The NY Times front-pages a fundraising appeal for the Obama SuperPACs, warning the faithful that the Republicans are raising more money.
They manage to splash some ink on Bill Maher while completely ducking the controversy that has driven David Axelrod off his show. Here they go again:
Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting the president’s re-election, will report $2 million in February donations, group officials said, including $1 million from the television host Bill Maher. Those amounts are substantial for Priorities USA and a related group, which together raised about $6.1 million through the end of 2011.
...
Mr. Maher said he had decided to contribute to Priorities USA after attending the Grammys in mid-February and being told by several Hollywood friends that the election was “in the bag” for Mr. Obama.
“One reason I was doing this was to try to throw a snowball and create an avalanche among rich people on the left,” said Mr. Maher, who did not inform Priorities USA of his plans before announcing the donation.
That's all Times readers need to know - start your own snowball.
The Times is in a bit of a quandary here. If they acknowledge the Maher controversy they will set a precedent for future coverage. If Team Obama succeeds in opening the spigots of the entertainment industry there is sure to be a clown car of thug rappers and foul-mouthed fools for the Times to avoid covering. Rather than show some commitment by defending free speech or free association (and ignoring Obama's 'What would I say to Sasha and Malia' explanation for attacking Rush Limbaugh) the self-styled Paper of Record has elected to move on.
Sasha and Malia will never know the sort of people their dad takes money from, if they rely on the Times.
FULL DISCLOSURE: Back in 2007 Obama explained that we are all complicit in the coarsening of our culture. I have done my part by apologizing and returning the money Bill Maher gave to this blog. Still waiting for Barack...
I made this point, how did we get to the point where ignorant jesters and troubadours,
have such a large part of the political mindset among the muddle,
Posted by: narciso | March 14, 2012 at 09:59 AM
What is the NYT?
Posted by: NK | March 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM
If its "in the bag" then why throw away $1 million?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | March 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM
10 thunbs up, TM/
Posted by: Clarice | March 14, 2012 at 10:03 AM
“Axelrod and company are keeping Maher’s money.”
Think of it as a fine on Maher. If they gave it back, he would probably just blow it on contraceptives for Ms. Fluke.
Posted by: Neo | March 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM
And Axelrod puts down the microphone and slowly backs away from Maher. That is all you need know. Hoisted upon their own petard. Name one strategy the Democrats have undertaken since 2009 that has worked out like they planned it. I can not name one. Every single cigar comes from ACME cigar and blows up in their face. Pity really.
Posted by: GMAX | March 14, 2012 at 10:14 AM
So Mike Lee, appropriately chastises Chu, and then votes against ANWR.
Posted by: narciso | March 14, 2012 at 10:15 AM
If I ever got money from Maher, I would publicly endorse the check over to George Bush.
Posted by: Threadkiller | March 14, 2012 at 10:18 AM
TM-- you gave the money BACK to Maher!!??
What about the BLOGGER CODE? "take everything you can.... give nothing back." The blogger union will come after you hard over this TM.
Posted by: NK | March 14, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Here's something for the GMAX file - in order to get Obama to a 50% approval rating, they had to poll a sample with 51% Democrats.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/14/shocker-poll-with-51-democrats-gives-obama-50-approval-rating/
Posted by: Porchlight | March 14, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Porch - I checked the Feb results from Reuters/Ipsos, which had Obama at 48% approval, and you'll not be surprised to learn that that sample was of 49% Democrats.
This is probably not the trend they are looking for...
Posted by: AliceH | March 14, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Well, I woke up and saw the results from last night, and it all is very depressing. On one hand, we have a candidate who says he will never say any outrageous things about Obama and that it isn't Obama's fault re the high gas prices, and on the other hand we have a candidate who is a whiner and continues to emphasize the role government should have in the bedroom!! Woe is us.
Posted by: NotSara | March 14, 2012 at 10:31 AM
Good work, AliceH. That is just hilarious.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 14, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Wow, AliceH! But, I love it.
Posted by: centralcal | March 14, 2012 at 10:44 AM
51.1% Dems per Hot Air, Alice.
Posted by: Clarice | March 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM
If Santorum's being against abortion and contraceptives makes him unelectable, then the electorate is stupider than a sack of hammers and the country is doomed.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | March 14, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Clarice - Hot Air reporting on the March results, which was, 51.1% dems = 50% approval. In prior poll (FEB), 49% dems = 48% approval.
Posted by: AliceH | March 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM
Well, Jim, who wants a president against contraceptives? Religious freedom yes, against contraceptives for all, ridiculous!
Posted by: NotSara | March 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM
NotSara@10:31 - time to watch the Breitbart CPAC speech again! Start at 12:15 mark, with "you want a Unity Speech..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbycMtTUDfE
Posted by: AliceH | March 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Porch/AliceH/Clarice-- thanks for the poll evals. Amaziing, to get 'Bam to 50% approval, the Lib-Legacy media has to rig the sampling to 51% Dem. The November electorate may not even be 33% Dem. Please Seblius-- keep publishing those Regs, Please Chu/Salazar-- keep making lame excuses for gas prices, Please Ben, keep printing money, Please Harry please refusing to pass a budget. The only wild card for Novemebr is -- the Mullahs.
Posted by: NK | March 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Would anyone feel better about Romney if he said, "I will say outrageous things about Obama"?
Posted by: MarkO | March 14, 2012 at 10:53 AM
"the electorate is stupider than a sack of hammers and the country is doomed."
Calling GMAX.
Posted by: MarkO | March 14, 2012 at 10:54 AM
MarkO, I would settle for "I will tell the truth about Obama."
Posted by: Porchlight | March 14, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Thanks Alice.
Posted by: Clarice | March 14, 2012 at 10:57 AM
MarkO, I agree with Porch. The trouble is, I don't think Romney will do it. He seems to want to remain "above the fray" with Obama but hasn't seemed to have a problem attacking his Republican rivals. I just don't think he "has it in him."
Posted by: NotSara | March 14, 2012 at 10:57 AM
Santorum is no more AGAINST CONTRACEPTIVES, than Joe Lieberman is AGAINST HAM SANDWICHES.
Discuss.
Posted by: Gus | March 14, 2012 at 10:57 AM
Sorry, Gus, he has said that he didn't believe in contraceptives--being a Catholic and all.
Posted by: NotSara | March 14, 2012 at 10:59 AM
against contraceptives for all
NotSara, what does that mean? Does Santorum support banning contraceptives?
Posted by: Jim Ryan | March 14, 2012 at 10:59 AM
One of Ocean's Eleven has decided to retire from the gang after the record-setting Casino Heist.
I chuckle......
"It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all?src=tp
Posted by: Ben Franklin | March 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Sorry Not Sara, but Joe Lieberman is against Ham Sandwiches, but would not deny you one. Get a clue.
Posted by: Gus | March 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM
"being told by several Hollywood friends that the election was “in the bag” for Mr. Obama" and the Reuters/Ipsos poll are two facets of the same prism. The great MFM perverters of truth need to promote the fiction of a contest just as Maher needed to tell a rather extravagant lie about "several Hollywood friends". The speed at which the MFM is circling the bowl was supposed to be slowed by the influx of money from the 'billion dollar war chest' which was hopefully going to be matched on the GOP side and stem the final flush.
I can't think of a more fitting end to the progressive failure than choking to death on its own lies.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 14, 2012 at 11:03 AM
A parody on the literal escape from the Death Star before the explosion.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5007&Itemid=81
Posted by: Ben Franklin | March 14, 2012 at 11:03 AM
All I am saying is Santorum should NOT insert his personal beliefs in his speeches about what to do--I absolutely do NOT want the government deciding what I do with my personal life. I have believed that ever since Roe.
Posted by: NotSara | March 14, 2012 at 11:05 AM
I'm in the "Let's all get behind Romney and push him over the November finish line" camp now.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | March 14, 2012 at 11:06 AM
When I Google Romney tell the truth about Obama all I find is Santorum claiming Romney is a liar. But, I found a story from yesterday in which it appears that Romney is attacking Obama. He has his issues, but Romney has slammed Obama following every primary contest. He may not be conservative enough for many, but I'm not certain it's accurate to suggest he would not attack Obama.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/in-missouri-romney-attacks-obama-for-rising-gas-prices/
Posted by: MarkO | March 14, 2012 at 11:08 AM
That was always the way, they felt at Wolf,Ram, and Heart, right before the yearly
'sacking' that who paid for your guy, Ben.
Posted by: narciso | March 14, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Santorum is no more AGAINST CONTRACEPTIVES, than Joe Lieberman is AGAINST HAM SANDWICHES.
Great point.
Posted by: Janet | March 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM
NotSara, which other beliefs is Santorum supposed to keep to himself?
Posted by: Gus | March 14, 2012 at 11:11 AM
BenF-- uh-- GS are in effect Barry Obama's personal bankers; the financiers of his crony capitalism (especially since Jamie Dimon put his shareholders ahead of his personal political loyalty.) Indeed, I believe in 2008 GS employees gave MORE to Barry than any other firm. So if GS is 'toxic'; what does that say about Barry?
Posted by: NK | March 14, 2012 at 11:11 AM
" but I'm not certain it's accurate to suggest he would not attack Obama. "
I don't know about you, MarkO, but I look forward to the debates.
Posted by: Ben Franklin | March 14, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Oh, I will certainly vote for him, MarkO, but I am just sad (or maybe mad) that he doesn't seem to want to expose all the bad things about Obama.
Posted by: NotSara | March 14, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Rick Ballard @11:03: well said.
Posted by: NK | March 14, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Ever since the SUPREME COURT said it was OK to kill your baby.....it's been OK to kill your baby??
Posted by: Gus | March 14, 2012 at 11:13 AM
I absolutely do NOT want the government deciding
So you agree with Santorum on contraceptives. Got it.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | March 14, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Jim Ryan, Santorum is not allowed to express his personal beliefs. Not since ROE!
Posted by: Gus | March 14, 2012 at 11:16 AM
Gus, He is free to express any beliefs he want to--I just think it "turns a lot of people off" that he seems to be proselytizing. I am glad he is a person of faith--I think the majority of people simply do not want to hear about his faith. They would rather hear about what he is going to do with the economy, gas prices, Supreme Court, pipelines, etc.
Posted by: NotSara | March 14, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Romney is against COCA-COLA. I'm fearful.
Posted by: Gus | March 14, 2012 at 11:18 AM
"but I'm not certain it's accurate to suggest he would not attack Obama"
It would be very inaccurate. Governor Romney has now made promises on the repeal of Obamacare and drilling which I believe he would find impossible to repudiate. He is constant in his observations regarding Obama being a total failure and there is no reason to believe that he will relax, ala Dewey, rather than press for the kill. He's running a very disciplined campaign and the probability that he will succeed is very high. My opinion of him hasn't changed by a millimeter.
OMG~ABO
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 14, 2012 at 11:18 AM
BenF says: "I don't know about you, MarkO, but I look forward to the debates."
Why do you assume there will be debates? Axelrod/Plouffe have given up on white/asian families and investors-- in fact they are actively trying to turn those and other voters off, and persuade them avoid the political process altogether in November. A/P want to turn out their votes, and suppress independent voters, NOT persuade Indies to vote FOR 'Bam-- they know that's a lost cause. How do any debates advance A/P's strategy? I don't think they do-- so maybe 1 debate, maybe none.
Posted by: NK | March 14, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Will the "Romney won't be mean enough aginst Obama" meme go away? I mean, I wonder here what people want. "Get thee from our shores, you Kenyan Communist Muslim?"
Obama is vulnerable to all sorts of attacks on his economic policies and a drift towards something that looks like rule by regulatory decree. He is not particularly vulnerable to "well he knew this kind of commie guy back in 1991, see Breitbart's got the tape."
Obama has a record -- and we know the kind of President he is. That's what you attack. All day long, all the time.
Posted by: Appalled | March 14, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Breitbart: "Ask not what your candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for your candidate".
Romney/Santorum don't fire you up? Breitbart: "So?"
Seriously, there is not a perfect person hiding in the wings that if only we wished hard enough and waited long enough and whined often enough would suddenly swoop in and win the R nomination. Get behind a candidate - do your own rallying - make the conservative case - apply the pressure - rally rally rally.
Breitbart: "There are two paths...
Thus endeth my harangue.
Posted by: AliceH | March 14, 2012 at 11:21 AM
" So if GS is 'toxic'; what does that say about Barry?"
Obama is responsible for allowing the criminals to continue to scoff at the Law. He didn't create them, but he is an enabler. The Left has been highly critical of him on several fronts. You aren't aware of that? Read some diverse sources.
Posted by: Ben Franklin | March 14, 2012 at 11:21 AM
RickB @11:18 and Appalled @11:19-- agree with both of you. Romney has been attacking 'Bam's record (not 'Bam) and proposing clear alternatives. That's the correct and winning play.
Posted by: NK | March 14, 2012 at 11:22 AM
NotSara, you made it clear where you stand.
Nice try backtracking.
It's still perfectly legal for you to kill your baby!!
""All I am saying is Santorum should NOT insert his personal beliefs in his speeches about what to do--I absolutely do NOT want the government deciding what I do with my personal life. I have believed that ever since Roe.""
Posted by: Gus | March 14, 2012 at 11:22 AM
TM's post mentions Sasha and Malia.They are young and have spent their formative years in the White House. Will they learn new perspectives when they become adults or keep the ideological world view of their parents.There are presidential children who become estranged from their parents,but most spend their adulthood preserving the legacy of their presidential father. What legacy will they promote?
Posted by: marlene | March 14, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Gus, You completely misunderstand. I do not agree with Roe. I think any decision concerning one's personal life lies with that person and NOT the government or a Supreme Court ruling.
Posted by: NotSara | March 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM
You didn't care then, Appalled, even when evidence of what he was, was readily available here, you looked to be spoonfed. Most of the important promises, he made, regarding 'fundamental transformation' were
followed through, 'Mission Accomplished' for Mr. Chu, punctuated by the feckless Senate
that ratified his decision,
Posted by: narciso | March 14, 2012 at 11:26 AM
" so maybe 1 debate, maybe none."
Depends on how vociferously Romney/Attack Dogs distort the facts.
I suspect the distortions will be Epic. Ergo; multiple debates.
Posted by: Ben Franklin | March 14, 2012 at 11:28 AM
BenF-- I'm talking about you. Please tell us, what is good/bad about the GS connections to Barry-- Geithner paying off GS in the AIG bailout by paying CDS defaults 100%- no haircut; Dudley to NY Fed; the GS contributions; NO MBS prosecutions of ANYONE at GS or fannie or BOA/Countrywide(just an SEC civil fraud action.) I don't care what OTHER leftists think- what do you think?
Posted by: NK | March 14, 2012 at 11:29 AM
I'm glad I'm learning about your personal moral code NotSara. And I'm glad I know Santorums.
Of the 4 candidates running in the GOP, I know Santorums and I know Romneys' moral code. Not so much with Paul or Gingrich, and in fact, what I DO KNOW about Paul and Gingrich's personal beliefs does not endear them to me. I DO NOT agree with many aspects of other peoples Religious principles or rules, but I respect them. I eat pork, and I drink caffeine. I do not fear a PRINCIPLED man having a different religious stance. If Santorum was FOR CONTRACEPTIVE USE, wouldn't that put him at odds with his self professed DEVOUT CATHOLIC status??
Posted by: Gus | March 14, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Another one of the savants reveal themselves;
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/comedian-chris-rock-attacks-camera-during-interview-with-author-jason-mattera/
Posted by: narciso | March 14, 2012 at 11:31 AM
--He didn't create them, but he is an enabler.--
That seems more than a little easy on Barry.
He's the chief beneficiary of their largesse; he's in bed with them.
That's makes him a slut, right? It makes him a prostitute.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM
NK,
You really shouldn't forget Jon Corzine when speaking of leftist scum alumni of Goldman-Sachs. After all, he's a bigger Obama poster boy than Kaiser of Solyndra.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM
BenF-- "distortions" that will be a SuperPac TV ad feud of disgusting Dollar amounts-- I don't think that will drive the debates. IF Axelrod/Plouffe see the election as a sure loser by September, OK they should change strategy and demand to debate everyday and hope Romney blows it. I don't think it will get that bad for 'Bam by september-- but hey, the year is young!
Posted by: NK | March 14, 2012 at 11:34 AM
Obama camp: If election were today, Mitt would win
Posted by: Extraneus | March 14, 2012 at 11:34 AM
Where did TIM GEITHNER work. I mean after his TAX CHEATING??
Seems to me that Barack Obama has made some very poor choices in whom he associates with.
Posted by: Gus | March 14, 2012 at 11:36 AM
NK;
I think Obama is the Jackie Robinson of Politics. Imagine if he had actually behaved like a Marxist radical.
On your litany, he has acted abysmally on Financial Reform of Wall Street because he took 'Team of Rivals" too far.
He exacerbated the dilemma on Wall St by naming some of the chief criminals to the Board. That bent the spine of any real reform and maybe he likes it that way. I don't think he does, but he is a pragmatist first.
Didn't he turn down Public Funding? Pragmatism, squared.
Posted by: Ben Franklin | March 14, 2012 at 11:36 AM
WASHINGTON--While Rick Santorum gets his props for winning the popular votes in Alabama and Mississippi, Mitt Romney won more delegates in the four Tuesday contests than any of his rivals.
After Tuesday votes in Mississippi, Alabama, Hawaii and American Samoa:
DELEGATES WON
41 Romney
35 Santorum
24 Gingrich
1 Paul
source: ABC NEWS.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 14, 2012 at 11:37 AM
The Supreme Court did not say it's OK to kill your baby. It said the states can't outlaw aborting a fetus.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 14, 2012 at 11:39 AM
I am another Jim resigned to pushing Mitt over the finish line in Nov....unless God Almighty sees fit to skew events in a way that opens the door to a different candidate.
A link about redistricting in the state of New York in the LUN
Posted by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA | March 14, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | March 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM
"He's the chief beneficiary of their largesse; he's in bed with them.
That's makes him a slut, right? It makes him a prostitute."
Jeebus, Iggy. Have some coffee.
All politicos are sluts. If it's not over money, it's about their supervoluminous egos.
Posted by: Ben Franklin | March 14, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | March 14, 2012 at 11:46 AM
DoT:
Isn't that just so Romney? Look like you're losing while pulling further ahead.
Posted by: Appalled | March 14, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Well may be that was the commonality between him and Fluke, I wonder when Anita Dunn will tell Zuckman, to bring the hook.
Posted by: narciso | March 14, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Danube! I see you have your lawyer hat on!
Good morning.
Posted by: Gus | March 14, 2012 at 11:50 AM
The Supreme Court did not say it's OK to kill your baby. It said the states can't outlaw aborting a fetus.
That is exactly the same thing.
Posted by: Janet | March 14, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Romney picks up more delegates than anyone else, sure. His problem is that the "weak frontrunner" narrative needed to be punctured and his people were hoping that would be accomplished by an actual victory in the Deep South where it was previously believed he couldn't win. They were also pushing the "Santorum is done, Romney has the momentum" meme.
It didn't work out, so "weak frontrunner" stays for now.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 14, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Janet, Danube is saying that the SUPREME COURT did not make a value judgement, they allow YOU to.
I hope I haven't mischaracterized you DoT
Posted by: Gus | March 14, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Back around this time, three years, they were filing that application to the Olympics, while
General MacChrystal was finding it impossible
to get in touch, after he replaced MacKiernan.
Posted by: narciso | March 14, 2012 at 11:54 AM
If the Supreme Court had ruled that the states can't outlaw murdering one's spouse, I think most people would find "The Supreme Court says it's OK to murder your spouse" to be a fair characterization of that ruling.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 14, 2012 at 11:55 AM
--Jeebus, Iggy. Have some coffee.--
I can't afford it, Ben, and it does seem to help with my ovarian cysts. Could you please provide me with some for free, after all aren't you your brother's keeper? :)
--All politicos are sluts.--
Then call a spade a spade and not an enabler.
And yes that phrase is a dare. :)
Posted by: Ignatz | March 14, 2012 at 11:56 AM
Porchlight? It's just a "fetus" or widget or something.
Posted by: Gus | March 14, 2012 at 11:57 AM
On occasion I remind people that fewer people would take the abortion option if better paths were available to take care of unwanted children.
I would like to see those who would outlaw abortion in the first trimester put a great deal of energy towards encouraging support for unwanted children because surely condemning people to care for unwanted children does not lead to the quality parenting those children deserve.
Posted by: sbw | March 14, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Btw, the Fed is pointing out, 'unexpectedly' their may be some inflation on the way,
Posted by: narciso | March 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM
I think a spade is a type of shovel, Ig :>)
And, yes, coffee is an excellent antioxidant. Those who cannot afford it should have access. Noblesse Oblige is not mandatory, but encouraged.
Posted by: Ben Franklin | March 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM
BenF @ 11:36/11:44-- OK, I would note what you call Barry's pragmatism I call shameless distortion and hiding his Leftist beliefs to trick voters -- but that's just the difference between us. as to your 11:44 stating that all politicos are sluts or egomaniacs- that's what a partisan says to an opponent when their side are proven liars and sluts. But let's accept your premise-- isn't that the definitive case for SMALL/LIMITED government b/c the politicians are self -serving so the bigger the government the bigger the corruption?
Finally, Barry as Jackie R? uh.. no. Jackie R was a patriot who served his country honorably despite official racism at the time, and Jackie R was a free enterprise REPUBLICAN; indeed at the time of his tragic early death from stress driven heart attack, Jackie was a bank president, and resident of North Stamford Connecticut, just down the road from Bill Buckley and Will Simon. Cheers
Posted by: NK | March 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM
"On occasion I remind people that fewer people would take the abortion option if better paths were available to take care of unwanted children."
THIS......
Posted by: Ben Franklin | March 14, 2012 at 12:02 PM
I would like to see those who would outlaw abortion in the first trimester put a great deal of energy towards encouraging support for unwanted children because surely condemning people to care for unwanted children does not lead to the quality parenting those children deserve.
What does "in the first trimester" have to do with the rest of this sentence?
Posted by: Porchlight | March 14, 2012 at 12:03 PM
No, he's no Jackie Robinson, not even a Charles Hamilton Houston, the first editor
of the Harvard Law review (1919,) the premier
legal strategist of desegregation, who passed
aways before Brown v. Board.
Posted by: narciso | March 14, 2012 at 12:05 PM
NK;
You left out a very salient point about JR's role in History.
He was the first black man to enter the white-dominated MLB. He was chosen, not just for his skills on the field, but because he was an even-tempered personality who could take the cat-calls from the bleachers, AND his own dugout without losing his cool. He was the door which opened up the segregated League to more and more persons of color.
Posted by: Ben Franklin | March 14, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Planned Parenthood Director Arrested for Indecent Exposure
Posted by: Extraneus | March 14, 2012 at 12:06 PM
PS: Jackie R? he was a world class athlete excelling at 4 sports at UCLA and ultimately becoming a MLB All-Star at an advanced age. Barry O?-- I'll be charitable and say-- "not so much" JV basketball at fancy pants Panahou School.
Posted by: NK | March 14, 2012 at 12:08 PM
Why the Chu fooferaw, seems kind of fake, after this;
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/52852#comment-562292
Posted by: narciso | March 14, 2012 at 12:09 PM
Porchlight. I think the suggestion is that if you have too many children and cannot afford them that you can kill one of them.
They are such a burden. Just ask Obama.
Posted by: Gus | March 14, 2012 at 12:09 PM
Hey!!! Dave in MA. It's your birthday! I forgot - so I apologize. have a fabulous day!!!
Posted by: Jane | March 14, 2012 at 12:11 PM
And Spencer 'Insider Trading' Bacchus won his primary, it's all a game.
Posted by: narciso | March 14, 2012 at 12:11 PM
'It's just a small country of little consequence, right'
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/03/iran-already-is-at-war-with-us/#comments
Posted by: narciso | March 14, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Porch: What does "in the first trimester" have to do with the rest of this sentence?
Current Supreme Court ruling allows abortion in the first trimester of a pregnancy. Those who wish to close that window can argue ethics, morality, religion, belief, and what all else ... but the real issue is to provide quality of life for unwanted children. We spend precious little effort on that.
Posted by: sbw | March 14, 2012 at 12:17 PM
HB Dave in MA!
Posted by: Extraneus | March 14, 2012 at 12:18 PM