Newt re-affirms his marital vow of fidelity in a letter to an Iowa-based family values group:
"I will also oppose any judicial, bureaucratic, or legislative effort to define marriage in any manner other than as between one man and one woman," Gingrich wrote in a letter to The Family Leader announcing his support of the group's pledge. "I also pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others."
That would actually be the fourth time Gingrich has taken a no-adultery pledge. He took the first one in 1962 when he married Jackie Battley, and then again in 1981 when he married Marianne Ginther and made a third one to Callista Bisek (now Gingrich) in 2000.
Everyone knows you cannot go back on a double dog swear.
Posted by: Clarice | December 13, 2011 at 07:23 AM
Why waste time with those dipsticks in Iowa?
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 13, 2011 at 07:25 AM
There are three possible reasons this sort of thing could be pertinent (AFAICT), and I'd contend all of them are fallacious.
- Newt cheated on his (first two) wives, and therefore he's unfit. In the first place, there's a difference between serial philanderers (like Herman Cain was accused of and Clinton certainly was) and people going through a messy divorce. If the worst that can be said of Newt is that he cheated with someone he subsequently married, that's not very persuasive.
- It's the hypocrisy. Right. Just because you had an infidelity in the past, you have to support gay marriage (or bestiality, for a reductio illustration of how ridiculous the argument is). Must be nice to have no standards (to deviate from).
- Newt's peccadilloes make him unelectable. Even neglecting the Clinton lesson, this is risible. Fear that a staunch conservative may try to legislate morality is a common (though unpersuasive) meme. Fear of Newt's cheating on another wife . . . not so much.
The fact that many liberals try out these smears (especially the hypocrisy one) ought to be instructive. If they want to sling mud, let them spend their own campaign money and credibility doiong it. I won't be helping.Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 13, 2011 at 07:32 AM
What Cecil said.
Plus I am uninterested in other peoples' sex lives and don't want to hear about it.
Posted by: Clarice | December 13, 2011 at 07:38 AM
So agree, Clarice. This is a silly pledge to ask someone to sign, and I think a silly person to sign. Sorry Newt decided to do that.
Posted by: bolitha | December 13, 2011 at 07:57 AM
OT my neighborhood - We had our meeting last night. This was part of an email sent out over a week ago (which I mistook for "winning")-
"NCRC MEMBERSHIP UPDATE
To update everyone on the NCRC membership issue, the Executive Committee has revisited and reversed its April 2011 decision to join NCRC as a sponsoring member for ****'s application. This decision is based on the feedback we have received and was made with ****'s support as well. We both regret the misunderstandings that led to the Federal Reserve Board testimony. As to the membership generally, once again, I apologize to those who have been affected or offended. The *** will terminate its NCRC membership, and a letter will be sent to the Federal Reserve Board to clarify that the testimony given was not on behalf of the ***. We can talk about this issue more on December 12, but I wanted to give you all this update in advance of the meeting."
Come to find out...as of last night, we are still members. No letter has been sent. That email sure made the urgency die down though cause most neighbors took it to mean we weren't members anymore. What sneaky, sketchy people....
The meeting was booooorrrring! The left must win half their battles by just drowning everyone in "process" & boring us into submission.
Like someone here at JOM asked about the AGW Durbin nonsense...what was the final outcome? Did we sign something? Who knows? It is all so sketchy & boring.
Posted by: Janet | December 13, 2011 at 08:03 AM
Yes, Janet, they signed to another one of those worthless 'serf collars' committing us
to reduce our emissions by half in 2020.
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 08:13 AM
Newt's fidelity away from conservative principles, in the last decade are more is more concerning. Personal fidelity and integrity after the Palin example, doesn't matter a farthing.
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 08:18 AM
Thanks, narciso. Your 2 sentence post is clearer than the reams of newspaper articles.
Posted by: Janet | December 13, 2011 at 08:22 AM
Oops, 1 sentence!
Posted by: Janet | December 13, 2011 at 08:23 AM
If I didnt know better, I would say TM has endorsed the new and improved dog chow.
Posted by: GMAX | December 13, 2011 at 08:23 AM
Hmmmm.
It looks like Tom Harkin saved Clinton from having to sign that pledge in 1992. But it does raise the question, do they ask all parties and participants or only those hypocritical Republicans?
Posted by: Jack is Back! (An Above Average Hoi Polloi) | December 13, 2011 at 08:27 AM
Does Iowa matter?
Posted by: bolitha | December 13, 2011 at 08:31 AM
So it looks like we might have President Kayani in the future, or more likely the sort of puppet represented by Leghari.
http://news.yahoo.com/associate-pakistan-president-had-mini-stroke-113940524.html
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 08:32 AM
Grenade and gun attack in Liege, Belgium.-Breaking News
2 dead, 25 wounded.
This so sucks.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | December 13, 2011 at 08:46 AM
What Cecil and Clarice said.
I'm troubled by Newt's comment about Romney's tenure at Bain. Bernie Sanders would be proud of that one.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 13, 2011 at 08:56 AM
Me, too, DoT. Newt should refrain from attacks such as that and concentrate on Obama and continue to be the genial grandfather and knowledgeable professor.
Posted by: bolitha | December 13, 2011 at 09:00 AM
Well we take our wins when he can finds them,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/12/senate-blocks-obama-nominee-for-ambassador-to-el-salvador/?test=latestnews
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 09:02 AM
Mel,
Place St. Laembert which is a very busy area downtown. Christmas market is there and that is why so crowded. Liege or Luik is a terrific little city famous of course for the Liege Wafel which are the sugar coated ones that you eat like a cookie.
Terrible news. Wonder who it is without preconcieved notions.
Posted by: Jack is Back! (An Above Average Hoi Polloi) | December 13, 2011 at 09:11 AM
They might be jumping the gun, but this was happening at the time;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/8953449/Belgium-grenade-attack-leaves-at-least-two-dead.html
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 09:16 AM
JiB-
Not many details, but the wounded count seems to going down at least. Attackers appear to be still on the loose. Orders have been given to remain inside, leaving shoppers stranded in stores.
www.breakingnews.com
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | December 13, 2011 at 09:16 AM
Agree that Newt should stay positive but he probably got tired of listening to the attacks making him sound comparable to the red nosed predator. Let that be the currency of the party of Weiner.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 13, 2011 at 09:17 AM
Drudge has it up now. Pakistani newspaper is already claiming that its in retaliation for a sentencing of parents involved in an honour killing.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | December 13, 2011 at 09:19 AM
Isn't it funny that those damn Calvinists never learned how to throw grenades instead keep using the shunning technique?
Islam, the religion of cowards.
Posted by: Jack is Back! (An Above Average Hoi Polloi) | December 13, 2011 at 09:27 AM
Fear of Newt's cheating on another wife . . . not so much.
And really - who would care? Clarice has it right.
Fox says one shooter captured, one committed suicide and one on the loose in Belgium.
Posted by: Jane | December 13, 2011 at 09:28 AM
Remember what Obama said, ""...Obama added, "Service to others; compassion to all; treating others as we wish ourselves to be treated -- those values aren’t just at the center of Christianity. Those are values that are shared by all faiths.""
So it is probably not connected with Islam.
Posted by: Janet | December 13, 2011 at 09:28 AM
Minus 19 at Raz today.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 13, 2011 at 09:30 AM
Mittens would agree with you, Janet, that is terrifying, if only they banned the use of grenades, wait, scratch that;
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/an-open-letter-to-eric-holder-from-an-atf-agent-in-mexico/
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 09:30 AM
I'm troubled by Newt's comment about Romney's tenure at Bain.
Well, I'll defend about half of that. Mitt's demand that Newt pay back the $1.6 million he took in fees for advising Freddie Mac is silly. It's a lame attempt to tar Newt with responsibility for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mess (completely illegitimately), and a cutesy stupid gesture he should be called on. Newt's parallel is perfectly appropriate, right up to the point he lambasts Bain Capital for laying people off. (And if his point was that his consulting work for FM was just as legitimate as Mitt's for Bain, even that would be appropriate . . . but if so, he needs to restate it.) But the bottom line is that this is a completely silly distraction, and Mitt started it. And yes, Newt was wrong to play along.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 13, 2011 at 09:31 AM
Mrs. JiB tells me that the honour killing was ugly and that the girl was very young.
This is in Wallonia and they are much more liberal toward Islam than the Flemish (I am comparing Mao to Lenin here) and this could be a wake-up call on immigration and inclusion. But I doubt it.
Posted by: Jack is Back! (An Above Average Hoi Polloi) | December 13, 2011 at 09:33 AM
Janet, you have to read Politial talk--the group says they "will terminate" their NRDC membership. Remind them of that and ask to be notified when they do so.Perhaps you might explain that having lost your trust by their initial action they cannot expect you to take their word on future actions without verification.
Posted by: Clarice | December 13, 2011 at 09:33 AM
Oops, I meant NCRC
Posted by: Clarice | December 13, 2011 at 09:34 AM
The first thing I though of, was Omar Nassiri's memoir, in which he worked with
the Securite de Estat, the Belgian security
services, but he was more GIA than any Harakat.
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 09:36 AM
If anyone finds that Newt is having an affair (and you know the usual suspects are looking), it will be investigated, and revealed. And it will hurt Newt. And it would, regardless of whatever pledge he took. So I don't see the big deal here. Newt is committing himself to upright conduct that he'd better be engaging in.
Gay marriage is an active issue in society, and a concern of the Iowa GOP electorate, since it was judicially opposed in Iowa. So there is nothing particulalrly noteworthy with that part of the pledge, either.
So, basically this story just gives folks the opportunity to point out that Newt has married three times, and has married his mistress twice. There is a character issue with Newt -- the recklessness, ego, and occasional seeming meanness -- that the marriage thing seems a part of. So this will not go away, as much as one wishes that this stuff stayed in the National Enquirer.
But, this story itself is no big deal, and just a hook for reporters to take a shot at Newt. From Newt's standpoint, I guess that can't be helped.
Posted by: Appalled | December 13, 2011 at 09:36 AM
More details from Mrs. JiB:
The honour killing happened 2 years ago (or so) and it involved the girl of around 18. She was killed by her brother accompanied by her sister and condoned by mom and dad. Horrific.
Interesting detail - they tried to force her to marry a cousin back in Pakistan via Skype! All downhill from there.
Posted by: Jack is Back! (An Above Average Hoi Polloi) | December 13, 2011 at 09:38 AM
I meant to say "judicially imposed" instead of "judicially opposed". Sorry -- that was a pretty big "sounds like" typo on my part.
Posted by: Appalled | December 13, 2011 at 09:38 AM
A wise often married man, Lord Goldstone who knew what he was talking about-said a man who marries his mistress creates an instance job opening.
Posted by: Clarice | December 13, 2011 at 09:42 AM
**INSTANT job opening** (Still on my first cuppa)
Posted by: Clarice | December 13, 2011 at 09:43 AM
Yes, that is problematic on Newt's part, but the hair pulling tactics of Savage, and Beck
have just reached the point where Zombie Graham Chapman, pops in, and said that's too
silly in deed.
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 09:46 AM
I'm really tired of this "honour killing" scam by a bunch of rock worshiping savages. What "honour" is there in acting barbaric?
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 13, 2011 at 09:46 AM
There is a character issue with Newt -- the recklessness, ego, and occasional seeming meanness -- that the marriage thing seems a part of.
But if he bit his lip and felt our pain, it'd all be okay? Sorry, no. Same double standard, slightly spruced up, and I'm still not buying any.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 13, 2011 at 09:51 AM
His name is Nordine Amrani. Mrs. JiB reading the french language site and says he may have acted alone.
Posted by: Jack is Back! (An Above Average Hoi Polloi) | December 13, 2011 at 09:51 AM
Forgot: The reason they know his name is the idiot carried his passport with him.
Posted by: Jack is Back! (An Above Average Hoi Polloi) | December 13, 2011 at 09:52 AM
Thanks, Clarice.
In Islam, does the sin of a family member taint the entire family? Does allah hold the whole family accountable?
Posted by: Janet | December 13, 2011 at 09:52 AM
A good piece by Tamny, saying the obvious but saying it well
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/12/13/baracks_economics_reach_a_new_low_and_its_time_for_him_to_go__99415.html
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 09:52 AM
Here's an interesting Newt perspective by Roger L. Simon. I disagree with some of it, but he's mostly got it (and it's certainly entertaining).
Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 13, 2011 at 09:56 AM
Janet, yes the sin of a daughter, sister or wife--defined as picking her own husband or having an affair--taints the whole family and can be lifted only if a family member kills the woman.
Posted by: Clarice | December 13, 2011 at 10:01 AM
"right up to the point he lambasts Bain Capital for laying people off"
That's the part that is crazy.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM
from Islam watch - "A woman who is either raped or commits adultery becomes the source of shame to her family. People will not marry her because she has been spoiled; she and her family becomes the object of gossip of everyone in the society; hence the entire family can lose prestige. No one would give a daughter to the brothers of that girl in marriage and no one would marry her sisters. The family and even the extended family are maligned and become outcasts. This can only stop if the family cleanses that stain with blood. The woman thus defiled must be killed even if she is a victim of rape."
bold mine.
Posted by: Janet | December 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM
From the aptly named (today) Sunshine State:
A survey of 12 swing states that Barack Obama carried in 2008 now finds the president losing to both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich there.
USA Today-Gallup -- polling registered voters in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin -- found Obama trailing Romney 43-48, and Gingrich 45-48.
Because Obama is expected to hold the big states of California, New York and Illinois, he maintains a popular-vote advantage nationwide, where he leads Gingrich 50-44, and edges Romney 47-46.
But the Electoral College math would deliver the White House to Republicans if they can carry the swing states, as the USA Today-Gallup poll shows.
Even more heartening for the GOP is the poll's methodology. Surveys of "registered" tend to artificially inflate Democratic numbers. Scientific samplings of "likely voters" tend to produce more conservative, and accurate, outcomes.
Posted by: Clarice | December 13, 2011 at 10:07 AM
Don't forget to buy your lightbulbs. I've been stocking up to a year which is good because just about everyone is out of them. If things get really bad we can go into the black market.
Posted by: Jane | December 13, 2011 at 10:14 AM
Remember what Obama said, ""...Obama added, "Service to others; compassion to all; treating others as we wish ourselves to be treated -- those values aren’t just at the center of Christianity. Those are values that are shared by all faiths.""
Thanks for pointing this out, Janet; because it's just more of the witless off-prompter nattering that El JEFe does that would've passed unnoticed by me; particularly because the ambulatory bobble-heads in the MFM, whose job it is to point out howlers like this, breezily let it pass.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 13, 2011 at 10:15 AM
THat's where this came from, with the John the Baptist comparison
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/after-perry-attack-obama-displays-christian-faith/250751
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 10:27 AM
Jane, I bought some, not $1K worth like a friend did though because I think sometime in 2012 it will be repealed.
I'm thinking of splurging on this thermomix which you can buy in Canada but not here (I think because it's fair traded). Virginia Postrel and countless chefs swear by it. I thought of you when I say this dessert with grey goose creme topping.http://www.ukthermomix.com/recshow.php?rec_id=89
Posted by: Clarice | December 13, 2011 at 10:32 AM
This is disturbing, yet not terribly surprising, usually they get the Interior Ministry slot, as with Bayan Jabr.:
http://bigpeace.com/pschweizer/2011/12/13/what-is-an-ex-iran-guard-commander-doing-at-the-white-house/
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 10:36 AM
Allen Drury was quite prophetic, it just took a little longer, than expected.
http://biggovernment.com/tloudon/2011/12/13/communist-economist-john-case-praises-obamas-osawatomie-speech-the-president-took-a-great-step-forward/
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Lightbulb question (I am about to leave for work so won't read any replies till I get there):
Earlier this year I stocked up via Amazon and Instapundit on 100 watt bulbs, so I am covered there.
But have I been shortsighted? It occurs to me my recessed kitchen lighting with small spotlights and my china cabinet with even smaller spotlights might be something I also need to order quickly from Amazon. Are these specialty lights also being banned?
Posted by: centralcal | December 13, 2011 at 10:41 AM
What happens if you buy incandescent bulbs in Canada and drive them across the border into the U.S.?
Posted by: sbw | December 13, 2011 at 10:45 AM
I think it's a hanging offense, sbw, at least recall what happened to the bootlegger in the Untoucahables
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 10:47 AM
sbw-
Strip search.
Unless you convince the friendly customs agent that they aren't light bulbs but heat sources.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | December 13, 2011 at 10:49 AM
CC, I think other wattages come later if at all..and I don't see how they can stop those little specialty bulbs--aren't they halogen or led anyway?
sbw, I can just imagine. In Norway a rainy season has cut the supply of butter at the holiday cookie making season and it's selling for $300 a lb. I'd recommend anyone who wants a free trip there fill his suitcase with Costco butter and peddle it there, but I read the authorities, instead of lifting imports of butter, just arrested a Russian who'd filled his car with butter and was driving it over the border.
Posted by: Clarice | December 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM
I've had two friends who each renewed their vows. Both filed for divorce within three months. It's not unlike the owner announcing that he fully supports his losing coach. Or, as in the old war movies, when a soldier takes out a picture of his girlfriend.
Posted by: MarkO | December 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM
I use www.1000bulbs.com .
Don't allow the ad list to be sent though, they're very prolific.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | December 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM
Clarice-
Yesterday, Norwegian customs officers arrested a budding Russian Entrepreneur with 500 lbs. of butter.
I don't know how they poached him.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | December 13, 2011 at 10:55 AM
Heh..One more pun and you're dead. *pow*
Posted by: Clarice | December 13, 2011 at 10:59 AM
found Obama trailing Romney 43-48, and Gingrich 45-48.
Notice both candidates have the same support. Zero draws a slight more from the "undecided" against Gingrich. Those folks will go for Zero eventually anyway.
And yes RV is much more favorable for Democrats. I would need to see the sampling to see if they were otherwise too favorable to Democrats as well.
Posted by: GMAX | December 13, 2011 at 10:59 AM
Rimshot, In other silly news from folks who should know better;
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/12/eurocrash-update-3-radeks-warning.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 11:00 AM
I've had two friends who each renewed their vows. Both filed for divorce within three months.
As much as I think keeping a marriage together is a praiseworthy thing worthy of celebration, I regard most of these as two people who wanted a good reason to host a party.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 13, 2011 at 11:05 AM
off
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 13, 2011 at 11:05 AM
sbw, be sure to wear a turban when you smuggle the lightbulbs; no questions will be asked of you.
Posted by: Threadkiller | December 13, 2011 at 11:09 AM
Rush's response is classic in this regard;
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-weird-way-country-is-not.html
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 11:10 AM
Cecil:
But if he bit his lip and felt our pain, it'd all be okay? Sorry, no. Same double standard, slightly spruced up, and I'm still not buying any.
I don't know that I have ever seen any particular governing philosophy that adequately addresses when this stuff matters and when it does not. My instinct is that it ought not to do so, but that we the people want to know our candidates, to get some sense of what they'll do to us in office. So, the fact that the New York governor who preached civil virtue at Wall Street went down for using prostitutes, while the run of the mill Senator from Louisiana did not. In current tabloid fodder, I suspect if it were found Obama were having the gay love affairs alleged in the Globe, it would matter. If his wife is really getting it on with a Secret Service agent, it would not matter.
Clinton is a different matter then Gingrich. I don't think having an affair is a firing offense, but I'm not sure I'd hire you if I knew you were in the midst of one.
Posted by: Appalled | December 13, 2011 at 11:11 AM
All the wattages less than 100 will also be phased out (working downward) but I'm not sure of the schedule. I got a lifetime supply of 100's, 60's and 40's through Amazon. The sellers are 1000bulbs and elight.
The 100-watters are 130 volts, which work just fine in a 120-volt system.
Bravo to the first GOP candidate who says "if elected I will ask the congress to repeal that cuckoo law."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 13, 2011 at 11:12 AM
Clarice,
Of course it was "Janie's tip" about the grey goose, altho I will say I might actually like Tito's more these day.
And I too think the lightbulb thing will be repealed but I'm not counting on anything.
Posted by: Jane | December 13, 2011 at 11:15 AM
What a strange land, we find our selves in, HG Wells would point out it took about 80,000
years to get in the circumstances we describe.
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 11:18 AM
narc, I saw that. Rush seems to think Obama is just not that smart. He didn't mention that he's a liar.
Posted by: MarkO | December 13, 2011 at 11:20 AM
Well he figures 'the Constanza rule', in effect,
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 11:21 AM
According to SIFMA CEO (& former OTS head ) Tim Ryan:
Dodd Frank requires 235 new rule-makings by 11 different regulatory bodies. As of Dec. 1, regulators have finalized 74 of these new rules.
We need that many rules? Sheesh
Posted by: Gmax | December 13, 2011 at 11:24 AM
Clinton is a different matter then Gingrich.
That's for sure. He had sex with someone for whom he was directly responsible; it started while she was an intern; it affected her employment; it was part of a pattern of abusive sexual harassment; it was part of a pattern of habitual marital infidelity; and he lied about it in court (and almost certainly suborned perjury from others as well, though that was never proven). Yep, gotta concur, there's not comparison whatsoever. Oh wait . . . you're saying the main difference is that he was already hired? Okayyyy . . . I guess that's different, too.
The big difference is the double standard. That and the fact the media will hunt for a popular Republican's dirt, and hide the Democrat's. There's simply no way to excuse Clinton's behavior, and try to make hay out of Newt's far less egregious sins. But that won't stop some folks from trying.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 13, 2011 at 11:24 AM
Raz:
Just win, baby.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 13, 2011 at 11:24 AM
WAy to miss the point, entirely, then again those that gave him this job,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mpaa-head-chris-dodd-online-censorship-bill-chinas-model_611984.html
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM
what amazes me is that grenades are available in Belgium if you know the right people as are all sorts of other military explosives and firearms. It was the center of the illegal arms trade for many years.
What a GD coward.
I can just imagine some Brit driving off the ferry in Oslo:
"Sir, why is your air conditioning on when it is 4 Degrees outside."
"Uh, just got back from Tenerife, mate and keeping the feeling alive."
Posted by: matt | December 13, 2011 at 11:26 AM
You know who made the hiring decision? Yup folks like Apalled. That fact never seems to sink in however, instead we get hectoring ...
Posted by: Gmax | December 13, 2011 at 11:27 AM
No one hates free speech like a progressive.
Posted by: MarkO | December 13, 2011 at 11:30 AM
Last week it was 42-40 Obama over Romney, and 45-43 Newt over Obama. This week it's Romney 45-42 and Obama 45-40 over Newt. Not sure what to make of it, except I doubt the actual numbers are shifting as much as the polling suggests.
Electability doesn't appear to be a very compelling argument. And it doesn't matter how Mitt would in the general as long as he can't break 20% in the primary.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 13, 2011 at 11:35 AM
or a Muzzie, MarkO.
Posted by: Jack is Back! (An Above Average Hoi Polloi) | December 13, 2011 at 11:43 AM
Now Glenn, about that last statement
http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/12/uh-oh-call-glenn-beck-quick/
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Poor Mitt. He's just so cautious, he's out of sync. Even when he hazards a conviction, they drink his milkshake.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/you-cant-trust-him-gay-vet-says-after-exchange-with-romney-in-nh/2011/12/12/gIQAAwnepO_blog.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
"The exchange began when the GOP presidential candidate stopped at Chez Vachon in Manchester. Romney was in the restaurant campaigning with Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas, who officially endorsed Romney here Monday.
While working the room, Romney spotted a man in a flannel shirt wearing a Vietnam Veteran hat and slid in next to him in a booth.
“Vietnam veteran!” Romney greeted Bob Garon.
“I have a question for you,” Garon told the former Massachusetts governor. “New Hampshire right now has some legislation kicking around about a repeal for the same-sex marriage. And all I need is a yes or a no. Do you support the repeal?”
“I support the repeal of the New Hampshire law,” Romney said. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s my view.”
Garon, who lives in Epsom, N.H., and was eating breakfast with his husband, turned to Romney and said: “If two men get married, apparently a veteran’s spouse would not be entitled to any burial benefits or medical benefits or anything that the serviceman has devoted his time and effort to his country, and you just don’t support equality in terms of same-sex marriage?”
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | December 13, 2011 at 11:46 AM
I think extra-marital affairs matter if you are president. I don't care who is boinking whom but if you are president you are subject to blackmail. If you don't care if your wife and the country find out, then fine, boink to your heart's delight. Otherwise, keep it corralled until after your term ends.
Posted by: Sue | December 13, 2011 at 11:46 AM
Yesterday, Norwegian customs officers arrested a budding Russian Entrepreneur with 500 lbs. of butter.
Too bad he didn't have any way to grease a few palms.
Posted by: bgates | December 13, 2011 at 11:46 AM
I heard a new classic Christmas song this morning. "I Saw Daddy Kissing Santa Claus..."
Posted by: Sue | December 13, 2011 at 11:48 AM
Ah, you have something to say about this, TM;
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/12/13/dem-rep-chris-murphy-d-cair-slams-lowes-accuses-them-of-rubber-stamping-bigotry-for-pulling-ads-from-a
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 11:49 AM
and he lied about it in court (and almost certainly suborned perjury from others as well, though that was never proven)
And was disbarred for the lying. I think that bothered him more than the impeachment because, even though the legal world certainly wasn't suffering from the lack of participation of Bent Willy, a settlement allowed him to escape "guilty as hell and free as a bird" to coin the comments of another creep with sex issues.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 13, 2011 at 11:54 AM
"What Is An Ex-Iran Guard Commander Doing At The White House?"
Probably implementing the new State Dept plan to implement to insure that the only freedom of speech in America is controlled by the Islam laws of Sharia"
"Today the Islamized State Department will be meeting with the Islamic supremacist Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to discuss strategies and develop action plans in which to impose the restriction of free speech (or blasphemy, as truthful speech about Islam is considered in Islamic law) under the Sharia here in America.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/a_shameful_state_department_initiative.html#ixzz1gR0TRuWK
Posted by: pagar | December 13, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Yup. Lowes is the wrong target...
http://floridafamily.org/
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | December 13, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | December 13, 2011 at 11:59 AM
It's as if denial is an instinctual process, how else can you characterize the events in Lieges;
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/12/muslim-anti-semitism-gutman-saudis/
Posted by: narciso | December 13, 2011 at 12:02 PM
So far, the grenade attack in Belgium looks more like a spectacular ending for a petty criminal than a terror attack.
So far.
(I am guessing that the Telegraph, at least, will tells us if there really is an Islamic connection.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | December 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM
"The attack has been extremely mean spirited. In a country that supposedly embraces free speech, those that oppose our postion have no qualms about destroying our free speech. Yet, these same folks claim the Internet should not be restricted in any way. How the two conflicting postions can be reconciled in their minds is beyond comprehension. "
'SELF' awareness, notwithstanding. 'Free speech', indeed.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | December 13, 2011 at 12:05 PM
My Christmas Wish: That everytime, each of your visit a website that has the Alan Grayson ad, that you click on it but don't make the donation.
Thank you and God Bless.
Posted by: Jack is Back! (An Above Average Hoi Polloi) | December 13, 2011 at 12:10 PM