I'll book you a flight to Pyongyang now on a "diplomatic" fund-raising mission.

"RE: Stay Cool"
Posted by foonermints on 02-27-12 at 06:02 PM
As long as I can have a layover in Bangkok I'm good.

You picked the right guy. I'm like "this" with Kim Jam Whang. That's his name, isn't it?


How come I always have to be President?
Huh, Agman?

"Catholics: Santorum vs JFK"
Posted by cahaya on 02-27-12 at 04:57 PM
Santorum wants to barf. So do I.

Santorum: "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he {Santorum} said. "The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country ... to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."

JFK: It is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me -- but what kind of America I believe in," he {JFK} said, according to a transcript of the speech... "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him," Kennedy said.

Get out the mops.

"RE: Arrgh!"
Posted by dabo on 02-27-12 at 05:25 PM
Yeah. As Scarborough put it (paraphrasing) Santorum represents the wing of the GOP that doesn't want to win the general election. And Gingrich is trying to represent that wing as well.

At this point I don't know which would be better for the Republican Party, a Santorum nomination resulting in a landslide defeat, or a Gingrich nomination resulting in a landslide defeat. I'll give Rick a slight edge there but Newt is closing the gap, certainly. (Of course, the probability of either result cluing in that wing is only theoretical, and you know what they say about theories.)

"Michigan! Do as I say but don't do as I do...."
Posted by HobbsofMI on 02-28-12 at 12:32 PM
You've got to Love the Mitt who is fighting for his life in his home states (he may say it is but not many Michiganders agree with him).

Flip Flop #145,234

Mitt Romney denounces Operation Hilarity one month after endorsing it

The polls were slow this morning where I voted and it's being reported slow all over. This will be good for Romney as many of the absentee voting were leaning his way. Most people were really annoyed by the every other phone call or TV ad that Romney was running and he might have some back lash there. I wonder how much cash he has been burning through and how much he has left? Michigan is not a winner take all state so no mater who wins the delegates will almost be even between Mitt and Rick.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Michigan! Do as I say but don't do as I do...."
Posted by dabo on 02-28-12 at 12:55 PM
LOL. While I would consider casting an anti-Gingrich vote, just for the joy of casting an anti-Gingrich vote once in my life, I guess I better hope Paul wants it.
"RE: Michigan! Do as I say but don't do as I do...."
Posted by Breezy on 02-28-12 at 01:29 PM
We had more Santorum ads here then Romney. I wonder if Santorum's robocalling is why the low turn out. People are disgusted.
"stupid is as stupid does"
Posted by dabo on 02-28-12 at 11:12 PM
LAST EDITED ON 02-28-12 AT 11:17 PM (EST)

This is stupid!

Frankly, I think Santorum is so unelectible in the general election that it wouldn't even be worth my bother to go vote against him in the primary. But it seems Santorum campaign's effort to get Democrats to vote for him ... has produced results!

9% of GOP primary voters in Michigan are Democrats, and Santorum gets a whopping 53% of these folks

Too rich. "Vote for our guy because he can't possibly be elected President!" Yeah, Rick, that's the message you want to send.

ETA Sad News. Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) has announced she will not be seeking re-election. Political difference aside, there goes another one, common sense try to get some work done politicians are approaching endangered species status.

"Vanguard Tuesday"
Posted by dabo on 02-28-12 at 12:50 PM
LAST EDITED ON 02-28-12 AT 01:36 PM (EST)

One week before the traditional massacre, invented by misfits to bully themselves into the game; today we have Michigan and Arizona. And on Saturday we hear from Washington. So, how do things look in Michizona? Well, Romney has his Cadillacs out, Santorum is regurgitating, Paul is in Pick On Rick mode, and Gingrich is cleaning his guns in preparation for the massacre. I predict Romney wins today, two comfortable wins. And he'll probably do well in Washington, possibly carrying four straight wins (including Maine) into the shoot-'em-up.

"RE: Vanguard Tuesday"
Posted by dabo on 02-29-12 at 01:00 AM
LAST EDITED ON 02-29-12 AT 02:34 AM (EST)

Oh, good, looks like Romney won both of Michizona. Now, of course, he'll probably say or do something stoopid, shoot himself in the foot again.

ETA the numbers (as of now)

Arizona 82% in
Romney 47% 216,610
Santorum 27% 121,856
Gingrich 16% 74,047
Paul 8% 38,683

Michigan 95% in
Romney 41% 410,275
Santorum 38% 377,806
Paul 12% 115,757
Gingrich 7% 65,053
Uncommitted 2% 18,854

"RE: Vanguard Tuesday"
Posted by Estee on 02-29-12 at 06:46 AM
So that makes 498,662 more people I never want to be within a hundred feet of.

Getting that many restraining orders is going to be a problem.

"RE: Vanguard Tuesday"
Posted by newsomewayne on 02-29-12 at 08:56 AM
499,662 people. But who's counting?
"RE: Vanguard Tuesday"
Posted by Estee on 02-29-12 at 07:07 PM
I'm so tired, I honestly can't remember if I typoed, forgot to carry the one, or had that done in Florida.
"RE: Vanguard Tuesday"
Posted by Max Headroom on 02-29-12 at 08:38 AM
I'm surprised there weren't more "none of the above" votes. When our primary gets here, I intend to vote, as my county is extremely red and the primary is effectively the general election. Even so, there's a good chance I'll "forget" to vote for th presidential nominee or make a protest vote for Paul.
"RE: Vanguard Tuesday"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 02-29-12 at 09:21 AM
LAST EDITED ON 02-29-12 AT 12:10 PM (EST)

LAST EDITED ON 02-29-12 AT 11:53 AM (EST)

Michigan's delegate count:

21 Romney
18 Santorum

With one district to close to call for the final 2.

Edit: I think the 13th will go to Santorum so his final total will be 20.

Here is the break down per district:
http://www.migopprimary.com/index.asp

Edit2: It seems like the Detroit News has different numbers for delegates:

Romney, Santorum each pick up delegates in Michigan

13 for Romney and 11 for Santorum. I guess we'll just have to wait on final number because again Michigan is being punished for moving up it's primary before Super Tuesday so they'll have only 24 delegates (maybe).


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Vanguard Tuesday"
Posted by Max Headroom on 02-29-12 at 11:53 AM
Darn it Hobbs, you guys are delaying the coronation. I don't know how much longer I can wait for the titanic Romneyflop vs. Obamacare campaign.
"RE: Vanguard Tuesday"
Posted by dabo on 02-29-12 at 12:16 PM
Wikipedia has an estimate of 15 each (2 per district and 2 at large). Another tie!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Republican_primary,_2012
"RE: Vanguard Tuesday"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 03-05-12 at 04:32 PM
Well it seems that Michigan's Pubs decided to change the rules and apologize over sending out a misinformation to the candidates.

They gave the at large to Romney so it's 16 to Rick's 14. Rick's camp is crying foul. We'll see where that goes.

I'm surprised though that I don't hear more about this:

How Romney Advocated Obamacare and Lied About It, from his 2009 USA Today Op-ed and TV appearances.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Vanguard Tuesday"
Posted by AyaK on 03-07-12 at 02:02 AM
Didn't read the piece, because it's written by Jonathan Chait, who is somewhere to the left of ginger (not that there's much room there).

I try to avoid extremists from both sides whenever I can.

"Santorum Comes From Behind In Alabama Three Way"
Posted by kidflash212 on 02-29-12 at 12:29 PM
Have to thank Slice for finding this headline which she posted, um, elsewhere but it started off my day with a laugh

http://weldbham.com/secondfront/2012/02/24/poll-santorum-comes-from-behind-in-alabama-three-way/



"RE: Santorum Comes From Behind In Alabama Three Way"
Posted by dabo on 02-29-12 at 02:08 PM
LOL! And Paul gets to be an Other.
"RE: Santorum Comes From Behind In Alabama Three Way"
Posted by Estee on 02-29-12 at 07:11 PM
Well, there went Freedom Of The Headlines.

*shrug* Santorum taking Alabama. I'll go count up the deaths from not-surprise -- no, let someone else do it. I don't trust myself around grouped numbers until the insomnia wears off, so I'll just go with the local count.

*looks around*

Two.

"RE: Santorum Comes From Behind In Alabama Three Way"
Posted by kingfish on 02-29-12 at 07:53 PM
Urp...I may have to vote after all.
"RE: Santorum Comes From Behind In Alabama Three Way"
Posted by KeithFan on 02-29-12 at 10:15 PM
I thought the Alabama-three-way was illegal in Alabama.
"RE: Santorum Comes From Behind In Alabama Three Way"
Posted by cahaya on 02-29-12 at 10:23 PM
Ok... then who's the one in front?

And on the bottom?

"Washington"
Posted by dabo on 03-03-12 at 08:19 PM
early numbers from the caucuses

Romney 1,272 votes 30.9%
Paul 1,116 votes 27.1%
Santorum 991 votes 24.1%
Gingrich 556 votes 13.5%
Other 4 votes 0.1%

http://www.spokesman.com/elections/2012/washington-republican-caucuses/

"RE: Washington"
Posted by dabo on 03-03-12 at 10:25 PM
Romney now being called projected winner. C'mon, Paul, keep that second place! Last thing the world needs is a nuclear religious zealot! another one I mean

Romney 7,907 votes 37.2%
Paul 5,117 votes 24.1%
Santorum 5,072 votes 23.9%
Gingrich 2,420 votes 11.4%
Other 41 votes 0.2%

"RE: Washington"
Posted by dabo on 03-03-12 at 11:54 PM
Nip and tuck, second may be a virtual tie in the end. Another one. Go Paul Go!

Romney 14,971 votes 36.2%
Paul 10,358 votes 25.1%
Santorum 10,105 votes 24.4%
Gingrich 4,476 votes 10.8%
Other 67 votes 0.2%

"Massacre Week!"
Posted by dabo on 03-05-12 at 05:30 PM
LAST EDITED ON 03-05-12 AT 05:32 PM (EST)

Yay, it's finally here! Everybody ready! Will a front-runner take a solid lead? Will one or two of the combattants drop out? How much is all this costing? Anyway, what will happen this week, this fine March Massacre Week?

Tuesday

Newt will try to win in Georgia, one of his home states.
Mitt will try to win in Massachusetts, one of his home states.
Newt and Rick will be duking it out for Tennessee.
Mitt will try to sneak in with Vermont.
Mitt and Rick will be going head to head in Ohio.
Mitt and Ron will be vying for Virginia, where they all really live.
Up in North Dakota they'll say something for likely everyone.
Oklahoma will chime in with a sweeping wind.
In Idaho Mormons will turn out for Mitt.
Wyoming will have a second chance to make the same decision Wyoming made last week.
And up in Alaska, way out there on Alaska time, the sun might finally shine for Ron, but just for a bit and then it'll go down again.

Saturday

Way across the international dateline Guam will make some noise.
Joined by Northern Mariana Islands.
US Virgin Islands will put in their bid for attention.
Kansas will pull out the breadbasket.
Wyoming will have a third chance to make the same decision again. (And next month they'll likely decide it again.)

Whew!

"Ba ba.."
Posted by foonermints on 03-05-12 at 08:16 PM
BoinK!
"Super Tuesday Swoop Block"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 03-05-12 at 08:47 PM


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman
"Super Duper Tuesday"
Posted by bondt007 on 03-06-12 at 09:52 PM
... this is riveting...! What will happen next?

"RE: Super Duper Tuesday"
Posted by cahaya on 03-06-12 at 10:50 PM
LAST EDITED ON 03-07-12 AT 00:54 AM (EST)

As of 9:45 p.m. the results... with Romney taking 3 states (ME, VT, VA), Santorum 2 states (OK, TN) and Gingrich one state (GA), with 4 states to be decided (AK, ID, ND and OH)...

Mitt Romney will win three states in Super Tuesday primaries, while Rick Santorum will win in Tennessee and Oklahoma and Newt Gingrich grabbed a vital triumph in Georgia, CNN projected.

Santorum's victories showed his continuing strength among conservative voters, while Gingrich's win in the state that sent him to Congress allows him to keep his campaign going.

The Santorum victories also hurt Gingrich's Southern strategy after the former House speaker's triumphs in South Carolina and now Georgia, which both border Tennessee.

Romney, meanwhile, easily won as expected in Virginia, Vermont and Massachusetts, the state where he served as governor and considers home.

Georgia had the most delegates up for grabs on Tuesday with 76, but Ohio, because of its status as a crucial battleground state in the general election, is considered the main prize.

Early results showed Romney and Santorum running almost event. A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday indicates that Ohio was a dead heat between Romney and Santorum, with each grabbing 32% of likely GOP primary voters. Gingrich was at 14% and Paul was at 11%.

Update as at 10:15: Santorum gets his 3rd state with ND, now 3-3-1, three states to go with OH the close-to-call biggie.

Update as of almost midnight: Romney takes ID, OH still too close to call, AK might write in Palin for all we know (kidding).

"RE: Super Duper Tuesday"
Posted by dabo on 03-07-12 at 00:02 AM
What a lot of fun, huh. Looks like Romney will pick up a couple of Wyoming delegates, and Paul one, but all the results aren't in yet.
"RE: Super Duper Tuesday"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 03-07-12 at 00:09 AM
CNN has Romney moving ahead of Rick in OH now by 3,000 plus votes.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Super Duper Tuesday"
Posted by dabo on 03-07-12 at 01:47 AM
Romney takes Ohio.
"RE: Super Duper Tuesday"
Posted by AyaK on 03-07-12 at 10:13 AM
Final count from the 10 states on Super Tuesday:

Romney wins Ohio, Massachusetts, Virginia, Idaho, Alaska and Vermont.

Santorum (the McGovern of 2012) wins Tennessee, Oklahoma and North Dakota.

Gingrich wins Georgia.

"RE: Super Duper Tuesday"
Posted by dabo on 03-07-12 at 11:55 AM
Plus Romney secured 4 of the Wyoming delegates, Paul 1. With more to come on Saturday, and more later when they herd together for the state convention.

This has clearly now become a two man race between Santorum and Romney. With Gingrich hoping to get back in it, hanging in, and Paul just collecting as many delegates as he can. I wonder how much of it is because Santorum has been successful in his cross-over and vote for Santorum because he can't possibly win in November campaign.

Alaska: Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich.
Georgia: Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Paul.
Idaho: Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich.
Massachusetts: Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich.
North Dakota: Santorum, Paul, Romney, Gingrich.
Ohio: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul.
Oklahoma: Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Paul.
Tennessee: Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Paul.
Vermont: Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich.
Virginia: Romney, Paul.

"RE: Super Duper Tuesday"
Posted by AyaK on 03-07-12 at 12:13 PM
According to CNNs exit poll, 5% of the people voting in the Republican primary were Democrats, and they voted for Santorum 47%-27%.

The Santorum campaign is sending out the bushwa that they are what were once called "Reagan Democrats", i.e., socially conservative Democrats. I'm not sure there are any such people left.

"RE: Super Duper Tuesday"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 03-07-12 at 01:48 PM
A big problem I see for Mitt....Ann gave the better speech last night and connected.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Super Duper Tuesday"
Posted by Max Headroom on 03-07-12 at 02:05 PM
Did Ann remind everyone how rich she is, just like Mitt always does?
"RE: Super Duper Tuesday"
Posted by AyaK on 03-08-12 at 10:40 AM
LAST EDITED ON 03-09-12 AT 12:42 PM (EST)

Painting the Fords as gaffe-prone worked for the LSM to get Jimmy Carter, the worst president of my lifetime prior to Obama, elected. As a result, instead of treating one of Ford's serious points (that the Polish people were trying to break Poland out of the Soviet orbit) as a topic of discussion, the media just treated it as another gaffe, except a more serious one -- and Ford lost the election by a margin perhaps attributable to voters believing that this was a serious gaffe. (Lech Walesa and Solidarity proved that Ford knew what he was talking about, but by then it was too late.)

So they're trying it again with the Romneys, in a bid to get Barack Obama, who may be the second-worst U.S. president ever, re-elected. The "gaffe" on the front page of Yahoo! today is that Mitt referred to Ann as the "heavyweight champion of my life".

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/mitt-romney-goes-negative-ann-romney-115515755.html

The really sleazy spin is that being put on Ann Romney's comment, when referring to her life:

“We can be poor in spirit, and I don’t even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today and gone tomorrow. How I measure riches is by the friends I have and the loved ones I have and the people that I care about in my life, and that’s where my values are and that’s where my riches are.”

Anyone disagree with that sentiment? Except for Obama's worshipers in the LSM, of course, who have plucked the "I don't even consider myself wealthy" phrase out of context and plastered it all over the Web today, to try to spin it as an Ann Romney gaffe.

"RE: Super Duper Tuesday"
Posted by ginger on 03-12-12 at 03:20 PM
I think it is always easier to say "I don't measure wealth in dollars" when you have boatloads of dollars.

She might feel differently about what "riches" were if she were homeless, hungry, unable to pay for her medical bills, etc.




"If you believe that the right of a fetus to be born is more important than any right the woman carrying the child might have, but do not believe in making sure that every child has access to adequate health care, education, or any of the other basic needs an individual requires to become a functioning, capable, productive member of society, then you are NOT pro-life. You’re just pro-birth." -- Devious Weasel

"RE: Super Duper Tuesday"
Posted by AyaK on 03-12-12 at 05:53 PM
It's certainly true that having boatloads of money has enabled her to get treatment for MS that most people couldn't afford, which is why she's been able to go on with so little impairment in her life.

But the last point is just liberal speculation. For all we know, if her circumstances were that different, she might turn into a Rick Santorum clone.

"RE: Super Duper Tuesday"
Posted by AyaK on 03-08-12 at 09:35 AM
>A big problem I see for Mitt....Ann gave the better speech
>last night and connected.

You're not the only one that noticed that:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20220308mitts_weaknesses_are_anns_strengths/

"Newt"
Posted by bondt007 on 03-07-12 at 00:24 AM
He had a 35 minute "Victory in Georgia" speech.

$2.50 gas.

Debate Obama and call him out on his lies.

Drill.

...I think I like him -


"RE: Newt"
Posted by dabo on 03-07-12 at 00:40 AM
I know what you mean, Gingrich is a much bigger liar than Obama. Bigger than any of them, biggest liar there is. The bigger the lie the better Newt likes it, it seems. Gets all fired up on his lies, puts on one heckuva show firing off his lies.
"RE: Newt"
Posted by cahaya on 03-07-12 at 00:56 AM
Newt gets his moment of glory with a home state win and will now promptly fade away into the haze...
"RE: Newt"
Posted by dabo on 03-07-12 at 02:03 AM
Oh, Newt is going to hang in awhile longer. He got the single biggest delegate prize of the night in Georgia, that's something. There are some more southern states he thinks he wil take. And Texas, whenever Texas finally happens.
"RE: Newt"
Posted by AyaK on 03-07-12 at 02:07 AM
Actually, the primaries on March 13 are crucial for Newt: Alabama and Mississippi. He's won in SC and Georgia but lost Tennessee to Santorum. Newt needs to win at least Alabama to secure the regional block. If Santorum wins both, Newt is toast.
"And now for something..."
Posted by dabo on 03-07-12 at 04:37 PM
completely dumb.

Romney campaign advises others to drop out of race because it would take "an act of God" for anyone other than Romney to win the nomination.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/07/10601781-romney-campaign-says-losing-nomination-would-take-act-of-god?pc=25&sp=50

Is that anything to tell religious wingnuts? Be careful what you wish for.

"RE: And now for something..."
Posted by Snidget on 03-07-12 at 05:52 PM
So, um, what would put God in the mood to not suffer fools gladly?

Because usually at this point in the reality TV story arc editing it is time for a twist.


Spring has Sprung with Tribe

"RE: And now for something..."
Posted by cahaya on 03-07-12 at 08:52 PM
Santorum's response: "Good, good! I am an act of God!"
"RE: And now for something..."
Posted by KeithFan on 03-08-12 at 10:35 AM
Heard Rove on the radio yesterday explaining the layout for the rest of the primaries. Yes, basically, it would take an act of God for any candidate other than Romney to get 51% of the delegates by the time the convention rolls around. I believe he said that Santorum would have to win 2/3 of the remaining delegates to win the nomination outright. Not going to happen.

The important point he made was that since 1960 there have been 4 brokered conventions, all picking the candidate on the last day of the convention... none of them won the Presidential race against the other party. Especially now the convention needs to be a showcase of the Repubican (in this case) brand vs Obama, and not more highlighting the downfalls of the various Republican candidates.

I don't always agree with Rove, but he knows these things as well as anyone on the planet and I think he is right here.

"RE: And now for something..."
Posted by AyaK on 03-08-12 at 11:02 AM
Huh? I presume he's counting the Democratic conventions of 1968 and 1972 as "brokered", but the truth is that the result was a given except for the delegate challenges by the losing candidates.

In 1968, a large bloc of delegates were technically uncommitted because they had been Robert Kennedy's before his assassination. In 1972, the defeated candidates challenged the California delegation because it had been awarded to McGovern by "winner-take-all", which was against Democratic party rules. But in both cases, without the challenges, the nominee was known in advance. However, the losers disrupted the conventions.

The only "real" brokered conventions since 1960 were both Republicans: 1968, Nixon versus Rockefeller, and 1976, Ford versus Reagan.

Like Ford, Nixon in 1968 barely made enough deals to win the nomination on the first ballot at the convention (the Wyoming delegation, which was the last to vote, put him over the top). But I see Rove didn't include Nixon, because he talks about brokered nominees always losing since 1960.

"RE: And now for something..."
Posted by dabo on 03-08-12 at 12:38 PM
Maybe he's counting Nixon because with two "brokered" conventions that year one party or the other was bound to win. He woulda lost against Bobby, of course
"RE: And now for something..."
Posted by dabo on 03-08-12 at 12:16 PM
Oh, I don't dispute the math. I just think it is a mistake for the Romney camp to be throwing down the religious card. "In your face" is not a wise move to win over voters, and he'll want the Evangelical support in November.

At least it wasn't Mitt himself who made the gaffe this time.

"The choice is easy"
Posted by moonbaby on 03-07-12 at 05:04 PM
Solar Flare FTW!

"Guam goes to Mitt..."
Posted by bondt007 on 03-10-12 at 12:18 PM
... and we now return you to your regular Saturday activities, like changing your smoke detector battery.

"RE: Guam goes to Mitt..."
Posted by Estee on 03-10-12 at 12:42 PM
Yipe!

*grabs folding stepstool*

"RE: Guam goes to Mitt..."
Posted by dabo on 03-10-12 at 06:34 PM
Northern Mariana Islands for Mitt
Romney 88%
Santorum 6%
Gingrich 3%
Paul 3%

Gaum for Mitt
Romney 100%

Kansas for Rick
Santorum 51%
Romney 21%
Gingrich 14%
Paul 13%

Virgin Islands 0% reporting as of yet.

"RE: Guam goes to Mitt..."
Posted by dabo on 03-10-12 at 08:58 PM
And for the third time Romney wins in Wyoming!
Romney 6 delegates
Santorum 3 delegates
Paul 1 delegate
uncommitted 1 delegate
And they'll make the same decision a fourth time sometime down the road.
"RE: Guam goes to Mitt..."
Posted by dabo on 03-10-12 at 10:59 PM
US Virgin Islands for Mitt
Romney 7 delegates
Paul 1 delegate
uncommitted 1 delegate
"March Massacre Madness continues"
Posted by dabo on 03-12-12 at 01:57 AM
LAST EDITED ON 03-12-12 AT 02:04 PM (EST)

LAST EDITED ON 03-12-12 AT 02:03 PM (EST)

aka Calendar revised

Tue. 3/13 - Alabama primary.
Tue. 3/13 - American Samoa caucuses.
Tue. 3/13 - Hawaii caucuses.
Tue. 3/13 - Mississippi primary.
Tue. 3/13 - Missouri caucuses.
Thu. 3/15 - commencement Missouri caucuses.
Sun. 3/18 - Puerto Rico primary.
Tue. 3/20 - Illinois primary.
Sat. 3/24 - Louisiana primary.
Sat. 3/24 - conclusion Missouri caucuses.
Tue. 4/3 - Maryland primary.
Tue. 4/3 - Texas primary. see note 3.
Tue. 4/3 - Washington D.C. primary.
Tue. 4/3 - Wisconsin primary.
Tue. 4/24 - Connecticut primary.
Tue. 4/24 - Delaware primary.
Tue. 4/24 - New York primary.
Tue. 4/24 - Pennsylvania primary.
Tue. 4/24 - Rhode Island primary.
Tue. 5/8 - Indiana primary.
Tue. 5/8 - North Carolina primary.
Tue. 5/8 - West Virginia primary.
Tue. 5/15 - Nebraska primary.
Tue. 5/15 - Oregon primary.
Tue. 5/22 - Arkansas primary.
Tue. 5/22 - Kentucky primary.
Tue. 5/29 - Texas primary. (still subject to revision)
Fri. 6/1 - commencement Nebraska caucuses.
Tue. 6/5 - California primary.
Tue. 6/5 - Montana primary.
Tue. 6/5 - New Jersey primary.
Tue. 6/5 - New Mexico primary.
Tue. 6/5 - South Dakota primary.
Sun. 6/10 - conclusion Nebraska caucuses.
Thu. 6/14 - commencement Montana caucuses.
Sat. 6/16 - conclusion Montana caucuses.
Tue. 6/26 - Utah primary.

Sucks for Newt that Texas keeps getting pushed back, but this Tuesday he gets two of four chances to keep his chances alive, Alabama and Mississippi. For some reason the "wants to lose the general election" candidate Santorum might actually knock him out this week. Elsewhile on Tuesday, Hawaii way out on Hawaii (we don't change our clocks haha) time will probably do something reasonable. And then American Samoa will follow suit. Poor American Samoa, separated from Samoa by a goshdarn international date line, o the humanity.

"RE: March Massacre Madness continues"
Posted by AyaK on 03-12-12 at 09:59 AM
To me, the real indignity was when Samoa moved to driving on the left side of the road in September 2009 so that it could import cars from Australia and NZ.

Moving the date line just codified the gap. But the truth is, American Samoans tend to emigrate to Hawaii, while Western Samoans tend to emigrate to NZ, and so maybe the two should develop differently.

"RE: March Massacre Madness continues"
Posted by cahaya on 03-12-12 at 07:07 PM
Recently heard, Newt in his Southern accent:

"Ah ain' got 'nuf deleggits. Ah need Samoa deleggits!"

"uhoh"
Posted by dabo on 03-13-12 at 01:02 AM
http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/alabama-authorities-look-for-gorilla-1028598.php

They probably won't catch him until after he votes for Newt.

"RE: uhoh"
Posted by newsomewayne on 03-13-12 at 09:12 AM
If the ape is smart enough to vote, I'm sure the fastest way to track it down is to send out a Dem-sponsored voter registration team. Finding unqualified voters is right up their alley.


Paid for by AgPAC, a 2008 registered 527 organization.
"We will eventually pay for it, but we can argue about that later.” – Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA.)

"RE: uhoh"
Posted by dabo on 03-13-12 at 02:33 PM
I think we can safely say that intelligence is not required for voting.
"RE: uhoh"
Posted by bondt007 on 03-13-12 at 03:11 PM
...boy - if there's one thing we can agree on...!


"RE: uhoh"
Posted by dabo on 03-14-12 at 00:34 AM

"War on Teleprompters?"
Posted by Snidget on 03-13-12 at 09:31 AM
Can someone help me understand this?

I mean I thought politicians hired speech writers before the box with words was invented...

I thought one could upload one's own words into the teleprompter box, I didn't know it would only display words that one is not the author of?

Was it wrong for politicians to write down and prepare speeches for all of history (looking at you President Lincoln being a bad boy and writing words down on the envelope there--or so says the myth)

Or is it some people can't read fast enough to use one, so everyone else must be bad if they can?

I would hope my President can both prepare remarks ahead of time and read them effectively as well as be able to spontaneously answer questions. I don't think those are mutually exclusive things.

After all some things are highly nuanced and you do want to spend a fair amount of prep time working with a number of people with a variety of view points to make sure the right words, phrases, and all that are used in situations where a slight change in words can be the difference between calming a crisis and escalating it. Or are words so insignificant it doesn't matter at all which ones you use?

What is Santorum's beef? Can someone explain it to me? Is it true he has never, ever, in any case used a speech writer of any kind and never has written out a speech ahead of time, either?

"RE: War on Teleprompters?"
Posted by Starshine on 03-13-12 at 10:55 AM
Envelopes?


"RE: War on Teleprompters?"
Posted by AyaK on 03-13-12 at 02:51 PM
Here's the story:

Santorum's war on teleprompters

Who knows what's behind this nonsense? Maybe he senses the hand of Satan behind teleprompters. Or maybe it's just that anything Obama has ever used must be evil. Probably including the indoor plumbing at the White House, which Santorum would rip out in his first official act.

"RE: War on Teleprompters?"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 03-13-12 at 03:38 PM
LAST EDITED ON 03-13-12 AT 03:38 PM (EST)

Just use your hand and that way you won't forget No. 3.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: War on Teleprompters?"
Posted by dabo on 03-13-12 at 04:05 PM
LAST EDITED ON 03-13-12 AT 04:06 PM (EST)

Tactically, Santorum does have a minor point against Romney, which really only amounts to Romney doesn't do as well speaking off the cuff as he does delivering prepared material. Romney does well in debates, which are of course practiced, but in the townhall one-on-one arena Romney tends to go off message and fumble. Part of the reason for that is Romney doesn't want to run on the social issues, which would lose the general election. Santorum does want to run on the social issues, he doesn't have much else to stand on.

Part of this teleprompter thing, of course, is trying to brand the candidates (and the president) as puppets not speaking their own minds. But everyone who uses teleprompters signs off on what the words are, et cetera, it is a silly complaint.

"RE: War on Teleprompters?"
Posted by AyaK on 03-13-12 at 08:18 PM
If you heard Santorum's rambling speech last week in Steubenville, you might wonder (as I did) whether he just opens his mouth and says whatever is on his mind at the monment.

This kerfuffle lets us know that the answer to that is "yes."

"Alabama & Mississippi exit polling"
Posted by AyaK on 03-13-12 at 06:42 PM
Per Drudge, here are the 5 PM exit polls. Could Romney upset Rick and Newt in the Deep South primaries today?

DRUDGE POLLING DATA:

AL
ROMNEY 32.07%
SANTORUM 25.24%
GINGRICH 23.6%

MS
ROMNEY 33.55%
GINGRICH 24.62%
SANTORUM 22.15%

"RE: Alabama & Mississippi exit polling"
Posted by dabo on 03-13-12 at 07:37 PM
That would certainly be a big blow to the Gingrich campaign. He would probably stay in it through Louisiana, which would be his last shot. Plus, of course, people will still be saying Gingrich and Santorum together have more voters than Romney.
"New Alabama & Mississippi exit polling"
Posted by AyaK on 03-13-12 at 08:16 PM
From CNN as of 8 PM:

Alabama
Santorum 34%
Romney 29%
Gingrich 28%
Paul 6%.

Mississippi
Romney 35%
Gingrich 30%
Santorum 29%
Paul 5%.

According to CNN, this exit polling is consistent with the input from the Santorum campaign: Santorum expects to win Alabama but lose Mississippi and Hawaii to Romney tonight.

"Santorum wins both AL & MS"
Posted by AyaK on 03-14-12 at 00:07 AM
So much for the exit polls.

AL (99% counted)
Santorum 35% 18 delegates
Gingrich 29% 9 del.
Romney 29% 9 del.
Paul 5%

MS (99% counted)
Santorum 33% 13 delegates
Gingrich 31% 12 del.
Romney 30% 12 del.
Paul 4%

Hawaii and American Samoa still to come, and 20 AL delegates and 3 MS delegates are still to be decided.

"RE: Santorum wins both AL & MS"
Posted by dabo on 03-14-12 at 00:32 AM
LAST EDITED ON 03-14-12 AT 00:33 AM (EST)

Looks like it is a good week to be Rick Santorum. Gingrich, with two second places (virtual ties for second with Romney), he really should bow out now but I don't expect he will. Louisiana on the 24th, then he's looking at an April with no place for Newt.

But it seems like everyone is playing now for a brokered convention, except Romney.

"RE: Santorum wins both AL & MS"
Posted by AyaK on 03-14-12 at 01:13 AM
Delegate math:

Romney will have about 500 delegates after tonight, more than everyone else combined. He needs 1144 for the nomination. He's a lock to win California and New Jersey on June 5, both of which are winner-take-all primaries with 222 total delegates up for grabs. He's also likely to win Utah on June 26, with 40 winner-take-all delegates, just because of the religion issue. So the brokered convention is still an extremely long shot.

"RE: Santorum wins both AL & MS"
Posted by dabo on 03-14-12 at 01:59 AM
To clarify: I still do not think there will be a brokered convention. What I do think is that the Gingrich and Santorum campaigns are hoping to create that, and push their weight in determining the ticket, commitments on policy positions, cabinet appointments and so on.

All of which would amount to Obama gaining a second term in November.

And even should Romney win in November, as good an administrator as he can be, he would be lousy on policy, and another likely one-termer.

"Romney wins HI and AS"
Posted by AyaK on 03-14-12 at 09:15 AM
American Samoa doesn't seem to have released vote totals, but Romney won all the delegates there. The reason American Samoa didn't release vote totals? It is a caucus state, and one estimate I saw said that only 70 people showed up, virtually all Romney supporters.

HI (99% counted)
Romney 45%
Santorum 25%
Paul 18%
Gingrich 11%

"Es el día de Puerto Rico"
Posted by dabo on 03-18-12 at 01:48 AM
And somehow the dumdums have turned the debate into English as the national language. Which, actually, we don't have a national language, English is just the de facto one because most of us habla el inglés.

Prestar atención, es la economía, morón.

"RE: Es el día de Puerto Rico"
Posted by AyaK on 03-18-12 at 04:44 AM
As usual, it's McGovern '72 Santorum '12 leading the way to madness.

Santorum: English must be adopted by Puerto Rico

Honestly, if I hadn't seen Republicans in Nevada, Colorado and Delaware throw away sure wins and nominate Sherron Angle, Ken Buck and Christine O'Donnell in 2010's Senate races (and almost do the same thing in Alaska by nominating "Crazy Joe" Miller), I wouldn't believe that anyone could vote for Rick Santorum. But, having seen that fiasco, now I'm just worried.

"RE: Es el día de Puerto Rico"
Posted by dabo on 03-18-12 at 01:57 PM
"As in any other state, you have to comply with this and any federal law. And that is that English has to be the main language," Santorum told El Vocero, a San Juan newspaper. "There are other states with more than one language as is the case in Hawaii, but to be a state in the United States, English has to be the main language."

Which, of course, is a purely imaginary "federal law" that was never imposed on any other state, not even Hawai'i. Puerto Rican statehood is a matter for the Puerto Ricans to determine for themselves, the only federal requirements they have to meet are population size (done) and submitting a statehood constitution for ratification. And borders, of course, got to draw the lines somewhere.

Let's give Santorum full credit for having found the most nonsensical election issue of the season. Dumdum.


"RE: Es el día de Puerto Rico"
Posted by AyaK on 03-18-12 at 05:16 PM
Puerto Rican statehood is a matter for the Puerto Ricans to determine for themselves.

And so far, PR residents have voted statehood down three times: substantially in 1967 (60%-40%), and narrowly in 1993 and 1998 (less than 2% each time). Romney is running on a pro-PR statehood platform.

Apparently Santorum would veto any legislation to make PR a state unless they start speaking English, no matter what the law says.

"RE: Es el día de Puerto Rico"
Posted by Estee on 03-18-12 at 06:19 PM
So would the flipside of that be the accompanying power to kick out any current state whose residents don't speak a recognizable form of English?

(Insert your favorite expulsion candidate here.)

"RE: Es el día de Puerto Rico"
Posted by Snidget on 03-18-12 at 07:41 PM
So who is going to be kicked out first, the states that call it soda, the states that call it pop, or the states that call it coke (no matter what brand is on the label)?

Because there are arguments that each soft drink nick name comes with an unrecognizable form of 'Merican.

"RE: Es el día de Puerto Rico"
Posted by dabo on 03-20-12 at 02:08 AM
It's cola, dammit! And to heck with those who favor soda.

"RE: GOP candidate tracker III: buildup to Super Tuesday"
Posted by AyaK on 03-18-12 at 12:22 PM
Paul and Santorum supporters go head-to-head in Missouri caucuses, and the Santorum supporters try to shut them up, leading to chaos.

ABC News story

St. Charles County story

As I posted in the Puerto Rico story as well, if you see chaos in the GOP primaries, look for Rick Santorum and his clowns behind it.

"Romney takes PR."
Posted by Estee on 03-18-12 at 07:17 PM
But don't worry: once Santorum takes over, Those People will no longer be allowed to vote.
"RE: Romney takes PR."
Posted by AyaK on 03-18-12 at 08:51 PM
Under Puerto Rico's primary rules, the 20 delegates are awarded proportionately unless one candidate gets over 50% of the vote.

23% reporting
Romney 83%
Santorum 8%
Gingrich 2%
Paul 1%

So Romney apparently will get all 20 delegates.

"Win Illinois, Win It All!"
Posted by dabo on 03-19-12 at 12:04 PM
LOL!

Not to downplay Illinois, but it is Santorum claiming a win in Illinois means he wins the nomination. "If we're able to come out of Illinois with a huge or surprise win, I guarantee you, I guarantee you that we will win this nomination."

I can see him doing well in southern Illinois, parts of the west, that's about it.

"The war on women and now doctors marches on...."
Posted by HobbsofMI on 03-19-12 at 02:13 PM
TN bill moves through the legislator

Since they want to post the names of the doctors...why not the woman? *boggle*


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"War on facts marches on"
Posted by AyaK on 03-19-12 at 09:52 PM
Well, since the last post doesn't have anything to do with the GOP nomination contest, here's another story that also has nothing to do with the GOP nomination contest, but everything to do with the nonsensical concept of "fake but accurate":

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57400044-501465/final-performance-of-the-agony-and-the-ecstasy-of-steve-jobs-gets-standing-ovation/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57399856/this-american-life-apple-kerfuffle-is-nonsense/

Personally, I think Democrats love a "fake but accurate" story like this one because it frees them from the burden of having to pay attention to facts and frees them to act on their beliefs, which the "fake but accurate" reporting upgrades to the level of facts.

Unfortunately, "fake but accurate" isn't limited to Democrats. Republicans make every bit as big of fools out of themselves in such matters. Take nutcase Joe Arpaio's investigation of Obama's birth certificate (please!), which makes sense only in Arpaio's "Bizarro world".

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/EJMontini/157589

As the song says:
"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you."

"RE: War on facts marches on"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 03-20-12 at 06:20 AM
LAST EDITED ON 03-20-12 AT 06:20 AM (EST)

Since most of the candidates were talking about women's health, I though it would go here instead of a whole new thread or the older birth control one as this seems to be a major point/counter point in the election now that all the states are pushing these crazy bills that I think will effect the national elections.

As for facts, both sides love their facts....as long as it's their facts. No one looks at the data anymore and see how screwed it is, bias, or cherry picked out it is. Then the other side does the same with the same data it's maddening but shows where we are today.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: War on facts marches on"
Posted by AyaK on 03-20-12 at 09:43 AM
LAST EDITED ON 03-20-12 AT 09:44 AM (EST)

>Since most of the candidates were
>talking about women's health

Really? Other than Rick Santorum, I think I missed it.

The only people who are constantly "talking about women's health" are the Democrats, because the current Democratic meme is that the Republicans are conducting a "war on women", as you put in your post.

The issue is this: if you ask people whether churches should be required to offer health plans that go against their religious beliefs, a substantial majority of people say no. If you ask people whether women should have access to birth control, a substantial majority of people say yes. (The abortion question is much muddier, and it often depends upon how the question is phrased, because people parse narrow differences out of the phrasing.)

Thus, if the Republicans succeed in casting Kathy Sebelius' Obamacare edict as an issue about religious freedom, the majority of people will support them. If the Democrats succeed in casting her edict as an issue about birth control, the majority of people will support them. With that in mind, the Democrats have cracked up the "war on women" campaign.

The Tennessee bill seems to go way over the top. We know that there are people that crazy, and we expect tha the voters of Tennessee will sweep them out of office if they really pass this. But it's not an issue in the Presidential race unless Rick "McGovern" Santorum is the GOP candidate.

...which doesn't stop the crazed Democrat rhetoric. Here's The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel in a fund-raising appeal:

A few days ago eight of Georgia's nine women senators summed up how most Americans feel about the GOP's "War on Women" by throwing up their hands in disgust and walking off the floor of the Senate chambers to protest GOP attempts to block insurance coverage for abortions and contraceptives.

No longer content with using legislation to shut down safe and accessible contraception, the GOP is now in the business of dictating private insurance policies--the next chess move in their efforts to turn this country into a theocracy. Their strategy? Pander to a tiny group of religious extremists intent on imposing their will on the vast majority of Americans.

Gotta love this spin, since actually it's the Democrats, through Obamacare and Sebelius' edict on religious institution coverage, who have put themselves in the business of dictating private insurance policies. But the war on facts rages on!

"RE: War on facts marches on"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 03-20-12 at 10:59 AM
I guess you missed Romney saying he would make Planned Parenthood go out of business and then walked it back saying he would defund it and then walked it back to say stop their abortion side. I guess you miss Newts and Romney talking about Rush and his comments and women issues.

IMHO that all these states bills like vaginal ultrasounds, limits on broom closet sizes, telling doctors that they can lie to not have that woman have an abortion, trying to defund PP, publishing doctors names, etc. will effect whoever is the Republican nomination.

Yes, Rick will make it a major part of his run but Romney's going to have to answer how he is going to deal with it and depending on the answers he'll lose women and independents thus it may cost him the WH. Plus you bet the Dems will jump on it and say these are the things you'll see nationally if you put the Pubs in charge.

As for churches/religious beliefs....then get out of the business if you can't provide the proper care for everyone who walks through the door. This is the 21st center not the 16th. If you don't want to prescribe the morning after drugs then don't be a pharmacist, you don't want to do an abortion to save the mother then don't be a doctor, etc. It's just like if you don't want to be Union, find a non-union job but everyone wants their cake and eat it too. Dems do too with removing all God from everything and their other issues. Again compromise is long gone in this country.

Yes, the war on false facts used by both sides is why I'm so disenchanted with our system and wish we could vote all these clowns out but then we get even more divisive clowns from either extream.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: War on facts marches on"
Posted by AyaK on 03-20-12 at 11:41 AM
LAST EDITED ON 03-20-12 AT 11:42 AM (EST)

"I guess you missed Romney saying he would make Planned Parenthood go out of business and then walked it back saying he would defund it and then walked it back to say stop their abortion side."

Please link to those quotes. And not just the sound-bite versions, but the entire quotes.

"RE: War on facts marches on"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 03-20-12 at 01:48 PM
LAST EDITED ON 03-20-12 AT 02:06 PM (EST)

Here is the whole interview and story with the entire printed quote:

Romney on Jobs, Engergy and the deficit

Edit: the walk back:

Romney clarifies PP comments There was video but it was taken down off of YouTube.

Edit2: The same quote and Ann and his check for $150 to PP and Ann and him attending a 1994 fundraiser for PP which has been confirmed.

Romney's PP check and fundraiser

Edit3: The last walk back I thought I knew where is was but it must be in another story on the Freep or DetNews. I have a meeting so I'll post it later.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"Wrong quote"
Posted by AyaK on 03-20-12 at 02:16 PM
LAST EDITED ON 03-20-12 AT 02:17 PM (EST)

>Here is the whole interview and story with the entire printed quote:
>
>Romney on Jobs, Engergy and the deficit

Did you read it before posting the link?

Here's the quote that you refer to.

As for ways to reduce debt, <Romney> suggests a few cuts.

"The test is pretty simple. Is the program so critical, it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And on that basis of course you get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one. Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that. The subsidy for Amtrak, I'd eliminate that. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities," he said.

Here's what you alleged that Romney said:

I guess you missed Romney saying he would make Planned Parenthood go out of business

But this quote says nothing of the kind. It says that Romney would eliminate the federal subsidy for Planned Parenthood. Since over two-thirds of Planned Parenthood's funding comes from sources other than the federal government, there isn't anything Romney could do with regard to defunding it that would make it go out of business.

Please find me the quote where Romney says he would make Planned Parenthood go out of business.

"RE: Wrong quote"
Posted by bondt007 on 03-20-12 at 02:46 PM
I read this...what, last week? And like what I read because guess what? There HAS to be cuts, people!

"RE: Wrong quote"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 03-21-12 at 03:24 AM
I agree but you could cut 100% of the discretionary spending in the budget and still not have a balance budget. You could tax the top 1% 100% and still not have a balanced budget.

Romney has made so many promises on tax cuts to adding ships to the Navy to adding other with more subsidies that he's initial plan was close to be balanced to now adding $2 to $3 Trillion to the debt in 4 years with his 20% tax cut for "all". Less than Obama is spending but still no where we need to be.

We need to re-write the tax cut, fix SS and Medicare/Medicaid and cut defense spending but I don't trust the clowns on either side of the aisle to do it and not pander to their base or do what's right for "the People".


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Wrong quote"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 03-20-12 at 08:51 PM
Sorry for being a simpleton on the language but I and a lot of others took it as he wanted to get rid of them, i.e. put them out of business. Now I could read it and think he's an idiot who thinks PP is part of the Federal government thus something he could get rid of but I don't think he meant that. If you look at even his walk back statement you can see he understood that he was looking to put them out of business but clarified that he just wants to defund them.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Wrong quote"
Posted by AyaK on 03-21-12 at 00:05 AM
>Sorry for being a simpleton on the language but I and
>a lot of others took it as he wanted to
>get rid of them, i.e. put them out of business.

In other words, all you read was the out-of-context sound bite and bought the spin that your political allies put on it without actually reading the quote, which is straightforward and easy to understand. We've all done it, although there's an old rule: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

When you see someone claim something preposterous, like a claim that Mitt Romney wants to close Planned Parenthood (or, for that matter, that Barack Obama is a socialist), you should demand convincing proof of such a claim.

>If you look at even his walk back statement you
>can see he understood that he was looking to put
>them out of business but clarified that he just wants
>to defund them.

OK, let's focus on the so-called "walk-back statement".

"Planned Parenthood is a private organization. What I want to get rid of is the federal funding of Planned Parenthood," Romney said in an interview. . . .

The Obama re-election team, aiming at women in general -- and suburban Chicago women specifically, a crucial vote in the state -- had Illinois Democrats Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Rep.Mike Quigley lead a national conference call the day after Romney, in Missouri, gave the Democrats an opening. . . .

Schakowsky, who acknowledged that a president could not force Planned Parenthood to close, said Romney is an "extreme candidate" on women's issues."

Where's the walk-back? Basically, Romney realized that Democrats were lying about what he said and just repeated what he said the first time, while adding an additional fact that makes it clear that the Democratic claims were nonsense. But even the leader of the Democratic campaign of deception admitted that the Democratic claims were nonsense because a president couldn't close Planned Parenthood. But that didn't stop some partisans from believing and repeating those claims.

Then again, see post #141.

"RE: Wrong quote"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 03-21-12 at 03:15 AM
LAST EDITED ON 03-21-12 AT 03:28 AM (EST)

Thanks for calling me dumb. Simple Civil Engineer here, not a lawyer.

It's not out of context:

"The test is pretty simple. Is the program so critical, it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And on that basis of course you get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one. Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that. The subsidy for Amtrak, I'd eliminate that. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities," he said.

1. Repeal Obama care
2. PP "get rid of that"
3. End subsidies for Amtrack, NEA, NEH

When asked later to the statement PP "get rid of that"

"Planned Parenthood is a private organization. What I want to get rid of is the federal funding of Planned Parenthood," Romney said

He says it's a private organization, so he saying he knows it's not a Federal part of the government and he's saying he knows he can't "get rid of that".

Second he makes clear he wants to "get rid of" is the federal funding as that is what he can "get rid of".

You see it as Dem lying, I see it as a bad choice of words and a walk back flip flop. He pandering to PP when he needed them (the $150 check and attending fundraiser) for his Senate run but is now throwing them under the bus as he has for any old position that would make him look like John McCain and take the sensible middle on a position.

Sorry I still can't find the quote from when he was in PR where the reported asked about funding women's health in Title X if he was going to defund PP. Paraphrasing: he said he supported Title X and thought it important but wanted to make sure none of the funds went to PP abortions.

Which it can't by law.

I'm sorry AyaK but he's flip flopping/back tracking again on an issues that he may not want to make the campaign about but that door has been opened by the crazies at the state level passing laws that are only social and attacking women.

Is Obama any better? No, they all suck and we the middle class are so screwed.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"Advance to Illinois Ave."
Posted by dabo on 03-20-12 at 02:36 AM
I don't know if there is any such animal as a typical midwestern state. But if there is, Illinois certainly isn't that animal. It is one of the most regionally divided states immaginable, basically a composite of the nation.

Southern Illinois can be divided into two regions, southern and southwestern, confederate and leave us alone what's coming down the river. A lot of Kentucky influence there, but also some Ozarks in the west.

And a bit of St. Louis megalopolism in the mix.

Central Illinois is farmland and industrial sites, but these are the people who consider themselves from the real Land of Lincoln, and are mighty proud of it, but wonder where the Republican party went off track, and are pretty disappointed.

Then there is Western Illinois, which can be divided into Western Illinois and Forgottonia. Western Illinois has a lot of hog farmers, Forgottonia has a lot of folks used to be ignored and shortsited by the government, who probably don't care one way or another. But there is a Mormon stronghold in Forgottonia, Nauvoo, and they won't really care either.

Chicago, the Northeast, of course is Chicago, the hog butcher of the world. And the railroads. dammit.

And then there is Northwestern Illinois, mining and Swedes who consider that area a southern vacation.

So, win Illinois win the nation? It makes a certain amount of sense. But mind you there are also a lot of Poles and Greeks to win over, it is really a very diverse state.

"RE: Advance to Illinois Ave."
Posted by AyaK on 03-20-12 at 10:01 AM
The main difference between Ohio and Illinois is that Ohio has a lot of urban centers sprinkled throughout the state. Cleveland, Cincinnati, The Monster that Ate Central Ohio (Columbus, which now extends well outside of Franklin County due to annexations), Akron, Canton, Dayton, Toledo, Youngstown, even Portsmouth. None are huge, but all are urban.

Illinois is Chicago, the 500-ton gorilla, and very few other urban areas: Rockford, Springfield, Peoria. The city growing like Columbus is Chicago exurb Aurora, which now has land in four counties. The rest of the state looks just like Iowa. But because Chicago is SO large, it dominates state politics.

"RE: Advance to Illinois Ave."
Posted by dabo on 03-20-12 at 11:23 AM
The rest of the state looks just like Iowa. Well, there are a lot of nice straight roads. A lot more rivers, though.

Basically, though, if an outsider comes to Illinois thinking of it as Chicago and Downstate, they are making a huge mistake. Downstate Southern Illinois is very different from Downstate Central Illinois, is very different from Downstate Western Illinois and so on. Culturally and politically.

Forgottonia in Western Illinois is still pretty isolated, though there is now a better highway connection between Springfield and Quincy than in the old days.

"Early Democratic ad for fall"
Posted by AyaK on 03-20-12 at 11:39 AM
Voice: "The Republican candidate has talked at length about his superior record of job creation. But even Republicans know better."

Rick Santorum (on tape from MSNBC. 3/19/2012): "We should probably just stick with Barack Obama because he's done just about as good a job as Mitt Romney does in job creation.”

Voice: "Don't fall for Romney's nonsense. Vote Obama. Paid for by Obama-Biden 2012."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/20/your-guide-to-illinois-primary/

Santorum has called himself the true follower of Reagan. But Ronald Reagan helped form the Log Cabin Republicans, while Santorum bashes gays on a regular basis. Then Santorum proved yesterday that he couldn't even follow Reagan's first commandment, "Never speak ill of a fellow Republican."

Maybe Santorum was thinking of some Reagan other than Ronald. Maybe he's really the true follower of Ron Reagan, for example.

Perhaps Santorum has decided that he has no future in the Republican Party if Romney wins.

He's right.

"RE: Early Democratic ad for fall"
Posted by dabo on 03-20-12 at 12:09 PM
Even if he wins, I don't see much of a future for Santorum. Except possibly in talk radio. We lost our talk radio station for a few weeks, timely for the Rush controversy though it really had nothing to do with that, their broadcast facility suffered a lot of storm damage and they had to go off the air.

Flipping through the dial to see where else I might pick up some hourly news, local and weather, I chanced one day into the Catholic station during a call-in segment. Boy oh boy, those callers are ecstatic on the prospect of America becoming not simply a Christian nation but a Catholic nation. Yep, they are going to save us all, convert us all, blah blah blah. It was unintentionally hysterical.

(I should note that most of the programming on that station actually isn't political but religious, it just happened to be the call-in segment for hardcore loonietoons who are currently upset over the church being forced to provide contraception insurance which the church for the most part already provides anyway.)

"Santorum endorses Obama over Romney"
Posted by AyaK on 03-23-12 at 00:55 AM
Santorum doesn't realize that he's just totally ended his chances. He probably won't even make it to the Pennsylvania primary (April 24). He even might not beat Gingrich in Louisiana.

Maybe he expects God to remove the foot from his mouth. But he doesn't seem to realize that all of the people who have been pushing his campaign, like Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. (Fox, Wall Street Journal, etc.), now have first-hand evidence of how unstable he is and will have to withdraw their support.

Santorum: GOP better off with Obama than 'Etch A Sketch' Republican

"Well Fer Crud"
Posted by dabo on 03-23-12 at 01:37 AM
What a stupido thing to hand the Obama campaign. Dang it! The one and only good thing about the Santorum campaign is that he might knock Gingrich out of it at some point.

In case you can't tell, I despise Newt. He's an antagonistic maniac who will run with any big lie he thinks people will buy. No one should trust anything he says, not a single word.

Blast!

Well, projecting into April, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are the only prospective question marks for the Romney campaign, and it is entirely possible Santorum wouldn't win his home state.

"RE: Santorum endorses Obama over Romney"
Posted by Estee on 03-23-12 at 06:39 AM
If he can't break the toy himself, no one else should get to play with it?

*reads article*

I think it's safe to say he's going to have some trouble talking himself into the VP seat. And if he somehow did, he'll be the male Palin: part of the GOP's non-fringe will retreat in fear rather than put him one heartbeat away from power, especially when there's a good chance he might decide which heartbeat was going to be it.

"Fallout"
Posted by AyaK on 03-23-12 at 11:34 AM
Ed Morrissey, who has been a prominent conservative blogger for a decade, first at Captain's Quarters and then at HotAir, has been one of Santorum's loudest supporters, and even he is rethinking his choice after this fiasco:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/23/no-senator-santorum-obama-and-romney-arent-the-same/

Santorum, however, seems to think (hope? pray?) that his spokespeeps can get him out of this mess.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/03/rick-santorum-better-than-obama-mitt-romney-/1#.T2yXJnhlc20

We'll see.

"RE: Fallout"
Posted by Estee on 03-23-12 at 11:44 AM
I did think of another way to interpret Santorum's statement. How about 'Under any GOP leadership which wasn't mine, things might improve enough to make people happy and then I'd have to wait eight years for my next shot. But if Obama continues in power, I'm 100% certain that in just four years, things will be so bad that I'll look like the best available choice'?

To which my answer would be a stirring rendition of the Canadian national anthem, but Santorum just scares me that much.

"RE: Fallout"
Posted by AyaK on 03-23-12 at 11:55 PM
LAST EDITED ON 03-23-12 AT 11:56 PM (EST)

I know we're not really on the same side politically, but I agree. Of course, the experience of the past four years has me feeling about the same way about Obama. An Obama-Santorum choice in November would be a true choice between slow death for America (Obama) and an explosive fast death (Santorum).

Fortunately, it won't happen. Santorum is making sure of it by first, making stupid statements about Romney = Obama and second, doubling down on them. Here was Santorum's chief spokesfool today on CNN:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/23/santorum-spokewoman-says-hell-support-romney-if-nominee/

"What we have with Mitt Romney is… a mirror image of Barack Obama. Both believe in government takeover of health care, cap and trade, big government spending, Wall Street bailout.”

His "walkback" for that statement was only that he was a loyal Republican who would vote for the Republican candidate, even if that candidate was a mass murderer or the like. But, of course, he tried to blame it on Romney instead of his own lack of judgment. Just another a$$hole who won't even own up to his crazy statements, let alone apologize for them, I guess:

"This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney’s policies mirror Barack Obama’s."

Anyone who votes for Santorum from now on can't offer the explanation that he stands behind his statements (and Romney doesn't) any longer.

"Agree"
Posted by dabo on 03-24-12 at 02:31 AM
I haven't been happy with Obama, though he is preferable to most of the alternatives, the 'Pubs did not have their best foot forward this go'round.

Santorum could not possibly win the general election, he's a flash in the pan, an extremist who even as an incumbent could not even be re-elected to the Senate in his own state.

He's aiming for a career in talk radio.

Possibly a position on Faux News.

"Romney win's IL by a lot!"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 03-20-12 at 08:54 PM
24% of the vote in and CNN has Romney the winner:

Romney 57%
Rick 27%
Paul 10%
Newt 6%


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Romney win's IL by a lot!"
Posted by dabo on 03-20-12 at 11:27 PM
95% of the vote

Romney 401,444 47%
Santorum 300,832 35%
Paul 79,421 9%
Gingrich 67,974 8%

With Romney taking a big lot of Central Illinois, Peoria county, Stark county, and St. Claire county (St. Louis area).

"IL delegate split"
Posted by AyaK on 03-21-12 at 00:11 AM
54 delegates up for grabs. 99% counted:

Romney 41
Santorum 8
Undecided 5

Overall delegate math, per CNN, as of now:

Romney 562
Santorum 247
Gingrich 137
Paul 69
Huntsman 1 (missing from CNN tally)

1144 needed to nominate.
Romney's about halfway there.

"RE: IL delegate split"
Posted by dabo on 03-21-12 at 01:27 AM
Which basically means Romney is going to be the nominee no matter how long this drags out, as April is going to be mostly Romney friendly contests. If he does have to cut a deal in the end to secure the nomination, hopefully it would be with Paul/Huntsman rather than Gingrich or Santorum. But I still don't expect it to come to that.

The Illinois returns weren't much of a surprise in the end, though there were some spots where I thought Romney might win over Santorum but didn't, Quincy, the Quad Cities, Danville, possibly Carbondale but that was always unlikely. From what numbers I've seen, the Mormons in Nauvoo did make it a contest in Hancock county, there just weren't enough of them.

"RE: IL delegate split"
Posted by AyaK on 03-21-12 at 11:40 AM
I'm always amazed by the fact that fewer people live in the Quad Cities on the Illinois side (Rock Island/Moline/East Moline) than on the Iowa side (Davenport/Bettendorf). Maybe because of the Rock Island Railroad, I always figured the the Illinois side would be the dominant side before I went there.
"RE: IL delegate split"
Posted by dabo on 03-21-12 at 04:37 PM
Don't know why that is, especially with John Deere headquartered in Moline. May have something to do with the Rock River.
"Obamination"
Posted by AyaK on 03-22-12 at 03:19 PM
LAST EDITED ON 03-22-12 AT 05:02 PM (EST)

Here's the results of Obama's self-proclaimed "smart diplomacy" in Libya and neighboring countries.

To the north, the end of Moammar Gadhafi’s ironfisted rule in Libya has had a de-stabilising effect. Heavily-armed Malian Tuaregs who fought in Gadhafi’s army have returned home and joined a rebellion seeking to carve out a new Tuareg nation in the northern half of a country twice the size of France.

Since the start of the year, the rebel advance and government riposte have forced an estimated 195,000 from their homes, with most escaping to Niger and other neighbours such as Burkina Faso and Mauritania.

I doubt the election will turn on this nearly as much as on the economy, but it's just one more data point on the chart of failures over the past four years.

Edited to add: Even in the one Arab state where Obama didn't have to side with the revolution for the revolution to succeed (Tunisia), the U.S. is vilified by the locals.

Radical Islamists are making inroads in the Arab world's most advanced, liberal, and tolerant country. And the secularists think the United States is helping them do it.

Thousands took to the streets of Tunisia's capital Tunis yesterday to celebrate the end of French colonial rule in 1956. As one might expect on independence day, most were in an anti-imperialist mood. Who are the “imperialists” in the Tunisian imagination today? Not the French. Not anymore. The “imperialists” of today are the United States and, oddly enough, Qatar. Both are seen, fairly or not, as the backers of Tunisia's Islamists. . . .

Most Tunisians don't seem to understand Washington. And the administration does not seem to understand Tunis. Western governments, including the Obama administration, decided Ennahda is a moderate Islamist party that they can do business with, but secular and liberal Tunisians think that analysis is a load of old bollocks.

I met with Zeyneb Farhat, director of Tunisia's national theater, El Teatro.

“Most journalists in the West,” I said, “describe Ennahda as a moderate party in almost every single article about this country.”

“These are not serious people,” she said. “They have no idea what they are talking about. Ennahda is not moderate."

"Santorum wins in parishes"
Posted by dabo on 03-24-12 at 10:39 PM
LAST EDITED ON 03-24-12 AT 10:40 PM (EST)

Louisiana with 60some% in

Santorum 49% 66,557
Romney   26% 35,369
Gingrich 16% 22,082
Paul      6%  8,292
"RE: Santorum wins in parishes"
Posted by Estee on 03-25-12 at 03:56 AM
David Duke would be so proud.
"(Almost) final Louisiana vote"
Posted by AyaK on 03-25-12 at 08:25 AM
99% counted:

Santorum 49% 91,305
Romney 27% 49,749
Gingrich 16% 29,655
Paul 6% 11,460

So, out of the 20 delegates available, Santorum should get 9, Romney should get 6, and 5 should be uncommitted.

On to Wisconsin, April 3. We'll see how the presidential primary plays out with the local issues there, especially the union-backed recall effort.

"swoop!"
Posted by qwertypie on 03-25-12 at 00:01 AM
Not boop
"HaH!"
Posted by foonermints on 03-25-12 at 04:48 AM
The Christmas Snake is proud of you!
"The Birthers Are Back...."
Posted by kidflash212 on 03-25-12 at 10:10 AM
but this time they are after Romney. I guess because it worked so well against Obama. Sheesh.


Capn2patch put me in motion!

"By those standards:"
Posted by Estee on 03-25-12 at 11:07 AM
I will now prove Rick Santorum is an Islamic terrorist.

1. I say he is.
2. ...
3. Proof!

No birther could survive their own examination standards.

"RE: The Birthers Are Back...."
Posted by AyaK on 03-25-12 at 03:18 PM
There's a reason for this suit, and it has nothing to do with Romney (although it's still insane).

California, like Hawaii, doesn't release the original birth certificate as a matter of public record. The birthers want to establish that, as a matter of federal law, the short-form record released by HI and CA is insufficient.

"RE: The Birthers Are Back...."
Posted by kidflash212 on 03-26-12 at 12:54 PM
What purpose, other than going after Obama again, would establishing that be to them or anyone? Seems like a lot of time and expense to force states to release long form Birth Certificates. Outside of a Presidential election, when would be necessary information for someone to obtain?


Even in their best case scenario and the federal court rules states have to release long form certificates and somehow this proves Obama was born outside the US (I don't think it would anywhere but in their imagination), a ruling takes time and appeals take longer which would take us past the current election. If Obama is defeated, the point is moot and if he is reelected and has to leave office it would just make Joe Biden the President. Very little payoff for the birthers.

"RE: The Birthers Are Back...."
Posted by dabo on 03-26-12 at 01:08 PM
In essence they are wanting to overturn the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution in respect to election elegibility. If they are successful they can challenge that candidates with Hawaiian and Californian birth certificates cannot appear on November ballots in various states.
"RE: The Birthers Are Back...."
Posted by agman on 05-14-12 at 10:44 AM
bump
"Wisconsin"
Posted by AyaK on 03-26-12 at 11:29 AM
The next primary is April 3 in Wisconsin, which wouldn't seem like a good place for Rick Santorum to have to make a stand.

The Louisiana results show that Santorum's true believers care more about a moral revival than an Obama defeat. But Wisconsin isn't Louisiana.

And neither is Pennsylvania.

"RE: Wisconsin"
Posted by dabo on 03-26-12 at 12:30 PM
Wisconsin, being a battleground in the GOP war on labor (unions), is up in the air. It is an open primary so a lot of angry voters could turn up. 18 delegates will go to whichever candidate wins the popular vote in the state, with 24 delegates determined by popular vote within each of the 8 congressional districts.

So, even though Romney has a healthy lead in the polls I've seen, will a lot of labor votes show up to upset the status quo?

"Maryland too"
Posted by AyaK on 04-01-12 at 09:33 PM
In addition to Wisconsin, there are primaries Tuesday in Maryland and DC. Maryland seems to be a lock for Romney.

Maryland Republicans may give Romney a boost

"Romney takes Maryland"
Posted by AyaK on 04-03-12 at 08:19 PM
The polls just closed, but CNN has already projected Romney as the Maryland winner.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/politics/republican-primaries/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

"RE: Romney takes Maryland"
Posted by dabo on 04-03-12 at 08:30 PM
LAST EDITED ON 04-03-12 AT 08:33 PM (EST)

And with 0% reported Romney is the projected winner in the District. Santorum, of course, is projected to get zero votes no matter what.

Polls closing in Wisconsin at top of the hour.

From what CNN reported earlier, a significant number of Democrats are voting on the Republican ballot with Santorum favored by some percentage over Romney. Don't they realize that a Santorum nomination and landslide defeat in November would be the best thing to happen to the Republican Party since Eisenhower decided which party to join?

"Wisconsin"
Posted by AyaK on 04-03-12 at 10:32 PM
...has also been called from Romney.

CNN's exit polling showed that 11% of the voters in the Republican primary were Democrats, who opted for Santorum by over 2-to-1. Apparently they realize that Obama only has a chance against a joke opponent.

"RE: Wisconsin"
Posted by dabo on 04-03-12 at 11:13 PM
Apparently they realize that Obama only has a chance against a joke opponent. LOL. Say that all you want, you know that's far from the truth. Anyway, they had three joke candidates and Paul to choose from.

The guy on CNN, substituting for John King I believe -- I had to turn it off after awhile because it was becoming comedy -- tried a few times to make the case that the Santorum voters were (at least partly) Reagan Democrats coming back for lord only knows what reason. For Santorum? It was too much.

"RE: Wisconsin"
Posted by AyaK on 04-03-12 at 11:32 PM
Say that all you want, you know that's far from the truth.

When I see a person who was touted four years ago as a brilliant man who was an instructor of Constitutional Law reveal that he knows little if any constitutional law, then I know I'm looking at a loser.

You betcha.

"RE: Wisconsin"
Posted by dabo on 04-03-12 at 11:57 PM
That one, I grant, was a boner, and I cannot understand what the purpose was of trying to apply political pressure in that manner to SCOTUS.
"RE: Wisconsin"
Posted by ginger on 04-05-12 at 06:23 PM
(From RealClearPolitics)

RCP Average 3/10 - 4/3 Obama +4.0
Rasmussen Tracking 4/1 - 4/3 Romney +3
USA Today/Gallup 3/25 - 3/26 Obama +4
CNN/Opinion Research 3/24 - 3/25 Obama +11
McClatchy/Marist 3/20 - 3/22 Obama +2
PPP (D) 3/15 - 3/17 Obama +4
Reason-Rupe 3/10 - 3/20 Obama +6
FOX News 3/10 - 3/12 Obama +4

"RE: Wisconsin"
Posted by AyaK on 04-06-12 at 07:17 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/20/us-usa-poll-politics-idUSN1927197620080820
"numbers"
Posted by dabo on 04-04-12 at 01:17 AM
LAST EDITED ON 04-04-12 AT 09:35 AM (EST)

District of Columbia 99% in 16 delegates
Romney 70% 3,122
Paul 12% 535
Gingrich 11% 477

Maryland 79% in 37 delegates
Romney 49% 116,922
Santorum 29% 68,847
Gingrich 11% 25,966
Paul 10% 22,645

Wisconsin 99% in 42 delegates
Romney 42% 301,620
Santorum 38% 267,607
Paul 12% 83,104
Gingrich 6% 43,339
Uninstructed 1% 4,012

"Delegate count"
Posted by AyaK on 04-04-12 at 08:45 AM
According to CNN on 4/4:

Romney 648
Santorum 264
Gingrich 137
Paul 71

Needed for nomination 1,144

Romney needs 496.

Will Santorum finally give up after he loses his home state of Pennsylvania in 3 weeks?

"RE: Delegate count"
Posted by ginger on 04-05-12 at 06:10 PM
Not til Jesus rides in on his dinosaur and tells Rick to quit.

I love Newt garnering Paul-level numbers. Is Newt still running? If a campaign dies in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall, is it still a campaign?

"Is it FINALLY over?"
Posted by AyaK on 04-09-12 at 11:57 AM
Looks like it. But we'll see where everything goes this week.
"RE: Is it FINALLY over?"
Posted by Estee on 04-09-12 at 12:09 PM
The only goals left for Santorum Sabotage would seem to be getting enough delegates to turn into a brainwashed militia unit and unleashing them on the convention with both guns and crosses akimbo. Forget about unleashing the power of Religious Americans Who've Never Actually Read The Bible and go for the oldest form of political swing in the books: taking out everyone who originally said no.

Which doesn't exactly prevent him from going for it.

"RE: Is it FINALLY over?"
Posted by dabo on 04-10-12 at 12:40 PM
Well, previous to the end of month primaries, another 95 delegates will be selected over the month in conventions in Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri and Wyoming. A mixed bag, though no one can overtake Romney in this. Santorum, unfortunately, will get some more support.

Gingrich, more unfortunately, does seem to have seen the writing on the wall, but is now trying to position himself as VP running mate ticket choice. The thought of liar Newt being one heartbeat from the presidency is thoroughly repugnant to me, what a douche.

"Santorum suspends campaign."
Posted by Estee on 04-10-12 at 03:44 PM
Out of a host of possible comments:

The FOX offer must have been ultra-lucrative.

The prayer echoes in his head weren't enough to block the actual delegate count.

Setting up the revolution will take too much of his time.

Good. Riddance.

...nobody move. He still may be able to see us.

"Finally"
Posted by AyaK on 04-10-12 at 04:46 PM
It seems unlikely that Santorum was actually offered anything to leave the race. And I'm expecting Newt, not Rick, to get the slot with Fox.

I think it was just the mushrooming campaign debt, coupled with the polls showing Santorum getting hammered in his home state.

"RE: Finally"
Posted by dabo on 04-10-12 at 10:54 PM
While it is good he's out of the running, I wish Newt would follow suit but he's determined to get his message out. Which amounts to more name-calling, slanderous lies, etc.

Anyway, Santorum has supposedly used his daughter's illness as an excuse to bow out/save face. Specious as that seems, we should all of course wish the child well and as much good health as possible. Not to make light of trisomy 18, which is a pretty severe genetic disorder from what I've read, shame he didn't make advancing medical research part of his campaign.

"RE: Finally"
Posted by AyaK on 04-13-12 at 09:12 AM
LAST EDITED ON 04-13-12 AT 09:13 AM (EST)

From Santorum's viewpoint, losing his home state to Romney would have been devastating to his credibility. The polls made it clear that he was going to lose Pennsylvania by a much greater margin than he lost Wisconsin. So he made the right move politically to opt out of the race now.

Trisomy 18 most likely means that Bella will never reach age 20. I agree with the medical research comment, but I think Santorum believes that there are things "man was not meant to know", such as the will of God -- and certain medical treatments that might depend on stem cell research.

"RE: Finally"
Posted by dabo on 04-13-12 at 11:16 AM
Well, from what I understand, 50% of Trisomy 18 cases are stillborn and a large percentage of live births do not survive to their first birthday. And, yeah, those who live longer aren't given any prospect of a normal lifespan, it is very unfortunate.

Shame he didn't make medical research one of his causes, he was well situationed to do so. Instead he was against diagnostic pre-natal testing like amniocentesis because it "promotes" abortion. Partial truth (a diagnostic tool is simply a diagnostic tool) in that the results of amniocentesis can indicate something like trisomy 18, though whether to abort would still a choice; but wouldn't it be better to know in advance and be prepared for it rather than expect a happy healthy baby?

Anyway, better he is out. Now I have to determine whether to vote Democratic in the primary to support some of the good local people, or switch to Republican and support Lugar who unfortunately is facing a strong anti-incumbent campaign within his own party.

Not much of a fan of Lugar but he is preferable over Mourdack.

"RE: Finally"
Posted by AyaK on 04-13-12 at 01:01 PM
My understanding is that only about 1% of children born with Trisomy 18 even make it to age 10 and none have ever survived their teens.

And I agree about amnio.

Good luck in the primary, whichever way you vote.

"RE: Finally"
Posted by Snidget on 04-13-12 at 02:14 PM
It is one of the trisomies where a few children do survive long enough to be born. The survivability is really low and the developmental defects, IIRC are usually pretty severe.

A lot of chromosomal defects never make it past the first or second trimester.

"If Mourdock beats Lugar..."
Posted by Max Headroom on 04-13-12 at 07:08 PM
...our senator will be Joe Donnelly in November. Haven't the Republicans learned that Tea Party wackos always get shellacked in the general election?
"RE: If Mourdock beats Lugar..."
Posted by AyaK on 04-13-12 at 08:02 PM
Apparently not. There are plenty of far-right wingers hoping to knock off Lugar and Orrin Hatch this year.

http://tinyurl.com/ce7msfo

"RE: If Mourdock beats Lugar..."
Posted by dabo on 04-13-12 at 09:02 PM
Yeah. I don't know how it is everywhere in the state but I've seen an awful lot of Retire Lugar signs pop up over the past few weeks.
"So"
Posted by dabo on 05-04-12 at 09:53 PM
Which poll to believe?

http://argojournal.blogspot.com/2012/05/poll-watch-magellan-strategies-r.html

Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Poll Watch: Magellan Strategies (R) Indiana 2012 Republican Senatorial Primary Survey
Magellan Strategies (R) Indiana 2012 GOP Senate Primary Poll

Richard Lugar 44%
Richard Mourdock 42%
Undecided 14%
Survey of 400 likely GOP primary voters was conducted May 1, 2012.

http://argojournal.blogspot.com/2012/05/poll-watch-howeydepauw-indiana-2012.html

Friday, May 04, 2012
Poll Watch: Howey/DePauw Indiana 2012 Republican Senatorial Primary Survey
Howey/DePauw Indiana 2012 GOP Senate Primary Poll

Richard Mourdock 48%
Richard Lugar 38%
Undecided 14%
Survey of 700 likely GOP primary voters was conducted April 30 - May 1, 2012

Odd that the undecideds are the same.

"Newt demonstrates budgeting for you."
Posted by Estee on 04-13-12 at 07:16 AM
http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/gingrich-check-bounced-in-utah-1029128.php

Always nice to get a sneak preview of future policy.

"RE: Newt demonstrates budgeting for you."
Posted by AyaK on 04-13-12 at 09:06 AM
Actually, we got a chance to see Newt's agenda this week: get himself a commenter job on CNN.

The campaign is just an extended audition.

"RE: Newt demonstrates budgeting for you."
Posted by bondt007 on 04-13-12 at 06:13 PM
Thats not even close to future policy - that's political standard policy!


"RE: Newt demonstrates budgeting for you."
Posted by Estee on 04-13-12 at 06:18 PM
So you're saying it's only April and he's already in midseason form?
"RE: Newt demonstrates budgeting for you."
Posted by bondt007 on 04-18-12 at 03:13 PM
It's certainly House policy...


"Newt: Arm The World."
Posted by Estee on 04-17-12 at 06:49 PM
In speaking to the NRA, he said that should he become President, he will present the United Nations with a mandate to make bearing arms a universal human right so that all might fight the people who are trying to oppress them.

I consider Newt's part of the GOP to be actively trying to oppress me.

...feeling kind of torn right now.

"RE: Newt: Arm The World."
Posted by dabo on 04-18-12 at 01:22 AM
LOL!

I am not even going to get into the issue of the right to bear arms as a worldwide human right, god-given or otherwise.

Poor Newt. Over the past two weeks, largely unnoticed and per the conventions in various states, more delegates have been confirmed.

Rick Santorum - 8.
Mitt Romney - 27.
Ron Paul - 10.
Newt Gingrich - 0.

I don't know if he thinks he can pick up more support now that Santorum has dropped out, but he is becoming a parody.

"RE: Newt: Arm The World."
Posted by AyaK on 04-21-12 at 04:46 AM
Newt's new campaign theme song: "Fly Me to the Moon."
"Coronation Day Primaries"
Posted by dabo on 04-24-12 at 01:27 PM
Are Here!

Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island up for grabs, oh gosh and that looks mighty regional. Scuttlebutt is that Newt will drop out if he doesn't do well in Delaware. Gosh, what does that mean? Let's hope he doesn't score a way behind but respectable double-digit percentage second place?

"RE: Coronation Day Primaries"
Posted by CTgirl on 04-24-12 at 01:44 PM
The only political signs I've seen around town today are for Ron Paul, LOL.
"It doesn't matter..."
Posted by Estee on 04-24-12 at 01:47 PM
...because no one in those states is a real Republican! He'll do so much better when the actual diehard members get to vote! (When was that going to be, exactly?)
"RE: It doesn't matter..."
Posted by Snidget on 04-24-12 at 02:37 PM
LAST EDITED ON 04-24-12 AT 02:41 PM (EST)

Well Newt's been campaigning around here, with the my platform is to impeach Obama as the State Commissioner of Agriculture republicans...

I don't think they'll die easy around here.

"RE: Coronation Day Primaries"
Posted by dabo on 04-25-12 at 00:32 AM
Well, predictably, Romney swept all five primaries tonight, bazinga. Paul pulls in at healthy second places in Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island. Out of the race Santorum places second in Pennsylvania where he was going to place second anyway. Gingrich, who spent a lot of money in Delaware, places second with some 27%, vows to take it to North Carolina.

Hey, look at it this way, at least he's still spending money somewhere boosting up the local economy. Not his own personal money really, mostly it is debt, very governmental. WTG, Newt!

"Newt gives up . . . next week"
Posted by AyaK on 04-25-12 at 10:55 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/25/gingrich-to-suspend-presidential-campaign-next-tuesday-sources-say/
"RE: Newt gives up . . . next week"
Posted by dabo on 04-25-12 at 11:51 AM
It probably just means he's out of other people's money to borrow. Surprised he isn't waiting two weeks to see how things go in NC.

Anyway, YAY! Er, but there goes my chance to cast an anti-Newt vote just once.

"The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by AyaK on 04-25-12 at 11:34 PM
LAST EDITED ON 04-25-12 AT 11:36 PM (EST)

I didn't want to start a new thread for this, and now that the GOP race is over, this looked like a good place.

The AZ immigration law made it to the Supreme Court today. Four provisions of the law had been blocked by the 9th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, and I really hadn't paid any attention to the bill (except for mockery) until today. However, after reading the briefs, I believe that two of those four provisions will be upheld by the court, a third will be held to have been preempted by Congress, and only the fourth (albeit most famous) provision will be struck down hard.

That fourth provision, of course, is horrible. It would have turned Arizona into Nazi Germany, where people would be required to have valid immigration papers on them at all times, and any cop with reasonable suspicion could demand to see them and arrest you if you couldn't produce them. How many movies set in WWII Germany have we seen where people were asked for their papers by the Gestapo? ("Papieren, bitte,") Did the AZ legislators somehow miss those movies? How did they think it would be Constitutional to require people to carry their papers at all times? Did they miss the 4th Amendment classes?

A second provision, which criminalized applying for a job in AZ without such valid documents, clearly is pre-empted by federal law that places the onus for not hiring illegals on employers (the reason that employers have to have employees fill out and maintain I-9s).

A third provision is clearly OK: police are allowed to check immigration status of people they have reasonable suspicion of and to turn them over to ICE if they're illegals. One of the 2-judge majority on the 9th Circuit said that he voted to strike this down because Mexico didn't like it. Well, guess what: U.S. law is not set by Mexico and is not beholden to Mexico in any way. (THe other judge voted to strike it down because he's a far-left nutcase.) And Solicitor General Verrilli sounded incompetent at best and imbecilic at worst when he argued that Arizona arresting these people would burden the federal government, apparently because the executive branch really didn't want immigration laws enforced.

The fourth provision is more problematic, but the procedural posture of the case dictates the outcome. The provision permits warrantless arrests of people who have a deportable crime on their records. Because the U.S. government sued to prevent the law from being enforced, it would have to lose if there was any way which this provision could be enforced within the existing law. So say that police look someone up and find that (a) he's an illegal and (b) he has a murder conviction in the U.S. Murder is a deportable crime. If the policeman then arrests the person under this provision, he has only acted to enforce the federal law, so his action can't be preempted, and on these facts he also hasn't violated the 14th Amendment. Thus, this provision should be permitted to take effect, even if it does present the serious risk of a 14th Amendment violation as enforced.

It's nice to separate the law from the rhetoric for a change.

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by Estee on 04-26-12 at 08:50 AM
How did they think it would be Constitutional to require people to carry their papers at all times? Did they miss the 4th Amendment classes?

It's worth repeating myself: the far right has declared their absolute dedication to defending a document which virtually none of them have ever read. And if they did read it, they just ignored the parts they didn't like. But then, the lesson is supposed to be that educating yourself is bad -- on any subject. Only elitists know enough to realize when someone's trying to screw them over, and that? Is wrong. The knowing, that is. The screwing was sanctioned by party policy and is the only kind permitted outside of marriage.

If you think Arizona's fun, just wait until you see what South Carolina's been coming up with lately -- or as I like to think of it, South Stalingrad...

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by AyaK on 04-26-12 at 08:12 PM
LAST EDITED ON 04-27-12 AT 00:50 AM (EST)

Paul Clement, who (as we discussed before) was George Bush's Solicitor General, argued the case for Arizona. There are four provisions of the bill at issue: sections 2(B), 3 (the "papers" provision), 5(C) and 6.

Clement made four excellent arguments, including a very good (and perhaps correct) argument that the employee penalties weren't preempted. With regard to the "papers" provision, Clement cited 8 U.S.C. 1304(e), a provision of the federal immigration code with which I wasn't familiar. Here's what it says:

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties. Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

Yikes! So it was Congress, not Arizona, that came up with this stupid requirement of carrying papers. It's apparently been in the federal code for over 20 years.

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by Estee on 04-26-12 at 08:34 PM
*facepalm*

Which puts it back in the hands of His Most Distinguished Wimposity and those who fearlessly backed him all the way. *groan* Okay, so now that has to be challenged under separate cover. Has anyone been enforcing that in the intervening score of years since it came up? Anyone at all?

Gawds, this country can svck. Legislated bigotry with a grandfather clause...

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by kingfish on 04-26-12 at 09:59 PM
You want your *facepalm* moment?

Our country was founded by bigots.

We are led by bigots.

Our laws are made and enforced by bigots.

We are judged by bigots.

We vote for bigots.

Bigots are our heros, we put them on statues and carve their faces into mountains.

Our babies will grow up to be bigots.

Their babies will grow up to be bigots too.

And we all deny that we are bigoted.

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by Estee on 04-26-12 at 10:45 PM
TYCO.
"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by kingfish on 04-27-12 at 08:31 AM
Take Your Country Over?

Dennis Kozlowski?

Training Youth Cells Overtly?

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by Estee on 04-27-12 at 09:01 AM
Thank You, Captain Obvious.
"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by kingfish on 04-27-12 at 02:07 PM
Hey, I've been promoted from Captain Oblivious.

(Or was that a lateral move?)

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by AyaK on 04-27-12 at 04:13 AM
Believe it or not, this provision was added to federal immigration law in 1952. See section 264(e) of the following public law:

http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 04-27-12 at 08:38 AM
Since I have direct knowledge of the requirement to carry papers since Mrs. Hobbs and I went through USCIS's process.

That requirement is only for those legal immigrants/alien and no one else. Mrs. Hobbs was required to have a copy or her Green Card or fiancé(e) Visa. It was explained to us that it would explain to the police if pulled over her limited records in their system and if you were arrested it would tell the police to call ICE. It would also tell employers that you could be hired legally before you get hired and fill out your I-9 plus an employment form for USCIS.

It does not apply to any US citizen which is what people were arguing about in the AZ law. If you were a US citizen you don't have to carry papers but the law says if the cops have supposition that you are here illegally they can take you to jail until it's cleared up. Now if I'm in AZ with a Michigan drivers license which you don't need to prove you're a citizen to get they could hold me until someone got a copy of my birth certificate or passport to them. Or you are just going to the store (walk, bike, riding in a car, etc.) and it gets pulled over and you don't have your wallet. Off to jail you go.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by dabo on 04-27-12 at 12:06 PM
Add to that: Some of the people who are legally here are in a limbo status as far as the federal government is concerned, while their cases are being processed. For example, any Cuban who makes it to America and files for political asylum is, technically, an illegal alien but has temporary provisional permission to be in the US while his/her case is being processed. Under federal law such people have a protected status, similar to witness protection, but under the Arizona law they are simply illegal aliens subject to detention and deportation.
"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by AyaK on 04-27-12 at 07:24 PM
dabo, I'm sorry I didn't see this before, or I would havwe responded to it then.

You're also incorrect. How much bad info is out there?

From the SCOTUS transcript (p. 33):

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-182.pdf

CLEMENT: "<I>f you're somebody who, if you did go to register, would be told, 'You're fine, but we can't give you a registration document,' that that individual's not subject to prosecution under the Federal statute <and> therefore wouldn't be subject to prosecution under the State statute."

See the whole discussion, from Justice Alito's question on p. 31.

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by dabo on 04-27-12 at 08:01 PM
Interesting. From what I heard reported, the federal government withholds information regarding those seeking asylum as a matter of course, while their cases are pending and afterwards, for the protection of those people. It is a genuine matter of security (though realistically, of course, the Castros aren't really trying to hunt down every Cuban seeking asylum in the US, if any at all, but some people seeking asylum genuinely do need the security). In other words, ask about certain people, even if you happen to be the state of Arizona, the federal position is NOYB.

Appreciate the reading matter and the pointer, will go read again and try to dope it out.

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by AyaK on 04-27-12 at 06:07 PM
Actually, all the police can do under that circumstance (with reasonable suspicion but not probable cause) is what is called a "Terry stop."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

They can't "take you to jail until it's cleared up." Your claim is simply wrong. Where did you hear such nonsense?

Federal law mandates that the U.S. government has to supply answers to such immigration status questions from local law enforcement officials within an average of 10 minutes.

Part of the government's argument in the Supreme Court case was that, although it does supply the answers within an average of 10 minutes (because not to do so would be illegal), it makes local officials wait on hold for an hour or more before they get to talk to a live person to provide the answer, making a "Terry stop" time frame impossible. Needless to say, no one on the Supreme Court thought highly of the Obama administration's "compliance" with federal law.

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by dabo on 04-27-12 at 06:56 PM
LAST EDITED ON 04-27-12 AT 07:03 PM (EST)

The re-por-tage I've seen and heard on this case, this week, has been primarily about the arguments presented before SCOTUS, pro and con, rather than substance in the law. On the pro side the argument is that the federal government doesn't actually try to enforce federal law because it has priorities and focuses mainly on the genuine criminal element amongst illegals, ignoring the vast majority of just regular normal people who happen to be here illegally, so Arizona can facilitate enforcement of federal law. On the con side, Arizona forcing the federal government to deal with the vast majority of illegals will simply overwhelm the system and distract attention away from pursuing murderers, drug runners, bank robbers, horse thieves, cattle rustlers, claim jumpers, whatever.

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by AyaK on 04-27-12 at 07:10 PM
LAST EDITED ON 04-27-12 AT 07:10 PM (EST)

But nothing in the Arizona law forces the federal government to do anything. If the feds say, yes, that person is an illegal, but ICE doesn't want to be bothered, so let them go, then Arizona has no choice but to let them go.

Of course, Arizona will (I'm certain) track that and use it against any federal administration that (like Obama's) refuses to enforce federal law. But that's what should be happening in a federalist system.

As far as the reporters, they report Supreme Court cases like a football game. There was a fascinating tax case on the intersection between Chevron deference and precedent this week, on which the court split 5-4 (not along strict ideological lines) in favor of precedent, upholding a 4th Circuit decision and overturning a Federal Circuit one. Hear anything about it? (I already know the answer to that.)

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 05-07-12 at 09:05 AM
Sorry for the non-response....I forgot this was in here and that I posted.

The can take you to jail until it's cleared up comes from the AZ law not the US Government/USCIS.

I don't know if it made it in the part of the final bill as I was looking for it on the AZ legislative web site but at one point I know I read in part of it that if you didn't have the proper papers in AZ then they could hold you until you produced them. Now a Michigan drivers license you don't need to show that you're a citizen so if I was picked up in AZ that would not be a "proper papers" so I would need my passport or birth certificate. Now that I'm trailing inside of the US I normally don't carry those. Thus why you could be in jail for some time until someone cleared up your citizenship. I do know that was one of the big problems people had with the bill so again I don't know and can't find it in the final bill right now and I really don't have a ton of time to look more than I have due to a sinkhole that we've been working on for 2 weeks now.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by AyaK on 05-08-12 at 05:03 PM
>The can take you to jail until it's cleared up comes
>from the AZ law not the US Government/USCIS.
>
>I don't know if it made it in the part of the final bill as I
>was looking for it on the AZ legislative web site
>but at one point I know I read in part of it that if you
>didn't have the proper papers in AZ then they could
>hold you until you produced them.

Only if you're validly under arrest for something else. Here is the relevant provision from AZ S.B. 1070 / H.B. 2162:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN AND IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION. 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

So if opposition to this bill was based on the belief that people who were not in violation of the law in any way could be stopped and then held indefinitely, such opposition would be based on ignorance of the law.

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 05-09-12 at 07:36 AM
But what is reasonable suspicion for the cops to make the stop in the first place. I think there is the biggest problem most have with the law. If you're picked up and are in customary then checking immigration status to me is just another check box to fill in and like you said it's up to ICE to say send them over or cut them lose.

Again if I get stopped in AZ and they ask and all I have is my Michigan Drivers license then they can hold me until my immigration status is determined because MI DL don't require proof of citizenship to be issues.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: The Arizona immigration law"
Posted by AyaK on 05-09-12 at 11:44 AM
>Again if I get stopped in AZ and they ask and all I have is my
>Michigan Drivers license then they can hold me until my
>immigration status is determined because
>MI DL don't require proof of citizenship to be issues.

For the reasons I have already explained above, this is complete nonsense, but I'm tired of making the same point over and over again only to see the same arguments. I'm done with this discussion.

"May 8th cannot come soon enough"
Posted by Snidget on 04-30-12 at 09:30 PM
Candidates what candidates we have Amendment One coverage out the wazoo and way too many ads.

And then there is this. http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/04/north-carolina-man-films-himself-firing.html

Do you think he was smart enough to use fake names for himself and the camera guy before firing a shotgun in what looks to be within the city limits?

"RE: May 8th cannot come soon enough"
Posted by dabo on 05-01-12 at 00:30 AM
What a dumdum. With any luck he and his cameraman buddy will be sitting in lock-up unable to cast their votes. (With or without them, from a couple articles I searched up it seems like the amendment will fail.)
"RE: May 8th cannot come soon enough"
Posted by Snidget on 05-01-12 at 07:36 AM
LAST EDITED ON 05-01-12 AT 08:11 AM (EST)

Hard to know, a small change in turnout for the primary could make a difference and the pacs seem to be funding the pro side pretty hard these last few days. ETA: And some polls still have it passing, just not by the landslide that some earlier polls showed it would pass by, /edit.

Don't pay attention to that "and no other similar thing allowed either" clause as all our experts say it won't effect anything.

Well if it cannot legally change anything for anyone why did they have to add that. Why not have the exact language of the already existing DOM law?

Current law

“Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.”

"Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

I don't think those say the same thing, but everyone is insisting they do.

"RE: May 8th cannot come soon enough"
Posted by AyaK on 05-01-12 at 09:39 AM
Amazing. The constitutional amendment is intended to also prevent recognition of civil unions, but the partially incoherent "freedom of contract" language at the end of the amendment basically permits civil unions as a matter of contract. Apparently it was added to avoid the possible applicability of the Equal Protection Clause as used in Loving v. Virginia (the Supreme Court case that struck down the anti-mixed race marriage laws) to this amendment. Marriages and civil unions aren't permitted under those names, but they are nonetheless permitted as a matter of contract law. I wonder how narrowly the state would try to interpret that exception if this asinine measure passes.

The one real argument in favor of this law (if you support its position) is that a simple state law prohibiting same-sex marriages from being recognized in NC might not stand up under the logic that a state has to have a compelling reason to not respect marriages valid in another state under the "public policy exception" to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, but a state constitutional amendment is more likely to survive scrutiny.

I hope the momentum shift described in this article continues, and that's all I want to say about it.

"RE: May 8th cannot come soon enough"
Posted by Snidget on 05-01-12 at 10:40 AM
It's kinda funny, one of the people who was part of writing it is now planning to vote against it.

I dunno if they liked the language until it got public scrutiny or what. This did not get the usual procedure with things like public comment before the legislature passed this thing at midnight and frankly as much as I'd vote against it for my political leanings I'm more about voting against it because of the process by which the legislature railroaded it onto the ballot. I'd like to think that even if they did something I wanted the state to do in a way that subverts the process I'd vote against it. But I dunno if I could be that principled or not. Sadly I fear that it won't be long before I'm put in that conundrum.

The other funny thing is one of the very conservative types that is against the bill is amused that for once when he is being quoted by the ultra-liberals accurately. http://www.npr.org/2012/04/26/151450256/n-c-gay-marriage-amendment-has-unlikely-foes

"RE: May 8th cannot come soon enough"
Posted by dabo on 05-07-12 at 01:57 PM
Unfortunately, most recent polls show Amendment One still passing, the opposition numbers stalled and fell off. Polling also showed that the amendment is opposed by 61% of those who do understand that it would destroy civil unions as well, but the majority of voters still don't seem to know that.
"RE: May 8th cannot come soon enough"
Posted by Snidget on 05-07-12 at 06:30 PM
PAC funding is really getting obnoxious.

Now getting the push-back from the "what the wording of the amendment might be"

Love the Vote Facts not Fear.

So people against gay marriage have no fear.

They don't fear accepting gays (like not hitting them) will make their kids gay.

They don't fear that "activist" judges will do something against church law.

They don't fear that gays with non-marriages of any kind from other states will move here and contaminate the soil and water.

Etc.

They are fearless, rational, objective people who picked one type of marriage in the bible and follow a handful of the Laws of Leviticus because there is no reason to follow all the other ones and give up the pig pickings and deep fat fried shrimp.

"Pastor takes the commandment to use church to get out the vote too far."
Posted by Snidget on 05-03-12 at 07:20 AM
http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2012/05/02/1174936?sac=fo.local

And we wonder why there are so many suicides among gay teens.

"New slogan."
Posted by Estee on 05-03-12 at 07:52 AM
Religion

Not that bigotry needs an excuse, but what the hell.

"RE: New slogan."
Posted by Snidget on 05-03-12 at 07:57 AM
Who Would Jesus Hit?
"RE: New slogan."
Posted by kingfish on 05-03-12 at 09:12 AM
"...but what I do stand by is that the word of God makes it clear that effeminate behavior is ungodly."

So, he's not against homosexuality, just girly people.

Bull dykes everywhere breathe a sigh of relief.

"RE: New slogan."
Posted by Estee on 05-03-12 at 12:43 PM
Feminine women, on the other hand, are in for a world of Biblical hurt.
"RE: New slogan."
Posted by newsomewayne on 05-03-12 at 01:08 PM
So in other words, nothings changed.

<----------Likes to help out where he can.

"RE: New slogan."
Posted by Estee on 05-03-12 at 01:13 PM
It's always nice when I can agree with you in a political thread.

Also depressing.

...make that mostly depressing.

"So...?"
Posted by dabo on 05-01-12 at 11:57 PM
When is Mewt going to drop out, I thought it was this week?
"He's Out!"
Posted by dabo on 05-02-12 at 04:34 PM
Of course, being a speaker he has to be long-winded about it.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11506605-gingrich-finally-suspends-bid-for-the-presidency?lite

video runs 23:04.

"My wife has pointed out to me approximately 219 times, give or take three, that the moon colony was probably not my most clever comment in this campaign. I thought, frankly, in my role providing material for Saturday night live it was helpful but the underlying key point is real,” Gingrich joked.

"RE: He's Out!"
Posted by Estee on 05-02-12 at 06:48 PM
*looks at post title*

Wonder how many gay Americans just threw up.

"Fauxcahontas"
Posted by AyaK on 05-04-12 at 03:11 PM
That's the new nickname of whitebread Prof. Elizabeth Warren, who claims 1/32nd Cherokee heritage (yes, her great-great-great-grandmother) and, as a result, claimed to be Native American as she worked her way up the law school ladder to Harvard Law.

Once she reached Harvard, she dropped the claim (although Harvard didn't, which is how she got caught).

Because, after all, diversity is just a scam that good liberals are permitted to use to advance themselves without having to feel guilty about depriving real minorities of opportunities.

Fauxcahontas is running for the U.S. Senate here in Massachusetts against Republican Sen. Scott Brown with the ardent supporrt of the liberal base. The fact that she's a fraud doesn't seem to have affected her support among the leftist fringe.

Speaking of frauds, the Boston Globe-Democrat ran a puff piece about how she worked her way up from poverty. After it ran, it turned out that, far from being poor, her parents bought her an MG when she turned 16 and lived in a nice neighborhood. Now she claims that she was on the "jagged edge of the middle class."

It's too bad that she probably won't make it to Washington, because she'd fit in perfectly with all the fakes and scam artists around Obama.

"RE: Fauxcahontas"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 05-11-12 at 08:09 AM
So with the new information that she checked white as her race for U. of TX and No to "Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?" for Rutgers going to change your mind about Brown's campaign charges?


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Fauxcahontas"
Posted by AyaK on 05-16-12 at 07:21 PM
LAST EDITED ON 05-16-12 AT 07:25 PM (EST)

You can be fired for lying on an actual job application. Warren was a good enough lawyer to only lie about her ethnic heritage on her pre-hiring forms and her published biographies, for which you technically can't be fired . . . and the con is even more effective that way.

Some people are easily conned. We call them "Democrats."

P.S. It appears Fauxcahontas' claim of even 1/32nd Native American heritage was fake. But that fits in with Obama's "smoke and mirrors" re-election strategy this year.

"RE: Fauxcahontas"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 05-17-12 at 11:21 AM
I guess that's a no.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Fauxcahontas"
Posted by AyaK on 06-03-12 at 11:52 AM
I doubt that the news made it to sites like TPM, Daily Kos and Media Matters, but this week, after Harvard undercut her story, "Lieawatha" Warren, who is 0.0% Cherokee (even the claim of 1/32nd Cherokee heritage turned out to be a lie), admitted that she had told Harvard Law School during the hiring process that she was a Native American, which is why Harvard immediately publicized its hiring of a "woman of color" -- true only if the color is lily-white.

This weekend, Lieawatha claimed that her parents eloped because of tensions between their two families over her mother’s ancestry. But the Cherokee themselves, who are tired of Lieawatha's fakery, obtained a copy of Warrens’ parents’ marriage certificate "from Hughes County, Oklahoma, dated January 4, 1932. The marriage took place in Holdenville, Oklahoma, the county seat, located approximately 14 miles from Wetumpka, Oklahoma, which both the 21-year-old groom, Donald J. Herring, and 19-year-old bride, Pauline Reed, declared as their residence. …

"According to the document, the marriage was performed by Sidney H. Babcock, pastor of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Holdensville, Oklahoma."

Some elopement. But I'm sure she'll come up with anther new lie to explain it. Or maybe she'll just say, like she did with the Native American BS, that her parents told her it was true, and if we talk about it, we're dissing her parents.

My favorite lie is Lieawatha's claim that she was the first nursing mother to take the bar in the state of New Jersey. When New Jersey said that there was no record of that, she then said that one of the people supervising the exam told her that was true. Sure.

You know, you have to admire her for making it as far as she did, with all of the lies that her parents and other adults told her.

Then Lieawatha told the Democratic convention just this weekend that her maternal grandmother had taken part in the Sooner land rush of 1889 and then had lived to see her youngest granddaughter (Lieawatha) graduate from college and become a teacher. The problem with that was that her grandmother died in 1969, and Lieawatha didn't graduate from college until 1970. Although this is only a minor lie in the greater scheme of Lieawatha's lies, it's just more evidence that Lieawatha and the truth are strangers.

"Indiana's primary dilemma."
Posted by Max Headroom on 05-07-12 at 10:18 AM
Since the Romney coronation is now complete, that leaves us with one burning political question: Do the Republicans renominate 895-year-old Dick Lugar for his Senate seat or choose Richard Mourdock? The answer will be determined tomorrow.

Hint: Anybody remember Sharron Angle? The quickest way to flip a Senate seat to Democrat is for the Republicans to send the Tea Party candidate to the general election.

"RE: Indiana's primary dilemma."
Posted by dabo on 05-07-12 at 12:45 PM
I actually do prefer having one Senator from each party, as long as they can work together it's better that way. Mourdock seems unlikely to work with anyone who isn't Palin approved, though, so another do-nothing, ugh. If I could be certain Donnelly could beat MOurdock, YAY! Lugar wins easily in November if he beats Mourdock tomorrow.
"RE: Indiana's primary dilemma."
Posted by cahaya on 05-08-12 at 12:06 PM
LAST EDITED ON 05-08-12 AT 12:48 PM (EST)

I'm about to go vote for Lugar. I knew the family when I was in high school (one of his sons when to my HS) and always liked Lugar and his family.

Mourdock is a Sourdock, a Toilet Paper dispenser who in my mind is quite dispensable.

That, and the Sanitarium crypt keeper actually went out of his way to endorse Sourdock, which makes it that much more imperative that I vote today.

(eta) And with Romney yesterday falsely claiming credit for the Detroit automakers turnaround, Ron Paul got my vote.

FWIW, you can only vote in the R or the D primaries, not both. I figured saving Lugar was too important to pass up, thus the R ballot.

"RE: Indiana's primary dilemma."
Posted by dabo on 05-08-12 at 01:20 PM
If Lugar can swing it through this one, good. I almost switched to vote for him myself but the numbers just aren't very favorable. Wound up backing my neighbor on the Democratic ballot for state representative. Hey, I know where he lives! Plus I could throw my support to a couple of decent guys for county council.
"RE: Indiana's primary dilemma."
Posted by Max Headroom on 05-08-12 at 02:56 PM
*sits with cahaya*

Protest vote for Ron Paul: Check.
Vote for Lugar: Check.

"WTG!"
Posted by dabo on 05-09-12 at 00:32 AM
Unfortunately, Lugar lost big, 39%, the final numbers were even worse than I was expecting. Shame, he did a lot of good things over the years, despite my disagreements with him he was a practical voice in the Senate.

But as I said, WTG! On the protest vote. Paul pulled a very respectable 2nd place, 16%, to Romney's at this point anemic 65%. Hope Mitt was paying attention.

On the bright side, my neighbor won his bid to run for the Indiana House, YAY! Maybe now the postman will be more attentive and I won't end up getting his mail every now and then.

"RE: Indiana's primary dilemma."
Posted by dabo on 05-08-12 at 06:02 PM
And now we're getting a lot of reports of low turn-out across Indiana.
"Lugar loses"
Posted by AyaK on 05-08-12 at 08:22 PM
. . . but you've got to love this "reporting" by NBC:

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11604125-nbc-news-projects-lugar-defeated-in-indiana-primary?lite

Lugar, 80, along with Utah’s Orrin Hatch, is the longest serving Republican in the Senate. But like GOP senators Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, Bob Bennett in Utah, and Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania in 2010, Lugar found himself challenged by those in his party who decided he was not conservative enough on federal spending.

Huh? In 2010, Arlen Specter was defeated in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania for not being liberal enough. I know, facts are hard things for reporters to get straight, but it makes your article less likely to be mocked when you take the time to get them right.

So where does Richard Mourdock come out? Some of the Tea Party candidates in 2010 lost winnable seats (Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Christine O'Donnell, Crazy Joe Miller). But some won, too (Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey, Rand Paul, Mike Lee). Which will be the case here?

"RE: Lugar loses"
Posted by dabo on 05-08-12 at 09:51 PM
Don't know. The most recent poll I saw on a projected Donnelly-Mourdock contest had them tied with tons of undecided, basically a useless poll. It will depend on how strong a campaign Donnelly can mount and how much funding and party backing he can get, which under the circumstances should be plenty.

Donnelly is a moderate blue dog, the NRA likes him, so Mourdock probably won't be able to brand him as a socialist. I expect a pretty heated campaign.

"RE: Lugar loses"
Posted by cahaya on 05-08-12 at 10:22 PM
I have a notion that there are going to be enough Centrist Pubs and independents who, if they don't vote for Donnelly, at least won't vote for Mourdock. There will be some resentment in the Pub ranks with Lugar's outster.

Here's a case of where I would have voted for an incumbent Pub (Lugar) had he won the primary, where I will now switch my November vote to a Dem (Donnelly). And from the e-mails, phone calls and chit-chat I've heard today and this evening with Hoosier friends and family, I'm not the only one.

"RE: Lugar loses"
Posted by Max Headroom on 05-11-12 at 08:33 AM
I'm a longtime Republican voter, yet I will not be voting for Mourdock in November. When a politician of either party adopts a pugilistic "No compromising for me" mindset, as a moderate I run for the hills. That's a proven recipe for dysfunction and gridlock.

As for Romney, if he could define a position and stick to it for more than five minutes, he'd have a shot at getting my vote. Right now he's sitting next to Mourdock on my "vote for their opponent because I can't stand them" list.

"RE: Lugar loses"
Posted by AyaK on 05-16-12 at 07:28 PM
All I can say to that is what I'd say to any Obama 2008 voter: "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
"Lugar's parting words (worth noting)"
Posted by cahaya on 05-09-12 at 01:38 PM
Key points in his prepared statement, distributed quietly after his vanilla concession speech (bold is mine):

The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy... I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators...

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it...

Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years.

"Sore Lugar?"
Posted by AyaK on 05-10-12 at 10:41 AM
But how is that unique to Republicans? Is it somehow different from Joe Lieberman losing the 2006 Democratic primary in Connecticut or Arlen Spector losing the 2010 Democratic primary in Pennsylvania because they weren't liberal enough?

Well, in one sense, it is. It's happened three times to Republicans in the last two years (Bob Bennett, Lisa Murkowski, Richard Lugar), with a fourth race still continuing (Orrin Hatch), but it's only twice to Democrats in the last six years. So it may be slightly more frequent among Republicans. But it isn't frequent.

I do believe that things have gotten even more partisan. But I think that trend has been constant since Robert Bork got Borked.

"Why isn't this man running?"
Posted by Estee on 05-08-12 at 05:32 PM
http://www.thejanedough.com/rev-jesse-lee-peterson-women-vote/

I'd track down the Hannity video, but I might want to eat again sometime in the next century. Anyone want to risk it?

"RE: Why isn't this man running?"
Posted by Snidget on 05-08-12 at 05:55 PM
LAST EDITED ON 05-08-12 AT 05:59 PM (EST)

This link seems to have the Hannity show, finally clicked the link to see, the label wasn't clear about it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/07/fox-news-contributor-laments-mistake-of-letting-women-vote/ and has the link to the original sermon in March.

Sounds like he would like to send black people back to the plantation for some work ethic instruction as well.

"RE: Why isn't this man running?"
Posted by cahaya on 05-08-12 at 10:30 PM
Oh, don't even bother with that. Just ship 'em back and drop them at the shores.

I swear, after seeing today's voting results, I'm convinced we live in a schizophrenic society without any semblance of an identity.

"RE: Why isn't this man running?"
Posted by kingfish on 05-09-12 at 11:55 AM
That is our identity.

We're schizophrenic but we're one with that.

We're bigoted and we don't see it.

We're hypocritical and we agree on that.

We're color blind except when it comes to color.

We're hypertensive and we're cool with that.

I'm right and you're wrong.

We're drunk and... well, we're just drunk.

And we're all slap happy idiots.

"RE: Why isn't this man running?"
Posted by AyaK on 05-09-12 at 02:43 PM
LAST EDITED ON 05-09-12 AT 02:46 PM (EST)

You all would enjoy the video. Hannity has three guests: Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers, Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, and Peterson (who was just a guest). Oblivious to Peterson's issues, Hannity starts off on a rant about Obama's boasting about taking out OBL and throws it to Powers to support his position. Instead, she says that she's hijacking the show and calls Peterson out about his misogynistic YouTube rants. Peterson tried to make this about "liberal women" and NOW, while distorting what he said. Hannity briefly defends the scumbag and then moves the focus onto Mourdock against Obama after about 2.5 minutes, saying that it's his show.

He shouldn't have a show.

"RE: Why isn't this man running?"
Posted by dabo on 05-09-12 at 05:43 PM
That was pretty funny. Peterson repeatedly not answering the question he was actually asked, people talking over one another, Hannity being kind of a snit because they went off script, Mourdock just sitting there looking kind of amused by the whole thing. If it is typical of Hannity that he states his opinion and asks his guests to agree with him, yeah, that's kind of a dumb format.
"Absentee ballot drive? "
Posted by Estee on 05-12-12 at 06:39 PM
On an unrelated note, there is a major presidential candidate political rally taking place in my county today.

The presidency in question is that of the Dominican Republic.

"RE: Absentee ballot drive? "
Posted by AyaK on 05-16-12 at 07:29 PM
Are you an eligible voter?
"RE: Absentee ballot drive? "
Posted by Estee on 05-16-12 at 08:06 PM
LAST EDITED ON 05-16-12 AT 08:07 PM (EST)

According to the people who knocked on my door, took one look at me, and immediately walked away, no.

But it's a major push. One party has people flying purple flags, mostly on their cars. The other has blue flags. (And that is the grand sum total of what I know about the difference between the leading candidates.) I still haven't figured out why this huge push is going on. There's enough DR expatriates here to represent a few votes, but not that many. Either the election is that tight or you can vote in it if you've done so much as taken a beach tour in the DR.

It's a little surreal, honestly. And the musical rally got annoying fast.

"RE: Absentee ballot drive? "
Posted by AyaK on 05-17-12 at 10:38 AM
It appears that the election is that close.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/05/10/new-york-may-swing-dominican-republic-presidential-elections/

BTW, the center-right party (PLD) is the purple party. The leftist party (PRD) uses white and blue.

"Barack the Birther"
Posted by AyaK on 05-18-12 at 00:04 AM
In the wake of wannabe senator "Fauxcahontas" Warren comes . . . Barack Obama claiming to be born in Kenya? Really?

Here's how Obama's literary agent described him in a 1991 press release that was up on the Web until 2007:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100158834/obama-used-to-be-a-kenyan/

"Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation."

Now there isn't any question in my mind that Obama was born in Hawaii, just like his birth certificate claims. But Obama's literary agent is unlikely to have decided on his own to bill Obama as Kenyan-born. Instead, it figures that Obama told this whopper to his agent.

Why would Obama do that? Was he like Fauxcahontas, someone who believed that just being his real self was so unsatisfying that he had to dream up a fake identity to claim as his own? That's my best guess.

We elected this fake once. Once is enough.

"RE: Barack the Birther"
Posted by Estee on 05-18-12 at 06:25 AM
LAST EDITED ON 05-18-12 AT 06:34 AM (EST)

The very minor second option is 'At that point, he honestly didn't know.' Quick: name the hospital where you were born.

Okay -- slow, name the hospital where you were born. And some people are never going to come up with it. But misplacing your own birth country... that feels a little harder to do.

Right now, my central two questions on this are:

Why didn't this come out years ago?

And will the birthers accept this as definitive proof of an African birth? 'cause they sure won't take anything as evidence the other way.

ETA: Just thought of a third, more plausible reason: lying to get into a scholarship program. But I don't know how he paid his way through Harvard.

"Most plausible reason?"
Posted by IceCat on 05-18-12 at 08:37 AM


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566

"This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me--an agency assistant at the time," Goderich wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more."

"RE: Most plausible reason?"
Posted by newsomewayne on 05-18-12 at 09:13 AM
How is that the most plausible? I don't see a rational path for that information to be written that way, if incorrect. And like Ayak and Breitbart, I'm seeing this as misdirection from Obama, not a proof of birther theory. Born in Hawaii, raised in Hawaii and Indonesia. How does Kenya ever enter this information?

Of course, I must fully admit that my disgust with the man may cloud my judgement in hopes of valid information that would discredit the man to the fence-sitters.

"RE: Most plausible reason?"
Posted by AyaK on 05-18-12 at 09:26 AM
Sorry, I can't buy it. I've had my bio published a lot of times, and NEVER ONCE was there any information in it that wasn't either provided by me or vetted by me. (I should also add that never once have I identified myself by my connection to "AyaK" either! If someone were to discover that and include it, it would be gone from that bio within minutes, long before it was ever published -- certainly not 16 years later.)

I understand why Obama's agent would take blame for it, just like Andrew Young took the blame for fathering John Edwards' baby with Lisa Druck Rielle Hunter until the National Enquirer blew the story up. But it's so at odds with the way the world works that it's not at all believable.

"ahem"
Posted by dabo on 05-29-12 at 11:52 PM
Those who had 5/29/12 in the office pools, collect your winnings. Losers may file complaints in federal courts against Texas for moving their primary dates to finally settle on a date not originally on the calendar.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/29/11941848-with-texas-win-romney-secures-delegates-to-win-nomination?lite

Mitt Romney won the Republican primary in Texas on Tuesday, a victory that gives him more than the 1,144 delegates needed to secure his party's presidential nomination.

"It's over!"
Posted by AyaK on 05-30-12 at 10:08 AM
Wow. Now on to the general election -- at least, after we get through the Wisconsin recall, in which Scott Walker looks likely to retain the governorship despite a huge cash burn by unions opposed to him.
"RE: It's over!"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 05-30-12 at 10:54 AM
What about the 2/3's cash pumped in out of state for Walker?


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: It's over!"
Posted by dabo on 05-30-12 at 01:59 PM
It's good for the economy, of course. Which theoretically should be bad for the "It's a bad economy we have our excuse" union busting tactics of the union busting branch of the Republican Party.
"In related news..."
Posted by weltek on 05-30-12 at 11:05 AM
Next Tuesday, June 5th, the people of Wisconsin will hit the polls in a recall election that pits republican incumbent Governor Scott Walker against democrat Tom Barrett.

The GOP believes the recall is happening because the unions are upset he and the GOP controlled legislature stripped unions of their power and made state employees start paying a higher percentage of their benefits. If that was what this election was only about, Kathleen Falk, the union-supported Democratic candidate would have won the nomination and we'd see her on the ballot next week insted of Barrett. Sure the unions want a democratic governor and want some power restored. But many, many Wisconsin democrats signed the recall petition and are voting for other primary reasons.

I'll be very, very clear. I will actively vote against candidates that are not social moderates or liberals that aren't willing to sacrifice those ideals at the request of ALEC and big business.


-Handcrafted by RollDdice

"RE: In related news..."
Posted by AyaK on 05-30-12 at 09:21 PM
But many, many Wisconsin democrats signed the recall petition and are voting for other primary reasons.

Sure, because they're upset that Republicans won statewide elections in liberal Wisconsin (the only state east of the Mississippi to have adopted community property). And they loved the idea of their state reps fleeing the state to defeat a Republican quorum on the government union bill.

When all the out-of-state union cash came in to support the recall, they were more than happy to take a crack at winning control of the state again.

But the fun times look like they're going to end for the deep-pocketed unions, which blew $40 million last year to fund the recalls and in a futile effort to win back control of the Wisconsin Senate -- because the nonpartisan polls show Walker solidly ahead:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/poll-walker-ahead-by-7-points-in-wisconsin

I'll be very, very clear. I think permitting government unions was a horrendous 1970s mistake, and I'll vote against any candidate beholden to them. I don't know enough about Scott Walker to have much of an opinion about him, but since the centerpiece of his campaign is ending the cozy relationship between big-spending legislators and government unions, I'm all for him.

"RE: In related news..."
Posted by HobbsofMI on 05-31-12 at 08:05 AM
All that Union money can compete with unlimited PAC money backed by billionaires and Citizen United? (I'm talking about both sides)

What about all the out state money coming in for the anti-recall side?

Give me a break. All our politicians are bought and paid for but this kind of money is getting insane. Thanks Supreme Court.

Think of all you could do with all the money being spent on politics now. The Presidential race alone may top $2 billion for both sides this time around. That's nuts. How is an average person suppose to feel like that matter when they donate money? If they are giving anything less than seven figures no one give a hoot.

Plus if you could get rid of any government worker on a whim you would have cronyism to the max every administration change espeically in today's partisan climate. So the unions do stop that but yes there are other ways like what we have here (merit rules system).


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: In related news..."
Posted by weltek on 05-31-12 at 01:35 PM
And this is where there is a major divide that I think is sickening. You think labor unions are worse than limiting the rights of women and homosexuals.

The centerpiece of Scott Walker's agenda is to line his donors' pockets with tax breaks and loose regulations and become a national GOP golden boy. Anyone who thinks Obama's health care plan was railroaded through and opposed that process, can't seriously look at the Walker administration and support the way he has governed. Given how you've critized Obama, Ayak, I would honestly be shocked if you were to study Walker's actions and support him. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you haven't looked closely.

FTR, a few unions aren't supporting the democratic candidate Barrett because he's shown he won't automatically bend to their will.


-Handcrafted by RollDdice

"RE: In related news..."
Posted by AyaK on 06-03-12 at 07:15 PM
You think labor unions are worse than limiting the rights of women and homosexuals.

Perhaps I do. Although I'm pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage (and have worked on the Gill case that just struck down DOMA as unconstitutional in the 1st Circuit), I think that you can't have a democracy if the government is bankrupt. As we're seeing in Greece and Italy right now, the greatest threat to self-government comes from the tendency of democracies to become prisoners of special interests that vote themselves more benefits than the society can afford.

Walker has addressed that, and that's what the recall is about. Not about the rights of women. Not about gay marriage. If it were about either of those things, the unions wouldn't have funded it. Basically, the unions wanted to make an example of Walker to show politicians in other states that, if you messed with them, they had the clout to get you. Walker is showing that they don't.

******************

My understanding is the the Democrats have a chance in exactly one race: Wanggaard-Lehmen.

http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/more-than-million-spent-on-wanggaard-lehman-race/article_3461969e-ad2c-11e1-b50c-0019bb2963f4.html

Of that "more than a million", about $700,000 was spent by two Democratic-leaning organizations (including Planned Parenthood) against the Republican Wanggaard, although Wanggaard is still slightly ahead.

The main issue here may be Act 217, which was Walker's "informed consent" bill on abortion. It's a troubling law, because it clearly seems designed to place time-consuming burdens on abortion providers, not to improve health care. Yet I also saw the Wisconsin Medical Society's statement that doctors could be charged under this law if the patient didn't come in for a follow-up visit, which is clearly false. So I'm not really sure how bad the law is, because I don't really trust either side's statements.

"RE: In related news..."
Posted by kingfish on 06-04-12 at 06:28 PM
"The centerpiece of Scott Walker's agenda is to line his donors' pockets with tax breaks and loose regulations and become a national GOP golden boy."

I've heard similar accusations elsewhere from those who are for his recall, but so far I've heard no specifics. Do you have a citation? I mean, the part about wanting to become a Golden Boy is a given, presumably all politicians are ambitious in that way, but the part about lining his donors pockets? Is there any substantiation for that? And is this an accusation of criminal wrongdoing?

I thought the "centerpiece" of his legislation was the bit about limiting government labor unions, not lining anyone's pockets. Or are those who make this accusation saying that limiting government labor unions somehow equates to lining donor's pockets?

"Happy Recall Day!"
Posted by dabo on 06-05-12 at 01:47 PM
Various polls indicate Walker will survive by various slight margins.


"GOP blowout win"
Posted by AyaK on 06-05-12 at 09:57 PM
Wisconsin - 734 of 3424 Precincts Reporting - 21%
Walker , Scott (i) GOP 262,508 60%
Barrett , Tom Dem 169,037 39%
Trivedi , Hari Ind 2,565 1%

NBC has already called it for Walker. So much for the "too close to call" meme floating around on Democrat sites today. This is just a complete blowout.
"RE: GOP blowout win"
Posted by AyaK on 06-06-12 at 03:06 AM
The final appears to be 53.2% to 46.3% -- so about 7%, which is what the Marquette University poll found.

The Wanggaard-Lehman race, which was a photo finish in 2010, appears to be a photo finish again -- it looks like a replay. Perhaps the heavy ad buys for Lehman will give him the edge this time. But the Democrats were crushed everywhere else.

"RE: GOP blowout win"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 06-06-12 at 11:01 AM
LAST EDITED ON 06-06-12 AT 11:06 AM (EST)

With 100% reporting:

Wanggaard: 35,476
Lehman: 36,255

So Walker will have to work with a Dem Senate.

Correction: The Senate is out until after the November elections so it could swing back then with the new districts in play. WI legislators are getting 4 months off? Sounds like they need to go part time since they are already thus saving lots of money.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Happy Recall Day!"
Posted by KeithFan on 06-06-12 at 08:30 AM
So my question is, is Wisconsin in play for November? Exit polling from this election showed that Obama was favored by 7% (the few minutes I watched MSNBC, for fun, this is all they were talking about). My thought is that Wisconsin hasn't paid too much attention to the presidential race because of the carp the unions just put the state through, and after the dust settles that 7% is going to start closing.
"Forgot to vote!"
Posted by KeithFan on 06-06-12 at 08:37 AM
I don't remember the last primary or general election where I didn't vote... probably a general when I was in college?

Well, my prediction was true anyway, when the debates started and there was a seeming flavor of the week I predicted that Romney would have it sewn up before the South Dakota primary and our vote wasn't going to matter.

We have true "your party only" primaries, and it didn't matter if I went or not, but I still feel like a bad citizen at the moment.

"RE: Happy Recall Day!"
Posted by AyaK on 06-06-12 at 10:47 AM
Is Wisconsin in play? Yes. But Romney's people always thought it would be.

The biggest advantage that Walker had was that people had a year to see that the world didn't end when public employee benefits were cut back. Walker's bill was overly aggressive by, for example, forcing public unions to recertify annually and refusing to allow governments to withhold union dues -- but a federal court struck down those provisions as not related to any legitimate government objective while permitting the rest of the bill to remain in place. The provisions that took effect were the ones that actually would make a difference and weren't just related to union animus -- and they have made a difference.

If this recall vote would have been held last year, Walker probably would have lost if Barrett (and not some union hack like Kathleen Falk) were his opponent -- just as Kasich of Ohio was defeated in the referendum on his own public union measures last year. But Wisconsin had a year to see that the reforms worked, and many public workers saw little change in their paychecks because the extra costs of health care could be offset by choosing to end the withholding for "closed-shop" union dues.

The problem with public sector unions is that there isn't the type of negotiations that normally characterize collective bargaining. Instead, in return for union support at the polls, politicians have surrendered control of the public fisc to the unions and their allies. Wisconsin marks only an opening salvo in the battle for fiscal sanity among governments.

"RE: Happy Recall Day!"
Posted by kingfish on 06-06-12 at 11:10 AM
Is this an industrialized north thing? To the best of my knowledge, we don't have government worker's unions here, and if there are, I'm pretty sure they don't have the power of the closed shop unions in Wisconsin. How many state/city governments allow closed shop unions? And will the results in Wisconsin spread to other non-governmentsl closed shop situations?
"RE: Happy Recall Day!"
Posted by AyaK on 06-06-12 at 01:18 PM
All that I know for sure is that Ohio, Pennsylvania, California and Massachusetts all have closed-shop government unions. In fact, I'd expect that any state that doesn't have right-to-work legislation would have closed-shop government unions.

There are 23 right-to-work states, and the only one not in the South or West is Indiana, which just passed the legislation last year.

All 12 former Confederate states and territories (Oklahoma) are right-to-work. The other 10 are North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nevada and Arizona.

"RE: Happy Recall Day!"
Posted by kingfish on 06-06-12 at 02:48 PM
One would think that for those states, the implication for closed shop restrictions in those states would be clear. CNN polls suggest that about one third of voters who had family members who were members of the Unions in Wisconsin voted against recall, and that could very well spell disaster for closed shop unions everywhere.

Hopefully this is a real momentum shift against Obama, but unless this is the beginning a rift between him and union supporters that lasts till November, that could be wishful thinking. He will be very tough to get rid of, IMO.

"RE: Happy Recall Day!"
Posted by dabo on 06-08-12 at 01:35 AM
There are 23 right-to-work states, and the only one not in the South or West is Indiana, which just passed the legislation last year.

Actually, Indiana was already a right-to-work state for a long time, the union-busters here just moved the goalpost to claim it wasn't and try to make further inroads, which unfortunately succeeded.

I'm not a fan of closed shops, never have been, but it works both ways, no unions allowed shops are also closed shops.

But, basically, unions fought and negotiated for many benefits over the years, and even though unions are pretty much past their day, many of the benefits they won now benefit the non-union workers. And these are slowly now being chipped away at by the anti-labor factions, which is pretty deplorable.

I view union dues the same way I view income taxes, over time the payscales got adjusted to compensate for those concessions, that was essentially never my money anyway. Whether it is a union or the government claiming that chunk of my income, it was never actually mine. it was the system's piece of me.

The only difference is the union actually fought for and won that chunk of change, the government just decided to take it.

"RE: Happy Recall Day!"
Posted by AyaK on 06-08-12 at 09:06 AM
I'll buy that logic for a private union. It had to negotiate and fight with management, which had conflicting interests. For example, it wasn't the UAW's fault that GM went bankrupt -- it was the fault of generations of GM managers who negotiated the contracts with the UAW that gave the workers benefits that the company couldn't afford. Those managers betrayed their stockholders (a so-called "agency cost": the stockholders' agent (management) undercut the stockholders' interests). For reasons discussed below, I'm supportive of private unions, because I think workers make a choice when they form unions.

But I don't buy that with government unions, because NO ONE is negotiating with the taxpayers' interests at heart. As a result, you have one adversarial group (the government union) and one group that only represents its own re-election prospects (the government officials). That's why the union model simply can't work successfully in a government context. In just one generation, the growth of government unions has bankrupted governments nationwide, because they can't raise taxes high enough to cover all the benefits they gave away.

I disagree that wages "equalize" to make up for the union bite, except with regard to government unions, of course. The problem for private unions is that companies only have so much money, so they can't give you a raise big enough to overcome the bite. But, for all the bluster about monopoly wages that unions and union-busters spout, the truth is that most unions have their root in non-economic issues.

When I worked as a management consultant, we used to have a saying: "If you get a union in your company, you deserved it." In other words, workers didn't want to give up the bite of union dues, but management was making conditions so difficult that they felt like they needed the strength to fight back, and they made a rational choice that giving up some of their salary was worth it for the working condition improvement.