Max

Utah another state where you can't say the word gay in a school - even if a student asks a teacher about it.

I'm not sure that Utah's as fringe right as many would like to believe, because they twice elected moderate Jon Huntsman. However, I am surprised that one would say that Snowe and Collins aren't moderate--while Huntsman is--given that the former Utah governor is much further to the right on social issues than the Maine senators are.

In other news, Jean Schmidt, who was first elected to Congress in a very contentious election in 2005, was surprisingly defeated in her primary. She was attacked from the right, by a far right group who also ran ads trying to topple longtime Dem Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur. No one liked Schmidt (or "Mean Jean" as they called her) all that much, and I guess she got caught flatfooted.

Liberal icon Dennis Kucinich also lost his primary, but I can understand why nobody wants to talk about that. (To his credit, he at least didn't move to Washington State--as was once rumored--to run for a newly created House seat there.)

Republicans were told that it was totally beyond the pale when they criticized Michelle Obama for saying (in 2008) that she was proud of her country for the first time. Of course, it's OK to criticize the wives of GOP candidates.

Michelle was unpatriotic prior to 2008, and Ann doesn't give a rat's a$$ about the very poor. Either both statements are true, or both statements are false. To suggest that one is true while the other is false is nothing short of partisan hypocrisy.

I don't think I would have a problem with Chris Christie and I am not completely familiar with all his positions. But he is from NJ which is as close to being from NY as you can without being from NY, and that goes a long way with me. He did one thing last year which I sort of saw both sides to it. They wanted to build a new tunnel from Hoboken to the city because traffic is so horrendous, it would make commuting easier, actually create jobs, and be a boon to the neighborhoods where all the activity would be. But he stopped it because the NY/NJ Port Authority can't be trusted with two cents. It's been ten years and the world trade center still isn't up. I don't like what he says in defense of Romney but he, like Rudy, I can trust to not be a Jesus freak worrying about who wants an abortion and who is sleeping with who. I don't think he can win since in over 200 years there has yet to be an obese president to my knowledge.

Qfan, I apologize for my rudeness, but we have had one obese president: William Howard Taft (1909-13). (I don't blame you for forgetting about him because so few remember him.) Apparently, there is a story that Taft got stuck in the White House bathtub, so a new one had to be built.

Taft actually hated being president. He ran in 1908 at TR's request; when TR found out Taft wasn't his puppet, the former president became enraged and ran against him in 1912 (and called Taft a lot of nasty names). This split in the GOP ensured Wilson's victory.

Romney won the Washington caucuses by a pretty big margin. Looks like he is finally "inevitable" after all. Cue the media swoon.

Another humilating night for Paul. If he can't make it in ME and WA, he can't make it anywhere.

I seriously think he's running for president in the wrong party. Due to his anti-war stance, the liberals love him so much. This love runs so deep that they are even willing to overlook his Calvin Coolidge economic policies.

Alphanguy, most Republicans would say there are good provisions of Obamacare, it's just that we feel it does more harm than good, especially for the vast majority of people already insured. What about the ripple effect on the economy as employers raise prices (to compensate for the fines and higher corporate taxes) or higher mostly temps (so they can bypass Obamacare altogether)?

Romney is very progressive! He will say whatever he has to for his how progress.

No seriously, it is hard to say what Romney actually is because if he turned around and ran for mayor of NYC he would without hesitation flip all his positions again. This is the heart of his election difficulties, you just look at him and you know he is full of [!@#$%^&*] and will say just about anything to get a vote. He's like the anti-Ron Paul.

Qfan, this reason--combined with the fact that Barry is so "likeable"--is why Willard will lose in November. But, it is important to remember that there are worse nightmares for liberals than Romney. For instance, take a look at our next president, Jabba the Hutt:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aw0aBkt8CPA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He'll win easily in 2016 because (1) the GOP will be completely united behind him and (2) he's a "likeable, Jersey guy" who will bring a lot of heft to the office. Once this victory occurrs, however, I can't imagine how Joan Collins will feel.

Collins and Snowe aren't moderate. The idea of moderate has moved so far to the right that Eisenhower is likely now seen as a liberal extremist.

Carl, although you are entitled to this opinion, you are the first person I know who thinks the two senators from Maine aren't moderates. One Republican you did like in the past--Mike Castle--also could not support Obamacare.

I still have no idea what Romney, the party's savior, objects to in Obamacare. Here is a 2009 op-ed where once again he supports something which he now opposes. 2009!

Romney has no right to object to Obamacare, since he provided the blueprint for it! (This is probably the biggest reason why he is doing so poorly in the GOP primaries.) Given how "progressive" Willard has been on health care, he's by far the most liberal candidate the GOP could ever nominate. (Romney's flip-flops are one thing, but his record is the most liberal of every GOP candidate, including Huntsman and Paul; it's funny, though, that the latter two men were/are held in great esteem by the left while Romney is routinely trashed.)

Also, I know that it is mighty crass for somebody to flip-flop on something in just three years time, but I believe it took Barry even less time to break his campaign pledge regarding the closure of Gitmo.

To listen to the conversation here, Obamacare has no flaws whatsoever. (And with all due respect, the fact that Nixon proposed something similar is irrelevant, given that liberals hate him and conservatives have long disowned him.) Unlike many conservatives, I personally don't believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional (though I have a problem with somebody being forced to get something he doesn't want), but the law still has many other flaws, including the following:

*A mandate that employers with at least 50 employees provide government-run health care (or be fined):

http://www.heritage....-jobs-and-wages

Small businesses (as opposed to Wall Street titans) will be hurt most by this provision, as they will be likely to hire fewer people. If the employer has to pay the fine (by choosing to abstain from government insurance), then logic dictates that prices will go up.

*Obamacare will create more than $400 million in subsidies for individuals who purchase government health insurance. With more and more people abandoning private insurance, employers will be less inclined to offer private insurance coverage (as an option) to their employees.

http://www.heritage....s-and-employees

*Obamacare establishes over $500 billion in new taxes:

http://www.heritage....and-the-economy

Because some of these tax increases only affect the rich, they will subsequently be dismissed by the folks here. However, quite a few of these taxes affect corporations; because Willard had it wrong when he stated "corporations are people," all that will result from corporate taxes are higher prices being passed down to all consumers (to compensate for the corporations' extra expense).

*Another provision of Obamacare created the CLASS (Community Living Assistance Services and Support) Program. Yet, even Obama's own deficit commission thought that CLASS cannot exist in its current state because it was so poorly designed and funded.

http://www.heritage....itlement-burden

*Obamacare cuts over $500 billion from Medicare

http://www.heritage....-seniors-access

I concede that is is hypocritical for the GOP to complain about cuts to Medicare. Yet, it is even more hypocritical for the Democrats to be cutting Medicare, especially when you consider that the $500 billion cut is a record reduction. I guess that when Paul Ryan proposes Medicare cuts it equates to "throwing granny under the bus," but it's OK when Obama, Reid, and Pelosi do it.

Aside from the bill itself, there's the way it was passed. Because the Democratic leadership was so impatient to get this bill passed, few members of Congress had time to read the 2,700 page law. Because the liberals had a field day when so few Congressman and Senators found the time to read the "intelligence" against Saddam Hussein (before voting to go to war), I find it funny that they have no problem with people supporting Obamacare without even reading the bill.

Additionally, whenever Obamacare is discussed in the mainstream media, journalists usually mention what a "moderate" law this is. Yet, if this is so moderate, how come neither Olympia Snowe nor Susan Collins could support it? (When the former announced her retirement this week, there was again universal praise for her from Democrats.) Are the two bipartisan senators from Maine also part of the Limbaugh wing of the GOP?

Finally, if Obamacare is so great, how come the president rarely--if ever--campaigns on this issue? Instead, he seems to pretend that this law doesn't even exist and instead focuses all his time on demonizing the GOP and gloating about the "sizzling" economy.

I can't believe that Paulina was dumb enough to fall for Tito's scam, given that she arrived in Bay City as a scam artist herself.

Kim Rhodes was so wonderful as Cindy. It was really sad that she was never heard from again.

Though officials in both parties refuse to admit these problems, there is still speculation that Democrats could engage in "mischief" voting in tomorrow's MI GOP primary (thanks in part to wingnuts like DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas encouraging liberals to vote for Santorum):

http://news.yahoo.co...-204130474.html

In 2000, many Republicans believed that MI Democrats voted in the GOP primary (as Gore had already defeated Bradley for the Democratic nomination by that time) for McCain in order to embarass Gov. John Engler, who was despised by the unions. Because Engler and the rest of the state GOP establishment endorsed Bush, it was a humilating defeating for him. I will predict a Santorum victory in MI tomorrow (and then, of course, the liberal media will say the sky is falling on the Romney campaign, much like they said about Bush's campaign twelve years ago); because of how close the polls are, I do believe that "mischief" voting on the part of the Democrats could very well be the factor that pushes the former PA senator over the top.

P.S. I didn't mean to imply that "mischief" voting is something that Democrats only do, as Republicans do it as well.

You said the liberal media are the ones pushing a brokered convention. I said I don't think LePage (who said that he wants a floor fight and a new nominee) is a member of a liberal media.

For some reason, I thought that you were earlier hinting or suggesting that LePage was a media darling. (You never explictly said that, I just assumed that you thought it.) I am so sorry if I offended you in any way.

I never said he was.

Carl, I sincerely apologize for misrepresenting or misinterpreting your views, but I thought you were suggesting that LePage might be a media darling with this quote:

The media loves Sarah Palin.

I am not sure if Gov. LePage is a member of the liberal media. Or Chris Christie.

The media loves Sarah Palin.

Outside of the Murdoch owned media and talk radio, the only "love" the media has is that they love to hate her.

How is Paul LePage a media darling? 98-99% of the country has never even heard of him.

More liberal media s#it about a brokered convenion:

http://news.yahoo.co...-200209608.html

Santorum's rise and Romney's weakness have sparked speculation about more contenders jumping into a Republican race that could last all the way to a brokered convention in August.

Beginning in March of 2008 (when Obama became the front-runner), Obama faced humilating losses in big state primaries such as OH, TX, PA, and IN (not to mention a handful of smaller states) yet I can't seem to recall the term "brokered convention" being used on a daily basis. (To clarify, Obama won the TX caucuses, but Hillary won the much more delegate-rich TX primary.) But, now that Romney may lose MI, every news agency seems to speculate that a brokered convention is a foregone conclusion.

I believe that the liberal media's dream is not only to see a brokered convention, but also to see either Palin or Cheney (the two Republicans they hate the most) wind up as the nominee after all the dust settles.

They took the votes from Florida and Michigan to punish them for moving their primaries up.

I just did not think this was a very wise move, regardless of whom one supported for that nomination. While it's true that Hillary didn't say "boo" about this when she was the front-runner, I don't know how a party can honestly claim that every vote needs to be counted and then disenfranchise voters in two large states. (That being said, Hillary can't change the rules after the game and say those votes should now count. Aside from indicating that Hillary would likely have won both states' primaries, I'm really not trying to defend her here; rather, the point is that the whole move to strip FL & MI of delegates was hypocritical on the Democrats' part.)

I could swear that Charles Gibson brought all that up in an ABC debate.

It's possible that Gibson asked a question about it during a debate, but I don't recall ABC making the issue a focal point of the campaign. And once Obama disowned Wright and claimed to have never heard him say anything anti-American (in the 20 years he attended his church), the press took Obama's word for it and the story pretty much went away (except in the right-wing media).

It was mathetmatically impossible for Hillary to be the nominee. She was too lax in the caucus states. She was going on mostly just for pride and because she felt she owed it to people.

If you exclude those idiotic "superdelegates," Obama had 1,828.5 delegates versus Hillary's 1,726.5. (The superdelegates split 478 to 246.5 in favor of Obama.) With 2,208 delegates needed for nomination, those superdelegates (some of whom switched their support to Obama after already pledging to give it to Hillary) could have definately given her the nomination. Also, it was a completely moronic decision to disenfranchise the voters of FL & MI, as well as a very puzzling one (coming from the party that said all votes should be counted in 2000). If legimate contests were held in those two states, Hillary probably would have won them (given that she won every other large state aside from GA and Obama's native IL), and possibly the nomination as well. (By the way, Joe "foot in mouth/plagiarizer" Biden won a grand total of zero delegates.)

While it became an uphill battle (but by no means an impossible one) for Hillary, it truly is beyond the realm of possibility for Ron Paul to get nominated this year. Yet, is there anyone outside the usual right-wing media outlets calling for him to drop out? Surely, he's continuing on because of pride and the feeling that he owes it to his supporters.

They had no problem poring over Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and other echoes of the past.

Aside from the Clinton and McCain campaigns, FOX News, The Wall Street Journal, and talk radio, few were willing to talk about this. The general consensus among the mainstream media seemed to be that these topics were "out of bounds."

Unless the media is still calling for a brokered convention for the GOP in May 2012, I don't see the comparison.

Carl, it's not even May, and the media is already calling for it. I can't recall the media calling for a brokered Democratic back in February 2008 (much less May 2008).

There was quite a bit of talk about the PUMAs, but I seem to recall that it centered around them being "racists" and "sore losers." While there was speculation they would make a scene at the convention, I don't remember the term "brokered convention" being commonly used in the press.

On the May 19, 2008 (a date far in advance of the August convention) cover of Time magazine, Obama was already declared the nominee:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080519,00.html

Yet, five states/territories still had not voted, and Hillary won contests in three of them: KY, PR, & SD.

Another Time cover on March 17, 2008 indicated that things looked bad for Hillary (despite coming back from the dead yet again):

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080317,00.html

After that, Hillary then won PA, IN, & WV (in additon to the other contests I mentioned).

I just find it really funny that the mainstream media tried to create this aura of inevitability surrounding Obama's nomination, when--four years later--they are already hyping the "likely" possibility of a brokered RNC because Romney is so "unappealing" to everyone.

This is the type of headline which annoys me. How is Romney "clawing his way back" when he always had the most money, media support, endorsements...?

Because Romney's been such a pathetic front-runner, he has lost his lead many times. After last night's debate performance, it looks like he may gain that status back.

I honestly do not see how these type of headlines differ from the way past front-runners in both parties (e.g., Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004, McCain & Hillary in 2008) have been treated by the press after they have come back from some humiliating set-backs.

I turned on C-Span this morning, and they were talking about the endless speculation of a brokered GOP convention in the mainstream media (which would obviously be a dream come true for Democrats). Yet, only seven or eight states have voted, and Romney is considerably ahead of all his rivals. On the other hand, I seem to recall virtually zero press speculaiton regarding a brokered Democratic convention in 2008, even though Hillary got almost as many votes as did Obama. Instead, the press advanced a narrative (by April/May) that Obama was the inevitable nominee and that "sore loser" Hillary should drop-out (before every state got a chance to vote) for the good of the party.

Why is the budget director for W being cited by the media as some econimic expert? No matter how much the media loves Mitch Daniels and insists he would be the ideal President, he didn't run, and his record suggests nothing but econimic failure.

Daniels is hardly loved by the mainstream media. ("Love" is what the media gives to Obama and Christie.) He was the budget director during Bush's first term, and not his second (when the economy crumbled), so it would have been very hard for the Dems to have convinced swing voters that he played a huge role in the 2008 meltdown. And Daniels did not run because his family strongly vetoed the idea. Personally, I think it says a lot about his character, especially when Obama is constantly hyped as some "family man" who always puts their needs first.

I personally LMAO everytime the liberal media spins how "great" our 8.3% unemployment rate is, and that our economy is "roaring" back. While this spin will no doubt be enough to convince naive swing voters to give Obama another four years, critical thinkers know full well that statistics can never be taken at face value. Out of the several hundred-thousand jobs created recently, how many were temp jobs or part-time jobs? (Most of the folks from my former workplace still remain unemployed; those that have found new jobs all have temporary jobs with no benefits.) In additon, the unemployment rate doesn't even count those who have stopped looking for work (because they are so discouraged); thus, Lord only knows what the true rate of umployment is. However, if you turn on the TV, you'd think it was a great time to be unemployed, because a marvelous new job is right around the corner for everyone in the "sizzling" Obama economy.

I can just imagine Santorum as President. No women in the forces...All gay men get banned from serving our country or walking the good old streets of USA. Men can no longer wear earings in their ears. Adam Lambert must stop wearing makeup...lol..and control his gay patterns.....women cant have babies until they are 50 and so on....lol

Actually, with Santorum as president, he'd probably appoint a lot of his gay friends as members of his cabinet. And since everybody had to take Obama at his word when he claimed he never heard Jeremiah Wright say anything anti-Semitic or anti-American during the 20 years he attended his church (if somebody doubted Obama's trustworthiness on this issue, they were labeled a "racist"), we must also believe that Santorum has tons of gay friends.

Also, I'm a little puzzled as to the vitriol directed at Santorum, since it has already been established that Romney "hates gays" just as much as the former PA senator. (Since both men are "homophobes," I would think that Democrats would prefer a Santorum nomination since at least he is "progressive" on issues of taxation and "Made in the USA" manufacturing.) It seems that in order to avoid the homophobic label, one must either (1) be a Republican and fully support gay marriage or (2) be a Democrat and hold whatever position he or she damn well pleases on that issue.

Well, Kelly Clarkson's endorsement of Ron Paul was meaningless. (Although it did upset some of her liberal fans.)

Romney also narrowly won the Maine caucuses, which I think is a bit weak, considering he should be the right candidate for Maine Republicans.

I think it is even more pathetic that Paul lost, given that his supporters were hyping ME as the one state where he would finally pull off a victory. There is no more justification for him to stay in the race, although the liberal media (who has always pretended that his popularity was far greater than it actually is) seems to think otherwise.

As someone who lives in Michigan, a Republican isn't winning this state come Nov. Obama is, not just because of the auto industry, but Romney is no "favorite son". His dad was governor here, not him. Romney spent nearly entire adult life everywhere but Michigan. We also have a very unpopular Republican governor that will be a burden.

The fact that Obama will win MI in November is hardly something for the Democrats to brag about either, given that the state last voted for a GOP presidential nominee in 1988. The "common knowledge" that MI is a swing state is total bullshit; the only reason why it even has a Republican governor is because 2010 was a wave GOP year (and a Republican wasn't elected to the Senate since 1994).

Unfortunately, I do believe that Romney will be delusional and make a major play for MI in the general election; he'd even do so if he had zero ties to the state.

It's a loss, very sad and sadly not that surprising.

I saw the article linked to earlier than featured several photographs of her out at a club the other night. Her body took all it could take and it finally gave out.

A tragic end to one of the most brilliant talents of the last 50 years.

I agree with everything written above.

Here are Houston's eleven #1 hits:

"Saving All My Love for You" (1985, 1 week)

"How Will I Know" (1986, 2 weeks)

"Greatest Love of All" (1986, 3 weeks)

"I Wanna Dance With Somebody (Who Loves Me)" (1987, 2 weeks)

"Didn't We Almost Have It All" (1987, 2 weeks)

"So Emotional" (1988, 1 week)

"Where Do Broken Hearts Go" (1988, 2 weeks)

"I'm Your Baby Tonight" (1990, 1 week)

"All the Man That I Need" (1991, 2 weeks)

"I Will Always Love You" (1992, 14 weeks) [This song's reign at #1 continued into 1993.]

"Exhale (Shoop Shoop)" (1995, 1 week) [This tune also spent a record 11 weeks at #2.]

Hahaha, Mitt says he is "severely conservative." That makes it sound like a disease.

Similarly, I never understood why left-wing candidates fail to use the word "liberal" when campaigning. Instead, they always use the "progressive" moniker.

I have yet to hear Christie attack Romney.

This will never happen, since Christie is so gung-ho for Romney. He endorsed Willard--instead of Huntsman--because he wanted to do all he could to ensure that the GOP would nominate somebody unelectable (so he can be there to pick up the piece up the pieces in 2016). And since the GOP establishment does everything Christie tells them to do, they then put all their eggs in the Romney basket.