First, I applaud the notion that Warren Buffet's secretary ought to reveal her tax return - if Joe the Plumber can be put under the microscope for asking Obama a question about taxes, a woman who volunteers to serve as a State of the Union prop can answer a few questions.
However, I would treat with great caution this claim that Warren Buffet's secretary is probably making $200,000 to $500,000 a year if her average [Federal income] tax rate is above 15%. [but in a major UPDATE, we learn that she has an effective rate of 35.8%, presumably including her full share of Social Security and Medicare - that suggests an income of $240,000 for a married woman filing separately with the standard deduction and exemption. Factoring in the AMT brings that income down to $190,000. Release the returns].
Using the handy-dandy H&R Block tax calculator for 2011, I glean that a single woman taking the standard deduction and personal exemption with income of $62,000 will owe taxes of $9,250, which is an effective tax rate of 14.9%. That same income/deduction mix for 2010 (the year in question with Romney, with slightly lower brackets) results in a 15% effective rate, if I can trust Excel. This should represent a plausible minimum for her income if she has an effective rate of 15%.
As to her actual tax situation, who knows? Depending on deductions, her actual income may be higher, and $62,000 isn't chump change, but there is an excellent chance she isn't knocking on the door of the 1%.
BATTLING SPRAWL: I have slimmed down the calculations in a follow-up post. My "most plausible" income is about $200,000. There is a subtle flaw in the calculation but it is likely to have been made by Team Buffett; the "strictly speaking" result with no errors I can discern (but feel free to pile on!) is $475,000; a low estimate of $115,000 relies on ignoring the Social Security cap.
DEEPLY BAFFLING: Speaking of BS, how could I overlook the Social Security and Medicare taxes? Those are 6.2% and 1.45% directly, and many would argue that the worker bears the employers share as well (see CBO, which claims to be following "most economists", as quoted somewhere below). In that case, her FICA taxes equal 15.3% of her gross wages up to the Social Security cap of $106,800 for 2010; add her federal taxes, and she has an effective tax rate of roughly 30%. Is it merely conicidence that Obama's "Buffet Rule" minimum tax rate for millionaires is 30%? Release the returns!
TROUBLING: Michael Patrick Leahy of Broadside Books relays an ABC News report that Ms. Bosanek, the secretary, claims an effective rate of 35.8%. That surely includes her imputed share of the full FICA.
But what income level might that represent? Mr. Leahy heads in the wrong direction:
Since the top marginal rate on taxable income (which kicks in when taxable income exceeds $379,150) is 35%, it’s impossible that Ms. Bosnak’s claim that she pays a tax rate of 35.8 % applies to her taxable income. Since taxable income is always less than total gross income, the claim is even less credible for that measure.
Well, hmm. A quick calculation tells me that a gross income of $100,000 with the simple deduction/exemptions and a 15.3% FICA rate yields an effective total tax rate of 34.1%. If her wages are at the Social Security cap of $106,800, her average overall rate is 34.9%. However, the marginal rate on the next dollar will be 25% Federal income tax and 2.9% for Medicare, so the average rate is going to start falling. Suddenly 35.8% has receded to the far horizon. The next bracket change is to 33% at $171,850 for singles, and the 35% bracket kicks in above $373.651. Add in the 2.9% for the full Medicare, and those are marginal rates barely above her average rate of 35.8%.
On the other hand, she is married. For married filing separately, the 33% threshold is at $104,626. Maybe the marriage penalty should be brought into play - let me redo this with the "Married Filing Separately" brackets.
DOES CROW HAVE A PLACE IN A LOW-CARB DIET? Per my dirty calculations for 2010, which roughly jibe with H&R Block for 2011, a woman married and filing separately with gross income of $240,000 and the standard deduction/exemption would have a Federal income tax liability of $65,829 (using the 2010 brackets, I hope...). Add in her max imputed Social Security of $13,243 and her uncapped Medicare of $6,960, and her total imputed tax bill is $86,032 for an average effective rate of 35.8%. Release the returns!
IN A PATHETIC BID FOR REDEMPTION... I don't get the impression from the ABC clip that Mr. Buffet deployed a team of accountants to survey his office and calculate their taxes. If in an attempt to keep it simple he got stupid, he may have simply added a 20.5% average Federal income tax rate to a 15.3% FICA rate and mishandled the effect of the Social Security cap (that cap does not enter his thoughts often, I suspect.)
To get an average Federal rate of 20.5% takes an income of $114,000 for a married person filing separately. Still, this is confusing enough that we ought to see the returns.
THE CBO QUOTE:
The burden of taxes levied on businesses actually falls on households. In line with most economists, CBO assumes that the employer's share of payroll taxes falls on employees and thus assigns those payments to employees both as income and taxes paid.
Upon booth review, I realize that in addition to neglecting the AMT (which mysteriously appears and disappears) I have added the employer's share to Ms. Bosanek's taxes but not her income. That is a problem unless Team Buffett made the same error. Adding back the imputed FICA taxes to her $240,000 raw income drops her average rate from 35.8% to 34.4%. Now to get her back to 35.8% we need an income of $440,000. Does anyone out there still believe this is not deeply murky? Release the returns!
Scott Walker's giving his State of the State address. Some idiot (in the balcony somewhere?) is bellowing nonstop, trying to drown him out.
Posted by: PD | January 25, 2012 at 08:14 PM
The fool has gone silent. Perhaps he's been "helped" outside.
Posted by: PD | January 25, 2012 at 08:15 PM
Government doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs.
WI unemployment is down over the past year. (True, but it's been going up the last few months.)
Posted by: PD | January 25, 2012 at 08:18 PM
Full employment of returning veterans to be a priority of Dept. of Veteran Affairs.
WI GI training bill was fully restored last year.
Posted by: PD | January 25, 2012 at 08:21 PM
We can streamline the process for mining approvals. This is a significant opportunity for job creation. Now's the time to do it. (We'll see: this is an ongoing controversy in the state.)
Frugality leads to freedom for our people.
Previous administration raided more than $1B from the transportation fund. (This was one way Gov. Doyle "balanced" the budget, I believe.)
Posted by: PD | January 25, 2012 at 08:23 PM
Asks whether the things he's been doing aren't the things the people elected him to do.
(Yeah. How dare Scott Walker keep his campaign promises? The nerve.)
Posted by: PD | January 25, 2012 at 08:26 PM
Contrasts previous increases in school tax levy with the decrease under his admin.
Posted by: PD | January 25, 2012 at 08:28 PM
Identifying waste not enough. We need to eliminate it.
Points out that we need to be good stewards of the taxpayer's dollar. Someone starts screeching "Liar!" in the balcony, quickly gets dragged out.
Posted by: PD | January 25, 2012 at 08:30 PM
Agree TM. I have some vague recollection of a mid-$70K number being bandied about when Buffett first made the 'secretary' comment. That seems about right.
Posted by: Another Bob | January 25, 2012 at 08:32 PM
We can have great schools and protect the taxpayers at the same time. We just need to spend our money more wisely.
Alludes to the single health insurance plan choice teachers had before. Now they have a choice, with a lot of money being saved. (Probably a reference to the WEAC scam where $100/month/teacher was really a kickback to WEAC. WEAC claimed it couldn't reduce the price, until they had to compete with other plans. Voila! They suddenly were able to lower the price. Good thing the educational establish is "for the students.")
Posted by: PD | January 25, 2012 at 08:33 PM
Focus on curriculum, not on grievances.
Posted by: PD | January 25, 2012 at 08:34 PM
Jane, webcast on Wisconsin Eye.
Posted by: henry | January 25, 2012 at 08:35 PM
Expresses appreciation for teachers' hard work. Is glad WI avoided the massive layoffs other states had to institute. (Something the unions never manage to recognize.)
Another screamer in the balcony.
Posted by: PD | January 25, 2012 at 08:35 PM
Pointed out a teacher of the year in Milwaukee got laid off because of union seniority rules. Collective bargaining bad for kids.
Posted by: henry | January 25, 2012 at 08:37 PM
Sounds like he wants schools across the state rated, and the scores posted publicly so anyone can see them.
Posted by: PD | January 25, 2012 at 08:41 PM
Whoa, PD.
Just because you have a meth lab is no reason to sample the product.
Maguire; I love your speculations. It tamps down the migraines with comic relief.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | January 25, 2012 at 08:41 PM
Final thought, don't personalize your differences. On cue another screamer.
Posted by: henry | January 25, 2012 at 08:41 PM
Says our differences shouldn't be personalized.
While he's in the middle of this, someone with no redemptive self-awareness starts screeching insults.
Posted by: PD | January 25, 2012 at 08:42 PM
" Collective bargaining bad for kids."
You seem desperate in the last couple of threads, henry.
Is there a problem?
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | January 25, 2012 at 08:42 PM
The is the second story on Saul Alinsky I've seen in the last two days.
Saul Alinsky would be so disappointed: Obama breaks ‘Rules for Radicals’
Posted by: Neo | January 25, 2012 at 08:48 PM
How much capital gains tax did the secretary pay?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 25, 2012 at 08:48 PM
Maybe Buffer should pay her in stock so she can enjoy his low low low tax rate.
Posted by: PD | January 25, 2012 at 08:49 PM
Apparently there were 12 seats reserved for invitees in the gallery. 4 thought they had the feather. Will the MSM report who invited those 4?
Posted by: henry | January 25, 2012 at 08:50 PM
:"In fact, if Alinsky were alive today, he’d surely be camped out in front of the White House, using every trick in his book, “Rules for Radicals,” to point out the many ways in which the president is not an infiltrator of the dreaded establishment, but the personification of it."
Neo;
Not sure what your point is.....
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | January 25, 2012 at 08:50 PM
Ben,
You're beginning to sound like HAL.
Posted by: Barbara | January 25, 2012 at 08:52 PM
Boy it is really fun for me to read someone else's blogging of and event. Thanks Henry and PD.
Posted by: Jane | January 25, 2012 at 08:53 PM
Well that's why I've dubbed him, the Sorcerer's Apprentice at Alinsky.
Posted by: narciso | January 25, 2012 at 08:53 PM
Apparently there were 12 seats reserved for invitees in the gallery. 4 thought they had the feather
LOL
Posted by: Jane | January 25, 2012 at 08:54 PM
Further to my last point: can anyone possibly imagine a billionaire like Buffet not giving his secretary an opportunity to take part--however small a part--in any of his ventures?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 25, 2012 at 08:55 PM
True or False: Barack Obama will testify in a Georgia courtroom tomorrow.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 25, 2012 at 08:57 PM
Happy to return the favor Jane, btw the full speech is now ondemand at the Wisconsin Eye link.
Posted by: henry | January 25, 2012 at 08:58 PM
It's amazing how they could gin up such a 'two minute hate' against someone like him, henry, although to diminishing returns.
Posted by: narciso | January 25, 2012 at 09:07 PM
sorry posting badly from iPhone and cannot link but go read drudge headline story about newt and Reagan
Posted by: Old lurker | January 25, 2012 at 09:19 PM
Stop talking amongst yourselves or about the topic that Maguire posted about, and pay attention to ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | January 25, 2012 at 09:21 PM
When things devolve into class warfare, it's a huge advantage to be on the side that knows what class is: you can never lose.
Walker wins, no matter what happens in the short term.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 25, 2012 at 09:21 PM
He really paved the way for Governors to fight back to gain control of their budgets instead of simply paying off govt unions and raising taxes,DoT.
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 25, 2012 at 09:23 PM
It's all lies anyhow. Who is gullible enough to believe this crap? The morons in the 99%.
Posted by: jorod | January 25, 2012 at 09:46 PM
Stop talking amongst yourselves or about the topic that Maguire posted about, and pay attention to ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | January 25, 2012 at 09:21 PM
I'm sure that you think that you're cutesy.
But you're not just unethical. You're sleazy.
Posted by: A Casual Observation | January 25, 2012 at 09:46 PM
"Walker wins,"
End justifies means....pyrrhic victory.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | January 25, 2012 at 09:49 PM
TM
She just bought a second house. On $62K? Not a frickin chance.
Posted by: Gmax | January 25, 2012 at 09:51 PM
I am hugely encouraged by the polling numbers re Walker and his challengers. Given how intensely the matter has been covered and followed in WI for so long, it is hard for me to believe that a lot of money could change many minds at this point.
This could be a cataclysmic defeat for one of the very lowest forms of rent-seeking parasite.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 25, 2012 at 09:52 PM
Not only can Wisxonsin residents see for themselves the savings in Walker's plan BUT they are getting weary of the unions' constant campaigns and refusal to acept defeat.
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 25, 2012 at 09:55 PM
Oh dear, Obama arrives in Vegas:
@RalstonFlash Jon Ralston
No Democratic electeds greeting POTUS at airport tonight. Only Mayor Goodman, who is an indie. Delegation in DC, but where are others?
He also says that Mayor Goodman's husband serves a drink at his eatery called "No Bama."
Posted by: centralcal | January 25, 2012 at 10:04 PM
a SiL was admin to the president of a high technology company and was well over 100K/year plus options plus benefits.
Such an admin is the boss's alter ego and discretion is crucial. Buffett may be a tightwad, but it would not bode well if he was a skinflint with the person who arranges his schedule and minds his affairs both personal and public.
Her options alone might have made her rich and good on her, I say.
Posted by: matt | January 25, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Chief Feather Merchant is out after dark.
SOB...
Posted by: Frau Witzbold | January 25, 2012 at 10:08 PM
So are vampires...
Posted by: Gmax | January 25, 2012 at 10:09 PM
TV news leads with the protestors and angry Dem pols. The protestors were arrested. Bunch more idiots in the rotunda, more arrests. Only hundreds, not the thousands they hoped for. Only views of Walker were when protestors were trying to interrupt him. Typical coverage.
Posted by: henry | January 25, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Insider Advantage poll. Romney 40 Gingrich 32. Jan 25. Was the opposite on Sunday.
Posted by: bio mom | January 25, 2012 at 10:14 PM
OL: Drudge has made it pretty plain he is out to get Newt. Abrams has his story at NRO and Jeffrey Lord has his story at American Spectator. Opposing views to say the least.
Also, Legal Insurrection has posted a clip of Nancy Reagan in 1995 talking about torch passing: Goldwater to Reagan to Gingrich and the House Republicans.
The fight on our side is unbelievably nasty. I am polishing up Garden Gnome.
Posted by: centralcal | January 25, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Ms Porchlight,
That is The gourds at Smiths Old Bar on 3/22 right?
I'm bringing all my friends.
Stephanie, call Bmoe.
Posted by: donald | January 25, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Buckley would be rolling over, at what is happening at his lifelong project, it's a small point, in the big scheme of things,
but does Elliot Abrams think that Romney would
have come to his defense, 25 years ago,
Posted by: narciso | January 25, 2012 at 10:25 PM
WI may yet recover. The real leaders are not the ones being hauled off.
Posted by: Frau Witzbold | January 25, 2012 at 10:26 PM
henry-
As an aside, Indiana starts towards Right-to-Work tonight. The state's House passed the bill when the Dems came back from their last iteration of "sabbatical" (aka Vacation in Chicago with Axelrod). The state Senate will pass it no problem, then off to a big, honkin' Mitch signature.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 25, 2012 at 10:33 PM
There is something truly obscene about the full blown assault on Newt Gingrich’s strong Reagan conservative history from and on behalf of Mitt Romney, who unabashedly ran away from the Reagan legacy and conservative principles in his 1994 Senate campaign and 2002 gubernatorial campaign. Truly obscene.
The latest iteration comes from Elliott Abrams writing in National Review, quoting pieces of a single speech Newt apparently gave on the floor of the House on March 21, 1986, in which Newt criticized certain foreign policy decisions of the Reagan administration. Abrams does not link to the full speech or to other speeches of Newt at the time.
Instead much of the anti-Newt conservative media — including a screaming Drudge banner — accuses Newt of “insulting” Reagan. It is part of a smear campaign which started when Newt surged in Iowa and National Review unloaded with it’s infamous “Marvin the Maritan” issue, and now it has resurfaced once again now that Romney is in electoral trouble.
A more honest assessment comes from Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator. Lord, who was in a position to know because he witnessed first hand Newt’s interaction with Reagan, has written a critical column, Reagan’s Young Lieutenant, Much like Byron York’s column debunking Romney attacks regarding Newt’s ethics charges, Lord’s column is a critical contribution to the truth in a sea of shameless lies.
Lord portrays Newt in a much more favorable light:
(legalinsurrection.com ...
Jacobson also has a video of Nancy Reagan passing the torch to Newt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 25, 2012 at 10:37 PM
This is the fellow who we apparently won over with the 'reset' button,
http://natomission.ru/en/society/article/society/artnews/32/
Posted by: narciso | January 25, 2012 at 10:47 PM
As an aside (yes, another one), I'll leave you all with one other parting thought. The EU just might have painted Greece into a corner not of their own making.
Just where will the "Eff You!" point be with terms dictated like this?
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 25, 2012 at 10:50 PM
I guess I am surprised that Abrams would come out so forcefully like that. Must be something personal going on.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 25, 2012 at 10:50 PM
OL-
No, That's what Mitt-mentum looks like. The closer you get to the well of the singularity, the higher the energy release before your death.
That Borg thing has it's concepts based in Physics, you know.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 25, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Must be..but then almost the entire NR and Ann Coulter seems to have gone nuts.
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 25, 2012 at 10:54 PM
G'night all.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 25, 2012 at 11:00 PM
No, the Umbrella Corporation worked this out,
years ago, with nary a casualty (Resident Evil
reference)
Posted by: narciso | January 25, 2012 at 11:02 PM
I agree Clarice. Completely nuts.
Posted by: centralcal | January 25, 2012 at 11:03 PM
can anyone possibly imagine a billionaire like Buffet not giving his secretary an opportunity to take part--however small a part--in any of his ventures?
It's pretty funny how he's been revealed to be such a greedy creep to anybody with a functioning cortex. And El JEFe keeps trotting him out for more.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 25, 2012 at 11:11 PM
Coulter's gotten so snotty she must be sweating the sheets with Pizza-Face again.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 25, 2012 at 11:13 PM
He's become the CCA mogul Ed Rooney, played by Ned Beatty in Network, he was a pioneer with the application of Graham's theories on investing, but along the way he turned to the dark side.
I may need a torch, to burn that image out of my mind, Captain,
Posted by: narciso | January 25, 2012 at 11:18 PM
Niters..
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 25, 2012 at 11:20 PM
Sorry narc; it does send the creep factor to eleven.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 25, 2012 at 11:20 PM
With a mixture of salary and stock options, Buffet's secretary could be making any conceivable amount of money.
Posted by: Neo | January 25, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Ben: My point is that the WaPo seems to be trying to make Alinsky into "the friend of the Tea Party." This is quite apparent in the other of the two stories. LUN
Posted by: Neo | January 25, 2012 at 11:32 PM
No way Buffet is only paying his secretary $62K! Folks that Warren Freakin' Buffet can trust with his every secret, and who knows what he wants before he wants it, don't come cheap. She's probably been rewarded with a tidy stake in the boss's ventures too, with a pension plan that will keep any potential tell-all temptations permanently at bay.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 25, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Buffet is the worst kind of miserable miser if he only pays his secretary the paltry sum mentioned above. A billionaire? Pays his secretary five figures? Impossible to believe. In fact, I don't believe it. I find it incredible that he would pay her pennies ... compared to what he enjoys. If it is true, it stinks. He is the worst kind of selfish boss. Can't stand it. Though, pausing to think a moment ... it does remind me of a democrat or a socialist or leftist. Talk big about equality ... but don't believe or live it.
Posted by: Joan | January 25, 2012 at 11:58 PM
From the likes of this, they wouldn't understand hit or jim or bgates either;
http://theothermccain.com/2012/01/25/intended-as-satire-but-unfortunately-some-people-really-think-this-way/
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2012 at 12:04 AM
Did ya'll see this, via HotAir's headlines? In today's dollars, who was the richest President of all time? The answer sure surprised me.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 26, 2012 at 12:05 AM
Ain't no more cane on the Brazos tonight, friends. See you at Raz time.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 26, 2012 at 12:12 AM
Donald you have email...
Posted by: Stephanie | January 26, 2012 at 12:32 AM
When are Ben and Jerry gonna come out with their latest ice cream flavor to slam a conservative scrooge like Buffett?
Crony Cranberry
Miser Mint
Scrooge Strawberry
Wait, what?
You'd think that good proggies would be offended at the difference in compensation between Buffett and the secretary but as he's fighting the good fight for socialism, I guess it's all good.
Don't these fools like Buffett realize that socialism eventually always eats it's own and though they are not the main meal they are sure to be dessert?
Posted by: Stephanie | January 26, 2012 at 12:39 AM
"When are Ben and Jerry gonna come out with their latest ice cream flavor to slam a conservative scrooge like Buffett?"
How 'bout "Chris Matthews "Insider Treacle"
What? There's insider trading in Congress?
Posted by: daddy | January 26, 2012 at 03:31 AM
Kudlow's favorite betting parlor sez:
Romney chance of winning Florida: 73.5%
At this ungodly hour that is.
Posted by: glasater | January 26, 2012 at 04:03 AM
In today's dollars, who was the richest President of all time? The answer sure surprised me.
Yes but only because it's built on land holdings that wouldn't be as large a factor today. Funny that the only richer candidate than Willard who made it out of the primaries was Reporting for Doody, whom the MFM never called out for being an insufferably pompous ass; although the voters certainly recognized it.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 26, 2012 at 05:50 AM
After nearly a week on the defensive, CNN's John King reports tonight that Newt Gingrich's claim about offering witnesses to ABC News in his defense — to rebut the network's interview with his second wife, Marianne Gingrich — was not true.
Posted by: Jane | January 26, 2012 at 06:50 AM
LUN is the City Journal review of Charles Murray's new book. I find the paragraph about the morale sapping effect of the welfare state to be quite interesting. And consistent with my experience.
My experience though is that is the divorce rate in the superzips kicks up substantially after the oldest finishes K-12. Perhaps it's because the UMC all know that the only way a former spouse can be forced to pay the tuition after 18 is if it is enshrined in the divorce agreement.
porch-has your husband's band heard about the 30A songwriting festival held every year in January in the panhandle in the Seaside, Grayton Beach, Rosemary Beach corridor? There are a bunch of the Nashville songwriters who have homes there. You will be walking around and overhear massive jamming sessions in the winter near certain houses.
Posted by: rse | January 26, 2012 at 07:15 AM
rse, could it be that some parents stick together until the kids go off to college because of the importance of keeping a two parent existence in place before they leave the nest? I think I've known of at least one of those situations which thought was at least somewhat commendable.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 26, 2012 at 07:32 AM
Absolutely ch. And I think it's commendable too. But Murray acts like that rate of intact families is enduring and that is simply not my experience. And it's not really anecdotal. Seems to be a fairly widespread phenomena. Quite frankly it is troubling to me just how precarious the existence of a significant number of women who stayed home and raised the kids while hubby pursued a successful career turned out to be. The courts seem to think the bene was getting to not work all those years. Many end up working in retail and selling those fine homes and that's the nest egg. I cannot believe the number who do not get attorney's fees in case there is a dispute over the agreement and they prevail in enforcing it. I know one mom who thought she had an ironclad agreement and ex decided he had supported her long enough and did not want to another 10 years as agreed. Took her to court to abrogate even though there was no question he had the resources. She lost.
Did anyone link the Spengler on BO's foreign policy and the nightmare he has accelerated on Egypt? Somalia conditions on the Suez? LUN
Posted by: rse | January 26, 2012 at 07:51 AM
Jane: second try - typepad ate my earlier comment.
Newt may well implode. Romney just cannot seal the deal with the majority of voters.
Today Jay Cost (Weekly Standard) and Jim Geraghty (NRO-Campaign Spot) both suggest we need a late entrant and perhaps a brokered convention. (All last week Jim was waving the pom-poms for Romney. But Mitt keeps making statements to quell any enthusiasm.)
I am think Garden Gnome is looking more and more plausible. (Currently, his status is: Can we have a do over?)
Posted by: centralcal | January 26, 2012 at 08:05 AM
What's with Drudge? I'd love some Obama flashbacks to the 80s to know what the hell he was doing back then.
...or how bout no flashbacks...lets look at the ruin happening NOW under the Obama administration. Put up Brian Terry's picture every day until there are some answers about F&F.
Posted by: Janet | January 26, 2012 at 08:07 AM
rse, sounds like the courts buy into that garbage that was being spread when I was in college about how a woman isn't a complete person unless she has a career outside the house and completely discounts the value of doing a good job of raising children. Since all judges went through college (barring a highly unusual situation) it's hard to imagine them not having that pounded into their cortices.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 26, 2012 at 08:12 AM
Drudge must've been shut out of a lot of Christmas parties and is feeling lonely and unappreciated by the *right* kind of people.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 26, 2012 at 08:14 AM
Today's the day Obama testifies in the Georgia courtroom.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 26, 2012 at 08:16 AM
Like or Dislike: 23 2
Log in to Reply Josh Painter | January 25, 2012 at 10:17 pm
Don’t ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan credentials. Ask Reagan Nat’l Security Advisor Bud McFarlane: http://bit.ly/zd9eAF
Don’t ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan credentials. Ask Reagan Economist Art Laffer: http://bit.ly/xEDETi
Don’t ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan credentials. Ask Reagan WH political director Jeffrey Lord: http://bit.ly/zw2ZMb
Don’t ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan credentials/Ask Reagan Policy Analyst Peter Ferrara http://bit.ly/zq1QxI
Don’t ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan bonafides. Ask Reagan media consultant Richard Quinn: http://on.msnbc.com/y2sPM2
Dont ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan credentials. Ask Reagan’s Speechwriting Dir. Bently Elliott: http://thedc.com/xOkDvA
Don’t ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan credentials. Ask Reagan’s older son Michael Reagan: http://bit.ly/yYVy7L
Don’t ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan credentials. Ask Ronald Reagan’s beloved wife Nancy: http://bit.ly/zrWvAw
_______________
From a poster at Legal Insurrection.
The push is on against Newt--King caught him in a lie about offering up witnesses to ABC.
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 26, 2012 at 08:23 AM
You now how I've always felt about Newt, but this pile on is unseemly and historical, from
the Primack hit, where they dug up Teddie Forstmann, to insisting Newt was against the Contras, I guess that is the premise,
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2012 at 08:35 AM
Are you fracking kidding me,
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/univisions-jorge-ramos-to-gingrich-how-was-your-affair-different-from-clintons/
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2012 at 08:38 AM
Oh, wait:
"Scoffing at a judge’s call for Barack Obama to appear in court Thursday, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski says that not only will the president not be on hand but neither will Jablonski."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 26, 2012 at 08:39 AM
It's over the top. The only conservative website that seems not to have bought into the pile on Newt campaign is Legal Insurrection.
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 26, 2012 at 08:40 AM
Glenn Beck stated several times publicly that he left Fox New of his own volition. He wanted to expand his horizons with more editorial freedom, a goal not possible with the limitations of network TV. Apparently that is not the full story, particularly since lesbian leftist, Sally Kohn's, regular appearance on the Ailes network.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/fox_news_drifting_leftward.html
Posted by: OldTimer | January 26, 2012 at 08:40 AM
I won't ask anyone about Newt's " Reagan Credentials," because I don't care about them.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 26, 2012 at 08:42 AM
Now reading between the lines, it seems a much larger project, as just Zubeydah's counsel can't just be involved.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/aclu_and_the_gitmo_leak_of_cia_agent_photos.html
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2012 at 08:47 AM
I don't much either, DoT. But you know me--I hate to watch tarring and feathering of someone when it is undeserved.
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 26, 2012 at 08:50 AM
And this is just ironic, in the Alanis Morisette sense although it makes perfect sense;
http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=5978&fb_source=message
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2012 at 08:51 AM
Drudge is having all sorts of fun chewing up and spitting out Newt. Funny thing is, Romney looks no more appetizing for all the effort. Just makes one want to skip the meal altogether.
Posted by: centralcal | January 26, 2012 at 08:53 AM
I'll vote for anybody that promises to prosecute George HelpedNazis Soros or just deport him.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 26, 2012 at 08:55 AM