The excuses of the losers

Your editor realizes that former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) is not a popular choice for many Republicans, nor was Mr Romney your editor’s first choice for the Republican nomination.1 But I get very tired of reading complaints from people that Mr Romney is leading in the campaign for the GOP nomination because “the Republican Establishment does not want Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, or Rick Santorum to win.” Mr Romney is leading now because ha has done something really, really radical, and gone out and won the most votes.

From the same source:

Moderates have always had a hard time winning. George W. Bush was the exception, but for a reason. In 2000, he sounded like a true conservative.

One wonders if the author has actually read Governor Romney’s platform.2 While there are a lot of people convinced that Mr Romney is a moderate-in-conservative’s-clothing, the fact is that Mr Romney sounds like a true conservative.

Nor is it true that moderate Republicans have always had a hard time winning: the elder George Bush won, coming from far behind against Governor Michael Dukakis (D-MA). And Richard Nixon tried to sound like a conservative, but a more establishment-type Republican you will never find. Even Ronald Reagan, who certainly sounded like a true conservative, didn’t really govern like one. He was hampered by a House of Representatives controlled by the Democrats, but, other than on defense spending, he hardly fought for conservative policies.

The problem arises because too many people haven’t looked at the facts. When you hear conservatives say that moderate Republicans don’t win, they are looking at Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) in 1996, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008. Little consideration seems to have been given to the fact that Mr Dole was running against a reasonably popular President, with a rapidly improving economy, who had done a good job in co-opting Republican ideas on welfare reform and cutting the deficit. It seems to have been ignored that Senator McCain had actually moved within a couple of percentage points of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) in September of 2008, only to have the bottom drop out of the economy while a Republican president was in the White House. And moderate Republicans certainly have won against liberal Democrats: the elder George Bush in 1988, the younger George Bush in 2000 and 2004, and, if we are truly honest about it, Ronald Reagan in 1884. All of those Republican winners characterized themselves as more conservative — or “compassionately conservative” — than they turned out to be in their actual governance.

Even in 1980, Ronald Reagan, seen as a fiery conservative, had been a relatively moderate Republican governor,3 and the Democrat he defeated, President Jimmy Carter, was seen as a dismal failure, presiding over a rotten, and worsening, economy and a weak and ineffective foreign policy, topped off by the hostage crisis in Iran.

The real winners? The men who won were the non-threatening candidates. The elder George Bush talked conservative, but still had a reputation as a moderate, and his campaign was all about leadership, experience and a strong economy. The younger George Bush was campaigning on his economic plans, primarily cutting taxes, and being a “compassionate conservative.” With what was seen as a good economy and a budget surplus, he ran a non-threatening campaign, and even with that, the election was so close that the electoral college and popular vote winners were different.4

Complaints like this leave me cold:


Santorum cries foul over Romney’s Ohio spending

Rick Santorum (CBS News) Steubenville, OH — Rick Santorum spent much of his time in Ohio crying foul over being outspent by his rival Mitt Romney.

He told a crowd near Dayton Monday, “If I had the opportunity to have a 6 to 1 spending advantage given where we are in this race right now, this race wouldn’t been close.”

Later that day, in Cuyahoga Falls, the margin had widened. “When you have 12 million dollars and you can outspend someone 12 or 13 to one, you can stop and ignore answering the questions,” said Santorum.

According to Santorum campaign spokesman Hogan Gidley, the supposed 12-to-1 spending advantage for Romney includes the total amount spent by the campaigns and the total for the super pacs supporting each of them.

More at the link. Your editor’s reaction? Well, wahhh! If Rick Santorum thinks it’s somehow unfair that Mitt Romney outspent him in Ohio, and, horrors! ran negative ads against him, just what does he expect President Obama to do during the general election campaign? More to the point: if Mr Santorum couldn’t defeat Mr Romney and his big money, negative ads campaign, why should anyone think Mr Santorum could defeat Mr Obama and his big money, negative ads campaign?

A presidential campaign is no place for the faint-hearted. It’s tough and it’s mean and it’s dirty and it’s unfair, and if a candidate thinks it shouldn’t be that way, maybe he needs to consider not making a presidential run. If Mr Santorum5 thinks that Mr Romney is seeking unfair advantages and not really playing by the rules, just what does he think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin will do? Does he somehow think he can scold Hu Jintao or Kim Jung-un about playing by the rules and suddenly see then straightening up and becoming nice guys?

Of course, even when there are some rules, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich6 haven’t done a terribly good job of winning under them. Governor Romney won the Virginia primary very easily, because Messrs Santorum and Gingrich weren’t on the ballot. The Virginia ballot access rules were simple and straightforward, but only Ron Paul and Mr Romney actually qualified for the ballot. The rules aren’t exactly the easiest, but they are easy enough that Fred Thompson and Dennis Kucinich managed to qualify for the primary ballots in 2008. If Messrs Gingrich and Santorum couldn’t even organize a strong enough campaign staff to get on the Virginia ballot, why should we think that they could organize a strong White House staff?

In the movie Top Gun, Tom Skerritt, playing the Top Gun commanding officer, said, “Gentlemen, this school is about combat: there are no points for second place.” In elections, there are no points for second place.

______________________________

  1. I supported Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) initially, but Mr Perry proved to be a poor candidate, and dropped out of the race after failing to win enough votes to be competitive.
  2. Click on the campaign sign to go to Governor Romney’s campaign website, where his policy positions are available.
  3. In 1967, Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA) signed the “Therapeutic Abortion Act” into law. The law was supposed to reduce the number of illegal abortions in California, but instead became a loophole under which a million legal abortions were performed in California, before the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade.
  4. This is not an attempt to, or license for, opening a discussion on whether Al Gore “really” won the 2000 election; see Comments & Conduct Policy. This is simply a statement of indisputable fact: Al Gore won the popular vote, and George Bush won the electoral college.
  5. Click on the campaign sign to the left to go to Senator Santorum’s campaign website.
  6. Click on the campaign sign to the right to go to Newt Gingrich’s campaign website.

92 Comments

  1. I take offense at the claim from CBS that Santorum cried foul at Romney’s Ohio spending. I listened to Santorum talking in Steubenville (via the Dallas radio station 820-AM). While Santorum very clearly, and repeatedly noted Romney had greatly outspent him basically everywhere, it was not “crying foul” but rather a point about Santorum winning Primaries and Caucii while Romney greatly outspent him. It was a point that Romney’s campaign dollars are far less effective than Santorum’s more Conservative agenda and person-to-person outreach.

    No, Romney, who was once considered “inevitable”, is looking more “evitable” as the process goes along. He cannot win the South (and Florida is not part of the South, culturally speaking). He either loses in the Mid-west and Great Plains, or barely wins a plurality against multiple people who are clearly more Conservative than he is. And he is spending massively more than Santorum, who is operating on a shoe-string and absolutely giving Romney (a man for whom I will not vote in November) fits.

    The road to 1144 has become muddier after Super Tuesday (where the delegates are assigned proportionately), and not clearer. And the odds of a contested convention became shorter after Super Tuesday.

  2. While driving home and listening to the election coverage provided by WBAP AM 820 from 8:10 to 8:55 pm Central Time last night, Ohio was still too close to call, while Gingrich won Georgia and Santorum won Tennessee and a couple other states. In a 4-man race, it was a 2-man dead-heat between a progressive Republican and 1 of the 3 more Conservative Republicans in the race.

    No, Romney’s “inevitibility” is not a sure thing. While it may be more difficult for Gingrich or Santorum to reach 1144 than it previously was (RuPaul is merely comedic relief), it is likewise more difficult for Romney to reach that magical 1144.

    And again, come November, I will not be voting for either Romney or Obama. To me, that’s a choice of “death by starvation” in Romney’s case, or “death by wood chipper” in Obama’s case. Neither is acceptable. At all.

  3. Why do you suppose Rick Santorum has had to operate on a shoestring budget? Why hasn’t he attracted donations from supporters to match the donations that Mitt Romney has attracted?

    Can it be that Mitt Romney has more money and for that matter, more delegates right now because more Republicans and perhaps more Independents are supporting him? Can it be that Rick Santorum is such a poor organizer that he failed to get onto the Virginia ballot, so that state was never an option for him?

    I am sure that there are plenty of Obama supporters who are cheering your declaration that you will not vote for Mitt Romney, if he is the eventual nominee. Obama, himself, is likely chuckling his trademark derisive chuckle as he hears others who make such declarations.

    I am a lifelong Republican. I have worked on GOP campaigns–some winners, some losers–from the time I was a teenager. My state voted for Santorum yesterday–but I was not among those who voted for him. However, if he wins the nomination, I will vote for Santorum because for every “principled” Republican who stays home or who casts a vote for a third party candidate to demonstrate how “principled” they are, simply because their first choice did not secure the nomination, they will be just as helpful in Obama’s quest for a second term as Obama’s most ardent disciples.

  4. Thank you for your false dichotomy attack against me, Gretchen. It is appreciated. But the fact of the matter is I will never vote for someone who has a history of forcing people to pump money into Planned Parenthood coffers. It has nothing to do with Romney not being my first choice. Nothing at all.

    My first choice was Palin. My second choice was Bachmann. My third choice, whom I declared at the time was a very poor choice and third of three because there were no other choices, was Perry. (That’s Rick Perry of Texas, not Perry of Delaware.) Of the 9 or so candidates for the Republican nomination that began the chase, there are only 2 that I have declared I will never vote for. Romney, who loves him some RomneyCare and forcing people to pump money into Planned Parenthood, and RuPaul, who is bat-sh*t crazy as far as National Defense goes, and is an out-and-out anti-semite.

    If you want to continue with your false dichotomy attacks on me, Gretchen, you most certainly are free to do so. But please do so with a more clear understanding of my reasoning for my decisions (as I struggled long and hard with my principles and finally lost out to my principles in flat-out rejecting Romney, come what may).

  5. And, oh, by the way, I, too, am a life-long Republican, having voted for Ronald Reagan. But I am so, only because there is not currently a viable Conservative party. And a Romney Presidency will do more to destroy the Conservative voice in America than any other likely possible outcome.

  6. No attacks on you, John. I simply see a challenge for those whose main focus is to vote Obama out of office.

    It looks like I’ll just have encourage as many people as I can to work a little harder and to drive as many anti-Obama voters to the polls on election day–as long as their gasoline budgets hold out–to try to make up for those conservatives who are vowing to stay home in case one candidate or another is nominated by the majority of other Republicans.

  7. And Gretchen, I strongly recommend you read what I wrote on my site and various other articles on my site, prior to any further claims that I am withholding my vote because my first choice didn’t win (which is absolutely false on its face). I am an unabashed self-admitted attack-dog, and I will attack lunatics and Republicans alike, although I prefer to be less vicious with Republicans than I am with lunatics, which is why I am being less vicious with you in my attack-dog approach to politics.

    One thing I don’t like is when people use various items on the “rhetoric fallacy” list to attack me. If someone cannot attack me without resorting to “the list”, then that person should just stay home, because I am likely to bite.

  8. One wonders if the author has actually read Governor Romney’s platform.2 While there are a lot of people convinced that Mr Romney is a moderate-in-conservative’s-clothing, the fact is that Mr Romney sounds like a true conservative.

    I really don’t care what is in Romney’s “Platform” or what he sounds like today. Words are, as the saying goes, cheap. Listening to Romney claiming he will govern as a conservative is like listening to an alcoholic claiming he will never have another drink or a chronic wife beater say he will never hit his wife again. Far more relevant is what he has DONE, and Romney has been a RINO his entire political life.

    I mean, didn’t we Republicans learn anything from when Bush the Elder made “Read my lips, no new taxes” the centerpoint of his 1988 campaign only to brazenly break that promise a mere two years later?

  9. Alright, having read your comment, I can safely say voting Obama out of office is not my main focus. My main focus is, rather, returning the Federal Government to its Constitutionally demanded limits. And neither Obama nor Romney will do that. 1a is finding someone who won’t try to force me to pay for abortions, and neither Obama nor Romney qualify.

    Remember, Romney is also basically a gun-grabber. And pretending to be a Bell Curve Tenther while being a massive government power self-declared Progressive. And a supporter of the VAT tax. And someone who pushed for the US to adopt RomneyCare nationwide.

    No, Romney is not the answer to Obama, unless people truly want the Constitution to mean jack diddly squat.

  10. “I am an unabashed self-admitted attack-dog, ”

    Is that how you would describe this attack on a young woman who never mentioned her own sexual activity and didn’t ask for any government money to pay for her insurance?

    —-
    Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling) has made it known that she is promiscuous in her Flucking habits. That makes her, at best, a slut. The fact that she wants me to pay for her Flucking habits makes her, at best, a slut who wants to become a whore. And what is a whore? That is a person who makes others pay for his/her flucking, which is exactly what Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling) is attempting to do. She is a slut attempting to become a whore. And she wants the whole nation to pay for her whorring around.

    “Tough titty” said the kitty when the milk ran dry.

    Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling) made her bed.
    Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling) slept in her bed with who knows how many others.
    Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling) needs to clean her own encrusted sheets and not demand others do it for her.

    She wants to be a slut? It’s a free country (but becoming less free day by day as Leftists trash the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution). She can be a slut if she wants to. But since she is trying to become a whore, I say no! I will not pay for her whore services!

    Besides, I seriously doubt her family is proud of her. I seriously doubt they would call her a good Fluck (phonetic spelling) with all her sleeping around and trying to get paid for it.
    —-

    Would you describe that attack proudly as “being an attack dog”?

    Proverbs 6:16-19 “These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. ”

  11. Now you’re gonna infect this post with that Sanda Fluke crap too? Common Anna Nova, you can participate in some other subject surely.

  12. “And again, come November, I will not be voting for either Romney or Obama. To me, that’s a choice of “death by starvation” in Romney’s case, or “death by wood chipper” in Obama’s case. Neither is acceptable. At all.”

    No, but one road offers a better chance of correction and reconstitution, than does the other.

  13. Gretchen writes,

    “I am a lifelong Republican. I have worked on GOP campaigns–some winners, some losers–from the time I was a teenager. My state voted for Santorum yesterday–but I was not among those who voted for him. However, if he wins the nomination, I will vote for Santorum because for every “principled” Republican who stays home or who casts a vote for a third party candidate to demonstrate how “principled” they are, simply because their first choice did not secure the nomination, they will be just as helpful in Obama’s quest for a second term as Obama’s most ardent disciples.

    Though I am not a life-long or even committed Republican I tend to agree with you; but I am not at all sure that John is a Republican at all.

  14. Hoagie says:
    March 8, 2012 at 09:59

    Now you’re gonna infect this post with that Sanda Fluke crap too? Common Anna Nova, you can participate in some other subject surely.

    No, anna can’t. It’s the DNC Talking Point of the moment and everything else is cannon fodder.

  15. Mr Hitchcock lives in the Lone Star State, which will be carried by the Republican nominee; voting third party does send a message, and, in my opinion, is not wasting a vote. I would prefer a more conservative candidate as well, and if it is a slam dunk for President Obama in Pennsylvania, I’ll do the same thing.

    But, having said that, Mitt Romney would be a vast improvement over Barack Obama. We will get better judicial nominees, we will get better, more responsible decisions on things like the Keystone XL pipeline, we will get a government which actually understands the economy and business, and we will get a government which is stronger on foreign policy; there will be no pictures of Mr Romney bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia!

    There will be things we will not get. We will not get any real efforts to end abortion, but, if we are honest about that, we didn’t under President Reagan or either President Bush, either. We will get less effort to get malingerers off of welfare, and less attention to the social issues in general. Mitt Romney will not please a lot of social conservatives. But he’d be a heck of a lot better than the clown in office now!

  16. “Now you’re gonna infect this post with that Sanda Fluke crap too? ”

    As I have stated before, that comment represents the true face of conservatism (at least as the term is represented on this blog).

    Mr Editor talks about judicial nominees and pipelines – but the fundamental truth of conservatism is someone ranting about “sluts” when a woman disagrees with him.

  17. but the fundamental truth of conservatism is someone ranting about “sluts” when a woman disagrees with him.

    Except that is a flat-out lie, and PIATOR absolutely knows it. But the point is PIATOR just loves to thread-jack every opportunity he gets. It’s what he does. It’s what he’s best at. And it doesn’t matter to him whether he flat-out lies or not. Because to him the ends truly do justify the means.

  18. As I have stated before, that comment represents the true face of conservatism (at least as the term is represented on this blog).

    But no one, especially around here, cares what you believe represents the true face of conservatism on this blog.

  19. Romney spends more money and gets more votes because he’s better financed and better organized than all the other GOP candidates put together. It’s not terribly unlike the house advantage in a casino, the longer you’re at the tables, the more obvious it becomes the odds are against you.

    Sure, Romney’s a RINO, but if he gets the GOP nomination, he also gets my support including my vote and as many others as I’m able to influence (I voted for Rick Santorum in the Florida primary).

    Do I like it? No. Would I prefer a real conservative? Yes, without hesitation, but as a loyal American I have no choice but to oppose the reelection of Barack Obama any and every way I can.

    If that means I rally behind a RINO, then so be it.

  20. Koolo wrote:

    As I have stated before, that comment represents the true face of conservatism (at least as the term is represented on this blog).

    But no one, especially around here, cares what you believe represents the true face of conservatism on this blog.

    Whatever the lovely Miss Nova believes to be the true face of conservatism, we have already jumped well ahead of CSPT in visitors; CSPT was averaging slightly less tan 200 visits per day the last year of operation.

    And our daily averages spiked during the discussions over Miss Fluke and her positions.

    If our averages for the last week remain constant, we should have 8,220 visits and 20,340 separate page views.

  21. The light at the end of his rope wrote:

    If that means I rally behind a RINO, then so be it.

    The obvious question is: is Mitt Romney a RINO? From someone judging from a primarily social conservative viewpoint, he probably is. If you are looking at it from a primarily economic conservative position, then no, he isn’t.

    I would love to have someone who is both a social and economic conservative, with a proven ability to lead and manage large organizations. I supported Rick Perry because he fit all three criteria. Of the remaining candidates, none of them fit more than two. I could, and would, vote for any of the potential nominees we have out there, because two out of three beats zero out of three, which is what we have with President Obama.

  22. Isn’t it amazing that with all these views, it is the same old same old Conservative commenters all the time. I’m sure our editor will figure out come glowing pro-Conservative conclusion to explain this phenomenon, based on unproven assumptions. Go at it Mr Editor, or better yet, let your foil do it, since he is the best make.stuff.up artist on here!

  23. Anyone who backs Cap-n-Trade and government run healthcare, like Mitt Romney, isn’t remotely a fiscal conservative. You’re trying to put lipstick on a pig.

    PS: Perry’s jealous of your numbers. Better pat him on the back or he’ll just get more testy.

  24. Go at it Mr Editor, or better yet, let your foil do it, since he is the best make.stuff.up artist on here!

    Multiple personal attacks in one statement, plus an outright lie in which Wagonwheel yet again called me a liar, despite my multiple proofs that I have not lied.

    “You need to lift their skirts to prove they’re women, because they sure don’t vote like it.” — Democrat Congresswoman from Tennessee.

  25. SINP writes

    Isn’t it amazing that with all these views, it is the same old same old Conservative commenters all the time.

    Certainly a lot better than NO commenters to go along with almost NO daily visitors at the preposterously misnamed “Bridging the Gap” blog, wouldn’t ‘ya say?

  26. It is pretty hard to label Mr. Santorum as a fiscal conservative, as well. His voting record and his history in the Senate are proof of the big spender label some of his opponents have given him. He uses the same reason to justify his pork barrel spending requests and his votes for other pork projects like the infamous Bridge to Nowhere by arguing that he was merely being a Republican team player. To his credit, those are the games that those in Congress sometimes feel that they must play…including his outspoken “team player” support for Arlen Specter, an REAL RINO…until, of course, Sen. Specter switched to the Dems just in time to vote for ObamaCare.

    Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal ObamaCare, a law that was a partisan, Democrat-only law that was virtually forced on the American people by the Democrats in the House, the Democrats in the Senate and the Democrat in the Oval Office. We may not like the notion of Massachusetts’ healthcare law, but it was, at least, a bill that was passed into law with bipartisan support and it remains a law that has a 62% favorable rating (as of Feb. 2012) among the citizens of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney could have vetoed the measure, of course, but it carried enough votes from Massachusetts legislators that his veto would have been overridden. What seems to be acceptable in the Bay State is obviously not acceptable on a federal level–as numerous polls have proven.

    The best record on fiscal conservatism seems to be Ron Paul’s–but, then, the very likable Ron Paul has other issues that override his very admirable Constitutional adherence and his fiscal conservatism.

    Like the Editor, I am unhappy that Texas Governor Rick Perry proved to be such a poor national candidate. He had most of the requisites to make him a great choice for virtually all Republicans, but he turned out to be a poor communicator of those skills.

  27. Gretchen, I don’t fault Mitt Romney for the Massachusetts healthcare legislation. I fault him for continuing to defend it after he became a candidate for POTUS.

    Romney had several chances on national TV to explain (as you have above) his failure to veto the odious government power grab, yet not only did he refuse to do so, he even managed to seem proud of himself.

    That marked him as both wrong on the issue and too stupid to admit it.

  28. Fair enough, Ropelight, but does it make no difference to you that almost 2/3 the citizens of the Bay State like their state’s healthcare program?

    I think it is states’ rights issue…just as I believe the degree of gun control is a states’ rights issue. I know the issues sound very different, but many of those who argue for federal control of healthcare are among those who argue for national gun laws–applicable to citizens in every state. If Obama and his union pals had their way, Right-to-Work laws would be illegal–another state issue that the feds would like to seize, but a states’ right issue that must be zealously guarded.

    What seems to be working for a majority of those in Massachusetts is obviously not workable on a federal level, but that is a Massachusetts issue and I believe it is admirable that Romney is not making that state’s healthcare, approved in a bipartisan manner and liked by most of the citizens of the state, a national campaign issue.

    On the other hand, ObamaCare is an unwanted by most federal power grab–one which Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal, if he is elected.

  29. Gretchen, please review my comment at 14:44 above. If Mitt Romney gets the nod, he gets my full support. But that doesn’t mean his shortcomings all disappear down the memory hole.

    On the specifics of public support for the Massachusetts healthcare system, let’s wait a few years till all the bills comes due and payable. Then we can ask the taxpayers, rather than the non-paying beneficiaries, how much they approve the program.

  30. I disagree with Gretchen: the states mandating universal health care coverage is just as odious as the federal government doing so. It is very much my concern that Mr Romney might just turn out to be a “compassionate conservative,” who believes in using government power to help individuals; that is the road to perdition, and Mr Romney might well proceed down it more slowly than President Obama, but I am concerned that he’d stay on the same path.

    However, it’s obvious that he’s a fairly strong economic conservative, someone who realizes that the government should be the ally of business, and not its enemy, and someone who realizes that government which gets too big becomes a government which strangles the economy. He is a man who won’t waste federal money on cockamamie schemes to back alternative energy companies which are doomed to fail. He will not be perfect, by any means, but he’d be a clear sight better than the incumbent.

  31. “However, it’s obvious that he’s [Romney] a fairly strong economic conservative, someone who realizes that the government should be the ally of business, and not its enemy, and someone who realizes that government which gets too big becomes a government which strangles the economy. He is a man who won’t waste federal money on cockamamie schemes to back alternative energy companies which are doomed to fail. He will not be perfect, by any means, but he’d be a clear sight better than the incumbent.”

    Uh-huh.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/opinion/krugman-four-fiscal-phonies.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    —-
    O.K., let’s talk about the numbers.

    The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently published an overview of the budget proposals of the four “major” Republican candidates and, in a separate report, examined the latest Obama budget. I am not, by the way, a big fan of the committee’s general role in our policy discourse; I think it has been pushing premature deficit reduction and diverting attention from the more immediately urgent task of reducing unemployment. But the group is honest and technically competent, so its evaluation provides a very useful reference point.

    And here’s what it tells us: According to an “intermediate debt scenario,” the budget proposals of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney would all lead to much higher debt a decade from now than the proposals in the 2013 Obama budget. Ron Paul would do better, roughly matching Mr. Obama. But if you look at the details, it turns out that Mr. Paul is assuming trillions of dollars in unspecified and implausible spending cuts. So, in the end, he’s really a spendthrift, too.
    —-

  32. and

    —-
    Another nonpartisan group, the Tax Policy Center, has analyzed Mr. Romney’s tax proposal. It found that, compared with current policy, the proposal would actually raise taxes on the poorest 20 percent of Americans, while imposing drastic cuts in programs like Medicaid that provide a safety net for the less fortunate. (Although right-wingers like to portray Medicaid as a giveaway to the lazy, the bulk of its money goes to children, disabled, and the elderly.)

    But the richest 1 percent would receive large tax cuts — and the richest 0.1 percent would do even better, with the average member of this elite group paying $1.1 million a year less in taxes than he or she would if the high-end Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire.
    —-

  33. Miss Nova quotes:

    Another nonpartisan group, the Tax Policy Center, has analyzed Mr. Romney’s tax proposal. It found that, compared with current policy, the proposal would actually raise taxes on the poorest 20 percent of Americans, while imposing drastic cuts in programs like Medicaid that provide a safety net for the less fortunate. (Although right-wingers like to portray Medicaid as a giveaway to the lazy, the bulk of its money goes to children, disabled, and the elderly.)

    Emphasis mine.

    So, the people who pay no tax at all would now have to become taxpayers? That’s a good thing!

    Requiring people to pay their own way? That’s a good thing!

  34. Anna Nova, you can repeat “nonpartisan” a thousand times but no group, no person and no organization is nonpartisan. And if you’re quoting it I gaurantee it ain’t nonpartisan.

  35. Romney’s a RINO alright, the question is who’s RINO?

    Here’s an excerpt from William F Jasper’s article in today’s The New American

    Romney: Both Right & Left Say He’ll Flip Back to the Green Side

    Everyone knows Mitt Romney has been running from the liberal RINO (Republican In Name Only) image that stood him in good stead in Massachusetts, the ultimate Blue State. He has been running as fast as he can from his RomneyCare healthcare program in Massachusetts, which was a prototype for ObamaCare. He’s also running from his Greenie record, pushing the idea that he’s the man to take on the enviro-extremists that are preventing America from drilling for oil and digging for coal.

    The Romney team knows that to win enough delegates for the GOP nomination their man has to convince conservative primary and caucus voters that he’s not the Big Government, tax-spend-and-regulate Republican his past record indicates; he’s the candidate for tax reduction, spending reduction, regulation reduction, and energy production. Unleashing our energy resources is crucial to his promise of “Jobs, jobs, jobs.”

    However, observers at both conservative and liberal websites are pointing to indicators that, if elected, Romney is likely to flip back to the green side.

    Brad Johnson at the left-wing ThinkProgess.org wrote on March 6:

    Mitt Romney’s top donor is Environmental Defense Fund board member Julian H. Robertson Jr., who has given $1.3 million to the Romney Super PAC Restore Our Future even though Romney has viciously attacked the climate cap-and-trade policies EDF supports. A spokesperson for the hedge-fund billionaire said that Robertson is confident Romney is lying to the public when he campaigns against climate action as the “Soros agenda,” and will “do the right thing” if elected…

    Let’s not kid ourselves, Mitt Romney’s a RINO, but he’s our RINO and we’ll all be one hell of alot better off with him in the White House. We can’t allow our differences to override our common goals, and our number one goal is to kick Obama’s sorry commie ass out of office.

  36. “…and our number one goal is to kick Obama’s sorry commie ass out of office.”

    Bingo ropelight! ‘Specially if we can turn the Senate.

  37. SINP writes

    Sounds like the language which fascists would use. Is that you, Hoagie, or you, Ropelight? Just askin’!

    Sounds like the language Marxists use. Is that you, SINP? Just askin’!

  38. Whaaat? Fascists? Where did that come from? Because Ropelight, Koolo and I want our party to win makes us fascists? You do realize Wagonwheel, we are not the enemy. We are the opposition. Moslems, communists and real fascists are the enemy.

  39. Wagonwheel wrote:

    Sounds like the language which fascists would use. Is that you, Hoagie, or you, Ropelight? Just askin’!

    What, participating in a free and fair democratic election now makes us fascists if we are attempting to vote out the current President and Senate majority?

    I suppose, though, that isn’t all that much of a stretch for our Democrat from Delaware. After all, not voting for the (half) black guy also makes us racists, right?

  40. Hoagie wrote:

    You do realize Wagonwheel, we are not the enemy. We are the opposition.

    No, Hoagie, he doesn’t realize that at all. To Mr Wheel, the top 1% are the enemy, and those of us not in the top 1% who vote for the interests of the top 1% are not only enemies, but dupes of the enemy. And if we are the opposition, we are also the disloyal opposition, right?

  41. From a better historical understanding of the subject than you’ve displayed. Wagonwheel is right.

    LOL … gee, let’s find a webpage that reinforces my already ingrained beliefs, no matter how ridiculous it is.

  42. Know who the 1% really are?

    They’re the ones granted high wages, generous pensions, and cushy lifetime employment by federal, state, and local government. The nation’s economy might suffer, the private sector might lose jobs by the tens of thousands, but government keeps on expanding and government employees keep getting regular pay raises and fancy benefits.

    Government bureaucrats are the USA’s own homegrown pampered class of privileged overseers anointed by our ruling political aristocracy and protected by a corrupt and compliant national media. You might think we’re all equal but all the evidence indicates they’re just a little bit more equal and you’re picking up the tab.

  43. So, Miss Nova, from your perspective you are assuming that those of us advocating a completely democratic “overthrow” of President Obama and the Democrats, by the mechanism of a free election, somehow want to install a dictatorship like il Ducé’s?

    Of course, we had a Republican President, with a Republican-controlled Congress not all that long ago, yet, amazingly enough, that republican President and republican-controlled Congress allowed the next elections to occur, at their regularly scheduled times, including elections which replaced the Republicans with the Democrats.

  44. Thank you for demonstrating Julian Sanchez right yet again:

    http://www.juliansanchez.com/2010/03/26/frum-cocktail-parties-and-the-threat-of-doubt/

    —-
    One of the more striking features of the contemporary conservative movement is the extent to which it has been moving toward epistemic closure. Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted. (How do you know they’re liberal? Well, they disagree with the conservative media!)
    —-

    The Mother Jones piece listed its sources with links:

    —-
    Sources

    Income distribution: Emmanuel Saez (Excel)

    Net worth: Edward Wolff (PDF)

    Household income/income share: Congressional Budget Office

    Real vs. desired distribution of wealth: Michael I. Norton and Dan Ariely (PDF)

    Net worth of Americans vs. Congress: Federal Reserve (average); Center for Responsive Politics (Congress)

    Your chances of being a millionaire: Calculation based on data from Wolff (PDF); US Census (household and population data)

    Member of Congress’ chances: Center for Responsive Politics

    Wealthiest members of Congress: Center for Responsive Politics

    Tax cut votes: New York Times (Senate; House)

    Wall street profits, 2007-2009: New York State Comptroller (PDF)

    Unemployment rate, 2007-2009: Bureau of Labor Statistics

    Home equity, 2007-2009: Federal Reserve, Flow of Funds data, 1995-2004 and 2005-2009 (PDFs)

    CEO vs. worker pay: Economic Policy Institute

    Historic tax rates: Calculations based on data from The Tax Foundation

    Federal tax revenue: Joint Committee on Taxation (PDF)
    —-

  45. Rush Limbaugh has now lost 48 advertisers and counting.

    I don’t think this is going away very quickly. Moreover, Limbaugh has done damage to the party he leads, as they have done damage to themselves by not addressing this Sandra Fluke issue honestly.

    ‘Tis a war against women, and the women are winning, thankfully. We need to work at ridding ourselves of this filth of the extreme right wing, which Rush represents!

  46. Perry, every time you attack others for your very own sins the hypocrisy rings out so loud and clear that not even the cries of the tortured souls in hell could overcome the cacophony of wailing hoots and cackles.

    You make a flaming fool of yourself – dignum et justum est.

  47. SINP writes

    ‘Tis a war against women, and the women are winning, thankfully. We need to work at ridding ourselves of this filth of the extreme right wing, which Rush represents!

    Why does SINP hate women so? Why did it take him days to speak out against Bill Maher, Ed Schutltz, et. al.? Is he a misogynist in the mold of Bill Maher? I believe this is a possibility.

  48. Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations…Green Beer N’ Leprechauns Edition

  49. Pingback: This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com

  50. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations…Green Beer N’ Leprechauns Edition | Virginia Right!

  51. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations…Green Beer N’ Leprechauns Edition | Independent Sentinel

  52. Pingback: GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels — Nominations for Erev Ides of March

  53. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations…Green Beer N’ Leprechauns Edition | askmarion

  54. Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations…Green Beer N’ Leprechauns Edition

  55. Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results

  56. Pingback: Bookworm Room » Irish, yes, but I like it too: Watcher’s Council St. Patrick’s Day edition

  57. Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 03/16/12

  58. Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results 3-16-2012 | Virginia Right!

  59. Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | Independent Sentinel

  60. Pingback: Peyton Manning, Tim Tebow and Me! |

  61. “Why does SINP hate women so? Why did it take him days to speak out against Bill Maher, Ed Schutltz, et. al.? Is he a misogynist in the mold of Bill Maher? I believe this is a possibility.”

    Hardly, koolo; speak for yourself.

    I have steadfastly defended Sandra Fluke against your vicious attacks on her, and I have stood strong on a woman’s choice regarding her body. I have also voiced my support for equal pay for equal work, and am opposed to the intrusion into a pregnant woman’s body as per some red states proposals and new laws. Where do you stand on these issues, koolo, and what have you posted in defense of this mind-boggling attack on women? Answer: Nothing!

    We will see just how effective your war on women is come November and the exit demographics of those who have reelected President Obama to his second term.

  62. The ever-jealous SINP writes

    Mr Editor, regarding the high jacking of threads, are you going to permit Hube and his Watchers’ Council to do exactly this on your blog?

    You wouldn’t know this due to the 1 or 2 daily hits your own blog gets (if that), but they are trackbacks — indicating that those blogs linked to the thread in question because Hube (obviously) submitted this post to the W.C. Trackbacks help to generate interest in a topic/post and draw readers to it. You ought to try it sometime … that is, if people can get past the ridiculous title of your blog without laughing themselves to death.

  63. SINP writes

    I have steadfastly defended Sandra Fluke against your vicious attacks on her, and I have stood strong on a woman’s choice regarding her body. I have also voiced my support for equal pay for equal work, and am opposed to the intrusion into a pregnant woman’s body as per some red states proposals and new laws. Where do you stand on these issues, koolo, and what have you posted in defense of this mind-boggling attack on women? Answer: Nothing!

    It is only “mind-boggling” to those with not much of a “mind” to speak of, IMO. These so-called “attacks” were nothing of the sort until the current administration fairly successfully turned around their preposterous actual attack on religious freedom into a supposed GOP “attack” on women. In fact, no one even thought to bring up contraception at all until George Stephanopoulis did just that in that one GOP debate … much to the bewilderment of everyone. Hmm … was George tipped off to a coming strategy??

  64. “Where do you stand on these issues, koolo, and what have you posted in defense of this mind-boggling attack on women? Answer: Nothing!”

    Thus, as I said above, koolo’s answer remains: Nothing!

  65. … but they are trackbacks …..

    I understand that, koolo, but the fact remains that they high jack a thread, and should be forbidden, and deleted, whenever they occur off-topic.

  66. Bristol Palin to Obama: When should I expect your call?

    Bill Maher, or whatever that radical Leftist’s name is who gave 1 MILLION DOLLARS to re-elect Barry Soetero, had some of the most vile, disgusting things to say about Bristol Palin. Far and away more vile than anything a Conservative would even think of saying about Malia or Sasha! And yet, David Letterman gets a complete pass for accusing Willow Palin of wanting to have sex with a New York Yankee during the 7th Inning Stretch!

    You really need to read what Bristol Palin wrote! It will put radical Leftists to shame with their “war on women” bovine feces! … Oops, radical Leftists cannot be shamed for any shameful act they do or any shameful act they ignore, all in the name of “ends justifies means” bovine feces the radical Leftists use every single day! But it will make crystal clear Barack Obama’s absolute hypocrisy, using his own words, in the whole “war on women” false front operation!

  67. I completely agree, these kinds of attacks by Maher and Letterman and Limbaugh on women are beyond obnoxious, they are outrageous. I wish President Obama would speak out more against these examples of hate speech, which we even see on this very blog from time to time!

  68. SINP writes

    I understand that, koolo, but the fact remains that they high jack a thread, and should be forbidden, and deleted, whenever they occur off-topic.

    LOL … this means that you don’t understand trackbacks because by their very nature they’re not off-topic. Sheesh.

    Thus, as I said above, koolo’s answer remains: Nothing!

    *Yawn* I did answer it. The answer (again, for the slow) is that there was no “attack” on women. Here, I’ll provide a link for you, Mr. Citation Please, so you can read it again: http://www.journal14.com/2012/03/07/the-excuses-of-the-losers/comment-page-1/#comment-16693

  69. SINP writes

    I completely agree, these kinds of attacks by Maher and Letterman and Limbaugh on women are beyond obnoxious, they are outrageous.

    Except that you spent days excoriating the latter; you also spent days before responding to the attacks of the former. Because, y’know, you actually don’t “bridge gaps.”

  70. When will Obama give Bristol that phone call? The twelfth of never? Most likely. When will Obama demand his Super-PAC return that million? A month after the twelfth of never? Most likely.

    As Bristol says, she doesn’t expect to receive the phone call, nor does she expect that million to be returned. Because, as Bristol says, Obama’s going to need every dime of it if he ever wants a shot at winning re-election.

    BristolCuda! You have to read her open letter to Obama!

  71. OTOH, as reported:

    POLITICO’s Jennifer Epstein reports:

    Actor Robert De Niro thrilled the crowd at a New York fundraiser headlined by first lady Michelle Obama when he listed the alternatives.

    “Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady?” De Niro asked a star-studded crowd gathered in the backroom of Locanda Verde, a restaurant he owns on Greenwich Street in TriBeCa.

    Someone in the crowd shouted, “No!” as De Niro quickly added, “Too soon, right?”

    But we’re the raaaaacists. Maybe it’s time for Obama to call Callista, Karen and Ann.

  72. Who’s smarter than Barack Obama?
    Bristol Palin is.

    Barack Obama called a hypothetical Malia or Sasha out-of-wedlock pregnancy a Punishment. Straight up, used his daughters, hypothetically pregnant as single teen-agers, and declared that pregnancy a punishment! You can look it up! He said it!

    Bristol Palin, on the other hand, considers her son Tripp to be a Gift from Providence, conceived in sin, but the greatest Gift (short of Salvation) that Providence could ever give her.

    That makes Bristol orders of magnitude smarter than the man who has on multiple occasions espoused infanticide when abortion failed!

  73. “Barack Obama called a hypothetical Malia or Sasha out-of-wedlock pregnancy a Punishment. Straight up, used his daughters, hypothetically pregnant as single teen-agers, and declared that pregnancy a punishment! You can look it up! He said it!”

    The burden is on you, Mr Hitchcock, to provide the cite which backs up your allegation, otherwise it would naturally be considered a prevarication!

    “That makes Bristol orders of magnitude smarter than the man who has on multiple occasions espoused infanticide when abortion failed!”

    You need a cite for this one as well, Mr Hitchcock, since your word is not enough!

  74. Koolo steps in for the self-proclaimed indomitable Mr Hitchcock, then gives the quote which stretches an Obama statement beyond the intended meaning, as I read it.

    Koolo: “This is actually fairly well known. Funny how SINP — the supposed “many sources” absorber of news — didn’t know about it.”

    “”I am going to teach them [his daughters] first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby,” Obama said.

    The Christian Defense Coalition responded to Obama by saying that his comment is “not only a slap in the face to every child born to a young mother, but it diminishes the great joy that children bring to their families regardless of the circumstances in which they were born.”

    Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also commented on Obama’s campaign for change, saying, “Senator Obama talks about bringing change to America. However, when it comes to his policies on abortion he is strictly ‘old school.’ Every recent poll shows that America’s emerging generation is embracing a culture of life and desires and end to the violence that has resulted in the deaths of over 50,000,000 innocent children and wounded so many women.”

    Please, the President was not talking about abortion. Obviously he was talking about children being punished, in effect, by finding themselves with an unwanted pregnancy which will change their lives forever. I interpret the President’s statement as inferring adoption as the correct solution for a teen with baby, since he is on record as wanting to decrease abortion in every way possible. Here is a statement he made in April of 2008, the same time frame of the quote which koolo found:

    “We’ve actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.
    But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we’re also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.
    And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate.
    We’re not going to completely resolve it. At some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.”

    It would be interesting to see the context in which the one quoted Obama sentence appears. I suspect that this Catholic organ took his statement out of context.

    A demonstration protesting Obama’s pro-abortion policies was held yesterday at 3:30pm at West Chester University, where Sen. Obama made a campaign stop.”

  75. SINP writes

    Koolo steps in for the self-proclaimed indomitable Mr Hitchcock, then gives the quote which stretches an Obama statement beyond the intended meaning, as I read it.

    Considering how “well” you tend to “read” around here, I doubt many actually care “how” you read it. The fact is Hitchcock was right, and the above quote proves it.

    I also noticed you ignored the second cite, which is wise. I wouldn’t want to address something that disgusting either.

  76. “All too easy:”

    I do not agree at all with then Senator Obama on his position against both the Illinois and Federal BAIPA (Born Alive Infant Protection Act).

    The problem is that on late-term abortions, Roe v Wade is less restrictive, therefore leaving some latitude for states to act, and most of them have. This leaves a rather murky situation legally.

    According to Roe v Wade, a late term abortion is banned but must include exceptions for “threats to the woman’s life, physical health, and mental health, thus very subjective indeed, so most states have attempted to pick up the slack, many of whom have outright banned late term abortions, which is probably unconstitutional.

    Another murky area is what to do with a late term abortion which results in the extraction or ejection of a live baby. It is here where Obama became confused, shall we say charitably.

    I outright oppose the position he took as a State and Federal Senator. A live fetus must be given all necessary medical care to preserve it life!

    It seems that now the President has changed his position on this Act, as he is now trying “to melt into the crowd”.

    For shame Mr President. It is time for you to man up to your change of position on this issue, and admit your previous mistake!

  77. “Considering how “well” you tend to “read” around here, I doubt many actually care “how” you read it. The fact is Hitchcock was right, and the above quote proves it.”

    Koolo, why is it that you and I cannot have a discussion of an issue without your mocking and insults interdispersed almost always? Moreover, speak for yourself – no one assigned you as a spokesman on here, or did they?

    The self-driven necessity for your behaving in this manner is blatant evidence of your weakness. Why not instead let your points stand as you present them, without all the side personal insults attached?

    “I also noticed you ignored the second cite, which is wise. I wouldn’t want to address something that disgusting either.”

    As you can see, I responded. The fact is that you are impatient and demanding. I don’t know how your wife and kids, (assuming you have any), put up with your dominating and nasty personality as exhibited on this blog. And then there are your students as well. Or maybe you are just two-faced, which is just as sad! I just don’t know about you, koolo!!

  78. SINP writes

    Koolo, why is it that you and I cannot have a discussion of an issue without your mocking and insults interdispersed almost always? Moreover, speak for yourself – no one assigned you as a spokesman on here, or did they?

    The answer to the former is quite simple: Because you’re an immense hypocrite. This isn’t an insult, it’s a documented fact. Do not pretend to be so “hurt” by the mocking and insults. Your facade, your game, your entire personality here is predicated on precisely that — mocking and insults — when it comes to discussing issues with people with whom you disagree. Hitchcock is correct when he calls you passive-aggressive. One minute you’re “hurt;” the next you’re on the all-out attack. Give it up already. No one buys it anymore. You’re merely an Internet bully, threatening people when you just can’t take their push-back any more.

    Lord help your wife, kids, and anyone who has to deal with you. You must make everyone around you completely miserable. You’ve probably threatened them with something when they dared disagree with you, eh? That’s just the person you are.

    Sad.

Comments are closed.