WSJ poll: Romney 30, Palin 14, Cain 12, Perry 8

posted at 8:25 pm on June 15, 2011 by Allahpundit

A bad poll for everyone involved, including Mitt. Granted, he’s gained nine points since the last time the Journal surveyed the race (Huckabee was still in play at the time), but only 45 percent of Republicans say they’re happy with the field as is. Four years ago at this time, that number was 73 percent. Just 24 percent say they’re confident in Romney’s ability to be president; in 2007, even John Edwards hit 31 percent. Clearly the base wants more options and the Palin/Cain/Perry constituencies aren’t natural defectors to Romney, so one of those three is bound to start consolidating the anti-Mitt faction as we get closer to the primaries. Bachmann, meanwhile, finishes with just three percent if Palin/Cain/Perry are in the race and at 11 percent if they aren’t. Disappointing, but since the polling ended on Monday, her star turn at the debate hasn’t been priced in yet. The big loser is Pawlenty at just six percent, two points behind Gingrich(!) and tied for seventh with … Rick Santorum. And if you pull Palin, Perry, and Cain out of the field, T-Paw finishes dead last. I know, I know — “it’s still early” — but read Mike Murphy’s post from yesterday. It’s not as early as you think, especially with Perry poised to jump in and become the “not Romney” in the race. Pawlenty needs to show donors that he’s worth investing in, but polling behind Ron Paul and Newt shows them the opposite.

It’s not all sunshine and candy canes for Perry either. Behold:

We like to goof on The One for blaming Bush for his problems, but the reason he does that is because it works. People remember who was president when the financial crisis struck, they remember having utterly lost confidence in that guy for various reasons during his second term, and they’re prepared to cut O a wide, wide berth on the economy because of it. That’s Perry’s misfortune, of course, because not only does he hold Bush’s old job, but superficially he sounds a bit like him when he talks and even has some biographical overlap (they were both military pilots). We’d all like to think his record of job creation in Texas will immunize him from Bush comparisons, but don’t underestimate the ability of the low-information voter to draw the wrong conclusion from a simple, endlessly repeated set of facts. More:

Those numbers will move as we get closer to the election — note how the number who say he inherited the economy plunged as the midterms approached — but after two and a half years of dreariness, they’re remarkably resilient in his favor.

But wait, it gets worse:

Turning to Republicans’ proposal to overhaul Medicare — transforming the government-run health program into a system where future seniors receive a subsidy or voucher to help them purchase private insurance — 31 percent say it’s a bad idea, which is up nine points since April.

Just 22 percent say it’s a good idea, which is virtually unchanged from last month. And 45 percent say they have no opinion.

That number’s not quite kosher insofar as the poll question describes Ryan’s plan as a voucher system even though it isn’t exactly. The sample favors Democrats by eight points too so the hard numbers here aren’t quite as bad as they look, but the trend is worrisome if nothing else. The Journal described Ryan’s plan as a voucher system last time too and opposition was nine points lower, which suggests the GOP really is losing the messaging war. Also this:

In other words, not only does O have a viable back-up campaign narrative with “blame Bush for the economy,” he may have a very viable lead narrative in Mediscaring. See what I mean about it being a bad poll? Exit question: How can Tim Pawlenty still be trailing a guy whose favorable rating dropped 18 points in two months?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8

pseudoforce on June 16, 2011 at 9:09 AM

Yes turnout was slightly down among the 25% or so who call themselves conservative. That was dwarfed by the much larger number who are independent that went for PBHO at a 60% rate.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:11 AM

Palin pursed her lips even tighter. Don’t tell me she wasn’t piqued. “Then we won’t complicate it any more. Let’s keep it simple and let’s say no. If you are here illegally and if you don’t follow the steps… to somehow allow you to work, if you’re not gonna do that, you’re gonna be deported.”

O’Reilly got the last word, underscoring her poor command of policy. He reiterated, “Whoever the next president is, is going to have to deal with 12 million people and that’s going to be very, very difficult.”

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:07 AM

She was being baited and she replied sarcastically. If you can’t see that, that’s your problem.

pseudoforce on June 16, 2011 at 9:11 AM

darwin on June 16, 2011 at 9:10 AM

Then google the fu-king interview yourself and show me the transcript is wrong.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:07 AM

CrooksAndLiars.com. Why am I not surprised? I guess when MJBrutus tells us to do our own research on Palin’s policies, we’re supposed to go to sites like Crooks And Liars, Daily Koz, the Huffington Post, etc. Might as well throw Palingates in there as well.

Aitch748 on June 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Yes turnout was slightly down among the 25% or so who call themselves conservative.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:11 AM

Bbbbbbut you said Romney can count on the base turning out… Want to revise that view?

pseudoforce on June 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM

^ By the way, MJ, the number who call themselves conservatives is more like 40%.

pseudoforce on June 16, 2011 at 9:13 AM

pseudoforce on June 16, 2011 at 9:11 AM

LMFAO! Game, set and match. No she was not being sarcastic. She meant every damned word of it and it was ugly and it was repulsive.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:13 AM

darwin on June 16, 2011 at 9:10 AM

Then google the fu-king interview yourself and show me the transcript is wrong.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM

A transcript doesn’t convey O’Reilly’s baiting, condescending tone and the fact that Palin was replying in kind. O’Reilly would never dream of trying to corner Obama in that way. He let him off the hook time and time again.

pseudoforce on June 16, 2011 at 9:14 AM

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:07 AM

Way to use an edited transcript with heavy editing. Here’s how the exchange actually went:

O’REILLY: Do you make them register with the federal government? Do you tell them they have 60 days to get out of here before we put you in jail? What do you do with them?

PALIN: Do we make them register with the federal government? Yes, we do.

O’REILLY: Yes, so we know who they are.

PALIN: We have — exactly, yes. I want to answer to that question absolutely.

O’REILLY: All right.

PALIN: We’re not going to give them a free pass.

O’REILLY: So you make them register with the federal government.

PALIN: We’re not going to reward the bad behavior.

O’REILLY: And if they don’t register with the — say you gave them 60 days to register with the federal government. There’s a form at the post office they have to send in like a Census form. All right, say they didn’t do it.

PALIN: You deport them.

O’REILLY: OK.

PALIN: You have to get them out.

O’REILLY: So the ones that don’t…

PALIN: We don’t reward their continued bad behavior.

O’REILLY: …after period of time. OK, after a period of time…

PALIN: Yes.

O’REILLY: …the ones that don’t cooperate, you catch them, they’re gone.

PALIN: Right.

O’REILLY: Now, you have these people that register. You’re going to have millions of them. Then they register and they say, OK, we obeyed what President Palin told us to do. Then what? Do you give them green cards to work right away? What do you do with them?

PALIN: You know, there has to be that expectation that they will work and that they will contribute. Bill, it makes me uncomfortable that we’re even going down that path so far…

O’REILLY: You have to though.

PALIN: …when — no, no.

O’REILLY: You have to go down the path because it’s going to come up.

PALIN: American citizens who are here lawfully, they need to be the ones with the first shot at getting these jobs. We cannot make it easy on those who have chosen to be illegally here to disobey our laws. No.

O’REILLY: No, we can’t make it easy, but they’re here. And we can’t starve them to death. And if they can’t work, if they don’t have a green card to work, they’re going to be hosed. I mean, they got to pay rent, they got to buy groceries…

PALIN: Well…

O’REILLY: …this, that and the other thing. So this is where it gets very complicated, governor. You know, it gets very, very complicated…

PALIN: No.

O’REILLY: …because you are rewarding bad behavior. You’re letting them stay in the United States. And they came in illegally.

PALIN: Then let’s keep it — then we won’t complicate it anymore. Let’s keep it simple. And let’s say no, if you are here illegally, and if you don’t follow the steps that at some point through immigration reform we’re going to be able to provide, and that is to somehow allow to you work. If you’re not going to do that, then you will be deported. You will be gone.

O’REILLY: OK, we’ve established that.

PALIN: But let’s look at case history.

O’REILLY: Yes, we’ve established that.

PALIN: Let’s look at what, you know, political hero Ronald Reagan tried to do with 3 million illegals all those years ago.

O’REILLY: He botched it though, governor. Reagan botched it.

PALIN: Exactly.

O’REILLY: He botched it.

PALIN: That’s what I’m saying. So we learn from history. We won’t do what he did.

O’REILLY: No, but you’re going to have to do…

PALIN: He did in that respect, in that realm.

O’REILLY: …whoever the next president is, is going to have to deal with 12 million people. And that’s going to be very, very difficult.

Where in there does Palin ever call for mass deportation?

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Then google the fu-king interview yourself and show me the transcript is wrong.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM

I don’t care about an interview with O’Reilly. The federal government already has a policy to deal with illegals and immigration. The problem is letting states enforce it.

I will guarantee Palin wouldn’t sue states who do.

darwin on June 16, 2011 at 9:15 AM

LMFAO! Game, set and match. No she was not being sarcastic. She meant every damned word of it and it was ugly and it was repulsive.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:13 AM

So what gives rightwingyahoo this crazy idea that she’s for amnesty?

pseudoforce on June 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM

Way to use an edited transcript with heavy editing.

*edited transcript with heavy editorializing

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM

Where in there does Palin ever call for mass deportation?

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 9:14 AM

She … she … she … implied it !1!1!11!!!11!!1111

-MJBrutus

darwin on June 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM

pseudoforce on June 16, 2011 at 9:13 AM

60% of whom went Obama.

So, PBHO won 20% more of that 40% meaning they accounted for a full 8% all voters! That is more than twcie the margin of victory. If McCain could have won over half instead of only 2/5 of those moderates he would have won.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:17 AM

darwin on June 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM

PALIN: You deport them.

Yeah, lots of room for interpretation there.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM

So, PBHO won 20% more of that 40% meaning they accounted for a full 8% all voters! That is more than twcie the margin of victory. If McCain could have won over half instead of only 2/5 of those moderates he would have won.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:17 AM

If McCain would’ve been someone not quite as distasteful to the base, he would’ve won, just as Bush did in 2004. “Base election”.

pseudoforce on June 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM

Monica is right, we would vote for Lassie over Zero. The obvious choice would be 4 more years of this disaster or not. CK doesn’t know what SP does with her spare time and ‘getting schooled’ doesn’t have to be jump started when someone suddenly appears on the national scene, it is a life long process. What passes from our dear leaders’ lips so often turns out to be illogical or ignorant mush. Sarah’s been there and done that, she knows what she’s talking about.

Kissmygrits on June 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM

Yeah, lots of room for interpretation there.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM

You’re tiresome. Why don’t you read the damn transcript you posted and tell me who she’s referring to.

I still can’t believe you actually went to crooksandliars. A website run by well, crooks and liars.

darwin on June 16, 2011 at 9:20 AM

pseudoforce on June 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM

Your strategy says that he should have tried to get about 20% more the base instead of 10% more of the indies. Only the more you go for the base, the more indies you lose. So your tactics would mean trying to gain 20% more of the 25% which is the base (5% of the total) and losing 20% of 40% who are indies (8% of the total). Brilliant.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Your strategy says that he should have tried to get about 20% more the base instead of 10% 20% more of the indies.

FIFM

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Only the more you go for the base, the more indies you lose

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Excuse my asking but are you one of the overpaid GOP DC ‘strategists’ that the MSM keep referencing and going to for hit pieces on conservatives?

TheRightMan on June 16, 2011 at 9:37 AM

LMFAO! Game, set and match. No she was not being sarcastic. She meant every damned word of it and it was ugly and it was repulsive.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:13 AM

It’s ugly and repulsive to advocate enforcing current immigration law?

Good to know you believe that.

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 9:38 AM

No. A candidate must be at least as acceptable as McCain under that logic. SP is not. Neither are many others who are actually in the field such as Santorum, Cain or Paul.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:09 AM

Of course, you cannot substantiate this with anything but more assertions, but whatever dude.

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 9:40 AM

After easing there way up Sarah’s colon, looks like the Palin kooks have negotiated the maze of Sarah’s the small intestine and are now securely lodged in her large intestine.

rickyricardo on June 16, 2011 at 3:07 AM

They can see her presidency from there.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 9:44 AM

So your tactics would mean trying to gain 20% more of the 25% which is the base (5% of the total) and losing 20% of 40% who are indies (8% of the total). Brilliant.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:29 AM

So following your convoluted reasoning, a candidate that wins a 100% or close to 100% of their base should be peeling off independents like crazy! Wow! I sure will like to hire you for my campaign for ‘dogcatcher’.

Ever wondered why Dems always seem to run the most left-wing candidates, always run to please their base, and throw caution to the winds? And when they do get in like Obama, they proceed to unleash the most left-wing poolicies without giving a fig about the concerns of the precious independents?

How about a better, not-so-novel, idea? Let’s have the GOP nominate, for once (in recent times), a candidate who says what he/she believes and believes what he/she says? The “independents”… HELLO (knock! knock!)….simply care for a candidate (be they left-wing or right-wing) who at least appears to HAVE CONVICTIONS!

And that is why I can predict that Romney vs. Obama will be a walkover for Obama and you know what the dirty secret is? The media/Dems/RINOs/GOP Elites know it and are pushing for that outcome.

TheRightMan on June 16, 2011 at 9:51 AM

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 9:44 AM
the one I laugh at here, bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

djohn669 on June 16, 2011 at 9:57 AM

As for castigation, that is evidenced almost exclusively by the Palians rather than by others. As Meredith noted, they are the vicious, rude, insular, close-minded and intolerant ones.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 7:53 AM

Here is what I have noticed….

1) Palin VOLUNTARILY put her and her family in the public arena.
2) Fair or no, criticism is part of politics.
3) Criticism of her disjointed speaking style, abdication of her governorship, lame duck status, verbal gaffs (Revere), etc, are all valid concerns.
4) Those criticisms of her illicit acrimonious insults and generally despicable behavior from certain Palin supporters. (They KNOW who they are because they practice the behavior with euphoric glee).
5) This behavior is created their desire to engender sympathy for her by casting her as the victim.
6) This revels the strategy behind the Palin’s actions. Play the victim so her supporters will keep the coffers of her PAC loaded with cash.

What I have not seen, at least not in the massive scale of the Palin supporters, is this behavior from the supporters of other candidates.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 9:58 AM

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 9:58 AM
bwhaaaaaaaaaaaa,bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

djohn669 on June 16, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Her “silly” doctrine and her “insane ideas” are pretty much embraced by Romney and Pawlenty as well.

pseudoforce on June 16, 2011 at 8:41 AM

So she is as bad as everyone else? Why in goodness name do you guys always compare her to the people you say are the lowest common denominator? That does not inspire confidence and it certainly wont change minds.

Tell the truth now…..you work for Obama and are trying to make Palin look as bad as possible.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 10:04 AM

It’s ugly and repulsive to advocate enforcing current immigration law?

Good to know you believe that.

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Fortunately, we live in a country where we have the power to change the laws through our representatives. To quote one of my all time favorite authors, Charles Dickens, “the law is an ass.” Not always, but sometimes, and in this case it is. So, we should change the law and we should despise those who seek to uphold inhumane and cruel remedies stipulated by inhumane and cruel laws.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:16 AM

3) Criticism of her disjointed speaking style, abdication of her governorship, lame duck status, verbal gaffs [sic] (Revere), etc, are all valid concerns.

cslouis on June 16, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Gaffes.

Ironic.

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Fortunately, we live in a country where we have the power to change the laws through our representatives. To quote one of my all time favorite authors, Charles Dickens, “the law is an ass.” Not always, but sometimes, and in this case it is. So, we should change the law and we should despise those who seek to uphold inhumane and cruel remedies stipulated by inhumane and cruel laws.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:16 AM

What’s inhumane and cruel about deporting illegals?

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Yeah, lots of room for interpretation there.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM

I guess interpreting “if…then…” statements isn’t your strong suit…or you are just an intellectually dishonest hack.

O’REILLY: And if they don’t register with the — say you gave them 60 days to register with the federal government. There’s a form at the post office they have to send in like a Census form. All right, say they didn’t do it.

PALIN: You deport them.

PALIN: Then let’s keep it — then we won’t complicate it anymore. Let’s keep it simple. And let’s say no, if you are here illegally, and if you don’t follow the steps that at some point through immigration reform we’re going to be able to provide, and that is to somehow allow to you work. If you’re not going to do that, then you will be deported. You will be gone.

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Mitt Romney is a liberal, plain and simple. Don’t forget that he supported/supports TARP. In 2009 in an interview with Neil Cavuto, Romney actually said TARP saved every job in America

poorrichardsnews on June 16, 2011 at 10:31 AM

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 10:19 AM

It is nothing but cruel to uproot a family from their homes of 20, 30 years or more and send them out of the country. In a great many cases, that is the situation of a great many of our millions of illegals. They have formed attachments and become parts of a community. Many of them came as children young enough not to know the customs and culture of their native countries. They would be foreigners there.

You may not see it that way, but I have discovered that it is impossible to underestimate you.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:32 AM

It is nothing but cruel to uproot a family from their homes of 20, 30 years or more and send them out of the country. In a great many cases, that is the situation of a great many of our millions of illegals.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Is it cruel to deport them AFTER you’ve already been willing to overlook their past and continued flouting of immigration law AND you’ve given them a chance to avoid deportation by merely registering with the government and meeting a handful of conditions within the space of several months?

If they’re not willing to do even those few small things to ensure their continued presence in the country, then it is not cruel to deport them. They already violated immigration laws when they entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. But you were willing to overlook that and give them another chance. If they’ve blown that chance, they should be gone. Deported.

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 10:47 AM

It is nothing but cruel to uproot a family from their homes of 20, 30 years or more and send them out of the country. In a great many cases, that is the situation of a great many of our millions of illegals. They have formed attachments and become parts of a community. Many of them came as children young enough not to know the customs and culture of their native countries. They would be foreigners there.

You may not see it that way, but I have discovered that it is impossible to underestimate you.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:32 AM

The staggering cost and damage to America, both monetary and criminally, by their illegal presence here leaves me unmoved by your liberal, emotion-based appeal.

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 10:48 AM

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:16 AM

My grandfather came here legally @ age 3. LEGALLY.
If you border-jump you(and your anchor babies) desrve nothing more a than emergency medical care, a meal, and IMMEDIATE Deportation.
That’s not ‘inhumane-that’s justice!

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 10:51 AM

My grandfather came here legally @ age 3. LEGALLY.
If you border-jump you(and your anchor babies) desrve nothing more a than emergency medical care, a meal, and IMMEDIATE Deportation.
That’s not ‘inhumane-that’s justice!

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 10:51 AM

+1 Bazillion

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 10:54 AM

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 10:48 AM

The damage and cost was perpetrated on America by our stupid laws (yes, Dickens again). The solution to these concerns is to require employers to verify that they have valid taxpayer IDs and that their taxes are withheld and minimum wage and other laws complied with. The damage is because we allow employers to use them as unfair competitors in our work force and do not require them to pay their fair share.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:54 AM

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Boo freakin’ hoo. Don’t do the crime-if you can’t do the time.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Even if one were to imagine that your xenophobic, ham-handed approach was not disgraceful, just how many elections do you suppose a candidate could win who advocated it?

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:57 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM

That’s the spirit. Jackboots and busses! Yeah, quite a campaign slogan.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:59 AM

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:16 AM
MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:54 AM

So, let me see if I understand what you are saying.

Laws are stupid and mean and bad. No more Rule of Law in America! Let’s have Rule of Heart! Or something!

Is that about right?

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:00 AM

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:54 AM

The problem is those think that the immigration laws apply to everyone but them.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Even if one were to imagine that your xenophobic, ham-handed approach was not disgraceful, just how many elections do you suppose a candidate could win who advocated it?

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:57 AM

How is law enforcement akin to xenophobia?

And how long before you explicitly play the race card?

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Boo freakin’ hoo. Don’t do the crime-if you can’t do the time.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM

I seem to recall MJBrutus saying in a previous thread that if someone stole $50 from a 7-Eleven they shouldn’t be prosecuted.

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:02 AM

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:02 AM

I said they shouldn’t be incarcerated.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:03 AM

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:59 AM

My family followed the rules-which in the 19′s were pretty stringent for Eastern European Jews- and did things the right way. So should everyone else that wants to come to this great nation.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 11:04 AM

I said they shouldn’t be incarcerated.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Actually, I said they should not be incarcerated if the theft did not consist of violence or the threat of violence. You are a disgusting, lying sack of shit.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:04 AM

I think many of these illegals will self deport once we secure the borders, crack down on the employers, and announce that if they are caught, they will serve jail time. Or some other motivation for them to leave on their own. One problem will be the Mexican government. They cannot support 12 million unemployed people and certainly will close the borders and make some kind of challenge in federal court that these folks are de facto US citizens because the US didn’t secure their border while knowing full well they were crossing. And not all illegals are from Mexico even though they traveled through Mexico to get here. WE already know how brutally the Mexican government deals with their southern border.

Expect huge refugee camps while the court case slow walks up to the SCOTUS.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM

The damage and cost was perpetrated on America by our stupid laws (yes, Dickens again). The solution to these concerns is to require employers to verify that they have valid taxpayer IDs and that their taxes are withheld and minimum wage and other laws complied with. The damage is because we allow employers to use them as unfair competitors in our work force and do not require them to pay their fair share.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:54 AM

What about medical costs? What about crime? Why not google the info instead of posting blindly about something you obviously have no knowledge of?

You’re only counting a small fraction of the damage and cost, but I’m supposed to assume that, on the other hand, your emotion-based anecdotal appeal is universal as it applies to every single illegal – despite the FACT that you have no idea if your assertion is actually true. And even if you could produce actual examples, I could counter with examples of ACTUAL AMERICANS killed, robbed, beaten, and otherwise hurt by the actions of illegals.

I can also produce massive sets of data backing up my position on the costs and damages.

But keep pushing your whiny narrative – it only serves to marginalize you.

It’s a massively failed attempt on your part.

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:02 AM

I said they shouldn’t be incarcerated.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:03 AM

If you don’t want time in the slammer-don’t steal from a 7/11.
A few days in jail would be good for them.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Yes they should. We should also have a customs service that works. We don’t.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM

You are a disgusting, lying sack of shit.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Keep it up, champ, it’s been a while since we’ve seen the banhammer…

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 11:07 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Our jails are schools for felons. It would only benefit them by teaching the finer points of larceny. If they are not violent, find a better way to punish them.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:08 AM

That’s the spirit. Jackboots and busses! Yeah, quite a campaign slogan.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Yep! It sure works wonders for 0bama and HIS thug Unions. /sarc

DannoJyd on June 16, 2011 at 11:08 AM

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 11:07 AM

The loser’s lament, “Mommy, ban him.”

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:09 AM

The loser’s lament, “Mommy, ban him.”

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Name calling, the last refuge of the whiny loser.

You are a disgusting, lying sack of shit.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:04 AM

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Our jails are schools for felons. It would only benefit them by teaching the finer points of larceny. If they are not violent, find a better way to punish them.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Mass deportations would be a good start.

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Actually, I said they should not be incarcerated if the theft did not consist of violence or the threat of violence. You are a disgusting, lying sack of shit.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:04 AM

No, I qualified it with “I seem to recall,” and once you clarified, I didn’t try to contradict. That doesn’t make me a disgusting, lying sack of anything. But thanks for hurling insults yet again.

How long before you’re telling me to “eat [expletive deleted] and die, mother [expletive deleted]” or comparing my comments to an act of self-pleasure? I’m sure it won’t be long now.

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:13 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Even if one were to imagine that your xenophobic, ham-handed approach was not disgraceful, just how many elections do you suppose a candidate could win who advocated it?

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 10:57 AM

xenophobic my azz!
My grandafather was born in Chernigov, Ukraine…which part of the Pale. My grandmother’s mother was born in Russia-also in the Pale. On the other other side-my grandfather’s parents and older brother came over from England…but my great grandfather was also most likely an infant survivor of a pogrom that took place in what is now Lodz, Poland. He was raised in London.
My grandmother’s dad was from Russia and her mother’s birth parents were probably Austrian Jews. Her ADOPTIVE Parents were from Switzerland and Uruguay respectively.

Yeah-I just despise immigrants…if they’re here illegally.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 11:14 AM

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 11:11 AM

I generally make it a point to not say anything to that vile thing. His lie was so bald-faced and ridiculous this time that I broke discipline. My bad.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:15 AM

You are a disgusting, lying sack of shit.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Keep it up, champ, it’s been a while since we’ve seen the banhammer…

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 11:07 AM

No banning-of anyone- on this thread is necessary. MJ is just totally wrong about how we should deal with illegals.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 11:17 AM

MJBrutus may hate me more than he hates Sarah Palin.

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:17 AM

You are a disgusting, lying sack of shit.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:04 AM

I quit reading his/her comments about a week ago. I thought maybe he/she would tone it down after a while, but judging by your response to some comment he/she made, that is clearly never going to happen.

It sounds like he/she has gotten worse. A week ago he/she was the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger I have ever read.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:19 AM

MJBrutus may hate me more than he hates Sarah Palin.

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:17 AM

I’m not a Palin-supporter but I don’t see how anyone could hate her.
She a good woman. That’s undeniable.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 11:21 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 11:14 AM

I take back the xenophobic adjective. I don’t know you and shouldn’t question your motives. I believe that you want the best for America, but we will not agree in this case on how that is obtained.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:21 AM

I quit reading his/her comments about a week ago. I thought maybe he/she would tone it down after a while, but judging by your response to some comment he/she made, that is clearly never going to happen.

It sounds like he/she has gotten worse. A week ago he/she was the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger I have ever read.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:19 AM

I have never spewed any hate whatsoever and just because Troll 1 and Troll 2 say it’s so, doesn’t make it so. I defy either one of you to point to a single instance in which I have “mongered hate.”

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:21 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 11:21 AM

I don’t hate her of course. That’s just another manifestation of the truth-impairment of ’77.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:23 AM

It sounds like he/she has gotten worse. A week ago he/she was the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger I have ever read.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Hey, where’s the love! I have tried manfully to be that guy!

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 11:23 AM

The loser’s lament, “Mommy, ban him.”

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Seriously?! Wow, you must be camped out in her head. And she obviously can’t dislodge you if she’s dragging out that little jewel. She ought to be careful though. She is the queen of that kind of vile spewage and if the mods start applying her standards equally, she’d be the first to go.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:23 AM

It sounds like he/she has gotten worse. A week ago he/she was the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger I have ever read.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Pot, meet kettle.

See Paul run! See Paul shoot his gun on his pony! See Paul ring bells on his pony!

Tune in for the next series….

See Sarah run. See Sarah drop the ball! Awwwww….poor Sarah!

csdeven on June 6, 2011 at 11:09 AM

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Seriously?! Wow, you must be camped out in her head. And she obviously can’t dislodge you if she’s dragging out that little jewel. She ought to be careful though. She is the queen of that kind of vile spewage and if the mods start applying her standards equally, she’d be the first to go.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:23 AM

MJBrutus has already been warned once by Ed that his comments crossed the line. Ed deleted the comment where he told me to “ES&D, MF.” If anyone is going to get the banhammer anytime soon, my money would be on him.

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:27 AM

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:23 AM

True of course. But as you know, it’s only raised as a tactic. A way to say, “shut up.” Those magic words or others to the same effect being the principle argument of that type.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Seriously?! Wow, you must be camped out in her head. And she obviously can’t dislodge you if she’s dragging out that little jewel. She ought to be careful though. She is the queen of that kind of vile spewage and if the mods start applying her standards equally, she’d be the first to go.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:23 AM

You two aren’t talking about the same person. Heh.

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 11:29 AM

MJBrutus and csdeven, it’s hilarious that both of you, neither of whom has ever criticized the unhinged rants of petunia (and on certain occasions actually agreed with them), would accuse me of being “vile,” “disgusting,” “acrimonious,” “spewing,” and a “hate monger.”

Please, provide examples of said behavior.

I will wait.

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:30 AM

I’m not a Palin-supporter but I don’t see how anyone could hate her.
She a good woman. That’s undeniable.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 11:21 AM

The progressives hate her, but no one with any class does. The hate accusations come from the Palin supporters and they level them at their fellow HA commentators who are skeptical of Palin. They cannot abide any criticism of her even though there are many reasons to legitimately be skeptical. But because the progressives criticize her for those legitimate issues also, they make the illogical jump that all skeptics of Palin are progressive trolls and hate mongers.

All progressives criticize Palin, but not all those who criticize Palin are progressives. That fact is lost on them.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:31 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 11:21 AM

I don’t hate her of course. That’s just another manifestation of the truth-impairment of ’77.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:23 AM

While I don’t always agree with you-I know you don’t hate Palin.

I basically get along okay with both Palin-supporters and Fellow OTP’s-but if I see something that I disagree with-FROM ANYONE-I’m going to call them out on it.
Just because I agree with someone on one thing doesn’t mean I agree with them on everything.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 11:34 AM

A way to say, “shut up.” Those magic words or others to the same effect being the principle argument of that type.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM

You’re right. I forgot that facet of their tactics. Exactly like the progressives using the terms “Racist” “Homophobe” and “war monger” to shut down debate because they are in a completely untenable position.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:34 AM

The progressives hate her, but no one with any class does. The hate accusations come from the Palin supporters and they level them at their fellow HA commentators who are skeptical of Palin.
csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Says the commenter who just accused a fellow Hot Air commenter of being “the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger I have ever read.”

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:31 AM

I think Petunia hates her-but Petunia also thinks that Mitt isn’t popular with this crowd because he’s a LDS.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Please, provide examples of said behavior.

I will wait.

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:30 AM

You know full well that I criticized both sides of this kind of behavior. But when you guys are insulting back and forth, I don’t see the need to chastise her. Now when YOU cease the personal attacks, I will defend you. Until then, you voluntarily get into that sewer. Deal with it.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:38 AM

A way to say, “shut up.” Those magic words or others to the same effect being the principle argument of that type.
MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM

You’re right. I forgot that facet of their tactics. Exactly like the progressives using the terms “Racist” “Homophobe” and “war monger” to shut down debate because they are in a completely untenable position.
csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Oh, the irony. This exchange coming from the two commenters who just minutes ago had this exchange about me:

You are a disgusting, lying sack of shit.
MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 11:04 AM

I quit reading his/her comments about a week ago. I thought maybe he/she would tone it down after a while, but judging by your response to some comment he/she made, that is clearly never going to happen.

It sounds like he/she has gotten worse. A week ago he/she was the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger I have ever read.
csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:19 AM

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Now when YOU cease the personal attacks, I will defend you. Until then, you voluntarily get into that sewer. Deal with it.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:38 AM

You mean personal attacks like this?

the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger I have ever read.
csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:19 AM

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM

The progressives hate her, but no one with any class does. The hate accusations come from the Palin supporters and they level them at their fellow HA commentators who are skeptical of Palin.
csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Says the commenter who just accused a fellow Hot Air commenter of being “the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger I have ever read.”

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM

My comment was not a subjective comment. It is an observation of verifiable fact and is not designed to quash debate. It is designed to encourage civil debate. But you found a way to continue with the acrimony.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Still waiting for examples of my supposed hate mongering…

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:42 AM

My comment was not a subjective comment. It is an observation of verifiable fact and is not designed to quash debate. It is designed to encourage civil debate. But you found a way to continue with the acrimony.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:42 AM

If it is an observation of verifiable fact, then verify the fact for me with some actual evidence of my “vile, acrimonious, spewing hate mongering.”

How can you accuse me of acrimony when you use words like “vile,” “spewing,” and “hate monger” to describe me?

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM

the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger I have ever read.
csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:19 AM

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Verifiable fact not designed to quash debate. Don’t spew vile comments and then complain that your behavior is referenced for what it is.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM

How can you accuse me of acrimony when you use words like “vile,” “spewing,” and “hate monger” to describe me?

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Because you do engage in it. I am simply pointing out what you do. And you must be proud of it, so why complain?

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Verifiable fact not designed to quash debate. Don’t spew vile comments and then complain that your behavior is referenced for what it is.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM

But since I have never “spewed vile comments” it is not a verifiable fact. And you are not referencing my behavior “for what it is.” You are attempting to paint me as a “vile, spewing, acrimonious hate monger” but cannot substantiate that that is in fact what I am. Because I am not.

“Hate monger” is an awfully serious charge to level against someone. I guess it is your equivalent of playing the race card.

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Because you do engage in it. I am simply pointing out what you do. And you must be proud of it, so why complain?

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:47 AM

When? What words did I use? How did I “monger hate?”

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Verifiable fact not designed to quash debate. Don’t spew vile comments and then complain that your behavior is referenced for what it is.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Verifiable fact that goes unverified. Par for the course for cslouis.

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Verifiable fact that goes unverified. Par for the course for cslouis.

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Apparently, verification of verifiable facts is for hate mongers. Or something…

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:58 AM

When? What words did I use? How did I “monger hate?”

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Rather than go back into threads to find those comments. I’ll concede the point to you that you do not hate monger etc. But if I ever see you do it, I’ll refer you to this discussion.

Fair enough?

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Rather than go back into threads to find those comments. I’ll concede the point to you that you do not hate monger etc. But if I ever see you do it, I’ll refer you to this discussion.

Fair enough?

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:59 AM

No. First, I would like an apology from you for saying that I am “the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger [you] have ever read.”

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 12:05 PM

the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger I have ever read.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Rather than go back into threads to find those comments. I’ll concede the point to you that you do not hate monger etc. But if I ever see you do it, I’ll refer you to this discussion.

Fair enough?

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:59 AM

So, you admit you cannot back up your wild accusations.

Why should people believe anything you post, ever?

fossten on June 16, 2011 at 12:27 PM

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Why bother to feed this troll. He provokes insults and treasures being insulted like gold. It’s his little passive aggressive game. Just now he cited a comment from what must have been 3 months ago now to play the victim over (it was right around the time of the Japan tsunami IIRC). I’ve since followed your lead and have mostly knocked off retaliation.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 1:53 PM

No. First, I would like an apology from you for saying that I am “the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger [you] have ever read.”

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Fu-Q

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8