Categorized | Sidebar Open Thread

Open Thread

What’s going on this morning?

Here’s the GOP debate.

The Governor praises Newt Gingrich.

Sgt. Track Palin is on his way to Afghanistan.

The Palin Team conference call: here, here, here, here, here, and here.

This is the strategy that Santorum should have applied.

Washington (PPP): Santorum 38, Romney 27, Paul 15, Gingrich 12
Oklahoma (Rasmussen): Santorum 43, Gingrich 22, Romney 18, Paul 7
Wisconsin (Marquette Law School): Santorum 33, Romney 18, Paul 17, Gingrich 12
California (Field Poll): Romney 31, Santorum 25, Paul 16, Gingrich 12
Michigan (EPIC-MRA): Santorum 37, Romney 34, Paul 10, Gingrich 7
Michigan (Marist): Romney 37, Santorum 35, Paul 13, Gingrich 8
Arizona (CNN-Time): Romney 36, Santorum 32, Gingrich 18, Paul 6
National (Quinnipiac): Santorum 35, Romney 26, Gingrich 14, Paul 11
National (AP-Gfk): Santorum 33, Romney 32, Gingrich/Paul 15


Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • technopeasant


    Objectivity is something this iconoclast always seeks to strive for but does not always attain. In my analysis of the debate, I hope you will bear that in mind. Having said that let me establish the parameters of my analysis:

    1) I will NOT include Ron Paul in my overall analysis except as a supporting player. If you want a thorough examination of Paul’s debating performance you will not get it from me.

    2) I want to put myself in the position of a typical GOP primary voter who intends to vote but is NOT as conversant with the issues and the candidates’ positions as he or she would like to be, but by the same token knows the general background of the candidates and the negative narratives surrounding them.

    3) I want to focus on NOT only what they said but how they said it, and how each candidate looked as they actually said it and actually who scored debating points.

    4) I want to be fair but also bring up my own impressions which I had that the media chose to ignore in their post-debate wrap-up.

    5) How the answers provided by each candidate may have detracted or bolstered his candidacy

    Newt Gingrich:

    Let me say up front that I believe Newt won the debate, not by a significant amount but by at least "three horse lengths."

    Newt came out of the gate fast, showed competence of fiscal issues and deep concern and empathy on social issues and took the lead in the first half of the debate which he never relinquished.

    Where he did bog down however was in the middle of the debate and right at the end of the debate. But let me add Newt was exceptional in the latter half of the debate of foreign affairs discussing Iran and Syria.

    I think his answer on immigration was a bit off the mark and lacked the confidence and passion of his previous answers and part of that reason could have been not wanting to take a position too diametrically opposed to "his new friend" Governor Rick Perry of Texas. His answer was more bureaucratic and formulaic than passionately ideological. His approach to immigration policy may play in urban centers and among college educated folks, but does not play as well with conservatives, the base, who want more red meat on the issue. His answer wasn’t terrible but it won’t win him any new converts either from white conservatives or Hispanics.

    But if there is one flaw that Newt has it is his lack of judgement on some of the most basic questions. Ask him to dissect a position paper, or analyze a 1000 page bill, he’ll gladly do it with relish and do it with the utmost confidence but when asked a simple question, he gives answers which I consider baffling and often counterproductive,which makes one think, "Why did Newt just say that–it’s completely off the wall?"

    It’s like in the movie Champagne for Caesar (1950) a quiz show participant keeps answering questions correctly, some of them extremely difficult including a thorough explanation of Einstein’s theory of relativity but in the end when asked his own social security number, he gives the wrong answer.

    Imho, Newt performed worst when asked what one word describes him and what one misconcepton do voters or the world have about you.

    And the word he used to describe himself was CHEERFUL.

    Putting myself in the shoes of a typical voter, what am I to make of a candidate who is 69 years old singling himself out for being cheerful, as a prerequisite to becoming POTUS. He could have offered up consistency (as Ron Paul did just before), or thoughtful , eclectic, sensible, honorable or even decent. If I want CHEERFUL, I’ll buy a dog to cheer me up, I’ll watch an upbeat movie or I’ll visit with a friend who has more problems than I do.

    And then regarding Newt’s answer to how he is most misconceived, of all things he cites an answer that take us "back to the future" and reminds us of why he had the affair with Calista. He tells us how hard he worked in Washington in the 1990’s and voters don’t really appreciate how hard he worked and the sacrifices he made for his country. On that basis, Newt also tried to rationalize the affair. How dumb was that? Terrible, terrible misjudgment.

    Now what could Newt have said:

    a) At 69, he is a lot more fit and energetic than many people think he is

    b) It is a myth he has no executive experience–Speaker of the House is 3rd in line to the Presidency

    c) That he is totally an academic policy wonk and not practical or down-to-earth

    d) That he lacks self-discipline and sometimes uses poor judgment

    e) That he is a person of deep faith

    In essence, what I am saying about Newt Gingrich is that he won the battle but probably did not win the war. The doubts and misgivings about him still linger. Newt had a terrific debate, but that was expected. After all Newt is a fine debater. He knows his material and communicates extremely well. But that is NOT his major problem and flaw. We all know what that is.

    Mitt Romney

    Mitt Romney did well on fiscal issues, did get bogged down a bit on earmarks in an exchange with Rick Santorum but overall when he gave his best answer on why the auto industry should NOT have been bailed out.he said it with the conviction of a businessman who knows what he is talking about. But you would expect that from Romney. After all the raison d’etre for his candidacy is his business background and record. It’s like praising a superstar surgeon on performing a brilliant operation. It goes with the territory.

    As I have said in the past, Romney’s debating skills are decent but not great. He speaks too much in one somber tone of voice, is not very expressive in doing so and sometimes his facial or body mannerisms do not match up with what is coming out of his mouth. The cheerfulness that Newt says he boasts, Mitt needs to find some of it.

    Where I thought Romney did not do as well is when he was forced to discuss his record in Massachusetts in the context of social issues and Romneycare. Newt caught Mitt in a lie regarding the issue of rape victims still being able to receive contraceptives in a Catholic setting and Mitt as always tried to weasel out of the contention that Romneycare was a prototype for Obamacare by calling it a 10th amendment issue and refusing to acknowledge the possible hypocrisy of a person passing Romneycare and then insisting Obamacare be repealed. Santorum really nailed him good on the issue.

    I must say Mitt Romney has improved his knowledge and his discussion of foreign affairs. He dd well, but not as quite as well as Newt or Rick. After all Newt was Speaker and Rick sat on the Armed Services Committee for 8 years. In addition unfortunately for Mitt, he is no John McCain–conservatives are not going to start to warm up to him because of his increased proficiency on foreign affairs and national security issues.

    Like Newt, I believe Mitt’s two low-water marks in the debate were when he had to answer the two simplest questions.

    Romney described himself as RESOLUTE. It means characterized by determination and purposefulness. It can also describe a tunnel-vision, hardcore businessman dedicate to getting the job done. But is that a top 5 qualities voters look for when voting for a President? His answer was certainly better than Newt’s but here are five better words he could have used to describe himself:

    a) Conservative

    b) Principled

    c) Honest

    d) Empathy

    e) Bold

    And then like Newt, Mitt blows the last question on MISCONCEPTION. Unlike Newt, who took us back to the future, Mitt Romney did not go retro but he did with his last answer in the debate expose for all to see his three main political flaws being oblivious, egocentric and having Olympian detachment.

    The Olympian detachment was in his smug arrogance in not answering the question and Mitt even putting moderator John King off by saying he would answer the question in his own way, his egocentric nature was borne out by his refusal to own up to any MISCONCEPTION about himself as if he were equating MISCONCEPTION to a personal weakness or flaw and being shown to be oblivious to the fact that voters do have problems about him, perhaps based on these MISCONCEPTIONS.

    Instead Mitt Romney doubled down and refused to acknowledge any MISCONCEPTIONS about him, implying the voters were idiots if they felt that way about him.

    QED Mitt. QED Mitt. Oblivious, egocentric and Olympian detachment. You hit the jackpot in answering the question of MISCONCEPTION.

    But what should Mitt Romney had said:

    a) As a Mormon he is a person of deep personal faith

    b) He is very conversant on foreign affairs.

    c) The govt should do its part to strengthen families and just not be a facilitator for economic growth

    d) He is NOT a rich elitist who doesn’t care about the very poor

    e) That he is electable despite the change in the political landscape recently.

    As to how Romney did in the debate in comparison to Rick Santorum, I’ll deal with that in the section on Rick.

    Rick Santorum

    Like Tiger Woods starting a golf tournament, Rick Santorum came out of the gate flat and only shot par in the first round (fiscal matters). He certainly was not in the lead but he did not shoot himself out of the tournament either. I thought Santorum wasn’t quite on his game or as fluid as he is capable of being but his answers were decent but not overwhelming. He stumbled a bit on earmarks when confronted by Romney but his crowning moment like Romney was his discussion why opposed the auto bailout. I thought Rick also got a good shot in on Romney for the latter favoring TARP.

    And Santorum gave two great rebuttals, first to Ron Paul when discussing the debt and then a rebuttal to Romney on the principle of bailouts, showing me he is capable of mixing it up when he gets into the ring with Obama.

    As would be expected, Santorum excelled on social issues (birth contro/contraceptitves) and Romneycare. On the latter, he really took it to Mitt by claiming he would have no credibility advocating the repeal of Obamacare as a result.

    This was a great line: "Just because I am going to speak to social issues, it doesn’t mean I am gong to set about to change the law and impose my will, like the Left does."

    And like Mitt and Newt, Santorum did very well on Iran and Syria and I loved his remark about supporting the Democracy movement in Iran. I think it helped dispel the notion that he was only interested inn the welfare of white Christians in the USA.

    I thought his answer that he made a mistake supporting No Child Left Behind showed political maturity and a humility rarely found in presidential aspirants.If he loses votes because of his honesty, so be it.

    And I thought he addressed the Specter issue as well as he could explaining the importance of Specter’s role of confirming judges for the SC. It was a good answer but the link between Specter and Obamacare cannot be avoided and may have damaged him slightly.

    But where I thought Santorum really stood out as opposed to both Gingrich and Romney was in his answers to the simplest questions.

    One word that would describe him: COURAGE

    Would you rather Obama face a courageous conservative warrior who is willing to put it all on the line or an effete country club elitist whose calling card is craven expediency and pandering?

    And then when faced with the question of MISCONCEPTION, Santorum did NOT hesitate to echo Ron Paul’s sentiments to explain that the greatest MISCONCEPTTION about him was that he was NOT electable. In those last few words, I think Santorum may have closed the deal with a lot of conservatives. in acknowledging his limitations and the advantage that Obama would have over the GOP nominee in funds and in being favored by the media, he sounded the warning bell and appeared extremely presidential at that very moment. There was no arrogance or condescension. He was telling it like it is from the bottom of his heart.

    Of course the media completely overlooked Santorum’s last words in their post-mortum and I expect today and over the course of the next 5 days to the election they will focus on the negatives rather than the positives.

    As to Santorum’s overall performance, it was not as good as Newt’s but on a par with Romney.

    Newt Gingiich deserves to get a decent boost from his debate performance. He probably will win Georgia as a result.

    As for Mitt and Rick, I expect Mitt to get a slight bump in the polls because of the media hype that Rick did terrible. But objectively Romney did not prove at the debate that he was anymore a conservative warrior as opposed to before the debate and Santorum did not perform so badly or say something so reprehensible that he will be in the conservative doghouse.

    If anything, there are still 5 days to the election. Minds still can be changed. Not everyone watched the debate. The races in Michigan and Arizona remain in a state of flux.

    But the dynamics haven’t changed. If you want to stop Romney in both Michigan and Arizona you must vote for Rick Santorum. There is no other realistic choice to get the job done.

    • marvin hill

      thank you

    • Randall Pickard

      Something was up when Romney received an unusually loud cheer as he walked into the room.  I think he could have said "I like ham and eggs" and one-third of the place would have cheered.  Weird.

      One of my favorite lines was Santorum’s rebuttal to Mitt balancing the budget during his four years as governnor.  Santorum noted that Massacusetts law requires the budget to be balanced each year.  Then he added, "Michael Dukakis balanced the budget for 10 years, but I don’t think that qualified him to be President."  Instantly, I had this mental picture of Mittens in a tank.

      Whoever wins the nomination, and assuming it isn’t Newt, will need Newt on their side.  He is great at the one-liners and the 20 liners that zing home good points.

      As a lawyer, I thought it was a very good debate.  I thought Santorum handled the hot seat well and I appreciated that he gave explanations for those parts of his record attacked by Mitt and Paul.  He treated the audience with enough respect to explain NCLB and earmarks.  Although the experts will argue that he should have offered a one line turn around and then given a speech about something positive, I was glad he didn’t do that.  On NCLB, he told us that his core belief is that kids are educated best when control is at the local/family level.  He admitted that he went against his core belief when he voted for NCLB and gave two reasons why he did so (supporting his party’s President and buying into the notion that federal standards could help improve the broken system of eductation).  He admitted his vote was a mistake and made a commitment to never make that mistake again.  That was a mature explanation, which people can evaluate and accept or reject. 

      Others should follow Santorum’s lead. They all have blemishes on their records.

      • Leroy Whitby

        Yah, that astroturf in the crowd was bogus. All of a sudden, crowd support for Romney after losing his position in the polls, and after 18 or however many debates there have already been when Romney was more popular, and no crowd support for Romney in them. Totally off, clearly off. 

      • senator20526

        I heard Romney bought most of the tickets….and stacked the crowd.

        • Budvarakbar

           Probably true —

    • jerseymark

      Very well thought out analysis and much appreciated.

      Today, we move back to a portion of C.S. Lewis’s "Mere Christianity":

      "Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking that God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot. Well, if that were true, if God ‘foresaw’  our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call ‘tomorrow’ is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call ‘today’. All the days are ‘Now’ for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not ‘foresee’ you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never suppose that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow’s actions in just the same way – because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already ‘Now’ for Him."

      Here, Mr. Lewis grapples with the whole time/eternity relationship that has given so many thinkers fits throughout history. I believe he does a commendable job. The role of free will in our surrender to Christ has been a point of contention between Christian denominations for centuries and Romans 8:29 sparks that discussion with the use of the terms "foreknow" and "predestinate". As Romans 8:28-29 are my favorite verses due to the fact that few Christians actually fail to see that verse 29 defines the terms in verse 28, I consistently point out that "foreknow" does NOT indicate control as knowing is not the same as causing; and "predestinate" does not relate to the surrender decision at all so does not impact free will. God simply knew before the Creation all those people who would of their own free will, respond positively to Him by surrendering to Jesus and determined at that time that each such person would be conformed into the image of His Son, Jesus, so that He would be the first born among many sons and daughters. 

      Finally, it is simply our earthly bodies that keep us locked into our space/time existence. When we are separated from our bodies by death or the coming Rapture, we will enter into the eternal "Now". In a way, our earthly existence is like a womb for the birth of God’s Sons and Daughters and death is really the process of being born.

    • Leroy Whitby

      One word to describe Romney?


      C’mon. You know I’m right.

  • ZH100

    Good morning all.

    The former editor in chief of Ms. magazine (and a Democrat) on what she learned on a campaign plane with the would-be VP.   (published October 27, 2008)

    From the article:

    "They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.

    I’m a Democrat, but I’ve worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign since shortly after Palin’s nomination. Last week, there was the thought that as a former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine as well as a feminist activist in my pre-journalism days, I might be helpful in contributing to a speech that Palin had long wanted to give on women’s rights.

    What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.

    Now by “smart,” I don’t refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don’t really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had.

    Palin is more than a “quick study”; I’d heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is."

    • ZH100

       Here are some links with information about Gov.Palin’s policy positions and accomplishments

      (policy positions)

      A Lifetime of Accomplishments; Master Lists by Year

      Setting the Record Straight – Sarah Palin and Sex Education

      Youth For Palin has made a compilation of 22 documents containing live links to Sarah Palin’s articles that will provide readers a view of Palin’s vision for America and her stance on a number of issues that have not been edited or filtered by the media.
      This work is intended to be used by all Palin supporters interested in defending Governor Palin and setting the record straight when needed.
      You can use a drop-down list to search the Research Doc.

    • colliemum

      That is a very perceptive and very fair article. I enjoyed the swipes she took at the professional feminists who were also silent about the way Hillary C was treated by the Dems.

    • Kalena

      Awesome.  More and more, women are coming to acknowledge that Sarah Palin IS the kind of woman we all strive to be – smart, comfortable with herself, knows exactly her she is, aware of the world, her surroundings, has a loving husband, family, and is SELF MADE and can NOT be compromised or bought. 

    • TexS2012

      Respect for Sarah from this woman is important – another convert? She is probably paying close attention to this election year and Sarah in particular.

    • jerseymark

      Let’s get this out there everywhere as it completely negates the entire picture created by the Left and put forth in the movie. THIS IS GREAT STUFF BY A PERSON WHO WAS THERE AND INTERACTED WITH SARAH CONSISTENTLY.

    • sno_warrior


  • exodus2011

    The LAT still have their Poll up and The Undefeated continues to crush the HBO TRASH

    attracting 1288/1703 votes cast 

    remember HBO = Helps Barack Obama, if you subscribe to this entity, please think about CANCELLING

    • TexS2012

      HBO came with our sign-up. Never looked at it, wouldn’t look at it, wouldn’t pay for it!
      HBO = helpsbarackobama!  lol!  Good one ex!

      • exodus2011

        thanks Tex – the BHO acronym is courtesy of MaMcgriz


  • exodus2011

    FOXNews still have their spammable poll up, and Gov Palin has crushed the oppositition there also, despite the frenzied efforts of the bony fingers belonging to the Crazed Lovestruck One – her NJ BigBoy has FAILED to meet the standard.


    Gov Palin is nearly 19% ahead of Chrispy

  • barracuda43

    Gingrich tonight showed why he the best choice since Sarah is not running.Ready to step in day one and lead.I think Techno is going to see a shift shortly in the polling numbers.Santorum is nearly done after tonight.Not ready or prepared for the presdidency.If Sarah endorses Newt which I still think is a possibility.Newt will win! 

    • 36763

      I’d agree with you if Newt had a chance to win Michigan.  Newt doesn’t.  That makes Rick our last chance.  

      • Kalena

        Agreed,  We need to help promote Newt in the super tuesday states and allow Rick to beat Mitt next Tuesday in MI and AZ.  MI is proportional by congressional district, so Mitt can’t win all of the votes, he is only polling decently near detroit, not anywhere else in the state.  That can mitigate any damage done if AZ awards all of the delegates to Mitt next Tuesday.

  • John_Frank

    White House Insider: President Obama Says F**k Israel

    The usual caveats, but this should not surprise anyone.

    • colliemum

      And with the usual caveats – this one is very much to the point:

      • Kalena

        We need to seriously lobby for the jewish vote in the general election.  It makes NO SENSE that any jewish person would support Obama after he has kicked Israel so horribly.

        • Audrey_I

          It make NO SENSE for any Jewish person to support a Muslim President.

      • Athena Tilley

         I read that yesterday and wondered how many c4p people would see it.

  • exodus2011

    Just as you on the East Coast are waking to Thursday I am heading off to sleep, it being nearly Friday….. wanted to leave a few tweets that I have just sent out … looking to build the Righteous Rebellion against the GOPe – goodnight Patriots …

    HA @karlrove! I doubt that the 42% of PrimaryVoters who R DISSATISFIED wil B*insulted*if TampaBay GivesThem a BETTER Nominee,U Propagandist!!/exodus_2011/status/172611690788175872

    RulingClass know @SarahPalinUSA is coming & R fearful because she is DIAMOND spearhead 4 The People who want Constitutional America Restored!/exodus_2011/status/172605761560645632

    ConservativeVoters!Do U want chance2 Nominate #Palin at TampaBay 2 TakeDown BHO later this year?If so,vote4 DEADLOCK as each State comes due!/exodus_2011/status/172604084199763968

    ConservativeVoters!GOPEstablishment/TokyoRove don’t want ContestedConvention.They want their ManMitt 2B Nominee.Wil U COMPLY w/their wishes?!/exodus_2011/status/172603285226786816

    Conservative Voters!In past cycles it wasn’t worth voting 2force a ContestedConvention bcs there was no Leader worth waiting4.NOT THIS TIME!!/exodus_2011/status/172602504071225344

    • jerseymark

      Thanks for your tireless work. Good Night.

  • Pete Petretich

    If Santorum keeps up those number in California he will walk away with big chunk ‘o delegates. That large state is (kind of like) "proportional by Congressional District", and there’s a lot of variety among those CD’s.

    San Francisco is different than Bakersfield etc.

    ANOTHER THING: Big Texas is also proportional and Santorum is WAY ahead down there even though Gov. Perry is trying to endorse Newt.,_2012 

    Rick Santorum is still in good shape even if his debate was unfocused or mediocre last night…

    • Kalena

      The press will do their best to tank Santorum as quickly as possible.  It is possible Newt could surge as the only NOT Mitt candidate still in the race.  So thinks could be way different after super Tuesday.

  • marvin hill

    Once again, Paul failed to attack Romney or even Contradict him directly…I think if there is a misconception that he can not win the general election, it might be because of his unwillingness to confront Romney in the Primary….Once again, Romney immediately sought out Paul after the debate, he got a warm handshake and a big pat on the back… these two should get a room….people are beginning to talk~No, really they are…Mark America is picking up an increase in the chatter about a Paul sell-out,this time centered around Rand Pauls casual answer that he would consider it an honor to VP for Romney???????OMG – in the old sense!

    • Mountain

      No kidding!  Did you notice the WINKS and SLAPS those two gave each other after last night’s debate? 

      They might as well broadcast it:  "We’re teaming up to tank the other two!"

      • John_Frank

        Matt Lewis who writes for the Daily Caller has a piece titled:
        Rand Paul says ‘it would be an honor to be considered’ as Romney’s veep (this explains a lot)

        The headline answers the question.

        P.S. Early on Santorum had an opportunity to enter into a strategic alliance with Gingrich. He declined. He should have entered into that alliance, with the caveat that:

        – Once Romney suspended his campaign, the two would then contest the nomination;

        – If Romney did not suspend his campaign and no candidate won enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot, Santorum and Gingrich would agree to work together at the convention.

        Unfortunately, Santorum refused to enter into such an alliance.

        The result? Romney with roughly 26% of the vote, could win the nomination.

        The question then becomes, how does Romney unify the party?

        • Kalena

           Romney doesn’t care about unifying the party.  He is taking the conservative vote for granted.  That is obvious by the way he has carpet bombed all of the previous conservative candidates.  He spent 35 million dollars in January taking down Rick Perry and Newt and Cain.  (between his campaign and his "unaffiliated" superPAC).

          • Audrey_I

            Romney will attack fellow Republicans but he will not attack Barack Hussein Obama.  I guess that is the reason Soros is OK with Romney. 

    • 36763

      It’s not about the country. It’s all about Ron Paul.  Paul knows he can’t win dog catcher outside his neighborhood. So Paul has become Mittie’s stalking horse.

    • marvin hill

      I think that Paul wasnt exactly thrilled to be there, as Mitts Dog

      Has me rethinking the VA strategy…I am wondering if WINNING would break the Dog chain,

      Paul has dreamed all his life about being a ‘real’ contender… a win, a subsequent bump in the

      polls, and Romney might have his hands full with that one…  I also think that Romney is being

      careless in his confidence that he is going to wrap this up by getting the golden number, and

      he is not attaching significant interest to the fact that Paul is comming behind with the follow

      ups to sweep ‘extra’ delegates into his corner pocket while Romney is not looking…

      • Kalena

         We need Paul to win VA to keep the delegates away from Romney.

    • Kalena

       I pretty much think that Paul is doing what he is doing to position his son for the VP spot and Ron Paul wants a prime time speaking slot in Tampa.  It is SO obvious what is going on here.  Why they would entertain giving that disloyal cranky old fool any limelight in Tampa is baffling.

      Tonite an 18 year old PaulBot called Mark Levin.  Mark gently tried to challenge this young man’s beliefs and knowledge about the overall issues.  This kid knew nothing about anything, but he was a PaulBot.  When Mark gently told him that Ron Paul would not win the nomination, Mark asked this kid who he would vote for.  The kid said, "obama".  When Mark asked him why, the kid said, "because he is honest, and I don’t think Romney is".  Mark immediately told this kid that Obama was the biggest liar of all.  The kid said he would need to do more research and homework then.  So Mark is sending him his new book Ameritopia.  Maybe Mark saved a kid from wasting his youth on stupidity.

      So if the GOPe thinks that catering to Ron Paul is going to get votes in the general election, they are sadly mistaken. 

      • marvin hill

        agreed – My question was related to how we can use this IN our gameplan…

        This affiliation, if it is real, is an implication that a vote for paul is a vote for Romney…

        I have never believed that Paul can direct his supporters to Romneys side…so I am thinking

        voting for Paul Is neutralizing delegates…and might have an advantage of breaking up this

        tag-team sludge dredging mud fest

        • Kalena

           Well in a way, the 10 to 20% of the Paul votes are NOT Mitt votes, so that is helping.  Those voters would not consider Newt or Rick, so they are useful idiots to keep Mitt’s totals down below 50% in the winner take all if over 50% states.  That way, the delegates will be proportional instead.  The most important thing we have to do is keep Mitt below 50% in every state we can.  Any of the other 3 are good alternate votes.  I think Newt might have another shot at relevance because of his debate last night.  We need that to avoid Rick getting too close to the 1100+ delegates needed for a first ballot victory. 

          • juju341

            We don’t want Paul to get votes..that 10 to 20% Paul votes could become Romney votes.  He would and could pledge his delegates to Romney in a contested convention and thus Romney will win.  We need to hold our nose or whatever and vote for Newt or Santorum.

        • juju341

          You may have missed one of the important things going on right now.  That is  Paul being a stalking horse for Romney.

          The object now is to keep any one candidate from winning enough delegates to win the nomination outright so there would be a brokered convention….which might open the door for Palin.  If this happens, the voting for Paul, could very well help Romney, because he could
          pledge his delegates to Romney thus giving the nomination to Romney.  Right now we need to vote for Santorum or Newt….not Romney or Paul.

      • IsraeliCojones

        This kiddo would vote Obama?

        And the "Palinbots" are the ones called cultists and idiots? Oooh, spare me.

      • WVBobcat75

        Mark Levin is such a great teacher.  Conservatives are very lucky he is on the air to instruct the misinformed. 

      • Yankee4Palin

        Exactly.  I have posted the same days ago what Paul’s agenda is.
        Two of the worst and they are teamed up

  • Mountain

    Good morning, C4P!
    I was SO glad to read Gov. Palin’s Facebook post, about the statement Newt made during last night’s debate, about energy independence.  She’s a true expert about energy policy, so Newt should feel blessed to receive praise from her about this issue.
    (And are her posts popular!?  Over 14,000 likes on this one alone!)

    Do you think she supports Newt over the other candidates?   

    • cudaforever

      I think slightly but in her recent whirlwind tour of Fox last week I thought she actually made a point of not singling him out. And when Sean asked her the other night about Michigan she declined to say his name. I think the only clear indication I have seen is that she is DEFINITELY not for Romney :)

      • Kalena

         She is smart, she knows that Newt is too far behind in MI to make it up before the election, good debate or not last night.  So, we have to drag Rick over the finish line in as many congressional districts as possible (winner of the vote in the congressional district gets 2 delegates, and the winner of the overall votes in the state gets just 2 delegates, so winning congressional districts is more important than the overall statewide vote total).  I would prefer Newt over Rick, but we have to do what we have to do to deny Mitt delegates.  We need to do that to position Sarah to get drafted in Tampa. 

        • cudaforever

          Thanks Kalena. Very interesting about how delegates are allotted. I didn’t know that !!

          • Kalena

             We are trying hard here.  We don’t want to give the main stream press the narrative that Mitt wins his "home state".  Not even by one vote.  So we are trying to win as many congressional district delegates as possible and the overall vote (for those 2 extra delegates) to the best NOT MITT candidate.  Right now, we are stuck with Rick.  If we had another week, we might have been able to resurrect Newt.

            Mitt has been carpet bombing this state with anti Rick ads  all month, and Ron Paul started to spend money here too in the last few days.  And Mitt is robocalling us TO DEATH.  I got 6 calls yesterday.  I think Mitt is way overdoing it here.  People are sick of him.

            • misterlogic0013

               Romney = close talker = easy to be sick of.

        • juju341

          Are you kidding.  There are a lot of states to go…lots to win and lose.  There have only been
          less then 10 states who have declared their delegates at this time and Newt is second to
          Romney declared delegtes.  Santorum won in states that didn’t give my any delegates of of today.

        • juju341

          Wrong….of course Newt can make it up before the election.  He is in second place with declared delegates right now.   Where did you get that info.?  The South hasn’t spoken yet…and Texas has over 140 some delegates and Ga. has 79 or something like that. 

          I think you have posted that several times now and I keep correcting your post.  I keep hoping others read what I’ m saying…  You are right about MI…hope Rick wins that…or at least no one gets over 50%.   After super Tues. we need Newt to win ….so no one gets the nomination

    • wodiej

      I think she does.  The issues she says they should talk about are the ones Gingrich talks about.  She does try to be fair to the others. When Sean asked who she would vote for in Michigan, she wouldn’t say. Why not say Santorum to keep Romney from winning? I think she knows he is not the strongest to lead.

      • marvin hill

        It’s like Mom calling you in from playing in the mud all day,  Its time for dinner and if you dont get cleaned up on time, your not getting any!

    • juju341

      Yes…Yes…Yes… The reason she supports him over the otherr candidates is because he is
      the only candidate that has proven reform.  She has always stated we need a candidate that has PROVEN reform.  Don’t forget Todd has endorsed Newt.

  • Quiet_Righty

    Was just thinking… if our fondest wishes come true on Election Day, I’m not just going to celebrate. I’m going to go to Facebook and gloat about it. 

    It may not be cool, but I will have pent-up spite that will require release. It’ll be worth it if liberal friends "Unfriend" me as a result.

    After I am done on FB, I will check the news and look for reports of liberals jumping out of skyscrapers.

    • John_Frank

      FYI – there is a cadre of Democrats who are working very hard to defeat Obama, because they also recognize that he must be defeated.

      • Quiet_Righty

        Obama has traitors in his party? This is the first I’ve heard of it. 

        Sure, some in the House and Senate will occasionally vote with the GOP, but I haven’t heard of any Dems who are actively trying to defeat Obama.

        • WVBobcat75

          Manchin’s future as a Senator from WV depends on separating himself from Obama.  The EPA is killing us here. 

      • Kalena

         What do you know about this?

  • Pete Petretich

    All you anti-Santorum folk will like this video of Rick endorsing Arlen Specter in 2004:

    This led directly to the passage of Obamacare!

    • John_Frank

      Not a supporter of Santorum, but IMHO frankly these sort of attacks are not relevant to the discussion.

      • Pete Petretich

        I’m not a Santorum-booster. I may vote for him in Ohio next week if he seems like the best option to bump off Romney.

        We are not playing tiddlywinks, though. We need to vet the candidates.

      • marvin hill

        right on john- DO NOT pick up Romneys dirt and throw it again…good advise
        Santorum has to be stopped because he has no plan to turn the country around that will work.
        he is naieve and stubborn about fiscal policy… good on natl defense, but where he says he
        has to campaign and do a lot with just a little to work with, and that is how he will govern,
        it scares me no end, because the guy is soooo small minded he thinks the ONLY answer
        is austerity, and getting back manufacturing…both small minded concepts
        he doesnt have any BIG ideas going in, and will run out of the small ones before he gets elected… his PLAN is TOO easy to pick apart.
        he is not electable, no matter how GREAT a candidate he is…PAY ATTENTION-
        do you see bold colors in this man, or a blue suit that was hiding behind a blue sweater vest.
        When it comes to governing this man is an empty suit, and you dont even have to compare him to SARAH to see it,  but it should make it perfectly clear!

      • wodiej

        it’s not an attack. It’s a valid point about who to support so it very definitely is relevant. 

        • WVBobcat75

          Actually, the citizens of PA chose to elect Specter.  It was their choice.  Anyone who votes for a candidate solely based upon endorsements is a fool.  It is quite likely than no Republican other than Specter would have won in PA at that time.

  • cudaforever

    Wow, I know this has been talked about but now Drudgereport is in FULL Romney mode. I’m shocked, I’ve been going to that site for years and this blatant bias reminds me of the revelation we have had about Ann Coulter. The masks are coming down.

  • colliemum

    Thanks for polls above.

    Isn’t it interesting that in Oklahoma only Santorum gets into the low 40%.

    Everywhere else, after all the money and all the campaigning, both Mitt and Rick can’t get more than one third of the Republican vote.

    But that doesn’t matter to the GOPe. 
    They think they’re in a win-win situation: either their lame candidate, Mitt or Rick, I’m sure they don’t really care any more, beats Obama because conservatives will vote ABO – or their candidate will lose, paving the way for BAU and for the next shrub to run in 2016.

    For them, it’s about keeping their well upholstered wallets, never mind the country and the people.


    • Audrey_I

      The Republican Establishment is part of the Ruling Class.  The Republican Establishment goal is to share power with the Democrats.  This is what Sarah Palin refers to as the Status Quo.

      Mitt Romney is part of the Republican Establishment.  Mitt Romney is Obama Lite. 

  • connservative

    Good morning.  A few thoughts.

    On Savage last night (sorry, I live in Hartford, there’s nothing else on the drive home other than NPR), he was playing clips of Santorum talking about Satan and evil.  Savage (and then WND and Drudge picked up) that Santorum was right on point in talking about this.

    Besides Savage now also losing his mind generally (and flipflopping from supporting Romney to now appearing all in on Santorum) due to some of his ramblings about nothing, I think this raises a serious question about Santorum and the difference between him and Governor Palin.

    I’ve concluded that Santorum doesn’t want to be Commander in Chief.  He wants to be Preacher in Chief.   I’ve noticed that, as his polls have gotten more favorable, he’s really gotten much more liberated in speaking his mind about theology and spirituality and has become critical of Americans and church leaders from a spiritual standpoint.  That’s fine from the pulpit.  But not to lead the country.  The problem, though, is that he doesn’t translate that into a position of "governance".

    Governor Palin, on the other hand, ties the same values – freedom to worship as one pleases, freedom to raise and educate one’s children – to a battle between big government interference vs. local and individual freedoms and liberties.  That is a "governance" argument and that’s what the role of a president is.  She is the incarnation of Ronald Reagan in that skill.

    This difference is why Santorum will never be elected president.  Taking a theme from an above post, the Republican candidate has a serious chance of swinging Jewish Democrat voters from Obama after all the evidence of anti-Israel and anti-semitic positions/behaviors.  Palin gets that.  Santorum doesn’t.  Santorum’s preaching will cause those voters, as well as non-religious voters, to either not vote or hold their nose and vote for Obama.  In their minds, Santorum will be scarier than Obama!

    • Pete Petretich

      Jews also believe in evil, you know. They also believe in Satan…

      • connservative

        But they don’t want the President to be their rabbi

      • IsraeliCojones

        We don’t really "believe" in Satan.

        In Jewish tradition, Satan is one of the angels of G-d, and NOT the agent of all evil, but simply a prosecutor against humanity. And most of the time, when he comes to the Celestial Court to accuse, he’s got a solid file with him.

        This is very problematic for one reason: G-d is Mercy and Justice, BUT always chooses Mercy for His creatures, who are only flesh and blood (ie. quite weak in front of evil). But when the prosecutor comes, he (sort of) "corners" the Creator to use his Attribute of Justice, and be true to it, on deeds He would have otherwise disregarded if the Accuser hadn’t opened his mouth.

        That’s why, when you hear a Jew saying to another Jew: "Don’t open Satan’s mouth", it means: "Don’t badmouth your neighbor (or your people) because if what you say is true, the Accuser will hear you, will repeat it in the Court, and will ask G-d to exert his Justice against him/them".

        That’s why badmouthing (and also jealousy) is a behavior detested in Jewish Tradition: it makes you an agent of Satan, who needs these "testimonies" to build his accusations, and ultimately, it prevents G-d from shedding His infinite Mercy on His creatures.

        • jerseymark

          I can only ask – from the Jewish perspective, where does God’s Mercy come from in relation to His justice? God cannot go against His own word and therefore, the demands of Justice must be met. Your description seems to say that He would simply ignore those demands in favor of Mercy if it weren’t for Satan holding His feet to the fire. Sorry – that cannot be acceptable or accurate.

          • IsraeliCojones

            A precision:

            When I’m saying that G-d is Mercy and Justice, BUT always chooses Mercy for His creatures in the first place, I mean this: according to Jewish Tradition, G-d, by far, "prefers" to exert His Attribute of Mercy rather than His Attribute of Justice, because, let’s face it, if He was to exert absolute Justice on us, we wouldn’t survive one minute. It is the Mercy of G-d that allows us to survive and have enough time to repent if need be: He is forbearing, slow to anger, which, by definition, means that He doesn’t exert both Attributes at the same "time" for the sake of His creatures.

            God cannot go against His own word and therefore, the demands of Justice must be met.

            Yes, absolutely, but according to what I wrote before, since this forbearance implies that, in His Mercy, He tends to temporarily disregard our bad deeds to open doors to our repentance, the one who is precisely forcing him to "meet the demands of Justice" immediately is the Accuser.

            It doesn’t mean that G-d doesn’t "know" about each of our deeds, good or bad, and on which, anyway, we will be held accountable after our death. It means that He gives us time to make amends on what we did wrong. Again, if He was to exert His Justice in "real time" (as the Accuser wants Him to), we just wouldn’t survive.

            I hope I’ve made my post clearer, if anything. :)

            PS: This commitment to forbearance towards humanity is especially obvious in Gen, 9, 21, when G-d makes the promise that He will never again destroy the world because of men’s sins (though He knew they would go on sinning).

            • jerseymark

              Thank you for your response. As a "born again" Christian, I look upon my Jewish brothers as just that. I know that many Jews do not view Christians favorably due to the long history of persecution "in the name of Jesus" by those who identify themselves as "Christians" but have no true connection whatsoever. I am sure you realize by now that true Christians have an affinity for Jews and consider Israel as our most important ally. We take quite serious God’s promise to Abraham that He will bless those who bless His people and curse those who curse His people.

        • Pete Petretich

          Thanks for the details. This is why I love Jewish Studies. There is so much detail and there is always more to learn.

          That’s an attribute more Christians should learn from Jewish and Rabbinic tradition. Too many Christians stop studying because they think they have it all figured out!

    • smbren

      In Rick’s defense, he was speaking at a religious type of venue. Usually in that type of setting you speak "church" speak. Satan is of course part of the religious dialogue.

  • FredHeadBill

    Good Morning Palin Patriots! Missed the debate last night, but like the Equilibrium idea a lot. I plan on going to DC to celebrate Presidential Palin’s Inauguration! Had to work with a fellow who quotes 1 Tim 2:12 concerning Governor Palin. He’s so backwards about everything.

  • Pete Petretich

    Roemer Drops Out of GOP Race

    Michael Warren

    February 22, 2012 11:11 AM

    Former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer is dropping out of the Republican presidential primary race, but will continue to run for president by seeking a third-party nomination. The Chicago Tribune reports:
    The former Louisiana governor will make his plans official Thursday at a news conference in Santa Monica, within hours of another Republican debate that he’s been excluded from.
    It’s that fact that is driving his decision. The party and the major television networks have "turned their backs on the democratic process" by excluding him, even though he’s a former governor and congressman, he said in a statement.
    Roemer has been waging a campaign based in part on ending the influence of special interests in American politics. He capped donations to his campaign at just $100, and raised about $340,000 from individual donors.
    He says he will now run for the nomination of Americans Elect, an independent group seeking ballot access in all 50 states that plans to hold an Internet primary to choose a bipartisan ticket.Elliot Ackerman of Americans Elect recently told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that his organization wants to break the "anticompetitive duopoly" of the two major parties by fielding a candidate who won’t be forced "into the two narrow boxes that the two major parties have regarding policy positions." Could Roemer be the candidate to fit that mold? On the Americans Elect website, he currently has 413 supporters and rising.

  • marvin hill

    disqus delete

  • wodiej

    “So I say to you, ask and it will be
    given to you; seek and you will find; knock and it will be opened to you.” Luke



  • Audrey_I

    In reposne to Marvin Hill, What can be more scarier than having a Muslim President?

    • marvin hill

      NOT getting back our individual inalienable rights, and getting this country turned around…

      Obamma has set the course…destruction is inevitable…UNLESS we change directions NOW

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets