Following last night's debate, Bret Stephens of the WSJ throws in the towel on the current Republican offerings:
The GOP Deserves to Lose
That's what happens when you run with losers.
...Above all, it doesn't matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing. All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won't be another fiasco. But they can't be reasonably sure, so it's going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.
As for the current GOP field, it's like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.
Ross Douthat lauds William Kristol's indefatigabe efforts for a better candidate:
For months now, even as the rest of the conservative commentariat has gradually resigned itself to the existing presidential field, the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol has continued to pine — publicly, unstintingly, immune to either embarrassment or fatigue— for another candidate to jump into the race....
And do you know what? He’s been right all along. Right that the decisions by various capable Republicans to forgo a presidential run this year have been a collective disgrace; right that Republican primary voters deserve a better choice than the one being presented to them; and right, as well, that even now it isn’t too late for one of the non-candidates to change their mind and run.
...Contrary to what some of my more excitable colleagues in the press corps have been claiming, the weekend’s results didn’t demonstrate that Newt Gingrich could actually win the Republican nomination, or prove that Mitt Romney could actually lose to him. (Yes, I’m still on the “against this field, Mitt’s inevitable” bandwagon: More on that anon.) But the last week was a reminder, after months in which the incompetence of his rivals made him look better than he is, that Romney remains a tremendously weak frontrunner, whose strengths don’t compensate for a style that leaves conservatives cold and a background that will leave him open to attacks across a variety of Democratic-friendly fronts in the general election. I don’t think he can lose the primary, and I still give him decent odds of winning in November. But those judgments have everything to do with his political environment, and very little to do with the man himself. And under such circumstances, it seems absurd and pathetic that both the party and the country won’t have the chance to consider another option besides Newt the Great and Terrible.
Predict the outcome and win and Ipad
Posted by: Jane | January 24, 2012 at 03:08 PM
Gallup Daily Tracking: Newt-31(+3), Romney-27(-2), Paul-12(-1), Santorum-12(+1)Romney advisor reportedly told Andrea Mitchell duke & duke will pick someone else if Romney loses Fla.
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 24, 2012 at 03:09 PM
There wasn't much "there" there, as the result indicated
Exactly. Bonior could just make charge after bogus charge against Newt and the clean toga crowd couldn't be bothered to defend one of their own by threatening retaliation in kind. Or sending attack dogs like Carville out to defend him on the gab shows. Perish the thought. Once it was obvious that the Repukes could be so easily rolled, the ethics charges against Palin almost bankrupted her while the country clubbers smiled to themselves.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 24, 2012 at 03:10 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/23/andrea_mitchell_romney_adviser_said_party_elites_will_find_alternative_if_romney_cant_win_florida.html
She's such a liar and so are most political operatives --who knows?
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 24, 2012 at 03:11 PM
So Jamie Dimon meets Barry O's bus; Barry O doesn't care about US jobs or properity, or anyone who brought him to power,so long as his crew of permanent left-wing political operatives aggregate as much power in DC as possible: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/dimon-regulations-are-hampering-recovery--fox-businesss-gasparino-20120124-01192
Posted by: NK | January 24, 2012 at 03:15 PM
From my point of view, Sarah was attacked so viciously because she is conservative and female, a combination like garlic and a wooden cross to the vampires in the press and Dem party.
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 24, 2012 at 03:18 PM
I think a brokered convention will get us a Fnork for sure. I'm for an insurgent jumping in and shaking the whole thing up as soon as Newt makes the slightest stumble. Not sure who that could be, but maybe Sarah Palin still has some juice. Otherwise, I just want an actual America-loving conservative who people can believe in. Rubio, Walker, Jindal, someone else, just as long as it's somebody trustworthy and real.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 24, 2012 at 03:21 PM
Well yes, Clarice. My point was that she's given far more than she's gotten from the RNC.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 24, 2012 at 03:25 PM
Sarah was attacked so viciously because she is conservative and female, a combination like garlic and a wooden cross to the vampires in the press and Dem party.
I will never, ever, ever understand the attacks on her.
Posted by: Jane | January 24, 2012 at 03:26 PM
An insurgent for Ext:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBUyBjIvMHM
And text for Sue:
http://mcclintock.house.gov/2012/01/freedom-and-the-internet-victorious.shtml
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 24, 2012 at 03:26 PM
There will be no brokered convention. Romney is going to win Florida and go on to win the nomination.
If I am forced to eat crow, I would request that one of the JOM chefs make a nice sauce for the crow.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 24, 2012 at 03:27 PM
Seating for Obama's speech shows:
Sheila Jackson Longstreet Forrest Lee with
Rosa DeLauro
Eat your hearts out
Posted by: geezer | January 24, 2012 at 03:28 PM
duke & duke will pick someone else if Romney loses Fla.
It really ruins the film if we revert to status quo ante. I was under the impression that a bad bet on this crop of candidates in Florida would bring utter ruination and a request to the postman that all correspondence be forwarded to the nearest "Occupy" encampment.
Posted by: Elliott | January 24, 2012 at 03:30 PM
Btw where's JMH been?
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 24, 2012 at 03:30 PM
Left-Wing Catholics meet Barry O's bus: did TomM blog about this? The anti-Catholic contraception and abortion insurance rules are a real abomination: when I read 'Bam's Roe statement about government staying out of 'private' family matters I almost vommitted becasue it came within 48 hours of the GOVERNMENT shoving contracetives and abortion down Catholic employers' throats. The WSJ piece linked below is great: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577179110264196498.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Dcomments
Posted by: NK | January 24, 2012 at 03:33 PM
Elliott, you gonna trust "I must have been drunk" Mitchell?
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 24, 2012 at 03:33 PM
Shemp looks like he made a wish to be small again at the Zoltar Speaks machine. He looks like he is down to 70 pounds.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 24, 2012 at 03:34 PM
I will never, ever, ever understand the attacks on her.
Attractive, intelligently glib conservative woman who didn't abort a Downs Syndrome baby? Any one of those first five words could make a progdumbass completely insane. All 5 together == Worker's Paradise Lost
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 24, 2012 at 03:36 PM
A brokered convention will produce a weaker candidate than either Romney or Gingrich. Bush Bro or Loudmouth Christie or Mitch with the Alternative Wife or anyone coming out untested and not in campaign shape will be easier pickings for Axelplouffe than either Romney or Gingrich.
Each of the supposed "A" team members have vulnerabilities that can easily be exploited by Axelplouffe. I'd rather go to the Super Bowl with the team that played the whole season to win the conference championship.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 24, 2012 at 03:36 PM
It's not gonna be Christie after Mark Levin shoved his foot up his fat ass last night.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 24, 2012 at 03:39 PM
The attacks on Palin were because they perceived her as a threat to Obama. And, I might add...she didn't abort the baby that wasn't perfect in their eyes.
Posted by: Sue | January 24, 2012 at 03:41 PM
Now that is what I call a summary, CH.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 24, 2012 at 03:43 PM
The balance will change and change again. President Community Organizer is going all in on "fairness" which is a code word for appropriating other people's stuff.
It is time for the Republicans to focus on Buffet and GE and all of the other cronies of the administration and give lie to the complete nonsense coming out of the president's mouth.
If you haven't noticed, a record number of long term members of Congress are retiring or are in play.Some of them are rats leaving the sinking ship, but this may be where the Tea Party wants to concentrate if it still exists, that is.
And if you factor in his tithing, or fifteenthing, Romney parted with a hell of a lot more money than Barry of Biden or most Dems for that matter did. Why give it to government when you know its going to be wasted?
Posted by: matt | January 24, 2012 at 03:43 PM
We suck. Seriously. How on earth is it that someone on the right is being dinged with Fannie and Freddie? After all the left-wing nuts that have skipped away from there with gazillions, Newt is taking it on the chin for a million dollars? What the hell are we doing? Where the hell is the RNC chair? I haven't seen him anywhere.
Posted by: Sue | January 24, 2012 at 03:45 PM
For the press, part of the problem with Palin is that McCain surprised them -- and they really don't like being surprised.
McCain should have given them hints, like outlining a set of qualifications, which would have included her and a few others.
McCain could have learned from Bush's naming of Quayle, which was also a surprise to the press -- and did not go as well as it should have.
In both cases, their physical attractiveness probably hurt them a bit, too. That's odd, but does happen in some circumstances, as some blondes I've known could tell you.
(I'm not saying I understand entirely why so many leftist women reacted so badly to Palin, who was obviously better prepared to be president than Obama, but I do think McCain botched her introduction.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 24, 2012 at 03:46 PM
ThomasC-- I agree. I am comfortable with Mitt as a winner-- how will he demonized amongst Indies? he flip flopped? Yawn; he passed RomneyCare to help the uninsured? yawn; He's rich and has great hair? OK they've got that. The one concern I have is firing up tea partiers; he's got to sign on to the Ryan/House budget and tax reform to show he's serious about not bankrupting the country. That's what Indies need to hear as well-- when 'Bam demagogues that Romney will throw grandma in the street-- the answer is ez, national bankruptcy doesn't help the poor and he passed RomneyCare to help the uninsured. If he can excite teapartiers, that enthusiasm plus Indie disgust for 'Bam wins.
Posted by: NK | January 24, 2012 at 03:47 PM
TC makes a good point. I'd be afraid of an October Surprise with any other "unvetted" candidate who jumps in at the last minute.
None of the candidates still remmaining are perfect, but they've withstood the mud that's already been slung.
Posted by: fdcol63 | January 24, 2012 at 03:49 PM
I'm sticking with Mitt. Warts and all. I've tried to do the "anyone but Mitt" dance but the pickin's have been slim.
Posted by: Sue | January 24, 2012 at 03:51 PM
fdcol63-- I agree. And I have to admit in the limited times I watch the debates... Mitt outperforms my expectations. I read so many criticisms in conservative outlets, when I hear him directlly, I'm pleasantly surprised. I think that will be true for Indy voters. When they hear 'Bam, at this point all they hear from him is Hope!! blah, blah, blah...
Posted by: NK | January 24, 2012 at 03:55 PM
Personally, I'd worry about any candidate who actually seemed "perfect" or too good to be true.
That's the road to populism and Cult of Personality, and then to despotism if unchecked.
Isn't that how we got The Messiah?
Posted by: fdcol63 | January 24, 2012 at 03:55 PM
well-- we have to admit the cult of personality won in 2008. BUT.. in 2010 and now in 2012... the fall.....
Posted by: NK | January 24, 2012 at 03:57 PM
My thought is Romney is as close to "generic" republican as you can get. And generic republic beats Obama. Let's go "generic Romney"!
Posted by: Sue | January 24, 2012 at 03:58 PM
What are the odds of substance abuse in this can tale ?
Um...Meghan McCain?
Posted by: lyle | January 24, 2012 at 03:58 PM
DoT,
Did you think the Tea Party could win what they won in 2010? They did this under massive negative reporting by the media including outright lies of racism, spitting, foul language and nazism. And they did it by the seat of their pants.
At least the "spirit" they invoked as compared to the funding and organizational communications they received from others. I am not prepared to discount Newt or any of these candidates ability or lack of it to beat Obama. Where I sit there is wholesale anger, disappointment and fear out there. Watch how Florida votes in this primary compared to say the republican one in 2000 or the Democratic one in 2008. And remember we have lost population the last few years.
When it comes to campaigning people seem to think that David Axelrod is some kind of wunderkind, unmatchable political houdini. But I think after '08 the other guys have figured out his methods, tendencies and tactics. The only thing Obama has going for him that the others don't is incumbency and that is also his major weakness.
OMG < > ABO!
{This is a paid political advertisement by Garden Gnomes United Against Fnorking}
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 24, 2012 at 04:03 PM
"and serve me up some New Edsel Coke, Rick..."
You'll never regret it, Appalled. It tastes almost great and gets almost 16 MPG in highway driving.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 24, 2012 at 04:15 PM
For good health, eat right, get plenty of exercise, and have an abortion.
Posted by: daddy | January 24, 2012 at 04:27 PM
daddy - I don't know about you, but that last is kind of tricky for us folks with XY chromosomes.
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 24, 2012 at 04:40 PM
Why "they" beat up Sarah Palin until their sticks broke.
Geezer made me do it, honest.
Posted by: Frau Spiegel-an-der-Wand | January 24, 2012 at 04:45 PM
Statistics show that abortion is 100% fatal for the abortee.
Posted by: fdcol63 | January 24, 2012 at 04:49 PM
Abortion safer than giving birth, study says
Likewise, running over a jaywalker is safer than swerving around him.
Posted by: bgates | January 24, 2012 at 04:49 PM
Enough!
How about a diversion...
Can a court order a suspect to provide the password to an encrypted hard drive?
Fun discussion on the LUN
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 24, 2012 at 04:52 PM
Abortion safer than giving birth, study says
What's next? That it tastes better and is less filling?
Posted by: lyle | January 24, 2012 at 04:52 PM
Geez, TypePad outright refused to post this the first time.
After forty, you are responsible for your looks imho.
Rosa tries to remember why she kept Rahm in her basement.
Posted by: Frau Spiegel-an-der-Wand | January 24, 2012 at 04:55 PM
Clarice, I think the aluminum can gal was from Fishtown *and* a victim of inferior schooling.
Posted by: Frau Spiegel-an-der-Wand | January 24, 2012 at 04:59 PM
Rosa is, however, a very fashionable dresser.
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 24, 2012 at 05:02 PM
I will never, ever, ever understand the attacks on her.
She didn't go to a moron credentialing facility, and therefore was seen as seeking to climb well above the station in life she was entitled to.
Posted by: Ranger | January 24, 2012 at 05:05 PM
Ah, Wiki says she's married to Stan Greenberg and is the 50th richest member of COngress. That explains the vogueish prog.
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 24, 2012 at 05:06 PM
Waterbury's RosaD? she's frightfully manish don't you think?
Posted by: NK | January 24, 2012 at 05:06 PM
Maybe, nk, but I've never seen her in an outfit that cost less than a couple of grand and was super cutting edge.
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 24, 2012 at 05:08 PM
OL,
I don't understand this question at all. For example, what is a computer's hard drive? It is an information storage device. So is a file cabinet or a safe or a storage room or a locker. Are they saying the police and prosecutors can't open a file cabinet or a storage room or a locker if they have a warrant and legitimate court order? I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TV either but can some one show me the difference?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 24, 2012 at 05:09 PM
.... hmmm..no..just frightfully manish.. the designer duds just emphasize the matter... rahm e would look better in those clothes...
Posted by: NK | January 24, 2012 at 05:11 PM
((Mitt pays less than the 15% a married guy who makes $17k per year pays in Federal taxes. Woot ))
nope
the 15% he pays is earned on money that has been already taxed at the highest marginal rate -- much much higher than the guy who earns $17,000
Posted by: Chubby | January 24, 2012 at 05:13 PM
So, this is priceless:
EU Parliament speaker Schulz warns Hungary's Orban
The speaker of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, has told Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban he should not think EU leaders "are stupid".
To which PM Orban should have replied:
Really? Could have fooled me. By the way, how is that whole Euro thing working out for you?
Posted by: Ranger | January 24, 2012 at 05:13 PM
I agree with Clarice that Rosa dresses very au courant with the fashion trends. Many become her, many don't. I think she tries to detract from her face.
But, I gotta say, the ring choices (3 of them) in the above photo are rather a hodgepodge.
Posted by: centralcal | January 24, 2012 at 05:15 PM
Possibly of interest:
A 1 minute video showing How aeroplanes' wings really work
Posted by: daddy | January 24, 2012 at 05:16 PM
A little update.
http://chicksontheright.com/2012/01/15/remember-those-creepy-obama-songs-kids-sang-back-in-2008/
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 24, 2012 at 05:20 PM
I'll take Stan Freberg over Rosa's Stan any day.
And from high a-top the Aragon Ballroom, here's Stan and "Wun'erful, Wun'erful." PC was already a concern in 1957.
LUN
Posted by: Frau Trecksack | January 24, 2012 at 05:20 PM
Just an aside, but I do think it is time to remind people that paying taxes is not the only way people of means can do good things for society. Cheritable giving is a key part of maintaining a healthy civil society. If the state becomes the only means of funding civil society, then it stops being civil, and becomes deeply political in nature.
Posted by: Ranger | January 24, 2012 at 05:21 PM
((I will never, ever, ever understand the attacks on her.))
as I see it, Obama's "lipstick on a pig" crack was a marching order
Posted by: Chubby | January 24, 2012 at 05:22 PM
I think the Tea Party is just keeping a low profile for awhile but they are not dead. In fact Newt gave partial credit to SC teapartiers for his win there.
One of our local TP leaders said at the last meeting that 20 million evangelicals did not vote in the '08 election.
Now one thing that Karl Rove did for GW was get out the evangelical vote.
Posted by: glasater | January 24, 2012 at 05:24 PM
excellent point Ranger.
Posted by: Chubby | January 24, 2012 at 05:25 PM
One last thing about RosaD-- I remember her on local Connecticut television in the early 90s after she was first elected, obviously before Stan G made the big bucks polling for the Clintons, boy she was dressed Hippyish in those days. No designer clothes then, no siree. I guess you can take the girl out of Milford (sorry I got waterbury wrong earlier) and dress her up in Potomac/Bethesda.
Posted by: NK | January 24, 2012 at 05:25 PM
Hello everyone.
I am home and feeling pretty darn good considering. Not nearly as much pain as anticipated. More movement than I had before, although right hand is kind of floppy with no strength at all.
I did not see a way to post one-handed without a huge hassle, but I've found a work-a-round that has me patting myself on the back.
I'm reading from my computer, but posting replies and comments using my phone and its voice to type feature. Saves scrolling though pages of comments, easy on computer, not by phone. I opened JOM on my phone, left it on the opening page to post comments, and read it all on my computer.
Voice to type is neat. Have to correct some weird goof ups, but still better than trying to use only left hand. I switched my mouse to the left-handed buttons. Facebook is easy because it is more mouse use than typing, but my phone also has Twitter access with the voice to mail feature in the input box. Cool, huh?
Posted by: DJ (for Sara) | January 24, 2012 at 05:25 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 24, 2012 at 05:27 PM
Now I'm me again.
Posted by: Sara | January 24, 2012 at 05:29 PM
The guy who makes $17K does not pay squat. There is an EIC ( welfare on the return ) that has to be considered.
Posted by: GMAX | January 24, 2012 at 05:30 PM
Hey, Sara. You are really some heck-uv-a woman to come back so soon after surgery. Take care and try to be lazy around the house, if you know what I mean.
Posted by: Frau Trecksack | January 24, 2012 at 05:33 PM
Clever, Sara
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 24, 2012 at 05:34 PM
Unless Obama proposes raising the capital gains tax to match income tax rates, and doing away with tax-free munis, I'm not sure how he plans on the "rich paying their fair share".
Posted by: Sue | January 24, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Welcome back, Sara.
the 15% he pays is earned on money that has been already taxed at the highest marginal rate
I sure hope the Repubs can make this argument stick. It's a great opportunity. Why do I think they'll blow it?
There is a more legit argument that some labor income gets reclassified as investment income to avoid taxes. But that can't be allowed to drive an argument to raise tax rates on investment income.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 24, 2012 at 05:36 PM
Daddy-- i found that video confusing for the reasons mentioned by commenters.
Gmax correct-- between standard deuctions and EIC credits, plus the tax only affecting income aboove TAXABLE $17K, that head of household with a wife probable has to reach $30K income to pay his first dollar of income tax. At $17K he's GETTING a check from taxpayers. Dana doesn't know anything about people making $17K.
Posted by: NK | January 24, 2012 at 05:37 PM
A new poll says 52% support the Buffet rule. Which is why his secretary is going to be sitting next to MO tonight.
Posted by: Sue | January 24, 2012 at 05:37 PM
Jane & Daddy,
Are you guys going to live blog the last SOTU given by TOTUS? (crosses fingers and toes)
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 24, 2012 at 05:38 PM
Some black students at Duke are upset about this study--but I think it is accurate and worthwhile:
" The most immediate cause for students’ anger is an as-yet unpublished study by Duke researchers saying black students match the GPA of whites over time in part because they switch to majors that require less study time and have less stringent grading standards. Opponents of affirmative action are citing the study in a case they want the U.S. Supreme Court to consider."
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 24, 2012 at 05:38 PM
Welcome back, Sara. And thanks to DJ for filling in. I hope DJ decides to continue posting on his own, if that is his inclination.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 24, 2012 at 05:39 PM
You insult Leonard Nemoy!
Posted by: Frau Trecksack | January 24, 2012 at 05:39 PM
Hey, totally off-topic, but has anybody talked about HHS's rules which will force all Catholic Church employers to eliminate their health insurance plans? That would be every Catholic school, hospital, etc.
I told ya so from the beginning -- this has always been about destroying the legal framework which allows health insurance to exist.
Posted by: cathyf | January 24, 2012 at 05:40 PM
Hope you guys are as excited as these fans for the USA vs Mexico in Olympics qualifying for Women's Soccer.
10:30 ET tonight on Universal Sports Network or over the Internet at LUN
Posted by: mockmook | January 24, 2012 at 05:40 PM
And I have listened and worried, cathyf.
Will Newt take up this banner?
Posted by: Frau Trecksack | January 24, 2012 at 05:42 PM
FrauT-- really did we have to see that image? that crosses the line from manish to freakish;
Cathy-- I brought up the contraceptive/abortion insurance rule; that should be hung around Barry O's neck like the debt and cronyism-- a true outrage. that skank Nancy P was right, nobody knew what was in Obamacare until after it passed.
Posted by: NK | January 24, 2012 at 05:45 PM
This is the slug that went after Guiliani in
a full demolition derby over the course of three books,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/18/is-gingrich-s-hard-line-on-palestine-paid-for-by-sheldon-adelson.html
Posted by: narciso | January 24, 2012 at 05:50 PM
It looks like he is reverting back to form;
http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/01/24/whos-greedy-obama-gave-1-charity-romney-gave-15
Posted by: narciso | January 24, 2012 at 05:53 PM
We will all relish this news, but I know Janet will particularly:
Bold is mine.
Posted by: centralcal | January 24, 2012 at 05:54 PM
Yowza. Wuterich's atty is married to a wonderful woman who is a good friend of Allen West.
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 24, 2012 at 05:57 PM
Steph & kristol should run themselves if they think the candidates suck.
nice being armchair milkstoasts. I hate obama too be at least he took the chance & ran.
this is why we have primaries. let them duke it out at then lets get behind the last one standing, brokerd or not.
Posted by: kile | January 24, 2012 at 05:57 PM
Very few breaks for single guys without kids or whose kids don't live with them.
If the guy who makes $17k is single, no kids, and self-employed (e.g. he delivers newspapers or something else low-skilled requiring hard work and hustle) then he pays AT LEAST 15.30% tax on every penny.Posted by: cathyf | January 24, 2012 at 05:58 PM
Interesting, the timing of this:
When George Romney Met Saul Alinsky
Black and white photos of a meeting in the "wake of the Detroit riots of 1967."
The link is to BuzzFeed
Posted by: centralcal | January 24, 2012 at 05:59 PM
Bitch, bitch, bitch, yada, yada, yada
IMO, That entire article was bullshit, Tom.
Vent your frustrations with your life elsewhere, not on candidates who are striving to do the best that they can.
On their worst days they are better than Obama is on his best days. Even that eccentric little Martian munchkin, Ron Paul, provides insights and wisdom if you're willing to listen.
Your negativity has become tedious. If you think that you can do a better job, hey, run for POTUS.
Posted by: Atrollpasinthroo | January 24, 2012 at 05:59 PM
cathyf:
I am outraged by the stance Obama has taken wrt the catholic church and their insurance policies. This affects my brother and myself.
Stupak had his chance to nipthis in the bud and he blew it. In Cleveland we have Marcy Kaptur and Kucinich who both voted for Obamacare running against each other. I intend to vote for Joe the Plumber.
Posted by: maryrose | January 24, 2012 at 06:00 PM
Even in Military Justice there is justice.. No jail time... I think it was also just for the Sgt. to cop to the dereliction charge for the stupid "shoot first ask questions later" crack he made to his to his Marines. Now if there is real cosmic, justice that pig John Murtha is sweating out eternity in Hell.
Posted by: NK | January 24, 2012 at 06:01 PM
lauds William Kristol's indefatigabe efforts
Isn't this illegal hate speech in Canada?
Posted by: Ralph L | January 24, 2012 at 06:01 PM
The Catholic Church will not go down in a wimp. Can you imagine the closing of so many great hospitals? Because they will do that before you see them acede to the HHS rules.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 24, 2012 at 06:04 PM
Thanks, centralcal. I was just putting that gateway pundit article about Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich in my Haditha folder. I used to print off everything. I had your article in there Clarice. Little 1" WaPo A-483 articles were in there as each Marine was cleared. There was all kinds of leaking & misreporting going on with that too. Josh White of the WaPo seemed to get a lot of leaked material.
It is all something. I don't know what we're gonna do....
Posted by: Janet | January 24, 2012 at 06:07 PM
Must remember 400 pixels wide
400 PIXELS wide
remember
And, can't forget the "A", that just wouldn't be patriotic or fair
Posted by: mockmook | January 24, 2012 at 06:07 PM
Mind you, some of those statements, are naive in the extreme, after the 2nd Intifada.
Posted by: narciso | January 24, 2012 at 06:08 PM
Haditha was the U.S.'s Breaker Morant, and if that SOB Tim McBirk crosses my path he'd better duck.
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 24, 2012 at 06:09 PM
Janet:
You are one great gal! Your family must be so proud of you for all your great efforts and dedication to the military. You set a great example for us all.
Posted by: maryrose | January 24, 2012 at 06:11 PM
JiB-- I don't know Jack; these Catholic Charities are more nonprofits than 'Catholic', I think they'll fold, and explain to their Catholic contributors Oh we couldn't give up doing these good works, and we can't pay the Obamacare penalties for dropping insurance for employees -- blah blah blah. I am reposting the fine WSJ piece about how Lefty catholics got thrown under the Obama bus. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577179110264196498.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Dcomments
Posted by: NK | January 24, 2012 at 06:11 PM
This from Maggies Farm - "The prosecution got a small symbolic pound of flesh. (It is important to note that the single count to which Wuterich pleaded is negligent dereliction of duty, lesser than the charges of willful dereliction of duty. ..."
Posted by: Janet | January 24, 2012 at 06:13 PM
McGirk..Drat
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 24, 2012 at 06:13 PM