December 31, 2011

And Now For Your Viewing Pleasure…

  9:34 am

Whether you are for or against Romney, I suspect most of you will find the first twenty seconds of this little clip amusing. It comes from one of Mitt’s recent Iowan rallies (yesterday, I believe). Chris Christie is introducing Mitt…



by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

I don't find it amusing, I just felt bad for her. I'm glad that more people are taking an interest in the state of the country.

Though the Occupy people are misguided in some ways, they're expressing their outrage at the state of the country. I can empathize with that and I hope they manage to refine their message into something coherant and worthwhile, and perhaps a better means of expressing themselves. Let's face it, things ARE a mess.



There's a lesson there.

Don't walk backwards when the camera is on you.


1. OWS were burning US flags as their wake-up call.

Now, what was she saying? "You are the wiper's stud." "You are the white person."


She's saying "you are one percent".


#1 I feel sorry for her too. I feel sorry for all the OWS people. They have been lied to, conned and exploited. They are beyond ignorant and are the useful idiots of the left.

But I feel sorry for the rest of the America too: These OWS people are dangerous. No good end will come from their anger. I wish her falling in a blind rage was a metaphore for their movement, but alas....

The OWS may have been discredited, but the ignorant anger brewing in their misguided heads isn't going anywhere.



You were aware, were you not, that the same protester was heckling Ron Paul just a few days ago?


The tradition in America has been that the rich have gotten rich by people voluntarily giving them money to buy their goods and services. No one is forced to buy an iPhone. No one is forced to buy smuckers or Heinz. No one is forced to buy NFL tickets or the latest Kelly Clarkson single (you'd HAVE to force me to buy the former).

So being angry at the rich doesn't make sense in America...with one exception.

The bailouts. Bankers who recieved taxpayer money from the American people did so without the consent of the American people. This is one case in which A certain set of rich people can be resented because they did so on the backs of taxpayers. I would lump Newt in that group too because he got paid from Freddie Mac, without my consent.

If that's what Spud is talking about, then I totally agree.

In general, class warfare is unAmerican because the rich got rich through hard work and industry...with people voluntarily buying their goods and services.


1 - I half way agree with you. I do feel bad for her. She has been mislead by hateful people to believe that she is entitled to make more money than she has earned.

As for the need for her message to be coherent and worthwhile? That is insane. Are you a socialist?

Just to be clear, I do believe that income inequality is a problem in this country. I don't believe there is much real poverty in America (though there is some), but any society with such stark class differences will have problems. I believe the cause of this inequality is corrupt politicians picking winners and losers on Wall Street after being influenced by corrupt lobbyists. The answer is not to tax the rich. It is not to demonize the 1%. It is to make major reforms of the lobbying rules in Washington, and to even the playing field for all business owners across the country.


The OWS movement is fully liberal... but they refuse to see that Obama is clearly the 1% also. Anger focused at the solution rather than the problem - Lets all hate the guys who signs our paychecks - great idea.

Dumb people can still get dummer when they get together in groups.


#8 Sir,

Very nice sum up.

In my head, when that girl was screaming the 1% slogan, I was thinking - "and who fooled YOU into believing you are so incapable of the same"?


8 - No. They aren't entitled to be resented. They did what any rational person would do. The people that need to be punished are the politicians that played their game and gave them advantages that other people didn't have.

What we need in this country is something that we haven't had for a long time. We need a level playing field. We need a system that allows people the opportunity to go from rags to riches. That does still happen in this country, but it is a lot harder than it used to be and needs to be better.

The un-level playing field is the result of corrupt politicians. If people happened to profit off such a system, it is not their fault. Any rational person would do the same thing. The problem is with Washington, which is why we need reform. Transparency in government.


For social stability, good order, and security, a society needs the vast majority of its people to have at least two of the following three:

1. Family (as in their own, not their parents')

2. Property (as owners, not tenents)

3. Job

All three is ideal, of course as those people are maximally vested in "the system." But 2 works as well. Once a person only has one of those three, they are more prone to desperate, violent, and revolutionary acts. Having large numbers of people who only have one or none of these things is a tinderbox waiting to ignite. Particularly when those dispossessed are young males (as is typical).


12. Jax - I don't follow your line of logic...blame it all on the politicians? Maybe, only if politicians are responsible for the increase in entitlement and the decrease in work ethic.

The American dream is still there. There are less takers in my opinion.


i wonder if chris christie is going to make it on somebody's VP list??


I'd bet Governor Romney can't decide what to do with Christie. Make him VP? How about AG? Or my personal favorite; Secretary of State. A little bit of New Jersey at Foggy Bottom would be great purely for the entertainment value. It wouldn't happen but it's fun to think about.

Or Mitt could be voting and let Christie continue as Governor...



"I believe the cause of this inequality is corrupt politicians picking winners and losers on Wall Street after being influenced by corrupt lobbyists."

In actually started long before that. In point of fact, the income disparity really started ramping up about 30 years ago. I'm rusty on the numbers, but roughly speaking, the bottom 1/3 saw their income rise about 10% (after inflation) over those 30 years. The Middle 1/3 saw their household income rise something like 30-50%, and the top 1% saw their income rise something like 700%.

Again, I'd have to dig for more accurate figures, but the point is the disparity is stark, and like it or not, it's been going on since Reagan.

One can argue over the impact that deficits, tax cuts, deregulation, free trade, technological advances, etc... have had on that disparity, but it's existence, particularly over that time frame, is indisputible.



Well said Jax.

Why the Dept of energy is giving deals to the likes of Solyndra is beyond the pale. Don't they realize that competition brings out excellence? You have to have the best products at the best price in America. This brings out innovation and growth in efficiency.

Big government liberals are holding America back from her potential. I have no problem with the people getting rich who make the products who make my life better. I DO have a problem with people getting rich by making my life worse! (I'm looking at you Washington)



That should be boring, not voting. Stupid I-phone autocorrect.


#12 Of course the problem is Washington. How did these people become so entirely misguided? The war fought between right and left in the 60's was won by the left. Since then the left has owned all the propaganda outlets: schools and universities, the entertainment industry and the MSM.

Most Americans' self-evident truths are basically leftist: It's only getting worse.

Dynamite cannot blast these false notions out of the heads of these people. It's a big fat problem.


MY VP wish list

Christie !

Runbio !

gov. of ohio John Kasich!

az gov jane brewer!


14 - They aren't totally to blame, but they are the source of the problem. They set up the rules of the game. They give tax credits to some businesses and not others. They give the rich more benefits (because of their ability to lobby/bribe politicians).

The American dream is still very alive, but it is a lot harder to reach than it has been in the past. Work ethic is definitely a problem in this country. Baby boomer parents are to blame for that, in a lot of ways (though liberal indoctrination in schools and other institutions have contributed).

However, even those with good work effort have a hard hill to climb because the playing field is not level. Politicians are absolutely to blame for that.


17 - Correct. It has been going on for a long time. I didn't mean to imply that the recent bailouts were the source of the problems. I apologize if I did. Politicians have been giving benefits to the rich as a result of corrupt lobbying for a long, long time.



"The American dream is still there."

Sort of. As we've sold off and shipped out our manufacturing base, it's less "there" for those who aren't white collar professionals. Used to be a man could support a family, own a house, buy a car, and even send his kids through college with a high school degree and one income.

Now middle class people often need two incomes to own a home and two cars, and their kids will still wrack up tens of thousands in debt to graduate college, with diminished prospects.

It is perfectly legitimate for people to look around at who has gotten rich, who is treading water, and who is falling behind, and wonder if the well-connected are rigging the game.


18 - Yep, and it isn't just Democrats. Perry did the same thing in Texas. Perry's approach to "creating jobs" works temporarily, but ultimately it hurts our society. It is taking a shortcut that leads to short term success and long term instability.


The problem is that politicians are most affected by short term results, and could care less about long term stability and success. What we need is a way to make them feel the pain of the long term instability they are creating.



Great comment, MWS.

Love the simplicity... and it immediately feels true and profound.


The real problem is our form of government: It allows for lobbyists and special interests and also voters who elect representatives to steal from others to bring home the bacon to their states and districts. Politicians get rich and re-elected by currying favor for votes and dollars.

It reeks.


20 - Agree completely


28 - I'm not sure I am willing to condemn our "form of government". Corrupt lobbying is the problem though (and there is a difference between legitimate lobbying which is and should be protected by the constitution, and the kind of bribery that goes on from the corrupt lobbyists).

Transparency is a major step that needs to happen. All contact between lobbyists and politicians and their staffers need to be disclosed. All bills need to be available for public review and comment for at least a week before it is passed (so the various riders can be exposed). Local government have lengthy public comment periods for proposed resolutions or ordinances. There is absolutely no reason why Congress shouldn't have at least the same requirements.

We may need to go beyond mere transparency to fix the problem, but it as least an important first step.


Speaking of this event, if you haven't heard or seen Christie's response to Andrea Mitchell's question about "could you vote for a candidate other than Mitt Romney, you need to see it...Classic Christie response...I love this guy!


@7 Yes. If she'd just tried to ask a question during Q&A she'd have been more effective.

@9 lol I'm not a socialist. I meant that their anger isn't directed to where it should be: D.C.

A quick google for "nancy pelosi credit card" is a good example of what the real problem is, and that type of thing happens all the time. Bailouts, Solyndra, and no-bid contracts are more good examples. We have a government that's almost entirely crooked. I couldn't even begin to guess how many laws were written in such a way as to make competiton harder or exempt well connected businesses with carefully crafted loopholes. That is where Occupy should be focused. Our currency is devalued, our debt is insane, and our government is working for the interest of a select few.

Blaming rich people for being rich is retarded, though. They did well, and those who made something of themselves from nothing are examples of the American Dream. I draw the line at getting inside political deals for money/favors, however.


1) I think we've just seen the Republican ticket in this clip.

2) If things don't get markedly better for the folks on the ground over the next five years, in 2016, that woman could be multiplied by a million and a President Romney would be an especially easy target to demonize as a cold-blooded Aristocrat telling people to eat cake. Just pointing out that very real danger.


32 - Sounds like we are on the same page then. The OWS message is a complete farce.


33 - Highly doubt Christie will be VP.


The only area where I agree with the OWS people is that there really is too much of a discrepancy between the working class and the CxO class. I do not think this should be legislated to force board members and CxO's to keep a certain pay percentage level. There has to be some better way.

When you have Carly Fiorina and Mark Hurd running Hewlett Packard into the ground and then getting "fired" with $20+ million severance packages, something is not right there.


36 - The problem is the envy. We shouldn't worry about what executives make. We should worry about providing opportunities for those with lower incomes to improve their lives and incomes. The focus on what executives make is misplaced.


#13 Matt: It's a really good question: What happened to the American dream you described? The American dream of the 1950's was realized because WWII ended leaving the USA with virtually no competition--plus a pent up demand for products. There was not a lot of consuming going on during the 30's due to the Depression and the 40's due to the war. Innovation, manufacturing and consuming expoded during the 50's.

Now we have competition; off-shore is just a better place to manufacture--but Americans are spoiled by the 50's and want more and more: job security, a comfortable retirement, primo health care. None of it is sustainable.

Our economy is now kept afloat by debt. Personal debt so consumers can buy so jobs will continue. Government debt to keep all the government workers paid so they can consume. I read where 50% of all Americans receive money from the government. Of course, 40% of that is financed by debt.

Since manufacturing went off-shore, financial institutions began bundling and selling uncollatalized debt products in the form of mortgages. No risk since the risk was backed up by Fannie and Freddie.

Romney claims we can bring manufacturing back by creating a friendly business environment here. I seriously wonder. It would mean fundamentally changing the way Americans think and work. It would mean workers would have to work for less, accept less in retirement and health care. It would be opening up American energy, which would make the environmentalists go berserk. It would mean cutting pay and benefits for government workers.

Cutting people's pay would result in less consuming which would cut jobs.

Maybe I don't understand things--or am just a big pessimist, but I don't see how this works. And even if there were a way for it to work, the American people are not going to bite the bullet and make sacrifices. They are going to scream like stuck pigs that some evil ba%tard on Wall St. is getting a big bonus--and that's what killed the American dream.

And then there's the old saying: You get 3 economists in a room and get 30 different opinions.


Also, one of the reasons executive make a lot of money is because of their ability to make strategic decisions that bring in a lot of revenue, including hiring corrupt lobbyists and schmoozing with politicians themselves.

If we can somehow fix, or at least diminish, the corrupt lobbying in Washington, the value of high powered executives will be diminished and their salaries will go down. It is easy to underestimate the value of a good executive though, so they will always appear to make more than they are really contributing. The focus on them is misplaced. Their ability to make money takes nothing away from the person working at Taco Bell who has no ambition for themselves. Class envy gets no one anywhere.


Corrupt lobbying is absolutely a problem, no doubt. But just as large a problem is political class that gives voters what they want, short term, that is detrimental long term. There is some truth in the adage that we get the government we deserve. Much of our prosperity over the last 30 years has been financed through debt, both public and private.

Now we're having trouble reinflating the bubble, as we're running into the limits of the "prosperity" that debt can bring. As voters are starting to grasp this, intuitively, they feel betrayed (though they bear much of the blame), and are rightly wondering who got rich off the tab we're all going to have to pay for.

That is a fair question. Who did benefit most from our 30 year sugar high? I'd say the middle class (contra conventional wisdom), particularly through Social Security and Medicare paying out more in benefits than collecting from those in taxes. And of course, the government was spending far more than it took in. We can debate if the government was over-spending or under-taxing, but it's the same effect. More money was spent on the middle class than the middle class sent the government.

The second group that prospered was the financial industry. Financical services that profited off this artificial prosperity include brokers, dealers, mutual funds, etc... All of them exploded in growth the last 30 years. Traders and speculators profited nicely too, creating nothing of value, but swapping paper and making bets.

Then there are the well-connected special interests that got subsidies, tax breaks, and government contracts based on their ability to buy influence in the government.

Now that we are being pushed towards mandatory austerity, politics will become more and more about fighting over a stagnant (or shrinking) pie. Who gets their goodies cut most? Who owes the bill for the last 30 years?



Agree on the second point, not on the first. Romney will go with someone who counter balances him better than Christie does. Portman seems to be the popular choice of the media talking heads I have been listening to lately. Romney has several good options availiable to him, who I hope he does not pick is Rubio. Rubio has just begun, give him time. In short, don't turn him into another Obama, even if it's only by perception. Perception in politics is everything



I wanted to elaborate on your points, but I think you said it all! Totally agree


A great article by fiction author and gun guru Larry Correia, who makes no bones about the OWS movement:

I would love to see him handle one of the dumb protesters like this girl.


#39 "Class envy gets no one anywhere."

It gets a lot of people elected. Class envy has become the coin of the realm. And everybody feels entitled: I need (or want), therefore I should get. And they do.


Speaking of the tinderbox I alluded to in #13....

-Only 55% of Americans between the ages of 16-29 have a job right now.

-The generational wealth gap is increasing. "Older" Americans are now 47x wealthier than young Americans, where the gap used to be 10-1.

Things are ripe for the rise of a demagogue.


#33 "Romney would be an especially easy target to demonize as a cold-blooded Aristocrat telling people to eat cake. Just pointing out that very real danger."

Oh, how well Romney knows it. Have you listened to him on the stump and especially his interview with Andrea Mitchell. It's all about how the middle class is hurting, how hard it is for them, how he wants to help them. In fact, in his interview w/Mitchell he mentioned how he "been a pastor in his church for several years, trying to helping people with all kind of problems and hurts."

There's been a big effort from the Mitt campaign to show him out and about with people, them hugging and touching him, him touching them, laughing, listening, sympathizing. I don't not believe this is a political ploy: it is the real Mitt, but doesn't come across in the debate.

Having established that Mitt is sane, stable, intelligent, competent, they are now free to portray him as sweet, sympathetic, caring and committed to helping people. We even had Kimberly Guilfoyle from The Five this last week, almost misty-eyed as she described Mitt's loving, faithful support of his wife during her illnesses. She called him "human and sweet."

They're workin' on it.


#45 "Things are ripe for the rise of a demagogue."

Well, IMO Obama was/is the demagogue. Maybe (not holding my breath) they are ripe for a sympathetic, common sense, conservative businessman.


Income inequality can be traced back to ONE thing, and ONE thing only.

We have been trending toward a services economy for the last 40 years. The effects of this are ENORMOUS.

If we ramp up the extraction of natural resources within this country, you will see an explosion of well-paying middle class jobs as a result.

If not, we will continue to see our products made elsewhere with resources extracted elsewhere. A recipe for disaster.


I love that shot of the lone protestor chanting "YOU are the 1%" at the crowd of (99+) people listening to Christie.

Math has never been the strong point of OWS.


The sooner that the true conservatives - Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum drop out and endorse the most famous conservative accomplisher* since Reagan, the better we will ALL be.

And the absolute worse it would be for the Harvard libs - Willard and Barack.

I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

-William F. Buckley, Jr.

Speaker Gingrich-led Republicans….the result:

* Four consecutive balanced budgets

* Over $400 billion of debt paid off

* Bipartisan welfare reform

* 11 million new jobs

* Unemployment falling to under 4%.


You want jobs?

Mr. 47th in the nation as governor, Willard Flopney ain't your man.


Craig for Crooks,

Do you think government creates jobs, or the private sector does?


#49 MassCon: Ditto that. But it's going to be a battle royale against the left. The trouble with the left is they are nasty, hideous protestors. Look at OWS. Look at what those ignoramouses did to the WI state house--and how they are trying to impeach Walker, who needs all of our support.

These will be forces to reckoned with; there will be blood in the streets. We need GOP majorities in Congress and a bunch of right-thinking Americans who will back them up.

In CA some years ago Californians got rid of Dem Grey Davis in favor of Arnold, a GOP businessman. Arnold, who was not completely stupid, could see that it was the public sector unions that had negotiated unsustainable salaries and benefits that were causing the state to go broke. Arnold went to the expense and trouble to hold special elections. The stupid CA voters allowed themselves to be decieved by lying union ads, and the voters handed Arnold his balls to him on a platter. He then became one of the girly-men that he once derided.

Romney won't cave. He's not the spineless milquetoast some want to say. He's just a nice guy in polite society, but I'm convinced he has the cojones to go to the mat for America. He just needs to be able to convince the American people to follow correct principles.


51 & 52

Both Perry & Santorum beat the Newt on Tuesday.

Give em hell Mitt!


:) BREAKING NEWS from Carl Cameron:

Virginia Attorney General Intervenes in GOP Primary Ballot Dispute

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is intervening in the Virginia presidential primary dispute and plans to file emergency legislation to address the inability of most Republican presidential candidates to get their name on the ballot, Fox News has learned.

Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Virginia primary, a contest with 49 delegates up for grabs. The failure of other candidates to qualify -- notably Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry -- led to complaints that the 10,000-signature requirement is too stringent.

Cuccinelli, who is a Republican, shared the concerns. "Recent events have underscored that our system is deficient," he said in a

statement. "Virginia owes her citizens a better process. We can do it in time for the March primary..."

Cuccinelli's proposal is expected to state that if the Virginia Board of Elections certifies that a candidate is receiving federal matching funds, or has qualified to receive them, that candidate will upon request be automatically added to the ballot.


Former state Attorney General Tony Troy called the Virginia process a "legal and constitutional embarrassment."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Mitt is the perfect person to lead us down the path to fiscal sanity. Know why?

Because he comes off as REASONABLE to people. He's not the subject of tons of hate from the left. They respect him. They respected him here in Massachusetts as well.

You're not going to see millions of liberals and independents marching on Washington and smashing windows with Mitt as president. They don't hate the guy. He's likeable and sensible.

Mitt, because he is respected and sensible, can look the American people in the eye, tell them his opinion, and actually make headway to convince them.



I believe in the rule of law. They failed to qualify, and they need to suffer the consquences.

We don't live in a country where everyone is supposed to get a trophy. You need to EARN your status.


Liberals have such a misguided view as to how wealth is achieved. Liberals think that there is this big pile of unclaimed money out there, and the wealthy just happened to get to the pile first, and now they are hording it all. As a result of their warped view, they feel like they are justified in taking from the rich to give to those who couldn't get to the pile fast enough to claim "their fair share". Their brains can't comprehend that wealth can be created and the "pile" of money can be enlarged through entrepreneurialism and creativity freed from government over-regulation and taxation. That must suck to feel so helpless. :)


I found the first few moments funny. It reminds me of something John Wayne "the Duke" said.

"Life is tough and its tougher when your stupid."


Big disappointment in Cuccinelli. Would never have taken him for an "I'm from the government and I know better than you plebeians what you really want" type. Could someone explain to me why this is any different than any other non- voted on governmental imposition?



It's wrong, because why should McCain and Giuliani had to work so hard to get on the ballot when Noot and Perry didn't have to?

Cuccinelli is off my list for SCOTUS or AG now. This guy clearly doesn't think we are a nation of laws.


The gold standard in Iowa polling, the poll that always picks the right winner, will be available in about 10-11 hours. They stop polling in 4 hours. Getting excited!


Massachusetts Conservative:

Would you knock off the "Noot" stuff. It's as obnoxious as the Romney haters bringing out Willard.



No. How is it obnoxious? I'm not making fun of his name, I'm giving him a nickname. It's like calling Mitt "Mittens" or "Rominator."



I know I am!! It is finally time!

DMR poll predictions:

Romney 23

Paul 20

Santorum 18

Gingrich 12

Perry 10

Bachmann 8

Huntsman 1 (Iowans probably wish it was possible for this to be a negative number)

If the numbers are similar to these:

Three way race for IA with Romney/Paul slightly ahead of Santorum but with the margin closing? Enough time for Santorum?

Gingrich and Perry will try again in SC but Bachmann closes up shop after Tuesday



The poll will be out in 6 hours, I thought?



Mitt Romney 30,364 23.11%

Rick Santorum 26,986 20.54%

Ron Paul 26,389 20.08%

Rick Perry 19,201 14.62%

Gingrich 18,408 14.01%

Bachmann 8,681 6.61%

Huntsman 1,339 1.02%

Total Iowa Turnout will be 131,368, a little higher turnout than most pundits predict.

Romney will get his 23.11% by dominating Eastern Iowa. I did not think Mitt could win Iowa even with a splintered Social-Con vote, but I have been proven incorrect. I still do not think Mitt can get up to 25% like he did in 2008 because of the history that Iowa has with giving 2nd time candidates a lower percentage of the vote than their first time running.....however....23% will be enough for a win in Iowa.

I have Santorum finishing in 2nd place with 20.54% due to the collapse of Bachmann’s numbers.

I have Paul with 20.08% of the vote…and I’m surprised I have him doing that well, but I have bought into the theory that the total number of Caucus voters will be higher this time, and that is in large part due to Paul DEM/INDIE support.

Perry edges out Gingrich. Perry’s FAV/UNFAVS are now better than Newt’s in Iowa, and Perry’s money and organizational advantage makes Newt a highly probable 5th place candidate, which of course would be the end of Newt’s chances and will get SMACKDADDY fired from his position as Newt’s RACE42012 Campaign Manager.


I will repost this final Iowa prediction when the official thread is created, but I thought I would get this prediction out there to start the ball rolling.



When you say something to get under other people's skin, that would be obnoxious.



I'm not trying to get under anyone's skin, I just think it's a chuckle-worthy alternate spelling of his name.



I love the analysis right down to the vote count! I believe your results are close to what will happen. If Perry's numbers weaken by a few points it gives Rick a chance. I think this is the end for Bachmann, which I'm sure will not make you too sad!



Those are some awfully precise numbers, Smack!


62. This is is an often repeated bit of nonsense that has to stop.

In previous primary seasons, the Virginia GOP NEVER certified the signatures. If you turned in over 10,000 you were on the ballot - PERIOD. So of course Thompson and Giuliani and anyone else got on the ballot.

It was only this year they decided to take the magnifying glass to the signatures and 'kick out' those they deemed unqualified. I have heard that most of the signatures that were denied were due to not having included their address...something that had never been a disqualification in the past.

Of course the establishment is free to make any rules it wants and enforce them any way they want, but don't delude yourself into thinking Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani "worked harder" or did anything more than the candidates this year did.

They were blindsided by new pedantic application of the rules.



I would be shocked if Santorum beats out Paul.



Given the liberties taken with Romney's name, I think it is OK to have a little fun in return


Nice, Smack. Team Romney thinks they have 30,000 to 35,000 people committed to attend the caucuses. Your number looks good.



Just the person I was hoping to see! What is your sense of how thing are going in IA my friend?!



First of all, if the "Establishment" wanted to keep Noot off the ballot, why are they now trying to get him on the ballot?

Second of all, the candidates KNEW THE RULES going in. They should have been prepared.

No excuse. None. Quit whining.


I also think the DMR numbers I have guessed in post 66 will reflect closely the final results. So I guess it is my final prediction too!



I don't think Perry will sink below 14%...I wish...but it won't. Perry has put too much money into Iowa and his Organization is decent. Perry's FAV/UNFAV numbers have recovered somewhat in no.....I don't think Santorum can get any more boost.

If I'm wrong, it might be having Newt & Santorum a touch too high...Perry and Romney a touch too low.

But I believe I got Bachmann's 6.61% nailed.....I should have had it...6.66%



The one bad thing about the VA GOP policy IMO is the loyalty oath. Candidates are required to sign a pledge they will support and vote for whoever turns out to be the GOP winner....even if someone new were to get in the race. In theory, it could be Jack the Ripper.

Newt has said he will not support Ron Paul--so technically he cannot qualify for VA anyway. The loyalty oath seems wrong.


No Gallup poll until the third...ugh.



I know the Bachmann demise will at leat bring you some cheer! I believe your numbers are pretty close!


#81 Smack....666? VERY good.

At the risk of stirring up Matt "MWS", Carl Cameron is just now claiming that the IA pastors will probably be promoting Santorum at church tomorrow and that support could possibly result in a Santorum first place on Tuesday.


Massachusetts Conservative,

"I would be shocked if Santorum beats out Paul"

You might be right....but my prediction is based on the comtinued collapse of Bachmann's numbers through the weekend. I also think Santorum's beautiful FAV/UNFAV numbers in Iowa will give him a high enough ceiling to collect enough of those Bachmann voters (Home School -EVANS) to grab 2nd place.


I'm picking up a strong Ron Paul vibe, but I defer to Smack...sounds like his connections to the candidates polling is right on.



I don't consider Obama a real demagagogue. He engages mildly demagogic rhetoric (as do most politicians) but he isn't rally proposing fundamental change to society. No, raising taxes on the rich a few % doesn't count.

Real demagogues base their entire political existence around opposition to The Other and propose radical or reactionary solutions to settle accounts.

Hypothetical modern demagogue of the left might propose confiscating outright the property of the rich, capping salaries, forced repatriation of money for coroporations, and the nationalization of banking.

A right wing demagogue might create a police state, to "defend" the middle and upper middle class against the lower class. Could also take measures to freeze social mobility and restrict the rights of minorities (particularly hispanics and Asians who "steal" jobs from white people in such a scenario).



There is going to be some of that...but Santy is also going to get some NRA/2nd support coming over from Newt in the final days. I do believe Perry's support holds up enough to keep the Santy surge water from over taking Mitt.



That is interesting analysis. I suppose that I believe that if the voters are given ANY chance to take someone else other than Perry and still feel good about themselves, whatever that means for them as a group, then they will. I think Santorum has a shot. I also think Ron Paul has a pretty good shot. There is tons of excitement coming from his people


79. I'm not whining, I am pointing out a mistake in your thought process.

I am not saying they were trying to 'keep Newt off' the ballot, only that they did things different this time and it is incorrect to equate what transpired this year with 2008.

You make a lot of unforced errors due to your blind allegiance and wrong headed assumptions.

I'm just here to help.


I'd like to weigh in on the topic of changing wealth distribution and the growth in income disparity.

In a nutshell, I agree with MassCon: more than anything else, we can trace this dynamic to the transformation of our economy from one driven by production to one centered around debt-financed consumption.

Most of the professions that provide for income mobility in today's day and age have accumulated to individuals with education (and the means to afford it). Think about it: the fields that have become regarded as those most ripe with opportunity - engineering, accounting, computer science/information technology, etc. - have become essentially restricted to a small percentage of Americans. Our politicians and educational system have convinced our youth that they should pursue a university degree at virtually all costs, even six figures of debt. It has reached a point that many people view it as failure if they don't attend a university. Nevermind the fact that we have a growing shortage of skilled labor, which would provide plenty of opportunity for those who simply can't or shouldn't attend a university.

The proportion of overall employment in the financial services industry has exploded. As a result, the most innovative minds in this country have progressively flocked to that sector, so, in effect, as a nation we've focused more on financial innovation than innovation in industries that produce wealth, such as manufacturing and energy. Many factors have caused this: changes in the tax and regulatory code that grant favorable status to service industries and place tremendous burdens on manufacturers, a bias against energy exploration and production in Washington, and the misconception that we must simply accept the decline of manufacturing as an unavoidable evolution of the American economy (hardly the case).

Simply put, we need to re-orient our economy around productive industries like manufacturing and energy. In addition to actually creating wealth, as opposed to simply transferring it, like services, particularly the financial variety, tend to do, these sectors will offer the middle- and lower-classes the chance to enjoy income mobility and greater overall opportunities. That will go a long way toward addressing the unrest represented by the Occupy movement.

For that reason, I view it as a huge positive that Santorum, instead of Newt, Perry, or Bachmann, appears to have assumed the role of the Tea Party-backed (or whatever you want to call it) alternative to Romney, as his economic plan centers squarely on revitalizing manufacturing. Furthermore, he has become virtually the only candidate to specifically discuss income mobility and poverty from a conservative perspective on a regular basis. If this prompts the party as a whole to at least partially follow his lead, it will provide a gigantic boost to the fortunes of the GOP and America.


Alvin - Tele,

Keep your eye on the Iowa PPP poll coing out Sunday night. The PPP sample is using a much larger DEM/INDIE sample than DMR-RAS-CNN. If the PPP poll has Paul in first, then there is still the possibilty that the PPP sample is correct and Paul could pull it out. But if PPP has Paul in 2nd or 3rd come Sunday night..well....Paul is in trouble.

Not only do we have the battle of the candidates, but the battle of the polls.

Will see if PPP & DMR can keep their respective winning streaks alive.

For us political junkies..this weekend and coming weeks is our biggest natural highs!!


56... 8) Sorry, Rombots:

“Sources told Fox News that Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell is expected to support the emergency legislation as well.”



Obama not a real demagogue? Really.

So stacking the NLRB with union thugs and suing companies who attempt to engage in free enterprise is part of the American heritage?

How about suing states for attempting to secure their population because the federal government refuses to do it?

How about ignoring our allies and making nice with our avowed enemies?

Engaging in outright class warfare?

Publicly berating the Supreme Court for a decision he didn't like in front of a joint session of Congress?

Imposing a national healthcare plan on a country that was against it radically changing the social compact and arguably violating the Constitution?

The list goes on and on and on. Yes, Obama is indeed a radical left wing demagogue just as his wife told us he would be before the last election when she said he would make us change our history and our customs and move in an entirely different direction.

Just because Obama hasn't gone full Chavez doesn't mean he isn't a radical demagogue and has not moved or attempted to move this country in a very different direction. It's what hope and change was all about.



Ugh, don't say "Santy surge water" again.... gross!


#92: Yup. It's become a lot easier in this country to provide financial services and "products" than manufactured products. And dangerous since many of the financial products are a house of cards.

It's a problem that needs reversing.


Virginia -- are you with us or against us?! 😉


How dare she call him the "white person". She was pretty darn white herself. ANd that's gonna hoight.


Smack, it seems you really put a lot of thought, time, and effort into your projections. You may redeem yourself from the Ames Straw Poll!


Good point about the PPP poll Smack. I have reflected what I think the polls will show. I think the race is very close though, I would not be surprised if either Romney or Paul actually won in IA. I would be somewhat surprised if Santorum did.


Anthony Dalke,

It seems you understand macroeconomics similarly to the way I do.

If Santorum places well, I can hope that his 0% tax on manufacturing could become part of the platform. I think Mitt would be open to it too.


Seriously, great news out of Virginia! Cuccinelli sounds like a good guy. He has sued the Feds over Obamacare, he has defended the Arizon law allowing police to check for illegals during a stop, he was against VA schools adding gays and lesbians to “protected classes” for college admission, he has challenged the EPA over global warming...and a lot more good stuff, folks.


Maybe he should be running for president. I’d vote for him.



#82 KG: No, the VA GOP wants voters (not candidates) in the primary to sign a loyalty oath. This is mainly because the Democratic primary has been cancelled (nobody but Obama qualified). Virginia Democrats could do their own version of "Operation Chaos" and vote in the Republican primary for whoever they think will be worst for the GOP.

The loyalty oath may not be the best way to deal with this problem, but there is a problem that ought to be dealt with somehow.



One thing that probably won't make you feel better but I'm sure that you already know. Pawlenty put way too much into the Ames straw poll and exited way too soon! I was just thinking, he would have had a real shot :)

Matthew E. Miller

I think this emergency legislation is pretty irrelevant. Virginia wasn't a disaster for Perry and Gingrich because they missed out on the opportunity to win a fraction of 46 delegates, in a race where 1150+ gets you the nomination. It was a disaster because it spoke to their fundamental disorganization and inability to run a national campaign. That's true, whether they end up on the ballot ultimately or not. The damage has been done. Anyway, Virginia is highly unlikely to matter. If Romney isn't essentially the de-facto nominee come Super Tuesday I will be fairly surprised. Best case scenario for the not-Romney's involves Santorum performing strongly in Iowa and then discovering, as Huckabee discovered i '08 (but to a larger degree) that South Carolina and Florida aren't won with hopes and wishes but with cash and organization, neither of which he has.



Anthony - Not all manufacturing in the US has been hit. In fact, some companies within the same industry as those that have taken enormous bailouts are not only thriving they are expanding.

I'm talking about the automotive sector of course. Look at the number of foreign auto manufacturers from Toyota to Mercedes who have built new manufacturing plants in the US and are continuing to do so. It's not just one company or even one market niche such as luxury cars but across the spectrum. Its a myth that cars can't be built in the US in a competitive way.

There are a few things all these companies have in common. They are moving to states with low tax burdens and a relatively inexpensive work force. Most importantly, they are moving to right to work states.

As a part owner of a manufacturing company you are absolutely correct that there is much the federal government can do to help manufacturing. Tax reform would be great but more than anything else removing the mountain of federal rules and regulations, many of which are redundant and or just plain stupid would be even better. But if the day comes when our company goes union we will move our manufacturing, either to a right to work state or overseas. Unions have outlived their usefulness and do more harms to workers and the companies they work for in the long run than any government program.



He's a soft demagugue. Those things you list are irksome and worrying, but they're hardly a radical departure from past Presidential overreach. Crimony, what FDR did makes Obama look like Calvin Coolige.

Don't get me wrong, I think Obama has overreached his powers and behaved recklessly. But he doesn't rise to the level of true demagogue.

And almost every politician hits some group in their rhetoric, whether it's "wall street fat cats, the rich, welfare queens, urban youth, freeloaders, immigrants, etc...."



They were blindsided by new pedantic application of the rules.

Tele, it's true that the past election sigs were not verified, but NO ONE was blindsided. They all had the same notifications of the new requirements in plenty of time.

But, it's no matter, imo. The damage has been done. If the Virginian Nanny steps in and lets the poor candidates on the ballot, voters have already seen that they're incompetent.

What DOES matter is this liberal concept of entitlement that the Virginia GA and the loser candidates have. I mean, this is a microcosm of OWS, isn't it?

You performed better than me, so I'm being penalized by not having the same rewards as you.

Any candidate calling him or herself a republican should be ASHAMED to try to get on the ballot after having failed to qualify. How can such a person turn around and tell OWS that they're wrong to have the same belief of entitlement??



Candidates are required to sign a pledge they will support and vote for whoever turns out to be the GOP winner

KG, I'm pretty sure the loyalty oath is for primary voters.



Carl Cameron is just now claiming that the IA pastors will probably be promoting Santorum at church tomorrow and that support could possibly result in a Santorum first place on Tuesday.

How can they do that and keep their legal CHURCH status? I'm pretty sure churches aren't allowed to promote candidates.


You guys are probably right about the VA loyalty oath. Maybe it's just that Newt is a VA voter.


#56 Perry/Ballot

Talk about a sense of entitlement without the work ethic!

Don't expect any admiration for Perry or Gingrich for this bit of a break.




FDR was a radical, no doubt. But it also took him 3 terms to put in place all the things he did and probably would have done a lot more had he not died. Obama has only had 3 years and he's either implemented or tried to implement a pretty radical set of changes. FDR also had a much more compliant Congress while Obama only had 2 years of a rubber stamp and used most of that to institute what will be if it stands a change that affects something like 1/5 of our economy and probably a lot more than that when all the ripples are accounted for over time.

Obama is trying to fundamentally change the relationship between individuals and government. I absolutely do believe he would like us to be more like a European style state with much more central control over all aspects of our lives. One of the things that Reagan always warned against was letting the federal government take over healthcare because when they did they would control us from cradle to grave. He was absolutely correct which is why far left liberals have been dreaming of doing it since the days of FDR.

I'm not as worried about Obama's rhetoric as I am his actions. Given 4 more years I shudder to think what he will try and ram through.


Candidates' failure to clear the ballot hurdles is certainly a sign of poor organization and planning. But the ballot hurdles themselves lack any justification that I can discern.

Maybe someone could explain what purpose they are meant to serve, or what problem they were drafted to fix.

Their effect is rather obvious: They limit the number of potential GOP candidates. This in itself will give a certain amount of power to state party insiders to sell their organizing support to the highest bidders, for one. This isn't a criterion that necessarily indicates a given candidate's appeal to the broader populace. It carries with it the potential of excluding candidates that voters might want.


#112: Well, Carl Cameron didn't seem to think tax laws were going to be a problem for the pastors. What's the government going to do? Go in and revoke each tax exempt little church? It's not like the LDS, who are one big centralized church, ergo a big target.

It didn't stop the pastors last time; they just used emails and presumably word of mouth. And then rounded up the little old church ladies and gave them rides to the caucuses.

It's easy to see how the top three are up for grabs. But if the top three are Romney, Santorum and Paul, it's good for Mitt since IMO neither Paul nor Santorum are going anywhere after SC. The two to take out are Perry and Newt.


116 Marque

Letting hundreds of candidates on the ballot would result in more deforestation we've seen since the advent of the fax machine.



I think in his heart Obama is a European Social Democrat. I think he believes in a mixed economy and an active, strong government.

No doubt ObamaCare didn't go as far as he'd like, and in truth, it's a fairly moderate (center-left) plan. It's far more modest than Canada and most of western Europe. Indeed, it's just a slightly amped up MassCare, with lots of pork thrown in to grease the wheels.

But the elections of '10 trimmed his sails even further. It's hard to envision any wholesale changes in the next 4 years, given that Democrats have to defend 23 of the 33 Senate seats up this year, and have a big deficit in the House. Sure, they can't stop him from being incompetent, but Congress will stop any radical overhauls.

The biggest danger right now in divided government is the complete inability of either side to make meaningful compromise, and so we inch ever closer to the precipice of fiscal ruin.



Ballot rules are to keep gadflys from cluttering things up. In highly restrictive cases, it may also be about strengthening the party machinary.



Candidates’ failure to clear the ballot hurdles is certainly a sign of poor organization and planning. But the ballot hurdles themselves lack any justification that I can discern.

As a voter and a taxpayer, I'd prefer to have my state have some reasonably high bar for qualifications because...

* I PAY for the ballot and the pamphlets that get mailed out, including postage. So, I don't want every guy or gal who thinks it would be a hoot to be on the presidential ballot.

* I'd rather self-selection disqualify candidates that have no reasonable chance of winning (by virtue of having to show some small level of support through signature gathering). That reduces my own effort in deciding who to vote for.


117. Yeah, but personal efforts (email, bussing, etc) of individuals is not the same as endorsing from the actual pulpit. I find this disturbing.




>>No doubt ObamaCare didn’t go as far as he’d like, and in truth, it’s a fairly moderate (center-left) plan. It’s far more modest than Canada and most of western Europe. Indeed, it’s just a slightly amped up MassCare, with lots of pork thrown in to grease the wheels.

Well this is where you and I will depart. I am an ardent believer in the 10th Amendment which probably explains why I am less troubled than you regarding MassCare. Don't get me wrong, I don't care for it much but I can at least understand it given that the feds made states responsible for universal healthcare costs years ago without giving them any way to pay for them.

But I do not believe the federal government has any business dictating a single plan for every state. I've never agreed with the whole Commerce Clause nonsense that some on the left argue give the Feds almost unfettered power to do whatever they want. To me, its never been an argument about how big our all encompassing a federal plan might be. I don't believe they have any right to implement one at all. Because of that, I do believe what Obama has done is indeed a radical change and over 30 states AG's agree with my view.

Its also a big reason that I put electablilty so high in my criteria for a candidate. If the SC doesn't do its job, and with Anthony Kennedy on the court it all depends on what side of the bed he wakes up on any given day apparently, we have to have a Republican President in office next year who is committed to getting rid of ObamaCare. If we don't, we are stuck with it forever and this country will be changed forever.


MassCon, they've overshot the mark in VA and some other states. Sure, there ought to be some method of keeping you or me, for instance, from waking up to a wild hair and demanding that our names be put on the VA ballot. A deadline and a certain number of valid signatures plus a fee turned in to the state's Sec'y of State are all reasonable. Requiring several percent of potential primary voters to sign per congressional district, and saying that the petition's canvassers must be registered VA voters, is overzealous.


Anthony in 92: Nicely put.


Keith, does your state actually print and mail pamphlets with primary info? We don't get that courtesy here in WV. But the newspapers always print sample ballots ahead of elections.

As an aside, most of this seems outdated these days, since voters who want to inform themselves can look at the candidate's own information, news, and sample ballots all online on their own. Also, most states have switched to electronic voting machines anyway, so paper ballots themselves are becoming a thing of the past.


#121: Amen, Keith. Otherwise you get a bunch of non-serious vanity candidates mucking up the process. In the case of this GOP primary, everybody's had a chance to do well in IA. They only had to show up at the debates and work IA. With all this exposure, they had a chance to be vetted, garner support and begin building organizations in other states. If they can't cut the mustard, that reveals something to voters.

I don't like this VA changing the rules in the middle of the game. If they decided their requirements are too burdensome and out of line with other states, change the rules next time around. What a liberal, PC, whiney thing to do: Oh, this was too hard; Newtie and Ricky couldn't cut it. We'll change the rules in the middle of the game.

Well, fine, I guess. But voters ought to take notice of who can get the hard things done--and who whines until the rules are changed and the bar is lowered just for them.


126. Oops. No, not for the primary. My bad.



400 voters per CD is far less than 1%. A typical CD has over 500,000 people.


129. Thanks, MassCon, I was thinking that must be the case and wanted to respond to the guy, but wasn't sure, so I stayed quiet.



There are 435 congressional districts in the United States House of Representatives, with each one representing approximately 720,000 people.


IIRC, the VA signatures had to be from registered Republicans in each district, each of whom had kept their voting registration info totally up to date.


133 comments so far on a thread about a woman backing into an antennae.

Must be getting close to voting time.


#133: Matt! Too funny!!!!


If that is the worst thing that happens to you while throwing a fit and walking backward in a farm, you had a good day.

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

Tweets by @Racefour

Search R4'16