December 16, 2011
— Ace I had a feeling last night. That feeling was, for the first time in a long time, We're not doomed.
Maybe I'm a sell-out or a cheap date or whatever, but I actually found that debate last night to be reassuring. We had five conservatives up there (plus Ron Paul) debating, essentially, whether or not we'd be taking the government to the most rightward point it's been since either the 80s, the 50s, or the 20s.
I thought Perry did well. He's still my pick.
Then again, Newt Gingrich brought up the fact of his 90% lifetime ACU voting record. 90%? Come on, that's not bad. Certainly not enough to get dispirited over.
Sure, 92% would be better. And 93% better still. But... 90% is certainly livable, and not the sort of thing anyone needs to claw the skin off their face over.
In previous cycles you wouldn't have 90% ACU rating people running because they'd be considered too "extreme" to get moderate backing. That's partly why we nominate so many governors, as their "extremism" isn't as well evidenced by a raw number.
I don't know Mitt Romney's real politics -- I'm not sure who does -- but he is basically a conservative guy. Very conservative? No, not very conservative in this environment. But more than likely, as conservative as George W. Bush, and I would guess a fair amount more. I do not expect President Romney to spend, spend, spend like Bush did, for example.
Now, any of these three guys would likely have the whole of the Congress in Republican hands. And not just Republican hands, but rightwing hands. The party has been largely (though not entirely) purged of moderates, and even more entirely purged of liberals. And yes, we used to have those.
The media likes to attack the current Republican Party as "extremist." Let me note this, just this once: Compared to the Republican Party of 10 years ago, or even 3 years ago, it certainly is more "extremist."
We are basically threatening to hang ourselves over the question over whether the next government will be quite rightwing or very rightwing.
Worse case scenario? Let's say it's merely "quite rightwing." The government would be more conservative, overall, than it ever, ever was under Reagan.
Let's have some perspective! It's not all bad!
Posted by: Ace at
10:37 AM
| Comments (365)
Post contains 398 words, total size 2 kb.
I had a feeling last night. That feeling was, for the first time in a long time, We're not doomed.
Glad to see they finally got your meds balanaced right. But we're still doomed.
Posted by: 29Victor at December 16, 2011 10:39 AM (ES9R7)
Posted by: PalinFan at December 16, 2011 10:40 AM (otN9L)
Dems only have the potential of Cuomo and that fat governor of Montana whose name escapes me.
GOP - Rubio, Rand Paul, Christie, Jindal, McDonnell, etc.
We seem more doomed now because of that, but we have much better candidates than we did in 2008 and the Dem nominee is weaker.
We're not totally doomed.
Posted by: The Q at December 16, 2011 10:40 AM (LnQhT)
Posted by: willow at December 16, 2011 10:40 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Dewey at December 16, 2011 10:40 AM (YTJQp)
Posted by: Dr Spank at December 16, 2011 10:41 AM (Sh42X)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 16, 2011 10:41 AM (h6mPj)
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at December 16, 2011 10:41 AM (g9neE)
Posted by: Slublog at December 16, 2011 10:42 AM (0nqdj)
Posted by: ace at December 16, 2011 10:42 AM (nj1bB)
+1
Anyone but SCOAMF
Posted by: CUS at December 16, 2011 10:42 AM (84pE9)
( yes you're doing that here )
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, im Tal der wilden Rosen at December 16, 2011 10:42 AM (UqKQV)
If Paul is the nominee, I'm buying alcohol and ammunition, and moving somewhere where I've got access to water.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at December 16, 2011 10:43 AM (bjRNS)
Posted by: The Robot Devil at December 16, 2011 10:43 AM (136wp)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 16, 2011 10:43 AM (eCnLg)
Posted by: Shiggz - Newt (Warp 6.3) at December 16, 2011 10:43 AM (RfvTE)
Posted by: Dr Spank at December 16, 2011 10:44 AM (Sh42X)
He'd pull more votes from Obama than whoever is the (R) candidate.
Posted by: jwb7605 at December 16, 2011 10:44 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at December 16, 2011 10:44 AM (bjRNS)
Posted by: ace at December 16, 2011 10:44 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: willow-channeling jim carey at December 16, 2011 10:45 AM (h+qn8)
The media likes to attack the current Republican Party as "extremist." Let me note this, just this once: Compared to the Republican Party of 10 years ago, or even 3 years ago, it certainly is more "extremist."
Jesus Christ. The GOP may be "extremist" to the fascistic radicals in the Democrat party and the MFM, but they certainly ARE NOT extremist.
They are simply more moderate-- that is, more in line with the center. The center which is defined as the Constitution.
Posted by: Truman North at December 16, 2011 10:45 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 16, 2011 10:46 AM (h6mPj)
Posted by: willow-channeling jim carey at December 16, 2011 10:46 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Truman North at December 16, 2011 10:46 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: ryukyu at December 16, 2011 10:46 AM (MOHSR)
Posted by: ImaNoid at December 16, 2011 10:46 AM (rc5Tb)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at December 16, 2011 10:46 AM (SB0V2)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 16, 2011 10:46 AM (jucos)
I hate to break it to you: if you're not the most liberal person on the HQ, then you're not a moderate.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at December 16, 2011 10:46 AM (bjRNS)
Face it, if the economy / unemployment picks up even a small bit, we're eff'd.
All the Dems gotta do is keep it close. IF Perry or Gingrich get the nomination we're hosed. At least Romeny may have a shot at beating obama. Perry or Gingrich fer get it. Dems keep it close, then all they gotta do is do bit of election illegality and they are in...
Posted by: newguy at December 16, 2011 10:47 AM (kduZC)
Is, for example, Paul Ryan's reform plan conservative?
To me it is a conservative plan to sustain a socialist policy.
Posted by: soothsayer at December 16, 2011 10:47 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: ace at December 16, 2011 10:47 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: tasker at December 16, 2011 10:48 AM (r2PLg)
Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Posted by: lorien1973 at December 16, 2011 10:48 AM (usXZy)
Posted by: blaster at December 16, 2011 10:48 AM (7vSU0)
BWA-HA-HA-Ha...
Posted by: mallfly at December 16, 2011 10:49 AM (bJm7W)
Obama has tried all the big government solutions, there's nothing left but conservatism.
Posted by: Dr Spank at December 16, 2011 10:49 AM (Sh42X)
If I want to hang myself, very erotically, do let me!
Posted by: David Carradine at December 16, 2011 10:49 AM (usXZy)
Posted by: Paul Zummo at December 16, 2011 10:49 AM (IGkEP)
Posted by: tasker at December 16, 2011 10:49 AM (r2PLg)
Bearing in mind that I consider myself to be a pretty pragmatic voter, I don't think that's an accurate portrayal.
Posted by: Y-not at December 16, 2011 10:49 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: BumperStickerPlover at December 16, 2011 10:49 AM (h6mPj)
Posted by: robtr at December 16, 2011 10:49 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: willow-channeling jim carey at December 16, 2011 10:50 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 16, 2011 10:50 AM (+lsX1)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 16, 2011 10:50 AM (eCnLg)
*Ahem!!! We're not dead yet there Mr. Man!!!
Posted by: Snowe/Collins WTF? Consortium at December 16, 2011 10:50 AM (OrvHG)
What I mean is that what we'll get out of our "right wing" government after '12 is a conservative's approach to sustaining a lot of unsustainable socialist programs.
Posted by: soothsayer at December 16, 2011 10:50 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: ace at December 16, 2011 10:50 AM (nj1bB)
I had a feeling last night. That feeling was, for the first time in a long time, We're not doomed.
Arrrrghh! Nooooo! You don't say it out loud!
Great, now Gojira is going to eat us and I bet there won't even be Mothra babes.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 16, 2011 10:51 AM (VtjlW)
Doing this will be tremendously unpopular. It may even cut the president's term short. But it has to be done.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 16, 2011 10:51 AM (FkKjr)
Paul is the nominee, will you do the same? You've suggested that you won't.
Paul won't be. Any chance he had in Iowa died last night.
He's always bad on foreign policy, but last night was the worst he's ever been.
It's almost as thought Bret Baeir intentionally tried to end his candidacy.
Also, Ron Paul just said he doesn't think he has it in him to run for the long haul.
If anyone is going to go third party then it's Gary Johnson. I think that should be worrisome. He'll be the first legitimate Libertarian candidate for President in ever. I could easily see him gettting 0.5% or 1% nationally. That may not sound like much, but I think there will be states that we win or lose by 5,000-50,000 votes.
Posted by: Ben at December 16, 2011 10:51 AM (wuv1c)
Whoah, according the The National Journal Obama is fucked, this poll is devestating.
According to my own eyes and ears Obama is fucked...this was never in doubt.
Posted by: Portnoy at December 16, 2011 10:52 AM (OrvHG)
Let's have some perspective! It's not all bad!
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Posted by: Maximus at December 16, 2011 10:52 AM (9hSKh)
the future is full of fears because it's all unknown.
Prediction is very hard, especially about the future.
Yogi
Posted by: robtr at December 16, 2011 10:52 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Dave at December 16, 2011 10:52 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: tasker at December 16, 2011 10:52 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: willow-channeling jim carey at December 16, 2011 10:52 AM (h+qn8)
You're warming up to letting it wither on the vine?
(that one will get a lot of air time if Newt gets the nod)
Posted by: jwb7605 at December 16, 2011 10:53 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: An Observation at December 16, 2011 10:53 AM (ylhEn)
No, no, no, you are doing it wrong, not across the tracks you slit down the tracks!!
Posted by: Penfold at December 16, 2011 10:54 AM (1PeEC)
Posted by: United Nations at December 16, 2011 10:54 AM (84pE9)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at December 16, 2011 10:54 AM (21lBC)
I'm in Anybody but Obama* camp. My real problem with Willard is that I just don't know what the f*ck he really believes. Romney has repeatedly changed positions to the point that the Kuma Sutra has nothing on him. Don't get me wrong, I think we can reaccess previously held positions based on knew information. It's just that Romney panders to his audience to an excess degree.
That being said, if Romeys gets the nomination, I will vote for him. He certainly won't be as disasterous for the country as the SCOAMF.
* except for the crazy, anti-Semetic (but he won't get the R nomination anyway)
Posted by: Retired Buckeye Cop at December 16, 2011 10:54 AM (M0NzJ)
Posted by: True Republican Believer at December 16, 2011 10:54 AM (h6mPj)
Huntsman is not the most liberal of the candidates. He may be the least willing to attack Obama, but he's not the most liberal.
Posted by: Y-not at December 16, 2011 10:54 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Michael Palin at December 16, 2011 10:54 AM (O6q63)
Posted by: willow-channeling jim carey at December 16, 2011 10:55 AM (h+qn8)
Yes. Incrementalism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
Posted by: Dewey at December 16, 2011 10:55 AM (YTJQp)
Posted by: AD at December 16, 2011 10:55 AM (Dc+6c)
Bennett was essentially ousted for a single vote (TARP I). One statement is enough for a purge these days, too.
Posted by: Adjoran at December 16, 2011 10:55 AM (VfmLu)
Posted by: Fabius at December 16, 2011 10:55 AM (A3VDA)
Posted by: Ian S. at December 16, 2011 10:55 AM (tqwMN)
So, the republican reaction to Obama increasing government to unbelievable proportions is "hey, we won't grow it any further"
This is exactly why I hate Romney - forget every other reason to hate him. If we've learned anything from Obama, it's to go big early (Obamacare) and deal with the ramifications later. Romney won't go big. He'll maintain. Newt (maybe Perry if he would stop drooling for a minute), I can imagine going big.
Thus, Romney sucks.
Posted by: David Carradine at December 16, 2011 10:56 AM (usXZy)
Ace is obviously in that glowy refractory period after getting a quality piece of tail . Or he's drunk on schnapps. Whatever.
Wipe that thing on the curtains, shake it off, and get back on the DoomWagon.
Posted by: jaws at December 16, 2011 10:56 AM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: Henckels Corp at December 16, 2011 10:57 AM (h6mPj)
Oh and Obama is a Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable failure. in case your not a master of the obvious.
Posted by: Iblis at December 16, 2011 10:57 AM (hLGVM)
Posted by: Bob Saget at December 16, 2011 10:57 AM (SDkq3)
FIFY.
Posted by: Ian S. at December 16, 2011 10:57 AM (tqwMN)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 16, 2011 10:58 AM (8y9MW)
Sorry hun, Santorum sandbags himself.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 16, 2011 10:58 AM (qVUxp)
Looking at Ron Paul's campaign contributions I noticed a lot of them, particularly from the military, end in multiples of $.20. I know why. Paul supporters, and they may be military, set up web donation accounts. They hit all their friends for money to that account. It gets submitted to the Ron Paul Campaign.
They also advocate setting Associated Content accounts where all the click to view payments are sent to the Ron Paul campaign. Then you email your Ronulan list, they all hit the article and Yahoo or Google pays out accordingly. More to come.
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at December 16, 2011 10:59 AM (DjKAG)
That is exactly how I came away from those debates last night.
Rush said pretty much the same in his first hour as well.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 16, 2011 10:59 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 16, 2011 10:59 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Barky McPotus at December 16, 2011 11:00 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Barry Bonds at December 16, 2011 11:01 AM (jucos)
Posted by: runninrebel at December 16, 2011 11:01 AM (YY80V)
ACU presumes all votes are the same. A vote for TARP and 10 meaningless votes about abortion bills that never go anywhere is not a -real- 90% lifetime conservative rating.
Posted by: lorien1973 at December 16, 2011 11:01 AM (usXZy)
We've been wringing our hands long enough. Obama is fucking cooked.
I could vote for any one of these boogerheads (except Paul).
And I will.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 16, 2011 11:01 AM (PjVdx)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 16, 2011 11:01 AM (l9zgN)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 16, 2011 11:01 AM (FKQng)
Just got back. Wow, Ace. Did you get laid last night or something? I haven't seen you this optomistic since....since....a long time, that's for sure.
Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2011 11:02 AM (R4oqL)
Posted by: willow at December 16, 2011 11:02 AM (h+qn8)
I disagree with one thing: I think Romney is less conservative than Bush. But more importantly, <i>I just do not trust him.</i> I don't know what it is exactly. Part of it's his demeanor. I get the sense that he's in this for Mitt Romney, not for me or anyone else.
If Perry's still in by the time Colorado's caucus finally rolls around, I'll vote for him. I'm not optimistic. I have a lukewarm enthusiasm for Gingrich. I recognize his many flaws, but so far he's conservative enough for me. I guess I also like his quick wit and bold style. Personality matters in Presidential elections--an area where both Romney and Perry are lacking. I'll vote for him without too many misgivings.
I'm sick to death of "moderate" Republicans, which is why I'll likely abstain from voting for the first time in my life rather than vote for Romney.
Biggest frustration is WTF happened to the momentum of the 2010 elections? Why is this all we're given to choose from?
Posted by: amosjo at December 16, 2011 11:02 AM (U4XOm)
Posted by: ace at December 16, 2011 11:02 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Dave at December 16, 2011 11:03 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: tasker at December 16, 2011 11:03 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: ace at December 16, 2011 11:03 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: taylork at December 16, 2011 11:03 AM (5wsU9)
If we've learned anything from Obama, it's to go big early (Obamacare) and deal with the ramifications later.
Precisely the wrong lesson to learn from the health care debacle. Obama is on track to becoming a one term Prez due to his myopic and maniacal pursuit of government involvement in health care in a time of recession. No politician in recent American history so willfully burned so much goodwill over such a foolish decision. The Democratic Party is never going to recover in many areas of the country from such a foolish decision. We should not seek to do something so stupid when we get in power.
Posted by: Chris P at December 16, 2011 11:04 AM (LuvqF)
Well crap what am I gonna do with all this ammo and dried food? I was gonna be a king in the Mad Max scenario.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at December 16, 2011 11:04 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: ace at December 16, 2011 11:04 AM (nj1bB)
I trust Huntsman, mainly because he puts his douchebagginess on display for everyone to see. He doesn't even try to hide it.
Posted by: lorien1973 at December 16, 2011 11:04 AM (usXZy)
Posted by: RushBabe at December 16, 2011 11:05 AM (tQHzJ)
Posted by: jjshaka at December 16, 2011 11:05 AM (QG7EQ)
Posted by: Dave at December 16, 2011 11:05 AM (Xm1aB)
so alextopia is out?
Alextopia is never out. Admission will just become even more highly selective.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 16, 2011 11:05 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 16, 2011 11:06 AM (eCnLg)
Posted by: DaveA at December 16, 2011 11:06 AM (nPNjl)
Anyone see the yahoo article about gingrich's ex and an arms smuggler?
Gingrich's ex works for Holder?
Posted by: alexthechick at December 16, 2011 11:06 AM (VtjlW)
Well, it's a "beckoning chasm" kind of thing. Previously, we told ourselves that we had time to fix things. "Oh, well, we didn't grow as much as the Dems wanted, so that's a win!" Now, we don't have that luxury. The thrust needs to be put into full reverse for an emergency stop.
So the argument isn't "quite right-wing" vs "very right-wing." The argument is between those who are content with tapping the breaks, and those who want to slam on them, throw the e-brake, and kill the transmission.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 16, 2011 11:07 AM (8y9MW)
Having a more conservative group of people managing our decline is something to be grateful for, if you compare it to the alternative. But we are still doomed.
Posted by: Miss'80s at December 16, 2011 11:07 AM (d6QMz)
Outcome One: Someone gets the job in the White House who will govern largely as a conservative, and the country gets better. That's a win.
Outcome Two: Soetero gets re-elected or steals the vote through ACORNesque machinations, or we elect someone else from our side who plays conservative in the primary and then caves. The nation dives off the cliff and we get a do-over, or it comes to active rebellion and armed resistance. We win that one.
I'd prefer the first, or course, but I still have my bug-out bag prepared. Just in case.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 16, 2011 11:07 AM (Jdtsu)
If all you care about is winning second terms, that is true.
However, Obama has passed a massive bill which stands a good chance of never being repealed.
Unless the GOP is willing to sacrifice seats and the white house to undo it, we aren't getting rid of it.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 16, 2011 11:07 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: Seth at December 16, 2011 11:08 AM (e6MoS)
Posted by: tasker at December 16, 2011 11:08 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 16, 2011 11:08 AM (dp+c+)
Posted by: Chris P at December 16, 2011 03:04 PM (LuvqF)
Why not? You wanna spend the next 30 years arguing about it on the margins? While the fundamental relationship between the governed and the government is altered? I don't.
I'd much rather have a guy who will go big and blow it up - sure, maybe lose the next cycle - than have it sit like noose around our necks.
Remember what the GOP is spending its life doing right now. Defending f'in medicare. Really? This is what the party of small government has come to.
If that's what you want; there is really no sense in electing a republican at all. Constant retreat is a way to win a war.
At some point, you have to be aggressive. 2010 set the stage, coup de gras in 2012. Why back off when there is no need to. Our argument is winning.
Posted by: lorien1973 at December 16, 2011 11:08 AM (usXZy)
Posted by: Village Idiot at December 16, 2011 11:08 AM (utXSy)
Posted by: willow at December 16, 2011 11:08 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: MSNBC editors desk at December 16, 2011 11:09 AM (Mrdk1)
Posted by: Dave at December 16, 2011 11:09 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: tasker at December 16, 2011 11:09 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: willow at December 16, 2011 11:09 AM (h+qn8)
Dammit to hell if someone doesn't agree 100% with everything I say and think I can't, won't, don't, wouldn't, shouldn't, ever, never, not, won't ever support him as a candidate. Never, chumps. I repeat: no way in hell.
Starving to death is better than settling for 99% of a loaf of bread. I'd rather die than to compromise even one single eye-o-ta.
None of these RINO pukes running this year are pure enough to get my vote, save of course for the Dr. Herman Cain, except the RINO punk establishment was too scared to have him be our champion. Without Dr. Cain and without the St. Sarah Palin there's no way in hell that I'll support the Republican ticket. With this crop of cabbages we'll just be losing slower.
I'll be voting for Obama next year. To send my messages and to prove my points.
Palin-Angle-O'Donnell, '16.
Posted by: Totally Irrational Political Malcontent at December 16, 2011 11:10 AM (f8XyF)
Posted by: Joffen at December 16, 2011 11:11 AM (zLeKL)
The problem is that on a number of fronts we are at a critical point, and need immediate conservative change - discretionary spending, entitlements, public union busting, health care, environmental law, "international law", illegal immigration, etc.
Neither of the two front runners are likely to do better then attempted to moderate the changes Obama has brought, when we need someone who will seriously attempt to get rid of whole federal departments.
And I'm not talking about just saying the right words, but really fighting for these sort of changes, because the Left, the federal bureaucracy, and the state media will all fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo.
We can't wait until 2020 to start fixing things, and a President Romney or Gingrinch means exactly that.
Posted by: Kermit Gosnell at December 16, 2011 11:11 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at December 16, 2011 11:11 AM (DuH+r)
Are you sure that's a good thing? "Remember when we had a functional government, before those evil Republicans got elected and ruined everything..."
Don't underestimate the stupidity of John Q. Public.
Posted by: Lone Marauder, pre-denounced for your convenience at December 16, 2011 11:11 AM (mt49B)
Obama is polling well with the serial killer SIG (Special Interest Group) - he can pretty much count on the Jerad Loughner vote - but everything else has degraded badly - even his once solid cannibal SIG seems to have lost the taste for his policies.
Support for Obama in the critical Non Brain Dead SIG is down to .0001% - the lowest number for his presidency - and is generally at the level of "Oh, sorry, I misunderstood the question".
Posted by: An Observation at December 16, 2011 11:11 AM (ylhEn)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 16, 2011 11:12 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Followers of Thulsa Doom at December 16, 2011 11:12 AM (p5NB6)
Oh, please. We both know the Illuminati would take him out on Day 1.
Or have their reptile minions do it for them. Same diff.
Posted by: Phinn at December 16, 2011 11:13 AM (KNtHw)
Posted by: Jake Was Here at December 16, 2011 11:13 AM (heSoF)
You would let me in. You like me.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 16, 2011 03:08 PM (PjVdx)
Why, yes, yes, I do. Besides I need someone in there who is worse at fantasy football than me.
alex, I'll even keep your boots warm when you sleep. and remember i make great Tea.
Posted by: willow at December 16, 2011 03:09 PM (h+qn
You have no worries my sweet. I shall even allow you to sit near to the throne.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 16, 2011 11:13 AM (VtjlW)
You, sir, are a RINO.
The only acceptable person to receive the nomination is Conservito Conservatar from the planet Puriton Republicomion 6 at most remote tip of the Andromeda galaxy's right wing. Only Conservatar, who traveled through the depths of space in an embrioc state to be born in America 35+ years ago, has the true conservative values that I can support. The others can only lead our Republic to socialism and destruction.
Posted by: FireHorse at December 16, 2011 11:13 AM (/66q8)
Posted by: jjshaka at December 16, 2011 11:14 AM (QG7EQ)
Posted by: Lincolntf at December 16, 2011 11:14 AM (Qjh0I)
You misinterpreted what I said (that might be my fault for not being so clear)
I am criticizing Obama's pursuit of the Great White Whale of American Liberalism, which is socialized health care, above even his purely selfish reeelection chances. It will be popular to repeal Obamacare. I associate myself with Dave's comment above, Republicans would be destroyed if they didn't repeal Obamacare.
Posted by: Chris P at December 16, 2011 11:14 AM (LuvqF)
I thought Perry did well. He's still my pick. [Ace]
Yay! Steady as we go, fellow diehard.
And I don't think that Romney or Gingrich would be bad presidents. .....I just don't think we would get the chance to find out. ....They are both seriously lacking in the charisma department.
They are also millionaires. ....You know, those evil rich guys that Obama has been demonizing?
Posted by: wheatie......aka ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at December 16, 2011 11:14 AM (HvKWW)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 16, 2011 11:15 AM (vzFJV)
Face up to the facts. Perry - fork - some assembly required. He did it to himself in the early debates. If he had a chance the long knives would be out for him.
It's a shame; he's my favorite, too. But I'm not delusional. He'll have dropped out by the time of the PA primaries so I'll never have a chance to vote for him.
Meanwhile, the entire GOP machine (aided and abetted by the MFM) is ripping Newt a new asshole while anointing Romney.
Crazy Ron Paul is bound to win some caucus or another because that's what his fanboys do best, but It's gonna be Romney.
Reality sucks.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at December 16, 2011 11:15 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Joffen at December 16, 2011 11:15 AM (zLeKL)
If Romney runs, they'll discuss the merits of a mandate and whether it works better at a federal or state level.
Posted by: lorien1973 at December 16, 2011 11:15 AM (usXZy)
Unless the GOP is willing to sacrifice seats and the white house to undo it, we aren't getting rid of it.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 16, 2011 03:07 PM (FkKjr)
This is where the businesses and the American public step in. Ocare will be repealed. Don't underestimate the power of public opinion. Politicians will be especially tuned to it after this next election.
Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2011 11:15 AM (R4oqL)
Remember what Bush did to McCain just before the vote in the SC primary in 2000 - Robo-calls accusing McCain of something (can't remember exactly what) that swung the state to Bush. After that, I knew Bush would do whatever it took to win.
We're in the same situation now - we can't afford to lose and I want a candidate who will do anything - and I mean Anything to win. That's all that matters.
Posted by: Racist, Right-Wing Terrorist...or Tea Party Member for Short at December 16, 2011 11:16 AM (F1JEL)
President Romney
Majorty Leader McConnell
Speaker of the House Boehner
Yep, quite the Triumvirate....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 16, 2011 11:16 AM (3wBRE)
Posted by: Lincolntf at December 16, 2011 03:14 PM (Qjh0I)
Wut? You think Newt is going to contrast social issues with a man whose only thing going for him is that he has a nice stable family?
I don't really think so.
Posted by: robtr at December 16, 2011 11:17 AM (MtwBb)
Humm. Well, Ace, that is a more cheerful outlook than we have had. Mebbe your right.
NOW, Y'ALL PUT THEM STRAIGHT RAZORS AWAY! Y'ALL HEAH? PUT 'EM AWAY (at least for the time being).
Posted by: maddogg at December 16, 2011 11:17 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Wall-E at December 16, 2011 11:17 AM (48wze)
Posted by: purity at December 16, 2011 11:18 AM (puG5p)
Reality sucks.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at December 16, 2011 03:15 PM (7+pP9)
Mitt Romney will not be the repub nominee.
Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2011 11:18 AM (R4oqL)
Majorty Leader McConnell
Speaker of the House Boehner
Picture me having an aneurysm after reading that.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at December 16, 2011 11:18 AM (JxMoP)
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 16, 2011 11:18 AM (Hx5uv)
President Romney
Majorty Leader McConnell
Speaker of the House Boehner
Yep, quite the Triumvirate....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 16, 2011 03:16 PM (3wBRE)
That's why I'm already drinking.Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at December 16, 2011 11:19 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: The Glass at December 16, 2011 11:19 AM (Xm1aB)
Then Bob Dole is your man!
Posted by: Bob Dole! at December 16, 2011 11:19 AM (qVUxp)
Obamacare will be repealed/waived for all no matter who wins. MA will still get to choose their method of dealing with the uninsured just like every other State. The Supreme Court might save them all the trouble.
Posted by: Lincolntf at December 16, 2011 11:19 AM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: maddogg at December 16, 2011 11:19 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Dave at December 16, 2011 11:20 AM (Xm1aB)
You're confusing the morons.. We needs us some slash n' burn, scorched earth wurds to chew on.
Otherwise, we'll take our bidness over at HotGas or MM.
Posted by: franksalterego at December 16, 2011 11:20 AM (9XykO)
Posted by: Wall-E at December 16, 2011 11:20 AM (48wze)
Poorly build strawmen aren't OSHA compliant.
No, it's more like whomever (Romney) won't even make the effort to dismantle the newest part of it isn't worth nominating when there are candidates who will do it. Those who have shown no ability to control the size of government (Romney) shouldn't be in office when the goal (which most people agree with!) is to shrink the size of government.
Complete dismantling in 4 years? Of course not. But a start on moving people off it would be a good start. Where has Romney shown that he's willing to fight for something like that.
Posted by: lorien1973 at December 16, 2011 11:20 AM (usXZy)
Posted by: Seth at December 16, 2011 11:20 AM (e6MoS)
As long as they come without folderol, shenanigans, hornswaggling and bamboozling, it's all good.
Posted by: Phinn at December 16, 2011 11:20 AM (KNtHw)
Posted by: Nunya Bizness at December 16, 2011 11:20 AM (UHqaf)
Posted by: Honestly at December 16, 2011 11:20 AM (p5NB6)
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at December 16, 2011 03:19 PM (7+pP9)
And why I might take it up...
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 16, 2011 11:21 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 16, 2011 11:21 AM (eCnLg)
Once there's a viable conservative replacement.
If we just primary the shit out of them, then we will be Christine O'Donnell'ed and we'll end up with some lib moonbat voting to grant amnesty and taxpayer-funded abortions to gay illegal transvestites, or something.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 16, 2011 11:21 AM (qVUxp)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 16, 2011 03:15 PM (vzFJV)
Don't forget those crazy magic shows.
Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2011 11:21 AM (R4oqL)
"You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate."
That's what we are doing, negotiating for what we individuallythink is the most conservative and electable candidate. Sometimes, negotiating gets a little ugly but in this case I think it's all healthy.
I'd take any of these folks over Obama, who by the way is a Stuttering Clusterf*ck of a Miserable Failure.
(No, not Ron Paul)
Posted by: West at December 16, 2011 11:21 AM (1Rgee)
Obviously not "family values", Newt's got nothing there.
Posted by: Lincolntf at December 16, 2011 11:21 AM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 16, 2011 11:22 AM (FKQng)
How conservative would Perry, Newt or Mitt be if elected? We'll never know if they lose the general, and none of our candidates are anywhere close to being a sure thing. Whoever gets nominated starts off as an underdog- the odds are against us, not for us.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2011 11:22 AM (SY2Kh)
You now who else was running a 90% ACU? Lindsay Graham. You ave to take those ratings with a grain and apply other factors. Newt is more conservative than Romney. He got + on 1, N on 2 and F on 3 of the 6 ratings I did. Romney got F on 6 of 6.
Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2011 11:22 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Joffen at December 16, 2011 11:23 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Dave at December 16, 2011 11:23 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: ace at December 16, 2011 11:23 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at December 16, 2011 11:23 AM (s+J9D)
As long as they come without folderol, shenanigans, hornswaggling and bamboozling, it's all good.
Posted by: Phinn at December 16, 2011 03:20 PM (KNtHw)
---
And don't forget Brohaahaa's and Hullaballoos.........and Hodowns.
Posted by: Racist, Right-Wing Terrorist...or Tea Party Member for Short at December 16, 2011 11:24 AM (F1JEL)
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at December 16, 2011 11:24 AM (w41GQ)
Posted by: Wall-E at December 16, 2011 11:24 AM (48wze)
Posted by: Steve White at December 16, 2011 11:24 AM (5OLJF)
I hope we get a zany president. America could use some capers, hijinx, kneeslappers and hootenannies.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 16, 2011 03:15 PM (vzFJV)
Don't forget those crazy magic shows.
Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2011 03:21 PM (R4oqL)
We already have a medicine show full of snake oil salesmen.Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at December 16, 2011 11:24 AM (7+pP9)
She's as toxic as the glue on those fake Tammy Faye Baker eyelashes from last night.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 16, 2011 11:25 AM (pLTLS)
Romney totally fights dirty.
I'm less concerned about "dirty" and more concerned about "effective." And I've seen no evidence that Romney fights "effective" beyond sticking the shiv into Conservatives.
He certainly didn't win any major victories in MA, though he did manage to achieve a glorious defeat, or two.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 16, 2011 11:25 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 16, 2011 03:21 PM (qVUxp)
Waaalll, I just polled Mr. Winkie and he said he's all up (so to speak) to get Christine ODonnelled. You think he has a shot at her primary?
Posted by: maddogg at December 16, 2011 11:25 AM (OlN4e)
We knew you would see it our way.
Now step this way to receive your implants.
Posted by: The Mittens Collective at December 16, 2011 11:25 AM (qVUxp)
Posted by: Fortunata at December 16, 2011 11:26 AM (90H1N)
He tried to go a little conservative, took a couple of defeats and went completely into the tank- just killed the GOP here.
Mitts got that "I need to please everyone" vibe.
Posted by: jjshaka at December 16, 2011 03:14 PM (QG7EQ)
The fact that we had to dig Arnold up to run him for Governor is proof that the CA GOP has been a corpse for 15 years now.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 16, 2011 11:26 AM (z1N6a)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at December 16, 2011 11:27 AM (s+J9D)
Posted by: purity at December 16, 2011 11:27 AM (CX3Q4)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 16, 2011 11:27 AM (eCnLg)
188....Posted by: The Mittens Collective
We will eat you. Starting with your ears.
We don't like Mitt Romney. He tied one of our brother canines to the roof of his family stationwagon and drove that way for hundreds of miles.
Then he turned the hose on him for soiling the car!
Posted by: The Yorkie World Domination Federation at December 16, 2011 11:27 AM (HvKWW)
Posted by: TSUGambler at December 16, 2011 11:27 AM (fQjba)
As for Ron Paul, he is the "one of these things is not like the other" guy that they make kid songs about. Still vote for him over the fascist, though.
Posted by: tubal at December 16, 2011 11:28 AM (BoE3Z)
Posted by: The Yorkie World Domination Federation at December 16, 2011 03:27 PM (HvKWW)
Members of your species puzzle and confuse us. Why do you not submit to the obvious superiority of the Mittens?
Posted by: The Mittens Collective at December 16, 2011 11:28 AM (qVUxp)
Posted by: mpfs at December 16, 2011 11:28 AM (+0JtR)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 16, 2011 11:28 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: Alabaster Jones at December 16, 2011 11:29 AM (v0Vnz)
President Romney
Majorty Leader McConnell
Speaker of the House Boehner
Great. You just made me chip a tooth on the shotgun barrel I have crammed in my piehole. Thanks a pantload.
Posted by: jaws at December 16, 2011 11:29 AM (4I3Uo)
After all, it can't be bad to be 90% cancer free, right? Sure, 92 or 93 would be better; 100 the best.
But 90% isn't bad!
Posted by: gimley at December 16, 2011 11:29 AM (ubduJ)
Romney totally fights dirty.
In the words of dean wormer he's a sneaky little shit, like neidermeyer.
Posted by: ace at December 16, 2011 03:23 PM (nj1bB)
---
If true, then OK. But, I wonder why all the Reps and Senators seem to hate Newt. I'm guessing it's because the guy is a real asshat. That's what I want - someone in the WhiteHouse that will say No and be plain-spoken while doing it. I realize the only drawback with someone like that is - likability. People will have to like the guy to vote for him. That's my only real concern - his electability.
Posted by: Racist, Right-Wing Terrorist...or Tea Party Member for Short at December 16, 2011 11:29 AM (F1JEL)
Posted by: ace at December 16, 2011 11:29 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 16, 2011 11:29 AM (eCnLg)
so 3 f's are better than 6......that's reassuring..........
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at December 16, 2011 03:23 PM (s+J9D)
Yeah, isn't it though. I have been saying all along he is not much better than Romney who is borderline, if not full DIABLO, based on his actual record.
Bachmann is much better if you throw out the pecan tree full of nuttyness she carries.
Even Ron Paul is better if you throw out the foreign policy, drugs, and Jew hate.
Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2011 11:30 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2011 03:22 PM (SY2Kh)
Donnie Osmond could win against the SCOAMF.
I saw something strange this weekend. I was listening to a comedian with a liberal crowd that lived in a liberal city and he asks: "Who in here likes Barak Obama"? Out of around 300 people, no more than five people raised their hands.
Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2011 11:30 AM (R4oqL)
Posted by: Joffen at December 16, 2011 11:30 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: ace at December 16, 2011 11:30 AM (nj1bB)
That's some good perspective, there. I approve.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 16, 2011 11:30 AM (8y9MW)
It'll be over by the time of the California primary, so no harm in writting in Sarah Palin. But if I were voting in a state that had a say, I'd vote for Perry.
Posted by: Nr. Natural at December 16, 2011 11:31 AM (vza7I)
There can be no objection.
Resistance is futile.
Posted by: The Mittens Collective at December 16, 2011 11:31 AM (qVUxp)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at December 16, 2011 11:31 AM (s+J9D)
Posted by: tasker at December 16, 2011 11:31 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: The Yorkie World Domination Federation at December 16, 2011 03:27 PM (HvKWW)
Members of your species puzzle and confuse us. Why do you not submit to the obvious superiority of the Mittens?
Posted by: The Mittens Collective at December 16, 2011 03:28 PM (qVUxp)
Don't listen to the Yorkies. They sniff each other's butts.
Posted by: Feline Liberation Army at December 16, 2011 11:32 AM (Hx5uv)
France and Canada - Harper has been calling for harsh sanctions against the Assad regime for some time now.
This world is completely f'ed up.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 16, 2011 11:32 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: tasker at December 16, 2011 11:32 AM (r2PLg)
That's it! All of us in late-voting states (really, anything after Super Tuesday) should trade our votes with people in early voting states. CTJ- if you'll vote for Perry in Illinois, I promise I'll vote for Mittens in Texas.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 16, 2011 11:33 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: tasker at December 16, 2011 11:33 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: The Q at December 16, 2011 11:34 AM (LnQhT)
You think? I wish I shared your confidence.
I think he'll go for a woman or a minority to pander balance the ticket. And of course some Tea Party credibility would help bridge the lack of enthusiasm.
Someone else in 2008 was an improbability too - what was her name again? Huh, well it's escaped me but I'm sure I'll think of it....
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 16, 2011 11:34 AM (pLTLS)
Oh I knew it was, that's why I said "isn't it though". That was sarc as well.
Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2011 11:34 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: The Yorkie World Domination Federation at December 16, 2011 03:27 PM (HvKWW)
Members of your species puzzle and confuse us. Why do you not submit to the obvious superiority of the Mittens?
Posted by: The Mittens Collective
---------
Because. We will eat your ears off. That's why.
Mitt Romney sucks!
Moldova sucks. But Mitt Romney sucks more!
Posted by: The Yorkie World Domination Federation at December 16, 2011 11:34 AM (HvKWW)
Posted by: RioBravo at December 16, 2011 11:35 AM (eEfYn)
Ok there's something Romney said last night that is bugging me. It had to do with his answer on gay marriage in Massachussetts. Now I honestly don't know what he believes despite his claims that he is against gay marriage, because I bet in a meeting with the Log Cabins and GOProud he would definitely be touting how gay marriage was legalized in his state under him.
And I don't know if this has been mentioned today but I didn't see it last night, didn't he essentially say that the State Supreme Court said the state constitution requires gay marriage to be legal, and Mitt rolled over for them like the good little bitch that he is. Where was the standing up for your supposed values? Where was you effort to encourage a constitutional amendment to tell the Supreme Court to go pound sand? Did you do anything besides forward another liberal agenda? Is there any liberal pet project this man will not submit to? I know Perry has a spine because he needed back surgery. Does Mitt?
Posted by: buzzion at December 16, 2011 11:35 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: tasker at December 16, 2011 11:35 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: ace at December 16, 2011 03:29 PM (nj1bB)
Nobody would take that chance. I can't imagine anyone waiting for the next tardisil comment to come flying out of her mouth.
Posted by: robtr at December 16, 2011 11:35 AM (MtwBb)
Just came in from getting the mail...glad to see my Health Insurance Premiums are still going up.
Thanks, SCoaMF!
Posted by: garrett at December 16, 2011 11:35 AM (RWA3/)
FML stock market...poof goes the Xmas money.
IRT the green card, the eVerify system is designed to fast-track the job acceptance process. Passport, SS card, driver's license, etc. are all cross-checked when an employee starts the job. Am not sure what other level of verification is required, as we all know that illegal immigrants are here to work and not utilize our social services.
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at December 16, 2011 11:36 AM (Ec6wH)
Actually I think it's because he is disorganized and has no management skills and often surprised his *conservative* wing by making centrist deals without even telling them beforehand.
Posted by: ace at December 16, 2011 03:30 PM (nj1bB)
---
And we wouldn't have that problem with Romney? I think we would see Romney trying to make centrist deals. Assuming it's a two-man race at this point (Romney/Newt) and I think it is, we're going to have that problem whichever one wins. The point is - we have to win. And trust to the Tea Party House members to kill any centrist deals before they get off the ground. They've been fairly good at that so far.
Posted by: Racist, Right-Wing Terrorist...or Tea Party Member for Short at December 16, 2011 11:37 AM (F1JEL)
Wrong. Dangerously, completely, absolutely wrong.
Obama is going to start with a massive amount of money and strong organization. He's also someone the general public (for whatever the reason) finds personally likeable- and that's an advantage that would be difficult to overstate. He'll also have unquestioned backing from the MSM, despite having shit on them more than once.
Know how much impact the debates (there will probably be two at best) will have? Diddly and squat. Most people don't watch, and of those who do, delivery matters more than content.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2011 11:37 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: buzzion at December 16, 2011 03:35 PM (GULKT)
I thought he did a pretty good job of answering that charge as false. You may want to watch it again.
Posted by: robtr at December 16, 2011 11:37 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Joffen at December 16, 2011 11:38 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Dave at December 16, 2011 11:38 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 16, 2011 11:38 AM (jucos)
Do you know anything about the isotope sodium 22?
The Ruskies caught some raghead trying to smuggle some and the "experts" at Fox news say it has absolutely no weapons potential.
All I know is that there's lots of exotic isotopes that can be used as neutron moderators, tampers and all sorts of other things in nuclear weapons.
So do you know anything about 22Na?
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at December 16, 2011 11:38 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 16, 2011 11:38 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2011 11:38 AM (YdQQY)
[all links removed]
Subject: We don't fight alone
[redacted], this diary from Daily Kos community member Onomastic is a perfect example of why I love our community:
A year ago, someone bought me a life time subscription. It was an
amazing gift. Like so many others, we had been struggling to keep food
on the table, and pay the bills. Extra monies for a subscription, while
we were helping keep grand babies and adult children going, was just not
in the cards. And that was a problem.
Ever heard of an E-Machine? Yep. I was using a 2000 E-Machine with an
operating system that was having increasing problems. It did not like
the advertisements. It didn't like much actually, and was prone to
throwing me off the site without warning. Imagine, if you will, being in
the midst of a political or policy debate, researching like mad to
buttress your points, and suddenly losing it all. Or if not, finally
posting only to discover that everyone you were conversing with had
moved on. That poor, tired, almost eleven year old machine, took forever
to load a page. And dk4 shut it down completely.
Yep, I was very familiar with the "blue screen of death." It was obvious
that I could not do the work I wanted to do. And it became terrifyingly
clear that once dk4 went up, I would lose this community. Can you
imagine? Not being able to do the work, contribute, learn, help, to be
with people who had become crucial friends in all aspects of life,
on-line and off?
Then two amazing things happened. A computer showed up on my birthday
AND the ads disappeared. I was suddenly a lifetime subscriber. Both came
from anonymous angels on this site. Without them, I would NOT be here. It's that simple.
Inspired by Onomastic's story, members of the Daily Kos community
organized a drive to fund lifetime subscriptions for more than 125 of
the low-income activists on our site.
We're holding a subscription drive for many reasons: to expand our
activism efforts, to create new content like our Elections, Labor and
Comics sections, and to hire new developers who can improve your
experience on Daily Kos. But what really matters is building our
community, strengthening our big extended family who appreciate and look
out for each other as we all work to make this country the best place
it can be.
Please become an annual subscriber to Daily Kos for $40. You can find out more about the benefits of becoming a subscriber here.
Thank you,
Markos Cocksucker Moulitsas
Publisher, Daily Kos
Posted by: soothsayer at December 16, 2011 11:38 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: Joffen at December 16, 2011 11:39 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: SurferDoc at December 16, 2011 11:39 AM (6H6FZ)
Posted by: I Agree More With Pam at December 16, 2011 11:39 AM (iURW8)
Posted by: garrett at December 16, 2011 11:40 AM (RWA3/)
248....Don't listen to the Yorkies. They sniff each other's butts. Posted by: Feline Liberation Army
Tell your Queen, the siamese crazy one known as Bachman, that we will not submit to her either.
We will eat your ears too.
Posted by: The Yorkie World Domination Federation at December 16, 2011 11:40 AM (HvKWW)
Please become an annual subscriber to Daily Kos for $40. You can find out more about the benefits of becoming a subscriber here.
Thank you,
Markos Cocksucker Moulitsas
Publisher, Daily Kos
Please let me know when you are funding your subscribers giving up their citizenship.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 16, 2011 11:41 AM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Joffen at December 16, 2011 03:40 PM (zLeKL)
No, just the comments.
Posted by: robtr at December 16, 2011 11:41 AM (MtwBb)
I'm imaging Kos as Sally Struthers crying as he looks on at all the little low-income Kossacks...with their little extended bellies, flies swarming around them.
Posted by: soothsayer at December 16, 2011 11:41 AM (sqkOB)
But keep in mind what most use now is just pure water.
The moderator is not something that is an inherent danger by itself.
Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2011 11:41 AM (YdQQY)
We will remain doomed until we realize the aisle-crossing and common ground-finding, after decades of not doing it, needs to be from the left to the right. And not only realize that, but have the balls to say that and demand that of the other side.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at December 16, 2011 11:42 AM (zpqa2)
That's why he got gangbanged at the debates. McCain, Giuliani, Huck, and The Fred were all furious at him for his campaigning style
Posted by: The Q at December 16, 2011 11:42 AM (LnQhT)
I thought he did a pretty good job of answering that charge as false. You may want to watch it again.
Posted by: robtr at December 16, 2011 03:37 PM (MtwBb)
I'd like to find it so I can listen to it again tried on youtube and didn't see it.. And if I'm wrong then I am wrong in how I remember his answer but I thought it was along the lines of "The Supreme Court said our constitution allows gay marriage so there was nothing I could do."
Posted by: buzzion at December 16, 2011 11:43 AM (GULKT)
Actually, Romney never flipped flopped on same-sex marriage, unlike on abortion. He never supported it, campaigned for an amendment to the MA Constitution to ban it, went to Washington to testify in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment in 04, and prevented out of staters from using MA as a marriage mill. He did as much as anyone could have hoped for
Posted by: Chris P at December 16, 2011 11:43 AM (LuvqF)
Posted by: TV's Andy Levy at December 16, 2011 11:43 AM (RWA3/)
Romney doesn't know Romney's real politics.
That said, I was also encouraged by last night's debate (even though FNC showed that they can suck at running one just as much as CNN or MSNBC). I thought all the candidates made themselves sound more acceptable...ones that I liked previously and ones I don't care for much at all. Well, except that guy with the tinfoil hat.
Anybody but Obama is better. And most would be a lot better.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 16, 2011 11:44 AM (hcJkV)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2011 03:37 PM (SY2Kh)
I'm not buying into your yesteryear premises. This primary season should be proof enough that many of the old election paradigms have gone by the wayside.
Even most liberals I know will vote for anyone besides the whiny man-bitch we have in the WH now.
Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2011 11:44 AM (R4oqL)
Posted by: I Agree More With Pam at December 16, 2011 11:44 AM (iURW8)
Posted by: The Yorkie World Domination Federation at December 16, 2011 11:44 AM (HvKWW)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at December 16, 2011 11:45 AM (s+J9D)
Posted by: Jones at December 16, 2011 11:45 AM (8sCoq)
Here comes medicare part e, because now that the doughnut hole is full we need to now fill the swiss cheese holes.
Here comes "boost every child that might be lagging" since we already fixed those that were actually left behind.
Here comes the ban on 60w bulbs, since we already got the 100w ones.
etc
Yeah Mitt, he won't send our republic down a black hole, he will just slide it over a steep embankment.
Give me some of that.
Posted by: traye at December 16, 2011 11:45 AM (zRegt)
Mitt's answer last night on illegals gettin' cards and workin' and then leaving the country and getting in line and whatnot was a dud. I like Perry insisting that until the border is locked down, all is stupidity. I hope Perry can hang on and overcome the meme that slapped him down. Gardisil, Gardisil!! Preteen girl injections at the State Capitol!! Ahhhhh!!
I want to see these candidates focus on Obama's inept Presidency. Please stop letting the MSM tell you what the "issues" are that "voters" are focused on.
SCOAMF... everyday... all day.
Posted by: Yip in Texas at December 16, 2011 11:45 AM (Mrdk1)
Actually, Romney never flipped flopped on same-sex marriage, unlike on abortion. He never supported it, campaigned for an amendment to the MA Constitution to ban it, went to Washington to testify in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment in 04, and prevented out of staters from using MA as a marriage mill. He did as much as anyone could have hoped for
Posted by: Chris P at December 16, 2011 03:43 PM (LuvqF)
Ok then good for him for supporting the constitutional amendment.
I do still think he'd talk up gay marriage in Mass. in front of GOProud though.
Posted by: buzzion at December 16, 2011 11:46 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: Legion at December 16, 2011 11:46 AM (nC3O5)
Already signed by GWB; it's a gradual phaseout.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 16, 2011 11:47 AM (ZKzrr)
I still canÂ’t see how Mitt or the Anti-Mitt gets to the nomination. Who is going to change their side?
This is a time like no other. The republican establishment is still there, still strong and can count on at least 30% – 35% of the primary vote. The Tea Party and social conservatives are looking for purity and are not about to settle. Ron Paul will keep his 10% - 12% no matter what. Where is the path to the nomination?
Posted by: jwest at December 16, 2011 11:47 AM (8moZm)
Posted by: lorien1973 at December 16, 2011 11:47 AM (usXZy)
You! Yes, you.
Have you ever changed your mind about something? Guess that makes you some kinda damned flip-flopper.
Posted by: Jones at December 16, 2011 11:48 AM (8sCoq)
"The media likes to attack the current Republican Party as "extremist."
Funny. Seems there's a ot of that going around.
Posted by: Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 16, 2011 11:49 AM (KIZAU)
We're not doomed: we're boned. Humped, if you will.
Unless/until we start cutting the size of government and get away from baseline budgeting, this is just rearranging the deck chairs on the HMS Titanic.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 16, 2011 11:50 AM (1hM1d)
Yeah, it's pretty cool. Romney's also pushing Der Gingrich back in all the early primary states, regaining a lead in Iowa and expanding his lead in New Hampshire. He capped the day off with a solid performance in a debate most of the pundits today agree that he won.
Looking forward to his nomination, and to conservatives rallying behind him to defeat Obama. We may not be screwed after all.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at December 16, 2011 11:51 AM (MWcDw)
W might not have said or done what we wanted but he did do what he said.
The fact that we had to dig Arnold up to run him for Governor is proof that the CA GOP has been a corpse for 15 years now.
Wasn't there some other guy who was "too right" involved?
Posted by: DaveA at December 16, 2011 11:53 AM (nPNjl)
Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2011 11:53 AM (R4oqL)
Posted by: Nautical Pedant at December 16, 2011 03:51 PM (dp+c+)
Jolly well played, what?
Posted by: Jones at December 16, 2011 11:53 AM (8sCoq)
Have you ever changed your mind about something? Guess that makes you some kinda damned flip-flopper.
Yes. And unless I actually flip-flopped, I can point out my Road to Damascus moment. Or at least outline where I started, and how and why the events along the way caused me to re-evaluate my previous position and cause the change, if there wasn't that single, blinding flash of insight.
If I merely flip-flopped, I can't give you a good reason for the switch. Other than "because I can".
Savvy?
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 16, 2011 11:54 AM (1hM1d)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at December 16, 2011 03:51 PM (MWcDw)
Mitt Romney will not be the repub nominee.
Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2011 11:55 AM (R4oqL)
>I thought Perry did well. He's still my pick.
Sure. Because nominating a Republican governor from Texas won't draw any fire at all. Brilliant!
Posted by: Jones at December 16, 2011 11:55 AM (8sCoq)
You're really positive today. Did you have that grande latte enema this morning or did your Ewok furry suit finally come in?
Posted by: Tonic Dog at December 16, 2011 11:56 AM (X/+QT)
Oh, but he will. And I can't wait to see the reaction around here when Sarah Palin™ endorses him.
Looking forward to having you on board.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at December 16, 2011 11:58 AM (MWcDw)
>RMS Titanic.
Posted by: Nautical Pedant at December 16, 2011 03:51 PM (dp+c+)
Jolly well played, what?
Posted by: Jones at December 16, 2011 03:53 PM (8sCoq)
Jones? Davey??
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 16, 2011 11:58 AM (1hM1d)
Let's keep in mind that this is politics, where to be successful one must strive to be all things to all people. It makes for narratives that are at times flexible. It is the nature of the beast and there is absolutely no way around it.
When, in your darkest moments, you have misgivings about this or that potential nominee, repeat this to yourself:
"Defeat Obama."
Posted by: Jones at December 16, 2011 11:59 AM (8sCoq)
For Nautical Pendant & other sea dogs and squids:
The 100 aniversary memorial cruise of the Titanic.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 16, 2011 12:02 PM (1hM1d)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 16, 2011 12:02 PM (XE2Oo)
I don't know which isotope was used (most likely Na-23) decades ago, but there were some reactors that used Na as a moderator.
But keep in mind what most use now is just pure water.
The moderator is not something that is an inherent danger by itself.
Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2011 03:41 PM (YdQQY)
I remember sodium reactors being rejected out of hand because leaking liquid sodium would spontaneously combust, burning at a temp at or above magnesium.But I also know some nuke (especially fusion) weapons use weirdo isotopes that transform into other isotopes (sometimes of other elements) for very brief half-life periods (even nanoseconds), just long enough to emit a burst of gamma or other radiation or do something else in a complex chain of events that greatly enhances or otherwise alters the type of warhead yield.
I guess only a nuke weapons designer could answer my question. I'm definitely not buying anything the "experts" on Fox have to say.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at December 16, 2011 12:03 PM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 16, 2011 03:38 PM (jucos)
We don't what it, eh?
Posted by: Nova Scotians at December 16, 2011 12:07 PM (RD7QR)
YES! No other choice for a FredHead !
Let's face it if you made it with Perry past the bad days of incomplete recovery from spinal fusion surgery and its resultant, as Perry admitted on npr, "fatigue." You're in it for the long haul.
White knuckling it all the way for Perry in Illinois!
One note on the debate - it seems the moderators were completely unable to find a truthful attack on Perry's consistency.
Think about it. The gruesome twosome are fairly glib but, to me, totally unconvincing in their defense of their heresies. The best the moderators could come up with on Perry is tax incentives for energy production IN HIS STATE, and some stupid crap from a local TX liberal rag? After Perry has been raked over the coals by both Rove and Axelrod and is still undefeated for 20 years?
I think we need to correct the good governor's debate prep team. Perry should not aspire to be the Tim Tebow of the IA caucuses. The IA caucuses should aspire to be the governor Perry of electorates and make a rational choice on Jan. 3.
Thanks for the noncynical post, too.
Posted by: redneck hippie at December 16, 2011 12:07 PM (EHbCI)
320 Mitt Romney will not be the repub nominee.
Oh, but he will. And I can't wait to see the reaction around here when Sarah Palin™ endorses him.
Looking forward to having you on board.
Not a chance. I won't go aboard that ship any more than I plan on taking that Titanic memorial cruise. I'll probably vote for him, as the Not Teh Won candidate with the best chance of winning.
But don't expect me to get a Boehner or anything. And my money will certainly go down ticket.
McCain version two point oh.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 16, 2011 12:08 PM (1hM1d)
Posted by: cranky-d at December 16, 2011 12:10 PM (C+5Od)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 16, 2011 12:11 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 16, 2011 12:13 PM (niZvt)
Na is not something they use in nuclear weapons. It is too reactive to use for much of anything. That is why they quit using it in reactors. BTW that only lasted for a very short time period. They learned quickly.
There is some talk in bringing them back in generation IV fast reactors but I don't see that happening.
Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2011 12:13 PM (YdQQY)
The point I keep coming back to is this:
The nominee will come from the group of candidates you saw on TV last night. There's no one else standing up.
It's one of them, or 4 more years of Obama.
Consider this.
Posted by: Jones at December 16, 2011 12:14 PM (8sCoq)
What guarantee are you getting from someone?
What human being on this world are you certain will never disappoint you or disagree with you?
It's not like I won't vote for them if they get the nod. All I'm saying is it's something to consider. They may not always have a friendly Congress. That's the same fear I have with hauling judges before Congress.
Geez this thread got long quick.
Posted by: ryukyu at December 16, 2011 12:22 PM (MOHSR)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 16, 2011 12:25 PM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at December 16, 2011 12:38 PM (6IV8T)
Posted by: Edj at December 16, 2011 12:39 PM (+QKfp)
Posted by: johnny drama at December 16, 2011 12:40 PM (0y2rU)
Posted by: Molon Labe at December 16, 2011 12:45 PM (/IQEH)
Posted by: Dr. Bitter Clinger at December 16, 2011 12:46 PM (n+kUs)
I do not expect President Romney to spend, spend, spend like Bush did, for example.
Really? How's that ObamneyCare been working out for Massachusetts?
Posted by: OCBill at December 16, 2011 12:46 PM (YJvVE)
It's not hard to imagine, given some of his past statements, that Romney would agree to a Federal requirement that each state set up their own version of RomneyCare (state-level, you know, so it's OKAY) or they don't get their Medicaid funds (or some such). Remember, he thinks the mandate is great policy.
This is how the Federal government gets the most bang for their buck when they can't pass a federal law. They blackmail the states into doing it for them.
Posted by: OCBill at December 16, 2011 12:51 PM (YJvVE)
Posted by: Count Orlock at December 16, 2011 12:54 PM (RurGt)
Posted by: Dr. Bitter Clinger at December 16, 2011 01:02 PM (n+kUs)
Posted by: The Law Abiding American at December 16, 2011 01:05 PM (NBj0d)
Posted by: Damon Bailey at December 16, 2011 01:12 PM (c0e0q)
Posted by: Damon Bailey at December 16, 2011 01:15 PM (c0e0q)
So Romney would immediately forego any chance at re-election in order to permanently Socialize health care? Paranoid much?
Posted by: Lincolntf at December 16, 2011 01:17 PM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: Dr. Bitter Clinger at December 16, 2011 01:30 PM (n+kUs)
Posted by: Live Free Or Die at December 16, 2011 01:53 PM (LVJ+1)
Posted by: Kim Priestap at December 16, 2011 02:00 PM (qUn6X)
In an alternate universe where Romneys Dad didn't use the word "brainwashing" on tv, and he won instead of Nixon... I mean the mind boggles at how different the last half century might have played out.
Posted by: Shiggz - Newt (Warp 6.3) at December 16, 2011 02:08 PM (RfvTE)
Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at December 16, 2011 02:12 PM (lHdBc)
Finally, some no-duh common sense on Romney. Glad to see this, Ace. I'd also add that at this point, as much as Romney has had to make appeals to the base, it would take more political capital for him to not pursue right-of-center agenda, including repealing ObamaCare using reconciliation, than it would to just go ahead and pursue said agenda.
Also, I liked how he kept the target on Obama last night. As long as he remembers Obama is the issue he'll win.
This is why I'm supporting him. And I'm a former Palin supporter.
Posted by: Mr. Estrada at December 16, 2011 02:27 PM (/+B2Y)
Yes, you are. When you're not actually on the one doing the date selling.
Posted by: MlR at December 16, 2011 02:53 PM (/v94V)
Yeah, you're a real stalwart.
Posted by: MlR at December 16, 2011 03:04 PM (/v94V)
Posted by: Legion at December 16, 2011 03:46 PM (nC3O5)
Careful, Legion. You might interrupt the cheerful walk past the cemetery. Go 'Team Red'!
Posted by: MlR at December 16, 2011 03:12 PM (/v94V)
Posted by: Cricket at December 16, 2011 04:18 PM (ktqBU)
This web site is my breathing in, really fantastic pattern and perfect subject matter.
Posted by: D.C. Dead iBooks at December 16, 2011 05:08 PM (GeprT)
Posted by: Sharpen A Plane Blade at December 16, 2011 05:38 PM (l94RK)
Posted by: RSS Newsreader Apps at December 16, 2011 06:01 PM (fA4z/)
Posted by: Rollory at December 16, 2011 06:49 PM (T+g/u)
Posted by: Apollo’s Angels ePub at December 16, 2011 09:25 PM (m1psR)
Posted by: corsets at December 17, 2011 05:46 AM (HvC/j)
Posted by: corsets at December 17, 2011 05:48 PM (if4ZB)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2453 seconds, 493 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Quiet, Pinky, I'm panicking.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at December 16, 2011 10:38 AM (bjRNS)