No, I did not watch the Republican Debate last night

I had good reason not to watch too. From what I was hearing on twitter last night; while I was lying in the bed and drifting off to sleep, is that the debate was lousy. This was confirmed by things that I have read this morning. I guess the usual liberal partisan hacks over at ABC NEWS were living up to their expectations — not to mention the fact that the head of the DNC was at the debate outright lying to the media.

Also, the silly back and forth, not to mention the preening; as to who is the most Republican of them all — I find all that quite the bore. The truth is none of these contenders is of the Reagan stripe of Conservative, most of them, with the exception of Ron Paul; who is too far in the other direction — are just Neo-Conservative war hawks. Now will I vote for one of them? At this point, I really do not honestly know. It depends on which one makes the cut with the GOP nomination.

To be quite honest, the primary process really does not interest me that much. Now the general election is another story; the debates that I very much look forward to are the general election debates, how is Obama going to face someone like Romney? How is Obama going to stand there with a straight face and repeat that silly mantra of Hope and Change?

The truth is the only thing that is changed, is the amount of debt and the rate of unemployment. This is not to even to mention all the bureaucratic Government regulations that was put into place that killed many jobs in the oil drilling business. I just do not see how Obama is going to defend all of that, without sounding like a blithering idiot.

There is supposed to be a debate tonight as well, from what I hear. I will most likely skip it too. Again, I just do not have any interest in the Republican Party fashion shows. I just want to see this failure of a President try to debate and defend his failures in leadership. It is something that I do look forward to very much.

Bet this would be an interesting book to read.

Man, and I thought the Clinton’s were dysfunctional:

Then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel offered his resignation to President Barack Obama in the winter of 2010 after a series of columns appeared depicting him as the lone element keeping the Obama presidency intact. According to then senior adviser David Axelrod, Emanuel understood that the stories “were an embarrassment” to the president. The president, already suffering from a setback to his health care reform effort, declined Emanuel’s offer to resign, despite being convinced that his chief of staff was the main source for the columns.

“I’m not accepting it,” Obama replied. “Your punishment is that you have to stay here and get this bill done. I’m not letting you off the hook.”

That revelation is one of the more explosive included in “The Obamas,” a new book by Jodi Kantor of The New York Times about the first few years of the Obama administration and the strains that it produced on the president’s marriage — strains that were ultimately overcome.

The dramatics that surrounded the passage of health care reform — culminating in Emanuel’s near-resignation — reflect the type of struggles that routinely pitted Emanuel against the first lady during the first two years of the Obama administration. The two jockeyed for influence over the president even before he formally took office. — Via ‘The Obamas’: Book Reveals Friction Between Rahm Emanuel, Michelle Obama (UPDATE)

Bet that would make a very interesting read.

Get the Book:

Update: As much as I hate to admit it; this guy does have a point. This is why I watch the comment section around here, like a hawk.

New Ron Paul ad dings Santorum in SC

(Via  POLITICO.com)

Video:

I wonder what Jesse Vantura would say about that? I mean, after all, he does support Ron Paul. Not only that, but Ron Paul has a lot of damned nerve even bringing up betrayal; considering the fact that Ron Paul has repeatedly betrayed the United States Military of which he served. All so he can remain true to his leftist ideology of isolationist utopia and foriegn policy disenguagement. Here is hoping that Rick Santorum fires back and fires back hard on this point. Not only that, I also hope Rick Santorum brings up his racist and Anti Semitic friends too.

Others: : National Review,, THE ASTUTE BLOGGERSAmerican Power  (via Memeorandum)

Kudos to Charles Lane

For standing for those who wish to love thier children and not have to be subject to these sort of attacks.

I’m not defending Rick Santorum the presidential candidate. From what little I know about him, he seems to have his own issues with moralizing and judging. To the extent he has used his family’s experience to make a point about abortion, I object.

But I am defending the right of the Santorums and all families to grieve an infant’s death in accordance with their personal needs and beliefs. My plea is for a little more respect regarding the way people deal with loss, and a little more maturity about physical contact with the dead. If that puts me in sympathy, for a moment, with this right-wing politician, so be it.

Jonathan’s death was probably the hardest moment of my life. But actually touching his body was a source of comfort and the first step in going on with life. Not weird — Via Rick Santorum’s baby–and mine. – PostPartisan – The Washington Post

I would recommend you to go read that whole thing; a very touchy story about a Father who also lost his child as well. Charles Lane is a brave man for standing up to his fellow liberals and objecting to the idea that loving a dead child is “Weird.”

Kudo’s to him. 🙂

Others: CatholicVote.org and National Review

Are the GOP’s Nomination Rules Are Rigged Against Grassroots Conservatives?

Jay Cost seems to think so:

Republicans all across America like to think of their coalition as the “party of Ronald Reagan,” but have you noticed how frequently the party nominates somebody who opposed Ronald Reagan in 1980?Since Reagan’s last nomination in 1984 the GOP has nominated four men to lead the Republican party into the presidential battle. Three of them were aligned against Reagan in the 1980 presidential nomination and the other was . . . John McCain.

Once again, the GOP appears set to nominate such a candidate. Mitt Romney strikes me as a very capable and competent person, possessing many qualities needed in a good president and most definitely superior to the current one, but he is not a Reagan conservative.

So, here’s the question of the day: why can’t the party of Reagan ever seem to nominate a Reaganite?

My answer: because conservative Republicans are not actually in control of their own party. Though they are its animating force – they give it policy ideas to implement, they turn out regularly to support the party in good times and bad, they advocate the party and its ideology to their friends, neighbors, and relatives – they are not in charge, and have not been since the 1970s (arguably the 1920s, but that’s another story altogether).

The lefty do-gooders who spearheaded the reforms of the 1970s thought that they were saving the parties from the machine hacks, but in fact they threw out the baby with the bathwater. They effectively destroyed the party at the grassroots level, and handed the nominating power over to candidates, strategists, donors, the news media, and ill informed voters who dominate the primaries. The biggest losers in this scheme were the kinds of committed citizens who took the time to participate in local party affairs, and on the GOP side that inevitably meant the conservatives. — Morning Jay: The Nomination Rules Are Rigged Against Grassroots Conservatives | The Weekly Standard

It is truly an interesting piece; what is even more interesting is where it is published. Seeing an article talking about “lefties” and “Reagan Conservatives” in a Neoconservative magazine like the Weekly Standard is very interesting to say the least. 😀

Kudos to Joe Scarborough

Two Cheers to Joe Scarborough for putting this liberal’s feet to the fire! (H/T to Jazz Shaw)

Via Mediaite:

Quote:

In a remarkably heated back-and-forth on Friday’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough grilled MSNBC contributor Eugene Robinson over his controversial comments — calling Rick Santorum‘s handling of the death of his newborn “weird.”

“Do you think you may have gone overboard a little bit in your criticisms of Santorum?” Scarborough asked. “We haven’t talked about it. I’m not setting you up for anything. I was taken aback by what you said. My wife likes you very much, couldn’t believe you said it.”

“That was obviously not the right way to say what I was trying to express,” Robinson acknowledged.

“I certainly didn’t mean to offend anybody, especially Mr. Santorum,” Robinson added. “But it was in a discussion of his views, and, you know, which I consider extreme, and Santorum himself who is a cultural — culture warrior extraordinaire, whose faith — and we all appreciate someone of deep faith — but it is — it is extremely deep, and it’s a kind of faith that some people, I think, are going be… if not surprised by… at least want to know more about.”…

“It is a personal decision,” Robinson noted. “And I’ve certainly been educated on the subject since — in the past day, so I do understand that — that this is not — it’s not something that’s in any way beyond the pale or considered inadvisable and that many grief counselors do advise a period of saying good-bye to a child who tragically dies in that way.”…

“Do you wish you hadn’t said it?” Scarborough clarified. “You can see how prepared I am.”

“I wish I hadn’t said it that way, Joe. You know, I — we had — had this sort of discussion when I wrote about Chris Christie‘s weight, and I do think that a columnist has an obligation to — to write what he or she thinks and write what he or she sees, but obviously I did it in the wrong way. Or in a way that rubs people the wrong way, and that’s not what I intended.”

 

I think that it is good for Joe for to put Mr. Roberson through the wringer for his rather idiotic comment.  What was said by this douche-nozzle and Alan Colmes was over the top and out of bounds.  Just to put this very simply, if we are going to have a standard — that all President’s and Presidential candidates children are off-limits, we have to hold everyone and I do mean everyone to that standard.  This is not about Freedom of Speech, this about what is morally right.  I do not give two flying figs about ANY of the Presidential candidate’s children at all.  Just like, I do not care about Obama’s children.  What makes this little incident here, along with the previous one so insidious is this — Liberals are slamming a man — who chose to take his dead child home, so that the he and his family could grieve over him.

Also too, as much as I hate having to do this — But I must — could you even remotely imagine the howls of outrage from the left, if someone on the right — anywhere on the right — had made a similar comment about Obama’s kids or any other Democrat’s kids — of this sort of a nature?  The outrage from the liberal community, the black community, and the chattering class would be deafening.  However, because this is a liberal black man popping off about a white Conservative, it is seen as just perfectly fine.  How ironic is that in the so-called post-racial America?  I also find it quite ironic that the left has been largely silent about both of these people making these comments.  There are exceptions, but for the most part, the silence is deafening. Maybe it is because they see children or in this case — babies as an unneeded inconvenience or maybe it is because they are afraid of offending their “Dear Leader.”  Either way, it speaks too, in this writer’s opinion, of the moral decay that has taken over that once great party.

Rasmussen: Romney 27%, Santorum 24%, Gingrich 18% in SC Primary Poll

There is a reason for this and I will explain it:

Video:

(removed – video auto-played and was annoying…)

The Story:

 

What a difference a caucus makes. Rick Santorum who two months ago had one percent (1%) support among likely South Carolina Republican Primary voters now is running a close second there with 24% of the vote.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the Palmetto State finds former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney still in the lead, earning 27% support from likely GOP Primary Voters, up from 23% in early November. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is in third with 18% of the vote, followed by Texas Congressman Ron Paul at 11%.

Bringing up the rear are Texas Governor Rick Perry with five percent (5%) and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman at two percent (2%). Another two percent (2%) of these likely primary voters like some other candidate, and 11% remain undecided. — Via Election 2012: South Carolina Republican Primary – Rasmussen Reports

Okay here is the reason that Romney is doing so well in this polls; First off, name recognition. Second of all, Romney is more of a moderate and those type of Conservatives will gravitate towards him. Santorum is a bit more of a hardcore Republican and Conservative, especially when it comes to social issues, like Abortion. This turns off the more fiscal Conservatives.

Not only this, Romney is appealing to the Independents as well — which will ruin Obama’s chances of relection, if Romney gets the nomination — which, at this point, I believe will be the case. Also, if he is as smart, as he seems to be — Romney will pick Santorum as as his running mate and that will be the ticket come the 2012 general election. Which will put Democrats into a frenzy and you talk about war? Holy crap! 😯

Others: The Hill, The Moderate Voice, American Research Group, Hot Air, CatholicVote.org, GOP 12, LifeNews.com, Big Government, Campaign 2012, Outside the Beltway, ABCNEWS, Taegan Goddard’s …, FiveThirtyEight, Ballot Box, The PJ Tatler, Wake up America and American Spectator

Senator Marco Rubio rips President Obama a new one

Oof. This one is a harsh one to read:

In a scathing letter to sent to Barack Obama this morning, Senator Marco Rubio said that under the President’s first term in office, “more and more people have come to believe that America is becoming a deadbeat nation.”

Rubio went on to pledge that he would challenge any further increase in the debt ceiling, arguing that “we [Congress] need to make it routine to actually spend no more than we take in.” In the letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, the Florida Senator said that President Obama’s upcoming request to increase the debt ceiling by a whopping $1.2 trillion will cause the nation’s public debt to surpass the $16 trillion mark.

“I will oppose your request to continue borrowing and spending recklessly.”

President Obama is expected to request the new borrowing power from Congress once the Senate and House return from their holiday recess. — Via Rubio in letter to Obama: You are turning America into a ‘deadbeat nation’ – HUMAN EVENTS

Here is the letter here, it’s a PDF file, just so you will know.  

it is red meat for our side; but it speaks to the broken state of DC.

Noted Anti-Semite Tom Boggioni belches forth Anti-Christian and Anti-Catholic Bigotry

Go Read

He also spews forth more of his Bush derangement syndrome.

To see his Antisemitism on full display, read here.

I still do not understand why this Jane allows this douche-nozzle to write on that blog of hers.

Mussolini would be proud.

Update: Think that is bad? Check out Tom’s unflattering picture and racist painting of one the Bush Administration’s most hated staff member. I tend to believe that the reason that he gets away this sort of stuff Is because, 1. He is a liberal and 2. He is a minority himself. Proving my theory that not only white people can be racists.

 

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker: “Unions want me dead”

Just a showing of how bad it is gotten up in Winsonsin:

With a June recall election all but certain, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says the debate is no longer just about collective-bargaining rights for state workers. Union leaders and others, he said, have made it personal.

“They want me dead. I don’t think that’s an exaggeration,” Mr. Walker said in an exclusive interview with The Washington Times after a roundtable discussion Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute.

His opponents have until Jan. 15 to collect about 540,000 signatures and trigger another election, which would surely center around Mr. Walker’s successful but controversial efforts to strip many collective-bargaining rights from teachers and other government employees in his state, all in an effort to close budget gaps and put Wisconsin back on firm financial footing. — Via Wisconsin Gov. Walker: Unions ‘want me dead’ – Washington Times

I feel for the guy, but I have to say this; this above, is why Rick Snyder did not do anything drastic here in Michigan. Because I believe he happens to know, what I know — that actions always have consquences. There is also something else too; that little thing that the C.I.A. likes to call “Blowback.” Blowback is the adverse reaction to an action taken by someone in position or power; it always happens, especially in politics. It is Ron Paul’s favorite term. 🙄

There is something else too; there is a thing in politics called political capitial. Many Presidents have burned through it quickly. Bush did, Obama did and still is. When you have burned through it; you are quite screwed. Smart Presidents have slowly burned through it and went on to serve two terms and do well. The not-so-smart ones end up like Bush and Obama — hated before they even can really do anything.

I guess nobody told Scott Walker about this. You just do not make drastic changes, when first taking office without paying for it in the end. This is just how it works, and also long as we have a two party system in this Country, that is how it will be for a long time to come.

(H/T HotAir Headlines)