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

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 that this is what happened. Romney got the independent vote that everyone thought would make the difference, but the Romney-haters could not overcome their anger at his nomination and stayed home, along with the undecideds who never broke for either candidate. The GOP defeated itself, because it counted on Obama hate cancelling out Romney hate. Didn’t happen…

Priscilla on November 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Santorum would have lost women by 25% points.

correct

Biden will wipe the floor with ANY Republican in 2016.

no sarc tag.

PappyD61 on November 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM

delusional. there will be no bush years excuse for the dems 8 years past. biden will not be the nominee but the gop victory depends a lot more on the quality of its field. if its like the 2012 field, we are screwed again.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Shouldn’t we be going after Obama and dems not each other?

Very disappointed in the “attack Mitt” strategy that is going on right now.

gophergirl on November 18, 2012 at 11:04 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

That would be modest start at best.
What we really need is a set Constitutional Amendments that close the three major holes in the limits of Federal power; The Commerce Clause, the General Welfare clause, and the doctrine of “Compelling Interest”. The last 200 years have proven beyond any doubt that Federal power is completely out of control and is currently approaching the level of blatant despotism. And for better or worse, the Supreme Court has betrayed it’s mission of protecting Americans from encroachment by the modern integrated mega-state that the United States has become.
In short, we need to return to a republic.

Lew on November 18, 2012 at 11:05 AM

scalleywag on November 18, 2012 at 10:43 AM

We lost the electoral college by a razor-thin margin, is that correct? Keep building. I don’t see the need to throw out the baby and the bathwater. Yes, we need a uniter to attract new members to the party and reach consensus, but I don’t quite sense the same amount of GOP doom that others do. Good ideas are always welcome, regardless. Dust ourselves off is correct, IMO.

We knew this was going to be hard, given the amount of goodies Obama promised.. Mitt is correct. When the bill comes due in the next few years for the goodies, especially among the middle class and those living on the edge, clarity will soon follow. They can only kick it down the road so far. The question is, will it be too late?

The doom I sense isn’t a product of anything the GOP stands for, and it is a matter of time before everything hits the fan. Let the chips fall, and be prepared.

Philly on November 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM

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.

Santorum just wasn’t opposed to abortion. He enjoyed hectoring people, especially women, about their use of birth control. Which news flash to Santorum, using birth control means people don’t conceive in the first place. He also hectored me as a woman because I’m single in my 30s and an unmarried working women. Apparently, I’m less of a woman because I’m not popping out kids and making sammiches for my husband.

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.

The gays aren’t hurting anyone. If they want to live in the suburbs and adopt a few kids, I see nothing wrong with that. And churches should be able to define marriage any way they please. For instance, the Catholic Church won’t let divorcees get remarried. All that something like say a civil union is doing is really making sure people are on equal footing when it comes to family law issues – child custody, end of life decisions, etc.

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.

Geez.. People like you should really be shamed for throwing away your vote. There are huge fiscal issues facing this country. Electing Mitt Romney President meant having a guy who could turn around the economy in charge. It meant VP Paul Ryan fixing our budget and reforming entitlements. It meant no Obamacare. So I thank you for the massive debt, the continued entitlement crisis, the double dip recession, and the gov’t takeover of healthcare.

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!”

Umm… I’ll take religious bigotry for 200 please Alex. It’s my belief that the Mormon thing is exactly why.

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.

Jindal’s good at reciting governmentese and policy minutia at CSPAN conferences. This is why he’d make a great Secretary of HHS. However, he is going to come up against issues when talking to Joe Schmo in New Hampshire at a town hall or in a national debate. As for giving speeches, having a compelling stump speech is really important. What is he going to do hope to pick up pity points at the convention with his acceptance speech.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Very disappointed in the “attack Mitt” strategy that is going on right now.

gophergirl on November 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Been going on since the primaries….Mitt was double teamed by the Dems and his own party.

Priscilla on November 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM

The GOP defeated itself, because it counted on Obama hate cancelling out Romney hate. Didn’t happen…

Priscilla on November 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I have been screaming this for long time. The Obama hatred was irrational and while it did motivated a section of the base, that was it. Obama hatred will help nothing in persuading the still large majority that does not hate obama to vote against him and undermines any posive persuasion to vote for the the gop candidate.
but, judging for the OOTD threads, some section of the base was in mob mode. I called it hate hivemind and we should avoid it.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Priscilla on November 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Amen

Philly on November 18, 2012 at 11:13 AM

It appears that it will be Rubio and Jindhal as the gop rino choices for 2016. I know that the Bush family backs Rubio.
He supposedly is great buddies with Jeb Bush. I also hear the
Georgie Bush is going to run for office….2020 or 2024?

Does anyone know if there is a powerhouse group supporting Jindhal?

For me, at this juncture, Christie is out because of his fawning
over Obama after hurricane Sandy and a few other things. I used to want to know more about Jindhal and Rubio, however, this classless act of kicking a man (Romney) when he is down is unforgiveable, therefore, they are off my list.

I was never for Romney until he was the last man standing, however,
at that point I was all in, ABO. Romney handled himself much
better than I expected. He would have been the best at repairing
the economy which in my view was or should have been the #1 issue.
He and his wife, Ann, were classy and graceful all throughout the
campaign. Such a refreshing change from The One and Michelle
Antoinette.

The lefties and the corrupt media tell repubs that they don’t have
anything in their repertoire for minorities, so the rino repubs
pull out an hispanic and indian and throw them on the alphabet
channel circuit. I think this is hilarious!

Does anyone have any other “minority” candidates we should be
looking at?

Amjean on November 18, 2012 at 11:14 AM

The GOP defeated itself, because it counted on Obama hate cancelling out Romney hate. Didn’t happen…

Priscilla on November 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I have been screaming this for long time. The Obama hatred was irrational and while it did motivated a section of the base, that was it. Obama hatred will help nothing in persuading the still large majority that does not hate obama to vote against him and undermines any posive persuasion to vote for the the gop candidate.
but, judging for the OOTD threads, some section of the base was in mob mode. I called it hate hivemind and we should avoid it.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 11:12 AM

There is nothing irrational about Obama hatred if you love this
country. And if you have enough brains to research Obama’s
socialist/marxist/communist record, background, friends, etc.
Also, I am from the Chicago area and know all about him and his
thug regime.

My opinion is that if do not hate what Obama has done to this
country you are of the same kind or stupid.

Amjean on November 18, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Shouldn’t we be going after Obama and dems not each other?

Very disappointed in the “attack Mitt” strategy that is going on right now.

gophergirl on November 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM

lol! what you want, the GOP to rally around and defend loser romney? romney is already under the gop bus and civil war is inevitable. dont expect any unity for some time and maybe its for the best.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 11:18 AM

who ever is saying Newt, Cain or Santorum would not have won

***YOU TOLD EVERYBODY THAT ROMNEY WOULD WIN!****

So shove your “insight” you clueless idiots!

The same way you convince everyone during the primary, just for us who supported another candidate to have eggs on our face, it’s the same way I think you deserve for us to say GO F@$#% YOURSELF…while you try to tell us what could have not worked. pfft.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on November 18, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Amjean on November 18, 2012 at 11:14 AM

If all Republicans thought like you, Romney would’ve won.

Anyway, Susana Martinez is saying all the right things, so she’s definitely one to watch….

Priscilla on November 18, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Santorum just wasn’t opposed to abortion. He enjoyed hectoring people, especially women, about their use of birth control. Which news flash to Santorum, using birth control means people don’t conceive in the first place. He also hectored me as a woman because I’m single in my 30s and an unmarried working women. Apparently, I’m less of a woman because I’m not popping out kids and making sammiches for my husband.

Your remarks are nothing but hyperbole. He was not hectoring women, and when asked about birth control, he said that he didn’t use it in his own life due to his religious beliefs, that he thought it was harmful, but that he wasn’t going to ban it. And he never hectored you personally.

The gays aren’t hurting anyone. If they want to live in the suburbs and adopt a few kids, I see nothing wrong with that. And churches should be able to define marriage any way they please. For instance, the Catholic Church won’t let divorcees get remarried. All that something like say a civil union is doing is really making sure people are on equal footing when it comes to family law issues – child custody, end of life decisions, etc.

They aren’t hurting anyone… they just molest kids when they become priests, endlessly seek membership in the Boy Scouts (I wonder why!) as scout leaders, hold gay parades as open demonstrations of their nymphomania, and even have had the curricula of California schools changed to honor themselves. Sure, they aren’t hurting anyone… riiiiiiight.

Geez.. People like you should really be shamed for throwing away your vote. There are huge fiscal issues facing this country.

And there are huge social issues facing this country, like the warping of an age-old institution in which we recognize the responsibilities of people who create kids. Major issues like the genocidal atrocity of abortion that takes place behind closed doors. To obsess single-mindedly on fiscal issues strikes a social conservative like myself as saying, “Sure, Hitler may be burning Jews in furnaces, but look at how the national ledger is doing!” It’s callous and self-centered.

Electing Mitt Romney President meant having a guy who could turn around the economy in charge. It meant VP Paul Ryan fixing our budget and reforming entitlements. It meant no Obamacare. So I thank you for the massive debt, the continued entitlement crisis, the double dip recession, and the gov’t takeover of healthcare.

…Did you take a look at the nominee? Did you see what he passed in Massachusetts? If you think it meant no Obamacare, you truly are out of touch.

Umm… I’ll take religious bigotry for 200 please Alex. It’s my belief that the Mormon thing is exactly why.

I’m an atheist and I didn’t vote for Romney. SoCons were primarily pissed with Romney for his support of Roe as governor, as well as his telling the Des Moines Register that he wouldn’t enact any policies to restrict abortion as president (not to mention his own sister telling voters he would do nothing about abortion, as well as putting out ads emphasizing his love of exceptions to his supposed opposition to abortion while completely ignoring the 98% of abortions that are elective), as well as his slap-in-the-face to Chick-fil-A voters as people who weren’t part of his campaign. Using “anti-Mormon bigotry” as an excuse is a tired meme that was pushed by the establishment since Romney’s been a candidate, and has never been borne out by fact.

Jindal’s good at reciting governmentese and policy minutia at CSPAN conferences. This is why he’d make a great Secretary of HHS. However, he is going to come up against issues when talking to Joe Schmo in New Hampshire at a town hall or in a national debate. As for giving speeches, having a compelling stump speech is really important. What is he going to do hope to pick up pity points at the convention with his acceptance speech.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Take a look at Jindal on the Sunday shows. He can speak to media, and he can speak to voters, including Joe Schmo. He’ll have to work on his stump speech, I agree, but that’s a far easier matter to resolve than saving a fatally-flawed candidate like Romney.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I think you deserve for us to say GO F@$#% YOURSELF…while you try to tell us what could have not worked. pfft.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on November 18, 2012 at 11:19 AM

There ya go – the “winning” mindset \

Priscilla on November 18, 2012 at 11:22 AM

think about that……

Biden 2016.

The republican field is THAT bad.

PappyD61 on November 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Umm.. Like how the crazy person totally baited Ryan into a Dan Quayle moment that ruined Ryan’s future political career — Oh wait that didn’t happen. Wait everyone thinks that Biden is a jerk now and he has the same political favorables as Selina Meyers on Veep (which is an hilarious show that I cannot recommend enough if you are cynical about politics) after that debate.

I think that Ryan, Rubio, and Jindal all have their hurdles to overcome, but it is actually a fairly strong field. The fact that the average age of the R candidates will probably be mid-40s and the average age of the D candidates will be about 70 really flips the narrative on its head. All three R candidates also cannot be tarred with the whole old, stupid, and evil labels. Considering the epic fail associated with trying to make Ryan a granny killer this time around and the fact that they were left fixated with the stupid marathon thing, makes me think that none of the three are going to get smeared.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 11:22 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 still think he has a point there. As more and more Americans have less, they’ll naturally become more antagonistic towards the wealthy. I think deep down many realize this isn’t the Great Depression-we’re not going to climb our way out of this one somehow. So with fewer and fewer opportunities to succeed, why wouldn’t they support those who promise them a chicken in every pot?

Still, the Democrats have been pretty damn good to the rich (many are themselves) recently and in the past. Kennedy is still their darling though he was a proponent of lowering taxes. We get inundated with the meme that Clinton “fixed” the economy and allowed for a more positive business environment. Obama has pushed through hundreds of billions in “stimulus” to the to-big-to-failers…and yet via the LSM much of the electorate is still convinced that the GOP is all about the rich and about screwing the Common Man.

I don’t think it’s the message. Most Americans want to succeed on their own, but increasingly they’re seeing these opportunities evaporate…real or imagined, I think that’s where they’re coming from.

I believe it has much to do with the marketability of our candidates. We need some kind of Looker biometric program to pick the most viable candidates and try them out in front of focus groups composed of Democrats. It wasn’t too terribly long ago that even California would go Republican in a national election.

But, increasingly I’m convinced that the GOP is quite happy with just staying in the game…they’re used to Democrat-controlled Congresses and they don’t seem to be hurting too much even if they lose national elections.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Shouldn’t we be going after Obama and dems not each other?

Very disappointed in the “attack Mitt” strategy that is going on right now.

gophergirl on November 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM

You never see Dems attacking each other even when they’re completely in the wrong. I didn’t hear any Dems condemning Biden’s “keep y’all in chains” remark. What Mitt said was right and the truth hurts. But to pile on him like these 2016 hopefuls are doing reveals that they too will throw anyone under the bus to get elected.

TxAnn56 on November 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM

That would be modest start at best.
What we really need is a set Constitutional Amendments that close the three major holes in the limits of Federal power; The Commerce Clause, the General Welfare clause, and the doctrine of “Compelling Interest”. The last 200 years have proven beyond any doubt that Federal power is completely out of control and is currently approaching the level of blatant despotism. And for better or worse, the Supreme Court has betrayed it’s mission of protecting Americans from encroachment by the modern integrated mega-state that the United States has become.
In short, we need to return to a republic.

Lew on November 18, 2012 at 11:05 AM

big argument here. I generally agree, but I think balanced budget is way more important than anything else and its the most doable electoral proposal.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 11:25 AM

I don’t know if anyone has ever won an election by telling the “swing voters” that they are stupid. So this hysterical “gifts” cleanup by Jindal and the GOP is predictable. It’s just sad that the fate of our country hinges on protecting the fragile egos of some staggeringly ignorant people who auction their votes off to the candidate who ignores their stupidity and flatters them the most every two years.

fitzfong on November 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM

I generally agree, but I think balanced budget is way more important than anything else and its the most doable electoral proposal.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 11:25 AM

We already have balanced budget requirements available to us. They’re called States. And they also have the added virtue that they can’t print their own money, and most important of all, they’re closer to the people.
Gee, who’d have thunk it? Maybe as a republic, we could be more democratic?

Lew on November 18, 2012 at 11:32 AM

I like Rubio and Martinez, too. I am kind of miffed at Jindal for jumping on the Kick Mitt bandwagon. Disappointed at Christie, too. Christie slobbered all over Barky, and shouldn’t have. I understand he was looking out for the citizens of NJ, but sheesh. Slobbering love affair with socialists. Jindal still has time to rehabilitate himself. Jury is out on Christie.

Rubio and Martinez understand what it is like to come from little to moderate means and rise up. They know the fear of those who are one paycheck from screwed. That fear is what Barky used to win: The government will always be there to catch and ensnare you instead of lift you. The United States of Julia.

The GOP did not do anything to address the fears of those who have been beaten down for 4 years, and that is most of us. The psychological effects of this recession will not be healed for a long, long time. Even longer now, since we lost.

Philly on November 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM

but I think balanced budget is way more important than anything else and its the most doable electoral proposal.

nathor

Don’t you actually have to pass a budget before you can balance it?

xblade on November 18, 2012 at 11:37 AM

We already have balanced budget requirements available to us. They’re called States. And they also have the added virtue that they can’t print their own money, and most important of all, they’re closer to the people.
Gee, who’d have thunk it? Maybe as a republic, we could be more democratic?

Lew on November 18, 2012 at 11:32 AM

I fear one thing, without some federal programs forcing some uniformity, there could be a centrifugal forces separating the states and could in the long term be the end of the union. what you think of this?

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Don’t you actually have to pass a budget before you can balance it?

xblade on November 18, 2012 at 11:37 AM

yep!!! constitutional amendment: the congress has to pass a budget or no money federal money can be spend. run on this, its popular and we could get it done!

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 11:46 AM

I think you deserve for us to say GO F@$#% YOURSELF…while you try to tell us what could have not worked. pfft.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on November 18, 2012 at 11:19 AM

There ya go – the “winning” mindset \

Priscilla on November 18, 2012 at 11:22 AM

…well…IT is still getting IT…from both ends!

KOOLAID2 on November 18, 2012 at 11:46 AM

I believe it has much to do with the marketability of our candidates. We need some kind of Looker biometric program to pick the most viable candidates and try them out in front of focus groups composed of Democrats. It wasn’t too terribly long ago that even California would go Republican in a national election.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM

California?
You are good Blago!
It shows where the US is going and it ain’t pretty.

The 70% of Latinos which went for O in 12 did not altogether surprise me except that blood and giveaways are thicker than ethics and cultural pride. I used to believe the stereotypes about their strength, their religion and their concept of honor. Gong.

See how gay marriage got the blacks to stay home? Gong.

We had the most pro infanticide leader in history but the pro-life field marshals pop up after a loss and say we needed a strong antiabortion nominee. Gong.

The R’s were motivated according to such as Dick Morris. I will not even put an gong sound here. It is too sad.

Fighting about the social conservative issues is like General Custer’s men shooting their horses to lay down behind them. Specifically, a dead horse (like the settled abortion issue) does little for you in either case.

Unlike many, I get no idea about what the R’s should do when I look backward and Mitt looks bad when he looks back .

Me? I hope someone sells capitalism and makes it work for everybody.

The losers on the gravy train must rally and save us.

I have been very animated about my success in selling capitalism to the beaten I have known. It is the only chance they have. It is the only chance we have.

IlikedAUH2O on November 18, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Don’t you actually have to pass a budget before you can balance it?

xblade on November 18, 2012 at 11:37 AM

One would think!
In reality though, it’s too late for that because the budget isn’t the problem here. The budget is a symptom. The problem isn’t what the Federal Government COSTS, the problem is what the Federal Government DOES!
Think about it; if the Federal Government didn’t get involved in the pathological need to micromanage every minuscule aspect of every American’s life, how much new revenue would it need? How much less spending would be needed to carry out the few NECESSARY functions of a central government, if that government focused on facilitating other more efficient providers rather than being the provider itself?
The truth is that the Federal Government is the single worst way to solve almost every problem imaginable. And yet, so many of us insist on going to the Federal Government with every complaint in our lives without the slightest concern for where the funds for the solution have to come from.

Lew on November 18, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Your remarks are nothing but hyperbole. He was not hectoring women, and when asked about birth control, he said that he didn’t use it in his own life due to his religious beliefs, that he thought it was harmful, but that he wasn’t going to ban it. And he never hectored you personally.

Umm.. Rick Santorum was all like “Let’s have a national conversation on birth control” and “Women who aren’t popping out babies aren’t real women” during the primaries, so yes he was trying to lecture people who didn’t agree with him. And most people don’t want a President nagging them. It’s a difference of optics. Chuckles is also a Social Con, but he has sort of a fun personality and plays a guitar. Rick Santorum has no redeeming edge. If people want a morality lecture, there always going to prefer one from Father O’Malley from Going My Way (Chuckles) to the minister from Footloose (Santorum). Of course, people don’t want their Presidents to give them a morality lecture.

They aren’t hurting anyone… they just molest kids when they become priests, endlessly seek membership in the Boy Scouts (I wonder why!) as scout leaders, hold gay parades as open demonstrations of their nymphomania, and even have had the curricula of California schools changed to honor themselves. Sure, they aren’t hurting anyone… riiiiiiight.

The fact that you seem to equate gays with pedophiles is pretty intolerant.

I’m an atheist and I didn’t vote for Romney.

Considering your comments as stated above, apparently you want to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn as well. I thought that lying was a sin.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Umm.. Rick Santorum was all like “Let’s have a national conversation on birth control” and “Women who aren’t popping out babies aren’t real women” during the primaries, so yes he was trying to lecture people who didn’t agree with him. And most people don’t want a President nagging them. It’s a difference of optics. Chuckles is also a Social Con, but he has sort of a fun personality and plays a guitar. Rick Santorum has no redeeming edge. If people want a morality lecture, there always going to prefer one from Father O’Malley from Going My Way (Chuckles) to the minister from Footloose (Santorum). Of course, people don’t want their Presidents to give them a morality lecture.

You’re still spouting hyperbole. Mind showing me one quote of Santorum’s where he claimed that women who hadn’t given birth weren’t “real” women? And as for a moral lecture, you’ll find that people respond quite well to the moral argument. For as perverted as I think Obama made it, he fired up his own base with the “GOP wants to oppress you” schtick. People respond to moral language, and they respond to a sense of a higher ideal.

The fact that you seem to equate gays with pedophiles is pretty intolerant.

The fact that they infested the Catholic church’s clergy, keep trying to get into the boy scouts, have pushed for adoption rights, and keep trying to alter school curricula to honor themselves strikes me more as warranted concern.

Considering your comments as stated above, apparently you want to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn as well. I thought that lying was a sin.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Obliviousness is no virtue. Social conservatives like myself who are also atheists do exist, whether you want to believe in our existence or not.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I fear one thing, without some federal programs forcing some uniformity, there could be a centrifugal forces separating the states and could in the long term be the end of the union. what you think of this?

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Uniformity is a highly overrated commodity. If the uniform notion turns out to be erroneous, there is no recourse. Every set of solutions inevitably creates its own constituency who will defend it to the death no matter what its unintended consequences are. Look at ObamaCare. As any crack dealer will tell you, once you get the junkies strung out with a few free samples, you’ve got them for life.
And as far as the centripetal force argument is concerned, the Union is a means to an end. It’s not an end in itself. Just ask the leaders of the old USSR.
The Union is there to guarantee our independence as a free society. Once that society ceases to be free, the Union becomes irrelevant. Washington, DC becomes an imperial city and the entire edifice sooner or later collapses from its waste and corruption.

Lew on November 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM

The democrats won through a successful campaign of balkanization and that the GOP is now subscribing to this reveals a fatalist flaw.

It’s lazy…

The political landscape will look very different 4 years from now and will be more along the lines of a Tammany Hall period of cynicism in national politics.

Nihil sub sole novum

workingclass artist on November 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM

No comment

KOOLAID2 on November 18, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Priscilla on November 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM

.
Rest easy in your confidence that Romney was the problem, but its wrong and just an easy, MSM inspired echo chamber propagandist out.

More Latinos, and Santorum. Sure. Maybe Akin woulda got a little closer.

POTUS elections have been turned into American Idol popularity contests. MOST people don’t understand policy or government- but they do get Ellen – Letterman etc.

Pimp with a limp ? He’ll yeah.

How popular is Hillary?
( and remember the average voter doesn’t know or care about Benghazi)

FlaMurph on November 18, 2012 at 12:28 PM

The fact that you seem to equate gays with pedophiles is pretty intolerant.
Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM

The fact that they infested the Catholic church’s clergy, keep trying to get into the boy scouts, have pushed for adoption rights, and keep trying to alter school curricula to honor themselves strikes me more as warranted concern.
Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Until there is an honest discussion with regard to the romanticized encouragement of Pederasty within the Gay Subculture…things in the larger culture will not change.

Most heterosexuals confuse pedophilia with pederasty and this happens in both academia and the media.

This romanticized view and preoccupation with sexualizing youth is an inevitable result of a libertine secular culture that lacks a concrete moral foundation.

This isn’t new in history as rampant abuse was endemic in Pagan times and in other turbulent hedonistic eras.

workingclass artist on November 18, 2012 at 12:29 PM

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

Then, why do you insist that the pResident’s aunt and uncle – both illegal aliens – should get public assistance to avoid being “destitute”?
Are they somehow “more equal” than other illegal aliens?

Why can’t lil barry accept responsibility for his deadbeat relatives, rather than foisting them off on the rest of us? He’s a millionaire…he can afford to care for them.

(Of course, that begs the question…what the hell are a pair of illegal immigrants doing here and why are they on public assistance? Why haven’t they been sent back to wherever they came from?)

Solaratov on November 18, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Uniformity is a highly overrated commodity. If the uniform notion turns out to be erroneous, there is no recourse. Every set of solutions inevitably creates its own constituency who will defend it to the death no matter what its unintended consequences are. Look at ObamaCare. As any crack dealer will tell you, once you get the junkies strung out with a few free samples, you’ve got them for life.
And as far as the centripetal force argument is concerned, the Union is a means to an end. It’s not an end in itself. Just ask the leaders of the old USSR.
The Union is there to guarantee our independence as a free society. Once that society ceases to be free, the Union becomes irrelevant. Washington, DC becomes an imperial city and the entire edifice sooner or later collapses from its waste and corruption.

Lew on November 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM

uniformity is not overrated. we already went into civil war lack of uniformity.
also unity is incredibly important and it gives us unappreciated advantages.
but I share your fears of imperial and corrupt DC. but DC is still run by the people we put there.
2 thoughts:
1-even from the ideological perspective, I give room to some federal programs but should be less and more transparent than what we have today.
2-from a pragmatic perspective, your constitutional amendments are a pipe dream. I am more interested in concrete solutions that move the country our way and are popular and doable.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 12:31 PM

chances are that you live in a deficitary red state that will need federal money more than many blue states.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Cali and Illinois are the deepest in the hole right now. THey are a big chunk of blue. THis is last years data but it probably hasn’t changed a lot.
Illinois is #1 now I heard.

top 7 shortfalls
State Projected FY 2012 shortfall
(in millions of dollars)
California $21,300 -BLUE
Illinois 17,000 -BLUE
New Jersey 10,500 -BLUE
Texas 10,000 -RED
New York 8,200 -BLUE
Connecticut 3,800 -BLUE
Minnesota 3,800 -BLUE

BoxHead1 on November 18, 2012 at 12:36 PM

hen, why do you insist that the pResident’s aunt and uncle – both illegal aliens – should get public assistance to avoid being “destitute”?
Are they somehow “more equal” than other illegal aliens?

its not really fair but its common sense that the presidential extended family be given a degree of financial and physical security for national security reasons alone. it does not shock me.

Why can’t lil barry accept responsibility for his deadbeat relatives, rather than foisting them off on the rest of us? He’s a millionaire…he can afford to care for them.

I bet he already gives his embarrassing deadbeat relatives some.

(Of course, that begs the question…what the hell are a pair of illegal immigrants doing here and why are they on public assistance? Why haven’t they been sent back to wherever they came from?)

Solaratov on November 18, 2012 at 12:30 PM

national security reasons alone justify it.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 12:36 PM

You’re still spouting hyperbole. Mind showing me one quote of Santorum’s where he claimed that women who hadn’t given birth weren’t “real” women? And as for a moral lecture, you’ll find that people respond quite well to the moral argument. For as perverted as I think Obama made it, he fired up his own base with the “GOP wants to oppress you” schtick. People respond to moral language, and they respond to a sense of a higher ideal.

Yep.. And Bush fired up his base on gay marriage and moral issues in 2004. It won him the election, but didn’t win him a second term. Obama won an election based on the War on Womenz and fear and hate among the lefties. That also won him an election; hopefully it won’t win him a second term. There are some hopeful signs, such as the fact that known lefties like Milbanks in the Post aren’t jumping to the defense of Susan Rice and pointing out that she probably doesn’t have the temperament to be SofS.

What inspires people are higher ideals.. Reagan’s “Shining City” inspired people, Kennedy’s inaugural address inspired people because they were big visions, big challenges, and big speeches. Barry in 2008 was trying to copy that, but it failed because he’s an ugly bully and small ball Chicago operator. That’s why we have the war on womenz and free stuff this time around. What Santorum is doing.. hectoring and lecturing people on their personal lives isn’t a big vision like the Shining City on the Hill. There is a way that you can do a “moral values” campaign that doesn’t make you come off like a moral scold. CHuckles’ schtick is getting old, but it is more appealing than Santorum’s because it is coming from the church pastor who is empathetic and involved in parishioners’ lives. Chuckles actually was a minister I believe, which is why he can pull that off. Santorum is just some crabby guy next door who feels obligated to barge in on everyone’s lives. Since he wasn’t a pastor, he just comes off judgmental.

The fact that they infested the Catholic church’s clergy, keep trying to get into the boy scouts, have pushed for adoption rights, and keep trying to alter school curricula to honor themselves strikes me more as warranted concern.

So you think that all the gays get together at a secret meeting and think of ways to infiltrate society and turn everyone into gay secular progressives… I think people should just read their stuff back to see how silly they should.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 12:40 PM

It’s just sad that the fate of our country hinges on protecting the fragile egos of some staggeringly ignorant people who auction their votes off to the candidate who ignores their stupidity and flatters them the most every two years.

fitzfong on November 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers

Jvette on November 18, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Yep.. And Bush fired up his base on gay marriage and moral issues in 2004. It won him the election, but didn’t win him a second term. Obama won an election based on the War on Womenz and fear and hate among the lefties. That also won him an election; hopefully it won’t win him a second term. There are some hopeful signs, such as the fact that known lefties like Milbanks in the Post aren’t jumping to the defense of Susan Rice and pointing out that she probably doesn’t have the temperament to be SofS.

I hate to tell you this, but Bush won a second term. The “term” refers to the duration of your service in a given office. Obama also has won a second term. These correspond directly with the results of the elections. Whether or not you think they have some kind of “mandate” (which is more meaningless press rhetoric than anything) is a different question.

What inspires people are higher ideals.. Reagan’s “Shining City” inspired people, Kennedy’s inaugural address inspired people because they were big visions, big challenges, and big speeches. Barry in 2008 was trying to copy that, but it failed because he’s an ugly bully and small ball Chicago operator. That’s why we have the war on womenz and free stuff this time around.

Yet there are people who truly believe what Obama was saying. And Obama’s appeal, which although I think is perverse, still appeals to a higher ideal of “human rights,” even though I strongly disagree as to the nature of said rights. On that mark, I think you’re wrong in saying that it failed. He succeeded. What we needed (and still need), is someone who is going to stand up to him and tear him apart regularly when he makes this case.

What Santorum is doing.. hectoring and lecturing people on their personal lives isn’t a big vision like the Shining City on the Hill. There is a way that you can do a “moral values” campaign that doesn’t make you come off like a moral scold. CHuckles’ schtick is getting old, but it is more appealing than Santorum’s because it is coming from the church pastor who is empathetic and involved in parishioners’ lives. Chuckles actually was a minister I believe, which is why he can pull that off. Santorum is just some crabby guy next door who feels obligated to barge in on everyone’s lives. Since he wasn’t a pastor, he just comes off judgmental.

I agree fully that style matters. Huckabee was always an affable fellow who said that “I’m a conservative, but I’m not angry about it,” and always discussed matters from the perspective of who he cared about. When he spoke about abortion, it was less a matter of “Damn you evil witch” and more one of “I’m concerned about the life of every child.” In that regard I thought (and still think) that Huckabee would be a superior candidate to Santorum in that when he sells social conservatism, he does it in a folksy, culturally-perceptive manner that conveys his ability to empathize and a sense of personal warmth.

I regard Santorum as more capable than Huckabee in dealing with the philosophical rigors of an argument and dealing strictly with the logical implications of an issue. But if you were to ask who I regard as the stronger candidate, I’d still pick Huckabee.

Don’t get me wrong — when I’m saying that Santorum is appealing, what I’m saying is that he’s a good candidate and can win, but by no means am I saying that he’s the only candidate who can, or even the best candidate of those who can. But he has gotten a raw deal, and his abilities have been underrated.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 12:52 PM

So you think that all the gays get together at a secret meeting and think of ways to infiltrate society and turn everyone into gay secular progressives… I think people should just read their stuff back to see how silly they should.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I never said that they had a secret meeting. That’s again hyperbole on your part. You have a talent for putting words in other people’s mouths.

What I’m saying is to look at the agenda-issues that the homosexual lobby has chosen. It’s a bit unnerving that so much of their agenda deals with kids — people that they don’t create, have no responsibility to, and have no discernible reason to care about more than any other group.

To the extent that they do care, there is no reason that they can’t push for more rigorous training in math, or curfews for teens to quell teen violence, etc. What’s bizarre is their consistent pushing to the fore of their own sexuality in matters that pertain to kids. That is why there is reasonable cause to question their motives.

Workingclass Artist is 100% correct when he mentions that there is a refusal to discuss the gay subculture of pederasty.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 12:57 PM

uniformity is not overrated. we already went into civil war lack of uniformity.
also unity is incredibly important and it gives us unappreciated advantages.

Once again, you’re conflating ends and means. Uniformity, like union, is a means to an end. It’s not an end worth placing on a pedestal to be worshiped for its own sake.
Uniform safeguards for our basic human rights is a great virtue, that’s why we have a written Constitution, but when uniformity is enlisted to the cause of bureaucratically micromanaging every minute aspect of our lives it becomes a vast evil.
And by the way, we didn’t have a civil war because of a lack of uniformity, we had it because of slavery. Without slavery, cessation had a very good chance of succeeding, as Lincoln himself found out in the process.
Gotta go! It’s been a pleasure trading ideas. Back later.

Lew on November 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I hate to tell you this, but Bush won a second term. The “term” refers to the duration of your service in a given office. Obama also has won a second term. These correspond directly with the results of the elections. Whether or not you think they have some kind of “mandate” (which is more meaningless press rhetoric than anything) is a different question.

Well.. There is this thing called play on words that sometimes that people use. Bush was in office for another four years, but it sure didn’t feel like a second term. I’m praying that Barry gets a huge helping of that.

Yet there are people who truly believe what Obama was saying. And Obama’s appeal, which although I think is perverse, still appeals to a higher ideal of “human rights,” even though I strongly disagree as to the nature of said rights. On that mark, I think you’re wrong in saying that it failed. He succeeded. What we needed (and still need), is someone who is going to stand up to him and tear him apart regularly when he makes this case.

Obama’s appeal in 2008 was about two things.. Yes, “Hope and Change.” and there are no red states or blue states. It was an appeal that the nation had big problems and that he wouldn’t play politics to solve them. The 2012 election was about small ball politics… It was about pandering to each group in the D voting base and giving them what they wanted to cobble together 51% of the vote. There wasn’t an appeal to “human rights.” It was an appeal to fear and hate. You’re basically arguing that Santorum would have totally done better as a candidates because he would try to scare up Evangelicals by being for the gays.

Don’t get me wrong — when I’m saying that Santorum is appealing, what I’m saying is that he’s a good candidate and can win, but by no means am I saying that he’s the only candidate who can, or even the best candidate of those who can. But he has gotten a raw deal, and his abilities have been underrated.

And I’m saying that Santorum isn’t appealing because of both style and issues. Harping on social issues doesn’t win elections. In fact, it cost the Rs two Senate seats this time around.. legitimate rape. You know what all the 2016 probables don’t talk about.. abortion and gays. Jindal’s main spiel is that he is a competent governor. Ryan’s main spiel is the budget. Rubio’s main spiel is being Latino. As for style, Santorum’s hectoring and nagging is off-putting even when compared to other So Con politicians, like a Huckabee. I think that Chuckles’ schtick has gotten old, but he is much more appealing than Santorum.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 1:17 PM

What I’m saying is to look at the agenda-issues that the homosexual lobby has chosen. It’s a bit unnerving that so much of their agenda deals with kids — people that they don’t create, have no responsibility to, and have no discernible reason to care about more than any other group.

You are the one who said that the gays are apparently infiltrating the Catholic Church. I just brought that to the logically conclusion.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Well.. There is this thing called play on words that sometimes that people use. Bush was in office for another four years, but it sure didn’t feel like a second term. I’m praying that Barry gets a huge helping of that.

Same here. Minus the literal praying of course. =P

Obama’s appeal in 2008 was about two things.. Yes, “Hope and Change.” and there are no red states or blue states. It was an appeal that the nation had big problems and that he wouldn’t play politics to solve them. The 2012 election was about small ball politics… It was about pandering to each group in the D voting base and giving them what they wanted to cobble together 51% of the vote. There wasn’t an appeal to “human rights.” It was an appeal to fear and hate. You’re basically arguing that Santorum would have totally done better as a candidates because he would try to scare up Evangelicals by being for the gays.

In 2008 Obama was about “hope and change,” which was really code for an exit from Iraq which the majority of Americans had tired of. I agree with your disdainful assessment of Obama’s pandering, but that pandering still involved human-rights appeals. Did it involve fear and hate? Absolutely. But these two things are not mutually exclusive.

As for Santorum, I’m arguing that he would’ve done a better job eviscerating Obama’s arguments when he tried stirring that up, could have gotten Obama on the defensive by going after him on the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, and would have had more credibility about getting manufacturing jobs to return to America since he would have no history of outsourcing, and comes from a blue-collar background in a purple state.

And I’m saying that Santorum isn’t appealing because of both style and issues. Harping on social issues doesn’t win elections.

Yep.. And Bush fired up his base on gay marriage and moral issues in 2004. — Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 12:40 PM

You just contradicted yourself. Harping on social issues clearly can win elections. Akin and Mourdock lost not because they spoke about social issues, but because the manner in which they did so essentially excused rape. It’s possible to be both pro-life and anti-rape, but the manner in which they spoke about it was immensely stupid.

As for the 2016 candidates, we’ll see what they end up talking about. My bet is that we’ll get a social conservative who wins over the base in the primary and then is given a certain level of trust by the base in the general election so they don’t demand that their issues are constantly at the fore, but which will get mentions and will be used to go on offense with as part of an all-issues engagement strategy.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 1:26 PM

You are the one who said that the gays are apparently infiltrating the Catholic Church. I just brought that to the logically conclusion.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Hardly. It doesn’t require a secret meeting. The Catholic church probably attracted them because it wouldn’t require that they excuse their (from outward appearances) celibacy to people who might otherwise question why they weren’t married. And to the extent that the gay community has sexual predators, it also gives them an easy opportunity to prey upon children.

That doesn’t require secret meetings — just motive and opportunity.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Occam’s Razor Election Postmortem:

1988, 2004, 2012 – losing candidate is an inarticulate, out-of touch, Massachusetts elitist.

Bruno Strozek on November 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Gotta go! It’s been a pleasure trading ideas. Back later.

Lew on November 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM

likewise! cya!

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 2:07 PM

You are the one who said that the gays are apparently infiltrating the Catholic Church. I just brought that to the logically conclusion.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 1:19 PM

What infected the Catholic Church was libertine liberalism…same as the Post WWII culture.

It’s an old Conservative v Liberal battle within the church & reflected tensions within the culture at large.

The pendulum within the church is going back toward conservatism…Whether this continues will be dependent on the depth and scope of the influence Pope Benedict XVI and his ability to appoint more conservatives. He seems to be winning the doctrinal argument so far.

We live in a libertine secular culture, specializing in balkanization and demographic conquest, until conservatives deal with that with an effective argument it will continue to reflect the decay of the culture.

Hedonism is what it has always been…and Bread & Circuses as a political strategy is an old and effective method.

workingclass artist on November 18, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on November 18, 2012 at 11:19 AM

So…you’re not really into taking responsibility for your own decisions, huh?

“The only things one finds in the middle of the road are a yellow stripe and a lot of dead chickens.” — M.T.

Solaratov on November 18, 2012 at 2:20 PM

national security reasons alone justify it.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 12:36 PM

You’re more full of crap than a Christmas goose.

Lil barry gives NOTHING to his relatives – not even to his half-brother living on less than $50/month.

If the mooching illegal aliens were not here, there would be no need for any “national security” consideration. Send them back to Kenya and let them apply for a LEGAL visa – if they can show that they would not be a drain on the national resources.

There is NO excuse for that pair of moochers to be in this country as ILLEGAL ALIENS – other than that d’ohbama azz-kissers like you accept it.

Solaratov on November 18, 2012 at 2:40 PM

I don’t know if anyone has ever won an election by telling the “swing voters” that they are stupid. So this hysterical “gifts” cleanup by Jindal and the GOP is predictable.

fitzfong on November 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Just got done seeing Walker and Jindal with Chris Wallace. I thought Jindal not only did a good job standing up for the GOP’s basic principles, he did he good job standing up for Mitt himself while still criticizing his dumb comment about “gifts” (as you pointed out, insulting potential supporters usually isn’t the wisest course of action, and Mitt seems to have a tin ear about this.)

The only complaint I have about his appearance is that he unfavorably compared Mourdock with Akin, which I think was unfair to Mourdock (I say that with the presumption Mourdock’s comment was not said from a Calvinist’s POV.)

Anti-Control on November 18, 2012 at 2:52 PM

FlaMurph on November 18, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Um, I never said that Romney was the problem. I said that Romney haters in the GOP were the problem.

Priscilla on November 18, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Shouldn’t we be going after Obama and dems not each other?

Very disappointed in the “attack Mitt” strategy that is going on right now.

gophergirl on November 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM

These aholes are jockeying for position for 2016. The GOP are no better than the democrats. Still out there yammering to the media, still doing bad deals and fattening their own wallets.

Unless Palin comes out of the woodwork and sticks with the GOP I’m going federalist. I would suggest everyone else consider it as well.

kim roy on November 18, 2012 at 3:00 PM

If the mooching illegal aliens were not here, there would be no need for any “national security” consideration. Send them back to Kenya and let them apply for a LEGAL visa – if they can show that they would not be a drain on the national resources.

There is NO excuse for that pair of moochers to be in this country as ILLEGAL ALIENS – other than that d’ohbama azz-kissers like you accept it.

Solaratov on November 18, 2012 at 2:40 PM

look, if foreign agents get hold of relatives of obama, they could blackmail him or manipulate the relatives so that they would tell unpleasant things about the president or the US policy. I dont like them to be in welfare, but its peanuts just comparing to one single flight of air force one. Any way, even supporting his deadbeat relatives should be cheap for obama, so I fail to understand why he opens himself for this kind of political attack. something is not right in the story you tell me.
when you see real dictators, they put their deadbeat relatives overseeing millions in jobs they are clearly unqualified for, that is shameful family cronyism. and you do find some political families in DC where the extended family profits millions, maybe billions from some politician government connections.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Slime won this election.

Time for R’s to recognize that it is vital to slime the opponent effectively.

Positive is a limited political tool.

Especially when up against a Thug Team like Obama & Co.

profitsbeard on November 18, 2012 at 3:41 PM

…but the Romney-haters could not overcome their anger at his nomination and stayed home, along with the undecideds who never broke for either candidate. The GOP defeated itself, because it counted on Obama hate cancelling out Romney hate. Didn’t happen…
Priscilla

Priscilla are you there? Were you in Ohio trying to get people to the polls and they said this?

Rumor and Insinnuendo.

Another “rumor” was that republicans stayed home because the Romney’s are Mormons.

It’s all hearsay.

The thing that is known, is that Newt Gingrich and Santorum told republicans in the primary that Mitt Romney did not stand up for average Americans. Santorum Guilty. Newt, even guiltier. They did Obama’s work for him. Obama just had to latch on to that advertising and run with it, after all, Newt said it was true.

The people to blame is the republican party of Ohio, who could not coagulate and get their candidates thru. Why don’t we have Josh Mandel? I expect in truth it is the same reason we don’t have Romney in Ohio. The media was NOT on our side.

Fleuries on November 18, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Oh Priscilla, you were referring here to Stoic Patriot, an Obama Voter. My apologies.

Fleuries on November 18, 2012 at 4:19 PM

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

But “gifts” is a big part of how democrats win. Why do Jindal and Walker want to lie and about something that is so obviously tru? How stupid do they think people are? Even most democrats know it’s true, even if they don’t say it.

VorDaj on November 18, 2012 at 4:31 PM

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

Once upon a time our immigrants had to have citizens/relatives sponsor them and assure that the newcomers would not be a burden on the taxpayer. Maybe we need to get back to that sense of personal responsibility rather than making the taxpayer the welfare provider for immigrants, legal and illegal.

onlineanalyst on November 18, 2012 at 4:38 PM

After a couple of weeks all the closet experts voice their opinions how and why the election went the way it did. My question is how can anyone make a valid comment on an election that is very fraudulent where more votes were counted for Obama than there were people in that district? The democrats had a recount after recount to finally elect Franken and the GOP just shrugged their shoulders. Now the conservative public wants to know how in States that checked ID Obama lost but in the swing States more votes appeared than there were people, the left is screaming that the right just can’t accept the loss. lets do a revote on the States that have no ID and pass a quick ID requirement to vote. This being a Republic of laws when there is rampant fraud should be easy to correct and if not, why not?

mixplix on November 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM

mixplix on November 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM

To which I would add, how many snowbirds, particularly those in Florida, voted both in the Sunshine State and with an absentee ballot back home?

onlineanalyst on November 18, 2012 at 5:05 PM

But “gifts” is a big part of how democrats win. Why do Jindal and Walker want to lie and about something that is so obviously tru? How stupid do they think people are? Even most democrats know it’s true, even if they don’t say it.

VorDaj on November 18, 2012 at 4:31 PM

You should watch the segment for yourself before accepting Allahpundit’s hysterical and uninformed pre-assessment of it as reality – Walker and Jindal didn’t come close to “tearing him [Mitt] apart” (I say this with the assumption AP wasn’t being exaggerative for effect, which I realize is a possibility.)

Mitt blaming his loss on “gifts” from 0dumba is overly simplistic and sounds like sour grapes, and makes it appear as though he isn’t a good salesperson, one who shouldn’t be inspiring confidence in anyone.

Anti-Control on November 18, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Whew, “Lindsay Graham unplugged” on Susan Rice and Benghazi:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/333618/lindsey-graham-unplugged-i-blame-president-making-death-trap-eliana-johnson

onlineanalyst on November 18, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Oh Priscilla, you were referring here to Stoic Patriot, an Obama Voter. My apologies.

Fleuries on November 18, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Not true. I never voted for Obama. I voted for Virgil Goode. I’m sorry you can’t handle the fact that you put up a nominee that social conservatives found revolting and wanted no part of.

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM

For the record, the Democrats are the party of Wall Street, Bankers, etc. We need to do something with this info.

We also need to start now – US Senate candidatesin 2014.

Face it, Dems can get away with saying anything, lying, throwing out numbers that make zero sense. We can’t breathe sideways without the press coming down on our guys. I think we ought to start taking this kind of bias into consideration. The minute the MS comes down on us, we defend with the facts. 47% – rebuttal – it’s a crime that Democrat policies drive so many people to believe the government can cure all their ills – it can’t and sooner or later, that government that provides, will take away.

Bain – Romney campaign left this for far too long – I don’t care if he had the nomination or not – attack back – Bain saved and created 10,000s of jobs.

This is what needs to be done.

MN J on November 18, 2012 at 11:42 PM

Fleuries on November 18, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM

I realize this is a dead thread…but, for what it is worth, I was not referring to SP, nor anyone else. I was also not blaming the loss on Romney, who I think ran a pretty good campaign, given his weaknesses, as well as the party’s weaknesses, and the overwhelming full court press by the MSM to re-elect Obama. My entire point was that the bitterness left over from the GOP primaries combined with the negative “kill Romney” strategy of the Obama campaign to defeat Mitt. Republicans who did not vote for Romney because they thought Newt or Santorum should have gotten the nomination should not complain about anything that Obama does…they knowingly helped to elect him.

Priscilla on November 19, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2