Here's one for you: You might be a conservative if... you'd prefer your kid's college to have vending machines for cigarettes than for the morning after pill.
I just got back from my caucus, just south of St. Paul. I can only speak about the results from my own precinct. Santorum 8, Crazy Uncle 7, Romney 6 and Gingrich 4. The Ronulans were a bit rude at times, and many of them left immediately after the straw poll, having no interest in precinct officer, delegate, election judge or pollwatcher positions. They were also a large percentage of the huge crowd of first-timers.
I love the looks of those things. We never use the fireplaces in our house any more because they are only nice when it's very cold out (rare) and when it is cold the draft brings in more cold air then the fireplace brings in heat.
Especially since you cannot close the draft until all the ashes are out.
I wonder if I should switch to gas for my fireplaces.
T-Paw's wife addressed our gathering before we split up into precincts to transact our business. She was enthusiastically for Romney. Some asshole Paulbots booed her.
Our state senator passed along word that both houses of the legislature are ready to submit an amendment to the state constitution requiring voter ID, which would be on the general election ballot in two years. The intent is to bypass Governor Jim Beam (Dayton), who has pledged to veto any voter ID legislation. But now the moron has threatened to veto the proposed amendment, and the governor has absolutely no power to do so.
Yes, but once you turn the gas off you can shut the damper, can't you? I have to keep my open for hours after the fire is out because the embers are still smoldering and we like to breathe oxygen.
Sorry to be an anal-retentive troglodyte, but I will never accept a fireplace that does not burn wood. Gasketed doors and outside combustion air vastly improve the efficiency. Some poor souls tried to convert me to gas fireplaces for my future cabin in Alaska. The idea was to save me the work of cutting and hauling wood. But living on an island with no road access would mean that I would have to wrestle propane tanks on and off my boat constantly. Phooey. Give me the wood any day, of which I will have more than I could possibly burn.
Clarice, forget the thermodynamics of the thing. Every once in a while just build yourself a roaring open fire, sit back with a bit of Scotch or brandy and enjoy the sight, sound and smell of the thing. If you're cold, a little blanket on the lap will do just fine.
It really helps if you have a spouse and a dog like mine. But nobody is that lucky.
Yeah, Jim. In my heart of hearts I know you're right.
There are many versions of the thing TM posted. They would make perfect sense in an apt where you could not install a real fireplace or a vacation place with the same limitations.. I mean it is fun to watch fire, isn't it?
Is it fair to say--as we sports scribes are so fond of saying--that Mitt Romney has absorbed a savage drubbing tonight?
My initial inclination is to characterize this as a wholesale repudiation--a rejection--of Mitt by his own party.
What say you, Sara? (I'll give you the last word.)
Wow. A trouncing. A humiliating, sneering, contemptuous rebuke. I believe his party has said, in something of a full-throated roar, "We don't like you and we don't want you."
My sister has taken to stalking old friends and relatives on Facebook. She says DoT's nephew's son is GQ material (she obviously hasn't read one in 20 years, but you get the point).
My dad commanded both a single minesweeper and a division of 4 of them. The backest backwater of the Navy, but he did get to surround the Soviet Med. Fleet during the Six Day War (in wooden-hulled, almost-unarmed ships). Guess they didn't want to provoke them into WWIII. After that, they trusted him with an amphibious ship (LSD), the second-backest backwater of the Navy.
"In short, if you spend a little time with these numbers you will know that they are being made up. Funny thing that I remember during the depths of the 1982 recession Reagan read in Human Events one night that the seasonally adjusted numbers were being manipulated and one should look at the unadjusted numbers, instead. The next morning during an economic update briefing Reagan said, he wanted to talk about the ”unadjusted” unemployment rate. Marty Feldstein turned white as a ghost, and then talked him out of it. Hmmm!"
Btw, I have a fairly large fireplace, around 48" wide or so. Great if you have a bunch of split logs, a good place to keep them dry that's far enough away from the house to not worry too much about bugs and snakes, and the ambition to start and keep a big fire going. Therefore, I converted to propane.
Since it's a large fireplace, the large propane logs I got use a lot of gas. I figure over $5 for a few hours of fire, but I don't use it so often and I think it was worth it overall.
As for reaching up inside to close the flu while the fireplace is still hot, I never do it.
Complex race says Noemie Emery, too. But she's defined "the establishment" for us:
"f we can tell the insurgent (a millionaire lobbyist) from the establishment candidate, (a mega-rich businessman), it still raises the question of who the Establishment is.
In South Carolina, the Establishment is Jim DeMint, Tim Scott and Nikki Haley, all Tea Party leaders. None opposed Romney: Haley endorsed him, DeMint helped him, and Scott did nothing to interfere with his rise.
In Florida, Marco Rubio, a movement conservative and Tea Party hero (and protegee of Jeb Bush, of the Establishment) also helped Romney. If you can't tell the players without a scorecard, you can't tell the teams apart either.
Morning clarice. We have gas at beach and took out the gas in ATL. My parents gave hubby a cord of wood for Christmas. Making a fire seems to make everyone relax.
LUN is a followup to my point on Dickens from yestreday. When the UK's Guardian wants to revive your work it has OWS potential. Also apparently AP, NYT, and the British Council all used yesterday to push new interest in Dickens.
That polar bear picture is all I could think about those silly Coke SB commercials. What's the point is not a good PR response.
The thing about that story, rse, is that almost anything in some districts is near some property a Congressman or his family owns, isn't it? It seems a rather broad brush. Harder to justify is the related practice (also reported in the WaPo) of earmarks to institutions which employ members of the Congessman's family.
Just arrived in Seattle, turned on the tube, and see Santorum won.
Wow. Very unexpected to me.
My quick impression is that Romney has so far failed to sell himself to Conservatives, so Conservatives are going elsewhere with their votes.
Congratulations Santorum.
Now to get some beauty sleep for our afternoon JOMboree.
I have two big fireplaces which are wonderful. One friend put a firebox in his fireplace, which uses less wood for equal heat and avoids the draft problem (close the doors and deal with the flue later). I'm thinking about putting a firebox in one fireplace to heat the house, and keeping the open flame ambiance with the other.
Maguire-- you can't be serious. Get one of those when you move to a deluxe apartment in the sky, not in a Ct house.
Speaking of which, when are you going to link to the NY Post reportage on Yankee GM, and now famous horndog, Brian Cashman! Multi-year affair, then blackmailed by a tribeca freak, now a divorce. A philanderer's hat trick! There will be a big house up for sale in Darien!
Did anyone link to vdh's story yesterday about this election becoming a referendum on the American system itself? LUN
I agree with vdh. One of the things on my list yesterday after I stopped writing for a while was to listen to a February 2009 TED presentation by Elizabeth Coleman, Pres of Bennington. It's about 18 minutes. I had never heard of her and was actually tracking her son, David, whose ideas for implementing Common Core fit a pattern I had seen before. Liz gives the whole speech with her left hand in pocket in a monotone voice that struck me as quite contemptuous.
Her contempt for the political system created by the Founding Fathers and desire to use ed to have students help the then new Admin override it is hard to listen to. It's been viewed though more than 200,000 times.
Three for three? I am sure the spin will be furious from the excitable melodramatic one. Maybe just maybe he should say that Romneycare big @ssed mistake and after thinking about it a bunch, though it was hard for me to admit, I have come to that sober conclusion. Its probably the minimum that he needs to put his sputtering and missing Rambler back on the road.
I thought this was pretty amusing, from the article TM linked:
The Pureflame fireplace comes in a number of different styles to match your decor. Some have a more solid, more traditional look, but all are decidedly modern-looking. After all, it's fire that's on your wall.
Of school in Hard Times, Dickens despaired, ‘It is known, to the force of a single pound weight, what the engine will do; but, not all the calculators of the National Debt can tell me the capacity for good or evil, for love or hatred, for patriotism or discontent, for the decomposition of virtue into vice, or the reverse, at any single moment in the soul of one of these its quiet servants, with the composed faces and the regulated actions.’
Santorum vs. Romney is a harder fight for Mitch than Gingrich vs Romney. Santorum does not have same baggage as Newt.
The problem is Santorum really is a throwback to the social conservatism of 2006, which may seem relevent today (in wake of the 9th circuit acting, alas, like the 9th circuit, and the Obama administration's monomania on abortion rights imposed via healthcare reform), but really seems like a political approach that antagonizes too many moderates, and makes Obama's boogey man campaign a lot more likely. I personally can't stand that particular strain of the GOP, but can vote for it in November if I have to, under the circumstances. (My reaction to Santorum is similar to many of you for Romney)
I hope, if Romney goes the negative route, he fights on the basis of ideas, rather than the personal stuff deployed against Newt. I get the impression with Santorum that he is a good guy who lives his faith, as opposed to a petulant self-important whiner like Newt.
If Gingrich were a true Conservative, he would, at this point, accept the verdict of the voters, and endorse Santorum as the "not-Romney" candidate. Anyone placing bets on whether he'll do that?
If Romney plans to run the country the way he's run his campaign , we will hardly find him an improvement. Overpaid , childish morons..without a whiff of Palin's or Reagan's natural political instincts.
For the Santorum supporters: Your man is a lifetime Washington insider who lost his last election big and who then became a D.C. lobbyist. During his time in government he was the “compassionate conservative” you claim to disdain. Also, he is running a populist campaign and supports unions. I wonder how many people see only his true social conservatism and jump to the conclusion about his being the “true conservative” just based on that. He really isn’t.
"It's all a farce. Liberals are the aggressors in the culture war (and not always for the worse, as the civil rights movement demonstrates). What they object to isn't so much the government imposing its values on people — heck, they love that. They see nothing wrong with imposing their views about diet, exercise, sex, race and the environment on Americans. What outrages them is resistance, or even non-compliance with their agenda. "Why are you making such a scene?" progressives complain. "Just do what we want and there will be no fuss.""
bold mine
I know it is suppose to be "It's the economy, stupid!" but IMO lots of Americans are starved for some push back against the lib. social agenda. If Republicans want more black & Latino votes those are in the social conservative areas.
Sue: I seem to recall - especially early in the primary season - Santorum calling out Google and demanding that they do something about their search results.
I know Sue. Here is a Newsbuster post about a Bill Maher show where 2 libs are yucking it up about violent hate sex with Rick Santorum & Michele Bachmann.
"SAVAGE: …he needs it. So, it’s not, it's not just women we’re talking about f--king. Like, let's bone that Santorum boy.
MARON: Alright. Let’s video it.
SAVAGE: I’m up for whipping up some santorum in Santorum"
I guess that exchange is no big deal...at least they haven't set fire to Santorum's or Bachmann's church yet...oh wait...that wouldn't make the news either.
"GOP voters are yearning desperately for someone other than Mitt."
Right you are, sir. But, that yearning is not for Newt and will not be for Rick.
It could be that GOP voters are fickle this year--perhaps believing that Obama will lose to anyone--and they will never really join behind a nominee. Even on this blog many have expressed their firm determination not to vote for X or Y.
I suppose one can rationally argue there is time so to do, yet the bloodletting seems to have weakened those in the race and those not in the race would suffer the same fate.
I thought Liberal Fascism was a slog to get through. He made a lot of good points, and it was well researched, but the writing wasn't as good as the content. Just my two cents.
first
Posted by: Gmax | February 07, 2012 at 10:16 PM
I see no problem with a lit ignition source within a New England home.
None.
Nor will your insurance company.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | February 07, 2012 at 10:17 PM
If you think that contraption doesn't count as a real fireplace...you might be a Conservative.
Posted by: Janet | February 07, 2012 at 10:25 PM
Gives off CO2...
OH NOES!
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 07, 2012 at 10:26 PM
I love that pix.
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2012 at 10:31 PM
Minnesota is now called for Santorum. Wasn't this a state that Romney carried last time?
Posted by: Gmax | February 07, 2012 at 10:32 PM
REST OF COUNTRY: W-w-what? You picked Santorum by a wide margin? But everything was going Romney, or maybe Newt. Why'd you pick Santorum?
MISSOURI: I give up. Because Santorum's not a dink?
REST OF COUNTRY:
MISSOURI: What.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | February 07, 2012 at 10:37 PM
Well Paw-Paw endorsed Mittens, so there ya go.
Posted by: Strawman Cometh | February 07, 2012 at 10:40 PM
$10 for 2 hours?
Posted by: Strawman Cometh | February 07, 2012 at 10:42 PM
Strawman-
Well played.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | February 07, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Heh, Janet.
Here's one for you: You might be a conservative if... you'd prefer your kid's college to have vending machines for cigarettes than for the morning after pill.
(Not that I'd be so keen on either....)
Posted by: jimmyk | February 07, 2012 at 10:45 PM
Jane, check your fwdaj e-mail if you can.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 07, 2012 at 10:49 PM
I just got back from my caucus, just south of St. Paul. I can only speak about the results from my own precinct. Santorum 8, Crazy Uncle 7, Romney 6 and Gingrich 4. The Ronulans were a bit rude at times, and many of them left immediately after the straw poll, having no interest in precinct officer, delegate, election judge or pollwatcher positions. They were also a large percentage of the huge crowd of first-timers.
Posted by: Mark Folkestad | February 07, 2012 at 10:51 PM
I love the looks of those things. We never use the fireplaces in our house any more because they are only nice when it's very cold out (rare) and when it is cold the draft brings in more cold air then the fireplace brings in heat.
Especially since you cannot close the draft until all the ashes are out.
I wonder if I should switch to gas for my fireplaces.
Posted by: Clarice | February 07, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Clarice-
You still have to play with the damper, no matter what.
Unless you've figured out that pesky CO thingie...
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | February 07, 2012 at 10:55 PM
T-Paw's wife addressed our gathering before we split up into precincts to transact our business. She was enthusiastically for Romney. Some asshole Paulbots booed her.
Our state senator passed along word that both houses of the legislature are ready to submit an amendment to the state constitution requiring voter ID, which would be on the general election ballot in two years. The intent is to bypass Governor Jim Beam (Dayton), who has pledged to veto any voter ID legislation. But now the moron has threatened to veto the proposed amendment, and the governor has absolutely no power to do so.
Posted by: Mark Folkestad | February 07, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Yes, but once you turn the gas off you can shut the damper, can't you? I have to keep my open for hours after the fire is out because the embers are still smoldering and we like to breathe oxygen.
Posted by: Clarice | February 07, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Sorry to be an anal-retentive troglodyte, but I will never accept a fireplace that does not burn wood. Gasketed doors and outside combustion air vastly improve the efficiency. Some poor souls tried to convert me to gas fireplaces for my future cabin in Alaska. The idea was to save me the work of cutting and hauling wood. But living on an island with no road access would mean that I would have to wrestle propane tanks on and off my boat constantly. Phooey. Give me the wood any day, of which I will have more than I could possibly burn.
Posted by: Mark Folkestad | February 07, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Clarice, forget the thermodynamics of the thing. Every once in a while just build yourself a roaring open fire, sit back with a bit of Scotch or brandy and enjoy the sight, sound and smell of the thing. If you're cold, a little blanket on the lap will do just fine.
It really helps if you have a spouse and a dog like mine. But nobody is that lucky.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 07, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Jimmy, got it. It's great. I will post it in the AM. Can I use your whole name?
Santorum just gave a heck of a speech.
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Now Santa can come to the projects.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 07, 2012 at 11:04 PM
--The fireplace burns cleanly and efficiently — it only gives off water vapor and carbon dioxide.....--
The two primary green house gases one of which the EPA has already declared a pollutant.
Surely Barry's storm troopers are enroute.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 07, 2012 at 11:05 PM
Clarice, my fp is propane, and I love it. You can now close the flu part so it gives off heat.
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2012 at 11:06 PM
Well, Mark and DoT, that's why I haven't made the conversion--the smell and sight of wood crackling really can't be duplicated by gas and fake logs.
Posted by: Clarice | February 07, 2012 at 11:08 PM
Clarice, I'm thinking of ripping out my gas pipes and converting back to a log fireplace.
The hierarchy:
Log fire
Gas fire
This thing TM posted about
A video of a fire
Posted by: Jim Ryan | February 07, 2012 at 11:08 PM
Yeah, Jim. In my heart of hearts I know you're right.
There are many versions of the thing TM posted. They would make perfect sense in an apt where you could not install a real fireplace or a vacation place with the same limitations.. I mean it is fun to watch fire, isn't it?
Posted by: Clarice | February 07, 2012 at 11:19 PM
"I mean it is fun to watch fire, isn't it?"
Not much if it's the Voltive candle in the garage.
Santorum is opening wider in Colorado at the moment. 42/31 with 26% counted. This is an interesting evening.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 07, 2012 at 11:24 PM
"it is fun to watch fire, isn't it?"
Like watching big surf. It can be mesmerizing.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 07, 2012 at 11:24 PM
So Mitts folks are playing tonights results down by remarking that last go round McCain lost 19 states.
Nice blue print they are following.
Posted by: Stephanie | February 07, 2012 at 11:25 PM
Clarice, that is a good point about having to leave the flue open to the drafts after the fire. I never thought of that.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | February 07, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Yes, that's ok with me, Jane. Thanks.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 07, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Nice blue print they are following.
Ha. And they could add that Mitt won Colorado last time and lost the nomination, so it's better to lose Colorado. Or something.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 07, 2012 at 11:41 PM
If I'm reading things correctly, Mitt is likely to lose Colorado as well.
At this point I have to take my pleasure where I can find it: reading everything Sara has to say tomorrow.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 07, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Oh my. I think I just fell in love with Santorum.
Posted by: Sue | February 07, 2012 at 11:53 PM
So Paul is out?
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 08, 2012 at 12:02 AM
So Paul is out?
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 08, 2012 at 12:02 AM
Is it fair to say--as we sports scribes are so fond of saying--that Mitt Romney has absorbed a savage drubbing tonight?
My initial inclination is to characterize this as a wholesale repudiation--a rejection--of Mitt by his own party.
What say you, Sara? (I'll give you the last word.)
Wow. A trouncing. A humiliating, sneering, contemptuous rebuke. I believe his party has said, in something of a full-throated roar, "We don't like you and we don't want you."
But I'll wait to hear from Sara....
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 08, 2012 at 12:07 AM
I have a penalty on DoT for piling on!!! :)
Posted by: mockmook | February 08, 2012 at 12:14 AM
Guilty as charged, Mockmook. To my regret I am not always a kind person. On the other hand, I am unkind only when God commands me to be so.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 08, 2012 at 12:25 AM
Too early, DoT. Colorado just flipped.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 08, 2012 at 12:35 AM
Colorado just flipped
Must have been those amateur counters or whatever they're called.
Posted by: glasater | February 08, 2012 at 12:49 AM
Now Romney and Santorum are tied with 64% reporting!
Posted by: glasater | February 08, 2012 at 12:51 AM
DOT: How old are you? You are acting like a little kid. I will say tomorrow the same thing I've said all along.
Posted by: Sara | February 08, 2012 at 01:01 AM
C'mon Sara, don't begrudge DoT having a little joy during this miserable slog. Don't be a bitter Newt.
Posted by: mockmook | February 08, 2012 at 01:25 AM
My sister has taken to stalking old friends and relatives on Facebook. She says DoT's nephew's son is GQ material (she obviously hasn't read one in 20 years, but you get the point).
My dad commanded both a single minesweeper and a division of 4 of them. The backest backwater of the Navy, but he did get to surround the Soviet Med. Fleet during the Six Day War (in wooden-hulled, almost-unarmed ships). Guess they didn't want to provoke them into WWIII. After that, they trusted him with an amphibious ship (LSD), the second-backest backwater of the Navy.
Posted by: Ralph L | February 08, 2012 at 02:27 AM
Colorado just flipped
I warned 'em about having all those Air Force guys east of I-25.
Posted by: Hank Johnson | February 08, 2012 at 03:04 AM
Colorado called for Santorum. LUN.
What a long, strange trip...
Posted by: Jim,MtnView,Ca,USA | February 08, 2012 at 03:06 AM
For Rick B-
Below is a link to a David Stockman email message to Bruce Krasting:
http://www.businessinsider.com/david-stockman-its-true-the-bls-data-is-made-up-2012-2
Closing graph:
"In short, if you spend a little time with these numbers you will know that they are being made up. Funny thing that I remember during the depths of the 1982 recession Reagan read in Human Events one night that the seasonally adjusted numbers were being manipulated and one should look at the unadjusted numbers, instead. The next morning during an economic update briefing Reagan said, he wanted to talk about the ”unadjusted” unemployment rate. Marty Feldstein turned white as a ghost, and then talked him out of it. Hmmm!"
Posted by: glasater | February 08, 2012 at 03:23 AM
Santorum? Sheesh.
I wonder if this opens the door for a late-entry candidate.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2012 at 06:20 AM
Btw, I have a fairly large fireplace, around 48" wide or so. Great if you have a bunch of split logs, a good place to keep them dry that's far enough away from the house to not worry too much about bugs and snakes, and the ambition to start and keep a big fire going. Therefore, I converted to propane.
Since it's a large fireplace, the large propane logs I got use a lot of gas. I figure over $5 for a few hours of fire, but I don't use it so often and I think it was worth it overall.
As for reaching up inside to close the flu while the fireplace is still hot, I never do it.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2012 at 06:29 AM
Complex race says Noemie Emery, too. But she's defined "the establishment" for us:
"f we can tell the insurgent (a millionaire lobbyist) from the establishment candidate, (a mega-rich businessman), it still raises the question of who the Establishment is.
In South Carolina, the Establishment is Jim DeMint, Tim Scott and Nikki Haley, all Tea Party leaders. None opposed Romney: Haley endorsed him, DeMint helped him, and Scott did nothing to interfere with his rise.
In Florida, Marco Rubio, a movement conservative and Tea Party hero (and protegee of Jeb Bush, of the Establishment) also helped Romney. If you can't tell the players without a scorecard, you can't tell the teams apart either.
This isn't the story line that we were promised. It's much more complex than you think."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/2012/02/gop-race-complicated/246676
Posted by: Clarice | February 08, 2012 at 06:33 AM
Mitt's been Rick-rolled.
Posted by: peter | February 08, 2012 at 06:45 AM
Morning clarice. We have gas at beach and took out the gas in ATL. My parents gave hubby a cord of wood for Christmas. Making a fire seems to make everyone relax.
LUN is a followup to my point on Dickens from yestreday. When the UK's Guardian wants to revive your work it has OWS potential. Also apparently AP, NYT, and the British Council all used yesterday to push new interest in Dickens.
That polar bear picture is all I could think about those silly Coke SB commercials. What's the point is not a good PR response.
Posted by: rse | February 08, 2012 at 06:47 AM
We don't use our fireplace due to the same issues Clarice is describing. When we are in the mood, I put on my Arthur Brown records.
Posted by: peter | February 08, 2012 at 07:06 AM
Has anyone linked to this WaPo story on earmarks to add "public amenities" near private property owned by Congress members?
To the tune of about $300 million.
Posted by: rse | February 08, 2012 at 07:29 AM
The thing about that story, rse, is that almost anything in some districts is near some property a Congressman or his family owns, isn't it? It seems a rather broad brush. Harder to justify is the related practice (also reported in the WaPo) of earmarks to institutions which employ members of the Congessman's family.
Posted by: Clarice | February 08, 2012 at 07:41 AM
Just arrived in Seattle, turned on the tube, and see Santorum won.
Wow. Very unexpected to me.
My quick impression is that Romney has so far failed to sell himself to Conservatives, so Conservatives are going elsewhere with their votes.
Congratulations Santorum.
Now to get some beauty sleep for our afternoon JOMboree.
G'nite.
Posted by: daddy | February 08, 2012 at 07:54 AM
GM, the Treasury and You
Our own Jimmy tracks our tax dollars at
workplay.Oh to be a crony.
Posted by: Jane | February 08, 2012 at 07:55 AM
Jane,
If possible, can you link the original article JimmyK mentions in his post at YouToo.
Posted by: daddy | February 08, 2012 at 07:59 AM
I have two big fireplaces which are wonderful. One friend put a firebox in his fireplace, which uses less wood for equal heat and avoids the draft problem (close the doors and deal with the flue later). I'm thinking about putting a firebox in one fireplace to heat the house, and keeping the open flame ambiance with the other.
On recall news, Senate Majority Leader Fitzgerald will challenge enough signatures to void his recall. Challenges for all 4 senators are due tomorrow, then we get to watch the GAB ignore the challenges.
Posted by: henry | February 08, 2012 at 08:17 AM
Daddy,
No, but I bet Jimmy can and then I will put it in the piece. He linked to it the other day here. (I'd look but I am running out the door)
Posted by: Jane | February 08, 2012 at 08:24 AM
This post is very good on the media bias in the SGK-PP story.
", Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and NBC’s Andrea Mitchell complimented each other on getting Komen to buckle under pressure."
Posted by: Janet | February 08, 2012 at 08:26 AM
Is this it? paper
Might be a bit dry for 5:35AM in Seattle.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 08, 2012 at 08:36 AM
Maguire-- you can't be serious. Get one of those when you move to a deluxe apartment in the sky, not in a Ct house.
Speaking of which, when are you going to link to the NY Post reportage on Yankee GM, and now famous horndog, Brian Cashman! Multi-year affair, then blackmailed by a tribeca freak, now a divorce. A philanderer's hat trick! There will be a big house up for sale in Darien!
Posted by: NK | February 08, 2012 at 08:39 AM
Did anyone link to vdh's story yesterday about this election becoming a referendum on the American system itself? LUN
I agree with vdh. One of the things on my list yesterday after I stopped writing for a while was to listen to a February 2009 TED presentation by Elizabeth Coleman, Pres of Bennington. It's about 18 minutes. I had never heard of her and was actually tracking her son, David, whose ideas for implementing Common Core fit a pattern I had seen before. Liz gives the whole speech with her left hand in pocket in a monotone voice that struck me as quite contemptuous.
Her contempt for the political system created by the Founding Fathers and desire to use ed to have students help the then new Admin override it is hard to listen to. It's been viewed though more than 200,000 times.
Posted by: rse | February 08, 2012 at 08:50 AM
Three for three? I am sure the spin will be furious from the excitable melodramatic one. Maybe just maybe he should say that Romneycare big @ssed mistake and after thinking about it a bunch, though it was hard for me to admit, I have come to that sober conclusion. Its probably the minimum that he needs to put his sputtering and missing Rambler back on the road.
Posted by: GMAX | February 08, 2012 at 08:51 AM
And in catching up on the threads, I'm surprised that I didn't see someone linking to Maria Menounos paying off her bet?
Posted by: RichatUF | February 08, 2012 at 08:52 AM
I thought this was pretty amusing, from the article TM linked:
I like Jim Ryan's hierarchy.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 08, 2012 at 08:55 AM
So will it be 99.5% negative ads on Santorum now? It seems he knows how to do that, but selling himself, not so much.
Posted by: GMAX | February 08, 2012 at 08:56 AM
rse, Dickens' "Hard Times" speaks to our times.
Of school in Hard Times, Dickens despaired, ‘It is known, to the force of a single pound weight, what the engine will do; but, not all the calculators of the National Debt can tell me the capacity for good or evil, for love or hatred, for patriotism or discontent, for the decomposition of virtue into vice, or the reverse, at any single moment in the soul of one of these its quiet servants, with the composed faces and the regulated actions.’
Posted by: sbw | February 08, 2012 at 08:59 AM
The Tpaw Mo is an awesome thing, sarc.
Posted by: narciso | February 08, 2012 at 09:02 AM
Oops, I should have linked. Cheesecake is on me this morning.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 08, 2012 at 09:03 AM
Yes, narciso. Now we know why Pawlenty dropped out. Couldn't even deliver MN to Romney.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 08, 2012 at 09:04 AM
Pawlenty is Mitch Daniels without the personality...
Posted by: GMAX | February 08, 2012 at 09:07 AM
Santorum vs. Romney is a harder fight for Mitch than Gingrich vs Romney. Santorum does not have same baggage as Newt.
The problem is Santorum really is a throwback to the social conservatism of 2006, which may seem relevent today (in wake of the 9th circuit acting, alas, like the 9th circuit, and the Obama administration's monomania on abortion rights imposed via healthcare reform), but really seems like a political approach that antagonizes too many moderates, and makes Obama's boogey man campaign a lot more likely. I personally can't stand that particular strain of the GOP, but can vote for it in November if I have to, under the circumstances. (My reaction to Santorum is similar to many of you for Romney)
I hope, if Romney goes the negative route, he fights on the basis of ideas, rather than the personal stuff deployed against Newt. I get the impression with Santorum that he is a good guy who lives his faith, as opposed to a petulant self-important whiner like Newt.
If Gingrich were a true Conservative, he would, at this point, accept the verdict of the voters, and endorse Santorum as the "not-Romney" candidate. Anyone placing bets on whether he'll do that?
Posted by: Appalled | February 08, 2012 at 09:16 AM
Romney needs to make the case for himself instead of attacking Santorum. He seems to surround himself with the same sort of dimwits that McRINO did.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 08, 2012 at 09:21 AM
If you didn't see Santorum's speech last night, you should. I might just be a Santorum supporter after last night.
Posted by: Sue | February 08, 2012 at 09:26 AM
If Romney plans to run the country the way he's run his campaign , we will hardly find him an improvement. Overpaid , childish morons..without a whiff of Palin's or Reagan's natural political instincts.
Posted by: Clarice | February 08, 2012 at 09:29 AM
Don Surber collects the punditry's views of the hole in the Romney electability bubble:
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/51168
Pls, Let's see a new dark horse that we can ride..
Posted by: Clarice | February 08, 2012 at 09:33 AM
Oh< I get a whiff alright.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | February 08, 2012 at 09:34 AM
Minus 11 at Raz today.
One gets the palpable sense that GOP voters are yea,rning desperately for someone other than Mitt.
Ms. Emery got it right.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 08, 2012 at 09:36 AM
For the Santorum supporters: Your man is a lifetime Washington insider who lost his last election big and who then became a D.C. lobbyist. During his time in government he was the “compassionate conservative” you claim to disdain. Also, he is running a populist campaign and supports unions. I wonder how many people see only his true social conservatism and jump to the conclusion about his being the “true conservative” just based on that. He really isn’t.
Posted by: bio mom | February 08, 2012 at 09:38 AM
Pls, Let's see a new dark horse that we can ride..
No kidding, Clarice.
Maybe Mitt should drop out.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2012 at 09:39 AM
Your man is a lifetime Washington insider who lost his last election big and who then became a D.C. lobbyist.
::sigh:: I quit looking for perfect a long time ago.
Posted by: Sue | February 08, 2012 at 09:42 AM
but really seems like a political approach that antagonizes too many moderates,
from Jonah Goldberg via Instapundit -
"It's all a farce. Liberals are the aggressors in the culture war (and not always for the worse, as the civil rights movement demonstrates). What they object to isn't so much the government imposing its values on people — heck, they love that. They see nothing wrong with imposing their views about diet, exercise, sex, race and the environment on Americans. What outrages them is resistance, or even non-compliance with their agenda. "Why are you making such a scene?" progressives complain. "Just do what we want and there will be no fuss.""
bold mine
I know it is suppose to be "It's the economy, stupid!" but IMO lots of Americans are starved for some push back against the lib. social agenda. If Republicans want more black & Latino votes those are in the social conservative areas.
Posted by: Janet | February 08, 2012 at 09:44 AM
Janet,
Don't google santorum. You will be sick. I had no idea that Rick Santorum was so hated by the gay community.
Posted by: Sue | February 08, 2012 at 09:48 AM
Sue: I seem to recall - especially early in the primary season - Santorum calling out Google and demanding that they do something about their search results.
Posted by: centralcal | February 08, 2012 at 09:54 AM
Neither a big government liberal or big government conservative is appealing.
Posted by: sbw | February 08, 2012 at 09:54 AM
What business does Santorum have insinuating himself in a gay's bedroom anyway?
Posted by: sbw | February 08, 2012 at 09:55 AM
Did Romney buy ad time under Bio Mom's moniker? LOL
The negativity begins.
Posted by: GMAX | February 08, 2012 at 09:57 AM
I know Sue. Here is a Newsbuster post about a Bill Maher show where 2 libs are yucking it up about violent hate sex with Rick Santorum & Michele Bachmann.
"SAVAGE: …he needs it. So, it’s not, it's not just women we’re talking about f--king. Like, let's bone that Santorum boy.
MARON: Alright. Let’s video it.
SAVAGE: I’m up for whipping up some santorum in Santorum"
I guess that exchange is no big deal...at least they haven't set fire to Santorum's or Bachmann's church yet...oh wait...that wouldn't make the news either.
Posted by: Janet | February 08, 2012 at 10:01 AM
janet-that reads like Jonah is getting ready for his upcoming book tour.
I think he did an excellent job with Liberal Fascism and emphasized some unappreciated points.
Hope his next is as good.
Posted by: rse | February 08, 2012 at 10:02 AM
What business does Santorum have insinuating himself in a gay's bedroom anyway?
I have no idea what Santorum did that you are referring to. Can you help me out?
Posted by: Sue | February 08, 2012 at 10:04 AM
"GOP voters are yearning desperately for someone other than Mitt."
Right you are, sir. But, that yearning is not for Newt and will not be for Rick.
It could be that GOP voters are fickle this year--perhaps believing that Obama will lose to anyone--and they will never really join behind a nominee. Even on this blog many have expressed their firm determination not to vote for X or Y.
I suppose one can rationally argue there is time so to do, yet the bloodletting seems to have weakened those in the race and those not in the race would suffer the same fate.
Posted by: MarkO | February 08, 2012 at 10:04 AM
"Maybe Mitt should drop out"
Bad for book sales.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 08, 2012 at 10:05 AM
I thought Liberal Fascism was a slog to get through. He made a lot of good points, and it was well researched, but the writing wasn't as good as the content. Just my two cents.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Oops. I read "Mitt" but was thinking"Newt."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 08, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Jane, Daddy,
The Cato article isn't available online. This WSJ article (assuming it's viewable to non-subscribers) covers part of the story.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 08, 2012 at 10:07 AM
At this point we have four candidates, not one of whom I can stand. Small wonder that turnout is down everywhere.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 08, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Actually, I take it back, a working paper version of the Cato article is here.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 08, 2012 at 10:11 AM