Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads

posted at 8:01 am on November 18, 2012 by Allahpundit

Time for future leaders of the GOP to make another deposit in the “bad partisan bank” that is Mitt Romney. Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker, the new chair and vice chair of the RGA, will be on Fox News Sunday to continue tearing him apart over his “gifts” comment and his failure to articulate a grand conservative vision. Too bad Brit Hume’s not on the panel this week; I would have enjoyed watching him elaborate on this, posted not long after Jindal went off on Romney at the RGA gathering.

Elsewhere it’s Petraeus and Benghazi and Benghazi and Petraeus. And Pelosi will be on ABC to talk about how she’s hopeful for a new golden age of bipartisan comity, just as long as Republicans understand that rich people need to pay their “fair share.” The line-up via the LA Times:

State of the Union Fiscal cliff negotiations: Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.); Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.). Petraeus scandal; Israel-Gaza crisis; Benghazi controversy: Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.); Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.). (N) 6 and 9 a.m. CNN…

Face the Nation Benghazi controversy; Petraeus scandal: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.); Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill); Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine). Fiscal cliff negotiations: Maya MacGuineas; Mark Zandi, Moody’s. Panel: David Ignatius; Thomas Ricks; Margaret Brennan; Bob Orr.

Meet the Press Benghazi controversy: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Benghazi controversy; Petraeus scandal: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.); Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.). Panel: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho); Tom Friedman, the New York Times; John Podesta; Mike Murphy; Andrea Mitchell.

This Week Fiscal cliff negotiations: Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco). Israel-Gaza crisis; Petraeus scandal; Benghazi controversy: Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.); Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.). Panel: Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles); Newt Gingrich; George Will; Donna Brazile; Jonathan Karl.

Fox News Sunday Benghazi controversy; Petraeus scandal: Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.); Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). Future of the GOP: Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.); Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.). Roberta Flack. Panel: Bill Kristol; Bob Woodward; Kimberley Strassel; Charles Lane.


Related Posts:

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 2

KOOLAID2

angrymike on November 18, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Bmore?

angrymike on November 18, 2012 at 8:05 AM

Hello, doesn’t anyone care anymore???

angrymike on November 18, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Jindal can go to hell. You want to talk about gaffs? Who can forget that lame speech he made in response to the sotu.

Blake on November 18, 2012 at 8:09 AM

the lsm, why are you ganging up on poor susan rice?

please let the gop talking heads actually say, those talking points were edited and dear leader boastfully claiming he called it a terrorist attack and now says bubkis, just blaming the cia…

cmsinaz on November 18, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Jindal is a so called minority and we need him.No more white guys,remember?

docflash on November 18, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Thank God for Jindal. Other GOP leaders have had their heads in the sand on this while he’s been one of the few willing to call Romney out for the garbage he was spewing.

It goes to show that Romney’s 47% remarks were no mistake — they’re what he truly believes, and what makes him unfit for office. Hopefully Jindal will throw his hat in the ring for 2016.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 8:14 AM

I don’t get why they just say ok, raise taxes we won’t stop you and just vote present. Seriously, give the people what they want, more taxes!

OT–anyone awe Lincoln?

mrscullen on November 18, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Play the blame game till its all brushed under a big old rug, just like F@F………

angrymike on November 18, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Not watching. Again.

22044 on November 18, 2012 at 8:21 AM

enough attacks on Republicans by Republicans.

rob verdi on November 18, 2012 at 8:21 AM

Same ole Same ole get paid for running their mouths while we suffer out here living through it.
No thanks.
Oooh, found a “Top Chef” marathon I can watch this morning with my left-over pizza and breakfast wine.
:)

Marcus on November 18, 2012 at 8:25 AM

rob verdi on November 18, 2012 at 8:21 AM

thank you…i wish the gop would call out the lsm and say enough…the election is over, we’re moving on, we wish you would as well

cmsinaz on November 18, 2012 at 8:26 AM

It goes to show that Romney’s 47% remarks were no mistake — they’re what he truly believes, and what makes him unfit for office. Hopefully Jindal will throw his hat in the ring for 2016.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 8:14 AM

They’re a fact. The scarier fact is the 49.1% of the population is on some kind of government assistance whether it is SS, Medicare, Medicaid, EIC, Food Stamps, you name it.

The country has pretty much reached the tipping point.

CorporatePiggy on November 18, 2012 at 8:27 AM

President Gutsy defended and unscathed, again.
No thanks, Baylor was enough entertainment.

Starve the Beast.

FlaMurph on November 18, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Pelosi, Durbin, Feinstein, Becerra–woah, there are some moderates right there I am telling you /

hillsoftx on November 18, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Old CW:
Jindal/Rubio ’16

New CW:
Hume/Rubio ’16

itsnotaboutme on November 18, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Jindal can go to hell. You want to talk about gaffs? Who can forget that lame speech he made in response to the sotu.

Blake on November 18, 2012 at 8:09 AM

–Everything he said in the speech was true. It was the wooden, clumsy delivery that made it “lame.”

–Jindal is on our side. I’m weary of the Limbaugh Doctrine of hate everyone who doesn’t agree 100% with me that constantly tears down allies like McCain & Graham. Jindal, McCain, & Graham have served the GOP far better than Limbaugh has. The latter drives away more people than he attracts with his mean-spirited commentary.

itsnotaboutme on November 18, 2012 at 8:38 AM

Limbaugh…drives away more people than he attracts with his mean-spirited commentary.

No one ever was persuaded to switch to the GOP because someone’s head is allegedly shaped differently, or because someone else’s nostrils are supposedly large, or because someone else has an unusual name. Etc, etc.

itsnotaboutme on November 18, 2012 at 8:46 AM

How many Pole Stripper Republicans will be dancing for the media attention this morning?

A lot at stake for this new crop of dancers.

2013…..2014…..man you can get a lot of 20′s in your thong.

“Keep it up Jindal you’re looking good baby…..swing it over here baby!”

PappyD61 on November 18, 2012 at 8:48 AM

& someone should probably hose Jindal down.

How ’bout someone should hold him down and get some duct tape over his mouth. If Jindal is going to double down on going after Romney he’s an idiot. There’s not too many of us that are interested in bashing our own… especially over a comment that was truthful.

lynncgb on November 18, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Why is Illinois’s very own Big Dick (Durbin) being allowed to stink up the airways with his usual nonsensical blather on not just one, but TWO panel discussion shows on the same day?

pilamaye on November 18, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Limbaugh…drives away more people than he attracts with his mean-spirited commentary.

itsnotaboutme on November 18, 2012 at 8:38 AM

You want to talk about “mean-spirited commentary”? You ever listen to Mike Malloy stink up the airways on his own late night blatherfest radio show? That man is so mean-spirited, Satan has already planned in advance that no way is Malloy ever being allowed into Hell, for fear he would take the place over!

pilamaye on November 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Who gave the stand down order? Paula Broadwell? If not, #checktheWhiteHouseLog

ted c on November 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Regardless what Mitt said about the 47% it’s a truth. So is the fraudulent election and a sleeping Congress. The Country is going down the toilet and our politicians are starting to worry about 2016. OMG this is crazy! The playground arguments of the Administration of you said, she said, no we said are things children argue about.

mixplix on November 18, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Limbaugh…drives away more people than he attracts with his mean-spirited commentary.

itsnotaboutme on November 18, 2012 at 8:38 AM

Specifics?

CW on November 18, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Who pulled Jindal’s string? He’s basically said nothing the entire election cycle and now he’s going to dump on Mitt? Great strategy, Governor, let’s make the GOP even more divided than it was before! Pathetic.

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Limbaugh…drives away more people than he attracts with his mean-spirited commentary.

itsnotaboutme

And yet, no one ever seems to have a problem with mean-spirited commentary from the left. Go figure. Maybe if he joked about raping children, you’d find him more appealing.

xblade on November 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM

why does the gope continue to send out frick and frack to talk about benghazi. those 2 clowns love their chairs on the sunday show panels too much to ever stir up any controversy.

the country is going down the toilet and gramnesty and mccain are helping obama with the flushing.

renalin on November 18, 2012 at 9:00 AM

lynncgb on November 18, 2012 at 8:48 AM

+1

cmsinaz on November 18, 2012 at 9:00 AM

It’s amazing how quickly all the rumored ’16 contenders synchronized their politically correct message. All this faux outrage over something they know is true. Everyone’s already playing the media’s game for the next election, but it’s not going to help. I can only hope there’s at least one person who crops up over the next couple of years who doesn’t fall for this jive.

Dongemaharu on November 18, 2012 at 9:00 AM

candy going straight for the poor susan rice angle…

cmsinaz on November 18, 2012 at 9:01 AM

forget about the actual attack, we are going to go after the gop for attacking rice

cmsinaz on November 18, 2012 at 9:01 AM

I was so hoping that Pelosi would be gracious (hahahaha, I know) and hand that gavel over to someone else instead of hogging it to herself for another term. Give it up woman, it’s someone elses turn!

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Pelosi, Durbin, Feinstein, Becerra–woah, there are some moderates right there I am telling you /

hillsoftx on November 18, 2012 at 8:29 AM

How can it be TV Sunday without Susan Rice?

petefrt on November 18, 2012 at 9:02 AM

I can only hope there’s at least one person who crops up over the next couple of years who doesn’t fall for this jive.

Dongemaharu on November 18, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Yea, we need a clean slate.

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 9:03 AM

forget about the actual attack, we are going to go after the gop for attacking rice

cmsinaz on November 18, 2012 at 9:01 AM

And as is typical with the left, they can’t just question the GOP for asking questions about Rice, they have to accuse anyone who dares of being racist and sexist.

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I was so hoping that Pelosi would be gracious (hahahaha, I know) and hand that gavel over to someone else instead of hogging it to herself for another term. Give it up woman, it’s someone elses turn!

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 9:01 AM

I was going to say Pelosi should be guest-starred on AMC’s “The Walking Dead” as that particular week’s Blue Plate Special, but she would likely end up giving the zombies a bad case of indigestion!

pilamaye on November 18, 2012 at 9:10 AM

It’s amazing how quickly all the rumored ’16 contenders synchronized their politically correct message. All this faux outrage over something they know is true. Everyone’s already playing the media’s game for the next election, but it’s not going to help. I can only hope there’s at least one person who crops up over the next couple of years who doesn’t fall for this jive.

Dongemaharu on November 18, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Exactly.

KickandSwimMom on November 18, 2012 at 9:10 AM

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 9:09 AM

yepper…

cmsinaz on November 18, 2012 at 9:13 AM

What a sad sack of clowns. GOP=Toast.

Mr. Arrogant on November 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Who pulled Jindal’s string? He’s basically said nothing the entire election cycle and now he’s going to dump on Mitt? Great strategy, Governor, let’s make the GOP even more divided than it was before! Pathetic.

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Jindal is for Jindal and his own political ambitions. He also wants to dramatically increase the number of legal immigrants. His words, not mine. So 1 million a year isn’t enough?? Last time I checked we had 23 million unemployed Americans.

He also jumped on the let’s tax the rich train. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.” I guess he’s referring to the rich who actually worked hard and employ people. I’m done with Jindal. He’s doing the same thing with class warfare that Obama does.

TxAnn56 on November 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM

They’re a fact. The scarier fact is the 49.1% of the population is on some kind of government assistance whether it is SS, Medicare, Medicaid, EIC, Food Stamps, you name it.

The country has pretty much reached the tipping point.

CorporatePiggy on November 18, 2012 at 8:27 AM

Actually, they’re not. Most of that 47% pays in payroll tax, while much of the remainder is either retired (and paid in before), or is genuinely destitute.

Romney’s remarks that they refuse to take responsibility for their lives were condescending and wrong.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Who pulled Jindal’s string? He’s basically said nothing the entire election cycle and now he’s going to dump on Mitt? Great strategy, Governor, let’s make the GOP even more divided than it was before! Pathetic.

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 8:57 AM

He probably said nothing the entire election cycle because he was trying to be a team player and not undermine the nominee. Now that Romney’s officially finished, there’s no sense in holding back and continuing to protect someone who wasn’t worthy of the office.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 9:21 AM

The sunday talk shows gave us Susan Rice saying a video caused the Bengazi attacks. Why should I believe anything these idiots say. They’ll do opposite. Then after the interview, they’ll go have cocktails with the hosts and say how stupid the viewers are!!!

Danielvito on November 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM

pilamaye on November 18, 2012 at 9:10 AM

That’s hilarious. Zombies would probably have an easier time feasting on something like an armadillo.

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Hello, doesn’t anyone care anymore???

angrymike on November 18, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Nope. Down Twinkies… :(

Fallon on November 18, 2012 at 9:29 AM

He’s doing the same thing with class warfare that Obama does.

TxAnn56 on November 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Yup, pretty much!

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Romney’s remarks that they refuse to take responsibility for their lives were condescending and wrong.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 9:20 AM

.
No, those comments were not wrong. Did you not read this or are you going to continue to be narrow-minded?
.
Payroll taxes contribute to SS and Medicare, only. There is no contribution from those taxes to reducing the national debt that Ø the spendthrift is increasing to higher record levels.
.
Øbamacare and immigrant amnesty: “Sounds like everyone’s attacking Romney for agreeing with the media, the Democrats, and reality.”

ExpressoBold on November 18, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Jindal is for Jindal and his own political ambitions. He also wants to dramatically increase the number of legal immigrants. His words, not mine. So 1 million a year isn’t enough?? Last time I checked we had 23 million unemployed Americans.

He also jumped on the let’s tax the rich train. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.” I guess he’s referring to the rich who actually worked hard and employ people. I’m done with Jindal. He’s doing the same thing with class warfare that Obama does.

TxAnn56 on November 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Exactly. Why should I vote for someone who doesn’t have my economic and cultural interests at heart? Why should I pull the lever for more Obamaphones and Third World people flooding our shores?

I’m not.

Punchenko on November 18, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I think its good some repubs are risking themselves with some of the base and start shifting the gop from the electoral hole the “true conservatives” are blindly wanting to drive into.

1- realize that our base ideology is an electoral loser and we cannot sell it to the american electorate.

2- soft the social conservatism. I was convinced that prolife was a majority position but I realize that all the prolife PR work can be fast eroded in a political campaign and the latest polls show pro-choice in the majority again. this means that prolifism will be a loser if it takes the political centerstage. thus, of with it from the GOP national platform. we dont need loser minority positions piggybacking and dragging the rest of the GOP down. other themes like science stances(I cant believe Akin was part of the science committee) and marriage should also be ejected from the platform.

3- stop the hate of the left. I personally saw the crazyness of the OOTD threads(I called it the hate hivemind). no one believes everything obama do is bad and criticism should be measured or else you lose many moderates that frankly are turned of with such approach.

4- the libertarian dream in the purist sense is over. people want big goverment to take care of some issues and regulate some markets. we should make compromises and attack bad government programs and work to make wanted government programs to be built in a more market oriented way. for example, romneycare is better than single payer.

5- foreign policy should be more conservative, meaning less intervention. unfortunately, the libs cornered the market on this and we need to out flank them and be even more non interventionist. let them be the party of expensive interventions in the other side of the world.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I was going to say Pelosi should be guest-starred on AMC’s “The Walking Dead” as that particular week’s Blue Plate Special, but she would likely end up giving the zombies a bad case of indigestion!

pilamaye on November 18, 2012 at 9:10 AM

I thought zombies went for the brains?

koaiko on November 18, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Bobby, you’re a good man, but you’re way off the mark. Reagan Conservatism is what this country needs. A government-run economy is called Marxism. My take.

kingsjester on November 18, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Bob Woodward being disingenuous on FNS – asshØle. “What did Susan Rice know and when did she know it?” That’s not the question, BW! The question is “What did Ø know and when did she know it?” You know very well that re-framing the focus will not work (or it should not work if even an ass like me can get the focus accurately).

ExpressoBold on November 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Exactly. Why should I vote for someone who doesn’t have my economic and cultural interests at heart? Why should I pull the lever for more Obamaphones and Third World people flooding our shores?

I’m not.

Punchenko on November 18, 2012 at 9:39 AM

its a good point, we dont want poor and uneducated people coming in. but 2 points, 1 is that millions of illegal immigrants are already in and they took many low skill jobs that are necessary. they are more or less already integrated and there should be a path for them. however, whatever we give in on this, it should be sold with tougher borders and with tougher worker regulation and serious deportations of newcomers after this deal.
I can also suggest that immigrants should have their welfare delayed. welfare for recent immigrants is completely wrong.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Jindal is for Jindal and his own political ambitions. He also wants to dramatically increase the number of legal immigrants. His words, not mine. So 1 million a year isn’t enough?? Last time I checked we had 23 million unemployed Americans.

He also jumped on the let’s tax the rich train. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.” I guess he’s referring to the rich who actually worked hard and employ people. I’m done with Jindal. He’s doing the same thing with class warfare that Obama does.

TxAnn56 on November 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM

I didn’t have a problem with Jindal before this; I didn’t think he was a great speaker- he’s not all that convincing, but this latest attack he’s taking is offensive. If he can’t better clarify those “rich people with toys” comments, he’s not going to get very far with potential donors in the future. I also don’t think that a southern Governor is going to get the Nat’l attention that Rubio will get from Florida.

BettyRuth on November 18, 2012 at 9:48 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/17/Dont-let-door-hit%20-you-on-way-out-mccain

We could use a lot let of this woman over the coming years too :)
Just call me sexist!

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Republicans can attack their own very effectively.

tomas on November 18, 2012 at 9:50 AM

No, those comments were not wrong. Did you not read this or are you going to continue to be narrow-minded?
.
Payroll taxes contribute to SS and Medicare, only. There is no contribution from those taxes to reducing the national debt that Ø the spendthrift is increasing to higher record levels.
.
Øbamacare and immigrant amnesty: “Sounds like everyone’s attacking Romney for agreeing with the media, the Democrats, and reality.”

ExpressoBold on November 18, 2012 at 9:38 AM

No, you are wrong.

1.)Payroll taxes are not dedicated to SS and Medicare. They are routinely raided by Congress to pay for other expenses, even though in theory they’re maent for those.

2.) Check the third graphic of this link: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/federal-taxes-households.cfm

The hubris of the economic conservatives on this is embarassing.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 9:52 AM

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Pound sand and move to California. When the violent welfare zombies come for you when the spigot shuts off we’ll be sure to send help… slowly.

Punchenko on November 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I can also suggest that immigrants should have their welfare delayed. welfare for recent immigrants is completely wrong.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM

.
No welfare for immigrants. Not a citizen, go home. Your reasoning is how we got two Øbama relatives living here on public assistance. This “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” society is not working out for the USA.

ExpressoBold on November 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Bobby, you’re a good man, but you’re way off the mark. Reagan Conservatism is what this country needs. A government-run economy is called Marxism. My take.

kingsjester on November 18, 2012 at 9:45 AM

why you have to finish your blog with a bible quote? anyway, marxism used central government planing for everything. we are far away from it. my biggest concern is more the deficit of our central goverment than its interventions on the free market. we have to cut things and we have to be populist in our cuts, I suggest attacking the unions.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM

We have a loooooong 4 years ahead of us…seems a little early a week after the election for potential candidates like Jindal to be trash talking Romney. If he’s so smart about everything why didn’t he run? Same with Christie. It makes them look petty and childish. Not presidential.

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Jindal can go to hell. You want to talk about gaffs? Who can forget that lame speech he made in response to the sotu.

Blake on November 18, 2012 at 8:09 AM

AKA, the reason why Bobby Jindal will never be President. He’d be a great Cabinet Secretary or probably a great inside ball guy at the RNC, but running for President suggests that one has an ability to speak fluidly in public.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 9:57 AM

.
No welfare for immigrants. Not a citizen, go home. Your reasoning is how we got two Øbama relatives living here on public assistance. This “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” society is not working out for the USA.

ExpressoBold on November 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM

what I mean is, a recent legalized immigrant should have restrictions to its welfare for a number of years. illegals should obviously have no welfare.
regarding obama relatives, you dont want to see relatives of the president destitute. let it be, its a small price to pay.make the generic case, dont focus on obama.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:00 AM

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Wasn’t that the platform of our last Libertarian president?

Solaratov on November 18, 2012 at 10:01 AM

BTW, it’ll be interesting to see how Walker plays the whole comment. Don’t think that he’ll be running for President. Walker only runs for President if Ryan doesn’t. With Ryan, it is probably a game time decision.. namely does the rational for his candidacy still exist (the U.S.’s fiscal problems). Ironically, that is basically the same rationale for Walker’s candidacy. So I just cannot see Walker jumping in either.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 10:03 AM

The hubris of the economic conservatives on this is embarassing.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 9:52 AM

.
You ought be embarrassed! SSA is limited in the kinds of investments that it can make and guess what: it’s a specific federal bond type. The Federal gov had raiding SS in mind from the very beginning, so your argument is a feature, not a bug.
.
Brookings Institute – come on, dude, get real.
.
.
.
I wish I knew what the heck it was about the key that flips my cursor focus all over the damn screen ’cause it’s driving me nuts…. NUTS!

ExpressoBold on November 18, 2012 at 10:04 AM

I didn’t have a problem with Jindal before this; I didn’t think he was a great speaker- he’s not all that convincing, but this latest attack he’s taking is offensive. If he can’t better clarify those “rich people with toys” comments, he’s not going to get very far with potential donors in the future. I also don’t think that a southern Governor is going to get the Nat’l attention that Rubio will get from Florida.

BettyRuth on November 18, 2012 at 9:48 AM

I used to like him too, but he’s shown his true colors. I work with an Indian guy who will become a citizen next year and follows politics heavily. He warned me a couple of years ago that Jindal isn’t as conservative as people think he is. He said that he converted to Catholicism for political reasons thinking that a Hindu could never get elected and that he gave his kids Irish names also for political reasons. Starting to all make sense now.

TxAnn56 on November 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM

regarding obama relatives, you dont want to see relatives of the president destitute. let it be, its a small price to pay.make the generic case, dont focus on obama.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Why not? Are his relatives so much better than real Americans? They aren’t citizens. They are, in fact, illegal aliens…and we’re paying the freight for the moochers.
Why can’t lil barry dip into his millions and support his own family?
Wouldn’t that be the ‘libertarian’ way? Taking responsibility for one’s own family.

Solaratov on November 18, 2012 at 10:09 AM

regarding obama relatives, you dont want to see relatives of the president destitute. let it be, its a small price to pay.make the generic case, dont focus on obama.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:00 AM

.
Why wouldn’t we look to the president to assist his relatives, if we look to ordinary citizens to look after their own? That is the general case, which is what you mean to say.
.
You really sound like a dyed in the wool commie. You really do.

ExpressoBold on November 18, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Actually, they’re not. Most of that 47% pays in payroll tax, while much of the remainder is either retired (and paid in before), or is genuinely destitute.

Romney’s remarks that they refuse to take responsibility for their lives were condescending and wrong.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 9:20 AM

And the 47% should also pay federal income tax as well so that their skin is in the game. The only time I didn’t pay income tax was when I was in college and grad school and I wasn’t taking handouts from the federal gov’t then. I think that what infuriates most conservatives is the middle class welfare. As you said, welfare should be for those actually in dire straits.

As for your weird schilling of Jindal.. As someone who continues to defend Santorum and thinks that Mr. Let’s Have a National Discussion on Birth Control was a stronger candidate than Romney, I’ll take a pass on your enthusiasm for Jindal.. Heck, there is a really good reason why Jindal isn’t going to be President — Remember the guy’s SOTU response.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM

NO ONE will talk about what dear leader said during the 2nd debate…they are just defending the crap for obama…

cmsinaz on November 18, 2012 at 10:11 AM

pound sand and move to California. When the violent welfare zombies come for you when the spigot shuts off we’ll be sure to send help… slowly.

Punchenko on November 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM

and were do you live? chances are that you live in a deficitary red state that will need federal money more than many blue states.
I am not moved by the fear of riots, the US passed through worse phases during the great depression and we pulled trough.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:12 AM

regarding obama relatives, you dont want to see relatives of the president destitute. let it be, its a small price to pay.make the generic case, dont focus on obama.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:00 AM

.
Why wouldn’t we look to the president to assist his relatives, if we look to ordinary citizens to look after their own? That is the general case, which is what you mean to say.
.
You really sound like a dyed in the wool commie. You really do.

ExpressoBold on November 18, 2012 at 10:09 AM

His English isn’t very good either. He’s either from out of town or is a Democrat-voting resident of California. :-)

Punchenko on November 18, 2012 at 10:13 AM

I used to like him too, but he’s shown his true colors. I work with an Indian guy who will become a citizen next year and follows politics heavily. He warned me a couple of years ago that Jindal isn’t as conservative as people think he is. He said that he converted to Catholicism for political reasons thinking that a Hindu could never get elected and that he gave his kids Irish names also for political reasons. Starting to all make sense now.

TxAnn56 on November 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I also thought that he converted to Catholicism for political reasons. And it is sort of odd and creepy that an 18-year-old is plotting out his political career like that and walking through the stuff he needs to do to be President.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:00 AM

My blog. I write what I want. Until you kind takes over this land, I will write for God and country.

kingsjester on November 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

I can also suggest that immigrants should have their welfare delayed. welfare for recent immigrants is completely wrong.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM

No welfare for immigrants. Not a citizen, go home.

ExpressoBold on November 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM

My understanding is that illegal immigrants can not get welfare for themselves…but can get it on behalf of their American born children.

The same is true for legal immigrants, and after a period of time they themselves become eligible. Not sure how long though.

lynncgb on November 18, 2012 at 10:15 AM

You ought be embarrassed! SSA is limited in the kinds of investments that it can make and guess what: it’s a specific federal bond type. The Federal gov had raiding SS in mind from the very beginning, so your argument is a feature, not a bug.

ExpressoBold on November 18, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Actually, that addresses nothing about my argument. My argument is that the 47% do contribute.

And the 47% should also pay federal income tax as well so that their skin is in the game. The only time I didn’t pay income tax was when I was in college and grad school and I wasn’t taking handouts from the federal gov’t then. I think that what infuriates most conservatives is the middle class welfare. As you said, welfare should be for those actually in dire straits.

And their Federal withholding, also a part of their payroll tax, is counted against their income tax contribution. Ignoring the direct tie between payroll taxes and income taxes is dishonest.

As for your weird schilling of Jindal.. As someone who continues to defend Santorum and thinks that Mr. Let’s Have a National Discussion on Birth Control was a stronger candidate than Romney, I’ll take a pass on your enthusiasm for Jindal.. Heck, there is a really good reason why Jindal isn’t going to be President — Remember the guy’s SOTU response.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Of course you will. And you can take comfort in a Romney presidency… oh wait, what was that again? He lost? Darn!

Santorum was outspent by more than 10-to-1 margins in many contests, and still won many of them against Romney. If you stopped to think for just half a second, maybe it shows that some of us have instincts that are a little bit better than yours when it comes to appealing candidates.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Why wouldn’t we look to the president to assist his relatives, if we look to ordinary citizens to look after their own? That is the general case, which is what you mean to say.
.
You really sound like a dyed in the wool commie. You really do.

ExpressoBold on November 18, 2012 at 10:09 AM

if the president family was being handed millions in government contracts it would be much worse and lots of our political families sure seems to profit well. the president extended family should have some measure of protection. this has nothing to do with communism.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:22 AM

His English isn’t very good either. He’s either from out of town or is a Democrat-voting resident of California. :-)

Punchenko on November 18, 2012 at 10:13 AM

.
He is also ill-informed about red state / blue state governance, fiscal circumstances and economic acumen. I also caught this:

what I mean is, a recent legalized immigrant should have restrictions to its welfare for a number of years. illegals should obviously have no welfare.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:00 AM

.
Doesn’t that statement presume a propensity for immigrants to need welfare assistance at some point in their assimilation of our culture and economic life?

ExpressoBold on November 18, 2012 at 10:23 AM

My blog. I write what I want. Until you kind takes over this land, I will write for God and country.

kingsjester on November 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

no ones wants to curtail your freedom, but I personally find policy justified with biblical quotes a dis-qualifier. you are writing to a very specific socon crowd.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:28 AM

In comparison, a more gracious potential candidate speaks in Iowa:

In his speech, Rubio focused on the future, mentioning this year’s GOP standard bearer just once before pivoting to a broad discussion of solutions and goals for the party in the coming years. Mitt Romney, Rubio said, is an “extraordinary person” who he hopes “stays involved in the American political process.”

AND

“The way to turn our economy around is not by making rich people poorer. It’s by making poor people richer,” the Florida senator said. “Big government doesn’t help the people who are trying to make it. It hurts them.”

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Santorum was outspent by more than 10-to-1 margins in many contests, and still won many of them against Romney. If you stopped to think for just half a second, maybe it shows that some of us have instincts that are a little bit better than yours when it comes to appealing candidates.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The strength of Santorum’s support didn’t come from any amazing political skill of Santorum but rather from the party base’s loud rejection of Romney. I have honestly never seen anything like it… If you look at tne primary polls, you saw Romney stuck at 23% or so and this never-ending wave of “not-Romney” candidates surge ahead only to lose all their support once they did or said something crazy. After Santorum lost Ohio, I think the party base just gave up and accepted that Romney was the least-smelly turd of the bunch. The fact that white voter turnout was down significantly this year may also be a reflection of this phenomenon.

Outlander on November 18, 2012 at 10:30 AM

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I watched him live on CSPAN last night. He also said he is not giving up hope for this country. We are it. Without the US the world turns dark.

esr1951 on November 18, 2012 at 10:32 AM

My understanding is that illegal immigrants can not get welfare for themselves…but can get it on behalf of their American born children.

anchor babies… it should be legislated against if its too common

The same is true for legal immigrants, and after a period of time they themselves become eligible. Not sure how long though.

lynncgb on November 18, 2012 at 10:15 AM

make it as long as necessary to discourage immigrants to take advantage our our welfare.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:33 AM

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Christians still make up 78% of this nation, per Gallup.

Whining is easy.Facts are hard.

Get out of your Mom’s basement every now and then.

kingsjester on November 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

The strength of Santorum’s support didn’t come from any amazing political skill of Santorum but rather from the party base’s loud rejection of Romney. I have honestly never seen anything like it… If you look at tne primary polls, you saw Romney stuck at 23% or so and this never-ending wave of “not-Romney” candidates surge ahead only to lose all their support once they did or said something crazy. After Santorum lost Ohio, I think the party base just gave up and accepted that Romney was the least-smelly turd of the bunch. The fact that white voter turnout was down significantly this year may also be a reflection of this phenomenon.

Outlander on November 18, 2012 at 10:30 AM

I agree in large measure that much of Santorum’s support stemmed from the ABR coalition. But the question that needs to be asked is this: why did it coalesce around Santorum rather than Gingrich?

After Gingrich won South Carolina, he lost Florida. That was supposed to be the end of it. The contest was over, we were told, and Romney was the victor.

But then something truly bizarre happened. Santorum pulled out a hat trick on one night, winning Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado — none of which he was supposed to have a chance in, especially since he hadn’t won a contest since Iowa, and even with his Iowa win, don’t forget that Romney was originally declared the winner, blunting any momentum that Santorum could have gotten from it.

No money, no momentum, no press, and he pulled out a three-win upset. It could have been Gingrich — or Gingrich and Santorum could have split that vote enabling Romney to win all 3 contests instead. But no, the vote coalesced around Santorum.

Will I admit that Santorum owes a lot to being “not Romney”? Absolutely. But I think it’d be a big mistake to dismiss his appeal completely, especially when he was running evenly with, or at times even ahead of Obama while Romney was running behind Obama in head-to-head polling. That’s something that no other candidate can claim.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I have an idea, GOP: Stop attacking Mitt and deal with the problems that face us right now. The wannabes are staking the ground for 2016 and not solving the nightmare scenarios that loom above us all right now. Be a part of the solution.

Philly on November 18, 2012 at 10:37 AM

And their Federal withholding, also a part of their payroll tax, is counted against their income tax contribution. Ignoring the direct tie between payroll taxes and income taxes is dishonest.

Most get compensated through tax credits, so it is still a net neutral to them.

Of course you will. And you can take comfort in a Romney presidency… oh wait, what was that again? He lost? Darn!

Santorum was outspent by more than 10-to-1 margins in many contests, and still won many of them against Romney. If you stopped to think for just half a second, maybe it shows that some of us have instincts that are a little bit better than yours when it comes to appealing candidates.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 10:16 AM

As a Republican woman, I find Santorum and his brand of social conservatism offensive. I don’t want to be nagged and lectured about my lifestyle choices and about my personal decisions. And I don’t really want to be told I’m less of a woman because I have a job rather than popping out babies and making sammiches. And I’m fairly open to gay rights, so I find Santorum’s weird obsession with gays off putting as well. I would have chosen to vote “present” if Santorum had been the R nominee for President.

There are millions of more moderate women and men who voted for Romney who wouldn’t have voted for Santorum. Romney lost a close election by 2% points and he won indies by 5%; it wasn’t a landslide. Santorum would have lost in a landslide 10%+. The Obama campaign would have had a field day tying him to Akin and the War on Womenz and Ladyparts.

Jindal doesn’t have Santorum’s problem although he has most of the same positions on social issues as Santorum. It’s all about tone and emphasis. However, Jindal’s problems involve him being unable to give a compelling speech.. which is sort of really important when one runs for President.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Christians still make up 78% of this nation, per Gallup.

Whining is easy.Facts are hard.

Get out of your Mom’s basement every now and then.

kingsjester on November 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

the majority of christians, thank god, are not biblical literalists. They will be equally put off by biblical justified politics. you are still writing to a section of the socons, that is your target audience! just admit it! there is nothing really wrong with it.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:38 AM

the US passed through worse phases during the great depression and we pulled trough.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:12 AM

No, we didn’t “pull through”. We staggered up off the floor, carrying the cancer that was firmly implanted, and we are now in the final stages of being eaten alive by it. The election just past has proven beyond any doubt that no one can get re-elected by threatening to cut Federal spending. Even though the sources of all that money are nothing but debt and inflation, a majority of voters don’t really care.
If you don’t understand that a fundamental realignment of power needs to take place in our Federal System, then you’re never going to understand what’s going on around you.

Lew on November 18, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Be a part of the solution.

Philly on November 18, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Exactly. Romney lost. We lost. What do we want to do, whine about it? Screw that, lets dust ourselves off and start finding someone who can lead us to a victory. And I wouldn’t put Jindal or Christie on that list. nor Santorum. They all had their chance, and I don’t think any of them could have won this thing either. Let’s start over.

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Most get compensated through tax credits, so it is still a net neutral to them.

If you pay in, you pay in. You can make a claim that people get more net on services than they pay in, but that’s a much murkier argument, and could potentially nab much of the 53% too.

As a Republican woman, I find Santorum and his brand of social conservatism offensive. I don’t want to be nagged and lectured about my lifestyle choices and about my personal decisions. And I don’t really want to be told I’m less of a woman because I have a job rather than popping out babies and making sammiches. And I’m fairly open to gay rights, so I find Santorum’s weird obsession with gays off putting as well. I would have chosen to vote “present” if Santorum had been the R nominee for President.

And as a social conservative, my primary concern is justice. And if people’s “personal decisions” result in the sucking out of brains, burning off the skin, or ripping apart limb from limb the bodies of babies, then I will fervently oppose people like you. And I find your “acceptance” of gay rights to be patently offensive, as you demonstrate no sensibilities as to what the purpose of marriage revolves around: the creation and upbringing of children in a stable, two-parent environment.

As for voting present, I essentially did that by voting for Virgil Goode rather than Romney. The rest of my family stayed home rather than vote for Romney. Romney underperformed John McCain. I’d humbly suggest that your preferred avenue has been weighed, it has been measured, and it has been found wanting.

There are millions of more moderate women and men who voted for Romney who wouldn’t have voted for Santorum. Romney lost a close election by 2% points and he won indies by 5%; it wasn’t a landslide. Santorum would have lost in a landslide 10%+. The Obama campaign would have had a field day tying him to Akin and the War on Womenz and Ladyparts.

Jindal doesn’t have Santorum’s problem although he has most of the same positions on social issues as Santorum. It’s all about tone and emphasis. However, Jindal’s problems involve him being unable to give a compelling speech.. which is sort of really important when one runs for President.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 10:37 AM

And there are millions of social conservatives who didn’t vote for Romney. That’s why, even though Romney improved over McCain by 13 points with Indies, he still did worse than McCain. As for Santorum and lady-parts, at least we would have had a candidate who would be willing to fight back rather than say, “Oh, you think I oppress women? Well, golly, let’s talk about the deficit!”

The only think I agree with you on is that Jindal’s appeal doesn’t lie in his speeches. Jindal is at his best extemporaneously, whether it be off-the-cuff townhall meetings, a press interview, or a debate.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM

The strength of Santorum’s support didn’t come from any amazing political skill of Santorum but rather from the party base’s loud rejection of Romney. I have honestly never seen anything like it… If you look at tne primary polls, you saw Romney stuck at 23% or so and this never-ending wave of “not-Romney” candidates surge ahead only to lose all their support once they did or said something crazy. After Santorum lost Ohio, I think the party base just gave up and accepted that Romney was the least-smelly turd of the bunch. The fact that white voter turnout was down significantly this year may also be a reflection of this phenomenon.

Outlander on November 18, 2012 at 10:30 AM

The field was really weak this year, which is why most of the money guys and political consultants spent half of 2011 trying to find another candidate. That’s why Mitch Daniels, Butterball, and Paul Ryan were all considered. Butterball had been Governor of NJ for two years and was considered a viable candidate for President. To Romney’s credit, he became a compelling nominee after he beat up Obama in the first debate; it would have been better if he morphed into that person in January.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 10:47 AM

No, we didn’t “pull through”. We staggered up off the floor, carrying the cancer that was firmly implanted, and we are now in the final stages of being eaten alive by it. The election just past has proven beyond any doubt that no one can get re-elected by threatening to cut Federal spending. Even though the sources of all that money are nothing but debt and inflation, a majority of voters don’t really care.
If you don’t understand that a fundamental realignment of power needs to take place in our Federal System, then you’re never going to understand what’s going on around you.

Lew on November 18, 2012 at 10:41 AM

I suggest you this, we need a constitutional amendment to force balanced budgets and even have a surplus for though times. I think this is a way to go.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Santorum would have lost women by 25% points.

Biden will wipe the floor with ANY Republican in 2016.

no sarc tag.

PappyD61 on November 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM

think about that……

Biden 2016.

The republican field is THAT bad.

PappyD61 on November 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I strongly recommend watching this rather than anything listed above.

Naturally Curly on November 18, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Thanks, that was really good.

Night Owl on November 18, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2